Robert F. Smith Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 3 hours ago, omni said: Robert, with all due respect, you're better than this. Carmack's theory is nonsensical, even many of the faithful here find it ridiculous. You are certainly free to reject the scholarship of both Carmack and Skousen, without even bothering to tell us what is wrong with that scholarship. Am I correct that you are arguing the divine translators chose the KJV over the original text so that the modern reader would be familiar with it? Why? How does that help me, the reader, become closer to God? Wasn't one of the reasons the apostasy occurred was due to the "plain and precious things which had been taken away" from the Bible? Yet we are to believe the divine translators chose the KJV as their default source for the "most correct book on earth'? I do not understand your question about "the divine translators chose the KJV over the original text so that the modern reader would be familiar with it?" Who are these "divine translators" who supposedly "chose the KJV over" some pretended "original text"? If you are talking about the Book of Mormon plates, say so. Then explain who these "divine translators" are supposed to be. Then you can explain how much experience you have making translations, and why it is silly to imagine professional translators doing something you don't approve of -- for who knows what reason. With that in mind, I'm curious how the following scriptures fit into your theory. "And I did it because I knew that thou are obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass." 1 Nephi 20:4 "Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass." Isaiah 48:4 Although the two scriptures are similar, there are differences. Why did the divine translators not choose the KJV translation in this case (and other similar examples)? What major mistakes were corrected, what new doctrine did we learn? I already told you that the 1611 KJV is a mere updating or rehash of previous translations. Here, for example, the exact Isa 48:4 words are taken directly from the Geneva Bible, and one can go back to Tyndale and find that there is very little new in the KJV. Perhaps you need to read Brian Moynahan, God's Bestseller (NY: St Martin's Press, 2002).
Gervin Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 11:36 PM, Russell C McGregor said: I asked you for a reference to the Book of Mormon itself. You've ducked and hid behind the opinions of "modern scholars." I've done no such thing. The reference to Mark has not been explained and there are hundreds more. For instance, what is the Egyptian or Hebrew basis for referring to snow as "driven." The first instance in literature, I believe, is from Shakespeare. If you claim an Old World provenance for the book then kindly explain the basis for the word.
Russell C McGregor Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gervin said: I've done no such thing. Yes you did. 20 minutes ago, Gervin said: The reference to Mark has not been explained and there are hundreds more. For instance, what is the Egyptian or Hebrew basis for referring to snow as "driven." The first instance in literature, I believe, is from Shakespeare. If you claim an Old World provenance for the book then kindly explain the basis for the word. Thank you for attempting to shift the burden of proof. That's as close as you'll ever get to admitting that you can't support your claims. The Book of Mormon testifies to its ancient origins. You are entitled to reject its testimony; but you are not entitled to fabricate a different testimony and attribute it to the Book of Mormon. So I suggest you stop trying. 1
Gervin Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yes you did. Thank you for attempting to shift the burden of proof. That's as close as you'll ever get to admitting that you can't support your claims. The Book of Mormon testifies to its ancient origins. You are entitled to reject its testimony; but you are not entitled to fabricate a different testimony and attribute it to the Book of Mormon. So I suggest you stop trying. So, you have some evidence that the words "driven snow" are of an ancient origin? Or you're just going to pretend that the words aren't in the Book of Mormon?
Vance Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Quote pure as the driven snow Morally unsullied, chaste, as in She's just sixteen and pure as the driven snow. This simile dates from the late 1500s, although driven, which means "carried by the wind into drifts," was occasionally omitted. It is heard less often today. From http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pure+as+the+driven+snow If the simile dates from the late 1500's the constituent elements of it would have been in use prior to its creation. Thus "driven snow" must have had meaning earlier that the late 1500's. Just sayin.
Recommended Posts