I very often find myself really being thankful that John summarizes sections of these episodes. I am following along but sometimes, especially when I’m listening along while doing other work or driving, the connections get lost in all of the information. It’s nice to stop every so often and restate what was said, to help absorb the information. Thank you for doing that.
Maybe you'll touch on this later, but I was expecting it to be in this episode. The most damning thing about the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon is that none of the JST makes its way into the text. That's damning because it's Joseph contradicting Joseph. It's Joseph shining a spotlight on the fact that the "most perfect" of all books contains an inferior version of one of Jesus' greatest (supposed) sermons. The scholarship is great, but the internal contradiction is a problem on par with the Book of Abraham translation issues, in my opinion. Before my shelf broke, the JST's absence from the BoM, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, was a top 5 shelf item.
@LDS Discussions Looking forward to it! I'm really enjoying this series. External inconsistencies can be a problem for a worldview, but internal ones are devastating. As important as it will be to discuss the Adam Clarke Commentaries (external), I think contradictions in the overlapping accounts (internal) will carry much more weight. Y'all have done a fantastic job so far, so I've no cause to be worried.
I find the brief summaries helpful and I appreciate the contributions! Mike is amazing and you guys are doing a really great job… I can hardly begin to explain how truly great this series is. Thank you for your time and energy in doing this series!!
I agree with Gerardo. The account of Christ visiting the Americas was always underwhelming. I was always left thinking it should offer something more. I must admit that when I was Mormon I was consistently underwhelmed. Funny though.... getting out of the Mormon church has been one of the most overwhelming experiences of my life! ❤️❤️ Thanks for this video.
I like the commentary- I especially love when Nemo is on! Maybe mike would feel less like he needs to “rush through” if he had less content to push through in the episode to keep in the hour? If that makes sense? I think having 3 people on the episodes helps balance the commentary. Absolutely love this series. It has been so extremely helpful to me as I navigate leaving the church. 🙏🏻 thank you for all the research and time that’s been put into this project!!!
Hi! Jew here. Regarding the use of the Ancient (second) Temple: There was tension during that era in terms of how one uses worship to reach God, and in what manner. One way was in participating in burnt offerings (or "sacrifices" as they're sometimes called) in the Temple ritual. However, the Pharisees - WRONGLY DEMONIZED in Christian scripture as hard-line hypocrites - sought to democratize Jewish worship and bring it from being Temple-centric to a part of one's daily, internal, and external life. This was threatening to the Priest class, who were wealthy and largely appeasing to Roman occupiers of Judea. While certain rituals and mitzvot (commandments) could only be fulfilled in the Temple with the aid of Priests, connecting to God was not one of those things. In fact, the reason Pharisaic Judaism was the only sect to survive post-Temple was because of how Pharisees like Hillel and Akiva innovated and adapted Jewish observance. A lot of the main teachings of Jesus "Sabbath is not made for man, love your neighbor as yourself," basically a lot of social justice "lovey-dovey" stuff people like to quote are part of Jewish rabbinical teaching of the day, but pointing that out is very inconvenient for Christians who want Jesus to be the sole innovator of these things. (which is why the early Gospel writers turned the Jewish characters who weren't Jesus-followers into villains or ignorant people.) It's fascinating watching these LDS Discussions shows because Joseph Smith wanted these people to be Jews but there's not a single thing I've seen to indicate they're anything but Proto-Christians. *CAVEAT:* I am not a 2nd Temple scholar, just a Jewish woman with a layman's understanding of her own culture. Others can fill in.
Former Christian here. It's so sad that Christians have to demonize or make enemies of other people. Or create a devil to scare followers into submission. News flash! Satan is not real! He's a figment of your imagination. The mind is more powerful than religions want to give it credit for.
The gospels don't say the pharisees were hardliners, Jesus sometimes accused them of being too strict and other times as being too lax. Their prevalent view of divorce Jesus was closer to Shammai (more strict actually) but usually Jesus sided closer to Hillel. In all the demonizing of the Pharisee as being hypocrites, too lax, too strict, the pious fool etc, you will see the criticism in early rabbinical literature. The good samaritan story for example has a counterpart where a pharisee passes by a woman drowning and refuses to help because it's forbidden "to look upon a woman". Jesus attitude on the death penalty seems to be consistent with Pharisees and at odds with the Sadducees. Despite the generalizing the gospels give of the pharisees it must be remembered that Jesus was a Pharisee as were all the apostles and Paul, the book of Acts even binds gentile converts to some rabbinical rulings. The structures of the early church were modeled in part on the ones existing in Israel by Pharisees. Yes, Jesus and apostles at times borrowed heavily from the rabbis, either accepting one school or rejecting them all in favor of something else. This isn't unique to NT, the Torah, Prophets and wisdom books at time draw word for word for pagan sources for philosophy, imagery, names of God, metaphors and so on. Daniel 7 is beloved by Christians and its original is pagan mythology about Baal and El and the title given to the "one like the Son of man" "riding the clouds" is used in the Torah and ultimate comes from Near East mythology too. Proverbs has a whole chapter almost word for word at times lifted from Egpytian wisdom literature
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 I'm not going to take seriously opinions about Jews and Judaism from an "Orthodox Catholic" whose bio says "the chief heresy that must be confronted is Islam." But thanks for the tl;dr.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath is credited to Jews? Serving the Sabbath is the single biggest part of being Jewish, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Mike is always great. He's compiled a fantastic amount of diverse information. I can definitely see the idea that the beatitudes were temple prep. Temple prep has literally nothing to do with the temple, and neither do the beatitudes! 😆
Mike is a boss! Saw him on tic tok, thanks for speaking and teaching truth!!! Unfortunately many people are not inclined or compelled to seek or hear it. The power and importance of truth is highly underestimated! Truth is most important, truth is love! Truth is useful! Truth matters! Without truth there can be no justice, no love, No security, no respect, no trust, no liberty, no freedom! no happiness! Thanks Mike! You are a true Patriot! And a Courageous ex-mormon pioneer in the pursuit of sanity in the valley of mormondom! Keep up the good fight!
(The short story on Hebrew and Aramaic is that they're closely related languages, maybe comparable to English and German. Our earliest evidence shows Aramaic being spoken in Aram, to the north of ancient Israel. In the early first millennium BCE, many Aramaean tribes moved eastward into Babylonia and over time were absorbed into Babylonia society. As a result, it appears that Aramaic gradually replaced Babylonian Akkadian as the vernacular spoken in Babylonia, but unfortunately scholars don't have a clear window onto this, because only the sources in Akkadian, written in clay, survive; virtually anything written in Aramaic, on vellum, would have perished in that climate. This trend toward Aramaic was probably accelerated after Persia conquered Babylonia, since the Persians--who of course spoke an Indo-European language themselves--promoted Imperial Aramaic throughout their empire as a language that was, by then, widely understood. So what probably happened is that the elites in Judah who went into captivity in Babylonia shifted their everyday language to Aramaic while they were living there. The Dead Sea Scrolls show, however, that there were people who continued to have facility with Hebrew. Basically, before the exile they spoke Hebrew; after the exile they probably mostly spoke Aramaic, which had gained increasing currency as an international language throughout the region.)
@@markblanchard2280Good point. Also, there's transliterated Aramaic in the Greek of the New Testament, which is why we end up with transliterated Aramaic in our English translations. But why would Jesus switch into another language when addressing the Nephites--Aramaic or any other? Did he not want them to understand what he was saying?! And if it somehow was a word that they understood, that was in their language through whatever implausible mechanism you want to posit, why wasn't it just translated into English by Joseph Smith's seerstone, like every other word? You can't make sense of this stuff in the orthodox framework. (It reminds me of the problem of the transliterated Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham. So . . . Abraham natively spoke some West Semitic language of about the Middle Bronze Age that was maybe similar to Amorite, but God wanted to talk to him in Egyptian rather than in his own language, and then God started explaining to him what all of these Hebrew words--transliterated according to a Sephardic system with which Joseph Smith was familiar--meant in Egyptian?! What would the point of the conversation even be? "Here's more or less what your native language will evolve into, according to a much later tradition of transliteration," he tells him in a foreign language. The story is bizarre on its face, before you get into the many other problems with the text.)
@@markblanchard2280 So true! He seemed to think Hebrew had some relationship to Adamic, or was Adamic (hence the "peh le'El" in the old temple ceremony). It's clear he had no inkling that Hebrew developed over time from earlier languages, or that we can attempt to reconstruct Proto-Semitic, let alone Proto-Afroasiatic. Whatever transcendent forces he was channeling just didn't give him reliable information.
My layperson understanding was always that they spoke Aramaic day to day but learned Hebrew for the explicit purpose of reading the scriptures but that Greek was the new scholarly language by the time the NT was written down so therefore it was written in Greek but some Aramaic did end up in there for various reasons like difficulty translating it or the writer just preferring to stay as close as they could to their source. Of course none of this explains why this would end up in the BOM.
To add to this, Hebrew was already a dead language by the time Alexander was born. It was only used in Jewish religious texts and liturgy, much like how Latin is today. We actually have a record in the Bible itself (in Ezra) about how post-exilic Jews were already unable to read their religious text, necessitating the use of specialized scribes.
To me the Sermon on the Mount is the essence of the essence. Look at the way he sat down and gave the Sermon as when you spoke, as a Rabbi, important words to people you sat. It resonates through Christian building work such as Cathedrals which comes from the word cathedra which is an important chair of spiritual authority and if you examine symbols used in the Gospel accounts of Jesus it shows that the context in which the Sermon on the Mount lies is very important. Joseph Smith simply did not understand when he copy cut and pasted this Sermon on The Mount into the Book of Mormon the Jewish traditions being displayed in the manner the Speech is set out and the reason for the Sermon and the background to the Sermon. Thank you for all your downloads, although I am not a Mormon, your videos are thoughtful examinations of concepts that many within and without the Christian and Mormon traditions deserve to hear and consider. Kind regards, Graham,
I was late learning about changing the playback speed here on TH-cam. I use it all the time now, SO helpful. I talk fast, like Mike. And I imagine that people would choose to slow me down if I had a podcast, haha I really appreciate the summaries, I get lost in the weeds sometimes.
This deconstruction of Matthew in the BofM is comprehensive, reeks of common sense and logical thought patterns that apologetics simply cannot and never will be able to address without acknowledging the reality of the ruse that have been perpetrated against us. Thank you for laying out the chains of evidence so well thought out.
A note: “The Earliest Gospel, an introduction to the original stories and sayings of Jesus” by John S. Kloppenborg 2008 120 pages with 40 pages of notes and appendices 120 pages I got it on Amazon.
Some context for the 81% (time stamp 20:30)… I’m in college and if I write a paper that is more than 11% similar to a source than it is considered plagiarism.
Just going through this playlist now and really appreciate the thoroughness and how clearly it's all laid out! I do have to note, though, that "mile" was a Roman unit of measurement, though a somewhat different length from the modern mile. From "mille passus", or "1000 paces." There are so many other anachronisms and mistakes, it's a shame to get too caught up on something that isn't actually a problem in and of itself.
Regarding any records of ancient origin of the LDS temple ceremony, according to Scott L Anderson (LDS Institute teacher) a lot of the temple ceremony is recorded on the walls in one of the ancient pyramids in Egypt. He's seen it himself and learned some Egyptian to be able to read it. He said some LDS tours go to see it. It would be interesting to have someone photograph it and put it online. Maybe if someone connected with the Open Stories Foundation or a fan, an Egyptologist, etc could do that if they're going to/in Egypt... I remember a woman who worked for the church, had mental health issues and was fired was going to go into archeology, but I don't remember where... Thx for all u all do!
The masons made the ceremony in the 16th century. There is no ancient origin. But why would the supposed ceremony of Solomons temple be recorded in the pyramids of Egypt?
It's nonsensical to apply the telephone game analogy with "Q" and Matthew's gospel, because the "Q" theory implies the use of an older manuscript source written much closer to Jesus earthly life than Matthew's gospel written approximately 40 years later. The phone game is fallacious because it's assuming a spoken chain, whereas, the gospels are a written manuscript chain that is not verbally repeated but copied.
Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages. Aramaic came around later during the 6th century BC post babylonian exileand eventually replaced Hebrew as the daily language for the Jews. Jesus and some of the minor prophets (like Daniel) spoke and wrote Aramaic .
Very few people today are aware of the ancient Roman law, but "going the extra mile" still has meaning for us like it would the Nephites or anyone else . Not a smoking gun.
But it has meaning BECAUSE of the Bible phrase. Without knowing the Bible (through direct study or cultural osmosis) one wouldn’t know what the phrase meant.
@@juliaboon9741 Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into 19th Century KJV English. The similar phaseology purposefully helps bring to mind similar scriptures from one to the other. The original text was likely an idiomatic expression which was translated into an equivalent expression which 19th century readers would have understood. If I was translating Spanish "No hay moros en el costa" I might use an equivalent english expression then the literal "no Muslims on the beach." This was an an issue for Nephites when reading the Brass Plates when Nephi mentions that Isaiah was hard to understand because his children knew nothing of the "things of the Jews". Isaiah is a very expression heavy text.
@@ddbrosnahan this doesn’t address the issue that the Roman law, which became the English expression, had no meaning to the people depicted in the BOM. It has meaning to us because we have adopted it into English but the people of the BOM left before such a Roman law existed and thus would never have had any way of adopting it into their language (as we as English speakers have since). It’s also important to note that Joseph Smith was said to write a literal translation of the BOM and also wrote in words that were apparently from their language. Why did he pick and choose which words to translate? Why not use farthing but kept senine? Why not just say “money” if he was making such big changes?
@@juliaboon9741 JS didnt use farthing because the BofM briefly explains their money system. Some things are literal if there isn't an equivalent expresion. We don't know what the original text said, but it's not an error for JS to use an equivant expression modern readers do understand. Not a smoking gun.
@@ddbrosnahan you said he altered the text so the Upstate New York readers will understand but then writes the money using a system they don’t understand. Yes it is explained earlier in the book but in this section the money is not being explained, it is being stated. Wouldn’t it be easier for the USNY readers to read it as “penny” or other US currency by the same argument? Instead the “translation” “keeps” the word senine. You must apply the same logic to every part of a text.
34:55 Lehi would’ve spoken Hebrew, not Aramaic. (The Book of Mormon says “and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record”.) Aramaic became the main language for the Jews after Lehi left Jerusalem. The Wikipedia page “Jewish languages” says: “Aramaic became the primary language of the Jews deported to Babylonia, with the first attestations of Jewish/Judean Aramaic found in scrolls from the 5th century BCE on the island of Elephantine.”
This is really important stuff. I mean the word apologetics implies that they’re apologizing for the fact that this thing doesn’t work ha ha. And by the way John, yes beatitudes. Four syllables lol
"Vaticinium ex eventu" - "a prophecy written after the author already had information about the events being "foretold". The text is written so as to appear that the prophecy had taken place before the event, when in fact it was written after the events supposedly predicted. " This is exactly what Joseph Smith did in the Book of Mormon.
How did he do it? Had it memorized? Smart, smart man that Bro Smith! All I need is an explanation that fits into the known history of the Books Translation as to how he had his story so well memorized that he could stop and start as he did and question after question? The potty breaks just doesn’t quite seem reasonable! Take one chapter and show me how he managed it! Take one chapter and role play it and show me how he did it!
My guess is that JS used a hat when translating so that he could conceal a small piece of paper in it next to the rock. Historians have pointed out a revivalist preaching tradition, common in Smith's time, where preachers would write out the main points of their sermons on paper, (similar in size to the modern 3X5 card) instead of writing out all the words of the sermon. This composition technique is known as “laying down heads.” This has been discussed at length in other Mormon Stories episodes. The idea that JS could seemingly always start up right where he left off does not seem terribly impressive to me. I believe that a) he had an exceptional memory, and b) He would make it a point to focus on where he left off as a way to impress his scribes.
He actually used Martin and Emma (and later Oliver) as his memorization tool. Remember, he had them repeat every sentence to him after he'd finished saying it. It's a common trick for dictation.
Forget about whether the book is historical or not. That’s not the point. Why was the sermon on the mount placed in there? What is it’s significance? That’s the point.
The Norwegians were writing Danish at the time of Joseph Smith, although they were under Swedish rule. Napoleon Bonaparte was a friend of the King of Sweden. He died without an heir. One of Napoleon's soldiers was appointed King of a united Sweden and Norway. Charles Jean Bernadotte became King Karl Johan. He built the royal palace in Oso. Norway gained independence in 1905. That is when they came up with the two Norwegian languages.. Book Language and New Norwegian. The first King of modern Norway 🇳🇴 was Prince Carl of Denmark 🇩🇰 and his wife was Princess Maud of England. Prince Carl was known in England as Charles. Prince Charles now. So Prince Charles was named after King Haakon VII of Norway. He was Queen Elizabeth's cousin and Queen Maud of England was her Aunt. This is the Queen Maud of Queen Maud Land in Antarctica. She was a flapper in the 1920's. My grandpa was named Haakon. He came to America in 1910. He was advised to use his middle name, Norman. He thought that his name was good enough for the King, it was good enough for him. His niece sent King Haakon chocolates to my Grandma for years. The current king, King Harald with his mother and sister lived with Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II. There were rumors of FDR and The Crown Princess Märtha of Norway 🇳🇴. She died before she became Queen. King Olav V stayed single for the rest of his life. I saw him in the street, and the current King and Queen while we were street contacting in Bergen. On my mission. I was like to yard's away from the royals. King Olav used to get around Oslo taking the subway or a bus 🚌. The Norwegian Royals are really down to earth. I loved King Harald's speech when gay marriage was legalized in Norway. Lure is a verb, TO FOOL. Maybe Joseph Smith used a word from a dialect of spoken Norwegian?
Agree with everything you’ve said. Many years ago, reading the sermon on the mount in the BOM, I wondered to myself how the Roman law had any relevance to these people. It was irrelevant, and out of context. I find myself in an interesting position, where I truly believe the lds church is the lord’s church, but that JS at his discretion made the bom up.
I did a bunch of googling a few weeks ago trying to find an answer about whether Jews used miles in 600 BCE, but I didn't get a definitive answer; miles were definitely used in the Ancient world by other societies, though, so I don't see the use of "mile" as the smoking gun that John thinks it is. The presence of the actual text of Matthew is far more damning than whether Nephites ought to be using that specific ancient unit of distance.
Why read and quote the King James version of the Bible? Because long stretches are glorious poetry. As far as accuracy goes, for goodness' sake, the Bible is a religious text. Why would non-believers, such as myself, impute objective reality into any version of the Bible. I cast my vote for King James for its sheer beauty. If I couldn't have the magnificent King James, pfft, I wouldn't have any motivation to go near any Bible. That said, the linguistic and historical roots of these ancient texts are indeed fascinating. I love this series of videos.
Non believer here. I despise the KJV because it doesn't communicate the intended points for numerous reasons. It mistranslates numerous things, it uses antiquated language that modern English speakers can't understand (sometimes because the terms are now obsolete, but sometimes because the meanings of the words have changed completely), and because it uses nonsensical euphemisms for everything remotely sex-related. Poetic or not, virtually no one reading it actually understands what was intended by it. When people are using a book that they don't understand to justify making legislation that hurts people, as is the case in the US, the minimal benefit from the poetry in is scarcely worth the cost.
@@carrienelson35 Yes, no version of the Bible should be used to justify any legislation. It's maddening that people are still inculcated to believe the stories are true, and even more maddening when they try to impose their "truth" on others. I don't think the King James is significantly more culpable, though, than modern scholarly translations, and at least it is beautiful. I was responding to John's comment that he doesn't know why we bother with the King James at all in this day and age. I'm dismissive of any other version, because the Bible is just stories to me anyway. Just my two cents. Of course the value on Biblical linguistic accuracy is likely to be superseding for people who think there is a God and believe that he has talked to us. Whatever floats anyone's boat. As far as antiquated language goes, I can lose myself in Shakespeare, and, of course, other people are just exasperated. I get that. I've read Middle English texts with modern translations on one side to help me out with comprehension, which I really do need going back that far. The sounds, though, of Middle English make me so happy, I can't even tell you. I've always regretted I never had a chance to study Old English, but it wasn't offered at my university. I have one bookshelf dedicated solely to the Arthurian tales, and that love led me on back in time to other ancient stories and poetry. It's the pure love of language that has given me so much pleasure. So, when it comes to Biblical stories, I will always love the King James.
34:00 Lehi would've been exposed to some form of Aramaic according to my quick Google search. Weather the word "Raca" exists in the particular form of Aramaic spoken in Lehi's time and place is another question. Wikipedia: "The dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire... over Aram-Damascus in the middle of the 8th century led to the establishment of Aramaic as a lingua franca of the empire... From 700 BCE, the language began to spread in all directions but lost much of its homogeneity. Different dialects emerged in Assyria, Babylonia, the Levant and Egypt."
The words that Smith stole weren't from the first century or the second century, but from the 17th century translation. So I highly doubt that the words originated in the BOM time frame.
I've heard several New Testament scholars suggest that the sermon on the mount was really more of a greatest hits compilation, and so it was likely never given as a single speech at a single event during his ministry. If so, the resurrected Jesus miraculously delivered the Nephites a greatest hits performance that is 81% identical to the compilation in Matthew... And by the way, Matthew wouldnt have been written for another 3 decades... And in greek, rather than Jesus' original Aramaic.
Senine - I wonder if there's an early money counterfeiting thread to pull on there? 🤔 Money seems to be something that would be on a counterfeiters or money diggers mind than the other metrics like a "mile". I've not yet studied enough on the counterfeiting claims to go beyond a ponderence of a potential hypothesis.
Aramaic was the language spoken in the area where Jesus cane from. It is also believed that the disciples spoke Aramaic. It is believed that Jesus spoke Hebrew as well as Arabic.
I actually totally agree with what you are saying but don't discount the culture of oral tradition. Think of how many songs that people know word for word with very little mistakes. You are assuming nothing was written down at all those years also. I agree with the connection you are making to how he likely pulled just from the king James. But be careful as you criticize the distance of time from the gospels from Jesus's death. It's still very realistic to consider as 'accurate'. I don't think it's also necessarily word for word. But the idea and themes could reasonably be preserved. Unlike in 'telephone' often the message is totally changed.
A farthing was a quarter (or a "forthing") of a penny. During the middle ages, and the 17th century when the King James Version was published, most English pennies incorporated a cross into the design. This was nothing to do with Christianity, but were guidelines to cut the coin into 4 pieces. Those pieces were farthings, the smallest unit of English currency When a labourer might earn a few pence a day, clearly, he needed to make regular purchases worth less than a penny, so he would divide his coins. Or he could cut a penny in 2, and those were halfpennies. By the 19th century, when Joseph Smith was alive, there were actual coins minted in England called farthings and halfpennies Where the practice originated, I don't know, but I collect Roman coins, and I haven't heard of it in that respect. So it's of medieval origin, I suppose The mile measurement was originally Roman, mile being the Latin for a thousand - yards, that is. A Roman mile was shorter than a modern mile. Where the Romans got it from, I don't know. Presumably from the Etruscans, who dominated Italy before Rome. It seems unlikely that they'd have adopted it from the middle east, so, as Mike said, while it would have been significant to a 17th century Englishman, it would have been completely meaningless to a South American population that originated from Jerusalem
It’s is scientific. Linguistics is how they found the Unabomber! Linguistics is a scientific study of language and how certain every person have their style of writing and their own influences where researchers can trace exactly where their influences or exact texts they are using are coming from.
I believe the majority of Old Testament is in Hebrew, but certain parts are not, for instance, the late chapters of Daniel are in a different language from Hebrew (not sure which one) but they attribute it to the fact that the Jews including Daniel were in captivity in Babylon. The New Testament is written in Greek, but I have always learned the spoken language during Jesus time was Aramaic. Also remember, written word was really only for those who were royalty or priests and needed to know how to read and write, but those who were Jesus’ disciples were from a lower caste and probably did converse in a different dialect.
I think focusing on the word mile totally misses the point of that. The problem is not that the word mile is used it is that this shows that a Roman law would have been something of which the BOM people would have no knowledge. It frustrated me when John seems to have misunderstood this and keeps talking about the word "mile" rather than the inclusion of a law unknown to the purported audience.
Matthew' calling your your brother 'raca' you will be liable for judgement and calling him a fool you will be liable to the fires is like the pairing your get in Psalms or proverbs and elsewhere - saying the same thing but different words as a pattern of oratory. Mind you comparing the aramaic raca to the greek mora reminds me of a family saying when I was young. My sisters would tell my parents to tell me to stop being stupid/silly/ daft etc ( I am much younger), My father's answer would be 'she's not daft she's just twp' Twp is a shortening of the welsh word twpsin for idiot/ foolish one. We were not a welsh speaking family , but bits of Welsh had carried over in local lingo. So it was funny because he was saying effectively 'she's not silly she's just silly' but only those knowing the word twp would be in on the joke. So in Matthew 5 22 we have calling your brother a fool ...... compared to calling your brother a fool ! Except keeping one word in Aramaic and not placing it in greek gives it the pun type factor of my father's saying. Torah etc would have been in 2nd temple Hebrew; Jesus would have spoken the northern dialect centuries later. In UK at least local dialects could (before sharing media worldwide) be significantly different to even areas not too far away. They may be able to read and understand the Hebrew text but not te language of daily use. To go back to Welsh, which I learned as an adult; there is a written formal lexicon which is distinctly different to the spoken form, which has also become a written form. So you can write as you speak; or use the old traditional lexicon. When the Bible was translated (1600s) it was put into the formal way so often that old approach is thought of as Bible Welsh, and to try and explain it try somewhere between a mix of the KJV and Chaucerian english in the gap from modern forms. My understanding is that Aramaic has the roots of Hebrew but in the same way that our English today is not like Chaucer. bits of Daniel and the Maccabees in the Apocrypha were written in Aramaic , and that reflects their late date.
Aramaic was not spoken or written until after the babalonyian take over of Jerusalem which is what Lehi fled from. As Aramaic was the language of the Babalonyons the Jewish spake it after they came out of Babylon
This was a terrible discussion. It was so repetitive that it was insulting to intelligent listeners. Over and over and over they covered the same things. What they pointed out certainly reaffirmed how Joesph was the author. It was just not as well done as other discussions they have done. (My opinion) At the end they mentioned clearly that the sermon at the temple was at AD 34 and it used 81% of the later version of Mathew that was written about AD 85. That was so telling to me.
So much emphasis that there MUST be a "Q" source. But there is no Q source. They insist that a Q source must exist because if it doesn't exist then their hypothesis cannot work. To say that Matthew and Luke could not be written without a Q source is an argument from incredulity. It is as bad an argument as those made by apologists.
He got a few words wrong? My question- the real question is how did he get so many words right! Who of us could have that whole sermon memorized! If copied right out of the bible , again show me some evidence of his scribes mentioning how he memorized all this as to be coming right off his stone in his hat! Show me please! Explain it please! Your explanations earlier on how he did it not quite hitting home!
@LDS Discussions you do you. Don't worry about criticisms like this. You aren't a public speaker, and the information you are sharing is valuable. Don't let background thoughts like this distract you from providing the information you have
@LDS Discussions During my mission it was pointed out to me I said "and what not" at the end of sentences so much. It was embarrassing to me when I realized it. But then I could hear myself do it. Took a long time to break. In fact I would start sentences over to drop it. Its not about being a public speaker - its about improving our communication. Its not a race - the content is fantastic and we're all here for the long format. Take your time to convey your brilliant research. We are grateful. And there is no rush - you've got the mic. Take your time.
@rtharalson In the vein of constructive criticism, may I also offer you some feedback: when pointing out areas to work on, it’s nice to lead with something positive. I’m guessing you appreciate Mike’s contribution, and that’s important to voice as well. As recipients, people tend to zero in on negative feedback anyway, so it’s good if the “feedback giver” can try to balance it out. Thanks.
@@charlesmendeley9823 when John summarizes, he breaks the train of thought of who he is interviewing. He has always done this. It's jarring to listen to.
I'd agree except Mike doesn't tell a story. He reads a lot of facts that have no contextual thread or other obvious connection. It's poor communication. John is simply doing what good communicators do and that's to create a narrative. We're hard wired as humans to relate to and remember STORIES...not facts. Keep it up, John.
I very often find myself really being thankful that John summarizes sections of these episodes. I am following along but sometimes, especially when I’m listening along while doing other work or driving, the connections get lost in all of the information. It’s nice to stop every so often and restate what was said, to help absorb the information.
Thank you for doing that.
Thank you!
I agree with this! I love it.
Agreed!
Exactly
👌🏼
These have been one of the most useful discussions series to deconstruct all I leaned in church
Maybe you'll touch on this later, but I was expecting it to be in this episode. The most damning thing about the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon is that none of the JST makes its way into the text. That's damning because it's Joseph contradicting Joseph. It's Joseph shining a spotlight on the fact that the "most perfect" of all books contains an inferior version of one of Jesus' greatest (supposed) sermons. The scholarship is great, but the internal contradiction is a problem on par with the Book of Abraham translation issues, in my opinion. Before my shelf broke, the JST's absence from the BoM, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, was a top 5 shelf item.
@LDS Discussions Looking forward to it! I'm really enjoying this series.
External inconsistencies can be a problem for a worldview, but internal ones are devastating. As important as it will be to discuss the Adam Clarke Commentaries (external), I think contradictions in the overlapping accounts (internal) will carry much more weight. Y'all have done a fantastic job so far, so I've no cause to be worried.
@LDS Discussions will you be getting to polygamy soon?
I find the brief summaries helpful and I appreciate the contributions! Mike is amazing and you guys are doing a really great job… I can hardly begin to explain how truly great this series is. Thank you for your time and energy in doing this series!!
I look forward to these in depth episodes, as a never Mormon it is endlessly fascinating! I have no complaints about the speed.
Thank you!
I agree with Gerardo. The account of Christ visiting the Americas was always underwhelming. I was always left thinking it should offer something more. I must admit that when I was Mormon I was consistently underwhelmed. Funny though.... getting out of the Mormon church has been one of the most overwhelming experiences of my life! ❤️❤️ Thanks for this video.
I love the summarizing after the more complicated slides. It helps so much.
I like the commentary- I especially love when Nemo is on! Maybe mike would feel less like he needs to “rush through” if he had less content to push through in the episode to keep in the hour? If that makes sense? I think having 3 people on the episodes helps balance the commentary. Absolutely love this series. It has been so extremely helpful to me as I navigate leaving the church. 🙏🏻 thank you for all the research and time that’s been put into this project!!!
Hi! Jew here. Regarding the use of the Ancient (second) Temple: There was tension during that era in terms of how one uses worship to reach God, and in what manner. One way was in participating in burnt offerings (or "sacrifices" as they're sometimes called) in the Temple ritual. However, the Pharisees - WRONGLY DEMONIZED in Christian scripture as hard-line hypocrites - sought to democratize Jewish worship and bring it from being Temple-centric to a part of one's daily, internal, and external life. This was threatening to the Priest class, who were wealthy and largely appeasing to Roman occupiers of Judea. While certain rituals and mitzvot (commandments) could only be fulfilled in the Temple with the aid of Priests, connecting to God was not one of those things. In fact, the reason Pharisaic Judaism was the only sect to survive post-Temple was because of how Pharisees like Hillel and Akiva innovated and adapted Jewish observance. A lot of the main teachings of Jesus "Sabbath is not made for man, love your neighbor as yourself," basically a lot of social justice "lovey-dovey" stuff people like to quote are part of Jewish rabbinical teaching of the day, but pointing that out is very inconvenient for Christians who want Jesus to be the sole innovator of these things. (which is why the early Gospel writers turned the Jewish characters who weren't Jesus-followers into villains or ignorant people.)
It's fascinating watching these LDS Discussions shows because Joseph Smith wanted these people to be Jews but there's not a single thing I've seen to indicate they're anything but Proto-Christians.
*CAVEAT:* I am not a 2nd Temple scholar, just a Jewish woman with a layman's understanding of her own culture. Others can fill in.
Former Christian here. It's so sad that Christians have to demonize or make enemies of other people. Or create a devil to scare followers into submission. News flash! Satan is not real! He's a figment of your imagination. The mind is more powerful than religions want to give it credit for.
The gospels don't say the pharisees were hardliners, Jesus sometimes accused them of being too strict and other times as being too lax. Their prevalent view of divorce Jesus was closer to Shammai (more strict actually) but usually Jesus sided closer to Hillel. In all the demonizing of the Pharisee as being hypocrites, too lax, too strict, the pious fool etc, you will see the criticism in early rabbinical literature. The good samaritan story for example has a counterpart where a pharisee passes by a woman drowning and refuses to help because it's forbidden "to look upon a woman". Jesus attitude on the death penalty seems to be consistent with Pharisees and at odds with the Sadducees.
Despite the generalizing the gospels give of the pharisees it must be remembered that Jesus was a Pharisee as were all the apostles and Paul, the book of Acts even binds gentile converts to some rabbinical rulings. The structures of the early church were modeled in part on the ones existing in Israel by Pharisees.
Yes, Jesus and apostles at times borrowed heavily from the rabbis, either accepting one school or rejecting them all in favor of something else.
This isn't unique to NT, the Torah, Prophets and wisdom books at time draw word for word for pagan sources for philosophy, imagery, names of God, metaphors and so on. Daniel 7 is beloved by Christians and its original is pagan mythology about Baal and El and the title given to the "one like the Son of man" "riding the clouds" is used in the Torah and ultimate comes from Near East mythology too. Proverbs has a whole chapter almost word for word at times lifted from Egpytian wisdom literature
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 I'm not going to take seriously opinions about Jews and Judaism from an "Orthodox Catholic" whose bio says "the chief heresy that must be confronted is Islam." But thanks for the tl;dr.
@@1000huzzahs your post was just as long.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath is credited to Jews? Serving the Sabbath is the single biggest part of being Jewish, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.
For me, this series has been one of the best/most helpful things I've seen. Thank you! And keep them coming!
I love the summaries and the check in/discussions/panels. Great work guys!
Marvelous series with tremendous integrity
I love this series! Thanks to all for the hard work and information. It is very helpful and healing to be validated . Thank you!
Mike is always great. He's compiled a fantastic amount of diverse information.
I can definitely see the idea that the beatitudes were temple prep. Temple prep has literally nothing to do with the temple, and neither do the beatitudes! 😆
John, I like it when you summarize...
And Mormon Stories is what the end of mormonism looks like! Thanks John! Keep up the good fight! You’re doing great!
Thank you for explaining Q! I’ve heard this a lot in videos and no one has ever defined it!
Thank you for correcting the pronunciation of beatitudes (it's bee-a-tuh-toodz folks).
Mike is a boss! Saw him on tic tok, thanks for speaking and teaching truth!!! Unfortunately many people are not inclined or compelled to seek or hear it. The power and importance of truth is highly underestimated! Truth is most important, truth is love! Truth is useful! Truth matters! Without truth there can be no justice, no love, No security, no respect, no trust, no liberty, no freedom! no happiness! Thanks Mike! You are a true Patriot! And a Courageous ex-mormon pioneer in the pursuit of sanity in the valley of mormondom! Keep up the good fight!
(The short story on Hebrew and Aramaic is that they're closely related languages, maybe comparable to English and German. Our earliest evidence shows Aramaic being spoken in Aram, to the north of ancient Israel. In the early first millennium BCE, many Aramaean tribes moved eastward into Babylonia and over time were absorbed into Babylonia society. As a result, it appears that Aramaic gradually replaced Babylonian Akkadian as the vernacular spoken in Babylonia, but unfortunately scholars don't have a clear window onto this, because only the sources in Akkadian, written in clay, survive; virtually anything written in Aramaic, on vellum, would have perished in that climate. This trend toward Aramaic was probably accelerated after Persia conquered Babylonia, since the Persians--who of course spoke an Indo-European language themselves--promoted Imperial Aramaic throughout their empire as a language that was, by then, widely understood. So what probably happened is that the elites in Judah who went into captivity in Babylonia shifted their everyday language to Aramaic while they were living there. The Dead Sea Scrolls show, however, that there were people who continued to have facility with Hebrew. Basically, before the exile they spoke Hebrew; after the exile they probably mostly spoke Aramaic, which had gained increasing currency as an international language throughout the region.)
@@markblanchard2280Good point. Also, there's transliterated Aramaic in the Greek of the New Testament, which is why we end up with transliterated Aramaic in our English translations. But why would Jesus switch into another language when addressing the Nephites--Aramaic or any other? Did he not want them to understand what he was saying?! And if it somehow was a word that they understood, that was in their language through whatever implausible mechanism you want to posit, why wasn't it just translated into English by Joseph Smith's seerstone, like every other word? You can't make sense of this stuff in the orthodox framework.
(It reminds me of the problem of the transliterated Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham. So . . . Abraham natively spoke some West Semitic language of about the Middle Bronze Age that was maybe similar to Amorite, but God wanted to talk to him in Egyptian rather than in his own language, and then God started explaining to him what all of these Hebrew words--transliterated according to a Sephardic system with which Joseph Smith was familiar--meant in Egyptian?! What would the point of the conversation even be? "Here's more or less what your native language will evolve into, according to a much later tradition of transliteration," he tells him in a foreign language. The story is bizarre on its face, before you get into the many other problems with the text.)
@@markblanchard2280 So true! He seemed to think Hebrew had some relationship to Adamic, or was Adamic (hence the "peh le'El" in the old temple ceremony). It's clear he had no inkling that Hebrew developed over time from earlier languages, or that we can attempt to reconstruct Proto-Semitic, let alone Proto-Afroasiatic. Whatever transcendent forces he was channeling just didn't give him reliable information.
My layperson understanding was always that they spoke Aramaic day to day but learned Hebrew for the explicit purpose of reading the scriptures but that Greek was the new scholarly language by the time the NT was written down so therefore it was written in Greek but some Aramaic did end up in there for various reasons like difficulty translating it or the writer just preferring to stay as close as they could to their source.
Of course none of this explains why this would end up in the BOM.
To add to this, Hebrew was already a dead language by the time Alexander was born. It was only used in Jewish religious texts and liturgy, much like how Latin is today. We actually have a record in the Bible itself (in Ezra) about how post-exilic Jews were already unable to read their religious text, necessitating the use of specialized scribes.
Being a NeverMo, its helpful when John summarizes.
To me the Sermon on the Mount is the essence of the essence. Look at the way he sat down and gave the Sermon as when you spoke, as a Rabbi, important words to people you sat. It resonates through Christian building work such as Cathedrals which comes from the word cathedra which is an important chair of spiritual authority and if you examine symbols used in the Gospel accounts of Jesus it shows that the context in which the Sermon on the Mount lies is very important. Joseph Smith simply did not understand when he copy cut and pasted this Sermon on The Mount into the Book of Mormon the Jewish traditions being displayed in the manner the Speech is set out and the reason for the Sermon and the background to the Sermon. Thank you for all your downloads, although I am not a Mormon, your videos are thoughtful examinations of concepts that many within and without the Christian and Mormon traditions deserve to hear and consider. Kind regards, Graham,
I was late learning about changing the playback speed here on TH-cam. I use it all the time now, SO helpful. I talk fast, like Mike. And I imagine that people would choose to slow me down if I had a podcast, haha
I really appreciate the summaries, I get lost in the weeds sometimes.
Hey! I didn't know the forward arrow was a feature! Cool. A few minutes in and I've already learned something nifty.
Blessered are those who pay 10% for they will remain in good standing.
Excellent ..
This deconstruction of Matthew in the BofM is comprehensive, reeks of common sense and logical thought patterns that apologetics simply cannot and never will be able to address without acknowledging the reality of the ruse that have been perpetrated against us. Thank you for laying out the chains of evidence so well thought out.
A note: “The Earliest Gospel, an introduction to the original stories and sayings of Jesus”
by John S. Kloppenborg 2008
120 pages with
40 pages of notes and appendices
120 pages
I got it on Amazon.
Some context for the 81% (time stamp 20:30)… I’m in college and if I write a paper that is more than 11% similar to a source than it is considered plagiarism.
Please don’t stop summarizing John. Different perspectives deepen my understanding.
Yes John, it is be-at-i-tudes! Love the series but Mike always seems to mispronounce a word here and there that drives me nuts!
Another reason they believe in the Q source is the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas. Which is a Gnostic text that contains 114 sayings of Jesus.
Just going through this playlist now and really appreciate the thoroughness and how clearly it's all laid out! I do have to note, though, that "mile" was a Roman unit of measurement, though a somewhat different length from the modern mile. From "mille passus", or "1000 paces." There are so many other anachronisms and mistakes, it's a shame to get too caught up on something that isn't actually a problem in and of itself.
Regarding any records of ancient origin of the LDS temple ceremony, according to Scott L Anderson (LDS Institute teacher) a lot of the temple ceremony is recorded on the walls in one of the ancient pyramids in Egypt. He's seen it himself and learned some Egyptian to be able to read it. He said some LDS tours go to see it.
It would be interesting to have someone photograph it and put it online. Maybe if someone connected with the Open Stories Foundation or a fan, an Egyptologist, etc could do that if they're going to/in Egypt...
I remember a woman who worked for the church, had mental health issues and was fired was going to go into archeology, but I don't remember where...
Thx for all u all do!
The masons made the ceremony in the 16th century. There is no ancient origin. But why would the supposed ceremony of Solomons temple be recorded in the pyramids of Egypt?
It's nonsensical to apply the telephone game analogy with "Q" and Matthew's gospel, because the "Q" theory implies the use of an older manuscript source written much closer to Jesus earthly life than Matthew's gospel written approximately 40 years later. The phone game is fallacious because it's assuming a spoken chain, whereas, the gospels are a written manuscript chain that is not verbally repeated but copied.
I NEED JOHNS SUMMARIES
Keeping the algorithm going that pays to comment, like and share.
He probably had the Adam Clark Bible Commentary too!
Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages. Aramaic came around later during the 6th century BC post babylonian exileand eventually replaced Hebrew as the daily language for the Jews. Jesus and some of the minor prophets (like Daniel) spoke and wrote Aramaic .
Very few people today are aware of the ancient Roman law, but "going the extra mile" still has meaning for us like it would the Nephites or anyone else . Not a smoking gun.
But it has meaning BECAUSE of the Bible phrase. Without knowing the Bible (through direct study or cultural osmosis) one wouldn’t know what the phrase meant.
@@juliaboon9741 Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into 19th Century KJV English. The similar phaseology purposefully helps bring to mind similar scriptures from one to the other. The original text was likely an idiomatic expression which was translated into an equivalent expression which 19th century readers would have understood. If I was translating Spanish "No hay moros en el costa" I might use an equivalent english expression then the literal "no Muslims on the beach."
This was an an issue for Nephites when reading the Brass Plates when Nephi mentions that Isaiah was hard to understand because his children knew nothing of the "things of the Jews". Isaiah is a very expression heavy text.
@@ddbrosnahan this doesn’t address the issue that the Roman law, which became the English expression, had no meaning to the people depicted in the BOM. It has meaning to us because we have adopted it into English but the people of the BOM left before such a Roman law existed and thus would never have had any way of adopting it into their language (as we as English speakers have since).
It’s also important to note that Joseph Smith was said to write a literal translation of the BOM and also wrote in words that were apparently from their language. Why did he pick and choose which words to translate? Why not use farthing but kept senine? Why not just say “money” if he was making such big changes?
@@juliaboon9741 JS didnt use farthing because the BofM briefly explains their money system. Some things are literal if there isn't an equivalent expresion. We don't know what the original text said, but it's not an error for JS to use an equivant expression modern readers do understand. Not a smoking gun.
@@ddbrosnahan you said he altered the text so the Upstate New York readers will understand but then writes the money using a system they don’t understand. Yes it is explained earlier in the book but in this section the money is not being explained, it is being stated. Wouldn’t it be easier for the USNY readers to read it as “penny” or other US currency by the same argument? Instead the “translation” “keeps” the word senine. You must apply the same logic to every part of a text.
It’s the sermon on the mount in Matthew and the sermon on the plain in Luke. So the stump speech idea isn’t terrible.
Is it true that people are required to sign a informed consent statement before they are baptised to protect the lds church?
But nobody is informed. Only people watching post Mormon videos are actually well informed for informed consent to happen.
34:55 Lehi would’ve spoken Hebrew, not Aramaic. (The Book of Mormon says “and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record”.) Aramaic became the main language for the Jews after Lehi left Jerusalem. The Wikipedia page “Jewish languages” says: “Aramaic became the primary language of the Jews deported to Babylonia, with the first attestations of Jewish/Judean Aramaic found in scrolls from the 5th century BCE on the island of Elephantine.”
This is really important stuff. I mean the word apologetics implies that they’re apologizing for the fact that this thing doesn’t work ha ha. And by the way John, yes beatitudes. Four syllables lol
I know that this is an old pod cast now, but we learned that Luke was investigating all of this
"Vaticinium ex eventu" - "a prophecy written after the author already had information about the events being "foretold". The text is written so as to appear that the prophecy had taken place before the event, when in fact it was written after the events supposedly predicted. "
This is exactly what Joseph Smith did in the Book of Mormon.
Do mormons pronounce the word "beatitude" differently? Because it sounded like Mike was saying "beatudes"
I grew up Mormon and have never heard anyone pronounce it that way before. It's actually really throwing me off every time I hear it.
No. He's mispronouncing it for some reason. It's really weird. Never heard anyone say it like that ever.
Yes,, should be "bee-attitudes." Was driving me nuts too 😂
I thought was random American way of saying it too!
How did he do it? Had it memorized? Smart, smart man that Bro Smith! All I need is an explanation that fits into the known history of the Books Translation as to how he had his story so well memorized that he could stop and start as he did and question after question? The potty breaks just doesn’t quite seem reasonable! Take one chapter and show me how he managed it! Take one chapter and role play it and show me how he did it!
My guess is that JS used a hat when translating so that he could conceal a small piece of paper in it next to the rock. Historians have pointed out a revivalist preaching tradition, common in Smith's time, where preachers would write out the main points of their sermons on paper, (similar in size to the modern 3X5 card) instead of writing out all the words of the sermon. This composition technique is known as “laying down heads.” This has been discussed at length in other Mormon Stories episodes. The idea that JS could seemingly always start up right where he left off does not seem terribly impressive to me. I believe that a) he had an exceptional memory, and b) He would make it a point to focus on where he left off as a way to impress his scribes.
He actually used Martin and Emma (and later Oliver) as his memorization tool. Remember, he had them repeat every sentence to him after he'd finished saying it. It's a common trick for dictation.
Forget about whether the book is historical or not. That’s not the point. Why was the sermon on the mount placed in there? What is it’s significance? That’s the point.
The Norwegians were writing Danish at the time of Joseph Smith, although they were under Swedish rule. Napoleon Bonaparte was a friend of the King of Sweden. He died without an heir. One of Napoleon's soldiers was appointed King of a united Sweden and Norway. Charles Jean Bernadotte became King Karl Johan. He built the royal palace in Oso. Norway gained independence in 1905. That is when they came up with the two Norwegian languages.. Book Language and New Norwegian. The first King of modern Norway 🇳🇴 was Prince Carl of Denmark 🇩🇰 and his wife was Princess Maud of England. Prince Carl was known in England as Charles. Prince Charles now. So Prince Charles was named after King Haakon VII of Norway. He was Queen Elizabeth's cousin and Queen Maud of England was her Aunt. This is the Queen Maud of Queen Maud Land in Antarctica. She was a flapper in the 1920's. My grandpa was named Haakon. He came to America in 1910. He was advised to use his middle name, Norman. He thought that his name was good enough for the King, it was good enough for him. His niece sent King Haakon chocolates to my Grandma for years. The current king, King Harald with his mother and sister lived with Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II. There were rumors of FDR and The Crown Princess Märtha of Norway 🇳🇴. She died before she became Queen. King Olav V stayed single for the rest of his life. I saw him in the street, and the current King and Queen while we were street contacting in Bergen. On my mission. I was like to yard's away from the royals. King Olav used to get around Oslo taking the subway or a bus 🚌. The Norwegian Royals are really down to earth. I loved King Harald's speech when gay marriage was legalized in Norway.
Lure is a verb, TO FOOL. Maybe Joseph Smith used a word from a dialect of spoken Norwegian?
Agree with everything you’ve said. Many years ago, reading the sermon on the mount in the BOM, I wondered to myself how the Roman law had any relevance to these people. It was irrelevant, and out of context. I find myself in an interesting position, where I truly believe the lds church is the lord’s church, but that JS at his discretion made the bom up.
Jesus tore down the veil and the LDS church put it back up again. It doesn't get more satanic than that. Read the new testament.
I did a bunch of googling a few weeks ago trying to find an answer about whether Jews used miles in 600 BCE, but I didn't get a definitive answer; miles were definitely used in the Ancient world by other societies, though, so I don't see the use of "mile" as the smoking gun that John thinks it is. The presence of the actual text of Matthew is far more damning than whether Nephites ought to be using that specific ancient unit of distance.
When Jesus said to settle with your opponent quickly or else we will face the judge and be put in prison, He was talking about Purgatory.
Why read and quote the King James version of the Bible? Because long stretches are glorious poetry. As far as accuracy goes, for goodness' sake, the Bible is a religious text. Why would non-believers, such as myself, impute objective reality into any version of the Bible. I cast my vote for King James for its sheer beauty. If I couldn't have the magnificent King James, pfft, I wouldn't have any motivation to go near any Bible.
That said, the linguistic and historical roots of these ancient texts are indeed fascinating. I love this series of videos.
@LDS DiscussionsYes, I agree with all of that.
It's sad that anyone is taught that it is error-free, as a number of Christian religions do.
Non believer here. I despise the KJV because it doesn't communicate the intended points for numerous reasons. It mistranslates numerous things, it uses antiquated language that modern English speakers can't understand (sometimes because the terms are now obsolete, but sometimes because the meanings of the words have changed completely), and because it uses nonsensical euphemisms for everything remotely sex-related. Poetic or not, virtually no one reading it actually understands what was intended by it.
When people are using a book that they don't understand to justify making legislation that hurts people, as is the case in the US, the minimal benefit from the poetry in is scarcely worth the cost.
@@carrienelson35 Yes, no version of the Bible should be used to justify any legislation. It's maddening that people are still inculcated to believe the stories are true, and even more maddening when they try to impose their "truth" on others. I don't think the King James is significantly more culpable, though, than modern scholarly translations, and at least it is beautiful.
I was responding to John's comment that he doesn't know why we bother with the King James at all in this day and age. I'm dismissive of any other version, because the Bible is just stories to me anyway. Just my two cents.
Of course the value on Biblical linguistic accuracy is likely to be superseding for people who think there is a God and believe that he has talked to us. Whatever floats anyone's boat.
As far as antiquated language goes, I can lose myself in Shakespeare, and, of course, other people are just exasperated. I get that.
I've read Middle English texts with modern translations on one side to help me out with comprehension, which I really do need going back that far. The sounds, though, of Middle English make me so happy, I can't even tell you. I've always regretted I never had a chance to study Old English, but it wasn't offered at my university.
I have one bookshelf dedicated solely to the Arthurian tales, and that love led me on back in time to other ancient stories and poetry. It's the pure love of language that has given me so much pleasure.
So, when it comes to Biblical stories, I will always love the King James.
34:00 Lehi would've been exposed to some form of Aramaic according to my quick Google search. Weather the word "Raca" exists in the particular form of Aramaic spoken in Lehi's time and place is another question. Wikipedia:
"The dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire... over Aram-Damascus in the middle of the 8th century led to the establishment of Aramaic as a lingua franca of the empire... From 700 BCE, the language began to spread in all directions but lost much of its homogeneity. Different dialects emerged in Assyria, Babylonia, the Levant and Egypt."
The words that Smith stole weren't from the first century or the second century, but from the 17th century translation.
So I highly doubt that the words originated in the BOM time frame.
I dont understand how believing mormans can read the BOM and see a 75-80% identical story in the bible and not question it.
So your saying the nephites would have no idea of a mile! What was their distance measurement?
I've heard several New Testament scholars suggest that the sermon on the mount was really more of a greatest hits compilation, and so it was likely never given as a single speech at a single event during his ministry.
If so, the resurrected Jesus miraculously delivered the Nephites a greatest hits performance that is 81% identical to the compilation in Matthew...
And by the way, Matthew wouldnt have been written for another 3 decades... And in greek, rather than Jesus' original Aramaic.
Senine - I wonder if there's an early money counterfeiting thread to pull on there? 🤔 Money seems to be something that would be on a counterfeiters or money diggers mind than the other metrics like a "mile". I've not yet studied enough on the counterfeiting claims to go beyond a ponderence of a potential hypothesis.
Aramaic was the language spoken in the area where Jesus cane from. It is also believed that the disciples spoke Aramaic. It is believed that Jesus spoke Hebrew as well as Arabic.
I actually totally agree with what you are saying but don't discount the culture of oral tradition. Think of how many songs that people know word for word with very little mistakes. You are assuming nothing was written down at all those years also. I agree with the connection you are making to how he likely pulled just from the king James. But be careful as you criticize the distance of time from the gospels from Jesus's death. It's still very realistic to consider as 'accurate'. I don't think it's also necessarily word for word. But the idea and themes could reasonably be preserved. Unlike in 'telephone' often the message is totally changed.
I always miss Nemo when he isn’t here.
Sorry, that is the book of Q.
A farthing was a quarter (or a "forthing") of a penny. During the middle ages, and the 17th century when the King James Version was published, most English pennies incorporated a cross into the design. This was nothing to do with Christianity, but were guidelines to cut the coin into 4 pieces. Those pieces were farthings, the smallest unit of English currency
When a labourer might earn a few pence a day, clearly, he needed to make regular purchases worth less than a penny, so he would divide his coins. Or he could cut a penny in 2, and those were halfpennies.
By the 19th century, when Joseph Smith was alive, there were actual coins minted in England called farthings and halfpennies
Where the practice originated, I don't know, but I collect Roman coins, and I haven't heard of it in that respect. So it's of medieval origin, I suppose
The mile measurement was originally Roman, mile being the Latin for a thousand - yards, that is. A Roman mile was shorter than a modern mile. Where the Romans got it from, I don't know. Presumably from the Etruscans, who dominated Italy before Rome. It seems unlikely that they'd have adopted it from the middle east, so, as Mike said, while it would have been significant to a 17th century Englishman, it would have been completely meaningless to a South American population that originated from Jerusalem
It’s is scientific. Linguistics is how they found the Unabomber! Linguistics is a scientific study of language and how certain every person have their style of writing and their own influences where researchers can trace exactly where their influences or exact texts they are using are coming from.
Missed it by a mile.
I believe the majority of Old Testament is in Hebrew, but certain parts are not, for instance, the late chapters of Daniel are in a different language from Hebrew (not sure which one) but they attribute it to the fact that the Jews including Daniel were in captivity in Babylon. The New Testament is written in Greek, but I have always learned the spoken language during Jesus time was Aramaic.
Also remember, written word was really only for those who were royalty or priests and needed to know how to read and write, but those who were Jesus’ disciples were from a lower caste and probably did converse in a different dialect.
Roman's used the mile as a distance measurement. Not all miles are equal in distance.
I think focusing on the word mile totally misses the point of that. The problem is not that the word mile is used it is that this shows that a Roman law would have been something of which the BOM people would have no knowledge. It frustrated me when John seems to have misunderstood this and keeps talking about the word "mile" rather than the inclusion of a law unknown to the purported audience.
I'm sorry - did book of mormon central genuinely write 'the jewish farthing' like farthings were in fact the currency in roman judea???
Can I get paid a dollar for every time I hear the phrase smoking gun?
Matthew' calling your your brother 'raca' you will be liable for judgement and calling him a fool you will be liable to the fires is like the pairing your get in Psalms or proverbs and elsewhere - saying the same thing but different words as a pattern of oratory.
Mind you comparing the aramaic raca to the greek mora reminds me of a family saying when I was young. My sisters would tell my parents to tell me to stop being stupid/silly/ daft etc ( I am much younger), My father's answer would be 'she's not daft she's just twp' Twp is a shortening of the welsh word twpsin for idiot/ foolish one. We were not a welsh speaking family , but bits of Welsh had carried over in local lingo. So it was funny because he was saying effectively 'she's not silly she's just silly' but only those knowing the word twp would be in on the joke.
So in Matthew 5 22 we have calling your brother a fool ...... compared to calling your brother a fool ! Except keeping one word in Aramaic and not placing it in greek gives it the pun type factor of my father's saying.
Torah etc would have been in 2nd temple Hebrew; Jesus would have spoken the northern dialect centuries later. In UK at least local dialects could (before sharing media worldwide) be significantly different to even areas not too far away. They may be able to read and understand the Hebrew text but not te language of daily use.
To go back to Welsh, which I learned as an adult; there is a written formal lexicon which is distinctly different to the spoken form, which has also become a written form. So you can write as you speak; or use the old traditional lexicon. When the Bible was translated (1600s) it was put into the formal way so often that old approach is thought of as Bible Welsh, and to try and explain it try somewhere between a mix of the KJV and Chaucerian english in the gap from modern forms. My understanding is that Aramaic has the roots of Hebrew but in the same way that our English today is not like Chaucer. bits of Daniel and the Maccabees in the Apocrypha were written in Aramaic , and that reflects their late date.
Why does he keep saying BEAT-itudes? It's be-AT-ittudes. Right?? Weird.
Correct, he is mispronouncing it. Should be "bee-attitudes". It was driving me nuts too 😂😂. I'll blame my grammatical OCD.
Aramaic was not spoken or written until after the babalonyian take over of Jerusalem which is what Lehi fled from. As Aramaic was the language of the Babalonyons the Jewish spake it after they came out of Babylon
This was a terrible discussion. It was so repetitive that it was insulting to intelligent listeners. Over and over and over they covered the same things.
What they pointed out certainly reaffirmed how Joesph was the author. It was just not as well done as other discussions they have done. (My opinion)
At the end they mentioned clearly that the sermon at the temple was at AD 34 and it used 81% of the later version of Mathew that was written about AD 85. That was so telling to me.
This is hard to follow as someone thats never read the book of mormon
It doesn’t take a Racca scientist!😂
So much emphasis that there MUST be a "Q" source. But there is no Q source. They insist that a Q source must exist because if it doesn't exist then their hypothesis cannot work. To say that Matthew and Luke could not be written without a Q source is an argument from incredulity. It is as bad an argument as those made by apologists.
He got a few words wrong? My question- the real question is how did he get so many words right! Who of us could have that whole sermon memorized! If copied right out of the bible , again show me some evidence of his scribes mentioning how he memorized all this as to be coming right off his stone in his hat! Show me please! Explain it please! Your explanations earlier on how he did it not quite hitting home!
Mike - STOP saying "you know" so much. Don't lead the answer to a question with "you know."
@LDS Discussions you do you. Don't worry about criticisms like this. You aren't a public speaker, and the information you are sharing is valuable. Don't let background thoughts like this distract you from providing the information you have
@LDS Discussions During my mission it was pointed out to me I said "and what not" at the end of sentences so much. It was embarrassing to me when I realized it. But then I could hear myself do it. Took a long time to break. In fact I would start sentences over to drop it.
Its not about being a public speaker - its about improving our communication. Its not a race - the content is fantastic and we're all here for the long format. Take your time to convey your brilliant research. We are grateful. And there is no rush - you've got the mic. Take your time.
@rtharalson In the vein of constructive criticism, may I also offer you some feedback: when pointing out areas to work on, it’s nice to lead with something positive. I’m guessing you appreciate Mike’s contribution, and that’s important to voice as well. As recipients, people tend to zero in on negative feedback anyway, so it’s good if the “feedback giver” can try to balance it out. Thanks.
John, you do summarize too much. Let these guys tell their story.
When John summarizes, you can simply double click on the right side to jump forward 10seconds.
@@charlesmendeley9823 when John summarizes, he breaks the train of thought of who he is interviewing. He has always done this. It's jarring to listen to.
I'd agree except Mike doesn't tell a story. He reads a lot of facts that have no contextual thread or other obvious connection. It's poor communication. John is simply doing what good communicators do and that's to create a narrative. We're hard wired as humans to relate to and remember STORIES...not facts. Keep it up, John.