Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_RayAgostini]

Jeff Lindsay, "Possible Evidence of Authenticity" (My Emphasis):

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

Anyone spot this in Hunt yet?

[_RayAgostini]

What's weird is that you went through 38 pages and counted how many times he posted.

I just used the search index. Need some help? Just look under "search". But if you want to go through 38 pages, good luck, Mr. Magoo.

[_renewed]

Jeff Lindsay, "Possible Evidence of Authenticity" (My Emphasis):

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

Anyone spot this in Hunt yet?

From the authors on reddit:

We analyzed several books for chiasmus using an algorithm and found, surprisingly, that there is abundant chiasmus in English. The Book of Mormon actually has a low chiasmus content score. When chris's presentation video is finished the editing process, you can see his explanation.

[_cafe crema]

What's weird is that you went through 38 pages and counted how many times he posted.

I just used the search index. Need some help? Just look under "search". But if you want to go through 38 pages, good luck, Mr. Magoo.

Of course you're right, it never occurred to me that there would be a quick and easy way to track how many times someone posted to a thread. But then I don't track other posters like you do. by the way why does it matter how many times he posts in this thread?

[_RayAgostini]

From the authors on reddit:

We analyzed several books for chiasmus using an algorithm and found, surprisingly, that there is abundant chiasmus in English. The Book of Mormon actually has a low chiasmus content score. When chris's presentation video is finished the editing process, you can see his explanation.

In English, or in the Hunt book?

[_Tobin]

So if I were to take all of the birthdays and all of the deaths of a subset of people such as prophets. Since I've now mixed birthdays and deaths, I should no longer expect random dates? Come on....let's have some intellectual honesty here.

When trying to show a correlation such as this, adding multiple subsets to the data does not help your results. If the Book of Mormon is really a work of fiction and not historical as claimed then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to make the case as simply and clearly as possible with something such as birth dates. That by itself should be more than sufficient to demonstrate the contention is true.

That is not what they did with the Book of Mormon. What you are championing and what the authors did is take many events from only a portion of the Book of Mormon history, put them all in one basket and claimed they were as a result made-up by a human-being. But any critical review of your results naturally blows up in your face because of the apparent bias that was introduced in your sample (comparing many different events together that may not even meet the criteria of being a random event). That is not how scientists or scholars should work. It is sloppy and unprofessional.

[_palerobber]

Jeff Lindsay, "Possible Evidence of Authenticity" (My Emphasis):

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

Anyone spot this in Hunt yet?

yup.

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

see page 14.

[_RayAgostini]

Jeff Lindsay, "Possible Evidence of Authenticity" (My Emphasis):

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

Anyone spot this in Hunt yet?

yup.

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

see page 14.

Is that it? Not much of a match.

Chiasmus

[_RayAgostini]

What did Joseph Smith do to make the Book of Mormon the 8th Most Influential Book in the Library of Congress Survey?

Now wait for the "genius" theories. Or whichever Jack-ass they imagine Joseph riding.

[_renewed]

What did Joseph Smith do to make the Book of Mormon the 8th Most Influential Book in the Library of Congress Survey?

Now wait for the "genius" theories. Or whichever Jack-ass they imagine Joseph riding.

Certainly you are not suggesting that such a survey result indicates historicity?