The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peterson

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peterson

Post by _Bazooka »

Seeming “errors in grammar and diction,” particularly in the earliest manuscripts and first printed edition of the English Book of Mormon, have provided merriment for mocking critics since at least 1830.

Recent scholarly study of the book’s textual history, however, suggests that such derisive criticism is fundamentally misguided. Indeed, it may even demonstrate that, here as elsewhere, apparently “weak things” can “become strong” for those who believe (see Ether 12:27).

The pioneering research of Royal Skousen, a professor of English language and linguistics at Brigham Young University, for example, extending now over nearly three decades, provides arresting evidence that significant portions of the vocabulary of the Book of Mormon derive from the 1500s and the 1600s, and not, as one might expect, from the 1800s.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ormon.html

Another nail in the coffin of the official explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _SteelHead »

This whole Royal Skousen theory of translation by comitee in the 16/17th century is one of the nuttiest, Mormon lunatic fringe, Mormon legends to come out in recent history. There is 0, zilch, Nada, evidence historically to support it. So the apologists have decided to run with it? Good luck.

We have decided through careful word analysis, and by ignoring the mangling of pronoun use of the period in question by Joseph Smith, that the Book of Mormon was actually translated from Hebrew expressed in reformed Egyptian, to English by a comitee consisting of Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, as ressurected beings, and Jenn Kamp Rowlings and JRR Tolkien as pre existant beings.

Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon in English, as translated by these literary dignities, via a glowing rock ensconced in a top hat.

crazy crazy unsupportable theories do so much to further the credibility of the Book of Mormon.........

Might as well claim that it was translated 10 years from now by google translate, and taken back through time. Any error in the book is due to problems with the algorithm.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_MisterTabernacle
_Emeritus
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:09 am

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _MisterTabernacle »

Can someone explain to me why this is a promising apologist argument? This just seems so out of left field, but it keeps coming up.
_BartBurk
_Emeritus
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _BartBurk »

Must be a slow news day in Mormonville. I don't understand the significance of what Peterson is writing here. I always thought the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.
_Craig Paxton
_Emeritus
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:28 pm

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _Craig Paxton »

SteelHead wrote:This whole Royal Skousen theory of translation by comitee in the 16/17th century is one of the nuttiest, Mormon lunatic fringe, Mormon legends to come out in recent history. There is 0, zilch, Nada, evidence historically to support it. So the apologists have decided to run with it? Good luck.

We have decided through careful word analysis, and by ignoring the mangling of pronoun use of the period in question by Joseph Smith, that the Book of Mormon was actually translated from Hebrew expressed in reformed Egyptian, to English by a comitee consisting of Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, as ressurected beings, and Jenn Kamp Rowlings and JRR Tolkien as pre existant beings.

Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon in English, as translated by these literary dignities, via a glowing rock ensconced in a top hat.

bat**** crazy unsupportable theories do so much to further the credibility of the Book of Mormon.........

Might as well claim that it was translated 10 years from now by google translate, and taken back through time. Any error in the book is due to problems with the algorithm.



Bahahahaha...you made me spit my coffee onto my computer screen... I was laughing so hard...
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick

“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _Fence Sitter »

MisterTabernacle wrote:Can someone explain to me why this is a promising apologist argument? This just seems so out of left field, but it keeps coming up.


Think about it. Can you prove the war in heaven didn't happen, or that missionary work in the spirit world is not happening? This defense rests on the rock solid apologetic foundation of being impossible to disprove. How can anyone present evidence that shows such a translation did not happen in the spirit world?

It is a perfect apologetic argument and designed to appeal to an LDS audience who believe that such things are possible in the make believe LDS spirit world where wars happen, arguments take place, missionary work happens, families are reunited in some sort of Stepfordish existence. How hard would it be for someone conditioned not to ask simple questions (like why would we expect the dead to maintain their same grammar and syntax when they are now associating with people from all languages? or why wouldn't God just use the U&T itself as a type of translation device, why the need to interject 15-16th century errors into a manuscript written long ago and published in the 19th century?)to believe that there was a committee of dead people asked to take a Nephite manuscript and rewrite it into 1500-1600 English, errors and all?

Is is an absurd explanation designed to appeal to the unquestioning faithful masses.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _SteelHead »

Yep, this whole theory is designed to sell books to tbm, and to get then to come to special "firesides". They lap this crazy stuff up. Look at the traction Meldrum has achieved. How much a year is he making off of peddling books and tapes?

The more unprovable the better.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Craig Paxton
_Emeritus
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:28 pm

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _Craig Paxton »

The premise of Skouson’s theory, as I understand it, is that much of the language and syntax found in the original transcripts of the Book of Mormon, derived from the 1500-1600’s. His theory then, to explain this, is to come up with an additional layer of magical translation by mystery persons . He posits that there was an additional pre-translation from reformed Egyptian into 15th Century old English before Joseph rendered his (cough, cough) translation. That Joseph didn’t do a translation from reformed Egyptian to English but merely read the 15th century English words, via Magical means, to Oliver.
Makes perfect sense to me…
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick

“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Craig Paxton wrote:The premise of Skouson’s theory, as I understand it, is that much of the language and syntax found in the original transcripts of the Book of Mormon, derived from the 1500-1600’s. His theory then, to explain this, is to come up with an additional layer of magical translation by mystery persons . He posits that there was an additional pre-translation from reformed Egyptian into 15th Century old English before Joseph rendered his (cough, cough) translation. That Joseph didn’t do a translation from reformed Egyptian to English but merely read the 15th century English words, via Magical means, to Oliver.
Makes perfect sense to me…


If the source manuscript was already in English why did Oliver have trouble when he tried to translate?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peters

Post by _SteelHead »

Well he was using a dowsing rod..... You ever tried to translate via dowsing rod?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Post Reply