Índice
NEEDS TRANSLATION
Language
Resumo: Claimed anachronisms related to language used in the Book of Mormon.
Resumo: Jacob 7:27 ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu." Some claim that because adieu is French, it shows that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, and not an ancient author. There are at least three problems with the adieu argument against the Book of Mormon. 1) Critics overlook the fact that the word adieu was not on the plates. 2) The translator of a work can use words from any language he chooses in order to convey the meaning of the text to his readers, so that even if "adieu" had been a foreign word (e.g., French) to Joseph Smith, there is nothing either unusual or problematic with his choosing that word in his translation. 3) Critics mistakenly think the word "adieu" is not used as an
English word.
Resumo: Some have often complained about the frequent repetition of "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon.[1] Mark Twain famously joked that if the phrase were omitted, Joseph would have published a pamphlet instead of a book. As it turns out, however, this much-maligned phrase is actually evidence of the Book of Mormon's authentic antiquity.
Resumo: It is claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work because it contains "Greek words" ("alpha and omega"). However, the Book of Mormon claims to be a
translation. Therefore, the language used is that of Joseph Smith. Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text's intent.
Resumo: Critics maintain that Book of Mormon phrases or language is too "modern" to be of ancient origin. The Book of Mormon is a translation. As such, it may well use phrases or expressions that have no exact ancient counterpart. Modern Bible translations use similar expressions or phrases, and yet remain translations of ancient documents.
Resumo: Is there any evidence that Old World languages (such as Hebrew) had an influence on the languages of the New World? It is claimed that the Book of Mormon provides too short a time for the disappearance of the Nephite/Lamanite Hebrew language.
Resumo: It is claimed that Jews or Israelites (like the Nephites) would not have used the language of their slave period — Egyptian — to write sacred records, that there is no evidence in Egyptology of something called "reformed Egyptian," and that the Book of Mormon's claim to have been written in this language is therefore suspect. However, the claim that Israelites would not use Egyptian is clearly false. By the ninth to sixth centuries before Christ, Israelites used Egyptian numerals mingled with Hebrew text. The Papyrus Amherst 63 contains a text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) using Egyptian characters. This text was originally dated to the second century B.C., but this has since been extended to the 4th century B.C.
Resumo: It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon [Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a thousand plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written."
