charity wrote: Have you read what the anti-Mormon apologist called "Manuscript Story" and the Book of Mormon?
Sort of like someone finding Dr. Seuss' "Red Fish, Blue Fish" and then claiming that was just a first draft, and after they fixed it up it became "Moby Dick."
I will admit there are some reasonably intelligent anti-Mormon claims. This just isn't one of them.
I've never been big on the Spalding theory. This is another case of parallels. Spalding, Ethan Smith, and Joseph Smith all wrote about common folk mythology. None of these works are particularly good literature. But they are interesting artifacts of an earlier time in American history. And of course the Book of Mormon is important because millions of people take it seriously. But it's definitely not "Moby Dick."
charity wrote:Have you read what the anti-Mormon apologist called "Manuscript Story" and the Book of Mormon?
Sort of like someone finding Dr. Seuss' "Red Fish, Blue Fish" and then claiming that was just a first draft, and after they fixed it up it became "Moby Dick."
I will admit there are some reasonably intelligent anti-Mormon claims. This just isn't one of them.
So, am I to understand that your claim about experts was pure bluster? If not, please answer my question. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are substituting rhetoric for evidence.
For your information, I have read the Spalding text we do have, and while I think it is related to the Book of Mormon in genre, I do not think it is the source of the Book of Mormon.
This, however, is an entirely different question from the one about the number of Spalding stories, which you seemed to argue was only one. I think that there is evidence to suggest there was more than one.
Have you read the Cowdery, Davis & Vanick book?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:Chiasmus. Nahom. "Land of Jerusalem." Mulek/Malchiyah. The Hebraisms in the original /printer's copies. The differences in the Isaiah texts. Stained swords. There are more.
In the Book of Moses there are all the Enochian discoveries.
In the Book of Abraham the stunning correspondences with the ancient Abrahamic literatures that is being discovered.
Enough for a start?
Of everything you list here, Nahom is surely the most interesting. Evidently it did appear on maps of the day, but still... I rather doubt that Joseph Smith had access to everything people like to conjecture he did.
Thank you. Finally a critic who doubts he had a 5,000 volume library in the the Smith family barn.
Land of Jerusalem? Hardly compelling.
The idea that it is much more logical that those away from Jerusalem for a lot years would be more familiar with that term than Bethlehem is the important part. However, if it was an anti-Mormon claim that blew up in their faces, it is worth mentioning.
Mulek/Malchiyah? Likewise. It could also be a mangling of melech, or any number of other Hebrew words Smith could have known about through reading commentaries or the Bible itself. Again, it isn't just the name. The name, plus the fact that there was a surviving son when the Bible had been interpreted for years to mean that all the sons were killed, plus the position alluded to that Mulek would have had, the list adds up to much, much more than a name.
In fact most of what you have here can be easily explained in other ways. The stained swords thing is silly. So many people have used that expression to talk about blood on metal swords that the only surprising thing is a Mormon scholar acting as though it were somehow odd. You can try to explain things away. That is what anti-Mormons do. Dan Vogel has written a whole book trying to explain Joseph Smith away because his basic idea is that there aren't any revelations, visions, or angels at all, so he has to try to explain away every supernatural event surrounding the Book of Mormon. It is a Herculaean effort. He just bit off more than he could chew.
Enoch legends were prevalent in Masonic and magical circles. Same with information. on Abraham. In these cases, we can easily imagine Smith having access to these works through his family and friend ties to Masonry and magic. Enoch legends, but not Enoch details. You should run over to the MA&D board and read a thread titled" 20 Bulleyes for Joseph" about the Book of Moses and real Enoch literature, not just legends. You would have your eyes opened. Let me know what you think when you have read it.
charity wrote: Thank you. Finally a critic who doubts he had a 5,000 volume library in the the Smith family barn.
Why do you think he would have needed a large library to come up with the Book of Mormon?
The idea that it is much more logical that those away from Jerusalem for a lot years would be more familiar with that term than Bethlehem is the important part. However, if it was an anti-Mormon claim that blew up in their faces, it is worth mentioning.
Blew up in the anti-Mormons' faces? How?
Again, it isn't just the name. The name, plus the fact that there was a surviving son when the Bible had been interpreted for years to mean that all the sons were killed, plus the position alluded to that Mulek would have had, the list adds up to much, much more than a name.[/b]
Can you please expand on this?
You can try to explain things away. That is what anti-Mormons do. Dan Vogel has written a whole book trying to explain Joseph Smith away because his basic idea is that there aren't any revelations, visions, or angels at all, so he has to try to explain away every supernatural event surrounding the Book of Mormon. It is a Herculaean effort. He just bit off more than he could chew.
I quite like Dan's work. It's not particularly hard to explain supernatural events when the products of said events are demonstrably false. No Herculean effort required.
Enoch legends, but not Enoch details. You should run over to the MA&D board and read a thread titled" 20 Bulleyes for Joseph" about the Book of Moses and real Enoch literature, not just legends. You would have your eyes opened. Let me know what you think when you have read it.[/b]
Again with the bullseyes. I've read these posts, and they add up to more of the same: cherry-picked parallels. I'm sure if I compared the Book of Abraham to "Taxi Driver," I could find 20 bullseyes.
In the end, you have a very short list of "maybes."
charity wrote:Have you read what the anti-Mormon apologist called "Manuscript Story" and the Book of Mormon?
Sort of like someone finding Dr. Seuss' "Red Fish, Blue Fish" and then claiming that was just a first draft, and after they fixed it up it became "Moby Dick."
I will admit there are some reasonably intelligent anti-Mormon claims. This just isn't one of them.
So, am I to understand that your claim about experts was pure bluster? If not, please answer my question. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are substituting rhetoric for evidence.
No, you can understand that I can't put my finger on the article I read. Which is a pitiful excuse, I know. But it doesn't mean it wasn't said. However, as an editor and proof reader I can tell you, that while I have no professional credentials in literary criticism, I have worked with authors through second, third, fourth drafts, and this is just not a possible process.
For your information, I have read the Spalding text we do have, and while I think it is related to the Book of Mormon in genre, I do not think it is the source of the Book of Mormon.
Thank you. You seem to be a pretty honest person. I haven't run into too many anti-Mormons who are actually willing to admit that some claims are not very good. Most of the critics and anti's I've seen seem to be pretty much a lockstep bunch.
This, however, is an entirely different question from the one about the number of Spalding stories, which you seemed to argue was only one. I think that there is evidence to suggest there was more than one.
More than one Red Fish Blue Fish still isn't going to add up to a Moby Dick.
Have you read the Cowdery, Davis & Vanick book?[
Passages from it. I'm not impressed. Have you read Matthew Roper's review of it? You can find it on-line at the FARMS review. But since you don't believe that this is really a way to explain away the Book of Mormon, why are we talking about it?/quote]
Trevor: Here is a discussion of NHM, the oft-called "best evidence." I'm grabbing it from another source, but its one you may be familiar with (its not Jeff Lindsay's site, though ; ) ). Even if so, I think its an argument that has relevance to this discussion, so others may find it interesting.
-----------------
1. The "match proves nothing since it's not really a match"
Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so the Hebrew name NHM (nun-chet-men) could be transliterated to Nahom. But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscripton "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded. In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? After all, in Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Mormons can't even positively locate one supposed town from the Book of Mormon.
2. The only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT nahom!
To make matters worse for the LDS apologists, the only evidence we have for the correct vowel-substitution/pronunciation of NHM is the extant pronunciation: "Nihm". Furthermore, it is extemely unlikely a tribal place name changed its pronunciation. Remember the inscription is most probably a tribal name, not merely a location. Are we to suppose the pronunciation was changed from Nahom to Nihm? This is an assumption that we simply cannot make without forcing the evidence.
3. What about the "but 'nahom' means to be sorry and the altar was found near a cemetery" claim?
nahom: a Hebrew word (Strong's 5162) which means "to be sorry, to console oneself, to repent, to regret, to comfort or to be comforted."
According to this argument, the correct name of "NHM" must be "Nahom" because the place is found near a cemetery and the word "nahom" means "to be sorry".
There are a number of problems with this suggestion. For one thing, if the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect to read of a Book of Mormon placename of "Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry".
In any case, why should we expect this tribe to call itself after an ancient cemetery? The presence of an cemetery nearby is irrelevant, as most, if not all, other tribes had cemeteries too.
4. What of the claim that the proposed location for "Bountiful" pinpoints Nahom?
Several locations with names somewhat like "Nahom" are to be found in the Arabian paninsula. Given the fact that Arabia is a Semitic-language area bordering the lands of the Bible, this should come as no surprise. The work of the Hiltons and others in finding these locations only serves to show the imprecision of the Book of Mormon description. After all, if the detail is so good, why the to propose several candidate sites? This is clearly not the case with Biblical archaeology, which, as has been shown, has one location for Jericho, one location for other Old Testament towns, cities, rivers, and mountains. Not so with the Book of Mormon. Why not? The simple fact of the matter is, the Book of Mormon description is general enough to be worthless. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.
5. NHM too populated for a sneaky trek.
Lehi and his family had been commanded by God not to light fires. Why would this commandment be given? There would have to be a good reason, as they could not cook their meat, and would thereby violate the Torah. Was it supposed to be a secretive trek? If so, why would they go to the populated location of NHM? This doesn't make sense.
6. Ishmael irrelevance:
Lindsay mentions that Ishmael, one of the companions of Lehi on the trip, died at Nahom, and that there was "considerable mourning at Nahom." Why would the NHM tribe name themselves after a passing-through traveler who died there centuries later? This likewise makes no sense.
7. Grammatical issue:
Even if it were derived from "NHM", the word "Nahom" cannot be shown to be an independent word. In other words, it could be the case that the placename was "Nah" and the -om part is merely a suffix. This point further militates against an identification of "NHM" with a placename called "Nahom."
In the message board discussion referenced above, David Wright notes an error on the part of LDS apologist John Tvedtnes. Tvedtnes, inhis article "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," associates Nahom with Hebrew n-kh-m, but errs when he suggests that Nehhem in Yemen is the same root. Nehhem has a soft "h" but NHM has a hard "h" as in Scottish "loch" as we saw earlier. Since the two roots (n-h ans n-ch) differ, there is no point in making an association between them, and in fact it is wrong to do so.
8. Book of Mormon derivation of words: no fixed method, all have separarte origins. Inexplicable.
Another point to consider is the inconsistent and uncheckable etymology of Book of Mormon words. How is "Nahom" explicable in terms of the general etymology of Book of Mormon placenames? As noted in the comments on the board links above, there are a number of curious Book of Mormon place names whose derivations are given. Examples include: "Irreantum" = "many waters" (1 Ne. 17:5), "Rabbanah" = "powerful or great king" (Alma 18:13), "Rameumptom" = "the holy stand" (Alma 31:21), "Liahona" = "a compass" (Alma 37:38), "deseret" = "a honey bee" (Ether 2:3), "Ripliancum" = "large, or to exceed all" (Ether 15:8). The point of the matter is, do these words have Old World roots? Do they have further derivatives in New World usage? One would expect the they should have, but nothing to support this expectation has been forthcoming. Instead, LDS scholars provide separate theories for each Book of Mormon place name. In contrast, when studying the Bible, the place names are derived from Hebrew or a local dialect. Again we see that the Book of Mormon cannot stand up to professional linguistic analysis.
This inability to withstand professional scrutiny simply isn't good enough. It is clear the Book of Mormon place names can't establish any sort of validity through etymological or linguistical analysis. And there is a very good reason for this. The book is a phoney.
9. Exodus 15:22-27 indicates the existence of oases in the desert. Smith would have known this. Bountiful is the oasis mentioned in 1 Nephi 17:5. The fact that Smith mentions an oasis in the Book of Mormon therefore proves nothing.
Conclusion
The Nahom case provides evidence, not of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but of the willingness of LDS scholars to look anywhere in their despair to find a shred of validation for their erroneous beliefs. The "NHM" inscription is the most important piece of geographical "evidence" Mormons have for their claims. The refutation of this inscription in regard to the Book of Mormon placename "Nahom" shows once again that there is no archaeological suppport from Mormonism, and no amount of appealing to "plausibility" will alter that fact. As mentioned at the top of this article, the "NHM" find is a classic example of the fallacy of irrelevant proof.
--------------------------
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Thanks for posting that. It's clear to me that Mormon apologetics is an ad hoc affair. Each piece of "evidence" is dealt with separately from every other one. There's no coherent whole to the enterprise. And as the article points out, there's a good reason why this is so.
This responding thing is getting complicated. Now I have gone to dark red.
Runtu wrote:
charity wrote: Thank you. Finally a critic who doubts he had a 5,000 volume library in the the Smith family barn.
Why do you think he would have needed a large library to come up with the Book of Mormon?
Because of all the stuff in the Book of Mormon that he would have needed to know to get it right that weren't taught in one room schools in upper New York State, and weren't found in the libraries in Manchester or at Dartmouth College, which were the only 2 libraries that were where he could have had access. Not that he did, but that he could have.
The idea that it is much more logical that those away from Jerusalem for a lot years would be more familiar with that term than Bethlehem is the important part. However, if it was an anti-Mormon claim that blew up in their faces, it is worth mentioning.
Blew up in the anti-Mormons' faces? How?
Because the claim was that Joseph didn't even know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and said He was born in Jerusalem. First off, they couldn't even read. The Book of Mormon says "at" Jerusalem. Not "in." And it is a proven phrase to refer to places around Jerusalem. It even occurs in the Bible referring to a place about 20 miles away from Jerusalem. Bethlehem is six miles.
Again, it isn't just the name. The name, plus the fact that there was a surviving son when the Bible had been interpreted for years to mean that all the sons were killed, plus the position alluded to that Mulek would have had, the list adds up to much, much more than a name.[/b]
Can you please expand on this?
I will start a new thread later today to talk about this. Okay?
You can try to explain things away. That is what anti-Mormons do. Dan Vogel has written a whole book trying to explain Joseph Smith away because his basic idea is that there aren't any revelations, visions, or angels at all, so he has to try to explain away every supernatural event surrounding the Book of Mormon. It is a Herculaean effort. He just bit off more than he could chew.
I quite like Dan's work.
I'm sure you do like his work. He is a careful historian
It's not particularly hard to explain supernatural events when the products of said events are demonstrably false. No Herculean effort required. The problem with your premise here is that the Book of Mormon is not "demosntrably false" as you say. If it were Dan would not have had to work so hard at trying to discredit it. A lot of people have tried to kick to the dirt and haven't been able to do it yet. Doesn't it bother you that the anti-Mormons and the critics started out with a lot of claimes against the Book of Mormon and one by one those claims have fallen by the wayside.
Enoch legends, but not Enoch details. You should run over to the MA&D board and read a thread titled" 20 Bulleyes for Joseph" about the Book of Moses and real Enoch literature, not just legends. You would have your eyes opened. Let me know what you think when you have read it.[/b]
Again with the bullseyes. I've read these posts, and they add up to more of the same: cherry-picked parallels. I'm sure if I compared the Book of Abraham to "Taxi Driver," I could find 20 bullseyes.
That wouldn't be a fair test. Try comparing Pride and Prejudice to the Book of Enoch.
In the end, you have a very short list of "maybes."
That isn't the whole list. These threads get very long and convoluted with too much information. But since nothing has been said that effectively deals with these, we don't have to get into the others yet.
Your comments serve only to derail the thread, the topic of which is origins of the Book of Mormon. I will not reply to your comments regarding the Bible, my religious views or anything of that nature on this thread. It is an evasive maneuver and nothing more. As I stated previously, if you would like to question me start a new topic thread and I'll be glad to reply to your inquiry there. I'm more than certain that you will find my answers very straightforward in that regard.
I'm not going to cooperate with attempts to derail this thread.
Jersey Girl
If not then why did you reply when I suggested you not?
And why did you ignore the rest of my post that actually does deal with this thread?
charity wrote:Because of all the stuff in the Book of Mormon that he would have needed to know to get it right that weren't taught in one room schools in upper New York State, and weren't found in the libraries in Manchester or at Dartmouth College, which were the only 2 libraries that were where he could have had access. Not that he did, but that he could have.
I hear this a lot, but I see very little in the Book of Mormon that wasn't well-known folk mythology and Bible-based theology. Can you give me an idea of the amazing things Joseph would have had to have known from the Dartmouth library?
Because the claim was that Joseph didn't even know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and said He was born in Jerusalem. First off, they couldn't even read. The Book of Mormon says "at" Jerusalem. Not "in." And it is a proven phrase to refer to places around Jerusalem. It even occurs in the Bible referring to a place about 20 miles away from Jerusalem. Bethlehem is six miles.
I've always thought this was a dumb argument (one step above "adieu") but I don't see how this blew up in anybody's face.
I will start a new thread later today to talk about this. Okay?
Thanks. I look forward to it.
I'm sure you do like his work. He is a careful historian
And a really nice guy.
The problem with your premise here is that the Book of Mormon is not "demosntrably false" as you say. If it were Dan would not have had to work so hard at trying to discredit it. A lot of people have tried to kick to the dirt and haven't been able to do it yet. Doesn't it bother you that the anti-Mormons and the critics started out with a lot of claimes against the Book of Mormon and one by one those claims have fallen by the wayside.
You seem to believe that people like me started out trying to prove it was false. You knew me when I was a believer like you, so you ought to know that such is not the case. Nobody is ever going to "prove" it false, but the evidence is quite overwhelming, at least for me, that it's false. That you and others choose to dismiss the evidence is of no consequence. Of course, you'd probably say the same thing about me. I look at the Book of Mormon and see which is a better fit: a 19th-century production, or an ancient text. It's not a close call.
Care to give it a shot?
That might be fun. :)
That isn't the whole list. These threads get very long and convoluted with too much information. But since nothing has been said that effectively deals with these, we don't have to get into the others yet.
I readily grant that there are parallels. But there's a huge difference between a few parallels (and really, there isn't a very long list of compelling parallels) and substantive evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. As long as no one can "effectively deal" with the obvious anachronisms, textual dependencies, and liftings from 19th-century theology and folk mythology, NHM and the other possible "bullseyes" (why do I keep thinking of consiglieri?) are just not enough to warrant belief.