Book of Mormon geography

[Guest]

his 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.

Only minutes before you started telling us about pre-Columbian horses I commented in another forum how nice it was to have you here although I root for the other team.

But poppycock? A footnote? The presence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas would be poppycock and a footnote? A world shaking change to the pre-Columbian fauna? Aye, aye, aye, there's another Mormon apologist down the tube.

[_Shulem]

Histories are interpretations of data and are acceptable reconstructions as they account for the largest amount of the data, including any possible exceptions.

And we plainly see how Joseph Smith interprets history through Mormon revelations:

"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

What kind of reconstruction do you find acceptable with this kind of translation? It's not a real translation. It's Joseph Smith making up a lie.

Paul O

[_SteelHead]

As I understand it, and I might be wrong.... the Aramaic word that Jesus bestowed upon his 12 apostle, seliah in Aramaic - apóstolos in Greek wouldn't have entered into the vernacular of the Jews until after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Joseph had no problem translating whatever word was represented in the plates for apostle, yet it was not the Greek apóstolos nor the Aramaic seliah. He was shown on the rock "apostle".

Having been able to do that............ he fails on chariot? Iron/steel swords? Horses?

[_tapirrider]

I have no idea about the religion of the testing lab. I doubt that it matters.

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.

No sir, it is not simply a footnote. And of course I am not concerned about the Book of Mormon. The religion of the testing lab is of no consequence, as the labs do not publish the results, the individuals requesting the testing are the scientists tasked to publish them. Are you aware that data of this significance will even impact state and federal laws?

http://www.livescience.com/9589-surpris ... orses.html
"The wild horse in the United States is generally labeled non-native by most federal and state agencies dealing with wildlife management, whose legal mandate is usually to protect native wildlife and prevent non-native species from having ecologically harmful effects."

The changes to history are huge. Jared Diamond clearly wrote of animal domestications and the species unable to be domesticated in the Americas. This impacted the development of the wheel in America. But if your Mormon scientists have data of horses before Columbus then anthropologists will be tasked to explain why America's indigenous people did not utilize them, why the civilizations did not develop with the horse.

I am tired of silly Mormon claims of having data and not submitting it for proper review. It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and everything to do with honesty.

[_Brant Gardner]

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.
Thank you.

Plugging the books wasn't the intent. The intent is to note that it is an argument that is not easily reduced to small posts. That is why it is in a book. I do not intend to repeat the argument here.

[_Brant Gardner]

But poppycock? A footnote? The presence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas would be poppycock and a footnote? A world shaking change to the pre-Columbian fauna? Aye, aye, aye, there's another Mormon apologist down the tube.

Horses may be a big deal in the controversy over the Book of Mormon, but they are little more than a footnote in general history.

Let's say that these anomalous remains are verified and that everyone accepts them. What then? Outside of Book of Mormon arguments what might happen? Well, historians will say, wow, that is interesting. I wonder why they were never domesticated in the New World and didn't have the impact that they did in the Old World.

That would be an interesting question to ask and answer, but little else would change in the way we see pre-contact history.

Now, what would change in the Book of Mormon world? Apologists would crow for a while, and pretty soon no one would talk about it. There would still be lots of other issues, so nothing would be settled.

A footnote.

[_Brant Gardner]

then anthropologists will be tasked to explain why America's indigenous people did not utilize them, why the civilizations did not develop with the horse.

Not at all. They already know why very few horses (if any) persisted. They were eaten. That is pretty well known and was the fate of most of the larger fauna in the New World that was here but didn't survive mankind. It would be a question of when, not whether.

I am tired of silly Mormon claims of having data and not submitting it for proper review. It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and everything to do with honesty.

I am really quite tired of being called a liar. I suppose you might suggest that my source was lying to me, but I happen to know enough about the source that it would be the least likely scenario. So, your resort to not having the evidence is to assume that I don't. Poor form.

You will note that while I have indicated that there have been tests, that I am not touting them as probatory of anything significant. I can't see how that merits accusations that I am either a silly Mormon or that I am a liar. You are the one making a mountain out of this molehill.

[_Brant Gardner]

As I understand it, and I might be wrong.... the Aramaic word that Jesus bestowed upon his 12 apostle, seliah in Aramaic - apóstolos in Greek wouldn't have entered into the vernacular of the Jews until after Lehi left Jerusalem.

That sentence says a lot about your understanding of translation. I wonder if you recognize the problems with it? Are you aware of the problem of candles in the KJV? What do you think that says about translation?

[_Tobin]

Horses may be a big deal in the controversy over the Book of Mormon, but they are little more than a footnote in general history.

Let's say that these anomalous remains are verified and that everyone accepts them. What then? Outside of Book of Mormon arguments what might happen? Well, historians will say, wow, that is interesting. I wonder why they were never domesticated in the New World and didn't have the impact that they did in the Old World.

That would be an interesting question to ask and answer, but little else would change in the way we see pre-contact history.

Now, what would change in the Book of Mormon world? Apologists would crow for a while, and pretty soon no one would talk about it. There would still be lots of other issues, so nothing would be settled.

A footnote.

Oh, I don't disagree. At the end of the day, it won't significantly change things, but it does establish credibility. If this were my field of study and I were an expert in it, I would think that finding pre-columbian horse remains, iron weapons, and examples of reformed egyptian would be my big 3 to go after. Any one of those would truly distinguish someone in this field. And I don't pretend that any of this would be easy, but what worthwhile pursuit is?

I certainly don't think proposing geographies and calling a horse a tapir establishes any credibility however.

[_Brant Gardner]

. . .calling a horse a tapir establishes any credibility however.

Not my argument. I can only discuss my own data. I understand what Sorenson said and why, and understand that most who try to ridicule the idea have no clue what they are talking about. However, that isn't my proposition at all. On this point I disagree with Sorenson's assumptions about the translation.