Pt 3 Unquestionably Powerful Archaeology in Favor of the Book of Mormon

Archaeology has verified many unique Book of Mormon names and their connections.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Archaeology
• Book
• Mormon
• Mormons
• Mormonism

[truthferrret]

".....I didn't mean it in the strictest sense!

What on earth does that mean?

Plagiarism only means one thing.

It's really totally specific

Why don't you just use the correct word?

'So either you didn't say what you meant,

Or you didn't mean what you said.'

Did you like that little Hebraism I slipped in there (chiasmus)?

I'm not a Hebrew scholar either, it's just an intrinsic part of the English Language!

People use it all the time, almost always without without realising it.

[StorminMormin91]

I put qoutations around it because I didn't mean it in the strictest sense! They did it deliberately when it served the purposes of the text, and Joseph may have very well done also when it reflected what the text was conveying.

You continue to drag on about him copying from the Bible, but have yet to refute the myriad of Hebraisms in the text that he would have no knowledge of at the time. How telling.

[truthferrret]

"...are the Dead sea scrolls discredited when its obvious that they "plagirized" from the Bible?

WOW; what a strange statement! Do you even know what PLAGIARISM means?

plagiarise: 'to use another person's idea or a part of their work and pretend that it is your own.'

Did the scribes who produced the Scrolls pretend it was all their own work?

Of course not!

[truthferrret]

Anyway what about the other source I provided? - John Wesleys Explanatory notes on Isaiah 2:16

Don't forget there was a strong Methodist community in that area.

In fact JS's father-in-law, Isaac Hale was a Methodist and probably had a copy.

JS just read that?

[StorminMormin91]

He wouldn't have been reading the Coverdale, but the KJV, like many in his time would have.

Also, are the Dead sea scrolls discredited when its obvious that they "plagirized" from the Bible? Of course not, for it was deliberate. It's very well that as Joseph translated, he saw things that were explained in near similar and fitting fashion in the Bible, and inserted such in there. It all depends on the method of translation.

[truthferrret]

Your choice from Isaiah 2:16 is serendipitous since it serves to highlight one of the errors I mentioned earlier which is unique to the KJB "..and upon all pleasant pictures"

This phrase is only found in the KJB, so for it to appear also in the BOM proves the charge of plagiarism against JS.

[truthferrret]

Surely a vital part of the plates was to give something for someone to translate?

[truthferrret]

"How could he have gotten that right?"

He simply read Coverdales Bible or John Wesleys Explanatory notes on Isaiah 2:16

Any more questions?

[truthferrret]

"Right, it appears in that edition, which still wasn't in the KJV of his? day!"

Coverdales Bible is not just another edition but a much earlier bible that used different source material to that favoured by the KJB scribes.

The phrases "ships of Tarshish" and "ships of the sea" are just alternative translations of the original. They effectively mean the same thing!

The former is simply a colloquialism.

If he had known what he was doing, he wouldn't have used both.

[StorminMormin91]

Sorry, but Joseph himself wasn't Deity, so don't expect him to be any more perfect at translating than all of the other men who have translated sacred texts.