Trevor wrote:Charity,
I ran over to MA&D and looked up the thread. I don't see a lot of evidence for bullseyes there. A few suggestive coincidences, a fair amount of stretching on consiglieri's part, and not a whole lot more than that. I also note that the first translation of Enoch occurred in 1821, and that Joseph Smith's scribe for the project was Rigdon... someone who may very well have read the Enoch translation.
T
evolving wrote:charity wrote:Can you give me the list of anachronisms?
some food for thought --
I) Reference to synagogues:
The word synagogue or some derivative of it appears at least 25 times in the Book of Mormon.
Alma 16:13: "And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews."
This statement assumes that these inhabitants of ancient America were aware of how the Jews built their synagogues.
Synagogues were an integral part of Jewish society in the times of Jesus as we see in the New Testament. The synagogue was established for the study of the Law, and differed very much from the temple worship of the Old Testament period, which involved many sacrifices in keeping with the Law of Moses. Scientific and archaeological evidence points to the origin of synsgagues as being about the latter part of the intertestamental period.
How could Alma and Amulek know how the Jews built thier synagogues when the Jews themselves weren t building them before Lehi (supposedly) left for the Americas in 600 BC?
You must remember, which a lot of critics can't seem to keep in mind, that the Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION! We don't know what the word or phrase was in the original. Maybe it was "where people like us worship" and that was translated into "synogogues." Think of the word "chapel." Many denominations use that term to mean the building they go to. We mean the large room in the meeting house made for worship, to differentiate it from the bishop's office, the kitchen, the cultural hall, the classrooms. So your argument isn't really on point here.
i) St. Peter is quoted hundreds of years too early: St. Peter paraphrases Moses' words from Deut. 18:15, 18f in Acts 3:22f. However, I Nephi 22:20 mistakenly represents these words as Moses' own words!
Deuteronomy 18: 15 ¶ The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Acts 3: 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
1 Nephi 22: 20 And the Lord will surely aprepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be ccut off from among the people.[/color]
[b] You are talking about the addition of the words to the thought in v. 15, which is found in v. 18. Pretty small gnat to strain at there. You keep forgetting that the Book of Mormon was translated. A translator brings his own experience to the process. And in Joseph Smith's case, he read the Bible, he knew phrases from the Bible. I can see how he could have included them. And verse 15 is Moses' own words. And the repeat in v. 18 is a repeat of what Moses said (almost make it look like the Lord is quoting Moses!) This is not a big deal.
Similarly, the words of Malachi 4:1 appear in I Nephi 22:15 over a century before Malachi wrote them.
But they didn't originate with Malachi. The Lord told him. The Lord told Nephi. An unchanging God doesn't change His story.
iii) Confusion of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant:
The Book of Mormon confuses the Old and New Covenants. It stresses that before the coming of Christ the faithful kept the Law of Moses (II Nephi 5:10; 25:23-25, 20; Alma 30:3), yet they also established churches, taught and practiced Christian baptism, and were conversant with New Testament doctrines and events (e.g. II Nephi 9:23; Mosiah 18:17).
They were more obedient than the Jews. They had the higher law. This is not a hard one at all.
iv) Jeremiah in Prison:
According to I Nephi 1:4, Nephi and his family left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah . In I Nephi 7:14 we are told that Jeremiah is in prison. However, according to the Bible, Jeremiah was imprisoned in the TENTH year of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 32:1-2). So... perhaps Nephi was rferring to an event which happened AFTER he and his family left? This might explain the anachronism. But no, this is discounted in light of I Nephi 17:4, which is chronologically some time after the events of I Nephi 7:14.
Your attempt at chronology tries to impose a preciseness which isn't in the text. The headings at the top of the chapters are not part of the original Book of Mormon but have been added. It gives the approximate dates of events. Somewhere between 600 and 592 B.C. The fact that it says that 592 B.C. is when Nephi records the fact that Jeremiah is in prison is approximate. APPROXIMATE. And Nephi is writing the record after they already have arrived in the New World, we don't know how long after they arrived. He wasn't keeping a daily journal from the day they left Jerusalem. No problem there. Next:
v) Greek names in a book with no Greek influence:
TRANSLATION
Why are Greek names and words such as Jonas, Lachoneus, Timothy, and Alpha & Omega found in a book that should have absolutely no Greek influence? Anyone familiar with Old Testament history will know that Alexander the Great's conquests of biblical lands came many centuries AFTER Lehi's supposed departure for the Americas.
TRANSLATION. Maybe third time is the charm.
vi) Anachronistic Metal Artefacts:
The Book of Mormon mention bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), brass (2 Nephi 5:15), breast plates & copper (Mosiah 8:10), gold and silver currency (Alma 11), silver (Jarom 1:8), and steel swords (Ether 7:9)? However, no evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. In fact, metallurgy did not appear until the 800s AD.
Your argument is dated. Catch up, please. You can find the information at www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms4.pdf
Just to give you a little bit of information, scientists now believe that metallurgy of some types was well known in the Americas as early as 1000 B.C. Also, the place where the directions in the Book of Mormon lead to the seacoast in the Old World has been found to have smeltable iron ore, which was unknown until recently.
vii) Anachronistic agricultural methods: Livestock
Why does the Book of Mormon mention cattle, cows and calves, bulls, asses, horses, oxen, domestic sheep, pigs and & even elephants, when in fact none of these animals existed in America during Book of Mormon times?
The only domesticated animals in pre-Columbian America were llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs, and turkeys (none of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon).
TRANSLATION. They used names they were familiar with for unfamiliar animals. Such as River Horse, you know, Hippopotamus. Like that. 4 times and it still hasn't sunk in yet.
viii) Anachronistic agricultural methods:Crops
Why are plough-based crops such as barley (Alma 11:7) and wheat (Mosiah 9:9) mentioned in the Book of Mormon when they didn't exist at that time?
Oops. Barley has been discovered in old Indian ruins, pre-Columbian. Scratch that one. By the way, what document are you cutting and pasting from, the one with the Roman numerics? And while we are at it, it is 1 Nephi, not I Nephi. Thanks in advance for getting that correct in future posts.
ix) Disappearing Place Names:
Why didn't any of the Book of Mormon place names still exist when Columbus discovered America? The place names seem to have existed only BEFORE the Book of Mormon was written, but not after.
Have you heard about the arrogance of tne conquerors? They burned all (nearly all) the books, they gave their own names to things. Do you really think that all the Mayan places have names like La Venta and Santa Rosa? The place names existed, they just weren't recorded by the conquering armies who renamed them. And since they burned the records and wiped out the people, who was left to argue?
x) Seven Day Week:
Why does the Book of Mormon imply a seven day week (Mosiah 13:18) when this calendrical method was unknown in Ancient America?
Because Lehi and his group came from the place where they had a seven day week! Remember Genesis, and the Lord rested and all that? Duh!
Edit to add reference http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/bomanachrons.html[/url]
charity wrote:
You must remember, which a lot of critics can't seem to keep in mind, that the Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION! We don't know what the word or phrase was in the original. Maybe it was "where people like us worship" and that was translated into "synogogues." Think of the word "chapel." Many denominations use that term to mean the building they go to. We mean the large room in the meeting house made for worship, to differentiate it from the bishop's office, the kitchen, the cultural hall, the classrooms. So your argument isn't really on point here.
charity wrote: You are talking about the addition of the words to the thought in v. 15, which is found in v. 18. Pretty small gnat to strain at there. You keep forgetting that the Book of Mormon was translated. A translator brings his own experience to the process. And in Joseph Smith's case, he read the Bible, he knew phrases from the Bible. I can see how he could have included them. And verse 15 is Moses' own words. And the repeat in v. 18 is a repeat of what Moses said (almost make it look like the Lord is quoting Moses!) This is not a big deal.
charity wrote:But they didn't originate with Malachi. The Lord told him. The Lord told Nephi. An unchanging God doesn't change His story.
charity wrote:Also, the place where the directions in the Book of Mormon lead to the seacoast in the Old World has been found to have smeltable iron ore, which was unknown until recently.
charity wrote:TRANSLATION. They used names they were familiar with for unfamiliar animals. Such as River Horse, you know, Hippopotamus. Like that. 4 times and it still hasn't sunk in yet.
charity wrote:Oops. Barley has been discovered in old Indian ruins, pre-Columbian. Scratch that one. By the way, what document are you cutting and pasting from, the one with the Roman numerics? And while we are at it, it is 1 Nephi, not I Nephi. Thanks in advance for getting that correct in future posts.[/b]
charity wrote:
Because Lehi and his group came from the place where they had a seven day week! Remember Genesis, and the Lord rested and all that? Duh!
charity wrote:
How could Alma and Amulek know how the Jews built thier synagogues when the Jews themselves weren t building them before Lehi (supposedly) left for the Americas in 600 BC?
You must remember, which a lot of critics can't seem to keep in mind, that the Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION! We don't know what the word or phrase was in the original. Maybe it was "where people like us worship" and that was translated into "synogogues." Think of the word "chapel." Many denominations use that term to mean the building they go to. We mean the large room in the meeting house made for worship, to differentiate it from the bishop's office, the kitchen, the cultural hall, the classrooms. So your argument isn't really on point here.
I) St. Peter is quoted hundreds of years too early: St. Peter paraphrases Moses' words from Deut. 18:15, 18f in Acts 3:22f. However, I Nephi 22:20 mistakenly represents these words as Moses' own words!
Deuteronomy 18: 15 ¶ The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Acts 3: 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
1 Nephi 22: 20 And the Lord will surely aprepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be ccut off from among the people.[/color]
[b] You are talking about the addition of the words to the thought in v. 15, which is found in v. 18. Pretty small gnat to strain at there. You keep forgetting that the Book of Mormon was translated. A translator brings his own experience to the process. And in Joseph Smith's case, he read the Bible, he knew phrases from the Bible. I can see how he could have included them. And verse 15 is Moses' own words. And the repeat in v. 18 is a repeat of what Moses said (almost make it look like the Lord is quoting Moses!) This is not a big deal.
Similarly, the words of Malachi 4:1 appear in I Nephi 22:15 over a century before Malachi wrote them.
But they didn't originate with Malachi. The Lord told him. The Lord told Nephi. An unchanging God doesn't change His story.
iii) Confusion of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant:
The Book of Mormon confuses the Old and New Covenants. It stresses that before the coming of Christ the faithful kept the Law of Moses (II Nephi 5:10; 25:23-25, 20; Alma 30:3), yet they also established churches, taught and practiced Christian baptism, and were conversant with New Testament doctrines and events (e.g. II Nephi 9:23; Mosiah 18:17).
They were more obedient than the Jews. They had the higher law. This is not a hard one at all.
iv) Jeremiah in Prison:
According to I Nephi 1:4, Nephi and his family left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah . In I Nephi 7:14 we are told that Jeremiah is in prison. However, according to the Bible, Jeremiah was imprisoned in the TENTH year of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 32:1-2). So... perhaps Nephi was rferring to an event which happened AFTER he and his family left? This might explain the anachronism. But no, this is discounted in light of I Nephi 17:4, which is chronologically some time after the events of I Nephi 7:14.
Your attempt at chronology tries to impose a preciseness which isn't in the text. The headings at the top of the chapters are not part of the original Book of Mormon but have been added. It gives the approximate dates of events. Somewhere between 600 and 592 B.C. The fact that it says that 592 B.C. is when Nephi records the fact that Jeremiah is in prison is approximate. APPROXIMATE. And Nephi is writing the record after they already have arrived in the New World, we don't know how long after they arrived. He wasn't keeping a daily journal from the day they left Jerusalem. No problem there. Next:
v) Greek names in a book with no Greek influence:
TRANSLATION
Why are Greek names and words such as Jonas, Lachoneus, Timothy, and Alpha & Omega found in a book that should have absolutely no Greek influence? Anyone familiar with Old Testament history will know that Alexander the Great's conquests of biblical lands came many centuries AFTER Lehi's supposed departure for the Americas.
TRANSLATION. Maybe third time is the charm.
vi) Anachronistic Metal Artefacts:
The Book of Mormon mention bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), brass (2 Nephi 5:15), breast plates & copper (Mosiah 8:10), gold and silver currency (Alma 11), silver (Jarom 1:8), and steel swords (Ether 7:9)? However, no evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. In fact, metallurgy did not appear until the 800s AD.
Your argument is dated. Catch up, please. You can find the information at www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms4.pdf
Just to give you a little bit of information, scientists now believe that metallurgy of some types was well known in the Americas as early as 1000 B.C. Also, the place where the directions in the Book of Mormon lead to the seacoast in the Old World has been found to have smeltable iron ore, which was unknown until recently.
This is getting real old. And what's with "it still hasn't sunk in yet?" You do realize we don't see your list of arguments until you post, right?vii) Anachronistic agricultural methods: Livestock
Why does the Book of Mormon mention cattle, cows and calves, bulls, asses, horses, oxen, domestic sheep, pigs and & even elephants, when in fact none of these animals existed in America during Book of Mormon times?
The only domesticated animals in pre-Columbian America were llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs, and turkeys (none of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon).
TRANSLATION. They used names they were familiar with for unfamiliar animals. Such as River Horse, you know, Hippopotamus. Like that. 4 times and it still hasn't sunk in yet.
viii) Anachronistic agricultural methods:Crops
Why are plough-based crops such as barley (Alma 11:7) and wheat (Mosiah 9:9) mentioned in the Book of Mormon when they didn't exist at that time?
Oops. Barley has been discovered in old Indian ruins, pre-Columbian. Scratch that one. By the way, what document are you cutting and pasting from, the one with the Roman numerics? And while we are at it, it is 1 Nephi, not I Nephi. Thanks in advance for getting that correct in future posts.
ix) Disappearing Place Names:
Why didn't any of the Book of Mormon place names still exist when Columbus discovered America? The place names seem to have existed only BEFORE the Book of Mormon was written, but not after.
Have you heard about the arrogance of tne conquerors? They burned all (nearly all) the books, they gave their own names to things. Do you really think that all the Mayan places have names like La Venta and Santa Rosa? The place names existed, they just weren't recorded by the conquering armies who renamed them. And since they burned the records and wiped out the people, who was left to argue?
x) Seven Day Week:
Why does the Book of Mormon imply a seven day week (Mosiah 13:18) when this calendrical method was unknown in Ancient America?
Because Lehi and his group came from the place where they had a seven day week! Remember Genesis, and the Lord rested and all that? Duh!
SatanWasSetUp wrote:I see a theme. It's as if the translation was totally f-ed up.
Trevor wrote:
OK, but why choose the word synagogue, when none yet existed, and when they did come into being, they were generally not Christian meeting places? Why not congregation? Or meeting place?
Asking why somebody did something the way they did it is useless unless you can ask that person.
Perhaps the author of the Book of Mormon assumed that all Jews, before Jesus, met in synagogues.
Nephi certainly knew what they used. His word had to be translated into English.charity wrote: You are talking about the addition of the words to the thought in v. 15, which is found in v. 18. Pretty small gnat to strain at there. You keep forgetting that the Book of Mormon was translated. A translator brings his own experience to the process. And in Joseph Smith's case, he read the Bible, he knew phrases from the Bible. I can see how he could have included them. And verse 15 is Moses' own words. And the repeat in v. 18 is a repeat of what Moses said (almost make it look like the Lord is quoting Moses!) This is not a big deal.
Of course, another perfectly reasonable explanation is that Joseph Smith, knowing his Bible well, composed the Book of Mormon.
Stalemate then, but not checkmate.
Please note, I eliminated some "did to, did not" pointless things.charity wrote:Also, the place where the directions in the Book of Mormon lead to the seacoast in the Old World has been found to have smeltable iron ore, which was unknown until recently.
Which in no way proves that there was a Nephi who found this ore and smelted it.
Of course. But it gets pretty hard to turn the blind eye to the fact that where the Book of Mormon tells us there was smeltable iron there really is, and nobody knew it until a few years ago.charity wrote:TRANSLATION. They used names they were familiar with for unfamiliar animals. Such as River Horse, you know, Hippopotamus. Like that. 4 times and it still hasn't sunk in yet.
Yes, like horse for tapir. Very convincing. Care to tell me how you see these animals matching up?
There was a language in the area that called tapirs "deer you could ride on." What do you make of that?charity wrote:Oops. Barley has been discovered in old Indian ruins, pre-Columbian. Scratch that one.
Have you read Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, & Steel"? Are you aware that, thanks to geography, many technologies appear in ancient Amercia in isolated instances that never spread widely? How many places did you say they found barley? One? What about the wheat?
Who said they spread widely?charity wrote:
Because Lehi and his group came from the place where they had a seven day week! Remember Genesis, and the Lord rested and all that? Duh!
And, as Brant says, don't expect to find evidence of it outside of the Book of Mormon. The last thing the Book of Mormon calls for is some external proofs!
This is a pretty goofy argument. The question was how come the Lehites used a 7 day week when native mesoAmerican cultures didn't. And the answer is because that was the calendar they were used to using. Why would we think they used a different calendar style? Good grief.
charity wrote:Stalemate then, but not checkmate.
charity wrote:Of course. But it gets pretty hard to turn the blind eye to the fact that where the Book of Mormon tells us there was smeltable iron there really is, and nobody knew it until a few years ago.
charity wrote:There was a language in the area that called tapirs "deer you could ride on." What do you make of that?
charity wrote:Who said they spread widely?
Trevor wrote:charity wrote:Stalemate then, but not checkmate.
I think this pretty well sums it up for the whole list. The real question, as I have always contended, is why we should even begin to think of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. For those who take it to be ancient, based on faith, any little problem can be met with an ad hoc solution, but for those who demand some external evidence of its antiquity, there is little to be found.
A much easier solution to all of these issues is that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon in the 19th century. He had plenty of time from the first telling of Indian stories to the date of publication to write a rough-hewn religious novel explaining the origin and destiny of the Amerindians. There was plenty of folklore, fiction, and 'scholarship' in his day to provide a context for his own work.
The Book of Mormon doesn't seem to presuppose a laundry list of everything that ever happened in isolated pockets at some time or other in ancient America. It gives the impression of a relatively coherent account of a few ancient peoples.
Trevor wrote:charity wrote:Stalemate then, but not checkmate.
I think this pretty well sums it up for the whole list. The real question, as I have always contended, is why we should even begin to think of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. For those who take it to be ancient, based on faith, any little problem can be met with an ad hoc solution, but for those who demand some external evidence of its antiquity, there is little to be found.
You said little. It doesn't take much. If there IS any external evidence, which you seem to admit, then the critic's house of cards falls down.
A much easier solution to all of these issues is that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon in the 19th century. He had plenty of time from the first telling of Indian stories to the date of publication to write a rough-hewn religious novel explaining the origin and destiny of the Amerindians. There was plenty of folklore, fiction, and 'scholarship' in his day to provide a context for his own work.
Even if he wrote a 500 page novel, or was part of a group that did, you still have to account for the very well documented process of producing the manuscript which was taken to the printer. You would have to admit that over a period of something like 90 days he dictated the whole thing from memory, never looking at notes and never asking for a read back when starting up after a break. Got an explanation for that?
I am willing to accept that Joseph thought he was a prophet. I am also willing to accept that he was able to produce the book through means not unlike automatic writing. What I cannot accept, based on lack of evidence, is that Joseph Smith had gold plates containing the contents of the Book of Mormon, translated them, and returned them to an angel. The evidence in support of that position is simply too paltry to take seriously, and the problems with the product are too many for it to stand.
Oh, yes, you have to account for the 11 sworn witnesses and the dozens of informal witnesses to the existence of the plates.charity wrote:
Of course. But it gets pretty hard to turn the blind eye to the fact that where the Book of Mormon tells us there was smeltable iron there really is, and nobody knew it until a few years ago.
And how large is this area we are talking about? Are you saying we can now pinpoint Nephi's location during the smelting because of the iron? Can you say "circular argument"?
It happened the other way around. The explorers were following the directions given in the book, turn this way, turn that, and found a place that met the description with water, fruit trees, honey, etc. THEN they found the iron deposits.charity wrote:There was a language in the area that called tapirs "deer you could ride on." What do you make of that?
A language. That describes something quite different from what is described in the Book of Mormon. Why not posit lamas you can ride on?
I don't think they have llamas in meso America. You just stuck that in.charity wrote:Who said they spread widely?
The Book of Mormon doesn't seem to presuppose a laundry list of everything that ever happened in isolated pockets at some time or other in ancient America. It gives the impression of a relatively coherent account of a few ancient peoples.
Right. But your argument that nothing existed, nothing happened becomes much more tenuous when it did exist and it did happen, and now we just have to pinpoint the location.