saemo Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Thank you for the additional explanation. I agree that "Land of..." language exists in the Old Testament; nevertheless, "Land of Jerusalem" language does not. Nor does this explain why Joseph would "choose" to use a term that did not exist in his copy of the KJV over any one of the several options that did.Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel.
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel. Every Christian child knows where Jesus was born. IF it was JS and company why not just say Bethlehem? JS and company wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls too.Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" that gives insight into its usage and meaning - in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi's time.Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).
saemo Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Every Christian child knows where Jesus was born. IF it was JS and company why not just say Bethlehem? JS and company wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls too.Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" that gives insight into its usage and meaning - in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi's time.Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).Hi TSM, and thanks, but still doesn't address that there are several ways to deduce how a phrase or word made its way into the Book of Mormon. Contemporary usage to Smith's time is also available. Which would support a deduction that the phrase was borrowed, or used, because it was being used by the society of 19th century America. Which in turn was using the phrase because that is what the area had been called for centuries, by Europeans: "the holy land of Jerusalem". Sited often in anything having to do with defending the area, with Jerusalem as its center, from the encroachment of Islam. So it is a Euro/Christian centric usage, which can't be seen as unusual, coming from a Euro/Christian centric society. But IS unusual coming from a story claimed to be from a society, era, place and religion that had no familiarity, whatsoever, with European/Christian/Jerusalem history of the second millennium. And that is, if you're going to go with the Book of Mormon as being anything but a work of fan fiction. Otherwise, arguments for usage of this phrase, or of that word, are nothing more than literary discussions/critiques of a novel and its author, for lacking continuity in the story. Which as I said, makes it trivial. The larger issue is, for me, the idea that any society in pre-Columbian was discussing Jerusalem at all, a place for which they were unaware, and there is no evidence that there is any pre-Columbian society in the Americas, conversing about the land of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or Jesus Christ. Why? Because the didn't know it existed!
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Hi TSM, and thanks, but still doesn't address that there are several ways to deduce how a phrase or word made its way into the Book of Mormon. Contemporary usage to Smith's time is also available. Which would support a deduction that the phrase was borrowed, or used, because it was being used by the society of 19th century America. Which in turn was using the phrase because that is what the area had been called for centuries, by Europeans: "the holy land of Jerusalem". Sited often in anything having to do with defending the area, with Jerusalem as its center, from the encroachment of Islam. So it is a Euro/Christian centric usage, which can't be seen as unusual, coming from a Euro/Christian centric society. But IS unusual coming from a story claimed to be from a society, era, place and religion that had no familiarity, whatsoever, with European/Christian/Jerusalem history of the second millennium. And that is, if you're going to go with the Book of Mormon as being anything but a work of fan fiction. Otherwise, arguments for usage of this phrase, or of that word, are nothing more than literary discussions/critiques of a novel and its author, for lacking continuity in the story. Which as I said, makes it trivial. The larger issue is, for me, the idea that any society in pre-Columbian was discussing Jerusalem at all, a place for which they were unaware, and there is no evidence that there is any pre-Columbian society in the Americas, conversing about the land of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or Jesus Christ. Why? Because the didn't know it existed! I know of nothing that would have "land of Jerusalem" as a common phrase in JS day. According to the story Lehi lived in Jerusalem. So it is plausible that a group of people would have some vague idea of where they came from. IE; Some of my predecessors came from the land named after the Goddess Eriu. IOW land of Eriu. IOW Ireland.
ERayR Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) All or any of the aforementioned are possibilities and none of them affect the the truth claims for the Book of Mormon. Edited August 19, 2014 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 All or any of the aforementioned are possibilities and none of them affect the the truth claims for the Book of Mormon. Agreed.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) Scott, I agree. The Old Testament itself has roasted that chestnut on the fire completely, as the City of David is none other than Bethlehem.2 Kings 1420 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.Great find, Sevenbak! This pretty much seals it. He was buried at [the land] of Jerusalem in the city of David [bethlehem], the very same construction as in the Book of Mormon. I repeat, I love it when critics' attacks end up supporting our position. It's poetic justice. Edited August 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
saemo Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I know of nothing that would have "land of Jerusalem" as a common phrase in JS day. According to the story Lehi lived in Jerusalem. So it is plausible that a group of people would have some vague idea of where they came from. IE; Some of my predecessors came from the land named after the Goddess Eriu. IOW land of Eriu. IOW Ireland. Well, it was used in the induction of a Mason. It's all speculation, no different than the OP. There is no real evidence because there is no real evidence.
saemo Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) All or any of the aforementioned are possibilities and none of them affect the the truth claims for the Book of Mormon.Right, doesn't support truth claims either. Reminds me of this program I watched last night, that was providing evidence for alien intervention in ancient peoples. Did you know manna was a algae-based alien-made food? Because someone came up with a plausible explanation, it means that's what really happened, and any other plausible explanation doesn't change the truth claims. okee dokee I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Edited August 19, 2014 by saemo
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Well, it was used in the induction of a Mason. It's all speculation, no different than the OP. There is no real evidence because there is no real evidence.So if anti-Mormons cannot show real evidence to support an attack, the defenders have won that particular battle.
saemo Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 So if anti-Mormons cannot show real evidence to support an attack, the defenders have won that particular battle.LOL, ok.
halconero Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 This is a solid refutation of that old chestnut. I'm wondering though: Are there anti-Mormons who still rely on this as an argument against Mormonism? I have previously identified this as one of the very weakest arguments that they use.* *In case anyone is interested, the two other arguments that I identify, with this, as the weakest in the anti-Mormon arsenal are the presence of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and the citation of the verse in John that curses those who will add to or take away from the record (the record being John's own book of Revelation, not the Bible, which, as a compilation did not even exist at the time John penned those words). We got invited into the house of a Buddhist family while on my mission, he had converted after marrying his wife from Vietnam. They were super friendly, and as we were talking there was another knock which turned out to be some Evangelicals out preaching. They invited them in too, and after a few minutes one of the Evangelical missionary suddenly spouts out "The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus was born in Jerusalem, which is wrong. He was born in Bethlehem. So you should listen to us." The Buddhist guy, without missing a beat says "Yeah, but Bethlehem is like a suburb of Jerusalem, so that doesn't faze me." 4
Pahoran Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel. "Could be" is an attempt to explain something away without evidence. You're relying upon unsupported mind-reading. As such, you've provided reluctant support for Bernard's argument in the OP: Nephite prophets describing Jesus being born in the "Land of Jerusalem" is evidence of authenticity. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have to scramble so hard to find a reason to dismiss it. Thank you. Regards, Pahoran 3
Robert F. Smith Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I'm curious whether there are any critics of Mormonism reading this thread right now who still think this Jesus-born-at-Jerusalem quibble is a good argument and, if so, are they willing to own up to it now?Well, of course, and saemo is as good an example as any. There is no fact favoring the Mormons which a true ill-wisher will admit to. None. Every fact faults the Mormon position in its entirety. Always. Which means that, with such people, there can be no true dialogue. No true give and take. Reminds me of the Congress of the United States, or of the Israelis and the Arabs. One's opponent is always and forever entirely wrong, and there is no real discussion possible. 3
Okrahomer Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel.Just curious: Are you actually aware of such a book or source that would have been available at that time?
Robert F. Smith Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel.Just curious: Are you actually aware of such a book or source that would have been available at that time?Of course not, nor does saemo find such factual material necessary. This is merely a thought experiment: If one can imagine something, then it must be true. No connection with the real world. Edited August 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 2
Popular Post Pahoran Posted August 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted August 20, 2014 Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel. (Emphasis added.) This comment deserves a revisit, if only for this one reason: You do realise, don't you, that there is not one shred of evidence that even one of the people involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ever, for a nanosecond, though of it as a "novel?" And yet, the entire absence of evidence for that accusation (because, let's be honest here, that's exactly what it is) doesn't stop you from oh so casually throwing it out there as if it was some kind of accepted fact, does it? Regards, Pahoran 5
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Just curious: Are you actually aware of such a book or source that would have been available at that time?Fox's Book of MartyrsThe Monthly ReviewThe Works of Hugh LatimerSermons (by Latimer and George Elwes Corrie)An Historical Essay on the Magna Carta of King John
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Well, of course, and saemo is as good an example as any.There is no fact favoring the Mormons which a true ill-wisher will admit to. None. Every fact faults the Mormon position in its entirety. Always.Which means that, with such people, there can be no true dialogue. No true give and take. Reminds me of the Congress of the United States, or of the Israelis and the Arabs. One's opponent is always and forever entirely wrong, and there is no real discussion possible.The way I see it, no facts can be discussed by Mormons. Mormons when faced with countering facts and opinions, flee to ad hominems. Always, like you demonstrate here. Makes true dialogue absolutely impossible.But hey, you can request that I don't dialogue with you and then talk about me to each other. Edited August 20, 2014 by saemo
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 "Could be" is an attempt to explain something away without evidence.You're relying upon unsupported mind-reading.As such, you've provided reluctant support for Bernard's argument in the OP: Nephite prophets describing Jesus being born in the "Land of Jerusalem" is evidence of authenticity. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have to scramble so hard to find a reason to dismiss it.Thank you.Regards,PahoranI expect an apology is forthcoming. Or maybe, do your own research before inserting foot in mouth?
teddyaware Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) (Emphasis added.) This comment deserves a revisit, if only for this one reason: You do realise, don't you, that there is not one shred of evidence that even one of the people involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ever, for a nanosecond, though of it as a "novel?" And yet, the entire absence of evidence for that accusation (because, let's be honest here, that's exactly what it is) doesn't stop you from oh so casually throwing it out there as if it was some kind of accepted fact, does it? Regards, Pahoran It would be enlightening if someone with a background and psychology could explain why it is when people stop believing in Mormonism, and become apostate, that they just can't seem to resist often resorting to ridicule and sarcasm in order to make their points. While recounting his vision of the tree of life, Lehi said the people in the large and spacious building were pointing and mocking. Why does it always seem to come down to this? What are the psychological dynamics at work within the human mind that cause former LDS members to behave in this manner? Edited August 20, 2014 by teddyaware 1
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Of course not, nor does saemo find such factual material necessary. This is merely a thought experiment: If one can imagine something, then it must be true. No connection with the real world.The way I see it you are doing the imaging and making a life out of the endless thought experiment of the Book of Mormon. Which has no evidence, just what is thought up and labeled golden. When you have something of real evidence, then your arrogant statements might mean something.
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 It would be enlightening if someone with a background and psychology could explain why it is when people stop believing in Mormonism, and become apostate, that they just can't seem to resist often resorting to ridicule and sarcasm in order to make their points. While recounting his vision of the tree of life, Lehi said the people in the large and spacious building were pointing and mocking. Why does it always seem to come down to this? What are the psychological dynamics at work within the human mind that cause former LDS members to behave in this manner?I neither ridiculed or used sarcasm. The problem is your end. You can't take anyone seriously that has a different opinion and approach than your own. Believe what you will. i DON'T CARE. Be the best Mormon you can be. I'm in full support. But if people are going to present ideas, they should expect counter ideas, and should be able to address them seriously. I take the OP seriously. I can't see that anyone here can take counter ideas seriously. Always on the defense as though counter ideas are going bring down Mormonism with a post to the internet. Counter ideas, for a person with a true intent towards truth, should be welcomed, not feared. That's what I think.
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Saemo: I've never called you names or doubted your sincerity. But you are flat out wrong about there being no evidence for the Book of Mormon.SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Saemo: I've never called you names or doubted your sincerity. But you are flat out wrong about there being no evidence for the Book of Mormon.SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtmlHi TSM, You are ever the gentleman, and I thank you for that. Also, thanks for the link, but I find Lindsay's arguments unconvincing.
Recommended Posts