LDS why is the BOM in King James English

[Tra Phull]

Supposedly we are talking about why the BOM is in King James English.
Or if you prefer, closer to Jacobean English than the American English of 1827 or 1830's

Egyptian is a side-issue, and an interesting one. I have a huge book on Ancient Egypt which is hard to read. I watch TV shows on ancient Egypt, and different shows contradict. One show made a big deal out of a gland in the brain being likened to the EYE OF OSIRIS.

Yet when I went to an Egyptian exhibit at a museum at Baylor University, it was said that Egyptians saw no use for the brain, that the first thing done upon embalming was to suck the brain out and discard it, while other organs were meticulously preserved.

This thread is interesting.

 

[Tra Phull]

I am not far behind you, mmksparbud, I am 67.

Your nephew probably thinks we LIVED THROUGH all of this Biblical history.

 

[Peter1000]

Does not add up. The Jews in Jerusalem spoke Hebrew--or Aramaic--the Egyptians also would speak Aramaic. It makes no sense to learn a whole different language and style of writing than your own. When taking notes during classes people will make their own shorthand. Even secretaries, who use shorthand, have their own style of shorthand---I had to learn it way back in the days of Noah. This truly makes no sense. Go to Texas, they speak fluent Tex/Mex---not fluent shorthand Egyptian. This would make sense if the writing had been Hebrew/Aramaic--and even that shortened. Most people were not very literate, except the Jews took pride in reading the scriptures and had more education in the reading and writing of their language. They had no reason to learn to write Egyptian in Jerusalem,, even if they spoke it. They did know Hebrew and some knew Aramaic
The thing is, when we make up stories, you can get carried away and always make mistakes. It's not hard to figure out that the reason that JS made this mistake is because no-one had yet deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphics and thought this would be a safe bet that no one would figure out all of this was a hoax. You see, even Satan knows the past, but he does not know the future, neither did JS, even though the deciphering was just about to happen.

If Lehi and his family were a run of the mill Jewish family, what you say makes sense. But they were in the import/export business between Egypt and Israel. Remember at this time things were friendly with Egypt and trade flourished.

So to know Egyptian was critical when they did business, so they studied it and passed it from father to son for business reasons. We believe Lehi was very wealthly and landed, and so education was important. This is why this Hebrew family knew Egyptian, when most Jewish families did not. That makes sense at least to me.

Dzheremi says that in the period of around 600bc, Egyptians would have been speaking Demotic or Late Egyptian, not Aramaic.

It was in the best interest of the Lehi family to know Hebrew and Egyptian, right?

 

[Tra Phull]

So - to recap - it has been alleged that the BOM is not really in KJ English.
Yet I repeat that I googled the exact title of this thread, got numerous hits, so I am not the only one on earth who thinks the BOM is in King James English; it's close enough to it for many to think this.
So HITW said these Israelites transplanted to America brought Old Testament scriptures with them.
OK, but that does not explain why NT quotes are in BOM

 

[Tra Phull]

If it was critical for the Lehi I family to know Egyptian, it would have been a real, historic version of the language, right?

Not a made-up version called Reformed Egyptian which would not be heard of until Joseph Smith.

 

[mmksparbud]

If Lehi and his family were a run of the mill Jewish family, what you say makes sense. But they were in the import/export business between Egypt and Israel. Remember at this time things were friendly with Egypt and trade flourished.

So to know Egyptian was critical when they did business, so they studied it and passed it from father to son for business reasons. We believe Lehi was very wealthly and landed, and so education was important. This is why this Hebrew family knew Egyptian, when most Jewish families did not. That makes sense at least to me.

Dzheremi says that in the period of around 600bc, Egyptians would have been speaking Demotic or Late Egyptian, not Aramaic.

It was in the best interest of the Lehi family to know Hebrew and Egyptian, right?

Yes, he said Egyptians spoke and wrote that, not Jews. import/export business? What does the BOM say about that I do not remember? And they left Jerusalem, not someplace between Egypt and Israel.
And why would someone write in a language no one else knew for a document that was meant to be read by others? This is supposed to be a language that only this family knew but everybody else spoke Hebrew or a certain type of Egyptian or Aramaic in that area, much less in a whole different country where no one else spoke any of those languages? This was somewhere in the Americas, was it not? So why not write things down in a language that was understood by those around them. I still can't see this. They had been in the Americas for several hundred years when this guy wrote everything down, certainly long enough for the Lehi's to have left behind any none-needed language and become familiar with whatever language was spoken That needs clarification for this would be me, having been living in the US for years now, writing something down in a language that was understood only by my own family and absolutely no one else. Makes no sense. Having written shorthand once a long time ago, I am not going to write something down for others to read in that shorthand. If I am leaving a record of my life in this country, I would write in in what language is being spoken around me. This country has many languages, but wherever we go there is still a dominant language spoken and if you want to be understood outside your own group, you learn the language.

 

[Tra Phull]

I would also recommend googling "Why are New Testament quotes in the Book of Mormon".

There are several NT quotes in the BOM.

And I question whether some of these quotes are from sections of BOM allegedly written before the NT itself was written.

 

[He is the way]

What do atheists have to do with anything? That's not the topic. We're talking about the Mormon claims concerning 'Reformed Egyptian'.

It is because there are people just as stubborn as atheists when it comes to religious beliefs. Everyone wants proof but are not willing to seek it themselves:

(New Testament | Matthew 7:16 - 21)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Probably not, so it's a good thing that that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the existence or nonexistence of 'Reformed Egyptian'. That's something that can be known by looking at what we actually have evidence of for the claimed time period.

We don't learn faith through proof:

(New Testament | Hebrews 11:1)

1 NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There is plenty of evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Eleven witnesses saw the plates and at least eight of them lifted the plates and saw the writing on the writing on them.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm presenting the evidence that is known about what forms of Egyptian were spoken and written at which particular times and places. It has nothing to do with declaring everyone else wrong, but of making it clear what we can base our understanding of things on, precisely because it's not just a matter of differing opinions -- it's a matter of evidence vs. no evidence. In other words, this cannot be analogized to an argument between an atheist and a believer on religious/supernatural (read: non-scientific) matters, because it's not a 'religious' question to begin with. It's not like I'm arguing that Coptic was spoken in place X at time Y because the Bible says XYZ. No. When I claim something about language (whether it's in agreement with any Mormon or non-Mormon or not), it's because that's what the evidence shows.

It is not about the evidence that is known about what forms of Egyptian were spoken and written at which particular times and places. We are talking about the gold plates.

Okay. How is this evidence of anything? If God made Reformed Egyptian a real thing (or the Jaredites, or Zarahemla, or any of the other things that Mormons believe in with no supporting evidence whatsoever) and then took it away such that there's literally no evidence of it having ever existed, then you should really ask yourself why He then sees fit to allow you to continue to argue as poorly as you do. If what you post is evidence of the 'wisdom' you supposedly got from Him, then you might want to ask Him to please stop making you make falsifiable claims about observable phenomena in the world (e.g., languages and writing systems), and instead stick to the kinds of claims that cannot be falsified -- e.g., "I believe in this because the BOM says so" (read: not because there's any scientific/naturalistic backing).

I found out for myself that the Book of Mormon is true.

Of course I do not for one second believe that what you are writing here has anything to do with any wisdom gained from petitioning God, that's neither here nor there because the standard for making claims about the world in society in general is the scientific one (that we back up what we claim with evidence). What you're doing now really doesn't cut it according to any standard that you'd find outside of a Mormon meeting hall, and last time I checked this subforum was not a Mormon meeting hall. So don't complain to me about atheists or implicate God in this. You're doing this yourself. You can stop any time. You don't have to make falsifiable claims about language and writing systems.

Joseph Smith could not have done so many miracles if he was not a prophet of God.

 

[He is the way]

I would also recommend googling "Why are New Testament quotes in the Book of Mormon".

There are several NT quotes in the BOM.

And I question whether some of these quotes are from sections of BOM allegedly written before the NT itself was written.

Christ visited and taught the people in the Americas after His death.

 

[mmksparbud]

Joseph Smith could not have done so many miracles if he was not a prophet of God.

Miracles are not the only test of a true prop0het. Satan can do any miracle accept for the actual raising of the dead, but he can fake even that by impersonating the dead.. The Egyptian Priests duplicated several of the 10 plagues. JS falls in the other tests.

 

[mmksparbud]

Christ visited and taught the people in the Americas after His death.

He did not visit the Lehi's after His death.

 

[dzheremi]

It is because there are people just as stubborn as atheists when it comes to religious beliefs.

What forms of Egyptian are known from what times and places is not a matter of religious belief, but a matter of the historical record.

Everyone wants proof but are not willing to seek it themselves

I don't know what you're talking about. I can't speak for everyone in the world, but I went ahead and got a master's degree in linguistics, and my work for my thesis on the modern use of the Coptic language (the last form of the Egyptian language to be spoken in Egypt before the Arabization of the country) is what granted me that degree, after a year and a half of work in Coptic churches and monasteries with people who were actively working to revive the language, and hence spoke and understood it very, very well.

I think I did at least enough seeking to be able to answer the claims of an internet zealot.

We don't learn faith through proof

Again, claims about language that can be proven by looking at evidence present in the actual world are not matters of faith, but of evidence. You can claim that the moon is made of cheese and you'll still be wrong even if you have a lot of faith that it is, in spite of the evidence. We have the testimony of the men who actually went to the moon, and the rock (not cheese) samples they brought back.

You believing things to be other than how they are does not change how they are. Only evidence can change that, and you don't have any.

It is not about the evidence that is known about what forms of Egyptian were spoken and written at which particular times and places. We are talking about the gold plates.

I guess you're right that it's not about evidence, since you don't have any golden plates to show any potential researchers, so you don't have any evidence to begin with.

For people living in the actual world, there's plenty of evidence out there to show what forms of Egyptian were spoken where and when. While there is some debate to be had over the exact number of dialects of Coptic (mainly due to the difficulty in determining which ought to be classified as a 'dialect', and based on what degree of evidence; the standard answer I've seen in most academic references is six, though Funk 1988* suggests at least nine and possibly as many as fifteen), and some of the finer points of Egyptian phonology and other matters, in no academic source anywhere do you find mentioned 'Reformed Egyptian', as there is no evidence that any such thing ever existed anywhere, and it's not academia's role to bolster the faith claims of any religion or believer.

I found out for myself that the Book of Mormon is true.

You ought not trust yourself so easily, then, since the Book of Mormon is not true.

Joseph Smith could not have done so many miracles if he was not a prophet of God.

By "so many", do you mean zero? Because I think he proved that he could do zero.

*Post edited to include citation: Wolf-Peter Funk "Dialects Wanting Homes: A Numerical Approach to the Early Varieties of Coptic", in Jacek Fisiak (Ed.) Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social. Mouton de Gruyter, 1988. 149-192.

 

[Ironhold]

I would also recommend googling "Why are New Testament quotes in the Book of Mormon".

There are several NT quotes in the BOM.

And I question whether some of these quotes are from sections of BOM allegedly written before the NT itself was written.

You mean the parts of the BoM where Jesus pays a visit to the locals and establishes the church among them? Where as part of the process he teaches many of the same things he taught in Israel?

 

[He is the way]

What forms of Egyptian are known from what times and places is not a matter of religious belief, but a matter of the historical record.

The historical record for where, Egypt?

You ought not trust yourself so easily, then, since the Book of Mormon is not true.

I know what I know.

By "so many", do you mean zero? Because I think he proved that he could do zero.

Some people know zip about Joseph Smith but claim to know him. Joseph Smith healed many sick people. He made made many prophecies which came to pass and ones that will come to pass. He gave us the word of wisdom before the ill effects tobacco products were known. It would be better to do some research before making a statement like that.

 

[He is the way]

He did not visit the Lehi's after His death.

That is because Lehi was already dead. But He did visit Lehi's descendants:

(New Testament | John 10:16)

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Peter1000]

If it was critical for the Lehi I family to know Egyptian, it would have been a real, historic version of the language, right?

Not a made-up version called Reformed Egyptian which would not be heard of until Joseph Smith.

Here is the explanation from the man that wrote the BOM:
Mormon 9: 32-34
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

The plates Mormon was writing on were rather small, therefore, Mormon, whose job it was around 420ad to take all the records from the beginning (600bc) and decide by the gift of the Holy Ghost what was the most important events to share with the world in the future, decided to use a condensed version of Egyptian rather than Hebrew.

Think about using an engraving tool to write on gold, and you wrote 500 pages. You would use the best abbreviated method available to abridge 1,000 years of history.

Also, Mormon knew that these records would be untranslatable by scholars in the future and that is why he mentions "the Lord will prepare means for the interpretation thereof. And the Lord did prepare means for JS to translate, knowing that scholars and doctors of science would not be able to read it, as Mormon says in the BOM.

JS could not have made this up.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, he said Egyptians spoke and wrote that, not Jews. import/export business? What does the BOM say about that I do not remember? And they left Jerusalem, not someplace between Egypt and Israel.
And why would someone write in a language no one else knew for a document that was meant to be read by others? This is supposed to be a language that only this family knew but everybody else spoke Hebrew or a certain type of Egyptian or Aramaic in that area, much less in a whole different country where no one else spoke any of those languages? This was somewhere in the Americas, was it not? So why not write things down in a language that was understood by those around them. I still can't see this. They had been in the Americas for several hundred years when this guy wrote everything down, certainly long enough for the Lehi's to have left behind any none-needed language and become familiar with whatever language was spoken That needs clarification for this would be me, having been living in the US for years now, writing something down in a language that was understood only by my own family and absolutely no one else. Makes no sense. Having written shorthand once a long time ago, I am not going to write something down for others to read in that shorthand. If I am leaving a record of my life in this country, I would write in in what language is being spoken around me. This country has many languages, but wherever we go there is still a dominant language spoken and if you want to be understood outside your own group, you learn the language.

Nothing about the BOM makes sense to you. If you can tell me that you read the first 2 pages and just about puked and did not read another page, tells me all I need to know.

You are not interested in any explanations, and nothing makes sense. So be it. I just hope that Moroni is not the first to greet you when you come out of your sleep on resurrection day.

 

[dzheremi]

The historical record for where, Egypt?

The historical record regarding the Egyptian language, in all the places where it has been found. (None of those places are anywhere in the Americas.)

I know what I know.

Your definition of knowing something is apparently synonymous with believing something. Everyone but you would recognize that as a problem, but okay, sure. You 'know' (believe) what you 'know' (believe), but your knowledge is not only not based in fact, it is directly contradicted by the available evidence -- hence why you choose to make big, wrong declarative statements like that, rather than actually research anything and come to any conclusion based on what is shown to be the case in the actually-existing world.

Some people know zip about Joseph Smith but claim to know him.

Yes, and some people have had their brains stolen by his lifeless, salvationless cult and think he poops Moon Pies and pees ginger beer. What's your point?

Joseph Smith healed many sick people.

So has Penicillin. Does that make Alexander Flemming a true prophet of God?

He made made many prophecies which came to pass and ones that will come to pass.

Don't forget all the false ones, too.

He gave us the word of wisdom before the ill effects tobacco products were known.

What on earth...? You really think nobody knew about the harmful effects of tobacco before Joseph Smith invented the "Word of Wisdom"? That's insane. Here's a little ditty, a traditional Scottish folk song, traditionally attributed to none other than King James VI of Scotland (the man under whom Scotland united with England, making him also King James I of England), who lived from 1566 to 1625 -- several centuries before Joseph Smith Jr. was even born. Even if he didn't write it (and there is some debate on this, though most seem to agree it at least dates back to his time; see here, as well as here), its earliest known form in print is from the collection entitled Pills To Purge Melancholy, published 1699 -- also notably long before Joseph Smith was around. It's called "Tobacco is an Indian Weed" (or "is but an Indian Weed"), and reads as follows:

Tobacco's but an Indian weed, Grows green at morn, cut down at eve,
It shews our decay, we are but clay:
Think of this when you smoke tobacco.

The pipe, that is so lily white, Wherein so many take delight,
Is broke with a touch - man's life is such:
Think of this when you smoke tobacco.

The ashes that are left behind, Do serve to put us all in mind
That unto dust return we must:
Think of this when you smoke tobacco.

The smoke, that does so high ascend, Shews us man's life must have an end,
The vapour's gone - man's life is done:
Think of this when you smoke tobacco.

+++

The version I know and most enjoy is the one folk singer Ed McCurdy recorded back in the 1950s, but here's a probably more instrumentally-authentic version by City Waites and Lucy Skeaping:

So there ya go. People several centuries before Joseph Smith Jr ever lived knew that tobacco was not good...and all without Joseph Smith's god's help. Go figure.

It would be better to do some research before making a statement like that.

I strongly suspect that I just did more research in creating this post (what with two whole links and a video) than you have ever done into the truth claims made by the Mormon religion. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[mmksparbud]

You mean the parts of the BoM where Jesus pays a visit to the locals and establishes the church among them? Where as part of the process he teaches many of the same things he taught in Israel?

But these are talking about quotes from the disciples that had not yet been written.

In III Nephi 20:23-26, Jesus quotes a sermon that Peter had yet to deliver at Pentecost, recorded in Acts 3:22-26.

In III Nephi 18:29, Jesus quotes a line that Paul had not yet written, in I Corinthians 11:29, with regard to the Eucharist.

A final example: In III Nephi 28:8, Jesus quotes I Corinthians 15:52-53 with regard to the Resurrection.

 

[mmksparbud]

Nothing about the BOM makes sense to you. If you can tell me that you read the first 2 pages and just about puked and did not read another page, tells me all I need to know.

You are not interested in any explanations, and nothing makes sense. So be it. I just hope that Moroni is not the first to greet you when you come out of your sleep on resurrection day.

Excuse me, but you must provide where I said anything about puking! I do know that within the 1st few sentences I immediately knew this was not of God. God simply did not use the Kings English in the days of Nephi---BOM is using the koine Greek translation when the Greeks hadn't even yet become a world leader. It reads very simple and childlike and I know I did say that it reads like the Quran does--simple and childlike without hidden depths that are in the bible (except, of course the parts that are identical to what the KJV reads).I never said that I read only the first few pages either, for I did struggle through the rest of it. I am most certainly all about what makes sense. In every aspect of my life I've tried to make sense out of everything, the bible, and the BOM also. Why should my common sense be used only for the bible and ignored with the BOM?