That’s quite a sweeping generalisation isn’t it? Among the religions I am familar with, only Judeo-Christianity (and its offshoots) has made assertions to the truthfulness of its origin.
If that’s the case, why make assertions to the otherwise?
These seem to be different beasts. How long has it been since Joseph Smith had received his plates? It’s not like those were paper plates, either.
Speaking of paper, some of the Dead Sea scrolls had been scribed on similar material.
Yes, until proven otherwise.
Are you sure? You must be a whole lot wiser than lowly peons such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Actually, that’s not true tracer. Carburized steel creates a thin layer of hardened material with the outer layer of iron. The process is called “direct iron reduction” and does not require the melting of iron.
(Sorry that that issue of JBMS is locked. Earlier issues aren’t. And my subscription has expired, so I can’t get the soft-copy either.)
“If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.” Apostle George Albert Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216
How can the book of Mormon, which was translated from golden plates buried by Moroni in 421 A.D. contain text that matched the text (including translation errors) found in the KJV which was written in 1611??
Nobody has talked about the chaismus that emarkp brought up. Maybe it was because he provided a dead link. Here’s the correct one. I’d like to see what the skeptics have to say.
The article you linked to quoted a BYU Studies article, which said:
Yet here are the KJV translations of two of the passages they use as examples of chiasmus:
“Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.” Psalms 124:7
“Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” – Isaiah 6:10
The “palendromic” thematic nature of these passages is pretty obvious, whether or not you’ve ever heard of chiasmus.
If you were someone like Joseph Smith, who had pored over the KJV Bible intently ever since your youth, it’s not at all inconceivable that you would’ve noticed the “palendromic” character of passages like the two above, and would have associated that thematic style with how something “biblical” ought to sound.
Huh. I’ll be darned. So if something is “made of” carburized steel it isn’t actually steel through-and-through, it’s merely got an outer layer of carbon-impregnated steel with a core of plain old iron. Is the steel mentioned in the BoM described in sufficient detail to determine whether it is steel with an iron core or steel throughout?
Oh, wait a sec – I just noticed something. You (emarkp) wrote in an earlier message:
Hmmm … interesting … I note that in the NIV and Darby translations of Jeremiah 15:12 and 2 Samuel 22:35, the word is translated as bronze, not steel. In fact, no English translation of the Bible other than the King James Version uses the word “steel” in either of those passages.
It seems that steel wasn’t actually mentioned in the original Old or New Testament writings at all. But it was mentioned, perhaps by a translator’s error, in the KJV translation. And it was the KJV translation which Joseph Smith grew up with, and which bears an eerie similarity in literary style to the BoM. Hmmm…
Funny, I never noticed it until I read apologist writings when I was in college. I wasn’t the greatest biblical scholar, but neither did I have to clear and farm land to survive, did you?
Also, as I mentioned, chiasmus really wasn’t noticed until decades after the BoM. You’re telling me that this should have been obvious to everyone–well, except for the KJV translators, since they screwed up some of the chiasmus in translation. And after centuries of analysis and commentary on the Bible, no one mentioned that poetic form.
Sigh.
I could accept this “well, maybe he got something right” argument once, or maybe twice. But I see it repeatedly in arguments saying Smith was some sort of savant getting so many details wrong (oh, but he screwed up with “at Jerusalem” the goof!). So many things seem obvious in retrospect, but were remarkable at the time. It gets old fast.
tracer, if Smith could have figured it out, please produce some evidence that other people also noticed it. I mean, it should have been easy to spot if such a country bumpkin (at the age of 23) could get it right.
True, but not conclusive. We read in the article cited by emarkp:
I hope that quote is reasonable. It’s a big article.
Wow, now you know how to produce carburized steel! The point is that this was pretty well-known stuff in those days, whether or not the KJV is translated correctly. The BoM is not very detailed, but it does describe making bellows and fire, which would seem to point to producing the simple martensite steel, not anything fancy.
Once again, I note that I don’t expect anyone to change their minds; the only way to become convinced of the truthfulness of the BoM, I am convinced, is through the influence of the Spirit. But hey, ask away.
You really think so? I guess if you were looking for palendromes in the scriptures they wouldn’t be hard to find, but why would you look for them if you had never heard of them?
Also, if Joseph Smith knew about them and wrote them into his book, why wouldn’t he flaunt them as evidence for its authenticity?
Could someone explain where the tablets have gone, and when they disappeared? Seems to me a tremendous difference between some anonymous Hebrews losing artifacts over several thousands of years and several dozen countries, and some specific Mormons losing same in a few decades while living in the same sparsely populated country. At the very least, it strikes me as suspiciously careless.
pseudotriton ruber ruber, I’ve been looking for original documents so I could give you a cite with an answer. I’ll keep looking, but the short explanation is that Moroni took them back after the translation was done, and that they will be returned for more translation (the portion of the book which was sealed) when we’re ready.
Another question that could be asked is could this angel who appeared to Mr. Smith have been an impersonator? A fallen angel appearing as an angel of light to deceive? According to Scripture, 2 Cor. 11:14-15, this is a possiblility. Perhaps Mr. Smith should have used the test given in 1 John 4:1-3 to find out if this angel really came from God. Just a thought, anyway. I’m not sure that I think he made it all up.
I’ve looked up some sites on mormonism from a Christian perspective for anyone who cares to check it out. Note: I’m not saying individual mormons can’t be Christians. This is not an attack on any individual person, just info on mormonism.
These are comparing some of the teachings of mormonism to the teachings of the Bible. Please don’t take this as a personal attack. Different theories are being put forth here, this is just one of them. Perhaps Mr. Smith could have made the whole thing up like the other poster said, but I don’t lean in that direction.
I agree with you on this, vanilla. I think that’s exactly what they were, appearing as “angels of light” spoken of in 2 Cor. 11.
Deception is satan’s goal and I’m sure he just loves keeping people confused as to what the truth is. Why do we see so many attacks on God’s word today? Because satan hates the truth and us and will do anything to deceive us, including sending one of the fallen angens (demons) to appear to someone as a beautiful angel from heaven to start a false religion.
Anyone disagreeing can check out the links I posted above that share mormonism’s teachings as compared to what the Bible says.