The Book of Mormon and the Biblical NT compared

brotherofJared

Well-known member
He said he didn't change it at all
I'm answering this question.
"And Smith would not let the printer correct the mistakes before publishing the first edition--would he?

Why?"
I have no idea what point you think you're making.
In fact, when he brought bad grammar to Hyrum's attention, the latter consulted Joseph, who said to print it as is, since the OT was "ungrammatical."
That doesn't change my answer. You asked why. I answered it.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
No, they didn't. See my post #278.
So? That doesn't change my answer. I think they did a great job. Apparently, you don't get it. I see no problem with the grammar. The church doesn't either as attested in your post #278. That means that Joseph and Oliver did a great job.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
brotherofJared... you posted several lengthy responses to a number of my posts, all but one embedded in a conversation with another poster. I appreciate your thoughtful engagements, but would find it time consuming to go through each one and respond while attempting not to duplicate and make sure I'm not missing anything important. Would you be able to summarize your main points in a single post to which I could then respond and we could continue with a linear dialogue rather than try to juggle several separate sub-threads?
Nope. Just answer the question. Why would that be of benefit?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I see that you can post and dash in large but selective quantities, but when politely asked to summarize in order to pin you down to a single conversation, you refuse. I wonder why that is...
I asked a simple question. You have yet to answer it. Why would it beneficial to go through the changes in the text? To me, that is a huge waste of time. Why not just pose what you think is significant and not go through all the changes?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I asked a simple question. You have yet to answer it. Why would it beneficial to go through the changes in the text? To me, that is a huge waste of time. Why not just pose what you think is significant and not go through all the changes?
Before asking your 'simple question', you posted a large amount of material over multiple responses. I'll move directly to what I consider the most significant problems with your position as it relates to grammar and please do not accuse me of 'controlling the conversation' by doing so... I gave you ample opportunity to summarize your own position and thereby lead the conversation. In post 270 you claimed the original manuscript was free from grammatical errors and later on in that same post that it reflects sixteenth-century grammar. In post 277, however, you seem to imply there were some grammatical errors, only they weren't significant and God intended it this way.

The first problem is that you appear inconsistent on the matter of grammar between posts 270 and 277 --- are there no grammatical errors (post 270) or some insignificant grammatical errors (post 277)? The second problem is the claim about sixteenth-century grammar. Why would the ostensible translation of ancient stories presumably written in a language descended from Hebrew be made in the third decade of the nineteenth century with 300-year-old English? The grammatical 'problems' with the early manuscripts of the Book of Mormon do not strike me as so thoroughgoing as to represent the (good) grammar of centuries earlier so they are, at best, an inconsistent mix of modern and archaic English, which perhaps makes even less sense than the entirety in archaic English. In any case, I am not a scholar of the English language so please provide an article, essay or book written by an LDS scholar on this matter that I can read and evaluate to the best of my ability. Thanks.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Before asking your 'simple question', you posted a large amount of material over multiple responses.
LOL. Again, I asked a simple question. I have repeated it so you wouldn't have to go back and look up what that question was and still, you aren't going to answer it. :rolleyes:
please do not accuse me of 'controlling the conversation' by doing so...
It can't be avoided. Rather than answer the question I asked, you have decided to direct the conversation anyway, that's controlling.
I gave you ample opportunity to summarize your own position and thereby lead the conversation. In post 270 you claimed the original manuscript was free from grammatical errors and later on in that same post that it reflects sixteenth-century grammar. In post 277, however, you seem to imply there were some grammatical errors, only they weren't significant and God intended it this way.
I'm sure that's what you think I said.
The first problem is that you appear inconsistent on the matter of grammar between posts 270 and 277
Great. I'm sure that I appear that way to you. But I don't appear that way to me. If I told you I was consistent across both posts, do you think you could figure out what I meant or do I need to write a book for you to figure it out?
are there no grammatical errors (post 270) or some insignificant grammatical errors (post 277)?
You are paraphrasing of course. Playing pin the tail on the donkey? post 277 is in agreement with post 270. There is no donkey to pin the tail on. :rolleyes:
Why would the ostensible translation of ancient stories presumably written in a language descended from Hebrew be made in the third decade of the nineteenth century with 300-year-old English?
Good question. You'd have to get that answer from God. Do you think Joseph's education was sufficient to write consistently in the style and grammar used from a period 300 years earlier?
In any case, I am not a scholar of the English language so please provide an article, essay or book written by an LDS scholar on this matter that I can read and evaluate to the best of my ability.
Royal Skousen. I believe there are six volumes to date.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
LOL. Again, I asked a simple question. I have repeated it so you wouldn't have to go back and look up what that question was and still, you aren't going to answer it. :rolleyes:

It can't be avoided. Rather than answer the question I asked, you have decided to direct the conversation anyway, that's controlling.

I'm sure that's what you think I said.

Great. I'm sure that I appear that way to you. But I don't appear that way to me. If I told you I was consistent across both posts, do you think you could figure out what I meant or do I need to write a book for you to figure it out?

You are paraphrasing of course. Playing pin the tail on the donkey? post 277 is in agreement with post 270. There is no donkey to pin the tail on. :rolleyes:

Good question. You'd have to get that answer from God. Do you think Joseph's education was sufficient to write consistently in the style and grammar used from a period 300 years earlier?

Royal Skousen. I believe there are six volumes to date.

Smith claimed to translate the book word for word. His scribes said the words would appear on the rock in his hat in English, and they wouldn’t disappear until they were
transcribed correctly.

So if the text came from 600 b.c., why would it have words like “adieu” in it?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
LOL. Again, I asked a simple question. I have repeated it so you wouldn't have to go back and look up what that question was and still, you aren't going to answer it. :rolleyes:
You mean your question about what the benefit would be to go through the changes, followed immediately by your own opinion that it would be a waste of time? What would be the point of answering the question? You clearly have your mind made up there is no benefit. It is equally clear why you avoid getting into the finer details of this or any other topic we've touched on here in recent weeks...

If I told you I was consistent across both posts, do you think you could figure out what I meant or do I need to write a book for you to figure it out?
A sentence, perhaps a paragraph would suffice... but you don't even provide that.

Do you think Joseph's education was sufficient to write consistently in the style and grammar used from a period 300 years earlier?
There is no need to entertain such a question concerning a claim for which you have thus far provided no evidence.

Royal Skousen. I believe there are six volumes to date.
Please see my posts 226 and 278 in the Psalm 82 thread on how to properly cite a source. If you cannot do this, I will consider your claim unsupported and give it no further thought...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You mean your question about what the benefit would be to go through the changes, followed immediately by your own opinion that it would be a waste of time?
Yep.
What would be the point of answering the question?
You're the one who said it would be beneficial. How should I know what the point of answering the question would be.
You clearly have your mind made up there is no benefit.
You had an opportunity to answer the question and passed it up for useless rhetoric like this. I've also made up my mind about a lot of things in this discussion and here you are still discussing things that you know I've made up my mind that there will be no benefit.
A sentence, perhaps a paragraph would suffice... but you don't even provide that.
You have far more than a sentence or a paragraph in the two posts you think you are dissecting. The point is, my comments are consistent, not divergent.
There is no need to entertain such a question concerning a claim for which you have thus far provided no evidence.
Ok. Don't entertain it. Simple question, a yes or no answer would have done. It wouldn't really take a lot of effort on your part.
Please see my posts 226 and 278 in the Psalm 82 thread on how to properly cite a source. If you cannot do this, I will consider your claim unsupported and give it no further thought...
No. I just think you don't want to look it up.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
No. I just think you don't want to look it up.
Why do you think I asked? You made the claim and I courteously solicited the source from you so I could investigate the matter. Dropping a name who has a large output of scholarship is hardly sufficient so I can only conclude you couldn't be bothered to look it up (which is your burden to shoulder having made the claim) or the claim itself is bogus...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Why do you think I asked? You made the claim and I courteously solicited the source from you so I could investigate the matter. Dropping a name who has a large output of scholarship is hardly sufficient so I can only conclude you couldn't be bothered to look it up (which is your burden to shoulder having made the claim) or the claim itself is bogus...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I gave you the information. It didn't fit your narrow demands. The fact that you made a demand about the way it should be delivered to you is in itself, controlling. You have enough information to get it if you really want it.

Look up Book of Mormon critical text project. Everything you want to know is there.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I'm answering this question.
"And Smith would not let the printer correct the mistakes before publishing the first edition--would he?

Why?"
I have no idea what point you think you're making.

That doesn't change my answer. You asked why. I answered it.
I'm answering this question.
"And Smith would not let the printer correct the mistakes before publishing the first edition--would he?

Why?"
I have no idea what point you think you're making.

That doesn't change my answer. You asked why. I answered it.
You don't? Well the point is, there WERE mistakes in grammar in the first edition, but Smith said to print it as is--mistakes and all. Which means the first edition was NOT free from errors that came not from the printer, but the author.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I gave you the information. It didn't fit your narrow demands. The fact that you made a demand about the way it should be delivered to you is in itself, controlling. You have enough information to get it if you really want it.

Look up Book of Mormon critical text project. Everything you want to know is there.
You make a claim, you need to support it with a proper citation... web pages can be properly cited, too. It's not my problem you couldn't be bothered or don't know how...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You don't? Well the point is, there WERE mistakes in grammar in the first edition
Great. Your argument doesn't make that point. Please explain how Smith not allowing the printer to make changes alludes to "there were mistakes in grammar in the first edition" How does your argument make that point?
but Smith said to print it as is--mistakes and all.
That isn't true. The printer added punctuation. If Joseph Smith didn't want the printer to change anything, it was the words. Do you have a problem with the words? Did Joseph Smith misspell Nephi or Zarahemla?

Give me an example of a mistake in the grammar and I'll address if it was correct, as God intended it, or not. Here's your opportunity to expose us to the world. Be sure to specify where the example comes from - if it was the original manuscript, the printer's copy or the first edition. Thanks.
Which means the first edition was NOT free from errors that came not from the printer, but the author.
We shall see... IF you take up my challenge. My guess is you haven't got anything to offer.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You make a claim, you need to support it with a proper citation... web pages can be properly cited, too. It's not my problem you couldn't be bothered or don't know how...
Attacking me and my lack of "proper citation" isn't getting you any closer to the information you seek. My guess is you aren't really interested in finding it.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Attacking me and my lack of "proper citation" isn't getting you any closer to the information you seek. My guess is you aren't really interested in finding it.
I'm interested in evaluating your evidence, preferably in the form of a concise scholarly article, if you provide it (as you should since you're the one who made the claim)... otherwise, no, I have enough projects on my plate to keep me occupied and then some. The solicitation was also made at a time when I thought a courteous and fruitful dialogue on the subject was possible. Your posting habits since then both here and in the Psalm 82 thread, however, have more or less squashed that hope. Such a shame...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Is Baptism found in The Book of Mormon,

Of course it is.

Three degrees of Glory, The Stick of the Book of Mormon Etc. Etc.

No--but if it isn't--then you won't have to worry about listing that, as I asked--

"So-- Prophet--please relate to us what you find in the Book of Mormon--which isn't also found in the Biblical NT--as far as salvational doctrines go?"

So--are the terms "faith alone" or "Trinity" found in the Bible?
 
Top