TBM's: Killer blow to 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.

Uh, yeah. Did you really read the article? Why couldn't have someone in 1830 known that the Septuagint used the phrase, "ships of the sea" in reference to the ships of Tarshish? You said earlier that Joseph could not have known this. Why?

cacheman

[_charity]

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.

Uh, yeah. Did you really read the article? Why couldn't have someone in 1830 known that the Septuagint used the phrase, "ships of the sea" in reference to the ships of Tarshish? You said earlier that Joseph could not have known this. Why?

cacheman

We have discussed this at length. Yep, Joseph Smith, 3rd grade education, poor farmboy, has a huge library in his barn of all kinds of esoteric texts, sits in on deep discussions with learned men, and then remembers one small little phrase during the 60 working days of translating the Book of Mormon. Sure.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Uh, yeah. Did you really read the article? Why couldn't have someone in 1830 known that the Septuagint used the phrase, "ships of the sea" in reference to the ships of Tarshish? You said earlier that Joseph could not have known this. Why?

cacheman

We have discussed this at length. Yep, Joseph Smith, 3rd grade education, poor farmboy, has a huge library in his barn of all kinds of esoteric texts, sits in on deep discussions with learned men, and then remembers one small little phrase during the 60 working days of translating the Book of Mormon. Sure.

Well, let me ask you this, charity. If you think that Joseph couldn't have come in contact with the Septuagint much less have been able to read it...do you think Sidney Rigdon might have read it?

[_cacheman]

We have discussed this at length. Yep, Joseph Smith, 3rd grade education, poor farmboy, has a huge library in his barn of all kinds of esoteric texts, sits in on deep discussions with learned men, and then remembers one small little phrase during the 60 working days of translating the Book of Mormon. Sure.

Charity, you make discussion difficult. Do you at least admit now that Wright provided an explanation, even though it's one that doesn't satisfy you? Why the statement that Joseph could not have known this? Why do you describe these texts as esoteric? Why the mocking of the other's conclusion?

Do you really believe that a "logical reasonable mind" must accept the same conclusion that you have come to?

cacheman

[_charity]

We have discussed this at length. Yep, Joseph Smith, 3rd grade education, poor farmboy, has a huge library in his barn of all kinds of esoteric texts, sits in on deep discussions with learned men, and then remembers one small little phrase during the 60 working days of translating the Book of Mormon. Sure.

Charity, you make discussion difficult. Do you at least admit now that Wright provided an explanation, even though it's one that doesn't satisfy you? Why the statement that Joseph could not have known this? Why do you describe these texts as esoteric? Why the mocking of the other's conclusion?

Do you really believe that a "logical reasonable mind" must accept the same conclusion that you have come to?

cacheman

A knockoff nothing line is not an explanation. AFter spending paragraphs in not addressing the issue at all, he says well, maybe Joseph Smith could have known that the variant translations were around.

Listen up. This does not address the issue! Let me explain it.

The passage in the Book of Mormon Isaiah has 3 ideas-- (1)all the ships at sea, (2)the Ships of Tarshish and (3)the pleasant or fine ships. All of them agree on the (3). But each of the other 2 has only 1 of the ideas that the Book of Mormon Isaiah has.

The logic here is unassailable. The Book of Mormon Isaiah came from a different, more complete source than did the KJV or the LXX. If it were a simple matter of "all" and "Tarshish" could be the same thing, it would not have come up in the Book of Mormon Isaiah. This seems too simple to try to talk around. Wright's little one liner doesn't do it.

[_charity]

Well, let me ask you this, charity. If you think that Joseph couldn't have come in contact with the Septuagint much less have been able to read it...do you think Sidney Rigdon might have read it?

Okay. Let me concede that Sidney Rigdon might have read it. Then you are saying that Sidney wrote the Book of Mormon. Do you really give any credence to this theory? The multiple witnesses to the Book of Mormon production tell us that Joseph was not reading off any manuscript pages. Critics agree with this as they gleefully make fun of the "face in the hat" picture of Joseph.

This leaves this "Sidney wrote it" theory with the idea of Joseph reading off some hidden manuscript and memorizing a minimum of 8 pages of the Book of Mormon over night to dictate it to Oliver the next day. And consider how close in correspondence to the Bible Isaiah the Book of Mormon Isaiah is.

You really think that is a reasonable theory?

[_beastie]

This statement from Wright sums up why these Hebraic connections don't interest me in the least:

The appearance of this datum in so many printed sources indicates that it was not obscure, but relatively well-known. Joseph Smith could have learned about it from any one of these commentaries, or, as is far more likely, from sermons he heard or conversations he had on biblical subjects with those who might have known this particular Bible "fact." Smith may have come by this bit of information specifically via Methodist influence, since John Wesley's teachings provided the matrix for Methodism—a religion for which Smith had felt a passing affinity.

Smith, by his own admission, was from a religiously obsessed family. They attended numerous types of meetings, including revivals that would have attracted some highly educated preachers. It is just impossible to qualify what information could have had access to during the years that he could have spent creating the Book of Mormon - to say nothing of the fact that we don't even know if Smith authored it at all, and at least one possible suspect WAS educated in these things. (Rigdon)

But believers react to this very reasonable statement by pretending we're saying Joseph Smith had to be a freaking rhodes scholar with access to university libraries. Typical strawman.

[_cacheman]

A knockoff nothing line is not an explanation. AFter spending paragraphs in not addressing the issue at all, he says well, maybe Joseph Smith could have known that the variant translations were around.

What is a knockoff nothing line? And what are you talking about with the variant translations? Wright explicitly addresses the exact wording that is in the Book of Mormon, and gives an explanation, however unsatisfactory to you, as to how this may have occured.

Listen up. This does not address the issue! Let me explain it.

The passage in the Book of Mormon Isaiah has 3 ideas-- (1)all the ships at sea, (2)the Ships of Tarshish and (3)the pleasant or fine ships. All of them agree on the (3). But each of the other 2 has only 1 of the ideas that the Book of Mormon Isaiah has.

Actually, the KJV has two of them, and the third is available in biblical commentary, that you describe as esoteric. Please provide you reasoning for the term esoteric.

The logic here is unassailable. The Book of Mormon Isaiah came from a different, more complete source than did the KJV or the LXX. If it were a simple matter of "all" and "Tarshish" could be the same thing, it would not have come up in the Book of Mormon Isaiah. This seems too simple to try to talk around. Wright's little one liner doesn't do it.

How can you say that Joseph, or anyone who may have been involved in the Book of Mormon text, could not have had access to the fact that the "ships of Tarshish" also referred to the "ships of the sea"? Did you really read Wright's article? He provided multiple pre-1830 references that connected those phrases in specific reference to the Septuagint. Why is it not possible that the writer of the Book of Mormon simply added known facts to the KJV phrase?

Are you going to even answer the questions that I asked? Do you really believe that a "logical reasonable mind" must accept the same conclusion that you have come to?

cacheman

[_Mercury]

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.

# emotional or moral sensitivity (especially in relation to personal principles or dignity); "the remark hurt his feelings"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Feelings is an album by David Byrne, released on June 17, 1997.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feelings

# the expression and sensation of emotion; created, expressed and stored in the emotional body.
www.goddirect.org/glossary/f.htm

# a solemn statement made under oath
# an assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact; "according to his own testimony he can't do it"
# something that serves as evidence; "his effort was testimony to his devotion"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The problem is not that we misunderstand the words you use, its just that you are using words that do not match their definition in the context provided. I always found it humorous when Mormons try to explain why they believe what they do, as it is an activity poorly constructed and leaves the receiver of said explanation dumbstruck at how naïve the said pitcher of mormonisms ideals is.

[_cacheman]

But believers react to this very reasonable statement by pretending we're saying Joseph Smith had to be a freaking rhodes scholar with access to university libraries. Typical strawman.

Call it what it is. It's mocking. I've only attempted to demonstrate that logical reasonable minds do not necessarily have to accept the answer that Charity offers. Her only response is to mock. She won't even answer the questions that I posed.

"Discussions" such as these, remind me why I tend to avoid posting on these boards anymore.

cacheman