David Bokovoy's explanation of OT

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Fair point. I should have said "If you are convinced that God has revealed to you..." (Whether God actually reveals to anyone that the Book of Mormon is historically true is an open question.) But I think you would agree that, for most Mormons, the proposition that the Book of Mormon is "true" entails the proposition that it is an authentic ancient record. Very few take the position that it's spiritually true but not historical.

Actually, I think that is a fair assumption, but I don't think typical Mormons would even know how to articulate what you said.  I'm not sure they think in terms of what's historically true or what that even means.  Is it loosely based on a true story, or does this mean it follows the standards of academic historiography of the 21st century?  I don't believe that the average Mormon thinks in these terms.  

True probably means, that it is pragmatically true, that it works in their life, that it describes the kinds of things God wants them to know about how to live a righteous life.  In that sense, I think it can be true, independent of its historicity.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

John and I have shown at different times, that a lot of their evidence isn't evidence at all. How can you say they've established something as fact when the evidence they have proposed for their theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I looked into several of Skousens examples a couple of years ago and found 19th examples of the language he claimed as supporting his theory. John has gone further than I have and shown multiple examples of words and phrases still being in use in 19th C.

If their evidence is being debunked by a few minutes googling, imagine what an extensive investigation would conclude? On the basis that a lot of their evidence doesn't hold water I'm baffled how you can consider their case to be conclusive enough as to use the confident language that you have in this thread.

I encourage anyone with mitigating evidence to bring it forth systematically -- rather than imagining what an extensive investigation would conclude.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda just doesn't go far enough.  One must contend with the multifaceted case being made by Stanford Carmack:

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):109-137, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural%E2%80%89was-in-the-earliest-text/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

 

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The key is that he explains why there's overwhelming scholarly consensus.

Yeh, but what sticks in many a craw is the fact that Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 have a future king named Cyrus come on the scene in Exilic times.  Since most scholars believe in prophecy after the fact, Deutero-Isaiah is a wonderful explanation -- in league with many other observations, which are  made to order.  The same applies to the I Kings 13:2 prediction of the reign of righteous King Josiah, by name.  No rational person believes that to be possible.  Such texts had to have been written after the fact.

Therefore, shouldn't the same considerations apply to angels predicting the births and names of John and Jesus, months before their births?  (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:13,31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6, including puns).  Well, of course, the Gospels are written long afterward.  As Sterling McMurrin liked to say:

Quote

. . . you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple.  https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N01_20.pdf , page 25.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Yeh, but what sticks in many a craw is the fact that Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 have a future king named Cyrus come on the scene in Exilic times.  Since most scholars believe in prophecy after the fact, Deutero-Isaiah is a wonderful explanation -- in league with many other observations, which are  made to order.  The same applies to the I Kings 13:2 prediction of the reign of righteous King Josiah, by name.  No rational person believes that to be possible.  Such texts had to have been written after the fact.

Therefore, shouldn't the same considerations apply to angels predicting the births and names of John and Jesus, months before their births?  (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:13,31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6, including puns).  Well, of course, the Gospels are written long afterward.  As Sterling McMurrin liked to say:

 

Or, for that matter, Nephi predicting in detail the birth of Christ and the mission of John the Baptist hundreds of years before they happened.

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Yeh, but what sticks in many a craw is the fact that Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 have a future king named Cyrus come on the scene in Exilic times.  Since most scholars believe in prophecy after the fact, Deutero-Isaiah is a wonderful explanation -- in league with many other observations, which are  made to order.  The same applies to the I Kings 13:2 prediction of the reign of righteous King Josiah, by name.  No rational person believes that to be possible.  Such texts had to have been written after the fact.

Therefore, shouldn't the same considerations apply to angels predicting the births and names of John and Jesus, months before their births?  (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:13,31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6, including puns).  Well, of course, the Gospels are written long afterward.  As Sterling McMurrin liked to say:

 

But the accuracy of the prophecy is just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing. 

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or, for that matter, Nephi predicting in detail the birth of Christ and the mission of John the Baptist hundreds of years before they happened.

Easily achieved when done hundreds of years after it supposedly happened...I find it interesting that specific future predictions Stopped in 1829 or in the year it was written.  The BoM gives many specific predictions known to JS but nothing specific after the year of its printing....I wonder why? 

[The Nehor]

On 5/24/2016 at 4:35 PM, Gray said:

Here's his takeaway on that topic:

I have to admit I think it would be more honest to just say the Book of Mormon is a fraud. I am glad he was able to reconcile it for himself but I do not buy that at all.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Easily achieved when done hundreds of years after it supposedly happened...I find it interesting that specific future predictions Stopped in 1829 or in the year it was written.  The BoM gives many specific predictions known to JS but nothing specific after the year of its printing....I wonder why? 

I see plenty of specifics in the Book of Mormon. No year given but if you are a prophecy watcher follow Central and South America.

Spoiler: Immigration policy will not save us.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

But the accuracy of the prophecy is just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing. 

What I said:  "in league with many other observations, which are  made to order."

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Easily achieved when done hundreds of years after it supposedly happened...I find it interesting that specific future predictions Stopped in 1829 or in the year it was written.  The BoM gives many specific predictions known to JS but nothing specific after the year of its printing....I wonder why? 

Um.... not true at all. A number of future prophecies regarding the servant, New Jerusalem, and the rise of the Lamanites are about to be fulfilled. They seem quite "specific" to me.

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or, for that matter, Nephi predicting in detail the birth of Christ and the mission of John the Baptist hundreds of years before they happened.

 

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Easily achieved when done hundreds of years after it supposedly happened...I find it interesting that specific future predictions Stopped in 1829 or in the year it was written.  The BoM gives many specific predictions known to JS but nothing specific after the year of its printing....I wonder why? 

I was about to say the same thing. All of the specifics happen before 1829

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I see plenty of specifics in the Book of Mormon. No year given but if you are a prophecy watcher follow Central and South America.

Spoiler: Immigration policy will not save us.

 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Um.... not true at all. A number of future prophecies regarding the servant, New Jerusalem, and the rise of the Lamanites are about to be fulfilled. They seem quite "specific" to me.

Could I see make a CFR please. Can you quote the prophesy and show how it has been fulfilled. 

Bear in mind that Scott's example uses names. Hopefully the ones you're thinking of are equally specific.

[canard78]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I encourage anyone with mitigating evidence to bring it forth systematically -- rather than imagining what an extensive investigation would conclude.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda just doesn't go far enough.  One must contend with the multifaceted case being made by Stanford Carmack:

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):109-137, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural%E2%80%89was-in-the-earliest-text/ .

Ok, I'll take that. It may be some time but I've been needing a project. 

The study of the English language is interesting enough for me to pick up on this.

Once I've put it together I'll happily offer it to Interpreter's blog under my "real name" in case it helps. 

[JarMan]

Some people would say that Ether 8:24-25 is a prophecy that was fulfilled well after 1829. 

[James Tunney]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Some people would say that Ether 8:24-25 is a prophecy that was fulfilled well after 1829. 

Isn't the above an allusion to free masonry? At the time the Book of Mormon was dictated, Andrew Jackson and the free masons were being accused of trying to take over the US govt. So it's not surprising that the popular suspicion of secret societies made it into the Book of Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding specific prophesy, compare 1 Nephi 13:35-41 with this essay:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

And the compare the direct association of "The Lamb of God, the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World" with thesis and evidence of Barker's The Great Angel.  And for a bit more on plain and precious things having been restored, see

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

And I'm also very impressed with D&C 3, dictated in July 1828 when Joseph Smith had nothing going for him except abject failure, and and the loss of 116 pages.  It's all the more interesting to compare with a comment by Dan Vogel some years back when asked if he was disappointed in the response to New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study.  He said, "We had no illusions about the impact of a single book."  I observed in response that the Book of Mormon was a single book.  When he complained about the modern church with all the missionaries, I pointed out that in 1830 the missionary program was Samuel Smith and a knapsack.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Gray]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have to admit I think it would be more honest to just say the Book of Mormon is a fraud. I am glad he was able to reconcile it for himself but I do not buy that at all.

This rigidity explains why so many people who lose their testimony become antagonistic to Mormonism. I guess it's kind of built into our faith tradition. 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have to admit I think it would be more honest to just say the Book of Mormon is a fraud. I am glad he was able to reconcile it for himself but I do not buy that at all.

Sure.  I think he totally missed one other option for LDS folks--just bury head in sand and pretend there are no problems at all.  I think it's been effective enough so he might as well have mentioned it. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I think he totally missed one other option for LDS folks--just bury head in sand and pretend there are no problems at all.  I think it's been effective enough so he might as well have mentioned it. 

You're a cynic, you know?

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

Ok, I'll take that. It may be some time but I've been needing a project. 

The study of the English language is interesting enough for me to pick up on this.

Once I've put it together I'll happily offer it to Interpreter's blog under my "real name" in case it helps. 

Well don't hesitate to let us know what you may find.  I've read some from bro Carmack, I see the examples he uses and I find the whole idea preposterous still. What kind of waste of time is it to have some other person hundreds of years before translate into language common to him, cause the record of translation to disappear, only to appear fragmented to Joseph via vision or in his mind, so he could read it off, all while making Joseph think he is actually translating the plates himself? 

The actual evaluation to determine what it takes to say the English terms and phrases came from hundreds of years before Joseph is far beyond me and perhaps far beyond my interest.  I'm just not sure why it matters.  We'd only be guessing that the word choice was not Joseph's on such grounds.  It feels like we're only guessing that this could possibly mean something.  Every example I read from him i think, "what the heck?  Who cares?"  It doesn't feel like to me that the examples demonstrate much of anything but variety of use, colloquial language possibilities. 

Ah well...not sure this will ever get much grounding.  I don't imagine any apostles will ever say this is good enough to promote. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're a cynic, you know?

This sweetening me up with compliments isnt' going to work.  I'm still going to Church this Sunday with the creepy grin on my face, same as always. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

This sweetening me up with compliments isnt' going to work.  I'm still going to Church this Sunday with the creepy grin on my face, same as always. 

I'll be staying home, but I'll make sure to have a creepy grin on my face in solidarity.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

I was about to say the same thing. All of the specifics happen before 1829

Could I see make a CFR please. Can you quote the prophesy and show how it has been fulfilled. 

Bear in mind that Scott's example uses names. Hopefully the ones you're thinking of are equally specific.

One problem with your reaction to Scott is that it follows surface assumptions that Lehi left Jerusalem 600 solar years before Jesus was born, and that Jesus was crucified 33 years later.  Several scholars have noted that Lehi could not have left until 597 BC (first year of Zedekiah), and that Jesus was most likely born before the death of Herod the Great in early 5 BC, while the actual date of the crucifixion is unknown via NT scholarship.  This seems to throw the 600-hundred-year birth prophecy into a cocked hat, until we realize that the standard Mesoamerican calendar Long Count was in 360-day years, which fits the narrow strictures imposed by scholarship, as well as accommodating the crucifixion at Passover.  Mere coincidence?  Perhaps, but accounting for all such synchronisms via coincidence gets old after a while and many coincidences later.  How many coincidences can dance on the head of a pin?

Another major prophecy is that of the Gathering of Israel.  Not only does the BofM contain that specific prophecy, but Joseph's understanding of it as imminent is emphasized by his sending Elder Hyde to dedicate Palestine to the Gathering of the Jews, which Hyde did in Palestine itself in 1841 (the dedicatory prayer is engraved in both Hebrew & English on a monument at the Mt of Olives), at a time when no such gathering was in sight.  Today the largest population of Jews anywhere is ensconced in a robust Israel, with the revived Hebrew language.  How many coincidences can dance on the head of a pin?

Another way to examine the BofM is to examine the cultural specifics depicted in the BofM covering a period of perhaps as much as three millennia in the New World.  When it was published, the BofM cultures had no known parallels in New World cultures.  Since then, scholars have accumulated a great deal of information about those cultures which match the cultures of the BofM (archeological synchronisms, writing, cement, sophisticated calendar, etc.).  How many coincidences can dance on the head of a pin?

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Um.... not true at all. A number of future prophecies regarding the servant, New Jerusalem, and the rise of the Lamanites are about to be fulfilled. They seem quite "specific" to me.

Actually the New Jerusalem is taken from the Bible  (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 11:10; 12:22–24; and 13:14), but it is most fully described in Revelation 21.  We are still looking for the claimed Lamanites to be found so that their destiny can flower and I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the servant reference... But Smith specifically referrers to himself, references Columbus, without specifically naming him, refers to the founding of the Unites States and then the BoM becomes silent.  Using broad generalities are fine and used throughout the BoM...but the specifics stop once the author finished his book. While it claims to be written for our day...in actuality it was written for 1829 and then stops. Had it been authored by a real man named Mormon who had a fore knowledge of our time, surely he would have warned of the coming of the internet and the challenges that would have on the church, on the disparity of wealth distribution, over population, global warming, Hitler...maybe even warned the US to be on guard on December 7th and September 11th...but those things were unknown to Smith so why would we expect to find them in the BoM...we wouldn't 
 

[Buckeye]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overwhelming scholarly and expert consensus about Mark Hofmann's "documents" was that they were authentic -- until it became clear that they were forgeries.

That event made such an impression on my mind that I am not apt ever to forget it.

Just sayin'.

 

And yet recent counsel from church leaders, including Elder Ballard, has been to give heed to reputable scholars and experts. Just sayin'.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well don't hesitate to let us know what you may find.  I've read some from bro Carmack, I see the examples he uses and I find the whole idea preposterous still. What kind of waste of time is it to have some other person hundreds of years before translate into language common to him, cause the record of translation to disappear, only to appear fragmented to Joseph via vision or in his mind, so he could read it off, all while making Joseph think he is actually translating the plates himself? 

The actual evaluation to determine what it takes to say the English terms and phrases came from hundreds of years before Joseph is far beyond me and perhaps far beyond my interest.  I'm just not sure why it matters.  We'd only be guessing that the word choice was not Joseph's on such grounds.  It feels like we're only guessing that this could possibly mean something.  Every example I read from him i think, "what the heck?  Who cares?"  It doesn't feel like to me that the examples demonstrate much of anything but variety of use, colloquial language possibilities. 

Ah well...not sure this will ever get much grounding.  I don't imagine any apostles will ever say this is good enough to promote. 

I'd love to have the church embrace this new apologetic argument and incorporate it into the missionary lesson. 

Elder:  Yes we believe that a 16th century Elizabethan Ghost first translated Golden Plates giving him by another 5th century ghost, from a yet undiscovered language known as Reformed Egyptian into old English.  Once completed, this ghost sat on his translation for 300 years, we know it was a HIM ghost cuz girls can't get revelations like guys can.  Any way along comes Joseph Smith who is visited by ghost number 3 who tells him about the Golden Plates and that God wants him to translate them...but the good news is that even though God wants him to translate them, all the hard translation work was done for him in the 15th century by ghost number 1, so all he has to do so go dig up a rock, put it in his hat and read the words that magically appeared on his rock...and that's how we got the Book of Mormon...so would you like to be baptized on Saturday?

Investigator:  Ahhh.  Oh wow look at the time... gotta go... Good bye

Edited May 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake