- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:
But I still see some merit to the evidence ‘for’ the Book of Mormon.
As do I – especially in 1 Nephi and Ether.
I can see that when you read the BoM by topic it may mean something quite different that if read in sequence as I’ve been doing. I’m in Ether now and was struck by Ether 9:18-19. Sorry but when I run into things like this all the other stuff just goes in the toilet.
Why, GB? I’ve read all of the rejections of those verses, but I’m curious why you reject them – especially given the current understanding of horse evolution in ancient American times and the existence of elephants, mastadons, mammoths and other elephant-like animals well past the time when Ether describes.
You mean these: Quote:
18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
These are only issue with a ‘tight’ translation of the Book of Mormon; an exact rendition of what was original written by a Nephi/Mormon.
The presence of KJV convinces me that the idea of a ‘tight’ translation is out of the window. Completely off the table.
So if there are anachronism in the Book of Mormon (and many of them are not established without some uncertainty) then my answer is simple. Mormon or Joseph made a mistake.
Joseph dictated the book as a “loose” translation. “If there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” (Title Page, Book of Mormon).
We open the Book of Mormon saying: “Folks, imperfect humans were involved in making this book. Expect errors.”
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was a Muslim philosopher, physician and astronomer from Cordoba, Spain. He had a theory for interpreting the Quran:
Quote:
“If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demonstrative conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically; that is metaphorically.”
I meant that decades ago the assumption was that horses and elephants (and other animals) became extinct in the American continents sometime around 12,000-8,000 BC. Two things:
1) The assumed chronology of Ether is based on the assumed chronology of the Old Testament, putting the time of the Jaredite migration around 2,500 BC or so.
That chronology, however, assumes a literal acceptance of the ages and experiences described in the Old Testament, which I personally don’t accept. Without that foundation, there is absolutely no way to say when the Jaredite migration is supposed to have happened – especially given the fact that the word “descendant” (not “son”) is used multiple times in the genealogical chronology in Ether. That listing literally skips any number of generations, so there is no way to determine, with any authority, when the record would have started and how many years it covers. 2) There is lots of evidence now that elephants and similar animals existed on the continents well after oral traditions started that were active into the 1900’s. There also is at least one archaeological discovery that shows an animal that would fit the “horse” classification around 100 BC – and that designation wasn’t by a Mormon. Coupled with the Native American Indian practice of calling the horses the Spaniards brought with them “deer”, “elk” or even “dogs” and “”elk-dogs”, a whole level of translation possibilities gets opened.
I’m NOT saying those verses don’t constitute possible anachronisms or that the most recent information proves the Book of Mormon to be historically accurate, in any way, but they certainly aren’t the smoking gun that critics claim they are – not any more.
Old-Timer wrote:Why, GB?
I’ve read all of the rejections of those verses, but I’m curious why you reject them – especially given the current understanding of horse evolution in ancient American times and the existence of elephants, mastadons, mammoths and other elephant-like animals well past the time when Ether describes.
Sorry but I don’t agree. Prehistoric horses may have been present but the reason the wheel was never in use in the americas was because there were no draft animals. No horses, cattle or oxen. There are no more valuable animals to the development of civilization. Where did they go? As far as mammoths and mastadons I agree they were here but long before the time line for the Jaredites. As an aside to that it says somewhere that the emigration took place at the time of the tower of babel. Do you believe there was a tower of babel? I don’t and I don’t think anyone other than believers in a 6,000 year old earth do either.
mackay11 wrote:You mean these:
Quote:
18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
These are only issue with a ‘tight’ translation of the Book of Mormon; an exact rendition of what was original written by a Nephi/Mormon.
The presence of KJV convinces me that the idea of a ‘tight’ translation is out of the window. Completely off the table.
So if there are anachronism in the Book of Mormon (and many of them are not established without some uncertainty) then my answer is simple. Mormon or Joseph made a mistake.
I’ve read different versions of the “translation” process and I don’t see how “Mormon or Joseph made a mistake”.
All of us read these things and interpret them on the basis of our core beliefs. You can see it as something real and true, I can’t and that taints all the rest of it. I’ll still show up tomorrow and pay my tithing, count the sacrament meeting attendance, and submit a report and if someone asks how it’s going I’ll smile and say fine. But…
Quote:As far as mammoths and mastadons I agree they were here but long before the time line for the Jaredites.
No, actually, there is lots of evidence now that they lasted much later than the Jaredite record time – and I use the words “much” and “lots” intentionally. The reference to horses, cattle and oxen is more difficult, but the earliest assumptions are in serious question now with regard to what reasonably would have translated as “horse” in that time frame. I’ll try to find the non-LDS source I read a few years ago and provide a link if I can find it.
Also, given that the original name for hippopotamus translated as “water horse”, the use of “horse” and other such words in a translation attributed to that time frame could apply to more animals than what we think of when we say “horse” now – especially since tapirs also have been described in records pf non-Mormon historians as resembling horses when they run and were easily domesticated. Language in this arena throughout history has been anything but precise. That’s not apologetics; it’s history.
Most importantly, as I said, I don’t take the events and time frames of the Old Testament literally, especially before the records of Moses but even then. The Biblical chronology would place the Jaredites around 2,500 – but I just don’t believe the Bible is anywhere close to accurate when it comes to the earliest chronology, especially given the statements about age. I believe in a much longer history; thus, I don’t hold Ether to the 2,500 BC time period, even as new evidence has been discovered that opens that time period to being possible for those verses. I don’t believe the time frame is accurate, and
I admit readily that it still might be the best argument for anachronisms in the book, but it isn’t an absolute deal breaker for me – based on the book itself and not what everyone assumes about it. Also, the concept of a tower like that attributed to Babel is an ancient story that is not limited to the Bible or to the Israelite people. I don’t believe that the story happened as recorded, with God confounding the languages, but I do believe in any number of catastrophic events that scattered people and were recorded as being an act of God / the gods. It’s hard to read ancient histories and not come to that conclusion, since something like it (and Noah’s flood, as another example) is recorded in the annals of just about every ancient civilization of which we have a record. Thus, I have no problem believing a record like Ether would have been recorded anciently in the general way Ether is and that “the great tower” would be a reasonable translation – since so many ancient cultures included stories about such an event. (Notice, also, that “Babel” isn’t in the actual record itself. Again, take away all the assumptions about it, and the book itself doesn’t say a lot of what people assume it does.)
I don’t take the ancient stories as perfect, literal histories, so this isn’t a huge issue for me – and, in case it’s not blatantly obvious by now, I believe the vast majority of members haven’t read the Book of Mormon closely and carefully enough to understand much of what I see in it that leads me to see it differently than most people.
Or, perhaps, I’m just twisted enough to see things that aren’t there.
:crazy: :silent: I guess what I mean is that I take the following perspective: Whatever his original source, we have the Book of Mormon because Joseph dictated it. If there are confirmed anachronisms (and I’m not certain there are) then they are there because Joseph said then and a scribe wrote them.
But why and how did he come to speak them? Joseph didn’t claim it’s a perfect translation or a perfect book.
I read it and sometimes hear the voice of Joseph more than the voice of Mormon/God. But I often hear the inspiration of God whoever the original human writer turns out to be.
I don’t know if Mormon existed. But if he did, and if Joseph really is translating/revealing the words of Nephites then I still don’t think it should be perfect.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:As far as mammoths and mastadons I agree they were here but long before the time line for the Jaredites.
No, actually, there is lots of evidence now that they lasted much later than the Jaredite record time – and I use the words “much” and “lots” intentionally. The reference to horses, cattle and oxen is more difficult, but the earliest assumptions are in serious question now with regard to what reasonably would have translated as “horse” in that time frame. I’ll try to find the non-LDS source I read a few years ago and provide a link if I can find it.
Also, given that the original name for hippopotamus translated as “water horse”, the use of “horse” and other such words in a translation attributed to that time frame could apply to more animals than what we think of when we say “horse” now – especially since tapirs also have been described in records pf non-Mormon historians as resembling horses when they run and were easily domesticated. Language in this arena throughout history has been anything but precise. That’s not apologetics; it’s history.
I’ll be happy to read what ever you find but one of my original questions still stands. Where did they go? I can see mammoths dying off from the last ice age and being hunted to extinction by the ancestors of the first peoples in North America but what about the horses, oxen, and cattle? Where did they go?
You have to know what a horse is to use it to find a name for a hippopotamus in the same way the french had to come up with a name for potato, pomme de terre, apple of the earth. Domesticated horses carry and pull and they’re far to valuable to be used solely for meat. If they were here then they would have been here and in use when the Spanish came and the wheel would have been in use. As far as I know tapirs may be used for meat but not to carry or pull.
Quote:I don’t believe the time frame is accurate, and
I admit readily that it still might be the best argument for anachronisms in the book, but it isn’t an absolute deal breaker for me – based on the book itself and not what everyone assumes about it. Again we believe what we chose to believe.
mackay11 wrote:I read it and sometimes hear the voice of Joseph more than the voice of Mormon/God. But I often hear the inspiration of God whoever the original human writer turns out to be.
I do too but I also hear the same in a conference talk or the homily from the little Episcopal Church I go to sometimes. But that’s very different from a book that is claimed to have been translated from an ancient record.
This is my last word on this. There’s no point in carrying it further and I don’t want to risk an argument and any bad feelings.
GB, there are lots of cases where written histories and oral traditions talk of animals for which there is no remaining physical evidence. There surely have been animals that existed completely outside of our recognition of them – who left no physical evidence of their existence and, therefore, are not known to anyone. That point was drilled into me in my ancient history classes in college, totally independent of the Book of Mormon issue.The best example for this discussion might be the Huns, who, according to their records and those of others they conquered, probably had as many as hundreds of thousands of horses – but there is no remaining physical evidence to support the records. That means there was a far more populous group who used horses far more extensively than appears to have been the case in the Book of Mormon references and who lived long after the Book of Mormon time period – and there isn’t physical evidence of that to support what everyone understands to have occurred. Given the situation with the Huns, the Book of Mormon example is minor and insignificant, from a historical standpoint.
Also, again, I have NO problem with the elephant reference, since that one (mastadons, mammoths, etc.) is rock solid believable, in my opinion. There are enough oral traditions among the Native American Indian peoples of relatively recent ancestors hunting them and enough physical evidence now to make that one completely a non-starter for me.
I know enough about the general topic not to dismiss claims in written records that can’t be substantiated by physical evidence (and that is the primary complaint against the Book of Mormon references), but, again,
that isn’t the main point for me. The main point simply is that I do not believe AT ALLin the 6,000 year human chronology in the Bible, so I am totally open to the Jaredite story going back far enough to be in the standard estimate of when horses, as we know them, appear to have disappeared in the Americas. The most recent estimates put that happening around 7,500 – 10,000 BC, and I have no problem whatsoever placing the Jaredite story in that general time frame. The references in the Nephite record easily could refer to horse-like animals that were ridden like we do with horses now (and there is tons of evidence of that occurring), and “cattle” could be any number of animals that were domesticated or hunted and used for food (like bison being called cows in some languages, which would translate easily as “cattle”). I actually believe the tapir is a perfect example of this – of possibly being called “cattle” rather than “horses”, since they were used exactly as cows were used in the 1800’s and continue to be used now. If “horse” meant “animals that were ridden” (which absolutely happened in that time frame), and “cattle” meant “animals that were herded and used as a food source” (which absolutely happened in that time frame), and “asses” meant “animals that were used to carry burdens” (which absolutely happened in that time frame) . . . There are lots of examples of such word usage throughout history, so I think narrowing those terms to our exact view of specific animals now and rejecting any other usage isn’t a good way to try to understand references in much older civilizations.
Again, given the inexact nature of language in this area, the exact words just don’t mean much to me. I just don’t think there is enough evidence to dismiss those verses as obviously not accurate.
Quote:Again we believe what we choose to believe.
Yes, we do – but what I’m saying is that there are very plausible answers, based on actual evidence available now, that this might not be the automatic smoking gun it has been called, especially if someone only looks at the record itself and doesn’t accept the assumptions of people who read it with the automatic conclusions those assumptions require – like the issue of the time line for the Book of Ether. I also am not tied to any particular answer as “The One and Only Answer” – so I choose to believe no extreme conclusion (completely made up or completely accurate historical record) is supported by the verses themselves within the overall context of the record.
What I’m saying is that I have chosen not to believe any particular answer right now as authoritative – and certainly, in this case, not to flush everything else in the Book of Mormon down the toilet over these verses.
I should add that I think this is another case of “official” pictures being terribly misleading. The picture of Helaman riding a horse when commanding the 2,000 stripling warriors drives me nuts every time I see it, since there is no support for it in the actual record.
If the church world allow me to believe it was myth rather than literal, and historic, it would help. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:If the church world allow me to believe it was myth rather than literal, and historic, it would help.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
If ever you think about visiting the inside of a Mormon chapel again, print and pin this to the front of your shirt:
Quote:Elder Holland, 2007, PBS interview for ‘The Mormons’:
PBS: [You say] there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there’s no middle way.
Elder Holland: … If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. …
I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html And this:
Quote:Do you think that we are always going to remain the same size? I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine… Away with stereo-typed “Mormons.”
http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/8/47 Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 23, 1860. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT.
Mackey, you made me laugh with that opening sentence. 
For the record…I attended SM with jwald and my three teens just today.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
They (the few members on attendance) were glad to see us. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Actually there are some very odd stories about pre-Columbian horses. A horse skull has been found in an old Indian mound, for example. These mounds appear to predate Europeans, and the skull appears to have found its way in there before then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.