Linguistic Evidence for the Book of Mormon

I’m a student and teacher of language. While most of my focus is on the Romance languages (particularly Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin), I have a great love for language in general. I think the most compelling evidences for the Book of Mormon are the linguistic evidences offered in the text. A new area of evidence concentrates on the external linguistic evidence. If you enjoy language and words, I think you’ll enjoy Brian Stubb’s FAIR presentation from 2006.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Linguistic Evidence for the Book of Mormon

  1. Where did you find this quote? I tried to find it online & could not. Is there a direct link somewhere? “It is one thing to drink tea and coffee in the ordinary way, that is, to make a practice of doing so, and especially of taking those beverages strong, and another thing entirely to drink tea or coffee as a medicine. All such things were created in the beginning for the use of man, that is, for a wise use, and it is for the Saints to know for themselves what constitutes a wise use and to govern themselves accordingly. This is the spirit in which the revelation called the Word of Wisdom should be understood and taught.” (Statements of the First Presidency, 506-507)[/b]

  2. Hey, CLee. I’m not sure where I quoted that, but it’s found in the “Statements of the First Presidency” published by Signature books on pages 506-507. Hope this helps.

  3. Hi, Andrew.

    I’m not a Mormon but I am, too, a student of languages, mostly Far Eastern ones. I thought your statement above was interesting because, from my perspective, the linguistic angle is the most compelling evidences AGAINST the Book of Mormon.

    But before I detail a concise outline of why, could you post something of your own work on that. What specifically makes you think that the Book of Mormon is a literary work of history (even though the language termed “reformed Egyptian” isn’t a language that is identifiable to non-Mormon linguists)?

    As much as I enjoy reading FARM stuff, is any of it taken as official?

    Joshua

  4. The amount of linguistical evidence in favor for the Book of Mormon is absolutely impressive. But Br. Stubb’s presentation adds several additional layers to the mounting evidence that the Book of Mormon was not a 19th century work.

    As far as Joshua’s comment is concerned, you can find volumes of information on the literary content of the Book of Mormon. I’m not sure what he means as “official” but if he’s referring to the Church taking a position on linguistical evidence, that’s not going to happen.

  5. 1979 A Comparason of Maya and Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Linda Miller Van Blerkom Katunob 11(August 1979 pp 1-8

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s