TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

This post about hubris has underneath it this sign line:

If you don't visit my fabulous new mormonmesoamerica.com website, you are a LOOOOOSER.

Hmmmmmm.


LOL! Yes, Charity, I am seriously calling people losers for not visiting my website, rather than thinking of a humorous way to advertise my website. You nailed it! It's hubris, all right!!
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

The Book of Mormon also contains variant readings from these Old Testament sources. In instances where the Book of Mormon cites Isaiah differently than the KJV, these passages are not supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls.3 However, some Old Testament citations in the Book of Mormon do agree with the Septuagint. We can appeal to these similarities as evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. We can't very well appeal to similarities between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible because it is very evident that Joseph Smith used the KJV in translating Old Testament passages. Sidney Sperry postulated that the Prophet used the KJV while translating Bible verses; and, when the translation substantially agreed with our Bible, the Prophet used the King James English.4 Dr. Sperry believed that if the record on the plates differed too greatly with the KJV, the prophet would dictate the change. Although there are many minor changes, the Prophet's translation was heavily dependent upon the King James Bible.5


http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/B ... ormon.html

Most apologists on Z were quite willing to concede that Joseph Smith used the Bible during the production of the Book of Mormon.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

charity wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:
Duh. Joseph Smith didn't have to blink letter-by-letter to convey his thoughts. It's entirely possible, though, to plan out in advance what the day's writings will consist of and go from there. If Joseph Smith had an affinity for that type of thing, then it's not even a superhuman feat to do so. He'd been telling stories about the "original inhabitants" of the Americas for years to his family. He'd already had the 116 pages he'd worked on with Martin Harris. It's not unreasonable.


Just try it. Make up a book, memorize it, dictate it to a scribe in 60 some days. Then come back and tell us what a snap it was.


The point is, you wouldn't have to memorize the whole book at once. You just need to compose small parts of it at a time. And I'm not going to base my opinion on comparing my own abilities - rote memorization isn't my strength. But for others, it is. Joseph Smith obviously had more abilities in this area than I do. Plus, it wasn't a perfect job, either. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but there are several instances where the composition of the Book of Mormon is meandering and self-contradictory, like it was made up on the fly. More reason for me to put credence into the theory that Joseph Smith was the author.

charity wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:Using your 8 pages a day average - take into account that much of the Book of Mormon is copied from the KJV, so those days would likely generate more pages than other days, leaving plenty of time other days for him to weave his tale. And the theology isn't complicated - it's reflective of the theories of the day. The Book of Mormon isn't even particularly well written. Again, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the book was a product of a man's mind.


This is where you really should have done your homework. There are about 25,000 words from the KJV, in a book which contains 270,745 words. That is roughly 11%. That is not "much" by any standard. PLUS the fact that all the witnesses day that Joseph did not have a Bible with him when the translation was going on.

Oh, since you keep saying things are so easy. Memorize 8 pages of the Book of Isaiah over night, and then dictate it the next day. We will be waiting to hear what a nothing task this was.


11% isn't "much"? Really? We have a different opinion of much, then. (Silly aside: take out all the "it came to pass"-es and then do the percentage comparison.) And do not forget to take into account the amazing parallels between parts of the Bible and the Book of Mormon - that makes it easier to compose a book when you've already got a template.

We can bicker about whether the witnesses ever saw Joseph Smith with a Bible, but obviously we aren't going to convince each other of anything. But do remember that Martin Harris had reported that some "translation" occurred while Joseph Smith was behind a sheet, in another room, or upstairs. It cannot be stated that Joseph Smith "never" had a Bible with him.

And again, I'm not going to make myself the baseline for memorizing any Bible passages and then regurgitating them. We're not speculating about my abilities (and, by the way, I don't suggest I can do it). Best I can do is memorize large portions of Shakespeare. But it's certainly not impossible, and, in fact, many are able to memorize large swaths of text. Either way, your "challenge" is simply silly.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Jersey Girl wrote:Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Because there were so many of them!
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

skippy the dead wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Because there were so many of them!


But there were many witnesses to the Spalding manuscript deal, including the CONNEAUT witnesses...what's the big diff?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Mainly because they think God has told them so. The evidence they add for this is that they never denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon. They're certain that if the witnesses were involved in a hoax they would have spilled the beans.

Although I don't have a strong opinion on whether the witnesses were in on a hoax, OR if they were simply pulled along by a tide (they didn't write the statement themselves, If I recall correctly) - but I do believe that, as time went on, the stakes were too high to confess being involved in outright deception.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Jersey Girl wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Because there were so many of them!


But there were many witnesses to the Spalding manuscript deal, including the CONNEAUT witnesses...what's the big diff?


The big diff = what side you're on, I suppose. ;o)
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

beastie wrote:
Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Mainly because they think God has told them so. The evidence they add for this is that they never denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon. They're certain that if the witnesses were involved in a hoax they would have spilled the beans.

Although I don't have a strong opinion on whether the witnesses were in on a hoax, OR if they were simply pulled along by a tide (they didn't write the statement themselves, If I recall correctly) - but I do believe that, as time went on, the stakes were too high to confess being involved in outright deception.


Yes, but what about the now I see it, now I see it with my spiritual eyes as if in a vision testimonies? As for me and my house, I think some were part of the hoax and others bought into it spiritually...eyes or no eyes.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

skippy the dead wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?


Because there were so many of them!


But there were many witnesses to the Spalding manuscript deal, including the CONNEAUT witnesses...what's the big diff?


The big diff = what side you're on, I suppose. ;o)


Well YAH! :-) One thing that I find of interest is that so far as translational ability goes, Joseph was only able to produce over what he had control of. Kinderhook plates, dontchaknow.
Post Reply