Johnnie Cake Posted February 24, 2016 Author Posted February 24, 2016 47 minutes ago, Gervin said: I've read some of Bowen's material and it's clear that his is a faith-promoting effort for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon. I can see why you would be impressed, especially since he cites you on occaision. In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. haha...fat chance of that ever happening...
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Gervin said: I've read some of Bowen's material and it's clear that his is a faith-promoting effort for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon. I can see why you would be impressed, especially since he cites you on occaision. In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. Demotic- a form of reformed Egyptian found in ancient Israel. The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation of a unknown form of reformed Egyptian. The themes common in the Book of Mormon have existed for millennia.
cdowis Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 On 2/23/2016 at 3:07 PM, JAHS said: So what else could a chariot or horse be that were obviously used by Lamoni for transportation to go free the prisoners in Middoni? (And yes I know about tapirs) Sometimes I just think that LDS apologists over-apologize to the point of being unreasonable. We apologists differ among ourselves on such issues. I do not think horse==tapir is universally accepted. A horse is a horse, but our culture affects how we see things. As soon as we see words like sword, armour, chariot, we think in terms of English history. In my mind I can easily accept the mammoth as the elephants mentioned in the BOM.
cdowis Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gervin said: In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. In truth, you will admit that, at least late in their history, there is no evidence that the Nephites/Lamanites used Hebrew or Egyptian outside the sacred records. The Mulekites and the Nephites were initially unable to communicate with each other. Even the Lamanites had to be instructed in the language of he Nephites. Mormon 9 [34] none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language -- and that is exactly what we find in mesoamerica. Edited February 24, 2016 by cdowis
Russell C McGregor Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Gervin said: I've read some of Bowen's material and it's clear that his is a faith-promoting effort for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon. I can see why you would be impressed, especially since he cites you on occaision. In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. CFR for the bolded portion.
Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, JAHS said: Could be we are just not looking in the right place. It's quite obvious to me that Lamoni's attitude in going to free the prisoners was that he was going prepared to fight to get them out if needed and that he required horses and chariots to make the journey. Lamoni states that the king is his friend. Whywould he expect he would need to do battle with his friend? And he talks about flattering the king and pleading with him...no suggestion of violence, so it sounds to me he anticipated only needing dipolomatic means. Which makes me think he would likely put on the pomp and circumctance to impress the other king rather than intending for battle. I wonder if you are conflating his conversation with his father---which very much tends towards suggesting violence---with his anticipated reunion with his friend. Edited February 25, 2016 by Calm
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gervin said: I've read some of Bowen's material and it's clear that his is a faith-promoting effort for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon. I can see why you would be impressed, especially since he cites you on occaision. You say that you have read some Bowen material, but have no substantive comment on it, except to dismiss it as faith-promoting. Then, instead of remembering that scholars are obligated to cite their sources, you also dismiss my being impressed with Bowen as mere vanity (since he mentions me). In truth, you will admit that You might try speaking on your own behalf, rather than trying to speak for me -- followed by several blatantly false statements. there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, There is plenty of evidence for the use of both ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the New World: See my “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2011 version 2, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA . Brian D. Stubbs, "Egyptian and Semitc in Uto-Aztecan," January 2015, online at http://www.bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover.pdf . Mary LeCron Foster, "[Mixe - Zoque, Maya, Egyptian]," UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225, series 4, carton 4, folder 23. Mary LeCron Foster, "Old World Language in the Americas," UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225, series 4, carton 4, folder 26. Mary LeCron Foster, “Egyptian, Mixe-Zoque, Mayan: Cognate Sets,” research 1939-2000, UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225, series 6, carton 6, folder 45. and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. The Early Modern English of the BofM localizes it to have been rendered into English at around 1521 (16th century), which throws your theory into an immediate tailspin. So a pastiche of what? In fact the ancient sources are far more relevant. Edited February 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 5
Russell C McGregor Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You might try speaking on your own behalf, rather than trying to speak for me -- followed by several blatantly false statements. If Gervin were to give up speaking for his opponents, he'd have to give up being an anti-Mormon. Controlling both sides of the conversation is essential to what they do. 1
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: 45 minutes ago, Calm said: Lamoni states that the king is his friend. Whywould he expect he would need to do battle with his friend? And he talks about flattering the king and pleading with him...no suggestion of violence, so it sounds to me he anticipated only needing dipolomatic means. Which makes me think he would likely put on the pomp and circumctance to impress the other king rather than intending for battle. I wonder if you are conflating his conversation with his father---which very much tends towards suggesting violence---with his anticipated reunion with his friend. I think he was just being prepared for whatever circumstances he came up against when trying to free the prisoners. But that really doesn't make any difference. The point is that he used horses and chariots to transport himself there.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: CFR for the bolded portion. here's one example: The majority of modern scholars have accepted that the sources used for the King James Version are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g., see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls). The Book of Mormon claims to have been written over 1100 years prior to the King James Version, but it contains some of the same errors. One example is Mark 16:15-18, which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. The passage concerns believers holding snakes and drinking poison; however, it does not appear in many early biblical manuscripts and is widely believed to have been composed in the 2nd century. Additionally, the Book of Mormon reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced.
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Gervin said: here's one example: The majority of modern scholars have accepted that the sources used for the King James Version are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g., see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls). The Book of Mormon claims to have been written over 1100 years prior to the King James Version, but it contains some of the same errors. One example is Mark 16:15-18, which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. The passage concerns believers holding snakes and drinking poison; however, it does not appear in many early biblical manuscripts and is widely believed to have been composed in the 2nd century. Additionally, the Book of Mormon reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced. The Book of Mormon confirms that Jesus did say it to those in the American continent and therefore most likely also said the same thing to those in the eastern continent. Those who believe it to have been written in the 2nd century are wrong.
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, Gervin said: here's one example: The majority of modern scholars have accepted that the sources used for the King James Version are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g., see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls). The Book of Mormon claims to have been written over 1100 years prior to the King James Version, but it contains some of the same errors. One example is Mark 16:15-18, which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. The passage concerns believers holding snakes and drinking poison; however, it does not appear in many early biblical manuscripts and is widely believed to have been composed in the 2nd century. Additionally, the Book of Mormon reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced. There was a lengthy discussion about this on this board a few years ago: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59398-new-testament-and-book-of-mormon-parallels-mark-16mormon-9/
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, Gervin said: ...................................................... The majority of modern scholars have accepted that the sources used for the King James Version are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g., see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls). The Book of Mormon claims to have been written over 1100 years prior to the King James Version, but it contains some of the same errors. What you say of the KJV sources is mostly correct, Gervin. But you missed the boat on textual crit of the BofM, which leaves out many of the errors of the KJV. One example is Mark 16:15-18, which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. The passage concerns believers holding snakes and drinking poison; however, it does not appear in many early biblical manuscripts and is widely believed to have been composed in the 2nd century. Mormon is writing in the 4th century AD, long after the material in Mark came into existence. Moreover, the form and language of it is merely an English translation of whatever Vorlage existed. The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. Additionally, the Book of Mormon reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced. Actually, the 1611 KJV did not yet exist when the BofM was produced ca. 1521. The KJV is not a new translation, but follows closely previous translations going back to Tyndale. 1
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gervin said: 35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Mormon is writing in the 4th century AD, long after the material in Mark came into existence. But Jesus wasn't there in the 4th century AD. Moroni said He said it to His disciples when He was there for the short time after He was resurrected. Edited February 25, 2016 by JAHS
Cold Steel Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 We all handle logic differently. Archeologists could find the remains of horses drawing Egyptian chariots and would our critics line up for baptism? No. My dad used to hold the Book of Mormon under my nose and ask me where the river of water was in Arabia...and Bountiful. He even showed me documentation saying there were no rivers in Arabia. But now, forty years later, we have our valley, the river of water, the altars, Bountiful, and Nahom to boot! I couldn't have won a single debate on these things back then. Now I couldn't lose. So...what can we learn from this? We LDS have conceded many things about the Book of Mormon, but our critics concede nothing. The more we learn, the more plausible the Book of Mormon becomes. If it weren't what it claims to be, wouldn't it be the reverse? Yet we keep finding evidence for, not against. I look at the cities and the grand roads in Mesoamerica and I see the toy wheels and I say, they had to have wheels and some form of conveyance or why were the roads so broad? How did they move those huge stones to make cities? All my toys were miniatures of things that actually existed: jet fighters, construction vehicles, tanks, freighters (ships). Why would the Mesoamerican toys be any different? As some of our scholars point out, the Hebrew word for chariot meant "conveyance" or "something ridden." I'm willing to wait. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 12 hours ago, JAHS said: But Jesus wasn't there in the 4th century AD. Moroni said He said it to His disciples when He was there for the short time after He was resurrected. We do not in fact know all the things that Jesus may have said on this or that occasion. As I said, " the form and language of it is merely an English translation of whatever Vorlage existed. The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. "
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We do not in fact know all the things that Jesus may have said on this or that occasion. As I said, " the form and language of it is merely an English translation of whatever Vorlage existed. The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. " Def. of Vorlage: "a position in which a skier leans forward but keeps the heels in contact with the skis." Moroni said Jesus said that to His disciples: "For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry (3 Nep 28: 12), yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" I just don't think the 400 year later explanation is a valid argument.
ksfisher Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, JAHS said: Def. of Vorlage: "a position in which a skier leans forward but keeps the heels in contact with the skis." Moroni said Jesus said that to His disciples: "For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry (3 Nep 28: 12), yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" I just don't think the 400 year later explanation is a valid argument. Vorlage German, means the text before a translator (reconstructed by working backwards from the words of the translation, but unknown in reality). So one can speak of the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, which was often different from our present Hebrew text (MT). http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/vorlage.htm
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 28 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Vorlage German, means the text before a translator (reconstructed by working backwards from the words of the translation, but unknown in reality). So one can speak of the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, which was often different from our present Hebrew text (MT). http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/vorlage.htm I know what it means. I was trying to be funny. The simple fact is that Moroni said Jesus said those words to His disciples when He visited them 400 years earlier. That is the easiest way to understand it and I don't think we need to worry about Vorlage and fomulaic phrases. If we keep making understanding the Book of Mormon so complicated we are going to find it hard to trust or understand anything written in the Book.
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, JAHS said: I know what it means. I was trying to be funny. The simple fact is that Moroni said Jesus said those words to His disciples when He visited them 400 years earlier. That is the easiest way to understand it and I don't think we need to worry about Vorlage and fomulaic phrases. If we keep making understanding the Book of Mormon so complicated we are going to find it hard to trust or understand anything written in the Book. Unless Jesus spoke to the Nephites in English, he did not say "those words" to his disciples, nor did Moroni claim that Jesus said "those words" to his disciples. 1
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Unless Jesus spoke to the Nephites in English, he did not say "those words" to his disciples, nor did Moroni claim that Jesus said "those words" to his disciples. So are you saying the translation is wrong? if it is we're in big trouble.
ksfisher Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 48 minutes ago, JAHS said: I know what it means. I was trying to be funny. The simple fact is that Moroni said Jesus said those words to His disciples when He visited them 400 years earlier. That is the easiest way to understand it and I don't think we need to worry about Vorlage and fomulaic phrases. If we keep making understanding the Book of Mormon so complicated we are going to find it hard to trust or understand anything written in the Book. I figured you knew what it meant from your response. I just want it our there "for the record." Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 25 minutes ago, JAHS said: So are you saying the translation is wrong? if it is we're in big trouble. Book of Mormon Title Page. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, JAHS said: So are you saying the translation is wrong? if it is we're in big trouble. 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We do not in fact know all the things that Jesus may have said on this or that occasion. As I said, " the form and language of it is merely an English translation of whatever Vorlage existed. The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. " To repeat what Robert F. Smith said: The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. 1
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: To repeat what Robert F. Smith said: The translator is free to use any familiar and formulaic phrases which fit the meaning. Says who? Who made up that rule? It doesn't make any sense to me. The Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God"; not by Joseph Smith all by himself. God is going to make sure the words are translated into the words and meanings that were intended; not by whatever Joseph Smith decides in his mind he wants them to be. When I read those words the "meaning" you refer to that I get is that Jesus said those things to His disciples 400 years earlier.
Recommended Posts