BYP Hosts Dr. John Lundwall - The Book of Mormon is WHOLLY Anachronistic

[Dr. Shades]

For the most part I enjoyed the show, BUT, it went on too long. I'm afraid that so many of the podcasts out there in Podcast Land are too long. They should be kept within an hour limit, tops. Do a part II, III, or more if necessary but dragging a podcast on beyond 2 hours is a cardinal sin in my view. Does anyone else agree with me or am I just a weirdo freakazoid?

I definitely agree with you.

[huckelberry]

For the most part I enjoyed the show, BUT, it went on too long. I'm afraid that so many of the podcasts out there in Podcast Land are too long. They should be kept within an hour limit, tops. Do a part II, III, or more if necessary but dragging a podcast on beyond 2 hours is a cardinal sin in my view. Does anyone else agree with me or am I just a weirdo freakazoid?

I definitely agree with you.

I guess I am agreeing with this. I have enjoyed some Philo discussions that were shorter. I listened to a presentation by Dr Lundwall not long ago. His observation about the Book of Mormon showing a literate culture and that that would be in stark contrast to what is found in the Americas on several levels is worth consideration.

If there is significant additional topics I might consider continuing this presentation, otherwise it is too slow and long for me.

[MG 2.0]

I definitely agree with you.

I guess I am agreeing with this. I have enjoyed some Philo discussions that were shorter. I listened to a presentation by Dr Lundwall not long ago. His observation about the Book of Mormon showing a literate culture and that that would be in stark contrast to what is found in the Americas on several levels is worth consideration.

If there is significant additional topics I might consider continuing this presentation, otherwise it is too slow and long for me.

I started listening to it and did so for a while and then found myself starting to doze a bit and left off to do other things and didn’t come back to it yet.

My question would be…and maybe it was answered later on down the road…why does Lundwall believe that a loose translation “does violence” to the Book of Mormon that then negates the whole enterprise?

I’ve stated before that I am more or less a Blake Ostler fan in regards to Book of Mormon translation. Would Lundwall say that Ostler has ‘done violence’ in regards to his theories of Book of Mormon translation?

Does loose translation throw any kind of a monkey wrench into Lundwall’s reasons for skepticism?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I guess I am agreeing with this. I have enjoyed some Philo discussions that were shorter. I listened to a presentation by Dr Lundwall not long ago. His observation about the Book of Mormon showing a literate culture and that that would be in stark contrast to what is found in the Americas on several levels is worth consideration.

If there is significant additional topics I might consider continuing this presentation, otherwise it is too slow and long for me.

I started listening to it and did so for a while and then found myself starting to doze a bit and left off to do other things and didn’t come back to it yet.

My question would be…and maybe it was answered later on down the road…why does Lundwall believe that a loose translation “does violence” to the Book of Mormon that then negates the whole enterprise?

I’ve stated before that I am more or less a Blake Ostler fan in regards to Book of Mormon translation. Would Lundwall say that Ostler has ‘done violence’ in regards to his theories of Book of Mormon translation?

Does loose translation throw any kind of a monkey wrench into Lundwall’s reasons for skepticism?

Regards,
MG

Once you actually listen to the podcast, be sure to come back and let everyone know what you think Lundwall believes.

[huckelberry]

Does loose translation throw any kind of a monkey wrench into Lundwall’s reasons for skepticism?

Regards,
MG

I really cannot think of how it would unless by loose translation you mean very very loose. It would be a bit difficult to figure how loose that would have to be.

[MG 2.0]

I started listening to it and did so for a while and then found myself starting to doze a bit and left off to do other things and didn’t come back to it yet.

My question would be…and maybe it was answered later on down the road…why does Lundwall believe that a loose translation “does violence” to the Book of Mormon that then negates the whole enterprise?

I’ve stated before that I am more or less a Blake Ostler fan in regards to Book of Mormon translation. Would Lundwall say that Ostler has ‘done violence’ in regards to his theories of Book of Mormon translation?

Does loose translation throw any kind of a monkey wrench into Lundwall’s reasons for skepticism?

Regards,
MG

Once you actually listen to the podcast, be sure to come back and let everyone know what you think Lundwall believes.

Well, that response doesn’t help much.

I asked two simple questions.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Does loose translation throw any kind of a monkey wrench into Lundwall’s reasons for skepticism?

Regards,
MG

I really cannot think of how it would unless by loose translation you mean very very loose. It would be a bit difficult to figure how loose that would have to be.

Loose translation opens up many possibilities that are not as readily discernible in a hard translation.

Loose doesn’t necessitate dispensing with the rock in the hat.

I’m simply asking why Lundwall considers a loose translation to do “violence” to the Book of Mormon translation and/or acceptance of the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

That should be a simple answer.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I really cannot think of how it would unless by loose translation you mean very very loose. It would be a bit difficult to figure how loose that would have to be.

Loose translation opens up many possibilities that are not as readily discernible in a hard translation.

Loose doesn’t necessitate dispensing with the rock in the hat.

I’m simply asking why Lundwall considers a loose translation to do “violence” to the Book of Mormon translation and/or acceptance of the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

That should be a simple answer.

Regards,
MG

So listen to it yourself and let us know what you think.

[huckelberry]

I really cannot think of how it would unless by loose translation you mean very very loose. It would be a bit difficult to figure how loose that would have to be.

Loose translation opens up many possibilities that are not as readily discernible in a hard translation.

Loose doesn’t necessitate dispensing with the rock in the hat.

I’m simply asking why Lundwall considers a loose translation to do “violence” to the Book of Mormon translation and/or acceptance of the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

That should be a simple answer.

Regards,
MG

Well MG I went back to listen through the place he mentions loose translation. He made no explanation for what he meant there and then left the subject behind as not relevant to what he was considering.

Myself I can imagine loose translation could account for some minor anachronisms but that is not what is being considered.

[MG 2.0]

Loose translation opens up many possibilities that are not as readily discernible in a hard translation.

Loose doesn’t necessitate dispensing with the rock in the hat.

I’m simply asking why Lundwall considers a loose translation to do “violence” to the Book of Mormon translation and/or acceptance of the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

That should be a simple answer.

Regards,
MG

Well MG I went back to listen through the place he mentions loose translation. He made no explanation for what he meant there and then left the subject behind as not relevant to what he was considering.

Myself I can imagine loose translation could account for some minor anachronisms but that is not what is being considered.

Thanks huckleberry. I’m wondering if it is one of those things that might throw a monkey wrench into his hypothesis so it’s better left ignored.

It’s interesting that he would use the word “violence” to attach to the loose translation without spending time further exploring what that means within the fence he constructs around the the linguistic/written language constraints he goes off on.

I’m sure someone else has thought about this more than I have and may have additional wisdom to add.

Now I’m not sure it’s worth listening to if he’s restricting his arguments within a tightly controlled fence/wall.

Philo might have something to add.

Regards,
MG