Which poster here is O-Brother on MADB?

[_ttribe]

It is blowing in the wind.

What are you talking about?

[_Scottie]

No. That's not what I am saying. First, there are two possibilities on the anachronistic - the "frame of reference" was either applied by the writer (i.e. Nephi et al.) or in the translation. The presence of "Cumom and Curelom" are supportive of this position insomuch as they are the inverse of the anachronistic - there either was no frame of reference for the writer (so they made up a name) or for the translator, or both. None of this is inconceivable, by any stretch.

I think I see. You are suggesting that perhaps Nephi didn't know what a Llama was, so he wrote down "Horse" because it was the closest thing that he was familiar with. And this came across on the stone just as Nephi (or whoever) had written it.

Here is the problem I see with this. Lets say that in Nephi's old world language, the word for horse is X. Nephi sees a Llama and says, "we will call this animal X." (disregarding the problem of why Nephi would call an animal X when he plainly knows it is NOT an X).

1000 years go by and everyone in the Nephite and Lamanite civilization now knows a Llama is an X. Mormon is abridging the plates and reads on the plates about animal X, which in his mind means a Llama. He abridges the plates using the word X, which obviously means Llama by now, not Horse... since nobody alive has ever seen a horse. Why would God put the word horse onto the seer stone when Mormon would have meant Llama?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I don't deny the weight of the physical evidence.

This is what makes ttribe ttribe. He sees the evidence, he can recognizes how is stands. He draws another conclusion based on internal evidence. I don't think Tim would condemn or consider the apostate misguided or willfully self deceptive based on the evidence. I read him to say he see the evidence and draws another conclusion but recognizes that the evidence could reasonably be interpreted another way.

[_ttribe]

This is what makes ttribe ttribe. He sees the evidence, he can recognizes how is stands. He draws another conclusion based on internal evidence. I don't think Tim would condemn or consider the apostate misguided or willfully self deceptive based on the evidence. I read him to say he see the evidence and draws another conclusion but recognizes that the evidence could reasonably be interpreted another way.

Yep.

[_ttribe]

I think I see. You are suggesting that perhaps Nephi didn't know what a Llama was, so he wrote down "Horse" because it was the closest thing that he was familiar with. And this came across on the stone just as Nephi (or whoever) had written it.

Here is the problem I see with this. Lets say that in Nephi's old world language, the word for horse is X. Nephi sees a Llama and says, "we will call this animal X." (disregarding the problem of why Nephi would call an animal X when he plainly knows it is NOT an X).

1000 years go by and everyone in the Nephite and Lamanite civilization now knows a Llama is an X. Mormon is abridging the plates and reads on the plates about animal X, which in his mind means a Llama. He abridges the plates using the word X, which obviously means Llama by now, not Horse... since nobody alive has ever seen a horse. Why would God put the word horse onto the seer stone when Mormon would have meant Llama?

Why do you assume Mormon would have known the word "llama"?

[_Runtu]

The problem with the anachronisms is that, although you can knock them down individually with such things as loan-shifting and all that, the anachronisms have implications beyond the mere use of a word.

Take, for example, the description of steel. You can make a decent argument for the word not meaning what we or Joseph Smith would have considered steel, but the Book of Mormon describes a specific process for making steel that is in every way anachronistic to New World populations. Furthermore, we're told that Nephi taught his people the skills he had. So, given that Nephi knew and taught a technology significantly better than New World technology, it's difficult to understand why this technology was never adopted, even in a minor way, among the people that the Nephites are supposed to have come in contact with.

The Book of Mormon describes complex political structures dominated by proto-Christian Nephites. As beastie has mentioned before, the only way the Nephites could have ascended to the top of the sociopolitical food chain was either through technological advantages (such as steel-making) or through some kind of religious authority. Of course, the Book of Mormon describes both of these advantages, so it's safe to say that the Nephites had a large impact on the culture/religion and technology of the people they assimilated with.

And yet we are told that this dominant culture left no traces of itself either in the cultural or technological practices of Mesoamerica. Leaving aside steel production, even something as simple as Nephi's use of bellows to create intense heat would be reflected in the kinds of pottery that the Mesoamericans produced. But pottery in Mesoamerica changed very little during the time of supposed Nephite contact. Pots were thrown and then put into a pit covered with brush that was set afire. This produced low-quality pottery typical of that era, suggesting that the use of bellows was unknown, despite Nephite domination of culture and technology. Nor does the pottery show any religious or cultural influence from the Middle East.

The same problem obtains with the horse and chariot references. Animals were not used to convey humans or pull wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica. So, even if it was a tapir, it wasn't used for what the Book of Mormon says it was. Thus, we get the rather absurd claim that, because chariots are not specifically used to convey humans (ignoring, of course, that Lamoni has them prepared for his own journey), what is really being referred to is non-wheeled platforms (i.e., chariots) used to carry miniature ceremonial animals (horses).

That's the state of apologetics in waving off anachronisms. I think even the apologists recognize just how desperate and ad hoc their arguments are.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

This is what makes ttribe ttribe. He sees the evidence, he can recognizes how is stands. He draws another conclusion based on internal evidence. I don't think Tim would condemn or consider the apostate misguided or willfully self deceptive based on the evidence. I read him to say he see the evidence and draws another conclusion but recognizes that the evidence could reasonably be interpreted another way.

Yep.

I wonder why we would flap our gums about this or that. Tim sees what we see and concludes differently. I think he is wrong, he think I am wrong, but we can respect each other. What am I saying? Oh, that Tim has the right attitude about his faith and does not judge others for not sharing his conclusion. Good heavens, I would love to see this more! In other words Tim is not insecure in his faith. How many times have apologists attacked people personally or stated that apostates 'wanted' to stop believing, that they were looking for an excuse to sin? You need to go teach MAD how to act, dude.

[_ttribe]

That's the state of apologetics in waving off anachronisms. I think even the apologists recognize just how desperate and ad hoc their arguments are.

I don't mind the "ad hoc" description; the use of "desperate" is a bit loaded.

[_Runtu]

I wonder why we would flap our gums about this or that. Tim sees what we see and concludes differently. I think he is wrong, he think I am wrong, but we can respect each other. What am I saying? Oh, that Tim has the right attitude about his faith and does not judge others for not sharing his conclusion. Good heavens, I would love to see this more! In other words Tim is not insecure in his faith. How many times have apologists attacked people personally or stated that apostates 'wanted' to stop believing, that they were looking for an excuse to sin? You need to go teach MAD how to act, dude.

That's one of the reasons I like Tim. Take away all the hyperbole about evil apostates and duped cultists, and what you really have are people who simply interpret the same evidence differently. It happens all the time, and yet we don't feel the need to attack people because their interpretation of "Bleak House" is different from ours.

[_ttribe]

I wonder why we would flap our gums about this or that. Tim sees what we see and concludes differently. I think he is wrong, he think I am wrong, but we can respect each other. What am I saying? Oh, that Tim has the right attitude about his faith and does not judge others for not sharing his conclusion. Good heavens, I would love to see this more! In other words Tim is not insecure in his faith. How many times have apologists attacked people personally or stated that apostates 'wanted' to stop believing, that they were looking for an excuse to sin? You need to go teach MAD how to act, dude.

You're funny GP. Despite the rocky start to our interaction with one another, I think we understand each other. That's a good thing. However, I'm not qualified to "teach" anyone how to act. I just do what I do. If someone gleans something positive from that, so much the better I suppose.