Zone1 New potential sites for Book of Mormon people LiDar into existence

[Cougarbear]

MSN

www.msn.com

Now, no one, including me, knows if these will show any information that proves The Book of Mormon true. But, and a big But, This also should open up hearts to at least give some desire for you to read The Book of Mormon and find out through faith that it is also the word of God. Of course, double-minded people will be negative immediately because they don't want people to believe in Christ.

 

[lafayette]

I agree that if someone could find a major earlier North American battle ground with steel instruments dating to the 4th century common era that I would have to pay attention.

 

[lafayette]

... or fossils of horses during the "Lamanite" age.

 

[Cougarbear]

I agree that if someone could find a major earlier North American battle ground with steel instruments dating to the 4th century common era that I would have to pay attention.

Why 4th century? The words sometimes are to depict certain things in our day for understanding purposes. Same with animals.

 

[Cougarbear]

... or fossils of horses during the "Lamanite" age.

We must not be rash in assuming that all translated names of plants and animals or other physical objects describe the same things we think of today in 20th century America. Names in many languages are ambiguous and difficult to translate with certainty. For example, the Hebrew word for horse, "sus," has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow. Hebrew "teo" typically means "wild ox" but has also been applied to a type of gazelle. The general Hebrew word for ox is "aluph," which has a root meaning of "tame" or "gentle" that could be applied to describe a human friend as well (J. L. Sorenson, "Vive Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994), p. 345) -- could it also describe a tapir? (But in light of emerging evidence discussed below, there is a reasonable case that actual horses were meant in the Book of Mormon record.) One Hebrew word for sheep, "zemer," has been translated as "mountain sheep" and "rock-goat" in different Bible versions, while Sorenson notes that one Jewish scholar says it means antelope.

The difficulties of assigning and translating animal names are illustrated by the example of the Spaniards in dealing with American animals. Bishop Landa called a Yucatan deer a "kind of little wild goat" (Sorenson, Ensign, Oct. 1984, p. 19). Likewise, bisons were called "cows," turkeys were called "peacocks," antelope were described in terms of sheep, and the tapir was described in one source as "a species of buffalo of the size and somewhat looking like an ass" (Sorenson, ibid., p. 346; also see the extensive documentation in Chapter 7 of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon). The Spaniards called the prickly pear a "fig" and used "plum" (ciruelo) to name a native non-plum species, while some Spaniards used "wheat" (trigo) to name American maize (ibid., p. 338-339). The Nephites and Jaredites might have made similar name assignments to species they encountered in the New World. We should not expect the religious record they kept to be a manual on natural science, and we should not insist that their terminology reflect our modern views - especially if the Europeans could do no better. If Nephites called a tapir an ox, we should not abandon the Book of Mormon when Joseph Smith follows their convention in his translation. And if they called it by a completely new name, how should it be translated? (For some examples of translation difficulties for some plant names in the Bible, see "Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew" from the Biblical Archaeology Society.) - www.Jefflindsay.com

 

[lafayette]

Cougarbear, no one knows the ancient language from which Josep Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon. Smith said the BoM was the most perfect of all books. Thus, you can trust him that when wrote "horses" he was accurate in time and place, if not in history or antiquity of the North and South American hemispheres.

Readers can study up on Cougarbear's source at https://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/.

He is a noted apologist for all matters Mormon.

 

[lafayette]

Why 4th century? The words sometimes are to depict certain things in our day for understanding purposes. Same with animals.

You know great battles according to the BoM with steel weapons were fought in North America, according to the BoM?

 

[Cougarbear]

You know great battles according to the BoM with steel weapons were fought in North America, according to the BoM?

And again, words for our understanding may be something different but in the words we may understand. Did you read the post from Jeff Lindsay? Try educating yourself so you don’t repeat stupid ignorant stuff.

 

[lafayette]

And again, words for our understanding may be something different but in the words we may understand. Did you read the post from Jeff Lindsay? Try educating yourself so you don’t repeat stupid ignorant stuff.

Jeff is an apologist. He has his spin. I write only what is true, and I do not put it through your spin machine.

 

[Cougarbear]

Jeff is an apologist. He has his spin. I write only what is true, and I do not put it through your spin machine.

I don’t care what you think he is. You are an apologist for your side spin. The points he make is factual. Only an idiot would say he’s wrong about language.

 

[boevans]

I don’t care what you think he is. You are an apologist for your side spin. The points he make is factual. Only an idiot would say he’s wrong about language.

Logic dictates the likliness of outcomes. The Book of Mormon records steel weaponry and horses were extant in the America. When we find such, or great cities from the 4th century common era and earlier, I will be glad to investigate further.

 

[Cougarbear]

Logic dictates the likliness of outcomes. The Book of Mormon records steel weaponry and horses were extant in the America. When we find such, or great cities from the 4th century common era and earlier, I will be glad to investigate further.

If you want to continue to look illiterate by all means do it. To what Joseph Smith was looking at, he wrote what it appeared to be like. Not that it was what we think today as steel. It’s unfortunate you can’t logically reason plain things.

 

[lafayette]

If you want to continue to look illiterate by all means do it. To what Joseph Smith was looking at, he wrote what it appeared to be like. Not that it was what we think today as steel. It’s unfortunate you can’t logically reason plain things.

You literally make no sense. Smith knew what was steel. He wrote there were horses. He wrote that great cities existed in that era. We have found none of it. When we do, I will pay closer attention.

 

[boevans]

You literally make no sense. Smith knew what was steel. He wrote there were horses. He wrote that great cities existed in that era. We have found none of it. When we do, I will pay closer attention.

You don't set the standard. Joseph Smith did. Stop whining and think.

 

[lafayette]

boveans owns this discussion.

Besides, according to Latter Day scripture, did not the Lord reject the Nauvoo Temple and the LDS Church?

 

[Cougarbear]

You literally make no sense. Smith knew what was steel. He wrote there were horses. He wrote that great cities existed in that era. We have found none of it. When we do, I will pay closer attention.

He didn't know what the metal was that he either saw or was written to be like. Read my post on this concept by Jeff Lindsey. If you can't understand this, then get out of the kitchen.

 

[lafayette]

He didn't know what the metal was that he either saw or was written to be like. Read my post on this concept by Jeff Lindsey. If you can't understand this, then get out of the kitchen.

Neither you nor Lindsay make a credible counter argument. It is what it is.

 

[alang1216]

If you want to continue to look illiterate by all means do it. To what Joseph Smith was looking at, he wrote what it appeared to be like. Not that it was what we think today as steel. It’s unfortunate you can’t logically reason plain things.

I don't know if an angel spoke to JS but as a skeptic I find it hard to believe. It is my easier to see JS as a product of his place and time. The US was just beginning to export the Midwest and encountered massive earthworks that the Native Americans that lived there could not explain. It seemed easier for the 19th century Whites to believe that since the primitive natives were incapable of building them so White men must have come to the Americas and a likely candidate might be a lost Israeli tribe.

 

[Cougarbear]

Neither you nor Lindsay make a credible counter argument. It is what it is.

It's completely credible. You do not know if he was given a translation or a vision of what took place. He did both. Some translating and some of it was seer-ing or being given a vision of this event. You weren't there and neither was I. It only makes sense that this was more likely to be a visual event rather than a translation event. And, just like with the animals and the words of the time, that is where the discrepancy comes from.

 

[Cougarbear]

I don't know if an angel spoke to JS but as a skeptic I find it hard to believe. It is my easier to see JS as a product of his place and time. The US was just beginning to export the Midwest and encountered massive earthworks that the Native Americans that lived there could not explain. It seemed easier for the 19th century Whites to believe that since the primitive natives were incapable of building them so White men must have come to the Americas and a likely candidate might be a lost Israeli tribe.

Ancient Mayan cities began to be discovered and documented by explorers in the 1830s, with prominent figures like John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood leading expeditions to map and record Maya sites in Central America; this marked the "rediscovery" of the Maya civilization for modern researchers. . So, this was after the Book of Mormon was written and published. Also, it's doubtful Joseph Smith knew about the findings in South America. The findings by Stephens and Catherwood weren't published until 1841. Smith dies in 1844.