If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

I think the Septuagint was translated in or around the Third Century BCE. According to the CoJCoLDS, Lehi and Co. arrived in the Americas around 600 BCE.

And Deutero Issiah adds to the problems. And why the errors? And what about Adam Clark's commentary plagerism. Also the literary capability at the time was mainly ritualistic and not narrative.

I am not an authority Deutero-Isaiah but here is an apologetic source for outside observers of this thread:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/arc ... -of-Mormon

It seems as though this is an unsettled question along with others.

But the fact remains, however one chooses to skirt around it, that it would have been very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon on his own.

I again refer readers to this essay:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

A long read, but worth it.

Of course if you’re of the same mind as Dr. Steuss and make a mockery of the whole thing by throwing out:

Gods and angels, all the way down. Miracles galore!

Then what Brian Hales or anyone else has to say in regards to the veracity of the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon is going to be the ramblings of a deluded crackpot.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Are you just posting A.I.-generated comments?

I have posted two A.I. generated quotes and given attribution to them. First time I’ve ever done that. The marvels of A.I. when you’re not an expert on a particular question or subject.

Feel free to find any error in the informational material retrieved through this process/method.

I am open to correction and further learning at your feet.

But please add to the discussion rather than sidetracking it by questioning the process.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Are you just posting A.I.-generated comments?

I have posted two A.I. generated quotes and given attribution to them. First time I’ve ever done that. The marvels of A.I. when you’re not an expert on a particular question or subject.

Feel free to find any error in the informational material retrieved through this process/method.

I am open to correction and further learning at your feet.

But please add to the discussion rather than sidetracking it by questioning the process.

Regards,
MG

This is just a variation on your posting of resources you haven't read, and trying to make 'reading' assignments. As it stands, one of them at best contradicts the other, and at worst just states the obvious without making an argument. I would be interested in your opinion of how your two A.I. generated quotes answer any of the relevant questions, or address the issues brought up.

[MG 2.0]

Although, if "by the gift and power of God" is the default, then that would necessitate that it is the default position for all books and documents. It shouldn't require someone claiming it was done through supernatural means -- they may just not have been aware of the divine using them as a conduit.

Every issue of Hustler was created by the gift and power of God, by default. Every 6th grader's diary... gift and power of God, by default. The menu at Denny's; once again, the gift and power of God by default. It's up to the non-believers to prove that the Haiku about poop I wrote in the 5th grade wasn't actually holy writ -- for others, it will be taken as a matter of faith.

Of course you are free to think and believe that, but I think there is enough evidence to consider a different alternative. That the Book of Mormon is a special case.

Just wondering…have you read all the way through the Hales essay I’ve linked to a couple of times now?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This is just a variation on your posting of resources you haven't read…

I have read them.

Please offer something substantive or go elsewhere.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

*although I don’t expect you will…

Out and about for a while…I’ll check back later.

Cheerio.

[Doctor Steuss]

Of course you are free to think and believe that, but I think there is enough evidence to consider a different alternative. That the Book of Mormon is a special case.

Just wondering…have you read all the way through the Hales essay I’ve linked to a couple of times now?

Regards,
MG

No.

I was a subscriber to the Review for years. I still have binders of the pre-three-hole-punched "occasional papers" FARMS would put out. I partially wrote/edited quite a few FAIR wiki articles that you have ironically shared over the years.

I've read the primary sources. I don't have much interest at this point in my life devoting my time and energy to reading new articles by people with a history of lazy apologetics based on hand-waving, and selective ignorance of sources. If Hales had demonstrated himself at some point as a serious thinker, and historian, I might be tempted.

I still read things by people like Kevin Barney, Ben McGuire, and Don Bradley though (when my own declining cognitive abilities allow). While I disagree with them often (particularly when it comes to matters of faith), they've repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be pursuers of truth, rather than people who start with the conclusion and slice-and-dice the data to agree.

If I wanted to experience yet another Halesian testimony with footnotes, I'd just borrow my parents' Ensign.

That's one of the grand ironies that always makes me chuckle in these exchanges, when you gish-gallop apologetic materials. Not only have many of us already read the apologetics, and the primary sources in their original form, but some on this board have actually played a role in developing those very apologetics that you think are unassailable.

[Marcus]

This is just a variation on your posting of resources you haven't read…

I have read them.

you inappropriately truncated my post to leave out the actual point i was making:

I have posted two A.I. generated quotes and given attribution to them. First time I’ve ever done that. The marvels of A.I. when you’re not an expert on a particular question or subject...

This is just a variation on your posting of resources you haven't read, and trying to make 'reading' assignments. As it stands, one of them at best contradicts the other, and at worst just states the obvious without making an argument. I would be interested in your opinion of how your two A.I. generated quotes answer any of the relevant questions, or address the issues brought up.

The issue is your posting of A.I. generated quotes and whether you understand them. This is not the first time by any means your use of quotes does nothing more than betray your lack of knowledge in the face of your insistence otherwise, or even an interested opinion.

Do you understand how your second A.I. quote undermined the point you were apparently trying to make with your first A.I. quote?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes, the fact that chunks of lightly reworked KJV Isaiah are stuffed in there is a pretty clear indication that the book is not ancient.

Royal Skousen, a professor of linguistics and religion at Brigham Young University, has written extensively about the Book of Mormon and its relationship to the Bible. In his book Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: A Linguistic and Historical Approach, Skousen argues that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies.

Skousen provides several pieces of evidence to support his claim. First, he notes that the Book of Mormon authors often use the same words and phrases as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon uses the phrase "the Lamb of God" to refer to Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah does. Second, Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon authors often follow the same literary structure as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon and Isaiah both use a chiastic structure, which is a type of literary pattern that involves repeating words and phrases in reverse order.

Skousen's work has been influential among Mormon scholars, and many now accept his view that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies. * YEAH, NO SHIIT LOL - Doc

In addition to his linguistic analysis, Skousen also provides a historical overview of the Book of Mormon's use of Isaiah. He argues that the Book of Mormon authors were likely familiar with the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was widely used in the ancient world. Skousen also suggests that the Book of Mormon authors may have been influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature, which also made use of Isaiah's prophecies.

Reference: Bard A.I.

Regards,
MG

Lol. Do you even read the nonsense you post? Lol, game over you dumb Mormon yokel.

- Doc

[Morley]

That's one of the grand ironies that always makes me chuckle in these exchanges, when you gish-gallop apologetic materials. Not only have many of us already read the apologetics, and the primary sources in their original form, but some on this board have actually played a role in developing those very apologetics that you think are unassailable.

Well said.

[Marcus]

Of course you are free to think and believe that, but I think there is enough evidence to consider a different alternative. That the Book of Mormon is a special case.

Just wondering…have you read all the way through the Hales essay I’ve linked to a couple of times now?

Regards,
MG

No.

I was a subscriber to the Review for years. I still have binders of the pre-three-hole-punched "occasional papers" FARMS would put out. I partially wrote/edited quite a few FAIR wiki articles that you have ironically shared over the years.

I've read the primary sources. I don't have much interest at this point in my life devoting my time and energy to reading new articles by people with a history of lazy apologetics based on hand-waving, and selective ignorance of sources. If Hales had demonstrated himself at some point as a serious thinker, and historian, I might be tempted.

I still read things by people like Kevin Barney, Ben McGuire, and Don Bradley though (when my own declining cognitive abilities allow). While I disagree with them often (particularly when it comes to matters of faith), they've repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be pursuers of truth, rather than people who start with the conclusion and slice-and-dice the data to agree.

If I wanted to experience yet another Halesian testimony with footnotes, I'd just borrow my parents' Ensign.

That's one of the grand ironies that always makes me chuckle in these exchanges, when you gish-gallop apologetic materials. Not only have many of us already read the apologetics, and the primary sources in their original form, but some on this board have actually played a role in developing those very apologetics that you think are unassailable.

Wow, that's some fascinating history, Dr. Steuss. I came late to the apologetics viewing party, as it were. Even though I left the LDS church in the late 80's, I didn't return to the post Mormon scene for more than 25 years.

So, as I piece together the people who were involved in apologetics and post-apologetics, if I can call it that, I am continually impressed at the incredible effort put forward by so many. Anytime you want to share more, please do.

Thank you, again, for your efforts. You are a hero!!!