Related Information to A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation - Page 3

Civilizations believe it or not are very easy to lose, especially when other civilizations build upon them. Why did you change the subject? Can you explain how Joseph Smith was able to create complex Hebrew literary devices with a third grade education?

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: Complex Hebrew literary devices? You're joking right? Much of what Joseph wrote is pure fiction. He mentions animals non-existent in the Americas, and materials such as steel that weren't even invented yet. Much of the grammar used by Joseph Smith can be easily duplicated by anyone with a basic knowledge of the English language. Here, I'll give it go myself (Joseph loves to use the phrase "and it came to pass" as it appears so many times it is almost ridiculous---so I'll start with that, one of his favorite phrases:

"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, through the spirit and power of God, waxed bold, and addressed my brethren that they not act so wickedly. But they were wroth with me, and took hold of me, with a desire
to bind me, but the angel of the Lord withstood them. And behold, a blindness came upon them, so they grappled for the light, and they fell to the ground in the manner of repentance, and wept sorely."

Now---I wrote that right now, in a matter of minutes. If I had much more time I could perfect it, and make it sound quite a lot like King James English----but it is not difficult at all. Joseph (And whomever else may have helped him actually write the book----it truly appears as I read it, that more than one person did the "translating") simply wrote in a mode similar to King James style grammar, and he pulled it off very well.

But there is nothing miraculous about his writing at all. That is why most scholars (Outside of the Mormon chruch of course) say it is a very cleverly written book, but lacks the historicity and internal proofs to be anything but a "story".

As far as civilizations being easy to lose---that is laughable. The Bible mentions civilizations that have for the most part been found-----the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians (And we could go on and on) which are much older than the Nephites or Lamanites---and ruins and artifacts have been found for all of them. Show me one Lamanite artifact, one Nephite ruin, sword, breastplate, or grave---where are they? Where are the coins, and chariots, and towers? They are not there because they never existed----surely archaeologists would have something they could say "Look----this must be from the Lamanites from the book of Mormon"---but they never have. Yet the ruins from Biblical cities and locations are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's obvious the Book of Mormon is a fabrication.

EAG----come on. Anyone could say "There was once a huge civilization in California called the Bycamites (I'm making up that word), who built towers, and huge palaces, and they rode elephants, and grew huge gardens filled with every plant imaginable". The person could say an angel appeared to them an revealed it to them----and you know what? They would get a few followers---because people are so gullible. But what is the first thing reasonable people would do? They would look for archaeological evidence that what this person was saying was true. They would look for the remains and ruins of the "Bycamites" that the angel spoke of.

And naturally, after several years, and much searching and digging, they would find no ruins or evidence. It would then be ascertained that this civilization never existed in California, or there would be evidence pointing to it. Even if the person had (11) witnesses saying that they too heard the angel speak, it would still prove false, as no "evidence" for this civilization is in place to verify it.

This is exactly what has happened with the book of Mormon. No ruins, no historicity, no evidence. Joseph Smith actually proved he could not decipher Egyptian hyroglyphics either, after it was proven his "interpretation" of the Book of Abraham is pure fabrication. Joseph knew that it could not be deciphered at that time, so he created a great story-----but once they learned to actually decipher the symbols, it was found his "interpretation" had nothing to do with what the symbols were really saying. Joseph Smith was a great huckster, but nothing more.

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation Studies Doctrine Mormon

Its obvious that you don't understand what a literary device is. I was not at all referring to grammar or the syntax used in formulating sentences. There are patterns that are deeper than that which take several verses to see the patterns. These patterns are not something that have been made up by Mormon scholars, the example I was pointing to, chiasmus, is recognized by scholars in portions of the old testament (Because the old testament was originally written in Hebrew). Someone who is familiar with linguistics will understand that certain literary devices like ryming in English will not be evident if the work is translated and read by someone not familiar with English. Things like this happen when translating any literary work. Japanese hikus are another example when translated in to English they still fallow a syllable rule however much of the elegance from the Japanese language is lost.

as far as losing civilizations goes it is quite possible, the examples you cite Rome, Egypt, and other middle eastern civilizations have been know because they are our origins and have had much more study because of their significance. The western world on the other hand as had a considerably less through study of its civilizations and far less is know about them. You should also know that even though we have a considerably greater knowledge of middle eastern civilizations there are still many mysteries about their cultures.

Page 3 Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

What kind of proof would be enough for you? Because I don't think ANY would be enough BUT if you're serious AND interested you can take a read at this article: Source 9

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: HAPPY_LDS, I went to the link, but listen, I'm talking a lot more than just barley here. Again, we're talking about a book that is saying that there were HUGE kingdoms with palaces, and fortresses, and towers. I read the other night near the end of the book of Mormon where the chapter title says "2 million are slain", and Moroni is talking about multitudes and multitudes of the slain laying every where.

If the Bible were to say that a HUGE civilization once lived near the Nile river, with palaces, and fortresses, and massive burial grounds, and yet when we dig near the Nile for several years they found nothing at all, I think it would be safe to doubt that such a civilization ever existed. But, as we know, archaeologists have confirmed that Egypt existed.

Think about it Happy------2 million people were slain----where are the bodies? And we're just talking about that one battle. Where are the buildings, and towers, and palaces, and armor, and all the houses or dwellings that those 2 million people lived in? 2 million people! We're talking about a city like San Diego having existed at one time, and then being unable to find one iota to prove they all existed!

How is it possible that that much evidence could simply disappear? It's easy----it's because it was never there. What we have is one man, Joseph Smith, declaring he found some plates. Then we have (11) witnesses, many of them related, swearing his story is true, and that they saw the plates themselves through divine revelation. All well and good. Unfortunately, many religions have "witnesses" and stories. Islam claims Mohammed received his "revelation" from an angel also--Mohammed had his "witnesses" also. But that doesn't mean that Allah is the true God does it? The problem is that there is no verifiable archaeological evidence that any of the Nephites or Lamanites ever existed! I have never heard an archaeologist (Non-Mormon) say "We have found the Nephite ruins" or "we have found evidence of the Lamanites from the book of Mormon". Why? Because there simply is no evidence. All we have is Joseph's word and the word of 11 others. There are no plates on earth to view---no ruins, nothing. We simply have "witnesses" and some "burning in the bosom" that is supposed to witness to someone that the Book is true. The Bible warns against using one's feelings to verify what is true and what is not.

But, at the same time, the Bible heavily uses place names, and people in power at the time---it mentions them frequently. Why? God wants us to know that these places truly existed historically----when it speaks of Tyre----there really was a Tyre. Not so with the book of Mormon----it mentions many places and names------but none of them can be verified at all. I repeat again, 2 million people cannot perish, while millions more lived before them, and then have no verifiable archaeological evidence they were ever actually there. To believe in some story when there is absolutely no proof physically any of it is true is to believe as Peter says "in cleverly devised fables".

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation

Bodies, even bone decompose quite rapidly,in the dry regions of northern Africa and the middle east, bodies might be preserved under the right conditions. Surly you believe there were many natives in America, you won't find their remains, in forested regions bodies do not last for very long.

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation - Page 3

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments:

EAG, I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. If we are talking groups of Indians in the hundreds, living in tee-pees, or groups of nomads, yes harder to find remains---but they do find them. But we're talking millions of people here as I mentioned, near the end of the book of Mormon it mentions "2 million" people being slain, with their bodies (Many clad in armor) laying throughout the land. We are talking a massive civilization according to the Book of Mormon----massive. And this civilization had palaces, and great towers, and buildings, not to mention housing for those millions of people.

As I said before---it would be extremely difficult to hide the remains of an entire city of 2 million people---even if they lived two thousand years ago! Especially in the New World, where it would be harder for one ancient civilization to build on top of another which could happen in a place like Greece-----but even then they have found Troy and other ancient cities, even though they were ancient, and built on top of by other civilizations.

But we have none of that for the book of Mormon. There are Indian mounds, and some artwork from tribes of Indians who lived in North America for several centuries. But there are no massive ruins, or grave-yards filled with millions of bodies. And that kind of stuff doesn't just "disappear". Even the Mayas and the Incas left ruins---and we know they were not the Nephites and Lamanites. This massive battle ended near the hill Cumorah in New York. Literally millions lay slain according to the Book of Mormon. Did they find millions of skeletons, or temples, or palaces, or towers in New York state, or New York city as they began to excavate and build? No----they didn't. A few bones from Indian tribes, arrowheads, etc.---but these are from the tribes who existed in North America that we know of. There are no massive ruins---or any sign that any great civilization ever lived in North America. I will repeat, the Book of Mormon is a "cleverly devised fable" (As Peter calls many of the "stories" people came up with even in his day), but it cannot be true because there is no factual or archaeological evidence to prove any of the cities or people ever existed.

I'm sorry----God has never worked that way. God develops historical evidence in the Bible so we know that the peoples and times he is speaking of were actually there. He then leaves faith to us to believe the miracles, etc., that occurred at this historical place. For example: Jesus was born at Bethlehem. We know Bethlehem existed and is a real place---but it takes faith to accept the virgin birth. But there is no evidence, supported historically or archaeologically, for any of the events mentioned in the Book of Mormon that happened in cities which there is no evidence for. It is a fable and nothing more.

To add: You said:

I Googled and put "have the remains of American Indians been found?" and there are a whole bunch of links which report remains being found all over. The one I put above is 8500 year old remains (Far before the Nephites and Lamanites were here supposedly) found in Huntington Beach California. Now, if they can find 8500 year old remains of a group of Indians who lived in California, why can't they find the remains of "2 million" slain Nephites and Lamanites in New York? Come on---lets get real here. Seriously----you have to question that. It just does not make sense.

One can have faith----granted. I can put my faith in Jesus and what he did. But I also know that the places he visited and did his miracles in were real places. Jesus isn't some fantasy person placed in some fantasy city that I just have to accept by faith. NO----I know the places are real, the leaders are real that are mentioned (King Herod for example), and the time-frame is real. I need to use faith to believe in Miracles---sure I do. But I do not have to use faith to believe the places where he did his works were real----because they truly existed.

Unfortunately, in the Book of Mormon, you not only have to put faith in the person of Christ, you have to put faith in places and people who have never been proven to exist. But that isn't really faith. People can write stories about imaginary people and places, and make them seem so real that we actually believe they exist. When we were children we believed in Santa's workshop at the North Pole. Of course, once we see pictures of the North Pole, we begin to accept the fact that there is no workshop there ;D Yet, when we were children we had such a "warm feeling" in our bosoms about Santa----he just had to be real!

God though backs up the Biblical stories with history, location, and people. There is an amazing story about Jericho. We need faith to believe that the walls came down at the sound of the trumpets. But we do not have to question if the place is real-----it truly existed and we know this by archaeological evidence. There is a big difference there---we need faith to believe the actual biblical story-----but our faith is helped by the fact that we know the place is real----there really was a Jericho!

The fact that there are no vast graveyards, which 2 million people would need to be buried in---let alone the millions that lived before them---and there are no ruins of any kind for these supposed inhabitants, proves that is simply a fable, and not a reality

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

Again California is a dry arid climate the type of climate that would preserve bodies. And there have been remains found in New Mexico and Arizona again dry arid climates. Many BOM scholars believe the Lamanite civilizations were locates in the rain forests of central and south America. These types of climates would not preserve remains. How do you know these millions were buried? Maybe they were burned maybe a city grew up on top of their graves honestly I don't know. I do know what the spirit of god fells like and I know the feelings that people often mistake for the spirit, those of us who have truly felt both can tell the difference.

I can raise the same types of questions about the bible that you raise about the BOM, the bible says that god created eve from a rib 5000 years ago, yet we have bones of people from before then, there is also no geological evidence of a flood that covered the whole earth and many geologist don't think there is even enough water on earth to cover it all yet that is what the bible says. How can you believe such lies from the frauds that came before Joseph Smith? Obviously I am be sarcastic to make a point and if you were atheist I would take your criticism in stride but, you not your a believer and you believe many of the same "crazy" things we believe yet you criticize our beliefs.

If you have honest questions about the book of Mormon and how we justify the events thats fine and I will be more than happy to try to explain them. However it seems that your motives are to "convert us" if this is the case this will be my last reply for contention is of the devil.
I would never go onto a christian forum and shove the BOM down their throat or tell them their believes are wrong and there eternal souls will be damned if they don't except my message, I might explain my beliefs and give them an opportunity to except it but I certainly wouldn't be belligerent about it, I only ask that you afford us the same respect. Peace be with you and god bless