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

[malkie]

Two possible solutions:

• Perhaps god thought that the KJV translation was so good and accurate (italics and errors included) that he went back in time to convey that content to people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400. (assuming that they could italicize the engraving of reformed Egyptian caractors, that is).
  or
• What the people who lived in the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 wrote was so good that god somehow made sure that the KJV translation incorporated it (italics as required, and errors included).

Easy-peasy - with god, all things are possible.

I thought that the standard apologetic was that when the plates referred to biblical material the kjv was used to facilitate translation, copying was quicker and easier.

I am still wondering why this thread has left Lundwall's observations out completely.

I just wanted to indicate that, if god is involved, there are alternatives to the standard apologetic.

Since I haven't watched the BYP episode in question, I have nothing to say about Lundwall's observations. What did he say?

[Boomer57]

I thought that the standard apologetic was that when the plates referred to biblical material the kjv was used to facilitate translation, copying was quicker and easier.

I am still wondering why this thread has left Lundwall's observations out completely.

I just wanted to indicate that, if god is involved, there are alternatives to the standard apologetic.

Since I haven't watched the BYP episode in question, I have nothing to say about Lundwall's observations. What did he say?

He explains the progression of language and writing through time as ancient cultures become literate and modernize. They go from oral traditions to oral + ritual to ritual + pictographic writings or representations, to abstract characters representing sounds to a a fully literate society with an advanced writing system. The Book of Mormon describes a totally literate society (King Benjamin has his address written down and distributed to all, letters between generals, writing on plates in 'Reformed Egyptian'), yet nowhere in the Americas was there ever such a society before the Spanish. The Maya had a writing system that was pictographic and limited to the elites (royals, priests). They were in the ritual + pictographic writing system stage. This is as far as writing and literacy had ever gotten in the Americas. So the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is actually an anachronism. No society existed here with the advanced literacy needed to create the book itself, much less support the events described in the book.

[malkie]

I just wanted to indicate that, if god is involved, there are alternatives to the standard apologetic.

Since I haven't watched the BYP episode in question, I have nothing to say about Lundwall's observations. What did he say?

He explains the progression of language and writing through time as ancient cultures become literate and modernize. They go from oral traditions to oral + ritual to ritual + pictographic writings or representations, to abstract characters representing sounds to a a fully literate society with an advanced writing system. The Book of Mormon describes a totally literate society (King Benjamin has his address written down and distributed to all, letters between generals, writing on plates in 'Reformed Egyptian'), yet nowhere in the Americas was there ever such a society before the Spanish. The Maya had a writing system that was pictographic and limited to the elites (royals, priests). They were in the ritual + pictographic writing system stage. This is as far as writing and literacy had ever gotten in the Americas. So the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is actually an anachronism. No society existed here with the advanced literacy needed to create the book itself, much less support the events described in the book.

Thanks, Boomer57.

[MG 2.0]

Yes it is. Your comments over on the “If Plates, Then God” thread lead me to think you are not aware of or are unwilling to accept that evidence.

Regards,
MG

There’s that nasty little habit of yours again - snipping quotes. Stop it.

Here’s what I actually said…

The only reliable evidence available to us is the book itself. It’s testable. Those tests show it contains content found within the KJV Bible, including italics and errors. That content isn’t from ancient Americas people. Therefore the Book of Mormon ain’t what it claims to be. End of.

The KJV content found in the Book of Mormon isn’t from the ancient Americas. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it only matters that the content plagiarised within the Book of Mormon doesn’t come from people who lived 600 B.C. to A.D. 400.

There have been essays written on this topic. You have a computer. Do some reading.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Do some reading.

Now that is rich. SFMY.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

MG, it seems as though you decided not to finish the Lundwall presentation and find out what he had to say. Perhaps his observations are things you would rather not consider.

No I haven’t finished it. If he talked about ‘loose translation’ I’d be interested in skipping to that part though. If I remember, however, someone said he didn’t really tackle that in any depth where it made any real impact/difference. If I’m wrong I may go back and listen to that part.

Time stamp?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

MG, it seems as though you decided not to finish the Lundwall presentation and find out what he had to say. Perhaps his observations are things you would rather not consider.

No I haven’t finished it. If he talked about ‘loose translation’ I’d be interested in skipping to that part though. If I remember, however, someone said he didn’t really tackle that in any depth where it made any real impact/difference. If I’m wrong I may go back and listen to that part.

Time stamp?

Regards,
MG

Loose translation, Tackle that? of course not it is irrelevant to what he is presenting.

[huckelberry]

He explains the progression of language and writing through time as ancient cultures become literate and modernize. They go from oral traditions to oral + ritual to ritual + pictographic writings or representations, to abstract characters representing sounds to a a fully literate society with an advanced writing system. The Book of Mormon describes a totally literate society (King Benjamin has his address written down and distributed to all, letters between generals, writing on plates in 'Reformed Egyptian'), yet nowhere in the Americas was there ever such a society before the Spanish. The Maya had a writing system that was pictographic and limited to the elites (royals, priests). They were in the ritual + pictographic writing system stage. This is as far as writing and literacy had ever gotten in the Americas. So the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is actually an anachronism. No society existed here with the advanced literacy needed to create the book itself, much less support the events described in the book.

Thanks, Boomer57.

malkie I thank Boomer as well. I was not trying to give you a hard time. Instead i wanted to suggest to MG that the actual link has observations of some potential value.

[I Have Questions]

There’s that nasty little habit of yours again - snipping quotes. Stop it.

Here’s what I actually said…

The KJV content found in the Book of Mormon isn’t from the ancient Americas. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it only matters that the content plagiarised within the Book of Mormon doesn’t come from people who lived 600 B.C. to A.D. 400.

There have been essays written on this topic. You have a computer. Do some reading.

Regards,
MG

I've done the reading, the only apologetic reasoning for the KJV errors and italics is that Joseph Smith used a KJV Bible for that part (unless you’re going with the comedic apologetic of the ghost committee, in which case I’ll just laugh at you). If that’s the case then the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be (a translation of ancient plates). End of. The Church has not amended that to say - a translation of some ancient plates, via a magic rock, and some copying from a Bible that Joseph had to hand. Or have they? If you have some compelling information to share, then share it.

[malkie]

Thanks, Boomer57.

malkie I thank Boomer as well. I was not trying to give you a hard time. Instead i wanted to suggest to MG that the actual link has observations of some potential value.

huck, thanks, but I didn't think of your comment as in any way intended to give me a hard time - I don't see you as that kind of person.

I'm aware that I am not one of the best educated folks here, and that a lot of the discussion simply goes over my head. But every so often I like to stick my head up a bit higher and say what I'm thinking.

I know that some folks are very fond of asserting that Joseph Smith couldn't have done what he did without divine help. That's fine. For someone who believes in god it's perhaps a reasonable thing to say (in my opinion!). However, if they want to defend the idea that the Book of Mormon is historical, and is what the church teachings say it is, then the helper-god seems once again to be showing himself to be incompetent - again, my opinion.