- Hebraisms were known in Smith's time and many lay people back then read a great deal of scripture. There's plenty of 18th- and 19th-Century style writing in the Book of Mormon.
No, they were not, not the kind of Hebraisms that are in the Book of Mormon. And, yes, given that the book is a translation. And, no, there is not "plenty" of 18th/19th-century-style writing in the Book of Mormon. I see you went running to Wikipedia and/or anti-Mormon sites, but obviously did not bother to read the other side. That seems to be a habit of yours.
- Nehhm was drawn on a map in the late 1700s.
LOL! You are a joke. You're obviously talking about the 1763 map drawn by a German surveyor Niebuhr that mentions a place called name "Nehhm," but "Nehhm" was nowhere near the site of Nahom that was found along the Frankincense Trail in Arabia. Niebuhr's "nehhm" was about 25 miles northeast of Sana'a. You might wanna check a map next time before you embarrass yourself again.
Educate yourself just a bit:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/history-nahomNo one knows for sure how the site called NHM is pronounced.[/li][/list]
Humm, I guess you don't know that I was an Arabic and Hebrew linguist for 25 years in the military and as a federal contractor. In Arabic and Hebrew, the consonants are the key, while the vowels can vary by locale or dialect. If you follow the Book of Mormon's description of Lehi's journey down the Arabian coastline and calculate the average travel time for that size of a party, you end up in the exact same area where Nahom was discovered.
- The "Bountiful" site was known for centuries; you mean the 1990s was when a "scholar" made his determination.
"Known for centuries" by the the locals there in the area? Yes, of course. "Known for centuries" in the West? No. Joseph Smith certainly had no knowledge of ancient Arabian geography. The site isn't even visible from the sea unless you get close enough, and the land path to it is difficult.
- Welch, who popularized the notion about chiasmus, cautioned:
"Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and
caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus
in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless."
Dishonest cherry-picking. Welch was explaining that simple chiasmus proves little but that complex chiasmus, such as the kind found in the Book of Mormon, will not be found in English-language texts unless the authors knew of chiasmus and purposely wrote in chiastic style. Here's one of Welch's articles on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/chiasmus-book-mormonRead this article, folks, and then you'll see how dishonestly and misleadingly Organ has quoted Welch.
Some other writings by Smith contained chiasmus, meaning it was a style of writing he was familiar with.[/li][/list]
Hogwash. That anti-Mormon myth has long since been debunked.
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-much-could-joseph-smith-have-known-about-chiasmus-in-1829- Could be the "different authors" are actually Smith's writing style evolving along with his fantasies.
Wow, there's a powerful argument. Here's another chance to educate yourself before you make more embarrassing comments:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studiesSouthern crackers (who have assumed the self-serving notion that coastal "elites" are the racists, not them) like the idea that Lincoln wasn't a Democrat, the party they single out for slavery. Of course you like Lincoln and would love to absolve the South.
You are just ignorant on this issue. Again, go to any of the major Civil War online forums, all of which I have dialogued in, and find me just one Lost Causer who praises Lincoln and also McClellan.
"Like the idea that Lincoln wasn't a Democrat"
Boy, this is really, really silly. Clearly, this is not an issue you have studied. Lost Causers ardently defend 19th-century Democrats and they are very aware that the modern Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the 1800-1932 Democratic Party.
You should just admit that you blundered (again).
Well, you certainly know how to split a hair.
I noticed you snipped all the evidence of advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Be advised that there's plenty more where that came from. If you want yet another chance to educate yourself, you might start with the scholarly article "Signals Intelligence and Pearl Harbor: The State of the Question," written by historians Dr. Brian Villa and Dr. Timothy Wilford, and published in
Intelligence and National Security, Vol.21, No.4, August 2006:
http://miketgriffith.com/files/villa-wilford.pdfAnd I see you punted on further discussion about the RFK case. Well, here is more reading for you, on the off chance that you want to educate yourself (these are extracts from some of the legal briefs that were submitted to support Sirhan's appeals):
All 12 of the pantry witnesses who commented on Sirhan's position in relation to RFK said Sirhan was never behind Bobby but always in front of h im, and was always at least, at the bare minimum, 3-4 feet from him.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/12witnesses.pdfAll five of the pantry witnesses who commented on how quickly Sirhan was pinned after he opened fire said he only fired two or three shots before he was pinned down.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/5witnesses.pdfThe RFK assassination tape (the Pruszynski tape) contains more shots than Sirhan could have fired.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/vanpraagstatement.pdfhttps://miketgriffith.com/files/bradjohnsonstatement.pdfThe ballistics evidence in the RFK case.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/ballisticsevidence1.pdf[/list]
