NT Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

[ink]

Joseph's statement of the witnesses flaws did not mean they lied about atleast about the Book of Mormon. I think it's false logic to believe the witnesses had to be perfect or they can't be trusted in regards to anything.

I'm sorry, but character witnesseses must be subjected to character tests. One can't cherry pick only those quotes that support them.

What kind of a "voice" did David hear then?  ... if he gave way to the spirit of anger and retaliation, he invited Satan to inspire him and deceive him. For instance, once in later life he was tempted to lead, thereby dictating several revelations that he later considered false. 36 The Far West "voice" might fall into this category.

Or vice-versa. The witnesses are, at a minimum, unreliable. Daniel was ignoring this in that paper (as it is his job to do; to present the best possible face for the church). Taking this to the next step in the thought process of the essay; what is the simplest explanation? That they saw the plates with their "spriritual eyes" and were visited by angels and then, later on were told by Satan to join another church? How often does that happen in everyday life? I've never experienced it, nor do I know anybody who has -- the closest we get is a fuzzy feeling when good things are contemplated.

[offtopic]I know, I know. Alma warned about this sort of thought process. But at least Korihor was struck dumb when he asked for a sign. All I got was indigestion. And the pope goes to the hospital instead of getting healed by faith, just like Gordon B. Hinkley, Sheik Ammar al-Hilali and my son with asthma.[/offtopic]

This is demonstrably false. Oliver and Martin returned. Hyrum was still a member when he was killed along with Joseph...

Sorry; I'll re-phrase. By 1847, none of the surviving witnesses were members of the church. Some did later re-join.

All of this evidence (from the witnesse's statements, the original manuscript, the printer's manuscript, and from the text itself) is thus consistent with the hypothesis that Joseph Smith could actually see (whether in the interpreters themselves or in his mind's eye) the translated English text

[wenglund]

Hi Markk,

Were you thinking that by stating the same demonstrably false and absurd things over and over again, that they would mystically become true?

If so, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that won't happen--at least not to the rationally minded.

In fact, all it does is underscore what I have previously said.

Anyway, once you have gone back through and carefully and thoughtfully consider my analogy, and are able to accurately tell me what the point was that my analogy was intended to convey, then that will suffice as indication that you are finally ready to intelligently and respectfully discuss (rather than flippantly dismiss and mindlessly proclaim), and are prepared to understand my earlier comment and questions.

Until then, bye!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[pseudogratix]

ink,

As things stand based on the facts currently known and taken as a whole, the witnesses are very reliable. You may wish to consider reading the whole book I quoted from. It is available in GospeLink. ("Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" by Richard Lloyd Anderson@ http://gospelink.com/library/toc?book_id=710 )

Which would dove-tail nicely with the theory that he wrote the book in the intervening years and then simply dictated it to the various scribes.

Perhaps. What do you have to support such a theory?

As for the JST and in regard to the translation of the Book of Mormon, you really ought to consider reading up on these issues if you would like to participate in an informed discussion. For starters, check out the articles @ http://fairlds.org/apol/ai102.html and http://fairlds.org/apol/ai120.html

[Dale]

Hi,

The problem with debate is that it can sometimes end in accusing the other person of not being sincere. Let's discuss the issues not the sincerity of somebody who dissagrees with LDS apologetics.

Martin Luther had a testimony of Christianity as he understood it. But he was also an anti-semite who favored polygamy in some cases. Who knows what else he was into? Based on a character tests missaplied to him we could reject him as a trustworthy witness.

Sincerely,

Dale

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark.

That was awesome. What a trooper you are to answer all of us attackers. The Biblical notion of apotheosis probably deserves its own thread. Simply put, there is nothing anti-Christian about the notion. Jesus himself identified humanity as gods and the Apostle Paul repeatedly professed the possibility of deification through Christ. So, rather than post a lengthy reply, I

[wenglund]

Hi,

The problem with debate is that it can sometimes end in accusing the other person of not being sincere. Let's discuss the issues not the sincerity of somebody who dissagrees with LDS apologetics.

Hi Dale,

Actually, as I see it, the problem with some debates (or, as I prefer to call them, interfaith discussions) is that some people don't know how to debate/discuss. They only know how to assert--and not very logically at that. Their presence has a tendancy to thwart or kill the discussion in spite of their sincerity.

Another problem is that some people don't understand the vast difference between discussing someones lack of sincerity (I am not sure who you had in mind here), and discussing someone's unwillingness or inability to carry on a thoughtful, reasoned, and mutually respectful interfaith discussion.

These same people too often fail to see the irony in chastizing others for discussing things like sincerity (or, more correctly, things like one's unwillingness to reasonably and respectfully contribute to interfaith discussions), rather than the discussing the issue, when their chastizement, itself, is off topic. ;-)

But, given your stated interest to insure that an appropriate discussion takes place, then if you can somehow encourage Markk to do as asked, that would be in everyone's best interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[1dc]

This is demonstrably false. Oliver and Martin returned. Hyrum was still a member when he was killed along with Joseph...

Sorry; I'll re-phrase. By 1847, none of the surviving witnesses were members of the church. Some did later re-join.

Though still not on topic, perhaps continuous rephrasing would be helpful to get the truly important positive and negative points out there . . something like: of the original witnesses who weren't matyred, all maintained their testimony of divine verification of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's role in its translation even though each went through personal challenges of faith resulting in excommunication with rebaptism for some of them.

[Dale]

Hi,

Wade I always try to be a peace maker. I can deal with Mark not liking other persons positive positions on Mormonism. I dealt with some of his concerns in a previous post. I saw some of his points had merit. I occasionally lose my temper with the critics. I decided I couldn't control others I can only have power to control myself.

Sincerely,

Dale

----------

Everyone,

I was reading tonight that 27,000 words are thought by critics to have been plagiarized from the King James Bible. How did Joseph Smith Jr. remember all those words when translating? From the Book of Isaiah 22 chapters are cited. I am not convinced he had a Bible, or secret manuscript in front of him. But if nobody saw him with a Bible remembering all those words would be an astounding feat for anyone. If he tore a few pages from the Bible & dictated it I think the Book of Mormon would have taken much more than two months to produce. I have tried to consider the charge of plagiarism but am not sure that Joseph Smith Jr. fabricated the book from his memory of the KJV alone.

Sincerely,

Dale

[John Russell]

You said..

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

I

[Ray Agostini]

I offer the following food for thought on Biblical anachronisms:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/anachronisms.html

    * Josephus Antiquities Book 1, Chapter 9. This chapter alone reveals two geographic anachronisms. Relating events of the time of Abraham, Josephus refers to it as a day "when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia." The geographic term "Asia" was derived from the Greeks who called the east asu and was not used at the time of the Assyrians.

      In the same book, Josephus refers to the five kings battled by Abraham, who are said to have "laid waste all Syria." The name "Syria" was also a Greek import, first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BC, long after the time of Abraham. Would a skeptic complain to Josephus that the kings couldn't lay waste to a land that didn't yet exist? (For a treatise on the origin of the name "Syria," see this very interesting article which is a rebuttal to claim made by our old Mormon adversary John Tvedtnes, albeit not with reference to Mormon truth claims.)

The scholars who thought this would clearly have assumed that prior to the insertion, there was some other word for an archaic type of writing receptacle in this place. Note as well that they did not go "late-dating" all of Homer because of this single word, but assumed that the word by itself was the work of a redactor. Critics who quote Thomas Paine's foolish dictum in this regard ("New York used to be called New Amsterdam until 1664. So if we read an undated story that refers to New York as New York, we know it was written after 1664.") are only verifying that it does not pay to consult unauthoritative sources unfamiliar with the principles of historical-textual study.

MacAlister also notes [88] that a passage in the OT refers to a Philistine "king" (1 Samuel 27:2) although the Philistines actually had a set of military lords rather than kings (other than perhaps Abimelech in Genesis 21, 26). MacAlister doesn't think this is an anachronistic error, but rather, the OT writers "are obviously merely offering a Hebrew word or periphrasis as a translation of the native Philistine title." And he adds: "The same is true of analogous expressions in the Assyrian tablets." This sort of thing was normal praxis for the ancients.

    * "The first great Greek writer to deal in depth with the East was Herodotus. He consistently uses Greek measurements such as 'talents' and 'stades' to tender weights, currency, distances etc which would not have been so measured by the people of the places concerned - and he does this even when supposedly translating inscriptions made by the people in question. Numerous references could be given, including: 1.14, 1.50, 1.183, 2.125, 2.149."

    * "Personal names are also regularly rendered into Latinized or Hellenicized forms. The most famous example of this is the rendition of a Germanic chief called something like 'Hermann' as 'Arminius' in Tacitus' Annals."

    * "This happens to place-names, too. The most famous example: in Homer, 'Hellas' notoriously refers only to a small area of northern Greece (a fact obvious to anyone who reads Homer - that the ancients were aware of this is also proved beyond doubt by the early chapters of Thucydides 1, which alludes to this), but in later literature it refers to the whole of Greece, even in literary texts which specifically treat of Homeric/heroic times (such as Attic tragedy)."

As "error" is defined as something that is incorrect or false. However, intentional anachronisms such as these are not incorrect or false, because when they are done, they are implicitly accompanied by the understanding of the author/scribe, transferred to the reader, that the change is being made for a reason -- and the "explanation" for the change comes inextricably attached to the anachronism. A modern writer who refers to the Romans crossing the "English Channel" (which the Romans called the Litus Saxonicum) into "Great Britain" (Brittania) writes to their reader with the implicit knowledge that both geographical terms are anachronisms from the perspective of his writing subjects. A modern writer who says that Alexander the Great "weighed 165 pounds" or notes that Roman wine jars held "7 gallons" isn't considered in error because he uses modern units of measurement. There is a "semantic contract" between reader and writer to the effect that the anachronisms are purposeful -- and no one, other than skeptics looking for ground, could possibly regard such instances as "errors".

Intentional anachronism:

1 Chronicles 9:27 -- the daric. The Chronicler describes King David as collecting ten thousand darics for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 29:7). Critics note that the daric was named after king Darius of Persia, who lived over five hundred years after David. This is obviously no more an error than it would be for Herodotus. The daric, of course, would have been known to the writer of Chronicles in his time.

[Markk]

Hi Ray,

I'm not sure I get your point, could you expound, I always enjoy your thouhts.

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

So what did your analogy mean?

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

So what did your analogy mean?

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

I am glad you asked.

However, I think it important (given what has transpired) that you first make a concerted attempt to figure it out on your own.

Again, I look forward to your careful and thoughtful analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

I've read it again, and I honestly see it that you were saying JS was not capable of of writing something as complex as the BOM. Call me what you may, thats the way I saw it then and thats the way I still see it. The only other possible analogy I can get from it is that you are saying your gnostic and have such superior intelect, that a poor carpenter as myself couldn't possibly understand the truth of the BOM, but the end still leads to my conclusion, at least in my finite mind.

So I give up, please tell me what you meant, so I can reply.

mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I've read it again, and I honestly see it that you were saying JS was not capable of of writing something as complex as the BOM. Call me what you may, thats the way I saw it then and thats the way I still see it. The only other possible analogy I can get from it is that you are saying your gnostic and have such superior intelect, that a poor carpenter as myself couldn't possibly understand the truth of the BOM, but the end still leads to my conclusion, at least in my finite mind.

So I give up, please tell me what you meant, so I can reply.

mark

John 1:12

Markk,

Could you please point out where Joseph Smith's name was mentioned in the analogy. For the life of me, I can't recall having even mentioned him as a part of it.

If it is of any help, I gave some huge hints as to the meaning of the analogy in my posts both preceeding the one with the analogy and following it.

At this point, all that I am looking for is the principles conveyed by the analogy, itself, and not their possible application to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Keep trying. I know you can do it. In fact, it is easier than installing door frames.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

You said in original post..."Granted, there are a number of differences between the dictation of the Book of Mormon and the construction of the Gloucester Cathedral (not the least of which is that the Cathedral is extant and can be tested for age and who was involved in the construction) that could be pointed out. But, I am only trying to make the point about over simplified propositions and very superficial thinking on the matter. So, the analogy is perfectly suited to that end..."

Sure sounds like a comparison to me Wade, so please explain, you clearly mentioned the BOM and said that as a anolgy it is "perfectly suited" to that end. Granted you didn't use the name of JS, but the only other possible person involved in the translation process according to LDS theology would be God or an angel and I don't think they are the peasant. And seeing that the topic of the thread is about the BOM, and my view is about Smith and the way the BOM was brought forth, I'm at a loss of words as to what else your analogy could possibly mean.

But Ill keep playing the game, give me some more hint's, it's kinda like a murder mystery

Thanks Wade,

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Markk,

Wonderful! You are getting very warm with the quote you supplied from me.

And, of course it is a comparison. That is what analogies are. But, because of the difficulty you have had thus far in grasping the notions I had attempted to convey in my analogy, I was hoping that you would stick to examining the analogy and simply pick out the principle found there. Once that was completed, I intended to then work with you on how it applied to the discussion at hand.

However, since you seem intent on looking for comparisons, here is another hint as requested:

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

First let me say I don't think I have ever been uncivil to you, infact I like you, I just don't agree with you on this issue, you just took my position and anwers personal, in which I apoligized for because that was not my attemp. My attemp has always been to show you my view of how the BOM came to be.

This is the way I stil see it, right or wrong.

The Cathedral is the BOM, you said that in the 4th paragraph. I see JS as the peasant, I see the exact copies of the other Victorian as the bible and the anachronisms.

Then you go on to propose simple answers add no depth to the converstaion because you are trained in the BOM history or JS or whaterver to do with the LDS faith and I am not, so therefore, although my answers may make sense in my limited view, there are way off in reality. My understanding is that you deem yourselve as a trained "historiograpgher" and I am untrained, and my view is too superficial for real consideration.

My respose to that still stands, in that the BOM is not that great a book and JS could very well have wrote it. If we get past this I will provide more data that would suport my view.

Am I getting warmer?

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Am I getting warmer?

It's hard to say. I looked for a direct answer to my "hint" question, and could not find it amidst all the irrelevancies.

Nor, did I see much, if anything, of a list of corollaries between ME and ______.

I can assure you, though, that the corrollary has nothing to do with "historiography"--though your struggle in "grasping" the seemingly obvious (after all, it was explained to you at least three times), could very well be another hint. In fact, I can assure you that it is. ;-)

Thanks for playing, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

I give up, I see no corollary in that you haven't proved anything other than, in my opinion, you more or less have buried yourself in a hole and can't get yourself out.

Thats the only conclusion I can come up with. If anything, I have presented the provable facts while you have presented a mystery that contridicts your post. Don't take that personal it's just the way I see it.

So if you want to discuss my view and examine the evidence I produce that fine, lets do it. Or tell me what your analogy really meant so I can respond accordingly.

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I give up, I see no corollary in that you haven't proved anything other than, in my opinion, you more or less have buried yourself in a hole and can't get yourself out.

Thats the only conclusion I can come up with. If anything, I have presented the provable facts while you have presented a mystery that contridicts your post. Don't take that personal it's just the way I see it.

So if you want to discuss my view and examine the evidence I produce that fine, lets do it. Or tell me what your analogy really meant so I can respond accordingly.

Mark

John 1:12

Hi Markk,

Please don't give up. It's the only viable bridge to your coming to an understanding (I have tried three time directly explaining things, but to no avail), and it needs to be crossed in order for our discussion to have much, if any, chance of efficacy.

Perhaps we can start with "baby steps", by your just directly answering my "hint" question.

Then we can slowly and methodically move along by me asking questions that should vet the list of corollaries.

Again, I know you can do it. It is easier than making a dovetail joint.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Hi Wade

Na, I give up, but I made a copy of it and I'll show it to some friends and I'll try to get there view, thats the best I can do, if they figure it out I'll relay it to you, I asked my life line Emu, but he declined. I've come to the conclusion I'm just not as smart as you, maybe I'll change my handle to Markk Gump.

But I will continue to make points of my view. I pulled some quotes from "Joseph Smith and the Restoration" by Ivan Barrett.

"For the most part, JS's ancestors were religiously inclined. many of them were seekers. Becoming dissatisfied withthe Christianity of the day, they were seeking the religion once taught by Christ and his apostles. Some of them endured persecution because because in coscience they were willing to subscribe to the tenets of the religious sects of their day. " (page 22)

Sound familar if this is true then the ground work is already set, did he know this? I don't know, but he must of know some of it.

There are several metioned in the book for his grand father and great uncles fought in wars and Indian wars. ( pages 28 -30)

This certainly was known to him and no doubtably heard many a story of war. again ground work for his imagination.

On page 33 it says his father was aschool teacher, so he wasn't as ignorant as he let on, or his father wasn't a very good father and never taught his son anything.

Also on page 33 it say of the growing nation..."many (americans) pushed on to the virgn lands of the West, fighting the indians and wild beasts..."

Again, he must have been very aware of the treatment of the Indians and as most counted them as savages. That must have helped with his concept that they were cursed and the skin color was the sign of that curse.

Lucy said..." while raising her family, sought instruction in religion.She attended the prebyterian church but found that the minister " niether understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke." After seeking spiritual guidance from deacons and pastors in other sectarian bodies, she concluded that there was "not upon the earth the religion which I sought...Joesph, Sr. experienced many visions or dreams where in he was told about the "inaimate and dumb" state of the religious world. According to Mrs. smith, her husband :contended for the ancient order, as established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His Apostles." (pages 34,35)

Again sound familar, the ground work has been layed. It is very possible that this is the very ground work for the outline of the first vision. I can't prove this, but you can't disprove it either, and again my view explains all the controversies

So Wade what you call simple, we can also call a obvious reality.

Thanks

mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Markk,

If, in the interim, you and your friends are unable to answer my "hint" question, then let me be of further assistance by offering an even bigger hint of the answer.

Here is the question again: