Whack a Mole, err. Horse

Post by **_Blixa** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:40 pm

I don't think I follow your point here, EE:

"Other than the sheer interest factor (and of course a desire to provide further contextual meaning to the work), I feel that the true value of identifying evidences that would support the possibility that the Book of Mormon features some impressive ties with the ancient Near East is simply to inspire enough confidence for one to seek further light and knowledge through a revelatory means."

Yes, no matter how one explains the Book of Mormon "translation" that doesn't preclude further interest in all kinds of things. What I don't quite see the connection between is how finding ties between the Book of Mormon and the Near East (speculative or not, in the realm of material evidences) leads you to seek further knowledge "through a revelatory means."

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:51 pm

Hello Blixa,

Yes, no matter how one explains the Book of Mormon "translation" that doesn't preclude further interest in all kinds of things. What I don't quite see the connection between is how finding ties between the Book of Mormon and the Near East (speculative or not, in the realm of material evidences) leads you to seek further knowledge "through a revelatory means.

My true love has always been attempting to contextualize the Book of Mormon through ancient traditions. I'm really not out to try and prove that the book is true. I'll I'm trying to suggest is that I would hope that my efforts would create an "interesting, well, maybe it is possible" sort of reaction in the mind of the doubter or critic which could lead the truth seeker along the path of a revelatory experience, completely independent from any Near Eastern evidence.

Post by **_Blixa** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:09 pm

Thanks. I see the connection you're making now and how its tied to apologetic or proselytizing ends rather than personal or scholarly interests (well, the personal is connected to religious beliefs, but you know what I mean, I hope).

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:12 pm

Enuma Elish wrote:Hello Marg,

Right, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, despite whether or not your beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarily ridiculous, lack evidence and have evidence to the contrary. Good critical thinking Elish! If only the entire world thought like that, wouldn't it be wonderful.

No. I'm going to believe whatever God wants me to believe, despite whether or not God's beliefs defy common sense, are extraordinarly ridiculous, lack evidence, and have evidence to the contrary. In view of the fact that I do not have all knowledge, this perpective represents extraordinarly good critical thinking skills and I agree that if we (myself included) could all master the task that the world would be a wonderful place.

I don't care if you use "God" or not. What you said is that "all truth is relative" That is intellectual dishonesty. It's a cop out in argumentation. And that is NOT good critical thinking.

Post by **_Quantumwave** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:22 pm

Enuma Elish wrote:Therefore, as a translation, the references to "horses and chariots" in the Book of Mormon could reflect the biblical pattern. We could theorize that the original word that appeared on the plates was "horse," even though the author/editor intended "chariot operator."

It certainly is possible given the Biblical pattern.

Admittedly, this is highly speculative, since, if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we don't have an original text.

I simply share this information to illustrate that if the Book of Mormon is a translation, then a variety of possibilities would logically explain why the English translation contains the word "horse," even though the original author might not have meant the animal we think of today.

Given the speculative nature of this exercise, together with the logical explanations for why "horse" appears in the Book of Mormon, this has always seemed, at least from my perspective, an extremely weak argument raised against a book that claims to be a translated work.

I will, of course, agree with your "highly speculative" characterization, and your statement "we don't have an original text" is only partly right, since much of what is in the Book of Mormon is lifted from the King James Version, which is the closest verifiable "original text".

The major problem with your argument, aside from the mental gymnastics, is that it has been verified by evidence that Joseph did not ever correctly translate Egyptian language to English language. That is the reason the explanation of "inspiration from the Lord" is provided, and if, if, if this is true, then the resulting translation should be accurate and a horse is a horse of course, of course.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:45 pm

David,

I'm leaving right now but am bumping this up in the hopes that you will explain how you perceive the "horsemen" model to have explanatory power under either Book of Mormon translation model.

Post by **_beastie** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:37 pm

bumping up in hopes of a response

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:29 pm

Hello Beastie,

Perhaps part of the confusion you have with my comments derives from my lack of clarity when using the term “revelatory.”

I believe in literal plates that contained a literal language. I also believe that as part of the revelatory process that produced the Book of Mormon, the Prophet needed to follow the directions outlined in D&C 9: 7-8:

“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right”

I believe that as the Prophet studied the plates in his own mind, that occasionally Joseph rendered a very literal translation, which could explain for interpreting words with dual meanings, such as horse/horsemen, in a somewhat verbatim manner.

I also maintain, however, that as the Prophet studied the plates out in his own mind, that the spirit prompted Joseph to include passages and ideas for our benefit that were beyond the language and information that appeared directly on those literal plates.

While Harmony is certainly correct that many critics will view my approach as a mere ad hoc apologetic created in an effort to salvage the basic ancient authenticity of the work, as I have suggested, the fact remains that this scenario in some ways reflects my own efforts as a translator of ancient texts.

As a translator, I continually move back and forth between relying upon previous interpretive efforts, producing a literal rendering, and more often than not, attempting to convey the text’s inherent meaning by rendering a non-literal translation.

If we take into account what I believe is true, namely that God was directing although not controlling the Prophet’s efforts, I can account for any “mistakes” in view of the statement professed in the very title page itself.

Anyway. That’s how I see it.

Best,

--DB

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:27 pm

KING RICHARD III:
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

CATESBY:
Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:56 pm

If we take into account what I believe is true, namely that God was directing although not controlling the Prophet’s efforts, I can account for any “mistakes” in view of the statement professed in the very title page itself.

God as a revelator does not turn people into puppets. That would be against the entire purpose and plan of salvation. God inspires and prompts and enlightens, he does not force.