Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive…[snip]

At times, I do call it as I see it. Passive aggressive? I don’t think so.

Interestingly, I don’t find myself trying to label others with psychobabble stuff. I’m more interested in the arguments and opinions...

Bull. You clipped out of Morley's post his explanation of exactly how you do label others. And now you're pretending you don't do it even though everyone on this thread, including you, knows what you clipped. No one is so stupid as to do that unknowingly, but it's exactly the same passive-aggressive pretentiousness you've always engaged in. Trolls do exactly that kind of stuff on purpose with no intent but to disrupt.

[Marcus]

I think they can.

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event. And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

If, during the translation process for the Book of Mormon, God himself inserted those 17th mistakes for his own purposes, statement 1. would still be false.

It is impossible for statement 1 and statement 2 to be both true.

Yes, it is.

[I Have Questions]

I think they can.

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event. And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

If, during the translation process for the Book of Mormon, God himself inserted those 17th mistakes for his own purposes, statement 1. would still be false.

It is impossible for statement 1 and statement 2 to be both true.

There’s other evidence against statement 1.

The Book of Mormon quotes, verbatim, huge parts of Isaiah. The issue with that, is that a chunk of Isaiah was written after the end of the 1st century. So its presence in The Book of Mormon is yet another smoking gun.

Deutero-Isaiah, or "the Book of Consolation",[6] (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Of course Smith would not know that the passages from the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising would act as proof that The Book of Mormon was not what he would claim it to be - a record 100% written by ancient prophets prior to the end of the 1st century.

So my statements now read:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century, and also large sections of Isaiah in the KJV Bible that would not be written for hundreds and hundreds of years after the end of the 1st century.

Statements 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
One of them is untrue.

[MG 2.0]

At times, I do call it as I see it. Passive aggressive? I don’t think so.

Interestingly, I don’t find myself trying to label others with psychobabble stuff. I’m more interested in the arguments and opinions...

Bull. You clipped out of Morley's post his explanation of exactly how you do label others. And now you're pretending you don't do it even though everyone on this thread, including you, knows what you clipped. No one is so stupid as to do that unknowingly, but it's exactly the same passive-aggressive pretentiousness you've always engaged in. Trolls do exactly that kind of stuff on purpose with no intent but to disrupt.

Marcus, have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event. And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

If, during the translation process for the Book of Mormon, God himself inserted those 17th mistakes for his own purposes, statement 1. would still be false.

It is impossible for statement 1 and statement 2 to be both true.

There’s other evidence against statement 1.

The Book of Mormon quotes, verbatim, huge parts of Isaiah. The issue with that, is that a chunk of Isaiah was written after the end of the 1st century. So its presence in The Book of Mormon is yet another smoking gun.

Deutero-Isaiah, or "the Book of Consolation",[6] (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Of course Smith would not know that the passages from the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising would act as proof that The Book of Mormon was not what he would claim it to be - a record 100% written by ancient prophets prior to the end of the 1st century.

So my statements now read:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century, and also large sections of Isaiah in the KJV Bible that would not be written for hundreds and hundreds of years after the end of the 1st century.

Statements 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
One of them is untrue.

If I recall correctly, one argument is that god told both Book of Mormon authors and all the people compiling Isiah the exact same things, but of course that requires god to determine in advance what and how he will make biblical writers produce, creating an ever convoluting excuse for mopologists to get stuck in.

[I Have Questions]

There’s other evidence against statement 1.

The Book of Mormon quotes, verbatim, huge parts of Isaiah. The issue with that, is that a chunk of Isaiah was written after the end of the 1st century. So its presence in The Book of Mormon is yet another smoking gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Of course Smith would not know that the passages from the KJV Bible that he was plagiarising would act as proof that The Book of Mormon was not what he would claim it to be - a record 100% written by ancient prophets prior to the end of the 1st century.

So my statements now read:
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century, and also large sections of Isaiah in the KJV Bible that would not be written for hundreds and hundreds of years after the end of the 1st century.

Statements 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
One of them is untrue.

If I recall correctly, one argument is that god told both Book of Mormon authors and all the people compiling Isiah the exact same things, but of course that requires god to determine in advance what and how he will make biblical writers produce, creating an ever convoluting excuse for mopologists to get stuck in.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it’s the best defence that can be mounted.

However, it doesn’t account for those errors that people made in the 17th century appearing verbatim in a book supposedly written 1,348 years earlier. That sinks The Book of Mormon below the water line.

[MG 2.0]

I think they can.

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

That is true.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event.

OK

And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

The Book of Mormon text isn’t a one for one translation. Go back and read what I’ve already written.

If, during the translation process for the Book of Mormon, God himself inserted those 17th mistakes for his own purposes, statement 1. would still be false.

No. Not if the Book of Mormon is not a one to one translation of the plates. Remember, the plates were written in Reformed Egyptian. Very little likelihood that there is an exact character to word translation. There’s more going on there.

It is impossible for statement 1 and statement 2 to be both true.

I don’t think so. It depends on how you go about looking at the actual translation process. Of which we know very little. That the Bible, even the New Testament, appears in the Book of Mormon isn’t something that we ought to get all tied up about.

Stylometry, on the other hand, seems to give a strong indication that the prophets in the Book of Mormon spoke in their own voice. Which, if you look at the studies, would have been no small feat.

They didn’t speak in Joseph’s voice.

What a ‘miracle’ would it have been for the young Joseph to pull it off (and we’re not even talking about Chiasmus). And if you’ve read the linked studies I’ve referred you to…almost an impossible feat.

In my opinion, as I’ve already said, I believe you are not looking at alternatives. Your mind is set.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

However, it doesn’t account for those errors that people made in the 17th century appearing verbatim in a book supposedly written 1,348 years earlier. That sinks The Book of Mormon below the water line.

You are, again, going on the assumption that there is literally a one to one correlation between what was on the plates and what we have as the actual text of the Book of Mormon.

Please go back and read for comprehension what I’ve written earlier.

Your view is narrow and restricted.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

No. it’s an impossibility.

If I write something unique today in 2024, it cannot appear in a record that has already been written 1,348 earlier. It has to be an ‘after-the-event’ interjection.

That is true.

In terms of the KJV Bible mistakes - somebody put them into The Book of Mormon after the event.

OK

And so statement 1. is false. It’s inescapable, no matter how much magic went into inserting those 17th Century mistakes in a record that it is claimed was written and sealed up before the end of the 1st Century.

The Book of Mormon text isn’t a one for one translation.

That’s a fairly ambiguous thing to say. It’s like you’re trying to say that The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

[MG 2.0]

The Book of Mormon text isn’t a one for one translation.

That’s a fairly ambiguous thing to say. It’s like you’re trying to say that The Book of Mormon wasn’t solely written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the first century and contains some things written much later. Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.The plates contained the writings of prophets on plates. Then compiled by Mormon. In Reformed Egyptian. There would already be a lot of ‘transference’ going on in that process. We then have plates delivered to Joseph. After a bit of hit and miss trying to figure things out he comes ‘online’… figuratively/literally…and begins the actual translation process.

What does translation mean in this instance?

That, dear Watson, is the million dollar question. The other day I supplanted/added another word along side of the word translation.

Remember what that word was? It wasn’t an accident.

Regards,
MG