Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth) - Page 16

DeepShadow · #**151** 09-28-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melissa G

You keep on shooting yourself in the foot, but I really am done with this thread...all supposition and no substance.

~M

What kind of substance are you looking for? You stated that there was no linguistic evidence, which is demonstrably false--i.e. how did Joseph Smith know how to build a 112 page megachiasm? While that does not explain the ship issue, it's how William Albright--a preeminent NON-MORMON scholar of paleolinguisitcs--would validate a text. He'd look at the poetic structures, naming systems, etc. And his stuff stood up to peer review.

DeepShadow · #**152** 09-28-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I ain't scared of anybody lol...

~M~

Really? Can we start an official debate, then?

DeepShadow · #**153** 09-28-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

If DS can't find someone to debate, why do you think you'd be able to? Do you figure they're all just afraid of DS (not that I'd blame them)?

You think people are afraid of me? Cute, little, fuzzy, ambassador award, me?! Gee, that's kinda sad.

I mean, I know I can get kinda rough with some people, but I try to reserve that for people who are dishing it out, so I know they can take it. I hope.

You really think people are afraid of me?!

SoyLeche · #**154** 09-28-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

You think people are afraid of me? Cute, little, fuzzy, ambassador award, me?! Gee, that's kinda sad.

I mean, I know I can get kinda rough with some people, but I try to reserve that for people who are dishing it out, so I know they can take it. I hope.

You really think people are afraid of me?!

I think they are afraid that you know what you are talking about and they are mostly ignorant of the topic.

If they did want to have a good debate, though, I would say that you are the best person for our team

9-10ths_Penguin · #**155** 09-28-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

What kind of substance are you looking for? You stated that there was no linguistic evidence, which is demonstrably false--i.e. how did Joseph Smith know how to build a 112 page megachiasm? While that does not explain the ship issue, it's how William Albright--a preeminent NON-MORMON scholar of paleolinguisitcs--would validate a text. He'd look at the poetic structures, naming systems, etc. And his stuff stood up to peer review.

Chiastic structure is used several times in the Bible. If a person were to set out to write a book similar to the Bible, I assume they'd use the Bible as a guide.

SoyLeche · #**156** 09-28-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Chiastic structure is used several times in the Bible. If a person were to set out to write a book similar to the Bible, I assume they'd use the Bible as a guide.

And luckily end up with a complex structure that nobody at the time knew about.

Word choice I can give you from that argument - complex structure, not so much.

9-10ths_Penguin · #**157** 09-28-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

And luckily end up with a complex structure that nobody at the time knew about.

Word choice I can give you from that argument - complex structure, not so much.

What? When do you think chiasmic structure was "discovered", then? It was heavily used in Latin poetry, so I think it was known just a bit before Smith.

But to go with your argument for a moment, if chiasmatic structure implies divine inspiration (as long as the work in question was written while "nobody at the time knew about" the chiasmatic form... which occurred some time between John Smith putting the Book of Mormon to paper and present day, apparently), then we can assume that Shakespeare (and according to Wikipedia, Seneca, Cicero and Pliny the Younger as well) was similarily inspired by the divine, and that his works are on par with the Book of Mormon, correct?

SoyLeche · #**158** 09-28-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

What? When do you think chiasmic structure was "discovered", then? It was heavily used in Latin poetry, so I think it was known just a bit before Smith.

But to go with your argument for a moment, if chiasmatic structure implies divine inspiration (as long as the work in question was written while "nobody at the time knew about" the chiasmatic form... which occurred some time between John Smith putting the Book of Mormon to paper and present day, apparently), then we can assume that Shakespeare (and according to Wikipedia, Seneca, Cicero and Pliny the Younger as well) was similarily inspired by the divine, and that his works are on par with the Book of Mormon, correct?

Nobody at the time knew that it existed in the Bible. The point isn't that it was "inspired", but that it isn't "modern". And we aren't talking about chaiastic couplets. We're talking about chaiasms that span multiple chapters.