Book of Mormon Language Structure

[dzheremi]

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

This rambling, immature nursery rhyming is not a response to the post you have quoted.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

And have they discounted them?

This is a vague question, what do you mean?

Are you asking if non-Mormon linguists have discounted the Book of Mormon? If you actually read the post that you quoted, it says that no non-Mormon linguist has taken on the supposed hebraisms and supported them, so how could they discount something if they haven’t taken it on, because they know that it’s about as logical as taking on the hebraisms in the Strang plates?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

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.

And yet, a Mormon started this thread. LOL! You contradict yourself a lot.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

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

Now why would we make “hay” about the BOM lacking chiasmus if it did when we have already established that chiasmus is proof of nothing, and even you said that Strang could have copied sentence structure from the BOM and that’s how the Brass Plates have chiasmus, but somehow its logical to say that Smith and company could not have done the same with the Bible (or any of the other books available in the 1800s that have chiasmus and are NOT of Hebrew or any ancient origin)? In fact, using your own logic, Smith and company could have copied sentence structure out from the Bible, since the vast majority of “Hebraisms” that you list are also found in the Bible. By discounting Strang’s Brass Plates, you also discount the BOM, since there is no reason NOT to apply the same logic to it.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I’m reading an article that is attempting to dispute a Mormon critic’s analysis of various BOM word choices, and it’s funny that it consistently says, basically “well, Joseph Smith was clearly translating the hebrew word [insert word], which can be translated as such”, when, Joseph Smith wasn’t translating Hebrew! He was “translating” Reformed Egyptian!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

This rambling, immature nursery rhyming is not a response to the post you have quoted.

He does that a lot it seems. I posted examples of direct lifting from Romans and 1 Corinthians, and he replied with articles addressing lifting from Isaiah and Malachi. My points have yet to be addressed.

Simple Synonymous Parallelism Example:
Mosiah 16:10

Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.

in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 15:53 KJV

For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.
**
Contrasting Ideas Example: 2 Nephi 9:39**

Remember, to be carnally-minded is death,
and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

in the Bible: Romans 8:6 KJV

For to be carnally minded is death;
but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.