So we’re back to “loose translation” now are we…lion meant puma, horse meant tapir, Guatemala was Alaska…I mean, ffs. I’d like to see Roper submit his article to National Geographic, those boys would get a real hoot out of it.
It’s not very convincing to me. Mormon God went to all this trouble to set up the glowing rock with explicit characters on it, and then we slide into confusion once again with Joseph Smith fiddling around with the text.
If I recall, that kind of stuff was what caused the so-called Great Apostasy in the first place.
I don't think a seer stone would be something beyond God's ability to manage and create. If humans can create an iphone and a network to run the darn thing, then I think God can manage to use a 'glowing rock' as an interface between the mind of man and the 'supernatural'.
iPhones and large networks would have been absolutely unimaginable at the time of Joseph Smith. Now that we have this technology I'm afraid we've become 'greater than god" in the minds of some folks.
The so-called Great Apostasy had many contributing factors. One of the main ones being just plain skepticism and doubt.
It would have been fairly impressive if Mormon God had told Joseph Smith to write “puma” instead of Lion. There are evidences of the word being used as early as the late 1700s, well in time for it to be correctly translated in the Book of Mormon.
Alas we get exactly what we would expect, a translator who was completely ignorant of the correct word to use.
Drumdude, I realize that technically a puma is a different species from a lion. If there were Nephites writing the Book of Mormon, they may not have realized that and would have been happy to call them lions. Translation would follow the author in the use of the term "lions." I think that sort of name flexibility is much less sensible for horses than lions and even less sensible is treating a land full of native inhabitants as if those inhabitants did not exist.
It would have been fairly impressive if Mormon God had told Joseph Smith to write “puma” instead of Lion. There are evidences of the word being used as early as the late 1700s, well in time for it to be correctly translated in the Book of Mormon.
Alas we get exactly what we would expect, a translator who was completely ignorant of the correct word to use.
Drumdude, I realize that technically a puma is a different species from a lion. If there were Nephites writing the Book of Mormon, they may not have realized that and would have been happy to call them lions. Translation would follow the author in the use of the term "lions." I think that sort of name flexibility is much less sensible for horses than lions and even less sensible is treating a land full of native inhabitants as if those inhabitants did not exist.
Very salient point. The Nephites would have had to retain their understanding of lion from the old world for hundreds of years, and remained completely isolated from the new world and its knowledge of pumas. At no point do any of the Book of Mormon authors write like Native American inhabitants.
It would be like a small group of Chinese people living in New York City calling bagels dumplings, even after dozens of generations. The Nephites are consistently unaware of the native inhabitants and native culture, which makes sense when you believe Joseph Smith, and not a Nephite, was the author.
The Babel Fish proves the Book of Mormon TRUE!!! Joseph's seer stone powered the Improbability Drive.
My point in this thread was to point out that the critics are just as invested in their version of 'the truth' as any apologist. There are multiple ways of looking at various things, and in this very thread puma---lion vs. actual information that I provided in more detail, shows that critics have a way of using limited resources and opinions to state their 'truth'.
That's why I encouraged folks reading in this forum to go out and get MORE information, not less.
The Babel Fish proves the Book of Mormon TRUE!!! Joseph's seer stone powered the Improbability Drive.
My point in this thread was to point out that the critics are just as invested in their version of 'the truth' as any apologist. There are multiple ways of looking at various things, and in this very thread puma---lion vs. actual information that I provided in more detail, shows that critics have a way of using limited resources and opinions to state their 'truth'.
That's why I encouraged folks reading in this forum to go out and get MORE information, not less.
Regards,
MG
I think this forum (and plenty of other ex Mormon outlets) has done a commendable job showing that the church and its leaders have a consistent pattern of hiding information in order to retain members. The contradictory accounts of the first vision, jumps immediately to mind.
This is a case of not seeing the forest for the tree, in my opinion.
Drumdude ,
I realize that technically Puma is a different species than lion. If there were Nephites writing the Book of Mormon they may not have realized that and would have been happy to call them Lions. Translation would fallow the author in the use of the term lions.I think that sort of name flexibility is much less sensible for horses than lions and even less sensible is treating a land full of native inhabitants as if those inhabitants did not exist.
Very salient point. The Nephites would have had to retain their understanding of lion from the old world for hundreds of years, and remained completely isolated from the new world and its knowledge of pumas. At no point do any of the Book of Mormon authors write like Native American inhabitants.
It would be like a small group of Chinese people living in New York City calling bagels dumplings, even after dozens of generations. The Nephites are consistently unaware of the native inhabitants and native culture, which makes sense when you believe Joseph Smith, and not a Nephite, was the author.
And not only that, they supposedly wrote in reformed Egyptian, and since joseph's god helped with the 'translation', why wouldn't he provide Joseph with correct names as he converted RE into English words that glowed on the stone?
Drumdude ,
I realize that technically Puma is a different species than lion. If there were Nephites writing the Book of Mormon they may not have realized that and would have been happy to call them Lions. Translation would fallow the author in the use of the term lions.I think that sort of name flexibility is much less sensible for horses than lions and even less sensible is treating a land full of native inhabitants as if those inhabitants did not exist.
Very salient point. The Nephites would have had to retain their understanding of lion from the old world for hundreds of years, and remained completely isolated from the new world and its knowledge of pumas. At no point do any of the Book of Mormon authors write like Native American inhabitants.
It would be like a small group of Chinese people living in New York City calling bagels dumplings, even after dozens of generations. The Nephites are consistently unaware of the native inhabitants and native culture, which makes sense when you believe Joseph Smith, and not a Nephite, was the author.
Perfect. That’s exactly what Roper is trying to sell. Roper is also discounting two things - the testimony that the translation happened via specific words appearing on a rock, and the notion that a committee of dead people pre-translated the plates.
Apologists just cannot keep their story straight.
Roger’s latest “effort” is as bad as Gee’s two inks nonsense.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
