The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Fence Sitter]

I notice no believer has come up with an adequate alternate explanation of how the Koran was produced.

[_Dr Exiled]

I've listened, can't see it.
Give us a summary.

There are at least three main elements that identify the Book of Mormon as a miracle. Firstly, it is high class literature. Not only Joseph Smith did not have the literary capability to produce such a book, nobody else did (or does). Nobody had ever been able to produce anything like it before, nor will ever be able to, unless it is by the same miraculous means. But being able recognize the Book of Mormon as a divine work of literature beyond the power of man to produce, is beyond the capability of most people. It requires an understanding of high class English literature that very few people possess.

The second thing that identifies it as a miracle is the great theology that it contains. Again, that is something that cannot be recognized by just anyone. It requires great insight into Christian theology to be able to do that, which very few people possess.

The third thing that identifies it as a miracle is the manner in which it was produced—dictated by an unlearned young plough boy on the American frontier with no formal education in less than 80 days, without reference to any books, notes, manuscripts, or anything else. It takes some people longer than that to read the book, let alone be able to write it. But if you are determined not to believe, nobody can force you to. There were many people who did not believe the miracles of Jesus either.

How do you determine that it is "high class literature?" It seems shallow and without any character development to me. The characters are one dimensional and simplistic in their world view - too much black and white. Is there anyone (other than believing clones) that share the "high class literature" claim? My guess is that your incredibly subjective claim here is based on presupposing it as coming from god and then getting some unrelated emotional feeling that was probably manipulated by others to show that it was a confirmation of the presupposed belief. Let us know when you get off of the circular logic train.

[_I have a question]

On the other hand, from the top of my head the things that mark it as man-made would include KJV Bible plagiarism. Hard to imagine how that can be rationalised to fit a "God-Given" story of a people that would be long dead before the KJV Bible was even thought of. Remember Brother Callister said it's either "all true (all from the engravings on gold plates made by Nephite Prophets) or it's a big fat hoax"). The inclusion of the KJV Bible content destroys Callisters position entirely, by his own standards set for the book.

Maybe you've already stated your 'pick' earlier in the thread, but would you again share the method...one through five...that you think was used to create the Book of Mormon?

I have no need to pick one of the afore mentioned methods.

You still have to explain the book as a WHOLE...not simply pull out those parts that you see as being problematic and then throwing the Book of Mormon on the trash heap.

No. The problem is entirely yours. As Callister points out, if part of the Book of Mormon are not what they purport to be, then it's production is of the devil. You need to demonstrate that God-Given is the only way to explain the Book of Mormons existence. I note that neither you, nor Zerinus, nor Callister have done that.

Also, the Book of Mormon teaches...in greater scope and understanding...things that aren't taught in detail, or at all, in the Bible. We need to account for that.

No, we don't. Because having additional teachings is not a differentiator between man-made or god-given.

Again, it comes back to the premise of is there a creator/God that exists and is able/willing to communicate with mankind through additional scripture which testifies of Jesus Christ and His atonement.

No, it doesn't. It comes back to you demonstrating that the Book of Mormons existence is only explainable by being god-given.

The Book of Mormon brings people to Christ.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Are you personally looking and/or have you at one time in your life looked for additional witness/testimony of Christ in order to more fully understand and follow Him?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If a creator/God and Jesus Christ aren't in the picture for you, then as I said earlier, you will not "see" the importance or relevance of having modern day scripture, etc.

Again, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Please demonstrate what it is about the Book of Mormon's existence that cannot be ascribed to being man-made...

[_spotlight]

You still have to explain the book as a WHOLE...not simply pull out those parts that you see as being problematic

Not true. That's why the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was sufficient to replace Newton's law of gravity with Einstein's GR. It's also why a defendant with an alibi is let off the hook when the rest of the evidence would otherwise implicate him.

The Book of Mormon brings people to Christ.

Not according to a majority of Christians.

Evolution doesn't discount there being a creator/God.

It disproves the Mormon creator god. If Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race then our DNA had to be manipulated after Adam & Eve lived to explain the diversity found therein and also their long lives per LDS scriptures. A single breeding pair 6,000 years ago won't do. If god intervenes directly to alter DNA then there was no need for an evolutionary process to bring forth life over billions of years in the first place, the vast majority of which was spent on single celled life forms prior to the split between animals and plants even took place.

And if there is a creator/God you are then left with having to fully explain the Book of Mormon.

"Satan did it" would suffice if there were a creator god. And if there is no creator god then no explanation is necessary.

I will be the first to admit that the FALL is incompletely understood within the paradigm of scientific explanation/understanding for the beginnings of mankind.

You mean rendered meaningless in light of evolution. There is no partial understanding so your use of "incompletely" is deceptive and misleading. Have you got anything at all besides special pleading? It is special pleading because you have absolutely no evidence upon which you base your conclusions. You have only your presuppositions.

[_spotlight]

The interpretation thereof by the gift of God

A stone.
It wasn't even gift wrapped.
Joe happened upon it digging a well and used it to commit fraud upon others.

Reminds me of a Bible verse. Matthew 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Oh it's a magic stone, is that it? A regular stone is not a gift but a magic stone, whoo-ah.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but high class literature comes from magic stones.

[_Chap]

I notice no believer has come up with an adequate alternate explanation of how the Koran was produced.

Sound familiar?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /ijaz.html

Assalamu-alaikum Washington rahamatullahi Washington barakatuhu:

The Qur'an in many places challenges the people to produce a surah like it. It appears that the Christian missionaries who call the challenge irrelevent or an utterly subjective criterion are pretty much unaware of how the Arabic poetry and prose compares with the Qur'an. This article is devoted to deal with one aspect of the Qur'anic challenge of produce a surah like it. What is meant by surah like it with respect to the Arabic prose and poetry?

The verses of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]

Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

cAbdur Rahim Green mentions that:

These are the sixteen al-Bihar (literally "The Seas", so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Now I think at least the Christian's "Holy spirit" that makes you talk in tongues, part of your "Tri-Unity" of God should be able to inspire one of you with that!

To begin with; the Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the 'rhyme'. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning 'The Seas'. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. Each one rhymes differently. For metres of Arabic poetry please see please see Lyall's book Translations Of Ancient Arabian Poetry, Chiefly Pre-Islamic.[1] He discusses al-Kamil, al-Wafir, al-Hajaz, at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Khafif and al-Madid briefly.[2]

The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called "rhymed prose" or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.[3] One of the most famous speeches involving sajc is that of Hajjaj bin Yusuf in his first deputation in Iraq in post-Islamic and Quss bin Sa'idah in pre-Islamic times.

So, the challenge, as cAbdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Indeed

The Qur'an is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of sajc, and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category.[4]

It is interesting to know that all the pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry collected by Louis Cheikho falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar.[5] Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeated accuse Prophet Muhammad(P) for being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur'an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur'an's form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur'an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it as Alqama bin cAbd al-Manaf confirmed when he addressed their leaders, the Quraysh:

Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.

It is a well known fact that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf (or seven forms) to facilitate greater understanding of it among the Arabs who had different dialects. This was also to challenge them on their own grounds to produce a surah like that of the Qur'an. The challenge became more obvious when none of the seven major tribes could imitate it even in their own dialects as no one could claim that it was difficult to imitate due to it not being in their own dialect.[6]

What Do The Orientalists Say About The Inimitability Of The Qur'an?

E H Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the Qur'an. But he seem to have been wavering between two thoughts. He writes in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur'an:

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.[7]

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]

As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.[10]

On the influence of the Qur'an on Arabic literature Gibb says:

The influence of the Koran on the development of Arabic Literature has been incalculable, and exerted in many directions. Its ideas, its language, its rhymes pervade all subsequent literary works in greater or lesser measure. Its specific linguistic features were not emulated, either in the chancery prose of the next century or in the later prose writings, but it was at least partly due to the flexibility imparted by the Koran to the High Arabic idiom that the former could be so rapidly developed and adjusted to the new needs of the imperial government and an expanding society.[11]

As the Qur'an itself says:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Qur'an 2:23-24)

Lastly, the beautiful style of the Qur'an is admired even by the Arab Christians:

The Quran is one of the world's classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.[12]

The above sentences speak of themselves. Summing up: Within the Arabic literature, either poetry or prose, there is nothing comparable to the Qur'an. Muslims throughout the centuries are united upon the its inimitability.

There is also a talk by Christian missionaries that there are grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an. In retort, it can be mentioned that the Arab contemporaries of Muhammad(P) were most erudite and proficient in the idiosyncrasies of Arabic speech; and hence, if they had found any grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an, they would have revealed it when Muhammad(P) challenged them with to do so. Therefore, since they did not take up his challenge on this issue, we can be rest assured that no such grammatical 'errors' exist in the Qur'an.

Indeed the grammatical errors claimed by Christian missionaries have been already discussed and refuted in a reputed journal.[13] It turns out that lack of knowledge of intricate constructions in classical Arabic by Christian missionaries gave rise to so-called grammatical 'errors'.

[_Jersey Girl]

That is the copyright page.

Speaking of copyright. Why did he try to sell it?

[_zerinus]

How do you determine that it is "high class literature?" It seems shallow and without any character development to me. The characters are one dimensional and simplistic in their world view - too much black and white. Is there anyone (other than believing clones) that share the "high class literature" claim? My guess is that your incredibly subjective claim here is based on presupposing it as coming from god and then getting some unrelated emotional feeling that was probably manipulated by others to show that it was a confirmation of the presupposed belief. Let us know when you get off of the circular logic train.

It is high class literature in the same sense that the KJV is high class literature, not in the sense that The Hobbit it high class literature. It is not the characters in it that make it high class literature. The characters are historical characters, just like those in the KJV. It is the way in which it is written that makes it high class literature.

[_Quasimodo]

The third thing that identifies it as a miracle is the manner in which it was produced—dictated by an unlearned young plough boy

treasure hunter mostly

His father (Joseph Smith Senior) was a teacher, so it seems very unlikely that he was illiterate or under educated for that time. Even if he was just home schooled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Sr.

Smith was born on July 12, 1771, in Topsfield, Massachusetts, to Asael Smith and Mary Duty. He married Lucy Mack in Tunbridge, Vermont, on January 26, 1796, and had 11 children with her.[4]
Smith tried his hands at several professions, including farmer, teacher, and shop-keeper, none of which proved very successful.[4] He moved his family to Palmyra, New York, in 1816 and began to make payments on a farm located on the edge of neighboring Manchester Township. He was raised to the degree of Master Freemason on May 7, 1818, in Ontario Lodge No. 23 of Canandaigua, New York. In the Palmyra–Manchester area, Smith and his sons were involved in a number of treasure digging excavations in the 1820s.

[_I have a question]

How do you determine that it is "high class literature?" It seems shallow and without any character development to me. The characters are one dimensional and simplistic in their world view - too much black and white. Is there anyone (other than believing clones) that share the "high class literature" claim? My guess is that your incredibly subjective claim here is based on presupposing it as coming from god and then getting some unrelated emotional feeling that was probably manipulated by others to show that it was a confirmation of the presupposed belief. Let us know when you get off of the circular logic train.

It is high class literature in the same sense that the KJV is high class literature, not in the sense that The Hobbit it high class literature. It is not the characters in it that make it high class literature. The characters are historical characters, just like those in the KJV. It is the way in which it is written that makes it high class literature.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Book of Mormon/topics/aictp.html

"30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz.
31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died."
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/eth ... ang=eng#29