I resisted saying this for a while but am now failing to resist.
I can understand how the idea of a loose translation could clarify the nature of the Book of Mormon and how it creates an inspiring story by expanding on a framework of real world facts.
The following facts can make a strong foundation for beginning. There was (and is) a real Jerusalem. there is desert to the south. There are large oceans to cross between those deserts and the Americas. There have been people living in the Americas. There was a real Jesus who was crucified outside of Jerusalem. People believed he was raised from death and was glorified.
Now to expand, wouldn't it by neat if Jesus visited the Americas? That could make a great story. It could be filled with inspiring instruction and sermons. It could have adventures and people leaving the old world for the new. It could chronicle these peoples conflicts and disputes over faith. It could help people overcome conflicts by giving an new basis to have confidence that Jesus survived death and has a supernatural status.
The framework is solid for a start and the expansion inspiring.
But then on top of that one needs to determine whether or not it is reasonable to think that a young man of Joseph Smith’s age could have engaged in this expansion on his own under the conditions we find him in.
A flash in the frying pan the Book of Mormon it was. Nod to Yoda.
Each person needs to determine that for themselves.
Regards,
MG
MG, there is no way I or anybody else can determine whether Joseph had help or not. There is no replay recording showing all the details of what happened. As a result I do not know. I can come up with theories of some variety but they are not knowing what happened. They are what if this or what if that.
There is a lot more evidence with which to determine if the book is sober history or religious fiction. I do not see a way to escape the religious fiction conclusion whether Joseph had help or not.
But then on top of that one needs to determine whether or not it is reasonable to think that a young man of Joseph Smith’s age could have engaged in this expansion on his own under the conditions we find him in.
A flash in the frying pan the Book of Mormon it was. Nod to Yoda.
Each person needs to determine that for themselves.
Regards,
MG
MG, there is no way I or anybody else can determine whether Joseph had help or not. There is no replay recording showing all the details of what happened. As a result I do not know. I can come up with theories of some variety but they are not knowing what happened. They are what if this or what if that.
There is a lot more evidence with which to determine if the book is sober history or religious fiction. I do not see a way to escape the religious fiction conclusion whether Joseph had help or not.
What the evidence does seem to show is that Joseph put his head in a hat and spoke without any prompts or crib notes insofar as we know. Once his head was covered he was on his own.
What the evidence does seem to show is that Joseph put his head in a hat and spoke without any prompts or crib notes insofar as we know. Once his head was covered he was on his own.
Unless he was getting help at that point…
Regards,
MG
Lots of people are capable of telling stories without prompts or crib notes. From actors in plays, tour guides, raconteurs etc etc etc.
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.
MG, it seems as though you decided not to finish the Lundwall presentation and find out what he had to say. Perhaps his observations are things you would rather not consider.
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.
Yes but Grant Hardy wrote something.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable.
Yes it is. Your comments over on the “If Plates, Then God” thread lead me to think you are not aware of or are unwilling to accept that evidence.
Regards,
MG
There’s that nasty little habit of yours again - snipping quotes. Stop it.
Here’s what I actually said…
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.
The KJV content found in the Book of Mormon isn’t from the ancient Americas. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it only matters that the content plagiarised within the Book of Mormon doesn’t come from people who lived 600 B.C. to A.D. 400.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Yes it is. Your comments over on the “If Plates, Then God” thread lead me to think you are not aware of or are unwilling to accept that evidence.
Regards,
MG
There’s that nasty little habit of yours again - snipping quotes. Stop it.
Here’s what I actually said…
The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.
The KJV content found in the Book of Mormon isn’t from the ancient Americas. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it only matters that the content plagiarised within the Book of Mormon doesn’t come from people who lived 600 B.C. to A.D. 400.
Two possible solutions:
Perhaps god thought that the KJV translation was so good and accurate (italics and errors included) that he went back in time to convey that content to people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400. (assuming that they could italicize the engraving of reformed Egyptian caractors, that is).
or
What the people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 wrote was so good that god somehow made sure that the KJV translation incorporated it (italics as required, and errors included).
Easy-peasy - with god, all things are possible.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
There’s that nasty little habit of yours again - snipping quotes. Stop it.
Here’s what I actually said…
The KJV content found in the Book of Mormon isn’t from the ancient Americas. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it only matters that the content plagiarised within the Book of Mormon doesn’t come from people who lived 600 B.C. to A.D. 400.
Two possible solutions:
Perhaps god thought that the KJV translation was so good and accurate (italics and errors included) that he went back in time to convey that content to people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400. (assuming that they could italicize the engraving of reformed Egyptian caractors, that is).
or
What the people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 wrote was so good that god somehow made sure that the KJV translation incorporated it (italics as required, and errors included).
Easy-peasy - with god, all things are possible.
I thought that the standard apologetic was that when the plates referred to biblical material the kjv was used to facilitate translation, copying was quicker and easier.
I am still wondering why this thread has left Lundwall's observations out completely.
