Russell C McGregor Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 JAHS, you previously wrote: Quote Lamoni had his horses and chariots prepared for battle to use them to go free his brethren from prison. And then you wrote: 7 hours ago, JAHS said: But he still used them as transportation to go down to free the prisoners. You are clearly shifting the goal posts. He had Ammon looking after his horses and chariots before he had any idea there were prisoners to be freed. He used them for his state visit, as he was always intending to do. The striking thing about the Nephite wars is that they were strictly infantry actions; not a horse or chariot to be seen when they got down to the business of bloodshed.
longview Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 11 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The striking thing about the Nephite wars is that they were strictly infantry actions; not a horse or chariot to be seen when they got down to the business of bloodshed. If the Nephite civilization was centered in mesoamerica, then there were too much jungle and too hilly for effective use of calvary. My family and I were in the Yucatan last December. If I heard right, most roads (if not all) were straight and not broad. It must have taken a large workforce to maintain the roads from encroachments of the jungle. To think of it, there were probably more use of wheels within cities than out in the country.
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 21 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: JAHS, you previously wrote: And then you wrote: You are clearly shifting the goal posts. He had Ammon looking after his horses and chariots before he had any idea there were prisoners to be freed. He used them for his state visit, as he was always intending to do. The striking thing about the Nephite wars is that they were strictly infantry actions; not a horse or chariot to be seen when they got down to the business of bloodshed. It doesn't matter if he was using them for battle or not, he still used them to transport themselves down to to free the prisoners. Using them for transportation is the real issue.
omni Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: Of course, the biggest problem with this question is the many assumptions it makes on the nature of revelation--none of which are attested in the Judeo-Christian history. A problematic question in this case is more the result of the problems of the assumptions, not the data. I'd be curious to know your ideas of how the revelation process occurred, especially in light of the Church's essay confirming that Joseph read the words aloud as they appeared on the seer stone. Edited February 24, 2016 by omni
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: I have a hard time understanding your issue. I assume that you are willing to read any number of English translations of the Bible, understanding that they differently represent the original languages--and that "original" is a relative term related to the compilers. How do we understand any Judeo-Christian doctrine that has been transmitted through so many humans with their hands on the text, copying the text, different languages, and sometimes distance from the reported information? Answer the question of how we could understand New Testament doctrine in English, and then we can proceed to your question about the Book of Mormon. Once again, you are asking a question that demonstrates a problem with your assumptions. Of course the Bible has undergone many translations which is why I understand it might be difficult to trust what it says except by what our prophets interpret it to be. Our prophets today can also help us understand the doctrines of the Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon has been translated only once. This would tend to make me believe that what it says now is really what the ancient text said. I am not making assumptions I am reading what the words say and believe that they mean exactly what they say. It was translated so people of our time would understand it clearly and not have to worry about whether or not the words used mean what we think they mean. I just think people sometimes try to make the words in the Book fit what science has discovered, or not discovered so far. The simplest understanding is that the Nephites had chariots (wheels or not) that were pulled by horses (not tapirs). Rather than try to explain away supposed anachronisms why not just be patient and wait for more things to be discovered by science? Edited February 24, 2016 by JAHS
Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 19 minutes ago, omni said: I'd be curious to know your ideas of how the revelation process occurred, especially in light of the Church's essay confirming that Joseph read the words aloud as they appeared on the seer stone. The best explanation would be the book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, that costs money. There is a transcript of a presentation i gave at a FairMormon conference in 2011 that might give you an idea. I agree that Joseph "read" the translation--but the relation of the words and seer stones is different. I don't know of any natural way that the words would appear on a stone. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that he saw something. I try to resolve that issue. 1
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: The best explanation would be the book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, that costs money. There is a transcript of a presentation i gave at a FairMormon conference in 2011 that might give you an idea. I agree that Joseph "read" the translation--but the relation of the words and seer stones is different. I don't know of any natural way that the words would appear on a stone. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that he saw something. I try to resolve that issue. This kind of relates to what I have been saying. If the correct words, that people in the 20th century could relate to, appeared on the stones and Joseph read off the words, why would a horse not mean a horse as we know it?
Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, JAHS said: This kind of relates to what I have been saying. If the correct words, that people in the 20th century could relate to, appeared on the stones and Joseph read off the words, why would a horse not mean a horse as we know it? When you say "if the correct words, that people in the 20th century could relate to, appeared on the stones," you are making two assumptions. Others have as well, so it isn't surprising. Nevertheless, they are assumptions. Let's begin with "the correct words." Why would you think that? Where is the evidence for it? Joseph Smith himself edited the text, so clearly he didn't think they were "correct" in the first rendition. As for being something people in the 20th century could related to, you should mean 19th century. Even then, that is an assumption of how the translation process occurred. There have been some infallible translation theories proposed, but none of them have withstood the currently known data. For example, early eye witnesses indicated that Joseph couldn't get it wrong, even if it had been written wrong. We know that is incorrect from the errors in the Original and Printer's manuscripts. The problem with what you suggest for "horse" is that it is totally dependent upon assumptions of the translation process which have been contradicted by current scholarship on the manuscripts and the history of the various statements about translation. So we are back to the problem of translation. How could "horse" occur in a translation? There are two reasonable theories: Sorenson's and mine. I think more people lean to Sorenson's, but I'll keep working on that. What we can say is that infallible translation is not an option. 1
ksfisher Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 19 minutes ago, JAHS said: This kind of relates to what I have been saying. If the correct words, that people in the 20th century could relate to, appeared on the stones and Joseph read off the words, why would a horse not mean a horse as we know it? How does Ether 9:19 fit into this view? And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: How does Ether 9:19 fit into this view? And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. They had cureloms and cumoms back then and we don't now. So there was nothing else to call them. 14 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: What we can say is that infallible translation is not an option. I understand that there were errors in the printer's manuscript which made it imperfect, but were those errors the source of completely different words being used that were not supposed to be used?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 2 hours ago, JAHS said: ............................................................ I understand that there were errors in the printer's manuscript which made it imperfect, but were those errors the source of completely different words being used that were not supposed to be used? There were indeed errors in both the Original and Printers Manuscripts, misspellings and wrong words used, along with no punctuation -- which matters a great deal when the printer sets type -- the meaning of a sentence may change completely in meaning. Then Joseph Smith himself and others have made changes in the text, changing words and grammar where they thought it would improve the text. There are thousands of those. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: ........................................................... As for being something people in the 20th century could related to, you should mean 19th century. Even then, that is an assumption of how the translation process occurred....................................................... Yes, and we can go even further (if we agree with Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack) in suggesting the early 16th century -- when Early Modern English was in vogue. As Carmack and Skousen point out, the meanings of words and phrases differ considerably in that early form of English. Our understanding of the current text of the BofM is placed in jeopardy in such cases, just as it is in many cases in the 1611 KJ Bible.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 For the ""read it off the stone" believers you run into the problem of D&C 9.
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There were indeed errors in both the Original and Printers Manuscripts, misspellings and wrong words used, along with no punctuation -- which matters a great deal when the printer sets type -- the meaning of a sentence may change completely in meaning. Then Joseph Smith himself and others have made changes in the text, changing words and grammar where they thought it would improve the text. There are thousands of those. But would this account for every place the word horse or chariot was used incorrectly? That was what I was referring to.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, JAHS said: But would this account for every place the word horse or chariot was used incorrectly? That was what I was referring to. No, but you asked the general question, and I wanted to clarify the basic scholarly position. If you are asking about the existence of horses and chariots in the New World, that is another matter completely. Then three considerations always apply: 1. the date of the reference in the text 2. the literary context of the reference in the text 3. actual use of the terms in anthropological reality, which entails at least three further considerations: a. use of such words by the Conquistadores b. use of such words by the Amerindian population c. archeological findings in time and space 3
Gervin Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Our understanding of the current text of the BofM is placed in jeopardy in such cases, just as it is in many cases in the 1611 KJ Bible. The difference being, of course, that the 1611 KJ Bible was a translation from known source languages, manuscripts, other translations, etc. There is no credible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gervin said: The difference being, of course, that the 1611 KJ Bible was a translation from known source languages, manuscripts, other translations, etc. There is no credible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation. There are no original texts for the Christian Bible.
Gervin Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: There are no original texts for the Christian Bible. Correct. So what?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gervin said: The difference being, of course, that the 1611 KJ Bible was a translation from known source languages, manuscripts, other translations, etc. There is no credible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation. I wasn't referring to that basic question, Gervin, but rather to the fact that both the Book of Mormon and the King James Version of the Bible are rendered in Early Modern English (16th century), which has many words and phrases which are opaque to current readers. However there is plenty of credible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient Near Eastern language document, i.e., strongly influenced by both Hebrew and Egyptian. One can see this in explicit and implied etymologies of words given in the text itself, as well as in the puns (wordplay) used in various places. Prof. Matt Bowen of BYU-Hawaii has been particularly assiduous in demonstrating the latter. Have you paid attention to his various articles in recent years? 3
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 On 2/23/2016 at 10:38 AM, TrespassersW said: Brant, Thank you for your answer, and I apologize for jumping back to this. I only infrequently visit this board. I've read a good deal of your publications and I'm familiar some of your arguments (though I may sometimes be fuzzy on the details, sorry). I'm not trying to put forth any argument myself, as I don't currently consider myself educated enough to do so intelligently. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the evidence. The roads not having wear patterns is something I've not heard before, so I'm just trying to drill down a bit. If these roads were used pretty much exclusively for foot traffic, and not with anything that rolled or dragged, how do we reconcile that with Lamoni's journey in Alma 20. I think it's pretty clear that Lamoni traveled with his chariots, whatever they were. And since they met his father along the way, I assume they traveled some sort of road. So, wouldn't that suggest that the chariots were used on the roads? So, shouldn't we expect the roads to show some sort of wear pattern to that effect? Am I oversimplifying or missing something here? What kind of wear would one look for when one doesn't know WHAT to look for? What kind of wear does an unknown conveyance make? Unknown. Perhaps it is not even distinguishable as "wear" but as "erosion". What is the difference between wear and erosion? Or weathering? When you walk on very old stone walkways in Europe, the stone is just smooth, or perhaps stairs have a "dip" in them denoting wear of some kind, but what precisely caused the wear? It could be anything. Chariots of course as on Roman roads leave the very distinctive 2 ruts as we might see on dirt roads today, or on the freeway for that matter. But what wear would a "Non-chariot" chariot leave? Impossible to say
Gervin Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: However there is plenty of credible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient Near Eastern language document, i.e., strongly influenced by both Hebrew and Egyptian. One can see this in explicit and implied etymologies of words given in the text itself, as well as in the puns (wordplay) used in various places. Prof. Matt Bowen of BYU-Hawaii has been particularly assiduous in demonstrating the latter. Have you paid attention to his various articles in recent years? I've read some of Bowen's material and it's clear that his is a faith-promoting effort for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon. I can see why you would be impressed, especially since he cites you on occaision. In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources.
TrespassersW Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What kind of wear would one look for when one doesn't know WHAT to look for? What kind of wear does an unknown conveyance make? Unknown. Perhaps it is not even distinguishable as "wear" but as "erosion". What is the difference between wear and erosion? Or weathering? When you walk on very old stone walkways in Europe, the stone is just smooth, or perhaps stairs have a "dip" in them denoting wear of some kind, but what precisely caused the wear? It could be anything. Chariots of course as on Roman roads leave the very distinctive 2 ruts as we might see on dirt roads today, or on the freeway for that matter. But what wear would a "Non-chariot" chariot leave? Impossible to say You've responded to my post, but I think that ought to be directed at Brant. He was the one who claimed that the roads showed no specific wear patterns of any kind of conveyance, wheeled or otherwise. For my part, Brant's answer that these paved roads were very very rare causes me to consider them most likely largely irrelevant to the Book of Mormon.
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What kind of wear would one look for when one doesn't know WHAT to look for? What kind of wear does an unknown conveyance make? Unknown. Perhaps it is not even distinguishable as "wear" but as "erosion". What is the difference between wear and erosion? Or weathering? When you walk on very old stone walkways in Europe, the stone is just smooth, or perhaps stairs have a "dip" in them denoting wear of some kind, but what precisely caused the wear? It could be anything. Chariots of course as on Roman roads leave the very distinctive 2 ruts as we might see on dirt roads today, or on the freeway for that matter. But what wear would a "Non-chariot" chariot leave? Impossible to say Could be we are just not looking in the right place. It's quite obvious to me that Lamoni's attitude in going to free the prisoners was that he was going prepared to fight to get them out if needed and that he required horses and chariots to make the journey. The simplest explanation is that he used horses and chariots. I don't see why God would allow Joseph Smith to translate the plates into words that do not mean what we expect them to mean. I think we worry too much about the lack of archaeological evidence so far to support the words as they are. Could be we just haven't found the evidence yet. To quote from Lucy Mack Smith: "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." We are told he knew what these things looked like through visions he had of them. I wish we had more details of what Joseph Smith said he saw.
Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 11 minutes ago, JAHS said: To quote from Lucy Mack Smith: "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." We are told he knew what these things looked like through visions he had of them. I wish we had more details of what Joseph Smith said he saw. I certainly agree that he had a vision of the area. However, historians understand that there are problems with accepting late remembrances without qualifications. I think the "animals upon which they rode" falls into that category. It was certainly a logical statement, but one that came some fifty years after the fact. In the meantime, community definitions had already altered the way in which certain things were perceived (such as the introduction of the term urim and thummim for the interpreters--which then became the term for seer stones).
Recommended Posts