Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[selek]

You know, argumentation is a bit like playing chess. You can recognise people's level of skill by how they play. The beginners just throw random moves and don't take the game seriously. Novices play with overconfidence, convinced that every move they make will bring them victory and be unanswerable. Experts plan ahead, lead their opponent, are willing to sacrifice material to gain the final victory.

Boy, am I in trouble!

I and others have offered valid rebuttals to your single-track argument, but you have ignored them. That's called cheating.

It's definitely evidence that someone isn't arguing in good-faith.

Again- the rules must apply equally or not at all.

If you (Hughes) propose a standard by which to judge our faith, that standard must apply equally to your own.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Thanks for bringing up this subject, since it is one that I am currently researching. I went through Gee's essay and I didn't find an answer to my question, which I think relates directly to your claim that Joseph Smith followed the literary divisions of the book of Isaiah rather than the KJV chapter divisions.

Mosiah 14 quotes Isaiah 53 from verse 1 right through the end of the chapter, introducing this extended quotation from Isaiah explicitly as such in the first part of Mosiah 14:1. However, biblical scholars generally seem to agree that the literary unit of Isaiah begins with Isaiah 52:13 and runs through the end of chapter 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), thus including the last three verses of chapter 52. (I say "generally," but in fact I have never seen any scholarly or academic commentary or reference work take any other position.) It is in Isaiah 52:13 that the figure of this unit is identified by God as "my Servant." Thus, Isaiah 52:13-15 should really have been included in Mosiah along with Isaiah 53, according to your statement. It would seem that Joseph did the very sort of amateurish thing in Mosiah 14 that you say he didn't do.

You would do well to understand the thesis before you suggest such a simple undermining of it. For more information, see John Gee,

[ELF1024]

Brant,

Thanks for bringing up this subject, since it is one that I am currently researching. I went through Gee's essay and I didn't find an answer to my question, which I think relates directly to your claim that Joseph Smith followed the literary divisions of the book of Isaiah rather than the KJV chapter divisions.

Mosiah 14 quotes Isaiah 53 from verse 1 right through the end of the chapter, introducing this extended quotation from Isaiah explicitly as such in the first part of Mosiah 14:1. However, biblical scholars generally seem to agree that the literary unit of Isaiah begins with Isaiah 52:13 and runs through the end of chapter 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), thus including the last three verses of chapter 52. (I say "generally," but in fact I have never seen any scholarly or academic commentary or reference work take any other position.) It is in Isaiah 52:13 that the figure of this unit is identified by God as "my Servant." Thus, Isaiah 52:13-15 should really have been included in Mosiah along with Isaiah 53, according to your statement. It would seem that Joseph did the very sort of amateurish thing in Mosiah 14 that you say he didn't do.

Welcome Back Rob...

[Rob Bowman]

Thanks, Elf....

Welcome Back Rob...

[SilverKnight]

Thanks, Elf....

Actually it is nice to have Rob back.

Rob is a quite reasonable critic, and represents the evangelical position well.

[Hughes]

My explanation is in the parts of my argument that you left out. Notice this from Kuhn.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually it is nice to have Rob back.

Rob is a quite reasonable critic, and represents the evangelical position well.

I agree, perhaps Rob could even help Hughes out with his rather odd rhetoric.

[Vance]

However, biblical scholars generally seem to agree that the literary unit of Isaiah begins with Isaiah 52:13 and runs through the end of chapter 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), thus including the last three verses of chapter 52. (I say "generally," but in fact I have never seen any scholarly or academic commentary or reference work take any other position.)

If that is true, one wonders why those who did the original chapter and verse divisions made the divisions where they did.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And attacks on the Bible or my faith don't somehow support the idea that there is credible evidence for the BoM.

Again Hughes, you seemed to have missed this the last time aroung" when we say the things we do regarding your baseless and absurd notion that JS wanted people to have blind faith, we are not presenting a defence for the BoM but point out your rather huge double standard when it comes to your beliefs and our beliefs.

The reality is that when you choose to argue in the manner you do, you cut your own theology and you throw it under the bus and you seem to be under the delusion that it does not matter.

[ELF1024]

I agree, perhaps Rob could even help Hughes out with his rather odd rhetoric.

Yes, Hughes could learn quite a bit from Rob.

[Calm]

You say, "Can you formulate solvable puzzle regarding your claim that the English text of the Book of Mormon has no relation to the characters on the golden plates."

My answer is no. And I honestly don't know how it could be done by anyone, understanding there's no extent copies anywhere of the plates writings, and no one who saw the plates knew or understood the language it was written in. How would you propose anyone do this, given the complete lack of knowledge about what was on the plates?

As has been pointed out to you IIRC (as I can't find it in this thread, perhaps in another where you make the same claim), there are texts in existence that claim to be translations of works that do not exist in the original language....thus there is "lack of knowledge about what was" in the original manuscript just as in the case of the Book of Mormon. Would you have a problem with applying the same techniques scholars use with determining what was in the original text based on the translations they do have to the situation with the Book of Mormon? Or does this situation require a different process in your view? If so, why?

[ebeddoulos]

If that is true, one wonders why those who did the original chapter and verse divisions made the divisions where they did.

We owe the versification in our current versions to the Geneva Bible and probably William Whittingham one of its chief translators. The Geneva was the first English Bible to have numbered verses. A joke of the period had Whittingham versifying the Bible while riding in a carriage. Every time the carriage hit a bump, the bible acquired a new verse.

[Hughes]

Again Hughes, you seemed to have missed this the last time aroung" when we say the things we do regarding your baseless and absurd notion that JS wanted people to have blind faith, we are not presenting a defence for the BoM but point out your rather huge double standard when it comes to your beliefs and our beliefs.

The reality is that when you choose to argue in the manner you do, you cut your own theology and you throw it under the bus and you seem to be under the delusion that it does not matter.

If the Bible had no copies of the originals, then you'd be correct. Since copies do exist for the Biblical Text, and none do for the BoM the problem stands.

Yes, Hughes could learn quite a bit from Rob.

I'm certain I could learn quite a bit from Rob and anyone willing to dialogue with me.

As has been pointed out to you IIRC (as I can't find it in this thread, perhaps in another where you make the same claim), there are texts in existence that claim to be translations of works that do not exist in the original language....thus there is "lack of knowledge about what was" in the original manuscript just as in the case of the Book of Mormon. Would you have a problem with applying the same techniques scholars use with determining what was in the original text based on the translations they do have to the situation with the Book of Mormon? Or does this situation require a different process in your view? If so, why?

Since the "process" isn't clearly stated this comes across, to me, as a loaded question. What texts might you be referring to? And what original languages are they not in?

[why me]

If the Bible had no copies of the originals, then you'd be correct. Since copies do exist for the Biblical Text, and none do for the BoM the problem stands.

Do we have the original in John's handwriting? I don't think so. Nor do we have the originals in Paul's handwriting as far as I know. But we do have copies. How do we know if the copies matched the originals? We don't. Do we have the exact words of christ as he said them? We don't know since what he said what written down long after the events.

I don't see what you are trying to say in your posts.

[Calm]

If the Bible had no copies of the originals, then you'd be correct. Since copies do exist for the Biblical Text, and none do for the BoM the problem stands. ?

You seem to have fixated on copies as somehow exact duplicates of the original texts. Is this what you believe the copies of the original bible texts are? If so, how do you view the different variations among all the copies?

If not, if the copies are not the ancient equivalent of the modern photocopy (and they are likely copies of copies and thus several steps away from the original, then since they do contain errors, then what makes them so special that you give them a pass while not giving the one step away from the original translation a pass?

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

You seem to have fixated on copies as somehow exact duplicates of the original texts. Is this what you believe the copies of the original bible texts are? If so, how do you view the different variations among all the copies?

If not, if the copies are not the ancient equivalent of the modern photocopy (and they are likely copies of copies and thus several steps away from the original, then since they do contain errors, then what makes them so special that you give them a pass while not giving the one step away from the original translation a pass?

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the manuscript copies of the biblical writings are "exact duplicates" or akin to photocopies. I'm afraid that is a straw-man objection. We all understand that the copies have copying errors.

We do, as has been pointed out, have other ancient, extant writings for which we only have a version or translation in a different language than the original. Several examples can be found among the Nag Hammadi texts; these manuscripts are written in Coptic and are dated to the fourth century, but are believed to be translations of works originally written in Greek. For most of these, the Coptic translation is all that is extant. (For a few of them, small fragments in Greek have also been found elsewhere.) I think you want to know why one would accept these ancient Coptic manuscripts as translations of earlier Greek originals but not accept the English Book of Mormon as a translation of an earlier Reformed Egyptian original. Is that correct? There are answers, but I'd like to know if this is the argument you or others here are making. If it is, I would be happy to explain.

[ELF1024]

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the manuscript copies of the biblical writings are "exact duplicates" or akin to photocopies. I'm afraid that is a straw-man objection. We all understand that the copies have copying errors.

We do, as has been pointed out, have other ancient, extant writings for which we only have a version or translation in a different language than the original. Several examples can be found among the Nag Hammadi texts; these manuscripts are written in Coptic and are dated to the fourth century, but are believed to be translations of works originally written in Greek. For most of these, the Coptic translation is all that is extant. (For a few of them, small fragments in Greek have also been found elsewhere.) I think you want to know why one would accept these ancient Coptic manuscripts as translations of earlier Greek originals but not accept the English Book of Mormon as a translation of an earlier Reformed Egyptian original. Is that correct? There are answers, but I'd like to know if this is the argument you or others here are making. If it is, I would be happy to explain.

Hey Rob.

The issue at hand is the Hughes has been throwing out a huge double standard (In our opinion). He makes the case that there is no archelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon, which is in essance, true; but at the same time expects everyone to accept that there are *huge* amounts of archelogical evidence for the Bible, which there isn't. Our arguement has been, and it cuts both ways, that the only thing you can prove by archelogical evidence is that the places existed. However, that doesn't make the Bible, or the Book of Mormon a true account or God's word. The best it can do is prove the books are Historical Fiction. The same can be said of Illiad, Troy existed, but that doesn't make it any more an account of anything other than Historical Fiction.

You cannot prove God's existance by Archelogical evidence, so you can't prove that the Bible or the Book of Mormon is God's word thru the use of it.

I'm sure you'll have a great argument as to why the missing originals of the Bible missing is no big deal, but that a similar situation with the Book of Mormon (only the English Translation existing) is problematic.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

Thanks for your comments. You wrote:

The issue at hand is the Hughes has been throwing out a huge double standard (In our opinion). He makes the case that there is no archelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon, which is in essance, true; but at the same time expects everyone to accept that there are *huge* amounts of archelogical evidence for the Bible, which there isn't. Our arguement has been, and it cuts both ways, that the only thing you can prove by archelogical evidence is that the places existed. However, that doesn't make the Bible, or the Book of Mormon a true account or God's word. The best it can do is prove the books are Historical Fiction. The same can be said of Illiad, Troy existed, but that doesn't make it any more an account of anything other than Historical Fiction.

You cannot prove God's existance by Archelogical evidence, so you can't prove that the Bible or the Book of Mormon is God's word thru the use of it.

I wouldn't use archaeology as a direct proof that God exists, and I doubt Hughes would either (though I can't speak for him). You say that the most archaeology can prove is that the Bible is "historical fiction." I suppose this would be like claiming that Gone with the Wind is historical fiction -- a fictional story about fictional characters (Scarlett, Rhett, et. al.) set in a real historical setting. This isn't a correct assessment of the evidence because the evidence is more complex than "archaeology." There are indeed "huge" amounts of external evidence (not just archaeological evidence, but linguistic, literary, geographical, etc.) for much of the Bible. We know from external evidences not only that Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus existed but that their roles in the history of Judah and Jerusalem were as the Bible recounts. Josephus provides external evidence for the basic historical kernel of facts concerning John the Baptist and Jesus. We know that Pontius Pilate really did order the crucifixion of Jesus, which is the central historical event of the Christian faith. We have records establishing an unbroken historical continuity of Christianity with the first-century movement of Jesus' original followers. I'm only touching more or less at random a few of the highlights of the external evidence for the Bible, which is indeed massive and substantial. Does this external evidence confirm everything in the Bible? No, of course not. But the acknowledged shortcomings of the external evidence for the Bible are simply not comparable to the shortcomings of the external evidence for the Book of Mormon. For example, we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts in the original language of the composition of those books, and absolutely no Reformed Egyptian manuscripts of any Book of Mormon text. Manuscript evidence is arguably the most basic issue in external evidence. Other problems with regard to external evidence are just as severe. Mormon scholars and apologists cannot even agree on what part of the Western Hemisphere to correlate with the Book of Mormon narrative. Imagine if we could not decide if Nazareth was in Palestine, Uganda, France, or Pakistan! That is a decent analogy to this problem, one of many, for the Book of Mormon.

Now, I am aware of the fact that LDS researchers offer a wide array of "evidences" for the Book of Mormon. I am working through these arguments and giving them as careful and honest an examination as I can. However, most of the really interesting arguments appeal to internal evidence, not external evidence; that is, they appeal to various subtle features of the Book of Mormon text (e.g., alleged Hebraisms, chiastic structures). External evidence for the Book of Mormon is almost entirely lacking even if one accepts all of the current examples of such evidence that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute claims to have found.

You wrote:

I'm sure you'll have a great argument as to why the missing originals of the Bible missing is no big deal, but that a similar situation with the Book of Mormon (only the English Translation existing) is problematic.

I think what I have said above already goes a long way toward answering that question. We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical writings, but we do have numerous ancient manuscript copies of those writings in their original languages. We have nothing comparable for any part of the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the manuscript copies of the biblical writings are "exact duplicates" or akin to photocopies. I'm afraid that is a straw-man objection.

Kind of hard to have a "strawman objection" when one is not making an objection at all but asking for clarification, don't you think?

I am currently simply trying to understand the method or reasoning that Hughes is using in his own valuation of what is and isn't credible evidence. I have thrown out some questions in hopes of identifying exactly what the process of elimination Hughes is using. I have provided some options, would be happy if Hughes rejected all of the above if he would provide what he is actually using when he does.

From Hughes previously in this thread:

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.

From what I can piece together (and if he would point out where I am wrong, I would be happy), he apparently thinks there is something fundamentally criticially wrong beyond redemption with the text of the BoM (if the number of times which he has repeated this criticism over several threads) due to the lack of an original language text to compare to the translated text that Joseph Smith produced; so fundamentally critical is this lack that it appears he feels no need to look further to what the translated text has to say for itself and how that might be related to real time and space through the various methods Brant has outlined. If I have misinterpreted his overall claim that appears to allow in his mind for outright dismissal without further examination, then I hope he takes the time to clarify it sufficiently as to what his real issue is. I see this approach as something along the lines of secularists who when hearing that an angel was involved in the process in some way feel no need to look at the text itself as that one claim establishes the whole as a fraud. Now if one accepts the premise that there are no angels, that argument is valid; but if one does not accept the premise in each and every similar case, then the argument is not valid on its own and there must be further conditions applied.

And since the premise that the existence of only a translated text requires scholars to automatically discount that translation as valid due to the inability to know if the translation is accurate or not solely through comparison of the original and translated texts is invalid (as shown by the existence of seriously considered credible by scholars only available in translation texts...thus it does not have to be solely a religious or faith issue, but can also be credibly treated using academic methods), I am asking for clarifications on what further conditions he is applying to the Book of Mormon using the Bible and other texts as examples in hopes he will point out the fundamental difference he sees that I do not that allows him to place the BoM in the realm of pure faith untouchable by any credible academic efforts.

The fixation I speak of is the insistence that the copies (copies of translated texts) are sufficient for any analysis of credibility in the case of the Bible, one does not need the originals here even though he appears to think it is required in the case of the BoM. I could understand that if the copies were perfect (though it would still only bring us to the position of the BoM...without the claim of perfection of course), but as you stated there has been no suggestion that the copies are perfect (thus my second set of questions) which adds another layer of complications for the analysers to deal with (first knowing what the originals stated and then extrapolating what Jesus' actual words in Aramaic might have been) so there must be another reason or two or three that Hughes believes supports his claim that these copies are sufficient while the translation text of the BoM is not sufficient to provide text to analyze for credibility. It cannot be that there was no translations involved in the process for he has agreed that the words of Jesus were translated when placed in the NT text.

As far as I can tell, he thinks using uncheckable translations are okay if they are inspired (in the case of translating Jesus' words from Aramaic which we do not have to the language used for the NT texts). If this is the only requirement he has, then he needs to define how one determines one text is inspired and another is not in such a way that would allow for an objective standard....since I believe that is what he is claiming (that objectively one can dismiss the BoM based on the lack of an original and only a translated text to deal with).

He has not yet defined why copies of other translated texts are superior in and of themselves as well to what we have of the Book of Mormon, what makes it "unique" in its problems.

[ELF1024]

Now, I am aware of the fact that LDS researchers offer a wide array of "evidences" for the Book of Mormon. I am working through these arguments and giving them as careful and honest an examination as I can. However, most of the really interesting arguments appeal to internal evidence, not external evidence; that is, they appeal to various subtle features of the Book of Mormon text (e.g., alleged Hebraisms, chiastic structures). External evidence for the Book of Mormon is almost entirely lacking even if one accepts all of the current examples of such evidence that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute claims to have found.

I'm not smart enough to argue with the majority of what you said.

Much of the evidence both internal and external seems to be dismissed or accepted on the basis of what you believe Joseph Smith Jr. to be. Even you don't accept Joseph Smith Jr. to be a Prophet of God, Joseph Smith Jr was either a typical 1800's farmboy; or he was a genius.

There are many claims in the Book of Mormon that cannot be confirmed at this time. However, we continue to find evidences that back up the historical account. I am not claiming that we know it all, but I am saying that we are beginning to be able to narrow down the location, and are verifying that it is a *plausable* as a historical account.

Let me first idenitfy that I beleive in the a central American setting for the BoM. I dismiss the Great lakes theory based on contrary evidences such as winter warfare, as well as central american geography that seems to fit.

Instead of just retyping up what has already been done, I'll just refer you HERE to Jeff Lindsay's list.

I will say that I find any evidence that the Book of Mormon is more than just a fictional account of Joseph Smith Jr's imagination to be faith inspiring. If Joseph Smith was just a typical idiot 1800's farmboy, then any evidence that can be verified is huge in my opinion. JS did not have access to huge troves of info like we do today via the Internet. The fact that an idiot 1800's farmboy got ANYTHING right is amazing.

[Calm]

I am working through these arguments and giving them as careful and honest an examination as I can. However, most of the really interesting arguments appeal to internal evidence, not external evidence; that is, they appeal to various subtle features of the Book of Mormon text (e.g., alleged Hebraisms, chiastic structures). External evidence for the Book of Mormon is almost entirely lacking even if one accepts all of the current examples of such evidence that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute claims to have found.

OTOH, Hughes appears to believe (and again he can correct me if I'm wrong) that since we can't prove the translation is an accurate one due to the lack of the original text, any evidence based on the text itself is worthless as evidence:

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?

[Kevin Christensen]

Other problems with regard to external evidence are just as severe. Mormon scholars and apologists cannot even agree on what part of the Western Hemisphere to correlate with the Book of Mormon narrative. Imagine if we could not decide if Nazareth was in Palestine, Uganda, France, or Pakistan! That is a decent analogy to this problem, one of many, for the Book of Mormon.

It's actually far less of an issue when one looks at the quality of the different proposals relative to the 1000 plus relevant passages with geographic and cultural information, and the overall trends, and increasing convergence. As more scholars work through Larry Poulson's arguments for the Grijalva as the Sidon, for instance, things will coalesce further. As the link I posted the other day demonstrates.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/180

Now, I am aware of the fact that LDS researchers offer a wide array of "evidences" for the Book of Mormon. I am working through these arguments and giving them as careful and honest an examination as I can.

This is good news. Then comes the "however."

However, most of the really interesting arguments appeal to internal evidence, not external evidence; that is, they appeal to various subtle features of the Book of Mormon text (e.g., alleged Hebraisms, chiastic structures).

As Barbour points out, our paradigms influence what we notice and value. So, we get a notice of internal arguments, a valuation of internal evidences as "really interesting" which is well and good, but this leads to another notice and valuation.

External evidence for the Book of Mormon is almost entirely lacking even if one accepts all of the current examples of such evidence that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute claims to have found.

I'm trying to reconcile the list that Brant provided to begin this thread with a valuation of external evidence as "almost entirely lacking." For me, "almost entirely lacking" seems a poor description. Brant has explained that he uses the same approach to the New World settings that William Dever applies to Biblical archeology. So the generalization seems to me directed not at the research that Brant has done (see his six volume commentary and FAIR presentations), but as describing a personal set of expectations as regards what might constitute evidence for him, based on expectations derived from Biblical archeology. It seems to me a situation rather like that in Poe's story, the Purloined Letter, where official investigators looking with one set of expectations find nothing, and Poe's detective simply notices the significance of what is in plain sight.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Vance]

We owe the versification in our current versions to the Geneva Bible and probably William Whittingham one of its chief translators. The Geneva was the first English Bible to have numbered verses. A joke of the period had Whittingham versifying the Bible while riding in a carriage. Every time the carriage hit a bump, the bible acquired a new verse.

Now that is funny.

[Hughes]

Kind of hard to have a "strawman objection" when one is not making an objection at all but asking for clarification, don't you think?

I am currently simply trying to understand the method or reasoning that Hughes is using in his own valuation of what is and isn't credible evidence. I have thrown out some questions in hopes of identifying exactly what the process of elimination Hughes is using. I have provided some options, would be happy if Hughes rejected all of the above if he would provide what he is actually using when he does.

From Hughes previously in this thread:

From what I can piece together (and if he would point out where I am wrong, I would be happy), he apparently thinks there is something fundamentally criticially wrong beyond redemption with the text of the BoM (if the number of times which he has repeated this criticism over several threads) due to the lack of an original language text to compare to the translated text that Joseph Smith produced; so fundamentally critical is this lack that it appears he feels no need to look further to what the translated text has to say for itself and how that might be related to real time and space through the various methods Brant has outlined. If I have misinterpreted his overall claim that appears to allow in his mind for outright dismissal without further examination, then I hope he takes the time to clarify it sufficiently as to what his real issue is. I see this approach as something along the lines of secularists who when hearing that an angel was involved in the process in some way feel no need to look at the text itself as that one claim establishes the whole as a fraud. Now if one accepts the premise that there are no angels, that argument is valid; but if one does not accept the premise in each and every similar case, then the argument is not valid on its own and there must be further conditions applied.

And since the premise that the existence of only a translated text requires scholars to automatically discount that translation as valid due to the inability to know if the translation is accurate or not solely through comparison of the original and translated texts is invalid (as shown by the existence of seriously considered credible by scholars only available in translation texts...thus it does not have to be solely a religious or faith issue, but can also be credibly treated using academic methods), I am asking for clarifications on what further conditions he is applying to the Book of Mormon using the Bible and other texts as examples in hopes he will point out the fundamental difference he sees that I do not that allows him to place the BoM in the realm of pure faith untouchable by any credible academic efforts.

The fixation I speak of is the insistence that the copies (copies of translated texts) are sufficient for any analysis of credibility in the case of the Bible, one does not need the originals here even though he appears to think it is required in the case of the BoM. I could understand that if the copies were perfect (though it would still only bring us to the position of the BoM...without the claim of perfection of course), but as you stated there has been no suggestion that the copies are perfect (thus my second set of questions) which adds another layer of complications for the analysers to deal with (first knowing what the originals stated and then extrapolating what Jesus' actual words in Aramaic might have been) so there must be another reason or two or three that Hughes believes supports his claim that these copies are sufficient while the translation text of the BoM is not sufficient to provide text to analyze for credibility. It cannot be that there was no translations involved in the process for he has agreed that the words of Jesus were translated when placed in the NT text.

As far as I can tell, he thinks using uncheckable translations are okay if they are inspired (in the case of translating Jesus' words from Aramaic which we do not have to the language used for the NT texts). If this is the only requirement he has, then he needs to define how one determines one text is inspired and another is not in such a way that would allow for an objective standard....since I believe that is what he is claiming (that objectively one can dismiss the BoM based on the lack of an original and only a translated text to deal with).

He has not yet defined why copies of other translated texts are superior in and of themselves as well to what we have of the Book of Mormon, what makes it "unique" in its problems.

How do we know that what is contained in the BoM is what was on the plates? This is an academic question.

The study of what the BoM contains (Internal evidence) doesn't verify or corroborate the non-existant external evidence, as there's none to corroborate.

Or to put it another way. How would we check to see if Joseph Smith translated the plates accurately? In essence, we can't. I has to be accepted on faith.

How does this compare to the Biblical text? For one, with the Biblical text we have about 8 writers, all who agree. Not just one source, but different sources and different perspectives. This helps. With the BoM we have but one source.

For the BoM no copies in the original language exist. For the Biblical text many copies in the original languages exist. One has external evidence, the other does not.

OTOH, Hughes appears to believe (and again he can correct me if I'm wrong) that since we can't prove the translation is an accurate one due to the lack of the original text, any evidence based on the text itself is worthless as evidence:

Worthless for corroborating the non-existant external evidence. The evidence derived internally from the text may or may not be what was on the plates.

I'm not saying it's worthless as literature. I'm not saying that people to gain inspiration from it.

It may be exactly what it claims. We just can't verify it. It may be wholly out of Joseph's mind. I don't know without a way to verify it one way or another.

[nicolasconnault]

From what I can piece together (and if he would point out where I am wrong, I would be happy), he apparently thinks there is something fundamentally critically wrong beyond redemption with the text of the BoM (if the number of times which he has repeated this criticism over several threads) due to the lack of an original language text to compare to the translated text that Joseph Smith produced; so fundamentally critical is this lack that it appears he feels no need to look further to what the translated text has to say for itself and how that might be related to real time and space through the various methods Brant has outlined.

I think you've nailed it, Calmoriah. Hughes is arguing from ignorance. His reasoning is basically as follows:

1. To base one's religious beliefs on a scriptural text, one must have at least some evidence that the said text is accurately translated
2. There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is accurately translated
3. Therefore anyone who bases their religious beliefs on the Book of Mormon does so out of "blind faith"

Although Hughes has failed to provide a reasonable definition of "blind faith" (he has indeed ignored all rebuttals towards his use of the expression), I would hazard the following definition for the purpose of his argument:

"Blind faith is to believe in something out of cultural or normative pressure, without any tangible evidence to justify that faith."

Hughes' reasoning has the merit of being deductively sound. His main premise (#1), however, requires support, and he has failed to support it satisfactorily. He also needs to clarify his definition of blind faith.