Anachronisms or Not

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

"Anachronism" == depends on how you use the term.   Indeed, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your claim of an anachronism -- that something was impossible or very unlikely in that time or location.

Anyway, in a new thread  give us specific example of a BOM anachronism and I will be delighted to demonstrate. In fact I will begin the conversation with Laban's steel sword.

My argument is that there are no anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Things like steel, horses, elephants, silk, chariots, swords, sheep, goats, cattle, metal plates are not out of place in the Book of Mormon time period. There is plenty of evidence for everything described in the Book of Mormon, in the right time period.

The Book of Mormon doesn't claim to be have a specific location, so the burden of proof would be on those who claim one. If you propose a location that has no clear evidence of what is described in the text (eg. Mesopotamians and Israelites with domesticated elephants, metal swords, and metal plates in Mesoamerica) the problem is not with the text, it is with the location you have proposed.

Your model is anachronistic to the Book of Mormon. 

If you claim that your model is not anachronistic to the Book of Mormon, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Mesopotamians and Israelites with domesticated elephants, iron swords and metal plates are not out of place in the location you propose. Simply saying that these things exist somewhere in ancient history is not enough.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

1. Your model is anachronistic to the Book of Mormon. 

2. If you claim that your model is not anachronistic to the Book of Mormon, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Mesopotamians and Israelites with domesticated elephants, iron swords and metal plates are not out of place in the location you propose. Simply saying that these things exist somewhere in ancient history is not enough.

1. As you are aware, we disagree.

2. I have many burdens but proving the location of the BOM events is not among them.  I feel comfortable with mesoamerica model with the evidence that I have seen, and you might want to look at the videos in my previous post.  North America and Mexico are included as the "land northward".

Edited June 12, 2018 by cdowis

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

1. As you are aware, we disagree.

2. I have many burdens but proving the location of the BOM events is not among them.  I feel comfortable with mesoamerica model with the evidence that I have seen, and you might want to look at the videos in my previous post.  North America and Mexico are included as the "land northward".

I think Rajah is being very gracious to you giving you a like. I think he has a point. The Book of Mormon is not very specific about where the promised land is or was. That is actually filled in by D & C I believe. Without D & C the Book of Mormon could have taken place just about anywhere even though it was dug up in New York. The things claimed to be anachronistic are not anachronistic at all say in Mesopotamia, India, or say Malaysia, which is Rajah's favored area. The reason they are called anachronistic is because they were not found in the Americas by the early colonialists or recognized as being in the Americas over the next 200 years, so scholars essentially consider them to be anachronisms to the geography of the Book of Mormon. If a 1000 AD horse bone is found in Alaska, will horses still be considered an anachronism? How about horse DNA studies of wild horses showing a complete lack of relation to Spanish horses? Will horses still be considered an anachronism in the Book of Mormon? I'm sure there will be a debate, because it is generally assumed the geography is in the Americas where the Spaniards found no horses. In Asia? not an anachronism. 

[RevTestament]

Horse remains disappeared from Britain for at least a 4000 year period. Did the horse go extinct in Britain? Probably not. Probably the same thing happened that happened in the Americas. They got eaten, and their bones used for tools. Horses evolved in the Americas. The assumption that they completely went extinct because the Spaniards did not find them in Mesoamerica, and they disappeared from the fossil record is a big one given that they survived quite well in Eurasia. Obviously, they were hunted, but they were a fast prey. 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 6/12/2018 at 10:48 PM, RevTestament said:

I think Rajah is being very gracious to you giving you a like. I think he has a point. The Book of Mormon is not very specific about where the promised land is or was. That is actually filled in by D & C I believe. Without D & C the Book of Mormon could have taken place just about anywhere even though it was dug up in New York. The things claimed to be anachronistic are not anachronistic at all say in Mesopotamia, India, or say Malaysia, which is Rajah's favored area. 

But the terms Malaysia and America are also anachronistic. Things fit much better if we read the text from the perspective of Mormon and Moroni in the 4th century. I've gone through a lot of old books to try and recreate world geography as it would have been know during the Book of Mormon time period. The similarities are important. For example, the anonymous author of the 4th century AD Expositio totes mundi et gentium says this about the lands in the farthest east, beyond India:

"The pious Camarini live beyond India, near the place called Eden by Moses…" (source)

In the 4th century AD the Garden of Eden was "beyond India" near a place inhabited by the pious Camarini. These Camarini are said to dwell in a place called Camara or Kamara. The name for this land in the Far East was Kamara. Moroni knew it as Camorah or Cumorah.

Book of Mormon geography is simple when we look at things from the understanding of geography in the 4th-5th centuries. We lose our senses when we try to make these places fit on 21st century maps.