Book Of Mormon Stumbling Block

paul6150 · November 16, 2005

Originally posted by inactivetx+Nov 15 2005, 01:44 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-paul6150@Nov 15 2005, 01:05 PM
You see the salvation message presented in the Bible has nothing to do with what we can do (our works) but in what He has already done. All He asks of us is to believe in the Lord Jesus and what Jesus has done in dying for our sins. THIS IS WHAT THE GOSPEL IS ALL ABOUT.
You are questioning the authenticity of the BOM and rightly so for throughout its pages you find a strong emphasis on our works as being the way to heaven. THIS DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE'S MESSAGE. I strongly encourage you to not look for a witness from the BOM but rather believe in the Lord Jesus and that He died for you personally. His blood covered your sins and the sins of the whole world. All He asks is that we take up this free gift and believe.
←
thanks for your reply and your concern. However, I have a different take on the whole grace vs. works debate and would rather not discuss it here in this thread - a new one maybe? I know that Jesus died for me personally - its hard not to read any standard work and not get this message loud and clear. But thanks for reminder.
InActiveTx
←

I am all for a discussion about grace vs. works. Nmae the place where you want to chat about this topic.

paul6150 · November 16, 2005

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 15 2005, 02:55 PM
Well Paul, you have not answered me about our last conversation, so when you answer me what i answered to you , then we'll talk, and your äcerted view"towards the BoM, and then such way of thinking would be vindicated
And as to Inactivetx:
Hey, how many quotes doesnt have the own OT about Jesus?
How many verses didnt Jesus quoted? Were there of him or for him?
How many MANY concepts of christianism are found within judaism?
Did Christians copied?
How many "greek philosophy"is not there WITHIN Christianity?
A lot may i say... but that doesnt mean christians copied or took such thoughts from pagans, but that such knowleadge was in the world since it began. A great opportunity for people to corrupt or exalt such doctrines. If not viewed this way, then the very presence of all christian concepts within early pagan sources lead us to believe that even theJEWS took principles out of pagans...LOL.
And as to quotes, again, isnt naive of you to ask that such expression of (we are better than our brothers) is of NT times?
Dont you believe that such situation with the SAME response would have been early contemplated?
Was Jesus the only intelligent person to respond such basic answer?
Wow, then the jews were as stupid as a rock...
Regards
←

Hey Serg

The last I looked I posted last under the previous topic. Although it doesn't cover all of your point it is a starting point. I am working on the rest of my response to your post.

Paul

paul6150 · November 16, 2005

Originally posted by inactivetx+Nov 15 2005, 01:38 PM-->
Originally posted by Ray@Nov 15 2005, 12:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 15 2005, 11:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?
And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation". English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word. Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?
Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat. We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.
If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
←
To put it simply, "adieu" was the word Joseph Smith chose to use to represent what Nephi? (was it?) said or meant when he said what he said.
For those who don't know, a prophet usually speaks with his own words while expressing the thoughts he is given from the Lord, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Or in other words, our Lord and the Holy Ghost don't always give prophets the exact words to use when giving inspiration and revelation, and instead they usually give thoughts and impressions which are interpreted into words by the prophet who receives them.
And for those who want some evidence of this, study the words of the prophets and you should be able to notice that every prophet has their own way of saying or writing certain things, even though they are all basically saying the same things, and even though some prophets give a little more detail or express their thoughts in words that are easier for others to understand.
And btw, Joseph Smith was fairly familiar with the Bible both before and after he was ordained as an apostle of our Lord, and sometimes he chose to use some of those words in the Bible to translate what the Nephites had written in their scriptures. For instance, the Nephites didn't speak in the King James vernacular either.
Anyway, you simply need to understand the process whereby we receive revelation, while trying to understand what someone says to you when they explain how they believe it was done.
←
I agree with your analysis, Ray which is why I don't get bent out of shape with horses, cement or adieu. Joseph could have simply used the word(s) from HIS frame of reference to express what the Spirit was telling him.
But this is inadequate to describe the use of old/new testament scenarios appearing in the BoM. In my example, it is simply more than just 'Jesus teaching timeless truths'. It is an almost word for word quote of Christ talking to the Pharisees with just the names changed to charge the guilty - 100 years before Christ uttered the complaint. In Ether a glaring example:
Ether 8: 10
10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the ahead• of my father, the king.
Compare with Mark 6 and the beheading of John the Baptist by a tempting dancing daughter:
How interesting that an almost identical scenario occurs twice in scripture?
Don't get me wrong - I WANT to believe. I am one of the strange people who love Mormonism but can't quite make myself believe it lock, stock and barrel. But I am trying. Situations like these don't make my job any easier.
InActiveTx
←

You happened to mention the word "cement" and it reminded me of my notes about the temple construction and the use of cement. Here is some interesting things to ponder on.

Lehi and Saraih initially had four sons namely Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi when they left Jerusalem (1N 2:5) no mention of daughters at this time. Two additional sons were born in the wilderness namely Jacob and Joseph (1N 18:7). Zoram, the servant of Laban comes with them (1N 4:31-37). Ishmael and his wife join them with at least 5 daughters and 2 sons. No mention of Jacob, Joseph and two sons of Ishmael having wives, but let’s assume they did take some of the daughters of the other five to start their families. How many people would there be in 40 years assuming twins are born each year? Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Zoram and their wives could have had up to 160 children by the time the oldest children are 16. Then with Jacob, Joseph, and two sons of Ishmael now married, four new couples can begin having children each of the following years. Mathematically there would then be 1500 or more people inhabiting this land by the end of the 30th year. The BOM text throughout these years does not suggest any other children of Lehi or Ishmael except the reference to “my sisters” (2N 5:6). We don’t know how many sisters there were or whom they married but even under the best of conditions (twins each year) there could not have been over 3000 people in this 40 year period. If one follows the BOM story line we see the division between the Lamanites and Nephites (2N 5:6) where the Nephites, the larger group decided to move. The Nephites made swords, built buildings, even a temple, like Solomon’s temple. Some pretty awesome accomplishments for such a small number of people.

Some other interesting questions can be garnered from this section of the BOM (2N 5:5-34).

1). Solomon’s temple took a workforce of 30,000 laborers, 150,000 stonemasons and haulers, and 3,300 supervisors- a total of seven (7) years nonstop work to complete the temple (1 Kings 6:9-38). In the BOM we have an approximate workforce of 200 to 300 able-bodied men and maybe some older children building many buildings and a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine” all within a 10-12 year period.

2). Solomon’s temple was 90 feet long, 30 feet wide and 45 feet tall. The portico in front of the temple extended the width of the temple (30 feet) and was 15 feet in front of the temple. Solomon’s temple originally had another building around the outside consisting of small side rooms where the priests who took care of the temple stayed. Based on this information and the 2N 5:16 statement about a temple similar to Solomon’s temple one must ask “where is any archeological evidence that depicts a temple this big?” All the archeological ruins in Central America depict a much smaller buildings on top of pyramids. This does not seem to agree with the BOM description of the temple built like Solomon’s temple.

3). 2N 5:16 contradicts what was just stated, in the previous verse, in that “it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land” whereas verse 15 states that Nephi “did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance” . None of the remaining archeological ruins indicate construction with metal let alone precious metals such as gold and silver.

4). If one studies the information presented by the archeologists who have examined these Central and South American ruins, they will find the following facts:

a) They had no draft animals or wheeled vehicles which is contrary to what the BOM states in A 18:9 and 20:6; 3N 3:22 and 21:14. Any reference to horses would be contrary to archeological facts obtained from the ruins. The BOM, however, indicates “their land is full of horses” E 1:21.

B) Writings from the Mayan civilization was made on stone slabs or pillars; lintels and stairways; and on folded sheets of fibrous paper made from the inner bark of wild fig trees. Many exist today. The Aztecs used pictographic writings (conveying messages by drawing pictures). These pictorial writings were typically recorded on paper or animal hides. Many of these writings called codices are in existence today. The Inca’s probably did have some writings; however, archeologists have not found any to date. Information about the Inca’s came from the oral tradition passed from one generation to the next. There is very little evidence, if any, that indicates writings on metal plates as the BOM describes.

c) The common people of these civilizations probably lived in dwellings that were made of adobe or palm-thatched huts as seen today among their descendants. The BOM states that the Nephites “became exceedingly expert in working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement in which they did dwell” H3:7, 9 and 11. The word cement is derived from the Old French language which was not developed until the 6th or 7th century A.D. Again it must be asked how a French word gets into a work allegedly completed no later than 421 A.D.

Furthermore, there is no archeological evidence that backs up the use of cement in the pre-Columbian Americas. Cement is defined as a finely ground powder that when mixed with water sets and hardens into a solid mass. The ancient Roman civilization made cement from lime and volcanic ash and used it extensively in building their empire. In 1824 a British engineer, by the name of Joseph Aspdin, patented portland cement in which limestone and clay are the two most common raw materials. These ingredients are crushed and ground into fine powder, blended to the desired proportions and heated in a kiln at very high temperatures.

It is also interesting to note that the patent was issued in 1824 just a few short years before JS began writing the BOM. Many newspapers carried the news about this new useful product. A likely possibility is that JS during this time period may have incorporated it into the BOM. One must wonder if that is why this word shows up in the BOM.

d) The religion of these Indian civilizations was polytheistic (many gods) not just one God as we find in the Judeo/Christian beliefs. The following is a brief summary of these Indian religious systems:

Not far from the temple pyramid stood a much smaller building which some describe as a house of idols, diabolism, serpents, and having many tools needed for carving the bodies of the sacrificial victims. The Aztecs believed in a system of 13 heavens and 9 underworlds which had over 900 gods. They had gods for commerce and industry; gods for merchant-adventurers; gods for imperial armies; gods for potters, basket weavers, mat makers; gods of agriculture; gods of fisherman; gods of earth, air, fire, and water; gods of mountains, volcanoes; creator gods; gods of medicine; and gods for flowers which strange people loved.

The Mayan religious system was similar to the Aztecs in that they had a pantheon of nature gods and other duties. Some of these included: gods of abundance; rain gods; gods for travelers; medicine gods; gods of the chase; gods for fisherman; gods of maize, food plants, cocoa. Principally, the Mayans had 13 major gods and a host of minor gods. The major gods included: the death god, weather god, sky deity, moon god, maize god, war god, merchants god, sun god, serpent deity, water goddess, god with ornamented nose, old black god, and the end of the year god.

The Mayans had numerous idols. There was not an animal or reptile that didn’t have an image for it which was worshipped as a god or goddess. Additionally torture and human sacrifice were a fundamental part of the Mayan religious rituals. The drawing of human blood was thought to nourish the gods and was thus necessary to achieve contact with them.

The Inca religion also had multiple gods that they worshipped. Ancestor worship was an important feature of the Inca system. Each tribe or clan would have mummies of the kinsfolk to which were offered vases, clothes, plumes and the like. They had gods of the ocean, the earth, fish, harvests, and the moon. The Inca religion combined features of animism, fetishism and worship of nature gods.

e) The final point to be drawn from the studies made of these Native American peoples was the time frame when these civilizations existed:

Aztecs settled on Lake Tezcuco which later became the capital of the empire somewhere between 1140 and 1327 A.D. They flourished until the 15th and16th century A.D. until defeated by the Spanish.

The earliest known period of the Mayan civilization was approximately 260 A.D. when they began building temples and pyramids. They were overtaken by the Spanish and disease by approximately 1540 A.D.

The Inca civilization started to build their empire, as early as 1438 A.D., and within 100 years had gained control of 12,000,000 people.

Many BOM believers point to these great civilizations as evidence that there was a great Nephite civilization. However, the timeline for each civilization as determined by archeologists does not fit with the BOM narrative and cannot be the supporting evidence for the BOM. In fact both LDS and RLDS authorities have indicated that there is very little archeological evidence that corroborates the BOM.

So as you can see there are other things that indicate there is some problems with what the BOM says.

Snow · November 16, 2005

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 15 2005, 10:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?
And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation". English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word. Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?
Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat. We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.
If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
←

It;s a non-issue for me.

The original plates didn't say "and it came to pass." They said something else and JS translated it as "and it came to pass." Whatever the plates originally said in this case, JS translated as "adieu."

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

I know one of the witnesses to the translation reports that JS would see words appear and then would read them off, but JS doesn't say that. Even if that is the way it worked some of the time, that doesn't have to be the only way it worked. JS's translation and revelation processed certainly evolved over time.

November 16, 2005

You just want to haggle. I for one am tired of it.

T

hen do us all a favor and put me on your ignore list. I know I could care less responding to you're generally useless posts.

IOW you have no sincere desire to learn anything, you just want to plant your evil seeds of doubt. That is what you come here for? What a sad life that you go around telling anyone who puts a clear understanding out about what you're doing, that their posts are 'useless post'... well I know there are many who don't think it is useless to point out the work of evil among us.

D&C 123: 13

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

livy111us · November 20, 2005

I think it odd that this argument comes up so frequently. Especially when the Bible itself does the exact same thing. Isaiah 2:2 reads

"And it shall come to pass in the alast days, that the bmountain• of the LORD’s chouse shall be destablished in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all enations• shall flow unto it."

and oddly enough, Micah 4:1 reads:

"BUT in the last days it shall come to pass, that the amountain• of the house of the LORD shall be bestablished in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it"

So who was copying who? Was Isaiah the plagerist, or Micah? Or could it possibly be that they were both recieving revelation from the same source, just like the Book of Mormon?

As for the Adieu, I would have to agree that this is a pretty lame argument. Anyone who translates from one language into their own can use any word they want. If I was translating a greeting from swahilian, I could translate into anything I wanted. It could be translated hello, hola, kaneecheewa, bonjour, what's up? yo...etc. Does it change the meaning whatsoever? Of course not! They all mean the same thing!

And for the wheels, cement, horses, etc... There is plenty of evidence. However, it may be easier to just click here http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/main.html

for evidence.

November 20, 2005

Originally posted by livy111us@Nov 19 2005, 10:57 PM
I think it odd that this argument comes up so frequently. Especially when the Bible itself does the exact same thing. Isaiah 2:2 reads
"And it shall come to pass in the alast days, that the bmountain• of the LORD’s chouse shall be destablished in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all enations• shall flow unto it."
and oddly enough, Micah 4:1 reads:
"BUT in the last days it shall come to pass, that the amountain• of the house of the LORD shall be bestablished in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it"
So who was copying who? Was Isaiah the plagerist, or Micah? Or could it possibly be that they were both recieving revelation from the same source, just like the Book of Mormon?
As for the Adieu, I would have to agree that this is a pretty lame argument. Anyone who translates from one language into their own can use any word they want. If I was translating a greeting from swahilian, I could translate into anything I wanted. It could be translated hello, hola, kaneecheewa, bonjour, what's up? yo...etc. Does it change the meaning whatsoever? Of course not! They all mean the same thing!
And for the wheels, cement, horses, etc... There is plenty of evidence. However, it may be easier to just click here http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/main.html
for evidence.
←

Absolutely true... I am always so surprised at how narrow minded people are... how limited they are in their perspective and understanding.

Serg · November 21, 2005

As to the question of "Adieu" in Jacob's book, i found this and believe its more than sufficient to cease at least the evil speaking here...

How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word "adieu"?

The French term adieu, meaning "good-bye" (literally, "to God"),

was borrowed by English, the language into which Joseph Smith translated the Book

of Mormon. Though we no longer use it in our language, it is included in Webster's

1828 dictionary, which reflects American English of Joseph Smith's day.

There are many French and German words in English. For example, the King James

version (KJV) of the Bible has both ghost and spirit, the former related to

German geist, the latter to French esprit. In the KJV, both mean the same thing.

Hence, we have both Holy Ghost (e.g., Acts 10:29) and Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13),

from the same Greek title.

Many other words of French origin appear in the KJV, e.g. assay, "try,

test" (Acts 9:26), from French essayer, "try"; ciel, "cover,

overlay" (2 Chronicles 3:5), from French ciel, "sky"; related

to ceiling (1 Kings 6:15); environ, "encircle" (Joshua 7:9), from

French environ, "surrounding, neighborhood"; cf. English environment.

Many more could be listed, but this should suffice to demonstrate that it is

no more wrong for the Book of Mormon to include the French word adieu than it

is for the KJV Bible to use French terms that became part of the English language.

paul6150 · November 23, 2005

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 21 2005, 10:04 AM
As to the question of "Adieu" in Jacob's book, i found this and believe its more than sufficient to cease at least the evil speaking here...
How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word "adieu"?
The French term adieu, meaning "good-bye" (literally, "to God"),
was borrowed by English, the language into which Joseph Smith translated the Book
of Mormon. Though we no longer use it in our language, it is included in Webster's
1828 dictionary, which reflects American English of Joseph Smith's day.
There are many French and German words in English. For example, the King James
version (KJV) of the Bible has both ghost and spirit, the former related to
German geist, the latter to French esprit. In the KJV, both mean the same thing.
Hence, we have both Holy Ghost (e.g., Acts 10:29) and Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13),
from the same Greek title.
Many other words of French origin appear in the KJV, e.g. assay, "try,
test" (Acts 9:26), from French essayer, "try"; ciel, "cover,
overlay" (2 Chronicles 3:5), from French ciel, "sky"; related
to ceiling (1 Kings 6:15); environ, "encircle" (Joshua 7:9), from
French environ, "surrounding, neighborhood"; cf. English environment.
Many more could be listed, but this should suffice to demonstrate that it is
no more wrong for the Book of Mormon to include the French word adieu than it
is for the KJV Bible to use French terms that became part of the English language.
←

SERG

Had a few minutes to read what you posted here about the use of French words in the BOM. It becomes a major issue in that if you accept the timeline spelled out in the BOM, the Nephites supposedly left Jerusalem in 600 BC and were supposedly here in the Americas by approximately 20 years later. Keeping this in mind there should no longer be an influence of European or Mid-Eastern culture into this group of Americans now since they are half a world away from those areas.

Now when one examines some of the BOM words they use one has to wonder how do they get such words long before the French or Greek languages are developed. Here are a few other examples besides the one you mentioned:

One area of historical discrepancies, found in the BOM, is related to the use of more modern language or terms or even references to various manufactured items that were not yet invented or developed at the time period in question. Many of these language, terms, and manufactured items were not known until centuries later than the BOM time frame. The following comments address these discrepancies:

a. 1N 4:9 (1N 1:109 RLDS) states, “the blade thereof was of the most precious steel” and then 1N 16:18 (1N 5:22 RLDS) says, “I did break my bow which was made of fine steel.” Additional BOM references to steel are found in 2N 5:15, JA 1:8 and ETH 7:9 (2N 4:21, JA 1:19-20 and ETH 3:46 RLDS). Steel, as we know it today, had not been perfected at this time. The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The earliest form of steel was produced in the Catalan furnace in the 1300’s…in the mid-19th century, cast iron and wrought iron were the basic materials for industry and technology…Steel was difficult and costly to produce, by the only processes known at that time, until the Bessemer process (1856) and the Open-Hearth process (1860’s) were developed.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, states the following about iron and steel production: “True iron metallurgy began among the Hittites some time between 1900 and 1400 B.C. …Iron replaced bronze in implements and weapons beginning in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe about 1200 B.C. Pure iron is about as soft as copper and is of little structural value, but it is greatly hardened by the addition of small amounts of carbon. Steel contains up to 2 percent carbon; higher carbon content creates cast iron. Steel making is a melting, purifying (refining) and alloying process carried out at approximately 1600oC (2900oF) under molten conditions.”

Based on this information, one must ask, “How could the people described in the BOM have a steel blade, steel bow or shields made of steel?” Shields made of steel would be extremely heavy unless they were very small. The KJV Bible in four locations also refers to steel. These are as follows: 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34; and Jeremiah 15:12. The Hebrew word used here has been translated from the same Hebrew word which means brass or bronze. All newer Bible translations use the word bronze instead of steel at these same Bible verses.

If one assumes the same translation variation for the BOM text, then maybe the writer of the BOM was intending to use the word bronze, brass or brazen. Looking up these three words in the Bible, they will find that these metals were used extensively in ornamental items, vessels for worship in the tabernacle, the brazen altar, etc. These metals were even used as armor because they were light. The Bible identifies shields, breastplates, helmets and shin guards as being made of these metals, but no mention of their use in the production of swords or spears since these weapons would require a much stronger material to be effective in battle. The BOM, on the other hand, clearly identifies swords and spears being made of steel. The passages in 2N and JA both state that various things were made out of “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass and of steel…” Here the BOM lists all four different metals together (iron, copper, brass and steel) as being made. This brings us back to the original question. How could they make things of steel when steel was not produced until after 1300 AD?

Additionally, the BOM stretches the issue to the limits of credibility. Specifically, the book of Ether was supposedly about a people who lived from Tower of Babel days until somewhere around 200-300 B.C. before the two warring factions annihilated each other except for Ether and Coriantumr. The BOM is unclear as to when the Jaredite history came to a finish by this final battle, however earlier in the Jaredite history we find the story of Corihor and Shule, ETH 7:1-9 (ETH 3:37-3:46 RLDS), the great grandsons of Jared. Shule made swords out of “steel” and fought Corihor, his brother; in order restore the kingdom to his old father Kib. As stated earlier, the specific time frame is not presented except that one can estimate a time by comparing the historical record and the Biblical account with the BOM account. Most Biblical scholars place the life of Abraham as being between 2000 BC - 1800 BC. Again the Bible places Abraham in the 5th generation from the Tower of Babel (i.e. Peleg - Reu - Serug - Nahor - Terah - Abraham). The BOM account would place Corihor and Shule in the same generation as Nahor or approximately 2200 BC - 1900 BC. Referring to the quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica presented earlier “true iron metallurgy began among the Hittites sometime between 1900 and 1400 B.C.” The historical and Biblical account differ with the BOM account in that Shule made swords out of “steel” even before the beginning of the iron age. One of these accounts has to be wrong.

b. 1N 16:14-23 (1N 5:17-28 RLDS) speaks about Nephi and his brothers taking “our bows” signifying more than one, but Nephi’s brothers got real mad at Nephi for breaking his bow. What about their bows? Verse 21 (verse 26 RLDS) attempts to explain this in that the “bow strings” had went out on the other bows. What were these bow strings made of? Couldn’t new ones be made? Nephi then proceeds in making a bow “out of wood” which helps him explain why the Indians had wooden bows and arrows.

c. God shows Nephi how to build a ship with ore, tools and bellows. The Encyclopedia Britannica - Volume 2 presents the following: “Bellows - a mechanical contrivance for creating a jet of air, consisting usually of a hinged box with flexible sides, which expands to draw in air through an inward opening valve and contracts to expel the air through a nozzle. The bellows was invented in the European Middle Ages and was commonly used to speed combustion, as in a blacksmith’s or ironworker’s forge, or to operate reed or pipe organs.” As described in the BOM, Nephi was either a product of someone’s (Smith’s) 19th century story telling or someone with knowledge of the use of bellows almost 1500 years before they were invented.

d. Made swords like Laban’s sword which was made out of “precious steel” 2N 5:14, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 10:8, Alma 2:12, Helaman 1:14, and 3N 3:26 (2N 4:19, Jarom 1:19, Mosiah 6:38, Alma 1:66, Helaman 1:15, and 3N 2:37 RLDS). If one examines the archeological evidence in the American Indian ruins, one would note a strange absence of metal products such as described in these and many other verses of the BOM. Furthermore the Jarom 1:8 passage talks about machinery being made in approximately 400 B.C. What type of machinery? Where is the archeological evidence?

Reviewing various encyclopedias regarding the Maya, Aztec, and Inca civilizations, one finds that these civilizations lacked draft animals, wheeled vehicles, and metal tools. What tools and weapons they did have were made out of copper not steel.

e. Here is the one SERG mentioned. J 7:27 (J 5:48 RLDS) ends the Book of Jacob with the words, “Brethern adieu.” The word “adieu” is a French word which means “good bye”. The problem with the use of this French word is that the French language was not developed or derived from Latin until 700 A.D. How does someone, who supposedly wrote on these golden tablets 500 years before Christ, write a French word that was not derived till approximately 700 years after Christ?

f. M 15:5-23 (M 8:32-57 RLDS) presents a discussion about the Son of God and that He would be mocked, scourged, crucified, swallowed up, breaketh the bands of death, having gained, having ascended and satisfying the demands of justice. All of these things that the Son of God was to go through are all presented in the past tense as if they had already happened. This would indicate that the one writing these verses, already knew what was already taught about Christ. Possibly could be an indicator that the writer was someone after the New Testament period.

Furthermore, the word “crucified” does not appear in the Old Testament and the only Old Testament references to this form of execution is in the verse “cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree” Deuteronomy 21:23 and the two (2) references of the one “whom they have pierced” found in Psalm 22:16 and Zechariah 12:10. One must ask “Why does the BOM express what Jesus would experience more clearly than any other Old Testament passage?” Probably because it was written much later than suggested (i.e. maybe the 1820’s).

g. M 17:11-20 (M 9:16-27 RLDS) is the account of Abinadi’s stand before King Noah and eventually his death, which sounds so similar to what Jesus went through in his trial, scourging and death. Parallels in this BOM passage with the Bibles description of Jesus are as follows:

1. King Noah like Pilate wanted to free him.

2. Priests raised their voices before King Noah

3. Before his death, Abinadi was scourged

4. Abinadi just before his death cried out to God to receive his soul and then he died immediately.

One must wonder how such similarities occur in supposedly 2 different incidents written on opposite sides of the earth.

Along this same line of thought M 18:1-9 (M 9:28-40 RLDS) discusses Alma and his preaching at the River Mormon and the baptism of the people who accepted what he said. Some of this material sounds very similar to the Bible’s account of John the Baptist. Again one must wonder about the similarities.

h. M 29:40 and A 11:24 (M 13:59 and A 8:74 RLDS) has King Mosiah saying “that lucre which doth corrupt the soul” and that Zeezrom loved “that lucre more than him.” The noteworthy part of this is the BOM’s use of the word “lucre”. This word is derived from the Latin word lucrum. Rudimentary Latin was developed in 600 B.C. History records that the early period of literary Latin was from 240-70 B.C. Early Latin had less flexibility and grace than the Greek language; its vocabulary was more limited so they borrowed many words from the Greek language.

Early in the BOM Nephi states he was taught in the language of Lehi which later became the reformed Egyptian language according to JS and the BOM text. The Jewish people were not forced to learn Latin until the Roman Empire captured the country approximately a hundred years before Christ. The question is “how does a supposedly reformed Egyptian language or for that matter the native language of the Jews (Hebrew/Aramaic) end up with a Latin word used by a people who fled Israel in 600 B.C. and went to a continent an ocean away from the Roman people where Latin was developed?”

i. In A 37:38-42 (A 17:71-77 RLDS), a discussion about the purposes and use of the ball or director which is called a Liahona. When the forefathers had faith in God the Liahona would point the way in the wilderness. When the forefathers did not have faith they did not progress in their journey and tarried in the wilderness. As one checks the earlier parts of the BOM to verify these events the only reference to them being delayed at all, after the finding the Liahona, was found in 1N 18:11-13 (1N 5:190-194 RLDS). This event happened after Laman and Lemuel bound Nephi up after they were already at sea, not while they were still in the wilderness. Furthermore, why would God give them a special device, such as the Liahona, when He led the Israelites in the desert for 40 years with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night? On top of this God still led the Israelites even though they murmured and complained and even disobeyed God.

j. A 50:2-5 (A 22:2-5 RLDS) has Moroni continuing in fortifying all the cities even to the point of building something similar to forts that were common in the America’s in the 18th and 19th centuries. The question that arises was JS relating his BOM story line to things that were going on around him in his day?

k. 3N 9:17-22 (3N 4:47-52 RLDS) notes Jesus voice is heard by the remaining people and as one evaluates what is spoken two variances with Biblical and historical facts arise. These are as follows:

1). Verse 17 (verse 47 RLDS) In Christ the law of Moses is fulfilled is true to some extent but Matthew 5:18 states “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” In Christ it is fulfilled but not completely yet.

2). Verse 18 (verse 48 RLDS) “I am Alpha and Omega”- these are 2 Greek words in a place where the Greek language was not known. Quoting these words to a people who didn’t know Greek language would seem very strange.

l. In the BOM, Jesus supposedly repeats the Sermon on the Mount, almost word for word (3N 12:3-14:27 LDS; 3N 5:50-6:37 RLDS) to the survivors of this huge catastrophe. Some items that should be questioned include the use of certain words that were not part of the language of their day or of the Jewish language about 600 B.C. when Lehi and family left Jerusalem. Some of these words are as follows:

LDS RLDS

bushel 3N 12:15 3N 5:62

jot, tittle 3N 12:18 3N 5:65

raca 3N 12:22 3N 5:70

mile, twain 3N 12:41 3N 5:87

alms 3N 13:1 3N 5:93

closet 3N 13:6 3N 5:98

mammon 3N 13:24 3N 5:115

cubit 3N 13:27 3N 6:5

mote 3N 14:3 3N 6:15

A search through the dictionary reveals an important question regarding the authenticity of the BOM or the description by JS and others in the process of how it was translated (word for word direct translation using the seer stone). If it was a word for word translation with no human intervention other than speaking what Smith saw in the stone, then one has to ask how did words of much later origin find their way into the BOM text? The dictionary reveals this about the words presented earlier in this comment:

Word Origin of Word Probable Time of Origin Meaning

bushel Old French “boissel” 14th Century A.D.

jot Latin “iota or jota” 1500 A.D. The least mark

tittle Medieval Latin “titulus” 14th Century A.D. A small part

raca Aramaic “rēqā” Not determined Greek “rhaka”

mile Latin “milia” 12th Century A.D. 1000 paces

twain Old English “TwEgen” 12th Century A.D. two

alms Greek “eleEmosynE” 12th Century A.D.

closet Old French “kloźet” Not determined

mammon Aramaic “mAmOnA” 15th Century A.D.

cubit Latin “cubitum” 14th Century A.D. About 18” long

mote Old English “mot” 12th Century A.D. Small particle

m. 3N 12:41 and 13:27 (3N 5:87 and 6:5 RLDS) have Jesus presenting a part of the Sermon on the Mount in which the words mile and cubit are used. If one reviews A 11:4 (A 8:54-55 RLDS) they would find that the Nephites altered their money and measuring systems to something different than the Jews. The author of the BOM in 3N 12:26 (3N 5:75 RLDS) altered the word “farthing” from the Bible to the word “senine” which was supposedly the Nephites name for a certain coin. Why did the author of the BOM go through the trouble of changing this term and not change the two measurement terms?

n. In 1N 20-21 (1N 6:8 - 6:56 RLDS) quotes Isaiah 48 and 49 which has in 1N 21:1 (1N 6:30 RLDS) the word “pastors” being used. Using this term is unique since the word is derived from the French language and means “a shepherd, guardian or keeper of souls, or priest in charge of a church” and was not a word used in the Isaiah period. The French language wasn’t developed until 6th or 7th century AD. How could such a word of later derivation show up in a book that was completed for the most part before 421 AD in a land, an ocean away, from where the French language was developed? The only way a word such as this could enter the text would be if the original writing came from a period later than the 6th to 7th century A.D. (maybe 1820’s).

If one searches the KJV Bible, they could find the word pastor or pastors in the following scriptures: Jeremiah 2:8, 3:15, 10:21, 12:10, 17:16, 22:22 and 23:1-2, also Ephesians 4:11. Now one asks how did it get in the KJV. It must be remembered that the original translation process for the KJV from early manuscripts was started in the 16th century long after the French language was developed and the word may have best described what the early manuscripts described. This does not negate the argument against the BOM since Smith and others described the translation process with the Urim and Thummim as being totally straight from God. They didn’t learn the language they supposedly were translating, but only read the translation in the stone(s).

o. E 2:16-3:9 (E 1:43-72 RLDS) The Lord directs the brother of Jared and his brethren to build a second set of barges. These verses describe the barges (eight barges altogether) as follows:

1). They were small and light upon the water.

2). Exceedingly tight “like unto a dish”.

3). As long as a tree. How long is that?

4). No windows to let in light, nor holes to let in fresh air, at first. Brother of Jared prays.

5). The Lord instructs the brother of Jared to make a hole in the top and bottom so they could receive air. Why the hole in the bottom? If it is because the ships could turn over, then all contents and passengers would be tossed around, violently. What kind of plan is that?

6). No light inside was allowed even the “light by fire.” The text seems to suggest God didn’t have any solution to this problem.

7). The ships were to be like “a whale in the midst of the sea.” Like a submarine?

8). The ships for the “floods which shall come.” What floods? They are in the middle of the ocean, aren’t they?

To solve the lighting problem, the brother of Jared fashions out of molten rock “16-clear as glass” rocks. He then prays for the Lord to touch these rocks and make them shine so they would have light in the journey across the ocean. The finger of God touches each rock and they shine. The brother of Jared sees the finger of God and perceives it to be made of “flesh and blood”. The Lord answers the brother Jared’s question regarding this revelation by stating “Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger...”. No man has as much faith! Where was his faith when he asked about the fresh air and lighting provisions for the barges.

Additionally, the Lord said “ye cannot have windows for they will be dashed to pieces...” Is this referencing that the windows would be made of glass? For Noah was instructed to make a window which was probably a wooden door that could be opened to let light and air in. If God instructed Noah to put a window in his ark that floated on a completely flooded earth then why not put the same type of window in these barges that would float on the oceans? From a review of various internet sites one can find that the first true evidence of glass production was around 2500 B.C. about the time of Noah’s flood, however, this glass consisted mainly as beads, seals and architectural decoration. Some 1,000 years elapsed before glass vessels are known to have been produced approximately 1600 B.C. just before Moses was born and long after the Tower of Babel. This brief evaluation on this subject indicated that early attempts to mass produce window glass occurred during the Middle Ages. Several attempts in America for the manufacture of glass products occurred during the 1600’s and early 1700’s. The first successful American glassworks was in 1738 to 1784, however, all of these early ventures, were opposed strongly by the British and eventually failed. Finally, American glass manufacture really took off between 1790 and 1820 when some 63 glasshouses were set up. This is noteworthy, in that the quick expansion of the glass manufacturing industry occurred about the same time the BOM was being written. Does the BOM “Lord’s comment” about not having windows reflect a 19th century A.D. time frame of the writings?

SO AS YOU SEE SERG THERE ARE MANY TERMS IN THE BOM TEXT THAT DO NOT FIT THE TIMELINE ESTABLISHED. MANY OF THE LANGUAGE TERMS DID NOT EXIST IN EVEN THEIR RUDIMENTARY FORMS WHEN THE NEPHITES SUPPOSEDLY LEFT JERUSALEM. SO HOW DOES ONE ACCOUNT FOR SUCH THINGS IN THE BOM TEXT. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY OTHER EXPLANATION OTHER THAN THE BOOK WAS PART OF THE TALE THAT JS WANTED PEOPLE TO HEAR. NOTHING MORE THAN A TALL TALE LIKE THE ONES COMMON IN THAT ERA.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THESE MANY EXAMPLES OF MODERN TERMS USED SUPPOSEDLY IN AN ANCIENT BOOK WRITTEN HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD FROM WHERE THE LANGUAGE OR TERM FIRST ORIGINATED.

paul6150 · November 29, 2005

Originally posted by paul6150+Nov 23 2005, 08:05 AM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Serg@Nov 21 2005, 10:04 AM
As to the question of "Adieu" in Jacob's book, i found this and believe its more than sufficient to cease at least the evil speaking here...
How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word "adieu"?
The French term adieu, meaning "good-bye" (literally, "to God"),
was borrowed by English, the language into which Joseph Smith translated the Book
of Mormon. Though we no longer use it in our language, it is included in Webster's
1828 dictionary, which reflects American English of Joseph Smith's day.
There are many French and German words in English. For example, the King James
version (KJV) of the Bible has both ghost and spirit, the former related to
German geist, the latter to French esprit. In the KJV, both mean the same thing.
Hence, we have both Holy Ghost (e.g., Acts 10:29) and Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13),
from the same Greek title.
Many other words of French origin appear in the KJV, e.g. assay, "try,
test" (Acts 9:26), from French essayer, "try"; ciel, "cover,
overlay" (2 Chronicles 3:5), from French ciel, "sky"; related
to ceiling (1 Kings 6:15); environ, "encircle" (Joshua 7:9), from
French environ, "surrounding, neighborhood"; cf. English environment.
Many more could be listed, but this should suffice to demonstrate that it is
no more wrong for the Book of Mormon to include the French word adieu than it
is for the KJV Bible to use French terms that became part of the English language.
←
SERG
Had a few minutes to read what you posted here about the use of French words in the BOM. It becomes a major issue in that if you accept the timeline spelled out in the BOM, the Nephites supposedly left Jerusalem in 600 BC and were supposedly here in the Americas by approximately 20 years later. Keeping this in mind there should no longer be an influence of European or Mid-Eastern culture into this group of Americans now since they are half a world away from those areas.
Now when one examines some of the BOM words they use one has to wonder how do they get such words long before the French or Greek languages are developed. Here are a few other examples besides the one you mentioned:
One area of historical discrepancies, found in the BOM, is related to the use of more modern language or terms or even references to various manufactured items that were not yet invented or developed at the time period in question. Many of these language, terms, and manufactured items were not known until centuries later than the BOM time frame. The following comments address these discrepancies:
a. 1N 4:9 (1N 1:109 RLDS) states, “the blade thereof was of the most precious steel” and then 1N 16:18 (1N 5:22 RLDS) says, “I did break my bow which was made of fine steel.” Additional BOM references to steel are found in 2N 5:15, JA 1:8 and ETH 7:9 (2N 4:21, JA 1:19-20 and ETH 3:46 RLDS). Steel, as we know it today, had not been perfected at this time. The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The earliest form of steel was produced in the Catalan furnace in the 1300’s…in the mid-19th century, cast iron and wrought iron were the basic materials for industry and technology…Steel was difficult and costly to produce, by the only processes known at that time, until the Bessemer process (1856) and the Open-Hearth process (1860’s) were developed.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, states the following about iron and steel production: “True iron metallurgy began among the Hittites some time between 1900 and 1400 B.C. …Iron replaced bronze in implements and weapons beginning in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe about 1200 B.C. Pure iron is about as soft as copper and is of little structural value, but it is greatly hardened by the addition of small amounts of carbon. Steel contains up to 2 percent carbon; higher carbon content creates cast iron. Steel making is a melting, purifying (refining) and alloying process carried out at approximately 1600oC (2900oF) under molten conditions.”
Based on this information, one must ask, “How could the people described in the BOM have a steel blade, steel bow or shields made of steel?” Shields made of steel would be extremely heavy unless they were very small. The KJV Bible in four locations also refers to steel. These are as follows: 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34; and Jeremiah 15:12. The Hebrew word used here has been translated from the same Hebrew word which means brass or bronze. All newer Bible translations use the word bronze instead of steel at these same Bible verses.
If one assumes the same translation variation for the BOM text, then maybe the writer of the BOM was intending to use the word bronze, brass or brazen. Looking up these three words in the Bible, they will find that these metals were used extensively in ornamental items, vessels for worship in the tabernacle, the brazen altar, etc. These metals were even used as armor because they were light. The Bible identifies shields, breastplates, helmets and shin guards as being made of these metals, but no mention of their use in the production of swords or spears since these weapons would require a much stronger material to be effective in battle. The BOM, on the other hand, clearly identifies swords and spears being made of steel. The passages in 2N and JA both state that various things were made out of “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass and of steel…” Here the BOM lists all four different metals together (iron, copper, brass and steel) as being made. This brings us back to the original question. How could they make things of steel when steel was not produced until after 1300 AD?
Additionally, the BOM stretches the issue to the limits of credibility. Specifically, the book of Ether was supposedly about a people who lived from Tower of Babel days until somewhere around 200-300 B.C. before the two warring factions annihilated each other except for Ether and Coriantumr. The BOM is unclear as to when the Jaredite history came to a finish by this final battle, however earlier in the Jaredite history we find the story of Corihor and Shule, ETH 7:1-9 (ETH 3:37-3:46 RLDS), the great grandsons of Jared. Shule made swords out of “steel” and fought Corihor, his brother; in order restore the kingdom to his old father Kib. As stated earlier, the specific time frame is not presented except that one can estimate a time by comparing the historical record and the Biblical account with the BOM account. Most Biblical scholars place the life of Abraham as being between 2000 BC - 1800 BC. Again the Bible places Abraham in the 5th generation from the Tower of Babel (i.e. Peleg - Reu - Serug - Nahor - Terah - Abraham). The BOM account would place Corihor and Shule in the same generation as Nahor or approximately 2200 BC - 1900 BC. Referring to the quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica presented earlier “true iron metallurgy began among the Hittites sometime between 1900 and 1400 B.C.” The historical and Biblical account differ with the BOM account in that Shule made swords out of “steel” even before the beginning of the iron age. One of these accounts has to be wrong.
b. 1N 16:14-23 (1N 5:17-28 RLDS) speaks about Nephi and his brothers taking “our bows” signifying more than one, but Nephi’s brothers got real mad at Nephi for breaking his bow. What about their bows? Verse 21 (verse 26 RLDS) attempts to explain this in that the “bow strings” had went out on the other bows. What were these bow strings made of? Couldn’t new ones be made? Nephi then proceeds in making a bow “out of wood” which helps him explain why the Indians had wooden bows and arrows.
c. God shows Nephi how to build a ship with ore, tools and bellows. The Encyclopedia Britannica - Volume 2 presents the following: “Bellows - a mechanical contrivance for creating a jet of air, consisting usually of a hinged box with flexible sides, which expands to draw in air through an inward opening valve and contracts to expel the air through a nozzle. The bellows was invented in the European Middle Ages and was commonly used to speed combustion, as in a blacksmith’s or ironworker’s forge, or to operate reed or pipe organs.” As described in the BOM, Nephi was either a product of someone’s (Smith’s) 19th century story telling or someone with knowledge of the use of bellows almost 1500 years before they were invented.
d. Made swords like Laban’s sword which was made out of “precious steel” 2N 5:14, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 10:8, Alma 2:12, Helaman 1:14, and 3N 3:26 (2N 4:19, Jarom 1:19, Mosiah 6:38, Alma 1:66, Helaman 1:15, and 3N 2:37 RLDS). If one examines the archeological evidence in the American Indian ruins, one would note a strange absence of metal products such as described in these and many other verses of the BOM. Furthermore the Jarom 1:8 passage talks about machinery being made in approximately 400 B.C. What type of machinery? Where is the archeological evidence?
Reviewing various encyclopedias regarding the Maya, Aztec, and Inca civilizations, one finds that these civilizations lacked draft animals, wheeled vehicles, and metal tools. What tools and weapons they did have were made out of copper not steel.
e. Here is the one SERG mentioned. J 7:27 (J 5:48 RLDS) ends the Book of Jacob with the words, “Brethern adieu.” The word “adieu” is a French word which means “good bye”. The problem with the use of this French word is that the French language was not developed or derived from Latin until 700 A.D. How does someone, who supposedly wrote on these golden tablets 500 years before Christ, write a French word that was not derived till approximately 700 years after Christ?
f. M 15:5-23 (M 8:32-57 RLDS) presents a discussion about the Son of God and that He would be mocked, scourged, crucified, swallowed up, breaketh the bands of death, having gained, having ascended and satisfying the demands of justice. All of these things that the Son of God was to go through are all presented in the past tense as if they had already happened. This would indicate that the one writing these verses, already knew what was already taught about Christ. Possibly could be an indicator that the writer was someone after the New Testament period.
Furthermore, the word “crucified” does not appear in the Old Testament and the only Old Testament references to this form of execution is in the verse “cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree” Deuteronomy 21:23 and the two (2) references of the one “whom they have pierced” found in Psalm 22:16 and Zechariah 12:10. One must ask “Why does the BOM express what Jesus would experience more clearly than any other Old Testament passage?” Probably because it was written much later than suggested (i.e. maybe the 1820’s).
g. M 17:11-20 (M 9:16-27 RLDS) is the account of Abinadi’s stand before King Noah and eventually his death, which sounds so similar to what Jesus went through in his trial, scourging and death. Parallels in this BOM passage with the Bibles description of Jesus are as follows:
1. King Noah like Pilate wanted to free him.
2. Priests raised their voices before King Noah
3. Before his death, Abinadi was scourged
4. Abinadi just before his death cried out to God to receive his soul and then he died immediately.
One must wonder how such similarities occur in supposedly 2 different incidents written on opposite sides of the earth.
Along this same line of thought M 18:1-9 (M 9:28-40 RLDS) discusses Alma and his preaching at the River Mormon and the baptism of the people who accepted what he said. Some of this material sounds very similar to the Bible’s account of John the Baptist. Again one must wonder about the similarities.
h. M 29:40 and A 11:24 (M 13:59 and A 8:74 RLDS) has King Mosiah saying “that lucre which doth corrupt the soul” and that Zeezrom loved “that lucre more than him.” The noteworthy part of this is the BOM’s use of the word “lucre”. This word is derived from the Latin word lucrum. Rudimentary Latin was developed in 600 B.C. History records that the early period of literary Latin was from 240-70 B.C. Early Latin had less flexibility and grace than the Greek language; its vocabulary was more limited so they borrowed many words from the Greek language.
Early in the BOM Nephi states he was taught in the language of Lehi which later became the reformed Egyptian language according to JS and the BOM text. The Jewish people were not forced to learn Latin until the Roman Empire captured the country approximately a hundred years before Christ. The question is “how does a supposedly reformed Egyptian language or for that matter the native language of the Jews (Hebrew/Aramaic) end up with a Latin word used by a people who fled Israel in 600 B.C. and went to a continent an ocean away from the Roman people where Latin was developed?”
i. In A 37:38-42 (A 17:71-77 RLDS), a discussion about the purposes and use of the ball or director which is called a Liahona. When the forefathers had faith in God the Liahona would point the way in the wilderness. When the forefathers did not have faith they did not progress in their journey and tarried in the wilderness. As one checks the earlier parts of the BOM to verify these events the only reference to them being delayed at all, after the finding the Liahona, was found in 1N 18:11-13 (1N 5:190-194 RLDS). This event happened after Laman and Lemuel bound Nephi up after they were already at sea, not while they were still in the wilderness. Furthermore, why would God give them a special device, such as the Liahona, when He led the Israelites in the desert for 40 years with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night? On top of this God still led the Israelites even though they murmured and complained and even disobeyed God.
j. A 50:2-5 (A 22:2-5 RLDS) has Moroni continuing in fortifying all the cities even to the point of building something similar to forts that were common in the America’s in the 18th and 19th centuries. The question that arises was JS relating his BOM story line to things that were going on around him in his day?
k. 3N 9:17-22 (3N 4:47-52 RLDS) notes Jesus voice is heard by the remaining people and as one evaluates what is spoken two variances with Biblical and historical facts arise. These are as follows:
1). Verse 17 (verse 47 RLDS) In Christ the law of Moses is fulfilled is true to some extent but Matthew 5:18 states “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” In Christ it is fulfilled but not completely yet.
2). Verse 18 (verse 48 RLDS) “I am Alpha and Omega”- these are 2 Greek words in a place where the Greek language was not known. Quoting these words to a people who didn’t know Greek language would seem very strange.
l. In the BOM, Jesus supposedly repeats the Sermon on the Mount, almost word for word (3N 12:3-14:27 LDS; 3N 5:50-6:37 RLDS) to the survivors of this huge catastrophe. Some items that should be questioned include the use of certain words that were not part of the language of their day or of the Jewish language about 600 B.C. when Lehi and family left Jerusalem. Some of these words are as follows:
LDS RLDS
bushel 3N 12:15 3N 5:62
jot, tittle 3N 12:18 3N 5:65
raca 3N 12:22 3N 5:70
mile, twain 3N 12:41 3N 5:87
alms 3N 13:1 3N 5:93
closet 3N 13:6 3N 5:98
mammon 3N 13:24 3N 5:115
cubit 3N 13:27 3N 6:5
mote 3N 14:3 3N 6:15
A search through the dictionary reveals an important question regarding the authenticity of the BOM or the description by JS and others in the process of how it was translated (word for word direct translation using the seer stone). If it was a word for word translation with no human intervention other than speaking what Smith saw in the stone, then one has to ask how did words of much later origin find their way into the BOM text? The dictionary reveals this about the words presented earlier in this comment:
Word Origin of Word Probable Time of Origin Meaning
bushel Old French “boissel” 14th Century A.D.
jot Latin “iota or jota” 1500 A.D. The least mark
tittle Medieval Latin “titulus” 14th Century A.D. A small part
raca Aramaic “rēqā” Not determined Greek “rhaka”
mile Latin “milia” 12th Century A.D. 1000 paces
twain Old English “TwEgen” 12th Century A.D. two
alms Greek “eleEmosynE” 12th Century A.D.
closet Old French “kloźet” Not determined
mammon Aramaic “mAmOnA” 15th Century A.D.
cubit Latin “cubitum” 14th Century A.D. About 18” long
mote Old English “mot” 12th Century A.D. Small particle
m. 3N 12:41 and 13:27 (3N 5:87 and 6:5 RLDS) have Jesus presenting a part of the Sermon on the Mount in which the words mile and cubit are used. If one reviews A 11:4 (A 8:54-55 RLDS) they would find that the Nephites altered their money and measuring systems to something different than the Jews. The author of the BOM in 3N 12:26 (3N 5:75 RLDS) altered the word “farthing” from the Bible to the word “senine” which was supposedly the Nephites name for a certain coin. Why did the author of the BOM go through the trouble of changing this term and not change the two measurement terms?
n. In 1N 20-21 (1N 6:8 - 6:56 RLDS) quotes Isaiah 48 and 49 which has in 1N 21:1 (1N 6:30 RLDS) the word “pastors” being used. Using this term is unique since the word is derived from the French language and means “a shepherd, guardian or keeper of souls, or priest in charge of a church” and was not a word used in the Isaiah period. The French language wasn’t developed until 6th or 7th century AD. How could such a word of later derivation show up in a book that was completed for the most part before 421 AD in a land, an ocean away, from where the French language was developed? The only way a word such as this could enter the text would be if the original writing came from a period later than the 6th to 7th century A.D. (maybe 1820’s).
If one searches the KJV Bible, they could find the word pastor or pastors in the following scriptures: Jeremiah 2:8, 3:15, 10:21, 12:10, 17:16, 22:22 and 23:1-2, also Ephesians 4:11. Now one asks how did it get in the KJV. It must be remembered that the original translation process for the KJV from early manuscripts was started in the 16th century long after the French language was developed and the word may have best described what the early manuscripts described. This does not negate the argument against the BOM since Smith and others described the translation process with the Urim and Thummim as being totally straight from God. They didn’t learn the language they supposedly were translating, but only read the translation in the stone(s).
o. E 2:16-3:9 (E 1:43-72 RLDS) The Lord directs the brother of Jared and his brethren to build a second set of barges. These verses describe the barges (eight barges altogether) as follows:
1). They were small and light upon the water.
2). Exceedingly tight “like unto a dish”.
3). As long as a tree. How long is that?
4). No windows to let in light, nor holes to let in fresh air, at first. Brother of Jared prays.
5). The Lord instructs the brother of Jared to make a hole in the top and bottom so they could receive air. Why the hole in the bottom? If it is because the ships could turn over, then all contents and passengers would be tossed around, violently. What kind of plan is that?
6). No light inside was allowed even the “light by fire.” The text seems to suggest God didn’t have any solution to this problem.
7). The ships were to be like “a whale in the midst of the sea.” Like a submarine?
8). The ships for the “floods which shall come.” What floods? They are in the middle of the ocean, aren’t they?
To solve the lighting problem, the brother of Jared fashions out of molten rock “16-clear as glass” rocks. He then prays for the Lord to touch these rocks and make them shine so they would have light in the journey across the ocean. The finger of God touches each rock and they shine. The brother of Jared sees the finger of God and perceives it to be made of “flesh and blood”. The Lord answers the brother Jared’s question regarding this revelation by stating “Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger...”. No man has as much faith! Where was his faith when he asked about the fresh air and lighting provisions for the barges.
Additionally, the Lord said “ye cannot have windows for they will be dashed to pieces...” Is this referencing that the windows would be made of glass? For Noah was instructed to make a window which was probably a wooden door that could be opened to let light and air in. If God instructed Noah to put a window in his ark that floated on a completely flooded earth then why not put the same type of window in these barges that would float on the oceans? From a review of various internet sites one can find that the first true evidence of glass production was around 2500 B.C. about the time of Noah’s flood, however, this glass consisted mainly as beads, seals and architectural decoration. Some 1,000 years elapsed before glass vessels are known to have been produced approximately 1600 B.C. just before Moses was born and long after the Tower of Babel. This brief evaluation on this subject indicated that early attempts to mass produce window glass occurred during the Middle Ages. Several attempts in America for the manufacture of glass products occurred during the 1600’s and early 1700’s. The first successful American glassworks was in 1738 to 1784, however, all of these early ventures, were opposed strongly by the British and eventually failed. Finally, American glass manufacture really took off between 1790 and 1820 when some 63 glasshouses were set up. This is noteworthy, in that the quick expansion of the glass manufacturing industry occurred about the same time the BOM was being written. Does the BOM “Lord’s comment” about not having windows reflect a 19th century A.D. time frame of the writings?
SO AS YOU SEE SERG THERE ARE MANY TERMS IN THE BOM TEXT THAT DO NOT FIT THE TIMELINE ESTABLISHED. MANY OF THE LANGUAGE TERMS DID NOT EXIST IN EVEN THEIR RUDIMENTARY FORMS WHEN THE NEPHITES SUPPOSEDLY LEFT JERUSALEM. SO HOW DOES ONE ACCOUNT FOR SUCH THINGS IN THE BOM TEXT. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY OTHER EXPLANATION OTHER THAN THE BOOK WAS PART OF THE TALE THAT JS WANTED PEOPLE TO HEAR. NOTHING MORE THAN A TALL TALE LIKE THE ONES COMMON IN THAT ERA.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THESE MANY EXAMPLES OF MODERN TERMS USED SUPPOSEDLY IN AN ANCIENT BOOK WRITTEN HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD FROM WHERE THE LANGUAGE OR TERM FIRST ORIGINATED.
←

HEY LDS POSTING PEOPLE

IT SEEMS ODD THAT NOT ONE OF YOU HAVE BOTHERED TO RESPOND TO THIS POST ABOUT THE USE OF MODERN TERMS IN THE BOM AT TIME FRAMES THAT THEY WERE NOT EVEN AROUND.

SURELY YOU MUST HAVE AN ANSWER TO THESE BOM ISSUES.

Serg · November 29, 2005

Paul,

we hold the same you hold, its impossible for a hebrew culture in the NW to develope european influences. What you dont seem to understand is that we hold that the "incorporator"of such expressions in the BoM is JS, not the original writters, Not done to decieve, but to express the translation of the egyptian character found there, which is also found in hebrew, a word meaning the same as adieu, but its moronic to put a hebrew word in an english translation, so he put an english word instead...(note Adieu- became an accepted english word by the time before JS), so there you go...

please focus on our little chat on 3rd nephi..

Serg · November 30, 2005

Also paul, you say: "The Bible identifies shields, breastplates, helmets and shin guards as being made of these metals, but no mention of their use in the production of swords or spears since these weapons would require a much stronger material to be effective in battle. The BOM, on the other hand, clearly identifies swords and spears being made of steel. The passages in 2N and JA both state that various things were made out of “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass and of steel…” Here the BOM lists all four different metals together (iron, copper, brass and steel) as being made. This brings us back to the original question. How could they make things of steel when steel was not produced until after 1300 AD"

Well, the word "steel"here is NOT referring to the steel we know, but a metal that yet was nor brass or bronze, but hard enough to be used to make arms...If you whatch closely , you'll find in studies from America, that the earlier people of this continent(as the latter) produced

a very primitive aliation, which permitted them to make arms, and blades... this of course does not directly point to "steel"but yet, implies that they knew a metal that was not brass nor bronze or silver, and served as the hardest of all. Also arrives the question of cement, well the BoM clearly states that it was used in America! How in heaven or earth could a simple foolish boy without studies nor the economic potencial , know abou this, that was just recently discivered? Answer me pal, and I'll give you chocolates. Also, the book of ether shows that there were ELEPHANTS oon this continent, well, pal, how could he know such a thing? Even the very conquered natives of america had FORGOTTEN so. Then how could he know such things that were again, discovered with extension? For that one i"ll give you a sneakers.

As to windows: It is not specific as to whether the windows would dash because of glass or anything likely. If glass did not appear until the middle ages(though there has been discoveries on glass vessels before the time of Christ) , its irrelevant, for thesame was said of egyptian worship in mesopotamian soil, and yet actual arqueologists not only have found idols of egyptian sources in there, but have now consider wrong their statement of the capital of such empire to be where they think it was, but rather few miles northward, in a recently discovered site named after the one mentioned in the Pearl of Great price, insightful huh?

I recommend you to read and ask God, for if you just tell us with your heart that God himself has told you that such book is NOT true(and note that God not telling you nothing about its authenticity doesnt imply His witness of it as faulse, but that Hes quite on it), then we'll drop it, and wont pursue this conversation, for the spirit of your questions won't be of enrichment but of fight, and the spirit of the Lord doesnt fight with man forever....

Regards brother,

paul6150 · November 30, 2005

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 30 2005, 09:05 AM
Also paul, you say: "The Bible identifies shields, breastplates, helmets and shin guards as being made of these metals, but no mention of their use in the production of swords or spears since these weapons would require a much stronger material to be effective in battle. The BOM, on the other hand, clearly identifies swords and spears being made of steel. The passages in 2N and JA both state that various things were made out of “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass and of steel…” Here the BOM lists all four different metals together (iron, copper, brass and steel) as being made. This brings us back to the original question. How could they make things of steel when steel was not produced until after 1300 AD"
Well, the word "steel"here is NOT referring to the steel we know, but a metal that yet was nor brass or bronze, but hard enough to be used to make arms...If you whatch closely , you'll find in studies from America, that the earlier people of this continent(as the latter) produced
a very primitive aliation, which permitted them to make arms, and blades... this of course does not directly point to "steel"but yet, implies that they knew a metal that was not brass nor bronze or silver, and served as the hardest of all. Also arrives the question of cement, well the BoM clearly states that it was used in America! How in heaven or earth could a simple foolish boy without studies nor the economic potencial , know abou this, that was just recently discivered? Answer me pal, and I'll give you chocolates. Also, the book of ether shows that there were ELEPHANTS oon this continent, well, pal, how could he know such a thing? Even the very conquered natives of america had FORGOTTEN so. Then how could he know such things that were again, discovered with extension? For that one i"ll give you a sneakers.
As to windows: It is not specific as to whether the windows would dash because of glass or anything likely. If glass did not appear until the middle ages(though there has been discoveries on glass vessels before the time of Christ) , its irrelevant, for thesame was said of egyptian worship in mesopotamian soil, and yet actual arqueologists not only have found idols of egyptian sources in there, but have now consider wrong their statement of the capital of such empire to be where they think it was, but rather few miles northward, in a recently discovered site named after the one mentioned in the Pearl of Great price, insightful huh?
I recommend you to read and ask God, for if you just tell us with your heart that God himself has told you that such book is NOT true(and note that God not telling you nothing about its authenticity doesnt imply His witness of it as faulse, but that Hes quite on it), then we'll drop it, and wont pursue this conversation, for the spirit of your questions won't be of enrichment but of fight, and the spirit of the Lord doesnt fight with man forever....
Regards brother,
←

SERG

Let me first respond to your last post about the word "adieu". What you are now saying is that JS occasionally put in words from his own thinking that fit into the story line or what he was translating. HOW DO WE KNOW THEN WHAT ARE JS WORDS AND WHAT IS THE WORD FROM THE LORD? When one couples this with the testimonies of many of JS scribes there seems to be a contradiction. Some of the scribes say that JS sat with his head in his hat looking at the "seer" stone and that the plates weren't even around. They further say that JS read what he saw on the stone to his scribes they wrote it down and read it back to him. If the read-back words matched what JS saw on the stone the next part of the translation would come on the stone and they would proceed. But if the read-back didn't match then JS would correct what the scribes had gotten wrong. NOW THESE TESTIMONIES OF THE TRANSLATING PROCESS WOULD NOT REQUIRE JS TO ADD ANYTHING AND IT THEORETICALLY COULD BE CONSIDERED TRULY FROM GOD. If that is how it happened then JS claim that the BOM is the most correct book in the world would make sense. Now you say that JS added words and things as he felt necessary. Which testimony do we accept or do we accept either one?

Now regarding the word "steel". You say it "is NOT referring to the steel we know, but a metal that yet was nor brass or bronze, but hard enough to be used to make arms..." Where in the Encyclopedia does one find this discussion of early metallurgy in Ancient America? Under what topic did you find this info about some other type of metal? From my extensive study on the Maya, Aztec and Incas I di not find anything indicating they had some other type of metal. Please give me a reference source as to where you obtained your information.

Also regarding cement. Yes the BOM states that it was used in America! Then you ask "How in heaven or earth could a simple foolish boy without studies nor the economic potencial , know abou this, that was just recently discivered?" WELL HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF NEWSPAPERS? Something newly discovered like cement in 1827 would surely be the talk of town and in the newspapers. WHY CAN'T YOU ADMIT HE INSERTED THIS WORD ALSO IN THE DISCUSSION IF YOU ADMIT JS DID IT IN OTHER PLACES? Now I am waiting for my chocolates.

Book of Ether does not call them ELEPHANTS. There is some other name which I can't remember now. Just as with the issue about cement the newspapers had much information about archeology in the America's. It is possible that someone discovered the remains of one of these beasts and JS added it to the BOM and gave them a name. OK where is my sneakers.

As to windows: You said "It is not specific as to whether the windows would dash because of glass or anything likely." Then why even say they would not need them if they couldn't break. There must be areason why God would tell the brother of Jared to not include them. The instructions were specific in some ways about how he was to build these boats??? if that is what they were. Then tell me why God supposedly says they are not required. Then you said "If glass did not appear until the middle ages(though there has been discoveries on glass vessels before the time of Christ) , its irrelevant..." WHY IS IT IRREVALANT? First My original comments covered the history of glass-making and that a people from the Tower of Babel days would only have some references to glass beads and trinkets if that at all. So why does this brother of Jared have to be instructed not to put in glass windows if there was no such thing then. SEEMS TO ME IT IS VERY RELAVANT TO THE TOPIC ABOUT BOM STUMBLING BLOCKS THAT FIRST STARTED THIS THREAD.

Can you address the other many BOM modern terms I mentioned in my earlier long post. You only addressed 3 of my long list. If you can do that then I will give you back your chocolates and sneakers. :rolleyes:

Till later posts

Traveler · December 1, 2005

Inactivex: I will leave you with a couple of Bible scriptures to think about concerning this manner. The first is Ecclesiastes 1:9-10.

Now why should this also refer to scripture? Now read Genesis 41:25 not read verse 32 of that chapter. G-d repeats things for a reason – you ought to pay attention.

The Traveler

Traveler · December 1, 2005

BTW - my little pocket English "Oxford American Dictionary" has the word "adieu" in it??? Who made this up to be a problem?

The Traveler

Setheus · December 1, 2005

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 15 2005, 11:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?
And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation". English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word. Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?
Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat. We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.
If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
←

Actually "Adieu" does have a seperate distinct meaning than "good-bye" or even "bonjour" Adieu means good-bye for a very long if not eternal ammount of time.

When you leave for work for the day its "Bonjour". But when you are going away to college, moving far away, or saying your goodbyes at a funeral....its "Adieu"

So, I guess it WAS/IS the best word for the translation after all. Sorry to burst your bubble Jason.

paul6150 · December 13, 2005

Originally posted by Setheus+Nov 30 2005, 08:25 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 15 2005, 11:08 AM
Im still waiting for someone to adaquetly explain how the Nephites learn to say "Adieu", when even the French language didn't exist at the time?
And don't bother with Jeff Lindsay's lame argument that the word was the best match for the "translation". English words were used for the whole BoM, and "Good bye" would have been a suitable word. Or, if Smith wanted to be literal, why not say "God be with you"?
Lindsay's objections to the use of French words in the Bible don't mean squat. We all know that those weren't god-inspired translations using magic spec's or a nifty rock in a hat.
If anyone's got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.
←
Actually "Adieu" does have a seperate distinct meaning than "good-bye" or even "bonjour" Adieu means good-bye for a very long if not eternal ammount of time.
When you leave for work for the day its "Bonjour". But when you are going away to college, moving far away, or saying your goodbyes at a funeral....its "Adieu"
So, I guess it WAS/IS the best word for the translation after all. Sorry to burst your bubble Jason.
←

SORRY ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THIS POST BUT IT NEEDED TO BE PUT ALL OUT THERE FOR COMMENT. One of the biggest stumbling blocks of the Book of Mormon that must be overcome is the implausible story of how it all started.

BOOK OF MORMON PLATES

As one studies about the Book of Mormon whether from a pro or con viewpoint they will encounter a description of the so called “golden plates” that Joseph Smith allegedly translated from to bring forth the Book of Mormon. This summary hopefully will help one understand whether to accept or reject the often told story of how the Book of Mormon came forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Plates has this information about the “golden plates”.

Other cultures have kept records on metal plates, and those found to date have been extremely thin, so as to facilitate their being engraven into with a pointed utensil. For utilitarian reasons alone, to make it both easier and feasible, the plates would need to be thin enough to allow depressions to be made into them simply by applying pressure, rather than having to scratch and dig as thicker plates would necessitate. Michael R. Ash points to the discovery of objects made from “tumbaga”, gold-copper alloy in South America. He writes that using this alloy would make the plates more rigid and lighter. This claim is congruent with William Smith's idea that the plates might be part gold and part copper. Orichalcum, the legendary metal of Atlantis and the Temple of Solomon, is held by many to match this same description. In 500 B.C (concurrent with the Book of Mormon), Darius the Great of Persia inscribed his history on a gold plate and sealed it in a stone box in the temple at Persepolis.

The BBC wrote a news story about a six page gold book on display in Bulgaria. This is claimed to be the world's oldest multiple-page book. The book is written in the lost Etruscan language.

From this and other articles found in an internet search, there appears, on the surface, to be some evidence of Joseph Smith’s and others claims that there indeed was a set of “golden plates” that were instrumental in the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith claimed that the Angel Moroni came in 1823 and told him about these “golden plates” that had the recorded history and teachings of ancient inhabitants of the Americas. These plates also described the appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas after his death and resurrection in Israel. These plates were supposedly buried by Moroni in 421 AD to be later removed from their hiding place by Joseph Smith on September 22, 1827 near his New York home.

I won’t present the many controversial claims of others about Joseph Smith’s character before and during the time he allegedly obtained the “golden plates” but will spend more time on whether the description of these “golden plates” is plausible based on the wikipedia.org article.

What is Tumbaga?

A number of Mormons have suggested that the “gold plates” weren’t actually pure gold but were made of “tumbaga”, a metal made of gold and copper (estimated at 8 to 12 carat gold). These Mormons estimate the weight of the “gold plates” (6” wide, 8” long and 6” thick) made of tumbaga would weigh between 53 and 86 pounds. There are some Mormons who claim like Joseph Smith that the plates were of pure gold. If the “gold plates” were of pure gold they could have easily weighed over 200 pounds which would make it hard to lift as many of Smith’s family and friends testify.

An LDS organization, FARMS promotes this tumbaga theory based on William Smith’s (brother of Joseph Jr.) statement the plates were made of a mixture of gold and copper. This seems strange since there was never an attempt by Joseph Smith to have the material analyzed. Additionally William Smith admitted he had never seen the plates so how could he say they were gold and copper. His testimony was that he was allowed to lift the plates that were inside of a pillow-case.

Despite the effort of FARMS to promote the tumbaga theory it still is not being taken to seriously. Even the May 15, 1999 issue of the LDS Church News claimed that Joseph Smith in 1827 “was entrusted with plates of solid gold which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit” (http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/how-heavy.html).

The LDS scholars have failed to show any evidence that native Americans ever recorded their history or religious texts on metal sheets during the Book of Mormon timeline.

Capacity of the Plates to Hold All That Was Claimed

Joseph Smith described the specific size of the plates and that a portion of the plates were sealed. The unsealed part, according to Smith, had small and beautifully engraved characters. Apostle Orson Pratt indicated that 2/3 of the plates were sealed. So the entire Book of Mormon text (522 pages) and the 116 “lost manuscript pages” had to have been on 1/3 of the plates (loose leaf plates a total of 2” thick).

The Mormons claim that a metal plate of Persia (Darius Tablet) is about the size of the Book of Mormon plates; however, this tablet of a declaration made by King Darius written in 3 different scripts thus only containing one paragraph of actual text (eight lines of cuneiform writing written in 3 languages). The engravings on the King Darius tablet are relatively large and widely spaced. How is this example of an ancient writing proving the entire Book of Mormon and the lost 116 pages could be on similar material?

Mormons also claim that the copper scroll found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is another example of writing on metal. However, if one examines the photo of this copper scroll it demonstrates only a small amount of engraving is on the metal plus the engraving process pushes right through the plate. Obviously it would be hard to engrave on both sides of the very thin plates thus further complicating the claim the entire Book of Mormon is on only 2” of thin metal plates. Also there is no archeological evidence that describe the use of sets of metal plates in ancient civilizations of the Book of Mormon time period. (www.usc.edu/dept/LAS?wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/copperscroll_e.shtml)

The Book of Mormon also describes “plates of brass” (1 Nephi 4:38); “plates of ore” (Mosiah 21:27); “plates of gold” (Mosiah 28:11); “plates of Nephi” (1 Nephi 9:1-4); and the “plates of Jacob” (Jacob 3:14). This is quite impressive but one has to ask wouldn’t it be awkward to transport them around. The Bible describes the transmission of the Bible text on leather, papyrus and parchment materials which would be much more transportable and easy to use.

Where is the evidence of Near East or New World religious text or history recorded on such extensive plates? Where does the Bible describe the use of metal plates? Obviously the Book of Mormon text is way to long plus the use of metal plates would have been expensive and difficult to engrave, for such a description as described in the Book of Mormon to be true.

Why so Much Wordiness in the Book of Mormon?

Related to the capacity issue, noted above, is the places in the Book of Mormon that have a lot of additions that are very wordy but of very little additional value to the teaching. Considering that only 2” of plates were available to engrave the Book of Mormon plus lost 116 pages on, it would seem that the author would be very brief and not wordy. Several places the Book of Mormon author noted the lack of space on the plates and the lack of ore to make more plates. WHY ADD THESE LONG NARRATIVES OR REPEATS FROM THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, THE GOSPELS, ETC.? One example is 3 Nephi 21:2-7. This passage is a single sentence with 340 words in it. Although the Bible has many long sentences, they were writing on manuscripts and not struggling with the process of engraving on metal plates. It is estimated that 21 chapters of Isaiah are included in the Book of Mormon and some or part of those Isaiah passages are repeated several times. Since the Nephites supposedly had the entire Book of Isaiah on the “brass plates” why recopy it onto the “gold plates”?

Plates Found in a Stone Box and the 10 Lost Hebrew Tribes Legends

When the King Darius tablet was found it was found in a stone box. There are Mormons claiming that this proves Joseph Smith’s description of where he found the “gold plates”. Smith claimed he found the plates along with some other items in a stone box. Mormons ask “How would Joseph Smith know that ancient people used to place important things in stone boxes?” This can simply be explained that during Joseph Smith’s early years there were many newspaper articles about Indians burying their dead in stone boxes similar to the one Smith described. Much rumor and discussion of the Indian burial mounds in and around New York State were common at that time. Stone boxes of various sizes and shapes had reportedly been found in Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and other places. It was reported by some that these Indian boxes contained various metal plates with engraving on them. Metal plates were claimed to be found by others throughout this time period thus making it “fertile ground” for the development of the legend of the “lost Indian book”.

Congregational minister Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph Smith) wrote a book (View of the Hebrews) in 1825 based on the premise that the Indians once had such a book engraved on metal plates. Ethan Smith’s book was a compilation of popular opinions about the origins of the American Indians who supposedly descended from the 10 lost Hebrew tribes. An interesting fact in the Book of Mormon storyline is that Oliver Cowdery, one of Joseph Smith’s closest friends and scribe for much of the Book of Mormon translation, had come from the same town (Poultney, Vermont) as had Ethan Smith. Joseph Smith’s boyhood home in Sharon, Vermont is only 40 miles from Poultney, Vermont. Additionally, Ethan Smith’s book, View of the Hebrews, was also widely read in New York State.

Another author of that time, Josiah Priest had published two books stating a similar thesis to that of Ethan Smith. In one of Priest’s books, The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (editions printed in 1825 and 1826) he concluded that over 40 writers of that time period believed that the Indians had descended from the 10 lost Hebrew tribes.

Ethan Smith’s book also describes: 1) Indians as descendants from the Hebrews; 2) the savage tribes wiped out their civilized brethren; 3) sacred books were transmitted down through the generations and then buried in a hill to be found later; 4) like the Book of Mormon, it identifies the American Indians as the “stick of Joseph or Ephraim”, the tribe of Joseph which would be reunited with the stick of Judah (the Jews- Chapter 37 of Ezekiel); and, 5) the need to awaken and convert the Indians back to their “scriptural heritage”.

Did Joseph Smith Actually Need the “Gold Plates” or the Interpreters?

A big question that needs to be addressed is that during the translation process did Joseph Smith actually read from the “golden plates” or was some other means used to bring forth the words? Several eyewitnesses and scribes for the translation process described the entire process as follows: “Joseph Smith would place the seer stone in his hat and put his face into the hat and would dictate hour after hour with the plates either laying in a pillowcase beside them or hidden away in the woods”. Some of the people who testified as such were: Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), Isaac Hale (Emma’s father), David Whitmer and Martin Harris.

According to Joseph Smith, the Angel Moroni informed him that along with the “golden plates” he would find the interpreters (Urim and Thummim). This device consisted of two stones mounted in silver bows and connected to a breastplate. Smith stated that “God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.” Martin Harris did claim that Smith used the interpreters for the translation of the “lost 116 pages” but after awhile for convenience reasons began using the “seer stone” Smith had found while digging Willard Chase’s well. This is unusual in that God supposedly preserved the interpreters for the express purpose of translating the book but a rock found in a well worked just as well as God’s specially prepared device just because the rock was more convenient.

What About the Golden Plates That BBC Reported About?

This BBC report, in May 2003, was about the display of the world's oldest multiple-page book, in the lost Etruscan language which now is on display in Bulgaria's National History Museum in Sofia. This unique artifact consisted of six bound sheets of 24 carat gold, with illustrations of a horse with rider, a mermaid, a harp and soldiers with a small amount of text. This small manuscript is estimated to be 2500 years old and was discovered 60 years ago in a tomb in Southwestern Bulgaria. There are around 30 similar pages known in the world except they are not linked together in a book like this one. Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev is working on a translation of the text.

The Etruscans, one of Europe's most mysterious ancient peoples, were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC, leaving few written records. By 200 BC, the Etruscan language was already replaced by Latin except for some isolated communities.

A web site that has a considerable discussion about this ancient language and people is -

http://www.maravot.com/frame197618.html.Another web site that discusses a similar find in Italy is - http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/pyrgi.html.

The only surviving Etruscan book, Liber Linteus, was written on linen and survived by being used as mummy wrappings. The Tabula Capuana, a terra cotta slab now conserved in Berlin, represents the second most extensive surviving Etruscan text. The third longest Etruscan inscription is the cast bronze inscription found at Cortona in 1992.

The Pyrgi Tablets, found in a 1964 excavation of a sanctuary, consists of three golden leaves the record of a temple dedication made around 500 BC, to the Phoenician goddess Ashtart. These tablets are now held at the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia, Rome.

First Plate, of the Pyrgi Tablets, was Written in Etruscan and translates as follows:

“That temple and these Hermes idols are dedicated to Uni-Astre, built by the clanspeople.

Tiberius Velianas the pleasing aedicula has given. That burial of his own by these priests with idols was encircled. For three years [in the month of] Churvar, with Her burnt offerings, with idols [it was] buried. During the reign of the chief, in Her hand [he] would be brought forth (ie: Uni-Astre gave him authority to rule). And with these Hermes idols, the year(s) shall endure as the stars.”

Second Plate, of the Pyrgi Tablets, was Written in Etruscan and translates as follows:

“When Thefarie Velianas had built the statue of the sanctuary [in] the month of Masan, Uni was pleased. The votives of the temple yearly have been as numerous as the stars.”

The third plate is written in Phoenician and generally paraphrases the text of the first two plates. We do not know the reason why King Thefarie Velianas dedicated a sanctuary to the goddess and wrote his dedication both in Etruscan and Phoenician on golden plates. Perhaps he wanted to get into the good graces of his powerful allies.

NOW DOES THE FINDING OF THESE ANCIENT METAL PLATES VALIDATE WHAT JOSEPH SMITH AND OTHERS STATED ABOUT THE “GOLDEN PLATES”. Similar to the discussion in “Capacity of the Plates to Hold All That Was Claimed” above, these Etruscan metal plates do not contain enough text to say they contain anywhere near the volume of words required to be on the “golden plates”. Also the Etruscan plates were only written on one side.

Summary

After evaluating all of these issues it becomes obvious that Smith’s claim to having found “golden plates” which he used to translate the Book of Mormon is highly unlikely. Joseph Smith once said that Mormonism either stands or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Either the Book of Mormon is what Smith said it is or it is an out-in-out deception. It is up to whoever reads this to make a decision. IS IT TRUE OR IS IT A LIE?

moroni · December 13, 2005

i think what your saying about quoting isnt true. i think the foot note are there just to let us see where theis was said another time to the scriptures. well not always but at least in this case. i hope you gain your testimony :) . good luck

paul6150 · December 13, 2005

Originally posted by moroni@Dec 13 2005, 05:02 PM
i think what your saying about quoting isnt true. i think the foot note are there just to let us see where theis was said another time to the scriptures. well not always but at least in this case. i hope you gain your testimony :) . good luck
←

MORONI

All I can say is HUHHH!! I guess I couldn't determine exactly what part of my long comment your note was about. Can you point out what you were referring to and why you feel it is wrong.

LionHeart · December 14, 2005

Inactivex, I encountered the same thing when I read the Book Of Mormon. I would come to a part that seemed to quote the Bible and it would give me doubts about the truthfulness thereof. But when I read 3rd Nephi, the spirit came over so strong that I knew it was true. I think the world is depending too much on science and not enough on their faith in Jesus Christ. But Jesus said to Thomas: "You believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe without seeing."

And why is that so? Does the Lord expect us to blindly believe everything we are told by just any respectable person? The answer to that question would be no. You will find opposition in all things, including the Book Of Mormon AND the Bible. You will even find opposition to God himself. It happened when the Saviour came into this world. However no matter how high the evidence of reasoning and science is stacked up against him, it still doesn't change the fact that he was, and is still, our Lord and Saviour. And how do we know this? It isn't science that tells us. It is the sprit of the Lord that tells us. It is the tear that rolls down our faces when we seriously think about His atonement. And no christian, whether LDS or Catholic or whatever branch they may be from, no true Christain can deny this fact. And it is supposed to be that way. The Lord wants there to be evidence against all of his principle and facts because when we find evidence against something, we either turn away completely because we are not diligent enough to find the facts, or we inquire of God. And if we truly want to know the truth about the matter, we will strive, and fast, and pray until we have recieved the answer. And this is the very thing that brings us closer to God. Opposition in all things is the weeding out process. This is what determines who will follow the Saviour and who could care less.

And now a little note in defence of the authenticity of the Book Of Mormon:

First of all, Joseph Smith had read the bible; he was familiar with all of these quotes and phrases. The characters inscribed in the plates were not text; they were a form of "reformed Egyptian Heiroglyphics". It even says in the Book Of Mormon that they had to reform the characters to make the writing more efficient so they could fit it all within the limited space they had to write on. Also because of how difficult it was to inscribe the words onto the plates. Therefore the message wasn't as pure and complete as it could have been had they been able to use the Hebrew text. Now the symbols they used did not translate to letters and their individual sounds; they translated to expressions. For example, only one character enscribed onto the plates might have translated to the expression "And he walked for many miles over the mountains and over the desert and around the lakes and through the woods and across the plains and............" Anyway you get the idea. So assuming that Joseph Smith was familiar with these expressions in the Bible, when the symbols were saying the same things why not use the words out of the bible? They were both meaning the same thing. The characters on the plates gave the expression and left it up to Joseph Smith to express them in whatever words he chose.

paul6150 · December 14, 2005

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 13 2005, 07:36 PM
Inactivex, I encountered the same thing when I read the Book Of Mormon. I would come to a part that seemed to quote the Bible and it would give me doubts about the truthfulness thereof. But when I read 3rd Nephi, the spirit came over so strong that I knew it was true. I think the world is depending too much on science and not enough on their faith in Jesus Christ. But Jesus said to Thomas: "You believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe without seeing."
And why is that so? Does the Lord expect us to blindly believe everything we are told by just any respectable person? The answer to that question would be no. You will find opposition in all things, including the Book Of Mormon AND the Bible. You will even find opposition to God himself. It happened when the Saviour came into this world. However no matter how high the evidence of reasoning and science is stacked up against him, it still doesn't change the fact that he was, and is still, our Lord and Saviour. And how do we know this? It isn't science that tells us. It is the sprit of the Lord that tells us. It is the tear that rolls down our faces when we seriously think about His atonement. And no christian, whether LDS or Catholic or whatever branch they may be from, no true Christain can deny this fact. And it is supposed to be that way. The Lord wants there to be evidence against all of his principle and facts because when we find evidence against something, we either turn away completely because we are not diligent enough to find the facts, or we inquire of God. And if we truly want to know the truth about the matter, we will strive, and fast, and pray until we have recieved the answer. And this is the very thing that brings us closer to God. Opposition in all things is the weeding out process. This is what determines who will follow the Saviour and who could care less.

And now a little note in defence of the authenticity of the Book Of Mormon:
First of all, Joseph Smith had read the bible; he was familiar with all of these quotes and phrases. The characters inscribed in the plates were not text; they were a form of "reformed Egyptian Heiroglyphics". It even says in the Book Of Mormon that they had to reform the characters to make the writing more efficient so they could fit it all within the limited space they had to write on. Also because of how difficult it was to inscribe the words onto the plates. Therefore the message wasn't as pure and complete as it could have been had they been able to use the Hebrew text. Now the symbols they used did not translate to letters and their individual sounds; they translated to expressions. For example, only one character enscribed onto the plates might have translated to the expression "And he walked for many miles over the mountains and over the desert and around the lakes and through the woods and across the plains and............" Anyway you get the idea. So assuming that Joseph Smith was familiar with these expressions in the Bible, when the symbols were saying the same things why not use the words out of the bible? They were both meaning the same thing. The characters on the plates gave the expression and left it up to Joseph Smith to express them in whatever words he chose.
←

SO LIONHEART Joseph Smith could insert anything he thought fit with the characters that were supposedly on the plates. Then how do we know it is true since we can't verify the original translation process? The "golden plates" are not around (if they ever were here) anymore. How do we know that Smith didn't just insert anything and everything he wanted to because that is what he thought the character was saying?

Furthermore, the witnesses testified he didn't use the plates during the translation process but used the seer stone in his hat and the hat to his face. How can you say he looked at the characters on the plates if he didn't use the plates? Seems contradictory. :dontknow:

LionHeart · December 14, 2005

Paul6150

Actually Martin Harris asked Joseph Smith to copy some of the characters on a paper and and also the translation thereof. He then took them to a respectable professor in New York who examined them and gave him a certificate authenticating the authenticity of the characters and the correctness of the translation. However, when the professor asked Martin Harris the nature of his inquiry, Harris told him that the charaters were from the plates found by Joseph Smith. The professor then asked to see the certificate and when it was given back to him, he tore it and told harris to bring him the plates so he could translate them. Harris told him that he couldn't do that and that many of the plates swere sealed. The professor then told him "I cannot read a sealed book."

Martin Harris then took the characters to another professsor who also confirmed the authenticity of them and the translation, however, this one didn't give him a cetificate of authenticity.

Although, there is no way to prove this, as I know you are going to delight in, I believe I already established in my last post that we do not depend on science to verify it. No amount of science or reasoning can prove that Jesus was the son of God either. We depend on the spirit to verify it for us. Call it blind belief, but it's no blinder than your belief in your religion; Ye of little faith.

paul6150 · December 14, 2005

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 14 2005, 09:55 AM
Paul6150
Actually Martin Harris asked Joseph Smith to copy some of the characters on a paper and and also the translation thereof. He then took them to a respectable professor in New York who examined them and gave him a certificate authenticating the authenticity of the characters and the correctness of the translation. However, when the professor asked Martin Harris the nature of his inquiry, Harris told him that the charaters were from the plates found by Joseph Smith. The professor then asked to see the certificate and when it was given back to him, he tore it and told harris to bring him the plates so he could translate them. Harris told him that he couldn't do that and that many of the plates swere sealed. The professor then told him "I cannot read a sealed book."
Martin Harris then took the characters to another professsor who also confirmed the authenticity of them and the translation, however, this one didn't give him a cetificate of authenticity.
Although, there is no way to prove this, as I know you are going to delight in, I believe I already established in my last post that we do not depend on science to verify it. No amount of science or reasoning can prove that Jesus was the son of God either. We depend on the spirit to verify it for us. Call it blind belief, but it's no blinder than your belief in your religion; Ye of little faith.
←

LIONHEART

Nice try :blush: I am already aware of the story about Professor Anthon and JS and MH attempt (or so called attempt) to authenticate the translation. However if one reads Professor Anthon's statement that describes this incident with Martin Harris one will find it doesn't match the story that Martin Harris and Smith came up with. Now who do we believe here? In fact there is a D of C so called prophecy about this whole incident trying to tie this to an Isaiah text I believe. It has been awhile since I reviewed this material so I may not have all my facts totally straight but the general gist is correct.

As you said this can't be verified because there is two conflicting statements as to what happened or didn't happen. So we must look for other things to verify the veracity and truth of what JS claims as his translation process. You haven't countered the number of other items about how the translation process occurred (seer stone versus interpreters), plates there or not there, lots of wordiness in the BOM, capacity of the 2" of plates, and so on.

NOW I DO DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT "No amount of science or reasoning can prove that Jesus was the son of God either. We depend on the spirit to verify it for us." There is much evidence to prove that Jesus was the Son of God. First we have His many statements that He was indeed the Son of God as declared in the Bible; We have the testimony of those who followed Him and some of this testimony is also found in the Bible. We have the testimony of non-Christians such as Josephus and Pliny that say Jesus claimed He was the Son of God. Now these non-Christians may not have believed but they wrote about His claiming to be God. We have the proof that the entire civilized world was dramatically affected by the entire Christian movement within a few hundred years. We have much archeological evidence that He existed and claimed He was God.

No I do agree that we weren't there and it does require faith on our part to believe but with all of the evidence that He is who He claimed to be - it becomes very provable and acceptable. 2 Timothy 1:12 has these words "... Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day." Paul did not see Jesus in the physical but He saw enough evidence of His work in his life and the life of others that he trusted Jesus even to martyrdom.

LionHeart · December 15, 2005

Paul6150

One thing to take into consideration about the Martin Harris, professor Anthon story is the fact that when the professor found out the source of the characters presented to him, he asked for the ceritifacate of authenticity and tore it up. This shows a bias in him towards Joseph Smith. So it is reasonable to believe that his side of the story would have the same bias.

Now these evidences you have provided which proves that Jesus was our savior are very good. However Joseph Smith also claimed he was a prophet. There were also many witnesses that testified that he claimed he was a prophet; both Mormon and non-Mormon. There were also many people that testified that they knew for themselves that he was a prophet. There were many men who trusted him unto martyrdom as well. All of this is not scientific proof, it is just hear-say. Joseph Smith's impact on the world wasn't as big as Jesus's but it was big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put him up on the same level as Jesus, but just trying to point out that the evidences are basically the same. I'm sure that many

non-Christians in the early days of Chistianity dug around and tried to find all the dirt they could find to prove that Jesus was not the messiah. And I'm sure they found quite a bit. However, The true Christians were not affected by it because they knew in their hearts who Jesus was because the holy sprit had told them.

I don't expect you to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or the Book of Mormon is true, but only to point out that the Mormon faith holds as much water as yours does; whether you realize it or not.

So enough on this argument. It all reminds me of the arguments I used to get into in school about who's dad could beat up who's dad.

paul6150 · December 15, 2005

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 14 2005, 07:13 PM
Paul6150
One thing to take into consideration about the Martin Harris, professor Anthon story is the fact that when the professor found out the source of the characters presented to him, he asked for the ceritifacate of authenticity and tore it up. This shows a bias in him towards Joseph Smith. So it is reasonable to believe that his side of the story would have the same bias.
Now these evidences you have provided which proves that Jesus was our savior are very good. However Joseph Smith also claimed he was a prophet. There were also many witnesses that testified that he claimed he was a prophet; both Mormon and non-Mormon. There were also many people that testified that they knew for themselves that he was a prophet. There were many men who trusted him unto martyrdom as well. All of this is not scientific proof, it is just hear-say. Joseph Smith's impact on the world wasn't as big as Jesus's but it was big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put him up on the same level as Jesus, but just trying to point out that the evidences are basically the same. I'm sure that many
non-Christians in the early days of Chistianity dug around and tried to find all the dirt they could find to prove that Jesus was not the messiah. And I'm sure they found quite a bit. However, The true Christians were not affected by it because they knew in their hearts who Jesus was because the holy sprit had told them.
I don't expect you to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or the Book of Mormon is true, but only to point out that the Mormon faith holds as much water as yours does; whether you realize it or not.
So enough on this argument. It all reminds me of the arguments I used to get into in school about who's dad could beat up who's dad.
←

LIONHEART

WHATEVER THE CASE we're back to the fact that the Professor Anthon story cannot be relied upon to test the veracity of the claims by JS and MH. This is because we have two conflicting stories as to what happened in the interaction. So we move on to the thing I said in the last post.

"So we must look for other things to verify the veracity and truth of what JS claims as his translation process. You haven't countered the number of other items about how the translation process occurred (seer stone versus interpreters), plates there or not there, lots of wordiness in the BOM, capacity of the 2" of plates, and so on." There must be explanations to these things that would help one believe JS and others testimonies as to what he did in translating the BOM. Each or any of them could be damaging to JS credibility as a prophet.

Yes I agree that the comparison of testimony about JS being a prophet and the testimony of Jesus being the Son of God could be similar but you forget that there are other things that must be used to evaluate anyone who calls themselves a prophet of God. He is saying he is hearing directly from God and what he hears must agree with already existing WORDS FROM GOD. If they don't then we have to reject the one who calls themselves a prophet of God. That is what this "thread of discussion" is all about (stumbling blocks to the BOM). All I was posting in my long previous posts were several things that could be stumbling blocks for someone to believe the BOM story. I just wanted to see what the Mormons have for answers to these concerns. I am sure it is not the first time it has been brought up before.

Sign In

Book Of Mormon Stumbling Block

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Gabelma

marymanard

LeSellers

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Member_Deleted

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Member_Deleted

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Announcements