Interesting and contrasting viewpoints. One could take the view that the reason the two sources are similar is because one stole from the other.

Hmmmmm. There's a thought.

Hmmmmm... If one really read both sources with the desires to know the truth, one could really gain a testimony of the nature of God, he doesn't change! His Gospel is the same!

Sarcasm aside mr. thinker - there would be reason to raise an eyebrow at LDS Scripture if there weren't similarities to biblical phraseology.

if throughout time, God speaks and his prophets write... modern day prophets will then write the word of God as it was spoken - and unless God has developed a southern draw or picked up some american slang - it will be very similar (and only 'similar' due to the translational barrier of ancient text and modern language)to what was spoken/written in the days of Isaiah or in the days of any of the biblical prophets of old.

As a teacher I watch for plagerism. The reason A seems to be like B is because...

yeah.

Now a great defense is always, "But we all watch the same tv, hear the same lectures, eat at the same cafe, speak English, and know that 2 plus 2 is 4. No wonder it all sounds the same to you teacher.

No wonder. F for plagerism. Thank you.

At one time, the Old Testament was all "modern revelation". To the existing word of God, early Christians added all the books of the New Testament and the rest of the religious world went ballistic. Now here the LDS are in he exact same position as the early Christian were 2,000 years ago, with more scripture getting the same reaction from other relgionists. Interesting isn't it?

Interesting...

Joseph Smith had very little formal education. He was taught to read, write, and think from the King James Version of the Bible. Along with his family's superstitious outlook, the KJV language was Joseph's native language. Whenever he spoke, he spoke in a KJV tongue. It gives the illusion of spirituality, authority, and truth.

If the Book of Mormon was really written in reformed Egyptian (which nobody has ever found examples of), the sentence structure and language of the BOM would not be so exactly like the KJV of the Bible. The KJV of the Bible reads the way it does because of the nature of the Greek language from which it was translated. If the BOM was not written in Greek, it would NEVER take on the same structure and style as the KJV of the Bible. But instead of being uniquely "Egyptian" the BOM as well as the Doctrine of Covenants reveal Joseph Smith's upbringing and education using the KJV of the Bible. This is strong evidence that Joseph Smith invented the BOM rather than translated it from an Eqyptian text of any kind.

To be fair, translators use the phrases they are familiar with in trying to convey ideas that have no good direct translation. In performing live translation for church meetings, I find myself using biblical phrases the preacher didn't actually use but that give the same idea.

Yeah, I'd give you an F for "plagerism," too.

Maybe you fell asleep in class that day, but the word is actually "plagiarism."

If you're really a teacher, this may shed a little light on the validity your argument. If you're not, it sheds even more.

There is way too much evidence indicating that it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to create the Book of Mormon in the time frame he did. Take Chiasmus, for example, an ancient literary form of poetry that exists in the bible (it has a complex structure that can't be mistaken). Now Chiasmus wasn't known in America until the 1850's, oh wait but Joseph died in 1844, now how did he create hundreds of complete and correct forms of chiaasmus throughout the book of mormon? You people are just in denial and use that to justify a way of life. By you speaking so poorly about Joseph smith all you are really doing is testifying that Moroni was a prophet, he told Joseph Smith that his name would be had for good and evil across the world. So, thank you all for testifying of the prophet Moroni. But, then if that were true then Joseph must have been called of God, wow, its funny how that works.

To Ammon,

You are obviously not familiar with the many, many examples of people producing large quantities of books and writings in very short timeframes. Just look at how much L. Ron Hubbard produced in a short amount of time! If that is the basis of your faith in Joseph Smith, you better check out Scientology!

Ammon,
Chiasmus is found in Shakespeare's works, Kennedy's speaches, and countless other literary works. It is not unique to any one literary form or language. Indeed, much chiasmus is inadvertent, and much of it was written a long time before it was ever identified (in the 19th century) as a literary or rhetorical form. Your "arguments" in favor of the divine origins of the Book of Mormon are a joke.

Funny how people claim the Book of Mormon is just copying the KJV Bible, cause the same people complain when the wording isn't exactly the same like some scriptures quoting Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (BOM). So either way, you'll complain. Doesn't matter if something you say is proved wrong, you'll find another reason to not believe it. First people said there weren't any inhabitants of South America during the BOM time. Then many artifacts and cities were found that proved otherwise. Then, nobody wrote on metal plates to create records, and suddenly metal plates were found all over the world. The Bible is complete and no other words are necessary. Then scrolls from prophets were being found with additional doctrine that wasn't put in the Bible. I'll admit there is no physical proof the BOM is true. But the same can be said for the Bible; noe one shred of evidence that everything in there happened. So you have no argument.