Same with mathematics. Help them understand the concept, let them do the WORK, then discuss the answer(s).
Why are you being so recalcitrant? (I had some of those students…)
Regards,
MG
Stop being a vacuous troll and start backing up your assertions. Or don’t.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
This started with a request for you to provide a quote to back up your assertion. You’ve avoided doing that. Stop being a child and provide the quote.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Interestingly enough, I just completed reading Earl M. Wunderli's An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself. He deals quite handily with Hebraisms and complex chiasms in chapter 7.
Really? You should probably actually read Wunderli before deciding which articles you want to throw in as counters. The major counterargument to Hebraisms Wunderli employs is the fact that all that stuff can be found in the KJV. This includes Hebrew parallelisms. So even if Cranney's argument and calculations are correct, all that is proven is that the use of Hebrew parallelisms is deliberate. If so, so what? Joseph could have easily picked up the use of parallelism from the Bible then employed it to give the Book of Mormon verisimilitude. Indeed, it is telling that Cranney himself refrained from concluding anything about authorship based on his study!
IHAQ, you now have two reading assignments. Do your homework!
Regards,
MG
Didn't think you would… <sigh> Okay, you’re out.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Really? You should probably actually read Wunderli before deciding which articles you want to throw in as counters. The major counterargument to Hebraisms Wunderli employs is the fact that all that stuff can be found in the KJV. This includes Hebrew parallelisms. So even if Cranney's argument and calculations are correct, all that is proven is that the use of Hebrew parallelisms is deliberate. If so, so what? Joseph could have easily picked up the use of parallelism from the Bible then employed it to give the Book of Mormon verisimilitude. Indeed, it is telling that Cranney himself refrained from concluding anything about authorship based on his study!
Joseph Smith the sponge.
I realize that Chiasmus is not the ‘smoking gun’.
But the complexity of some of these ‘poetry’ sequences in the Book of Mormon is one more bullet point to add into the unlikelihood that Joseph Smith cobbled the Book of Mormon together on his own.