The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by MG 2.0 »

Gadianton wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:17 pm
I think Ricks makes a valid point. But that’s me. An active member of the church.
Thanks MG, what you're saying is that Ricks doesn't make a valid point.
What I’m saying is that if, along with other internal evidences of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity, the names show linguistic connections with the Old World then we have multiple internal ‘easter eggs’ that I wouldn’t expect to be there if Joseph Smith, with his education and background, attempted to write the Book of Mormon on his own within the constraints that he was living/operating under and for the audience he was addressing.

Unless he WAS writing it for the linguists and stylometry experts of the day. 😉 But as he didn’t have the expertise to do so, that’s a non sequitur.

I have not read the book in question yet. I appreciate the reference. I’m going to pick it up and read it.

I’m sure others here will also read it rather than dismissing it at the outset.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by MG 2.0 on Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by MG 2.0 »

dastardly stem wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:34 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:12 pm
. Those like me are obviously more prone to look at these things with a more believing heart.

To each his or her own.

Regards,
MG
You mean if one is gullible they will accept any argument?
An argument shouldn’t be entertained unless it has merit.

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:23 pm
Gadianton wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:17 pm


Thanks MG, what you're saying is that Ricks doesn't make a valid point.
What I’m saying is that if, along with other internal evidences of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity, the names show linguistic connections with the Old World then we have multiple internal ‘easter eggs’ that I wouldn’t expect to be there if Joseph Smith, with his education and background, attempted to write the Book of Mormon on his own within the constraints that he was living/operating under and for the audience he was addressing.

Unless he WAS writing it for the linguists and stylometry experts of the day. 😉

I have not read the book in question yet. I appreciate the reference. I’m going to pick it up and read it.

I’m sure others here will also read it rather than dismissing it at the outset.

Regards,
MG
did you read the link in the OP?
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:03 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:12 pm


In addition to other internal linguistic stuff going on…complex chiastic structures and proven/shown multiple authorship…this adds another layer of antiquity to this believer. I realize that to those who are for other reasons not interested in baptism and/or activity in the church, internal evidences that cause one to think twice about Joseph Smith as author are more or less something that need to be circumvented.

I think Ricks makes a valid point. But that’s me. An active member of the church. Those like me are obviously more prone to look at these things with a more believing heart. Died in the wool skeptics are going to view things differently and always find something to quibble with.

To each his or her own.

Regards,
MG
Rick Grunder wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:37 pm
Marcus makes a powerful point by asking, “Why would an author of an ancient document need to include a modern explanation in that ancient document?” I would ask further why an ancient author should think to warn on the Book of Mormon’s statedly-ancient title page that “if there be fault, it be the mistake of men; . . .”; -or fear that his readers might wonder “if these things are ^not^ true,” as in Moroni 10:4 (“not” added above-line in the printer’s manuscript)?

Regarding “dreamed a dream” and similar examples, Mormon defender Donald W. Parry wrote: "The cognate accusative is a direct object noun that shares the same root as the preceding verb, as in Joseph 'dreamed a dream' (Genesis 37:5) instead of the more customary English rendering 'Joseph had a dream.' " Dr. Parry explains that Bible texts in Hebrew contain "numerous examples of the cognate accusative . . . although literal representations of this form is [sic] generally not used in translation." –Parry, "Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon," in Parry, Daniel C. Peterson and John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon. (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), [2002]), 176-77).

Among "many instances of the cognate accusative" in the Book of Mormon, Dr. Parry cites 1 Nephi 2:23 ("I will curse them even with a sore curse"); 1 Nephi 3:2 and 8:2 ("Behold I have dreamed a dream"); 1 Nephi 13:5 ("yoketh them with a yoke"); 1 Nephi 14:7 ( "I will work a great and a marvelous work"); 2 Nephi 5:15 and Mosiah 23:5 ("build buildings"); Enos 1:13 ("this was the desire which I desired of him"); Mosiah 4:16 ("succor those that stand in need of your succor"); Mosiah 7:15 ("taxed with a tax"); Mosiah 11:10 and Ether 10:23 ("work all manner of fine work"); Mosiah 29:29, 43 ("judge righteous judgments"); Alma 5:26 ("sing the song"); and Alma 18:5 ("fear exceedingly, with fear"). (Parry, 177; see also Largey, 322-23)

Note that while "sing the song [of Moses]" does occur once in the Bible, in Revelation 15:3, Alma's version, to "sing the song [of redeeming love]," above, is a non-biblical Protestant phrase seen in Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century world.

Compare this biblical style imitation to that of Gilbert J. Hunt in The Late War, Between the United States and Great Britain, From June, 1812, to February, 1815. Written in the Ancient Historical Style. . . . Third Edition. With improvements by the author. (New York: Published by Daniel D. Smith, No. 190, Greenwich-Street, 1819; and numerous other identically-paged editions):

–sealed with the signet [p. 11]

–And the great Sanhedrim honored Isaac with great honor [p. 32;] Jackson was honored with great honour [p. 219]

–rejoiced with great joy [p. 55; see also p. 142]

–and they pitched them within and without with pitch; after the fashion of the ark. [p. 98]

–the men shouted with loud shouting. [p. 107]

–And they yelled with dreadful yellings, [p. 119]

–and slew them with great slaughter [pp. 127, 176; see also pp. 111 and 159. This construction, to slay with slaughter, occurs four times in the Old Testament ("slew") and five times in the Book of Mormon ("to slay," "did slay," and "slew"). The Old Testament slaughters recounted using this construction are all "great"; Hunt's slaughters include three "great" and one "terrible," and the Book of Mormon's, three "great," one "exceedingly great" and one "much."]
- Doc
Just giving MG another opportunity to ignore RG’s excellent post.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Doctor Steuss »

Would one of our Hebraists mind holding my hand for a moment, please?

On the blog, it notes:
There are no names in the Book of Mormon that begin with the letter f. Again, the absence of names that begin with the letter f at the beginning of Hebrew names suggests the deep influence of Hebrew on naming patterns in the Book of Mormon.
Are things like Fey, and Pe Kefulah, later creations, so no ancient names can be truly said to begin with "f"?

Or am I misreading what Ricks is saying?



ETA: Does there being no names in the Book of Mormon that begin with the letter "D" also support the position advanced about the letter "F"?
Last edited by Doctor Steuss on Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Dr Moore »

I guess the takeaway for apologetics is

If you write the writings by imitating the imitations, then, Bob’s your uncle.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Marcus »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:07 pm
I guess the takeaway for apologetics is

If you write the writings by imitating the imitations, then, Bob’s your uncle.
and since Felix is not your uncle, then Uncle Bob is Hebrew. :roll:
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:45 pm
They are always looking for some way to shift the burden from themselves. I guess it sounds good to the faithful who don't look too closely at what is being claimed to force the burden shift.
Agreed. They need to stop trying to make the Book of Mormon out to be something it is not, and understand it on its own terms.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by dastardly stem »

The other issue I'm finding, after looking into the link a minute or two, is this.
Our work has shown that the names and the foreign words in the Book of Mormon are ancient in origin, whether from ancient Hebrew or some other Semitic language, ancient Egyptian, ancient Mesopotamian (Akkadian or Sumerian), or ancient Greek.
So he offers a confident "our work has shown that that names...are ancient in origin..."

And then continues that level of confidence here;
About 75-80% of the names and foreign words in the Book of Mormon are Hebrew in origin.
So somehow he knows words and names are Hebrew in origin...not can be, but are.

When examples are given:
The name “Mosiah” may be based on the Biblical Hebrew word moshia‘, which means “deliverer, savior,” and may have the meaning “the Lord is a deliverer, savior,” or (“‘He,’ i.e., the Lord) is a deliverer, savior.”
"...may be based..."

So because they can search for words and names that appear similar, we are to simply conclude they certainly are of ancient origin? Names are derived from other names or words, over time. Mosiah would have appeared among the people of Nephi hundreds of years after they separated themselves from Jerusalem and its environs. Hundreds of years after they ran from Hebrew speaking people. No, the connection isn't made. It remains a possibility that Mosiah comes from this Hebrew word. I would question whether they can show any names or words in the Book of Mormon that connect directly with ancient words or names. Showing any of the names derive from ancient words is not as easy as showing they could possibly link. Showing any given name in the Book of Mormon looks like an ancient word can be interesting. But it doesn't mean any of the names or words are derived from those ancient words and names. Its possible. But possible doesn't become probable just because. That bridge still has to be constructed.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:18 pm
Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:07 pm
I guess the takeaway for apologetics is

If you write the writings by imitating the imitations, then, Bob’s your uncle.
and since Felix is not your uncle, then Uncle Bob is Hebrew. :roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brilliant and hilarious.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply