tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post9061938369101593524..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Did Joseph Smith Blunder with an Impossible Quote from Malachi Before He Was Born?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6942833261899180072016-11-04T01:51:00.564-05:002016-11-04T01:51:00.564-05:00Mr Margaritas: Nephi didn't say he was quoting...Mr Margaritas: Nephi didn't say he was quoting Malachi. God was quoting himself as also per Mr. Dorrity above. You will find any revealed doctrine will say the same things because revelation on end of days will be the same information - all due respect!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23367459124711285872016-07-12T02:33:38.921-05:002016-07-12T02:33:38.921-05:00The Bible plagiarizing itself is NOT an anachronis...The Bible plagiarizing itself is NOT an anachronistic. We fully expect the gospel writers to quote and borrow language from the Old Testament but we don't expect Nephi to. He left Jerusalem hundreds of years before Malachi. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01278187410206155634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61879856183104885702016-07-12T02:32:02.607-05:002016-07-12T02:32:02.607-05:00The Bible plagiarizing itself is NOT an anachronis...The Bible plagiarizing itself is NOT an anachronistic. We fully expect the gospel writers to quote and borrow language from the Old Testament but we don't expect Nephi to. He left Jerusalem hundreds of years before Malachi. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01278187410206155634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71853867146677372292013-06-25T06:45:48.538-05:002013-06-25T06:45:48.538-05:00When two writers of scriptural use the same words,...When two writers of scriptural use the same words, is it plagiarism?<br />When God uses the same words with different prophets, is it plagiarism? Is 2 Nephi 12:2-4 a plagiarism of Isaiah 2:2-4? If so then we must agree that Micah 4:1-3 is also an example of plagiarism. <br /><br />There are many examples of where the Bible “plagiarizes” itself. <br />2 Kings 18-20 - Isaiah 36-39<br />Matthew 10:35-36 - Micah 7:6<br />Matthew 13:13 - Isaiah 6:9-10<br />Mark 4:12 - Isaiah 6:9-10<br />Luke 19:40 - Habakkuk 2:11<br />Acts 13:41 - Habakkuk 1:5<br />1 Corinthians 4:13 - Lamentations 3:45<br />Hebrews 3:7-11 - Psalms 95:7-11<br />Hebrews 8:8-12 - Jeremiah 31:31-34<br />James 2:9 - Proverbs 28:21<br />1 Peter 3:10-12 - Psalms 34:12-16<br />Revelation 1:15 - Ezekiel 43:2<br /><br />If the Book of Mormon plagiarizes, then, as shown, the Bible is equally guilty. I just do not believe that it is plagiarism when two Scriptural writers use the same words. God does not plagiarize when he merely quotes himself.Dennis O Dorrityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17658330526886752243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68114066373226911162013-06-16T07:00:52.185-05:002013-06-16T07:00:52.185-05:00How do you explain the quote from Acts 3?How do you explain the quote from Acts 3?kennethjackson08https://www.blogger.com/profile/15411044403008748683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89252105542076366602013-06-14T21:03:21.212-05:002013-06-14T21:03:21.212-05:00@Roger,
I'm a pretty careful reader, but I do...@Roger,<br /><br />I'm a pretty careful reader, but I don't agree with your "many errors" statement. I'm familiar with Royal Skousen's work, which is quite interesting, but "many errors"? Enlighten us.<br /><br />(BTW, I brought up the KJV translators simply to illustrate how narrow-minded and arrogant a lot of people are when evaluating God's work. There are a ridiculous number of possibilities for most things, and that's by using just the human intellect that doesn't understand anything at all in comparison with God's understanding. In other words, if I came to some kind of intellectual conclusion about the state of things with no contribution by the Holy Spirit, I'm probably wrong. Human beings are good at repenting and forgiving, but not so good at understanding.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23291436174984301922013-06-14T10:26:20.071-05:002013-06-14T10:26:20.071-05:00I can guarantee that neither the King James transl...I can guarantee that neither the King James translators nor Tyndale translated the Book of Mormon. There are too many pronoun and verb conjugation errors than these careful scholars would have committed. It is more likely that Moroni learned English (we know he did) and that he was the source of the English text. Whoever translated the BofM was not completely conversant with King James English. More on this in an upcoming article.Roger Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67276944640178374202013-06-13T13:59:07.240-05:002013-06-13T13:59:07.240-05:00Anon,
Never even thought of that. Maybe Tyndale w...Anon,<br /><br />Never even thought of that. Maybe Tyndale was one of the angels who helped Joseph with the translation.cadamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27530842098782275792013-06-12T21:43:17.684-05:002013-06-12T21:43:17.684-05:00One rule of thumb for explaining such things is to...One rule of thumb for explaining such things is to first eliminate magic. The words Joseph saw didn't appear by magic. They were most likely translated by someone familiar with both languages and given to Joseph Smith. Hey, what about the original King James translators? They most likely ended up in Paradise with nothing to do - maybe they learned Reformed Egyptian and did the translation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79297228774260598422013-06-12T06:32:39.903-05:002013-06-12T06:32:39.903-05:00I agree with cadams in principle. I love the idea ...I agree with cadams in principle. I love the idea that Joseph may have been familiar enough with the Bible that he could use that language to express truths that the Book of Mormon prophets were teaching. So what if the language is similar? It's beautiful. And if you study the subtle differences, sometimes additional light is made known. All-in-all, the translation process is a beautiful one and one that I love to learn more about. Thanks for posting this topic!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87087688137875695702013-06-11T20:24:31.705-05:002013-06-11T20:24:31.705-05:00This is where I sometimes disagree with both criti...This is where I sometimes disagree with both critics and apologists. An assumption is made that our text of the Book of Mormon is a verbatim transcript of an ancient record. Did Joseph even look at the golden plates when doing his "translation"? I understand that the historical record indicates that he used both a Urim and Thummim and a seer stone when dictating to one of his scribes. He would apparently look into a hat (to ensure darkness) until a light appeared, in which was the original language with its English equivalent; and this remained until it was written down. As a believer, I think angels were present to inspired Joseph. I'm more concerned with what they say now more than what may or may not have been in the plates. You say there are anachronisms? Maybe so. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. What the angels said to Joseph in the late 1820s is more important than what said then. Likewise, if they thought a passage from the Book of Mormon, but borrowed from the King James Bible, was adequate and to the point, even if it may not have derived from an ancient biblical document, so what? cadamsnoreply@blogger.com