Book of Mormon Language Structure

  • Thread starter Thread starter LDSGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LDSGuy

Guest
cometozarahemla.org/hebraisms/hebraisms.html

How do Latter-day Saint critics account for the Hebrew language structure (“Hebraisms”) found throughout the Book of Mormon? What is the explanation for this, especially when they relate to passages having no relation to anything found in the King James Version of the Bible? Complex chiasmus is found throughout the Book of Mormon, The Hebrew “If…and” structure is also very compelling, being equivalent to the English “If…then” conditional statement. So, taking a look at this list of Hebraisms, how do you think they ended up in the Book of Mormon?
 
Hebrew? Wasn’t the language supposedly “reformed Egyptian”?
 
LDSGuy said:
cometozarahemla.org/hebraisms/hebraisms.html

How do Latter-day Saint critics account for the Hebrew language structure (“Hebraisms”) found throughout the Book of Mormon? What is the explanation for this, especially when they relate to passages having no relation to anything found in the King James Version of the Bible? Complex chiasmus is found throughout the Book of Mormon, The Hebrew “If…and” structure is also very compelling, being equivalent to the English “If…then” conditional statement. So, taking a look at this list of Hebraisms, how do you think they ended up in the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...
Without getting into the specifics of each alleged hebraism, I simply call confirmation bias. I consider the “scholarly works” of FAIR and FARMS about as credible as a numerologist’s. If one looks hard enough with one’s conclusion already in hand, one can find just about anything one’s heart desires.

Now if you’d excuse me, I have to count the letters in the Bible to go see what God wants me to have for dinner tonight. 😉
 
Yeah, and what is this “scholarship” based on? English. If a mormon can come up with anything written in this language from a culture that it came from, we might have something to talk about. As it is, it is nothing but make believe “scholarship” of a make believe artifact.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Hebrew? Wasn’t the language supposedly “reformed Egyptian”?
Click to expand...
Yes, which obviously could have been a transliteration of Hebrew. Remember, the view is that Israelites traveled to the Americas, meaning, they came with their language and culture.

Can you address the question?
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Without getting into the specifics of each alleged hebraism, I simply call confirmation bias. I consider the “scholarly works” of FAIR and FARMS about as credible as a numerologist’s. If one looks hard enough with one’s conclusion already in hand, one can find just about anything one’s heart desires.

Now if you’d excuse me, I have to count the letters in the Bible to go see what God wants me to have for dinner tonight. 😉
Click to expand...
So, you have no comment on the Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon.
 
LDSGuy said:
Yes, which obviously could have been a transliteration of Hebrew. Remember, the view is that Israelites traveled to the Americas, meaning, they came with their language and culture.

Can you address the question?
Click to expand...
No evidence of any such thing.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Yeah, and what is this “scholarship” based on? English. If a mormon can come up with anything written in this language from a culture that it came from, we might have something to talk about. As it is, it is nothing but make believe “scholarship” of a make believe artifact.
Click to expand...
So, you have no comment on clear Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon.
 
LDSGuy:

May I offer you an sincere suggestion? If you are in pursuit of genuine discourse, I’d select a few of these hebraisms from the link you provided that you feel are especially telling. Posting a huge webpage like that and expecting us to read through its entirety isn’t realistic.

In the mean time, I will do my best to read through it slowly. I’m starting with the “And it came to pass” bit. The author so far isn’t making his case. In fact, he’s really glossing over the more likely explanation that Joseph Smith merely copied this convention from the King James Bible, which he did have access to. The author hasn’t explained why his conclusion is more parsimonious than the obvious.
 
LDSGuy said:
So, you have no comment on clear Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
Hello!

I am afraid that such a comparison would be too scholarly for this crowd. You will not get an academic answer to your question. The most that you can expect is mock and disdain mixed with a little sarcasm. Sorry! 😦
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
LDSGuy:

May I offer you an sincere suggestion? If you are in pursuit of genuine discourse, I’d select a few of these hebraisms from the link you provided that you feel are especially telling. Posting a huge webpage like that and expecting us to read through its entirety isn’t realistic.

In the mean time, I will do my best to read through it slowly. I’m starting with the “And it came to pass” bit. The author so far isn’t making his case. In fact, he’s really glossing over the more likely explanation that Joseph Smith merely copied this convention from the King James Bible, which he did have access to. The author hasn’t explained why his conclusion is more parsimonious than the obvious.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Also if you note in the OP, I mentioned chiasmus and “If…and” structure, comparable to the English “If…then” structure.

I think that Smith copying “and it came to pass” is certainly one possibility. The author of this website is merely pointing out that it would be weird if the phrase was not found in the Book of Mormon.
 
Just hayah alone: Hayah means “existed” or “was” in Hebrew;

That document “suggests” it means something else entirely.

Foolishness, all around. Lot’s of “could haves” and “suggested”. As I said, make believe.
 
LDSGuy said:
So, you have no comment on the Hebraisms found in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
You posted this while I was typing my last response. I will do my best to read through this material, but understand that it’s huge!

I spend more time on a skeptic’s forum than I do here. We spend most of our time discussing the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and science in general. One thing I’ve come to notice from many conspiracy theorists, “alternative medicine” advocates, anti-vaxers, “birthers”, et. al. is that they have a similar MO:

“Read through all of this long winded material and rebut every single claim point by point otherwise you’re wrong and I’m right.”

I sure hope you won’t be reminiscent of this.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
You posted this while I was typing my last response. I will do my best to read through this material, but understand that it’s huge!

I spend more time on a skeptic’s forum than I do here. We spend most of our time discussing the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and science in general. One thing I’ve come to notice from many conspiracy theorists, “alternative medicine” advocates, anti-vaxers, “birthers”, et. al. is that they have a similar MO:

“Read through all of this long winded material and rebut every single claim point by point otherwise you’re wrong and I’m right.”

I sure hope you won’t be reminiscent of this.
Click to expand...
Thanks again! Feel free to focus on the two I clearly mentioned in the OP.
 
why_me said:
Hello!

I am afraid that such a comparison would be too scholarly for this crowd. You will not get an academic answer to your question. The most that you can expect is mock and disdain mixed with a little sarcasm. Sorry! 😦
Click to expand...
And what exactly is it that you have to bring to the table here, WhyMe? Just here to model your complex again?
 
RebeccaJ said:
Just hayah alone: Hayah means “existed” or “was” in Hebrew;

That document “suggests” it means something else entirely.

Foolishness, all around. Lot’s of “could haves” and “suggested”. As I said, make believe.
Click to expand...
Yes, the website itself says what you and wikipedia said. 😉

Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon:

1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):–beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use

eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=hayah
 
Here is an interesting article found in the mormon magazine Ensign discussing this issue. The article is dated however:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20october%201989.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20hebrew%20literary%20patterns%20in%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

The parallel nature of biblical writing is apparent to most readers. However, the study of Hebrew poetics—the classification and analysis of many different kinds of parallel structures—began in the first half of the nineteenth century. Not until the turn of the twentieth century did scholars introduce specific definitions of the various parallelisms. A critic might say that the Prophet Joseph Smith could have been able to imitate the parallel nature of biblical writing; but it is extremely unlikely that he could have produced such a huge number of parallelisms—sometimes several per verse—of more than twenty-five types. Only the Book of Mormon prophets, who used the structural forms of ancient Hebrew poetry and who were inspired from on high, could have written such beautiful poetic structures.

More Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon
Simple synonymous: 1 Ne. 1:15; 1 Ne. 17:47; 2 Ne. 9:52; 2 Ne. 25:2; 2 Ne. 30:11; Alma 34:32; 3 Ne. 5:21; 3 Ne. 20:42; 3 Ne. 29:5; Ether 6:10

Simple synthetic: 2 Ne. 4:35; Mosiah 23:21; Alma 37:35; 3 Ne. 10:15

Contrasting: 2 Ne. 26:25; Alma 5:40 and Alma 41; Alma 9:28; Alma 36:21; Hel. 10:6; 3 Ne. 27:33

Antithetical: 1 Ne. 17:45; Jacob 4:10; Mosiah 4:24; Ether 12:26; Moro. 10:6

Simple alternate: 1 Ne. 5:1; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 17:19, 36, 39; 1 Ne. 20:18–19; 2 Ne. 4:17, 28; 2 Ne. 6:6; 2 Ne. 10:25; 2 Ne. 26:12; 2 Ne. 27:4; 2 Ne. 30:17; Mosiah 4:8; Alma 1:26; Alma 2:29; Alma 28:11; Alma 63:2; Hel. 3:21

Repeated alternate: 1 Ne. 19:9; Alma 30:24–26; Alma 30:10

Extended alternate: 1 Ne. 8:24; 1 Ne. 9:3–4, 11–12; Alma 5:19

Repetitive numerical: Alma 23:5; Alma 28:11; Alma 36:10; Morm. 6:10–15

A fortiori numerical: 1 Ne. 4:1; Alma 3:26; Hel. 3:24–26; 3 Ne. 3:22; 3 Ne. 4:21

Circular repetitive: Mosiah 3:25–26; Mosiah 11:21; Alma 3:15–16; Alma 14:29; Alma 24:7–10; Alma 60:20; Alma 62:41; Hel. 11:10–16; Morm. 7:2–5

Climactic: 2 Ne. 2:25; Alma 42:22–23; Morm. 9:12–13
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top