Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Are you aware of the search for Gamla?

Yes. Remember, my claim was not that the location of every biblical site has been known throughout time, but that we have always known the location of the major places of the biblical history.

[Eldwynn]

That is, unfortunately, rarely true. You need to learn more about the harsh realities of scientific research. Research is expensive and is often funded by organisations that have a vested interest in its outcomes. Low budget pilot studies are routinely conducted in the hope that their preliminary results will satisfy the organisation and attract a juicy research grant. This problem is more prevalent in certain fields of science than others, but it exists nonetheless. Your view of the ideal scientist is laudable, but unfortunately quite unrealistic.

This is so misguided. What research do you do? If there is a conflict of interests, then you have a very difficult time getting published and taken seriously. In other words, I want proof that this problem is "prevalent" in any important* scientific field at all. For context, I actively do research in Neurobiology and Cognitive Neuroscience. I see very little of what you are claiming.

* By important I mean a hard science. I don't really care about social psychology, sociology, political science etc.

[Eldwynn]

If you dug up the Bible in London a millenia or so after it was buried there, and the language of the Jews and Latins and Greeks were lost, how would you trace the origin back to Jerusalem or even the Middle East? I doubt you could. One wonders if you care to hold the same standard to your own sacred works.

The internal evidences haven't changed, but external evidence, such as Lehi's journey seem to add to the credibility, more so than you care to admit.

I think you would be suprised with what lingusits can do. We are able to trace back to languages that are no longer spoken, and were never even written down.

[Jeff K.]

I think you would be suprised with what lingusits can do. We are able to trace back to languages that are no longer spoken, and were never even written down.

And this makes the original text somehow knowable? I don't think so. Linea A certainly shows that such is not to be the case.

[Jeff K.]

This is so misguided. What research do you do? If there is a conflict of interests, then you have a very difficult time getting published and taken seriously. In other words, I want proof that this problem is "prevalent" in any important* scientific field at all. For context, I actively do research in Neurobiology and Cognitive Neuroscience. I see very little of what you are claiming.

* By important I mean a hard science. I don't really care about social psychology, sociology, political science etc.

Don't let Celera Genomics know that.

Medical Research alone is 50 - 60% privately funded. It is all published and you won't have a difficult time being published since being published deals with peer review of your numbers not necessarily the influence or direction of the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Yes. Remember, my claim was not that the location of every biblical site has been known throughout time, but that we have always known the location of the major places of the biblical history.

Then you are aware that Gamla was a fairly important site in the Jewish revolt, Josephus provides a lot of geographical information regarding it, yet its location eluded us until the 1970s. Plenty of other sites were identified with it earlier, partially due to misidentifying Tarichaea. All of this in a geographically narrow area. The process by which the site was discovered is very similar to that being pursued by Poulsen.

We don't know the major sites, we are still looking for them. There is no other way to do apart from that being followed by him. That we don't know a location does not mean it never existed.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

The useful abstract phrase "builds a circumstantial case" does not do justice to the specifics in this case.

I'm not prepared at the moment to present a full critique of the argument regarding the Sidon River that would "do justice to the specifics." I've read everything you cited on the topic and have some thoughts about it, but it will take some time to correlate "the specifics" and do the requisite research and analysis necessary to engage the argument with full specificity. I'm sure you would rather me take my time and do it right.

I did offer a comment on a very specific matter on another point that Brant raised, pertaining to the quotations from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (my comment focused on the fact that Mosiah's quotation of the Suffering Servant passage follows the conventional chapter division and thus misses Isaiah 52:13-15, which is part of that passage). So far I have not seen any substantive response to that comment.

You wrote:

In his books and FAIR presentation, Brant has discussed how William Dever does Biblical archeology on the basis of such convergence of interrelated evidences, and that he uses the same methodology as far as possible, given the kinds of inherent differences in New World archeology that William Hamblin discussed here:

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=25

I suppose I could find it, but if you could provide a link to Brant's FAIR presentation or a reference to one of his books in which he explains how his methodology is the same as Dever's, I would appreciate it.

You wrote:

The higher the level of abstraction you choose for discussing Brant's case, the more you obscure the details. And it these matters, the details and how they converge, is telling.

I think I have already acknowledged that his case does appeal to various specific details, and I have expressed my intent to engage specifics as I do my research and work through the issues. So far, based on what I have seen, including the articles you cited, I stand by my generalization, though I understand why you don't accept it.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Your cavalier dismal of the psychology and sociological implications of Alzheimer disease are directly related to its neurobiology

[poulsenll]

Don't let Celera Genomics know that.

Medical Research alone is 50 - 60% privately funded. It is all published and you won't have a difficult time being published since being published deals with peer review of your numbers not necessarily the influence or direction of the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

Privately funded research usually has no strings attached by the funding organization. Funding by commercial organizations, for example drug compnies, almost always has the caveat that publication is subject to review by the company. I know because I was involved with research on drug metabolism for over 30 year. We were able to get small amounts from Alcon Pharmaceuticals with no strings but they made it very clear that the big bucks only came with the strings.

Even government funding comes with strings. These are usually exercized before the grant is given by only funding those grants that meet policy decisions. This, I also experienced having been invited to submit a grant and then being told three different times to revise the grant proposal because funding criteria had been changed. We gave up after the third attempt and never did get a grant based on this invitation. Luckily we were funded by a small independent granting agency until they in turn started putting restrictions on what they would approve and in at least one occasion stopping publication until patents were secured. At this point I retired from active research and accepted a position related to Computer management.

Larry P

[Jeff K.]

I agree, the company I worked with funded a great deal of scientific research regarding water purification systems. We did indeed have strings attached, as most non public funding sources do. By private I meant commercial since the main tiers of research tend to be commercial and government.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

First, I have no idea what relevance the archaeological search for a place not even mentioned in the Bible has to this discussion. Gamla is not a biblical site. It is a fairly significant site for Jewish history at the very end of the biblical era but is of no significant relevance to biblical history.

Second, the archaeological search for Gamla took place within a context of historical geography in which the general framework was and always has been known. The Sea of Galilee has always been a known location, the Jewish revolt against the Romans has always been a known fact of history, and the authenticity of the Antiquities and Jewish War of Josephus (as writings of a first-century Jewish participant in that revolt) has always been beyond reasonable doubt. Archaeologists could search for the precise location of Gamla because specific contextual facts were already known. This is not the case with the River Sidon, for instance. We don't know any of the associated geographical locations, we don't know as historical any of the associated events narrated in the Book of Mormon, and we don't know that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Nephite work.

Then you are aware that Gamla was a fairly important site in the Jewish revolt, Josephus provides a lot of geographical information regarding it, yet its location eluded us until the 1970s. Plenty of other sites were identified with it earlier, partially due to misidentifying Tarichaea. All of this in a geographically narrow area. The process by which the site was discovered is very similar to that being pursued by Poulsen.

We don't know the major sites, we are still looking for them. There is no other way to do apart from that being followed by him. That we don't know a location does not mean it never existed.

[keithb]

Actually, I'd love to see someone, anyone, attempt to place the Hobbit in a real-world time and place with the same depth and breadth that Gardner, Sorenson, Poulsen, and others have done with placing the Book of Mormon within a Mesoamerican context.

You can't say it can be easily done until someone actually attempts it.

I second this.

[keithb]

It is because no non-LDS scholar or researcher would ever take seriously a record which is claimed to have been delivered by an angel and translated by a young man. The story of origin is too fantastic for any non-LDS to take seriously as a basis for research. Michael Coe is one of most well-known Mesoamerica scholars, and he simply believes that Joseph Smith made everything up:

Michael D. Coe said in the documentary "The Mormons" (emphasis added):

More from Dr. Coe:

So tell my why Dr. Coe, or any other non-LDS scholar, would even consider seriously examining the Book of Mormon in relation to Mesoamerica?

WW

This has always seemed like a bit of a hand wave by Mormon scholars here. I would think that, if there were sufficient evidence that the BoM was a historical document, the scholars might not accept the JS explanation of how he got and translated the plates, but they would accept the book itself as authentic.

I would bet the scholars would do something similar to what they did with historical events in the Bible -- rewrite them to eliminate the supernatural. In the BoM case, they would settle on something like, "JS found the plates one day, studied the language, translated the text, and came up with a cover story after the fact so that he could form a religion based on the book." That secular scholars seem to accept neither the JS story nor the BoM text is telling.

[Jaybear]

Not really since the earliest original translation we have is almost half a millenia older than the purported events and so it is the equivalent of several translations of the Book of Mormon 500 years from now. Does that mean that somehow the Book of Mormon will become more legitimate? Is that your reasoning?

I admire your tenacity. But, no that is not my reasoning.

The material distinction is, of course, the use of the seer stone. If and when someone can show that a seer stone is a reliable tool for translating foreign texts, then that could change.

We have no original manuscript by which to test their skills in either translation or ability to accurate reflect context.

If we know that the Coptic translators understood Greek, then the translations have scholarly value.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Except that without some knowledge of, and access to the originals the means of translations is irrelevant. The translators of the KJV used the oldest manuscripts they had available, and they still added to/took away major portions of it.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the KJV translators added to or took away major portions of the Bible? Can you cite an example of either them adding a major portion to the Bible or them taking away a major portion of the Bible?

[mapman]

This has always seemed like a bit of a hand wave by Mormon scholars here. I would think that, if there were sufficient evidence that the BoM was a historical document, the scholars might not accept the JS explanation of how he got and translated the plates, but they would accept the book itself as authentic.

I would bet the scholars would do something similar to what they did with historical events in the Bible -- rewrite them to eliminate the supernatural. In the BoM case, they would settle on something like, "JS found the plates one day, studied the language, translated the text, and came up with a cover story after the fact so that he could form a religion based on the book." That secular scholars seem to accept neither the JS story nor the BoM text is telling.

Let's suppose that most scholars have more than a vague understanding of what the Book of Mormon was and don't stay far away from things involving visions and angels. It would still be impossible to seperate the Book of Mormon from all the visions and angels. There is no way that Joseph could have deciphered hundreds of pages of an ancient American document in a few months. He had only rudimentary education and even with lots of scholars working on it, not all ancient American scripts have been deciphered. Yet the fact remains that there is a book that Joseph produced and the historical evidence weighs for Joseph having in his possession some metal plates. To explain this you have to give Joseph supernatural assistance. Whether it is angels, superhuman intelligence, the ability to hypnotize people into thinking tin is gold, the ability to hide a vast library in a log cabin, or the ability to pilfer an obscure writers manuscript and then wipe the fellow-conspirator's memories and then have him converted later in a different part of the country. But the thing is, most scholars have no idea what the Book of Mormon even has to say.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 January 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

Not really since the earliest original translation we have is almost half a millenia older than the purported events and so it is the equivalent of several translations of the Book of Mormon 500 years from now. Does that mean that somehow the Book of Mormon will become more legitimate? Is that your reasoning?

I admire your tenacity. But, no that is not my reasoning.

The material distinction is, of course, the use of the seer stone. If and when someone can show that a seer stone is a reliable tool for translating foreign texts, then that could change.

The truth is a tenacious thing.

The seer stone is irrelevant since we do not know the original source of the other documentation. Consider this, what happens in 500 years if LDS documents become lost or rare and the reference to the seer stone is lost. This does not change the origin, but to a researcher half a millinea later, the issue is not the seer stone rather it is the document itself. Does the existence or lack of the seer stone is not relevant to the surviving text.

Consider that no mention as to how the original texts were written or recorded. The assumption being that no seer stone was used in regard to early translated writings. But then, we don't know that do we? I do not propose a seer stone existed, but I do show that you make an assumption that it does not, merely because the surviving texts do not mention its use.

So, no, the seer stone is not a relevant piece of evidence for or against, rather the content and context are what decide. Whether one uses a Rosetta Stone or a Seer Stone, the question is one of accuracy of the text not the mechanism used.

Quote

We have no original manuscript by which to test their skills in either translation or ability to accurate reflect context.

If we know that the Coptic translators understood Greek, then the translations have scholarly value.

And we know those copies of copies of copies which come to us out of 500 years of darkness where no surviving original manuscript exists are accurate because.....?

Before the Rosetta stone was found, how were Egyptian Heiroglyphs pronounced?

[Calm]

Copies are certainly better than no copies. No?

Only if you know for sure that they are copies of the original text you wish to examine and not actually copies of a different text.

I am assuming that you agree that simply saying something is a copy is not proof that it is a copy, that there must be some way of verifying that it is a copy....what would that verification include in the absence of the original text in your view?

In verifying what was on the original, don't really see why you think these alleged copies would be better unless there is some external or internal way of determining provenance....but you've already ruled that using external or internal evidences are worthless since there is no actual way to look at the original itself to determine the validity/accuracy of the copy. You insist one has to have the proved connection before examining other evidences, so you cannot use those other evidences to demonstrate any connection (I would disagree just in case it appears I am agreeing with you at this point).

Am I wrong in analysis of your methodology (that a 'hands on the original' comparison with any text claiming a connection to the original is the essential/necessary first step in establishing that connection)? If so, where?

As you've noted above in your comments about a translated text perhaps being unrelated to the original text, how do we know for sure that the copy is identical to the original text unless we have the original text to look at? (To the point, the discussion about all the variations and which ones might be in the original texts and which ones might not be exists because we don't have the originals to compare the copies to....). The fact that there are multiple copies saying the same thing may mean something....or it may only mean that the first copy that was woefully inaccurate was used to produce those multiple copies thus repeating the errors and inaccuracies.

Without the originals, where is the ability to measure the copies for accuracy? Doesn't one have to accept the accuracy of all copies on "blind faith" (by your standards and definitions) since by your own method demonstrated in your treatment of the BoM there is no way to corroborate that any possible external evidences actually relate/correspond to the original and not only to the copy.

Without the original available (or some process that guarantees a copy is identical such as a photocopier and a method available to determine whether that 'identical' copy has been altered or not), I really don't see much difference between a copy and a translation (which is, after all, only a copy made in another language)--both lacking an original to ground it in the real world of external evidences according to your methodology as presented here.

If there is some additional quality of a copy that somehow allows us to verify what the original says in absence of the original that is lacking in a translation, I would love to hear it but at the moment I don't see it.

Using something similar to your analogy, I've been given what is claimed to be copies of a tech manual used by the Ford company. I do not have access to the actual manual produced by Ford nor to someone who has read the original save for the copyists who are making the claim in the first place, how do I know the copies include the actual original text if the only thing I know about the manual is that it was written in English and lo and behold, all the copies I have are also written in English? Is it not possible that the copyists were not able to get their hands on an original copy, but wanting to get paid for their work had one of their company create a text they agreed would 'pass' and then all others made copies of the claimed, but ultimately unknown and untestable for accuracy copy.

Simply because something is written in the same language has no bearing on whether or not it holds the same information (as demonstrated by the difference between this post and the shopping list I have in front of me, both written in English but unconnected in information otherwise).

[Calm]

Copies are a total red herring to the idea of the originals. It does not matter. With out the orignials anything you try to argue in your favor is a waste of time.

Without the originals, by Hughes' standards we should always describe them as the "alleged copies" and accept that there is no way to verify that they have anything to do with the original text. Any work we do with them as if they were the original text is therefore based in "blind faith" (by Hughes' standards as he has described them so far...he can correct if I've interpreted him wrong).

I just read that there was an alleged copy of a screenplay of a highly anticipated movie that was supposedly 'leaked'. The producers denied the claim, state that the screenplay is not connected with their actual original screenplay....but since they refuse to release the actual screenplay so we can have a hands on, eye to text comparison, how do we know they are not lying in order to keep the mystery (and therefore excitement) high surrounding their project? So the alleged copy may or may not be the actual screenplay, there is no reason to suggest that those accepting it as the real one are any less realistic than those who trash it as a fake. Right, Hughes?

[Calm]

I'm wondering if any LDS here are making an argument of this type, and if so, if anyone would be interested in a response to it. I don't wish to reply to an argument that is not being made....

I'm not, thanks for asking.

My questions in this area are solely related to Hughes' methodology soI would like to know if he thinks there is any reason to accept the alleged translations as related to the original texts except on "blind faith" and if so, by what methods/standards he is doing so (his approach appears to much more limited than yours).

It would be interesting to hear sometime your reasonings, but it would make for a completely different conversation and only confuse this one AND I would prefer you spend your time first on the things you've mentioned here such as the evaluation of the River Sidon claims as that willingness to make the effort for an indepth analysis on that subject and other specifically relating to the BoM by serious nonLDS critics is much more rare than discussions on the accuracy of claimed biblical texts in my experience.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

Your cavalier dismal of the psychology and sociological implications of Alzheimer disease are directly related to its neurobiology

Directly related? Really? I am not going to derail the thread, but while both may study the same thing, cures for Alzhimer will come (and are coming) from just one of the three. Not to mention you're grasping at straws. I never said the fields weren't important; just not to me.

[USU78]

I think you would be suprised with what lingusits can do. We are able to trace back to languages that are no longer spoken, and were never even written down.

If linguistics were such a hard science, why do we put a "*" in front of any reconstructed proposed word in a reconstructed parent language?

USU "have <- habban (OE) <- *khaf (PGmc) <- *kap (PIE)" 78

[Hughes]

Copies are certainly better than no copies. No?

Only if you know for sure that they are copies of the original text you wish to examine and not actually copies of a different text.

I am assuming that you agree that simply saying something is a copy is not proof that it is a copy, that there must be some way of verifying that it is a copy....what would that verification include in the absence of the original text in your view?

In verifying what was on the original, don't really see why you think these alleged copies would be better unless there is some external or internal way of determining provenance....but you've already ruled that using external or internal evidences are worthless since there is no actual way to look at the original itself to determine the validity/accuracy of the copy. You insist one has to have the proved connection before examining other evidences, so you cannot use those other evidences to demonstrate any connection (I would disagree just in case it appears I am agreeing with you at this point).

Am I wrong in analysis of your methodology (that a 'hands on the original' comparison with any text claiming a connection to the original is the essential/necessary first step in establishing that connection)? If so, where?

As you've noted above in your comments about a translated text perhaps being unrelated to the original text, how do we know for sure that the copy is identical to the original text unless we have the original text to look at? (To the point, the discussion about all the variations and which ones might be in the original texts and which ones might not be exists because we don't have the originals to compare the copies to....). The fact that there are multiple copies saying the same thing may mean something....or it may only mean that the first copy that was woefully inaccurate was used to produce those multiple copies thus repeating the errors and inaccuracies.

Without the originals, where is the ability to measure the copies for accuracy? Doesn't one have to accept the accuracy of all copies on "blind faith" (by your standards and definitions) since by your own method demonstrated in your treatment of the BoM there is no way to corroborate that any possible external evidences actually relate/correspond to the original and not only to the copy.

Without the original available (or some process that guarantees a copy is identical such as a photocopier and a method available to determine whether that 'identical' copy has been altered or not), I really don't see much difference between a copy and a translation (which is, after all, only a copy made in another language)--both lacking an original to ground it in the real world of external evidences according to your methodology as presented here.

If there is some additional quality of a copy that somehow allows us to verify what the original says in absence of the original that is lacking in a translation, I would love to hear it but at the moment I don't see it.

Using something similar to your analogy, I've been given what is claimed to be copies of a tech manual used by the Ford company. I do not have access to the actual manual produced by Ford nor to someone who has read the original save for the copyists who are making the claim in the first place, how do I know the copies include the actual original text if the only thing I know about the manual is that it was written in English and lo and behold, all the copies I have are also written in English? Is it not possible that the copyists were not able to get their hands on an original copy, but wanting to get paid for their work had one of their company create a text they agreed would 'pass' and then all others made copies of the claimed, but ultimately unknown and untestable for accuracy copy.

Simply because something is written in the same language has no bearing on whether or not it holds the same information (as demonstrated by the difference between this post and the shopping list I have in front of me, both written in English but unconnected in information otherwise).

I like to try and keep things simple. We disagree on a lot of issues. My basic question stems from this desire to keep things simple.

Are copies better than no copies? (maybe I should insert the word, "claimed" copies)

Seems to me the obvious answer is yes. And that's what we have with the Biblical text, and we don't have with the BoM.

[Hughes]

Copies are a total red herring to the idea of the originals. It does not matter. With out the orignials anything you try to argue in your favor is a waste of time.

If you actually believed this then you'd abandan any belief in the BoM, that is if you applied the same principles espoused in this sentence to the BoM. No originals equals a waste of time.

Lets say there was a copy. Who would do the translation? It is not like the rosetta stone would help here. Again this is a total waste.

We have what is purported to be translated and we can look what we do have in the same what that we can look at the bible and the copies we do have. The problem is your double standard won't allow you to look at what we do have.

This argument is about as lame as "archaeology proves the bible".

I have news for you Hughes the correlation that you are looking for is not going to happen unless God wills and I don;t see that happening.

If there was a copy, then at least we could study it and possibly translate it. The fact that there are none means that there never will be that opportunity.

So sorry many of you think this a mindless question. I'm honestly surprised at the reaction.

[Hughes]

It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).

If you dug up the Bible in London a millenia or so after it was buried there, and the language of the Jews and Latins and Greeks were lost, how would you trace the origin back to Jerusalem or even the Middle East? I doubt you could. One wonders if you care to hold the same standard to your own sacred works.

The internal evidences haven't changed, but external evidence, such as Lehi's journey seem to add to the credibility, more so than you care to admit.

IF there was a Lehi. I can't verify that the BoM has anything what so ever to do with the gold plates.

If the Bible was buried in London... your hypothetical is difficult to follow since there aren't just one "bible" but millions. And even before the Gutenberg press there were thousands. But, let's just say for that there was only one Bible and it was buried in London.... And we couldn't translate it? Is that your point? Then how would we "trace the origin back..."

I'm thinking that we'd study it, don't you think? Sure would be nice to do that with the gold plates, or at least copies of it.