TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

[_beastie]

Charity,

No matter how many times this is explained to you, you just don’t get it. Certitude of belief has no correlation to validity of beliefs. That is why people mention the suicide bombers (no one was comparing Mormonism to radical Islam, for god’s sake) and why I’ve mentioned the Heaven’s Gaters.

Anyone who is willing to kill him/herself for his/her beliefs, or castrate himself, or kill someone else, is absolutely convinced that God spoke to him or her. I would guess they are probably even more convinced than you are.

If you kill yourself or castrate yourself for your beliefs, you KNOW KNOW KNOW.

[_the road to hana]

Or else they had some experience they had labeled "the witness of the Spirit" but it wasn't, so it isn't that hard to rethink.

There you have it.

[_charity]

Until you can learn the difference between feelings and testimony there is no sense trying to talk to you. You don't have an adequate vocabulary.

And until you can tell the difference between me and JAK, there is no sense trying to talk to you. ;)

I didn't make any of the statements you attributed to me.

Sorry, runtu. That was one spaghetti post with quotes insdie quotes inside quotes. I apologize if I got lost in the jmaze.

[_charity]

I read it. How does it explain the inclusion/exclusion between the 3 sources? Wright didn't address that at all. Which is the point.

I guess that I don't see what you're asking. I thought that Wright gave a plausible explanation for the wording in the Book of Mormon passage. Am I missing something?

No, you are adding something. Or rather, Wright is adding something. Getting into three or four other variants, does not answer the question. How is it that Joseph Smith had his translation corroborated by a text he had no contact with?

[_charity]

Charity,

No matter how many times this is explained to you, you just don’t get it. Certitude of belief has no correlation to validity of beliefs. That is why people mention the suicide bombers (no one was comparing Mormonism to radical Islam, for god’s sake) and why I’ve mentioned the Heaven’s Gaters.

Anyone who is willing to kill him/herself for his/her beliefs, or castrate himself, or kill someone else, is absolutely convinced that God spoke to him or her. I would guess they are probably even more convinced than you are.

If you kill yourself or castrate yourself for your beliefs, you KNOW KNOW KNOW.

I completely understand that, beastie. And you keep explaining something that doesn't need explaining. I see many people here who are absolutely 100% certain that Joseph Smith was a fraud and he made the whole thing up. And I can see that their 100% certitude has nothing to be with the fact their belief is 100% invalid.

[_beastie]

I completely understand that, beastie. And you keep explaining something that doesn't need explaining. I see many people here who are absolutely 100% certain that Joseph Smith was a fraud and he made the whole thing up. And I can see that their 100% certitude has nothing to be with the fact their belief is 100% invalid.

Then why in the world do you insist you KNOW KNOW KNOW?

[_Jersey Girl]

charity

One example: the so-called Spaulding claim. Supposedly Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon and the original manuscript was lost so they couldn't prove it. Then the manuscript was found. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't really the Book of Mormon. So they had to fall back and punt. Well, um, uh, it must have been a different one. They are looking really silly on that one

But you see, charity, there is more coming. I have no doubt that the Oberlin Manuscript won't be making those who espouse the Spalding/Rigdon theory look "really silly" at that point. Just a random guess.

[_cacheman]

No, you are adding something. Or rather, Wright is adding something. Getting into three or four other variants, does not answer the question. How is it that Joseph Smith had his translation corroborated by a text he had no contact with?

This is from Wright's article. He goes on to provide references.

¶9 Given this, there is no real textual support for the BoMor Isaiah variant: the Septuagint and Targum readings develop from a text such as the MT. These translations do not preserve an underlying Hebrew text with the reading "ships of the sea." So how does BoMor Isaiah come to have a phrase that is so similar to the interpretive reading in the Septuagint and Targum? It turns out that interpreting the phrase "ships of Tarshish" as "ships of the sea" was well-known in British and American Bible interpretation in the decades preceding the publication of the Book of Mormon.

cacheman

[_charity]

I completely understand that, beastie. And you keep explaining something that doesn't need explaining. I see many people here who are absolutely 100% certain that Joseph Smith was a fraud and he made the whole thing up. And I can see that their 100% certitude has nothing to be with the fact their belief is 100% invalid.

Then why in the world do you insist you KNOW KNOW KNOW?

Just because some people can be certain and be wrong, doesn't mean that other people can't be certain and be right.

[_charity]

No, you are adding something. Or rather, Wright is adding something. Getting into three or four other variants, does not answer the question. How is it that Joseph Smith had his translation corroborated by a text he had no contact with?

This is from Wright's article. He goes on to provide references.

¶9 Given this, there is no real textual support for the BoMor Isaiah variant: the Septuagint and Targum readings develop from a text such as the MT. These translations do not preserve an underlying Hebrew text with the reading "ships of the sea." So how does BoMor Isaiah come to have a phrase that is so similar to the interpretive reading in the Septuagint and Targum? It turns out that interpreting the phrase "ships of Tarshish" as "ships of the sea" was well-known in British and American Bible interpretation in the decades preceding the publication of the Book of Mormon.

cacheman

I read that. The interpretation, which Wright focuses on, is not the point! It is the information in the verses. It takes both the the LXX and the KJV to contain all that is in the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah. That has nothing to do with interpretations.