Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_marg]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm. The personal attacks need to end too. Is there anyone else with a level, cool head and good reasoning skills who can break down the two sides into their basic elements and declare a winner??

Of course, Ludwigm is the winner.

Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon copied from the KJV Bible (the most likely scenario) and perhaps knew some lines from memory. As Ludwigm pointed out when one translates that translation is unique to that person's translation.

As far as Tobin goes, he injected God into the scenario..but provides no evidence which supports that assertion...so there is no rational justification to accept his assumptions.

[_ludwigm]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm. The personal attacks need to end too. Is there anyone else with a level, cool head and good reasoning skills who can break down the two sides into their basic elements and declare a winner??

Of course, Ludwigm is the winner.

Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon copied from the KJV Bible (the most likely scenario) and perhaps knew some lines from memory. As Ludwigm pointed out when one translates that translation is unique to that person's translation.

As far as Tobin goes, he injected God into the scenario..but provides no evidence which supports that assertion...so there is no rational justification to accept his assumptions.

Thank You, but...

Pardon me...

I don't contest here, and don't want to be a winner. I have an opinion and I presented it.

by the way
I've re-read the whole thread.

...
God did not order the KGB.
...

The winner is Sigismund Schlomo Freud.

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon copied from the KJV Bible (the most likely scenario) and perhaps knew some lines from memory. As Ludwigm pointed out when one translates that translation is unique to that person's translation.

I think both. It seems pretty obvious that a KJV Bible was used. To deny that takes a lot of creativity. I also think the Book of Mormon author(s) were familiar with the Bible. Then again, most people were in the 1820s.

As far as Tobin goes, he injected God into the scenario..but provides no evidence which supports that assertion...so there is no rational justification to accept his assumptions.

I agree. I don't necessarily have a problem with Mormons postulating that God was a part of the process, because if they are not allowed to do so, we are forcing them to rule out what they sincerely believe. But if if they are going to postulate God, they should at least stay consistent with the main characteristics that both Mormons and Christians attribute to God. Two of the key characteristics of God under a Mormon or Christian framework would be that 1. God doesn't lie and 2. God is omniscient.

Tobin's logic not only provides no evidence in support of God's involvement, it actually puts more emphasis on Joseph studying it out in his mind (which reduces God's involvement) and it also runs counter to the criteria that early Book of Mormon witnesses claimed about the translation process. They claimed that God made the correct words appear in the stone and that God wouldn't allow the translation to continue until the translation was correct. The problem for Tobin is that this is something that is consistent with the LDS and Christian understanding of God; in other words, what the witnesses claim God did, is something we would expect God to do if He were indeed directing the process. And yet what we find in the 1830 Book of Mormon is a text that is littered with grammatical errors and that's simply not consistent with what the witnesses claim about the process.

Errors that are introduced into scripture by translators shows that translators are human. But in the case of the Book of Mormon "translation," the claims made by it's early witnesses require an error-free translation because God was supposedly correcting everything. But the 1830 Book of Mormon text doesn't live up to that standard.

So there is a fundamental contradiction here that is somewhat endemic of the whole LDS narrative. We probably shouldn't come down too hard on Tobin because he's doing the best he can with the lousy hand he's been dealt. On the one hand he has the testimony of the witnesses I keep talking about. He wants to believe them, because he believes other parts of their testimonies. But D & C 9, which claims that Oliver failed because he didn't "study it out in his mind," is contradictory to what the witnesses claim about the translation process. So unless he can figure out a way to make two seemingly contradictory versions compatible, he's forced to choose sides. Given that, he chooses the "study it out" version on the basis that the D & C is scripture and it's allegedly coming directly from God. It also has the added benefit of reducing God's input which can then allow for mistakes. So in an effort to save the Book of Mormon, Tobin sacrifices the testimony of early Mormon witnesses that he chooses to believe when they're testifying about something else. It's definitely inconsistent, but I've rarely seen a situation in which the need for consistency trumped the need to defend the faith.

[_marg]

I agree. I don't necessarily have a problem with Mormons postulating that God was a part of the process, because if they are not allowed to do so, we are forcing them to rule out what they sincerely believe. But if if they are going to postulate God, they should at least stay consistent with the main characteristics that both Mormons and Christians attribute to God. Two of the key characteristics of God under a Mormon or Christian framework would be that 1. God doesn't lie and 2. God is omniscient.

Well the O.P. by vessr was asking if parallel phrasing between KJB and Book of Mormon was significant or not. Bringing a God into the discussion to address the O.P.'s question detracts from justified reasoning. One can have faith/belief in God..but to rationally address the questions by vessr... God has to be ignored...because a God in one's reasoning can used to argue any position.

Tobin's logic not only provides no evidence in support of God's involvement, it actually puts more emphasis on Joseph studying it out in his mind (which reduces God's involvement) and it also runs counter to the criteria that early Book of Mormon witnesses claimed about the translation process. They claimed that God made the correct words appear in the stone and that God wouldn't allow the translation to continue until the translation was correct. The problem for Tobin is that this is something that is consistent with the LDS and Christian understanding of God; in other words, what the witnesses claim God did, is something we would expect God to do if He were indeed directing the process. And yet what we find in the 1830 Book of Mormon is a text that is littered with grammatical errors and that's simply not consistent with what the witnesses claim about the process.

So God is irrelevant to the argument. The witnesses made a claim that only when the words were written perfecting could Smith continue. Since there were many errors..their claim to that effect was not supported by the evidence.

Errors that are introduced into scripture by translators shows that translators are human. But in the case of the Book of Mormon "translation," the claims made by it's early witnesses require an error-free translation because God was supposedly correcting everything. But the 1830 Book of Mormon text doesn't live up to that standard.

So the evidence does not support claims by the witnesses. For many reasons the witnesses are not credible nor reliable.

So there is a fundamental contradiction here that is somewhat endemic of the whole LDS narrative. We probably shouldn't come down too hard on Tobin because he's doing the best he can with the lousy hand he's been dealt. On the one hand he has the testimony of the witnesses I keep talking about. He wants to believe them, because he believes other parts of their testimonies. But D & C 9, which claims that Oliver failed because he didn't "study it out in his mind," is contradictory to what the witnesses claim about the translation process. So unless he can figure out a way to make two seemingly contradictory versions compatible, he's forced to choose sides. Given that, he chooses the "study it out" version on the basis that the D & C is scripture and it's allegedly coming directly from God. It also has the added benefit of reducing God's input which can then allow for mistakes. So in an effort to save the Book of Mormon, Tobin sacrifices the testimony of early Mormon witnesses that he chooses to believe when they're testifying about something else. It's definitely inconsistent, but I've rarely seen a situation in which the need for consistency trumped the need to defend the faith.

The O.P. was about whether the parallels between KJB and Book of Mormon were significant enough to draw any probable conclusions from. I do think the parallels are significant to draw the probable conclusion the KJB was copied by the author/authors of the Book of Mormon. Tobin in response to the opening post immediately injected God into the discussion and carried on the discussion as if that was an accepted fact which played a role in the reasoning about who wrote the Book of Mormon. From that point on it was a mistake in my opinion to allow him to do that..because if one is going to inject the supernatural into the discussion anything is then possible and reasoning is irrelevant.

[_jo1952]

I agree. I don't necessarily have a problem with Mormons postulating that God was a part of the process, because if they are not allowed to do so, we are forcing them to rule out what they sincerely believe. But if if they are going to postulate God, they should at least stay consistent with the main characteristics that both Mormons and Christians attribute to God. Two of the key characteristics of God under a Mormon or Christian framework would be that 1. God doesn't lie and 2. God is omniscient.

Well the O.P. by vessr was asking if parallel phrasing between KJB and Book of Mormon was significant or not. Bringing a God into the discussion to address the O.P.'s question detracts from justified reasoning. One can have faith/belief in God..but to rationally address the questions by vessr... God has to be ignored...because a God in one's reasoning can used to argue any position.

Tobin's logic not only provides no evidence in support of God's involvement, it actually puts more emphasis on Joseph studying it out in his mind (which reduces God's involvement) and it also runs counter to the criteria that early Book of Mormon witnesses claimed about the translation process. They claimed that God made the correct words appear in the stone and that God wouldn't allow the translation to continue until the translation was correct. The problem for Tobin is that this is something that is consistent with the LDS and Christian understanding of God; in other words, what the witnesses claim God did, is something we would expect God to do if He were indeed directing the process. And yet what we find in the 1830 Book of Mormon is a text that is littered with grammatical errors and that's simply not consistent with what the witnesses claim about the process.

So God is irrelevant to the argument. The witnesses made a claim that only when the words were written perfecting could Smith continue. Since there were many errors..their claim to that effect was not supported by the evidence.

Errors that are introduced into scripture by translators shows that translators are human. But in the case of the Book of Mormon "translation," the claims made by it's early witnesses require an error-free translation because God was supposedly correcting everything. But the 1830 Book of Mormon text doesn't live up to that standard.

So the evidence does not support claims by the witnesses. For many reasons the witnesses are not credible nor reliable.

So there is a fundamental contradiction here that is somewhat endemic of the whole LDS narrative. We probably shouldn't come down too hard on Tobin because he's doing the best he can with the lousy hand he's been dealt. On the one hand he has the testimony of the witnesses I keep talking about. He wants to believe them, because he believes other parts of their testimonies. But D & C 9, which claims that Oliver failed because he didn't "study it out in his mind," is contradictory to what the witnesses claim about the translation process. So unless he can figure out a way to make two seemingly contradictory versions compatible, he's forced to choose sides. Given that, he chooses the "study it out" version on the basis that the D & C is scripture and it's allegedly coming directly from God. It also has the added benefit of reducing God's input which can then allow for mistakes. So in an effort to save the Book of Mormon, Tobin sacrifices the testimony of early Mormon witnesses that he chooses to believe when they're testifying about something else. It's definitely inconsistent, but I've rarely seen a situation in which the need for consistency trumped the need to defend the faith.

The O.P. was about whether the parallels between KJB and Book of Mormon were significant enough to draw any probable conclusions from. I do think the parallels are significant to draw the probable conclusion the KJB was copied by the author/authors of the Book of Mormon. Tobin in response to the opening post immediately injected God into the discussion and carried on the discussion as if that was an accepted fact which played a role in the reasoning about who wrote the Book of Mormon. From that point on it was a mistake in my opinion to allow him to do that..because if one is going to inject the supernatural into the discussion anything is then possible and reasoning is irrelevant.

This is just crazy. To take God out of the discussion, it would only be reasonable to not have this discussion at all. After all, you would need to consider that the KJB is not of God either.

This would leave you with discussing two different FICTIONAL books which happened to have influenced the history of mankind for over 2000 years (the Bible), and for 173 years (the Book of Mormon). Ultimately, you would be left with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon plagiarized the Bible. So, let's allow the courts to take over and determine how they are going to punish the perpetrator(s) of this crime.

Oh...but I mis-speak. Let's take your reasoning further. Seeing as you believe God is irrelevant to this discussion, this leaves the writer(s) of the KJB as plagiarists as well, as it is quite obvious that the majority of the KJB has been copied from another fictional book, the Tanakh.

As such, Christendom is just as guilty as Joseph Smith. So..who is calling the kettle black here? Additionally, inasmuch as God is irrelevant, then mainstream Christianity, who used their book of fiction as an excuse to murder un-numbered victims, needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity over the past 2000 years; just like any other person or group of persons have been held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Good grief......

jo

[_Roger]

Hi marg:

Well the O.P. by vessr was asking if parallel phrasing between KJB and Book of Mormon was significant or not. Bringing a God into the discussion to address the O.P.'s question detracts from justified reasoning. One can have faith/belief in God..but to rationally address the questions by vessr... God has to be ignored...because a God in one's reasoning can used to argue any position.

In the case of evaluating the Book of Mormon we're talking about a book that was supposed to have been produced supernaturally. In fact the way I read the claims of those early witnesses, the book couldn't have been produced without the involvement of God in the process. So given that context, I don't know how we can "ignore" the supernatural claims. On the contrary, my position is that the claims have been made and so, in light of those claims, what would we expect? Basically, we'd expect an error free 1830 Book of Mormon (or pretty darn close. I would expect error free, but I suppose one could argue that the printer might have injected a few errors after the fact and corrupted a pristine text, but, again, that limits God's ability to direct the printer not to inject errors, so I would lean toward an error-free text). I think it is then up to TBMs to explain why we don't find that.

So God is irrelevant to the argument. The witnesses made a claim that only when the words were written perfecting could Smith continue. Since there were many errors..their claim to that effect was not supported by the evidence.

Correct. Given that we agree on that, yes, God becomes "irrelevant" because we've ruled out his involvement.

So the evidence does not support claims by the witnesses. For many reasons the witnesses are not credible nor reliable.

Correct.

The O.P. was about whether the parallels between KJB and Book of Mormon were significant enough to draw any probable conclusions from. I do think the parallels are significant to draw the probable conclusion the KJB was copied by the author/authors of the Book of Mormon.

I agree.

Tobin in response to the opening post immediately injected God into the discussion and carried on the discussion as if that was an accepted fact which played a role in the reasoning about who wrote the Book of Mormon. From that point on it was a mistake in my opinion to allow him to do that..because if one is going to inject the supernatural into the discussion anything is then possible and reasoning is irrelevant.

Yes but Tobin believes the Book of Mormon was supernaturally produced and the question of how it was produced is integral to the question posed by the OP. vessr also says:

I sincerely want to know the responses to the above questions from a number of people because I sincerely want to knnow where to turn from here ... to a God, if he exists? Toa religion, if there is a true one? As this is a forum for the exchange of ideas, I ask for everyone's ideas on this.

So I see that as an invitation to join the discussion no matter how you believe the Book of Mormon came to be. I wouldn't expect Tobin to enter the discussion while suppressing his belief in a supernaturally produced Book of Mormon. What I would expect him to do is rationally defend the belief to whatever extent that is possible. He attempts to do so here:

1) Do these parallelisms create a pattern establishing that Joseph Smith copied New Testament words and phrases as he was translating or writing, as the case may be, the Book of Mormon?

No, because I do not accept the proposition that God would speak differently.

It's an interesting proposition not to accept. This could be rationally challenged in a number of areas. For example, who is Tobin to limit God in this manner? God can't "speak differently" because Tobin says so? I don't think so. Or, applying this logic to his adherence to D & 9, how can God allow mistakes to enter the text if Tobin does not allow for variance between what "God said" in the Bible vs. the way the 1830 Book of Mormon reads? Or, how can Joseph Smith "study it out in his mind" if there's only one way it can be said in the first place because Tobin doesn't allow God to "speak differently"? If the answer is: Joseph has to "study it out in his mind" in order to arrive at the correct rendition, then we're essentially back to the witness's claims that God was correcting everything, which obviously can't be true. So postulating God doesn't necessarily relieve one of presenting a rational defense.

But I think it's also possible to answer vessr's question by saying something like:

"Yes, the parallels show that Joseph Smith copied New Testament words and phrases as he was translating or writing, but that doesn't mean he was a fraud. He simply recognized that the text was quoting the Bible, so, to save time, he opened his Bible."

That's an extremely weak way of answering the question, in my opinion, but it's at least rational. In fact, from what I remember, that's essentially how Dan Vogel justifies his belief in honest-dupes. According to Dan, they didn't think anything was unusual about using a Bible, so they didn't mention it in their testimonies.

It's incredibly weak, but it's at least possible to argue.

Where Dan loses all credibility, IMHO, is when he is then unwilling to extend that logic to anything else. Only the Bible gets a free pass. Only the Bible would not have raised reg flags. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to some document you were convinced was also divinely inspired? Why would that raise red flags under Dan's logic if the Bible wouldn't? Only because it leads to witnesses forgetting to mention a Spalding manuscript. Oh, but they specifically denied a Spalding manuscript but never denied a Bible! So we're back to, you gotta trust those honest witnesses! (Or maybe Rigdon "forgot" to mention the fact that he borrowed the manuscript from Spalding!)

[_Roger]

Hi jo:

This is just crazy. To take God out of the discussion, it would only be reasonable to not have this discussion at all. After all, you would need to consider that the KJB is not of God either.

Well that's what marg believes. I agree with her on that, because I know there are mistakes in the KJB. That doesn't mean the original writers were not inspired. It just means translators can make mistakes.

This would leave you with discussing two different FICTIONAL books which happened to have influenced the history of mankind for over 2000 years (the Bible), and for 173 years (the Book of Mormon). Ultimately, you would be left with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon plagiarized the Bible. So, let's allow the courts to take over and determine how they are going to punish the perpetrator(s) of this crime.

From marg's point of view, whether they influenced history or not is irrelevant to the question of the thread, which has to do with whether or not parallels can show that the author of the Book of Mormon was depending on a Bible to produce the Book of Mormon text. What is your opinion on that?

Oh...but I mis-speak. Let's take your reasoning further. Seeing as you believe God is irrelevant to this discussion, this leaves the writer(s) of the KJB as plagiarists as well, as it is quite obvious that the majority of the KJB has been copied from another fictional book, the Tanakh.

King James' translators were merely translating a book (or actually a collection of books) into English from other more ancient languages. Translating is not plagiarism. If Joseph Smith were truly translating the Book of Mormon from an ancient set of documents, he could not be accused of plagiarism. The problem is the alleged "translation" sounds an awful lot like the 1611 KJB (and other not so ancient books).

As such, Christendom is just as guilty as Joseph Smith. So..who is calling the kettle black here?

No, that's not true at all. In the first place, marg is an atheist, so she's more than happy to rule against the Bible and Christianity as well as Mormonism. In the second place, Joseph Smith claimed that God was providing him with the translation. He could not have done it without God's divine assistance. But that's not what King James' translators claimed. They were translating based on their own knowledge of languages. That's why there were many translators working on the project so hopefully enough human eyes could capture all the mistakes that they knew were bound to enter the text otherwise.

Additionally, inasmuch as God is irrelevant, then mainstream Christianity, who used their book of fiction as an excuse to murder un-numbered victims, needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity over the past 2000 years; just like any other person or group of persons have been held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Good grief......

Killing of innocents is never justified unless unintentional - and even then it's not justified, it's just excusable (or at least it can be under certain conditions). But you're over-reacting. marg is just saying that, for her, God is irrelevant to this discussion since the question is whether textual similarities between two works demonstrate that one depended on the other.

All the best.

[_marg]

In the case of evaluating the Book of Mormon we're talking about a book that was supposed to have been produced supernaturally. In fact the way I read the claims of those early witnesses, the book couldn't have been produced without the involvement of God in the process. So given that context, I don't know how we can "ignore" the supernatural claims. On the contrary, my position is that the claims have been made and so, in light of those claims, what would we expect? Basically, we'd expect an error free 1830 Book of Mormon (or pretty darn close. I would expect error free, but I suppose one could argue that the printer might have injected a few errors after the fact and corrupted a pristine text, but, again, that limits God's ability to direct the printer not to inject errors, so I would lean toward an error-free text). I think it is then up to TBMs to explain why we don't find that.

I think Ludwigm's addressed the O.P. The KGB is a translated Bible from other languages and other than being copied by Book of Mormon author/authors there is no justified reason that the Book of Mormon should contain many of the same phrases.

As far as your argument above..what are you trying to argue..that a God wasn't involved? That's your assumption which is based on your idea of a God and that it would create an error free text. But do you really think someone like Tobin is going to accept that argument?

Correct. Given that we agree on that, yes, God becomes "irrelevant" because we've ruled out his involvement.

We don't have to rule out God. We don't have the burden to disprove or establish a God wasn't involved. And quite frankly I doubt you've ruled out God as far as TBM's are concerned.

Yes but Tobin believes the Book of Mormon was supernaturally produced and the question of how it was produced is integral to the question posed by the OP. vessr also says:

I sincerely want to know the responses to the above questions from a number of people because I sincerely want to knnow where to turn from here ... to a God, if he exists? Toa religion, if there is a true one? As this is a forum for the exchange of ideas, I ask for everyone's ideas on this.

If vessr is asking the questions because he wants to determine whether r the Mormon God exists...then the parallels are not going to inform him on that matter. As Tobin pointed out ..if one believes a God wrote the Bible and the Book of Mormon..then the parallels are to be expected since they would be from the same theoretical author.

If Vessr is encouraging everyone to assume a God as part of the discussion..then it won't go anywhere with regards to what the parallels likely indicate.

So I see that as an invitation to join the discussion no matter how you believe the Book of Mormon came to be. I wouldn't expect Tobin to enter the discussion while suppressing his belief in a supernaturally produced Book of Mormon. What I would expect him to do is rationally defend the belief to whatever extent that is possible. He attempts to do so here:

1) Do these parallelisms create a pattern establishing that Joseph Smith copied New Testament words and phrases as he was translating or writing, as the case may be, the Book of Mormon?

No, because I do not accept the proposition that God would speak differently.

It's an interesting proposition not to accept. This could be rationally challenged in a number of areas. For example, who is Tobin to limit God in this manner? God can't "speak differently" because Tobin says so? I don't think so.[/quote]

Roger yes, Tobin can have God do or say whatever he wishes. Who are you to disallow what Tobin believes God did. Once you allow him to include God then yes, he's right..God can be whatever he wishes.

Or, applying this logic to his adherence to D & 9, how can God allow mistakes to enter the text if Tobin does not allow for variance between what "God said" in the Bible vs. the way the 1830 Book of Mormon reads?

Sorry don't follow.

Or, how can Joseph Smith "study it out in his mind" if there's only one way it can be said in the first place because Tobin doesn't allow God to "speak differently"? If the answer is: Joseph has to "study it out in his mind" in order to arrive at the correct rendition, then we're essentially back to the witness's claims that God was correcting everything, which obviously can't be true. So postulating God doesn't necessarily relieve one of presenting a rational defense.

I'm not following you "Tobin doesn't allow God to "speak differently"". Tobin can have God speak any way he wishes.

But I think it's also possible to answer vessr's question by saying something like:

"Yes, the parallels show that Joseph Smith copied New Testament words and phrases as he was translating or writing, but that doesn't mean he was a fraud. He simply recognized that the text was quoting the Bible, so, to save time, he opened his Bible."

The KJB was translated well after the theoretical authors of the Book of Mormon. As Ludwigm pointed out translations are unique to how an individual translates. So having the same phrasing in the Book of Mormon as in the KJB does indicate fraudulent claims by Smith...and that he was a fraud. Unless the supernatural (which I don't allow unless there was good justification) was involved...the probability of exact translation of phrases are extremely low.

That's an extremely weak way of answering the question, in my opinion, but it's at least rational. In fact, from what I remember, that's essentially how Dan Vogel justifies his belief in honest-dupes. According to Dan, they didn't think anything was unusual about using a Bible, so they didn't mention it in their testimonies.

It's incredibly weak, but it's at least possible to argue.

Dan's argument is reasonable...whereas the parallels which indicate copying of the KJB...do indicate Smith was a fraud based upon the claims he made.

[_marg]

Jo,

Roger addressed your post to me and everything he said I agree with.

[_Franktalk]

We are talking about translations. Translations of what exactly? Translations of exact words or translations of a message? I have always held that all of scripture is a translation of a message from God. That is the foundation. So all of scripture in all of its various forms is just a collection of words with a purpose. It serves as a bridge to the human mind to get God's message into our head by reading the words.

Imagine if you would a man who studies a bridge for hours. He ponders greatly the mechanics of the structure. Then another man walks by the man who is studying the bridge. The man studying the bridge asks the walking man how the air under the bridge holds up the bridge. The walking man says "your nuts". Now the pondering man tries to figure out how the term "your nuts" applies to the air below the bridge. It appears to me that just maybe the pondering man lost the message.

The exact vehicle of words is not important. I would suspect that God would place all kinds of odd devices of language in scripture. As a net to trap those who think themselves cleaver.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.