Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Bazooka]

If you wish to hear directly from the Lord and do not accept what others have written, then speak with him yourself. That is what God asks anyway, that we seek him, speak with him, and come to a knowledge of the truth.

Well that's the point isn't it.
No need for a second book.

[_Tobin]

If you wish to hear directly from the Lord and do not accept what others have written, then speak with him yourself. That is what God asks anyway, that we seek him, speak with him, and come to a knowledge of the truth.

Well that's the point isn't it. No need for a second book.

No need for any books period. You aren't helping yourself.

[_Bazooka]

No need for any books period. You aren't helping yourself.

Helping myself in what way?

I'm questioning the requirement for the Book of Mormon, you agree with me and then try and make out that I've shot myself in the foot?
How?

[_Tobin]

No need for any books period. You aren't helping yourself.

Helping myself in what way?

I'm questioning the requirement for the Book of Mormon, you agree with me and then try and make out that I've shot myself in the foot?
How?

Because you just made it clear you aren't willing to accept what others have written (reported) that God said such as Joseph Smith. The Bible is the same kind of thing. As a result, there is no need for these books in your opinion and you really have shot yourself in the foot. But this argument is extremely tedious and infantile. I've stated what the Book of Mormon is and that it is like the Bible. The Book of Mormon itself makes this claim. So if you are willing to accept the Bible, I can see no reason you can not accept the Book of Mormon. And if you really don't think the Book of Mormon is inspired of God, that is up to you. You can speak to God about it as well as I can.

[_Bazooka]

Because you just made it clear you aren't willing to accept what others have written (reported) that God said such as Joseph Smith. The Bible is the same kind of thing. As a result, there is no need for these books in your opinion and you really have shot yourself in the foot.

Still not getting how I have shot myself in the foot.
I haven't made a case for having any book declaring God's words and so when we agree that there is no need for these books I haven't really shot myself in the foot, now have I?

But this argument is extremely tedious and infantile.

What argument? You've just agreed that there's no need for the Bible nor the Book of Mormon. We agree completely.

I've stated what the Book of Mormon is and that it is like the Bible. The Book of Momron itself makes this claim. So if you are willing to accept the Bible, I can see no reason you can not accept the Book of Mormon. And if you really don't think the Book of Mormon is inspired of God, that is up to you. You can speak to God about it as well as I can.

So which is it?
1. There is a need for both books.
2. There is not a need for any books.
3. There is a need for one of the books but not the other.

(Because you seem to be saying all three)

[_Tobin]

Because you just made it clear you aren't willing to accept what others have written (reported) that God said such as Joseph Smith. The Bible is the same kind of thing. As a result, there is no need for these books in your opinion and you really have shot yourself in the foot.

Still not getting how I have shot myself in the foot. I haven't made a case for having any book declaring God's words and so when we agree that there is no need for these books I haven't really shot myself in the foot, now have I

Other than you've abandoned your position there is no need for a "second book" from the Bible. But as I've already pointed out, I find this whole line of argument extremely insipid and have no wish to discuss it any longer. If you see no value in these accounts from the Bible or Book of Mormon, do not believe they accurately reflect what God has said and whatever other nonsense you wish to concoct, you can go right ahead and speak with God yourself any time you wish. That is entirely up to you. I value these accounts and have accurately described what they are and why they exist. What you feel about them is your own affair.

[_Bazooka]

Other than you've abandoned your position there is no need for a "second book" from the Bible.

I cannot see where I abandoned anything.

But as I've already pointed out, I find this whole line of argument extremely insipid and have no wish to discuss it any longer.

Feel free to run away then.

If you see no value in these accounts, do not believe they accurately reflect what God has said and whatever other nonsense you wish to concoct, you can go right ahead and speak with God yourself any time you wish.

What about where they don't agree with each other though? You seem to have avoided that question completely.

I value these accounts and have accurately described what they are and why they exist. What you feel about them is your own affair.

Thanks for your testimony. Now about the question above...

[_bcuzbcuz]

I am lucky to be born into a nation which has the most beautiful and useable language of the world


My examples are four different translation of The Tragedy of Man - an excerpt from the first scene.

Ludwigm, thank you for your post. I'm going to weigh in here because I think your excellent answer deserves some comment.

It takes, I think, fluency in more than one language to grasp the points you make. People without such fluency can accept charlatanism such as speaking gibberish as pretending to be speaking in tongues. Or as in Joseph Smith's case, pretending to translate when merely writing fiction.

Studies in Biblical scripture show similar links of parallelism as evidence that the gospels liberally shared common sources....and I don't mean God as that source.

When I have translated (unfortunately I can't speak your language) from Swedish to English and back again I know that circumstances and events and experiences can mean that I translate the same section with very different emphasis. If I ask my sons to translate the same section they get entirely different but equal translations. Joseph Smith never understood this, nor do his followers.

[_vessr]

I am lucky to be born into a nation which has the most beautiful and useable language of the world


My examples are four different translation of The Tragedy of Man - an excerpt from the first scene.

Ludwigm, thank you for your post. I'm going to weigh in here because I think your excellent answer deserves some comment.

It takes, I think, fluency in more than one language to grasp the points you make. People without such fluency can accept charlatanism such as speaking gibberish as pretending to be speaking in tongues. Or as in Joseph Smith's case, pretending to translate when merely writing fiction.

Studies in Biblical scripture show similar links of parallelism as evidence that the gospels liberally shared common sources....and I don't mean God as that source.

When I have translated (unfortunately I can't speak your language) from Swedish to English and back again I know that circumstances and events and experiences can mean that I translate the same section with very different emphasis. If I ask my sons to translate the same section they get entirely different but equal translations. Joseph Smith never understood this, nor do his followers.

Thank you, bcuzbcuz for getting us back on track towards the context of the subject of this thread. I ask that the discussion not get sidetracked or derailed. I asked the following questions concerning parallelism between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament: (1) Do these parallelisms create a pattern establishing that Joseph Smith copied New Testament words and phrases as he was translating or writing, as the case may be, the Book of Mormon?; (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what does this tell us about how to Book of Mormon was created?; and (3) Would it be helpful if I produced hundreds of these parallelisms between Book of Mormon and New Testament phrases and sentences?

Ludwigm provided as excellent response as confirmed by bcuzbcuz. Let me provide some new evidence to get the topic back to the front of the discussion:

1. The Savior taught the Parable of the Talents in Matthew, chapter 25. The TALENT was a value of coinage, was it not, in the New Testament? In a PARALLEL way, in the Book of Ether (12:35), in the Book of Mormon, Moroni says, “if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness … thou wilt prove them, and take away their TALENT, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.” Is Moroni using “talent” anachronistically in this way, patterned after the Parable of the Talents? Is there any evidence the Nephites or Jaredites used talents in their monetary system? Is there any way reformed Egyptian can come up with the same word, when translated into English, as a measurement of a person’s strengths?

2. Hebrews 10:26-27 reads: 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 INDIDGNATION, which shall devour the adversaries.” In a PARALLEL way, Alma 40:14 reads (as printed in the 1830 edition of 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 . …” How could Joseph Smith have translated the same strange double preposition (“for of”) in a similar context without relying on the King James Version of the Book of Hebrews?

3. In Acts 16:4, we read, “as they went through the cities, they delivered them the DECREES FOR TO KEEP . …” In PARALLEL way, this double preposition phrase (“the decrees for to keep”) is different from the one above (“for of … fiery indignation”) and is found in Mosiah 13:25: “Have ye taught this people that they should observe to do all these things FOR TO KEEP THESE COMMANDMENTS?” How can this be, unless Joseph Smith was copying from the New Testament phrase, “FOR TO KEEP”?

4. Another parallelism can be found in matching Alma 34:13 (“yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle”) with Matthew 5:18: “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. How could jot and tittle be translated from Reformed Egyptian the same way that it appears in the KJV of the New Testament, unless the Book of Mormon language was copied from the New Testament language?

5. In Moroni 7:17 we read there will be: “no man to do good, no, not one”. This parallels Romans 3:12: “none that doeth good, no, not one” in the New Testament.

6. Mormon writes in Moroni 7:7 was “is not counted unto him for righteousness,” parallel with “it was counted unto him for righteousness” in Romans 4:3.

Although I want to be sure before I make a final judgment (which could cost me my eternal life, if I'm wrong), it appears as if Joseph took many passages from the New Testament to provide the scriptural backbone for his Book of Mormon stories.

Your thoughts???

[_Tobin]

Your thoughts???

I've already expressed my views and why I think your observations are meaningless.

Joseph Smith could not read the plates nor did he know what they contained. He did not translate them as someone who knew both the Nephite and English language would. The translations were revealed to Joseph Smith in his mind in a form he was familiar with and in terms of the Bible that he was also familiar with. This is literally an American 19th century production BECAUSE it is a 19th century product of a 19th century mind. Your proposition is that it should be something other than that. Why should that be true? Now, if God had translated the plates, handed the translation to Joseph Smith and said print this - you might have a point. That is not what happened here.