Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[Guest]

You guys are hilarious. Where did all the critical thinkers on the board go?

Nevo,

The critical thinkers have just been advised of still more contemporary sources for the themes, linguistic style, etc. that appear in the Book of Mormon. Alone these would be interesting.

Piled on top of the mountain of existing scientific and historical evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, my guess is that a lot of Shelves of Disbelief will finally be breaking.

Critical thinkers consider weight of evidence, the explanatory power of the competing hypotheses, and then check to make sure that the selected hypothesis does not require the violation of physical laws.

The 19th Century Fraud hypothesis passes all of these tests with an especially large advantage in weight of evidence, and that advantage that just got bigger.

The Divine Revelation hypothesis has absolutely nothing going for it at this point, except unfounded belief. And my guess is that such belief could be leaking away over the next days and months, at a faster rate than usual, as the poor Mormon apologists struggle with this latest hit (in a long, long series of hits).

[_Mary]

Jarom 1:8

 8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in agold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in cmachinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and dweapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Compare Chapter LIV verse 7

http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetwee ... 3/mode/2up

[_Nightlion]

Some nineteenth-century writers wrote in a pseudo-biblical style. This isn't exactly breaking news. Steve Smoot noted one recent discussion in a Mormon Interpreter article a few months back (see also, Shalev's American Zion).

Did that one mention bands of 2000 chosen warriors? Or Striplings with weapons of war? Or curious workmanship? For example?

I suspect a backfire of the supposed 'smoking gun' when we compare authors. Young uneducated farmboy hickster against these others. Who were they? Let's compare and wonder how Joseph bettered them in his composition unaided by God supposedly. Sure.

And if Joseph was such a prolific genius where are his two dozen books? How could he have resisted but to bring forth the sealed portion of the plates? A serial, here a little and there a little. The money would have been vast. His poverty/vanity would have insisted upon it.....eh?

[_Shulem]

You guys are hilarious. Where did all the critical thinkers on the board go?

It's just further evidence that the Book of Mormon has a 19th century origin. It fairly clear looking at other sources like Voth that the Book of Mormon story has the same kind of sources. The obvious apologetic will be for loose translation with Joseph just putting it all in his own words. Too bad loose translation just doesn't really fit the facts. We also KNOW Joseph did not get the Book of Abraham right. Should I pull a Shulem on you?

This business of a loose translation would have deeply offended Joseph Smith. He would have chastised anyone who belittled his translations as anything other than a gunuine direct revelation in converting one language into another.

The apologists are grasping at straws by claiming lose translation. That's about the same as just telling a story and not needing gold plates and not knowing how to read the first language to convert it into the second language.

Now consider the language of Facsimile No. 3. What's the king's name written in the writing as Joe Smith claimed? Is there a king's name? No, there is not. There is no king's name to translate either from the most tightest sense or the most loose. Neither is the name Shulem written in the writing whether loose or tight -- it ain't there. So, loose translation can bite my wire! The apologists lose!

Paul O

[_DrW]

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

17 Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things;
18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.
19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

11 Now the land of Columbia is a most plentiful land, yielding gold and silver, and brass and iron abundantly.
12 Likewise, all manner of creatures which are used for food, and herbs and fruits of the earth:
13 From the red cherry, and the rosy peach of the north, to the lemon, and the golden orange of the south.
14 And from the small insect, that cheateth the microscopic eye, to the huge mammoth that once moved on the borders of the river Hudson-; on the great river Ohio; and even down to the country of Patagonia in the south.
15 Now the heighth of a mammoth is about seven cubits and a half, and the length thereof fourteen cubits; and the bones thereof being weighed are more than thirty thousand shekels; and the length of the tusks is more than six cubits.
16 It is more wonderful than the elephant; and the history thereof, is it not recorded in the book of Jefferson, the scribe ?

Well done Kish, you effectively ended my lurking.

This really does look like a smoking gun.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Hey Hasa,

Welcome back.

[_Bond James Bond]

13. And their weapons of war were of curious workmanship

Also Chp L - 7

"Now these steam-boats were cunningly contrived, and had abundance of curious workmanship therein, such as surpassed the comprehension of all the wise men of the east, from the beginning to this day.

Pg 193

[_Kishkumen]

Some nineteenth-century writers wrote in a pseudo-biblical style. This isn't exactly breaking news. Steve Smoot noted one recent discussion in a Mormon Interpreter article a few months back (see also, Shalev's American Zion).

If that were "the news", it wouldn't be all that exciting. Thanks for implicitly admitting that you have no substantive response.


Saying that "some apologist once cited a work discussing pseudo-biblical language in the 19th century" isn't really addressing the similarities between these texts.

[_Bond James Bond]

Off topic but the Star Spangled Banner appears as a footnote on pg 183-184. It would have been relatively new poem then; it was written in 1814 and wasn't made the national anthem until 1931.

[_RockSlider]

If that were "the news", it wouldn't be all that exciting. Thanks for implicitly admitting that you have no substantive response.

Saying that "some apologist once cited a work discussing pseudo-biblical language in the 19th century" isn't really addressing the similarities between these texts.

Nothing to see here folks ... move along.

[_Kishkumen]

You guys are hilarious. Where did all the critical thinkers on the board go?

Wow, Nevo. Between this childish insult and the footnote comment, you're really flopping.

But you just had to say something, right? Elder Maxwell said, after all, "no uncontested slam dunks."

Thanks for the high praise.