GR33N wrote:Believing in God, as I do, I'll choose the world view as shown in the Book of Mormon over Penn Gillette. Although I do agree with Penn's Libertarian views to a large degree. But I digress. my point is that I would rather strive and hope to achieve absolution relying on the Atonement of Jesus Christ rather than a guaranteed enslavement to the Father of Lies.
Whether the "Hebrew scholars" support it or not matters little to me. The point is that there is a reasonable and believable position to support Abinidi's use of tense and therefore your argument of Abinidi's "telling blunder" has a hole in it. Just as your assumption that God had Joseph Smith translate "Tapir" into "Horse". There is no confusion, there were horses here during the Book of Mormon timeline whether "scholars" want to admit it or not doesn't change the fact.
In your comment above (which I've bolded), I hope you can clarify...
Are you saying that horses, using the term 'horse' to refer to the species
equus ferus caballus, were present in North, Central or South America during the period of time from 2000 BC to 400 AD?
My understanding is that it has been clearly documented that there are no physical remains, cultural references or other anecdotal forms of evidence to suggest that horses lived in the western hemisphere after their extinction some 8-10k years ago, and that no indigenous human culture ever used or domesticated horses prior to their arrival with the Spaniards in the fifteenth century. I would count this as a fact. The
fact of the complete absence of evidence. The only source for such a counterclaim seems to be the Book of Mormon. And those of MI and FAIR who defend the Book of Mormon clearly agree with this sentiment, knowing the facts as they do. They attempt to bridge the resulting gap by asserting that when Joseph Smith/Mormon/Moroni wrote the word 'Horse', the animal actually referred to was 'tapir'.
Last thing: why do you put the word 'scholar' in scare quotes? Those who say no horses existed here during Book of Mormon times... are they not scholars? Or is it that you believe the
are scholars, but because of Satan's grand plan to defeat the restoration of the gospel, they purposefully hide horse bones and destroy Mayan horse glyphs which might prove otherwise? How do facts get established? By the meticulous efforts of thousands upon thousands of researchers, archeologists and scientists, spanning numerous decades, cultures, religions and nations, or by a single, naked assertion in a 19th Century scripture with zero provenance?
Why do the opinions of scholars matter so little to you? The scholar (Thorlief) seems to have claimed that strange tenses in Hebrew translations are normal, thus providing an apologist a means of defending the Book of Mormon. You accept this scholar and his conclusions. James Barr, another scholar, says that Thorlief got it wrong. Suddenly, Barr is now a 'scholar' (in scare quotes)? And now you don't care what 'scholars' say?
Isn't your physician a scholar? I have to bet that he or she could not have earned a degree in medicine without a substantial amount of scholarship. It rather seems that the only scholars you distrust are the ones who's work might refute your religious beliefs.