KJV in the Book of Mormon

[Marginal Gains]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I really don't know much about that. I just know that God directed him to where some gold plates had been left along with some seer stones/crystals set in rims like spectacles (eyeglasses) and that he somehow used the glasses to transmit/translate the language that was written on the gold plates into what I refer to as KJV English. I've read that he sometimes used a seer stone/crystal that wasn't set in the glasses but I don't know much about it.  Maybe he got that stone/crystal by taking one out of the glasses, or maybe it was some other stone/crystal God prepared just like he did the stones/crystals that were set in the rims of the glasses. I don't know if he wore the glasses as he looked into the hat, or if he put one of the plates in the hat while looking at it with a crystal. Maybe the stone/crystal in the hat lit up the inside of the hat so he could read it. Maybe the stone/crystal worked lIke an LCD and putting it into a hat made it easier for him to read. I really don't know much about that. I only know what I know and I don't know much about that.

"The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”¹⁸ As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.¹⁹ As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.^20"

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

"The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”¹⁸ As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.¹⁹ As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.^20"

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

I still don't know much about it, like how that stone was used, or if God did something to the stone to make it usable for translating scripture.

Too bad there isn't a school we can go to to learn more about seer stones, how to find them and how to prepare them to use them effectively. Alas, it seems that we really don't know as much about seer stones as some people did in the past.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The problem with this, as I think more and more people are starting to realize, is that at some point you just end up describing what every writer does when they write a book.  The words come into their mind, and they put the words on paper, whether through dictation, writing, or typing.

Once you take away the idea of literally translating off the Gold plates, where Joseph is actually performing the task of taking the meaning of words engraved in one language and rendering them in another, you have arrived at the process of what we typically refer to as "writing a book." That triggers the impulse to try and prove that it still must have had a divine origin because "there's no way Joseph could have done it."  But that's an argument based on ignorance (basically, ignorance of what people are capable of doing at the far edges of the curve), and in the end that might sadly be the last argument available to believers (other than "God told me XYZ", of course.)

Are you saying you believe that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon extemporaneously and without a stringent re-editing process?

Even without resorting to the old "5th grade education" standby, that seems unlikely.  Even with the conspiratorial help of a Rigdon or Cowdery that has been floated as theory in the past that seems an overwhelming task.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you saying you believe that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon extemporaneously and without a stringent re-editing process?

Even without resorting to the old "5th grade education" standby, that seems unlikely.  Even with the conspiratorial help of a Rigdon or Cowdery that has been floated as theory in the past that seems an overwhelming task.

 

I just think it's a mistake to say "I don't understand how Joseph could have done it, so therefore..."

And regarding the editing, The Book of Mormon has been "re-edited" to some degree.  It also doesn't read like a book that has been stringently edited in the first place.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem with this, as I think more and more people are starting to realize, is that at some point you just end up describing what every writer does when they write a book.  The words come into their mind, and they put the words on paper, whether through dictation, writing, or typing.

Once you take away the idea of literally translating off the Gold plates, where Joseph is actually performing the task of taking the meaning of words engraved in one language and rendering them in another, you have arrived at the process of what we typically refer to as "writing a book." That triggers the impulse to try and prove that it still must have had a divine origin because "there's no way Joseph could have done it."  But that's an argument based on ignorance (basically, ignorance of what people are capable of doing at the far edges of the curve), and in the end that might sadly be the last argument available to believers (other than "God told me XYZ", of course.)

I agree with that sentiment whole heartedly. After all, a billion to one odds are nothing. I know this is dated but still..... Hugh Nibley still has a point. Well, he made 72 of them. Since then, there have been a few more "lucky guesses" added to the mix. But that doesn't matter, since there is still a chance that Joseph made it all up.

[LittleNipper]

On 3/23/2017 at 7:59 PM, Ahab said:

Heh, because it just is!  This was a book that was actually translated by the gift and power of God, and it was translated into KJV English!

So what we have here is God inspiring Joseph to use KJV English to translate the reformed Egyptian texts.

Yes, God actually using that language.

Not to toot my own horn, but I've been inspired on occasion to say some things through the power of God as the Spirit has moved me and while doing so I have used the language of scriptures that I am familiar with. I don't think there is anything particularly wonderful about KJV English, myself, but I grew up with it and it's just the language that is familiar to me when recalling scriptural thoughts that I know and want to convey.

So, what your saying is that the King James Version of the Bible is without error since Joseph Smith featured exact King James translation passages word for word within his Book of Mormon? Doesn't that go against Mormon regard for the Bible which they seem to believe has errors ---- or am I wrong in that understanding. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

So, what your saying is that the King James Version of the Bible is without error since Joseph Smith featured exact King James translation passages word for word within his Book of Mormon? Doesn't that go against Mormon regard for the Bible which they seem to believe has errors ---- or am I wrong in that understanding. 

This is not that complicated.  The Book of Mormon record included chapters containing a selection of Isaiah's writings.  When giving the words on the record (by whatever means they came) the spirit gave them in the way Joseph and his contemporaries would have been familiar, the KJV wording.  

This is a major red herring used by critics with a simple explanation.  Unless you are a cynic expecting a fraud.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I agree with that sentiment whole heartedly. After all, a billion to one odds are nothing. I know this is dated but still..... Hugh Nibley still has a point. Well, he made 72 of them. Since then, there have been a few more "lucky guesses" added to the mix. But that doesn't matter, since there is still a chance that Joseph made it all up.

This article explains why the odds aren't really "a billion to one", and why it would still be perfectly reasonable to accept those odds of an event happening even if those were the odds:

The Improbability Principle

 

Quote

The improbability principle is composed of five laws, analogous to the four laws of thermodynamics or Newton’s three laws of motion. These laws, the law of inevitability, the law of truly large numbers, the law of selection, the law of the probability lever, and the law of near enough, explain exactly why we should expect to encounter highly unlikely events, and indeed why we should expect to do so on a regular, even frequent, basis. Any one of the laws acting by itself can lead to a highly improbable event—like people winning the lottery twice, or 26 black numbers coming up one after another in roulette. (The details of these as well as many other apparently extraordinarily unlikely events are given in my book.) But the impact of the principle gets even stronger when the laws intertwine and work together.

Take his example of 26 black numbers in a row in roulette.  Can you figure out the odds of that happening?  It's a much more simple and defined problem than trying to figure the probability of the claims in the Book of Mormon being true.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Take his example of 26 black numbers in a row in roulette.  Can you figure out the odds of that happening?  It's a much more simple and defined problem than trying to figure the probability of the claims in the Book of Mormon being true.

I don't remember the math to get to that number, but I know that it has happened. I know that some people have won the lottery twice. And I am not suggesting that anyone is trying to prove the Book of Mormon is true via an improbability. But we are not playing roulette here.

The law of inevitability (Something must happen) does not seem to apply. In the instance of the Book of Mormon, it did not have to happen. Unlike that of a lottery with a winning ticket, someone will win that lottery.

The law of the probability lever where "slight changes can make highly improbable events almost certain." Maybe you can explain how that would apply to the production of the Book of Mormon. I cannot see a probable fit.

The Law of Near Enough where "events are similar enough to be considered nearly identical." It is when you start looking under the hood, you see that there are too many differences for this law to apply.

The law of truly large numbers. With a large enough number of opportunities, any outrageous thing is likely to happen. Maybe you believe that with so many books being written the production of the Book of Mormon as it stands now is one of those things. I am not convinced for several reason which I would need more time to delve into. One should expect a pretty similar event to have happened much like the Book of Mormon, if you care to make the case.

And the comes The Law of Selection, or "you can make things as likely as you want if you choose after the event." And this I would agree seems to be happening..... with critics of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[cinepro]

 

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I don't remember the math to get to that number, but I know that it has happened. I know that some people have won the lottery twice. And I am not suggesting that anyone is trying to prove the Book of Mormon is true via an improbability. But we are not playing roulette here.

The law of inevitability (Something must happen) does not seem to apply. In the instance of the Book of Mormon, it did not have to happen. Unlike that of a lottery with a winning ticket, someone will win that lottery.

The law of the probability lever where "slight changes can make highly improbable events almost certain." Maybe you can explain how that would apply to the production of the Book of Mormon. I cannot see a probable fit.

The Law of Near Enough where "events are similar enough to be considered nearly identical." It is when you start looking under the hood, you see that there are too many differences for this law to apply.

The law of truly large numbers. With a large enough number of opportunities, any outrageous thing is likely to happen. Maybe you believe that with so many books being written the production of the Book of Mormon as it stands now is one of those things. I am not convinced for several reason which I would need more time to delve into. One should expect a pretty similar event to have happened much like the Book of Mormon, if you care to make the case.

And the comes The Law of Selection, or "you can make things as likely as you want if you choose after the event." And this I would agree seems to be happening..... with critics of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

"The Law of Truly Large Numbers" applies in two ways.  First, there is the sheer number of "claims" made in the Book of Mormon.  It would be expected that a bunch of them would be "hits".  Then, add to that that defenders are able to draw from a very large pool of history and culture to find "hits".  For example, look at the breadth of proposed theories for "horses" in the Book of Mormon.  This is the "Law of Truly Large Numbers" at work to explain why "horses" isn't a huge "miss".  There are truly large numbers of possibly ways to define a "hit"; it's only limited by your creativity and willingness to believe, which in the case of apologists has proven to be almost limitless.  No, I take that back.  It is totally limitless.

It would be like flipping a coin and trying to get 10 heads in a row, but you have a lot of flexibility to define what "heads" is.  If you can come up with a solution that you believe explains why "tails" should also be understood to be "heads", then suddenly that unlikely event gets a lot more likely, even though the odds themselves haven't changed.  You got five "heads" the normal way, as would be expected, but the other five "heads" were what we would normally called "tails", but because reading the coin can be influenced by the culture and knowledge of the person doing the flipping, we're going to consider those as "heads" as well.  So we got 10 "heads" in a row!

The Law of Near Enough obviously applies in the latitude given to count something as a "hit". 

 

The Law of Selection applies in that there are so many thousands of "claims" made in The Book of Mormon, that defenders can go through and pick out specific ones and present them as being improbably "bulls eyes".  But if you said "Of the 15,236 claims in the Book of Mormon, this list of 121 that are correct is proof that Joseph Smith wasn't making it up!", you might get a different reaction.

Another way to look at it would be to roll a die 50 times.  Over the course of the rolls, you get a 5 six times in a row, and a 3 four times in a row.  You then brag that you have done the nearly impossible, and create the "Roll-a-Die Challenge" to see if anyone else can duplicate your rolls.  Of course it would be almost impossible for someone to meet the "Roll-a-Die Challenge", just as it would be almost impossible for someone to meet the "Book of Mormon Challenge."  Yes, the specific combination of "hits" over the many claims and unique situations in its production make The Book of Mormon unique and highly improbable (and impossible to duplicate).  But that's not "proof" of claims of angels and ancient Nephites any more than a specific sequence of die rolls is proof of a God.  It's just how probability works.

Obviously, a key difference in all this is that the Book of Mormon itself isn't "random".  So probability works even less in its favor (and is more absurd to invoke as an evidence for it).  Whether written by angel or Joseph Smith, it was written with intent, based on a format of the existing Bible, with a knowledge of words and at least some degree of knowledge of ancient peoples.  This alone brings the probability way down to begin with.  There's no way it's in the "billions".

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Obviously, a key difference in all this is that the Book of Mormon itself isn't "random".  So probability works even less in its favor (and is more absurd to invoke as an evidence for it).  Whether written by angel or Joseph Smith, it was written with intent, based on a format of the existing Bible, with a knowledge of words and at least some degree of knowledge of ancient peoples.  This alone brings the probability way down to begin with.  There's no way it's in the "billions".

I don't agree with that last statement. I would like to see you back it up with something more than an assertion. Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen's work has shown that the Book of Mormon language is not just a kludge trying to imitate the scriptural feel of the King James Bible. The Early Modern English is something that is not found in the vernacular that Joseph Smith and his family used. Carmack has and is doing his homework there. That was one of the criticisms levelled against the early announcements of the EME in the Book of Mormon, i.e. that it was fossilized usage in Joseph's culture. Carmack has analysed letters, etc. authored by Joseph and his family to see if the EME in the Book of Mormon showed up in their writings. The results were negative. Carmack provided that information in this thread.

When looking at the odds for something happening, there are times when it seems impossible to quantify them. The odds at roulette are fairly easily computed. Although the odds of black coming up twenty-six (or even 32) times in a row compute out to be so highly improbable as to seem almost impossible, it has happened. The law of very large numbers comes into play there. Large numbers of roulette wheels in the world and many many spins. Now how about the odds of numbers 1 through 36 coming up in order??? Has that ever been observed? I have not been able to find such a report.

The case of similar names and birthdays is another that is covered by the law of very large numbers and the law of near enough. People with the same names meeting by happenstance. This coincidence is covered by the law of very large numbers and common names. What is less likely and I have found no reports is of a person of European stock travelling say to China (lots of people there, lots of names) and finding someone with the same name and birthday. Has that been observed?

Your comment about the sheer number of claims in the Book of Mormon leading to the probability or almost the certainty that there would be hits. You invoke the law of really large numbers to bolster this, but the number of claims in the Book of Mormon do not approach the very large numbers  But to actually be hits they must conform to the criteria set forth in the text. Finding a name like Nahom in the Book of Mormon would not really be considered a hit. After all there was a man living in Herkimer County, New York a bit over a hundred miles away going by the name Nahom Daniels. And then there is the prophet named Nahum in the Old Testament. Both people names. But, for some reason, Joseph decided to name a place Nahom. And worse yet, he wrote through Nephi that the place was called Nahom. The fact that such a place has been found in the right place and the right context (there is an ancient burial ground there) is one of the "hits" that are in the right place, context, and time. I am just using that as an example. Finding a place named Nahom anywhere else in the world would not qualify as a hit.

Let’s go to other Book of Mormon names. Manti, Pahoran, Korihor, Morianton, Himni, Paanchi are all names found in the Book of Mormon and not the Bible which have been identified as authentic Egyptian names. Six names. There were more, but the correlation of these names are easy to see.

Has it ever been observed where a person makes up a name and it matches a name in a language that the person does not know and where the actual translation of the language is in the very beginning stages?  Maybe someone who wishes to prove a point could research available texts up to the time of Joseph and see if another such feat has been accomplished. After all, according to the law of very large numbers, it should have happened at least once, if not several times. We need to use completely dissimilar languages if we are to be fair about it.

My last point is that I am not trying to prove the Book of Mormon is true by my examples, etc. I am just trying to show that the probability of Joseph having produced the Book of Mormon as a product of his own learning and culture is not one any sane person would bet on.

Glenn

 

 

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am just using that as an example. Finding a place named Nahom anywhere else in the world would not qualify as a hit.

Let’s go to other Book of Mormon names. Manti, Pahoran, Korihor, Morianton, Himni, Paanchi are all names found in the Book of Mormon and not the Bible which have been identified as authentic Egyptian names. Six names. There were more, but the correlation of these names are easy to see.

 

 

 

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that "finding a place named Nahom anywhere else in the world would not qualify as a hit", and then you list names that you think were ancient Egyptian and you count those as "hits"?  Are you saying that you think the Book of Mormon took place in Egypt?  Or that Lehi brought a copy of "1,001 Egyptian Baby Names" along with the Brass plates and they handed it down from generation to generation so someone born over 500 years later could have an Egyptian name?

(And that's accepting your claim at face value.  Remember, if you're casting the net over the entire history of a civilization, and there are 337 names in the Book of Mormon, and you're counting names that are close, suddenly the odds get much better.)

It is something that could be tested.  Give someone a list of names in the Bible, and have them come up with 300 made-up names, either based on the Biblical names or of their own creation.  Then examine all the names in the history of every middle eastern culture and see how many hits they get, including names that are close.  I'll bet they could get more than six.

Edited April 26, 2017 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that "finding a place named Nahom anywhere else in the world would not qualify as a hit", and then you list names that you think were ancient Egyptian and you count those as "hits"?  Are you saying that you think the Book of Mormon took place in Egypt?  Or that Lehi brought a copy of "1,001 Egyptian Baby Names" along with the Brass plates and they handed it down from generation to generation so someone born over 500 years later could have an Egyptian name?

(And that's accepting your claim at face value.  Remember, if you're casting the net over the entire history of a civilization, and there are 337 names in the Book of Mormon, and you're counting names that are close, suddenly the odds get much better.)

It is something that could be tested.  Give someone a list of names in the Bible, and have them come up with 300 made-up names, either based on the Biblical names or of their own creation.  Then examine all the names in the history of every middle eastern culture and see how many hits they get, including names that are close.  I'll bet they could get more than six.

There are Egyptian connections in the Book of Mormon. The Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. There are connections between Israel at the time Lehi left Jerusalem with Jewish settlements in the Elephantine area of Egypt with many people having Egyptian names. The Brass Plates had more than just the scriptures of the day. They had Lehi's genealogy, which was from Joseph that had been sold into Egypt via Manasseh. There are plenty of possible Egyptian connections where names could have been passed down for generations, just like the name Nephi, within a literate society that kept records. Genealogy records.

You don't have to try to make up the names. Just search the available digital volumes to see if it has been done before. After all, there are numerous works available. But you need to hit languages that were not known at the time. Also, we are talking about the 180 some names in the Book of Mormon not attested to in the Bible. Not 300 plus total names.

Or you could try it yourself.

 

Glenn

 

This may show up as an almost duplicate. I tried to submit an answer and it disappeared.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There are Egyptian connections in the Book of Mormon. The Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. There are connections between Israel at the time Lehi left Jerusalem with Jewish settlements in the Elephantine area of Egypt with many people having Egyptian names. The Brass Plates had more than just the scriptures of the day. They had Lehi's genealogy, which was from Joseph that had been sold into Egypt via Manasseh. There are plenty of possible Egyptian connections where names could have been passed down for generations, just like the name Nephi, within a literate society that kept records. Genealogy records.

You don't have to try to make up the names. Just search the available digital volumes to see if it has been done before. After all, there are numerous works available. But you need to hit languages that were not known at the time. Also, we are talking about the 180 some names in the Book of Mormon not attested to in the Bible. Not 300 plus total names.

Or you could try it yourself.

 

Glenn

 

This may show up as an almost duplicate. I tried to submit an answer and it disappeared.

That's still kind of a stretch.  Lehi wasn't Egyptian; it says the genealogy was back to Joseph, who, while he lived in Egypt, wasn't actually Egyptian.  Are you saying that the Jews were adopting Egyptian names while they were in Egypt, and those names were recorded on the Brass Plates so 500 years after Lehi lands in the New World, the natives have started adopting ancient and obscure Egyptian names and giving them to their kids in the New World?

Or is it more likely that there are a bunch of names in The Book of Mormon that aren't actually from the ancient Middle East, but when compared to Ancient names in the Middle East some of them sound similar enough that some people believe they're related?

Edited April 27, 2017 by cinepro

[LittleNipper]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's still kind of a stretch.  Lehi wasn't Egyptian; it says the genealogy was back to Joseph, who, while he lived in Egypt, wasn't actually Egyptian.  Are you saying that the Jews were adopting Egyptian names while they were in Egypt, and those names were recorded on the Brass Plates so 500 years after Lehi lands in the New World, the natives have started adopting ancient and obscure Egyptian names and giving them to their kids in the New World?

Or is it more likely that there are a bunch of names in The Book of Mormon that aren't actually from the ancient Middle East, but when compared to Ancient names in the Middle East some of them sound similar enough that some people believe they're related?

Aside from a form of Moses, were Egyptian names common among the Hebrews? I might suggest that aside from the Golden calf, most Hebrews wanted nothing to remind them of Egypt. I mean would a Jew who left Nazi Germany in say 1938 very likely to have named his newborn son Adolf? I don't think so...  As for Egyptian names found in the book of Mormon, it may just be a matter of access to someone who visited Egypt. I honestly do not know of any Jewish men named Adolf. Again, I feel that Jews tend to take ancestral Hebrew names.

Edited April 27, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Calm]

Ernest is German.  One of my grandparents whose father was .Jewish and from Germany was named that.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Little Nipper, do you have any evidence for your feeling?

While describing more modern practices, I found this interesting:

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/jnames.htm

"Jews living in gentile lands have historically taken local names to use when interacting with their gentile neighbors. Anyone with a name that is hard to pronounce or to spell will immediately understand the usefulness of this! The practice of taking local names became so common, in fact, that by the 12th century, the rabbis found it necessary to make a takkanah (rabbinical ruling) requiring Jews to have a Hebrew name!"

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's still kind of a stretch.  Lehi wasn't Egyptian; it says the genealogy was back to Joseph, who, while he lived in Egypt, wasn't actually Egyptian.  Are you saying that the Jews were adopting Egyptian names while they were in Egypt, and those names were recorded on the Brass Plates so 500 years after Lehi lands in the New World, the natives have started adopting ancient and obscure Egyptian names and giving them to their kids in the New World?

I have said none of that.

34 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Or is it more likely that there are a bunch of names in The Book of Mormon that aren't actually from the ancient Middle East, but when compared to Ancient names in the Middle East some of them sound similar enough that some people believe they're related?

Not according to William F. Albright.

In 1966, William Foxwell Albright addressed a letter to a Book of Mormon critic in which he explained that he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, but then observed, “It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being ‘Reformed Egyptian.’”

Hugh Nibley did the pioneering work on the Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. No Egyptian scholar, LDS or non-LDS has ever refuted anything that he has noted about those names.

Albright suggested that Joseph Smith was some kind of religious genius, but never got around to explaining how a genius, no matter how great, could make up words in a language that he did not know. A language that had not been deciphered as of yet.

Now I am not going to convince you, I suspect, or even sway you. But I am not swayed by evidence, or rather the lack thereof, for your beliefs.

 

Glenn

 

 

[Glenn101]

53 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Aside from a form of Moses, were Egyptian names common among the Hebrews? I might suggest that aside from the Golden calf, most Hebrews wanted nothing to remind them of Egypt. I mean would a Jew who left Nazi Germany in say 1938 very likely to have named his newborn son Adolf? I don't think so...  As for Egyptian names found in the book of Mormon, it may just be a matter of access to someone who visited Egypt. I honestly do not know of any Jewish men named Adolf. Again, I feel that Jews tend to take ancestral Hebrew names.

You do realize do you not, that Egyptians speak Arabic and really do not have Egyptian names. That was true during Joseph's day also. As I have noted in other posts, deciphering Egyptian glyphs was in its infancy at the time the Book of Mormon was produced. This is one case where there just was no way that Joseph "could have done it."

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's still kind of a stretch.  Lehi wasn't Egyptian; it says the genealogy was back to Joseph, who, while he lived in Egypt, wasn't actually Egyptian.  Are you saying that the Jews were adopting Egyptian names while they were in Egypt, and those names were recorded on the Brass Plates so 500 years after Lehi lands in the New World, the natives have started adopting ancient and obscure Egyptian names and giving them to their kids in the New World?

Or is it more likely that there are a bunch of names in The Book of Mormon that aren't actually from the ancient Middle East, but when compared to Ancient names in the Middle East some of them sound similar enough that some people believe they're related?

There were close ties between Egypt and Israel at the time Lehi was in Jerusalem. Indeed the main thing the prophets were doing was condemning Egyptian influence. Around this time one can find pot shard with syncretic mixes of Hebrew and Heiratic writing - primarily for numbers. There were strong trade ties. I don't recall the theories when the Jewish colonies in Elephantine and elsewhere got started. Although I know many of the documents about the Jewish temple there are from the height of the Persian era around 400 BC and included a request to rebuild the temple there that had been destroyed. Going by memory, I think the Jewish temple there was built around 550 BC or so. (Could be misremembering that) So there's abundant evidence of close ties with Egypt.

As for the names, there's a mix, but some are definitely Jewish and Egyptian. Whether that's a coincidence or evidence of Joseph raiding commentaries is debatable.

There are Egyptian names in the Bible too in a few places. Jer 20:1-3 "When the priest Pashhur son of Immer, the official in charge of the temple of the Lord, heard Jeremiah prophesying these things, he had Jeremiah the prophet beaten and put in the stocks at the Upper Gate of Benjamin at the Lord’s temple." But by and large most of the evidence of strong contact is archaeological rather than Biblical. (Beyond the obvious that Egypt controlled the southern region frequently and often had ties with Judah)

As for Lehi, there's a common theory that he was a metal worker who was involved in trade and thereby travel likely to Egypt and possibly Syria. This comes from both their wealth but also their familiarity with metal working as well as apparent familiarity with travel in tents. Certainly he seems trained in some kind of Egyptian writing although it's not clear what. (The Anthon Transcript while have a few characters similar to hieratic largely seems different) Hieratic was primarily a brush based script although there was a variant that was used with etching. I'll confess as interesting as hieratic is, I doubt it's the language of the Book of Mormon which seems some unique script designed for etching but with the benefits of a shorthand. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The Brass Plates were written in Egyptian

I'm not sure it's clear the brass plates were written in Egyptian if you mean the language. Something related to Egyptian scripts makes sense. The main argument is Mosiah 1:4 "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings" That and the following verses usually are taken to imply the plates of Nephi were following the script of the brass plates and it was Egyptian. However Moroni talks of wishing he could write in Hebrew (Moroni 9:33) Which makes one think we're dealing with some script that was highly compressed but somewhat ambiguous in terms of containing a text. (This might also explain why Joseph uses all the KJV quotes so much since the compression probably is highly lossy in terms of information) That is Moroni's reference to Hebrew suggests we have Hebrew language using some Egyptian style of compressed writing different from anything we have extant. Clearly it's not hieratic although it may use some characters from it.

Of course a critic would say that Joseph's simply making use of the hermetic conception of Egyptian writing especially by Kircher and the verses referring to Egyptian language is referring to that incorrect conception of Egyptian. Often Kircher's translations of Egyptian was much longer than the actual translation. Rather than seeing them as purely phonetic (the right answer) he saw them primarily as allegorical pictography. (Interestingly the best collection of Kircher writings in the country is at BYU) While Kircher got some things right including some aspects of phonetics and plurals he thought he knew everything - which he didn't. (Speaking here to all readers and not you) He saw Egyptian as Adam's language prior to the Tower of Babel and that it was tied to Kabbalism and neoplatonism.

However as much as a critic might point to Kircher and John Dee they haven't really found a sufficient explanation for the Book of Mormon IMO. On the other hand apologists and interpreters haven't provided a good explanation of the language/script the text was written in either. But I think the best explanation is a revision of hieratic/hebrew akin to Pitman Shorthand.

Edited April 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

“It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being ‘Reformed Egyptian.’”

 

 

FYI, those two names are excellent examples of the principle of "near enough".

Quote

The point isn't that the stories aren't somewhat similar, the point is that "somewhat similar" is a very easy criterion to meet, especially if people are willing to fish around until something meets it.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-principle-of-near-enough-proves-anyone-is-psychic-1527647297

If you are allowed to change a few letters in a name, or add or subtract a few letters, it drastically increases the odds of finding a match.  

And not directly related to probability but also related is the question of when, if ever, we would expect authentically native names to start appearing for Book of Mormon people.  It's great that the name "Nephi" was passed down for 5 centuries, and someone grabbed "Pahor" off the brass plates and named their son "Pahoran", but it also might be expected that the people who had intermarried and adopted the language and culture of the natives might also start using some of their names too.  

Again, that's fine if things like that are a great evidence to you.   I'm just pointing out why "what are the odds?" might not be a great argument in general, because often times the answer is "better than you think", because in the words of Oscar Hammerstein, impossible things are happening everyday.

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure it's clear the brass plates were written in Egyptian if you mean the language. Something related to Egyptian scripts makes sense. The main argument is Mosiah 1:4 "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings" That and the following verses usually are taken to imply the plates of Nephi were following the script of the brass plates and it was Egyptian. However Moroni talks of wishing he could write in Hebrew (Moroni 9:33) Which makes one think we're dealing with some script that was highly compressed but somewhat ambiguous in terms of containing a text. (This might also explain why Joseph uses all the KJV quotes so much since the compression probably is highly lossy in terms of information) That is Moroni's reference to Hebrew suggests we have Hebrew language using some Egyptian style of compressed writing different from anything we have extant. Clearly it's not hieratic although it may use some characters from it.

Clark, Thanks for your input. I agree that Moroni was probably talking about some type of compressed script, but I did not get the impression from the text that the Brass Plates were written in that script, although they may have been written in some type of Egyptian script rather than the glyphs.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

FYI, those two names are excellent examples of the principle of "near enough".

Actually that is a quote from Albright who did not spell the words correctly. He left off a bit of each word. Those two I used because they are direct hits that Hugh Nibley had identifies lo these many years ago in his "Lehi in the Desert" essay. There are a couple of other names that are direct hits that I did not initially include also because they appear in the Bible (Aha and Hem) but not as personal names. (Aha is an interjection as I am sure you know and hem is a noun which I am pretty sure you know also.) (I also left off the name Nephi because it does appear in the Apocrypha, again though, not as a personal name, but it could be Hebrew rather than Egyptian.

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

If you are allowed to change a few letters in a name, or add or subtract a few letters, it drastically increases the odds of finding a match.

Maybe you should consult a few experts in languages as to that aspect. I am not an expert and have to rely on what they say. So far no scholar has come along that I know to refute the work that Hugh Nibley has done on those names. I think that there may have been some quibbles about some of them, but on the direct hits I have heard nothing. But, in a way, you are probably correct because languages do change and the same names can be spelled differently by different people. The linguists have observed those things and have developed their methods to detect pretty accurately how those changes occur and spelling variants. If your interpretation of the scene is correct, you have just blown the study of linguistics and languages out of the water. Doctor Nibley is no longer with us, but maybe you can suggest to Doctor John Gee and Doctor Kerry Muhlestein an alternative vocation.

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

And not directly related to probability but also related is the question of when, if ever, we would expect authentically native names to start appearing for Book of Mormon people.  It's great that the name "Nephi" was passed down for 5 centuries, and someone grabbed "Pahor" off the brass plates and named their son "Pahoran", but it also might be expected that the people who had intermarried and adopted the language and culture of the natives might also start using some of their names too.

I have already pointed out that Albright's Pahor is actually Pahoran. He obviously had read at least some of the Book of Mormon, but also obviously did not refer to it when penning his letter.

And it is possible that some of them did. But the Book of Mormon story is not told through their eyes. It is told through the eyes of the prophets and ruler/prophets. None of the people that sported the Egyptian names were in that group. And it is possible that there were people with Egyptian backgrounds that mixed in with the group. After all, there is evidence of contact between Egypt and the Americas in ancient times as well as the fact that there have been some apparent Egyptian artefacts found in Central America

[In August 1914, Professor M.A. Gonzales was excavating Mayan ruins in the city of Acajutla, in Mexico. The two illustrated statuettes were uncovered. On the male, the headdress, the beard, and the cartouche are all typically Egyptian in style. The male is thought to represent Osiris, the female Isis.

(Thompson, Gunnar; "Egyptian Statuettes in Mexico," Ancient American, 2:12, no. 8, 1995.)]

I am not saying this is so. There is just too much that we do not know.

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Again, that's fine if things like that are a great evidence to you.   I'm just pointing out why "what are the odds?" might not be a great argument in general, because often times the answer is "better than you think", because in the words of Oscar Hammerstein, impossible things are happening everyday.

If something is happens then it cannot be impossible. It is only things that people think are impossible, which I think is the point you are trying to make with me. That is okay. However I am not content with someone opining that Joseph Smith could have doe it this way or that way without anyone pointing out when or where such has been observed. You can point out factually that 26 black numbers have been selected in a row in roulette which is extraordinary, but obviously not impossible. But no one has ever observed that little ball picking the numbers 1 through 36 in order. It is not impossible according to the mathematics.

Can you point out to me any text anywhere (besides the Book of Mormon" where a person has made up a bunch of words which somehow turned out to be good words in a language that neither he (nor most anyone else at the time) did not know? Especially personal names? You have said it should be easy. Give it a try.

Glenn

 

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually that is a quote from Albright who did not spell the words correctly. He left off a bit of each word. Those two I used because they are direct hits that Hugh Nibley had identifies lo these many years ago in his "Lehi in the Desert" essay. There are a couple of other names that are direct hits that I did not initially include also because they appear in the Bible (Aha and Hem) but not as personal names. (Aha is an interjection as I am sure you know and hem is a noun which I am pretty sure you know also.) (I also left off the name Nephi because it does appear in the Apocrypha, again though, not as a personal name, but it could be Hebrew rather than Egyptian.

 

 

 

"Near Enough" still applies:

https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Pahoran

Quote

The name "Kherihor" is in reality "Herihor," and "Paanchi" is in reality "Piankh."