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

[Kishkumen]

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.

Indeed.

It’s like Joseph Smith had no access to any ancient names (Bible, cough) and could not create new combinations or mine them from various sources. Uh . . .

The book is written specifically to appear ancient, just as the Late War was written in the Biblical style. It is not at all surprising that Smith’s attempt to sound ancient were relatively successful.

[Rick Grunder]

The Book of Mormon’s lack of names beginning with F is consistent with Walker’s Dictionary of that era. See page 1820 of . . .

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf

For additional background on that contemporary family reference work, here is more information which will one day become part of my Mormon Parallels Supplement. It shows that Oliver Cowdery turned at least once to this work in 1829 . . .

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/Washington ... ey1823.pdf

[MG 2.0]

did you read the link in the opening post?

Towards the end of the link we read:

In speaking about C. S. Lewis as a Christian apologist, the theologian Austin Farrer observed:

“Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb [New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1965], 26.
With regard to the Book of Mormon the same principle holds: this dictionary provides evidence for names in the Book of Mormon as being ancient in origin. Those who believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God will see this dictionary as a confirmation that the book is ancient and true.

This dictionary provides an environment in which belief may flourish. For those who have not previously dealt seriously with the Book of Mormon, it is an invitation to consider its claims. To those who deny and oppose the Book of Mormon as an historically authentic ancient document, it is a challenge to show that it is not ancient—a task these deniers may find truly daunting, since many of them have little or no language experience outside of English.

As I’ve mentioned already, it’s the preponderance of internal ‘easter eggs’ of one kind or another that lend proof/reason to conditionally accept the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon rather than outright reject it.

There is a good and worthwhile conversation going on in this thread. What I am saying might be seen as a derail so I will continue to read the thread without further interruption unless I am asked a relevant question which deserves an answer or see something in which I might have something worthwhile to say without interrupting the flow.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

did you read the link in the opening post?

... What I am saying might be seen as a derail...

Apparently my post motivated you to read the link, so that's a plus. moving on...

The Book of Mormon’s lack of names beginning with F is consistent with Walker’s Dictionary of that era. See page 1820 of . . .

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf

For additional background on that contemporary family reference work, here is more information which will one day become part of my Mormon Parallels Supplement. It shows that Oliver Cowdery turned at least once to this work in 1829 . . .

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/Washington ... ey1823.pdf

[drumdude]

MG is correct that we should consider the preponderance of the evidence. How would the Book of Mormon fare at a trial? With 12 impartial jurors?

There’s a reason Interpreter is an island alone with no secular input or validation on its articles. It’s because the impartial academic community would never accept their “homework” as being anything other than a vast series of F’s.

[Dr Exiled]

I wonder how many books contain words or names that have ancient origins? All? Some? How big a vin diagram can we draw? Language has been developing for quite some time and so the diagram has to be huge. What does this mean for the theory when all or most books have names with ancient origin?

[Philo Sofee]

It is almost as if apologists cannot grasp that an author of fiction can also include ancient language names without meaning the book has to be of ancient origin...

[doubtingthomas]

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.

Did you know Peterson said the Church could be false?

[Kishkumen]

This dictionary provides an environment in which belief may flourish. For those who have not previously dealt seriously with the Book of Mormon, it is an invitation to consider its claims. To those who deny and oppose the Book of Mormon as an historically authentic ancient document, it is a challenge to show that it is not ancient—a task these deniers may find truly daunting, since many of them have little or no language experience outside of English.

There is nothing to deny or oppose, since nothing has been established. You can posture all you like on this issue, but no responsible person should accept as historical anything on the basis that these apologists propose. They damage, or at least attempt to undermine, the critical faculties of their readers every time they try to seduce them to accept a 19th century English text as the work of an ancient Hebrew civilization in the Americas with the paltry evidence they have gathered.

[Kishkumen]

As I’ve mentioned already, it’s the preponderance of internal ‘easter eggs’ of one kind or another that lend proof/reason to conditionally accept the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon rather than outright reject it.

The Book of Mormon does not need to be an ancient text in order for it to be a remarkable, even miraculous text.