Chiasmus, Poetry and Literary Forms - Book of Mormon Evidence

[hammer7629]

That's really grasping as straws; especially the ending with the inference to Maya. Chiasmus is found in the D&C and it is certainly not an ancient document. What it does indicate is Smith favored the use and included it when he wrote the BofM.

File the video under the category of desperation.

[drl52]

@hammer7629 You obviously have not read the Book of Mormon if you really think that Joseph Smith wrote that book in such a short amount of time. Its funny that people have just given up on proving that the book of Mormon isn't an ancient record. Now they just say it is false. Like I am supposed to take your word for it after having read the record and finding it infinitely complex and spiritually fulfilling.

[BCSpore]

@hammer7629 Not to mention the fact of the Book's origins. You say that Joseph Smith, a farmboy with only a third grade education and had more knowledge on how to construct simple wood projects than Jewish tradition, geography, and history, wrote this book that describes REAL places IN SEQUENCE that Lehi supposedly traveled through.

Tell me, how could someone like him ever even write such a book from his own mind, if he was not translating the inspired texts of the Golden Plates?

[hammer7629]

@BCSpore

Here's how he did it...first with help from Rigdon and a lot of plaguerism. Much of the framwork came from the View of the Hebrews and copied quite a bit from the Bible. Taken into account he had at least SIX YEARS from the time he talked of the plates until time to "translate". He ran a scam...pure and simple.

You maintain it contains REAL people and REAL places......post the PROOF; not conjecture and opinion. Hard cold facts that back up your claim. Bet you can't.......lol

[BCSpore]

@hammer7629 Sidney Rigdon? There are only one or two places where he is mentioned in the restoration's history. And I doubt that even he would know much more. There is too much historical similarities in the Book of Mormon that proves it false.

As well, I believe that most, if not all, physical proof of the Nephite culture has been destroyed by history.  Remember that unlike the holy sites of Israel, the invaders of these lands didn't care less on what happened to the culture.

[BCSpore]

@hammer7629 The first thing that would have started destroying Nephite evidence would be the Lamanites themselves, after blending and separating into the powerful mesoamerican cultures we study in history. They would have occupied their empty cities and tore down their temples to construct new ones on their foundations.

[BCSpore]

@hammer7629 The metal swords, armor, and artifacts of the Nephites were never in a worse place to be found. The moisture of the region rusts and tarnishes many metals, and the rest are either lost to the entangling and impenetrable jungle overgrowth, or were smelted down by the Spanish. Who, by chance, destroyed all surviving records of all the Central and South American people during their incursion, apart from six codecs that they kept as a trophy.

[BCSpore]

@hammer7629 But as a result, I believe that the destruction of the evidence was meant to be. Following the Book of Mormon does not require absolute proof to become believable; the Book of Mormon is followed by faith, and our spirit. And by your faith, the evidence there will begin to appear, as such where you see it is right there in front of your face! Jesus healed the sick because they had the faith to believe he could heal the sick. You find the evidence when you have the faith to see it.

[Jack44M]

@BCSpore

You "find" evidence that does not exist to substantiate your opinion. Mormons make the claim the BofM is true; the burden of evidence lies with them. To date not one single name or place has been found that backs their claim. Not_One.

How it makes you "feel" is not evidence; but the BofM being filled with anachronisms is evidence it's a 19th century novel. JS said there were no Greek words on the plates, but the list of Greek origin names in the BofM demonstrates he's a fraud

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M Names, yes. The places however, are supported by the Book of mormon. They ARE real places. Very few people in America at that time, had any knowledge of distant lands; their cultures, their appearances, their inhabitants. The Book of Mormon avidly describes these places, and is only one of the many complex elements that would only be replicated if Smith had easy access to experts in warfare, history, culture, and language. Which there are none.

[Jack44M]

@BCSpore

Name the location of Zarahemla and one non LDS scientist that subscribes to your opinion.

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M The Land of Zarahemla is supposedly located in what is present day Guatemala. The city itself, according to the Book of Mormon, was destroyed along with many others during Christ's crucifixion. Some sinking into the sea, and some being completely buiried (Which there is evidence that entire cities were completely destroyed or buried in a single cataclysmic event) And was rebuilt in the first century, and most likely occupied by other cultures after the Nephites.

[Jack44M]

@BCSpore

"Supposedly"? That fits really well with the other terms Mormons use when providing "proof".....maybe, might, could, possible...and on and on. lol

Funny how you can't provide one single non LDS source that backs up your guess.

[MrViTopol]

@Jack44M i can provide a non LDS source that backs up his guess.

[Jack44M]

@MrViTopol

...then post it.

[MrViTopol]

@Jack44M ''The Word, the Hebrew Source of English Language'' by Isaac E. Mozeson

[Jack44M]

@MrViTopol

Mozeson is an expert in Mesoamerica and backs up his claim?  What are his credentials? Is he an archaeologist?

[MrViTopol]

@Jack44M linguist. his dictionary specifically geared to English speaking people backs up his claim. there're other proofs but they are not in English. i could have present some additional evidence but you have to know both Hebrew and Arabic.

[Jack44M]

@MrViTopol

Linguist.....BWAHAHA. That's a joke. A linguist is no expert on Zarahemla being in Guatamala. Jeez; what an idiot.

[MrViTopol]

@Jack44M i thought you were a mormon, it turns out you are a moron.

[Jack44M]

@MrViTopol

This, from a clown whose "expert" is a linguist. . What's next, space aliens.....? ROFL

[MrViTopol]

@Jack44M retard, my info is for humans, get your ass off this channel quick.

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M The term "Supposedly" is exactly how a piece of evidence should be presented to a scientific community. However, by the looks of things, you are no scientist, so I shall explain. "Possibly, maybe, could, or maybe" are the most commonly used words by experts of any field because no historical proof can be proven absolutely. They do that because MOST LIKELY it is true.

[hammer7629]

@BCSpore

Well then, if it's most likely to be true it would have been presented for peer review now wouldn't it. lol

In reality, such claims and those making them are a joke in the scientific community.

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M As well, MrViTopol is right. A linguist may not prove the location of Zerahemla, but the language backs up the truth of the Book of Mormon. If you had not listened to the experts in the video, who are talking about this subject, the english grammar matches a directly translated version of Hebrew. And so far NO ONE that Joseph Smith knew, or Smith himself WAS NOT fluent in Hebrew in any way. Your blindness to evidence is indeed troubling.

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M Zerahemla then could be one of the few mesoamerican ruins, yet either the city's monuments were destroyed and replaced or the hieroglyphs of the city was carved over with themes matching the invading culture's (The Lamanites) art and traditions.

I accept the fact that there are currently no prominent non-LDS scientists that support the Book of Mormon, much less care about it. There were two that I can think of, however they shortly after converted to our faith.

[BCSpore]

@Jack44M The Bible, as you claim, is ancient. Yes. However, it has been through so many hands, through the filters of history and those who would edit it, that many plain and precious things that have been lost, not to mention the grammar of the bible is actually much different than actual hebrew grammar. The Book of Mormon, however, is structured more as a direct translation than an interpreted translation. And tell me, where are these words of greek origin? I'd like to see YOUR proof.

[Teankun]

Alma 36 is perhaps the best ciasmus ever. So often "Christ" is the center of a ciasism and Alma 36 is no exception. Read it and see how Christ is not only the turning point of the chiasism but also Alma's life: an example for us all.

[Rypaul5217]

No biggy, chiasmus, means rhetoric, or a double phrase, two ideas that go in invervsely to the other. doesn't mean that the prose written by an author of fiction cannot use many types of rhetoric devises. Smith's book simply has no direct evidence, nothing is real means its mere fantasy, prose written and from a man's thoughts, so imagined.

[LDSPrinciples]

Really informative. I really enjoyed it, especially the parts about it existing in both biblical texts AND in the Book of Mormon. Thank you.

Mike

[THELDSLIFE]

There will never be enough evidence for our opponents. Christ himself could say that his church was true and some anti- would have reasons to tell Christ just how we did poorly as his church or some other garbage.

Great video tho! It strengthens my testimony!

[TrueSaintsLDS]

Another great video.

Mayan texts are filled with chiasms.

[omiolo]

I am not a big chiasmus fan. Simply because a had a professor at BYU who spend a week debunking them.

[JackNimble61]

Chiasmus in Mayan text? This is even more evidence that the geography would support a mesoamerican location.

I love these videos. Where does the original come from?