19th century Protestant language in Book of Mormon

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Here's what I'm saying.  And I'm saying it in a hack/hobbyist way with no bold assertions that I'm trying to undo their work or theory.  It's more that I'm wondering out loud here.  Their work has identified a lot of EModE unique kind of vocabulary and grammar.  Some in KJV that could be copied.  Some well known that could be mimicked.  Some not so well known at all, and essentially dead in Joseph's day, and very unlikely to be copied or mimicked.  Further, the way that the EModE presents itself is done in a way that is above someone like Joseph trying to mimic it.  That's what they are claiming.  At least that is my understanding of it.  My kickback here is the following: 1) i'm saying nothing concerning the EModE  2) i'm saying outside and addition to the EModE, there is a lot of 19th century type phrases and vocabulary, that appear to be hitting its most popular peak time in Joseph's day and many times appear to come to popularity AFTER the EModE period (but I'll back down on that in a hurry if I'm challenged because I know Google Advanced Books is not the right method to search EModE texts).  phrases like the ones I list there at the bottom of the article.    

ie: EModE = he did go, save it were, the more part, etc.  I'm not challenging any of this.  outside the EModE: "song of redeeming love", "plan of redemption", "demands of justice", etc.  lot of them in there.

As for commenting on their work in general, a lot of people here are more qualified than I am to do so.  I'm very interested in their work, and it appears solid, academically.  But you have to separate their actual academic work with some of the theories that have spun off from it.  

Thanks for the additional clarity and comments on this.  I wouldn't expect you to challenge their academic findings, and I didn't see you doing that.  I agree with you that their theories about what these findings mean theologically about the BoM sound problematic to me at first blush.  

Honestly, this seems like a repeat of prior theories about the BoM, BoA, etc.  Where apologists have found parallels with things of more ancient date that Joseph couldn't have accidentally added into the text, i.e. he had no education, he had no access to the material, he wouldn't have know anything about it, so the content must have come from a supernatural source because its impossible for Joseph to have created it himself.  I seems like this same line of thinking is being repeated in the EModE hypothesis.  The track record for these kinds explanations has been very poor as additional information keeps being discovered which gives very plausible explanations for more natural means by which Joseph did have access to the information in his time period.  You know what they say about the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Any reason why we shouldn't expect that Joseph at times had the KJV open in front of him while dictating, and other times he may have been paraphrasing from memory.  Some evidence from this kind of a process in past studies seems relevant.  The use of wherefore and therefore as outlined by Metcalfe way back in the 90s.

Metcalf's argument is more about the priority of Mosiah which I think everyone now accepts. I read through that but I didn't see any explicit arguments regarding a copy of the KJV Bible. The main argument against is Whitmer but his memories are pretty distant and thus (IMO) not entirely trustworthy. Emma's account is also fairly late although perhaps a tad more trustworthy given that she acted as a scribe for an extended period. She said, "He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.…If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me."

In terms of textual argument the main argument would be that if the KJV text were being consulted we'd expect punctuation to be copied over by the scribe. But we just don't see that. It's all dictated. Second if he was consulting the KJV presumably he'd have some way of knowing the reference to look up and copy yet no one discusses anything like that. Indeed Emma's emphasis is on Joseph's ignorance of the Bible.

I think the argument for a textual relationship to the Bible is pretty strong. But if so then either Joseph has a pretty remarkable memory or he had some as yet unspecified way of accessing a pre-written text without his scribes catching on. Indeed I think the problem of the KJV quotes is in fact a pretty strong argument against the one major form of the fraud model. I think it's hard to reconcile accounts with the idea that he made it up as he went along. i.e. the self-delusion account. This suggests for the fraud model that it was pre-written but then the problem of how he did this looms large. There are speculations along this line but it seems a bit of a problem for the model. I'm definitely not saying there aren't ways for the model to explain this, but it is a bit of a gap in the model. (The usual answer is that the blanket between Joseph and his scribe hid Joseph consulting notes -- although this doesn't explain the period when he used the single seer stone with his head in the hat and no curtain)

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[SmileyMcGee]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'd like some discussion here on a couple issues on this.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/19th-century-protestant-phrases-in-book-of-mormon/

Hi churchistrue,

I really enjoyed the post! I particularly appreciated your testimony and agree that the spiritual benefit from the BoM doesn't necessitate a belief in the historicity of the BoM. I believe it is a nineteenth century work and find the study of it as a nineteenth century work to be fascinating. but I can't blame people who conclude that it is ancient because they have felt some spiritual enlightenment from it. In any case, a challenge to the historicity of it should not diminish the spiritual benefit a person gains from it, though critics and faithful may find that position difficult to accept. 

Anyways, great post and I hope to see you post more on this topic in the future!

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my goodness, I had forgotten that it was written in another language where one letter could possibly represent a full word, dummy me.

More like a single syllable representing entire paragraphs

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have a Bible during the translation process.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have a Bible during the translation process.

Yet he was very well-versed in the religious of his day and it wasn't uncommon for people to have most of the Bible memorized. Thus it would not be strange if Joseph could have recited large portions of the Bible from memory.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Hi churchistrue,

I really enjoyed the post! I particularly appreciated your testimony and agree that the spiritual benefit from the BoM doesn't necessitate a belief in the historicity of the BoM. I believe it is a nineteenth century work and find the study of it as a nineteenth century work to be fascinating. but I can't blame people who conclude that it is ancient because they have felt some spiritual enlightenment from it. In any case, a challenge to the historicity of it should not diminish the spiritual benefit a person gains from it, though critics and faithful may find that position difficult to accept. 

Anyways, great post and I hope to see you post more on this topic in the future!

There were a whole lot of good ideas and rich religious struggle in Joseph's time. 

There are some parts of the Book of Mormon which I really love and with which I agree. I can judge the principles individually based on merit. 

I think it's likely that Joseph drew from his family's stories, from the Bible, from books that influenced him in his youth and even from revivalist preachers of the time, to write the Book of Mormon.

It's the magic hat trick that is troubling...presenting it as a translation of a real record. The people in Joseph's time believed the American Indians were Israelites, they were ripe to believe Joseph's claim.

I also acknowledge that it's not reasonable to use the goodness in the BoM as if it were evidence of Joseph having divine authority or any of his other claims.

However, the Church tells us that the good in the Book of Mormon is proof that Joseph was a prophet, that he restored the church, that with the passage of divine keys we have prophets leading the church today.

But that is a sleight of hand, be it intentionally so or be it sincere. Now at age forty, having been emotionally detached from the church because of certain circumstances, I can say to the magician,  "I see what you did there."

[Calm]

"I also acknowledge that it's not reasonable to use the goodness in the BoM as if it were evidence of Joseph having divine authority or any of his other claims."

Why  not?

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I also acknowledge that it's not reasonable to use the goodness in the BoM as if it were evidence of Joseph having divine authority or any of his other claims."

Why  not?

Many people can say and write very good and inspiring things.

Even if much of what they say is of God, that doesn't mean it's from God for me.

And even if that is from God for me, that does not mean the person who said it is right about everything or anything else they say.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Many people can say and write very good and inspiring things.

Even if much of what they say is of God, that doesn't mean it's from God for me.

And even if that is from God for me, that does not mean the person who said it is right about everything or anything else they say.

Ultimately, I think this is our only way to evaluate.  What does the text do to me inside?  Does it lead me to God?  Can it transform me?  This is our own logical process that correlates with the Holy Ghost.

  

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have a Bible during the translation process.

Really? How can anyone be sure on this one?

Edited March 9, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There were a whole lot of good ideas and rich religious struggle in Joseph's time. 

There are some parts of the Book of Mormon which I really love and with which I agree. I can judge the principles individually based on merit. 

I think it's likely that Joseph drew from his family's stories, from the Bible, from books that influenced him in his youth and even from revivalist preachers of the time, to write the Book of Mormon.

It's the magic hat trick that is troubling...presenting it as a translation of a real record. The people in Joseph's time believed the American Indians were Israelites, they were ripe to believe Joseph's claim.

I also acknowledge that it's not reasonable to use the goodness in the BoM as if it were evidence of Joseph having divine authority or any of his other claims.

However, the Church tells us that the good in the Book of Mormon is proof that Joseph was a prophet, that he restored the church, that with the passage of divine keys we have prophets leading the church today.

But that is a sleight of hand, be it intentionally so or be it sincere. Now at age forty, having been emotionally detached from the church because of certain circumstances, I can say to the magician,  "I see what you did there."

I align so much with this post. But there's always this question in my mind, what if it is true? But everything points the opposite way. Even the First Vision, I see the magic trick exposed, with all the different versions and doing research that it could have been sleep paralysis. Since a vision isn't necessarily a visitation. And in the BoM, Joseph Smith changes the wording so that it reflects that Jesus isn't God in the flesh, but two separate physical beings. 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Metcalf's argument is more about the priority of Mosiah which I think everyone now accepts. I read through that but I didn't see any explicit arguments regarding a copy of the KJV Bible. The main argument against is Whitmer but his memories are pretty distant and thus (IMO) not entirely trustworthy. Emma's account is also fairly late although perhaps a tad more trustworthy given that she acted as a scribe for an extended period. She said, "He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.…If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me."

In terms of textual argument the main argument would be that if the KJV text were being consulted we'd expect punctuation to be copied over by the scribe. But we just don't see that. It's all dictated. Second if he was consulting the KJV presumably he'd have some way of knowing the reference to look up and copy yet no one discusses anything like that. Indeed Emma's emphasis is on Joseph's ignorance of the Bible.

I think the argument for a textual relationship to the Bible is pretty strong. But if so then either Joseph has a pretty remarkable memory or he had some as yet unspecified way of accessing a pre-written text without his scribes catching on. Indeed I think the problem of the KJV quotes is in fact a pretty strong argument against the one major form of the fraud model. I think it's hard to reconcile accounts with the idea that he made it up as he went along. i.e. the self-delusion account. This suggests for the fraud model that it was pre-written but then the problem of how he did this looms large. There are speculations along this line but it seems a bit of a problem for the model. I'm definitely not saying there aren't ways for the model to explain this, but it is a bit of a gap in the model. (The usual answer is that the blanket between Joseph and his scribe hid Joseph consulting notes -- although this doesn't explain the period when he used the single seer stone with his head in the hat and no curtain)

 

Most of his discussion about the KJV dependence is in the Appendix for that chapter.  Here is the link, the formatting doesn't copy well in here, or I'd just copy the section.  http://signaturebookslibrary.org/new-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon-10-appendix/  Please look at examples 3 and 4 specifically that compare text from the KJV, BoM and the Joseph Smith Revised translation of the Bible.  

Let me try to summarize some of what I think Metcalfe is saying.  As time went on during certain months when Joseph was dictacting text he showed a clear preference for the word "wherefore".  This is evident in not only the BoM chronology using Mosian priority, but also in the D&C revelations dictated during that same time period.  This trend however, was interrupted whenever Joseph was copying text directly from the KJV in which case he would again use "therefore" for the copied portions and revert immediately back to "wherefore" when not copying text from the KJV.  

The examples in the appendix that compare text from 3 sources, the KJV, BoM, and JSR Bible, show this same pattern of using "therefore" for directly copied text, and "wherefore" in other cases.  

As for the late David Whitmer and Emma recollections, I tend to agree with you that there are potential problems with those recollections.  On the punctuation comment, there isn't any punctuation anywhere in the Original or Printer's manuscripts, so I'm not sure why you'd expect to find copied punctuation in the KJV portions.  

Unfortunately, we just don't have detailed descriptions of the dictation process from actual scribes or from Joseph himself, so we try to put the puzzle together through other means.  I think textual analysis like this can be very interesting.  

[notHagoth7]

On 3/8/2017 at 9:30 AM, JLHPROF said:

Without knowing the language it was written in I don't see how that would be possible.

As to what language, dunno what blend existed then. But as to what script, I suspect/suggest it was some later strain of Tironian shorthand.

[clarkgoble]

The argument about punctuation is just that if you are referring to a text and copying and it has punctuation you'd expect the punctuation to be carried over.  I don't see the wherefore/therefore as significance as it merely addresses whether the KJV is the source which everyone already agrees. So it doesn't address how it is the source. So I'm not sure what this adds to the question of whether the text was open and copied from during the translation process.

To clarify there are five models 

1. Fraud and constructed prior to translation. i.e. complete text stored somewhere and surreptitiously copied

2. Fraud and constructed during translation. i.e. written as dictated

3. Delusion and constructed during translation. i.e. same as (2) but with Joseph not being conscious that he was writing it.

4. Inspired and recited during translation with no consulting other texts

5. Inspired and recited during translation with a KJV on hand to transcribe quotations

Brent's data really doesn't address any of these except perhaps to render (2) and (3)  somewhat less likely.

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[notHagoth7]

On 3/8/2017 at 8:04 AM, churchistrue said:

I'd like some discussion here on a couple issues on this.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/19th-century-protestant-phrases-in-book-of-mormon/

I assert that there answers to explain the presence of this language that support any faithful view of the BOM.  But even though I say that, I think the logic is kind of weak for #1 below.  What are the strongest arguments for the presence of these phrases, given a very traditional view of BOM translation?

1. traditional view, ancient record translated with no substantial expansion by Joseph
2. the Expansion Theory: it’s an ancient record with significant expansion by Joseph, and
3. not historical at all, and purely came through revelation to Joseph Smith, similar to other revelations like the Doctrine and Covenants.

...phrases and grammar clauses that are real head scratchers, in terms of being popular in EModE and dead in Joseph’s day (especially “save it be” and “save it were”–very puzzling!).  But on the flip side, you have to account for literally hundreds of phrases in the Book of Mormon that were popular in the early 1800’s that don’t seem to be used in the EModE period.

I think we give too much credence to the claim of latter-day linguists that phrases and clauses dropping out of fashion somehow applied to *every* corner where that language was spoken. So I believe Joseph and his neighbors/kin may well have used phrases that had long passed out of mainstream use.

Backwoods areas are often more conservative, and much slower to change than the mainstream. Linguistic marshlands, where variety survives for generations.

For example, I served in somewhat of a creole-language mix in Europe, where some things said there wouldn't be as readily understandable in the mainstream of the surrounding language(s). (In that creole-language mix, I had a greenie companion from the mainstream area of that country that claimed he couldn't understand a single word that one of our investigators spoke...even though his nation was no larger than about 1/2  the size of the state of Maine.)

In the KJV, or more accurately the hijacked Tyndale, there are numerous words/phrases which would make little sense to modern readers, but which make perfect sense to someone, even four centuries later, who served in the region where I served. 

For example, "I trow not." In that language where I served which was also a language repeatedly imported in waves into England over many generations prior to Tyndale - the word "trow," or tro simply means "believe." (There was no such thing as standardized spelling back then.) 

Again, in short, I'm not at all convinced that phrases in BoM were all out of practice among Joseph and his family/neighbors. Otherwise the book wouldn't have been as readable and approachable as it was to that generation.

Thoughts?

Edited March 9, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To clarify there are five models

1. Fraud and constructed prior to translation. i.e. complete text stored somewhere and surreptitiously copied

2. Fraud and constructed during translation. i.e. written as dictated

3. Delusion and constructed during translation. i.e. same as (2) but with Joseph not being conscious that he was writing it.

4. Inspired and recited during translation with no consulting other texts

5. Inspired and recited during translation with a KJV on hand to transcribe quotations

Brent's data really doesn't address any of these except perhaps to render (2) and (3)  somewhat less likely.

2& 3 are more than unlikely.  They'd be almost impossible to achieve.  The lack of re-edit and continuity would be immediately obvious.
 

#4 seems most likely to me.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 3/8/2017 at 0:13 PM, churchistrue said:

Hi Ben, I've read a lot of your work.  I missed attending the conference last year, but I streamed it and watched your presentation.  

I'm not getting your point with the NIV, though.  Joseph wouldn't have access to the NIV.  

Isn't this the point?

There are two problems. The first is that, I think, you would be hard pressed to identify a "19th century protestant language". We can discuss technical language and its value in looking at sources and textual genealogies, but, I think this one is a real problem. The second challenge is that your essay offers no negative check. I wrote a bit about that in my review essay here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-one/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-two/

This is from page 70 (in part 2) of the essay that I link above:

Quote

Of course, one of the ways that this is commonly done is to show the relative uniqueness or some kind of technical usage of the shared phrase. It is at this point the Muriel St. Clair Byrne suggested we need to apply the “negative check.” As Harold Love explains: "Here LION, Gutenberg and similar electronic archives come into their own, since as well as providing illusory parallels they also assist mightily in shooting down those which arise from common parlance of the time. Once we have encountered an unusual expression in the writings of three of four different authors it ceases to have any value for attribution."

We can, I think. expand this by substituting the idea of an author (in the above quote) for a corpus of material coming from 19th century protestant writers, if we can find the same language in other works outside of that corpus, we have achieved the same effect. If it isn't unique to 19th century protestant literature, then it cannot be attributed to that body of material.

My issue isn't with the idea that contemporary language finds its way into the Book of Mormon (it wouldn't be a translation if it didn't, right?). My issue is with this notion of a "19th century protestant language", which, I think, isn't a very defensible construct.

As far as the rest of it goes, I think that Carmack and Skousen have far bigger problems with the lack of a negative check than you might. In theory, the translation could only be as old as the most recent language in it (which is, I think, part of what you are trying to express).

Ben McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

Duplicate

Edited March 9, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire
Duplicate

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The argument about punctuation is just that if you are referring to a text and copying and it has punctuation you'd expect the punctuation to be carried over.  I don't see the wherefore/therefore as significance as it merely addresses whether the KJV is the source which everyone already agrees. So it doesn't address how it is the source. So I'm not sure what this adds to the question of whether the text was open and copied from during the translation process.

To clarify there are five models 

1. Fraud and constructed prior to translation. i.e. complete text stored somewhere and surreptitiously copied

2. Fraud and constructed during translation. i.e. written as dictated

3. Delusion and constructed during translation. i.e. same as (2) but with Joseph not being conscious that he was writing it.

4. Inspired and recited during translation with no consulting other texts

5. Inspired and recited during translation with a KJV on hand to transcribe quotations

Brent's data really doesn't address any of these except perhaps to render (2) and (3)  somewhat less likely.

What I think Brent's analysis shows is that whenever the KJV text was copied very specifically, that is when the word "therefore" was used, and whenever Joseph was perhaps paraphrasing or just dictating ideas that are reconstructed in Josephs own words he would use "wherefore".  

There is a possibility that Joseph had Eidetic memory, and there is some evidence that Joseph Sr. may have had this ability to memorize broad sections of the Bible and repeat them with great accuracy.  Richard Van Wagoner talks about this in his "Natural Born Seer", but I don't have the book in front of me now.  

Did Joseph have the KJV text on hand to copy direct portions from that text, I think there is ample evidence to suggest that he did.

Did Joseph create much of the BoM narrative prior to dictation, I think the answer is yes, we have Lucy's recollections of Joseph telling stories to the family about ancient inhabitants and this is prior to him even getting the plates.  Then there was a whole lot of time where he could have been developing these stories.  The question being whether or not he wrote anything down on paper or whether he was working on all these ideas in his mind.  I tend to think that he had a good memory and was primarily working on these ideas from his mind. 

I'd prefer not to talk in terms of Fraud, that doesn't seem productive to me.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said:

As to what language, dunno what blend existed then. But as to what script, I suspect/suggest it was some later strain of Tironian shorthand.

Note Tironian shorthand was itself based upon earlier Greek shorthands. We have partial papyri of these shorthands dating to around 400-300 BCE as I recall. Not all the characters match but it's plausible that Nephi was referring to an Egyptian shorthand Lehi was trained in. We have 4th century references to such Egyptian shorthand.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The argument about punctuation is just that if you are referring to a text and copying and it has punctuation you'd expect the punctuation to be carried over.  I don't see the wherefore/therefore as significance as it merely addresses whether the KJV is the source which everyone already agrees. So it doesn't address how it is the source. So I'm not sure what this adds to the question of whether the text was open and copied from during the translation process.

To clarify there are five models 

1. Fraud and constructed prior to translation. i.e. complete text stored somewhere and surreptitiously copied

 

Could we consider a construction prior to translation/dictation which we speak about in terms other than fraud?

[notHagoth7]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note Tironian shorthand was itself based upon earlier Greek shorthands.

A few elements of later Tironian are purported to be of Greek origin. It is an as-yet unproven theory.

Even if so, later elements of Tironian script, thousands of them, were added centuries after Tiro's arrival, so who is to say that he and/or others didn't simply adapt/alter what was readily available in other shorthands, rather than do it all ex-ni[p]hilo. ;0)

We have partial papyri of these [Greek] shorthands dating to around 400-300 BCE as I recall. Not all the characters match but it's plausible that Nephi was referring to an Egyptian shorthand Lehi was trained in. We have 4th century references to such Egyptian shorthand.

I believe Tironian derives from early Egyptian shorthand through Nephite clerical tradition. 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Isn't this the point?

There are two problems. The first is that, I think, you would be hard pressed to identify a "19th century protestant language". We can discuss technical language and its value in looking at sources and textual genealogies, but, I think this one is a real problem. The second challenge is that your essay offers no negative check. I wrote a bit about that in my review essay here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-one/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-two/

This is from page 70 (in part 2) of the essay that I link above:

We can, I think. expand this by substituting the idea of an author (in the above quote) for a corpus of material coming from 19th century protestant writers, if we can find the same language in other works outside of that corpus, we have achieved the same effect. If it isn't unique to 19th century protestant literature, then it cannot be attributed to that body of material.

My issue isn't with the idea that contemporary language finds its way into the Book of Mormon (it wouldn't be a translation if it didn't, right?). My issue is with this notion of a "19th century protestant language", which, I think, isn't a very defensible construct.

As far as the rest of it goes, I think that Carmack and Skousen have far bigger problems with the lack of a negative check than you might. In theory, the translation could only be as old as the most recent language in it (which is, I think, part of what you are trying to express).

Ben McGuire

Your parallelomania concept is always an important one, on a lot of these issues.  There are no adequate quantitative methods to use to statistically evaluate these things and say with confidence that A is a valid parallel but B is not.  I'm distrustful of any tools to do, as they all seem to be manipulated by the evaluator.  We just need to be aware of the dangers of parallelomania and make personal judgments based on data and evidence.  I think the case is overwhelming that some 19th century language and ideas came into the BOM through the mind and environment of Joseph.  I don't think is damning the the faithful view at all.  I make a logical case for this in this post http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/anachronistic-christian-doctrine-in-book-of-mormon/.  The idea I'm trying to express here is that in the BOM we have very mature Christian debates on esoteric doctrines.   We see allusions to the same NT verses and phrases and logic that modern theologians are using to make their case.  ie for need for infinite atonment in the case I illustrate.  It's just very doubtful to me to see ancient people doing this.  You don't see anything remotely close to this in the Old Testament. The more I look at this, the more it seems like if someone claimed to find an old book of prophecies, and in it was very specific discussion of the 2016 US election.  But not only is the book very specific about this election and getting it all right, they're using the same arguments and same phraseology as used in a New York Times piece on the election.  It's just all out of place. 

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Could we consider a construction prior to translation/dictation which we speak about in terms other than fraud?

I'm open to other terms but why don't you want the term? That's what would be logically entailed.