Chap wrote:It is clear to anybody who reads Jacob that it was written by somebody who thought that olives were Biblical (which they are), knew the parable in Romans, but had probably never seen an olive in his entire life, let alone eaten one.
Now ... are there any obvious candidates? Hmmm ...
The writers/compilers/prophets of...in...the Book of Mormon, during the 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. period?
honorentheos wrote:While someone with special interest in the subject like you have immediate understood the point being made both regarding olive grafting being potentially anachronistic and apple tree grafting being a potential source for the techniques described in the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps that says something about why they find Jacob 5 so compelling as evidence for the Book of Mormon?
I'm appreciative of the fact that you use the words, "potentially anachronistic"
Lemmie wrote:Thanks for the links! My home library has a pretty hefty horticultural section due to my own interests in that area, so I especially enjoyed exploring the Botany of Desire site. It's very well done and quite fascinating. The paper from Purdue was a great read also. It's been fun learning about this tonight- your efforts are much appreciated-- by me at least if not by mentalgymnast! I think you gave him a knowledge-induced headache; he, as usual, was suddenly needed elsewhere just as you disproved his argument.
I'm glad it was interesting to someone besides myself.
In reading through Zerinus' responses it occurs to me that both he and MG appear to lack sufficient familiarity with horticulture to differentiate between broad cultivation and a specific practice (grafting). While someone with special interest in the subject like you have immediate understood the point being made both regarding olive grafting being potentially anachronistic and apple tree grafting being a potential source for the techniques described in the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps that says something about why they find Jacob 5 so compelling as evidence for the Book of Mormon?
Very well said. Also, the irony of apologists being unfamiliar with the thing they believe in, and yet insisting others must be familiar with it before they will discuss anything did not escape me.
honorentheos wrote:...the language of Jacob 5 appears to be written by someone who is overlaying their own experience with a specific crop and it's products that doesn't actually align. When Smith describes the purpose of the master of the vineyard as laying up fruit to store for future seasons, he isn't using language describing olive processing or the storage of it's oil. He's using the language of someone farming grain. But it could be easy to see why someone familiar with apple cultivation would have used the same language to describe fruit storage. But someone specifically familiar with olive cultivation and production?
It just doesn't add up.
In my mind we also need to look at the overall narrative and the chronological schema that the narrative in Jacob 5 follows. The writer and/or translator would have had to modify things a bit in order to fit that overall narrative/schema, wouldn't they?
Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.
If you've read Blake Ostler, you may have an idea of where I'm going by making this simple statement.
I'm not understanding the issue you raised regarding Jacob5 and olives/apples. I read through Jacob 5 and I don't understand the peculiarities you were attempting to identify.
But, (and I assure you I mean no one any disrespect here) when I read the Book of Mormon, my brain tends to zone (hypnotic) and so I might not be picking up on what you're telling us here on the thread.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
mentalgymnast wrote:Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both.
Wait. What? Did we just depart Kansas?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Xenophon wrote:How does one delve deeply into a set of scriptures where all the culture, context and nuance is inserted after the fact as opposed to being part of the original text?
That's an important point. Have you read Blake Ostler? Expansion theory?
I have a question wrote:The disingenuous nature of Tad Callister...
How might one counter this argument? Here is a list of questions that an honest seeker of truth might raise:
• Is there a single reference—just one—in Joseph’s journals or written correspondence suggesting he might have read or had conversations concerning any of these historical sources before translating the Book of Mormon? No.29
• Is there any evidence he visited the libraries where these books were supposedly located? No.
• Did Emma Smith, who was married to him, ever comment that he referred to any of these books before the Book of Mormon was translated? No.
• Is there any record that he had any of these books present when he translated the Book of Mormon? No.
How many nos does it take to expose the critics’ arguments as pure speculation—nothing more than sand castles that come crashing down when the first waves of honest questions appear on the scene.
Do the critics expect us to believe that Joseph searched out and studied all these resources on Native American life; inhaled the related conversations on the topic; winnowed out the irrelevant; organized the remainder into an intricate story involving hundreds of characters, numerous locations, and detailed war strategies; and then dictated it with perfect recollection, without any notes whatsoever—no outline, no three-by-five cards, nothing—a fact acknowledged even among the critics?30 And during it all, no one remembered him going to these libraries, bringing any such books home, having any conversations concerning this research, or making any diary entries to the same. Where, I ask you, is the hard evidence?
Where is the hard evidence that the Book of Mormon is God-Given?
And...
Where is the hard evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't man-made fiction?
Of course Brothers Callister, mentalgymnast and zerinus have not provided any hard evidence. Why? Because there is no hard evidence. And using Callisters own logic...absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I don't think there is "hard evidence" either way.
The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest, MG
That the five arguments of the critics that Elder Callister reviewed in his talk are rather thin to explain the totality of the Book of Mormon. But that's been my opinion for quite a while anyway. Nothing really new.
Themis wrote: I was reading lots of apologia when I first started looking at these issues and certainly came across the same arguments he is impressed with. I just knew better to check them out for accuracy from both sides. I found that Joseph not only did know, or the information did exist in his environment. I don't do Mental Gymnastic's.
Themis, over the years I have read both sides. A LOT. Months worth of reading pro and con and this and that.
Not so much in the recent past, however. I've pretty much settled where I'm at.
I think you gave him a knowledge-induced headache; he, as usual, was suddenly needed elsewhere just as you disproved his argument.
