Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I accept the existence of God and Angels. The unique problem for the Book of Mormon is that it takes blind faith to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon correctly or accurately.

I don't know what is sadder? That you keep spouting this tired worn out defeated argument, or that some one gave you a rep point for it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL, because dead people flying around is much more believable than Joseph putting his head in a hat and reading words from God?

You know, I actually agree with you. I have stated this before.

Of course hughes just responds with his tired argumetn that "500 (unnamed and unknown) people saw Jesus resurrected. As if that by it's self is convincing to any one.

[Hughes]

Blind faith is a part of faith. You also have blind faith there is a god and there are angels. This is blind faith. Have you seen god? Have you seen angels? Probably not. And yet you believe. In terms of the translation, one must look at how the book was translated. Who are the witnesses to the translation and make a decision as to whether they are telling the truth. Then, when we have 11 witnesses who actually saw the plates and a few even actually handled the plates, we must decided as to whether they are lying or that they are telling the truth. And then if we decide that they are lying, we must come to terms with the understanding that some of these liars also lied on their deathbed by reaffirming their testimony about what they saw or felt with their hands as they were about to face their maker. And then we need to come to an understanding about why they would do that.

And this does not depend on blind faith but on understanding human nature. I would claim that the witnesses if they are fraudsters defied human nature by keeping the fraud hidden even on their deathbeds. For after all we have 11 men. And emmma who witnessed the translation even after the death of her husaband still believed in the book of mormon and to my understanding taught her children from it. How can that be explained by blind faith?

The focus of my use of the word "blind" is on the specific problem of translation. I'm not saying they didn't see the plates, I'm saying they couldn't verify it's accuracy as a translation of what was written on the plates. Trusting their testimony is equally blind, because of that problem.

Is there another type of faith than "blind faith"? Please explain!

Just as their are different levels of trust, it depends on how much evidence you have. In this case there is no way to determine what was correctly translated or not.

In 1828 the meaning of the word "translate" were these:

If the English Book of Mormon "expresses the sense of one language" from "the words of another" that sense provides a wide range of tests. Those who don't make use any of the available tests on grounds we don't have the original plates won't see anything, and those who can't see are, by definition, blind. Those do make use of the tests, whether by looking for translation artifacts in the English language by comparing forms, patterns, idioms, et cetera, or by seeing whether the English conveys sense that makes sense when examined in the ancient context, or for that matter, those who simply see whether the English text offers sensible instruction, and who as consequence begin to see better, do in fact, see something, even if it not the inscribed golden plates. Seeing is, by definition, not blindness.

We have disagreements about what we see, to be sure. Say, comparing David Wright's take on the Isaiah passages, versus Tvedtnes or Skousen or Gardner, or comparing Welch and Larsen on the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon at the Temple. But even in such cases, we can compare perspectives and sources, and argue about who sees better, and Kuhn provides light on the criteria by which we can navigate such disagreements.

If you want to say that because we can't see everything we want, and cannot test things that we don't have at hand. We can't see there. But not seeing there does not mean we can't see anywhere, and cannot thereby examine and test anything as far as we can now see, or that by continuing to do see, we may not see further.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Not worried about seeing the originals, how about a copy? As you say, "those who can't see are, by definition, blind." and certainly that describes the problem of verifying the accuracy of the translation. We simply can't, we are blind at that point.

LOL, because dead people flying around is much more believable than Joseph putting his head in a hat and reading words from God?

LOL... because one is a trust in more than one person, in a public event (albeit still hard to believe) and the other is trust in one individual alone that it actually represents what were on the gold plates, without any verification or any copies so others might be able to check it.

And no this isn't meant as a thread jack, but a search for credible evidence for the book of Mormon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL... because one is a trust in more than one person, in a public event (albeit still hard to believe) and the other is trust in one individual alone that it actually represents what were on the gold plates, without any verification or any copies so others might be able to check it.

I find that the witnesses for the BoM is stronged than that of the 500 that saw Jesus.

Who were the 500 hundred what are thier names? Can they even be shown to have acutally exsisted?

With the BoM witness we know their names and we know they never recanted their story even in the face of overwelming reasons to do so.

So saddest part of your lame argument is that you are not better off in believing the bible than we are for beleiving the BoM. You are not able to verify anything in the bible other than place names. That does not mean much esp when you consider the Oddessy and the city of Troy. Can not even prove that most people in it even exsisted and you cannot even verify if the originals were tranlated correctly.

[Hughes]

I find that the witnesses for the BoM is stronged than that of the 500 that saw Jesus.

Who were the 500 hundred what are thier names? Can they even be shown to have acutally exsisted?

With the BoM witness we know their names and we know they never recanted their story even in the face of overwelming reasons to do so.

So saddest part of your lame argument is that you are not better off in believing the bible than we are for beleiving the BoM. You are not able to verify anything in the bible other than place names. That does not mean much esp when you consider the Oddessy and the city of Troy. Can not even prove that most people in it even exsisted and you cannot even verify if the originals were tranlated correctly.

We disagree and that's ok. My point is that there are no witnesses that can verify the accuracy of what is translated.

Witnesses to the activity of translation don't count, as they didn't know the languages.

Witnesses to angels testifying don't count as verifying a translation, but a witness to an event.

It could be that the BoM is completely accurate to the gold plates. We just can't verify it.

And for all of your criticism of the Biblical text, it hasn't once been proven false as Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We disagree and that's ok. My point is that there are no witnesses that can verify the accuracy of what is translated.

Witnesses to the activity of translation don't count, as they didn't know the languages.

Witnesses to angels testifying don't count as verifying a translation, but a witness to an event.

THere are not witness that can verify the biblical accounts that Jesus was resurrected.

They don't need to know the laugnague. I think you are engaging in a red herring. Your question is just a derail and is not asked in good faith.

[Kevin Christensen]

Not worried about seeing the originals, how about a copy?

There have been a few interesting studies of the Anthon transcript, which purports to provide a copy of some characters. The most interesting to me have been the SEHA article comparing the characters on the transcript with the characters found on two Mesoamerican Cylinder seals (which at least places the characters in the right time and place), and a book that demonstrated chiastic patterns in the characters of the Anthon transcript (not a translation, but a demonstration that at least the characters are not just a random collection, but a product of patterns and purpose). Of course, those who have not seen those studies tend to be blind to their significance.

As you say, "those who can't see are, by definition, blind." and certainly that describes the problem of verifying the accuracy of the translation. We simply can't, we are blind at that point.

If the translation that we have provides numerous testable claims, and those claims turn out to be accurate, that seems to me pretty good evidence that the translation is accurate. The text we have even shows signs of being a translation. The names, lack of punctuation, the correct and consistent use of phrases like "and it came to pass" which also appear in Hebrew and Mesoamerican glyphs, the two Mesoamerican cylinder seals, the chiastic structure in Helaman where the turning point seems to point to a Hebrew original, allusions to an earlier version of the David and Goliath story than appears in the MT (see Ben MecGuire's FAIR and FARMS essays), and so forth. It even turns out that the frequencies of use for the "and it came to pass" fits pre-Exilic patterns.

Nephi provides authentic eye-witness details of conditions in Jerusalem, and when we test them against all sorts of things now known about Jerusalem 600BCE (see Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem), we find confirmation of phrases like "land of Jerusalem", and NHM in a location and precise time depth that fits perfectly with details of the narrative. Look, for instance, at the location for the Arabian Bountiful as shown in the Journey of Faith video. East of Nahom, the only bit of green visible along the entire coast, and many more details all existing in a unique location. We can confirm the elaborate ritual background underlying King Benjamin's discourse (see the huge FARMS volume), and much more. I'm very impressed with Larry Poulson's demonstration that the descriptions of the Sidon the Book of Mormon match up only with the Grijalva of all the rivers in the Western Hemisphere. These are unambiguously accurate details. If we didn't get them via an accurate translation, how then did they appear? Incidentally, in the current FARMS Review, my Hindsight essay takes on Michael Coe's PBS interview on this specific point.

And no this isn't meant as a thread jack, but a search for credible evidence for the book of Mormon.

If the Book of Mormon makes specific claims, it is testable.

If you've ever read Poe's short story The Purloined Letter, you ought to understand that even a specialist looking for the wrong things might fail to see what is in plain sight. The reason that no one spotted chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon before 1967 is that before then no one with the requisite knowledge looked for it there. In 1992 I published an essay showing that Alma's conversion fits the patterns described in modern NDE research, including aftereffects. No one had noticed that before. For a long time the background knowledge was not available, and then it took some time before someone thought to look in the Book of Mormon.

What else are we missing? And how did the stuff get in then, if it is not a translation? Even David Wright, who basically complains that the Isaiah translation is not how he would have done it if here were God, acknowledges in a footnote in his Sunstone essay, some unspecified "striking" matters without even trying to account for them, let alone even mention specifics, or explain what makes them striking.

What makes something credible? Not just "credible to me" but by what specific measures? In what kind of framework? And what makes that framework better than another. I've written a lot on that.

Brant's work, which began this thread, offers all sorts of specific details, all of which are involved in convergent scenarios, in which multiple requirements all interrelate. That kind of convergence provides weight to a claim of credible evidence. It's not just cherry picking, say, like the obsolete Roberts study.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[WalkerW]

The article mentioned by Kevin is the following:

Carl Hugh Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 122 (September 1970).

[Pahoran]

And for all of your criticism of the Biblical text, it hasn't once been proven false as Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

But how many such statements are actually confirmed by archaeology?

How many archaeological discoveries are there that confirm the Exodus?

How many archaeological discoveries are there that confirm the Conquest?

How many archaeological discoveries are there that confirm even one miraculous event?

Just one?

The fact, Hughes, is that by the standards you try to impose upon us, you have nothing but "blind faith" that any of those events actually took place. You keep citing the claimed 500 witnesses as if they have some evidentiary value; but in fact they don't. Only Paul mentions them; we have not a word of support from even one of them. You have Hughesian "blind faith" that they even existed.

And if you had the slightest interest in consistency, you'd admit this fact.

And besides: for all your criticism of the Book of Mormon, it hasn't once been proven false. Indeed, it is entirely correct to say that to date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood Book of Mormon statement.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have Hughesian "blind faith" that they even existed.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hughesian blind faith. That is funny.

[nicolasconnault]

Just as their are different levels of trust, it depends on how much evidence you have. In this case there is no way to determine what was correctly translated or not.

It seems to me that the more evidence you have, the less faith you need.

So when the only evidence that exists is the original seed of faith (in this case, is the word of Joseph Smith), the strongest faith is required.

Your definition of "blind faith" can thus be operationalised as the strongest kind of faith.

I am proud to have "Hughesian blind faith" in the Book of Mormon!

[nicolasconnault]

We disagree and that's ok. My point is that there are no witnesses that can verify the accuracy of what is translated.

Witnesses to the activity of translation don't count, as they didn't know the languages.

Witnesses to angels testifying don't count as verifying a translation, but a witness to an event.

It could be that the BoM is completely accurate to the gold plates. We just can't verify it.

Are you willing to revise your judgement? Because your reasoning has a flaw.

The Book of Mormon testifies of its own accuracy. Its writers knew of the process of translation that would occur, and they knew that some errors would creep in. They knew that some would spurn and mock, and wrote appropriate warnings for them.

Have a good read of 2 Nephi 27, for example.

I have faith that the Book of Mormon was translated with sufficient accuracy to bring to pass the prophecies and purposes of God in my life and in the world at large. I also have faith that, because God oversaw the compilation of the Book of Mormon, he also oversaw its translation and publication, so that the final product was sufficient for his purposes.

[44Foxtrot]

The article mentioned by Kevin is the following:

Carl Hugh Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 122 (September 1970).

Sorry guys, but you must be joking with this "reference". This is pathetic.

It is an article in a BYU "newsletter" for crying out loud.

The individual who wrote it readily admits in the text that he knows nothing of Egyptian or Hebrew.

This was done in 1970. If the work could have lead anywhere, it surely would have by now. But of course, it has not.

Nonetheless, apologists are happy to cite 40 year old one-off articles in newsletter from religious institutions which lead absolutely nowhere as if they were important work.

Unfortunately this is often typical of the level of "scholarship" that Mormon apologists depend on to make their points to the eager faithful.

Peer reviewed journals? Who needs 'em? Right guys?

There is disagreement and there is snotty. We aren't tolerating snotty anymore, you are out of the thread and will off the board if you can't be part of a respectful discussion.

[Pahoran]

Sorry guys, but you must be joking with this "reference". This is pathetic.

It is an article in a BYU "newsletter" for crying out loud.

The individual who wrote it readily admits in the text that he knows nothing of Egyptian or Hebrew.

This was done in 1970. If the work could have lead anywhere, it surely would have by now. But of course, it has not.

Nonetheless, apologists are happy to cite 40 year old one-off articles in newsletter from religious institutions which lead absolutely nowhere as if they were important work.

Unfortunately this is often typical of the level of "scholarship" that Mormon apologists depend on to make their points to the eager faithful.

Peer reviewed journals? Who needs 'em? Right guys?

However weak it may be, it certainly doesn't descend to the level of some people who try to discredit a doctrine by pointing to the bad acts of mentally ill people, and then falsely claiming that such acts are the "logical consequence" of believing the doctrine they are trying to discredit.

Like "Christine Jonsen," for instance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

There have been a few interesting studies of the Anthon transcript, which purports to provide a copy of some characters. The most interesting to me have been the SEHA article comparing the characters on the transcript with the characters found on two Mesoamerican Cylinder seals (which at least places the characters in the right time and place), and a book that demonstrated chiastic patterns in the characters of the Anthon transcript (not a translation, but a demonstration that at least the characters are not just a random collection, but a product of patterns and purpose).

Chiastic patterns are ubiquitous in all languages and literature; e.g., William Schryver spat one out here without even realizing it. I've discovered rather lengthy ones in my own writings.

...the chiastic structure in Helaman where the turning point seems to point to a Hebrew original...

If I treat the text as a historical document in translation, I have to question everything, including vocabulary (which, by the way, is one of the reasons that I can't see Hebraisms as a viable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon--that requires a literal translation for which I find little evidence).

It's not just cherry picking, say, like the obsolete Roberts study.

Yet more abuse of B. H. Roberts.

[Bill Hamblin]

And for all of your criticism of the Biblical text, it hasn't once been proven false as Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

I'm sorry, but if you seriously make that claim you know nothing about biblical archaeology.

[Bill Hamblin]

Chiastic patterns are ubiquitous in all languages and literature; e.g., William Schryver spat one out here without even realizing it. I've discovered rather lengthy ones in my own writings.

I'm sorry, but that's preposterous.

Chiasmus is a literary phenomenon, not a linguistic one.

While any culture and language could in theory produce chiasmus,

It is absurd to claim that they all do so all the time, and do so by random chance.

[Bill Hamblin]

This discourse, as it is developing is pointless. There is obviously no agreement on what constitutes evidence (and who should decide what constitutes evidence). There is bizarre confusion between evidence and proof. There is argument from authority in place of argument from evidence. The Anti-Mormons proudly and consistently refuse to read serious scholarship in favor of the Book of Mormon, all they while proclaiming "there is no evidence." (How can they possibly know this if they refuse to read it.) There is an endless litany of classical ad hominem. And there is an extraordinary unwillingness on the part of the critics to extend the same critical analysis to their own positions. I, for one, find it pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

[Eldwynn]

This discourse, as it is developing is pointless. There is obviously no agreement on what constitutes evidence (and who should decide what constitutes evidence). There is bizarre confusion between evidence and proof. There is argument from authority in place of argument from evidence. The Anti-Mormons proudly and consistently refuse to read serious scholarship in favor of the Book of Mormon, all they while proclaiming "there is no evidence." (How can they possibly know this if they refuse to read it.) There is an endless litany of classical ad hominem. And there is an extraordinary unwillingness on the part of the critics to extend the same critical analysis to their own positions. I, for one, find it pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

I don't know why any apologists choose to fight this fight on a message board, rather than where they SHOULD be fighting it, which is in the literature. Until more papers are published for the scientific community to scrutinize on archeological findings etc. then critics of the BOM have every right to question "evidence" that arises. If the evidence were that good, then why is the archeological community apparently so underwhelmed? I have a room mate that is majoring in archeology at the University of Washington, and he had never heard of the Book of Mormon until I explained it to him. This is a guy that breathes archeology articles and papers. If the evidence is out there, more academics would be researching it. The truth is, the evidence for a migration as described in the Book of Mormon just isn't strong enough for any government funding. If it were, rest assured that some BYU researcher has the skill to write a grant for it. There are people interested in the truth on the matter, that just don't find your arguments appealing.

It also doesn't help that the prophet of your church, who many believe is an authority on the matter, has remained quiet on the subject for many many years.

A big fallacy I see people making is the argument comparing the Book of Mormons faults to the bibles faults. It's a stupid argument, and I wish they never made it again. Yes the bible has problems, but pointing to them as supporting the Book of Mormon is an error in reasoning. There are a lot of people that don't accept the bible as free of error (non-christians) that criticize the BOM. Shouldn't your arguments be good enough to convince everyone? If the Book of Mormon is what mormons claim it is, then those arguments should stand on their own, and not rely on appealing to the bible.

[Hughes]

There have been a few interesting studies of the Anthon transcript, which purports to provide a copy of some characters. The most interesting to me have been the SEHA article comparing the characters on the transcript with the characters found on two Mesoamerican Cylinder seals (which at least places the characters in the right time and place), and a book that demonstrated chiastic patterns in the characters of the Anthon transcript (not a translation, but a demonstration that at least the characters are not just a random collection, but a product of patterns and purpose). Of course, those who have not seen those studies tend to be blind to their significance.

If the translation that we have provides numerous testable claims, and those claims turn out to be accurate, that seems to me pretty good evidence that the translation is accurate. The text we have even shows signs of being a translation. The names, lack of punctuation, the correct and consistent use of phrases like "and it came to pass" which also appear in Hebrew and Mesoamerican glyphs, the two Mesoamerican cylinder seals, the chiastic structure in Helaman where the turning point seems to point to a Hebrew original, allusions to an earlier version of the David and Goliath story than appears in the MT (see Ben MecGuire's FAIR and FARMS essays), and so forth. It even turns out that the frequencies of use for the "and it came to pass" fits pre-Exilic patterns.

Nephi provides authentic eye-witness details of conditions in Jerusalem, and when we test them against all sorts of things now known about Jerusalem 600BCE (see Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem), we find confirmation of phrases like "land of Jerusalem", and NHM in a location and precise time depth that fits perfectly with details of the narrative. Look, for instance, at the location for the Arabian Bountiful as shown in the Journey of Faith video. East of Nahom, the only bit of green visible along the entire coast, and many more details all existing in a unique location. We can confirm the elaborate ritual background underlying King Benjamin's discourse (see the huge FARMS volume), and much more. I'm very impressed with Larry Poulson's demonstration that the descriptions of the Sidon the Book of Mormon match up only with the Grijalva of all the rivers in the Western Hemisphere. These are unambiguously accurate details. If we didn't get them via an accurate translation, how then did they appear? Incidentally, in the current FARMS Review, my Hindsight essay takes on Michael Coe's PBS interview on this specific point.

If the Book of Mormon makes specific claims, it is testable.

If you've ever read Poe's short story The Purloined Letter, you ought to understand that even a specialist looking for the wrong things might fail to see what is in plain sight. The reason that no one spotted chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon before 1967 is that before then no one with the requisite knowledge looked for it there. In 1992 I published an essay showing that Alma's conversion fits the patterns described in modern NDE research, including aftereffects. No one had noticed that before. For a long time the background knowledge was not available, and then it took some time before someone thought to look in the Book of Mormon.

What else are we missing? And how did the stuff get in then, if it is not a translation? Even David Wright, who basically complains that the Isaiah translation is not how he would have done it if here were God, acknowledges in a footnote in his Sunstone essay, some unspecified "striking" matters without even trying to account for them, let alone even mention specifics, or explain what makes them striking.

What makes something credible? Not just "credible to me" but by what specific measures? In what kind of framework? And what makes that framework better than another. I've written a lot on that.

Brant's work, which began this thread, offers all sorts of specific details, all of which are involved in convergent scenarios, in which multiple requirements all interrelate. That kind of convergence provides weight to a claim of credible evidence. It's not just cherry picking, say, like the obsolete Roberts study.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Ok Kevin. I know and can see that you've done a lot of work and study on this topic. Here's a question that I keep hearing in my mind.

Let's say that these places, such as the location for the Arabian Bountiful are so similar to some archeological spot, and it fits as you say. How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates?

The original was supposedly in Reformed Egyptian right? How does anything you're saying have any demonstrable connection to what was on the gold plates, since as was admitted by everyone involved, that they didn't know that language? And no copes were left for others to verify the translation?

To put it another way. Let's say that the gold plates had a story on it that was about the Ford motor company, it's history etc... And then a guy says he translated the plates and his story is something completely different like the life of the butterfly or something. We would agree that maybe what this guy says he translated did inspire us to do good works, and pray. But, did it have anything to do with what actually was actually on the plates? Well, not at all.

That is my question. How can this be evidence for the BoM and the accurate translation of it?

[volgadon]

The focus of my use of the word "blind" is on the specific problem of translation. I'm not saying they didn't see the plates, I'm saying they couldn't verify it's accuracy as a translation of what was written on the plates. Trusting their testimony is equally blind, because of that problem.

Let me see, an angel declared its veracity to them, yet that is considered blind faith by a man who believes in angels?

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't know why any apologists choose to fight this fight on a message board, rather than where they SHOULD be fighting it, which is in the literature. Until more papers are published for the scientific community to scrutinize on archeological findings etc. then critics of the BOM have every right to question "evidence" that arises. If the evidence were that good, then why is the archeological community apparently so underwhelmed? I have a room mate that is majoring in archeology at the University of Washington, and he had never heard of the Book of Mormon until I explained it to him. This is a guy that breathes archeology articles and papers. If the evidence is out there, more academics would be researching it. The truth is, the evidence for a migration as described in the Book of Mormon just isn't strong enough for any government funding. If it were, rest assured that some BYU researcher has the skill to write a grant for it. There are people interested in the truth on the matter, that just don't find your arguments appealing.

It also doesn't help that the prophet of your church, who many believe is an authority on the matter, has remained quiet on the subject for many many years.

A big fallacy I see people making is the argument comparing the Book of Mormons faults to the bibles faults. It's a stupid argument, and I wish they never made it again. Yes the bible has problems, but pointing to them as supporting the Book of Mormon is an error in reasoning. There are a lot of people that don't accept the bible as free of error (non-christians) that criticize the BOM. Shouldn't your arguments be good enough to convince everyone? If the Book of Mormon is what mormons claim it is, then those arguments should stand on their own, and not rely on appealing to the bible.

Have you even bothered to look at these?

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Given, By the Hand of Mormon, 2003--published by Oxford UP, no less.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok Kevin. I know and can see that you've done a lot of work and study on this topic. Here's a question that I keep hearing in my mind.

Let's say that these places, such as the location for the Arabian Bountiful are so similar to some archeological spot, and it fits as you say. How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates?

The original was supposedly in Reformed Egyptian right? How does anything you're saying have any demonstrable connection to what was on the gold plates, since as was admitted by everyone involved, that they didn't know that language? And no copes were left for others to verify the translation?

To put it another way. Let's say that the gold plates had a story on it that was about the Ford motor company, it's history etc... And then a guy says he translated the plates and his story is something completely different like the life of the butterfly or something. We would agree that maybe what this guy says he translated did inspire us to do good works, and pray. But, did it have anything to do with what actually was actually on the plates? Well, not at all.

That is my question. How can this be evidence for the BoM and the accurate translation of it?

Many ancient documents survive only in translation. Many. That's life. There are many ways scholars can determine if a text is originally in a language, or is a translation from another language. I won't go into the details here, but it is a fairly standard scholarly methodology. The BOM has been put to the test in this regard, and has done quite well.

[nicolasconnault]

Ok Kevin. I know and can see that you've done a lot of work and study on this topic. Here's a question that I keep hearing in my mind.

Let's say that these places, such as the location for the Arabian Bountiful are so similar to some archeological spot, and it fits as you say. How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates?

The original was supposedly in Reformed Egyptian right? How does anything you're saying have any demonstrable connection to what was on the gold plates, since as was admitted by everyone involved, that they didn't know that language? And no copes were left for others to verify the translation?

To put it another way. Let's say that the gold plates had a story on it that was about the Ford motor company, it's history etc... And then a guy says he translated the plates and his story is something completely different like the life of the butterfly or something. We would agree that maybe what this guy says he translated did inspire us to do good works, and pray. But, did it have anything to do with what actually was actually on the plates? Well, not at all.

That is my question. How can this be evidence for the BoM and the accurate translation of it?

Accurate translation again? Please read my posts #86 and #87, I think you missed them.

[nicolasconnault]

Many ancient documents survive only in translation. Many. That's life. There are many ways scholars can determine if a text is originally in a language, or is a translation from another language. I won't go into the details here, but it is a fairly standard scholarly methodology. The BOM has been put to the test in this regard, and has done quite well.

And nowhere has it been better but to the test than in The Book of Mormon on Trial, the epitome of scholarly research on Book of Mormon archaeology, an absolute must-read! Get your copy now!