beastie wrote: The intentionality is irrelevant because Joseph Smith wanted the book to sound like the Bible. So two possibilities exist: (I'm going to use Joseph Smith as the name of the author while conceding it is possible other authors were involved) -
1 - Joseph Smith was aware of the device and its use in the Bible and intentionally used it.
2 - Joseph Smith was not formally aware of the device but still used the formula because he was trying to make the book sound Biblical
I cannot discount that these two possibilities exist.
Runtu wrote:The second hurdle is that you have to give us a reason to believe that said chiasmus is evidence of Hebraic or Semitic influence. That, my friend, is nigh unto impossible.
Yep. Chiasmus is not the silver bullet that proves the Book of Mormon. It is interesting, however, that Joseph Smith and Co. would go to such efforts in constructing and using this literary device, along with other purported use of Hebraisms, so that they could convert all the farmers, shop keepers, coal miners, and other common people of the time. Although it may well be that they had the future sophisticates and intellectuals in mind.
But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?
On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.
On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.
Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.
And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.
It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.
Uhh, no. Whatever you cite will be laughable. Your assertions are laughable. The Book of Mormon was concieved, written and marketed for the purpose of continuing the fraud that is Joseph Smith.
Well, lets look at it this way: Why would Joseph Smith need a Book of Mormon? He didn't. He didn't have to write a book or invent a restoration to start a church. In fact, he would have been more successful as a protestant minister forming his own congregation. He could have joined Sidney's church if he knew Sidney at that time. No one needed a Book of Mormon. That book cost him nothing but misery, untold misery. No, Joseph Smith would have done fine without that book.
Sorry, but the exers loose on this one. If Joseph Smith wrote that book, he made a big mistake. He just needed to stand on a soap box and he would have succeeded to become a respectable protestant minister in the Methodist Church or in his own church. There was absolutely no reason to write such a book. And by the way, Sidney did not need to write such a book also. He was doing fine without the book. In fact, that book brought him nothing but misery too.
My gosh, why write the book and why have such a book? All who were involved with that book either failed or suffered. And yet, no denials were forthcoming.
But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?
On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.
On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.
Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.
And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.
It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.
Uhh, no. Whatever you cite will be laughable. Your assertions are laughable. The Book of Mormon was concieved, written and marketed for the purpose of continuing the fraud that is Joseph Smith.
Well, lets look at it this way: Why would Joseph Smith need a Book of Mormon? He didn't. He didn't have to write a book or invent a restoration to start a church. In fact, he would have been more successful as a protestant minister forming his own congregation. He could have joined Sidney's church if he knew Sidney at that time. No one needed a Book of Mormon. That book cost him nothing but misery, untold misery. No, Joseph Smith would have done fine without that book.
Sorry, but the exers loose on this one. If Joseph Smith wrote that book, he made a big mistake. He just needed to stand on a soap box and he would have succeeded to become a respectable protestant minister in the Methodist Church or in his own church. There was absolutely no reason to write such a book. And by the way, Sidney did not need to write such a book also. He was doing fine without the book. In fact, that book brought him nothing but misery too.
My gosh, why write the book and why have such a book? All who were involved with that book either failed or suffered. And yet, no denials were forthcoming.
Well look at it this way. He didn't necessarily start out with the intention of founding a relgion. The book came first. What followed after, followed after.
My gosh, if I wanted to make some money and I thought the only talent I had was making up stories (and I hated physcial labor) I might indeed write a book and get people to help me write the damn thing and finance it for me. Especially if I weren't doing so fine without the book: people keep trying to make me settle down with my wife and farm and I don't want to. Oh yeah, people are pissed at my other ventures, too. And my father in law! Don't even go there.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
I don't care if people want to take the Book of Mormon on faith and "explain" it strictly supernaturally. In fact, such a position pleaseth my need for internal consistency.
I do care a bit about people trying to invent "scientific" and "historical" evidences---to prove it, in other words---because I hold rationality, knowledge, science, etc. in high esteem and fear the consequences of their distortion.
But I get absolutely incensed about chiasmas. Why? Cuz it's so dumb. So utterly and complete insignificant, uncomplex and unsophisticated---as a rhetorical device and as an "evidence."
I mentally hulk out because I am a "Professor of Literature" and have a pretty accurate take on things pertaining to "the written" and "the narrative."
Let there be an end to chiasmas, I say. Yeah I know its not going to go away from these discussions, but oh I wish I could make it so.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?
On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.
On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.
Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.
And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.
It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.
Uhh, no. Whatever you cite will be laughable. Your assertions are laughable. The Book of Mormon was concieved, written and marketed for the purpose of continuing the fraud that is Joseph Smith.
Well, lets look at it this way: Why would Joseph Smith need a Book of Mormon? He didn't. He didn't have to write a book or invent a restoration to start a church. In fact, he would have been more successful as a protestant minister forming his own congregation. He could have joined Sidney's church if he knew Sidney at that time. No one needed a Book of Mormon. That book cost him nothing but misery, untold misery. No, Joseph Smith would have done fine without that book.
Sorry, but the exers loose on this one. If Joseph Smith wrote that book, he made a big mistake. He just needed to stand on a soap box and he would have succeeded to become a respectable protestant minister in the Methodist Church or in his own church. There was absolutely no reason to write such a book. And by the way, Sidney did not need to write such a book also. He was doing fine without the book. In fact, that book brought him nothing but misery too.
My gosh, why write the book and why have such a book? All who were involved with that book either failed or suffered. And yet, no denials were forthcoming.
Well look at it this way. He didn't necessarily start out with the intention of founding a relgion. The book came first. What followed after, followed after.
My gosh, if I wanted to make some money and I thought the only talent I had was making up stories (and I hated physcial labor) I might indeed write a book and get people to help me write the damn thing and finance it for me. Especially if I weren't doing so fine without the book: people keep trying to make me settle down with my wife and farm and I don't want to. Oh yeah, people are pissed at my other ventures, too. And my father in law! Don't even go there.
Blixa, EXACTLY! why me your whole argument on everything is because this or that caused such difficulties it has to be true. This is how the book came about and why it was first. He had to deal with the difficulties as the difficulties came about. That's what a big portion of the D&C was about is CYAing the created difficulties. That is why the 1830 Book of Mormon doesn't match today's Book of Mormon. That is why there are several first vision stories and etc. etc. That is why he had a "revelation" on polygamy is because he lusted after Fanny Alger. He needed another CYA.
Just because something is difficult or could have been easier a different way doesn't make any of it true. You need a new method to rationalize your beliefs here.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace