Book of Mormon, Archaeology & Metals Part 6

[fudley2003]

I adopted the term, "Parallelomania," from Solomon, a Mormon. It does not refer to parallels that are supported by solid research and critical thinking. Even according to Gee, Nibley's scholarship is often problematic. Go to the FARMS website and check out Gee's editorials (ie. don't just trust me). Again, I challenge those who are viewing all this dribble to read the six sources quoted below and make up your own mind. Don't let BP formulate how you think. Think for yourselves.

[Rommelator]

Where exactly does Gee say that Nibley's scholarship is "often problematic"? I want book/article titles and pages i.e. actually references. Saying to simply "check out Gee's editorials" is not enough. He has at least 40 articles posted on the FARMS website. I want specific examples.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

His very most recent article on this just out THIS MONTH says the complete CONTRARY incidentally. Oh for irony eh?! LOL!

[TheBackyardProfessor]

And I will insist you ignore his obvious innuendo that I am NOT asking you to think for yourselves. I have noted MANY, MANY, ***MANY*** times in my vids to read this stuff for yourselves. AMEN to thinking for yourselves! Don't let fudley be a dudley and influence you that I am asking you not to study for yourselves. If there is ONE thing I *INSIST* on it's reading the sources I use for yourselves. Anyone watching my videos know I go this route, the innuendo of Fudley to the complete contrary.

[fudley2003]

For all those who are actually interested in what the BP is trying to say, you should read Nibley and Solomon. You might also want to compare an old edition of Nibley to Gee's new editorial release.

Then read Larson (Palmer too perhaps) and Gee's response on the FARMS website.

Decide for yourself what Parallelomania means in Mormon Apologist's writing.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Parallelomania is the wrong adjective howefver. Parallels are the essence of scholarship, else nothing would be understood. After all even critics have this so-called "parallelomanis" when they find 19th century parallels to the BofM, yes? Nibley was entirely within the parameters of serious scholarship by noting the parallels, as the scholars do with the Ugaritic materials, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, Ras Shamra, etc. It's the stuff of scholarship. To fault Nibley for it is ludicrous.

[fudley2003]

You are not translating the word "translation" correctly (considering the BoM and early LDS culture). JS simply read textual images supplied by god. If this is true, the most correct book on earth should be free from scholarly "mistakes" and misunderstandings as you imply. There were plenty of words to choose from (other than steel) to translate the texts accurately. I'm sure god has a perfect understanding of the culture context associated with words like "steel" in the 19th Century. Are you?

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Not even true. Read Nibley's analysis of what is a translation and how Joseph Smith used it. It's in his "Message of the JS Papyri" book.

[fudley2003]

Ah yes, Nibley's 1975 work. Wasn't that back when the LDS church denied African bloodlines the fullness of the gospel - ah I digress? I thought we were talking about the Book of Mormon here, not the Papyri. Anyway, try reading this article: Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious? You might find yourself reading Nibley anew. Oh.. its a Mormon source: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought V33 N2 pg131

[TheBackyardProfessor]

That chinsey thing? LOL! Oh there was some devastating destructions of Salmon.

[Rommelator]

You're right. Bill Hamblin destroyed Salmon in the FARMS Review. It's just too sad that none of the critics bother to read his critique out of fear that their cognitive dissonance will be enforced by this competent LDS scholar taking down Salmon and thus demonstrating that LDS scholars are, contra the protestations of the critics, actual, competent scholars.

[veracities]

So you're saying that the BOM "steel" problem is simply due to the difficulty of translating ancient text? They didn't mean "steel" at all, they must have been talking about "bronze" or some other material?

As I understand it, the BOM was translated by the "gift and power of God". We know for a fact that God is omniscient. How likely is it that God got it wrong? Didn't Joseph Smith say it was the most correct book ever?

I'm not convinced.

[urloony]

He's not talking about the translation of the BoM done by Joseph Smith, he's talking about Mosiah's translation of the plates of Ether. The suggestion is that the book of Ether's translation is subject to Mosiah's anachronism. Try to keep up.

[veracities]

urloony; Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.

I said that the BOM was translated by "the gift and power of God". Since God is omniscient, we can be assured that HE wouldn't have allowed any errors or mistranslations, from whatever source, to appear in HIS translation.

Thus, when it says steel or iron or brass, we know that that is exactly what it means. There can be no excuses, no matter how imaginatively contrived!

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Oh really? Then why are there so many translation errors in the Bible? You misunderstand how God works. Does He *force* everyone to know everything He knows right now? Inspiration is not infallibility. God works with we imperfect humans.

[urloony]

Take a look at "Misquoting Jesus" here on youtube, I would be curious to hear your reaction veracities, regarding how the Bible was actually organized. Please don't get me wrong however, I'm not attacking the Bible, just pointing out that things aren't always as we think they should be.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

That is a pretty good book by Ehrman, but his stronger books are "Lost Christianities," and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." I also enjoyed his new translation of the Early Christian Fathers in the Loeb library, the Clementines, Letters of Ignatius, Barnabas, Shephard of Hermas, etc.

[veracities]

The Bible is not without error, being the product of mortal men and coming to us down the centuries via many translations and interpretations.

The BOM is different! JS had a direct conduit to God.

JS relied on the KJV which was based on a good but imperfect set of greek manuscripts. Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the KJV contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these same errors show up in the BOM which was allegedly written 1000yrs earlier.

[urloony]

It appears you are an expert on plagiarism, I guess I should listen to you.

"Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the KJV contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these same errors show up in the BOM"

-veracities

"Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the KJV contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the BOM"

catholicDOTcom/library/problem­s_with_the_book_of_mormonDOTas­p

[veracities]

Perhaps your time might be better spent addressing the content of the message rather than it's source?

[urloony]

I am surprised you are picking on the New Testament as a source of JS's "plagiarism." Clearly there are more examples of quotations from Isaiah in the BoM than there are with the New Testament,478 to be exact.Nonetheless,this is your case to present,provide a specific example(s)you believe were copied from the KJV into the BoM that disagrees with the "correct translation" of the New Testament.I suspect more cut and paste coming,if you do,please cite your sources. You are losing credibility fast.

[veracities]

At your suggestion I had a look at Isaiah and you are quite correct, it contains many more examples of shared mistranslations. Here is just one;

Isaiah 2:16//2 Nephi 12:16. "Upon all pleasant pictures." should read "Upon every stately vessel" This clearly makes much more sense when viewed in context.

All these shared translation errors prove conclusively that JS used the KJB as a source and the BOM cannot therefore be an ancient book.

(Sources; BOM, KJB and NewKJB )

[urloony]

I find it ironic that you have chosen the quintessential example that, for many LDS members, proves the BoM true.

Here goes: Isaiah 2:16

"16 And upon all the aships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures."

The Greek (Septuagint)version has one phrase that the Hebrew does not, and the Hebrew has one phrase that the Greek does not; but 2 Ne. 12:16 has both.

"16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures."

(fn LDS KJV)

[veracities]

The choice of the word "pictures" for this context is an error peculiar to the KJB translation.

It does not appear in the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Yet JS copied it faithfully into his BOM.

Ironically this is what we call a "shared translation error" which clearly shows the BOM to be a modern confection.

[ticklemypickles]

The other rendering appears in Myles Coverdale's 1535 English translation of the Bible. Isaiah 2:16 there reads: - " vpon all shippes of the see [= sea], and vpon euery thinge yt [= that] is glorious and pleasaunt to loke vpon."

So one phrase appears in Coverdales translation and the other appears in the KJV. Mystery solved!

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Joseph Smith "relied" on the KJV? NONE of the witnesses to the translation evne mention Joseph opening, let along having *ANY* other books with him. That would have raised their suspicions. Pray tell, what evidence do you have that he personally usede the KJV while translating with his scribes?

[veracities]

As I just explained to urloony, there many shared translation errors and plagiarisms that show JS used the KJB as a source.

[urloony]

this may explain a little more clearly how Joseph Smith translated the BoM. Search for: "pt1Evidences of the Book of Mormon Daniel C Peterson lecture" right here on Youtube.

[veracities]

John 10:16 - "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"

3Nephi 15:21 - "other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"

Plagiarism?

[urloony]

I think you meant to compare John 10:16 with 3Nephi 15:17 not 15:21.However, mentioning 3Nephi 15:21 is perfect,because this verse points out the reason the Savior even spoke about "other sheep" to the disciples in the old world. In 15:21 the Savior tells us who the other sheep are.

21 And verily I say unto you,that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

HOW is this plagiarism when the BofM IDENTIFIES the SOURCE?! This is a loony argument. Plagiarism is STEALING words of others and PRETENDING they are your own. Admitting where it came from is hardly plagiarism.

[veracities]

Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the BOM himself.

In fact he copied many sections from the KJB.

The quote from John 10:16 is just one example.

It is an exact duplication.

Such a perfect copy could not result from independent translation.

There are many others.

Nowhere does he recognise the work of the KJB translators.

This is plagiarism!

[glycoboy]

why couldn't christ quote himself and explain a fulfilled prophecy to his people in the new world?

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

Not plagurism. The Lord visited other peoples. The Tongan and Samoan cultures both have history that they were visited by a white, bearded man from the sky and taught them. They also have a God that visited them dressed in white in their ancient history. There is no telling who else Jesus christ visited upon his resurrection. And there will be records yielded up with the accounts of His visits.

So no it's not Plagiarism.

[veracities]

The multi-deity Tagaloa was worshipped in ancient Samoa and Tonga. Legends also described not only one, but nine heavens as the "holy habitation" of these deities. The ancient Samoans also believed in family and village gods, and worshipped images, stones, birds, fishes, insects and beasts. There are also undisputed stories of cave giants who lived on human flesh.

What has any of this got to do with 'plagiarism'?

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

You wanted to know what Jesus Christ meant by telling the people of ancient American civilization or the closest thing to one in those days that were in fact other people that God yet intended to visit.

in the Tongan language there is a specific word for "white God" and they have a folklore passed down thru their culture that a "white God" came out the cloud and visited them.

This is a major reason that the Tongan and Samoan cultures are PREDOMINANTLY LDS.

fairlds . org

[veracities]

"You wanted to know what Jesus Christ meant by telling the people of ancient American civilization or the closest thing to one in those days that were in fact other people that God yet intended to visit."

No I didn't!

Do you understand what 'plagiarism' means?

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

Do you understand what 'plagiarism' means?

please stop asking retarded questions

[veracities]

GodLovedJosephSmith said:- " Not plagurism. The Lord visited other peoples. The Tongan and Samoan cultures... etc ... man with long white beard... etc... "

please stop giving retarded answers!

So I'll ask you again; Do you understand what 'plagiarism' means?

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

The LDS gospel that combines the Bible (Judah's bow) & the Book of Mormon (Ephraim's arrow) as one shall go forth like lightning & be an ensign to the nations (see Zecharaiah ch 9:13-16)....

13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion..

14 And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning....

16. ..for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.

[veracities]

I'll take that as a 'NO' then

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

no it's not plagiarism.

[veracities]

plagiarise - take without referencing from someone else's writing, speech or intellectual property.

JS copied whole sections from the KJV; 'word for word'

This was the painstaking work of the Elizabethan translators.

Nowhere did JS acknowledge their contribution.

That my friend is plagiarism!

[TrueChurchLDS]

That my friend is your assumption.

Truth is the Western hemisphere isn't Word for word, and the people of the Book of Mormon followed the law of Moses. These people recieved the SAME revelations from their holy prophets as did the ones in Jeruselem so it seems they are the same and in allot of ways they, but if you really look at it, there are some differences.

good thing the entire bom is a huge Chiasmus and it took a computer to figure it out.

sorry it was not Plagiarism.

[veracities]

"That my friend is your assumption."

No! I'm just quoting God.

Isn't that good enough for you?

The BOM was translated by the gift and power of God to inform a 19th century English speaking congregation.

God said it was correct.

Are you saying God is an idiot?

Didn't HE know the difference between steel & bronze?

I thought HE was omniscient?

[TrueChurchLDS]

There is NO Hebrew Word for BRONZE

[veracities]

" There is NO Hebrew Word for BRONZE "

IRRELEVANT!

[TrueChurchLDS]

neither is your ignorant arrogance!

[TheBackyardProfessor]

There is NO evidence that he did from anyone involved with him. And Royal Skousen has demonstrated the problems here also in his Critical Text of the Book of Mormon and comparisons with the KJV.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

It's not God who was wrong, it's the issue of translation. Joseph was told, as was Oliver Cowdery to work it out in their minds first. It is not God dictating word for word the translation, but Joseph struggling to present the concepts into English. There is never a perfect one for one word correlation between languages.

[veracities]

But Professor, God "provided" the translation!

[TheBackyardProfessor]

No, God provided the gift of translation. Joseph worked it out with his own mind and thinking abilities.

[veracities]

In the second half of June 1829, Smith took Harris, together with Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer (known collectively as the Three Witnesses), to the woods in Fayette, New York, where they said they saw an angel holding the golden plates and turning the leaves. The four of them also said they heard "the voice of the Lord" telling them that the translation of the plates was correct, and commanding them to testify of what they saw and heard.

B.H.Roberts-History of the Church vol 1, pp. 54--55

[veracities]

So, according to JS and the three witnesses, the Lord said the translation of the plates was correct. This is yet more confirmation(if more were needed) that when it says steel, it really means steel.

This then is the only view these witnesses had of the plates? JS apparently didn't need to look at them, he just put his head in his hat and stared into his seer stone? So tell me Professor - Why did JS need the plates at all?

[Jarkko1983]

this 3 witnesses account doesn't mean that steel means steel in our 21 century meaning, it only means that the translation of the old record is correct, it doesn't say that mormon was perfect in his wording when he made his compilation of even more ancient records. Moroni admits that some errors may have crept in and that they are weak in their writing. So smith translated correctly to english the weak translations of the nephites as they admitted. mistakes were done before smith.

[veracities]

Jarkko; you're making this seem altogether too complicated. With 'Divine' assistance, JS produced a contemporary English text for an 1830 congregation.

God said the translation was CORRECT

God is omniscient

God was there watching his people when they made their first STEEL SWORD! Rode their first HORSE! Built their first CHARIOT! Herded their first CATTLE! Harvested their first crop of WHEAT!

God is not an idiot

God is ALL KNOWING

God said the translation was correct

Simple really!!!!

[glycoboy]

and do you really believe the bible is infalible? and the sole authority? and void of any errors? or are you not mainstream christian? ... i compliment you in your skill of writing and you knowledge etc. you have good questions.

[veracities]

No work of man is infallible.

However The Lord had read the rough draft of the BOM and pronounced himself satisfied.

[GodLovedJosephSmith]

Actually they have found proof of Barley already.

Also note worthy they found in Peru a location for wine making, Corn and berries were apparently used in the brew. For those of you interested in the role of alcohol in the ancient Americas.

an ancient beer brewery in Peru

[veracities]

Relevance?

[Jarkko1983]

bye the way, isaiah plagiarises in his 36 chapter an 37 the 2 kings 18:13,17-37;19So blame smith for something that isaiah did!

SMiths translation was correct translation of the incorrect angient records, so he translated correctly what was written originally wrong, the mistake wasn't his problem, but the original authors. Moroni warns the readers in the beginning not to mock those mistakes of men that the bom might have. So if mosiah thought something was steal, smith only translated his error

[glycoboy]

wow, interesting and well said

[veracities]

Do you not think The Lord would have known if any incorrect translation had somehow found it's way onto the 'plates'?

Yet The Lord said that "the BOM translation was correct".

Being omniscient, certainly the Lord would have known had it been otherwise!

[skyaglow]

critics:

IN the Book of Mormon the lord led Nephi to build a ship and build tools to make the ship.

Nephi had no knowledge how to do this and had to be led by the Lord to the ore & constrution of a ship

Who can say the lord did not do the same thing here; to build swords of protection.

Just because "the world" says iron smelthing didnt begin until a certain time,

does not mean that the lord could not have shown Nephi the ore and the way to make these iron or iron alloys swords.