Explaining Book Of Mormon Anachronisms

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................

Q: Assuming that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is still a few hundred years into the future, is there evidence that compels you, or anyone else you know of, to believe that a Hebrew people and their religious culture thrived in the New World?

 

I don’t know about being “compelled” to believe anything, Gervin, but plenty of indicators are already available for those who might want to look more closely.  My “Sawi-Zaa” paper is a place to start with strong linguistic evidence, and Brian Stubb’s huge book on the Hebrew & Aramaic linguistic evidence in Uto-Aztecan will be out soon.

 

Another very helpful study is the cultural evidence assembled in John L. Sorenson, A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East, Sino-Platonic Papers No. 195. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of East Asian Language and Civilization, 2009). (PDF accessible at http://sino-platonic.org).

 

Also helpful are the following, of which only Sorenson, Raish, and Wirth are Mormon:

 

Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, Before Columbus: Links between the Old World and Ancient America. (New York: Crown, 1971).

 

Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, “Hebrew presence in pre-Columbian America,” NEARA Journal 28/3-4 (1993):91-96. (New England Antiquties Research Association).

 

Graulich, Michel. 1983. “Myths of paradise lost in pre-Hispanic Central Mexico,” Current Anthropology 24 /5(1983):575-588.

 

Jett, Stephen C., “Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts: The Present State of the Evidence,” NEARA Journal, 36/4 (2003):4-8.

 

Jett, Stephen C., Crossing Ancient Oceans. PreColumbian Contact in America (Springer, 2007).

 

Jett, Stephen C., “A ‘Catechism’ for the Pre-Columbian-Transoceanic-Contacts Debate,” NEARA Journal, 46/1 (Summer 2012):43-47, online at http://www.neara.org/images/what/46-1_Jett.pdf .

 

Sorenson, John L., and Martin H. Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography. 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1996).

 

Wirth, Diane E., Parallels: Mesoamerican and Ancient Middle Eastern Traditions (St. George UT: Stonecliff, 2003).

Edited January 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

 

I don’t know about being “compelled” to believe anything, Gervin

Then we agree that there is no one who champions this position.

 

 

, but plenty of indicators are already available for those who might want to look more closely.  My “Sawi-Zaa” paper is a place to start with strong linguistic evidence, and Brian Stubb’s huge book on the Hebrew & Aramaic linguistic evidence in Uto-Aztecan will be out soon.

 

Another very helpful study is the cultural evidence assembled in John L. Sorenson, A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East, Sino-Platonic Papers No. 195. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of East Asian Language and Civilization, 2009). (PDF accessible at http://sino-platonic.org).

 

Also helpful are the following, of which only Sorenson, Raish, and Wirth are Mormon:

 

Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, Before Columbus: Links between the Old World and Ancient America. (New York: Crown, 1971).

 

Gordon, Cyrus Herzl, “Hebrew presence in pre-Columbian America,” NEARA Journal 28/3-4 (1993):91-96. (New England Antiquties Research Association).

 

Graulich, Michel. 1983. “Myths of paradise lost in pre-Hispanic Central Mexico,” Current Anthropology 24 /5(1983):575-588.

 

Jett, Stephen C., “Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts: The Present State of the Evidence,” NEARA Journal, 36/4 (2003):4-8.

 

Jett, Stephen C., Crossing Ancient Oceans. PreColumbian Contact in America (Springer, 2007).

 

Jett, Stephen C., “A ‘Catechism’ for the Pre-Columbian-Transoceanic-Contacts Debate,” NEARA Journal, 46/1 (Summer 2012):43-47, online at http://www.neara.org/images/what/46-1_Jett.pdf .

 

Sorenson, John L., and Martin H. Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography. 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1996).

 

Wirth, Diane E., Parallels: Mesoamerican and Ancient Middle Eastern Traditions (St. George UT: Stonecliff, 2003).

 

 

 

Re the link, I have to give Mr. Jett (UC Davis, Division of Textiles and Clothing) some credit: he took a stab at it.  But, at the end of the day, he has no facts to offer: 

 

"I have developed a “catechism” consisting of the isolationists’/independent-inventionists’ objections and by the transoceanic diffusionists’ appropriate responses. (The factual bases [sic] for these responses are not documented in this short note.) "

 

and that kind of sums it up.

[thesometimesaint]

Much the same has been said about gravity, but no one really disputes that it exists.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I have agreed that there is decent evidence that there are names that retain Old World roots. Although we continue to see "proofs" related to Hebraisms, I believe most of those are based on hunting for things we expect to find rather than actual demonstrable evidence. 

 

The real question is whether or not it is reasonable to expect that archaeology would provide evidence of any Hebrew connections. We have a very, very slim chance at names, since the Maya could represent names. The problem there will be the lack of available texts from the right time period, and then from the right locations. 

 

When the question is archaeology, then we are dealing with physical remains. I have seen no evidence of Hebrew material culture, but that doesn't mean anything for the Book of Mormon because I can't see a good reason to expect any. 

 

When it comes to some of the other types of literary data, it can be inconclusive. There are chiasms in the Book of Mormon. They are certainly there, but it is less certain what they mean. There are also chiasms in Maya literature (the examples coming from after the Book of Mormon). So we have chiasmus in Book of Mormon literature and Maya literature. What was the connection? Was there a connection? Currently, that is an unanswerable question. 

 

There has been a long tradition in Mormon examinations of the New World context of the Book of Mormon to posit Lehites (and usually specifically Nephites) as the cause of New World high culture. That is an unfortunate and ultimately understandable folly, but it is folly and we will do ourselves a favor when we distance ourselves from that concept.

 

That doesn't mean that there isn't support for a historical Book of Mormon, only that attempting to make any statement about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon based on the absence of menorahs or crucifixion scenes (or the presence of crosses) is simply concentrating on the wrong information. Either bending data to find what we are looking for, or complaining that something is absent that should have been present are both issues related to looking for the wrong things.

 

Nice response 

[Robert F. Smith]

Then we agree that there is no one who champions this position.

You spoke of compulsion, which is not the same as academic inquiry or interest.  Indeed, one would have to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks in those terms.  We clearly do not agree on much of anything, Gervin, since you are not really interested in true academic inquiry.

 

Re the link, I have to give Mr. Jett (UC Davis, Division of Textiles and Clothing) some credit: he took a stab at it.  But, at the end of the day, he has no facts to offer: 

 

"I have developed a “catechism” consisting of the isolationists’/independent-inventionists’ objections and by the transoceanic diffusionists’ appropriate responses. (The factual bases [sic] for these responses are not documented in this short note.) "

 

and that kind of sums it up.

 

For those with apriori notions, yes.  For those who are interested in more than "hit and run" comments, of course not.  For Professor Jett, this has been a matter of hard academic inquiry.  You prefer a short note.  That tells us what we need to know.

[canard78]

Nice response

Agreed. Brant is among my favourite contributors here. Really enjoy his perspectives.

[Gervin]

That doesn't mean that there isn't support for a historical Book of Mormon, only that attempting to make any statement about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon based on the absence of menorahs or crucifixion scenes (or the presence of crosses) is simply concentrating on the wrong information. Either bending data to find what we are looking for, or complaining that something is absent that should have been present are both issues related to looking for the wrong things.

 

I don't know anyone who "complains" that "something" is absent with regard to Book of Mormon evidence - archaeological or otherwise.  It is a fact that it is absent.  If a small handful of Hebrews comes to the New World and assimilates into the existing culture without leaving one single trace of their existence, then it might be fair to assume that stories of their 800 year rule of kings and judges and elected leaders, literate in Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian, active in the practice of their Jewish laws and religious beliefs for 600 years and perfect Christian Zion for another 200 years, ongoing wars that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands, etc. etc. ... is simply fiction.  I think you make a strong argument for this consideration.

[Gervin]

You spoke of compulsion, which is not the same as academic inquiry or interest.  Indeed, one would have to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks in those terms.  We clearly do not agree on much of anything, Gervin, since you are not really interested in true academic inquiry.

 

For those with apriori notions, yes.  For those who are interested in more than "hit and run" comments, of course not.  For Professor Jett, this has been a matter of hard academic inquiry.  You prefer a short note.  That tells us what we need to know.

you, honestly, have my sympathy

[Robert F. Smith]

you, honestly, have my sympathy

Thanks, Gervin, I think -- as long as you are actually sincere.  Oh, wait, you have already shown us your true colors several times . . .

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't know anyone who "complains" that "something" is absent with regard to Book of Mormon evidence - archaeological or otherwise.  It is a fact that it is absent.  If a small handful of Hebrews comes to the New World and assimilates into the existing culture without leaving one single trace of their existence, then it might be fair to assume that stories of their 800 year rule of kings and judges and elected leaders, literate in Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian, active in the practice of their Jewish laws and religious beliefs for 600 years and perfect Christian Zion for another 200 years, ongoing wars that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands, etc. etc. ... is simply fiction.  I think you make a strong argument for this consideration.

 

"stories of their 800 year rule of kings and judges and elected leaders"

 

Mesoamerican scholars do not have the history of the proposed Book of Mormon cities. pre-classic archaeology is still in it's infancy.

 

"literate in Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian"

Their Manuscripts did not survive, Mesoamerican climate is not a Near East climate. 

 

"active in the practice of their Jewish laws and religious beliefs for 600 years"

Without manuscripts it is kind of hard to prove that. No need to find a Jewish star of David. 

There was animal sacrifice in Mesoamerica. 

 

"ongoing wars that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands"

there were massive wars in mesoamerica 

 

"is simply fiction"

Archaeology is ongoing, it is hard to prove a negative, why do you try to do it?

 

Some points 

1. Before 1993 there was no evidence that powerful King David existed. 

2. There is no evidence that Essenes lived in the Qumran buildings http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/15scroll.html?_r=0

3. don't have time 

Edited January 21, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

To the OP, there's a different approach similar to loan shifting but I call it qualified naming http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/qualified-naming.html?m=1

[Calm]

Welcome to this board, MPP.

[omni]

To the OP, there's a different approach similar to loan shifting but I call it qualified naming http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/qualified-naming.html?m=1

 

I've always thought the "hippopotamus" explanation for horses in the BoM to be very poor as "river horse" and "horse" are clearly two different names.  You've taken an interesting and plausible approach to explain how tapir may have been called something along the lines of "mountain horse" which over time was shortened to "horse".  That being said, you're missing one very large piece to the puzzle - why would Joseph, who was using divine means for translation, use the literal translation on the plates rather than the intended?  The divine being/power assisting in the translation would certainly have known the trouble these words would have caused, why not use the words "tapir" or "deer" and eliminate what has become a major stumbling block for thousands of faith LDS?

[Kevin Christensen]

When I got to England, I found that what I thought of as French Fries, they called chips. What I called cookies, they called biscuits, and what I thought of as biscuits were very different than that. They had no trucks, but did have lorries. They didn't have elevators, but did have lifts, which did the same things. Cars had boots and bonnets, not trunks, and hoods. What I learned from that experience in a different culture was that the names of things are not eminated from those things, being the same to all observers, but that the names of things are social conventions, and as such, quite malleable. The divine power assisting with Joseph's translation was concerned that the message go out in his language and according to his understanding. If you've ever studied a foreign language (I spent enough time with French to get my English Degree requirement), you learn that different languages are not just a matter of one-to-one substitutions, but sometimes of very different structure and thought forms. And that means that some things are very difficult to translate. All language involves a mix of concrete and metaphor in a very fluid and shifting manner. What is "A chip off the old block?" Is it anything like "an apple that doesn't fall far from the tree?" How can that be if in parenthood (the implicit subject), there are no chips, no blocks, no apples, and no trees? Is the famous New Testament translation about not hiding a candlestick under a bushel a bad translation because in the original, there are neither candlesticks, nor bushels?

River horse and horse are different names. What about quarter horse and horse? Are they as different as sea horse and horse? And of course, there is the basketball game called "horse." But let's pretend, for the same of argument, that names are static things, eminated from objects, and are the same to all observers across all time and cultures, and never have any ambiguity in meaning or use. Does that pretense for the sake of argument, mean that the argument is now on a firm foundation? Or does it mean, that for the sake of the argument, we have ignored the fundamental nature of the real problems involved?

The people who have the most experience to translation across time and culture and language tend not to be as troubled by loan shift. And even those of us are are comfortable with the loan shift arguments are aware that the possibility of a loan shift in a translation made according to his admittedly imperfect understanding within the limitations of his langauge and culture relative to the problems that no translation across language, culture, and time, can ever avoid, are also aware that even Sorenson also reports evidence of pre-Columbian horses that are closer to our culturally conditioned expectation. Loan shift is a real possibility in any translation, not an ad hoc argument invented soley to salvage an otherwise shakey Book of Mormon. It's just a possibility to consider and weigh. Some of us consider the big picture more important than particular details.

Incidentally, in the recent history of the Early Church in Ohio, I noticed a passage about how the bird that we call "quail" went by different names in different communities.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 22, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[omni]

When I got to England, I found that what I thought of as French Fries, they called chips. What I called cookies, they called biscuits, and what I thought of as biscuits were very different than that. They had no trucks, but did have lorries. They didn't have elevators, but did have lifts, which did the same things. Cars had boots and bonnets, not trunks, and hoods. What I learned from that experience in a different culture was that the names of things are not eminated from those things, being the same to all observers, but that the names of things are social conventions, and as such, quite malleable. The divine power assisting with Joseph's translation was concerned that the message go out in his language and according to his understanding. If you've ever studied a foreign language (I spent enough time with French to get my English Degree requirement), you learn that different languages are not just a matter of one-to-one substitutions, but sometimes of very different structure and thought forms. And that means that some things are very difficult to translate. All language involves a mix of concrete and metaphor in a very fluid and shifting manner. What is "A chip off the old block?" Is it anything like "an apple that doesn't fall far from the tree?" How can that be if in parenthood (the implicit subject), there are no chips, no blocks, no apples, and no trees? Is the famous New Testament translation about not hiding a candlestick under a bushel a bad translation because in the original, there are neither candlesticks, nor bushels?

River horse and horse are different names. What about quarter horse and horse? Are they as different as sea horse and horse? And of course, there is the basketball game called "horse." But let's pretend, for the same of argument, that names are static things, eminated from objects, and are the same to all observers across all time and cultures, and never have any ambiguity in meaning or use. Does that pretence for the sake of argument, mean that the argument is now on a firm foundation? Or does it mean, that for the sake of the argument, we have ignored the fundamental nature of the real problems involved?

The people who have the most experience to translation across time and culture and language tend not to be as troubled by loan shift. And even those of us are are comfortable with the loan shift arguments are aware that the possibility of a loan shift in a translation made according to his admittedly imperfect understanding within the limitations of his langauge and culture relative to the problems that no translation across language, culture, and time, can ever avoid, are also aware that even Sorenson also reports evidence of pre-Columbian horses that are closer to our culturally conditioned expectation. Loan shift is a real possibility in any translation, not an ad hoc argument invented soley to salvage an otherwise shakey Book of Mormon. It's just a possibility to consider and weigh. Some of us consider the big picture more important than particular details.

Incidentally, in the recent history of the Early Church in Ohio, I noticed a passage about how the bird that we call "quail" went by different names in different communities.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thanks for your response Kevin.  It seems as though you're still viewing this from the perspective of a traditional translation - which it most certainly was not.  If we still had the gold plates and were able to locate someone who could translate the Reformed Egyptian through natural means, then we could probably expect to see "tapir" being translated as "horse". 

 

However, as I stated in my previous post, Joseph claims to have transalated the BoM through divine means.  Why then are these errors entering into what should be the most important scripture on Earth?  I realize the BoM makes no claims of perfection, but instead of discussing Christ's atonement we're debating whether "cattle" is refering to "bison", something I'm sure the authors would have never intended.  Joseph wasn't working with "greenies" fresh out of the MTC, so why didn't his divine translation powers simply inspired him to write the correct name of the animals/plants/metals and make this entire conversation moot?  IMO nothing, absolutely nothing is gained from the errent translation.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for your response Kevin.  It seems as though you're still viewing this from the perspective of a traditional translation - which it most certainly was not.  If we still had the gold plates and were able to locate someone who could translate the Reformed Egyptian through natural means, then we could probably expect to see "tapir" being translated as "horse". 

 

However, as I stated in my previous post, Joseph claims to have transalated the BoM through divine means.  Why then are these errors entering into what should be the most important scripture on Earth?  I realize the BoM makes no claims of perfection, but instead of discussing Christ's atonement we're debating whether "cattle" is refering to "bison", something I'm sure the authors would have never intended.  Joseph wasn't working with "greenies" fresh out of the MTC, so why didn't his divine translation powers simply inspired him to write the correct name of the animals/plants/metals and make this entire conversation moot?  IMO nothing, absolutely nothing is gained from the errent translation.

Performing a translation with divine assistance in no way removes the nature of translation across culture and language. You still haven't noticed the problem of assuming that there is an unambiguous "correct name" in every instance, and that the appearance of an incorrect name necessarily means that that the purpose of the translation has not been achieved. Candlesticks as we understand them did not exist in New Testament times. Oil lamps yes. But that sort of oil lamp was not current when the KJV scholars went to work.

Were the Brits I met using an incorrect name when they referred to chips when I thought fries? Were they using an incorrect name when they referred to crisps when I thought chips? The presence of inspiration in translation does not remove the problems of language, culture and time. Joseph Smith taught that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. That is a concession to our weakness that we can accept as part of a process of our growth.

The Book of Mormon approach to Christ's Atonement is, I think, quite remarkable. (See my discussion in Paradigms Regained, for instance.)

What if God thinks we ought to understand a bit more about the complexities of translation? What if God is interested in trying our faith? What if God wants us to work a little at understanding the cultural horizons of the ancient world, and to have some enlightening experiences as we plant and nuture those seeds over time, letting our understanding be enlightened and our minds expand? Alma 32 asks us to expect just that sort of thing. Rather than a source of disillusion for me, the process leads to enlightenment.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 23, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Welcome to this board, MPP.

Thank you

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I've always thought the "hippopotamus" explanation for horses in the BoM to be very poor as "river horse" and "horse" are clearly two different names. You've taken an interesting and plausible approach to explain how tapir may have been called something along the lines of "mountain horse" which over time was shortened to "horse". That being said, you're missing one very large piece to the puzzle - why would Joseph, who was using divine means for translation, use the literal translation on the plates rather than the intended? The divine being/power assisting in the translation would certainly have known the trouble these words would have caused, why not use the words "tapir" or "deer" and eliminate what has become a major stumbling block for thousands of faith LDS?

I did try to address that in the article

[omni]

What if God thinks we ought to understand a bit more about the complexities of translation? What if God is interested in trying our faith? What if God wants us to work a little at understanding the cultural horizons of the ancient world, and to have some enlightening experiences as we plant and nuture those seeds over time, letting our understanding be enlightened and our minds expand? Alma 32 asks us to expect just that sort of thing. Rather than a source of disillusion for me, the process leads to enlightenment

If you're going to go down this route there really is no anachronism that can't be explained away.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've always thought the "hippopotamus" explanation for horses in the BoM to be very poor as "river horse" and "horse" are clearly two different names.

Yet, "hippo" and "horse" are both the same word in a different language -- exactly the same word.  Yet one includes an animal which is never known as a "horse" in English.  Moreover, the example is not used as an explanation for horses in the BoM," but only a demonstration as to how such words can get bollixed.  No one is suggesting that the "hippo," "hippopotamus" appeared in ancient America.  It is an excellent demonstration of how such confusion can be innocently created, and such examples can be multiplied many times.

 

................................................ you're missing one very large piece to the puzzle - why would Joseph, who was using divine means for translation, use the literal translation on the plates rather than the intended?  The divine being/power assisting in the translation would certainly have known the trouble these words would have caused, why not use the words "tapir" or "deer" and eliminate what has become a major stumbling block for thousands of faith LDS?

Of course it has not become a stumbling block for thousands of faithful LDS.  Very few Mormons ever even consider such questions.  Those that do are not usually bothered by such red herrings.  Part of the reason is that few LDS have an inerrant view of Scripture, and most understand that the Book of Mormon means what it says when it declares that the things of God should not be condemned simply because of the mistakes of men -- those writing and editing the Book of Mormon frankly stating that they may have made mistakes.

 

Besides, Joseph did not know what a "tapir" was and likely had never heard or read the word.  In any case, Mormons are not the authors of the comparisons.  It was rather the Aztecs who referred to the Spanish horses as "deer," and the Spanish who referred to tapirs as "asses."  There are similarities.  In any event, such legitimate anthropological observations do not claim that the faunal names in the Book of Mormon meant any of those things, but rather that such loan-shifting does take place in the real world.  What that  means for the Book of Mormon is still up in the air, although outright denial of authenticity is just silly in view of such actual comparisons.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you're going to go down this route there really is no anachronism that can't be explained away.

Nonsense.  The clock striking in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1, is an obvious anachronism because striking clocks did not exist in the time of Julius Caesar.  Shakespeare was retrojecting his own culture on the past, and I would be too if I put the words in the mouth of Brutus: "How many apples did you eat?"  Caesar:  "Et tu, Brute."    

 

I don't recommend claiming anachronisms on the cheap for the same reason that I don't recommend cheap grace.  In either case, they are meaningless.  The Bible also contains anachronisms (aside from the one already mentioned, "candelstick"), some based on poor translation, others actually contained in the Hebrew or Greek texts.  Can you mention some, omni?  Some good ones.  Actually there are thousands to choose from.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Remember, the gospel is global. The Book of Mormon gets translated into many languages, and often the languages don't have words for things that are mentioned. And these translations are updated and reviewed, made more accurate with each printing. We should have the same expectation of the English version, realizing the imperfection of human language.

[canard78]

Yet, "hippo" and "horse" are both the same word in a different language -- exactly the same word. Yet one includes an animal which is never known as a "horse" in English. Moreover, the example is not used as an explanation for horses in the BoM," but only a demonstration as to how such words can get bollixed. No one is suggesting that the "hippo," "hippopotamus" appeared in ancient America. It is an excellent demonstration of how such confusion can be innocently created, and such examples can be multiplied many times.

Of course it has not become a stumbling block for thousands of faithful LDS. Very few Mormons ever even consider such questions. Those that do are not usually bothered by such red herrings. Part of the reason is that few LDS have an inerrant view of Scripture, and most understand that the Book of Mormon means what it says when it declares that the things of God should not be condemned simply because of the mistakes of men -- those writing and editing the Book of Mormon frankly stating that they may have made mistakes.

Besides, Joseph did not know what a "tapir" was and likely had never heard or read the word. In any case, Mormons are not the authors of the comparisons. It was rather the Aztecs who referred to the Spanish horses as "deer," and the Spanish who referred to tapirs as "asses." There are similarities. In any event, such legitimate anthropological observations do not claim that the faunal names in the Book of Mormon meant any of those things, but rather that such loan-shifting does take place in the real world. What that means for the Book of Mormon is still up in the air, although outright denial of authenticity is just silly in view of such actual comparisons.

He didn't know what curelom and cumoms were either.

Wouldn't it have been far more faith promoting for Joseph to have dictated their real name (if they really were tapirs) and then looked the word up in a dictionary?

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Tapir

Instead we have the common flora and fauna of Central America conspicuous by their absence. And instead have to apply double meaning to the anachronistic words.

I read Jeff Lindsay suggesting the other day that Ammon's flocks were not sheep but actually domesticated turkeys. I'm sure his fans just gobbled that up. I call fowl. (sorry... I'll get my coat)

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wouldn't it have been far more faith promoting for Joseph to have dictated their real name (if they really were tapirs) and then looked the word up in a dictionary?

 

It depends. Should the Book of Mormon read like a work written from omniscience, or should it read like a genuine translation of a text created by migrants to a new land? Which would be more 'faith promoting'? To you? To me? I'm a professional historian who has spent most of my research in texts produced by those in cultural contact zones. When I read the Book of Mormon, I recognise in its anachronisms a trait that is very familiar to me from these other texts.

[canard78]

It depends. Should the Book of Mormon read like a work written from omniscience, or should it read like a genuine translation of a text created by migrants to a new land? Which would be more 'faith promoting'? To you? To me? I'm a professional historian who has spent most of my research in texts produced by those in cultural contact zones. When I read the Book of Mormon, I recognise in its anachronisms a trait that is very familiar to me from these other texts.

So are you suggesting Nephi/Mormon actually wrote the character "horse?"