It doesn’t take long for someone researching Mormonism online to come across websites run by Christians making all sorts of claims to discredit the Book of Mormon. A popular claim is that the Book of Mormon is not true because it mentions such animals as horses and elephants, which is unsupported by concrete archaeological evidence.
I find it odd that Christians would make such claim. Consider Isa. 34:7
>the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
So if these Christians can (presumably) support the biblical idea of unicorns ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù despite the lack of archaeological evidence of their existence ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù how can they reject a similar claim of actual (if not anachronistic) animals by the Book of Mormon?
NIV says “wild oxen” instead of unicorn. So does our footnote on Hebrew translation. The unicorns are the doing of the King James translators.
And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.
The horses and the elephants and the chariots are a problem. Fortunately, the chariots all seem to be in passages quoted from the Bible.
I like Jeff Lindsay’s work on the animal problem.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml
So they used the word “unicorn” to refer to a different animal?
Except for the one Lamoni’s father drove.
NIV says “wild oxen” instead of unicorn — but, The King James is the one most often quoted by those claiming inerrant Biblical canon.
Newsflash. Mormon critics do not play fair. If they were as critical of each other as they are of us, they would be to busy explaining themselves to criticize others.
“Mormon critics do not play fair.”
I believe a case could be made that even if this is so, it does nothing to deal with the problems of anachronisms in the BoM.
The horses, the elephants and the chariots continue to be a problem regardless of your opinions of the critics of the LDS faith.
pst! Some might argue that LDS apologists don’t play fair either since they do not offer their studies up to non-member peer reviews; but I won’t tell anyone if you don’t.
Yes. You’ve read the footnotes, right?
So, if the Christian critics of the Mormon church can take that sort of stance, ltbugaf, I guess it stands to reason, Mormon apologetics can take the same stance on the Book of Mormon.
Don’t think I’m following you. Which stance are you talking about?
That they can use one animal to refer to a different animal without making the Bible incorrect.
I don’t think your point stands very well Kim. No offense intended, but the King James Version’s use of the word “unicorn” has nothing to do with the inerrancy of the Bible; it simply proves the errancy of man. The people who do the translation work of all versions of the protestant Bibles are not Seers. They learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramic, then they translate. I’m thankful for the Greek Suptuagint (I only know a little bit of Greek). These days, they often have dozens of people working together to make one translation of the Bible, all checking and verifying each other’s work. The NIV is a case in point… In fact, the Suptuagint also fits that bill. The Zondervan company is responsible for a large portion of this massive translation work. I won’t speculate as to why the translators of the King James Version thought it was acceptable to use the word “unicorn” in their translation, but nevertheless, this does not provide sufficient reason to doubt the inerrancy of protestant scripture as it reads in the original languages. Therefore, out of respect for the Christians, I would suggest that you learn more about the original languages if you’re going to challenge the inerrancy of their scripture. Just a friendly admonition. :)
I’m not challenging the inerrancy of the Bible. I’m just saying that if words can be used in at least one version of the Bible to refer to something else, then I don’t understand why the same technique can’t be used in the Book of Mormon.
Nowhere did I say the Bible is wrong.
I don’t think you have to be a critic or an apologist of any type to understand common sense like that. Of course, a translator can use a word that doesn’t fit precisely. You don’t have to look past the text of the Book of Mormon itself to discover that its writers knew it would contain errors and inexactitudes. You don’t have to look very far into Church history to know that Joseph Smith almost immediately began correcting errors in the Book of Mormon after its publication. I don’t see what the big deal is. Elephants might mean elephants or something else. Horses might mean horses or something else. I’m inclined to think elephants means elephants and horses means horses, but a matter as insignificant as that shouldn’t be central to anyone’s testimony or lack thereof.
I thought that Joseph stared into the hat until the correct word formed before his spiritual eyes.
Given that scenario, I could imagine some poking around with linking words, but I would not think it would apply to nouns in the translation. Direct objects being pretty important to meaning, one would have hoped that God would have shown Jospeh the correct noun.
For starters, the use of the hat was mentioned by some witnesses as one of the several methods Joseph used in translating. By describing this as the “scenario” you’re ingnoring other important information such as the way that the translation process was described in Doctrine & Covenants 9, and the use of the Urim & Thummim, and the way that Joseph gradually progressed to translating without using these or the seerstone.
However, I think the more important point is what you mean by “the correct word.” Correct in its communication of what the original author wrote? Correct in its communication of what the original author meant? Something else?
The Book of Mormon title page anticipates the presence of mistakes in the book, and the Book of Ether mentions weakness in writing. Clearly, since Joseph began correcting the work right after its first publication, it was subject not only to mistakes but also to inexactitudes that are inevitable in the translation of one language to another.
This does not sound like the most correct book ever written, ltbugaf…
Well, I’m giving a rather delayed response, but I believe my point is still relevant to the conversation. I apologize, Kim, for not making myself more clear. There is a difference between the word “inerrant” and the word “incorrect”. What you had said earlier was:
“That [translators] can use one animal to refer to a different animal without making the Bible incorrect.”
Indeed, I think we would agree that a poor translation of a word does not automatically make the Bible incorrect (as a whole). However, I am addressing the “inerrancy” of the Bible. The Christians believe that the Bible (in its original languages) contains absolutely no errors.
Well, Mormon scripture translation was done by the inspiration of God, just as the original authors of the Bible were inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16)
I will refer to a familiar quote from David Whitmer:
“Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated BY THE GIFT AND POWER OF GOD, AND NOT BY THE POWER OF ANY MAN.”
Now, I can understand how errant human beings can make mistakes in translation, but I’m having a hard time understanding how a translation that is inspired by an infallible God could contain mistakes that need to be corrected.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m mostly saying this to pick your brain. ;) Everyone’s brain, in fact.
Beats me.
Keep in mind these two things:
Why not? How does any of this invalidate the correctness of the gospel teachings contained in the Book of Mormon?
That’s just the point–it’s inspired by an infallible God. Whom does he inspire? Fallible men. He condescends to give his word through prophets, who are fallible, to us who are also fallible. Even when our understandings are increased and enlightened by the Holy Ghost beyond our own natural ability, our understanding can’t be perfect. We can’t understand all that God understands without already being exalted. (See Moses 1:5)
My advice is to follow the counsel of Moroni as written on the title page of the Book of Mormon: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
“And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
Or:
When this book is wrong, it’s the fault of the transcribers. If it happens to get anything right, please attribute that thing to God.
This seems a bit like heads, I win tails you lose.
Is that the same criticism you would make of any other book that may contain imperfections?
Rick, I’m not going to hector you but I still welcome any answer you may have to the question I posed in comment 14: How are you defining “the right word”? I also still welcome any answer you may have to the question I posed in comment 18: How does the possibility of inexactness in words like “elephant” or “horse” compromise the correctness of the Book of Mormon’s gospel teachings?
Okay, here’s another long one. :P
I find that it might be helpful in this particular instance to walk through a description of the translation process using the seer stones in the hat.
I would say that Joseph Smith Jun. saw each word that was being translated in English as well as Reformed Egyptian. I also tend to think that this method of translation should be the most accurate method, if not flawless. To make this point, I will again refer back David Whitmer:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.”
Now that last sentence I just quoted is really what spells it out. Imagine, if you would, you are Joseph Smith, Jun. You have a seer stone in a hat, you put your face into the hat and pull it tight to exclude any outside light. In a few moments, a fairly bright light appears (a light that is obviously not natural, and therefore, must be spiritual). Then, a piece of something resembling old parchment appears before your eyes–it has written on it symbols in Reformed Egyptian–and then under the parchment appears words that you recognize in Enlgish. These English words are a direct translation (“by the gift and power of God, and not by the power of any man”) from the Reformed Egyptian.
“Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated BY THE GIFT AND POWER OF GOD, AND NOT BY THE POWER OF ANY MAN.”
Now, imagine also that you have a scribe writing down everything you tell him to. You read a portion of the translation in English, your scribe writes it down. Your scribe then repeats to you what you had said while also reading what he had written. And only after it had been confirmed that what was written down is exactly what you had said, then the words would disappear, and the next parchment and/or English translation would appear before your eyes.
In my mind, the most significant thing happening here is at the very end. When the words would disappear and then another character would appear along with the English translation, that was an act of God. Would anyone disagree?
Disagree with what? That Whitmer said this?
When the words would disappear and then another character would appear along with the English translation, that was an act of God, was it not?
Sounds like it would be.
Okay. Then understand that what we’re saying here is that, essentially, God is affirming that the translation was correct by allowing the translation process to move on.
Well then, logically, does it not follow that either (a) God knowingly allowed the translation to be wrong, (b) God made a mistake (may it never be!), or (c) God wasn’t actually involved in the translation at all?
This is the line of questioning that has me a little bit stumped lately.
Assuming Whitmer’s account is correct, I would vote for a).
Assuming A) to be the correct answer, that God’s got a sick sense of humour…
RE:#21
“14: How are you defining “the right word”?”
Right as in the translation process was allowed to continue i.e. a new glyph and English word would appear.
“How does the possibility of inexactness in words like “elephant” or “horse” compromise the correctness of the Book of Mormon’s gospel teachings?”
Either is correct, or it’s a fraud in my mind.
I’ve occasionally wondered what David Whitmer based his account on. He didn’t do the translating himself. I’m just not sure how he came up with his description.
rick, when you say, “Either is correct, or it’s a fraud in my mind,” I assume you mean “Either it’s correct…” If I’m right, you seem to be setting up a black-and-white, absolutely right-or-absolutely wrong standard. That surprises me, considering how often you’ve told us that rational people only see the world in shades of gray.
I don’t see how this could be seen in any shades of gray. This book is either from God or it’s not.
In that I don’t believe there is a God from which it came, I believe, personally, that it is not. I can see how someone who is a believer could believe it was from God, but then they have to contend with all of the problems described above.
If you believe it was written by a man, the whole situation becomes much easier to understand.
Well, here’s my thought on the question I had posed in my last post:
(c) cannot be right, or else the mormon faith is simply the product of men, and not of God at all.
(b) cannot be right, or else scripture itself is wrong, our beliefs of the character of God are wrong, and in turn the mormon faith is wrong.
(a) cannot be right, or else what Moroni had said on the Title page of the Book of Mormon is wrong.
– “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
Therefore, we are left with no other option than to say that David Whitmer’s account is wrong.
So then, what do we know of the translation process other than that it may be wrong?
I appreciate your responses.
rick:
And if it is from God, then how did it come to us? Clearly, through men.
Which isn’t terribly difficult, as several believers have pointed out.
Well, let’s see: Nephi was a man. Jacob was a man. Enos was a man. Jared was a man. Omni was a man. Mormon was a man. Moroni was a man. Shall I go on? Of course it was written by men. Those men were inspired of God. That didn’t turn them into infallible beings.
Likewise, Joseph Smith was a man. He translated by the gift and power of God. That didn’t transform him into an infallible being, either. There are probably mistakes in the translation as well as in the writing. There are also probably phrases that just don’t translate with perfect smoothness from one language to another. None of this makes the Book of Mormon a fraud.
TheLordReigns:
Choice (a) seems quite reasonable. On the other hand, you’re forgetting the possibility that some of what you define as “wrong” may not really be wrong at all. For example, a hippopotamus isn’t really a horse, is it? Then why does its name mean “water horse”? And if you were translating a term that, in the original writing, meant something nearest to “horse” without actually being a horse as we understand the term, would it really be wrong to translate it that way? I don’t think so. You also ignoring the fact that an inexactitude is not necessarily a mistake or a “wrong” translation, but just an inevitable and intrinsic part of language.
Nonsense. If God allowed such mistakes to occur, that doesn’t mean the mistakes are His.
Nothing you’ve said leads to the conclusion that David Whitmer’s account is “wrong.”
ltbugaf, you’re purposefully being oblique.
You know that when I say written by man, I mean authored and originating from man as well.
I God purposely inserted or allowed errors in the most perfect book ever written then he is, indeed, a manipulative, petty, small being.
Can you explain how you come to this conclusion, rick?
If I purposely mislead my children in order to fulfill some sort of want on my part, then I am being manipulative.
If I know how it will all end up, and have the power to accomplish the same result through different means (as an omnipotent God could do) then my actions are even more deplorable. I think the word bully would also describe the situation.
Mislead how?
If, for example I tell them a purportedly true story about horses and chariots when in truth there were none, or I mean dogs and sleds, I am misleading them.
If I tell them a continent was densely populated with a particular culture when in truth that culture was in fact a very small percent of the total population I am also being misleading.
Neither of your scenarios is true.
In your first scenario, there is no evidence that proves there were no chariots or horses. Just because there is no evidence that proves they existed does not mean they didn’t exist.
Never mind the fact that the Book of Mormon isn’t a story about horses and chariots. Even if the account of Ammon, Lamoni, and his father were fiction, it wouldn’t change the story of the Book of Mormon.
In your second scenario, God hasn’t said a single continent was densely populated by a single culture.
So if God gave the wrong word to Joseph when he was translating, you wouldn’t define that as misleading behaviour?
That depends on how you define mislead.
I’d say you’re splitting hairs.
Giving someone less information or incorrect information when you know it will lead to a misunderstanding is a misleading practice, in my opinion.
It’s not splitting hairs. If you want me to answer the question, I need to understand what you mean by “mislead”.
Did God intentionally tell Joseph Smith a specific word when He deliberately intended a different word? And did that action result in a meaning different from what He intended? Then yes, I would classify that as misleading.
Quite frankly, it wouldn’t matter what words were used in the Book of Mormon; readers would still misunderstand its messages.
This phenomenon happens all the time in publications, but does that mean every author of every book any reader misunderstood is guilty of misleading readers? Does the onus of the misunderstanding lie solely with the author?
The answer to both of these question is, if the author is the perfect omnipotent creator of the Universe, yes.
That makes no sense.
How can he write (or rather cause to be written) a book that no one can misunderstand without forcing that understanding on everyone? It would have to presume that every reader has the same IQ, the same thought process, the same life experiences, and so forth.
So God is powerless to make this happen?
Your God, it seems, is smaller than I’d imagined.
Really? You think it’s small for God to allow for diversity among humans? You think he would be bigger if he made the human race homogeneous?
I never said he couldn’t do it, only that if he did he would have to force understanding on everyone.
It’s not about the audience, it’s about the presentation. It would seem to me that an all powerful being would be able to draft a presentation which would communicate the correct meaning regardless of the audience.
But to get back on topic, we’re not talking about nuance, we’re talking about specific words that are changed or are wrong. If he says horse but it should have been guinea pig, then that is a bit misleading, no?
It’s impossible to do while allowing for diversity of intelligence and experience.
If he intended to say guinea pig, but said “horse” so people will intentionally envision an animal that in few ways represents a guinea pig, then yes, I do think that is misleading.
“It’s impossible to do while allowing for diversity of intelligence and experience.”
Impossible for God?
If God can’t do something, that’s what I mean when I refer to your God being smaller or of diminished power when compared to, say, the Catholic God who can do anything.