Melissa G
Non Veritas Verba Amanda
Really? Can we start an official debate, then?
Soon as I have the time, which won't be for a few days.
Melissa G
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Really? Can we start an official debate, then?
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.
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?
And that contribute to the overall "feel" of the text.
I don't see why it would be impossible for a person to inadvertently fall into this form just by trying to give their work the same "feel" as the Bible.
But when do you say people "discovered" this structure in the Bible?
Soon as I have the time, which won't be for a few days.
Melissa G
He would have to realize that since much of the "connecting" text between the large and small plates (Jarom, Omni, etc) was authored by people who didn't really care about what they were writing and wouldn't have bothered to add chisams to the text. According to what you said in your BoM quiz thread there aren't any, which makes sense.Are you really saying that Joseph Smith cranked out multiple megachiasmus accidentally, perfect in form and structure? Wow. How do you think he know to leave chiasmus out of the Book of Ether? How do you think he kept it out of his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, except when he was revealing the original text of John 1? How did he restrict the most complex megachisamus to the Small Plates of Nephi, to be consistent with his story that there were fewer translators to go through there? You really think he did all of that accidentally?
Well, that was quick. Jeff Lindsay mentions it: Chiasmus in the Book of MormonBTW, I mentioned that I have been shown a chiasm that pretty much spans the book of Mosiah, but I can't find the outline of it. I have it marked, but not very well. I'll keep trying to find the information I have on it.
Chiasms in the Bible appear to have been noted for the first time by three 19th century theologians: Robert Lowth, John Jebb and John Forbes. Of these three, only Jebb paid much attention to chiasms, at least initially, the other two focusing primarily on poetic imagery and direct parallelisms. In 1854, however, John Forbes completed an in-depth study of this ancient literary form, publishing his findings. From about this time forward, scholars began to be more widely aware of its presence in the Bible. A number of other researchers continued studying chiasmic forms in the years immediately following, and by about 1860, their true significance was finally recognized.But when do you say people "discovered" this structure in the Bible?
This promises to be superb entertainment. I wouldn't miss it for the world!Soon as I have the time, which won't be for a few days.
2004 Update: Exciting news! Even wonder what the probability is that a given chiasmus occurred by chance rather than being intentional? A significant new publication applies careful statistical reasoning to address this issue. The work is Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?," BYU Studies, Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 103-130 (2004). The entire article and many supplementary materials - including software for you to explore the statistics of chiasmus yourself - are also available free online at http://byustudies.byu.edu/chiasmus/.
I think that anybody who has been around here for very long would be absolutely nuts to attempt to debate DeepShadow on this subject. Those who are busy huffing and puffing about how they're willing to take him on are just too naive to know better. I think several of us could do a fair job of handling most of these folks, but DeepShadow makes it look so darned effortless!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)?
This promises to be superb entertainment. I wouldn't miss it for the world!
What? For saying she'll debate you when she finds the time?And since she's the first person in about a dozen to take me up on this, I'd be in favor of dogpiling frubals on her.
I think that anybody who has been around here for very long would be absolutely nuts to attempt to debate DeepShadow on this subject. Those who are busy huffing and puffing about how they're willing to take him on are just too naive to know better. I think several of us could do a fair job of handling most of these folks, but DeepShadow makes it look so darned effortless!
(deleted retroactively)
What? For saying she'll debate you when she finds the time?
Awwww...let's give her the benefit of the doubt!:slap:
Maybe I'm just giddy with the though that someone finally stepped up, but I've seen nothing so far to make me think she's going to back out.
yeah, I decided to delete the post but clearly not quickly enough...
But if the story presented is dependent on things that either can't be proven true or have been proven false, then what do the details matter?
I'm trying to approach the Book of Mormon with an open mind, but it's hard when so many of the core ideas of the story seem to be easily dismissable even with my layman's knowledge of history.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Do you have any examples? Are you just talking about rhyming structure or the like? Something like that could easily be a coincidence, IMO.
It seems those are all things that would have been familiar to Joseph Smith; I'd be more impressed by predictions that he makes that were alien to life in 19th Century America, which were then proven true by archaeology.
I should point out that I'm not singling out only the Book of Mormon in this regard. I have similar problems with the story of Exodus in the Old Testament: all the archaeological evidence that I've seen contradicts the idea that a large group of people left Egypt for Caanan, where they drove out the original inhabitants and settled there themselves.
O....k....Born once, die twice, born twice die once....