A friend of mine sent me this video on YouTube. I wanted to know what some Mormons thought of this argument for the validity of the BOM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwG1sbwUpRI

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

A friend of mine sent me this video on YouTube. I wanted to know what some Mormons thought of this argument for the validity of the BOM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwG1sbwUpRI

Interesting stuff, AP. But like almost all intellectual arguments, the opposing arguments can be made to sound just as convincing. I especially liked what he had to say for the last 50 seconds, or so.

Interesting as it all is, I would say that No man can know that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, except it be revealed to him by the Holy Ghost.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Interesting stuff, AP. But like almost all intellectual arguments, the opposing arguments can be made to sound just as convincing. I especially liked what he had to say for the last 50 seconds, or so.

Interesting as it all is, I would say that No man can know that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, except it be revealed to him by the Holy Ghost.

And when others say that the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that the bom is a fraud what method do you use to find out who is right?

Originally posted by wonbyone

And when others say that the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that the bom is a fraud what method do you use to find out who is right?

A testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is something between you and God. You are not my middle man, and I am not yours.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

A testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is something between you and God. You are not my middle man, and I am not yours.

Then why do you guys try to convert others and why are you here defending mormonism if you think we worship the same Jesus? I on the other hand believe the Testimony of the true Christ is the Gospel that is to be preached to every creature under Heaven not hidden behind a bushel.

Originally posted by wonbyone

Then why do you guys try to convert others and why are you here defending mormonism if you think we worship the same Jesus? I on the other hand believe the Testimony of the true Christ is the Gospel that is to be preached to every creature under Heaven not hidden behind a bushel.

I believe there is a measure of truth contained in every God-fearing religion of the world, and in every denomination.

I also believe our Article of Faith #9 which states:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I believe God always has more to give to those willing to receive more. We are searching for those who would embrace all God has to reveal, but simply do not know where to find it.

I defend what I believe, for the sake of those who are searching.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

A friend of mine sent me this video on YouTube. I wanted to know what some Mormons thought of this argument for the validity of the BOM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwG1sbwUpRI

---Thanks for informing me about that video, AP. Your thoughtful sharing of something of interest is an example of how coming to sites like TWEB can be beneficial to LDS people. I thought the guy's presentation was interesting, something to think about. It seems to be a simple form of wordprint analysis, which has been used to identify authors of writings.

Meanwhile, I just think one must be really grasping to think that this is a valid argument.

It's no wonder one of our friends thought this had to be a parody.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

Meanwhile, I just think one must be really grasping to think that this is a valid argument.

---One might feel it's grasping, if one is not familiar with how potentially useful and reliable such statistical analyses can be. Done correctly, voice-printing can be a credible forensic-science tool, like fingerprinting can be. I think I recall that it's been used to test writings that were old, and which were suspected to be lost works of Shakespeare.

It's no wonder one of our friends thought this had to be a parody.

----It's not really a wonder to me, either. Some people are so prejudiced that there really isn't ANY evidence "good enough" that it would overcome their prejudices.

He should have used "behold"

What I'm wondering is why he used the KJV as if it were the original Bible.

I can't see youtube links at work, and my phone's browser is not showing them either ()... I'll simply quote a Mormon apologist on the wordprint analysis:

John Tvedtnes

I am especially in agreement with his [Ed Ashment] denunciation of the wordprint studies; indeed, I would have been more harsh in my criticism. To me the problem is twofold: (1) The wordprint studies were made of an English translation of a text said to have been written in another language (in which case it should reflect the language of the translator more than that of the original author). (2) The particles used in the wordprint studies (e.g., the word "of") are often nonexistent in Hebrew, which instead uses syntax to express the meaning of the English particles. I strongly object to determinations made on words that could not have existed in the original.

John A. Tvedtnes in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 33

---

© source where applicable

Originally posted by wonbyone

What I'm wondering is why he used the KJV as if it were the original Bible.

yeah, and compared that to other people's writings which were in modern english?

Nobody would think that any word frequency between Smith writing in fake KJV english would be the same as him writing in modern engilsh.

and choosing a word like "and" was just silly. Seems like he has heard of word frequency analysis on some tv show like CSI and decided to do some for himself with no knowledge about the subject at all.

it really did sound like a parody at first.

Originally posted by wonbyone

What I'm wondering is why he used the KJV as if it were the original Bible.

William Tyndale the father of the English Bible, remarked:

They say our tongue is too rude. It is not so. Greek and Hebrew go more easily into English than into Latin. Has not God made the English tongue as well as others? They suffer you to read in English of Robin Hood, Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Troilus, and a thousand ribald or filthy tales. It is only the Scripture that is forbidden. It is therefore clearer than the sun that this forbiddal is not “for love of your souls, which they care for as the fox doth for the geese.” (William Tyndale)

Originally posted by OtherCheek

William Tyndale the father of the English Bible, remarked:

They say our tongue is too rude. It is not so. Greek and Hebrew go more easily into English than into Latin. Has not God made the English tongue as well as others? They suffer you to read in English of Robin Hood, Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Troilus, and a thousand ribald or filthy tales. It is only the Scripture that is forbidden. It is therefore clearer than the sun that this forbiddal is not “for love of your souls, which they care for as the fox doth for the geese.” (William Tyndale)

Ok then why didn't the guy use an older english version than the KJV? And which KJV revision is the correct one?

Originally posted by wonbyone

Ok then why didn't the guy use an older english version than the KJV? And which KJV revision is the correct one?

I think the KJV is the most widely published English text of the Bible today. It probably didn't cross his mind to use the Tyndale Bible (unfinished as it was).

Would it make any difference to you if this guy HAD used the Tyndale Bible? I'm guessing 'probably not'.