- Lent 2A March 12, 2017. Image: Nicodemus, 1973, Cameroon from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN.
- Using other people’s research or ideas without giving them due credit is plagiarism. Since BibMe
- BOOK 1 THE ARGUMENT. This first Book proposes, first in brief, the whole Subject, Mans disobedience, and the loss thereupon of Paradise wherein he was plac't: Then.
- Review of Wade E. Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More (Laguna Niguel, California: KCT & Associates, 2010). 106 pages + viii.
Textual history. By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures" and they referred to them as "holy", or in Hebrew. This page is a minimalist listing of books Dr. Heiser recommends on various subjects. Inclusion does not mean wholesale endorsement of the contents of any item except.
APOCALYPSE NOW World predicted to end in 2017 thanks to a total solar eclipse hitting America and the UK.
A Scientist Looks at Book of Mormon Anachronisms. Review of Wade E. Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More (Laguna Niguel, California: KCT & Associates, 2. Abstract: Anachronisms, or out of place items, have long been a subject of controversy with the Book of Mormon. Several Latter- day Saints over the years have attempted to examine them. Miller, as a paleontologist and geologist, offers a some new insights on this old question, especially regarding animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, including a report on some preliminary research which might completely change the pre- Columbian picture for horses in America.
Overall, this is an indispensable resource on Book of Mormon anachronisms. Ever since the Book of Mormon came off the press in 1. Remove Internet Low-Mic Utility Tool. Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text (anachronisms are items that are chronologically out of place).
This remains true despite the evidence that has turned up for many items once thought to be anachronisms in the text. While some alleged Book of Mormon anachronisms are conceptual (e. Christian concepts in . Archaeologist John E. Clark explains, “The most frequently mentioned deficiencies of the book concern the lack of hard evidence in the New World for the right time periods of precious metals, Old World animals and plants, and Book of Mormon place names and personal names.”3 Aside from the absence of proper names, each of these deficiencies is, at least in part, a question of science. Were there—or at least could there have been—the right kinds of animals, plants, and materials (such as metal, glass, and certain textiles) in the Americas when the Book of Mormon took place?
Miller is certainly not the first Latter- day Saint to explore this question. Given his particular expertise, however, his contribution is both unique and welcome, particularly when it comes to animals in the Book of Mormon. Miller begins by mentioning the Smithsonian Institute’s history with the Book of Mormon (pp. The Smithsonian has long gotten letters from folks asking about the Book of Mormon. The Institute used to send out a long response listing several perceived inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon but has .
Miller also takes time to clarify that he follows John L. Sorenson in associating Book of Mormon lands with Mesoamerica (pp. Miller then discusses with considerable brevity matters such as steel and glass (pp. Then the remainder of the book discusses animals (pp. Miller explains, “I will discuss the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon in greater depth than other scientific aspects because of my own research specialization” (p.
Before launching into his discussion on animals in the Book of Mormon, Miller offers a couple of cautions. The first is that, “We can’t be positive that each animal with its translated name corresponds exactly to our present understanding of that animal” (p. This important point has long been derided by critics of Mormonism on the Internet, but I’ve yet to see anyone else explain just what Nephi, with his Hebrew or Egyptian language, was supposed to call a tapir or any other species discovered in his new environment for which his native language had no words. Both loan- shifting and translator’s . In fact, such practices are arguably expected in such a text. Some protest that the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book,” “translated by the gift and power of God,” and hence should not manifest such “incorrect” labeling. Matters of translation are complicated, however, and very often fuzzy notions of “literal” translation hinge more on unexplored assumptions than actual data.
What’s more, if the Nephites applied Old World terms meaning horse, sheep, cattle, or pig to New World species, then those were the “correct” labels within Nephite taxonomy. As such, translation using those terms is no more “incorrect” than continued American usage of terms like “robin,” “elk,” and “buffalo,” all of which originally referred to completely different Old World species before being borrowed and applied to unfamiliar animals in the New World by European settlers. In light of this, Miller’s advice that, “Care needs to be taken in the interpretation of stated animals in the Book of Mormon,” that, “It’s best to allow some flexibility in thinking” (p. Miller also mentions the challenge of bone preservation. He points out that in Mesoamerica, “Climatic conditions . While critics tend to see such caveats as subterfuge, recognizing the limitations and challenges of certain kinds of evidence is absolutely essential to any attempt to determine just what the evidence can and cannot tell us. Miller concludes, “Considering all the circumstances, I’m not surprised by so little evidence being available to support the animals reported in the Book of Mormon.
However, some evidences do exist. These should leave open the probability of more being found” (pp. Miller first discusses cattle (pp. Throughout his discussion, Miller draws on evidence that hints at the presence, in pre- Columbian Mesoamerica, of Old World species called by these labels but also points to possible candidate species for which Old World labels may have been applied by either the Jaredites or the Nephites. In doing so, Miller shows no hesitation in drawing on species thought to be extinct by Book of Mormon times (though, in most cases, he also points to animals that still have living populations today). While this may be seen as a weakness to some, it seems sensible to ask, before quickly discounting the possibility, what Miller—an internationally recognized geologist and paleontologist—might know or understand about both the limitations and capabilities his disciplines that gives him confidence that at least some of these extinct species survived longer than generally believed? Perhaps there is something he has learned though decades of training and experience that is not obvious to the untrained, lay reader—especially when that untrained reader is anxious to score points against the Book of Mormon.
Miller’s discussion of elephants (pp. I had previously read on a critical website that, “All scientists agree that elephants did not exist in the Americas; however Mastodons, which are not elephants, did . Some still do.” (p. Miller cites an example as recent as 1. What’s more, Miller explains, “The Columbian mammoth of North America, based on studies of its fossils, is more closely related to the Indian (or Asian) elephant than the Indian elephant is to the African one!” (p.
Miller has personally been involved in excavating mammoth remains in Mexico (p. He explains, “The Columbian mammoth (actually a true elephant) . It apparently survived beyond this time.” (p. In light of this, it seems that insisting that there never were any true “elephants” in the Americas, as indicated in the critic’s quote above, is entirely untenable.
If mammoths can be called “elephants” by scientists in the late 2. Joseph Smith using the label for an American species in 1. There is still the issue of when the mammoth went extinct.
Miller explains, “Until the last few decades, almost all scientists were convinced that mammoths did not survive the Pleistocene (Ice age) epoch. This was 1. 0,0. 00 to 1.
How long did they survive? That question is still being debated by paleontologists.” (p. Miller goes on to cite some of the late dates given, including one from Alaska that dates to approximately 3,7. Jaredite times; and another from Florida that dates to . While the question is not yet settled, it does not require a huge leap of faith to accept that elephants (mammoths) could have been present in Mesoamerica in Jaredite times.
Miller includes a comparably long discussion of possible candidates for the cureloms and cumoms (pp. Part of the reason is because so little is known about these animals, there exists a broad range of possibilities.
The Apocrypha, and Why It's Not Scripture. Rome versus the Bible Series - #1. The Apocrypha, and Why It's Not Scripture.