Word Usage in the Book of Mormon

[zil2]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

ALL prophets have testified of Jesus.  And all prophets before Christ have prophesied of His coming.

If so, where are the other writings from Old Testament prophets?  Many have been found in the Apocrypha.  Some still no record.  

It may be worth looking at the Apocryphal prophecies that testify of the coming of Christ.

Personally, I think ancient scribes did some serious redacting to remove anything that overtly mentioned the Son of God.  Mention of the Messiah was OK, but not the idea that God would have a Son.  (I have no scholarly evidence of this, but either something like that happened, or the Book of Mormon prophets were incorrect when they said all prophets have testified of Christ.)

Further, I think that whenever you, or I, or anyone testifies of truth concerning Christ, we are speaking with the spirit of prophecy.

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

WOW!  If that really is the meaning here, then this is really meaningful for apologists.  

If the critics are correct, then a farmboy with little education knew about this historic practice.  And also had the presence of mind to realize that it was due to a corrupt governmental system which the Nephites (a culture that he just "made up") didn't have (that we know of).

So, he omitted it without knowing this interpretation and made it fit culturally with this "made up history and political structure"?

I just did a search of various modern interpretations of daily bread and included "bread and circuses" with the search.  I couldn't find one reference that says this.  You're the only one!

One has to ask where the origin of the term "daily bread" came from if not from that practice. 

It's not like it's an obscure term, either; I've seen secular entertainment media make reference to the term "daily bread", such as an episode of M*A*S*H where Father Mulcahy laments that the "daily bread is stale again". 

[mordorbund]

8 hours ago, zil2 said:

Personally, I think ancient scribes did some serious redacting to remove anything that overtly mentioned the Son of God.  Mention of the Messiah was OK, but not the idea that God would have a Son.  (I have no scholarly evidence of this, but either something like that happened, or the Book of Mormon prophets were incorrect when they said all prophets have testified of Christ.)

 

Margaret Barker  says this and other changes took place with the deuteronomist reforms under King Josiah. She has since been introduced to The Book of Mormon and she framed Lehi as a sort of retrenchment prophet against the redacted changes. She highlights a love of books based on prophets suddenly out of favor (“The Deuteronomists wrote the history of the kings in Jerusalem, compiling it from sources about ancient kings and heroes… [as opposed to] lost sources … [which] were all prophets—Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer“), loss of plain and precious things (“The people of the Apocalypse of Weeks, however, considered that the people who rebuilt Jerusalem were apostates and they rewrote the histories”), a focus on the tree of life as a symbol of the mother of God (“in the time of Josiah, her tree, the Asherah, the Menorah, was finally removed from the temple … Why such hatred? Hostility to Wisdom was a hallmark of the Deuteronomists and due to their influence the Mother and her tree have been almost forgotten. Her son was the Lord.”), etc.

Related to your post:

Quote

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh the Lord was the son of God Most high, present on earth in the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah, and so, finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, but something obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the restoration of the “plain and precious things” which have been taken away.

 

[Carborendum]

I've done some more research and conversations with several people about various aspects of the Tree of Life vision.  Here are some interesting discoveries.

• One man told me that we need to look at it from Nephi's perspective.  What rivers would he be looking at?
• Another pointed out that "fountain" in ancient Hebrew can also mean the "mouth of the river."

Nephi's perspective was a big point of interest.  The "fountain" = "mouth" didn't make sense to me.  But I researched it a bit.

Fountains are not the "source" of water.  They are a point at which a delivery system deposits water at a location for use.

In the river analogy, the spring will deposit the water into the pond or lake at the beginning of the river.  It will also deposit the water at the mouth of the river into a lake, sea, or ocean.  Hence, a fountain can be both the spring and the mouth of the river.

The model we look at is the River Jordan.  It has an origin (fountain); it flows to the Sea of Galilee (fountain); it flows out of the Sea of Galilee; the next length of the River Jordan flows further down; it ends (fountain) at the Dead Sea.

The analogy, the imagery, the geography of the Tree of Life Vision then becomes clear.

The Sea of Galilee provides life to the otherwise lifeless desert landscape.  Two rivers, but really one river separated by a giant fresh water lake that provides great quantities of food for the entire region.  As it leaves Galilee, it comes closer to the polluted waters of the Dead Sea which is in the lower plains.  Historically, this was the site of the "Cities of the Plains".  The two most famous were Sodom and Gomorrah.  That sounds like a pretty apt location for the Great and Spacious Building.

Based on the descriptions/locations, one city stands out as the a likely analogous location for Lehi's family to be standing as he beckons for them:  Nazareth.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 9/19/2024 at 8:40 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Doesn’t Royal Skousen argue that the BoM English is closest to 15th-16th century?  I seem to recall him speculating that perhaps Tyndale or some of the King James translators, in the spirit world, had a role in generating the English text; which was then passed on to Joseph Smith.

Ok, I've listened to Skousen's take on the dating of the language of the Bom.  I'm afraid I can't properly comment on it since he's specifically talking about the 1st edition BoM. I've never actually read the 1st edition.  I'll have to look that up and give a report later.

[Carborendum]

Quote

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father...

I've been pondering this for a while, and I believe I found something tying in this introduction to a pattern of Hebrew language.

The punctuation and wording should be different in English.  But there is a reason it is not.   I realize this may be very presumptuous of me.  I think I'm right about it.

The Jews of Nephi's time would never say "I am" referring to themselves.  That was the name of God (indicating the eternally existing one).  If one wanted to say "I am..." they would omit the "am".  Thus, instead of saying "I am Nephi" they would say "I Nephi."

So, consider the subtle difference with the following punctuation:

Quote

I am Nephi.  I was born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father.

Notice that even the past tense of "to be" was also omitted when using the first person.

Quote

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

 Gen 3:10

• There is no "was" in afraid.  That's just the common wording in English.  It would be more properly translated today as "I feared."
• There is no "was" in "I was naked."  That's how you'd make it comprehensible in English.  But in the Hebrew, this verb is a single word meaning "to be naked".  But to translate literally into English would be more like "I nakeded."  Yeah, that doesn't make sense.  So, it is "I was naked."

In that vein, I believe there is something strange about the past perfect "having been born."  it doesn't make sense in English.  Grammar, yes.  But sentence structure, no.  I believe it sounds perfectly good in Hebrew.  My English rendering is more grammatically correct, but the style is a bit off.  There is some sort of Hebraism going on to write it like this.

It is literally "born of goodly parents."  But it uses a convention rarely used in English of omitting the pronoun, using only the verb.  An example from English:

"I am not!"

"Are too!"

"Am not!"

The wording has bothered me for years.  The grammar and punctuation in Nephi's opening lines is really bad -- in English.  But if you think in Hebrew, it makes all the sense in the world.  There really is no proper way to punctuate it.  I don't think you could actually say this properly in English.  But it's fine in Hebrew.

Nephi was really well educated.  But Joseph Smith was not.  Another reason to believe that it was just made up by an ignorant farm boy who didn't know what he was doing?  No.  It is a great reason to recognize that this was a translated text.

Edited January 7 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been pondering this for a while, and I believe I found something tying in this introduction to a pattern of Hebrew language.

The punctuation and wording should be different in English.  But there is a reason it is not.   I realize this may be very presumptuous of me.  I think I'm right about it.

The Jews of Nephi's time would never say "I am" referring to themselves.  That was the name of God (indicating the eternally existing one).  If one wanted to say "I am..." they would omit the "am".  Thus, instead of saying "I am Nephi" they would say "I Nephi."

......

Quote

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father...

I have a different take on the opening of Nephi’s record.  The Family of Lehi was well versed in Egyptian methods.  The Book of Mormon was written not in Hebrew but in reformed Egyptian.  It was also written before the Rosetta Stone had unlocked the understanding of ancient Egyptian language (written and spoken) and culture.  I would assert that Nephi’s introduction is not according to Hebrew literary structures but is a classic Egyptian Colophon widely used by the well educated in the Middle East at the time of Lehi.

Let’s look at Nephi’s Colophon:

One: His name

Two: The merits of his parents, with special attention to the learning of his father.

Three: A solemn avowal (similar to Nasim’s curse) that the record is true, and the assertion, “I make it with mine own hand” (1Nephi 1:3) This is an indispensable condition of every true colophon, since the purpose of a colophon is to establish the identity of the person who wrote it down (not the identity of the ultimate author).

I would also submit that there are many Egyptian literary forms sprinkled throughout the Book of Mormon along Egyptian names.  And yet there are also many Hebrew literary forms also included in the Book of Mormon.  In essence the Book of Mormon is a look back into the historical time of the Middle East, unparalleled by even current modern standards that where not known at the time of Joseph Smith.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

On 12/31/2024 at 9:02 AM, Traveler said:

Let’s look at Nephi’s Colophon:

I was introduced to this idea of Nephi's "colophon" two or three decades ago. Made sense to me then, and makes sense to me now.

[zil2]

OK, it only took me four pages, but I have confirmed, the word usage doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon.  Not even once.  Hardly seems worth four pages...

[Vort]

5 hours ago, zil2 said:

OK, it only took me four pages, but I have confirmed, the word usage doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon.  Not even once.  Hardly seems worth four pages...

The joy is not in the answer. The joy is in the discussion. Relish the journey.

[Carborendum]

On 9/19/2024 at 8:40 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Doesn’t Royal Skousen argue that the BoM English is closest to 15th-16th century?  I seem to recall him speculating that perhaps Tyndale or some of the King James translators, in the spirit world, had a role in generating the English text; which was then passed on to Joseph Smith.

I took a look at the first edition of the BoM.  And I didn't see anything blatantly different about the vernacular.  So, I think there was just a bit of confusion.

Skousen says from the 1530s to 1730s.  That is a HUGE range.  The English language went through several versions (from Early modern through Elizabethan) during that era.  Those differences are clearly exemplified by the Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and KJV respectively.

Gen 3:20

Quote

And Ada called his wyfe Heua because she was the mother of all that lyveth

 -- Tyndale

Quote

And Adam called his wyfe Heua, because she is the mother of all lyuynge.

  -- Coverdale

Quote

 (And the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living)

 -- Geneva

Quote

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 -- KJV

The Book of Mormon clearly follows the KJV (Elizabethan) more than the older versions as far as the dialect and spelling used.

[Carborendum]

Sorry, I didn't come back to this when I saw it earlier.  I was rushed.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

in John’s vision the whore of Babylon sits on many waters, so the waters filthiness makes sense. Nephi also shares how the record of the Jews was pure when it came out of the mouth of the Jew but later was corrupted. This suggests a river that started clean but turned filthy.

Yes, this is how I see it now.  Based on the River Jordan analogy with the Sea of Galilee (fountain 1) and the Dead sea (fountain 2) this makes perfect sense.  Closer to the headwaters, the cleaner it is.  Closer to the Dead Sea, the more filthy.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

For the salvation narrative, there is a gulf dividing the righteous and the wicked. The depths of the filthy river are the depths of hell.

That fits with the "Dead Sea" (death/grave/hell...)

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

Perhaps this suggests that the first step of rebellion is indeed a step to hell (in contrast to being lost from wandering in strange roads).

It appears that the location on the map of Israel would be Nazareth.  Laman and Lemuel went down stream.  The rest of the family went upstream.  Downstream of the Sea of Galilee is those same roads where the Good Samaritan had to rescue the "certain man" traveling to Jericho (near the Dead Sea).

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

In the life of Christ (oh yeah, he also see the life of Christ. This can be part of the panorama or part of the salvation narrative or its own category — make of it what you will).

Certainly, the Good Samaritan supports this.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

In the life of Christ water shows up again in the condescension of God: Jesus is baptized. Presumably his followers are baptized as they take the path to fall down at his feet and worship (tree imagery). Again, I am of the opinion that Nephi explicitly ties the action of Christ to the action of his followers in his sermon on baptism. For this the water would need to be clean.

I've often wondered about those who partake of the fruit, but then fall away.  Baptism may very well be fountain 1.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

The scattering/gathering I think has more to do with an olive tree and since this image and the explanation got cut Nephi (Lehi included it briefly in his explanation), and since I’m not seeing a water connection I’ll skip it here. Unless it’s also part of Nephi’s family story, in which case…

I'll address this later.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

In Nephi’s family story he sees that the Old World and the New World are separated by water and it gets traversed. I don’t see how filthiness or purity is involved in this, or how/when the river was crossed in the dream. I mention it because of the water connection.

I tend to see this as a microcosm/macrocosm model.

On 9/27/2024 at 10:20 PM, mordorbund said:

From this I gather there is pure water, and there is filthy water. The apostasy motif has me thinking there is a river that becomes corrupted, but I could entertain the idea that there is a second river (flash flood!?!) that is only filthy.

I don't know about this.

But about the Olive Tree... see the next post.

Edited January 13 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

To get into the Olive Tree motif, please look at the following video: Then read my comments in the next post.

Edited January 11 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

I had wondered about the different parts of the Olive Tree mentioned in Jacob 5.

Quote

• main top
• main branches
• young and tender branches
• roots
• fruit
• natural branches

I believe I understand them now.

[Carborendum]

On 12/31/2024 at 11:02 AM, Traveler said:

One: His name

I am Nephi

On 12/31/2024 at 11:02 AM, Traveler said:

Two: The merits of his parents, with special attention to the learning of his father.

I was born of goodly parents.  The definition of "goodly" which I believe to be most applicable is "of good reputation."

I find it interesting that the current wording requires some forcing to fit it into these two points.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I am Nephi

I was born of goodly parents.  The definition of "goodly" which I believe to be most applicable is "of good reputation."

I find it interesting that the current wording requires some forcing to fit it into these two points.

I do not understand your point – if something fits why do you imply it had to be forced in order to fit?  I pointed this out because I believe it is an example of an Egyptian literary format.  There are hundreds of Egyptian influences in the texts of the Book of Mormon – all of which were not known in our modern era when Joseph Smith Jr. provided a translation of the plates.  There are also ancient Hebrew literary formats that were unrecognized at that time.

If you have researched the classic Egyptian Colophon and you think there is not a good fit – would you please state, why?  I would be interested in how you arrived at such a conclusion.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I do not understand your point

Only what the Spirit reveals to you.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

if something fits why do you imply it had to be forced in order to fit? 

I believe you need to read my post more carefully.  I did not say what you think I said.

Edited January 14 by Carborendum