How Shall we Read the Book of Mormon?

[Olavarria]

Good. Let us extend your metaphor. Let us say that each of the fighters is a theory about the Book of Mormon origins. You have the fighter "19th Century Work" who will go against "Ancient MesoAmerican Work". But that fight would not decided it. You would also need to put both of those fighters up against, say "Ancient Pali Work" and others. It may be that if you apply the methodology to see if it is an ancient work, you might find that it also conforms to some ancient Pali-isms. Or some ancient Slovakian-isms.

When one creates a test for ancient origins, one must also establish the negative cases. It could be that using the methodology derived to prove the Book is an ancient Mesoamerican work with Hebrew influences, that same methodology could be used to demonstrate other conflicting ancient origins because the methodology is not well defined. To be convincing, the methodology would have to show that it both supports the affirmative cases and rejects the negative cases .

Brant claims he can beat up Fedor.

He didn't say anything about Midgetron. Beating Fedor is the theory we are testing in Brant's case. Can he beat up Fedor? If we would first put him up against Midgetron and he won, that only proves he can beat Midgetron. If we put him up against Midgetron and he loses then it proves he can't beat Midgetron. Fighting Midgetron says nothing about how Brant would do against Fedor. They are two different men. Making Midgetron fight Fedor, tells us even nothing about Brant.

Midgetron, the baddest Dwarf on the planet.

Fedor: 235lbs, Russian Sambo

Now, if Brant beats Fedor, that doesn't explain why or how he beat Fedor. Maybe Fedor didn't train, underestimated Brant or was sick. Maybe Brant took steriods, or just got in a lucky punch to the temple or won because of a cut.

If the BoM describes pre-exilic Israel or Mesoamerica, that doesn't explain why it does.

But not letting Brant fight Fedor, won't let us find out whether or not the "Brant over Fedor" claim is true.

Because of the angels,hidden plates, seer stones and a monolingual farmboy it is impossible to "prove" the BoM is the translation of an ancient book, by scientific means. To prove a translation, you need the original untranslated work. To see if that "original untranslated work" is ancient then you need to have it on hand.

But even if the critics could handle the plates and talk to Moroni, manystill wouldn't believe.

Aside from Moroni 10:4-5, the only other possible test is to compare what is in the BoM to what was not known or knowable in 1830. This is what I tried to do in my Olmec/Jaredite thread. But alas, it got derailed by the Red Herring of "Joseph didn't belive that". Which actually only strenthens my point.

[The Dude]

Apparently a misunderstanding of what you were asking for.

No problem.

You wanted me to lay out a method, which I did. It appears that you also want to see that method in action.

Yes, I do want to see the method in action, as I said in my 1st post on the thread (page 1):

I would prefer to talk about the specific examples where you think "others" are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. To me, this is far more interesting and productive than bickering about abstract definitions and generalities (like defining what "plain reading" means once and for all, or showing that there's no such thing).

Yes, I can give you a list (which I will post again, apologies to those who have seen the same list on this board multiple times). However, the list doesn't comprise the argument, because all of the elements on the list require that they be combined into a case.

Not only that, but you didn't include the scriptures where these things are described. For each one you will have to show the relevant BoM text. Each one is a piece of data; if someone can't examine them individually then he can only take your authority that they mean something in composite. Please provide scriptures.

For now you have given 2 Nephi 6. More on that later.

[Brant Gardner]

For each one you will have to show the relevant BoM text. Each one is a piece of data; if someone can't examine them individually then he can only take your authority that they mean something in composite. Please provide scriptures.

I'm sorry, but that is a book, not a board post. It will take me a while to comply with the book part.

[e=mc2]

Brant, you have already done so in 6 absolutely WHOPPING books of commentary on the Book of Mormon.