3,000 Year old Wheel Discovered...No Not Nephite

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is not supportable from the Scriptures.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.7?lang=eng

Since the word "translate" also meant "transmit" back then, I don't see the problem.  Not for Joseph and not for Oliver.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Interestingly, Carmack has recently shifted his timeframe. He now places the translation after that of the KJV (which is chronologically better because the evidence won't allow it to be earlier).

However, I must note that I disagree with both the timing and the suggestion that someone other than Joseph was responsible for the English translation. 

Will we see an article in Interpreter going over those crucial points? Just now it is all terra incognita.

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain Mormon 9 to me, which can not be explained by claiming that Joseph Smith just used what is said in Mark or other scriptures. Moroni specifically said that Jesus said it when He was there 400 years earlier. If Joseph did just repeat what was in Mark, it was a mistake to do so because the mark scriptures were written long after Jesus supposedly said those words when He visited the Nephites. 
In my opinion Jesus really did say those things to the Nephites,; I trust the Book of Mormon more than the Bible on this;  but I can't explain how the exact words end up in Mark later on. Could be there is no answer to this question.

Didn't Jesus say that He spoke nothing except what the Father told Him to speak? Scripture was already written. I'm not quite sure I understand your difficulty. If Jesus spoke words to the Nephites that He also spoke to Jerusalem as recorded in Mark, what is the issue? Mark simply records what the Holy Spirit reminded Mark Jesus had said. The same Holy Spirit was in the heart of Moroni. Was the Holy Spirit wrong? Was Jesus wrong? Why is it a mistake for Mark to record the same words as Moroni or Mormon? Do you believe God did not give those words to both? Is it a mistake for the Lord to render the Book of Mormon into the same KJV language the people were used to reading in their Bibles?

 

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and I said: " Well, then, please give us your learned opinion on what Gervin said"  Perhaps you could expand on his blanket statement with something substantive.  Gervin either doesn't know how, or is fearful of doing so.  C'mon Johnnie.  Say something meaningful.

 

I can feel the condescension of your challenge dripping from every syllable of your taunt to “C'mon Johnnie.  Say something meaningful”  With you being the ultimate judge of what is and isn’t meaningful right?. Well sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not biting.

But if I were to reply, and I'm not…here is what I would like to say to you…but of course I won’t really say this because I enjoy being able to post here and don’t want to get banned…but if I did post something hypothetically, it might go something like this…

Oh please Mr. Smith if you, from your enlightened perch high up there on your Rameumptom, could just allow a droplet of cool water to merely drip from the tip of your little finger onto my spiritually parched and hardened apostate heart…then perhaps it might be softened and be able to withstand the magnanimous light imitating from your loftier intellect and countenance. Blah blah blah…

But since I don’t want to get banned I won’t post that…

So get over yourself, Robert.  I’m sure you believe you’re hot stuff in these parts…but in reality…you’re nothing more than a big fish in the very small pond of Mormon apologetics.  You are the one making claims and apologetics to prop up a reality for the Book of Mormon, not I…and while you believe your audience is here in MD&D and your Mormon tribe, it’s really to a much tougher and skeptical crowd…the market place of public opinion and its ultimate scrutiny of your apologetic theories….which to date have failed to gain any traction outside of your tribe.

We often forget just how ridiculous it all is as we discuss the intricacies of apologetic arguments, the lack or abundance of evidence, depending from which side you are viewing it from, to support the Book of Mormon. While in the real world, time marches on and the human race continues to move forward in complete ignorance of Mormonism or views it as a mere oddity or curiosity.  We all seem to forget that in the grand scheme of things just how insignificant and small “The Church” really is…

Edited February 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Didn't Jesus say that He spoke nothing except what the Father told Him to speak? Scripture was already written. I'm not quite sure I understand your difficulty. If Jesus spoke words to the Nephites that He also spoke to Jerusalem as recorded in Mark, what is the issue? Mark simply records what the Holy Spirit reminded Mark Jesus had said. The same Holy Spirit was in the heart of Moroni. Was the Holy Spirit wrong? Was Jesus wrong? Why is it a mistake for Mark to record the same words as Moroni or Mormon? Do you believe God did not give those words to both? Is it a mistake for the Lord to render the Book of Mormon into the same KJV language the people were used to reading in their Bibles?

 

 

 

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that the majority of Bible scholars believe that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were not part of the original text, and were an addition by Christians a couple hundred years later.  Which means Jesus didn't really say those things in Mark, but somehow they are repeated word for word in Mormon 9.  I tend to believe Jesus really did say those things (or something similar) to the disciples when He was on the American continent, but if Jesus didn't ever really say those words in Mark, Joseph should not have copied them from the Bible. 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can feel the condescension of your challenge dripping from every syllable of your taunt to “C'mon Johnnie.  Say something meaningful”  With you being the ultimate judge of what is and isn’t meaningful right?. Well sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not biting.

But if I were to reply, and I'm not…here is what I would like to say to you…but of course I won’t really say this because I enjoy being able to post here and don’t want to get banned…but if I did post something hypothetically, it might go something like this…

Oh please Mr. Smith if you, from your enlightened perch high up there on your Rameumptom, could just allow a droplet of cool water to merely drip from the tip of your little finger onto my spiritually parched and hardened apostate heart…then perhaps it might be softened and be able to withstand the magnanimous light imitating from your loftier intellect and countenance. Blah blah blah…

But since I don’t want to get banned I won’t post that…

So get over yourself, Robert.  I’m sure you believe you’re hot stuff in these parts…but in reality…you’re nothing more than a big fish in the very small pond of Mormon apologetics.  You are the one making claims and apologetics to prop up a reality for the Book of Mormon, not I…and while you believe your audience is here in MD&D and your Mormon tribe, it’s really to a much tougher and skeptical crowd…the market place of public opinion and its ultimate scrutiny of your apologetic theories….which to date have failed to gain any traction outside of your tribe.

We often forget just how ridiculous it all is as we discuss the intricacies of apologetic arguments, the lack or abundance of evidence, depending from which side you are viewing it from, to support the Book of Mormon. While in the real world, time marches on and the human race continues to move forward in complete ignorance of Mormonism or views it as a mere oddity or curiosity.  We all seem to forget that in the grand scheme of things just how insignificant and small “The Church” really is…

My request was sincere, Johnnie.  I actually thought that you might have some substantive contribution to make to this discussion, and am very disappointed that you refuse to participate in a real exchange of views.  Do you really only have insults to toss around?  Is that the extent of your case against Mormonism?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that the majority of Bible scholars believe that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were not part of the original text, and were an addition by Christians a couple hundred years later.  Which means Jesus didn't really say those things in Mark, but somehow they are repeated word for word in Mormon 9.  I tend to believe Jesus really did say those things (or something similar) to the disciples when He was on the American continent, but if Jesus didn't ever really say those words in Mark, Joseph should not have copied them from the Bible. 

Yet Joseph could not have copied them from any Bible, since the translation of the Book of Mormon took place centuries before Joseph was born.  Moreover, since you think that Jesus actually said those words at some point  in his career, why could they not be part of the inspired record produced by Mormon and Moroni?  I don't see the problem.

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that the majority of Bible scholars believe that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were not part of the original text, and were an addition by Christians a couple hundred years later.  Which means Jesus didn't really say those things in Mark, but somehow they are repeated word for word in Mormon 9.  I tend to believe Jesus really did say those things (or something similar) to the disciples when He was on the American continent, but if Jesus didn't ever really say those words in Mark, Joseph should not have copied them from the Bible. 

Oh, sorry, I haven't really been following the thread. I'm not up to date on the newest scholarship concerning Mark 16:9-20 - I took a NT course which included the subject many years ago. But the evidence of it's later addition is pretty slim as I recall, and there really aren't any manuscripts older than about the fifth century. That leaves statements and quotations of early scholars etc, which I feel are often inappropriately utilized such as in the justifications for the Johannine Comma. carry on....

[thesometimesaint]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the word "translate" also meant "transmit" back then, I don't see the problem.  Not for Joseph and not for Oliver.

In either event that is not supported by the Scriptures. It clearly states that Oliver had to ask what the words meant. If it was just reading words off the stone. Then no asking would have been required.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet Joseph could not have copied them from any Bible, since the translation of the Book of Mormon took place centuries before Joseph was born.  Moreover, since you think that Jesus actually said those words at some point  in his career, why could they not be part of the inspired record produced by Mormon and Moroni?  I don't see the problem.

"Yet Joseph could not have copied them from any Bible, since the translation of the Book of Mormon took place centuries before Joseph was born."

I don't believe this. Every time you say this I feel like I have entered the twilight zone.

I do believe they are and can be part of the record; I don't dispute that. But if Bible scholars are correct, Joseph should not have copied the exact words from Mark 16, since Jesus did not actually say them; but of course you don't believe he did copy them so we really can't continue this conversation.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My request was sincere, Johnnie.  I actually thought that you might have some substantive contribution to make to this discussion, and am very disappointed that you refuse to participate in a real exchange of views.  Do you really only have insults to toss around?  Is that the extent of your case against Mormonism?

My request was sincere, Johnnie.  I actually thought that you might have some substantive contribution to make to this discussion, and am very disappointed that you refuse to participate in a real exchange of views.  Do you really only have insults to toss around?  Is that the extent of your case against Mormonism?

haha...yes your innocent request is dripping with sincerity Robert.  To be honest I'm aware of Skousen’s 15^th -16^th century ghost translation theory but I’ve never thought it credible.  I guess once you step outside of the real world and adopt a magical worldview pretty much any explanation is possible, even an Elizabethan ghost…but I wouldn’t really have anything to add to this frankly bizarre apologetic theory. 

Frankly, it just seems much more plausible to accept that Joseph Smith wrote the book.  I accept BH Robert’s analysis…that he had the talent, the means and the time to write the book…no need to blame ghosts when it was all within Joseph’s wheel-house to produce the book.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet Joseph could not have copied them from any Bible, since the translation of the Book of Mormon took place centuries before Joseph was born.  Moreover, since you think that Jesus actually said those words at some point  in his career, why could they not be part of the inspired record produced by Mormon and Moroni?  I don't see the problem.

JAHS   You do realize that you are arguing with a man who believes that an Elizabethan Ghost translated the golden plates before Joseph Smith did and then transmitted them to Joseph again via his Seer Stone Right?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

JAHS   You do realize that you are arguing with a man who believe an Elizabethan Ghost translated the golden plates before Joseph Smith did and then transmitted them to Joseph again via his Seer Stone Right?

Yes. At first when he was saying that I thought it was just a type-o and he really meant the Bible was translated to English in the 1500s. 

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Will we see an article in Interpreter going over those crucial points? Just now it is all terra incognita.

I am revising the draft--but got delayed with my regular workload. It is coming--at some point.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

"Yet Joseph could not have copied them from any Bible, since the translation of the Book of Mormon took place centuries before Joseph was born."

I don't believe this. Every time you say this I feel like I have entered the twilight zone.

I do believe they are and can be part of the record; I don't dispute that. But if Bible scholars are correct, Joseph should not have copied the exact words from Mark 16, since Jesus did not actually say them; but of course you don't believe he did copy them so we really can't continue this conversation.

The latest research does leave us in a kind of limbo.  Not sure what it all means yet.  Something like discovering that the universe is nearly all composed of dark energy and dark matter, which we cannot see and cannot measure.  Makes it difficult to continue the conversation on the laws of physics, now that the rug has been pulled out from under us.

Yet, without any evidence, you claim that Joseph copied the exact words of Mark 16, and then you claim that Jesus never ever said those words.  Perhaps you could throw a little discussion in there on agrapha of Jesus, and how in fact Jesus could have said those words in another context and document which we no longer have.  That someone may have pasted them into the Mark ending doesn't seem so strange, even if they don't belong there originally.  Try approaching the question like a scholar.

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, without any evidence, you claim that Joseph copied the exact words of Mark 16, and then you claim that Jesus never ever said those words.  Perhaps you could throw a little discussion in there on agrapha of Jesus, and how in fact Jesus could have said those words in another context and document which we no longer have.  That someone may have pasted them into the Mark ending doesn't seem so strange, even if they don't belong there originally.  Try approaching the question like a scholar.

I claimed no such thing. I only repeated what Bible scholars have said about Mark 16. I believe they were wrong about that and that He actually did say those things. You are not listening to what I have been saying. 

You keep stating that the Book of Mormon was translated by someone else before Joseph Smith as if it were fact, when it is not proven. In my opinion that's not being very scholarly. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by JAHS

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/25/2016 at 4:32 PM, Gervin said:

here's one example:

The majority of modern scholars have accepted that the sources used for the King James Version are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g., see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls). The Book of Mormon claims to have been written over 1100 years prior to the King James Version, but it contains some of the same errors. One example is Mark 16:15-18, which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. The passage concerns believers holding snakes and drinking poison; however, it does not appear in many early biblical manuscripts and is widely believed to have been composed in the 2nd century. Additionally, the Book of Mormon reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced.

Which does not answer the question before you.

Your theory (supposedly constructed to explain the data, but really to support your bibliolatrous superstition) may lead to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a modern text; but your original claim was:

Quote

The Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources.

I asked you for a reference to the Book of Mormon itself. You've ducked and hid behind the opinions of "modern scholars."

Given that you have defaulted on your CFR, the matter is clearly settled.  The Book of Mormon itself does not testify to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. 

And anyone who claims that it does, is bearing false witness against it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/26/2016 at 8:05 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Frankly, it just seems much more plausible to accept that Joseph Smith wrote the book.  I accept BH Robert’s analysis…that he had the talent, the means and the time to write the book…no need to blame ghosts when it was all within Joseph’s wheel-house to produce the book.

Except that that was not B. H. Roberts' "analysis." It was an argument he put forward to see how it would stack up. He said so himself.

B. H. Roberts actually believed the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be, and that Joseph told the truth about it. Anyone who contradicts that view, while claiming to agree with him, is deliberately abusing him.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Except that that was not B. H. Roberts' "analysis." It was an argument he put forward to see how it would stack up. He said so himself.

B. H. Roberts actually believed the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be, and that Joseph told the truth about it. Anyone who contradicts that view, while claiming to agree with him, is deliberately abusing him.

 

I could be wrong and will admit such if you can show me where he stated such. I believe you're just regergitating the apologetics to his analysis not what he actually stated but I could be wrong 

[TrespassersW]

55 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I could be wrong and will admit such if you can show me where he stated such. I believe you're just regergitating the apologetics to his analysis not what he actually stated but I could be wrong 

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth… I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon.

-excerpt from the cover letter accompanying the text "Study of the Book of Mormon"

Shamelessly regurgitated by mopologists at:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

And in the Ensign at:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/03/b-h-roberts-seeker-after-truth?lang=eng

If you wish to examine the letter yourself, I believe it may be found under Special Collections in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I could be wrong and will admit such if you can show me where he stated such.

Gladly.

Quote

In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a "study of Book of Mormon origins," for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.

Those are his own words, from the cover letter accompanying the book.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I believe you're just regergitating the apologetics to his analysis not what he actually stated but I could be wrong 

While I believe you're just regurgitating the standard anti-Mormon polemics attempting to exploit his book to attack the work he spent his life defending; but I could be wrong.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

At this late stage, relying on the 1923 Roberts Study, is exactly like dropping down a hole one scholar wide and 93 years deep. The view is not exactly panoramic.  It should be obvious, crucial, and decisive that Roberts had not read and could not consider the work of Hugh Nibley, Ancient American Setting, Mormon's Codex, Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin's Speech "That Ye May Learn Wisdom, the Second Witness Commentaries, In the Footsteps of Lehi, The Most Correct Book, Book of Mormon Authorship, and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, "Paradigms Regain: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies" the FARMS Review, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, numerous other significant studies, and not even Welch's essential 1985 Preliminary report with the rather significant title, "Finding Answers to B. H. Roberts Questions and an "Unparallel."

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=71

It's basically an argument based on an authority who demonstrably lacks authority.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[omni]

On 2/26/2016 at 11:45 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You are introducing a step which is not necessary.  The translation was completed in Early Modern English centuries before Joseph was born.  He had only to read it off.  No necessity of consulting a Bible, since those sections had already been completed and Joseph was merely reading them off the stone.  Whoever did the actual translation by the gift and power of God could presumably have depended on that same power to render biblical passages in a style familiar in various English translation already available even before the KJV -- even though Carmack may have shifted to a time shortly after the appearance of the KJV (for all we know, Miles Smith, editor of the KJV, may be the translator of the Book of Mormon).

Robert, with all due respect, you're better than this.  Carmack's theory is nonsensical, even many of the faithful here find it ridiculous.  Am I correct that you are arguing the divine translators chose the KJV over the original text so that the modern reader would be familiar with it?  Why?  How does that help me, the reader, become closer to God?  Wasn't one of the reasons the apostasy occurred was due to the "plain and precious things which had been taken away" from the Bible?  Yet we are to believe the divine translators chose the KJV as their default source for the "most correct book on earth'?  With that in mind, I'm curious how the following scriptures fit into your theory.  

"And I did it because I knew that thou are obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass."

1 Nephi 20:4

"Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass."

Isaiah 48:4

Although the two scriptures are similar, there are differences.  Why did the divine translators not choose the KJV translation in this case (and other similar examples)?  What major mistakes were corrected, what new doctrine did we learn?

 

[Johnnie Cake]

17 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Gladly.

Those are his own words, from the cover letter accompanying the book.

While I believe you're just regurgitating the standard anti-Mormon polemics attempting to exploit his book to attack the work he spent his life defending; but I could be wrong.

 

Thank you. I stand corrected. BH Roberts and I therefore hold different views of the Book of Mormon

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you. I stand corrected. BH Roberts and I therefore hold different views of the Book of Mormon

Thank you for your gracious admission.