jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/24/83)
An off-hand statement from Russ has produced a new topic for discussion: Even now the quibbling is not over the text of the Book of Mormon, but in how it come to be produced. I think that I have shown that this is definitely not the case. There are many problems with the Book of Mormon text that expose it as a modern composition rather than an ancient document. In order to keep the following text uncluttered, I will indent my original questions 1 space, and indent Russ' replies 3 spaces. Why has not one shred of archeological evidence been found to support the book? There have been many shreds of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. The items mentioned by J. D. Jensen are a few. I hope to be able to present more in the future. I think we may have a semantical problem here. It is entirely possible to find "support" for any weirdo theory that you care to come up with. The question is, however, is that support adequate? I will let Michael Coe (one of the best known authorities of New World archeology) answer that question. Coe describes himself as a "sympathetic and interested outsider," and is often quoted in Mormon books. This quote is from an article he wrote for a Mormon journal: The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, p. 46). There are plenty of similar statements from equally impressive experts, but that's enough for now. Why do many phrases from the New Testament (written after 34 A.D.) show up in a document that was written by people that lost contact with the Middle East after 600 B.C.? Likewise, why are many passages plagiarized from the Old Testament books that were written after 600 B.C.? Yes there are similarities. One of the lessons we learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls is the reworking of scriptures in applying them to themselves that their scripture was something that relied on previous scripture. The pattern was also evident in the Book of Mormon. It is entirely possible that the Book of Mormon prophets are quoting from the same sources. Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls have caused some problems for the Book of Mormon, rather than showing it to be authentic. I quote from Mormon apologist Dr. Sidney B. Sperry: After reading the scrolls very carefully, I come to the conclusion that there is not a line in them that suggests that their writers knew the Gospel as understood by Latter-day Saints. In fact there are a few passages that seem to prove the contrary... We should be especially interested in the light the Isaiah scroll throws on the problem of the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon. I have compared in some detail the text of the scroll with its parallels in the Book of Mormon text. This tedious task has revealed that the scroll seldom agrees with the departures of the Book of Mormon text from that of the Masoretic text of Isaiah and consequently the Authorized Version [Smith's own re-translation of the Bible]... (Progress in Archeology, pp. 52-54) Some of the plagiarized Biblical text is particularly interesting in that it contains translational errors in the 19th century King James Version that were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith. These errors were later discovered in the KJV and corrected in modern versions, but those same errors remain the Book of Mormon ("the most correct of any book on earth"). Here are some examples: 1) 3 Nephi 11:33-34 is an almost direct quotation of Mark 16:16, a passage now known to be an addition by an over-zealous scribe. 2) 3 Nephi 11:27,36 is a paraphrase of 1 John 5:7, a passage considered by scholars to be an interpolation missing from all the major manuscripts, but present in the KJV. 3) 2 Nephi 14:5 copies the KJV translation of Isaiah 4:5, which reads: "For upon all the glory there shall be a defence." Modern translations have corrected this phrase to read: "For over all the glory there will be a canopy," but the error remains in the Book of Mormon. 4) 2 Nephi 15:25 copies the KJV translation of Isaiah 5:25, which reads: "And their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets." Later, scholars discovered a translational error in this phrase, and in modern versions it now reads: "And their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets,". 5) One of the most serious mistakes in the Book of Mormon occurs in 3 Nephi 20:23-26. Here Christ appears before the Nephites and tells them He is going to quote the words of Moses. The words He should have quoted are found in Deuteronomy 18:15,18 and 19, but instead, the Book of Mormon has Jesus quoting Peter's paraphrase of Moses' words (Acts 3:22-26)! There are plenty more where these came from, but needless to say, the presence of any one of the above mistakes brands the Book of Mormon as a phony. It is obvious that the author of the Book of Mormon used the KJV itself (which was written in 1611) rather than an ancient document. As I mentioned in my first article, there are at least 25,000 words in the Book of Mormon that have been plagiarized from the KJV. Although the Mormons claim that Lehi brought all of the Old Testament books written prior to 600 B.C. with him, I find it difficult to believe that Smith's translation from "reformed Egyptian" text should so closely match the KJV scholars' translation from Hebrew writing. Why does the book borrow from "The Westminster Confession and Catechisms," which was written in 1729? I am not familiar with this. This is detailed on page 112 of "The Changing World of Mormonism". I'll be happy to lend it to you. Why do Greek words such as Timothy, Jonas, Alpha, and Omega appear in the book when the Nephites could not have possibly had any contact with Greek culture? Out of the over 200 non-Biblical names that appear in the Book of Mormon, it is strong evidence for the Book of Mormon that the couple of Greek names still fit into the pattern for Lehi's day. If this were a fraud, no such luck would be possible. I am surprised that you say that Jonas is Greek (Jonah?) but I do know of two greek names Timothy and Lachoneus. Russ, did you know that you have just contradicted Joseph Smith? When it was suggested to Joseph Smith that the word "Mormon" was of Greek origin (it is, in fact, a classical Greek word of which one meaning is "monster"), he replied: "This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I,...translated the Book of Mormon" (Times and Seasons, vol. 4, p.194). And why on earth would the Nephites (people of Hebrew descent who should have hated the Egyptians) choose to keep their records in "reformed Egyptian"? Maybe you feel they should have hated the Egyptians, but that is not what we have learned about the people in Jerusalem around 600 BC. I think the Lachish letters would provide a good insight here. Hopefully I will get a chance to post a review to the net. Maybe you should first read what Mormon writer J.N. Washburn has to say on the subject: The point at issue is not that Father Lehi, the Jew, could read and understand Egyptian, though this is surprising enough....No, the big question is how the scripture of the Jews (official or otherwise) came to be written in Egyptian....If I were to suggest what I think to be the most insistent problem for Book-of-Mormon scholarship, I should unquestionably name this one: account for the Egyptian language on the Plates of Brass, and the Brass Plates themselves! [The Brass Plates of Laban were brought from Jerusalem by Lehi. They contained a history of the Jews, including all Old Testament books written prior to 600 B.C. These plates were supposedly used by Mormon when he inscribed the golden plates. -JW] (The Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon, p. 81). And I still maintain that the answer to the above questions can only be that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fabrication. Or so you continue to claim. I am still not sure of the basis for your case. Admittedly I have left a couple of possibilities open, but there still is a great deal of evidence that supports the case of the Book of Mormon that you have not refuted. As you mentioned to me in a letter, I have just barely scratched the surface of the literature on Mormonism. Give some more time and I will find the information that I need. In the meantime, it is my feeling that there are so many serious problems with the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and Mormonism in general, that I'm not very concerned about your "proof." Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore