Horses are Tapirs

[ink]

I was watching a show on Einstein and the physics professor explained how Einstein first arrived at this idea.  He measured the mass of a battery when it was fully charged and then after all its energy had been drained and noticed that their was less mass in the dead battery.  Therefore he concluded that part of the mass of the battery had been converted into energy.

I hadn't heard that, but I know that there is volume after volume on the subject. There is also a very easy to follow Nova special that expalins in neatly. A google search comes up with several web pages that manage to explain it in a few paragraphs (with diagrams). Also (and more apropos), many other physics topics have short, concise, obvious solutions that are verifiable.

I wouldn't have an issue with the whole horse/tapir thing, if it weren't just another sympom in a long list of problems with the Book of Mormon. Most "antis" that I've met subsequent my exit from the church also have long laundry lists, complete with all sorts of inconsistencies that spell out doom for their testimonies. Yes, they could have been talking about tapirs. Yes, there could have actually been horses in the Americas during the timeframe of the Book of Mormon; but when you step back and look at this problem with all the other problems, the simplest explanation seems to be that the Book of Mormon is a false history.

There could have been steel.

There could have been smelting plants.

There could have been seafaring people in submerssible boats.

There could have been reformed Egyptian.

There could have been plate-based writing in the Americas.

There could have been old world grains.

They could have taught the trinity and meant something else.

There could have been old world animals, or otherwise mis-translated creature.

There could have been sophisticated monetary systems.

There could have been Semitic mDNA at one point in the Americas.

There could be a limited geography that fits the story, and the Zelph problem.

There could have been BoM translation errors that match JST translation errors exactly.

There could have been silk in BoM time, in the Americas.

There could have been wheels, and the technology could have been lost.

There could have been advanced civilizations that were completely wiped out without a trace.

Yes, all these things could have really happened/existed. What is a more likely explanation? I know that FAIR has explanations for many of these topics, and I've read a good number of them. Just like the Tapir/Horse explanation, they could be correct, but they all seem to bend over backwards to try to explain something that should be simple (at least in my estimation).

[Dale]

Hi,

Most of the critics on the above items complaints assume with an essay or dozens of essays that believers in the Book of Mormon have to agree with them. DNA essays by Murphy was horribly weak. LDS scholars were right to say not so fast. I see a lot of fast ones being tried out on the Book of Mormon by critics. No offense to Brent Metcalfe or Dan Vogel but I am unimpressed with the idea that just because they publish a case that everybody has to agree with them.

Now I have seen pictures of wheeled toys. It seem's unreasonable based on a reading of the Book of Mormon that wheeled vehicles were as common as the car. Depending on the materials used & the popularity or unpopularity that they would survive until today. For all I know Book of Mormon chariots were used for firewood after they fell apart.

I also feel FARMs is doing right by keeping options on open issues open. obecause The Smithsonian Institutions horrible look at the Book of Mormon is an example of why no authorities opinions should be final. Even if the Book of Mormon isn't history Meso-American Archeology should be allowed to advance without being locked down under current popular non-Mormon opinions.

The Book of Mormon survives the current debates.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Benjamin McGuire]

These conversations are so predictable.

I happen to agree with Daniel Peterson on many points (although I suppose that this is going to come as no surprise to most of the contributors in this thread).

For Beastie - obviously, you never understood my argument. But let me suggest something - calling someone elses position unfalsifiable never justifies doing it yourself. If you recall, I pointed out some of the specifics about why the argument was not unfalsifiable.

And the angel thing - in these kinds of discussions, the angel argument always comes up.

But I wanted to leave a few specific comments for lds8n't who wrotes:

The FARMS scholars start out with the assumption that the BoM is infallible then try to find whatever explanation they can to make the evidence support that view.

I don't think any LDS scholar who writes for FARMS makes this assumption. None of them assert inerrancy in the text of the Book of Mormon. Obviously, if we held the view that you suggest, we couldn't even really have a discussion over the question of whether or not a tapir fits the description of the animal called a "horse" in the Book of Mormon.

And for ink who writes:

Just like the Tapir/Horse explanation, they could be correct, but they all seem to bend over backwards to try to explain something that should be simple (at least in my estimation).

The challenge of course is that you are simply wrong in your estimation. I am reminded of a recent article I was reading published last fall in the journal Dead Sea Discoveries (published by Brill) titled "Methodological Problems in Reconstructing History from Rule Texts found at Qumran." What is interesting about this particular discussion is that in this instance, they have a specific area with an identified location (which has been excavated several times). The don't just have one text, they have several, and they are all in their original language. Yet, the conclusion of the article reads:

To summarize, literary critical analysis often leads to problematic results for the reconstruction of the community's history. In order to address these problems, we should attempt to formulate principles for methodologically sound historical reconstruction that heed the complexities involved in the process of textual transmission. A text can originate from a simple historical occurence, but then that text can assume a life of its own. If the text passes through several editorial hands, the resulting text that we read may have been disconnected from its historical mooring and no longer reflect that history but a developed set of thoughts. When the results of literary critical analysis indicate such complexities, we should not simply apply minor adjustments to old theories but formulate new theories, which better take into consideration the tenuous link between the text and the historical realities behind it. The way I now approach the question of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule is an attempt towards such a new formulation.

Generally speaking, if the text is authentic, then there is no question that it is a literary text with its own history - and this has to be taken into consideration when reading the text. This point is virtually ignored by all who take ink's position of a simple reading. Literary criticism as a whole has been rarely applied to the Book of Mormon until recently - but as it has been applied, it will force completely new theories to be formulated - and those theories need to be taken seriously. To say that any such undertaking should be "simple" reflects a real lack of understanding with the process of examining history through archaeology and texts.

As I pointed out on the other thread - Marco Polo discovered a whole bunch of unicorns when he explored Java. And I presume that most of the early readers of his text took him at his word for it. Today, we don't believe that he discovered unicorns - on the premise that there aren't any. So instead we look in other directions. And we determine that he most likely encountered a Rhinoceros. If we decide that there was no "horse", then we look instead at the alternatives. There is nothing wrong with this. It isn't a complex solution (as ink suggests). It is merely a matter of trying to understand a literary source. When we determine that Marco Polo was talking about a rhinoceros, it isn't because we have jumped through a series of convoluted mental contortions to arrive at that determination.

Personally, I think that those who claim it should be simple, or that it should mean exactly what they think it says, are those who display a sense of inerrancy in the text - that the text is not only infalliable but that it is also self-revealing, and that somehow, they, as the reader can be certain that they understand the intentions of the author. (Certainly Dan and Brent feel this way - and have been quite vocal about it). I certainly do not believe this to be the case ....

Ben

[Guest ScottieSLG]

Now I have seen pictures of wheeled toys. It seem's unreasonable based on a reading of the Book of Mormon that wheeled vehicles were as common as the car. Depending on the materials used & the popularity or unpopularity that they would survive until today. For all I know Book of Mormon chariots were used for firewood after they fell apart.

Are there any cave paintings of chariots? Have any toy chariots been found? Or ANY depiction of a useful wheeled contraption that would need to be pulled by a horse/tapir?

I think the fact that the ancient American's knew about the wheel, yet we can find no reference to anything that a beast of burden would have pulled validates the critic's point further.

[ink]

As I pointed out on the other thread - Marco Polo discovered a whole bunch of unicorns when he explored Java. And I presume that most of the early readers of his text took him at his word for it. Today, we don't believe that he discovered unicorns - on the premise that there aren't any. So instead we look in other directions. And we determine that he most likely encountered a Rhinoceros. If we decide that there was no "horse", then we look instead at the alternatives. There is nothing wrong with this. It isn't a complex solution (as ink suggests). It is merely a matter of trying to understand a literary source. When we determine that Marco Polo was talking about a rhinoceros, it isn't because we have jumped through a series of convoluted mental contortions to arrive at that determination.

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith translated, via the power of God, an erroneous record? Nobody took Marco Polo's tales and presented them as another testament of Christ . Marco Polo also exaggerated his foray into China (if he didn't lie about it completely, they are still debating that issue) -- he wasn't really a trustworthy person, it turns out. If you're going to use that as a rationale to overlook historicity problems in the Book of Mormon, then we must come to the same conclusion: it is an unreliable source; a fantasy. It doesn't matter if the translations caused the errors, or if Joseph made them up, I suppose. Either way, I don't see how this is a "win" for the Book of Mormon.

Personally, I think that those who claim it should be simple, or that it should mean exactly what they think it says, are those who display a sense of inerrancy in the text - that the text is not only infalliable but that it is also self-revealing, and that somehow, they, as the reader can be certain that they understand the intentions of the author.

Interesting. So, it should be complex and obscure? That makes it... what, exactly? I don't understand. They wanted the reader to work at it? To imagine their intent? I thought that when they were talking about horses, chariots, roads, monetary systems, grains, etc. -- that they were speaking about those exact concepts. I didn't realize that they were making a mistake (intentionally?), in order to avoid being "self-revealing".

If we're not to easily understand the intentions of the author of the Book of Mormon, then why read it? So that we can unravel the secret combinations inside, perhaps?

[Archon]

To Daniel Peterson: Like global thermonuclear war, religious debates can be won only by not playing.  Congratulations on winning.  (Until you come back, that is.)

Will2believe: It is easy to speak of belling the cat when the cat is nowhere in sight. This truly cowardly post is well beneath the standards we want to have on this board. If you cannot correct these tendencies you will at least end up on the queue.

Archon

[Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Most of the critics on the above items complaints assume with an essay or dozens of essays that believers in the Book of Mormon have to agree with them. DNA essays by Murphy was horribly weak. LDS scholars were right to say not so fast. I see a lot of fast ones being tried out on the Book of Mormon by critics. No offense to Brent Metcalfe or Dan Vogel but I am unimpressed with the idea that just because they publish a case that everybody has to agree with them.

No offense taken. No book is the final word. It is only an installment in the ongoing dialogue between proponents of competing views. I for one, do not expect FARMS, FAIR, or anyone else to simply lay down and give up with a single publication. Scholarship moves very slowly and none of us knows exactly where it

[exegete]

Hi Ben,

You wrote:

Personally, I think that those who claim it should be simple, or that it should mean exactly what they think it says, are those who display a sense of inerrancy in the text - that the text is not only infalliable but that it is also self-revealing, and that somehow, they, as the reader can be certain that they understand the intentions of the author. (Certainly Dan and Brent feel this way - and have been quite vocal about it). I certainly do not believe this to be the case ....

(Aren't you the same person who claims to identify true chiasms by divining the intentions of the author?!)

At what point does your integrity get in the way of misrepresenting others?

Do you honestly think that readers have already forgotten my correction of your musings here?

Enough already, my friend.

My best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ink writes:

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith translated, via the power of God, an erroneous record? Nobody took Marco Polo's tales and presented them as another testament of Christ . Marco Polo also exaggerated his foray into China (if he didn't lie about it completely, they are still debating that issue) -- he wasn't really a trustworthy person, it turns out. If you're going to use that as a rationale to overlook historicity problems in the Book of Mormon, then we must come to the same conclusion: it is an unreliable source; a fantasy. It doesn't matter if the translations caused the errors, or if Joseph made them up, I suppose. Either way, I don't see how this is a "win" for the Book of Mormon.

Ink, how much thought do you give to the way that you communicate?

This is a serious question. I have discussed this at length in several places on this forum - and as usual, we have someone like you who really has never actually considered anything relative to what they are saying.

Take for exampe Marco Polo. He thought he had discovered a unicorn. So he wrote this down. Does that make Maco Polo unreliable? Should he have given a new name to this creature which was completely unknown to him? Well, we might as well throw out every text ever written as unreliable. These kinds of issues occur for every researcher who looks for issues related to historiography within literary texts. The other fact remains. Marco Polo didn't write in English. So when his text is translated, is it correct to replace the word "unicorn" with the word "rhinoceros" independant of the damage which this would do to his text?

In any case, it isn't an unreliable source. It doesn't claim to be a text with the purpose of providing historical accuracy. And like any other literary work (including the Bible) it is subject to investigation and interpretation in trying to extract historical information - and those concerned with the history must examine it through such a lens if they wish to discover what information is held in the text (as the scholarly reference I provided explains).

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brent writes:

(Aren't you the same person who claims to identify true chiasms by divining the intentions of the author?!)

At what point does your integrity get in the way of misrepresenting others?

Do you honestly think that readers have already forgotten my correction of your musings here?

I think you are mischaracterizing the exchange. But, let me also provide this link:

http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10411.html

Dispite yours (or Dan's) view of the validity of the intentional fallacy, you do commit it. You have commited it in this forum.

As far as chiasmus goes, I noted this -

Chiasmus is a rhetorical figure.

By definition, rhetorical figures are intentional.

Chiastic structures are patterns which can be discerned within a text.

Chiastic structures can exist which are not Chiasmus (as a rhetorical figure).

Any argument which proposes to identify a chiasmus must then demonstrate that the chiastic structure is not coincidental or accidental, and thus not a chiasmus.

Intentionality can be demonstrated without "divining the intentions of the author". In fact, the identification of the rhetorical figure would of necessity precede any identification of the intention of the author, since rhetorical figures, once identified, generally change the readers perspective of the author's intent (particularly in the case of allusion and similar figures).

You might remeber David Wright making this same point in his recent article (which you enjoyed so much - although I note with some satisfaction that I seem to have indirectly influenced at least a small portion of it):

I recognize the impossibility of arriving at the full original intent of an author. Neverthelss, historians are concerned about the process of a text's origin, which partly involves a concern about authorial techniques, goals, abilities, education and cultural background. To claim that a text has been redacted or formulated chiastically is to say that it was the author's or editors' intent to arrange the text this way.

When you attempt to deny the existence of a structure based on "interference", you first need to demonstrate that both the original proposal, and your offered secondary proposal meet the same criterion. If one is presented as an intentional chaismsus following a set of criteria, then your proposed interfering structure needs to be presented as an intentional chiasmus following the same set of criteria. Otherwise, it is a pointless exercise.

Ben

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Personally, I think that those who claim it should be simple, or that it should mean exactly what they think it says, are those who display a sense of inerrancy in the text - that the text is not only infalliable but that it is also self-revealing, and that somehow, they, as the reader can be certain that they understand the intentions of the author. (Certainly Dan and Brent feel this way - and have been quite vocal about it). I certainly do not believe this to be the case ....

Dispite yours (or Dan's) view of the validity of the intentional fallacy, you do commit it. You have commited it in this forum.

You certainly have no qualms quoting external sources when interpreting the Book of Mormon. Aren

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

You certainly have no qualms quoting external sources when interpreting the Book of Mormon. Aren

[ink]

Ink, how much thought do you give to the way that you communicate?

This is a serious question. I have discussed this at length in several places on this forum - and as usual, we have someone like you who really has never actually considered anything relative to what they are saying.

I apologize for not being steeped in the relativism v.a.v. Joseph Smith translating a holy book with divine power and the exaggerations/mistakes of Marco Polo. I (incorrectly?) assumed that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was much more accurate, (or shall I use the words of Smith himself and say "pefect") than the tales of an explorer.

Take for exampe Marco Polo. He thought he had discovered a unicorn. So he wrote this down.

How could the Urim and Thumim/rock in hat make such a mistake? If it did make such mistakes, then how would we know about other, more fundamental mistakes? Also note that 3Nephi talks about horses, so these people could not have possibly mistook a native animal for a horse, because they had never lived in the old world (another problem with the Marco Polo analogy).

Does that make Maco Polo unreliable? Should he have given a new name to this creature which was completely unknown to him? Well, we might as well throw out every text ever written as unreliable.

Yes, of course. Destroy the straw man with all vigor.

These kinds of issues occur for every researcher who looks for issues related to historiography within literary texts. The other fact remains. Marco Polo didn't write in English. So when his text is translated, is it correct to replace the word "unicorn" with the word "rhinoceros" independant of the damage which this would do to his text?

Interesting, so what does "every researcher" do when presented with these problems? I assume that they do not follow the highly unconventional "Moroni's promise method". I would think that they would look for other portions of the text and compare them in a similar manner. I would also think that they just might look at the claims of such a work and compare them with our (admittedly relative) understanding of the facts.

So with Marco Polo's claims we can look at the geography of his writing. We can find the rhinosorous (assuming that is what he meant); but we can also verify other parts of his story, which can increase confidence in the overall work.

In the Book of Mormon, we have a dillema about horses, well that's OK. Let's look for other inconsistencies to see if it is riddled with similar problems. That's where I was going with my non-exhaustive list of other problems in the book of Mormon (grains, metals, etc.). Seeing that there are, indeed, many problems of a similar nature, then either the translation process was horribly unreliable, or the work is ficticious.

In any case, it isn't an unreliable source. It doesn't claim to be a text with the purpose of providing historical accuracy. And like any other literary work (including the Bible) it is subject to investigation and interpretation in trying to extract historical information - and those concerned with the history must examine it through such a lens if they wish to discover what information is held in the text (as the scholarly reference I provided explains).

You can't have it both ways. It can't be a history provided for our time as another testament of Christ, and not be historically accurate. It either supports the claims of Joseph Smith, or it does not; and there is very, very little doubt that Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is a record of the American Indans.

So we're left with a work that claims to be the history of the American Indians, but the best we can come up with to validate that claim are some Semitic rhythmic literary devices, a very liberal comparison to a Mexican demigod and a tree that was carved in stone.

And of course, you don't see a problem with this. "It doesn't claim to be a text with the purpose of providing historical accuracy"; that goes in my quote book. Un-be-live-able. Maybe you should read the introduction to the book again? I know that on my mission, myself and all my companions used the history angle to sell the book to the uneducated Mexicans that we were harvesting.

EDIT: I love your avatar; FF7 was my favorite in the series.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ink writes:

I apologize for not being steeped in the relativism v.a.v. Joseph Smith translating a holy book with divine power and the exaggerations/mistakes of Marco Polo. I (incorrectly?) assumed that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was much more accurate, (or shall I use the words of Smith himself and say "pefect") than the tales of an explorer.

You still don't understand. A translation, no matter how "perfect" is still a text. It is still produced in ambiguous human language. There are many ways to translate a text. Biblical translators, for example, often discuss whether they are producing an idea-for-idea translation or a word-for-word translation. Which did God use?

In the case of the horse, for example, we are left with something of a problem. Take Marco Polo and his use of the word "unicorn" to name a "rhinoceros". We may determine that he is referring to the word "rhinoceros" but we know that he wrote the word "unicorn". Should we, when we translate Polo's work into English, translate the word "unicron" as "rhinoceros" even though this does damage to the text? If, (and this is only an "if"), Nephi uses the word "horse" to refer to something else, how does God translate this? Does God provide a literal word-for-word translation? (In this case, the only word which would seem to be appropriate would be the English word "horse".)

Does he provide an idea-for-idea translation? In this case it might be appropriate to provide another term more descriptive (at least in English) for the creature being described, but this would do damage to the text. After all, the word "horse" is used at least once in Nephi's writings to refer to an Old World "horse" of the kind with which you and I are familiar (this occurs when he quotes Isaiah). Further, the Book of Mormon quotes and alludes to Deuteronomy 17 and 18 several times. This text, which was the basis for the descriptions of the wicked king as opposed to the righteous king, discusses "horses" - a creature which the Nephites were familiar with (whether or not it referred to Old World "horses" is irrelevant to the notion that through Nephi, we have a "horse" and those who had no Old World conceptual and semantic model would only have recognized this New World "horse" as a "horse" - and would then have read the pre-Lehite migration scriptures with this conceptual and semantic model in mind). So, to exclude the "horse" as a possible translation is to prevent any reader from associating the "horse" as it is portrayed with the sacred texts used by the community that produced the Book of Mormon. It is an interesting dillema.

Perhaps God should translate the intentions of the author (independant of whatever the author wrote). So Nephi, knowing that he is not describing an Old World "horse", nevertheless intends to use the word "horse" and in doing so, expands the conceptual and semantic model associated with a "horse".

Do you see the problem here? What exactly was the process of this "perfect" translation? Perhaps you would be so kind as to describe it for us. Because at this point, you are simply throwing out labels in a rather incoherent fashion. I don't know what you expect from a perfect text - but let me ask another question. Here is a poem written by the Israeli poet Natan Zach in 1966:

Dantes, no. The mountain is sad. The treasure

Stolen. When all is said and done there will be no

Gold coin missing. No, Dantes, no.

I do not know what your opinion is. If you ask

For my opinion, you will hear my heart saying

What is it saying. If you listen carefully

You will hear it singing, "No. Dantes.

No, Dantes. No."

The time passed. The waves did not break the fortress.

No passage is possible. The fish let one die but not

Live. Like animals. I know that but

I also know what a brother said to a brother

In the forgotten night. And this is what he said: "No.

No, Dantes, no."

You found the key in the cell. If you have not been asked,

You will not be asked. It is always possible to fake a corpse.

The matter does not lie here. The deceit is not here. You

Yourself have outworn your body. You feel like

Someone who gave up a fortune. No matter. The thought

That it has passed, not happy but not consoled either,

At least not that. Not total darkness, but certainly not light.

Too much of a jail here. Too much of a dungeon. But to remember

That it exists, that it is more than the reality of man:

It can be touched, it would be possible to reach its heart

Warm. No. No, Dantes, no.

You need to translate this text. How do you do it? Are you going to be satisfied with a simple word-for-word translation? Can you do a meaning-for-meaning translation? But then, what does the poem mean?

Obviously, it will mean different things to different people. After all, as I pointed out, meaning is not a creation of the author, but a creation of the reader. And our ability to derive the intentions of the author will, to an overwhelming extent, be dependant on how closely we resemble the intended audience the author had in mind when he wrote (his ideal reader). In this case, there is a major issue which specifically separates those who are capable of discovering authorial intent, and those who aren't. And that issue is a familiarity with Alexandre Dumas's novel Le Comte de Monte-Cristo. The poem here is a metonymical allusion to this book. The signs of the allusion? The mountain, the stolen treasure, the water surrounding the fortress, the false corpse, the prison cell, etc. The fuller text of the story even provides a suitable environment in which the poem might have been uttered. On the verge of wreaking his revenge (justified maybe), Monte-Cristo regains his humanity and realizes that man cannot play God. The poem speaking to Dante seems to be suggesting this before Dante even begins to play God. And from there, the poem then separates itself somewhat from the novel. The method of escape - the faked corpse - is described in the poem as of "no matter". The stolen treasure is not gold coins, but time. (see lines 9, 20, 23, 24). And yet it is stolen time. Even if we spend it all, it is all there (i.e. the time). The prison is not the Chateau 'If. It is our world, (perhaps even our body), and there is thus no way out. The exchange of corpses is thus meaningless - as effective as it was in the novel. To win, the poem suggests, we must give up the realization of our own freedom, and Dante, in abandoning the illusion must feel like Monte-Cristo giving up a real treasure. And yet, there is the reference to something more than this life.

So we have a poem. But to understand the poem, a specific external source of information must exist within the awareness of the reader. Is it a translator's job to provide this information? What if the translator does not know this external information? How does the translator then accurately convey the meaning to his reader? (I ask this in reference to you - because we suppose that this is not a barrier to a translation provided by God).

What does the translator do when the text contains ambiguity? Should he attempt to avoid the complete literalness and work towards recovering the intent of the author? But then, an allusion, by definition is something that even the reader familiar with the source can be capable of missing. So, if the perfect translator provides the references, and explains the allusion in his translation, he hasn't actually provided a text which resembles what the author intended, has he. Human language itself is ambiguous. Can God even provide perfection in meaning through ambiguous language? We suspect that he can, but only to a specific target audience. Would God do this? The long and short of it is, that you use a lot of language yourself with respect to my comments that is rather utterly meaningless. What is a "perfect" text? Does a "perfect" text some how have a definate meaning? And so on.

How could the Urim and Thumim/rock in hat make such a mistake? If it did make such mistakes, then how would we know about other, more fundamental mistakes? Also note that 3Nephi talks about horses, so these people could not have possibly mistook a native animal for a horse, because they had never lived in the old world (another problem with the Marco Polo analogy).

It isn't a mistake.

Interesting, so what does "every researcher" do when presented with these problems? I assume that they do not follow the highly unconventional "Moroni's promise method". I would think that they would look for other portions of the text and compare them in a similar manner. I would also think that they just might look at the claims of such a work and compare them with our (admittedly relative) understanding of the facts.

Ah yes, and now the appeal to the "angel". Let's face it. The Book of Mormon, for the non-believer as well as the believer, is a literary text. Independant of its truth claims, the Book of Mormon can be treated as any other literary text. So, introducing this argument creates an amusing but pointless side show - a distraction. No one translates Marco Polo by replacing his "unicorn" with a "rhinoceros". Marco Polo didn't know what a "rhinoceros" was. He did know what a unicorn was. To replace the one with the other, merely as an aide to help incompetent readers with his text, doesn't help us understand Marco Polo.

So with Marco Polo's claims we can look at the geography of his writing. We can find the rhinosorous (assuming that is what he meant); but we can also verify other parts of his story, which can increase confidence in the overall work.

Sure. But at this point, we are talking about literary analysis and translation.

In the Book of Mormon, we have a dillema about horses, well that's OK. Let's look for other inconsistencies to see if it is riddled with similar problems. That's where I was going with my non-exhaustive list of other problems in the book of Mormon (grains, metals, etc.). Seeing that there are, indeed, many problems of a similar nature, then either the translation process was horribly unreliable, or the work is ficticious.

No, lets stick with horses. Since you obviously have certain undefendable assumptions in the case of the Book of Mormon, and since you don't have much of an idea how texts are dealt with in terms of critical study, why should I suspect that your method is going to change dramatically when you change to another topic? I suppose that ducking and running is an easy approach, but I would rather stick with the horse.

By the way, whether or not the work is a work of fiction is largely irrelevant to the question about the horse. It can be complete fiction and the "horse" could still refer to something other than our (meaning yours and mine) conceptual and semantic model of a "horse". The challenge here, of course, is that you are interested purely in the truth claims, and see what you think are anachronisms within the text soley in terms of how they can be used to refute the truth claims. Whereas this discussion is about the literary nature of the text.

By the way, what early 19th century texts are you aware of that treat horses in the fashion that the Book of Mormon does? Perhaps you could provide a few references ....

You can't have it both ways. It can't be a history provided for our time as another testament of Christ, and not be historically accurate. It either supports the claims of Joseph Smith, or it does not; and there is very, very little doubt that Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is a record of the American Indans.

And obviously, you didn't take the time to read the earlier material I posted did you?

Of course, since I am a proponent of a very "tight" translation process, and since I view Joseph as a reader of the text, none of what you just said has any reall application to my views. It does interact with a caricature of the LDS position in general, but it has nothing to do with the way that I view the text. Although, I suspect again, given that your objective is not to understand the text but to challenge its truth claims, this distinction is probably lost on you. (But to put it more bluntly, I can and do have it both ways.)

And of course, you don't see a problem with this. "It doesn't claim to be a text with the purpose of providing historical accuracy"; that goes in my quote book. Un-be-live-able. Maybe you should read the introduction to the book again? I know that on my mission, myself and all my companions used the history angle to sell the book to the uneducated Mexicans that we were harvesting.

So, where does it claim to be a historical record? How many kings lived between the second King Nephi and the first King Mosiah? We don't know. Hundred of years compressed into a couple of pages. As far as the rest goes, everything from Mosiah chapter 1 on is written (for the most part) hundreds of years after it happens. Moroni and Mormon are redactors and authors, compiling and commenting on earlier sources. A historical record? What exactly do you mean when you use the term? Was the text written primarily as history? For Nephi in any case, it seems to explicitly indicate just the opposite. The history went into Nephi's other record.

Ben

[ink]

You still don't understand. A translation, no matter how "perfect" is still a text. It is still produced in ambiguous human language. There are many ways to translate a text. Biblical translators, for example, often discuss whether they are producing an idea-for-idea translation or a word-for-word translation. Which did God use?

I do understand, I simply cannot accept your explanation.

I think it is obvious that God would translate for the book's audience, as any good tranlsator would.

What does the word "horse" mean to you? What would it mean to 19th century puritans and Native Americans?

In the case of the horse, for example, we are left with something of a problem. Take Marco Polo and his use of the word "unicorn" to name a "rhinoceros". We may determine that he is referring to the word "rhinoceros" but we know that he wrote the word "unicorn". Should we, when we translate Polo's work into English, translate the word "unicron" as "rhinoceros" even though this does damage to the text? If, (and this is only an "if"), Nephi uses the word "horse" to refer to something else, how does God translate this? Does God provide a literal word-for-word translation? (In this case, the only word which would seem to be appropriate would be the English word "horse".)

Why would a person, living in the time of 3Nephi (close to the ressurection of Christ), mistakenly write horse when they meant to write something else? I can concieve that, perhaps, Nephi (the son of Lehi) making that mistake, but not somebody 600 years later. Even so, it's still a bad translation. I speak two languages (thanks to my mission), and one never literally translate one work to the other; one translates intelligence, concepts and understanding.

..... It is an interesting dillema.

Perhaps God should translate the intentions of the author (independant of whatever the author wrote). So Nephi, knowing that he is not describing an Old World "horse", nevertheless intends to use the word "horse" and in doing so, expands the conceptual and semantic model associated with a "horse".

Again, that is a horrible method to utilize in translation work. Why did God not translate Curelom into some model that we would understand? Where is the consistency, if, indeed, your conjuecture is correct?

Do you see the problem here? What exactly was the process of this "perfect" translation? Perhaps you would be so kind as to describe it for us. Because at this point, you are simply throwing out labels in a rather incoherent fashion. I don't know what you expect from a perfect text - but let me ask another question. Here is a poem written by the Israeli poet Natan Zach in 1966:

....

You need to translate this text. How do you do it? Are you going to be satisfied with a simple word-for-word translation? Can you do a meaning-for-meaning translation? But then, what does the poem mean?

No. Yes (someone can, but not I). A poem is not a common noun like 'horse'.

I appreciate the time you took to prove your point, however I don't believe it is germane to the discussion at hand. If you do believe that it is relevent, then therin lies our spectacular lack of clash.

Obviously, it will mean different things to different people. After all, as I pointed out, meaning is not a creation of the author, but a creation of the reader. And our ability to derive the intentions of the author will, to an overwhelming extent, be dependant on how closely we resemble the intended audience the author had in mind when he wrote (his ideal reader). In this case, there is a major issue which specifically separates those who are capable of discovering authorial intent, and those who aren't.

Look at the language of the Book of Mormon. The audience was expecting Jacobian English, even to the point that Isaiah was mis-quoted in the same manner that the KJV was mis-translated (apologized away because that's what 19th century puritans would expect it to say). The original was written in some form of ancient Hebrew, with queer hieroglyphics; I hardly think that the text was translated literally in any sense. I think it was obviously translated concept-for-concept most of the time (except for OT quotes).

The book was crafted to fit the readers. It's not a coincidence that it was written to flatter the KJV bible.

This is also why most other christain groups use newer translations of the Bible now. It's more appropriate for their 21st century readers than the KJV's archaic (albeit beautiful) language.

So we have a poem. But to understand the poem, a specific external source of information must exist within the awareness of the reader. Is it a translator's job to provide this information? What if the translator does not know this external information? How does the translator then accurately convey the meaning to his reader? (I ask this in reference to you - because we suppose that this is not a barrier to a translation provided by God).

How does this relate to the translation of such a simple noun? I sympathize with you, it must be difficult to explain these problems away. You need to construct elaborate domino sets to exemplify the difficulty of the translation process. Yes, translating poems and songs is particularly difficult. I know, I've tried many times. I've taken upper-division literature classes in Spanish. Fortunately, we're not discussing the problems with the prose, as presented in the Book of Mormon. I don't think that the term 'horse' is ever utilized to augment a literary device; correct me if I'm wrong.

The long and short of it is, that you use a lot of language yourself with respect to my comments that is rather utterly meaningless. What is a "perfect" text? Does a "perfect" text some how have a definate meaning? And so on.

Joseph Smith said that, not I. What did he mean by it?

Interesting, so what does "every researcher" do when presented with these problems? I assume that they do not follow the highly unconventional "Moroni's promise method". I would think that they would look for other portions of the text and compare them in a similar manner. I would also think that they just might look at the claims of such a work and compare them with our (admittedly relative) understanding of the facts.

Ah yes, and now the appeal to the "angel". Let's face it. The Book of Mormon, for the non-believer as well as the believer, is a literary text. Independant of its truth claims, the Book of Mormon can be treated as any other literary text. So, introducing this argument creates an amusing but pointless side show - a distraction. No one translates Marco Polo by replacing his "unicorn" with a "rhinoceros". Marco Polo didn't know what a "rhinoceros" was. He did know what a unicorn was. To replace the one with the other, merely as an aide to help incompetent readers with his text, doesn't help us understand Marco Polo.

So with Marco Polo's claims we can look at the geography of his writing. We can find the rhinosorous (assuming that is what he meant); but we can also verify other parts of his story, which can increase confidence in the overall work.

Sure. But at this point, we are talking about literary analysis and translation.

In the Book of Mormon, we have a dillema about horses, well that's OK. Let's look for other inconsistencies to see if it is riddled with similar problems. That's where I was going with my non-exhaustive list of other problems in the book of Mormon (grains, metals, etc.). Seeing that there are, indeed, many problems of a similar nature, then either the translation process was horribly unreliable, or the work is ficticious.

No, lets stick with horses. Since you obviously have certain undefendable assumptions in the case of the Book of Mormon, and since you don't have much of an idea how texts are dealt with in terms of critical study, why should I suspect that your method is going to change dramatically when you change to another topic? I suppose that ducking and running is an easy approach, but I would rather stick with the horse.

No, I'd rather not. The work is a whole collection of thoughts and ideas (as you so eloquently demonstrated in your poem above). I can accept that the word 'horse' was correctly translated, and was a mistake of the original authors, but only if such occurances are rare in the work. However I don't think that such problems are rare in the Book of Mormon.

Again, I understand your position, and I can see how it may be a plausable explanation if it weren't so symptomatic of other problems in the work.

By the way, whether or not the work is a work of fiction is largely irrelevant to the question about the horse. It can be complete fiction and the "horse" could still refer to something other than our (meaning yours and mine) conceptual and semantic model of a "horse". The challenge here, of course, is that you are interested purely in the truth claims, and see what you think are anachronisms within the text soley in terms of how they can be used to refute the truth claims. Whereas this discussion is about the literary nature of the text.

No, I believe that it is a symptom of a broad range of problems in the text. It is relevant to the truthfulness of the book because its author makes historical claims in that regard. Again, if it were mentioned once, by Nephi (the son of Lehi), and there were very few other anachronistic problems (nevermind geographical and genetic) then it wouldn't be such an issue; we could explain it with logic similar to yours above. Some still can explain it that way, but I cannot. Not for ignorance, but for more holistic trustworthiness concerns about the work.

By the way, what early 19th century texts are you aware of that treat horses in the fashion that the Book of Mormon does? Perhaps you could provide a few references ....

What would be the point? I'm certain I can find many, but none were translated with an Urim and Thummim.

You can't have it both ways. It can't be a history provided for our time as another testament of Christ, and not be historically accurate. It either supports the claims of Joseph Smith, or it does not; and there is very, very little doubt that Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is a record of the American Indans.

Of course, since I am a proponent of a very "tight" translation process, and since I view Joseph as a reader of the text, none of what you just said has any reall application to my views. It does interact with a caricature of the LDS position in general, but it has nothing to do with the way that I view the text. Although, I suspect again, given that your objective is not to understand the text but to challenge its truth claims, this distinction is probably lost on you. (But to put it more bluntly, I can and do have it both ways.)

I must part ways with you here. Yes, I am currently using this issue to challenge the truthfulness of the book because I belive it's pointless to attempt to understand a fictional text that parades as history. I'm glad that you're at peace with the contradictions, and, no, I simply cannot understand how you can reconcile the differences in good conscience. If you truely believe that it was a "tight" translation process, then why does it come across in Jacobean English? Why does it seem to appeal to 19th century puritans? Wouldn't a tight translation sacrifice the conveinece of the audience in favor of a more accurate translation?

To bring it full-circle; why would God put 'horse' where there was none? I know, and understand your explanation; but what purpose would it serve to be true to the original author (or to a translator, such as Mormon, if it were his fault)? Why would God do that?

So, where does it claim to be a historical record?

It? In the introduction, among other places. Dallin Oaks at "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon", FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993 more recently. Not to mention every Sunday at Sunday school, practically every day at seminary and institute. In the first discussion (back when missionaries used discussions)..... and there are numerous references to kings and years as well, if that makes you happy.

Off to bed for me; good night.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ink writes:

I do understand, I simply cannot accept your explanation.

Good. Denial.

I think it is obvious that God would translate for the book's audience, as any good tranlsator would.

What does the word "horse" mean to you? What would it mean to 19th century puritans and Native Americans?

This neatly sidesteps the issue doesn't it. Who is the Book of Mormon's audience? Was it 19th century puritans and Native Americans? Does this mean that in order for us to understand the text, we should all try and duplicate the cultural experience of 19th century puritans and Native Americans? Should we abandon our own verbal repertoires in favor of theirs? What are you trying to say?

Why would a person, living in the time of 3Nephi (close to the ressurection of Christ), mistakenly write horse when they meant to write something else? I can concieve that, perhaps, Nephi (the son of Lehi) making that mistake, but not somebody 600 years later. Even so, it's still a bad translation. I speak two languages (thanks to my mission), and one never literally translate one work to the other; one translates intelligence, concepts and understanding.

Verbal repertoires often overlap. Two individuals coming from different time periods can have the same language but mean something entirely different. So, when the 15th century poet (in English) refers to a "plastic arm" do we suppose that he means a artificial limb made from a polymer?

If Nephi uses the word "horse" in reference to something else - and those around him are told what that "horse" is (particularly when those around him have no experience with any other "horse"), then his conceptual and semantic model for the word "horse" is larger than theirs. From then on, that new model for the word "horse" is what becomes the standard. Perhaps, later encountering an Old World "horse" that conceptual and semantic model would be expanded for them to include this new animal. Perhaps not.

The issue here is that you seem to think this is some kind of mistake. Did Marco Polo make a mistake when he called a "rhinoceros" a "unicorn"? It was intentional, it was deliberate. And no matter how you slice it, re-translating his book by replacing "unicorn" with "rhinoceros" does incredible damage to the text, particularly since Polo uses the term "unicorn" both to describe his former conceptual and semantic model and his new expanded conceptual and semantic model. He would have no problems recognizing a slender, white, horned quadruped that was capturable by a virgin as a unicorn, just as easily as he would recognize the large, dark skinned, buffalo haired, horned quadruped (who wouldn't he notes have been interested in a virgin at all) as a "unicorn". For this reason, no competent translator translates Marco Polo's work and replace "unicorn" with "rhinoceros".

Whatever Mormon/Moroni were referring to, if this notion is correct, it was named "horse" in the language of the Gold Plates. Nephi named it this. So, the question has to be why you would think it appropriate to name it something else in a translation. Certainly what it referred to might be different than what we commonly refer to as a "horse" - but, as I noted, there is a secondary issue. "Horses" played a role in the sacred texts of the Nephites. Making such a distinction means missing any connections between the "horse" of the Nephites and the "horse" of their earlier sacred texts which use "horse" under an Old World conceptual and semantic model.

Once more, I think you have an indefensible view of what the translation should have been.

Again, that is a horrible method to utilize in translation work. Why did God not translate Curelom into some model that we would understand? Where is the consistency, if, indeed, your conjuecture is correct?

The problem with the "Curelom" is this. Do you think that Moroni knew what it was? Moroni (circa 400 AD) was writing a history of the Jaredites (not translating it) by using a translation (probably made seven centuries earlier by King Mosiah, although I suppose that it is possible that he translated it himself) - it needs to be noted that the translation which Mosiah makes would probably not have been in the same language as the Gold Plates. But the text which Mosiah translated was written only a couple of hundred years earlier by Ether - who, was describing events that occured a millenia earlier. Moroni is two thousand years distant from the events which are being described. The events probably passed through at least two different languages, and Moroni's text is authored by Moroni (it isn't a translation). So, what you are asserting makes little sense from a literary critical standpoint. It only becomes a problem because you have some sort of vague notion of what the text should have looked like given the translation process as you conceive it. But, let me requote one of the sources I quoted earlier:

To summarize, literary critical analysis often leads to problematic results for the reconstruction of the community's history. In order to address these problems, we should attempt to formulate principles for methodologically sound historical reconstruction that heed the complexities involved in the process of textual transmission. A text can originate from a simple historical occurence, but then that text can assume a life of its own. If the text passes through several editorial hands, the resulting text that we read may have been disconnected from its historical mooring and no longer reflect that history but a developed set of thoughts. When the results of literary critical analysis indicate such complexities, we should not simply apply minor adjustments to old theories but formulate new theories, which better take into consideration the tenuous link between the text and the historical realities behind it. The way I now approach the question of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule is an attempt towards such a new formulation.

In order to make the Book of Mormon text a source of historically accurate information, you first have to determine the history of the text. The text itself in the case of the Book of Mormon claims a fairly complex history (with the exception of certain portions - like the small plates). It is a fact, that persons like yourself, interested in finding anachronisms tend to focus on those parts of the text for which, internally, the greates complexity in terms of textual history is claimed. But, you want to take it as if it accurately describes every nuance of a culture which its author never knew. Moroni's only contact with the language and culture of the Jaredites is through a text (I should also point out that this text does not claim inerrancy or infallibility but is itself a document produced a millenia or more after many of the events which it describes). This, from a liiterary standpoint, is evident when Moroni describes the quintessential wicked king of the Jaredite culture in terms familiar to us from the Old Testament.

No. Yes (someone can, but not I). A poem is not a common noun like 'horse'.

I appreciate the time you took to prove your point, however I don't believe it is germane to the discussion at hand. If you do believe that it is relevent, then therin lies our spectacular lack of clash.

Ahh, and now we see that you have no grounding at all in literary theory. It is germane, for reasons I have pointed out, that obviously escape you. But the larger question remains. No text exists apart from its intertext - apart from the traditions and texts which exist within that texts initial environment. All texts refer to one another. Some times, this can be demonstrated directionally and sometimes it can't. But the point is valid. Most people cannot read Isaiah very accurately because Isaiah invokes contemporary traditions and myths constantly in his text. They are unfamiliar with it. It is lost in translation because the translators themselves were often unfamiliar enough to help the reader (if that was possible). In this case, we don't have to presume that the Book of Mormon uses a body of material. The book explicitly makes such claims dozens of times. So we are left asking ourselves how would the translation occur? Do we expect the translator (the divine translator in this case) to reproduce all of the referents, or to explain them, to a different audience?

Look at the language of the Book of Mormon. The audience was expecting Jacobian English, even to the point that Isaiah was mis-quoted in the same manner that the KJV was mis-translated (apologized away because that's what 19th century puritans would expect it to say). The original was written in some form of ancient Hebrew, with queer hieroglyphics; I hardly think that the text was translated literally in any sense. I think it was obviously translated concept-for-concept most of the time (except for OT quotes).

Actually, Hebrew was the written original. The Book of Mormon claims that this Hebrew was translated into Egyptian. (Not that it was Hebrew written in Egyptian characters, or some such - but that the Brass Plates were an Egyptian text). This Egyptian then is translated into English. There are a number of reasons why the KJ English was used - but lets stick with horses. (I do want to note that in a 1995, an electronic copy of some of the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls was released on CD-ROM. The English translation duplicated in more than 98 percent of the material the King James Version. Why?)

The book was crafted to fit the readers. It's not a coincidence that it was written to flatter the KJV bible.

This is also why most other christain groups use newer translations of the Bible now. It's more appropriate for their 21st century readers than the KJV's archaic (albeit beautiful) language.

But this obviously makes little sense from the perspective that you keep trying to push of a "divine translation". Are you suggesting that God, with his limited foresight only believed that early 19th century persons would read it? 19th century puritans and Native Americans (wasn't that how you described it)? Did it matter to God to know that it would be translated into foreign languages where any particular benefits gained from His own translation would - for the most part - be lost? Of course, all of this is part of the argumentativeness of your position - since you don't believe the Book of Mormon is authentic. Nor do you believe that God himself had a part in its translation. And so you can assume whatever position best suits your criticisms of the Book of Mormon. I suppose that if God could have created a perfect translation, why couldn't it have been good for everyone? What applies on a macro scale in this issue also applies in microcosm. And we are back to the original question which you never answered. If Nephi writes "horse" intentionally, because this is what he wants the reader to read, even if it doesn't match the "horse" that he is familiar with in the Old World, why do you think that God would want to translate it as something else?

How does this relate to the translation of such a simple noun? I sympathize with you, it must be difficult to explain these problems away. You need to construct elaborate domino sets to exemplify the difficulty of the translation process. Yes, translating poems and songs is particularly difficult. I know, I've tried many times. I've taken upper-division literature classes in Spanish. Fortunately, we're not discussing the problems with the prose, as presented in the Book of Mormon. I don't think that the term 'horse' is ever utilized to augment a literary device; correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

Of course, the issue is over how the horse is described, and how it is used. And there are some obvious problems with the fourteen times the word "horse" is used in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith said that, not I. What did he mean by it?

Clearly, he didn't mean what you take it to mean. After all, he modified the text, he corrected it, between its first and second edition. He changed parts of it. You are applying a meaning to what he said that he clearly didn't intend (but isn't that part of this discussion)? Whose understanding of the term is worth more to us? His, or yours? Certainly within your ownb verbal repertoire, such a reading is perfectly acceptable.

No, I'd rather not. The work is a whole collection of thoughts and ideas (as you so eloquently demonstrated in your poem above). I can accept that the word 'horse' was correctly translated, and was a mistake of the original authors, but only if such occurances are rare in the work. However I don't think that such problems are rare in the Book of Mormon.

Again, I understand your position, and I can see how it may be a plausable explanation if it weren't so symptomatic of other problems in the work.

I am going to stick with horses. The issue for me here, is that you are abusing the text. I'll repeat that for emphasis. You are abusing the text. You aren't asking what the text means. You aren't even trying to understand what the text would have meant to your 19th century "puritans and Native Americans". You are only interested in refuting the truth claims of the text. You have some sort of notion of what the text should look like (had it been produced in a fashion that you vaguely envision). But apparently (since I asked and you didn't respond) you aren't capable of articulating that process, or of discussing what the text should look like.

Of course, part of this problem is based on the fact that you don't believe it is authentic or historic, so you aren't interested in seriously engaging the subject ...

No, I believe that it is a symptom of a broad range of problems in the text. It is relevant to the truthfulness of the book because its author makes historical claims in that regard. Again, if it were mentioned once, by Nephi (the son of Lehi), and there were very few other anachronistic problems (nevermind geographical and genetic) then it wouldn't be such an issue; we could explain it with logic similar to yours above. Some still can explain it that way, but I cannot. Not for ignorance, but for more holistic trustworthiness concerns about the work.

But you make the text a historically accurate document without considering what the text says about itself. This is a problem with your methodology. The Bible then, can't be true because Goliath (of the David and Goliath narrative) is the quintessential Greek epic hero, complete with Greek armor, which couldn't have existed at the time that David routed the philistines in 1 Samuel 17. Obviously, if Goliath didn't really exist, neither did David. And we can then throw out anything prior to the Babylonian exile (and so on). What say you?

What would be the point? I'm certain I can find many, but none were translated with an Urim and Thummim.

So, how does translation with the Urim and Thummim differ from other forms of similar translation? I throw a foreign language at an internet translation engine, I get back English. This could be similar, you think? You are defining the translation process - but you aren't really defining it. You have never explained how it worked, or what it produced. You simply throw a word around like "perfect" thinking that it will absolve you of any need to discuss the implications of such a translation.

The simple question is, does the Urim and Thummim produce a word-for-word translation or an idea-for-idea translation (bearing in mind that these are not the same thing, and that both have significant implications for readers of the text - i.e. idea-for-idea translations, are, for example, much more culturally rooted, while word-for-word translations have a longer lifespan within the verbal repertoire of a social group).

I must part ways with you here. Yes, I am currently using this issue to challenge the truthfulness of the book because I belive it's pointless to attempt to understand a fictional text that parades as history. I'm glad that you're at peace with the contradictions, and, no, I simply cannot understand how you can reconcile the differences in good conscience. If you truely believe that it was a "tight" translation process, then why does it come across in Jacobean English? Why does it seem to appeal to 19th century puritans? Wouldn't a tight translation sacrifice the conveinece of the audience in favor of a more accurate translation?

There are a couple of answers to this (that are really quite simple). First, Jacobean language (which, by the way isn't the language of much of the Book of Mormon, but rather of portions of the Bible quoted in it) was recognized as the language of scripture - with which most English readers were very familiar.

Second, in duplicating the King James material in the language of the King James, something significant was accomplished. The Dead Sea Scrolls production, which I referred to earlier, used the KJV text as a basis for their translation. It varies from that text in two ways. In several spots, to deal with specific errors of the KJV, it quotes the ASV instead. In other places it provides unique material to the DSS. It is easy for a layman to recognize those places without creating a complex apparatus (as was done with Fint, Abegg, and Ulrich in their The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible). Presumably, there would have been a great many differences between a Hebrew-English text and a Hebrew-Egyptian-English or a Hebrew-Egyptian-Reformed Egyptian-English text. The sole purpose of the KJV language is to allow the normal reader (the KJV was the only English Bible in wide circulation at the time) to determine where there are significant differences between the one source and the other source.

Third, I note quite regularly that the Book of Mormon quotes and alludes to the Old Testament without using the King James language. This is an indicator to me that when Joseph Smith recognized or knew that the text was from the Old Testament, that it came out as the KJV, and when he didn't, it didn't. This indicates Joseph was a reader of the text and not its author.

Fourth, no matter how you look at it, Joseph Smith is a reader of the text. It is his language which influences the translation (whether you believe in a tight translation process or not). If Joseph Smith had spoken and written in French, the Book of Mormon would have been a French text. Since he spoke and wrote in English, it was an English text. The notion of a tight translation extends this even farther. If Joseph is to be a reader of the text, then the text has to be readable by him. We note, for example, that the Book of Mormon has a miniscule vocabulary compared to other contemporary works of the same size. Why is it, for example, that a moving body of water in the Book of Mormon is a "river" (there is one exception, but it occurs in a quoted passage from Isaiah). This can't be merely Joseph Smith, as the D&C uses several other terms - stream, brook, rill, etc. In any case, this is not the great hurdle for me, that it apparently is for you.

Fifth, there are lots of fictional works which parade as history. In fact some of them seem to be very good history. The Book of Esther in the Old Testament is a work of fiction - with a high degree of versimilitude. That is, it appears, for all intents and purposes to have been written when it claims to ahve been written, it has a great many detailed accuracies, and so on. Which doesn't make it historical. This distinction isn't what you are referring to at all - but the inaccuracy of your language causes problems. The Book of Mormon can be verisimilar and not be historical. It can have very little verisimilitude and be historical. You are assuming that verisimilitude implies historicity.

And finally, sixth, why does the Book of Mormon appeal to a twenty-first century audience? Certainly it has a great deal of appeal today? How many other 19th century works of fiction have as much appeal to modern readers? The point I am making here is that the claim that it appealed to a 19th century audience, in and of itself, doesn't mean a whole lot. The meaning which has been derived from it has changed over time. This suggests that like everyone else, those readers were merely readers of the text, and as with any significant religious text, found within it issues that resonated with them.

It? In the introduction, among other places. Dallin Oaks at "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon", FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993 more recently. Not to mention every Sunday at Sunday school, practically every day at seminary and institute. In the first discussion (back when missionaries used discussions)..... and there are numerous references to kings and years as well, if that makes you happy.

Dallin Oaks is a reader, just as I am a reader. If we decide that as an apostle, Dallin Oaks has greater access to the text than I do, then this is a function of Oaks and not the text (which contests of course, your notion of a perfect translation that shouldn't need modern oracles for interpretation). The introduction to the Book of Mormon - well, actually, there isn't one, because the introduction to the Book of Mormon is a very late creation - 1978 maybe - which isn't canonized, isn't recognized as official doctrine, and which was produced in part by committee. So, this is simply an exercise in avoidance. The problem for you is that the Book of Mormon in places denies the fact that it is attempting to provide a historical text in favor of discussing religion and politics.

To bring it full-circle; why would God put 'horse' where there was none? I know, and understand your explanation; but what purpose would it serve to be true to the original author (or to a translator, such as Mormon, if it were his fault)? Why would God do that?

And the answer to this question is quite simple. God didn't write the text. My response however has cgone right over your head. What is a "horse"? You are presuming that because the Urim and Thummim were used in the translation, that the only thing the horse can mean is exactly what it would mean to a specific audience of 19th century "puritans and Native Americans".

So, let me summarize my issues with your position:

1) You have no real idea what the translation process was. You find it convenient to use a label of "perfect" without worrying about the context in which such a statement was made. You make the assumption that it wouldn't resemble any naturalistic translation, and you make all sorts of assumptions on how such a text would naturally be accessible to a specific audience - without also dealing with the complementary issue of why God would provide a text only to a specific (and very narrow) audience - particularly when the text itself seems to contradict such a narrow audience. You are unwilling to discuss the mechanics of such a translation. Largely because you don't believe that such a translation either happened, or could have happened. It is on this point, that we are both in agreement. Whatever seems to be the model of translation which you believe couldn't have happened, and didn't happen, I am in absolute agreement. Such a translation could not have happened, and didn't happen (which of course doesn't mean that a translation didn't happen, merely that your construct is indefensible).

2) You make no allowances for textual history or literary criticism. There is no room in your world for the Book of Mormon to be fallible on any point. (Isn't this fun, despite being a non-believer, your approach is to try and force the text to be read from a strict fundamentalist perspective.) Inerrancy, infallibility, intentionalism - all of these things are not effective approaches to the text. Since you don't really believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic - and thus that you really don't believe the Book of Mormon to be inerrant, infalliable, or that it should be read from an intentionalist perspective, why do you complain when I agree with you on all of these points. This holds true for all of the text including the anachronisms. You want me to read the text in a way in which I do not read the Book of Mormon, the Bible, any other sacred text, biographies, science fiction (in fact anything I read).

3) You aren't reading the text to understand it, but to refute its truth claims. Which is to say, that despite your feigned concern for how an early 19th century puritan or Native American would read the text, you aren't actually interested in the meaning they might derive from it. Let's face it, how many early 19th century literary works have you read? (I have a huge collection of 18th and 19th century literature - its one of my hobbies).

In any case, I still want the answer to at least this one question (no critic has ever answered this for me) -

Using the Urim and Thummim - would the translation be word-for-word or idea-for-idea and is there a reason for your answer?

Ben

[beastie]

I

[Bertram]

Just a penny-worth to this long "tale"/(tail).

http://itech.pjc.edu/jkaplan/zootech/

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/horse.html

[mikwut]

Beastie,

you respond to Ben, "You act like this is irrelevant to your point, almost every time it comes up, or that it

[beastie]

Mik,

This relates back to an earlier conversation ben and I had on the issue of falsifiablity. To demonstrate that a certain attitude, behavior, or event, was not an anachronism within the claimed time period, one must demonstrate that the attitude, behavior, or event is consistent with other known examples from the time period. One cannot simply make an assertion that it could happen and leave it at that. That is the equivalent of saying that we can't prove that all crows are black because somewhere, sometime, one white crow (who is now dead) may have existed. While that may be technically possible, it is not a scientific or logical approach to falsifying a text (in terms of ascertaining likely authorship).

So, to expand on the marco polo argument, if a text were written that used the term "unicorn" for an animal listed many times in the book in certain contexts, then to make the argument that "unicorn" means "rhino", one has to demonstrate that the text itself is consistent with "unicorn" meaning "rhino". Or if one wants to claim it means "rhino" within a certain region of the world in which the book took place, one must demonstrate that the use of the rhino in that region in the given time period was consistent with the portrayal in the text.

Otherwise, you haven't done a thing to resolve the anachronism - and when it comes to determining whether a text is a fraudulent hoax or an actual ancient document, anachronisms are extremely pertinent to the conversation.

[mikwut]

Hello Beastie,

"Mik,

This relates back to an earlier conversation ben and I had on the issue of falsifiablity."

I see. Could you point me in right direction I would be interested to see how it relates more substantively.

"To demonstrate that a certain attitude, behavior, or event, was not an anachronism within the claimed time period, one must demonstrate that the attitude, behavior, or event is consistent with other known examples from the time period."

Let me rephrase so I am sure to understand. To demonstrate that the use of the vernacular

[clarkgoble]

Just think about all the problems BoM apologetics face today that God could have so easily prevented.

Of course that assumes that they are problems from God's point of view. It seems to me that by any model, God doesn't want his existence or faith in him to be "obvious." Rather he wants you to work at it.

Personally though I don't think the limits of the translation are that big of a deal. If you demand a text akin to how modern scholars would have translated the plates had they had them available, you'll be disappointed. I think few apologists think that our current text is like that. Further Brigham Young spoke on this and said that had he translated it that it would probably read differently. But clearly it is good enough so as to communicate the content, which I think many overlook.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

How much thought do you give to the way that you communicate? This is a serious question, because I can

[beastie]

Mik,

This relates back to an earlier conversation ben and I had on the issue of falsifiablity."

I see. Could you point me in right direction I would be interested to see how it relates more substantively.

Do a search for the thread called

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

If Ben wants to assert that