Book of Mormon geography

[_Themis]

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.

To certain scientific disciplines they would be very important. I hear these types of stories in the apologetic community from time to time but have always been disappointed, so I am skeptical. If you are not aware of where to find these tests on horse remains it is likely the information you have is not accurate.

[_Darth J]

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?

Obviously I had no familiarity with Mopologist arguments when I said a couple pages ago, "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."

[_Stormy Waters]

In light of this knowledge I propose the eighth article of faith be amended.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly

Funny how Joseph Smith left out that condition on the Book of Mormon. It's a good thing apologists have clarified the manner.

[_Shulem]

In light of this knowledge I propose the eighth article of faith be amended.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly

We need to take it a step further to bring all the scriptures into harmony:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

Paul O

[_SteelHead]

The kjv has multiple translation errors, such as the problematic use of the word steel in the Old Testament.

It (the kjv) does not claim however, to have been translated by the power of god. It has been recorded that Joseph would pause the translation until it was exactly correct. The Book of Mormon is said to be the most correct book on the earth.... and yet there are translation errors like unto the kjv?

So are you arguing that god revealed the wrong word on the seer stone?

God is incompetent.

[_Shulem]

The kjv has multiple translation errors, such as the problematic use of the word steel in the Old Testament.

Joseph Smith unknowingly took errors from the KJV Isaiah chapters and stuck them in his own book making a few changes and alterations to make it look good.

He did the same thing with the Masonic rituals and created his own temple endowment.

Joseph Smith was a liar and a thief.

Paul O

[_beastie]

I have to admit I haven't had time to read the latest posts, so if I'm repeating something, just ignore me. I'll try to come back later to read them all.

The problem with horses isn't just horses. The problem is that there are several animals cited in the Book of Mormon that did not exist in Mesoamerica during that time period. So apologists who insist that horse means "animal X", not only have to come up with an "animal X" that makes sense in the context, but also come up with "animal Y, Z, W..." for the other animals cited. And they can't all be the same animal X. And they all must make sense in the context.

[_lulu]

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.

Name 5 New World archeological discoveries that would not be a mere footnote and please state your reason for making those choices

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

[_Blixa]

I know I'm going to come off like the worst kind of board nanny, but here goes:

I've only skimmed this thread, but I'm coming back later to read the exchanges more carefully. What I have noticed so far, though, is something quite interesting: Brant Gardner is laying out his ideas in a careful and measured way. He is taking time to come back and answer nearly everyone who has responded to his posts. And I think the emotional high point of his exchange has been "Poppycock."

I probably don't agree with his arguments (well, I know I don't in general, but I need to read the thread more carefully to see if there are some things I've not considered carefully), but I do agree with his manner of discussion and willingness to discuss. It's like a nearly exotic level of geniality compared to...well...the usual suspects.

So I say "huzzah" to Brother Gardner whether I agree with him or no.

[_Brant Gardner]

I have to admit I haven't had time to read the latest posts, so if I'm repeating something, just ignore me. I'll try to come back later to read them all.

The problem with horses isn't just horses. The problem is that there are several animals cited in the Book of Mormon that did not exist in Mesoamerica during that time period. So apologists who insist that horse means "animal X", not only have to come up with an "animal X" that makes sense in the context, but also come up with "animal Y, Z, W..." for the other animals cited. And they can't all be the same animal X. And they all must make sense in the context.

Correct. However, the issue is exactly the same. If the word in the text is the result of the translator rather than the text, then we have a translation anachronism. Since we don't have the original text, the word itself is not available as an indicator.

Most arguments about animals are based implicitly an a theory of perfect divine translation (by apologist or critic). Since I don't begin with that concept, there has to be a different way of deciding what the plate text said.

That is where context becomes critical. If the word horse appeared in the contexts where it was being ridden, or where it pulled something, or where someone saddled up, then we have a horse doing horse-like things. When the textual "horse" only eats and moves, the context doesn't tell us anything about what a "horse" is. One context lists it in animals we otherwise think of as food animals. None of that tells us what it is, only that the assumption of a literal translation is at least questionable.

Because it is questionable, using vocabulary as any kind of evidence is risky (a position I take with most Hebraisms as well--I do have to be consistent).

There is a difference between horse, ass, goat and curelom and cummom. I think that there was a difference in the text that led to that particular difference. The curelom and cummom are unknown animals from an unknown time and Mormon's text treated them as unknowns as well. Hence the translation method I suggest handles them differently than the nouns used to label more familiar animals.