Issues Concerning the Contents of the Book of Mormon
1769 KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon
17th Century Italics
Different Translations
Reformed Egyptian
Hebraic Poetry Explained
View of the Hebrews
The First Book of Napoleon
1769 KJV Translation Errors replicated in the Book of Mormon
How is it possible that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon if it contains Translational errors that are unique to the 1769 KJV of the Bible?
Well... this is actually an invalid premise from the start:
- If there are translational errors in the KJV that also occur in the Book of Mormon - are they errors in the Book of Mormon? Not if perhaps it was translated from a different base Hebrew autograph.
- If the differences actually correct poetic structure and known mistranslations from the Masoretic texts - these are not errors.
- What then of Italicized variants added by the KJV translators? Just because the Book of Mormon has the same words added by the KJV translators does not mean that these are added words from a Book of Mormon translation. Especially not if the Book of Mormon is translated from a different base Hebrew autograph!
This article provides strong if not conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon sections of Isaiah do in fact originate from a seperate Hebrew autograph of Isaiah.
Thus the translational differences.
Thus once understood this supposed problem is actually evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a plagarized book, but rather an additional authentic autograph of the Book of Isaiah separate from any that we have had to date!
2001 - Thesis - The Isaiah Passages in the Book of Mormon
To help you understand this we need to understand what versions of the Bible exist and a comparison between those versions can be helpful.
| The Plates of Brass | 600 BC | 1 Nephi 5.11-13 The five books of Moses, and other prophets - a distinct autograph in Hebrew |
| Isaiah Scroll - St. Marks Scroll | 400 BC | The Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran - a distinct autograph in Hebrew Isaiah Scroll Click on the scroll for English Version |
| Masoretic | 1000 AD | Hebrew Aramaic Text of the 24 books of the Torah translated from Hebrew |
| Septuagint (LXX) | Greek Translation of the Old Testament from Original Hebrew | |
| King James Version | 1611 | Translated from the Septuagint for the New Testament and the Masoretic for the Old Testament |
| Jewish Bible | 1917 | The English Translation of the From Hebrew |
| Book of Mormon | 1830 AD; | Translated from a separte Old Testament autograph (The plates of Brass) - similar to the source of the Masoretic, and Septuagint but unique |
| Inspired Version | 1833 | Not actually a translation but rather a revision with commentary - the Joseph Smith Translation |
Thus in there are three autographs of the book of Isaiah they are: Jewish Hebrew, Qumran Isaiah Scroll, the Brass Plates.
What is the KJV of the Bible - comes from one autograph of that Bible through two translation means:
- The source of the New Testament is the Septuagint - which is a Greek translation of the Jewish Hebrew autograph
- The source of the Old Testament is the Masoretic - which is a Hebrew Aramaic Text translation of the Jewish Hebrew autograph
- Thus the true source of both is the Jewish Hebrew autograph
- The source of the Isaiah sections is the Plates of Brass - a Hebrew autograph
- This document also was written/compiled around 600 B.C.
- The source of the Isaiah sections is the writings of Qumran - a Hebrew autograph
- This document also was written/compiled around 400 B.C.
To consider the Masoretic and thus the Jewish Hebrew Text as the standard and all other texts as deviations from that text is to directly contradict what the Book of Mormon says about itself. This is why some individuals come to a false conclusion about the translation and wording used in this document.
The fact that differing versions of the same text coexisted in Qumran, and that there is no evidence of any attempts at the suppression of divergent manuscripts or of individual variants is evident. Thus, there is no reason to believe that there weren't actually many such texts the Brass Plates being just one of them.
"The evidence emerging from the Qumran scrolls is that there were several concurrent versions of the biblical text" -- Dead Sea Scrolls Collection
In the king James version of Isiah there are occasions where the Masoretic Text was not correct when compared to the original hebrew whereas the Book of Mormon translation when compared to the original Hebrew was!
Out of these cases there are 26 of them where the Book of Mormon although different from the KJV supports the Hebrew version instead. Thus demonstrating that the autograph the Book of Mormon was translated in these cases matched the autograph that the KJV was translated from. Yet the KJV was translated incorrectly - and the Book of Mormon was not. This gives even greater evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation from a Hebrew document rather than from the Masoretic text, or plagarized from the KJV of the Bible.
| Isaiah 9:7 |  |
| Isaiah 9:17 |  |
| Isaiah 10:11 |  |
Remember the Book of Mormon claims to be an authentic autograph of the Book of Isaiah, that doesn't come from the same source documents as the Masoretic text which was the source of the KJV of the Bible. The following examples demonstrate how it correlates with both the Qumran scrolls and the Masoretic texts but does not correlate in all respects to both. This is because it is it's own autograph not from either.
Here are some of the examples where the Book of Mormon verses contain variants that are supported by the Qumran scrolls but not by the Masoretic text.
See Example 2 Nephi 12:11 Isaiah 2:11 Isaiah 2:11 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 13:10 Isaiah 3:10 Isaiah 3:10 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 19:3 Isaiah 9:3 Isaiah 9:3 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 19:9 Isaiah 9:9 Isaiah 9:9 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 23:22 Isaiah 13:22 Isaiah 13:22 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 24:2 Isaiah 14:2 Isaiah 14:2 JSP |
|
See Example 2 Nephi 24:32 Isaiah 14:32 Isaiah 14:32 JSP |
|
See Example 1 Nephi 20:8 Isaiah 48:8 Isaiah 48:8 JSP |
|
See Example 1 Nephi 20:13 Isaiah 48:13 Isaiah 48:13 JSP |
|
There are also many examples where the Book of Mormon verses contain variants that are supported by the Septuagint but not by the Masoretic text.
Thus demonstrating once again that the Book of Mormon is a unique autograph not in direct correlation to either.
17th Century Italics
During the translation of the 17th century KJV of the Bible. The translators added words to make the English translation of the Bible more readable. These words were placed in italics so that the reader would know that they were additions for understanding not part of the actual translation.
How is it possible that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon if it contains italicized words that are not part of the actual original document?
Furthermore, why are these words the exact same words that were used in the Bible that Joseph Smith would have been reading?
Surely this demonstrates that the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient record at all - but rather portions of it are plagiarized from the 17th Century Bible doesn't it?
How the Book of Mormon italics don't come from KJV translations but rather are an example of variants supported by the Masoretic Texts!
In fact the Book of Mormon exhibits characteristics of the Hebrew Language - often lost in translation, and the version of Isaiah within it can be seen as evidence for the Book of Mormon itself!
One such Hebrew Language construct is the poetic forms within the Book of Mormon. Many of these variants vary from the KJV by omitting italicized words or inserting other dissimilar words that change the meaning but restore the poetic form of the original. Thus demonstrating this isn't a translation error - but rather a restoration of what it should have been all along. Thus the idea that these are a form of plagarization is actually just ignorance of the fact that it is a correct translation of a previous version than the Masoretic text i.e. another autograph.See Example 2 Nephi 12:5-6 Isaiah 2:5-6 Isaiah 2:5-6 JSP |
Antithetical parallelism parallel words or phrases which express opposing ideas | |
|
2 Nephi 12:5-6 O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yeah come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways. Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and hearken unto soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. |
KJV Isaiah 2:5-6 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk In the light of the Lord. -- break of parallel pattern there should be 3... For Thou hast forsaken Thy people the house of Jacob ; For they are replenished from the east, And with soothsayers like the Philistines, And they please themselves in the brood of aliens |
JB Isaiah 2:5-6 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. -- break of parallel pattern ther eshould be 3... Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. |
See Example 2 Nephi 12:9 Isaiah 2:9 Isaiah 2:9 JSP |
Epistrophe the repetition of an identical expression at the end ofsuccessive sentences | |
|
2 Nephi 12:9 And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not. |
KJV Isaiah 2:9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. - break of parallel pattern... |
JB Isaiah 2:9 And man boweth down, And man lowereth himself; And Thou canst not bear with them. - break of parallel pattern... |
See Example 2 Nephi 12:16 Isaiah 2:16 Isaiah 2:16 JSP |
||
|
2 Nephi 12:16 Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall; And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all pleasant pictures. |
KJV Isaiah 2:16 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall, And upon all the ships of Tarshish, --Breaks poetic pattern and upon all pleasant pictures. |
JB Isaiah 2:16 And upon every lofty tower, And upon every fortified wall; And upon all the ships of Tarshish, And upon all delightful imagery. |
There are many many others... but I will refrain. The reader themselves can look at the Poetry and see how the Book of Mormon is true to the Hebraic Poetic forms while the KJV of the Bible was not.
See Carol F. Ellertson Analysis of the following Hebraic Poetic Forms many of which are validated via italics:2001 - Thesis
| Isaiah 3:1 | Isaiah 3:18 | Isaiah 5:5 | Isaiah 5:9 | Isaiah 5:28 | Isaiah 7:15 |
| Isaiah 7:18 | Isaiah 9:18 | Isaiah 13:14 polysyndeton the repetition ofmany ands at the beginning ofsuccessive phrases | Isaiah 29:6 Synonymia Synonym synonymica the repetition ofsimilar but not identical phrases | Isaiah 48:1 | Isaiah 48:2 |
| Isaiah 48:5 | Isaiah 48:11 | Isaiah 48:14 | Isaiah 48:15 | Isaiah 48:16 | Isaiah 48:17 |
| Isaiah 49:1 | Isaiah 50:1 | Isaiah 50:9 | Isaiah 54:15 |
seventy eight variants in the Book of Mormonnn Isaiah were found to be supported by M against KJV 52 of these variants are associated with KJVs added words in italics
| Isaiah 3:9 | 2 variants | Isaiah 3:10 | 2 variants | Isaiah 3:11 | 2 variants |
| Isaiah 3:14 | Isaiah 3:15 | Isaiah 3:18 | 3 variants | ||
| Isaiah 3:26 | Isaiah 4:2 | 2 variants | Isaiah 5:18 | ||
| Isaiah 5:21 | Isaiah 5:24 | Isaiah 5:29 | 3 variants | ||
| Isaiah 6:5 | Isaiah 7:1 | Isaiah 7:8 | |||
| Isaiah 7:15 | Isaiah 7:17 | Isaiah 7:20 | |||
| Isaiah 7:22 | Isaiah 7:23 | 2 variants | Isaiah 7:25 | 2 variants | |
| Isaiah 8:12 | Isaiah 9:1 | Isaiah 9:7 | |||
| Isaiah 9:17 | Isaiah 9:21 | Isaiah 10:2 | ... and many others - up to 52 in fact |
For those of you interested here is some additional light reading on the topic of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.
References:
"In his thesis 'The Tradition of Isaiah in The Book of Mormon,' Gary L. Bishop provides a detailed analysis of the way in which the Book of Mormon incorporates passages from the Old Testament book of Isaiah. Bishop demonstrates that the Book of Mormon's use of the Isaiah passages reflects a deep understanding of the cultural and historical context in which the original text was produced, and is consistent with a translation from another original autograph. By highlighting the unique names and terminology found in the Book of Mormon, which are not found in the Bible or other English texts of the time, Bishop further reinforces the argument that the Book of Mormon is not simply a copy or plagiarism of the Bible, but rather a distinct and original work."
Gary L. Bishop - 1974 - Thesis - The Tradition of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon"Wayne Ham's analysis of the Isaiah passages in The Book of Mormon provides compelling evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation from another original autograph. Ham shows that the Book of Mormon contains unique phrasing and wording that differs from the King James Version of the Bible, even when quoting from the same passage in Isaiah. By comparing the Book of Mormon's treatment of the Isaiah passages with other ancient texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, Ham shows that the Book of Mormon's use of these passages reflects a unique and distinct approach to interpretation and application."
Wayne Ham - 1961 - Thesis - A Textual Comparison of the Isaiah Passages in the Book of Mormon with the same Passages in the St. Mark's Isaiah Scroll"In his paper 'The Isaiah Problem in the Book of Mormon,' Sidney B. Sperry provides a detailed analysis of the way in which the Book of Mormon incorporates passages from the Old Testament book of Isaiah. Sperry demonstrates that the Book of Mormon's use of the Isaiah passages reflects a unique and distinct approach to interpretation and application, and is consistent with a translation from another original autograph. By highlighting the Book of Mormon's use of ancient Near Eastern literary forms and techniques, Sperry shows that the Book of Mormon reflects the cultural and linguistic context in which the original text was produced."
Sperry argues that the Book of Mormon's use of the Isaiah passages reflects a deep understanding of the cultural and linguistic context in which the original text was produced. By highlighting the Book of Mormon's unique interpretations and applications of the Isaiah passages, Sperry shows that the Book of Mormon is not simply a copy or plagiarism of the Bible, but rather a distinct and original work.
Sperry demonstrates that the Book of Mormon's use of the Isaiah passages reflects a unique and distinct approach to interpretation and application, and is consistent with a translation from another original autograph. By highlighting the Book of Mormon's use of ancient Near Eastern literary forms and techniques, Sperry shows that the Book of Mormon reflects the cultural and linguistic context in which the original text was produced.
"The Hebrew text underlying the King James Version is followed only in general, and not specifically, and it is apparent that the translator [of the Book of Mormon] had an independent knowledge of the Hebrew language and its idiom" (Sperry, p. 21).
"The Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon are used in a way to fit the purposes and objectives of the book" (Sperry, p. 29).
"There is abundant evidence to show that the Nephites had an extensive knowledge of Hebrew culture, language, and literature" (Sperry, p. 22).
"The Book of Mormon contains much evidence that indicates a familiarity with the idioms and nuances of the Hebrew language" (Sperry, p. 23).
Sidney B. Sperry - 1938 - Thesis - The Isaiah Problem in the Book of MormonMistranslations
While translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery found they held different views on the meaning of a passage in the Bible. They “mutually agreed to settle” the question “by the Urim and [Thummim].” As a result, Joseph received a revelation giving the translation of an account by the ancient disciple John, written on parchment but lost to history. This early experience seeking revelation that expanded the text of a Bible passage was an important precedent. About a year later, during the summer of 1830, Joseph and Oliver received by revelation an account of a vision of Moses not found in the Old Testament. This revelation marked the beginning of Joseph Smith’s efforts to prepare an inspired revision or translation of the Bible. For the next three years, Joseph continued work on his “new translation of the Bible,” considering the project a “branch of [his] calling” as a prophet of God.
Joseph Smith did not employ Hebrew and Greek sources, lexicons, or a knowledge of biblical languages to render a new English text. Rather, he used a copy of the King James Bible as the starting point for his translation, dictating inspired changes and additions to scribes who recorded them first on paper and later as notes in the margins of the Bible itself.
- Joseph Smith Translation
Interestingly during the course of Joseph Smith's revisions there isn't much record of the use of Urim and Thumim or seer stone during this process. Rather it was done via inspiration and study by Joseph Smith himself.
The Book of Mormon also contains sections from the Old Testament within it. You would have thought that if this translation of the Bible was correct - it would also have matched the sections of the Bible in the Book of Mormon right?
What is a translation - and what is a revision?
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon he didn't revise or comment upon it. While translating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God he didn't adjust the translation, but rather translated it as given him by God. As I have shown above this translation from a source older than the Masoretic text was thus different than the revelation provided to him during his restoration and commentary of the inspired version.
For we believe all that God has revealed all that he does now reveal and that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Thus as he provided his inspired version of the Bible - he did so under the power of revelation providing greater light and knowledge and insights than the original authors had.This was not a translation at all - but rather a revision/commentary where he provided information concerning the scripture in quesiton. This is the pattern or revelation that God follows. He provides information to the people at the time, and place where they are ready, and capable of accepting and living it.
That his inspired version/commentary is different than his translation of an ancient record merely demonstrates this fact. There is nothing wrong with this... nothing at all.
This as all others have as well to date failed.
Reformed Egyptian - a strange idea?
Could Moses have even written Hebrew?
"If there was a Moses, raised in the Egyptian court, he probably would have learned to write in Egyptian! The texts of the Pentateuch, whoever wrote them, are NOT in 13th century language; they are in classical 1st millennium Hebrew. Whatever a hypothetical 13th century Moses wrote, whether in Egyptian or Canaanite or something else, that’s NOT what we have preserved in the Pentateuch."
History and Literature of Early Christianity
Did Hebrew even exist at the time of Moses - Nope it did not. Hebrew Language
Nope Hebrew didn't exist then... not when Moses wrote the law. He was an Egyptian Prince - what other language would have have written in... lol. "The Origins of Hebrew The historical problem of the origins of Hebrew–sometimes raised as a question of the kind “What was the language spoken by the Patriarchs?” or “What was the language of the conquerors of Canaan?”–is beyond the scope of this study, which is concerned only with more narrowly linguistic issues. Whatever the truth of the matter, we have to recognize that the exact beginnings of the Hebrew language are still surrounded by mystery."
My Jewish Learning
Hieroglyphic and Hieratic writing developed concurrently and independently of one another. They were closely related, though the exact nature of their relationship is unknown. There is little evidence to suggest that one descended from the other, but it is probable that they were mutually influential. Hieratic was the more cursive of the two. Both scripts were used from roughly 3200 BC until 400 AD. Generally, Hieroglyphics were used for monumental inscriptions and decorative texts, and Hieratic was used for administrative texts which placed more importance in content than appearance, which were written by hand, and which needed to be written quickly.
Demotic writing developed around 600 BC. It was derived from Hieratic writing, but developed into a highly cursive form so that the pictographic element of some symbols was lost. Although many single symbols were still used to write whole words or concepts, the symbol did not necessarily visually resemble the concept it represented. As Demotic writing gained popularity, it began to replace Hieratic writing in the administrative context, though Hieratic continued to be used in religious texts. Demotic writing was used until roughly 400 AD, when all three scripts began to fall from use in favour of the Coptic alphabet.
Note that there is significant overlap in the dates during which the three scripts were used. None of them entirely replaced another; they all were used concurrently in restricted domains.
-- Jacques Kinnaer
What the Book of Mormon writers did was nothing new or unusual at all - rather it was a common thing to do...
Hieroglypic
This being the oldest of the three - dating around 3000 B.C. It was used primarily on monuments, walls and stela
Hieratic
This script is a reformed version of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script. They modified the characters to be more simplified, and was more generally used.
Demotic
Demotic writing developed around 600 BC. It was derived from Hieratic writing, but developed into a highly cursive form so that the pictographic element of some symbols was lost. Although many single symbols were still used to write whole words or concepts, the symbol did not necessarily visually resemble the concept it represented. As Demotic writing gained popularity, it began to replace Hieratic writing in the administrative context
Reformed Egyptian
This script is a reformed version of the Egyptian hierogliphic script. They modified it to be more simple and it was generally used for religious texts
Thus that the Book of Mormon scribes did the same thing that was done in the Old world and created their owh scripting language of Egyptian shouldn't be a surprise nor something that we should even consider odd. Rather it is what had been done before at least twice...
W.V. Davies, "Reading the Past: Egyptian Hieroglyphs," Univ. of California Press, 5th print, 1993, pp. 23
Adolf Erman in his text "Life in Ancient Egypt," p. 342
E.A.W. Budge in his book "The Rosetta Stone" p. 41, 173
Sir Alan Gardiner, "Egyptian Grammar," p. 422
Jacques Kinnaer - Writings in Ancient Egypt
Psalm 20 written in Egyptian. Dating to the fourth century B.C.E., the enigmatic Papyrus Amherst 63 was likely created by the descendants of the Aramean and Judean soldiers, who in the fifth century B.C.E. had been stationed at the southern Egyptian border. Recorded in a cursive script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs
The Papyrus Amherst up close
The Book of Mormon people who knew Egyptian left Jerusalem about when? 600 BC of course...
Thus knowledge of Demotic was clearly evident for at least a 100 years or so.
Some would claim that Reformed Egyptian did not exist
I would request that they prove it - the burden of proof is after all on the claimant.
My claim is:There was ample opportunity for the Book of Mormon people to know and create a reformed Egyptian.
There was in existence at that time reformed Egyptian - I call this Demotic.
The Book of Mormon people knew of this - they lived after it's creation by over 100 years.
They took this knowledge with them. They then wrote books.
What is their evidence that Reformed Egyption of the Book of Mormon doesn't exist? They have none!
Conclusion Concerning Isaiah and the Biblical passages in the Book of Mormon
I hope you can see that with these valid concerns we also have valid answers for them. The Book of Mormon is demostrated to be an ancient document that has been translated and provides
another root autograph for the contents of the Bible. Claims to the contrary are merely mis-informed individuals attempting to understand and yet not doing so.
Summary the Bible itself may have been written in a Reformed Egyptian
Hebrew didn't even exist at the time the Bible original autographs were written.
Moses a prince of Egypt was taught and trained in Egyptian.
There are multiple examples of multiple different people changing Egyptian to be easier to write.
There are no extant original autographs of the Bible - not even 1
There is no proof whatsoever that the Bible wasn't written originally in a form of Egyptian.
We have many different religious documents written in Hieratic, and Demotic a form of reformed Egyptian of near proximity in time.
So also with the Book of Mormon - if a person did it in two different areas on the same language to make it easier to read/write. It is highly likely someone else could do so elsewhere.
The reader - can judge the evidence for themselves - the burden of proof isn't on me to prove the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian, nor that the Bible was either. Rather - it is to demonstrate the evidence that it could have been. That there is logical, and even strong reasons why it is probable that it was.
If you go by a preponderance of evidence - you surely can't state the original autographs of the Bible was written in Hebrew after all. There is no evidence of that at all... none.
Hebraic Poetry in the Book of Mormon?
For a fuller explaination of Hebraic Poetry see the following:Hebrew Literary patterns and Poetry in the Book of Mormon - Ensign Oct 1989
A Clear Poetic Voice - Hebrew Poetry in the Book of Mormon - Ensign Jan 1984
The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation of an ancient record written upon plates of metal. Much of this record was originally transcribed before the comming of Jesus Christ and it is thus a record of a people concurrent with the prophets of the Old Testament.
The language that these plates were written in is described as:
1 Nephi 1:2
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
Mosiah 1:4
for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children
Morm 9:34
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
Note: that the Book of Mormon speaks of many languages being spoken of in the ancient americas.
By these entries we come to an understanding that the Book of Mormon was written in a type of egyptian script but after the learning of the Jews. This egyptian script has been coined the name "Reformed Egyptian". The use of differing script languages by the poeple to record their sacred text is a documented fact. Therefore, this should be no surprise that they would do this.
One thing of interest is that the book is said to be written based upon the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. If the engravings were a form of Egyptian, then it is understandable why he would include the language of the Egyptians. But why does he also include the learning of the Jews in this description of how he writes his book?
I hope to show you somewhat concerning the reason for this.
The language of the Jews was Hebrew.
When the ancient Hebrew Prophets wrote their prophecies and sermons they often used Hebraic Poetic forms to add emphasis, and literrary beauty to their words.
If the Book of Mormon is a Jewish Sacred text surely we should expect to find Hebraic Poetic forms within it.
In fact we most certainly do!!
There is so many examples of parrallelism and Chiasmus, and other poetic forms in the Book of Mormon that I must limit myself and give references for additional information. If you are interested you may look up these references and learn for yourself the variety, complexity, and volume of Hebraic Poetic forms and Idioms in the Book of Mormon.
I would like to show a simple example of a Chiasmus:
This has always been one of my favourite scriptures, and it even became more so when I learned and understood its poetic meaning! Notice the focus : and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever,
Consider Mosiah 3:18-19:
… but men drink damnation to their own souls except
a they humble themselves
b and become as little children,
c and believe that salvation … is … in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
d For the natural man
e is an enemy to God,
f and has been from the fall of Adam,
f and will be, forever and ever,
e unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit,
d And putteth off the natural man
c and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,
b and becometh as a child,
a submissive, meek, humble … full of love. …
List of Hebraic Forms found in the book of Mormon. This is not a comprehensive list in any sense of the word... yet it adequately shows the volume and amount of the Hebrew forms in this work.
Simple synonymous: 1 Ne. 1:15; 1 Ne. 17:47; 2 Ne. 9:52; 2 Ne. 25:2; 2 Ne. 30:11; Alma 34:32; 3 Ne. 5:21; 3 Ne. 20:42; 3 Ne. 29:5; Ether 6:10
Simple synthetic: 2 Ne. 4:35; Mosiah 23:21; Alma 37:35; 3 Ne. 10:15
Contrasting: 2 Ne. 26:25; Alma 5:40 and Alma 41; Alma 9:28; Alma 36:21; Hel. 10:6; 3 Ne. 27:33
Antithetical: 1 Ne. 17:45; Jacob 4:10; Mosiah 4:24; Ether 12:26; Moro. 10:6
Simple alternate: 1 Ne. 5:1; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 17:19, 36, 39; 1 Ne. 20:18-19; 2 Ne. 4:17, 28; 2 Ne. 6:6; 2 Ne. 10:25; 2 Ne. 26:12; 2 Ne. 27:4; 2 Ne. 30:17; Mosiah 4:8; Alma 1:26; Alma 2:29; Alma 28:11; Alma 63:2; Hel. 3:21
Repeated alternate: 1 Ne. 19:9; Alma 30:24-26; Alma 30:10
Extended alternate: 1 Ne. 8:24; 1 Ne. 9:3-4, 11-12; Alma 5:19
Repetitive numerical: Alma 23:5; Alma 28:11; Alma 36:10; Morm. 6:10-15
A fortiori numerical: 1 Ne. 4:1; Alma 3:26; Hel. 3:24-26; 3 Ne. 3:22; 3 Ne. 4:21
Circular repetitive: Mosiah 3:25-26; Mosiah 11:21; Alma 3:15-16; Alma 14:29; Alma 24:7-10; Alma 60:20; Alma 62:41; Hel. 11:10-16; Morm. 7:2-5
Climactic: 2 Ne. 2:25; Alma 42:22-23; Morm. 9:12-13
Bibliography:
Scholarly Works concerning Hebrew Poetry:
Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation (London: J. Nichols, 1834), p. ix.
For a review of the history of the study of parallelisms, see James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1981), pp. 96-170; and D. Broadribb, “A Historical Review of Studies of Hebrew Poetry,” Abr-Nahrain 13 (1972-73):66-87.
Brown Francis, Jan 1, 1890, Measurements of Hebrew Poetry as an Aid to Literary Analysis
Literary Style Used in Book of Mormon Insured Accurate Translation
Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.10
Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_poetry#Characteristics_of_Ancient_Hebrew_Poetry
The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1985), p. 3.
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985);
Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1984);
David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy—Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, Mich.: Eisenbrauns, 1980).
Other Sources
Church Articles concerning the matter: (These articles give many examples and explainations of Poetic forms in the Book of Mormon)
Donald W. Parry, “Hebrew Literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Oct. 1989, 58
Richard Dilworth Rust, “Book of Mormon Poetry,” New Era, Mar. 1983, 46
John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” New Era, Feb. 1972, 6
Kevin L. Barney, “Understanding Old Testament Poetry,” Ensign, June 1990, 51
Paul Cracroft, “A Clear Poetic Voice,” Ensign, Jan. 1984, 28
Alan J. Christenson, Chiasmus in Mayan Texts, Ensign October 1988
This book is not a historical account of anything, nor does it speak of a group of individuals nor give a history of them crossing an ocean. In fact what this document actually is is a doctrinal exposition on the gathering of Israel and the comming millenium. It is full of false assumptions and incorrect interpretations of the Bible.
What is the View of the Hebrews: Online Source
Modified Date: 1/6/2021