Brant Gardner wrote:The peer review would be in how well the tests were done, not in the article itself. I have no reason to believe that the scientists performing the texts did so erroneously.
Still, I wish they would publish or simply let it be known that it was unpublishable. Either is better than limbo.
I still maintain that it will have very little effect on discussions of Book of Mormon historicity. The best it will do is retire the horse as a clear anachronism, but since that is only a single issue that I think is already relatively minor, neither the apologists or critics will see much change if it is published and accepted.
Forgive me for being a skeptic. Mormon scientists have data to radically alter the knowledge of the horse in America before Columbus and they are sitting on this? This is much bigger than the Book of Mormon, it is a most significant archaeological announcement to the world. Let's hope that findings of such impact do not get printed first in pseudo publications such as Ancient American Magazine. Peer review is essential.
Stormy Waters wrote:I agree with Tobin here. If what was desired was to describe something like a horse, it could easily say, 'like unto a horse.' Calling something that is not a horse a horse isn't a 'loose translation,' it's a wrong translation.
And what we have is an agreement of assumptions. I have a different assumption, and the evidence suggests something very different.
Shulem wrote:Joseph Smith translated other beasts as cureloms and cumoms but a horse is always a horse, of course.
That is a perceptive observation, and one that has a rather logical and consistent answer. I refer you to the book. I know that you have no interest in purchasing it, but then I suspect you don't have any interest in the answer, either.
Stormy Waters wrote:I agree with Tobin here. If what was desired was to describe something like a horse, it could easily say, 'like unto a horse.' Calling something that is not a horse a horse isn't a 'loose translation,' it's a wrong translation.
And what we have is an agreement of assumptions. I have a different assumption, and the evidence suggests something very different.
Your assumptions are not in line with what the brethren have assumed and have had printed in the covers of the Book of Mormon. Apologists are always an arms length from apostasy. Beware.
tapirrider wrote:Forgive me for being a skeptic. Mormon scientists have data to radically alter the knowledge of the horse in America before Columbus and they are sitting on this?
I have no idea about the religion of the testing lab. I doubt that it matters.
This is much bigger than the Book of Mormon, it is a most significant archaeological announcement to the world.
Poppycock. It indicates that there were horses later than the last ones they already know about. It is a footnote. It would say that our dogmatism about horses is incorrect, but changes nothing about history. Mesoamericans were horseless at the time of the conquest and horse culture developed later. Even finding that there were horses does not change that. It is a footnote to history and hardly a revolution. Historians get those kinds of things wrong all the time.
Shulem wrote:Joseph Smith translated other beasts as cureloms and cumoms but a horse is always a horse, of course.
That is a perceptive observation, and one that has a rather logical and consistent answer. I refer you to the book. I know that you have no interest in purchasing it, but then I suspect you don't have any interest in the answer, either.
And is the fact that Joseph Smith said there is a king's name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 also a perceptive observation, and one that has a rather logical and consistent answer?
Are the supposed characters that comprise the name Shulem in the hieroglyphic writing also a perceptive observation, and one that has a rather logical and consistent answer?
And, do tell me how Anubis (a god of Egypt) is a slave according to a perceptive observation! Is it because he's black?
I'm sitting here waiting for your intelligent answers. I don't think you have answers. I think you're an apologist that spins and spins and spins. I know how it is.
SteelHead wrote:Brant, can you provide said evidence?
Of course.
I take it from your question that you haven't read anything I've written on the subject. To preempt a request to show the evidence, the evidence is in the form of compiling data which increase in strength with the interrelationships of the data and the text. There is no single thing nor easily listed set of things that make the argument. History rarely allows such luxuries. Histories are interpretations of data and are acceptable reconstructions as they account for the largest amount of the data, including any possible exceptions.
Having said that, my opinions are published so you need not remain in the dark if you are really interested.
Ok, so now you've plugged your writings. Now please provide evidence, quotes from your books, something showing that Joseph translated in some other manner than dictating the word of god as revealed to him on his stone.
Something that explains how the English translation of Greek words can occur from Hebrew/Nephite written in reformed Egyptian, but that self same said divine process can not translate horse, chariot and sword correctly.
Thank you.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 17, 2012 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
