does it read like metal plates?

[_stemelbow]

So, like, if someone makes an unsupported, question-begging, ad hoc assertion, we should not confuse such a thing with evidence or a reason to believe a proposition?

Huh.....how about that, stemelbow?

Sure. I agree.

[_Chap]

My idea is as much an assumption as the idea that Nephi's engravings were repetitive unnecessary ineffeciently designed writings. We don't' know that.

It is not an assumption that the text of the Book of Mormon as given to us by Joseph Smith is at some points so repetitive and redundant that it is hard to believe that the person writing it down knew in advance how each sentence would end. That is just obvious on the face of the text.

One of Nephi's characters could represent 68 pages of english writing. We simply don't' know.

Yes we do. No language or writing system ever known to have existed has ever attained that degree of density. Classical Chinese (for instance) is amongst the most succinct of languages, but this is the kind of ratio of text to translation you get from it:

子曰：“學而時習之，不亦說乎？有朋自遠方來，不亦樂乎？人不知而不慍，不亦君子乎？”

The Master said, "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application? Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters? Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him?"

But the don't know seems to be a convenience for criticism. Its as if "don't know" means we can assume whatever we like about it all and then go with that assumption as though its really how it all went down. I don't see why that's so reasonable.

You are the person who is assuming whatever you like about the Book of Mormon - but in your case as a convenience for ignoring criticism.

[_stemelbow]

It is not an assumption that the text of the Book of Mormon as given to us by Joseph Smith is at some points so repetitive and redundant that it is hard to believe that the person writing it down knew in advance how each sentence would end. That is just obvious on the face of the text.

How could a scribe know how the sentences are going to end? Whatever.

Yes we do. No language or writing system ever known to have existed has ever attained that degree of density. Classical Chinese (for instance) is amongst the most succinct of languages, but this is the kind of ratio of text to translation you get from it:

子曰：“學而時習之，不亦說乎？有朋自遠方來，不亦樂乎？人不知而不慍，不亦君子乎？”

The Master said, "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application? Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters? Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him?"

I believe you are still missing my point, but oh well. What can I do more? Perhaps the text written by Nephi was very concise. But the "translation" equated to abotu 68 pages per character. Its not so much that a character meant, somehow, 68 pages of text, but that the pertinent explanation as offered via the God-inspired translation, was 68 pages. That's also not to suggest, as will inevitably be brought up here, that the text is perfect or all inclusively inspired by God, or that God wrote it. There are far too many more ideas of how it could have come about.

You are the person who is assuming whatever you like about the Book of Mormon - but in your case as a convenience for ignoring criticism.

How is responding to criticism ignoring it? While I find criticism wanting, I do not necessarily ignore it. You are clearly wrong. But oh well. We're all wrong sometimes.

[_Darth J]

So, like, if someone makes an unsupported, question-begging, ad hoc assertion, we should not confuse such a thing with evidence or a reason to believe a proposition?

Huh.....how about that, stemelbow?

Sure. I agree.

I take it, then, that speculating about what might be contained in the hypothetical ontology of what "we just don't know" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out problems in the things that we do know, and in claims of fact that have actually been made by proponents of certain belief systems.

Right?

[_Chap]

I think stemelbow needs to be more careful about quotes.

[_stemelbow]

I take it, then, that speculating about what might be contained in the hypothetical ontology of what "we just don't know" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out problems in the things that we do know, and in claims of fact that have actually been made by proponents of certain belief systems.

Right?

Sure. But offering possibilities that remain to respond to criticisms that rely on one of the possibilities as fact, helps bring some amount of perspective, no? (I doubt I'll get such forthright and honest answers from you, but we'll try).

[_Buffalo]

Let's be honest: the only reason apologists have so many questions about this is because it doesn't match up with Joseph's descriptions of what it was supposed to be.

Let's be more honest, you'll try and spin things to appear as though "apologists" are wrong in their endeavors just because you have been trained by the forces here to be opposed to apologists. But that's cool. In this case, clearly, we only think we know as we assume what is said about it all, but in essence, we don't really know much at all. One symbol could translate into 68 pages of writing for all we know.

Stem, I was a believer much longer than I've been an unbeliever. All my training came from the church, not here.

But no, one symbol can't translate into 68 pages of writing. That's not how language works. Ad hoc hypotheses with no evidence don't mean a lot, Stem.

[_DarkHelmet]

This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.

it would be reasonable to be a bit puzzled as why someone doing the laborious job of scratching words on metal would not pause a moment and find an equivalent but more succinct expression

What's more problematic is why would Nephi refer to himself in the third person all of a sudden. It would be like me referring back to a post I wrote by saying "Remember that post that DarkHelmet wrote, or in other words, the post that I wrote." It would look suspiciously like someone hacked into my account and posted messages as me and couldn't figure out how to backspace over the accidental third person reference. This part of the Book of Mormon reads like Joseph Smith accidentally dictated Nephi speaking of himself in the third person and then quickly corrected it with the next phrase.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, I was a believer much longer than I've been an unbeliever. All my training came from the church, not here.

I think if all of your training came from the Church, then its a not much of a wonder why you are no longer in Church.

But no, one symbol can't translate into 68 pages of writing. That's not how language works. Ad hoc hypotheses with no evidence don't mean a lot, Stem.

I think you got my point then. Ad hoc hypotheses with no evidence don't mean a lot, in terms of criticism either. I'm glad we finally agree.

[_Chap]

I take it, then, that speculating about what might be contained in the hypothetical ontology of what "we just don't know" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out problems in the things that we do know, and in claims of fact that have actually been made by proponents of certain belief systems.

Right?

Sure. But offering possibilities that remain to respond to criticisms that rely on one of the possibilities as fact, helps bring some amount of perspective, no? (I doubt I'll get such forthright and honest answers from you, but we'll try).

That rather depends what you mean by a possibility.

To be seriously considered as a way of avoiding a proposed criticism, you have to show that the possibility you put forward has at least some degree of likelihood. Your suggestion that the original text of the Book of Mormon was extraordinarily compressed to the degree you mention will seem highly unlikely to anyone who has even a superficial acquaintance with languages and writing systems other than the one I am now using.

Prove me wrong by finding an ancient language with anything like the density you have mentioned above in comparison with English.

Of course if you think it was all God whispering in Joseph Smith's ear, the gold plates were completely irrelevant anyway, and why was God so inelegantly repetitious?