Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Gadianton »

ha, the "redeeming love" came out a while back and I remember looking at examples of it at archive.org.

Anyway, suppose there had never been a chiasm in English until the Book of Mormon. If that were the case, then the Book of Mormon would mark the first example of Chiasmus in English. It is not enough to justify the supreme baggage of believing in a golden book delivered by an angel.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:Chiasmus...is not enough to justify the supreme baggage of believing in a golden book delivered by an angel.

Nuff' said. Especially those with clipped wings. Conversation over.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon has been infiltrated and/or influenced by the modern vernacular.

I think that Mak may be spot on:

Nobody is going to go investigate your brain farts.

I doubt that anyone here actually has done so. And I've not read of anyone else out in academia that has either. One would think that ancient chiastic structures would remain relatively free from modern vernacular, Gadianton's example/comment withstanding. I think my question is more than a mere "brain fart". :wink:

Regards,
MG
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Maksutov »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Chiasmus...is not enough to justify the supreme baggage of believing in a golden book delivered by an angel.

Nuff' said. Especially those with clipped wings. Conversation over.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon has been infiltrated and/or influenced by the modern vernacular.

I think that Mak may be spot on:

Nobody is going to go investigate your brain farts.

I doubt that anyone here actually has done so. And I've not read of anyone else out in academia that has either. One would think that ancient chiastic structures would remain relatively free from modern vernacular, Gadianton's example/comment withstanding. I think my question is more than a mere "brain fart". :wink:

Regards,
MG

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it is more than a brain fart. You haven't and apparently you can't. But enjoy your brain farts, they are your contribution. They are so you. :lol:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Chiasmus...is not enough to justify the supreme baggage of believing in a golden book delivered by an angel.

Nuff' said. Especially those with clipped wings. Conversation over.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon has been infiltrated and/or influenced by the modern vernacular.

I think that Mak may be spot on:

Nobody is going to go investigate your brain farts.


I doubt that anyone here actually has done so. And I've not read of anyone else out in academia that has either. One would think that ancient chiastic structures would remain relatively free from modern vernacular, Gadianton's example/comment withstanding. I think my question is more than a mere "brain fart". :wink:

Regards,
MG

Still cannot give one example. lol
42
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

mentalgymnast wrote:Is the vernacular of Joseph's day or the century before prevalent within the complex chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon? I wonder if we might find that the Hebrew poetry/chiasmus sections and/or sermons in the Book of Mormon would be found to be independent of the vernacular being used outside of them?

Has anyone looked at this or made it the point of study/research? If not, it might be worth looking at.

Themis wrote:What we find is nothing to show complex chiastic structure and all vernacular is found in Joseph's time and place.

I'm not sure you understood what I said. Or at least, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

Themis wrote:If you believed you really had something you would have provided at least one example.

An example of what? Occurrences within chiastic structures in which Joseph's vernacular or that which would be found in early America IS found? As a matter of fact I would expect that you wouldn't find those examples. Gadianton (or Dr. Moore?) came up with a short two or three word example and called it good. Not good enough.

You're asking me to prove what I would think may be a negative.

Looking at chiasims I would expect that they are what I would call 'artifacts' from antiquity and the writings of the Hebrews. As such I would not expect to find Joseph's vernacular spread throughout these sections in the Book of Mormon. I'm asking YOU if you can find provable and consistent examples. Prove the positive.

Themis wrote:You also keep ignoring even some apologists argue against chiasmus due in part because it doesn't translate well from one language to another...

But the fact remains, it is there. It needs to have an explanation other than referring to Dr. Suess.

Themis wrote:...and it is just as much an English writing style as Hebrew.

Again, as I've already said, after reading what scholars have had to say about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, your reductionist soundbite doesn't cut it.

Themis, it is rather obvious...isn't it(?)...that critics really have nowhere they want to go with looking at things like chiasmus and word print studies. It doesn't fit their worldview. In order to even give credence/validity to internal evidences concerning Book of Mormon historicity they would have to also go with angels and golden plates. As Gadianton has pointed out recently, that's a non-starter.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Dr Moore
_Emeritus
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:19 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Dr Moore »

MG, you did not address Alma 5 and the song of “redeeming love” yet. Did you mean to ask the question as a hypothetical interest, or were you thinking an analysis might miraculously prove Hebraic origins for the content inside Book of Mormon chiastic instances? Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?”
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:MG, you did not address Alma 5 and the song of “redeeming love” yet. Did you mean to ask the question as a hypothetical interest, or were you thinking an analysis might miraculously prove Hebraic origins for the content inside Book of Mormon chiastic instances? Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?”

Would you point out the complex chiastic structure in Alma 5 and the words "redeeming love" within that structure?

Thanks,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Dr Moore wrote:MG, you did not address Alma 5 and the song of “redeeming love” yet. Did you mean to ask the question as a hypothetical interest, or were you thinking an analysis might miraculously prove Hebraic origins for the content inside Book of Mormon chiastic instances? Is this a case of “be careful what you wish for?”

Would you point out the complex chiastic structure in Alma 5 and the words "redeeming love" within that structure?

We do have this in regards to Alma 5:

Alma 5:9 reads in part, “their souls did expand.” The context would call for a meaning such as “they became happy,” to parallel the phrase in the same verse, “they did sing redeeming love” to celebrate their freedom from the “bands of death” and the “chains of hell.” Nowhere in the King James Bible does soul occur in conjunction with the word expand; neither does it occur with the verbs enlarge and swell, each of which accompany soul once in the Book of Mormon (Alma 32:28 and 34 respectively). This phrase appears to be unusual. Why should a soul expand? If this phrase is unique in English to the Book of Mormon, could the phrase reflect an ancient Near Eastern vorlage rather than have its origin in English?

The Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED) under soul gives no evidence of the phrase “their souls did expand” occurring in English; neither are there usages of enlarge and swell with soul. This and other evidence appears to indicate that the phrase “expand the soul” does not have its origin in English. If it could be demonstrated that this phrase has an ancient Near Eastern Semitic analog that was not available to Joseph Smith, it might qualify as sufficient evidence of an ancient Near Eastern vorlage for the Book of Mormon.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/02/ ... guing.html

Is this what you're referring to?

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:
I remember looking at the supposed complex chiamus in the Book of Mormon. One of the first things I noticed was text that didn't fit into the chiamus that was being ignored. If you don't ignore it it makes a loose chiastic structure, but one you would expect to see by chance, especially when one realizes it is a common English writing and communicating style.


Again, I would point folks towards the articles and essays...and footnotes... found within this link:

https://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

Chiamus "by chance"? That's questionable.

Regards,
MG
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:An example of what? Occurrences within chiastic structures in which Joseph's vernacular or that which would be found in early America IS found? As a matter of fact I would expect that you wouldn't find those examples. Gadianton (or Dr. Moore?) came up with a short two or three word example and called it good. Not good enough.

You're asking me to prove what I would think may be a negative.

Looking at chiasims I would expect that they are what I would call 'artifacts' from antiquity and the writings of the Hebrews. As such I would not expect to find Joseph's vernacular spread throughout these sections in the Book of Mormon. I'm asking YOU if you can find provable and consistent examples. Prove the positive.


You are making a claim that some part of the text does not fit the vernacular of Joseph's day. Since you already want to claim most of the Book of Mormon does fit Joseph's vernacular you need to provide what parts you think don't. I cannot do that for you.

But the fact remains, it is there. It needs to have an explanation other than referring to Dr. Suess.


People have given you explanations up the yin yang. Dr. Suess is just one example of chiasmus structure in an English text. You admit to many others.

Again, as I've already said, after reading what scholars have had to say about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, your reductionist soundbite doesn't cut it.

Themis, it is rather obvious...isn't it(?)...that critics really have nowhere they want to go with looking at things like chiasmus and word print studies. It doesn't fit their worldview. In order to even give credence/validity to internal evidences concerning Book of Mormon historicity they would have to also go with angels and golden plates. As Gadianton has pointed out recently, that's a non-starter.

Regards,
MG


Critics have blown holes through these arguments for a long time. What's worse is so have some LDS apologists. Interesting you ignore them so easily.
42
Post Reply