Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Themis]

vessr, are you getting these parallels from a website? If so, I can look there to see all 500. But for tonight, I'm beat. I need to puzzle for a while. :-)

No, not exactly. I'm the only one I know of who has done these as parallelisms and tried to determine as many as possible that are not cross-referenced in the Book of Mormon to the Bible. But there are websites that include almost all of the examples, in a different way. They are websites that show how the Bible is in the Book of Mormon that at least I've looked at and, in many cases, used to help me put my list together, going through all of them to make my list as complete as possible.

Get some sleep. When you awaken, I look forward to a more detailed response from you.

GOOD NITE.

I think the parallelisms are interesting, but I do think this is a dangerous game. One that apologists are focusing on for the past number of decades. Many of the examples you use are fairly short, and are different enough I cannot limit unintentional use of them by Joseph and others. The question of God being author does bring up why he would intentionally use the words of other humans. Unintentional use is not an option with God.

[_vessr]

I think you’re right, Themis, on your point that “parallelisms are interesting, but I do think this is a dangerous game. One that apologists are focusing on for the past number of decades.”

Apologists are armed and prepared to defend the Book of Mormon, including perhaps even against the three references I made above that seem to me the least likely to be defensible under the theory that they were not copied from the New Testament.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an organization allegedly willing to address challenging Book of Mormon questions with the following question:

“One of the most obvious uses of the New Testament in Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon is taken from the Book of Hebrews of the New Testament, verses 26-27 of chapter 10:

“’For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.'

“Mormon apologists argue that many of the similar or identical phrases in the Book of Mormon, when compared with New Testament verses, might have had an earlier writing (during the Old Testament times) they were both relying on. But the language above HAD to have been copied from the New Testament passage above, which is almost identical to a statement in the Book of Mormon:

“’Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for of the fiery indigation of the wrath of God upon them . ...' (Alma 40:14.)

“The ‘of’ in Alma 40:14 was in the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, but was removed is later editions.
“Can you explain??”

I got back a very thorough and well reasoned response. The responder had looked in databases available to him to pull up several examples of using "looking for of" in a sentence. I wrote back, responding that every example he gave was, in context, borrowed from the book of Hebrew. And that was my point.

I asked him to find me one writer who used "looking for of" and "fiery indigation" in the same document. He initially agreed to look for me, but then back out and told me the conversation was over; not because I was rude, but because I was pressing for the truth (IMHO).

I think the other two examples I gave above in a separate email would result in a similar responses from the apologetics, but even more likely than the one above they would show up in other writings specifically to address the verses in Old and New Testaments to which they relate.

[_Tobin]

I think you’re right, Themis, on your point that “parallelisms are interesting, but I do think this is a dangerous game. One that apologists are focusing on for the past number of decades.”

Apologists are armed and prepared to defend the Book of Mormon, including perhaps even against the three references I made above that seem to me the least likely to be defensible under the theory that they were not copied from the New Testament.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an organization allegedly willing to address challenging Book of Mormon questions with the following question:

“One of the most obvious uses of the New Testament in Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon is taken from the Book of Hebrews of the New Testament, verses 26-27 of chapter 10:

“’For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.'

“Mormon apologists argue that many of the similar or identical phrases in the Book of Mormon, when compared with New Testament verses, might have had an earlier writing (during the Old Testament times) they were both relying on. But the language above HAD to have been copied from the New Testament passage above, which is almost identical to a statement in the Book of Mormon:

“’Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for of the fiery indigation of the wrath of God upon them . ...' (Alma 40:14.)

“The ‘of’ in Alma 40:14 was in the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, but was removed is later editions.
“Can you explain??”

I got back a very thorough and well reasoned response. The responder had looked in databases available to him to pull up several examples of using "looking for of" in a sentence. I wrote back, responding that every example he gave was, in context, borrowed from the book of Hebrew. And that was my point.

I asked him to find me one writer who used "looking for of" and "fiery indigation" in the same document. He initially agreed to look for me, but then back out and told me the conversation was over; not because I was rude, but because I was pressing for the truth (IMHO).

I think the other two examples I gave above in a separate email would result in a similar responses from the apologetics, but even more likely than the one above they would show up in other writings specifically to address the verses in Old and New Testaments to which they relate.

A couple of minor problems.

1) The 1830 edition (and immediately subsequent editions 1837 and so on) did not have that many chapters in Alma. And did not contain verses.
2) This wasn't changed till many reprints later. The 1837 edition contains it as well.
3) You aren't looking at it from the standpoint of translation. "looking for" and "of [the] judgement" are derived from separately identifiable words in the original copies in the Bible (or in this case "of [the] firey indignation"). The reason it is translated that way is because of how the underlying Greek words and phrases are expressed and would be translated into English (remember the KJV is a word for word translation vs modern translations which are meaning for meaning translations).

Now, before you wander off and tell me that the Book of Mormon people didn't speak Greek, don't forget many of the original Greek copies of the books of the Bible are translations themselves. In this case, it was most likely written in Hebrew since it was written for the HEBREWS!!! So finding a similar expression (as expressed in English) in a Hebrew document to another Hebrew document (written in reformed Egyptian in the Book of Mormon's case and expressed in English) is rather unremarkable.

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, I've done some puzzling over the first of vessr's top 3 most damning examples of parallelism.

Mosiah 13:25: “they should observe to do all these things for to keep these commandments”; “they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostle and elders”: Acts 16:4. [“for to keep” is an odd word choice, and to be translated from the reformed Egyptian to capture the same terminology from the New Testament makes me a disbeliever.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the proposition that "for to keep" is an odd word choice. It occurs once in the Old Testament, once in the New Testament, and once in the Book of Mormon. Grammatically, what we have is an infinitive verb form (to X) preceded by the word "for." In modern usage, we would just use the infinitive verb form and drop the for. In fact, if you look at more modern translations of the Bible, they either replace "for to keep" with "to keep" or they rephrase the verse in a way that doesn't use "to keep" at all. You can confirm this yourself by doing a search at Biblegateway.com.

So, if we want to determine how odd the structure of "for to keep" really is, what should we look at? The "odd" part of the phrase is the placement of the word "for" directly in front of the infinitive. So, if we want to know if the construction of this phrase is odd, we need to look at the more general class of phrases that match "for [infinitive verb]."

So, let's go to LDS.org and search the scriptures for all occurrences of "for to," then count only the hits that show "for [infinitive verb]. What do we find?

Old Testament: 22
New Testament: 34
Book of Mormon: 2

I think it would be fair to conclude that the phrase "for to [verb]" is not an odd word choice in the KJV.

But, would it be an odd choice for Joseph Smith? Luckily, there is a collection of his papers online: http://josephsmithpapers.org Let's go there and search "for to," again looking for "for [infinitive verb]." The search returns 46 hits. Here are examples of entries that fit the form we are looking for:

For to turn his hopes on high,

Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, Page 52

leave these sayings, with you, for to ponder in your ...verily I say unto you, my friends, I leave these sayings, with you, for to ponder in your hearts; with this

Revelation, 27–28 December 1832 [D&C 88:1–126], Page 7

5 It’s my free will for to believe:

Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, Page 8

For to seek eternal life,

Collection of Sacred Hymns, 1835, Page 32

& I also shall be able to purchase some goods this Spring for to & I also shall be able to purchase some goods this Spring for to make my assortment more compleet through the summer—

Order from Newel K. Whitney, 18 April 1834, Page 1

leave these sayings, with you, for to ponder in your ...verily I say unto you, my friends, I leave these sayings, with you, for to ponder in your hearts; with this

Revelation Book 2, Page 49
Revelations and Translations February 1, 1832 - November 1, 1834

last winter in order to come for to dispose of the prop last winter in order to come for to dispose of the property I had in possession, which I have been striving to...

Letter from Alvah Tippets, 20 October 1834, Page 1

goes for to p[r]ove ...be as suitable a place as any to, notice one circumstance which goes for to prove the apathy which which reigned in the civil authorities, and their...

Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, et al., Petition Draft (“To the Publick”), circa 1838–1839, Page 51

we can purchase the lands with money, for to take ...a boddy, except where we can purchase the lands with money, for to take possession by conquest or the shedding of blood is something foreign...

Declaration, 21 June 1834, Page 2

I do not write this letter to entertain you with news, or for to wake you ...write this letter to entertain you with news, or for to wake you up to our dreadful condition, but that you may...

Letter from William W. Phelps, 15 December 1833, Page 1

You can visit the page and look at the rest.

So, we have a number of different types of documents, including hymns, letters, and revelations, by many different authors, that use the form "for [infinitive verb]." I consider this very strong evidence that the phrase "for to keep" was not oddly constructed when Joseph Smith lived. Based on the evidence in the Joseph Smith papers, it is not surprising at all that the phase "for to keep" appears in the Book of Mormon.

Not to harp, but this is a perfect example of why I believe reasoning from parallels should be met with a high level of skepticism.

As an aside, I also googled "for to keep." It was used a number of times, ranging from use in the 1700's to use today. Based on what I found, I think a reasonable estimate of the number of different uses of "for to keep" would be around a million, give or take 200,000.

[_vessr]

Awesome research, Brad. I stand corrected re that first example that you focused on. The apologists say that I also stand corrected on the next example, re "fearful looking for of the fiery indignation of the Lord."

Let me ask you, Brad, to apply your research skills to the last of the three examples of parallelisms that I felt were most damning (especially in context):

3 Nephi 20:24: “yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me”; “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days”: Acts 3:24.

Samuel is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, by the way, except for Samuel the Lamanite, who showed up in Helaman and his prophecies showed up in 3 Nephi, including discussion by the Savior three chapters later in 3 Nephi 23. In any event, what are the odds that this wording in 3 Nephi 20:24 would be used by the Savior in the New World and then virtually spoken identically by Peter in the book of Acts?

Let me add some more context to this alleged parallelism, which is almost word-for-word in each example, above. The two verses following verse 24 of 3 Nephi 20 are important for context, alleged to have been said by the Savior:

“And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

“The Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; and this because ye are the children of the covenant—“

Now compare the above context with the two verses that follow the parallel verse in the book of Acts, which was also verse 24, alleged to have been said by Peter:

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

And look at the verse which immediately precedes Act 3:24:

“For Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

And look at the verse that precedes 3 Nephi 20:24:

"And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.” (See also 1 Nephi 22:20 for an almost verbatim quote of the above by Nephi, before both the Savor and Peter said the same things.)

I still believe that there are multiple parallelisms in the Book of Mormon and in the New Testament; but nothing is more clear of near verbatim Book of Mormon borrowings from the New Testament than in the verses above, in my opinion.

[_Tobin]

vessr,

Simple. Do you think Peter came up with such things himself or did he hear them from the Lord instead and repeated them? I think the latter is much more likely.

[_ludwigm]

vessr,

Simple. Do you think Peter came up with such things himself or did he hear them from the Lord instead and repeated them? I think the latter is much more likely.

Fortunately, we are living in a world full of smart cell phones (which can record video about the events around us) and mp3 players (which can record the sounds only)...



...
and Youtube is full of videos about different appearances of gods, and podcasts where all of us can hear gods' voice.

Simple.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, vessr. I enjoyed the research. It's like doing puzzles.

I did do some work on the second one. It was much more difficult for me to get my arms around. I might as well let you know what I did find.

The structure of the phrase "a state of awful, fearful looking for of the fiery indignation" sounds very awkward. At first I thought it must be some kind of mistake. So I looked at different translations of the parallel quotation from Hebrews. More modern translations either essentially rewrote the verse or substituted "expectation" for "looking for." Then it made sense: "looking" is not used as a verb --it's the object of the verb . "looking for" is a noun equivalent to "expectation." This use of "looking for" is found only once in the entire KJV and once in the Book of Mormon. It did not appear in the Joseph Smith papers. I started searching the Times & Seasons, but didn't get very far.

I did find "looking for" used in the same way in an old Welsh-English dictionary. It defined a welsh word I couldn't pronounce in a million years as "a looking for; expectation."

I did think of some phrases we use today that have the same structure. The best was "I gave him a talking to." I'm not a grammarian, but I think "talking to" is the direct object of the verb "gave."

So, here is the verse from Hebrews:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

If i'm reading it correctly, "looking for" is the direct object of the verb "remaineth." So, it appears to me that the grammar is correct in Hebrews.

Now, the verse from Alma:

Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for of the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them .

Now this verse doesn't look to me to be grammatically correct. The ", and" should be connecting two independent clauses, each with its own subject and verb. But I don't see a verb in the second clause. The removal of the "of" at a later time indicates someone else thought there was an error in grammar. But I think the grammar is still incorrect after removing the "of." The second independent clause still lacks a verb. I was looking at materials on grammar to confirm this when I stopped, so I'm not that confident of my conclusion.

So, what went on here? I'd need to dig around a little more before reaching a firm conclusion. But my best guesses are: the KJV verse in Hebrews is grammatically correct. "looking for" is an archaic synonym for "expectation," and functions as the direct object of the verb "remaineth." The KJV translators opted to use "looking for" in translating from a Greek word; modern translations used "expectation," probably recognizing that "looking for" was archaic.

"looking for" used as an object and "fiery indignation" are not commonly used phrases. The Book of Alma is dated more than 100 years before the Book of Hebrews. Alma was written in reformed Egyptian and then translated into English. The Book of Hebrews was originally written in Greek. (http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/hebrews/) From Greek, it was translated into English by the KJV translators. The odds that these two completely different paths of translation would end up putting these two uncommon phrases together in the same sentence in close proximity seem pretty darn long to me. Tentatively, based only on what I've done so far, I'd say this example is pretty good evidence of copying. I certainly can't rule out the hypothesis that Smith took the phrase from Hebrews, modified it slightly, and screwed up the grammar because "looking for" was an archaic term that he didn't recongize as a synonym for expectation.

What I'd want to do is:
1. Confirm I've analyzed the grammar correctly.
2. Search other historical documents from Smith's time to verify how common the two phrases were.
3. Verify that "looking for" and "expectation" were translated from the same Greek word.

I may have some time to take a look at the third example tomorrow.

[_vessr]

Brad, did you do any additional research re above? Also, did you have the opportunity to review my third parallelism, which I believe is more telling than them all?

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi vessr, I'm not sure I understand the issue with the third one. Nephi and his brothers went back to get the brass plates from Laban. Those plates included whatever there was in the way of scripture at that time. So, Samuel would have been as important to the the people in the new world as in the old, given his prophecy of a Messiah. I must be missing something. What is it? ;-)