Book of Mormon Language Structure

[RebeccaJ]

Aren’t we all playing name games? It is a pointless exercise but you and someone else are trying to score points. I also countered your map of names.

Not really. You just gave the mormon glossy-eyed answer.

What points whyme? These are facts. Critical thinking requires them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well the New England map makes the most sense to me, I’m surprised it hasn’t had more attention given to it. Plus, didn’t they have their last battle up there? And how about that Hill Cumorah?

How did they get from South America to upstate New York? Was there any mention of this migration in the Book of Mormon?

Where in the BoM does it say they were in South America?

 

[why_me]

Well the New England map makes the most sense to me, I’m surprised it hasn’t had more attention given to it. Plus, didn’t they have their last battle up there? And how about that Hill Cumorah?

How did they get from South America to upstate New York? Was there any mention of this migration in the Book of Mormon?

You can read the mormon response which I posted. The map is not that strong of a case against the book of mormon.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m still waiting for some sort of answer as to how chiasmus is evidence of anything at all. You know, the actual topic of this thread.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[why_me]

Not really. You just gave the mormon glossy-eyed answer.

What points whyme? These are facts. Critical thinking requires them.

Well it does seem that many mormon names can be placed in the middle east. That was the point. The name game works both ways. However, many names come from mid-east origin whether found in the bible or not.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Well it does seem that many mormon names can be placed in the middle east. That was the point. The name game works both ways. However, many names come from mid-east origin whether found in the bible or not.

Yes exactly, it works both ways, as I clearly said when I started the name game. Mormons claim the names as proof of the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, when critics can also claim that it’s just as possible that the names came directly from the Bible, had a single letter change, were two names put together, or had an ending added to the end.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well it does seem that many mormon names can be placed in the middle east. That was the point. The name game works both ways. However, many names come from mid-east origin whether found in the bible or not.

Really? I see no evidence of this. You only provided the fantasies of Hugh Nibley.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I’m still waiting for some sort of answer as to how chiasmus is evidence of anything at all. You know, the actual topic of this thread.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

They can’t answer, because it is not evidence of anything. Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript also includes MANY of the “Hebraisms” brought up by Mormons, and also includes chiasmus, yet they aren’t claiming that it’s of ancient origin. Nor are they claiming the Strang schismatic sect also has an ancient scripture in their Brass Plates, since that also has chiasmus. Why Me dismisses it by claiming that Strang could have copied verse structure from the Book of Mormon, when that SAME argument can be used to say that Smith and company copied verse structure from the Bible.

In one of John Taylor’s (3rd president of the Mormon church) speeches, he had chiasmus:

A And He in His own person
B bore the sins of all,
C and atoned for them
D by the sacrifice of Himself,
E so there came upon Him the weight and agony
F of ages
f and generations,
e the indescribable agony consequent upon
d this great sacrificial
c atonement
b wherein He bore the sins of the world,
a and suffered in His own person the consequences of an eternal
law of God broken by man

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.26, No.3, pp.162-164

Check out this page, though you’ve already supported it’s claim that chiasmus is evidence of nothing.

drmardy.com/chiasmus/welcome.shtml

 

[ParkerD]

Well the New England map makes the most sense to me, I’m surprised it hasn’t had more attention given to it. Plus, didn’t they have their last battle up there? And how about that Hill Cumorah?

How did they get from South America to upstate New York? Was there any mention of this migration in the Book of Mormon?

Hi, Christine,
Nice to see you are doing well, and still present the kind of balanced curiosity that is your forte.

The Book of Mormon does mention several migrations, northward.

Some of my good friends have the perspective that Zarahemla was in the Ohio River valley area. At this point, I could see that or Mexico or Guatemala as possibilities. But there were definite mentions of migrations of some of the people described in the Book of Mormon.

 

[why_me]

Hi, Christine,
Nice to see you are doing well, and still present the kind of balanced curiosity that is your forte.

The Book of Mormon does mention several migrations, northward.

Some of my good friends have the perspective that Zarahemla was in the Ohio River valley area. At this point, I could see that or Mexico or Guatemala as possibilities. But there were definite mentions of migrations of some of the people described in the Book of Mormon.

But this has nothing to do with the map that Rebecca posted. That map has more or less been discredited and I haven’t seen it pulled out of the hat in a long time. Even the hardcore mormonhaters don’t seem to use it anymore. But it still can be useful in convincing the gullible that JS got his names from his own area or nearby.

Now of course, we would need to assume that people at that time who joined the lds church were absolutely stupid not to see the so called coincidences until one sees that some of those towns were not around during the time of JS.

 

[why_me]

Really? I see no evidence of this. You only provided the fantasies of Hugh Nibley.

We see what we want to see and that is the way it usually is. Better to be just happy go lucky and let catholics be catholic and mormons be mormon.

At the end of the day it really makes no difference at all who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Eucharisted]

We see what we want to see and that is the way it usually is. Better to be just happy go lucky and let catholics be catholic and mormons be mormon.

At the end of the day it really makes no difference at all who is right and who is wrong.

Thanks for proving LDSGuy wrong! Since it dosen’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong, that means every time you and every Mormon user on this board makes a post, it is completely pointless and useless. You have also given me the inspiration I need to report each and every Mormon on this thread for prostylzing - thanks again!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Thanks for proving LDSGuy wrong! Since it dosen’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong, that means every time you and every Mormon user on this board makes a post, it is completely pointless and useless. You have also given me the inspiration I need to report each and every Mormon on this thread for prostylzing - thanks again!

LOL I hesitated from saying exactly that, but thanks for saying it. All those “scholars” he posts only see what they want to see, so it isn’t any more “debunking” or “answering” critic views than the critics are debunking Mormon claims, according to his logic. Thus the question: why is he here if it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong?

 

[Eucharisted]

LOL I hesitated from saying exactly that, but thanks for saying it. All those “scholars” he posts only see what they want to see, so it isn’t any more “debunking” or “answering” critic views than the critics are debunking Mormon claims, according to his logic. Thus the question: why is he here if it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong?

He’s just here to protesylze, just like Ben Masada and some others.

 

[dzheremi]

It would be a lot easier to take claims from the LDS seriously if any of them could actually get published in LSA publications (or the equivalent in some other country). They can’t, because no linguist takes them seriously. Given that, I don’t know why I or anyone else should, either. Face it, Mormons, you have no “experts” nor “evidence”.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

It would be a lot easier to take claims from the LDS seriously if any of them could actually get published in LSA publications (or the equivalent in some other country). They can’t, because no linguist takes them seriously. Given that, I don’t know why I or anyone else should, either. Face it, Mormons, you have no “experts” nor “evidence”.

Whenever I read articles from the Maxwell Institute (BYU), or by FAIR, it’s funny that when referencing those that hold similar views on an issue (such as Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon), they generally reference other Mormon scholars, since it seems that no non-Mormon linguist has taken on the Book of Mormon hebraisms and supported them, from what I can tell so far.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s not just you, T.A. The fact is, no non-LDS linguist takes these Mormon claims seriously, as they are utterly ahistorical and not linguistically sound. To the extent that I have found non-LDS linguists who address the subject, the analysis is entirely negative. Take, for instance, this entry at “Language Log”, a great Linguistics and culture-related blog started by Mark Liberman, a linguist at U Penn, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, professor of General Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh (and former professor at UC Santa Cruz in California, USA).

 

[why_me]

It would be a lot easier to take claims from the LDS seriously if any of them could actually get published in LSA publications (or the equivalent in some other country). They can’t, because no linguist takes them seriously. Given that, I don’t know why I or anyone else should, either. Face it, Mormons, you have no “experts” nor “evidence”.

The OP brings up hebraisms in the book of mormon and in fact there are hebraisms. Now some catholics on this thread are writing a bad haiku poem by declaring:

Lookie here
lookie there
There is chiasmus everywhere!

And of course that is not the point. In the book of mormon there are hebraisms and chiasmus and the links that I have given good examples and explanations. Now if there wasn’t chiasmus or hebraisms you guys would be making a lot of hay about it.

mormoncodex.blogspot.com/2009/08/hebraisms-and-book-of-mormon.html

 

[why_me]

Whenever I read articles from the Maxwell Institute (BYU), or by FAIR, it’s funny that when referencing those that hold similar views on an issue (such as Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon), they generally reference other Mormon scholars, since it seems that no non-Mormon linguist has taken on the Book of Mormon hebraisms and supported them, from what I can tell so far.

And have they discounted them?

 

[why_me]

He’s just here to protesylze, just like Ben Masada and some others.

It is usually catholics who start a mormon thread. Not mormons. Mormons and their friends just come and respond to the mormon threads. And that is perfectly natural.