LDS What other words does the BOM use in the BC era which are out of place?

[Daniel Marsh]

Phoebe Ann From Mormonism to Christ referred to Book of Mormon, Alma 31.

It was noticed that words like Church and Christ were used in the Before Christ Era and as such are out of place.

Here is a copy of the LXX, Septuagint http://www.bennozuiddam.com/Septuagint.pdf
church and Christ are not used in translation.

What other words does the BOM use in the BC era which are out of place?

To LDS friends, just saying these words were just a prophecy or revelation does not cut it because those words are not used in historical documents Before the Common Era or Before Christ himself.



What other words does the BOM use in the BC era which are out of place?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Numbers 23:18-23 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
18 Balaam proclaimed his poem:

Balak, get up and listen;
son of Zippor, pay attention to what I say!
19 God is not a man, that he might lie,
or a son of man, that he might change his mind.
Does he speak and not act,
or promise and not fulfill?
20 I have indeed received a command to bless;
since he has blessed, I cannot change it.
21 He considers no disaster for Jacob;
he sees no trouble for Israel.
The Lord their God is with them,
and there is rejoicing over the King among them.
22 God brought them out of Egypt;
he is like the horns of a wild ox for them.
23 There is no magic curse against Jacob
and no divination against Israel.
It will now be said about Jacob and Israel,
“What great things God has done!”



Me: God nor any true Israelite would not give or record any revelations in any form of Egyptian based on the false gods in Egypt and based on Israel's history with Egypt.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There is a big difference between using characters and a language. The letter alpha in Greek is often used for A in English in some modern day signatures. I used such a signature while I was in the military for security reasons.

"
The Papyrus Amherst 63 does not help, since it appears to be a kind of script for liturgical reading, to enable someone who could pronounce Egyptian letters to say the Psalm in Aramaic, without actually knowing any Aramaic. That would not be the situation with Lehi’s people.

The reason given in the BoM for using Egyptian was that it was much less space-consuming than Hebrew. This argument fails when one compares the space required to write Egyptian (any form) and the space required to write Hebrew. See my discussion . "Reason #129: Because the writing of some biblical texts in other languages does not support “reformed Egyptian” | Latayne C. Scott

 

[Micah888]

What other words does the BOM use in the BC era which are out of place?

Nothing in the BOM would be "out of place" for any Mormon. So why make it an issue?

 

[Ironhold]

The argument that "if a word is out of place, the whole work is a forgery" is enough to condemn the KJV.

Don't believe me?

Grab a KJV and verify the verses at the link below:

Scriptures Search Results

Several passages in the Old Testament reference "steel" before steel would have actually existed. They're "out of place", right?

I'll give you a chance to explain how the KJV is safe but the BoM isn't.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The argument that "if a word is out of place, the whole work is a forgery" is enough to condemn the KJV.

Don't believe me?

Grab a KJV and verify the verses at the link below:

Scriptures Search Results

Several passages in the Old Testament reference "steel" before steel would have actually existed. They're "out of place", right?

I'll give you a chance to explain how the KJV is safe but the BoM isn't.

Nice avoidance of the question. The KJV is not being discussed. Can you not answer the question?

 

[Ironhold]

Nice avoidance of the question. The KJV is not being discussed. Can you not answer the question?

The OP rests on a double standard, one that the KJV rendition of the Bible can't meet.

Do you admit this, or not?

edit -

Before anyone says anything, I'm trying to make a rhetorical point here by getting people to think about whether or not their own arguments can be used against them.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The OP rests on a double standard, one that the KJV rendition of the Bible can't meet.

Do you admit this, or not?

edit -

Before anyone says anything, I'm trying to make a rhetorical point here by getting people to think about whether or not their own arguments can be used against them.

All while avoiding the question.

 

[Ironhold]

All while avoiding the question.

No, it goes to the heart of everything: the OP is presenting a standard that the KJV itself can't meet.

Now please, answer the statement: how does the KJV get a free pass for what the OP is condemning the BoM for?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Nothing in the BOM would be "out of place" for any Mormon. So why make it an issue?

For Historians and Christians those words are clearly out of place.

The fact that those words are there proves it was written in the 1800's by someone.

I read somewhere that the BOM addressed controversies related to the 1800's time frame that were not considered a problem or a topic of interest during Biblical times.

"Third, a large portion of the Book of Mormon simply quotes the Bible, including translation errors unique to the King James Version. Fourth, stories in the Book of Mormon directly parallel stories from Joseph's life, such as his father's dream of the tree of life when Joseph was five years old.[6]Fifth, the Book of Mormon is no more complicated than other works of fiction, such as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and related works. Finally, the ideas in the Book of Mormon bear strong parallels to ideas popular in New England at the time and several other books. Sixth, Joseph may have had help. ...

Mark Twain thought the Book of Mormon was extremely boring and referred to it as 'chloroform in print'.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet. Mark Twain, Roughing It.
"Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

No, it goes to the heart of everything: the OP is presenting a standard that the KJV itself can't meet.

Now please, answer the statement: how does the KJV get a free pass for what the OP is condemning the BoM for?

The Greek and Hebrew behind the KJV used words that existed in correct time frames. And, did not used words that existed centuries after they were written.

The Greek can be compared with the LXX for example. If you look at volumes like

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament and the The Context of Scripture series, many texts contemporary with the Hebrew Scriptures exist and many of the words are used.

I consider the standard in my OP easy to meet for true scriptures or documents.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

All while avoiding the question.

What are the questions being avoided?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Read to here

 

[Micah888]

The fact that those words are there proves it was written in the 1800's by someone.

Of course. But that won't change any committed Mormon's mind. One of their fundamentals is that the BOM is Scripture.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Introduction

 

[Jane_Doe]

Of course. But that won't change any committed Mormon's mind. One of their fundamentals is that the BOM is Scripture.

The attempted proselytizing on here would be of much higher quality if:
Charity and respect were employed
Simple logical questions were actually addressed

 

[Ironhold]

The Greek and Hebrew behind the KJV used words that existed in correct time frames.

Doesn't matter what the original words were in this case, as the translation uses words that are out of place.

That's the exact same standard as the OP: even if a word is translated to something out of place, it still condemns the entire translation regardless of the original word.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I'm seeing a Christian trying to proselytize by complaining about people talking about Christ????

It is odd. Nephi writing as a Hebrew would have used Messiah and Joseph would have translated that Christ. So.. why is that a big deal?

 

[BigDaddy4]

No, it goes to the heart of everything: the OP is presenting a standard that the KJV itself can't meet.

Now please, answer the statement: how does the KJV get a free pass for what the OP is condemning the BoM for?

Not chasing that rabbit hole. You can either answer the question or move on. This thread isn't about the KJV.

 

[BigDaddy4]

What are the questions being avoided?

Your OP.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Doesn't matter what the original words were in this case, as the translation uses words that are out of place.

That's the exact same standard as the OP: even if a word is translated to something out of place, it still condemns the entire translation regardless of the original word.

If you're going to keep whining about this, the let's go to the source material for any perceived translational errors. We have the source material for the KJV. Where can the source material for the BoM be found?