Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Bhodi]

If you want to discuss the subject of hypocrisy, I'd be happy to do so in a thread in Terrestial or Telestial where it belongs. If you change your mind and want to actually discuss the validity of Ludwig's comment, I'd be happy to do it here.

You start with the assumption that Ludwigm's comment has validity to discuss. This is incorrect.

[_Res Ipsa]

If you want to discuss the subject of hypocrisy, I'd be happy to do so in a thread in Terrestial or Telestial where it belongs. If you change your mind and want to actually discuss the validity of Ludwig's comment, I'd be happy to do it here.

You start with the assumption that Ludwigm's comment has validity to discuss. This is incorrect.

Sorry, I used "validity" in that sentence to mean "whether or not the comment is valid." I start from the position: Ludwig has made a comment. Is it valid or not?

[_Themis]

The problem with the second argument is that we have to put ourselves in God's shoes. We have to figure out what a reasonable God would do. And if I ask myself, "If I were God and the Book of Mormon were a real book, what words would I tell Joseph Smith to write down?" And the answer is: "heck if I know." The best I can do is to say, given the time and place, translating the Book of Mormon in the style of the KJV seems to me to be a reasonable choice.

The biggest question I would have is why God would copy translation mistakes when the Book of Mormon is quoting the Bible. I would also wonder why he would copy exact phrases from these translations. I would also wonder why use KJV language. Was is necessary? I can't see any other answer then no.

[_Quasimodo]

The biggest question I would have is why God would copy translation mistakes when the Book of Mormon is quoting the Bible. I would also wonder why he would copy exact phrases from these translations. I would also wonder why use KJV language. Was is necessary? I can't see any other answer then no.

Unless God had a particular fondness for Shakespeare, there is no other explanation than Joseph Smith was just trying to sound 'Biblical'. Sounding 'Biblical' in his day was sounding KJB. His KJB English grammar was pretty poor, as well. I would expect that Joseph's grammar would be bad, but God's?

[Guest]

The problem with the second argument is that we have to put ourselves in God's shoes. We have to figure out what a reasonable God would do. And if I ask myself, "If I were God and the Book of Mormon were a real book, what words would I tell Joseph Smith to write down?" And the answer is: "heck if I know." The best I can do is to say, given the time and place, translating the Book of Mormon in the style of the KJV seems to me to be a reasonable choice.

The biggest question I would have is why God would copy translation mistakes when the Book of Mormon is quoting the Bible. I would also wonder why he would copy exact phrases from these translations. I would also wonder why use KJV language. Was is necessary? I can't see any other answer then no.

I see use of KJV language and exact phrases as distinct issues from anachronism and mistranslations. I think anachronisms and incorporation of erroneous translations in the Book of Mormon are strong evidence of a human author. I suppose you could posit a trickster god, who prompted Smith to incorporate errors and anachronisms into the Book of Mormon as some kind of test. Short of that, why would a loving god try to deceive his children? I've heard folks make the case that Yaweh engaged in deception in the Old Testament, but I thought the argument was weak. Jesus seemed to be a straight shooter. So the notion of a deceptive trickster god does't seem consistent to me with existing scripture.

On the other hand, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, why would you expect God to sound different in different books of scripture? And if you were God, and you wanted to give the world a new book of scripture, what what style of language would you adopt? I think I would put it in the style of the existing book of scripture, which I think at that time was the KJV. There's no deception or trickery required -- simply select the "voice" that followers will recognize as the voice of scripture.

As to the parallels, given the sheer volume of sentences and phrases in both books, why would it be surprising to find parallel sentences or phrases if the books are the word of the same God? But like I said, I'm generally skeptical of conclusions drawn from parallels.

{Edited to complete butchered first sentence]

[_Albion]

Er...how about God speaking in the language used by the people to whom he wants to communicate? By today's standards 19th Century people speaking English used many old and archaic words and phrases but they certainly didn't speak 17th Century English.

[_Tobin]

Er...how about God speaking in the language used by the people to whom he wants to communicate? By today's standards 19th Century people speaking English used many old and archaic words and phrases but they certainly didn't speak 17th Century English.

I think you are missing the point. 17th Century English is the language that religious texts (primarily the Bible) were commonly in in Joseph Smith's day.

[_Res Ipsa]

Er...how about God speaking in the language used by the people to whom he wants to communicate? By today's standards 19th Century people speaking English used many old and archaic words and phrases but they certainly didn't speak 17th Century English.

Sure, but if you're God, which do you pick? The style of every day conversation or the style that people identify with scripture? Beats me. Either sounds reasonable.

[_Quasimodo]

Er...how about God speaking in the language used by the people to whom he wants to communicate? By today's standards 19th Century people speaking English used many old and archaic words and phrases but they certainly didn't speak 17th Century English.

I think you are missing the point. 17th Century English is the language that religious texts (primarily the Bible) were commonly in in Joseph Smith's day.

A very good reason to doubt the Book of Mormon and think of Joseph Smith as a huckster. Give it some thought, Tobin.

[_Themis]

I see use of KJV language and exact phrases as distinct issues.

Not in the sense that KJV are not actually God's words, but those of men trying to translate older documents also written by men. Either Joseph was borrowing intentionally or not, or God was borrowing them knowingly.

I think anachronisms and incorporation of erroneous translations in the Book of Mormon are strong evidence of a human author. I suppose you could posit a trickster god, who prompted Smith to incorporate errors and anachronisms into the Book of Mormon as some kind of test. Short of that, why would a loving god try to deceive his children? I've heard folks make the case that Yaweh engaged in deception in the Old Testament, but I thought the argument was weak. Jesus seemed to be a straight shooter. So the notion of a deceptive trickster god does't seem consistent to me with existing scripture.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, why would you expect God to sound different in different books of scripture?

I suppose if one believes God only wants to talk in old English. If they educate themselves they would see that the translation was done by men of a certain time period when they talked that way naturally, and that no one I am aware of is claiming they were inspired by God.

And if you were God, and you wanted to give the world a new book of scripture, what what style of language would you adopt? I think I would put it in the style of the existing book of scripture, which I think at that time was the KJV. There's no deception or trickery required -- simply select the "voice" that followers will recognize as the voice of scripture.

My question here was whether it would be necessary, which I can't see as anything but no. I seem to remember that this was one of the first criticisms of the Book of Mormon by early critics of Joseph's claims.

As to the parallels, given the sheer volume of sentences and phrases in both books, why would it be surprising to find parallel sentences or phrases if the books are the word of the same God? But like I said, I'm generally skeptical of conclusions drawn from parallels.

I don't think it would from a human author. Remember God never spake this way to anyone in the Old Testament, New Testament, or any supposed Nephites. For some reason God wanted to, not only with the Book of Mormon, but also all his revelations to Joseph.