Berkeley Group Wordprint Study of Book of Mormon

[_Mad Viking]

Perhaps, but I'd give a little more credence to the angel claim if the only person who witnessed the events in question claimed that an angel was involved.

Like that Muhammed guy, the pedophile that invented Islam?

I do think it's more likely that Muhammed saw an angel like he claimed then that the billboard in front of my house is redone by angels every month. The angels on the billboard is a valid theory but I have nothing beyond it being a possibility. Muhammed at least claims to be an eye-witness. Did he see an angel? Maybe.

Would the possibility of angels changing the billboard in front of your house be more likely in your estimation if someone claimed to have seen them do it?

[Guest]

Hi trashcanman,

A few thoughts. First of all, the Berkeley study relied partly on non-contextual words in the English text of the Book of Mormon that aren't actually present in Hebrew. Second, the Berkeley group claimed to have verified that their method was valid in translation by applying it to a few English translations of German texts. This isn't necessarily the same as using it on translations from Hebrew, which is quite a bit further removed from English than German. Third, the Berkeley Group did not compare the Book of Mormon to the wordprint of Sidney Rigdon, whom many Spalding theorists (including our dearest Uncle) believe had something to do with its production. Fourth, the Berkeley study assumed singular (rather than composite) authorship for each of the two Book of Mormon books they tested, Alma and Nephi. (Again, D'Unk would not approve.) Fifth, the Berkeley Group admitted that wordprint studies might not return accurate results if the author had imposed an external structure (like chiasmus?) on the text. Sixth, the Berkeley researchers admitted that wordprint techniques that work for one kind of text or set of literary parameters might not work for all others (like texts written in imitation of pseudo-scriptural Jacobean style?). And finally, I believe that John Tvedtnes has said he does not support the use of wordprints as evidence for the Book of Mormon for some of the reasons cited above.

Best,

-Chris

How does the use of "King James English" factor in to the study? The Book of Mormon text in its orginal text (reformed egyptian) would not have possessed the same phrase structures as the English translation. Whether or not you (not YOU chris, but everyone) think Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, or translated it from reformed egyptian, you must admit that he forced it into King James English, which was not his (Joseph Smith Jr's) standard method of writing and speaking. Do these wordprint studies address the fact that Joseph, either as a prophet or fraud, had to force the language into how it is found in the Book of Mormon? I am quite certain that if I tried to write in Old English style my word usage would be different. But, that is one of the essential assumptions and basis of the wordprint theory. Right?

EDIT:
I thought I read on fairwiki that 5000 words of text per author were required. Is that why some of the smaller books in the Book of Mormon were not part of the study?

EDIT #2:
Furthermore, don't the basis of these wordprint analyses chain the Book of Mormon to a word for word strict translation? It seems that any notion of Joseph taking the concepts and puting them into his own words is disqualified by the results of these studies.

[_Dr. Shades]

I heard that this so-called "Berkeley Group" was headed by a couple of Mormons.

If Mormons are running a wordprint study of the Book of Mormon, then of course they're going to find evidence of multiple authors. It would be physically impossible for them not to do so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I heard that this so-called "Berkeley Group" was headed by a couple of Mormons.

If Mormons are running a wordprint study of the Book of Mormon, then of course they're going to find evidence of multiple authors. It would be physically impossible for them not to do so.

Not true. John Hilton was a Mormon. But there were two others. One was Jewish and, if I recall correctly, the other was an agnostic.

[_truth dancer]

I'd like to see a word print study using the latest technology by a reputable scholar, peer reviewed by experts, comparing the Book of Mormon, PoGP, D&C, and various men like Joseph Smith, OC, SR, maybe even a few others like Ethan Smith.

I think it would be very enlightening.

~dancer~

[_John Larsen]

I heard that this so-called "Berkeley Group" was headed by a couple of Mormons.

If Mormons are running a wordprint study of the Book of Mormon, then of course they're going to find evidence of multiple authors. It would be physically impossible for them not to do so.

Not true. John Hilton was a Mormon. But there were two others. One was Jewish and, if I recall correctly, the other was an agnostic.

\

And they both converted in light of this irrefutable evidence? It seems to me that if the conclusions didn't even impress the authors, no one else should be impressed either.

[_The Dude]

If Mormons are running a wordprint study of the Book of Mormon, then of course they're going to find evidence of multiple authors. It would be physically impossible for them not to do so.

As Scottie pointed out earlier, Mormons can reconcile any result with divine authorship. A result of single authorship could mean the mark of a single translator using "loose translation". However, I think the more important point issue is the result that supposedly rules out Joseph Smith because it doesn't match something else he wrote. Hopefully trashcanman can feel some satisfaction that there are critics (esp. CaliforniaKid) who are willing to deal with *serious* defenses of Mormonism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And they both converted in light of this irrefutable evidence? It seems to me that if the conclusions didn't even impress the authors, no one else should be impressed either.

From what I know of them, they were both impressed, but neither converted. A rather distinct thing, in my opinion.

[_truth dancer]

What does it matter??

If any group finds that the wordprint is the work of a single man, the apologists say "Well of COURSE it is!! Mormon abridged it. Why would you expect anything else??"

If it's not, the apologists say, "Well of COURSE it's multiple people. Have you READ the book??"

Scottie,

What if a word print study matched the Book of Mormon with several men like Joseph Smith, OC, and SR?

What would the apologetic argument be?

[_CaliforniaKid]

The Book of Mormon text in its orginal text (reformed egyptian) would not have possessed the same phrase structures as the English translation.

You are correct. It is doubtful that a text forced to fit KJV style could match either the wordprint of an ancient Hebrew author (in the case of ancient authorship) or the everyday wordprint of Joseph Smith (in the case of modern authorship).

I thought I read on fairwiki that 5000 words of text per author were required. Is that why some of the smaller books in the Book of Mormon were not part of the study?

That, and they wanted to avoid portions where the KJV is quoted at length. (I've not investigated the question of how well they succeeded in that.)

Furthermore, don't the basis of these wordprint analyses chain the Book of Mormon to a word for word strict translation? It seems that any notion of Joseph taking the concepts and puting them into his own words is disqualified by the results of these studies.

Yes, it appears so.