Book of Mormon geography

[_Shulem]

There is absolutely no reason to speculate that there would be some connection between any Mayan script (deciphered or not) and the imaginary 'Reformed Egyptian' (for which there is still no evidence).

Oh but there is evidence to show that Joseph Smith's reformed Egyptian bears no connection to the Mayan script. All evidence regarding the Egyptian claims by Joseph Smith indicate he was a fraud. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian. Joseph Smith loved to make crap up!



Paul O

[_Brant Gardner]

I do know that there have been date tests done on anomalous horse remains and the findings place them in post-Book of Mormon but pre-contact time periods.

Could you be so kind as to provide links or journal reports for those date tests?

I wish I could. Those results are now about 4-5 years old. I don't know why they have not been published. I believe my source, but don't know the story of publication. Still, I don't think they are particularly significant, other than to move on to other questions.

[_Brant Gardner]

Hi, Brant, good to see you!

1) Horses: . . . .

However, it still has to make sense within context.

Absolutely. I have been through the contexts and there is nothing that suggests anything other than one has to "prepare" both the "horse" and "chariot" for a journey. The chariot was, in the Old World, primarily a military vehicle. It never occurs in that context in the Book of Mormon. Rather, it occurs in the context of a royal visit where one king travels to another. Assuming a Maya context, there is a conveyance, just not a wheeled one. Wheels are not mentioned. Pulling is not mentioned. There is really very little textual context.

2) Iron blades. . . .

The larger issue is metallurgy in general. Metallurgy is described in some detail, and in a context that precludes translation issues.

I agree that is an important question, and one that cannot be answered by an appeal to translation. That is one where the lack of evidence is important, but not damning. However, it also wasn't the question to which I was responding--which is the reason I didn't mention it.

[_Brant Gardner]

The "translation issue" idea (it's not a theory, because it's not falsifiable) has a lot going against it and nothing but apologetic desperation going for it.

The obvious and insurmountable problem is that it's nothing but a naked assertion.

Actually, there are way to deal with whether or not a text is a translation in the absence of an original, and none of them deal with whether or not the translator was able to precisely replicate the intent of the original.

As for the nature of the translation being a naked assertion, I might agree that it is an assertion, but hardly "naked." It is the result of a rather extensive examination of all of the data I could amass that dealt with the nature of the Book of Mormon's translation. You might not agree with my assessment, but at the moment it rests on a larger data set than does your assertion.

The second is that all of the statements by Joseph Smith's contemporaries show a tight translation: the words appeared on the seer stone and Joseph was just reading. He wasn't really translating at all; the seer stone was.

You do not appear to handle all of the evidence, but have only read some of it. There is more to the story.

The third problem is that the LDS Church consistently teaches that the Book of Mormon was written for "our day." If it was written for our day, then the way it is worded should make sense to people in our day, not to the asserted understanding of an ancient Nephite.

Two interesting assertions. The first is allowable because all scripture is read with the current world in mind. There are comparatively few scholars, most readers are looking for modern applications.

The second, however, is really a fascinating assertion. Again, I can see no evidence, only what you have called a "naked assertion." I disagree, and disagree on the basis of textual evidence. Isn't it really odd that I would be the one suggesting that we use evidence and not faithful assertions?

The fourth problem is that real-life, secular translations of a language are not analogous to the way the Book of Mormon is purported to have been translated.

Again, an assertion based on your definition of what the translation method must have been, for which you clearly have no evidence.

Darn, I would have thought that the denizens of this board would have a greater respect for data and method.

[_Brant Gardner]

The old adage that 'evidence of absence is not absence of evidence' (though often used by apologists) is one of the weakest arguments that one can make.

Hardly. It is advice that the best archaeologists provide. There are rare cases where absence actually can mean something, but it is best not to build a very big house on a presumed absence. Once it is found it rather blows everything up in your face. Mesoamerican history is full of such surprises and required revisions of accepted "fact."

There is absolutely no reason to speculate that there would be some connection between any Mayan script (deciphered or not) and the imaginary 'Reformed Egyptian' (for which there is still no evidence).

Please reread what I wrote. I made no assertion that there was a connection between any Maya script and whatever reformed Egyptian might have been. My point was that evidence for any Mesoamerican language at that time depth is sketchy at best. With the exception of a small handful of texts, there is no evidence of writing during Book of Mormon times, even for the Maya. One might have assumed that therefore there was no writing that early, but San Bartolo proved that there was. We simply don't have it because it was a more perishable form (and a rather miraculous preservation at San Bartolo).

It very much does say many things negative about the Book of Mormon. There is NO evidence in either New York or Central America that supports the Book of Mormon.

Fascinating assertion. I see it many times. It is absolutely untrue. There is quite a bit of evidence. There is no proof. On another thread Kiskumen discusses this difference in his review of a Dan Peterson blog post. I suggest that you read the thread before jumping to this kind of conclusion.

There are only the ramblings of a confessed con-man to promote the supposition that anything other than accepted history could be true.

I'm glad to see that this board's disdain of what it has termed "ad hominem" is never promoted internally.

[_Quasimodo]

Darn, I would have thought that the denizens of this board would have a greater respect for data and method.

It depends on the data and it depends on the method. It also depends on whether the researcher is starting from an unbiased position or from a desire to prove a preconceived belief.

[Guest]

The "translation issue" idea (it's not a theory, because it's not falsifiable) has a lot going against it and nothing but apologetic desperation going for it.

The obvious and insurmountable problem is that it's nothing but a naked assertion.

Actually, there are way to deal with whether or not a text is a translation in the absence of an original, and none of them deal with whether or not the translator was able to precisely replicate the intent of the original.

As for the nature of the translation being a naked assertion, I might agree that it is an assertion, but hardly "naked." It is the result of a rather extensive examination of all of the data I could amass that dealt with the nature of the Book of Mormon's translation. You might not agree with my assessment, but at the moment it rests on a larger data set than does your assertion.

No, it doesn't. The "data" consist of statements by Joseph Smith's contemporaries about what he did with the seer stone, and LDS dogma that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God.

The second is that all of the statements by Joseph Smith's contemporaries show a tight translation: the words appeared on the seer stone and Joseph was just reading. He wasn't really translating at all; the seer stone was.

You do not appear to handle all of the evidence, but have only read some of it. There is more to the story.

I look forward to a statement by a contemporary witness who said something different.

The third problem is that the LDS Church consistently teaches that the Book of Mormon was written for "our day." If it was written for our day, then the way it is worded should make sense to people in our day, not to the asserted understanding of an ancient Nephite.

Two interesting assertions. The first is allowable because all scripture is read with the current world in mind. There are comparatively few scholars, most readers are looking for modern applications.

The second, however, is really a fascinating assertion. Again, I can see no evidence, only what you have called a "naked assertion." I disagree, and disagree on the basis of textual evidence. Isn't it really odd that I would be the one suggesting that we use evidence and not faithful assertions?

It's only odd if one overlooks your apparent inability to tell the difference between an unsupported assertion and a reasonable inference. I see that you also left out my wondering how the attributes the LDS Church imputes to Elohim are consistent with his failure to fix the asserted translation issue.

The fourth problem is that real-life, secular translations of a language are not analogous to the way the Book of Mormon is purported to have been translated.

Again, an assertion based on your definition of what the translation method must have been, for which you clearly have no evidence.

Darn, I would have thought that the denizens of this board would have a greater respect for data and method.

There would have to be some demonstration of meaningful data and reliable methodology before I could have something to respect.

The problem is clearly my failure to be dazzled when someone shoots an arrow, paints a target around wherever it landed, and yells "Bull's eye!"

[_hatersinmyward]

Figure 1: Geography as proposed by Vernal Holley (1983). Z = proposed city of Zarahemla site. Bright blue line is the model's "River Sidon." Names in red represent towns not in existence at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication. Note that the maps available at Mazeministries contain the following errors: 1) Jerusalem and Jacobsburg are too far apart; 2) Alma is too far to the east; 3) "Kiskiminetas" is misspelled "Kishkiminetas," perhaps to heighten the supposed parallel with "Kishkumen"; (4) Mount Ephrim should be north-east, not north-west of Sherbrooke.

[_Shulem]

Absolutely. I have been through the contexts and there is nothing that suggests anything other than one has to "prepare" both the "horse" and "chariot" for a journey. The chariot was, in the Old World, primarily a military vehicle. It never occurs in that context in the Book of Mormon. Rather, it occurs in the context of a royal visit where one king travels to another. Assuming a Maya context, there is a conveyance, just not a wheeled one. Wheels are not mentioned. Pulling is not mentioned. There is really very little textual context.

The chariot never occurs in the Book of Mormon as an instrument of war? WHAT? When king Lamoni traveled about he certainly was escorted by soldiers and chariots that were able to perform under the threat of battle.

The prophesy (3 Ne 21) about cutting off horses and destroying chariots also refers to the battlefield as the very cities and strongholds that support them would be thrown down. And enemies would be cut off. All of this alludes to war scenes as understood by so-called Book of Mormon people that Joseph Smith wrote about as he crafted that chapter.

It's interesting how I am able to read the Book of Mormon so much differently than Brant. I agree with Joseph Smith. A chariot is a chariot.

Paul O

[_Darth J]

There is quite a bit of evidence. There is no proof. On another thread Kiskumen discusses this difference in his review of a Dan Peterson blog post. I suggest that you read the thread before jumping to this kind of conclusion.

By the way, the dispute is not about evidence for the existence of Mayans, Olmecs, Aztecs, or Moundbuilders. The dispute is about evidence for the existence of Nephites and Jaredites.

There are only the ramblings of a confessed con-man to promote the supposition that anything other than accepted history could be true.

I'm glad to see that this board's disdain of what it has termed "ad hominem" is never promoted internally.

No, see, when we're supposed to take someone's word for it about these marvelous experiences he had, his character for truthfulness is a legitimate consideration. That isn't an ad hominem fallacy.