Brant Gardner Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 StudioD: from the citation from Per Beskow:Not only are the circumstances of the find important, but so is the document itself. A close study of its style and content may often reveal as much as its external history. The revealing traits are not always found in the main content of the writing, but rather in small and seemingly unimportant details. Exactly. Suspicous provenance is sufficient to require study, but not dismissal. Nothing substitutes for the examination of the text. As with most historical documents, the real historical details lie in the "seemingly unimportant details." The best forgers may get major issues correct, but particularly when dealing with different times and cultures, will miss the subtle distinctions that are important to the time and place but not part of the forger's consciousness.That is there reason that a dismissal of the Book of Mormon on provenance alone is insufficient. It is similarly insufficient to dismiss it on grounds of anachronisms, as that is - for the case of a translation - irrelevant.Where the text will be proven or disproven is in the cultural details. I don't know on which side of this issue StudioD might fall, but I appreciate the quotation. Obviously, I find it precisely in line with what I have been proposing - and opposed to Vogel's simplistic assumptions.
Brant Gardner Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Dan Vogel:To find anachronisms, you have to begin with the assumption that it
Greg Smith Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 You keep citing Blass for authority that my point is mistaken, but you haven
Kevin Christensen Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 With respect to Per Beskow's Strange Tale About Jesus, compare Richard L. Anderson here on Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=15I bought a copy of Beskow after reading Anderson's paper, and came away more impressed with Anderson than before. Beskow's chapter on the Book of Mormon makes almost no interaction with LDS scholarship, gets a number of simple things wrong, and offers no original or interesting perceptions. He does cite Kirster Stendahl at one point, since Stendahl had done a paper on 3 Nephi in 1977. His treatment is pedestrian, dated, and unimaginative.Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
Mark Beesley Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 mbeesley:We have a centuries old record that confirms that there were horse in the Americas before Columbus I am interested in the centuries old data. The problem on the face of it is that much of what was published over 100 years ago would not stand as evidence for a modern investigation. With just that tidbit of information I would be inclined to dismiss the data. However, if you could post it I would have a better idea. I suppose, if you restrict your body of evidence to that which would be admissible under current "Rules of Evidence," then the Book of Mormon is inadmissible because it violates the Best Evidence Rule, i.e. the best evidence for what the Book of Mormon says would be the records that Mormon abridged. However, for my simple world, the Book of Mormon itself, as translated in the 19th Century, is evidence enough that there were horses in the Americas before Columbus or the Spaniards. That is not to say that I would not also like to see and read the original records, but I'm a patient sort of guy. I figure the Lord will let me read the Plates of Nephi when He thinks I'm ready. (I need to start boning up on my ancient foreign language studies! )
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Cdowis, Dan says>The only way to demonstrate that
charity Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Dan, the charge that the Book of Mormon contains an anachronism based on the word "horse" is the positive assertion which must be proven.I believe you have read the refutation based on the fact that the Book of Mormon is a translation. Some animal was there. The word, in the Nephite language, which we do not have, was translated as "horse." The only way you can try to prove an anachronism is to show us the original Nephite word and prove that it meant "horse." Over to you, Dan. Prove your assertion. We don't have to disprove it.Then when you have proven that, then we have to prove that there were horses. Somehow, I don't think we are going to have to go to work on this in the very near future.
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Gary Smith, I am always amazed that those who haven't read the literature on a topic, and yet presume to make declarations about the matters treated in that literature think that the "points" can be summarized in a quick "proof text" from the source, instead of actually READING the book.Presumably Blass wrote the whole book on the topic because he felt it would take a whole book to lay out his arguments. Isn't it a bit silly to think that one can simply quote on a message board "the part" that supports the methodology?No. Previously, Brandt offered to quote relevant sources on another matter. I asked for a quote for two reasons. First, so far as I know, Blass is only available in German and most LDS cite Nibley
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Charity,Dan, the charge that the Book of Mormon contains an anachronism based on the word "horse" is the positive assertion which must be proven.I believe you have read the refutation based on the fact that the Book of Mormon is a translation. Some animal was there. The word, in the Nephite language, which we do not have, was translated as "horse." The only way you can try to prove an anachronism is to show us the original Nephite word and prove that it meant "horse." Over to you, Dan. Prove your assertion. We don't have to disprove it.Then when you have proven that, then we have to prove that there were horses. Somehow, I don't think we are going to have to go to work on this in the very near future. Please read back in this exchange where I explained that the word "horse" is anachronistic as the text reads. Only one thing can make that not anachronistic. That is finding an actual horse in the time and place claimed. Even if one allows for substitute animals, the word "horse" is still anachronistic. The debate/discussion here is about why the anachronism appears in the text. Is it a mistranslation, a correct translation but for a different animal, or the mistake of the forger?For other particulars, I refer you to our discussion.
charity Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Dan, please do not be dense. You cannot prove an anachronism in a translation. We don't have the original Nephite, or reformed Egyptian, or whatever.
Mark Beesley Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Please read back in this exchange where I explained that the word "horse" is anachronistic as the text reads. Only one thing can make that not anachronistic. That is finding an actual horse in the time and place claimed. Even if one allows for substitute animals, the word "horse" is still anachronistic. The debate/discussion here is about why the anachronism appears in the text. Is it a mistranslation, a correct translation but for a different animal, or the mistake of the forger?For other particulars, I refer you to our discussion. Whoa Nelly!!! No pun intended. Only one thing can make the use of the term "horse" in the Book of Mormon non-anachronistic? And that is if we find a horse in the time and place claimed? Not be be facetious, but are you in possession of a time machine? But seriously, I daresay, such a position is dangerously inflexible.Mormon wrote the Book of Mormon. He did so by reviewing and abridging the Plates of Nephi. Somewhere in the Plates of Nephi, the writers used the word horse to describe an animal. So, if we were to discover a 2000 year old encyclopedia, perhaps engraged on a rock, and the entry for horse included a picture of a muskrat, that would not resolve the anachronism?No, I think you were right. The only thing that would resolve the anachronism for you would be if you could travel back in time and find a horse roaming the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. You'll always find a reason not to believe. And God is willing to accomodate those who want to perish in unbelief.
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Please read back in this exchange where I explained that the word "horse" is anachronistic as the text reads. Only one thing can make that not anachronistic. That is finding an actual horse in the time and place claimed. Even if one allows for substitute animals, the word "horse" is still anachronistic. The debate/discussion here is about why the anachronism appears in the text. Is it a mistranslation, a correct translation but for a different animal, or the mistake of the forger?For other particulars, I refer you to our discussion.Evidently every source that mentions horses in connection with the Huns is "anachronistic" because no-one has ever found "an actual horse in the time and place claimed."Regards,Pahoran
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Brandt, To find anachronisms, you have to begin with the assumption that it
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Pahoran, Evidently every source that mentions horses in connection with the Huns is "anachronistic" because no-one has ever found "an actual horse in the time and place claimed."I wasn
Dan Vogel Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Mebeesley, Whoa Nelly!!! No pun intended. Only one thing can make the use of the term "horse" in the Book of Mormon non-anachronistic? And that is if we find a horse in the time and place claimed? Not be be facetious, but are you in possession of a time machine? But seriously, I daresay, such a position is dangerously inflexible.Look up the definition of anachronism.Mormon wrote the Book of Mormon. He did so by reviewing and abridging the Plates of Nephi. Somewhere in the Plates of Nephi, the writers used the word horse to describe an animal. So, if we were to discover a 2000 year old encyclopedia, perhaps engraged on a rock, and the entry for horse included a picture of a muskrat, that would not resolve the anachronism?See what I mean? You said
Mark Beesley Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Look up the definition of anachronism.I made reference to your mythical possession of a time machine. Does that not indicate that I have a working knowledge of what an anachronism is?See what I mean? You said
Brant Gardner Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Dan Vogel:Anachronisms have more weight than your speculations about a mistranslated original text and lost sources. Without more historical support, you don
Benjamin McGuire Posted March 22, 2006 Posted March 22, 2006 First, I want to apologize that this response has taken so long. I haven't had time to write for the past few days.Dan Vogel wrote:The only way to demonstrate that
cdowis Posted March 22, 2006 Posted March 22, 2006 Dan says>The debate/discussion here is about why the anachronism appears in the text. Is it a mistranslation, a correct translation but for a different animal, or the mistake of the forger?Sigh.Is it possible that it is "none of the above"? I noticed that you did not include on your list, "Is it that we simply have not yet discovered horse remains for this time period". Why did you not include this as a possibility. Can I assume that you already have decided it is a forgery, and all evidence presented to you is ignored as insignificant, coincidence, inconclusive, and the forgery model is the only one that you will consider?
Dan Vogel Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Cdowis, Dan says>The debate/discussion here is about why the anachronism appears in the text. Is it a mistranslation, a correct translation but for a different animal, or the mistake of the forger?Sigh.Is it possible that it is "none of the above"? I noticed that you did not include on your list, "Is it that we simply have not yet discovered horse remains for this time period". Why did you not include this as a possibility.Can I assume that you already have decided it is a forgery, and all evidence presented to you is ignored as insignificant, coincidence, inconclusive, and the forgery model is the only one that you will consider?For the same of this discussion, I have assumed there were no horses in Mesoamerica from 600 BC to 400 AD. Until there is credible evidence recognized by scholarly consensus, it is a reasonable assumption. If the day comes that this is no longer the case, then
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.