zappala@larisa.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) (08/21/90)
>In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > The Book of Mormon has more than 25,000 words quoted from the King James >Bible. The Mormons say that Nephi must have brought the Hebrew Bible with him >and this accounts for the quotations from the Old Testament. It stretches >the >limits of credulity to believe that the translations of the inscribed plates >came out in King James English without variation more than 1000 years before >the 1611 Authorized Version was written. ------ After reading the discussions above concerning quotations of the Bible in the Book of Mormon, I found it interesting that people seem to accept quotations of the Old Testament in the Bible itself as a claim to its authenticity, while quotations of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon lead to suspicion. Is the Bible supposed to be a self-contained Scripture, remaining unviolated and unreproduced anywhere? Don't we quote it today in a variety of our writings? If you fled Jerusalem in 600 B.C., wouldn't you bring with you copies of your culture's scriptures if they existed? As to their similarity to King James English, the last line of the posting quoted above seems to state that the plates the BofM was translated from contained King James English in 600 B.C. What I think the poster meant to point out is that when the BofM was translated in the 1830s, the *result* was a wording remarkably similar to the King James version of the Bible. I don't find this to stretch credibility, because if the BofM and the Bible had the same sources, the translations had better match! In fact, the similarity is also in line with the LDS claim that God's message to us is singular throughout time. Anyway, don't take my words too authoritatively, because I'm not a member of the LDS church, just an inquisitor... Daniel Zappala
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (08/27/90)
In article <Aug.20.22.42.26.1990.6737@athos.rutgers.edu> zappala@larisa.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes: >... If you fled Jerusalem in 600 B.C., wouldn't >you bring with you copies of your culture's scriptures if they >existed? You probably would. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon quotes substantial chunks of parts of Isaiah that did not exist in 600 BC (the parts now attributed to Deutero-Isaiah). Joseph Smith didn't know this, and so didn't realise that by these quotations he was providing us with clear proof that the BoM is a forgery.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.26.22.41.28.1990.903@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >In article <Aug.20.22.42.26.1990.6737@athos.rutgers.edu> zappala@larisa.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes: > >>... If you fled Jerusalem in 600 B.C., wouldn't >>you bring with you copies of your culture's scriptures if they >>existed? > >You probably would. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon quotes >substantial chunks of parts of Isaiah that did not exist in >600 BC (the parts now attributed to Deutero-Isaiah). Joseph >Smith didn't know this, and so didn't realise that by these >quotations he was providing us with clear proof that the BoM >is a forgery. If we accept the Deutero-Isaiah theory as certain fact this would be true. While most scholars probably do believe the theory, it's not unanimous. Avraham Gileadi for one disagrees with it. (Gileadi has been recognized for his work on Isaiah). I've also heard a seminar on a wordprint analysis of Isaiah indicating a high probability that it was written by a single author. I think there are 2 reasons why Isaiah is regarded as written by 2 (or more) authors: 1. The book describes events which happened after Isaiah's life, even mentioning Cyrus by name. This is a valid objection only if we reject the possibility of specific prophecy. 2. Perceived difference in literary styles in different parts of the book. This is a topic which would consume more bandwidth than appropriate (even if I knew enough to treat it). Gileadi deals with this in his book _The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah, a New Translation with Interpretive Key_. He finds evidence that the book is tightly bound together by its literary style.
cms@gatech.edu (08/30/90)
All covenants must be ratified in blood. The Old Testament was
ratified in the blood of animals. The New Testament, or New Covenant,
was ratified in the Blood of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God. The Book of Mormon claims to be "another testament of Jesus
Christ." The problem I have with this is that the Book of Mormon
appears to use this phrase in terms of mere "testimony." Thus, a new
covenant, or new testament, has not been ratified in blood, the
martyrdom of Joseph Smith and Hyrum notwithstanding. God did not
ratify a covenant with Joseph Smith in anyone's blood or any kind of
blood; hence, it is not another testament or covenant of Jesus Christ.
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgiahall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/02/90)
In article <Aug.30.03.09.12.1990.24075@athos.rutgers.edu> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > All covenants must be ratified in blood. The Old Testament was >ratified in the blood of animals. The New Testament, or New Covenant, >was ratified in the Blood of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of >God. The Book of Mormon claims to be "another testament of Jesus >Christ." The problem I have with this is that the Book of Mormon >appears to use this phrase in terms of mere "testimony." Thus, a new >covenant, or new testament, has not been ratified in blood, the >martyrdom of Joseph Smith and Hyrum notwithstanding. God did not >ratify a covenant with Joseph Smith in anyone's blood or any kind of >blood; hence, it is not another testament or covenant of Jesus Christ. Well, Cindy, the Book of Mormon does indeed claim to be a testimony of Jesus Christ and as such points to his ministry, death and resurrection. I see no need to treat as a new covenant requiring blood ratification. Even if such a need exists it is not clear why you reject the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith as satisfying that need. In fact the book itself describes plenty of other martyrs who gave their lives for God. I'm afraid I don't see your point.