One critic of the Book of Mormon, discussing the text’s purported errors, wrote the following:
[T]he strangest malapropism appears in Alma 46:19. “And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent [part] of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote [written] upon the rent [part] . . . “ The words in brackets have been added or altered in recent editions but the original edition seemed to give the impression that a “rent” is something on which a man can write! (William J. Whalen, The Latter-day Saints in the Modern World [rev ed.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967], 48)
This is not evidence against the Book of Mormon; in fact, it serves as evidence for a Hebraic background. Unlike English, Hebrew and other languages do not have to add the word "part" to a verbal substantive such as "rent," something required by English. Thus, "broken" in Hebrew can refer to a "broken thing" or "broken part." Therefore, in Alma 46:19, "rent" would mean "rent part" or "rent thing."
John Tvedtnes, in “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Preliminary Survey,” wrote:
. . . the Hebrew would, in this instance, use one word, qera', "rent (part)," coming from qāra, "he rent, tore," for nouns, in Hebrew, are derived from roots--as are Hebrew verbs--by the addition of certain vowel patterns that distinguish them from other parts of speech.
There are a number of instances of this usage in the Hebrew Bible where the word "piece" in the KJV could be literally translated as "rent":
And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces. (1 Kgs 11:30)
And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. (2 Kgs 12:2)
These passages also use the verb rend, the same verb used seven other times in Alma 46 to refer to the tearing of garments (Alma 46:12-13, 21-23).
It should be obvious that Whalen’s “argument” against the Book of Mormon based on Alma 46:19 is a complete failure. For another refutation of Whalen, see:
