Berkeley Group Wordprint Study of Book of Mormon

[Guest]

Actually, they are proposing that a wordprint pattern that indicates multiple authors validates the Book of Mormon. I propose that this contradicts the methods of "translation" supported by believers.

But which multiple authors? Are you saying that they're proposing that a wordprint pattern of the scribes validates the Book of Mormon?

The "translation" came through the filter of one person. Either god or Joseph Smith. In other words, according to the loose translation theory the Book of Mormon was written down in the words of Joseph Smith according to the ideas and concepts given by revelation from god. In this case, the wordprint analysis would show that there is one author. Since the wordprint analysis supposedly shows there is more than one author, any arguement made that proposes a loose translation of the Book of Mormon must be abandonded.

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

This word print stuff doesn't support either of these translational theories proposed by believers.

EDIT: In other words, I don't believe for a second that a direct translation of reformed egyptian to Old English preserves any unique word patterns that the original authors might have had. Any non-contextual words that show up in the end product would be incidental to the translators efforts to put reformed egyptian into Old English. A word print study that showed one author would make more sense to me given the manner in which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have developed.

Furthermore, I will fully admit that a word print study that showed one author could also be produced by Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon himself. That is to say, I don't think the wordprint studies help the apologetic case. It is a no win scenario for them on this one, IMHO.

[_The Nehor]

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

You are seriously expecting LDS to believe that God, the creator of the Universe, omniscient and omnipotent, is limited to appearing as one author in a text he helps to create? I don't know about the rest of my friends in the Church but I find that concept laughable.

[Guest]

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

You are seriously expecting LDS to believe that God, the creator of the Universe, omniscient and omnipotent, is limited to appearing as one author in a text he helps to create? I don't know about the rest of my friends in the Church but I find that concept laughable.

Do you expect anyone to seriously believe that your god made sure that the right number of "is", "are", "and", etc. were placed in the Old English version of the Book of Mormon just so that the Berkely Group could perform their study and use it to support the Book of Mormon? With anything god is possible.

The complete concept of your god is what is laughable.

Maybe that is why god didn't show up to the first vision. He was busy making sure the right number of non-contextual words were in the right books of the Book of Mormon.

[_Jersey Girl]

Actually, they are proposing that a wordprint pattern that indicates multiple authors validates the Book of Mormon. I propose that this contradicts the methods of "translation" supported by believers.

But which multiple authors? Are you saying that they're proposing that a wordprint pattern of the scribes validates the Book of Mormon?

The "translation" came through the filter of one person. Either god or Joseph Smith. In other words, according to the loose translation theory the Book of Mormon was written down in the words of Joseph Smith according to the ideas and concepts given by revelation from god. In this case, the wordprint analysis would show that there is one author. Since the wordprint analysis supposedly shows there is more than one author, any arguement made that proposes a loose translation of the Book of Mormon must be abandonded.

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

This word print stuff doesn't support either of these translational theories proposed by believers.

EDIT: In other words, I don't believe for a second that a direct translation of reformed egyptian to Old English preserves any unique word patterns that the original authors might have had. Any non-contextual words that show up in the end product would be incidental to the translators efforts to put reformed egyptian into Old English. A word print study that showed one author would make more sense to me given the manner in which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have developed.

Furthermore, I will fully admit that a word print study that showed one author could also be produced by Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon himself. That is to say, I don't think the wordprint studies help the apologetic case. It is a no win scenario for them on this one, IMHO.

Viking, thank you for your insights here. Greatly appreciated!

[_The Nehor]

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

You are seriously expecting LDS to believe that God, the creator of the Universe, omniscient and omnipotent, is limited to appearing as one author in a text he helps to create? I don't know about the rest of my friends in the Church but I find that concept laughable.

Do you expect anyone to seriously believe that your god made sure that the right number of "is", "are", "and", etc. were placed in the Old English version of the Book of Mormon just so that the Berkely Group could perform their study and use it to support the Book of Mormon? With anything god is possible.

The complete concept of your god is what is laughable.

He might have, it would be easy for him. Since he knows everything, it's doubtful that there is such a thing as irrelevant details for him.

I think what you refer to as laughable is the caricature of my God you have. You're the one who suggests he sits down with a human vocabulary and dictates books like any normal person.

[_Mad Viking]

If the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph by god, word for word, then god is the one that translated it from reformed egyptian to Old English. In which case the wordprint analysis should also demonstrate that one individual "translated" the text. That one individual being god. Again, since the word print supposedly shows that there is more than one author, then the strict word for word translation theory must also be abandonded.

You are seriously expecting LDS to believe that God, the creator of the Universe, omniscient and omnipotent, is limited to appearing as one author in a text he helps to create? I don't know about the rest of my friends in the Church but I find that concept laughable.

Do you expect anyone to seriously believe that your god made sure that the right number of "is", "are", "and", etc. were placed in the Old English version of the Book of Mormon just so that the Berkely Group could perform their study and use it to support the Book of Mormon? With anything god is possible.

The complete concept of your god is what is laughable.

He might have, it would be easy for him. Since he knows everything, it's doubtful that there is such a thing as irrelevant details for him.

I think what you refer to as laughable is the caricature of my God you have. You're the one who suggests he sits down with a human vocabulary and dictates books like any normal person.

Last time I checked, English is a "human vocabulary".

I am not sure if he was sitting, but he certainly doesn't dictate books like a normal person. He puts the words on a rock so that his mouthpiece can read the words off of it. I mean come on. I didn't make that up. That IS your god. You may not appreciate it, but it IS laughable.

God is OK with the text of the Book of Mormon being validated through wordprint studies, but he doesn't want anyone looking at the plates.

OK, OK, I know. God can do anything. Blah, Blah, Blah.

[_guy sajer]

I'm following a discussion on another board (one lacking the quality membership of the Great and Spacious Trailer Park), and the abridged version of the conversation goes something like this:

Critic: FARMS sucks.

TBM: Yeah? Then why isn't anyone seriously dealing with their claims? (Included was the obligatory reference to Owen and Mosser.)

Critic: Which claim hasn't been dealt with?

TBM: This one. (Technically not FARMS, but nevermind...)

Critic: [Lots of links that criticize the earlier wordprint study done at BYU, but none addressing the Berkeley Group's.] How can you say this hasn't been dealt with?

TBM: Your references are obsolete. Owen and Mosser were, and still are, right: no one is willing or able to deal with serious defenses of Mormonism, and this proves it.

Critic: *crickets chirping* (Granted, this group is pretty slow moving, so I'm sure a response is forthcoming...)

At any rate, I attempted to find out what I could as far as criticism of the Berkeley Group's study goes, and, sure enough, there are a few mentions of it and some wave of the hand dismissals, but nothing that I found particularly impressive. Are my Google skills deficient, or is this TBM correct in charging that no critics, for whatever reason, have seriously dealt with the findings of the Berkeley Group? Maybe there have been in print, but not online?

Has anyone gone the rounds with a TBM on this before?

Let's see if I got this right.

Single author for Book of Mormon = Authentic, genuine history of real civilization of Hebrew emigrants to the New World, revealed to Joseph Smith by an angel, translated (well, dictated) by looking into a rock in a hat.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. The conclusion definitively follows--there can be no other explanation.

Actually, they are proposing that a wordprint pattern that indicates multiple authors validates the Book of Mormon. I propose that this contradicts the methods of "translation" supported by believers.

Let's see if I got this right.

Multiple authors for Book of Mormon = Authentic, genuine history of real civilization of Hebrew emigrants to the New World, revealed to Joseph Smith by an angel, translated (well, dictated) by looking into a rock in a hat.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. The conclusion definitively follows--there can be no other explanation

[_truth dancer]

Hi Scottie,

I don't know much about this. Can they match multiple authors? We don't know what role OC or SR had in the Book of Mormon. Were they just giving ideas and Joseph Smith did the storytelling? Did they actually write parts of the Book of Mormon?

Yes they can match multiple authors.

I'm thinking if the earlier (technologically outdated) WP study showed multiple authors, while there could be several explanations for this, it may be interesting to see how various friends of Joseph Smith match up.

You never know?

;-)

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

I am not sure if he was sitting, but he certainly doesn't dictate books like a normal person. He puts the words on a rock so that his mouthpiece can read the words off of it. I mean come on. I didn't make that up. That IS your god. You may not appreciate it, but it IS laughable.

You've never experienced it and therefore it is laughable.

[_Mad Viking]

I am not sure if he was sitting, but he certainly doesn't dictate books like a normal person. He puts the words on a rock so that his mouthpiece can read the words off of it. I mean come on. I didn't make that up. That IS your god. You may not appreciate it, but it IS laughable.

You've never experienced it and therefore it is laughable.

That isn't why it is laughable.