Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I looked up the one about horses. Much is made about prehistoric wild horses, but it is conceded that they (apparently) became extinct by the time the human population arrived. The horse was re -introduced by the Spanish.
It is, as you pointed out, commonly believed that wild horses, which were present in the Western Hemisphere during the Pleistocene period were extinct by the time the Spanish arrived here. Several non-Mormon scholars have questioned this assumption, though. One of them, the late British anthropologist and Harvard professor, Ashley Montague, was convinced that the horse never did become extinct in the Americas. He noted that the size of the post-Columbian horses in the Americas strongly suggests that European horses bred with early American horses. Another non-Mormon scholar, Yuri Kuchinsky, believes that smaller horses than most of our horses today were introduced to this country about 2000 years ago by Asians. The evidence for his conclusions comes from traditions involving horses among certain Indian groups prior to the Spanish conquest, Pre-Columbian petroglyphs which appear to be of horses, and a significant difference in size between the Spanish horse and the smaller horses associated with the American Indians. Finally, actual horse bones have been found at an archeological dig in the Yucatan. Carbon dating verified their age at about 1800 BC.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
If I were to address all thirteen items listed as anachronisms, it would take me literally hours. As a matter of fact, a discussion (i.e. my response to each of them plus everybody else's comments) on even two or three of the items would turn this thread into one about Book of Mormon archeology and nothing else. For that reason, it makes more sense to me to respond to the problem of anachronisms in general. I'll begin by stating that twenty years ago, this list would have been twice as long. It would have included such items as domestic barley, cement, wheels, and textiles described by the Spanish as silk and linen (even though they were not technically either of those). It is almost a certainty that twenty years from now, the list will have grown even shorter.
No one knows precisely where the events in The Book of Mormon were even supposed to take place, aside from "the Western Hemisphere." That's obviously problematic. Most LDS scholars believe that most of the events described in the book transpired somewhere in Central America. Consequently, that is where we would expect to find physical evidence corroborating the mention of certain items in the book. Still, that's a lot of area, and when compared to the history of archeological work elsewhere in the world, Central American archeology is still in its infancy.
Finally, there is the problem of what to call things, i.e. how they are named. As I mentioned above, the Spanish described certain fabrics as "silk" and "linen" although they shortly came to realize that they really weren't actual silk or linen at all. They were, however, close enough in appearance and texture that -- lacking any other words to use for them -- they called them silk and linen.
Among the anachronisms listed, the horse is the one I've seen mentioned most often. Sure, people can say it's a cop-out to suggest that the animal translated as "horse" in The Book of Mormon really wasn't a horse at all, but some other animal. But when you look at the words the indigenous people of South America used themselves, you have to at least consider this as a possibility. The Maya, for example, referred to the tapir as a "tzimin che," which would be literally translated as "forest beast" or "forest horse." They used the word "tzimin" alone to refer to the horses the Spanish brought with them to this continent. In both Mayan and Aztec texts, Spanish horses are referred to by a word that is generally translated as "deer." Those who rode these animals were described as "deer-riders." Interestingly, The Book of Mormon never refers to horses as being ridden or used in battle, which would make sense if they were, indeed, deer. The meaning of words does change over time, and even accepted terminology is frequently inaccurate. For example, there were never herds of "buffalo" roaming the Great Plains of America. There were, however, thousands of "bison." Practically everybody I know uses the words interchangeably.
It is not like you to sidestep a discussion; I'm not sure how else to respond to this. It is an Mormon apologetic response and really does not address the issue. Guess I will try one more later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
It is, as you pointed out, commonly believed that wild horses, which were present in the Western Hemisphere during the Pleistocene period were extinct by the time the Spanish arrived here. Several non-Mormon scholars have questioned this assumption, though. One of them, the late British anthropologist and Harvard professor, Ashley Montague, was convinced that the horse never did become extinct in the Americas. He noted that the size of the post-Columbian horses in the Americas strongly suggests that European horses bred with early American horses. Another non-Mormon scholar, Yuri Kuchinsky, believes that smaller horses than most of our horses today were introduced to this country about 2000 years ago by Asians. The evidence for his conclusions comes from traditions involving horses among certain Indian groups prior to the Spanish conquest, Pre-Columbian petroglyphs which appear to be of horses, and a significant difference in size between the Spanish horse and the smaller horses associated with the American Indians. Finally, actual horse bones have been found at an archeological dig in the Yucatan. Carbon dating verified their age at about 1800 BC.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Let's go right to the beginning then.
1. What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?
2. When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?
It is not like you to sidestep a discussion; I'm not sure how else to respond to this. It is an Mormon apologetic response and really does not address the issue. Guess I will try one more later.
I'm sorry you felt I was sidestepping a discussion, cupper. I can't very well say that there are dozens of examples of the skeletal remains of pre-Columbian horses on the American continent when that's just not the case. I did provide an alternate plausible explanation for the translation of the word "horse" and also explained that it's difficult to find archeological evidence when you don't even know where you should be looking. I also mentioned the opinions of two non-Mormon scholars who believe that horses did not become completely extinct after the ice age, and gave one example of where horse bones actually have been found. Finally, I mentioned several other claims of supposed "anachronisms" that have been resolved in recent years.
The reason why I didn't cover the other twelve items is that the information I could provide on them is similar to what I was able to provide on horses. I figured I'd see how my initial post was received before delving into cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron. If you'd like me to discuss each of them, I'd be happy to. It's just that I'll probably only be able to cover one, or at the most two per day. Or, if you'd like, I can just go on to respond to your Post #16.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm sorry you felt I was sidestepping a discussion, cupper. I can't very well say that there are dozens of examples of the skeletal remains of pre-Columbian horses on the American continent when that's just not the case. I did provide an alternate plausible explanation for the translation of the word "horse" and also explained that it's difficult to find archeological evidence when you don't even know where you should be looking. I also mentioned the opinions of two non-Mormon scholars who believe that horses did not become completely extinct after the ice age, and gave one example of where horse bones actually have been found. Finally, I mentioned several other claims of supposed "anachronisms" that have been resolved in recent years.
The reason why I didn't cover the other twelve items is that the information I could provide on them is similar to what I was able to provide on horses. I figured I'd see how my initial post was received before delving into cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron. If you'd like me to discuss each of them, I'd be happy to. It's just that I'll probably only be able to cover one, or at the most two per day. Or, if you'd like, I can just go on to respond to your Post #16.
If you can address the other ones as you can, great.
1. What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?
2. When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?
Cupper, even professional academic translators (which Joseph Smith was definitely not) directly copy from existing documents when they believe the existing documents are reasonably accurate and will convey the intended message. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, have provided religious scholars with some significant new source material for parts of the Old Testament. Of course, there are various translations of these, but in some, as much as 90% appears to have been copied directly from the King James Version of the Bible. Obviously, the translators didn't simply revert by nature to King James English and come up with translations that are almost identical. Could their translations have been more accurate had they spent the time to translate every word individually and render an entirely new translations? Of course, but for whatever reason, it just didn't seem to be worth the time and effort to them. They knew that the general meaning of the verses that were evidently copied directly from the Bible was the same as in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph came to entire chapters that were said to be quoting Isaiah. If the text in the Book of Mormon (in 2 Nephi) closely resembles what we read in Isaiah in the KJV, it would likely have been that Joseph saw what he believed would be a shortcut and simply copied the text. The only other option would be that he had a photographic memory, which nobody has ever said was the case. Incidentally, the Book of Mormon makes it absolutely clear that Isaiah is being quoted, so it's really not all that odd that he would have copied many of the verses, making corrections only as he was inspired to.
If you can address the other ones as you can, great.
I seems like a waste of time if you're going to put as little stock in my answers as you did to my one about horses. There isn't a ton of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars admit that. I can provide you at least some of what there is, but is that really what you want?
Quote:
In the meantime, please do address #16.
Just did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
