thesometimesaint Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 That thesis has been thoroughly debunked.SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-solomon-spaulding-and-the-book-of-mormon
Robert F. Smith Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 I see a mishmash of plagiarisms and paraphrasing of the Bible, which, takes a measure of cleverness, that a 21 year old farm boy possesses.You seem unaware that the Bible is considered by scholars to be a well organized "mishmash of plagiarisms and paraphrasing." Take a look at David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford Books, 2014), which is the first in a three-volume series. An excellent read.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Never mind Edited August 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith
Tacenda Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 You seem unaware that the Bible is considered by scholars to be a well organized "mishmash of plagiarisms and paraphrasing." Take a look at David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford Books, 2014), which is the first in a three-volume series. An excellent read.Have you listened to the most recent Mormon Matters podcast with David? They go over a lot of Old Testament stuff.
saemo Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 On accusations that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible in his translation of the Book of Mormon see this FairMormon Answers entry.Also, not convincing.
saemo Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 You seem unaware that the Bible is considered by scholars to be a well organized "mishmash of plagiarisms and paraphrasing." Take a look at David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford Books, 2014), which is the first in a three-volume series. An excellent read.Yes, I see a difference though.
saemo Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 That thesis has been thoroughly debunked.SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-solomon-spaulding-and-the-book-of-mormonThat fails to address modern evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 That fails to address modern evidence. What "modern" evidence would that be. That Sidney Rigdon played no part in the production of the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon claimed that he was converted to the Latter Day Saint movement through reading the Book of Mormon, Rigdon first met Joseph Smith in December 1830 after the Book of Mormon was published. Solomon Spaulding's writing bear little to no relationship to the Book of Mormon.I've read both.
saemo Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 What "modern" evidence would that be. That Sidney Rigdon played no part in the production of the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon claimed that he was converted to the Latter Day Saint movement through reading the Book of Mormon, Rigdon first met Joseph Smith in December 1830 after the Book of Mormon was published. Solomon Spaulding's writing bear little to no relationship to the Book of Mormon.I've read both.How can you read a manuscript that no one has?The Jocker study results have not been scientifically debunked. All I've seen from LDS are speculations about the study.
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 How can you read a manuscript that no one has?The Jocker study results have not been scientifically debunked. All I've seen from LDS are speculations about the study. Spaulding manuscriptSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding%E2%80%93Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship
saemo Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Spaulding manuscriptSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding–Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorshipYes, I've read Wikipedia and other sources. Thanks. I said I find it a more plausible explanation, I didn't say it was The Explanation. There are greater issues with the Book of Mormon, as I've said. Determining its origins, while interesting, doesn't change my view regarding the claims of Joseph Smith. But I definitely do not believe it is a divine translation of ancient text. There is zero evidence for that claim.
teddyaware Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Yes, I've read Wikipedia and other sources. Thanks. I said I find it a more plausible explanation, I didn't say it was The Explanation.There are greater issues with the Book of Mormon, as I've said. Determining its origins, while interesting, doesn't change my view regarding the claims of Joseph Smith. But I definitely do not believe it is a divine translation of ancient text. There is zero evidence for that claim.Hello again, Having a busy day, but I'll get to my verse by verse analysis of 2 Nephi 4:15-35 as soon as I have the time. I won't link my remarks to any of your posts because you've indicated you don't want to participate in such a slow moving process. But if you check out this thread as the days go by, you'll be able to keep up with my findings, just as long as the moderators don't lock the thread for some reason.Your remarks to thesometimesaint brought to my mind the Prophet Nephi's closing testimony to the world as to the truthfulness and divine authenticity of his sacred writings; it's his "parting shot" to the world, as it were. In light of your surety of unbelief, as that unbelief is contrasted with my assurity of belief, Nephi's farewell sermon to the world takes on an awesome aura of intense solemnity:10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)More later... Edited August 23, 2014 by teddyaware
saemo Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Hello again,Having a busy day, but I'll get to my verse by verse analysis of 2 Nephi 4:15-35 as soon as I have the time. I won't link my remarks to any of your posts because you've indicated you don't want to participate in such a slow moving process. But if you check out this thread as the days go by, you'll be able to keep up with my findings, just as long as the moderators don't lock the thread for some reason.Your remarks to thesometimesaint brought to my mind the Prophet Nephi's closing testimony to the world as to the truthfulness and divine authenticity of his sacred writings; it's his "parting shot" to the world, as it were. In light of your surety of unbelief, as that unbelief is contrasted with my assurity of belief, Nephi's farewell sermon to the world takes on an awesome aura of intense solemnity:10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)More later...Thanks.But I don't believe Nephi actually existed. Let alone knew of Jesus Christ. Many a false prophet have claimed to speak for God.I may read this thread but from your post on the first verse, I can't see that we have the same approach. Of that we are looking at the same depth. I'm not interested in a superficial comparison. Edited August 24, 2014 by saemo
thesometimesaint Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Yes, I've read Wikipedia and other sources. Thanks. I said I find it a more plausible explanation, I didn't say it was The Explanation.There are greater issues with the Book of Mormon, as I've said. Determining its origins, while interesting, doesn't change my view regarding the claims of Joseph Smith. But I definitely do not believe it is a divine translation of ancient text. There is zero evidence for that claim. Which you are entitled to. I have no desire to force belief on you or anyone else. The point I was making regardless of the Truth Claims of JS. The Ridgon/Spaulding/Smith thesis is without merit.
Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2014 Author Posted August 24, 2014 Going with the Book of Mormon is a translation, I would view adieu as a loose translation of something. What that something is, who knows. (No documents to compare to.)For your future reference, adieu was a commonly used English word in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was borrowed from French much earlier, but like so many other borrowed words, it came into widespread usage before, during and after Joseph Smith's lifetime. It is as useless a criticism of the Book of Mormon as this Jerusalem/Bethlehem thing.
cdowis Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) There is zero evidence for that claim. Of course, you have no choice but to say that. In contrast to the Bible, the BOM is all or nothing. No matter how compelling the evidence, you must respond "Not convincing" because any evidence of its authenticity compels you to seriously consider the story of the book delivered by an angel in our modern day, by an obscure teenager. Any unbeliever can accept parts of the Bible and reject the religious text -- there was a city called Jerusalem, but the resurrection is another thing. We point out some interesting names, such as Pahoran, Paanchi, and sheum, demonstrate their ancient origins, show that it was very unlikely that JS would be aware of these name ===>> you can glibly brush it off as "just a coincidence". That is your definition of "zero evidence". That is why this is something between you and the Lord, not archaeology. Edited August 24, 2014 by cdowis 1
saemo Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Of course, you have no choice but to say that. In contrast to the Bible, the BOM is all or nothing. No matter how compelling the evidence, you must respond "Not convincing" because any evidence of its authenticity compels you to seriously consider the story of the book delivered by an angel in our modern day, by an obscure teenager. Any unbeliever can accept parts of the Bible and reject the religious text -- there was a city called Jerusalem, but the resurrection is another thing. We point out some interesting names, such as Pahoran, Paanchi, and sheum, demonstrate their ancient origins, show that it was very unlikely that JS would be aware of these name ===>> you can glibly brush it off as "just a coincidence". That is your definition of "zero evidence". That is why this is something between you and the Lord, not archaeology.When you have evidence of pre-Columbian society whose culture was Hebrew or Christian. A society that used Hebrew scripture. Read it, copies it, references it. A society that followed the Law. (Not found in the Book of Mormon itself.) When you have contemporary writings to the Book.of Mormon, written in the same language as claimed.. When you find a modern group of people who remember their origins in the Middle East in their oral.traditions. When you find weapons of a society that were not using stone age technology. All these things exist for the Bible. Saying it is between me and God is an argument that can be used for accepting that Mohammed received scripture in a cave, from an angel. Faith and reason go together, and are both given to us by God. Edited August 24, 2014 by saemo 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 When you have evidence of pre-Columbian society whose culture was Hebrew or Christian. A society that used Hebrew scripture. Read it, copies it, references it. A society that followed the Law. (Not found in the Book of Mormon itself.) When you have contemporary writings to the Book.of Mormon, written in the same language as claimed.. When you find a modern group of people who remember their origins in the Middle East in their oral.traditions. When you find weapons of a society that were not using stone age technology. All these things exist for the Bible. Saying it is between me and God is an argument that can be used for accepting that Mohammed received scripture in a cave, from an angel. Faith and reason go together, and are both given to us by God. No one is looking for a Hebrew/Christian culture in Mesoamerica. Least of all the Mormons. reformed Egyptian.SEE Demotic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotic_%28Egyptian%29 All modern languages may have descended from from a single ancestral tongue spoken by early African humans between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago. Metal weapons of Mesoamerca like theseSEE https://www.google.com/search?q=Metal+weapons+of+mesoamerica&client=firefox-a&hs=SJe&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=li76U9zpC5C5ogThn4KgDA&ved=0CD8Q7Ak&biw=1366&bih=609 That and other places as well., True, but irrelevant. Maybe. There are many different faith traditions that don't have a Catholic Christian basis. The Age of Reason was written by a devout Atheist Thomas :Paine
cdowis Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 I think it would be best just to leave him alone. He is in attack mode, and has absolutely no interest in a discussion.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 I think it would be best just to leave him alone. He is in attack mode, and has absolutely no interest in a discussion.It has been my longtime understanding that saemo is female. But I've been wrong before.
cdowis Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) It has been my longtime understanding that saemo is female. If someone expects PC from me, he will be very disappointed. Anyway, I apologize and will try to remember this in the future. Edited August 25, 2014 by cdowis
teddyaware Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) Thanks.But I don't believe Nephi actually existed. Let alone knew of Jesus Christ. Many a false prophet have claimed to speak for God.I may read this thread but from your post on the first verse, I can't see that we have the same approach. Of that we are looking at the same depth. I'm not interested in a superficial comparison.I find it interesting you refer to my methodical phrase by phrase, and even word by word analysis to be "superficial comparison," while your one shot splatter gun is supposed to be in-depth analysis.Be that as it may, since we last interacted I've come to understand my proposed exercise is unnecessary because I realize there is no way that the similarities between some portions of the Book of Mormon and the Bible can be referred to as plagiarism. Reason being that plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else's writing with the hope you'll not get caught because the stolen writing is thought to be from a source too obscure to ever be discovered. Since the King James Bible was likely the most read book of young Joseph Smith's day, it would be totally absurd for him to attempt to plagiarize from it because the Bible is the diametric opposite of obscure source material. All the accusations of plagiarism from you and many others only helps to underscore the absurdity of the claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized from the Bible, because If he was engaged in fraud he was too clever and brilliant a young man to have allowed himself to get exposed as a charlatan over something that would have been so very easy for him to avoid. All he had to do to escape the charge of Bible forgery was to continue to use language similar to that used throughout so many other portions of the Book of Mormon where the accusation of Biblical forgery has not been leveled. The following fictitious illustration will serve to demonstrate my point: [After lunch, the coconspirators Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sit down to continue their work on the Book or Mormon. Joseph resumes his dictation beginning at the point of the first line of 2 Nephi 4:17] "Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am... [Oliver, in obvious emotional distress, abruptly stops writing and raises his voice with great urgency] "Wait! Wait! Wait Joseph! We can't use those words! Those are the exact words Paul used in Romans 7: 24! It'll be too obvious we're perpetrating a fraud if we use the exact words Paul used! I tell you what, let's rework what Paul said so we don't get caught. How about this, "I am pained of soul and my heart cries out, I am a miserable man!" [Joseph looks up at Oliver with a wide grin on his face. ] "What would I do without you old chap! We dodged a bullet with that one! Like they say, two heads are better than one. I like your revision; let's go with it! [Continuing to grin, joseph wipes a newly sweaty brow] So why in verse 17 of 2 Nephi 4 did Joseph use the exact wording of Paul in Romans 7:24 when he most certainly didn't have to? Well it wasn't because he was attempting to plagiarize from the Bible, because if he was trying to cover fraud, the use of Paul's expression would be too obvious a ploy; especially in light of the fact that it would have been so easy for him to modify the wording so as to not get caught. So then, why did Joseph use a verbatim rendition of Paul's inspired phrase? It's because the Spirit revealed to Joseph that those precise words exquisitely and perfectly expressed Nephi's thinking and state of mind. But I believe there is another reason why the Book of Mormon has such strong and unmistakable echoes of the Bible within its pages. And that reason is so that a great prophecy of the Book of Mormon could be fulfilled. Yes it's true, because the hue and cry of Bible plagiarism has been raised by many of the critics of the LDS Church, one of the great prophecies found in the writings of this same Nephi has now marvelously come to pass...6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. (2 Nephi 29) Edited August 25, 2014 by teddyaware 2
saemo Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) If a work is not cited when it is copied, it is plagiarism. Again, your arguments assume the Book of Mormon is authentic. I can understand your approach under that assumption. It doesn't convince me. In depth to me would be more along the lines of say, discussing Roman 7 and 8 and discussing the 2 Nephi 4. I just don't see it is possible online. Your arguments also bring up questions of the Book of Mormon as the most correct translation, while simultaneously, LDS claiming the Bible is so messed up a restoration is needed. Having your cake and eating it too? Further, there is the JST translation, which deep-sixes the KJV it is modified so much. I've never embarked on an attempt to reconcile the JST to the Book of Mormon. All very complex if taken seriously and looked at in depth. I don't have the inclination, but I understand if you do. Edited August 25, 2014 by saemo
teddyaware Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) If a work is not sited when it is copied, it is plagiarism. Again, your arguments assume the Book of Mormon is authentic. I can understand your approach under that assumption. It doesn't convince me. In depth to me would be more along the lines of say, discussing Roman 7 and 8 and discussing the 2 Nephi 4. I just don't see it is possible online. Your arguments also bring up questions of the Book of Mormon as the most correct translation, while simultaneously, LDS claiming the Bible is so messed up a restoration is needed. Having your cake and eating it too? Further, there is the JST translation, which deep-sixes the KJV it is modified so much. I've never embarked on an attempt to reconcile the JST to the Book of Mormon. All very complex if taken seriously and looked at in depth. I don't have the inclination, but I understand if you do.The altering of the original inspired text of the Bible, spoken of on the Book of Mormon, has more to do with unscrupulous men deleting important portions of the Bible than it does with altering of the remaining text.25 Wherefore, these things (the Bible) go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13) Edited August 25, 2014 by teddyaware
cdowis Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) If a work is not cited when it is copied, it is plagiarism. Please do a google on Paul as a plagiarizer. https://www.google.com/#q=paul+quoting+pagan+poets&safe=active Paul and the other NT writers have quoted from the Old Testament without giving an attribution. Indeed Christ Himself quoted the OT while he was on the cross. The New Testament writers are plagiarizers, including our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We are truly impressed with your argument trashing the Bible Edited August 26, 2014 by cdowis 4
Recommended Posts