David Bokovoy's explanation of OT

[champatsch]

The following isn't personal, John, just business. From an email I wrote to John, dated 27 August 2015 (formatting added):

Quote

Those lexical items I gave you were not meant to be obsolete items (except for my mistake with tremendious--see below).  They have been thought to be provincialisms exclusively.  So almost every analyst has thought that they were due to Smith.  Yes, they are provincialisms, but they did not arise as American dialect.  They are found in the 17c and some in the 16c. Those items could be part of an EModE pre-translation. Perhaps they were used because they coincided with Smith's dialect.  That could be part of giving the translation in a language he understood.  But of course not all of the pre-translation was language that he understood exactly: there are EModE items that do not coincide with American dialect.  So again, those items were not meant to prove anything; I was just showing you that they weren't exclusive to the period, which is a common misconception.

To clarify the tremendious thing. I had seen it was modern dialect months before the email, but since I check so many hundreds of items, had forgotten for sure. A day or so before I sent the email to John, I double-checked in Google, and Google did that thing that it sometimes does (unless maybe they have a setting to prevent it?) when you type in a rare word or phrase, it gives you the hits of the related common phrase or word. I glanced at it, thought wrongly that maybe tremendious wasn't in the 18th century, and passed on inaccurate info to John in the email. Then I clarified it in the email quoted above, further down.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

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.

The free masons hardly qualify as seeking to overthrow the freedoms of all lands, nations and countries or bringing to pass the destruction of all people. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Actually I have. I just disagree with some of the reasoning and the conclusion.

Well that's awesome.  I'd love to read some reasonable critiques.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

What a smug, condescending thing to say.  Do you really think anyone who disagrees with your view of the evidence is an ignoramus with his head in the sand?

Yep..you're right.  I apologize.  Seeing as the Nehor has looked it over and has felt there is room to disagree, I can see I was hasty. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

The following isn't personal, John, just business. From an email I wrote to John, dated 27 August 2015 (formatting added):

To clarify the tremendious thing. I had seen it was modern dialect months before the email, but since I check so many hundreds of items, had forgotten for sure. A day or so before I sent the email to John, I double-checked in Google, and Google did that thing that it sometimes does (unless maybe they have a setting to prevent it?) when you type in a rare word or phrase, it gives you the hits of the related common phrase or word. I glanced at it, thought wrongly that maybe tremendious wasn't in the 18th century, and passed on inaccurate info to John in the email. Then I clarified it in the email quoted above, further down.

So where does the translated by the gift and power of God come into play on this?  What would be the point of finding the plates?

i guess my biggest issue is how can we be sure these terms and phrases were not colloquially something familiar to Joseph Smith?

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

The following isn't personal, John, just business. From an email I wrote to John, dated 27 August 2015 (formatting added):

To clarify the tremendious thing. I had seen it was modern dialect months before the email, but since I check so many hundreds of items, had forgotten for sure. A day or so before I sent the email to John, I double-checked in Google, and Google did that thing that it sometimes does (unless maybe they have a setting to prevent it?) when you type in a rare word or phrase, it gives you the hits of the related common phrase or word. I glanced at it, thought wrongly that maybe tremendious wasn't in the 18th century, and passed on inaccurate info to John in the email. Then I clarified it in the email quoted above, further down.

I hadn't remembered that, and I'm glad you did. Thanks. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's awesome.  I'd love to read some reasonable critiques.

I am an amateur and do not know enough to write such a critique. I respect the learning of the scholars who create these theories but I do not trust their judgment nearly as much. The idea that all works were later compiled by a bunch of editors with copious amounts of scissors and glue from a number of sources seems to me the mind of thing academics would enjoy writing papers about. It is dynamic, controversial, lets them play with the text a lot, and is unlikely to ever be proven wrong. It is fertile ground. I do not trust it. Our ideas about authorship are continually refined but only rarely do we get actual new data. Why should I trust this theory over the one promulgated a few decades back or, more importantly, what will be the accepted theory in a few decades.

I have this skepticism about a lot of old books.

Admittedly I am biased about the Book of Mormon because I am convinced it is an ancient record of scripture and that there were actual brass plates Nephi and Jacob quoted Isaiah from which makes me more sure in this case that the theory is bunk. If I did not believe the Book of Mormon I think I would still be skeptical, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

Edited May 26, 2016 by The Nehor

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The free masons hardly qualify as seeking to overthrow the freedoms of all lands, nations and countries or bringing to pass the destruction of all people. 

You clearly need to up your paranoia level some; here's some reading to encourage some more looking over your shoulder...or, as in my case, laughter:

http://www.illuminatirex.com/masonic-conspiracies/

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/05/top-8-most-compelling-masonic-conspiracy-theories-out-there/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am an amateur and do not know enough to write such a critique. I respect the learning of the scholars who create these theories but I do not trust their judgment nearly as much. The idea that all works were later compiled by a bunch of editors with copious amounts of scissors and glue from a number of sources seems to me the mind of thing academics would enjoy writing papers about. It is dynamic, controversial, lets them play with the text a lot, and is unlikely to ever be proven wrong. It is fertile ground. I do not trust it. Our ideas about authorship are continually refined but only rarely do we get actual new data. Why should I trust this theory over the one promulgated a few decades back or, more importantly, what will be he accepted theory in a few decades.

I have this skepticism about a lot of old books.

Admittedly I am biased about the Book of Mormon because I am convinced it is an ancient record of scripture and that there were actual brass plates Nephi and Jacob quoted Isaiah from which makes me more sure in this case that he theory is bunk. If Indid not believe the Book of Mormon I think I would still be skeptical, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

Well i'm no expert either but I have a hard time seeing a reason to not believe a compelling argument when critiqued by a non compelling plan filled with guesswork--not saying that's what you've done but I dont' know there's anything compelling to combat it.  After reading the two pieces that David wrote about Isaiah, leaves me with little room but to accept that it was obvious, at the very least, things were added after Isaiah--thus confirming exactly the notion that people came along later and pieced things together. 

[JarMan]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You clearly need to up your paranoia level some; here's some reading to encourage some more looking over your shoulder...or, as in my case, laughter:

http://www.illuminatirex.com/masonic-conspiracies/

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/05/top-8-most-compelling-masonic-conspiracy-theories-out-there/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories

 

I'm aware of these modern conspiracy theories involving free masons. But I'm not aware of 1829 free mason conspiracy theories that approach what is described in Ether 8:24-25. Especially considering the context, which was the destruction of two mighty nations. If I've missed something, though, I'm interested in new information. 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine then, let's just start over

If this wasn't directed at me, sorry for the intrusion. Nothing to start over, as far as I'm concerned. I have no ill will toward you at all and hope that going forward we can be cordial.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'm aware of these modern conspiracy theories involving free masons. But I'm not aware of 1829 free mason conspiracy theories that approach what is described in Ether 8:24-25. Especially considering the context, which was the destruction of two mighty nations. If I've missed something, though, I'm interested in new information. 

I don't have the foggiest idea; I posted those links for laughs.

[ttribe]

Dup.

Edited May 26, 2016 by ttribe

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am an amateur and do not know enough to write such a critique. I respect the learning of the scholars who create these theories but I do not trust their judgment nearly as much. The idea that all works were later compiled by a bunch of editors with copious amounts of scissors and glue from a number of sources seems to me the mind of thing academics would enjoy writing papers about. It is dynamic, controversial, lets them play with the text a lot, and is unlikely to ever be proven wrong. It is fertile ground. I do not trust it. Our ideas about authorship are continually refined but only rarely do we get actual new data. Why should I trust this theory over the one promulgated a few decades back or, more importantly, what will be he accepted theory in a few decades.

I have this skepticism about a lot of old books.

Admittedly I am biased about the Book of Mormon because I am convinced it is an ancient record of scripture and that there were actual brass plates Nephi and Jacob quoted Isaiah from which makes me more sure in this case that he theory is bunk. If Indid not believe the Book of Mormon I think I would still be skeptical, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

The theory is more than a hundred years old, and is coming to be more and more accepted, even by conservative scholars. If you're waiting for it to go away and be replaced by a new theory du jour, that seems to be less and less likely. 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well i'm no expert either but I have a hard time seeing a reason to not believe a compelling argument when critiqued by a non compelling plan filled with guesswork--not saying that's what you've done but I dont' know there's anything compelling to combat it.  After reading the two pieces that David wrote about Isaiah, leaves me with little room but to accept that it was obvious, at the very least, things were added after Isaiah--thus confirming exactly the notion that people came along later and pieced things together. 

I expect Isaiah was altered a few times. I doubt the name Cyrus was in the original. I am very curious as to what it replaced in the same way I am curious as to how Nephi described what was called the Bible in the passages where our version contains the word. I do not think it follows that the two or three sections were written by different writers.

The argument is that the style changed. A cute theory but I have read enough authors to know that many are capable of writing in different formats and with different styles.

Yeah, not convinced. I expect the whole thing to blow over. I am hoping we will find some of those promised books that will prove the Bible true soon. A nice one would be a seventh century BC Isaiah manuscript so this school of thought can fall.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

The theory is more than a hundred years old, and is coming to be more and more accepted, even by conservative scholars. If you're waiting for it to go away and be replaced by a new theory du jour, that seems to be less and less likely. 

Which will make my smug "I told you so" smile all the more annoying.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect Isaiah was altered a few times. I doubt the name Cyrus was in the original. I am very curious as to what it replaced in the same way I am curious as to how Nephi described what was called the Bible in the passages where our version contains the word. I do not think it follows that the two or three sections were written by different writers.

The argument is that the style changed. A cute theory but I have read enough authors to know that many are capable of writing in different formats and with different styles.

Yeah, not convinced. I expect the whole thing to blow over. I am hoping we will find some of those promised books that will prove the Bible true soon. A nice one would be a seventh century BC Isaiah manuscript so this school of thought can fall.

Well some wishful thinking isn't bad, i guess.  Not sure a 7th C BC Isaiah manuscript would do your assumption much good though.  It's more than just writing style changing that has convinced the experts, although for starters that's a pretty telling one, even if a single author can change writing styles. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which will make my smug "I told you so" smile all the more annoying.

I felt the same way when the outtakes from the faked moon landing footage were discovered

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect Isaiah was altered a few times. I doubt the name Cyrus was in the original. I am very curious as to what it replaced in the same way I am curious as to how Nephi described what was called the Bible in the passages where our version contains the word. I do not think it follows that the two or three sections were written by different writers.

The argument is that the style changed. A cute theory but I have read enough authors to know that many are capable of writing in different formats and with different styles.

Yeah, not convinced. I expect the whole thing to blow over. I am hoping we will find some of those promised books that will prove the Bible true soon. A nice one would be a seventh century BC Isaiah manuscript so this school of thought can fall.

Nephi was after all the very first person on earth to use the word "Bible"... so I guess that makes him the inventor of the word Bible...and was never given his due credit...he used it some 800 years before it was adopted and put into widespread use.  Damn those Greeks for stealing the credit that should have gone to Nephit...so I guess I have to give him his due...

Edited May 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Nephi was after all the very first person on earth to use the word "Bible"... so I guess that makes him the inventor of the word Bible...and was never given his due credit...he used it some 800 years before it was adopted and put into widespread use.  Damn those Greeks for stealing the credit that should have gone to Nephit...so I guess I have to give him his due...

Yes, because Nephi was definitely using that word and not some other word or description which was translated as bible as that is what we call it and that is what translators are supposed to do.

Better shut down the church, we have been found out.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I felt the same way when the outtakes from the faked moon landing footage were discovered

I planted those as a hoax to keep the conspiracy nuts occupied. I probably need a better hobby.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well some wishful thinking isn't bad, i guess.  Not sure a 7th C BC Isaiah manuscript would do your assumption much good though.  It's more than just writing style changing that has convinced the experts, although for starters that's a pretty telling one, even if a single author can change writing styles. 

If a unified seventh century manuscript shows up way before Isaiah 2 and 3 were supposed to write them it would require a massive rewrite of the theory at least.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

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

What, specifically, was Moroni referring to?

Meaning, as Moroni wrote Ether 8, you are suggesting he saw some specific group or events happening post 1829, and felt the need to warn us in general and non-specific terms. 

 

Quote

 

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

 25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.24-25?lang=eng

Do tell.

The next question will be to imagine that President Monson mentions in a talk that Ether 8:24-25 hasn't been fulfilled yet. 

Based on the information in the verses, please explain the specifics of who, what, where and when you would expect for this prophecy to be fulfilled (and conversely, falsified if you are wrong).

Edited May 26, 2016 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If a unified seventh century manuscript shows up way before Isaiah 2 and 3 were supposed to write them it would require a massive rewrite of the theory at least.

Well sure.  But, if'n we had nothing to go off of except a few manuscripts from after Jesus we wouldnt' have the theory anyway.  Well we might but it'd be far more tenuous and far less convincing. 

[cinepro]

On 5/25/2016 at 11:35 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

About Hofmann's forgeries being forgeries? Do you really have to ask that?

No, it's not off topic.

Be it Hofmann's forgeries or Deutero-Isaiah, scholarly consensus is not necessarily immutable truth. That's all I'm saying.

Clear now?

Wait.  Just so I'm absolutely clear on this, your takeaway from the Hofmann situation is that scholarly consensus might be an unreliable source of confirmation regarding the authenticity of certain claims? 

That's what you learned?