DJBrown Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 My own version is shorter and to the point, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 . Thanks. That is a great piece of evidence!
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 .....................................................................Out of interest, does anyone have an opinion on "Elder Watson's" timeline. ..........................................The guy is Elden Watson. He is not part of the titled gentry.
canard78 Posted December 30, 2014 Author Posted December 30, 2014 The guy is Elden Watson. He is not part of the titled gentry.LOL. He'll be sad to hear it. Despite his lowly status, is his timeline worth anything at all? It seems very speculative so perhaps not. It's the most detailed one I could find but perhaps too detailed to have any credibility.
canard78 Posted December 30, 2014 Author Posted December 30, 2014 Thanks Brant for the detailed reply. You're right, it's not really something that be done in a "pass the popcorn" approach. Unfortunately we live in a 140-character/twitter generation. Memes and 6-second vines are how the next generation will digest information. The CES Letter's strength is not that it's a particularly detailed attack on any particular issue but because it manages to summarise the key issues in bitesize chunks. I know it doesn't do it justice, but the apologist response needs something similar.
Thinking Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 The discovery of chiasmatic patterns of writing in the Book of Mormon; something that Joseph Smith probably didn't know about. When a child learns to talk does the child know what a subject is? A verb? Adjective? No. The child is simply imitating the verbal patterns that are repeated. The Bible is full of chiasmus. Not knowing what the patterns are called would not prevent somebody from imitating them.
DJBrown Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 When a child learns to talk does the child know what a subject is? A verb? Adjective? No. The child is simply imitating the verbal patterns that are repeated. The Bible is full of chiasmus. Not knowing what the patterns are called would not prevent somebody from imitating them. Take a look at Alma 36. The chiastic structure in that chapter is not an accident. A paper some years ago suggested that the likelihood that the chiastic structure in that chapter resulting from simply trying to sound biblical approaches statistical impossibility. Here is a link to that paper: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3004&context=physics_facpub
Buzzard Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 How about the passage in "Isiah chapters" of 2nd Nephi where the KJV says "Ships of the sea", the Septuagint translation says "ships of Tarshish", but the BOM has them both? And for those who think Joseph just stumbled on this knowledge in the Palmyra library, I read somewhere that in 1830 the only copy of the Septuagint in the United States was in the library at Harvard. I was given "Rough Stone Rolling" for Christmas. It states that the characters in the Anthon manuscript are Egyptian, though they do not form Egyptian sentences. Something I didn't know before. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
DJBrown Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 How about the passage in "Isiah chapters" of 2nd Nephi where the KJV says "Ships of the sea", the Septuagint translation says "ships of Tarshish", but the BOM has them both? And for those who think Joseph just stumbled on this knowledge in the Palmyra library, I read somewhere that in 1830 the only copy of the Septuagint in the United States was in the library at Harvard. I was given "Rough Stone Rolling" for Christmas. It states that the characters in the Anthon manuscript are Egyptian, though they do not form Egyptian sentences. Something I didn't know before. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks. If you could figure out where you read that about the Septuagint, I would love to know. I have wondered about that for many years. Thanks.
rameumptom Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Nahom is a strong piece of evidence. So is Nephi's Psalm, which follows a pattern found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. http://rameumptom.weebly.com/nephipsalm.html The teachings on the Tree of Life and how it ties to the mother of God The in depth teachings on the temple found in the Book of Mormon, including theophany, and endowment. The in depth teachings on the atonement of Christ. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 LOL. He'll be sad to hear it. Despite his lowly status, is his timeline worth anything at all? It seems very speculative so perhaps not. It's the most detailed one I could find but perhaps too detailed to have any credibility.In glancing over Watson's work, I see that he carefully cites his sources, so I see no reason to mark it all up to speculation. Much work was done by others before him. On the Book of Mormon translation sequence and dating, for example, you might want to take a look at the detailed work of John Welch & Tim Rathbone, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information,” FARMS report WRR–86 (1986), which Watson cites. I watched Welch & Rathbone put that document together based on thorough research at the LDS Archives. Today, in view of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the job is much easier. In any case, presence of detail does not indicate lack of credibility.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 When a child learns to talk does the child know what a subject is? A verb? Adjective? No. The child is simply imitating the verbal patterns that are repeated. The Bible is full of chiasmus. Not knowing what the patterns are called would not prevent somebody from imitating them.I am unaware of anyone claiming that one must know this or that technical term for "chiasmus" or other rhetorical feature of a text in order to use it. We merely classify such terms nowadays so that we can discuss them intelligently. Nearly no one in Joseph Smith's time was aware of such structures (under any name at all), much less consciously used them in the same way used by some biblical authors. Indeed, if such rhetorical structures become too controversial, I would advise not using them as so-called bullseyes at all, since there are so many other non-controversial items which could be cited as "bullseyes."
Robert F. Smith Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 How about the passage in "Isiah chapters" of 2nd Nephi where the KJV says "Ships of the sea", the Septuagint translation says "ships of Tarshish", but the BOM has them both? And for those who think Joseph just stumbled on this knowledge in the Palmyra library, I read somewhere that in 1830 the only copy of the Septuagint in the United States was in the library at Harvard.I doubt that. I would expect that scholars such as Prof. Charles Anthon at Columbia College would have had his own copy then. There is a published register of his personal library at a later date. I was given "Rough Stone Rolling" for Christmas. It states that the characters in the Anthon manuscript are Egyptian, though they do not form Egyptian sentences. Something I didn't know before. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.Bushman is referring to his consultation with Egyptologist Richard Parker in the early 60s at Brown Univ. Parker looked at the so-called Anthon Transcript and told Bushman that the characters looked Egyptian, but in another language -- perhaps Meroitic (which Nibley favored). Parker even told Marvin Cowan in 1966 that the characters looked like demotic. On the other hand, in the 1956, grad student Stanley B. Kimball asked Egyptologist William C. Hayes (Metropolitan Museum of Art) about the AT. Hayes saw it as hieratic Egyptian, and he even translated part of the first line as a date formula. In his notes for Kimball (which Kimball sent to FARMS), Hayes transcribed the hieratic into hieroglyphic and transliterated it. 1
Rivers Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 I find the facts surrounding the BOM translation to be fascinating evidence.-All the witnesses who never denied their testimonies.- Eyewitness accounts saying Joseph had no resource material to work with.- Joseph being able to always pick up where he left off without reviewing anything. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) This doesn't address your question about bullseyes, but what completely convinced me that there was no relation between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon was to actually read it. Or at least the first half. I only skimmed the second half because it was just too boring.Agreed. After a read of view of the Hebrews I can't really see the relation. I guess one could possibly argue that a book like view of the Hebrews was a type of catalyst for BOM narrative... Edited December 31, 2014 by SmileyMcGee
thesometimesaint Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Spaulding_Manuscript
canard78 Posted January 1, 2015 Author Posted January 1, 2015 http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Spaulding_ManuscriptWas this for something in particular? I don't think anyone's mentioned Spaulding
canard78 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) I find the facts surrounding the BOM translation to be fascinating evidence.-All the witnesses who never denied their testimonies.- Eyewitness accounts saying Joseph had no resource material to work with.- Joseph being able to always pick up where he left off without reviewing anything.I agree, to a large extent, but it's still the ancient historical evidence that I'm most interested in.Without any historical credibility then the modern evidence in favour wouldn't be enough. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies that never "broke rank" and yet lack credibility. Take the Urantians for example. There were at least 7 people who claim to have seen the "channeled" dictation of their sacred text and none ever denied it. Does that make it true? Edited January 2, 2015 by canard78
MormonFreeThinker Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Without any historical credibility then the modern evidence in favour wouldn't be enough. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies that never "broke rank" and yet lack credibility. Take the Uranthians for example. There were at least 7 people who claim to have seen the "channeled" dictation of their sacred text and none ever denied it. Does that make it true? The testimony of the book of Mormon witnesses is not proof, but it helps a lot. Who are the seven people that claimed to see the dictation of the Uranthians text? Please tell us about them. Most historians believe that the Book of Mormon witnesses were sincere about their vision, and D&C 17 predicted the vision of Harris, Oliver, and Whitmer. I have a challenge for you, try to find a non-LDS revelation that accurately predicts the vision of a specific group of people. Edited January 2, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
canard78 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) The testimony of the book of Mormon witnesses is not proof, but it helps a lot. Who are the seven people that claimed to see the dictation of the Uranthians text? Please tell us about them. Most historians believe that the Book of Mormon witnesses were sincere about their vision, and D&C 17 predicted the vision of Harris, Oliver, and Whitmer. I have a challenge for you, try to find a non-LDS revelation that accurately predicts the vision of a specific group of people. Don't get so uptight. This is a thread started to look into the evidence for the Book of Mormon that is contemporaneous to the time it was set. If you're really interested in the book of Urantia, have a look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Bookand: http://www.urantia.org/urantia-foundation/history Edited January 2, 2015 by canard78
Nevo Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Larry Poulson's FAIR presentation of Book of Mormon Geography:http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf It's a valuable presentation but I'm afraid the layout and formatting does it no favors. If anyone is interested, a reformatted version of Poulsen's presentation is attached: 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 If you're really interested in the book of Urantia, have a look: Where is a biography about your seven witnesses? It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. Challenge Name a revelation that accurately predicted the vision of a specific group of people (small group).
Calm Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) It's a valuable presentation but I'm afraid the layout and formatting does it no favors. If anyone is interested, a reformatted version of Poulsen's presentation is attached: Poulsen - Book of Mormon Geography.pdfCan you send me the link in a PM or to a website I can get it from so I can get the FM techies to replace the current one with this better formatted version? Thank you ahead of time... Never mind, I just realized that I downloaded it to my computer so just need to attach it to an email to the techies myself…I think. Edited January 3, 2015 by calmoriah
livy111us Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 It's a valuable presentation but I'm afraid the layout and formatting does it no favors. If anyone is interested, a reformatted version of Poulsen's presentation is attached: Poulsen - Book of Mormon Geography.pdf Here is the video presentation of this talk which has the power points as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw0pl8Ifsc
nealr Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 While definitely not a proven link to Joseph Smith there were two books with maps and an "NHM"-like name on them a lot closer than Europe. These are some books at Allegheny College from an 1823 register: http://books.google.com/books?id=K5xAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=allegheny+college&hl=en&ei=6MxqTMKbKY7UngfL5rSIAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false D’Anville’s book with a map showing "Nehhm" is listed on page 18Niebuhr's book with a map showing "Nehem" is listed on page 44 Now Allegeny is not in Joseph Smith's backyard, but it was Sidney Rigdon's backyard. He was from Allegheny County. And as a very well-read man in history and biblical items one could argue some type of connection there without having to go to Europe to find the connection. *** I admittedly don't know much on the NHM thing, i just started looking it up because of this thread and found these items and thought I'd pass them along. Stephen Smoot and I have addressed this along with other objections to the NHM/Nahom connection. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ Go to pp. 180-181 for the response to the maps. Them being in Rigdon's back yard is of course irrelevant, since he was not involved until the Book of Mormon was already published. Even if he was around before though, I must say I find the tendency to try and connect any possible source of information from the 19th century to basically anyone involved in Mormonism ca. 1830-1840, no matter how tenuous, to be a rather pointless exercise. We have very good documentation on where the English text of the Book of Mormon came from, and that evidence leaves no room for a collaborative effort between Joseph Smith and anyone else. If it was written in the 19th century as fiction, then Joseph Smith is its sole author. It follows that finding connections to Sidney Rigdon or anyone else is really irrelevant and pointless. 2
nealr Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I'm exchanging messages with a friend who's becoming persuaded by the View of the Hebrews/Late War evidence. I replied that while I found the 19thC evidence against to be compelling there were too many "bullseyes" in both the Old and New world in the text that Joseph couldn't have known. While they could be coincidence they are too persuasive to dismiss and sow seeds of possibility to allow room for faith.With that in mind, what are your top 3 or 4 evidences "for" the Book of Mormon? If you could also provide a source or weblink that would be appreciated. My Open Letters to Jeremy Runnells might to useful to you. The first one gives a summary of evidence for 1 Nephi: http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-1-to-jeremy-runnells.html The second one deals with the examples of 19th century evidence Runnells brings up: http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-2-to-jeremy-runnells.html 2
Recommended Posts