Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_The CCC]

SEE Book of Mormon Title Page
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/bofm-title?lang=eng

[_ClarkGoble]

A lot has happened to Biblical criticism since the 1830's, though.

Certainly although careful examination of texts, questions of authorship and the like were being conducted by the early 19th century. They may not have reached quite the wide level of dispersal publicly of course. So for instance the documentary hypothesis of the torah goes back to the mid 18th century as I recall. Most of the broad Biblical techniques in hermeneutics largely developed in early modernism - although admittedly they reached their heyday in the mid 19th century.

Liberal Christians like me can now readily admit that our scriptures are fallible in detail, but it's really hard to understand why God would use a miraculous channel to deliver a fallible Book of Mormon, without even bothering to add a preface that would have greatly enlightened the believers of Joseph Smith's day, by explaining that these miraculously revealed ancient writings were full of natural mistakes and confusions.

I confess this line of reasoning doesn't quite make sense to me. I just am still not understanding the argument that a fallible written and transmitted document is fine for God but a divinely translated text isn't. Isn't God presumably the same with the same ends and same patience for error in both cases? That is if he's fine with the conclusion in one case why wouldn't he be fine with the same conclusion in an other case merely using a different method?

The argument is that since God is more involved in the method in this second case (modern LDS scripture) that there ought be less error. But I just don't see the argument for that.

To make an analogy, if a more theologically/hermeneutically liberal Christian views the Bible as inspired by God with some sense of revelation involved, why doesn't God simply dictate the scriptures rather than letting prophets like Isaiah, Ezekiel or others have such an effect on the texts? (At a minimum we see stylistic elements) Isn't the form of argument about the same in both cases?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either scriptures come down through history by natural means, and have to be read as such, or else they're dictated by God. I'm not really arguing that the two models are logically incompatible in a strict way, but they just seem to represent incompatible world views.

But why do you think this? Because I just don't see it as an issue.

[_spotlight]

I don't think that follows. But of course elements of the religion might be wrong without the religion as a whole being wrong.

Which was my point. The religion remains unfalsifiable.

By way of analogy the fact many scientific theories are eventually falsified doesn't say much about science as a whole.

It says that scientific theories are falsifiable.

So I think there's a bit of a category error going on here.

So there are no areas of religious belief about the real world in which we live or its history that are subject to scientific scrutiny? If not then religion becomes unfalsifiable.

[_Themis]

The argument is that since God is more involved in the method in this second case (modern LDS scripture) that there ought be less error. But I just don't see the argument for that.

Really quite simple. If a divine source is doing the translation, then it should be as good as the best human translator or more likely better. A human translator is only as good as their knowledge of both languages, culture, time period, etc. It doesn't make sense a divine source would be as fallible as any human. Any good translator tries to do as good a translation as they are capable. I don't see why God would not also want the same thing, and should be able to do so a lot better.

[_The CCC]

Well a judge is not a typical juror and he has some education for his job. How again is it that we are trained to recognize a communication as coming from a god rather than our own subconscious mind? And why didn't the early Saints recognize that Joseph was pulling a fast one with the Book of Abraham? Oh that's right, sorry.

There is nothing about a judge that makes therm any less typical than a juror. I've sat on a few juries so yes the judge may have more education in law than I do. But a law degree isn't required for being a judge in many states. My specialty is Sociology. I still have to depend on what my clients tell me in order to make a sound judgement about what to do with them.

Not so nice personal opinion, but you are entitled to it.

[_Physics Guy]

Sacred texts which get made and transmitted in natural ways imply a God who is committed to natural causal processes (which God made, after all). That kind of God is not prepared to use even the subtle miracle of mental inspiration to overcome even the mild fallibility of well-intentioned human scribes, who can actually do a pretty good job of repetition if they try hard—not even for the sake of conveying God's own divine words in uncorrupted form.

And yet that same God should now send angels to give and take material objects between Earth and Heaven, instead of simply allowing golden plates to be found by archaeologists? And should reveal English words on a seer stone, to translate texts from ancient tongues, instead of just providing a Meso-American Rosetta stone to let modern scholars read the preserved ancient words?

The styles are wildly inconsistent. This is my point.

[_ClarkGoble]

Sacred texts which get made and transmitted in natural ways imply a God who is committed to natural causal processes (which God made, after all).

But how is revelation a natural process? It seems to me you're trying to avoid God in the picture unless you think there was no divine inspiration at all to say Isaiah.

And yet that same God should now send angels to give and take material objects between Earth and Heaven, instead of simply allowing golden plates to be found by archaeologists? And should reveal English words on a seer stone, to translate texts from ancient tongues, instead of just providing a Meso-American Rosetta stone to let modern scholars read the preserved ancient words?

The styles are wildly inconsistent. This is my point.

So you don't believe the 10 commandments were really given by God? An even better example would be the interpretation of dreams by a prophet. By your logic why didn't God just speak clearly?

I just don't see the difference myself. I'm fine with Isaiah being inspired yet fallible just as I'm fine with Joseph Smith giving an inspired translation yet fallible in the process. To me the styles are exactly the same.

Now I'll concede that I don't know of an example in the Biblical canon of a book being translated by the spirit. Although clearly there are examples of other languages being understood by gifts of the spirit. (Say in Acts 2) But I don't think one could say simply because we don't have an example of a Biblical canon prophet translating a text that it is therefore a different style.

[_ClarkGoble]

If a divine source is doing the translation, then it should be as good as the best human translator or more likely better.

Why? I recognize this is your intuition. Clearly it's not my intuition. I'm just curious as to whether you've asked yourself how you reached that conclusion.

[_ClarkGoble]

I don't think that follows. But of course elements of the religion might be wrong without the religion as a whole being wrong.

Which was my point. The religion remains unfalsifiable.

Again as per science, scientific theories can be falsified and religious theories can be falsified. My problem is that religion as a broad category just doesn't seem the sort of entity that is falsifiable. That might be all you mean - if so I apologize for misunderstanding you. However theories one could characterize as about religion certainly seem verifiable or falsifiable.

By way of analogy the fact many scientific theories are eventually falsified doesn't say much about science as a whole.

It says that scientific theories are falsifiable.

Well yes, but that was never in dispute.

So I think there's a bit of a category error going on here.

So there are no areas of religious belief about the real world in which we live or its history that are subject to scientific scrutiny? If not then religion becomes unfalsifiable.

Again, I think you're making a category error not clearly distinguishing "religion" (whatever you mean by that) from particular theories about religion.

[_Themis]

If a divine source is doing the translation, then it should be as good as the best human translator or more likely better.

Why? I recognize this is your intuition. Clearly it's not my intuition. I'm just curious as to whether you've asked yourself how you reached that conclusion.

It just logic, and most TBM's understand this. Right from Monson on down. You need to go somewhere else in order to find some space to keep believing. That is the real problem in this discussion. Nothing about the Book of Mormon fits what we should expect for an ancient document, but it fits like a glove for 19th century fiction. Because it doesn't fit you look for some space for belief in the Book of Mormon/Joseph, which ends up making God into a puny God. Not the God of the Joseph Smith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ You want to limit God's capability and desire to get things done well because you need to believe and get around the mountains of evidence. A truth seeker does not do this. You cannot really have the puny God be the God who created the universe and all life in it as Mormonism teaches. Maybe you could go where a previous poster Tobin went and believe it is some highly intelligent alien species doing all things, but even they could do a better job.