This is a response to Dave Bartosiewicz’s video:
Early in the video, Dave references 2 Tim 3:16:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God (θεόπνευστος), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Dave is correct that “Scripture” is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) but begs the question as to the scope of God-breathed revelation. Even James White admits that the scope of "scripture" is not in view here, only the quality thereof.
It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention. Paul's point is plain: the man of God can be artios and exartizo only through the work of the graphe.
Here, White concedes that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the extent (the "tota" of scriptura), but just the nature of scripture. Why is this significant? It again shows that Protestants, to support the idea that special/general revelation ended with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, will have to go outside of the Bible and privilege such a teaching/tradition en par with the written word to support such a dogmatic view, which is contrary to sola scriptura, as all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to the Bible! Again, this proves sola scriptura to be theological "quicksand" which inevitably traps its defenders as it is actually anti-biblical.
I will reproduce a quote that I have cited many times on this blog, as it proves how apologists for sola scriptura are incapable of proving their doctrine from biblical exegesis:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Bartosiewicz then claims that "nothing was ever edited"; I would suggest the interested reader to pursue a previous response I wrote,
Dave tries to give the impression that only the Bible (which exhausts the category of "Scripture" for him) is inspired/God-breathed. However, even the Bible refutes this.
θεοπνευστος appears only once in the Greek New Testament; it is never used in the LXX. Now, if a Protestant wishes to argue that as the "Bible" is said to be θεοπνευστος, and such a term is not said to describe any other authority, what about the time prior to the inscripturation of 2 Timothy 3:16? If the apologist were consistent in their (admittedly, misapplication of) “logic,” no one could state with any assurance that Scripture was inspired of God prior to Paul using the term θεοπνευστος! Such is the absurdities of this "argument." In reality, for something to be inspired of God and an authority, there are different locutions one could use (e.g., "the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" [Matt 10:20]; "in spirit" [Matt 22:43]; "filled with the Holy Ghost" [Acts 4:8]).
Note the words of Paul in 1 Thess 2:13:
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Here, Paul refers to both his inspired writings and oral teachings as being equally authoritative and as being "the word of God." As they say, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . ."
As for comments from the Book of Mormon prophets recognising the inspired nature of their writings, see the following examples: 1 Nephi 6:1-6; 9:2-6; 14:25, 28; 19:2-3; 2 Nephi 5:30-31; Words of Mormon 1:3-9; Alma 37:1-25; 3 Nephi 26:6-12; 28:24-25; 30:1-2; Mormon 5:9; 8:13-16; Ether 4:1-6; 5:1-6; 8:26; 13:13; 15:33; Moroni 9:24; 10:2-5.
Further, there are many places in the NT and OT where Jesus and the prophets command the people of God to obey non-inscripturated revelation/tradition.
Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:
Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:
a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
For an Old Testament example, consider 2 Chron 29:25:
Further, there are many places in the NT and OT where Jesus and the prophets command the people of God to obey non-inscripturated revelation/tradition.
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)
Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:
Moses’ seat . . . [is] a metaphor for teaching authority; cf. the professor’s “chair.” . . . ‘whatever they teach you’ refers to their reading of Scripture, ‘they do’ to Pharisaic doctrine and practice. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 387)
Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:
They made for him [Moses] a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)Simply put, the "Chair of Moses" was the teaching authority of the synagogue. Note the following points:
a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
For an Old Testament example, consider 2 Chron 29:25:
He stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres, according to the command of David and Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the Lord through the prophets. (NASB [1995])
In this passage, we learn the following:
(1) Firstly, David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible.
So what we have here is a clear OT refutation of the Sola Scriptura principle. Other OT texts refer to the non-canonical written and non-inscripturated oral tradition of prophets and seers that were held to be as authoritative as inscripturated revelation: e.g. 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 33:18-19; 35:4; 1 Sam 9:9; Isaiah 30:10; Jer 26:18; Zech 1:4-6; 7:7; 8:9.
Of course, one must realise that, in this video and other videos, Bartosiewicz assumes sola scriptura to be biblical--it is not.
One of the many errant claims about archaeology and the Bible he makes is about the issue of placenames in the Bible. However, what he seems ignorant of is that before the 1930s, no Palestinian site was known from an in situ inscription, and since then, only a handful have been identified by inscriptions–Dan, Jerusalem, Gezer, Lachish, Arad, and Ekron.
He then claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls supports his claim about the preservation of the Bible. However, this only shows that Dave is either a liar, an idiot, or both. One common mistake (if not down-right lie) one hears from many Evangelical apologists on this issue is that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Text have no textual differences, being one example of the perfect (or near-perfect [99.9% is a figure that Norman Geisler et al., likes to throw out]). However, such is without any basis in reality. Sadly, this “argument” appears in many popular works (e.g., McDowell’s poorly researched book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict). What is even sadder is that many anti-Mormons use this “evidence,” without researching it, to argue against the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible, as summed up in the eighth article of faith (e.g., Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [1995]).
As with many topics, Bartosiewicz claims go against both the Bible and scholarship.
He also repeats the false but popular claim that John 19:30 supports forensic justification and atonement. To see how the Protestant interpretation of τετελεσται ("it is finished") is eisegetical, and that the penal substitutionary model of atonement is actually contradicted by the New Testament, see Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz beginning under the section entitled "John 19:30"
Of course, one must realise that, in this video and other videos, Bartosiewicz assumes sola scriptura to be biblical--it is not.
One of the many errant claims about archaeology and the Bible he makes is about the issue of placenames in the Bible. However, what he seems ignorant of is that before the 1930s, no Palestinian site was known from an in situ inscription, and since then, only a handful have been identified by inscriptions–Dan, Jerusalem, Gezer, Lachish, Arad, and Ekron.
He then claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls supports his claim about the preservation of the Bible. However, this only shows that Dave is either a liar, an idiot, or both. One common mistake (if not down-right lie) one hears from many Evangelical apologists on this issue is that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Text have no textual differences, being one example of the perfect (or near-perfect [99.9% is a figure that Norman Geisler et al., likes to throw out]). However, such is without any basis in reality. Sadly, this “argument” appears in many popular works (e.g., McDowell’s poorly researched book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict). What is even sadder is that many anti-Mormons use this “evidence,” without researching it, to argue against the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible, as summed up in the eighth article of faith (e.g., Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [1995]).
Michael S. Heiser, an Evangelical scholar, presents these differences in a paper entitled, "Letter Differences in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” One should read it and even save it for future reference, as this claim is very popular, though it is simply false. Hopefully, honest Evangelicals who are made aware of this will drop this very errant, if not deceptive, argument.
Another good resource on the issue of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, I would recommend the following:
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.: Fortress Press, 2011).
One should read sound scholarship on textual criticism and related fields and compare it with Dave's blustering nonsense. It is not even close.
His comments on the transmission of the earliest texts of the New Testament are, for the most part, bogus. The earlier one goes back, the wider the textual divergences between biblical texts. For instance, Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, commenting on the Gospel of John portrayed in two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and p75) reveal 85% agreement, leaving 15% disagreement. This is a far-cry from the 98-99.9% figures one often hears from Evangelicals! Further, Comfort and Barrett also reveal that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p13 and p46 display 80% agreement and 20% disagreement (see Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, ed. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts [2d ed.: Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing, 2002], 504, 83).
He also makes the often-repeated but false claim no unique Book of Mormon site has been found The River of Laman and its Valley of Lemuel, the burial site Nahom, and the garden spot Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula have all been found and verified. These are all non-biblical sites, and in the case of the River of Laman and Bountiful, continue to be mocked as impossible by many critics of the Book of Mormon. In the case of Nahom, altars have been found attesting to its name pre-dating the Book of Mormon (it is referenced in the passive voice in 1 Nephi 16:34) as well as its function as a burial spot. Furthermore, the seal of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah has been recently discovered, too. While Dave is clearly unaware of such, the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As for the New World, readers should pick up a copy of John L’ Sorenson’s volume, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Books (Deseret and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2013) and Brant Gardner’s book examining the text as history, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Greg Kofford Books, 2015). A good summary of the evidences from various aspects of the book can be seen in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Parry et al (FARMS, 2002).
He amazingly appeals to Rev 22:18-19 to support the claim that the 66 books of the Protestant canon represents the totality of Scripture.
On Rev 22:18, he wrote:
One should read sound scholarship on textual criticism and related fields and compare it with Dave's blustering nonsense. It is not even close.
His comments on the transmission of the earliest texts of the New Testament are, for the most part, bogus. The earlier one goes back, the wider the textual divergences between biblical texts. For instance, Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, commenting on the Gospel of John portrayed in two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and p75) reveal 85% agreement, leaving 15% disagreement. This is a far-cry from the 98-99.9% figures one often hears from Evangelicals! Further, Comfort and Barrett also reveal that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p13 and p46 display 80% agreement and 20% disagreement (see Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, ed. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts [2d ed.: Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing, 2002], 504, 83).
He also makes the often-repeated but false claim no unique Book of Mormon site has been found The River of Laman and its Valley of Lemuel, the burial site Nahom, and the garden spot Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula have all been found and verified. These are all non-biblical sites, and in the case of the River of Laman and Bountiful, continue to be mocked as impossible by many critics of the Book of Mormon. In the case of Nahom, altars have been found attesting to its name pre-dating the Book of Mormon (it is referenced in the passive voice in 1 Nephi 16:34) as well as its function as a burial spot. Furthermore, the seal of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah has been recently discovered, too. While Dave is clearly unaware of such, the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As for the New World, readers should pick up a copy of John L’ Sorenson’s volume, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Books (Deseret and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2013) and Brant Gardner’s book examining the text as history, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Greg Kofford Books, 2015). A good summary of the evidences from various aspects of the book can be seen in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Parry et al (FARMS, 2002).
He amazingly appeals to Rev 22:18-19 to support the claim that the 66 books of the Protestant canon represents the totality of Scripture.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The argument, in a nutshell, is that “the book” John refers to is the Bible, and anyone who “adds” (in the case of the LDS Church; adds additional works to their canon) are under the condemnation of this text.
Firstly, it should be noted that there is debate as to which New Testament text was the last one written. For this interpretation to be true, John's Revelation must be written after all 26 previous New Testament texts, and many scholars believe some texts (e.g. 2 Peter; the Johannine Epistles) were written after Revelation; this is further substantiated if one holds to an early (pre-70) date for Revelation as some do (e.g. J.A.T. Robinson; Gregory Boyd; Margaret Barker), though I would hold to the more “traditional” date of Revelation, near the end of the first century.
Secondly, “the book” in Greek is του βιβλιου, which is a genitive neuter singular, that is, one book is in view here, not 66. Had the author wished to discuss more than one, he would have written των βιβλιων. John is only talking about Revelation, not the “Bible” (as anachronistic as that is).
Thirdly, what John is doing is employing a curse against individuals who wished to corrupt the text of Revelation. In the ancient world, with there being no such thing as copyright, one would often call upon a divine curse on individuals who would consider corrupting their texts. Indeed, there are Old Testament parallels to such that shed light on Rev 22:18-19:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you, (Deut 4:2)
What thing soever I command you to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32)
If one wishes to absolutise Rev 22:18-19 in the way that some Evangelicals do to preclude the Book of Mormon and other Scriptures accepted by Latter-day Saints, then they must hold to a much smaller canon, one that ends at Deuteronomy. Of course, both approaches would be based on equally shoddy interpretation (eisegesis).
In his commentary on Revelation, Wilfrid H. Harrington wrote:
“I warn everyone …”: it was fairly common practice for writers to append a warning of this kind to their books. John can be so firm because he does not regard himself as author of the book; the real author is, ultimately, God (1:1). For the third time in this passage (vv. 7, 12, 20) Christ, who gives his own solemn testimony to the contents of the book, assures his Church that he is coming soon. It is a response to the earnest prayer of the Church: “Come!” (v. 17), and a link with the promise at the start of the book: “Behold, he comes with the clouds” (1:7). But this time the promise stands in the liturgical context of the Eucharist. (Harrington, W. J. (2008). Revelation. (D. J. Harrington, Ed.) (Vol. 16, p. 226). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.)
18. I warn everyone: See Deut 4:2; 12:32. For a similar warning, see Letter of Aristeas, 311; 1 Enoch 104:10–11; 2 Enoch 48:74–75. (Ibid., 223)
1 Enoch 104:10-11 reads as follows:
[The words] of the truth they alter, and the sinners also write against and alter many (words). And they lie and form great inventions and compose scriptures in their names. And would that they would write all my words truthfully in their names; neither should they subtract nor alter these words, but should write all things truthfully, which I testify to them.
As with many topics, Bartosiewicz claims go against both the Bible and scholarship.
He also repeats the false but popular claim that John 19:30 supports forensic justification and atonement. To see how the Protestant interpretation of τετελεσται ("it is finished") is eisegetical, and that the penal substitutionary model of atonement is actually contradicted by the New Testament, see Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz beginning under the section entitled "John 19:30"
On the issue of archaeology and the Book of Mormon, as well as its relationship to biblical archaeology, one should pursue these scholarly discussions:
William J. Hamblin, Basic Methodological Problems with the anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon
Brant A. Gardner, Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion (review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon); one should also see the online thread
The FairMormon video, LDS scholars review the Bible vs The Book of Mormon, also discusses Old and New World archaeology and evidences for the Book of Mormon:
The FairMormon video, LDS scholars review the Bible vs The Book of Mormon, also discusses Old and New World archaeology and evidences for the Book of Mormon:
Beginning at the 12:53 mark, we get this utterly inane argument:
If God is eternal, and His words are truth, then Jesus said my word is truth [John 17:17], why would he do [things] differently [in the Book of Mormon] than the Bible?
Firstly, notice that "66 books of the Protestant canon" exhausts "word" in John 17:17. Not only is this begging the question (assuming sola scriptura to be true without proving it biblically), not all the Bible was even written when Jesus uttered these words. To read into this what Dave is trying to read into it only speaks of his utter lack of exegetical abilities.
Furthermore, more careful Protestant apologists are more wary of such "arguments." For instance, one defender of sola scriptura wrote the following:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)
Dave also claims that the language of "reformed Egyptian" does not exist.
Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. (1 Nephi 1:2)
Most LDS scholars (e.g., John Tvedtnes; Daniel Peterson; Stephen D. Ricks) interpret this verse to mean that Nephi wrote Hebrew using an Egyptian script (cf. Mormon 9:32-33)
It was not until the twentieth century that ancient Hebrew texts written in Egyptian script were discovered. We now have a number of Northwest Semitic (Hebrew and related languages) in Egyptian papyri. Examples include the London Magical Papyrus (fourteenth century BC); Harris Magical Papyrus (thirteenth century BC); Papyrus Anastasi (thirteenth century BC); Ostracon 25759 recto (eleventh century BC).
All these documents were discovered and translated long after the Book of Mormon was published.
An ostracon undiscovered at the ancient Judean site of Arad in 1967 and dating to the time of Lehi has a text that, although written in a combination of ten Egyptian hieratic and seven Hebrew characters, can be read entirely in Egyptian.
An ostracon undiscovered at the ancient Judean site of Arad in 1967 and dating to the time of Lehi has a text that, although written in a combination of ten Egyptian hieratic and seven Hebrew characters, can be read entirely in Egyptian.
Other texts of the same period commingle Hebrew and Egyptian scrips, including those found at Tel Ein-Qudeirah (biblical "Kardesh-Barnea") in the Sinai Peninsula; these texts were discovered in the 1970s.
Another well-known and discussed example would be Papyrus Amherst 63. This is a document of the fourth century BC written in a cursive ("reformed") Egyptian script called demotic but the underlying language is Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew). Among the writings included is a version of Psa 20:2-6
For non-Mormon scholarly journal articles on the above, and related finds, see the following (all in my possession in PDF format):
The Excavations at Kadesh-barnea (1976-78) by Rudolph Cohen. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 44, No. 2, (Spring, 1981), pp. 93-107.
The Seal of Smryw by R. B. Y. Scott. Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 1, (Jan., 1964), pp. 108-110.
A Hebrew "Receipt" from Arad by A. F. Rainey. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 202, (Apr., 1971), pp. 23-30
http://www.jstor.org A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script by Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1, Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East, by Members of the American Oriental Society, Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, (Jan. - Mar., 1983), pp. 261-274.
New Evidence for Hieratic Numerals on Hebrew Weights by Ivan Tracy Kaufman Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 188, (Dec., 1967), pp. 39-41.
Three Hebrew Ostraca from Arad by Yohanan Aharoni. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 197, (Feb., 1970), pp. 16-42
Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B. C. by W. F. Albright Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 74, No. 4, (Oct. - Dec., 1954), pp. 222- 233
Kadesh Barnea: Judah's Last Outpost by Carol Meyers Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 39, No. 4, (Dec., 1976), pp. 148-151
Toward a Precise Date for the Samaria Ostraca by: Anson F. Rainey Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 272, (Nov., 1988), pp. 69-74
The Use of Hieratic Numerals in Hebrew Ostraca and the Shekel Weights by Yohanan Aharoni. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 184, (Dec., 1966), pp. 13-19
The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing by Ivan T. Kaufman. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 4, (Autumn, 1982), pp. 229-239
The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash Author(s): Richard C. Steiner. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 2, (Apr. - Jun., 1991), pp. 362 -363
Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B. C. E. by Richard C. Steiner. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 3, (Jul., 1992), pp. 191-200
One well-known LDS treatment of this issue is William Hamblin, Reformed Egyptian. As Bill notes that, on the claim "there is no such thing as 'reformed Egyptian'":
Those who raise this objection seem to be operating under the false impression that reformed Egyptian is used in the Book of Mormon as a proper name. In fact, the word reformed is used in the Book of Mormon in this context as an adjective, meaning "altered, modified, or changed." This is made clear by [Moroni], who tells us that "the characters which were called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34). First we should emphasize that [Moroni] is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials.
One should pursue Bill's article as he further demonstrates that there are many historical examples of Semitic texts being written in a "reformed" or modified Egyptian script. Instead of being a problem for the Book of Mormon, this issue is a bulls-eye in favour of its antiquity.
Furthermore, this refutes his argument that no Jew would ever do it ("the Jews were against the Egyptians"). Furthermore, in 1 Maccabees 1:7-64 in the Apocrypha (considered by many scholars to be the main source of the history after Darius) informs us of the outrages of the Greek rulers after the time of Alexander the Great, which included stealing the gold and furnishings of the temple, encouraging disobedience to God's law, desecrating the temple, and killing many Jews, and yet, the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint [LXX]) and the New Testament was composed in Koine Greek!
Furthermore, portions of Daniel (chs. 2-7) and Ezra (4:8-6:18), for instance, were composed in Aramaic, the language of the Babylonians who took the Jews into exile.
If we are to reject the Book of Mormon, Dave will have to reject the Old and New Testaments if he were to be consistent.
In reality, the Jews and Egyptians at the time of Lehi were in a good trading relationship with one another, and even choose being allied with Egypt instead of Assyria.
On this and related issues, see Ben McGuire, Did Lehi Use Egyptian? Examining Jewish-Egyptian Relations in the Seventh Century B.C.
This video from FairMormon, taken from their video review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, also discusses "reformed Egyptian" that refutes Bartosiewicz very superficial and ignorant treatment of the issue:
This video from FairMormon, taken from their video review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, also discusses "reformed Egyptian" that refutes Bartosiewicz very superficial and ignorant treatment of the issue:
One final argument I will focus on is Dave's claim that the plates were simply taken away. Sadly, he does not engage with the witnesses to the plates; in fact, he doesn't even mention them at all, giving the impression there were no witnesses. In the case of David Whitmer, although he would later reject Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet, in his 1887 monograph, An Address to All Believers in Christ, he affirmed the reality of Moroni and the gold plates, and even ensured that he would have his testimony engraved on his tombstone when he passed away in 1888.
For those who wish to read a meaningful discussion of the Three and Eight Witnesses, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Deseret Book, 1981).
Conclusion and Debate Challenge
It should be noted that a mutual friend of ours contacted Bartosiewicz to see if he would debate me, but he never responded. I tried to engage him in an email exchange, which I think speaks for itself. It should be obvious that Dave Bartosiewicz is clueless about the Bible and "Mormonism"; furthermore, he assumes but never proofs, sola scriptura and forensic justification and atonement. Not only is his comments on the Book of Mormon and the Bible utterly fallacious, it is Dave's gospel, not that of the LDS Church, which falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9.
