Which poster here is O-Brother on MADB?

[_beastie]

These, and most of the alleged anachronisms for that matter, largely depend on one's assumption of the "tightness" of the translation. Conversion of concepts across languages is not always precise (as anyone who's learned a foreign language can attest). Is there no room in your reading of the book for the notion that these "words" were simply the best available descriptors?

The metallurgy problem cannot be erased by invoking loose translation. There were supposed metal artifacts seen by witnesses, and part of the process of metallurgy is actually described in the text.

Horses are a problem because there is no "animal X" that can fit the context of the Book of Mormon. see: tapir

[_ttribe]

The metallurgy problem cannot be erased by invoking loose translation. There were supposed metal artifacts seen by witnesses, and part of the process of metallurgy is actually described in the text.

Are you suggesting that there was widespread use of such a process? Are you also suggesting that the numbers (in terms of population and wars) are accurate (even within a factor of 10)? I've certainly never held such beliefs.

Horses are a problem because there is no "animal X" that can fit the context of the Book of Mormon. see: tapir

How much does one animal have to resemble another before you'd be willing to include it in your "context"?

[_John Larsen]

How about Deseret=Honeybee=[no honeybees in the Americas]?

As I recall, Deseret is only mentioned with respect to Jared, et al. and then only in reference to what they put into their vessels. You seem to be assuming successful transportation of the colony, not to mention no events or circumstances under which there was an extinction of that which they brought with them. In short, this is another absence of evidence, evidence of absence problem.

And you have no problem with the idea that people fleeing the Tower of Babel put colonies of their bees in their wooden submarines?

by the way, the only people who ever invoke the "absence of evidence" defense are those trying to defend the indefensible.

[_ttribe]

And you have no problem with the idea that people fleeing the Tower of Babel put colonies of their bees in their wooden submarines?

Since they weren't submarines, I don't think your comment really applies here.

by the way, the only people who ever invoke the "absence of evidence" defense are those trying to defend the indefensible.

Bull crap. You can whine about it being cliché if you want, but in some instances it may just be true. The fact is we don't have all possible knowledge (in any sense, cosmic or scientific). If you aren't open to possibilities, you'll never inquire into the unknown.

[_beastie]

Are you suggesting that there was widespread use of such a process? Are you also suggesting that the numbers (in terms of population and wars) are accurate (even within a factor of 10)? I've certainly never held such beliefs.

It doesn’t have to be widespread for evidence to be found. This is particularly true when one considers the social complexity of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. These would have been quite powerful polities. If archaeologists can pinpoint details about the obsidian trade of Kaminaljuyu, they could identify metallurgy in other polities. Besides, there are other issues at play, as well, such as the pre-requisite skills for metallurgy, such as the ability to control intense heat, which, in turn, affects the type of pottery produces.

How much does one animal have to resemble another before you'd be willing to include it in your "context"?

Why don’t you just go ahead and suggest a feasible animal? And, by the way, don’t forget you have to suggest other land animals for cattle, ox, and sheep.

[_Gadianton]

Bull crap. You can whine about it being cliché if you want, but in some instances it may just be true. The fact is we don't have all possible knowledge (in any sense, cosmic or scientific). If you aren't open to possibilities, you'll never inquire into the unknown.

I wager that ttribe is only *really* open to such possibilities, with accompanying argument from ignorance, when what's on the table is an unlikely Mormon-specific belief.

[_ttribe]

It doesn’t have to be widespread for evidence to be found.

It certainly changes the probability of making such a discovery.

This is particularly true when one considers the social complexity of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. These would have been quite powerful polities. If archaeologists can pinpoint details about the obsidian trade of Kaminaljuyu, they could identify metallurgy in other polities. Besides, there are other issues at play, as well, such as the pre-requisite skills for metallurgy, such as the ability to control intense heat, which, in turn, affects the type of pottery produces.

What's wrong with this information: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach4.pdf ?

Why don’t you just go ahead and suggest a feasible animal? And, by the way, don’t forget you have to suggest other land animals for cattle, ox, and sheep.

Hasn't this path been tread a few thousand time? How about you tell me why the extant isn't worthy of even your derision, let alone your acknowledgment: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... ms:Animals

[_ttribe]

I wager that ttribe is only *really* open to such possibilities, with accompanying argument from ignorance, when what's on the table is an unlikely Mormon-specific belief.

Do you actually have something to contribute, or are you just mostly interested in snarky drive-by cheap shots intended to heap scorn on someone you know little or nothing about?

[_John Larsen]

Bull crap. You can whine about it being cliché if you want, but in some instances it may just be true. The fact is we don't have all possible knowledge (in any sense, cosmic or scientific). If you aren't open to possibilities, you'll never inquire into the unknown.

Don't pretend that by accepting a dogma you are somehow more open to possibilities. I am willing to believe anything there is evidence for. I am unwilling to believe nothing there is no evidence for.

[_John Larsen]

Hasn't this path been tread a few thousand time? How about you tell me why the extant isn't worthy of even your derision, let alone your acknowledgment: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... ms:Animals

Honestly, does a man of you intelligence find this compelling? I only find it to be embarrassing. There is better stuff on Coast to Coast AM.