Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Hughes]

How someone gets something has a connection to the veracity of the translation of the thing in question? Please explain.

Finding the plates by a human act is significantly distinct from being led by God who in turn would choose the best person for the act, that is if you believe in God, or that God would use the person best suited. Meaning that the method by which the plates were found is indeed pertinent to the veracity.

The argument then is that Joseph Smith was lead by God to the Plates. Thus he and his translations are trustworthy. Am I getting that right?

[Hughes]

Not sure about the last....if so, he's sacrificed a great deal of credibility for the laugh.

I see it as a case of "invincible ignorance" (Dan Peterson's definition), with emphasis on the "ignor(e)". It is very remarkable to me he doesn't see the inconsistency problem with his logic.

It's not as if there are no other criticisms of the BoM that do not entail the same problems for the Bible that he could appeal to so that he is forced to rely on a doublestandard of the most obvious type.

Or why not just admit that you are dismissing the Book of Mormon as an act of faith? Nothing wrong with that.

I'm really curious about this double standard charge.

I've laid it out in different ways, and no matter how it's measured, the BoM has no way that I can see (so far), whereby one could corroborate the claim it was translated from the Plates.

With the Biblical text we have known languages and extant "claimed" copies, places and names. And not just names of religious people, but secular people and groups and places.

And one source for the BoM (Joseph Smith) and 8 just for the NT.

A double standard would only apply if the BoM and the Bible were on an equal playing field.

[Hughes]

Hughes,

There is a group of very talented folks who believe that the New Testament was first written in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek. It is from this Greek translation that the various versions of the New Testaments of which we are familiar are derived. If the Aramaic Priority hypothesis is correct (and the arguments are quite convincing) then the New Testament is in the exact same position in which you are trying to shoehorn the Book of Mormon. The Greek New Testament is translated from the Aramaic original, just as the English Book of Mormon is translated from the Reformed Egyptian original. The primary difference is that the Book of Mormon translation into English is more recent and therefore should be more correct than the approximately 1900 year old New Testament Translation into Greek with its multitudes of changes, additions, deletions, etc. Now what were you saying about nothing?

First, I'm not trying to shoehorn the Book of Mormon into any position. I'm simply looking for credible evidence that the BoM and the plates are connected. So far I've seen no connection, save Joseph Smith's claim.

As to the Aramaic, I think you might be correct, that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. However, I would point out that this doesn't help the BoM's situation at all, because Aramaic is also a known language like Greek. And unlike Reformed Egyptian.

Further, the fact that Joseph Smith did all this work only 180 years ago doesn't indicate that his translation would be more accurate, but it should indicate that we'd have some extant copies of the originals, don't you think?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 January 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

That is incorrect. Your presume a post Gutenberg world which invalidates your position. Think about it some more, I think you will catch on to the point I am making.

Since, I said, "And even before the Gutenberg press there were thousands." (of bibles) I'm not sure why you think it invalidates my position.

Then your basic reasoning is faulty, unless you can show that there were thousands of New Testament writings during the entire period from Christ until Gutenberg, which there weren't. Indeed most had to rely on oral tradition because so few could read. And all present translations were changed as can be documented. One wonders at the number of "single copies" lost that were not included in the Bible. Now consider if a much smaller group of people in a less literate continent with no single domination of record keeping bureaucracies in place were to have just one or a few books out there, how much more likely the loss would be.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 January 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

Quote

How someone gets something has a connection to the veracity of the translation of the thing in question? Please explain.

Finding the plates by a human act is significantly distinct from being led by God who in turn would choose the best person for the act, that is if you believe in God, or that God would use the person best suited. Meaning that the method by which the plates were found is indeed pertinent to the veracity.

The argument then is that Joseph Smith was lead by God to the Plates. Thus he and his translations are trustworthy. Am I getting that right?

Which speaks specifically as to how documents are obtained can indeed be important.

[Nathair/|\]

If the text of the Book of Mormon is not translated from the text on the Gold Plates, why is there so much evidence for the Book's historicity and ancient origin?

[ebeddoulos]

First, I'm not trying to shoehorn the Book of Mormon into any position. I'm simply looking for credible evidence that the BoM and the plates are connected. So far I've seen no connection, save Joseph Smith's claim.

And I'm simply looking for credible 1st to mid-2nd century evidence that Peter's second letter and Peter are connected. So far I've seen no connection, save Peter's claim.

As to the Aramaic, I think you might be correct, that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. However, I would point out that this doesn't help the BoM's situation at all, because Aramaic is also a known language like Greek. And unlike Reformed Egyptian.

Since we Latter-day Saints have a complete translation of a Reformed Egyptian document, it does not hurt either.

Further, the fact that Joseph Smith did all this work only 180 years ago doesn't indicate that his translation would be more accurate, but it should indicate that we'd have some extant copies of the originals, don't you think?

No I do not and neither should you. Think about it. Where is the original Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians? The two we have are the latter of the three. The original if it is still in existence has yet to make an appearance. Unlike the original letter to the Corinthians, the Book of Mormon was preserved and translated for our edification. Further the Book of Mormon has closer connections to its originals than does the New Testament to the Aramaic originals from which it is translated. And the Book of Mormon is unencumbered by the hundreds of thousands of transcription errors, copyist mistakes, deletions, additions and other changes with which the New Testament is replete. You would do better to study the Book of Mormon and apply its precepts than to continue in your present pursuits against it, my friend.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff K.,

You wrote:

Then your basic reasoning is faulty, unless you can show that there were thousands of New Testament writings during the entire period from Christ until Gutenberg, which there weren't.

This is factually false. There are nearly 6000 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from the time of the apostles to Gutenberg. That's just the number of manuscripts that have survived and that have been cataloged. In addition, there are over 10,000 extant Latin manuscripts, about a thousand extant Coptic manuscripts, and thousands of extant manuscripts in several other languages.

You wrote:

Indeed most had to rely on oral tradition because so few could read.

Even when most people could not read, they did not have to rely on oral tradition, since there were people around who could and did read the Bible aloud for the benefit of others. Reliance on oral tradition in Christianity lasted about twenty or thirty years.

You wrote:

And all present translations were changed as can be documented.

What you don't seem to understand is that differences between translations and original language texts can be documented only because we have original language texts. This is true for the Bible and not true for the Book of Mormon.

[Jeff K.]

This is factually false. There are nearly 6000 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from the time of the apostles to Gutenberg. That's just the number of manuscripts that have survived and that have been cataloged. In addition, there are over 10,000 extant Latin manuscripts, about a thousand extant Coptic manuscripts, and thousands of extant manuscripts in several other languages.

Show me one New Testament text in a substantially complete from or at least one with a significant percentage of completeness from say 70 AD (around the time of the apostles). And 6000 texts over a millenia and they all survived? Seriously you need to think about what you are writing. I believe it is factually false to imply that 6000 manuscripts were available from the time of the apostles to the time of Gutenberg, I suggest you rephrase and provide some data to support your assertion. Consider it a call to reference.

By the way, how many Mayan, Incan Olmec and other texts have survived? Or have you forgotten the context with which the issue was written.

Quote

Indeed most had to rely on oral tradition because so few could read.

Even when most people could not read, they did not have to rely on oral tradition, since there were people around who could and did read the Bible aloud for the benefit of others. Reliance on oral tradition in Christianity lasted about twenty or thirty years.

No, there were gaps, large ones that even the resources of the churches could not fill. I suggest you read a bit more of the history of that time.

Quote

And all present translations were changed as can be documented.

What you don't seem to understand is that differences between translations and original language texts can be documented only because we have original language texts. This is true for the Bible and not true for the Book of Mormon.

Only documented changes of course, and not from the original source, just from older sources, and those were recent. One is forced to ponder on the undocumented changes which cannot be verified but are spoken of elsewhere. In other words commentary on a change, but one that cannot be documented.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff K.,

You had written:

Then your basic reasoning is faulty, unless you can show that there were thousands of New Testament writings during the entire period from Christ until Gutenberg, which there weren't.

I pointed out that in fact thousands of NT manuscripts have survived from that period, so that your assertion that "there weren't" thousands of them during that period is factually false. You replied:

Show me one New Testament text in a substantially complete from or at least one with a significant percentage of completeness from say 70 AD (around the time of the apostles). And 6000 texts over a millenia and they all survived? Seriously you need to think about what you are writing. I believe it is factually false to imply that 6000 manuscripts were available from the time of the apostles to the time of Gutenberg, I suggest you rephrase and provide some data to support your assertion. Consider it a call to reference.

I did not claim that we have any NT manuscripts dating from around AD 70. I simply pointed out that the statement you made is demonstrably, factually false. If thousands of manuscripts from that period have been found, then at the very least thousands of manuscripts existed during that period.

What is it for which you are issuing a call for reference? That nearly 6000 (I said nearly 6000, not 6000) manuscripts have been found? At the moment, the Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung lists 127 papyri, 322 majuscules, 2907 miniscules, and 2452 lectionary manuscripts. That adds up to 5,808 Greek NT manuscripts. You can check this out for yourself here:

http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php

No one who knows anything about this subject disagrees.

You wrote:

By the way, how many Mayan, Incan Olmec and other texts have survived? Or have you forgotten the context with which the issue was written.

This is a diversion from the factual issue that you raised.

[Jeff K.]

Lets dispense with this false charge right now:

Quote

By the way, how many Mayan, Incan Olmec and other texts have survived? Or have you forgotten the context with which the issue was written.

This is a diversion from the factual issue that you raised.

You conveniently overlooked:

One wonders at the number of "single copies" lost that were not included in the Bible. Now consider if a much smaller group of people in a less literate continent with no single domination of record keeping bureaucracies in place were to have just one or a few books out there, how much more likely the loss would be.

A diversion or my original point?

What is it for which you are issuing a call for reference? That nearly 6000 (I said nearly 6000, not 6000) manuscripts have been found? At the moment, the Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung lists 127 papyri, 322 majuscules, 2907 miniscules, and 2452 lectionary manuscripts. That adds up to 5,808 Greek NT manuscripts. You can check this out for yourself here:

And they date from around 70 AD? I don't think so. Again, a call for reference for documents that date from the time of the apostles.

As to your link, you will need to be specific, I have made a call for references, a general direction of a website is insufficient. Why not find the substantial text or completed text and let us see it? It shouldn't be too hard?

No one who knows anything about this subject disagrees.

Professor Bart D. Ehrman would disagree with you.

I suggest you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".

[Hughes]

The argument then is that Joseph Smith was lead by God to the Plates. Thus he and his translations are trustworthy. Am I getting that right?

Which speaks specifically as to how documents are obtained can indeed be important.

Rather it speaks to the faith of the believer in this situation.

Let's say for example, that a most untrustworthy guy found some writings and since they were written in a known language, everyone could test and see if the "claimed" translation he did was accurate or not. The issue of his trustworthiness or not, "lead by God" or not is irrelevant at that point.

If he claims to have translated an unknown language, the problem is verification. The fact that he's not trust worthy to begin with is certainly a factor, since no one can verify his claimed translation. However, let's say that this guy was an upstanding trust worthy guy. Would that change the situation?

It might for some people. I agree. However, it doesn't rise to the level of "credible" evidence. Since his trust worthiness maybe fine, but his skills as a translator might be faulty. In other words, even trustworthy, "lead by God" people can and do make innocent mistakes.

My question of verification gets to this question. It seems to me that we simply can't know despite all the claims to the contrary.

If the text of the Book of Mormon is not translated from the text on the Gold Plates, why is there so much evidence for the Book's historicity and ancient origin?

Two things. One, I don't see "so much" evidence, I see "scant" evidence for it's historicity and ancient origin.

Two, even if there were "so much" evidence, the question would still remain. How do we know the Gold Plates are the source of the BoM?

And I'm simply looking for credible 1st to mid-2nd century evidence that Peter's second letter and Peter are connected. So far I've seen no connection, save Peter's claim.

So, using your logic, you don't believe that 2 Peter is connected to our extent documents, therefore you must also doubt the connection of the Plates to the BoM?

Since we Latter-day Saints have a complete translation of a Reformed Egyptian document, it does not hurt either.

Isn't that called begging the question?

We are talking about how we can verify if it is actually a translation or not. If you know of evidence I've overlooked, I'm all ears.

No I do not and neither should you. Think about it. Where is the original Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians? The two we have are the latter of the three. The original if it is still in existence has yet to make an appearance. Unlike the original letter to the Corinthians, the Book of Mormon was preserved and translated for our edification. Further the Book of Mormon has closer connections to its originals than does the New Testament to the Aramaic originals from which it is translated. And the Book of Mormon is unencumbered by the hundreds of thousands of transcription errors, copyist mistakes, deletions, additions and other changes with which the New Testament is replete. You would do better to study the Book of Mormon and apply its precepts than to continue in your present pursuits against it, my friend.

If you honestly think that you have the original Book of Mormon as represented by the Gold Plates, I'd love to see evidence for that.

Until such evidence is seen I don't think anyone can say that the "Book of Mormon has closer connections to its originals than does the New Testament to the Aramaic originals from which it is translated."

By the way. Thanks Rob you're the best!

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 January 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

Quote

The argument then is that Joseph Smith was lead by God to the Plates. Thus he and his translations are trustworthy. Am I getting that right?

Which speaks specifically as to how documents are obtained can indeed be important.

Rather it speaks to the faith of the believer in this situation.

Let's say for example, that a most untrustworthy guy found some writings and since they were written in a known language, everyone could test and see if the "claimed" translation he did was accurate or not. The issue of his trustworthiness or not, "lead by God" or not is irrelevant at that point.

If he claims to have translated an unknown language, the problem is verification. The fact that he's not trust worthy to begin with is certainly a factor, since no one can verify his claimed translation. However, let's say that this guy was an upstanding trust worthy guy. Would that change the situation?

It might for some people. I agree. However, it doesn't rise to the level of "credible" evidence. Since his trust worthiness maybe fine, but his skills as a translator might be faulty. In other words, even trustworthy, "lead by God" people can and do make innocent mistakes.

My question of verification gets to this question. It seems to me that we simply can't know despite all the claims to the contrary.

You err on two points:

No, we aren't speaking of the claim being accurate or not, we are speaking as to whether or not the method of finding the plates was important. And I have shown that yes indeed the method is important. You may argue whether or not the Lord led Joseph Smith to finding the plates or not, but you cannot argue that if He did, then the method itself is important.

As to your interpretation of "untrustworthy guys". One would ask if you would follow a leader who was a murderer? Perhpas like Moses, the Bible is repleat with examples of people you would dismiss, but God would choose.

[Jeff K.]

Two things. One, I don't see "so much" evidence, I see "scant" evidence for it's historicity and ancient origin.

Two, even if there were "so much" evidence, the question would still remain. How do we know the Gold Plates are the source of the BoM?

The points can be tied up in two distinct versus found in James 1

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him aask inbfaith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

This is how you know. Faith does not waver or strengthen with the amount of evidence or lack of evidence.

If God led Joseph Smith to the plates then everything you are fighting is of God and you are against God. And faith requires us to ask of God if these things are true and the Holy Ghost will make it manifest to us.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff,

You wrote:

And they date from around 70 AD? I don't think so. Again, a call for reference for documents that date from the time of the apostles.

Stop it! Stop trying to divert attention from the subject. You asserted that there were not thousands of NT manuscripts between the time of Jesus and the time of Gutenberg. I pointed out, and then documented with hard numbers, that there are thousands of such manuscripts that have survived and been cataloged -- and of course that isn't all of the manuscripts that existed. I didn't say, and don't claim, that any of the extant manuscripts date from the time of the apostles. The first time you said I had made that claim, I can allow that it is just barely possible that you misunderstood me. Now you are demonstrating an unwillingness to hear what I say.

You wrote:

As to your link, you will need to be specific, I have made a call for references, a general direction of a website is insufficient. Why not find the substantial text or completed text and let us see it? It shouldn't be too hard?

This is ridiculous. Either you are completely ignorant of the subject, or you are just being deliberately obtuse. There is no debate on this point. The manuscripts exist and have been cataloged. See the front matter for any critical edition of the Greek New Testament, such as the United Bible Societies' GNT or the Nestle-Aland GNT. If you want to see pictures of such manuscripts, you will find hundreds of such pictures here:

http://www.csntm.org/manuscript

You wrote:

Professor Bart D. Ehrman would disagree with you. I suggest you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".

I have read that book, and several others by Ehrman. The odds are excellent that you have not actually read the book you cite. Have you?

[Jeff K.]

You wrote:

Jeff K., on 16 January 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

And they date from around 70 AD? I don't think so. Again, a call for reference for documents that date from the time of the apostles.

Stop it! Stop trying to divert attention from the subject. You asserted that there were not thousands of NT manuscripts between the time of Jesus and the time of Gutenberg. I pointed out, and then documented with hard numbers, that there are thousands of such manuscripts that have survived and been cataloged -- and of course that isn't all of the manuscripts that existed. I didn't say, and don't claim, that any of the extant manuscripts date from the time of the apostles. The first time you said I had made that claim, I can allow that it is just barely possible that you misunderstood me. Now you are demonstrating an unwillingness to hear what I say.

I think you are being more than a little disengenuous. Didn't you state that the writings were from the time of the appostles. Isn't that around 70 AD, and didn't I ask for a manuscript from that time.

You responded by giving me a generalized link and expecting me to find it. That isn't my job. You made an assetion you still have not provided proof for that assertion and you claim I am diverting you?

And didn't you say:

I didn't say, and don't claim, that any of the extant manuscripts date from the time of the apostles.

And didn't you state:

This is factually false. There are nearly 6000 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from the time of the apostles to Gutenberg. That's just the number of manuscripts that have survived and that have been cataloged. In addition, there are over 10,000 extant Latin manuscripts, about a thousand extant Coptic manuscripts, and thousands of extant manuscripts in several other languages.

Not sure which statement you care to retract. You seem to have trouble keeping your story straight. An excellent illustration how early Christians like yourself will say one thing originally and then perhaps change it later on. Thank for you for the excellent example.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Professor Bart D. Ehrman would disagree with you. I suggest you read "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".

I have read that book, and several others by Ehrman. The odds are excellent that you have not actually read the book you cite. Have you?

Really, you have read the book? I cannot gainsay your declaration, but your method of reading apparently requires a glancing depth and perhaps now use it to prop up a kitchen table or some other structure. I have attended some of Ehrman's lectures and read a few of his books. I don't always agree with him, but he does raise good points. Among the lectures I have recorded are 12 hours (an entire course) that deals with the Lost Christianities and battles over authentication. Its one reason I find your position so implausible and entailing a strong double standard.

[Hughes]

Rather it speaks to the faith of the believer in this situation.

Let's say for example, that a most untrustworthy guy found some writings and since they were written in a known language, everyone could test and see if the "claimed" translation he did was accurate or not. The issue of his trustworthiness or not, "lead by God" or not is irrelevant at that point.

If he claims to have translated an unknown language, the problem is verification. The fact that he's not trust worthy to begin with is certainly a factor, since no one can verify his claimed translation. However, let's say that this guy was an upstanding trust worthy guy. Would that change the situation?

It might for some people. I agree. However, it doesn't rise to the level of "credible" evidence. Since his trust worthiness maybe fine, but his skills as a translator might be faulty. In other words, even trustworthy, "lead by God" people can and do make innocent mistakes.

My question of verification gets to this question. It seems to me that we simply can't know despite all the claims to the contrary.

You err on two points:

No, we aren't speaking of the claim being accurate or not, we are speaking as to whether or not the method of finding the plates was important. And I have shown that yes indeed the method is important. You may argue whether or not the Lord led Joseph Smith to finding the plates or not, but you cannot argue that if He did, then the method itself is important.

As to your interpretation of "untrustworthy guys". One would ask if you would follow a leader who was a murderer? Perhpas like Moses, the Bible is repleat with examples of people you would dismiss, but God would choose.

You claim to have shown that the method of finding the plates was important, you actually haven't shown anything of the sort.

[Jeff K.]

I am stating that the method, ie being led by God is an important aspect in finding the plates and translating. Or do you disagree? Do you perhaps believe the actions of God in such a circumstance are not of importance regarding the veracity of translation?

[Hughes]

Two things. One, I don't see "so much" evidence, I see "scant" evidence for it's historicity and ancient origin.

Two, even if there were "so much" evidence, the question would still remain. How do we know the Gold Plates are the source of the BoM?

The points can be tied up in two distinct versus found in James 1

This is how you know. Faith does not waver or strengthen with the amount of evidence or lack of evidence.

If God led Joseph Smith to the plates then everything you are fighting is of God and you are against God. And faith requires us to ask of God if these things are true and the Holy Ghost will make it manifest to us.

If that is the only test that you know of, then you are saying there isn't any credible evidence for the Book of Mormon that we can check out and verify that Joseph Smith's translation was correct.

[Jeff K.]

Faith in God is the only test God has offered. What tests do you have to supplant Gods?

[Hughes]

I am stating that the method, ie being led by God is an important aspect in finding the plates and translating. Or do you disagree? Do you perhaps believe the actions of God in such a circumstance are not of importance regarding the veracity of translation?

I disagree that it's germane to the issue of credible evidence.

For example. Many people claim to be led by God to do many crazy things. You don't believe all of them do you?

[Hughes]

Faith in God is the only test God has offered. What tests do you have to supplant Gods?

First of all, if that's the only test God has offered then there's no credible evidence for the BoM.

If you honestly think that God requires this much faith (as I called it "blind") in one man, then we believe in different God's.

The search for verification is an attempt to get at the truth without relying on a "witness" which is personal, and not testable.

[Jeff K.]

I disagree that it's germane to the issue of credible evidence.

For example. Many people claim to be led by God to do many crazy things. You don't believe all of them do you?

You conflate claim with fact. In other words, I am claiming that the method as fact is important. You seem to state the method of discovery as fact is unimportant. God's actions are important regarding this and regardless of belief or claims, being led by God enhances the veracity.

If you honestly think that God requires this much faith (as I called it "blind") in one man, then we believe in different God's.

The search for verification is an attempt to get at the truth without relying on a "witness" which is personal, and not testable.

I search scriptures and I pray and I study.. You call that blind faith, but then if you wish, you can claim any faith is blind. Maybe the God you believe in doesn't require faith? But then did God require the people to follow Moses? It appears to me you are left contradicting yourself and your religous tenets or in the least holding the typical double standard against those you disagree with.

[Jeff K.]

The search for verification is an attempt to get at the truth without relying on a "witness" which is personal, and not testable.

So you are telling me you don't believe in God?