BOM not History
Sargent
Thank YOu for the reply.
MTGri...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Basically, you say there is not shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
>
That and there is LOTs of evidence that the BOM is not a record of History, but
fiction.
>
> Your information is badly out of date.
History is NEVER out of date.
When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found NO trace of
what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000 years earlier.
(BOM end about 600 AD)
They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley, NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO
Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords, NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO
Compass, NO Chariots and more.
HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
200 years of digging has not found any of it either.
No time will change what the Europeans found when they came to Americas.
They HAD to bring all of these things with them. They were not here.
The writer of the BOM, who ever it was, had no knowledge of life in the Americas
before 1492!!!
There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological findings
of any kind in the Americans. NO churches no synagogues before 1492.
>
>
> As for the Smithsonian Institution, if you accept the SI's views on the Book
> of Mormon, do you also accept its equally skeptical views on the Bible?
The topic was HISTORY !!!!!! Why are you changing it? I talk about people,
places and things.
And you what to compare that to evolution! Where is your person honesty? When
you trust in a lie, I guess you can not have much. Jesus Christ and the Bible
teach truth. The people in the Bible are real, the Places you or I can GO visit
and the things can be dug up, is some case so much they we can buy ancient coin
of Jesus' day. So much evidence, that you can buy a month magazine BIBLICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church could not make a biannual magazine on the BOM
ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church shows archaeological finds of OTHER non-Americas
cultures to prove the BOM!
Do you hope to became a god?
> Do
> you agree with the SI on the subject of evolution? You are aware, of course,
> that the SI strongly teaches man simply evolved from ape-like creatures and
> that all life came about by chance through natural selection, right? You did
> know that, right?Have you read any of the detailed replies by Mormon scholars
> to the SI's
> statement on the Book of Mormon? What do you have to say about the evidence
> presented in those replies?
>
Yes, long winded run around, like you comparison above.
>
> What about the scientific computer wordprint analyses that prove the Book of
> Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith and that the book was authored by
> multiple authors? One of those analyses was done almost exclusively by
> non-LDS scholars, by the way.
Again I do not need to go there. The People, Place and things of the BOM prove it
is NOT History.
lfidallas
ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
Sargent
> Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a mighty long time
> ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
How?
Millions of bees do not vanish. Nice try.
The list of missing thing is so long Cortez would not have to dig.
No one was around to see dinosaurs. Both the Native American and the europeans were
alive in this time span. The europeans were making written record of what they found.
Dave
Sargent
absalom wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> And I suppose there is archealogical evidence for:talking asses,
> resurrection, walking on water,
> turning water to wine, walking through a sea on dry ground, burning
> bushes,feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
Thank You for the Reply.
Resurrection I would say yes, some but then I was talking about places
and things. Not events.
The people in the Bible are real, the Places you or I can GO visit and
the things can be dug up, is some case so much we can buy ancient coin
of Jesus' day. So much evidence, that you can buy a month magazine
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church could not make a biannual
magazine on the BOM ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church shows archaeological
finds of OTHER non-Americas cultures to prove the BOM! Visit temple
square.
When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found
NO
trace of what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just
1,000 years
earlier. (BOM end about 600 AD)
They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO
chickens,
NO cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley, NO oats, NO rice,
NO
Iron, NO Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords, NO armor, NO churches,
NO synagogues,
NO Compasses, NO Chariots and more.
HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
200 years of digging has not found any of it either.
No time will change what the Europeans found when they came to the
Americas.
They HAD to bring all of these things with them. They were not here.
The writer of the BOM, who ever it was, had no knowledge of life in
the
Americas before 1492!!!
There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological
findings
of any kind in the Americas. NO churches no synagogues before 1492.
The topic was the HISTORY of people and places and things!!!!!! Why
are you changing it to events? I talk about peoples, places and
things.
Doug Weller
0700, lfid...@hotmail.com said...
> Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a mighty long time
> ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
>
just weren't aware of the implications.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
CNG
My response was to 'dallas', not you.
Read my post here again which is in agreement of the same ideas...
...CNG
Sargent wrote in message <37419A13...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
>CNG wrote:
>
>> So you are saying that it is more likely for the current technology of
>> archeology to find 1,000,000+ year old bones less than 6 inches long than
it
>> is to find only 2000 year old entire stone temples, manufactured tools,
etc?
>> ........CNG
>>
>> snipped
>
>Had you read SNIPPED you may have understood. More or less Digs will
never
>prove the BOM.
>The written record of what the the Europeans found when they can to the
Americas
>will not change.
>What they had to bring on ships to America is recorded. Why did they bring
pigs,
>bees, horses, donkeys, chickens, cattle, wheel technology,
Chariots-wangons,
>Wheat, barley, oats, rice, Iron-steel-glass-compass technology, and silk?
>Because none of these things where here in the Americas.
>So WHERE are these great BOM civilizations, is Maya or Inca civilization
the BOM
>people?
>
>
>BofM:1 Nephi 18:21,23,24-25 & 19:1
> 21 And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the
>compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that
>I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed the winds did cease,
>and the storm did cease,
>and there was a great calm. . 23 And it came to pass that after we had
>sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land;
>and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did
>call it the promised land.. 24
> And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began
>to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had
> brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did
>grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.
>And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we
> journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of
>every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the
goat
>and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use
of
>men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and
of
>copper. Nephi makes plates of ore and records the history of his
people--The
> God of Israel will come six hundred years from the time Lehi left
> Jerusalem--Nephi tells of His sufferings and crucifixion.
> BOM dates this about 589 BC
>
>Jews discover America! C. Columbus discoveries their ancestors in 1492,
>2,000 years later?
>
>I have listed in other posts all the out of place animals, all these
>animals over a 1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and
goat
>these Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
> with out a trace?
>
>Wild goats are hardy animals, goats can browse on grass, shrubs, leaves.
>No evidence of pre 1492 goats in the Americans exist.
>
>Cattle-cows are not native to the Western Hemisphere; they were first
>brought to the West Indies in 1493 by Christopher Columbus.
>
>Also out of place a Compass, how could a tool like this in 589 BC
>be lost by the Jews-Native Americans?
>Mediterranean seamen of the 12th century AD were the first to use a
>magnetic compass at sea.
>
>Just these passages of Jews coming to America, makes my heart
>sad. I remember crying the first time I read this story.
>
>This as to be the answer for about the whole BOM. God made this
>great Jewish - Christian Civilization and then made it vanish without
>a trace.
>
>(Yet my BOM (1980) has pictures of ancient Mexico and Peru, that you say
>have nothing to do with the BOM, why are they in my BOM put there
>by the LDS church?)
>
>Just the above quote of 1 Nephi 18 as SO many out of place things.
>Compass, animals, then the death of Jesus on a cross hundreds of years
>before the Romans did death by crucifixion.]
>
>It was not just the compass that made be cry it is the WHOLE picture
>in these few passages. If this were a true written record on gold plates
>made by real people in about 589 BC it would not read this way with such
>absurdity. God is not the author of absurdity.
>
>Yet, the LDS church teaches that J. Smith translated the
>reformed Egyptian by the Power of God. LDS claim
>the BOM is the closest thing to a perfect
>book.
>
>The Bible and its teaching are true. The BIble teaches Salvation By Faith
thru
>Grace. Not works and rites and ordinances. Turn.
>
>
>
Copperhead
>In article <3740FDCC...@hotmail.com>, on Mon, 17 May 1999 22:42:36 -
>0700, lfid...@hotmail.com said...
>> Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a mighty long time
>> ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
>>
>What's your point? The evidence was there in plain sight, of course, people
>just weren't aware of the implications.
>Doug
>--
They also wanted to interpret the evidence in light of the Genesis
accounts. I believe it was _Ichthyostega_ that was called "Homo
deluvii testes." There was plenty of evidence that something existed
long before but it was all victimized by biblicism and the fallacy of
begging the question about the correctness of the Bible.
Interestingly, even Linnaeus had glimmerings of evolution even though
he could not or did not make it to the theory. Anyone who did manage
to voice a non-theistic and naturalistic explanation was in grave
danger of being tossed out of the science of the times, which, as you
well know, was religiously dominated almost everywhere. John Grant,
for example. The view was (and pretty much had been since before
Gallileo) that science was the handmaiden of the church and had to
function to gather proofs of what the church said was fact. The
heliocentric argument was never an argument about the science of
Galileo, Copernicus, or Bruno. It was not about whether the earth went
around the sun but an argument about who had the right to say which
way was right. It survived pretty much in this form even to Paley's
time and, on the lunatic fringes, to today.
Agkistrodon
R. L. Measures
(Williams) wrote:
> ........
> Rich Measures seems to be obsessed with the idea of burning bushes,
€ The only burning bush incident I am aware of took place four years ago
when a tree squirrel somehow managed to get across the overhead 16kV
electric mains at the end of our street. The flambeaux-squirrel fell,
starting a fire. A few bushes burned before the fire was extinguished
with a garden hose. The squirrel's well-toasted body was apparently
carried off for the evening meal by a family of coyotes.
- cheers, George
--
- Rich... - 805-386-3734, take away plus from e-mail address
Copperhead
Ah, if Moses had only had a hose with him we would have avoided all
this.
Agkistrodon
travis clark
Sargent wrote:
>
> When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found NO trace of
> what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000 years earlier.
> (BOM end about 600 AD)
First of all, I would like to state that while I appreciate your frankness, the
following list is yet another example of our critics moving the goal posts and
stating their case more firmly than it actually is. Some of your statements are
false.
As follows...
> They found NO Bees,
not true at all. The Maya have a long tradition of bee-keeping. They even have the
depiction of bees in their art. Mayan bees are green and stingerless and are
actually currently endangered by extinction by competition of European and larger
African honeybee varieties. The practice is dying out, but there is still bee
culture being preserved in traditional Mayan methods where the bees are kept in
hollow logs hung from the eaves of houses.
"NO swords, NO armor, "
Not true. There are swords, and that is exactly what the conquistadors called the
aztec weapons. Armor in the form of tight fitting clothes or jaguar skins or "god
suits" are also known as are laminate plated armor of wood, bark or skins.
"NO barley"
Also not true, simple varieties have been found.
Some of your statements are just misleading...
> NO churches, NO synagogues,
Considering that there is no formalized architecture for what makes a
synagogue/church in the Near east prior to the first century BC, how do you suspect
we would recognize a synagogue/church in the new world that was patterned after a
synagogue from jews coming from pre-exilic times? Any moderately sized room/bldg
would do. Are you saying that there are no moderately sixed bldgs in Mesoamerica
that could be synagogues/churches? This is just assertion.
> NO
> Compass,
Agreed. But the BoM makes no claims that there are.
Some of your points ignore the latest work on these issues.
> NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
> cattle
Ok. fair enough. But Mormon scholars have answered these claims well enough with a
simple explanation. Cultures often use the terms from one region to describe new
things that have a similar purpose. The persians for example called a turkey an
indian rooster. All of the names above have comparable similar components in the
new world. The tapir was actually called a horse by the first monks who accompanied
the Conquistadors. Likewise, Genesis mentions domsetic camels in the bronze age when
they did not exist until Iron Age I.
The same can be said for the following...
"NO glass, NO silk, NO Wheat, , NO oats, NO rice"
where silk is any refined cloth, not necessarily a fabric made by serioculture. The
same is true for grains. Word meanings vary constantly in ancient texts. Corn in
our day explicitly means maize, but in the Bible it almost always means wheat for
example.
These kind of vagaries show up all the time in ancient texts. I was working jsut
last year with a prof trying to determine what was meant by a particular latin word
often translated as "roof" when describing a feature on the Baths of Caracalla.
Small problem, there is no roof there, so what does it mean? No one knows, there are
lots of guesses. What does "wheat" mean? sounds unambiguous, but it may not be so.
Of the many assertions you make, only the following are really valid.
> NO wheel - Chariots
> NO Iron, NO Steel, NO Chariots
Actually there is some iron, but only of a meteoric nature with no current evidence
of steel production. Steel is only an alloy of iron and carbon and simple forging
methods will actually turn iron into steel. As I have stated on many other
occasions, the methods for making steel in the ancient world are decidely low tech
and low impact. Almost no evidence exists for the steel making capabilities of the
Bantu, no smelters, no mines, etc. Yet we know they had steel. Steel rusts and melts
away, and when making it is hard, it also get used up. Axes get ground done into
knives, knived into scrappers and scrappers into needles. Any precious commodity
like that gets used to its full potential, not much left. Likewise, it would be very
easy to lose track of steel in the americas, especially if the knowledge died out.
> HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
The Iron production could get lost very easy, as it has in the Bantu example and the
rest might still be there before our eyes. If they did not presently make iron
implements and not have a very large oral tradition about it, we would doubt that it
was done anciently as well. As it is, we have bantu craftsman who can take us to a
pile of iron oxide and say that this is a slag heap or to a charcoal pit and say
that this was a smelting site. No one exists in the mesoamerican world to do this
for us since the knowledge was lost anciently. This is not the first time this has
happened. There are various roman and greek technologies that are lost because no
one kept the knowledge, but some record thankfully preserves their existence so we
know they were there. Even still we scratch our heads at a charcoal pit sometimes
and wonder. Was this for fuel production or ceramics? Was it a lime kiln or a
charcoal site for metal smelting or was it a cistern that just got filled with
debris from a destruction layer later? Likewise, we have charcoal sites in
Mesoamerica, but their exact purpose is unknown.
So you see, your conclusions are based on a certain set of assumptions and other
misconceptions.
One last thing...
On the chariots? Ok, I don't have an answer for that one. But I can live with one
loose end.
Travis.
lfidallas
Sargent wrote:
> lfidallas wrote:
>
> > Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a mighty long time
> > ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
>
> HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
> How?
>
> Millions of bees do not vanish. Nice try.
> The list of missing thing is so long Cortez would not have to dig.
> No one was around to see dinosaurs. Both the Native American and the europeans were
> alive in this time span. The europeans were making written record of what they found.
>
> Dave
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Sargent wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Thank YOu for the reply.
> > >
> > > MTGri...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Basically, you say there is not shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That and there is LOTs of evidence that the BOM is not a record of History, but
> > > fiction.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your information is badly out of date.
> > >
> > > History is NEVER out of date.
> > >
> > > When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found NO trace of
> > > what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000 years earlier.
> > > (BOM end about 600 AD)
> > >
> > > They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
> > > cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley, NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO
> > > Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords, NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO
> > > Compass, NO Chariots and more.
> > >
> > > HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
> > > 200 years of digging has not found any of it either.
> > >
> > > No time will change what the Europeans found when they came to Americas.
> > > They HAD to bring all of these things with them. They were not here.
> > >
> > > The writer of the BOM, who ever it was, had no knowledge of life in the Americas
> > > before 1492!!!
> > >
> > > There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological findings
> > > of any kind in the Americans. NO churches no synagogues before 1492.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As for the Smithsonian Institution, if you accept the SI's views on the Book
> > > > of Mormon, do you also accept its equally skeptical views on the Bible?
> > >
> > > The topic was HISTORY !!!!!! Why are you changing it? I talk about people,
> > > places and things.
> > > And you what to compare that to evolution! Where is your person honesty? When
> > > you trust in a lie, I guess you can not have much. Jesus Christ and the Bible
> > > teach truth. The people in the Bible are real, the Places you or I can GO visit
> > > and the things can be dug up, is some case so much they we can buy ancient coin
> > > of Jesus' day. So much evidence, that you can buy a month magazine BIBLICAL
> > > ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church could not make a biannual magazine on the BOM
> > > ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church shows archaeological finds of OTHER non-Americas
> > > cultures to prove the BOM!
> > >
> > > Do you hope to became a god?
> > >
> > > > Do
> > > > you agree with the SI on the subject of evolution? You are aware, of course,
> > > > that the SI strongly teaches man simply evolved from ape-like creatures and
> > > > that all life came about by chance through natural selection, right? You did
> > > > know that, right?Have you read any of the detailed replies by Mormon scholars
> > > > to the SI's
> > >
> > > > statement on the Book of Mormon? What do you have to say about the evidence
> > > > presented in those replies?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, long winded run around, like you comparison above.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What about the scientific computer wordprint analyses that prove the Book of
> > > > Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith and that the book was authored by
> > > > multiple authors? One of those analyses was done almost exclusively by
> > > > non-LDS scholars, by the way.
> > >
> > > Again I do not need to go there. The People, Place and things of the BOM prove it
> > > is NOT History.
Clovis Lark
travis clark <tcl...@brynmawr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Sargent wrote:
>> When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found NO trace of
>> what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000 years earlier.
>> (BOM end about 600 AD)
>
>First of all, I would like to state that while I appreciate your frankness, the
>following list is yet another example of our critics moving the goal posts and
>stating their case more firmly than it actually is. Some of your statements are
>false.
>
>As follows...
>
>> They found NO Bees,
>
>not true at all. The Maya have a long tradition of bee-keeping. They even have the
>depiction of bees in their art. Mayan bees are green and stingerless and are
>actually currently endangered by extinction by competition of European and larger
>African honeybee varieties. The practice is dying out, but there is still bee
>culture being preserved in traditional Mayan methods where the bees are kept in
>hollow logs hung from the eaves of houses.
There were no honey bees and there was no honey industry. You are
creating a scenario for which there is no basis. Comparison with
contemporary Mayan practice isn't going to hold water.
>
>"NO swords, NO armor, "
>
>Not true. There are swords, and that is exactly what the conquistadors called the
>aztec weapons. Armor in the form of tight fitting clothes or jaguar skins or "god
>suits" are also known as are laminate plated armor of wood, bark or skins.
>
The conquistadores made it clear that these weapons were made of slate,
not metal. they marvelled at their keeness, but they clearly described
them as made of stone (not obsidian either). They lso described the
natives as having tightly woven clothing, not skins, no wood.
>"NO barley"
>
>Also not true, simple varieties have been found.
>
None matching the requisite civilization and none in prozimity with wheat
and cattle and horses. Another flawed example.
>Some of your statements are just misleading...
>
>> NO churches, NO synagogues,
>
>Considering that there is no formalized architecture for what makes a
>synagogue/church in the Near east prior to the first century BC, how do you suspect
>we would recognize a synagogue/church in the new world that was patterned after a
>synagogue from jews coming from pre-exilic times? Any moderately sized room/bldg
>would do. Are you saying that there are no moderately sixed bldgs in Mesoamerica
>that could be synagogues/churches? This is just assertion.
>
Except that your nephites never show any understanding of the laws of
Moses nor did they note the Passover once in their chronicle. These are
some of the most significant aspects of any jewish culture and the bom
simply is ignorant of it.
>> NO
>> Compass,
>
>Agreed. But the BoM makes no claims that there are.
>
>Some of your points ignore the latest work on these issues.
>
>> NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
>> cattle
>
>Ok. fair enough. But Mormon scholars have answered these claims well enough with a
>simple explanation. Cultures often use the terms from one region to describe new
>things that have a similar purpose. The persians for example called a turkey an
>indian rooster. All of the names above have comparable similar components in the
>new world. The tapir was actually called a horse by the first monks who accompanied
>the Conquistadors. Likewise, Genesis mentions domsetic camels in the bronze age when
>they did not exist until Iron Age I.
>
And genesis is a creation myth. It is irrelevant to your discussion.
the fact is: fauna and flora in the bom do not match up no matter where
you try to put the people in the new world.
>The same can be said for the following...
>
>"NO glass, NO silk, NO Wheat, , NO oats, NO rice"
>
>where silk is any refined cloth, not necessarily a fabric made by serioculture. The
>same is true for grains. Word meanings vary constantly in ancient texts. Corn in
>our day explicitly means maize, but in the Bible it almost always means wheat for
>example.
This is specious Sorenson reasoning. I could turn the bible into the
theory of relativity or a manual for birth control using word
substitution. The min boggles at what I could do were I to play a
similar game with the bom.
>
>These kind of vagaries show up all the time in ancient texts. I was working jsut
>last year with a prof trying to determine what was meant by a particular latin word
>often translated as "roof" when describing a feature on the Baths of Caracalla.
>Small problem, there is no roof there, so what does it mean? No one knows, there are
>lots of guesses. What does "wheat" mean? sounds unambiguous, but it may not be so.
>
One time use of the word roof hardly compares with the examples above.
I think you are missing a lot. You should go read BH Roberts.
Chris Crabtree
before you post here? Have you never heard of F.A.R.M.S.(Foundation for Ancient
Research of Mormon Studies) and the many many many answers they have given to
subjects such as these? I suggest you visit www.farmsresearch.com and go from there.
Here also, with regards to BofM archeology, here is a great paper by William J.
Hamblin regarding the "Basic Mehodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to
the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon".
http://www.mormons.org/response/bom/Geography_Archaeology.htm
Chris Crabtree
Sargent wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank YOu for the reply.
>
> MTGri...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Basically, you say there is not shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
> >
>
> That and there is LOTs of evidence that the BOM is not a record of History, but
> fiction.
>
> >
> > Your information is badly out of date.
>
> History is NEVER out of date.
>
> When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They found NO trace of
> what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000 years earlier.
> (BOM end about 600 AD)
>
> They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
> cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley, NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO
> Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords, NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO
> Compass, NO Chariots and more.
>
> HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
Doug Weller
04:32:48 GMT, abs...@pipeline.com said...
> And I suppose there is archealogical evidence for:
>
> resurrection,
> walking on water,
> turning water to wine,
> walking through a sea on dry ground,
> burning bushes,
> feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
>
R. L. Measures
(absalom) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> And I suppose there is archealogical evidence for:
>
> Talking asses,
> resurrection,
> walking on water,
> turning water to wine,
> walking through a sea on dry ground,
> burning bushes,
> feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
>
€ the Guiness World record submarine-sandwich fed over 2000.
CNG
archeology to find 1,000,000+ year old bones less than 6 inches long than it
is to find only 2000 year old entire stone temples, manufactured tools, etc?
Sorry, that's not logically sound.
........CNG
lfidallas wrote in message <3740FDCC...@hotmail.com>...
>Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a mighty
long >timeago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my
friend.
>
>Sargent wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Thank YOu for the reply.
>>
snipped
Clovis Lark
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3740ec40....@news.pipeline.com>, on Tue, 18 May 1999
>04:32:48 GMT, abs...@pipeline.com said...
>>
>> Talking asses,
On the internet every day.
>> resurrection,
Richard Nixon
>> walking on water,
Bill Clinton
>> turning water to wine,
Utah State Liquor Authority
>> walking through a sea on dry ground,
Like walking west from Aralsk to the Aral Sea
>> burning bushes,
Amazonia
>> feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
Somalia
>>
>Nope. None of the above occurred. At last we can agree!
>
Wrong this time Doug.
Williams
d> 04:32:48 GMT, abs...@pipeline.com said...
> And I suppose there is archealogical evidence for:
>
> Talking asses,
> walking on water,
> turning water to wine,
> feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
>
d> Doug
-
I think that A.R.M has more than adequte proof that there are talking asses.
There have been resurrections, as some anti's reappear in different form with
different names.
Rich Measures seems to be obsessed with the idea of burning bushes, as well. I
think he imagines himself a fireman.
Regards,
George
--
|Fidonet: Williams 1:106/7861
|Internet: Will...@7861.conchbbs.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Sargent
CNG wrote:
> So you are saying that it is more likely for the current technology of
> archeology to find 1,000,000+ year old bones less than 6 inches long than it
> is to find only 2000 year old entire stone temples, manufactured tools, etc?
Raleigh345
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>A few bushes burned before the fire was extinguished
>with a garden hose.
Were you the one who got to play fireman? I've heard in one thread that a
few people believe in blowing on the fire to put it out.
Ciao,
Raleigh
It's a hard, cold world out there,
and for snowmen, it's not nearly cold enough.
.
Raleigh345
(Copperhead) writes:
>Ah, if Moses had only had a hose with him we would have avoided all
>this.
>
>Agkistrodon
>
>
Well, maybe that is why the Jews decided to buy into the ithyphallic
Egyptian gods. A prophet with no hose just ain't worth having, not in a
patriarchal society.
R. L. Measures
<lfid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It didn't vanish, it's waiting to be found.
>
€ Actually, the BoM honeybees are thought to have hitched a ride on one
of the Jaredite submarines, and returned to N. Africa. In the 1950s, they
returned to the Americas. Since they are currently being Persecuted as
"Killer bees" by satanically-inspired Anti-mormons, this confirms that
every word in the BoM is absolutely true and that Joseph is a true
prophet. .
> Sargent wrote:
>
> > lfidallas wrote:
> >
> > > Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a
mighty long time
> > > ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
> >
> > HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
> > How?
> >
> > Millions of bees do not vanish. Nice try.
> >........
R. L. Measures
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345) wrote:
> In article <meas+ures-180...@port75.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >A few bushes burned before the fire was extinguished
> >with a garden hose.
>
> Were you the one who got to play fireman?
€ No. I live about 800' from the power pole in question. The fire was
put out by Margaret H. .
. I've heard in one thread that a
> few people believe in blowing on the fire to put it out.
€ In the notorious Oral whatever thread there was talk of kindling a fire
by blowing.
- cheers, Raleigh
lpau...@my-dejanews.com
Sargent <basa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> lfidallas wrote:
>
> > Until the 1800's, there was no evidence of dinosaurs that existed a
mighty long time
> > ago. I don't think Cortez came on an archaelogical dig, my friend.
>
> HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE QUESTION?
> How?
>
> Millions of bees do not vanish. Nice try.
> No one was around to see dinosaurs. Both the Native American and the
europeans were
> alive in this time span. The europeans were making written record of
what they found.
>
> Dave
>
Maybe all the Native Americans and Europeans were antis.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus, Equus.
Evolution is just a theory. So is gravity.**
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
lpau...@my-dejanews.com
lfidallas <lfid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It didn't vanish, it's waiting to be found.
>
lfidallas, you use almost as much churchspeak as Charles (lowercase)
dowis. Simply amazing.
Doug Weller
0600, c.cra...@efortress.com said...
>
> Here also, with regards to BofM archeology, here is a great paper by William J.
> Hamblin regarding the "Basic Mehodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to
> the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon".
>
> http://www.mormons.org/response/bom/Geography_Archaeology.htm
>
>
placenames myself, and the bit that says 'look at all the arguments about
where Vinland was' I thought was pretty poor. Vinland was apparently visited
for only a few decades at the most and never properly settled (and I am NOT
convinced that the explanation for the lack of evidence for Viking horses
isn't simply that they didn't bring any to Vinland!).
A quote: "Nonetheless, in light of the numerous examples of pre-Columbian
transoceanic contacts which are receiving increasing acceptance among non-
Mormon scholars (as collected in Sorenson's and Raish's bibliography), how can
Wilson claim there is "no solid evidence?"92"
Other than Vinland and the High Arctic, I know of no examples of "pre-
Columbian transoceanic contacts which are receiving increasinga acceptance
among non-Mormon scholars (and as Professor of Cracked Pots at Ediacara
University, this is a specialist subject of mine).
lfidallas
Raleigh345
meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
>. I've heard in one thread that a
>> few people believe in blowing on the fire to put it out.
>
>€ In the notorious Oral whatever thread there was talk of kindling a fire
>by blowing.
>
>- cheers, Raleigh
>--
>- Rich... - 805-386-3
That is the crux of the matter, Rich. When the activity in that thread is
"acceptible" it involves using the breath as a bellows to help stoke the fire.
If it is practiced and developed specifically toward the end of using the
breath to hyperaccelerate the consumption of the fuel, and thus extinguish the
fire, it is considered a perversion, among purists. If you put the fire out too
quickly by unapproved methods, you'll never get anything in the oven, thus the
conoisseurs of purity are disappointed and angry.
R. L. Measures
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345) wrote:
> In article <meas+ures-190...@port110.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@mail.vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >
> >. I've heard in one thread that a
> >> few people believe in blowing on the fire to put it out.
> >
> >€ In the notorious Oral whatever thread there was talk of kindling a fire
> >by blowing.
> >
> >- cheers, Raleigh
> >--
> >- Rich... - 805-386-3
>
> That is the crux of the matter, Rich. When the activity in that thread is
> "acceptible" it involves using the breath as a bellows to help stoke the fire.
€ ok
> If it is practiced and developed specifically toward the end of using the
> breath to hyperaccelerate the consumption of the fuel, and thus extinguish the
> fire, it is considered a perversion, among purists.
€ agreed
> If you put the fire out too
> quickly by unapproved methods, you'll never get anything in the oven, thus the
> conoisseurs of purity are disappointed and angry.
€ quite euphemistically put, Raleigh
- cheers
bad...@uswest.net
absalom wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> And I suppose there is archealogical evidence for:
>
> Talking asses,
> resurrection,
> walking on water,
> turning water to wine,
> walking through a sea on dry ground,
> burning bushes,
> feeding 1000 with one loaf of bread,
>
> --
> The founding fathers fully understood that government forces
> have historically been the biggest threat to the population.
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8796/bio_gov.html
bad...@uswest.net
my favorite, cureloms and cummons. Notice there is a never a
mention of Bison in the BofM?
bad...@uswest.net
bad...@uswest.net
>
> >
> >On the chariots? Ok, I don't have an answer for that one. But I can live with one
> >loose end.
> >
> >Travis.
> >
I operate on the K.I.S.S. principle. Keep it simple, stupid!
The reason there were no chariots is because there were no
animals in the Americas large enough to pull chariots.
Sargent
Please snip more careful. You have a "Sargent wrote" below and nothing in
this text is mine!!!
MTGriffith
> Subj: BOM not History
> Date: 99-05-17 23:19:48 EDT
> From: basa...@earthlink.net (Sargent)
> To: MTGri...@aol.com
>
> Hi,
> Thank YOu for the reply.
>
> MTGri...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Basically, you say there is not shred of evidence for the Book of
> > Mormon.
> >
>
> That and there is LOTs of evidence that the BOM is not a record of
> History, but fiction.
>
> >
> > Your information is badly out of date.
>
> History is NEVER out of date.
"History" is oftne open to debate. "History" is often revised as new
information is discovered. And your knowledge of history depends on how much
you have read.
It is apparent you are unaware of any of the ethnohistoric evidence that
supports the Book of Mormon account. Some of this evidence is presented in Dr.
Bruce Warren's book THE MESSIAH IN ANCIENT AMERICA. A great deal of it is
presented in the book ANCIENT AMERICA AND THE BOOK OF MORMON, by Hunter and
Ferguson.
> When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They
> found NO trace of what is said to be a history record found in the BOM
> just 1,000 years earlier. (BOM end about 600 AD)
"Just" 1,000 years earlier? The entire huge civilization at Ebla vanished much
faster than that and wasn't rediscovered until the middle part of this century.
1,000 years is a very long time; a lot can happen and change and disappear in
that amount of time.
As for how this relates to the BOM, first of all, BOM history ended in A.D.
421. Anyway, your claim here is simply wrong. The Spanish chorniclers and
priests found a great deal of ancient Mesoamerican and South American
ethnohistoric accounts that support the BOM on a number of points, including
the existence of a light-skinned people, the appearance of a great white god,
baptism, repentance, the coming of a people from "across the sea," a great
natural desctruction, and several other parallels. The problem is you are
simply unfamiliar with BOM evidence in this area.
> They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys,
> NO chickens, NO cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley,
> NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords,
> NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO Compass, NO Chariots
> and more.
Wrong on several points. And, by the way, these points don't really involve
"history" but rather archaeology and anthrolopology.
Evidence of metallurgy has been found; so has evidence of barley, of mirrors,
of the wheel, of chariots, of armor, and so forth. Again, the problem is that
you are unfamiliar with BOM evidence. It seems you have done little if any
reading of scholarly LDS writings on evidences of the Nephite record.
> HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE
> QUESTION? 200 years of digging has not found any of it either.
See above. You are unfamiliar with the evidence. I would refer you to
Sorenson's AN ANCIENT AMERICAN SETTING FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON and to Warren's
THE MESSIAH IN ANCIENT AMERICA for starters. I would also refer you to my book
REFUTING THE CRITICS: EVIDENCES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON'S AUTHENTICITY.
Sorenson's most recent book contains additional evidence of the BOM account.
>
> No time will change what the Europeans found when they came to
> Americas. They HAD to bring all of these things with them. They were
> not here.
See above. Again, you are simply misinformed about what the Europeans did and
did not find. For example, they DID find silk in Mesoamerica. In any case,
the Europeans were not archaeologists. For decades critics attacked the Bible
because there was no archaeological evidence of lions in Palestine. But years
later the Bible was finally vindicated on this point. Many things can vanish
in 1,000 years. I've already the mentioned the huge civilization at Ebla,
which vanished and remained unknown for hundreds and hundreds of years.
> The writer of the BOM, who ever it was, had no knowledge of life in the
> Americas before 1492!!!
I can stop you right there. We know for a scientific fact, from computer
wordprint analyses, that the BOM was written by multiple authors, just as it
claims, and that Joseph Smith was not one of them. The Berkeley Group
wordprint study, which was done almost exclusively by non-LDS experts, put this
issue to rest in 1987. Whatever else you want to say, you must deal with the
fact that the science of wordprint analysis has established that Joseph Smith
did not write the book and that it was written by multiple authors. If you are
unwilling to ackowledge this, then you are simply unwilling to face cold hard
fact.
> There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological
> findings of any kind in the Americans. NO churches no synagogues
> before 1492.
This is a misguided argument. Most if not all such buildings would have been
made of wood, so obviously they would have long since vanished by the time the
Europeans arrived. However, structures that certainly seem to have been
baptismal fonts have been found. And some stone buildings have been found that
could have been used as churches or synagogues. It's difficult to say because
ruins normally don't come with signs saying "this structure was used for such
and such."
> > As for the Smithsonian Institution, if you accept the SI's views on the
> > Book
> > of Mormon, do you also accept its equally skeptical views on the Bible?
>
> The topic was HISTORY!!!!!!
No, actually, the topic relates more to archaeology and anthropology, not to
history. A number of the issues you raise are more archaeological in nature,
not historical. In any case, to continue.
> Why are you changing it?
Uh, Sir, you are the one who cited the SI statement on the BOM, not I. I was
simply pointing out that you were citing a statement produced by an institution
that rejects the Bible and that teaches man and all life came about by chance.
If that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you should reconsider citing the
SI statement. If you're going to hold up the SI statement as "evidence"
against the BOM, then you'd better be prepared to deal with the Smithsonian's
negative views on the Bible and creation.
> I talk about people, places and things. And you want to compare
> that to evolution! Where is your personal honesty?
Come now, let us put aside such amateurish polemic. I wasn't comparing "that"
to evolution. Again, Sir, you are the one who cited the SI statement. I was
simply pointing out that you were citing a statement authored by an organizaion
that likewise rejects the Bible and creation.
> When you trust in a lie, I guess you can not have much. Jesus Christ
> and the Bible teach truth.
You were the one trusting the SI statement, yet that statement was produced by
an organization that rejects the Bible. You are being inconsistent. Yes,
Jesus and the Bible do teach truth, and how do you suppose Jesus feels about
the Smithsonian's rejection of the Bible and of creation? Yet, YOU, Sir, are
the one who trotted out the SI statement as strong evidence against the BOM!
It seems you don't want to deal with the fact that you cited a statement by a
group that rejects the very things you claim to believe as truth.
> The people in the Bible are real, the Places
> you or I can GO visit and the things can be dug up, is some case so
> much they we can buy ancient coin of Jesus' day. So much evidence,
> that you can buy a month magazine BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. The
> LDS church could not make a biannual magazine on the BOM
> ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church shows archaeological finds of
> OTHER non-Americas cultures to prove the BOM!
Again, you are woefully misinformed about the state of BOM research. You are
also poorly informed about biblical archaeology. Are you aware of the fact
that many, many archaeologists don't believe there really is such a thing as
"biblical archaeology"? Are you aware of the fact that most archaeologists
working in the Middle East reject the Bible as an accurate historical record,
and view large parts of it as myth? Are you aware that there are many serious
conflicts between archaeology and the Bible?
Don't get me wrong: I agree the Bible is true, and that there is considerable
evidence of it, but most of that evidence is circumstantial in nature, not
direct. I would refer you to my two articles "Answers to Anti-Mormon Attacks"
numbers 1 and 2, which you can find on my LDS Information Web Page which is
carried on my Real Issues Home Page (URL given below).
>
> Do you hope to became a god?
The early Christians certainly did; this doctrine is literally plastered in the
ante-Nicene Christian writings. You'll find it in the writings of such
esteemed ancient Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of
Alexandria, Hippolytus, and several others. This doctrine is also taught in
several places in the NT, I might add. I would refer you to my article "Man's
Potential for Godhood" on my LDS web page.
> > Do
> > you agree with the SI on the subject of evolution? You are aware, of
> > course, that the SI strongly teaches man simply evolved from ape-like
> > creatures and that all life came about by chance through natural
> > selection, right? You did know that, right? Have you read any of the
> > detailed replies by Mormon scholars to the SI's statement on the Book
> > of Mormon? What do you have to say about the evidence
> > presented in those replies?
>
> Yes, long winded run around, like you comparison above.
Huh? YOU cited the SI statement. I simply asked you if you have read any of
the scholarly LDS replies to that statement and if you're aware of the evidence
presented in those replies. I fail to see how that is a "run around."
> > What about the scientific computer wordprint analyses that prove the
> > Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith and that the book
> > was authored by multiple authors? One of those analyses was done
> > almost exclusively by non-LDS scholars, by the way.
>
> Again I do not need to go there. The People, Place and things of the
> BOM prove it is NOT History.
You do indeed need to face the fact of the wordprint evidence, because it
refutes a key assumption of your position. And the people, places, and things
of the BOM do not prove it is not history. There is a great deal of evidence
that the BOM is a genuine record of ancient Mesoamerican peoples. The problem
is that you are simply unfamiliar with that evidence.
Mike Griffith
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
Doug Weller
14:44:18 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
> In a message dated 99-05-17 23:19:48 EDT, basargent writes:
>
> > Subj: BOM not History
>
> > found NO trace of what is said to be a history record found in the BOM
> > just 1,000 years earlier. (BOM end about 600 AD)
>
> "Just" 1,000 years earlier? The entire huge civilization at Ebla vanished much
> faster than that and wasn't rediscovered until the middle part of this century.
>
> As for how this relates to the BOM, first of all, BOM history ended in A.D.
> 421. Anyway, your claim here is simply wrong. The Spanish chorniclers and
> priests found a great deal of ancient Mesoamerican and South American
> ethnohistoric accounts that support the BOM on a number of points, including
> the existence of a light-skinned people, the appearance of a great white god,
> baptism, repentance, the coming of a people from "across the sea," a great
> natural desctruction, and several other parallels.
Not as simple as you put it. Among other things, for a lot of this we are
dependent upon the writings of those Catholic Chroniclers and priests, who,
whether deliberately or not, could only interpret things in the light of their
own knowledge.
[SNIP]
.
>
> > They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys,
> > NO chickens, NO cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley,
> > NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords,
> > NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO Compass, NO Chariots
> > and more.
>
> Wrong on several points. And, by the way, these points don't really involve
> "history" but rather archaeology and anthrolopology.
>
> Evidence of metallurgy has been found; so has evidence of barley, of mirrors,
> of the wheel, of chariots, of armor, and so forth. Again, the problem is that
> you are unfamiliar with BOM evidence. It seems you have done little if any
> reading of scholarly LDS writings on evidences of the Nephite record.
Metallurgy yes. Barley, yes but not European. The wheel, no, the toys don't
count. Chariots, no. And nothing to pull them except humans in any case.
Let's go back to the wheel, as it's important to something that archaeologists
usually look for. Pottery. To be specific, wheel-turned pottery. Pottery lasts
and pottery is traded well outside where it is made. And there's no wheel-
turned pottery. And remember, it's not just one culture that would have
brought wheel-turned pottery, is it? What's the explanation?
[SNIP]
>
> See above. Again, you are simply misinformed about what the Europeans did and
> did not find. For example, they DID find silk in Mesoamerica.
Silk as from silkworms?
[SNIP]
>
> > There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological
> > findings of any kind in the Americans. NO churches no synagogues
> > before 1492.
>
> This is a misguided argument. Most if not all such buildings would have been
> made of wood, so obviously they would have long since vanished by the time the
> Europeans arrived.
Why wood? Evidence for this, please, not just a convenient assertion. And
you've only answered the 2nd claim, not the first.
> However, structures that certainly seem to have been
> baptismal fonts have been found. And some stone buildings have been found that
> could have been used as churches or synagogues. It's difficult to say because
> ruins normally don't come with signs saying "this structure was used for such
> and such."
Ah, but they often do. Iconography. Statues, inscriptions, etc.
[SNIP]
>
> No, actually, the topic relates more to archaeology and anthropology, not to
> history. A number of the issues you raise are more archaeological in nature,
> not historical. In any case, to continue.
True, and you are responding to them.
>
> > > What about the scientific computer wordprint analyses that prove the
> > > Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith and that the book
> > > was authored by multiple authors? One of those analyses was done
> > > almost exclusively by non-LDS scholars, by the way.
> >
> > Again I do not need to go there. The People, Place and things of the
> > BOM prove it is NOT History.
>
> You do indeed need to face the fact of the wordprint evidence, because it
> refutes a key assumption of your position.
Can I have some non-Mormon sources for this wordprint evidence people, please?
Thanks.
Sargent
>
> "History" is oftne open to debate. "History" is often revised as new
> information is discovered. And your knowledge of history depends on how much
> you have read.
>
I I made it clear I was talking about records of the Europeans that came to
America.
When they came they found NO Christian Churches, NO synagogues. No wild goats and
on and on.
What they found. What they had to bring with them will NOT change.
> > When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They
> > found NO trace of what is said to be a history record found in the BOM
> > just 1,000 years earlier. (BOM end about 600 AD)
>
> "Just" 1,000 years earlier? The entire huge civilization at Ebla vanished
> much faster than that and wasn't rediscovered until the middle part of this
> century. 1,000 years is a very long time; a lot can happen and change and
> disappear in that amount of time.
This is true. But it helps the BOM story none. In fact it show that BOM story is
not true.
The Finds a Ebla showed that their alphabet was very similar to later alphabet
and countries around it.
There is no evidence of reformed Egyptian in North or South America. Nor is any
inscription that can be linked to it. Next the animals that they used did not
vanish with their history and culture. Nor did their technology vanish.
>
>
> As for how this relates to the BOM, first of all, BOM history ended in A.D.
> 421. Anyway, your claim here is simply wrong. The Spanish chorniclers and
> priests found a great deal of ancient Mesoamerican and South American
> ethnohistoric accounts that support the BOM on a number of points, including
> the existence of a light-skinned people, the appearance of a great white god,
> baptism, repentance, the coming of a people from "across the sea," a great
> natural desctruction, and several other parallels. The problem is you are
> simply unfamiliar with BOM evidence in this area.
No I have read this. But it in no way gives the BOM any more believability.
It show the absurd logic of LDS teaching. First you say the BOM civilizations
have not been found (because there is nothing in the Americas to show any great
Jewish - Christian Cultures)
Then LDS teaching point to some Inca or Mayan civilization and say this is proof
of BOM history.
The history and culture of the Inca and Myna have no Christian or Jewish or
reformed Egyptian trace in them. More that that
>
>
> > They found NO Bees, NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys,
> > NO chickens, NO cattle NO wheel - Chariots, NO Wheat, NO barley,
> > NO oats, NO rice, NO Iron, NO Steel, NO glass, NO silk, NO swords,
> > NO armor, NO churches, NO synagogues, NO Compass, NO Chariots
> > and more.
>
> Wrong on several points. And, by the way, these points don't really involve
> "history" but rather archaeology and anthrolopology.
I I made it clear I was talking about records of the Europeans that came to
America.
When they came they found NO Christian Churches, NO synagogues. No wild goats,
horse, pigs, bellows and on and on.
What they found. What they had to bring with them will NOT change. What they
found was not the BOM lands.
>
> Evidence of metallurgy has been found; so has evidence of barley, of mirrors,
> of the wheel, of chariots, of armor, and so forth. Again, the problem is
> that you are unfamiliar with BOM evidence. It seems you have done little if
> any reading of scholarly LDS writings on evidences of the Nephite record.
"scholarly LDS writings" To read about the Bible times and land history I need
not read Christian or Jewish scholarly writings. These "scholarly LDS writings"
have long run around logic. Like how the BOM reference to Horse, Camels and
Elephants are found in 20,000 year long extinct fossils. These animals were long
gone before any humans were in the America, let alone the "BOM times".
So yes I have read these "scholarly LDS writings"
>
>
> > HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE
> > QUESTION? 200 years of digging has not found any of it either.
>
> >
> > No time will change what the Europeans found when they came to
> > Americas. They HAD to bring all of these things with them. They were
> > not here.
>
> See above. Again, you are simply misinformed about what the Europeans did
> and did not find. For example, they DID find silk in Mesoamerica.
LDS "silk" described by "scholarly LDS writings" cloth made from grass and
other planets.
Nice try. Silk know to all the world (excluding scholarly LDS writings) is the
cloth from the silk worm.
You are the one being deceived by your scholarly LDS writings.
> In any
> case, the Europeans were not archaeologists. For decades critics attacked
> the Bible because there was no archaeological evidence of lions in Palestine.
> But years later the Bible was finally vindicated on this point. Many things
> can vanish in 1,000 years. I've already the mentioned the huge civilization
> at Ebla, which vanished and remained unknown for hundreds and hundreds of
> years.
Seeing how the loins in the Holy land is just a few thousands of miles from
Africa this is not a big discovery. How ALL the new world things the BOM puts in
the Americas before the Europeans came is totally absurd.
>
> > The writer of the BOM, who ever it was, had no knowledge of life in the
> > Americas before 1492!!!
>
> I can stop you right there. We know for a scientific fact, from computer
> wordprint analyses, that the BOM was written by multiple authors, just as it
> claims, and that Joseph Smith was not one of them.
Writers? OK writers. It do not change my statement. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT
America.
>
>
> > There are no ancient Christian, Hebrew or Egyptian archaeological
> > findings of any kind in the Americans. NO churches no synagogues
> > before 1492.
>
> This is a misguided argument. Most if not all such buildings would have been
> made of wood, so obviously they would have long since vanished by the time
> the Europeans arrived. However, structures that certainly seem to have been
> baptismal fonts have been found. And some stone buildings have been found
> that could have been used as churches or synagogues. It's difficult to say
> because ruins normally don't come with signs saying "this structure was used
> for such and such."
The BOM makes it clear these people had Swords, bellows, steel, Iron, horses,
camels, pigs, donkeys,
chickens, cattle wheel - Chariots, glass, armor, Compass and more. These are not
made of wood. The animals walk, go wild.
>
> > I talk about people, places and things. And you want to compare
> > that to evolution! Where is your personal honesty?
>
> Come now, let us put aside such amateurish polemic. I wasn't comparing
> "that" to evolution. Again, Sir, you are the one who cited the SI statement.
> I was simply pointing out that you were citing a statement authored by an
> organizaion that likewise rejects the Bible and creation.
>
Evolution is not a hard science. Finding wild goats in the Americas before 1492
is.
>
> > The people in the Bible are real, the Places
> > you or I can GO visit and the things can be dug up, is some case so
> > much they we can buy ancient coin of Jesus' day. So much evidence,
> > that you can buy a month magazine BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. The
> > LDS church could not make a biannual magazine on the BOM
> > ARCHAEOLOGY. The LDS church shows archaeological finds of
> > OTHER non-Americas cultures to prove the BOM!
>
> Again, you are woefully misinformed about the state of BOM research. You are
> also poorly informed about biblical archaeology. Are you aware of the fact
> that many, many archaeologists don't believe there really is such a thing as
> "biblical archaeology"? Are you aware of the fact that most archaeologists
> working in the Middle East reject the Bible as an accurate historical record,
> and view large parts of it as myth? Are you aware that there are many
> serious conflicts between archaeology and the Bible?
>
Really they deny that there is a City Jerusalem? That the sea of Galilee was not
there at the time of Jesus, That the Mount of olive was not there at he time of
Jesus. I think not. I am talking about very basic things: Places, animals plants
and technologies. You are going off in to events again, I think.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I agree the Bible is true, and that there is considerable
> evidence of it, but most of that evidence is circumstantial in nature, not
> direct. I would refer you to my two articles "Answers to Anti-Mormon
> Attacks" numbers 1 and 2, which you can find on my LDS Information Web Page
> which is carried on my Real Issues Home Page (URL given below).
You have given no answers to the absurd thing of the BOM, here.
>
> > Do you hope to became a god?
>
> The early Christians certainly did; this doctrine is literally plastered in
> the ante-Nicene Christian writings. You'll find it in the writings of such
> esteemed ancient Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of
> Alexandria, Hippolytus, and several others. This doctrine is also taught in
> several places in the NT, I might add. I would refer you to my article
> "Man's Potential for Godhood" on my LDS web page.
>
I would refer you to the Bible:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall
be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Is14: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of
hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Ps 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I
was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in
order before thine eyes.
>
> I fail to see how that is a "run around."
>
>
> You do indeed need to face the fact of the wordprint evidence, because it
> refutes a key assumption of your position.
I agree more than one writer could have written the BOM. But, those people did
not live in the North or South Americas before 1492.
> And the people, places, and
> things of the BOM do not prove it is not history. There is a great deal of
> evidence that the BOM is a genuine record of ancient Mesoamerican peoples.
> The problem is that you are simply unfamiliar with that evidence.
I have read much. Like silk made of grass and planets. Do you have more absurd
data?
Dave
Raleigh345
(MTGriffith) writes:
>As for how this relates to the BOM, first of all, BOM history ended in A.D.
>421. Anyway, your claim here is simply wrong. The Spanish chorniclers and
>priests found a great deal of ancient Mesoamerican and South American
>ethnohistoric accounts that support the BOM on a number of points, including
>the existence of a light-skinned people, the appearance of a great white god,
>baptism, repentance, the coming of a people from "across the sea," a great
>natural desctruction, and several other parallels. The problem is you are
>simply unfamiliar with BOM evidence in this area.
What I find problematic with most of the accounts of preColumbian history
that suggest all these things is that there is no written account of them. This
is all verbally preserved through oral tradition.
In many cases, I have seen examples of inexperienced investigators
questioning Indian sages about their forefathers, and foolishly indicating by
their questions the kind of answers they are expecting.
The Indian sage obliges, sometimes to please the white man, whom he feels
sorry for. Occasionally he expects to be paid better, but in cases in which he
is not doing it to make the other person feel better, he can also be telling
them what they want to hear just to prove to himself how gullible they are.
Then again, some of them may be doing all three.
To assume that the Indians are simpletons who will recite for aliens the
most treasured memories of their culture is a very dangerous one, in exploring
oral traditions that vindicate statements in the Book of Mormon.
---
Example: And Indian comments on what Doug Weller calls "The Soper Frauds."
The Indians themselves seemed to have disclaimed any knowledge or
responsiblity for the artifacts recovered from the Michigan Mounds. When th
eaged and famous Chipewa chief, Shop-na-gun, was shown a recently discovered
ceremonial knife, he exclaimed indignantly, "No, Indian, no make. White man
make, long way back." And he related with obvious pride, how his forefathers
"killede off white man--way back--took much cattle and lands."
-
Although the author of the book I quote HAS ANYBODY REALLY SEEN NOAH'S
ARK? accepted the quoted account rather enthusiastically, it may have just been
a case of the Indian assuaging his pride by telling the white that the Indians
had kicked the white man's ass once before--with the implication that they
would, or at least would like to do it again. And they probably laughed
privately to themselves at how enthusiastically the white men reacted to the
news (even if it was actually a fictitious report) that the Indians had
previously massacred an entire race of white men. If I were an Indian, I would
consider that pretty stupid behavior, myself.
Maybe Fawn can tell us if Indians find it entertaining to tell the
white man that the white man used to rule the Americas as effectively as he
does now, and that the Indians killed them all and took it away from them.
Sort of the same satisfaction that Poe got from writing THE CASK OF
AMONTILLADO. If you can't avenge yourself on the enemy in real life, kill him
off in fiction. If it gets rave reviews, that's even better.
Purina Cat Ciao,
R. L. Measures
ralei...@aol.comQQQQ (Raleigh345) wrote:
> In article <19990523104418...@ngol07.aol.com>, mtgri...@aol.com
> (MTGriffith) writes:
>
> >As for how this relates to the BOM, first of all, BOM history ended in A.D.
> >421. Anyway, your claim here is simply wrong. The Spanish chorniclers and
> >priests found a great deal of ancient Mesoamerican and South American
> >ethnohistoric accounts that support the BOM on a number of points, including
> >the existence of a light-skinned people, the appearance of a great white god,
> >baptism, repentance, the coming of a people from "across the sea," a great
> >natural desctruction, and several other parallels. The problem is you are
> >simply unfamiliar with BOM evidence in this area.
>
> What I find problematic with most of the accounts of preColumbian history
> that suggest all these things is that there is no written account of
them. This
> is all verbally preserved through oral tradition.
€ post-1830 oral tradition.
Bill Williams
Raleigh345 wrote in message
<19990524080438...@ngol01.aol.com>...
>---
>Example: And Indian comments on what Doug Weller calls "The Soper Frauds."
I just read the book "Fantastic Archaeology" by Stephen Williams (available
from Amazon.com). The Soper "artifacts" are discussed in detail there, and
it's obvious that they are fraudulent. This book is also a good introduction
to archaeology in general, and how artifacts must fit in the "context" where
they are found. The Soper "artifacts" don't fit in with the context, the
inscriptions were very fresh, etc.
Bill Williams
Sargent
The whole BOM land story is absurd. There is not just one loose end. No one here as
address:
Glass in the BOM, for that matter, bellows, silk (like the stuff silk worms make, grass
cloth is not silk), compasses, pigs, elephants and on and on.
Why didn't Nephi compare and contrast the New World with Jerusalem? These were
two vastly different places.
Why does the Book of Mormon mention Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi
5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Gold and Silver currency (Alma
11), Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9)? No evidence indicates
that these items existed during Book of Mormon times.
Why does the Book of Mormon mention the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf,
Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat (the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic
goat!), Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite
societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants? (contrary to the
incorrect speculations and erroneous information provided by LDS sources,
non-LDS experts indicate that there is no evidence of elephants in the New World
and the mammoth and mastodon of North America have been extinct for over ten
thousand years?
Why aren't animals such as Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths,
Turkeys, etc.. mentioned when they were animals that existed?
The Book of Mormon claims to have domesticated sheep, goats, horses, cattle,
and pigs. There were no such domesticated animals at the time in America.
According to an expert in the field, the only domesticated animals in
pre-Columbian America were llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs, and turkeys. None of
these are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Dave
bad...@uswest.net wrote:
> Clovis Lark wrote:
> > >On the chariots? Ok, I don't have an answer for that one. But I can live with one
> > >loose end.
> > >Travis.
> I operate on the K.I.S.S. principle. Keep it simple, stupid!The reason there were no
Sargent
>> Sargent wrote:
>> >
>> > When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They
>> found NO trace of
>> > what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000
>> years earlier.
>> > (BOM end about 600 AD)
>>
>> First of all, I would like to state that while I appreciate your
>> frankness, the
>> following list is yet another example of our critics moving the
>> goal posts and
>> stating their case more firmly than it actually is.
>
>>
>> "NO swords, NO armor, "
>>
>> Not true. There are swords, and that is exactly what the
>> conquistadors called the
>> aztec weapons. Armor in the form of tight fitting clothes or
>> jaguar skins or "god
>> suits" are also known as are laminate plated armor of wood, bark
>> or skins.
>
Armor implies, steel and iron. What you have written about is usually
call shields.
>> > NO churches, NO synagogues,
>>
>> Considering that there is no formalized architecture for what
>> makes a
>> synagogue/church in the Near east prior to the first century BC,
>> how do you suspect
>> we would recognize a synagogue/church in the new world that was
>> patterned after a
>> synagogue from jews coming from pre-exilic times? Any moderately
>> sized room/bldg
>> would do. Are you saying that there are no moderately sixed bldgs
>> in Mesoamerica
>> that could be synagogues/churches? This is just assertion.
>
Read the BOM, this a great civilization in the BOM. NOT just a little
group of people. Horses, Chariots, Iron, Steel, Chariots, cow and the
ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat.
>>
>> > NO Compass,
>>
>> Agreed. But the BoM makes no claims that there are.
>
Wrong read on.
Have you read the BOM? It clearly states that the compass was used in
BofM:1 Nephi 18:21,23,24-25 & 19:1
How was it that a compass was on the BOM Jewish ship, 1700 years
before it was invented?
Here it is!
BofM:1 Nephi 18:21,23,24-25 & 19:1
21 And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the
compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass
that I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed the winds did
cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm. . 23 And
it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we
did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and
did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.. 24 And it
came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to
plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we
had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that
they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.
And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we
journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of
every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and
the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were
for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold,
and of silver, and of copper. Nephi makes plates of ore and records
the history of his people--The God of Israel will come six hundred
years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem--Nephi tells of His
sufferings and crucifixion.
BOM dates this about 589 BC
Jews discover America! C. Columbus discoveries their ancestors in
1492, 2,000 years later?
I have listed all the out of place animals, all these animals over a
1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and goat these
Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
with out a trace?
Wild goats are hardy animals, goats can browse on grass, shrubs,
leaves.
No evidence of pre 1492 goats in the Americans exist.
Cattle-cows are not native to the Western Hemisphere; they were first
brought to the West Indies in 1493 by Christopher Columbus.
Also out of place a Compass, how could a tool like this in 589 BC
be lost by the Jews - Native Americans?
Mediterranean seamen of the 12th century AD were the first to use a
magnetic compass at sea.
Just these passages of Jews coming to America, makes my heart sad. I
remember crying the first time I read this story.
Show me in the Bible were other new technology is given by God? Then
taken away.
This has to be the answer for about the whole BOM. God made this great
Jewish - Christian Civilization and then made it vanish without a
trace.
(Yet my BOM (1980) has pictures of ancient Mexico and Peru, that some
say have nothing to do with the BOM, why are they in my BOM put there
by the LDS church?)
Just the above quote of 1 Nephi 18 as SO many out of place things.
Compass, animals, then the death of Jesus on a cross hundreds of years
before the Romans did death by crucifixion.]
( the OT just says the messiah would be pierced in death)
It was not just the compass that made me cry it is the WHOLE picture
in these few passages. If this were a true written record on gold
plates made by real people in about 589 BC it would not read this way
with such absurdity. God is not the author of absurdity.
In an other post some have said J. Smith picked word that he thought
were most understandable for the reader to understand. This is why so
many out of place words are in BC text, Christ, Cross, churches and
alike. Yet, the LDS church teaches that J. Smith translated the
reformed Egyptian by the Power of God. That is why some have said, the
BOM is the closest thing to a perfect book.
No, the BOM can not be call history, but fiction one of the great hoax
of the world.
>> Some of your points ignore the latest work on these issues.
>>
>> > NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
>> > cattle
>>
>> Ok. fair enough. But Mormon scholars have answered these claims
>> well enough with a
>> simple explanation. Cultures often use the terms from one region
>> to describe new
>> things that have a similar purpose. The persians for example
>> called a turkey an
>> indian rooster. All of the names above have comparable similar
>> components in the
>> new world. The tapir was actually called a horse by the first
>> monks who accompanied
>> the Conquistadors.
>
By they did not translate by the Power of God in to KJB English.
What animal did the Mormon scholars think they mistaken a goat for?
>> The same can be said for the following...
>>
>> "NO glass, NO silk, NO Wheat, , NO oats, NO rice"
>>
>> where silk is any refined cloth, not necessarily a fabric made by
>> serioculture.
>
Silk is always know as a fine cloth. The Native America had not fine
cloth of the silk worm.
>> The same is true for grains. Word meanings vary constantly in
>> ancient texts. Corn in
>> our day explicitly means maize, but in the Bible it almost always
>> means wheat for example.
>
Again the LDS church claim J.Smith translated this from plates of Gold
by the Power of God in to 1611 king James English. If so the word use
should be the same as 1611 KJB use. Why did he "translate it in to old
1611 English? Are you saying the BOM is just some man man thing full
of errors and bad word use? Is it not trust worthy?
>>
>> Of the many assertions you make, only the following are really
>> valid.
>>
>> > NO wheel - No Chariots NO Iron, NO Steel, NO Chariots
>>
>> Actually there is some iron, but only of a meteoric nature with no
>> current evidence
>> of steel production. Steel is only an alloy of iron and carbon
>> and simple forging
>> methods will actually turn iron into steel.
>
For the making of strong swords that the native Americans did not
have.
>> As I have stated on many other
>> occasions, the methods for making steel in the ancient world are
>> decidely low tech
>> and low impact. Almost no evidence exists for the steel making
>> capabilities of the
>> Bantu, no smelters, no mines, etc.
>
The BOM has them using bellows, to make strong steel and Iron.
>> Yet we know they had steel. Steel rusts and melts
>> away, and when making it is hard, it also get used up. Axes get
>> ground done into
>> knives, knived into scrappers and scrappers into needles. Any
>> precious commodity
>> like that gets used to its full potential, not much left.
>> Likewise, it would be very
>> easy to lose track of steel in the americas, especially if the
>> knowledge died out.
>
Nails in the hands of Roman victims have been found. The BOM picture
is almost like the Roman (or Egypt) culture. Wheels - Chariots, Iron,
Steel, bellows, glass, and more.
>>
>> > HOW COULD ALL THIS VANISH IN 1,000 YEARS? THAT IS THE
>> QUESTION?
>>
>> The Iron production could get lost very easy, as it has in the
>> Bantu example and the
>> rest might still be there before our eyes. If they did not
>> presently make iron
>> implements and not have a very large oral tradition about it, we
>> would doubt that it
>> was done anciently as well. As it is, we have bantu craftsman who
>> can take us to a
>> pile of iron oxide and say that this is a slag heap or to a
>> charcoal pit and say
>> that this was a smelting site. No one exists in the mesoamerican
>> world to do this
>> for us since the knowledge was lost anciently. This is not the
>> first time this has
>> happened. There are various roman and greek technologies that are
>> lost because no
>> one kept the knowledge, but some record thankfully preserves their
>> existence so we
>> know they were there. Even still we scratch our heads at a
>> charcoal pit sometimes
>> and wonder. Was this for fuel production or ceramics? Was it a
>> lime kiln or a
>> charcoal site for metal smelting or was it a cistern that just got
>> filled with
>> debris from a destruction layer later? Likewise, we have charcoal
>> sites in
>> Mesoamerica, but their exact purpose is unknown.
>>
>
I said All this be lost (goats ....) not just iron.
Dave
Raleigh345
wrote:
>I just read the book "Fantastic Archaeology" by Stephen Williams (available
>from Amazon.com). The Soper "artifacts" are discussed in detail there, and
>it's obvious that they are fraudulent. This book is also a good introduction
>to archaeology in general, and how artifacts must fit in the "context" where
>they are found. The Soper "artifacts" don't fit in with the context, the
>inscriptions were very fresh, etc.
>
>Bill Williams
>
>
>
Thanks. I'll definitely check it out. The study of authentic artifacts is
the best proof against fraud, just as the study of real money is the best proof
against the couterfeit.
But taking a look at such a sensational and bold-faced fraud would be
intriguing.
MTGriffith
It is pointless for you to claim the Europeans found no synagogues or Christian
churches when they arrived. The BOM makes it clear that such structures would
have been destroyed or revamped for other uses, assuming they weren't made of
wood to begin with. 1,000 years had passed since the close of BOM history. It
is invalid to argue that the Europeans should have found synagogues and
Christian churches after all that time. Furthermore, there were many areas
that the Europeans didn't even visit; and in fact they went to very few of the
Preclassic-era (i.e., BOM-era) sites. So what they did or did not find in
terms of structures is irrelevant.
They did find several records from ancient Mesoamerica that contain a great
deal of material that supports the BOM. You brushed this fact aside as
unimportant. So I guess you're saying it's just a whopping coincidence that
these records speak of a light-skinned and dark-skinned people warring
anciently, that they tell of a white great white god who came and set up a
church, that they tell of a great destruction, that they tell of their
ancestors coming to the land "from across the sea," that they speak of their
ancestors being led by an older man and his wife, and that they speak of
baptism, repentance, heaven, etc., etc.
I must question just how much and what you have read of LDS sources on BOM
evidences. I don't think you're aware of the degree to which the BOM has been
confirmed on important points relating to ancient Mesoamerican cultural
patterns, occupational settlement patterns, topography, climate, population,
and so forth. Nor do I think you have any idea of the serious conflicts that
remain between archaeology and the Bible.
I would again invite you to read my two articles "Answering Anti-Mormon
Attacks" numbers 1 and 2.
Mike Griffith
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
Doug Weller
02:04:37 GMT, ralei...@aol.comQQQQ said...
> Thanks. I'll definitely check it out. The study of authentic artifacts is
> the best proof against fraud, just as the study of real money is the best proof
> against the couterfeit.
>
Doug Weller
02:29:04 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
>
> They did find several records from ancient Mesoamerica that contain a great
> deal of material that supports the BOM. You brushed this fact aside as
> unimportant. So I guess you're saying it's just a whopping coincidence that
> these records speak of a light-skinned and dark-skinned people warring
> anciently, that they tell of a white great white god who came and set up a
> church, that they tell of a great destruction, that they tell of their
> ancestors coming to the land "from across the sea," that they speak of their
> ancestors being led by an older man and his wife, and that they speak of
> baptism, repentance, heaven, etc., etc.
>
about a great white god setting up a church?
Woody Brison
Doug Weller wrote:
> > > > What about the scientific computer wordprint analyses that prove the
> > > > Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith and that the book
> > > > was authored by multiple authors? One of those analyses was done
> > > > almost exclusively by non-LDS scholars, by the way.
> > >
> > > Again I do not need to go there. The People, Place and things of the
> > > BOM prove it is NOT History.
> >
> > You do indeed need to face the fact of the wordprint evidence, because it
> > refutes a key assumption of your position.
>
> Can I have some non-Mormon sources for this wordprint evidence people, please?
> Thanks.
I suggest you wander thru this collection. You will find references to
many books and articles by both Mormons and non. You can branch out from
there in the directions you like. I make no guarantees or recommendations.
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/style.htm
http://www.california.com/~rpcman/wordprin.htm
http://farmsresearch.com/catalog/BOM_top.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/answers.htm:
http://www.hd.uib.no/corpora/1996-1/0070.html
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9806/0347.html
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9806/0168.html
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9806/0150.html
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9806/0147.html
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/byu_comp.htm
I also remember that Terry mentions wordprints in _Out of Darkness_, a novel
centered around the authenitication of the BofM. I really like this one.
http://www.deseretbook.com/~DBP37757~
Wood
AlmaTheYounger
You sure have done your homework in descrediting (in your own mind) the Book
of Mormon. However, the BoM even says, if there be weaknesses in the Book,
it is due to the weakness of men. You can point to all the supposed errors
all you want. It doesn't matter. what does matter is the power of the
words of christ that it contains. It is remarkable and contains powerful
messages unavailable to a mere lad of 18 years of age. Hard to believe it
was just made up. Too powerful, too sacred, too mind boglingly complex.
Sargent <basa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:374A2C07...@earthlink.net...
travis clark
>
>
>>> Sargent wrote:
>>> >
>>> > When the Early Europeans came to the Americas (1500 AD+). They
>>> found NO trace of
>>> > what is said to be a history record found in the BOM just 1,000
>>> years earlier.
>>> > (BOM end about 600 AD)
>>>
>>> First of all, I would like to state that while I appreciate your
>>> frankness, the
>>> following list is yet another example of our critics moving the
>>> goal posts and
>>> stating their case more firmly than it actually is.
>>
>>>
>>> "NO swords, NO armor, "
>>>
>>> Not true. There are swords, and that is exactly what the
>>> conquistadors called the
>>> aztec weapons. Armor in the form of tight fitting clothes or
>>> jaguar skins or "god
>>> suits" are also known as are laminate plated armor of wood, bark
>>> or skins.
>>
>
>Armor implies, steel and iron. What you have written about is usually
>call shields.
>
I am glad that you think so. But that is decidedly not the case. Armor is
made from a variety of materials, includig rawhide, hardened leather,
even rattan. You are reading into this "iron" but that is wrong. Most of
the "armor" of the middle ages was not even made from iron. This
expensive form of iron was made only for the wealthy knights and
nobility. Most soldiers had armor made from only hardened or laminated
leather. Even Alexander the great only used a cuirass made from
laminated layers of linen and glue.
The mesoamericans had tight fitting skins and hardened armor made of a
variety of materials. all qualify as armor. You are simply wrong.
>
>>> > NO churches, NO synagogues,
>>>
>>> Considering that there is no formalized architecture for what
>>> makes a
>>> synagogue/church in the Near east prior to the first century BC,
>>> how do you suspect
>>> we would recognize a synagogue/church in the new world that was
>>> patterned after a
>>> synagogue from jews coming from pre-exilic times? Any moderately
>>> sized room/bldg
>>> would do. Are you saying that there are no moderately sixed bldgs
>>> in Mesoamerica
>>> that could be synagogues/churches? This is just assertion.
>>
>Read the BOM,
I have, many times.
this a great civilization in the BOM. NOT just a little
>group of people. Horses, Chariots, Iron, Steel, Chariots, cow and the
>ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat.
>
So if the united states only had "Horses, Chariots, Iron, Steel,
Chariots, cow and the
>ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat." that
alone would qualify us as a great civilization? There are many third
world nations that can meet this requirement.
Rather, if you really did read the BoM you would find that there are is
no mention of all those usually associated with large empires and city
states. No civil services. No imperial roads. No standing armies. No vast
systems of tribute and retribution.
These could be very simple cultures indeed. You are flatly wrong.
>>>
>>> > NO Compass,
>>>
>>> Agreed. But the BoM makes no claims that there are.
>>
>
>Wrong read on.
NO I am not wrong, you are misreading the BoM.
>Have you read the BOM? Yes.
It clearly states that the compass was used in
>BofM:1 Nephi 18:21,23,24-25 & 19:1
No it does not. Let's read together shall we?
>
>How was it that a compass was on the BOM Jewish ship, 1700 years
>before it was invented?
Easy it wasn't.
>
>Here it is!
Rather here is your blatant misreading.
>
>BofM:1 Nephi 18:21,23,24-25 & 19:1
> 21 And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the
>compass, and it did work whither I desired it.
Let me ask you a question...Have you read the book of Mormon? If so you
would know that the Liahona is only called a compass in the loosest terms
and behaves nothing like a modern compass. It has two needles, with
writing on them that indicate where and how to find food. It works only
by faith and points the way that they should go at the moment they
consult it, not to true north. Does any modern compass behave this way?
No. The Liahona is not a compass, but a divine object that directs people
not unlike the ark of the covenant or the Urim and Thumim. It is not a
compass and the BoM makes no claim that it is. You have clearly never
read the Book of Mormon on this issue.
>
>Jews discover America! C. Columbus discoveries their ancestors in
>1492, 2,000 years later?
Where did I claim this?
>
>I have listed all the out of place animals, all these animals over a
>1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and goat these
>Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
>with out a trace?
Easy, they didn't. When genesis says "camel" it obviously means another
animal, since the camel was not domesticated until a thousand years
later. The Romans called the elephant a "cow" and the aztecs called
horses "deer" and the franciscan missionaries called the tapir a
"horse". This is very common in ancient literature. You are ignorant of
this fact despite the fact that I made this clear in my post.
Because you ignore this, the rest of your comments are unwarranted...
>
>Wild goats are hardy animals, goats can browse on grass, shrubs,
>leaves.
>No evidence of pre 1492 goats in the Americans exist.
>
>Cattle-cows are not native to the Western Hemisphere; they were first
>brought to the West Indies in 1493 by Christopher Columbus.
>
>Also out of place a Compass, how could a tool like this in 589 BC
>be lost by the Jews - Native Americans?
It wasn't, I explained this above.
>(Yet my BOM (1980) has pictures of ancient Mexico and Peru, that some
>say have nothing to do with the BOM, why are they in my BOM put there
>by the LDS church?)
A speculation, that's all. the church has endorsed no official BoM sites.
>
>Just the above quote of 1 Nephi 18 as SO many out of place things.
>Compass,
get over yourself will you. The Liahona is clearly not a compass. Compass
describes its relative function, not its actual nature. Just like I can
call the scriptures a compass, that does not mean that they point to
magnetic north.
animals,
I explained this...
then the death of Jesus on a cross hundreds of years
>before the Romans did death by crucifixion.]
What? Where does the BoM make this claim?
>( the OT just says the messiah would be pierced in death)
>It was not just the compass that made me cry it is the WHOLE picture
>in these few passages. If this were a true written record on gold
>plates made by real people in about 589 BC it would not read this way
>with such absurdity. God is not the author of absurdity.
What about a talking ass and a floating axe? Who are you to tell God
what to do?
>
>In an other post some have said J. Smith picked word that he thought
>were most understandable for the reader to understand. This is why so
>many out of place words are in BC text, Christ, Cross, churches and
>alike. Yet, the LDS church teaches that J. Smith translated the
>reformed Egyptian by the Power of God. That is why some have said, the
>BOM is the closest thing to a perfect book.
This isn't even coherent.
>
>No, the BOM can not be call history, but fiction one of the great hoax
>of the world.
>
>
>>> Some of your points ignore the latest work on these issues.
>>>
>>> > NO horse, NO camels, NO pigs, NO donkeys, NO chickens, NO
>>> > cattle
>>>
>>> Ok. fair enough. But Mormon scholars have answered these claims
>>> well enough with a
>>> simple explanation. Cultures often use the terms from one region
>>> to describe new
>>> things that have a similar purpose. The persians for example
>>> called a turkey an
>>> indian rooster. All of the names above have comparable similar
>>> components in the
>>> new world. The tapir was actually called a horse by the first
>>> monks who accompanied
>>> the Conquistadors.
>>
>By they did not translate by the Power of God in to KJB English.
>What animal did the Mormon scholars think they mistaken a goat for?
Irrelevant. This misses the point of the whole book.
>
>>> The same can be said for the following...
>>>
>>> "NO glass, NO silk, NO Wheat, , NO oats, NO rice"
>>>
>>> where silk is any refined cloth, not necessarily a fabric made by
>>> serioculture.
>>
>
>Silk is always know as a fine cloth. The Native America had not fine
>cloth of the silk worm.
>
>>> The same is true for grains. Word meanings vary constantly in
>>> ancient texts. Corn in
>>> our day explicitly means maize, but in the Bible it almost always
>>> means wheat for example.
>>
>
>Again the LDS church claim J.Smith translated this from plates of Gold
>by the Power of God in to 1611 king James English. If so the word use
>should be the same as 1611 KJB use.
Really? Why? Why wouldn't it reflect the word use of the Nephites, they
never saw the KJV? Why is the KJV the authoritative godly language of
scripture? Again, corn and camel are two examples in the KJV where the
word means something else other than its common usage. There are major
differences between BoM language use and the KJV that indicate its unique
origin as well.
Why did he "translate it in to old
>1611 English?
Ah, the second fork of the Tanner argument! Since that was the scripture
of his childhood understanding, why wouldn't he?
Are you saying the BOM is just some man man thing full
>of errors and bad word use? Is it not trust worthy?
At least as trustworthy as the Bible, which is also a man-made but
inspired thing, yes.
>
>>>
>>> Of the many assertions you make, only the following are really
>>> valid.
>>>
>>> > NO wheel - No Chariots NO Iron, NO Steel, NO Chariots
>>>
>>> Actually there is some iron, but only of a meteoric nature with no
>>> current evidence
>>> of steel production. Steel is only an alloy of iron and carbon
>>> and simple forging
>>> methods will actually turn iron into steel.
>>
>
>For the making of strong swords that the native Americans did not
>have.
as far as we have found, but they did make swords of other materials and
that is what the Conquistadors called them when they saw them.
>
>>> As I have stated on many other
>>> occasions, the methods for making steel in the ancient world are
>>> decidely low tech
>>> and low impact. Almost no evidence exists for the steel making
>>> capabilities of the
>>> Bantu, no smelters, no mines, etc.
>>
>
>The BOM has them using bellows, to make strong steel and Iron.
Show me how strong Nephite steel was please. Bellows are relatively
simple, as in the Bantu and Bedouin examples. It consists of a animal
hide with an open top and a small opening near the end, like a funnel
made of animal hide. The top end is lifted up quickly with the large open
end filling with air. Then the top is gathered together by hand like an
inflated garbage bag, and thenpushed down, forcding the air through the
small opening at the bottom. Not very high tech, and nothing like the
european baffled accordion bellows. Besides, bellows actually only stoke
the fire, it is the reduction low oxygen forge that makes steel. The
bellows are irrelevant to such a process as to how strong the steel is.
Cold forging methods are actually more inportant in making usable steel.
As to how strong the steel was, that is anybody's guess.
>
>>
>
Like I said, the goats are still there, they just aren't goats. Other
than that, your knowledge of the BoM is really weak.
Travis.
>
>
>Dave
travis clark
Sargent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The whole BOM land story is absurd. There is not just one loose end. No one here as
> address:
> Glass in the BOM, for that matter, bellows, silk (like the stuff silk worms make, grass
> cloth is not silk),
There are many examples of fine cloths being refered to as "silk" in ancient record. It
is an appropriated term that circumlocutes the Nephite lack of vocabulary for local
examples. Just like Romans called elephants "cows".
> compasses,
It is only a compass in that it is a guide. It behaves nothing like a modern compass, but
is a mystical object like the ark of the covenant used in divination, or is your modern
boy scout issue equipped to tell you where to find game as well?
> pigs, elephants and on and on.
>
> Why didn't Nephi compare and contrast the New World with Jerusalem? These were
> two vastly different places.
He does in places, speaking of the bounty of the place, the reference to wilderness, the
different forms of war, etc.
>
> Why does the Book of Mormon mention Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11),
Because they had them.
> Brass (2 Nephi
> 5:15),
Because they had them.
> Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Gold and Silver currency (Alma
> 11)
Ah yes, this old chestnut. The BoM never says "coins" anywhere, you know this.
> , Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9)? No evidence indicates
> that these items existed during Book of Mormon times.
Certainly silver and gold existed in Mesoamerica, and steel existed in Near eastern
contexts so this statement is misleading.
>
> Why does the Book of Mormon mention the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf,
> Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat (the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic
> goat!),
I explained this earlier, the appropriate of vocabulary from one world to describe new
varieties is very common in the ancient world.
> Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite
> societies),
Really? As I recall it is only mentioned that they had it. references please.
> Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants? (contrary to the
> incorrect speculations and erroneous information provided by LDS sources,
> non-LDS experts indicate that there is no evidence of elephants in the New World
> and the mammoth and mastodon of North America have been extinct for over ten
> thousand years?
I answered this above.
>
> Why aren't animals such as Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths,
> Turkeys, etc.. mentioned when they were animals that existed?
The tapir probably is.
>
> The Book of Mormon claims to have domesticated sheep, goats, horses, cattle,
> and pigs. There were no such domesticated animals at the time in America.
> According to an expert in the field, the only domesticated animals in
> pre-Columbian America were llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs, and turkeys. None of
> these are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Poultry are mentioned, the closest near-eastern example for a turkey is a hen. The
persians called a turkey and indian rooster, so this is not implausible.
MTGriffith
(NOTE: This article is an edited extract from the author's book REFUTING THE
CRITICS: EVIDENCES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON'S AUTHENTICITY, Horizon
Publishers, 1993. The full version of the article, including the references,
can be found therein.)
THE BOOK OF MORMON
IN THE ANCIENT WORLD:
ANSWERING ANTI-MORMON ATTACKS
ON THE NEPHITE RECORD--
A RESPONSE TO GORDON FRASER'S BOOK,
"JOSEPH AND THE GOLDEN PLATES"
Michael T. Griffith
1993
@All Rights Reserved
The central thrust of Gordon Fraser's book, JOSEPH AND THE GOLDEN
PLATES, is that the Book of Mormon is in serious conflict with what modern
archaeology tells us about ancient America and the Near East. Anti-LDS critics
who have commented on his book believe that Fraser has done a thorough job
of proving his thesis. In fact, Fraser's book has long be considered by many
anti-Mormons as one of the most devastating critiques of the Nephite record
ever
written. Fraser's assertions continue to be repeated and referenced by
anti-Mormon authors.
However, LDS scholars who have examined JOSEPH AND THE GOLDEN PLATES
have found it to be misinformed and badly dated. The purpose of this chapter
is to examine some of the more pronounced errors in Fraser's book. In the
course of doing so, evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity will also be
presented.
-------------
The Old World
-------------
Jewish Attitudes And Lifeways
-----------------------------
Fraser: "Joseph Smith in the early chapters of the Book of Mormon
displays
a profound ignorance of the Bible, especially of the Jewish attitudes and
lifeways in Jerusalem at the period in which the story of the Book of Mormon is
supposed to have opened" (28).
Response: First of all, Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of
Mormon; he was simply the translator. The book was written on metal plates by
prophets of God who lived and ministered in ancient Mesoamerica. Modern
computer wordprint tests have shown that Joseph Smith did not write the Nephite
record (J. Hilton).
As for the Book of Mormon's portrait of life in ancient Arabia, modern
research has demonstrated its remarkable accuracy. For instance, the account
in 1 Nephi of the travels and experiences of Lehi's family in Jerusalem and in
the Arabian desert has been remarkably vindicated. At every turn, the account
provides accurate data concerning everything from Semitic language usage to
ancient Near Eastern customs (England 143-156; Nibley 1952:1-139;
1976:192-229).
At best, only a very tiny fraction of this information was available in Joseph
Smith's day, and only those scholars who specialized in ancient studies were
even aware of its existence.
"Devout Israelites" And The Egyptian Language
---------------------------------------------
Fraser: It is a "startling blunder of ignorance . . . when Joseph Smith
records the words of Nephi, the son of Lehi, in which he declares that he is
making a record 'in the language of his father, which consists of the learning
of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.' It would be utterly incredible
for a devout Israelite, even granting that he might have been familiar with the
Egyptian language, to use that language, which was profane to any pious
Israelite, to make a record of the learning of the Jews" (28).
Response: This assertion reflects an inadequate knowledge of the Bible
and
of the Old World in general. The close and continual ties that existed between
Egypt and Palestine have long been well documented (Williams 1971:260-288;
Aling
123-131; Gordon 1962:115-127; Nibley 1976:67-74).
If the average "devout Israelite" considered the Egyptian language to be
"profane," then why did the Jewish authorities at Lachish use the Egyptian
calendar system for their local records (Nibley 1976:67-68)? Why were the Jews
at Samaria, Lachish, and Gezer using Egyptian hieratic symbols for the
numbering
system of their weight system (Tvedtnes 1971)?
If it would be "utterly incredible" for a devout Israelite to use Egyptian
to record the learning of the Jews, then why do so many common Egyptian
idiomatic phrases appear in the Old Testament (Aling 123-124)? How did so many
transliterated Egyptian words make their way into ancient Hebrew (Aling 125)?
Why are so many Egyptian proper names found in the Old Testament (Aling 125;
Williams 1971:262-263)? Why were several sections of the book of Proverbs
derived from Egyptian originals (Aling 126-127)? Indeed, Proverbs 22:17 to
24:22 was modeled on an Egyptian wisdom text, the Instruction of Amen-em-ope
(Scott xix, xliv-lii; Pritchard 683-686; more will be said about this in
chapter four). Why is there so much evidence for the Egyptian origin of the
Testament of Abraham (Nibley 1981:20-25)? And why, then, was the very
narrative prose style of the Hebrew prophets "heavily indebted to the Egyptian"
(Gordon 1962:127)?
Near Eastern scholar Robert F. Smith (who, like many other authorities
cited herein, is not LDS) has said the following regarding this issue:
Since both the Book of Mormon and the . . . Plates of Laban
were written in Egyptian, it might be worthwhile for
researchers to compare ancient Egyptian epistolography to Book
of Mormon letters. Indeed, it is now the conclusion of
Professor Anson F. Rainey (Tel Aviv University) that
professional, Egyptian-speaking Hebrew scribes wrote the
hieratic found at Tel Arad VII and at Kadesh-Barnea (both
contemporary with Lehi). The same professional scribes
probably were responsible for the Hebrew letters found at Tel
Arad. Since the Israelites had had close political, commercial,
and cultural ties with Egypt during much of the previous
thousand years or so, and since this included Hebrew
settlements in Egypt, it should not seem odd either that the
Brass Plates of Laban were engraved in Egyptian, nor that
Nephi and his successors kept their records in Egyptian (I
Nephi 1:2; Enos 1; Mosiah 1:2-6; Mormon 9:32-34). After all,
foreigners had been learning Egyptian since at least the time
of Dynasty 12 [1990-1780 B.C.]. The 18th Dynasty [1570-1305
B.C.] text of the Maxims of Ani (10:5-6) is very clear: "One
teaches Nubians to speak Egyptian, and Khorians [people of
Syro-Palestine], and all foreigners likewise." (1987:186-187)
Fraser: The Egyptian language "of the period of the supposed exodus of
the family of Lehi, was already decadent. . . . In addition to this, the
demotic Egyptian, which was the language of the people in its day, would prove
to be a very clumsy vehicle, if not an impossible one, for expressing the
profoundness of the sacred concepts of the Hebrews" (29).
Response: During the time of Lehi (ca. 600 B.C.), Demotic Egyptian was not
decadent; rather, it was at the height of its international popularity (Nibley
1967:167-168). The first attested use of Demotic dates from around 643 B.C.
(Bowman 61).
Although the hieroglyphic system of Egyptian writing was at times too
elaborate to be extremely useful (Shorter 80-85), the Demotic style was "a
remarkably abbreviated style of cursive writing developed out of the Hieratic
system by systematic abbreviation" (Nibley 1967:167-168).
Nobody acquainted with ancient Near Eastern studies would claim that the
sacred concepts of the Hebrews could not have been expressed in the Egyptian
language of Lehi's day--or of any other day, for that matter, for in spite of
"dialectical differences and changes in the written form, the spoken language
of
Egypt . . . remained essentially the same from 3,000 B.C. to the Ptolemaic
period" (Bratton 49). One only needs to study some of the religious books of
the ancient Egyptians to see that their language was quite capable of
expressing profound, sacred concepts (Pritchard 683-686; Baker 28-35; Breasted;
Erman; Budge; Nibley 1975).
Lehi In The Desert
------------------
Fraser: Concerning Lehi's travels in the desert, "it certainly would not
have been possible for them [Lehi's family] to journey from Jerusalem to the
Red
Sea in three days, approximately 175 miles, with a party which included women
and children and the old patriarch Lehi" (33).
Response: The three days of traveling in the wilderness was accomplished
after Lehi's party reached the Red Sea, as Fraser himself later seems to
concede
(33). Nephi specifies that Lehi had already reached the "borders near the
shore
of the Red Sea" before he journeyed for three days in the wilderness (I Nephi
2:5-6). "That seems to mean," say Lynn and Hope Hilton, "three days of
traveling in the wilderness after they reached the Red Sea, not three days from
Jerusalem" (18, emphasis in original).
Fraser: In I Nephi it is recounted that Lehi and his family encountered a
"river" in the Arabian desert (2:8-9). "The stubborn fact that we must face at
this point is that there are no rivers running into the Red Sea at this or any
other point [in the desert]. There are not even any traceable ancient river
systems in this part of Arabia" (33).
Response: Nibley has responded to this claim as follows:
Nephi's mention of a river in a most desolate part of Arabia has
caused a good deal of quite unnecessary eyebrow-raising.
Though Hogarth says that Arabia "probably never had a true
river in all its immense area," later authorities, including
Philby, are convinced that the [Arabian] peninsula has
supported some quite respectable rivers even in historic times.
(1952:91)
In the spring the desert mountains are full of rushing torrents. It was
this seasonal phenomenon that led Ptolemy to place a river between Yambu and
Mecca "with perfect correctness" (Nibley 1952:91).
Fraser: "Having crossed the peninsula, Nephi relates that they came to
the shore of a body of water (which could only have been the Persian Gulf), and
here they encountered a fruitful land, which they named 'Bountiful' because of
its much fruit and wild honey. Here, again, is a blunder of ignorance of known
factors. The coastline of the Persian Gulf was utterly inhospitable and
barren.
Even Alexander's seasoned generals were unable or unwilling to negotiate this
route three hundred years later" (34-35).
Response: Undoubtedly, Alexander's generals did not consider the Persian
Gulf coastline an oasis, but Lehi's party did not travel to that area. Lehi's
family followed the ancient frankincense trade route over the Qara Mountains to
the coastal plain of Salalah on the coast of the Arabian Sea (Nibley 1952
:124-127; L. and H . Hilton 105-107; Vestal and Wallace 110). It was this
location, and not some place along the Persian Gulf, that Nephi called
"Bountiful."
Fraser: Nephi was instructed to build a ship at a location which was
"probably more remote from shipbuilding timber than any place on the globe"
(35).
Response: While Fraser's Persian Gulf location for Bountiful may have been
remote from shipbuilding timber, the coastal plain of Salalah certainly would
not have been. To this day, hardwood jumaise trees grow plentifully in
Salalah.
Some of them are very large, and most of them reach a height of 50 feet. The
wood of the jumaise tree is very strong, resistant to sea water, and almost
free
from knots. This tree is still used for ships to this very day, and it was
also
used for ships anciently (L. and H. Hilton 105-106).
------------------------
Getting To The New World
------------------------
Transoceanic Crossings
----------------------
Fraser: "We do not doubt the possibility or probability of migrations
across the South Pacific. We do question the probability of its being
accomplished by the method inferred in the Book of Mormon. All of the evidence
of South Pacific migrations points to a method of island-hopping by Mongoloids,
and possibly Australoids and Negroes, who left traces of their cultures and
artifacts for anthropologists to discover in modern times. These crossings
required generations rather than a few short years to accomplish, and there is
no hint of a direct crossing by any route whatever by a party of Semites" (35).
Response: I would genuinely like to know what specific evidence Fraser has
in mind here. He provides no references for his assertions.
As for an ancient South Pacific crossing taking "generations," available
evidence refutes such a notion. The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl, along
with a small crew, using a craft built like many ancient ships, sailed over
3,000 miles from Safi in Africa to Barbados near South America's northern coast
in only 57 days (Heyerdahl 24). In 1954, a balsa raft carried William Willis
from central Peru all the way to Samoa in western Polynesia, a journey of over
6,000 miles, in less than a year (Heyerdahl 39). Other similar journeys are
also on record (Heyerdahl 38-53; Warren and Ferguson 207-211).
With regard to ancient Semites coming to the New World, I will save most
of
my comments on this subject for later. For now, suffice it to say there is
mounting evidence that Semites and other ancient Near Easterners did in fact
sail across the oceans to the Americas, especially to Mesoamerica (Heyerdahl
59-125; Gordon 1971; Sorenson 1971; see also below). There is also evidence of
ancient transoceanic crossings to the New World by people from Asia and India
(Kelley; Shao; Ekholm and Heine-Geldern).
One of the most important sources on ancient transoceanic crossings from
the Old World to the New to be published in recent years is Sorenson and Martin
Raish's massive two-volume work, PRE-COLUMBIAN CONTACTS WITH THE AMERICAS
ACROSS THE OCEANS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. More than three years of
research went into the bibliography. It contains over 5,600 entries, and
descriptions sketch what most of the books and articles have to say. Works are
drawn from a dozen languages, with all foreign titles being translated into
English, from such diverse fields as anthropology, archaeology, botany,
geography, and linguistics. The publication contains massive and impressive
evidence of ancient transoceanic crossings from the Old World to the New, and
it has received positive reviews from many non-Mormon scholars, including Betty
J. Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution, Joseph Needham of Cambridge
University, George Carter of Texas A&M, and Stephen Jett of the University of
California at Davis.
-------------
The New World
-------------
Metal In Ancient America
------------------------
Fraser: "One of the best established facts of American antiquities is
that
the early Americans had no metal during the supposed period of the Book of
Mormon" (54). "There was no metallic age in ancient America until at least six
centuries after the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been written" (5).
Response: To begin with, I quote Sorenson:
Metals were indeed in use in Book of Mormon times in
Mesoamerica. What kind of evidence is there? The most
compelling sort consists of actual specimens found where an
early date is positively established. Over a dozen of these
significantly precede A. D. 900. The earliest piece so far
probably dates back to around the first century B.C. It is a
bit of copper sheathing found on top of an altar at Cuicuilco in
the Valley of Mexico. (1985:278)
Among the objects that were characteristic of the ancient
Mesoamerican Olmec civilization were iron mirrors. They were fashioned from
lumps of iron-ore (Coe 1977:188-189). The most striking mirrors were concave
and could have been used either as igniters or as "magic lanterns," or both.
Smaller, flat mirrors are the most common found in Olmec debris.
One of the more interesting uses of metal in ancient Mesoamerica was the
conversion of Mercuric sulfide into elemental mercury (Palmer 1981:114).
Mercury has been found at an underwater site in Lake Amatitlan, where it had
been placed as an offering. Mercury has also been found at Kaminaljuyu and
near
Copan.
Evidence from Mesoamerican languages also shows a knowledge of metallurgy
in Book of Mormon times. Researchers have found a word for "metal" which
apparently existed in the Proto-Mixtecan language at about 1,000 B.C. (Sorenson
1985 :279, citing Longacre and Millon 22).
Fraser: "The ancient Americans did not write on metal plates at any time"
(5).
Response: In 1950, a gold disc was discovered in the sacred well at
Chichen Itza on the Yucatan Peninsula. Chichen Itza's main phase of occupation
began at around A. D. 600, and the city flourished for hundreds of years
thereafter. Around the edge of the disc is a Mayan inscription. The disc is
now in the Peabody Museum at Harvard University.
A Spanish Father named Padre Gay mentioned the selling to some European
antiquarians by the Mexican Indians of some very thin gold plates. These
plates
had apparently been worked with the hammer, and they were engraved with some
form of hieroglyphic writing (F. Harris 1953:104). Furthermore, the
sixteenth-century Spanish chronicler Juan Torquemada, who lived for several
years among the Mexican Indians, indicated that "the ancients" wrote on metal
(F. Harris 1961:50). Harold Wilkins reported that the Indians of Chiapas,
Mexico, claimed their people possessed a record written by their ancestors
which was engraved on gold leaves (Wirth 43, citing Wilkins 180).
Since the first Book of Mormon colonies came from the Old World, they
would
certainly have known of the ancient Near Eastern practice of writing on metal
plates. It is now an established fact that many Old World cultures engraved
some of their records on metal plates (Cheesman; Wirth 3840).
The Civilizations Of Ancient America
And Book Of Mormon History
-------------------------------------
Fraser: "It has . . . been established beyond question that the time
periods of the florescence of the Indian cultures do not equate with the Book
of
Mormon datings (there is a difference of many hundreds of years). . . ." (38).
Response: Fraser does not say just exactly who has established this datum.
Certainly no non-Mormon scholars have done so, since none of them is familiar
enough with the Nephite text's internal chronology and geography to adequately
address the subject. And the reference to "the florescence of the Indian
cultures" is extremely vague since there were numerous native cultures in the
ancient Americas, and they did not all flourish at the same time.
In any event, there are definite correspondences between the Book of
Mormon civilizations and major cultures of ancient Mesoamerica, which is the
area identified by LDS scholars as the region where the events chronicled in
the
Nephite text took place. Even in 1968, M. Wells Jakeman was able to say the
following:
What is now known of the Book of Mormon or Pre-Classic"
period in Mesoamerica . . . is already in some agreement with
that record. For example, two civilizations arose successively
in the period according to present archaeological evidence, just
as according to the Book of Mormon; the first of them, called
by archaeologists the "Olmec," corresponding at least partly in
time to the first of the two Book of Mormon civilizations, an
advanced Mesopotamian-derived culture called by Book of
Mormon students the "Jaredite"; and the second main
archaeological development or civilization--actually the earliest
period of the "Maya" civilization--corresponding closely in time
to the second Book of Mormon civilization, an Israelitish culture
known as the "Lehite-Mulekite" or "Nephite." (Jakeman
1968b:21).
Raymond Treat has added the following:
The succession of four righteous [Jaredite] kings and the
recognition of Olmec came together at nearly the same time,
1400-1200 B.C. The Jaredite decline and the decline of Olmec
civilization both occur from 600-200 B.C. The arrival of the
Nephites and Mulekites which resulted in at least three new
regional cultures, Nephite, Lamanite, and Mulekite, and a
pattern of regional cultures with new traits are both seen in
the 6th century B.C. The appearance of Jesus Christ, ushering
in an outstanding period of happiness and prosperity known as
the Golden Age and the rise of Maya civilization known
throughout the world for its unique accomplishments, both
occur in the first two centuries A.D. The division of the
people, the downfall of the Nephite nation, the beginning of
Maya hieroglyphs and the resumption of warfare are all dated
in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D.
The Book of Mormon outline, first published in 1830, has not
changed. The Mesoamerican outline has been gradually filled in
with most of the information coming after 1950. The major
points of both outlines can now be said to be in essential
agreement. (1982:10)
The Book of Mormon reports that from around A. D. 100-350 the Nephite
civilization enjoyed a tremendous cultural and economic expansion. There is
good evidence that such a florescence did occur in ancient Mesoamerica.
By A.D. 250 most of the sites in the Rio Bec Zone suggest the presence of
the socio-political structure, the ceremonialism, and most of the material
expressions that were characteristic of the Classical Maya civilization (Adams
80).
In the Pasion Valley and elsewhere throughout the Peten Lowlands, the
Protoclassic period (ca. A.D. 50-350) was a time of "accelerated culture
change"
(Willey 1977:150-151). During this time, complex stelae were more thoroughly
diffused from the major ceremonial center of Tikal to other parts of
Mesoamerica
(Culbert 2743). Tikal's impressive Floral Park ceramic phase occurred in Cimi
times, i.e., A.D. 150-350 (Culbert 28-29). The peak of development at Becan
seems to have occurred during the Protoclassic period (Ball 121). During the
Protoclassic Izapan period (A.D. 150-250), the Soconusco district witnessed one
of the greatest platform-building efforts in all of Mesoamerica (Lowe 234).
All of these things happened at the exact same time the Book of Mormon reports
that
the people experienced a great florescence, often referred to as the Nephite
Golden Age.
Moreover, R.E.W. Adams and T. Patrick Culbert note that by A.D. 250 the
following civilizational traits were already firmly established in the Maya
Lowlands: monumental architecture, an art style defined by specific conventions
with thematic messages, mural paintings, illustrated books, jewelry products
such as carved jades, palaces as administrative quarters, writing and a
calendrical system, elaborate burials for the elite, functional and highly
patterned urban centers, temples as burial sites, temples as
kinship-unit-ritual centers, and many others (4-5).
In short, Jakeman was right in saying that a study of the civilizations of
ancient Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times "will show that definite
correspondences to the civilizations of the Book of Mormon, in both (1)
geography and (2) chronology, as well as (3) number and order and (4)
characteristics, have already begun to appear" (1963:102-103).
CONTINUED IN PART 2
R. L. Measures
<tcl...@brynmawr.edu> wrote:
> Sargent wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The whole BOM land story is absurd. There is not just one loose end.
No one here as
> > address:
> > Glass in the BOM, for that matter, bellows, silk (like the stuff silk
worms make, grass
> > cloth is not silk),
>
> There are many examples of fine cloths being refered to as "silk" in
ancient record.
€ An example, please.
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
Sargent <basa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>
> Armor implies, steel and iron.
Or leather (animal skins). Haven't you ever played Dragons & Dungeons?
What you have written about is usually
> call shields.
>
> >> > NO churches, NO synagogues,
And how would you recognize one if you saw one as you were digging around in
mesoamerica? A cross on the top, or a star of David?????
snip
> >
> Read the BOM, this a great civilization in the BOM. NOT just a little
> group of people. Horses, Chariots, Iron, Steel, Chariots, cow and the
> ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat.
You also failed to mention that this was an advanced civilization with
writing, calendars, extensive trade economy, including shipping, cement,
copper, multiple religions, etc. The use of cement in building.
Why did you limit your list, I wonder.
snip
>
> I have listed all the out of place animals, all these animals over a
> 1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and goat these
> Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
> with out a trace?
The same way millions of bison disappeared without a trace.
snip
>
> Cattle-cows are not native to the Western Hemisphere; they were first
> brought to the West Indies in 1493 by Christopher Columbus.
And you are able to prove that, are you?
>
> Also out of place a Compass, how could a tool like this in 589 BC
> be lost by the Jews - Native Americans?
> Mediterranean seamen of the 12th century AD were the first to use a
> magnetic compass at sea.
>
> Just these passages of Jews coming to America, makes my heart sad. I
> remember crying the first time I read this story.
>
> Show me in the Bible were other new technology is given by God? Then
> taken away.
The ark of the covenant (except in movies). The Liahona was not a "magnetic
compass". You've been reading too many antimormon books -- read the BOM
itself, and spare yourself the embarrassment of looking like an ass.
> This has to be the answer for about the whole BOM. God made this great
> Jewish - Christian Civilization and then made it vanish without a
> trace.
Who said it "vanished without a trace"?? The issue is no longer "finding"
but "identifying". I would claim that we have probably found many of the BOM
cities, but archeologists, with few exceptions, do not know the original
names of the cities they are excavating.
With the exception of Lamani (Belize), which, interestingly enough, matches a
personal name in the BOM. (And the BOM says that cities were named after
individuals).
>
> (Yet my BOM (1980) has pictures of ancient Mexico and Peru, that some
> say have nothing to do with the BOM, why are they in my BOM put there
> by the LDS church?)
I have no clue. I think it was downright silly.
>
> Just the above quote of 1 Nephi 18 as SO many out of place things.
> Compass, animals, then the death of Jesus on a cross hundreds of years
> before the Romans did death by crucifixion.]
Now you really are looking foolish. Just post this on a Christian group --
they will be happy to correct your knowledge in this area.
> ( the OT just says the messiah would be pierced in death)
> It was not just the compass that made me cry it is the WHOLE picture
> in these few passages.
Read the BOM. Stop reading the antimormon literature. The BOM does not say
that it was magnetic -- it ******clearly******* states that it worked by
faith.
Please stop making a fool of yourself. Do your homework.
snipped rest of nonsense.
Best regards,
Charles dowis
Doug Weller
0400, tcl...@brynmawr.edu said...
> Easy, they didn't. When genesis says "camel" it obviously means another
> animal, since the camel was not domesticated until a thousand years
> later. The Romans called the elephant a "cow" and the aztecs called
> horses "deer" and the franciscan missionaries called the tapir a
> "horse". This is very common in ancient literature.
>
domesticated, and assumed they had existed as domesticated animals in the
past. This is not a case of using the name 'camel' for another animal.
I haven't heard the Roman story, and would need a source for this. The other
two have nothing to do with ancient literature.
Doug Weller
cdo...@my-dejanews.com said...[snip]
> >
> > I have listed all the out of place animals, all these animals over a
> > 1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and goat these
> > Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
> > with out a trace?
>
Eh? There are traces of prehistoric bison. What are you talking about?
[SNIP]
I'm still waiting for the explanation for the lack of wheel-turned pottery.
Doug Weller
0400, tcl...@brynmawr.edu said...
> Almost no evidence exists for the steel making capabilities of the
>
Because of the archaeological evidence.
See
Schmidt, Peter R., and Donald H. Avery. 1978. Complex iron smelting and
prehistoric culture in Tanzania. Science 201(4361):1085-1089.
Schmidt, Peter R., assisted by Donald H. Avery. 1983. More evidence for an
advanced prehistoric iron technology in Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology
10:421-434.
Schmidt, Peter R., Childs, S. 1995 Terry Ancient African iron production
American Scientist Date: 11-12/1995 (v83 n6) Start Page: p524(10) ISSN: 0003-
0996
cdo...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> In article <7ih7uh$le$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on Wed, 26 May 1999 16:36:33 GMT,
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com said...
> > In article <374A2C07...@earthlink.net>,
> > Sargent <basa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > 1,000 years time span plus all the wild cows, horses and goat these
> > > Jews found will add up to millions. I ask again HOW could they vanish
> > > with out a trace?
> >
>
> Eh? There are traces of prehistoric bison. What are you talking about?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> I'm still waiting for the explanation for the lack of wheel-turned pottery.
Me too, Doug. I remember reading the article which had a brief mention of
wheel turned pottery in a larger article and how surprised the archeologists
were at finding it. But I did not pay too much attention to it at the time
(thinking that I could easily locate it later, if I needed it).
Anyway, I went back to the library and have searched extensively in back
issues of Discover Magazine but could not locate it. Perhaps it was in
another magazine.
Sigh.
Anyway, no mention is made of pottery in the BOM -- so this is not a
particular BOM issue.
We know that they did have knowledge of the wheel -- e.g. wheeled toys. So,
you tell me. Since they did have knowledge of the wheel, why no wheel based
pottery??
fair...@webtv.net
>Smithsonian Institution
Statement Regarding the
Book of Mormon
Some Latter-day Saints, in
their zeal to give tangible
authenticity to the Book of
Mormon, have told
prospective converts that
the Smithsonian Institution
has used the Book of Mormon
to verify sites in the New
World. In response to
numerous requests on this
subject, the Smithsonian
has issued the following
paper detailing their
position on the matter.
Information from the
National Museum of Natural
History Smithsonian
Institution, Washington,
D.C. 20560
Statement Regarding the
Book of Mormon
1. The Smithsonian
Institution has never used
the Book of Mormon in any
way as a scientific guide.
Smithsonian archaeologists
see no direct connection
between the archaeology of
the New World and the
2. The physical type of the
American Indian is
basically Mongoloid, being
most closely related to
that of the peoples of
eastern, central, and
northeastern Asia.
Archaeological evidence
indicates that the
ancestors of the present
Indians came into the New
World -- probably over a
land bridge known to have
existed in the Bering
Strait region during the
last Ice Age -- in a
continuing series of small
migrations beginning from
about 25,000 to 30,000
years ago.
3. Present evidence
indicates that the first
people to reach this
continent from the East
were the Norsemen who
briefly visited the
northeastern part of North
America around A.D. 1000
and then settled in
Greenland. There is nothing
to show that they reached
Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of
evidence supporting the
scientific finding that
contacts with Old World
civilizations, if indeed
they occurred at all, were
of very little significance
for the development of
American Indian
civilizations, is the fact
that none of the principal
Old World domesticated food
plants or animals (except
the dog) occurred in the
New World in pre-Columbian
times. American Indians had
no wheat, barley, oats,
millet, rice, cattle, pigs,
chickens, horses, donkeys,
camels before 1492. (Camels
and horses were in the
Americas, along with the
bison, mammoth, and
mastodon, but all these
animals became extinct
around 10,000 B.C. at the
time the early big game
(sic) hunters spread across
the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and
silk were not used in the
New World before 1492
(except for occasional use
of unsmelted meteoric
iron). Native copper was
worked used (sic) in
various locations in
pre-Columbian times, but
true metallurgy was limited
to southern Mexico and the
Andean region, where its
occurrence in late
prehistoric times involved
gold, silver, copper, and
their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility
that the spread of cultural
traits across the Pacific
to Mesoamerica and the
northwestern coast of South
America began several
hundred years before the
Christian era. However, any
such inter-hemispheric
contacts appear to have
been the results of
accidental voyages
originating in eastern and
southern Asia. It is by
means certain that even
such contacts occurred;
certainly there were no
contacts with the ancient
Egyptians, Hebrews, or
other peoples of Western
Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable
Egyptologist or other
specialist on Old World
archaeology, and no expert
on New World prehistory,
has discovered or confirmed
any relationship between
archaeological remains in
Mexico and archaeological
remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of
ancient Egyptian, Hebrew,
and other Old World
writings in the New World
in pre-Columbian contexts
have frequently appeared in
newspapers, magazines, and
sensational books. None of
these claims has stood up
to examination by reputable
scholars. No inscriptions
using Old World forms of
writing have been shown to
have occurred in any part
of the Americas before 1492
except for a few Norse rune
stones which have been
found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the
Book of Mormon in the
library of the National
Museum, of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution.
SIL - 76 Rev. May 1980
***************************
National Geographic Society WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 January 11, 1990 Dear
Mr. Larson: Thank you for writing to the National Geographic Society.
The Society has never used the Book of Mormon to locate archaeological sites,
and we do not believe that any of the places named in the Book of Mormon can
be placed geographically by the evidence of archaeology. So far as we know
there is no archaeological evidence to verify the history of early peoples of
the Western Hemisphere as presented in the Book of Mormon. I hope you
will find this information useful. Yours truly, Pamela Tucci Research
Correspondence
Doug Weller
cdo...@my-deja.com said...
[SNIP]
> We know that they did have knowledge of the wheel -- e.g. wheeled toys. So,
> you tell me. Since they did have knowledge of the wheel, why no wheel based
> pottery??
It's a different concept. Making those jumps isn't that easy. The pulley is
extremely simple, for instance, once you have the wheel, but it took a long
time to develop.
So is the wheelbarrow, of course, and they didn't have that (not that I'd
expect them to, BOM or not).
MTGriffith
> fair...@webtv.net (Alan Wendell Faircloth) wrote:
>
> I'd say the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society
> are authorities the world looks to, in matters like this. Why don't
> you just take your "evidences" to them?
I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society reject the
Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those organizations reject
the Bible as the word of God and they also view large parts of the Bible as
myth.
The Smithsonian's claims about the BOM have been answered by LDS scholars, and
the Smithsonian has yet to respond to those answers.
> Tourniquet <kilr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01bea7d8$427e4aa0$39dd070c@default...
>
> > You still fail to refute the fact that no archeologist outside the
> > faith feels the Book of Mormon represents an actual civilization.
If this is your criterion for rejecting the BOM, then you also must be willing
to reject the Bible because no non-believing archaeologist believes in its
complete historical accuracy. Indeed:
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the city of Ai was
occupied when the Bible says it was.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Jericho was destroyed in
the manner and time described in the Bible.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the story of the Exodus is
even generally historically accurate.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Moses really was the
Prince of Egypt. Better yet, cite me a single archaeological find (like an
inscription, a document, anything) that lends a shred of support whatsoever to
the idea that an adopted Hebrew slave rose to become the Prince of Egypt.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Joseph rose to become
Pharaoh's second-in-command. Or, cite me a single archaeological find that
supports this story. In all the records that we have from ancient Egypt, why
is there not a scrap of secular inscriptional evidence to support the Joseph
story?
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Adam and Eve were real
people.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes in the biblical account of
creation.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes there was a great flood in
the days of Noah.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes there was even such a
person as Noah.
Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the accounts of people
seeing the resurrected Christ are historically accurate.
And on and on and on and on we could go.
Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the Bible is false or mythical. I'm
simply saying that if one is going to cite the anti-BOM views of secular,
athiestically inclined organizations, then one had better be consistent and
thus be prepared to accept those organizations' views on the Bible as well.
Otherwise, why cite them as authoritative, unless you, too, reject the Bible
just as they do?
Mike Griffith
R. L. Measures
mtgri...@aol.com (MTGriffith) wrote:
>.......
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Adam and Eve were real
> people.
>
€ Name one rabbi who believes that ''adam'' is a proper noun in Hebrew.
- cheers, Mike
Doug Weller
15:39:14 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
>
> > In article <23391-37...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > fair...@webtv.net (Alan Wendell Faircloth) wrote:
> >
> > I'd say the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society
> > are authorities the world looks to, in matters like this. Why don't
> > you just take your "evidences" to them?
>
> I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society reject the
> Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those organizations reject
They what? I find it hard to believe that they have made any such
pronouncements. Could you please prove this claim? Why would the Smithsonian
or the National Geographic Society be getting involved in religious debate?
fair...@webtv.net
scholars' answers to the Smithsonians' claims about the BOM! They aren't
"anti-BOM views of secular,athiestically inclined organizations". They're
non-biased.
In article <19990529113914...@ngol07.aol.com>,
mtgri...@aol.com (MTGriffith) wrote:
> > In article <23391-37...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > fair...@webtv.net (Alan Wendell Faircloth) wrote:
> >
> > I'd say the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society
> > are authorities the world looks to, in matters like this. Why don't
> > you just take your "evidences" to them?
>
> I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society reject the
> Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those organizations reject
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes Adam and Eve were real
> people.
>
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes in the biblical account of
> creation.
>
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes there was a great flood in
> the days of Noah.
>
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes there was even such a
> person as Noah.
>
> Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the accounts of people
> seeing the resurrected Christ are historically accurate.
>
> And on and on and on and on we could go.
>
> Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the Bible is false or mythical. I'm
> simply saying that if one is going to cite the anti-BOM views of secular,
> athiestically inclined organizations, then one had better be consistent and
> thus be prepared to accept those organizations' views on the Bible as well.
> Otherwise, why cite them as authoritative, unless you, too, reject the Bible
> just as they do?
>
> Mike Griffith
>
> MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
> at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
MTGriffith
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Subject: Re: BOM not History
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:42:08 +0100
>In article <19990529113914...@ngol07.aol.com
>on 29 May 1999
>15:39:14 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
>
> > In article <23391-37...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > fair...@webtv.net (Alan Wendell Faircloth) wrote:
> >
> > I'd say the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic
> > Society
> > are authorities the world looks to, in matters like this. Why don't
> > you just take your "evidences" to them?
>
> I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society reject the
> Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those organizations
reject
> the Bible as the word of God ...
>>> They what? I find it hard to believe that they have made any such
pronouncements. Could you please prove this claim? Why would the Smithsonian
or the National Geographic Society be getting involved in religious debate?
Doug
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details <<<
I find such a question surprising coming from someone who appears to claim they
follow scientific issues.
Both the SI and the NGS have long been staunch advocates of evolution and harsh
critics of biblical creationism. Go ask some of the creationist scientists who
have had dealings with NGS staff about the society's views on the Bible. Go
look at some of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC articles that have mentioned the Bible.
And the Smithsonian put out a letter in which it basically said the Bible was
myth. I used to have a copy of the letter on my mission. I used it any time
someone cited the SI statement on the BOM.
MTGriffith
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Subject: Re: BOM not History
I don't believe the bible to be completely true. <<<
Then at least you're being halfway consistent when you cite organizations like
the SI and the NGS against the BOM. But the evangelical anti-Mormons in this
newsgroup will be quite upset to learn of your views on the Bible.
>>> Show me the L.D.S. scholars' answers to the Smithsonians' claims about the
BOM! <<<
Are you serious? You mean you are unaware of them and/or don't know how to
find them? Then you have no business posting messages on BOM evidence and
defending the SI's statement on the BOM if you are so uninformed that you're
unaware of the LDS replies to the SI letter.
For starters, go to the FARMS home page and read anthropologist Dr. John
Sorenson's point-by-point response to the SI statement on the BOM. You can get
to the FARMS page from my home page.
>>> They aren't "anti-BOM views of secular,athiestically inclined
organizations". They're non-biased. <<<
Oh, please! No organization is truly "non-biased." The SI and the NGS are
both very biased toward a secular, evolutionary world view. Anyone who reads
their materials should be able to spot this in about 10 seconds.
Doug Weller
13:50:33 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
> >>>From: dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)
>
> >In article <19990529113914...@ngol07.aol.com
> >on 29 May 1999
> >15:39:14 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
[SNIP]
> >
> > I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society reject the
> > Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those organizations
> reject
> > the Bible as the word of God ...
>
> >>> They what? I find it hard to believe that they have made any such
> pronouncements. Could you please prove this claim? Why would the Smithsonian
> or the National Geographic Society be getting involved in religious debate?
>
[SNIP]
>
> I find such a question surprising coming from someone who appears to claim they
> follow scientific issues.
Why? If you want to make such a claim you shouldn't be surprised if people ask
you to prove it.
> Both the SI and the NGS have long been staunch advocates of evolution and harsh
> critics of biblical creationism. Go ask some of the creationist scientists who
> have had dealings with NGS staff about the society's views on the Bible. Go
> look at some of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC articles that have mentioned the Bible.
> And the Smithsonian put out a letter in which it basically said the Bible was
> myth. I used to have a copy of the letter on my mission. I used it any time
> someone cited the SI statement on the BOM.
In other words, you have no evidence for your claim other than a few articles
in the NG magazine (which of course represent the views of their authors, not
the Society), or a rumoured letter which I suspect said no more than the Bible
is not a reliable historical record, if it ever existed.
So, provide the Smithsonian letter and the statement from the National
Geographic Society -- not just a few articles.
(Mind you, if you are just saying that neither of these organisations support
Creationism, that's a different claim altogether).
Doug
--
Doug Weller
13:50:34 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
[SNIP]
> Oh, please! No organization is truly "non-biased." The SI and the NGS are
> both very biased toward a secular, evolutionary world view. Anyone who reads
> their materials should be able to spot this in about 10 seconds.
I'm sure that both have an evolutionary world view, they are, after all,
scientific organisations. They are also secular organisations, not religious
ones, and why you think this is strange or even wrong I have no idea.
This does not, however, mean they are atheistically inclined, which you seem
to imply. I would be very surprised it they took a stance on religion, it
isn't their concern.
Tourniquet
Tourniquet
MTGriffith <mtgri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990530095033...@ngol05.aol.com>...
> >>>From: dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Subject: Re: BOM not History
> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:42:08 +0100
>
> >In article <19990529113914...@ngol07.aol.com
> >on 29 May 1999
> >15:39:14 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
> >
> > > In article <23391-37...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > fair...@webtv.net (Alan Wendell Faircloth) wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd say the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic
> > > Society
> > > are authorities the world looks to, in matters like this. Why don't
> > > you just take your "evidences" to them?
> >
> > I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society
reject the
> > Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of those
organizations
> reject
> > the Bible as the word of God ...
>
> >>> They what? I find it hard to believe that they have made any such
> pronouncements. Could you please prove this claim? Why would the
Smithsonian
> or the National Geographic Society be getting involved in religious
debate?
>
> Doug
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details <<<
>
> I find such a question surprising coming from someone who appears to
claim they
> follow scientific issues.
>
> Both the SI and the NGS have long been staunch advocates of evolution and
harsh
> critics of biblical creationism. Go ask some of the creationist
scientists who
> have had dealings with NGS staff about the society's views on the Bible.
Go
> look at some of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC articles that have mentioned the
Bible.
> And the Smithsonian put out a letter in which it basically said the
Bible was
> myth. I used to have a copy of the letter on my mission. I used it any
time
> someone cited the SI statement on the BOM.
>
MTGriffith
> Subj: Re: BOM not History
> Date: 99-05-31 13:08:23 EDT
> From: kilr...@hotmail.com (Evo Shandor)
> To: MTGri...@aol.com
>
> >I hope you and others who cite the Smithsonian and the NG Society
> >reject the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, because both of
> >those organizations reject the Bible as the word of God and they
> >also view large parts of the Bible as myth.
>
> I am an atheist sir, and as such, yes, I reject the Bible as well. Your
> charges of hypocrisy are negligible.
Ok, Mr. Athiest, then let me correct you on your first error of several in your
reply: I did not outright charge you with hypocrisy. I simply said that IF
one is going to site the SI and NGS on the BOM, then one should be prepared to
also accept their views on the Bible and creation.
> >The Smithsonian's claims about the BOM have been answered by
> >LDS scholars, and the Smithsonian has yet to respond to those
> >answers.
>
> No, they've been apologized by. They haven't been responded to
> because no secular organization will take them seriously and for very
> good reasons.
Typical arrogant, closed-minded atheistic polemic. Have you even read Dr. John
Sorenson's reply to the SI statement? Do you know who Sorenson is and what his
considerable qualifications are?
For your information, Sorenson is highly regarded by non-Mormon anthropologists
and archaeologists. He was invited to contribute to the watershed volume MAN
ACROSS THE SEA. He has been published in non-Mormon journals in both the U.S.
and Mexico.
For your further enlightenment, the SI has backed away from its original letter
and has issued a revised version that basically washes its hands of the whole
issue. One of the SI's own scientists came out and said he disputed the
anti-diffusionist views expounded by the SI.
The SI hasn't answered Sorenson's reply because it doesn't want to have to
confront the evidence and arguments Sorenson presents, not because Sorenson
isn't qualified or doesn't make credible arguments.
If the replies to the SI statement on the BOM have been so amateurish, why not
tackle one of them yourself? If you think Sorenson's reply is too hard to
handle, how about taking on Diane Wirth's critique in A CHALLENGE TO THE
CRITICS?
> >If this is your criterion for rejecting the BOM, then you also must be
> >willing to reject the Bible because no non-believing archaeologist
> >believes in its complete historical accuracy. Indeed:
> >
> >Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the city of Ai
> >was occupied when the Bible says it was.
>
> I'm an atheist . . .
Yes, so obviously this and other invitations wouldn't apply to you, would they?
I've snipped your repeated answer of "I'm an athiest" to all of the other
challenges.
[SNIP]
> Go ahead and research my past. You'll see I've always been fair. I'm
> against both sides.
>
> >Otherwise, why cite them as authoritative, unless you, too, reject the
> >Bible just as they do?
>
> I do. Perhaps everyone's claims that you don't do your research
> aren't too far off base. Tourniquet
"Everyone's claims"? What you're actually referring to are the claims of a
handful of anti-Mormon critics who post regularly in this and other LDS
newsgroups.
On a purely logical note, the fact that, heaven forbid, I did not "research"
your past and your beliefs, and that I was unaware of your atheistic views, is
hardly a valid basis for claiming I don't do my research! That's a rather
silly argument.
Speaking of arguments, I would now invite you to respond to some points I've
made repeatedly about BOM evidence. Allow me to repeat them for your
convenience:
Anti-Mormon Claim: Joseph Smith or some other person of that period could have
written the Book of Mormon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Answer: Computer wordprint analyses have soundly refuted this claim. Two
separate exhaustive wordprint studies have shown that the wordprint patterns of
the Book of Mormon's authors do NOT match those of Joseph Smith, or of Oliver
Cowdery, or of Solomon Spaulding. The Berkley Group wordprint study was
conducted by a group that included only one member of the LDS Church. The
group set out to disprove the wordprint study that had been done by scholars at
Brigham Young University. After years of detailed research, the Berkley Group
announced that its wordprint analysis confirmed the BYU wordprint study in all
essential areas.
Other evidence likewise refutes the charge that the Book of Mormon was authored
in the early 1800s. The Book of Mormon contains information about the ancient
New World and about the ancient Near East that no man in Joseph Smith's day
could have known.
Anti-Mormon Claim: There is no evidence of the Book of Mormon. There is no
archaeological evidence, no linguistic evidence, no historical evidence, etc.,
etc., that supports the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Answer: This is a very outdated claim. There is a growing mountain of evidence
of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. For example:
* The Book of Mormon contains dozens of lengthy, highly complex examples of an
ancient Hebrew writing style known as chiasmus. No one in America knew
anything about chiasmus in 1830, and only a handful of scholars in Europe knew
anything about it at the time. It wasn't until years later that chiasmus came
to be widely recognized and studied by scholars.
* The Book of Mormon's story of the journey of Lehi's family through the
ancient Arabian desert contains many elements that were simply unknown in
Joseph Smith's day.
* The Book of Mormon's land area corresponds to that part of the New World
known as Mesoamerica (southern Mexico and central and northern Central
America). Not only this, but in those cases when the Book of Mormon describes
the topography of certain areas of land, that topography matches the topography
of the corresponding area of Mesoamerica.
* At the time the Book of Mormon was written, the common view was that the
inhabitants of the ancient Americas had been primitive savages. Early
anti-Mormons attacked the Book of Mormon for claiming there were advanced
civilizations in the ancient New World. Of course, the Nephite record was
later proven accurate on this crucial point.
* Numerous names in the Book of Mormon have been shown to be authentic ancient
Near Eastern names.
* When the Book of Mormon was written, and for years afterward, the
overwhelming consensus among scholars was that the peoples of ancient
Mesoamerica were peaceful, and that warfare was virtually unknown among them.
As late as the 1970s one prominent anti-Mormon author criticized the Book of
Mormon because it records prolonged extensive warfare. The Book of Mormon has
now been proven correct on this point. Archaeologists have discovered that
wars were quite common in ancient Mesoamerica. Numerous ancient fortified
cities have been found. Some of these fortified cities match the fortified
cities that are described in the Book of Mormon.
* The account of Christ's visit to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon is
powerfully supported by numerous ancient American legends of a Great White God
who came anciently to the Americas, who established a church, who taught and
healed the people, and who promised to return.
* The Book of Mormon's description of cement highways was long attacked by
critics. For years there was no evidence of ancient cement roadways dating
to the Book of Mormon period. However, over the last twenty years or so,
several such cement highways have been discovered.
Anti-Mormon Claim: All non-Mormon scholars who have commented on the Book of
Mormon have said there is no evidence for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Answer: This is incorrect. Such non-Mormon scholars as Thor Heyedahl and Cyrus
Gordon have acknowledged there is evidence that supports the Book of Mormon's
authenticity. Other non-Mormon scholars have likewise noted evidence that
confirms aspects of the Book of Mormon.
Doug Weller
17:57:13 GMT, mtgri...@aol.com said...
> In a message dated 99-05-31 13:08:23 EDT, kilr...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> Ok, Mr. Athiest, then let me correct you on your first error of several in your
> reply: I did not outright charge you with hypocrisy. I simply said that IF
> one is going to site the SI and NGS on the BOM, then one should be prepared to
> also accept their views on the Bible and creation.
Please quote the statements by the SI and NGS on the Bible, please. I accept
that as scientific organisations they do not take the Bible literally, nor do
many Christians.
[SNIP]
>
> For your information, Sorenson is highly regarded by non-Mormon anthropologists
> and archaeologists. He was invited to contribute to the watershed volume MAN
> ACROSS THE SEA. He has been published in non-Mormon journals in both the U.S.
> and Mexico.
I don't know how highly regarded he is, but if this is an attempt to suggest
that most archaeologists accept his claims, you're simply wrong.
[SNIP]
> The SI hasn't answered Sorenson's reply because it doesn't want to have to
> confront the evidence and arguments Sorenson presents, not because Sorenson
> isn't qualified or doesn't make credible arguments.
This is your guess. Mine is that it sees no reason to get into a debate.
>
>
> Answer: Computer wordprint analyses have soundly refuted this claim. Two
> separate exhaustive wordprint studies have shown that the wordprint patterns of
> the Book of Mormon's authors do NOT match those of Joseph Smith, or of Oliver
> Cowdery, or of Solomon Spaulding. The Berkley Group wordprint study was
> conducted by a group that included only one member of the LDS Church. The
> group set out to disprove the wordprint study that had been done by scholars at
> Brigham Young University.
Everything I've read about wordprint analyses suggests that this isn't the
case. I can't find anything about this Berkley group, whatever it is.
>
>
> * The Book of Mormon's land area corresponds to that part of the New World
> known as Mesoamerica (southern Mexico and central and northern Central
> America). Not only this, but in those cases when the Book of Mormon describes
> the topography of certain areas of land, that topography matches the topography
> of the corresponding area of Mesoamerica.
I've seen lots of disputes on this.
> * At the time the Book of Mormon was written, the common view was that the
> inhabitants of the ancient Americas had been primitive savages. Early
> anti-Mormons attacked the Book of Mormon for claiming there were advanced
> civilizations in the ancient New World. Of course, the Nephite record was
> later proven accurate on this crucial point.
Proof of the above? Had memories of the Inca civilization conquered by the
Spanish, for instance, been mysteriously lost?
> * Numerous names in the Book of Mormon have been shown to be authentic ancient
> Near Eastern names.
Oh wow! Now if Smith had never read the Bible or had any access to other
literature, I might be impressed.
> * When the Book of Mormon was written, and for years afterward, the
> overwhelming consensus among scholars was that the peoples of ancient
> Mesoamerica were peaceful, and that warfare was virtually unknown among them.
> As late as the 1970s one prominent anti-Mormon author criticized the Book of
> Mormon because it records prolonged extensive warfare. The Book of Mormon has
> now been proven correct on this point. Archaeologists have discovered that
> wars were quite common in ancient Mesoamerica. Numerous ancient fortified
> cities have been found. Some of these fortified cities match the fortified
> cities that are described in the Book of Mormon.
I would expect Smith to have written about warfare. Whether or not scholars
thought this didn't exist someplace or sometime is irrelevant. Your claim
that fortified cities match something is just that, a claim. Not evidence.
> * The account of Christ's visit to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon is
> powerfully supported by numerous ancient American legends of a Great White God
> who came anciently to the Americas, who established a church, who taught and
> healed the people, and who promised to return.
Still waiting for a quote on the church bit.
> * The Book of Mormon's description of cement highways was long attacked by
> critics. For years there was no evidence of ancient cement roadways dating
> to the Book of Mormon period. However, over the last twenty years or so,
> several such cement highways have been discovered.
Citations for this, although again it proves little.
>
> Answer: This is incorrect. Such non-Mormon scholars as Thor Heyedahl and Cyrus
> Gordon have acknowledged there is evidence that supports the Book of Mormon's
> authenticity. Other non-Mormon scholars have likewise noted evidence that
> confirms aspects of the Book of Mormon.
\
Heyerdahl a scholar? Since when? And Gordon's ideas get pretty wild too.
I see you have no response to the exposure of your Creationists posts as lies
and distortions.
Doug
--
Nathan Packer
Weller) wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>>
>> For your information, Sorenson is highly regarded by non-Mormon anthropologists
>> and archaeologists. He was invited to contribute to the watershed volume MAN
>> ACROSS THE SEA. He has been published in non-Mormon journals in both the U.S.
>> and Mexico.
>
>I don't know how highly regarded he is, but if this is an attempt to suggest
>that most archaeologists accept his claims, you're simply wrong.
>
Perhaps, if someone could show us how many times Sorenson's
contribution in "Man..." has been cited in scholarly, peer-reviewed
journals we could be impressed. But, we already know we won't be
impressed, and most archaeologist ignore his claims.
>[SNIP]
>> The SI hasn't answered Sorenson's reply because it doesn't want to have to
>> confront the evidence and arguments Sorenson presents, not because Sorenson
>> isn't qualified or doesn't make credible arguments.
>
>This is your guess. Mine is that it sees no reason to get into a debate.
And why answer apologetica when its purpose is to keep Mormons
comfortable.
[snip]
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
AlmaTheYounger
Tourniquet wrote in message <01beab34$87cf2020$e6d9070c@default>...
>Just for the record, I do reject the Bible.
>
>Tourniquet
>
For a guy who rejects both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you sure do
spend alot of your waking hours worrying about what we believe. Ever tried
getting a life?
cdo...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
snip
> >
> > Answer: Computer wordprint analyses have soundly refuted this claim. Two
> > separate exhaustive wordprint studies have shown that the wordprint patterns of
> > the Book of Mormon's authors do NOT match those of Joseph Smith, or of Oliver
> > Cowdery, or of Solomon Spaulding. The Berkley Group wordprint study was
> > conducted by a group that included only one member of the LDS Church. The
> > group set out to disprove the wordprint study that had been done by scholars at
> > Brigham Young University.
>
>
> > * Numerous names in the Book of Mormon have been shown to be authentic ancient
> > Near Eastern names.
>
> Oh wow! Now if Smith had never read the Bible or had any access to other
> literature, I might be impressed.
==================
In a letter addressed to Grant S. Heward of Midvale, Utah, an outspoken
critic of the book of Abraham, William Foxwell Albright, the doyen of
American ancient Near Eastern studies, wrote: "There does appear to be
evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he
undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master
Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had
just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are
two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of
Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being
"Reformed Egyptian."" Albright is mistaken about Joseph Smith having
"studied some Egyptian," for no materials were available to him for such
studies when the Book of Mormon was published; thus the Prophet had to rely
on divine inspiration in translating the Nephite record. But the letter,
dated 25 July 1966, reveals Albright's scholarly opinion that the appearance
of Egyptian in the Book of Mormon is remarkable. Albright's closing paragraph
is also revealing: "I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was
trying to mislead anyone; I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of
mine at the University of Utah [probably Louis C. Zucker], that he was a
religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really
could decipher these ancient texts. But to insist that he did [mislead] is
really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted
founder." The letter was located in the Klaus Baer correspondence file at
the University of Chicago by FARMS researcher Boyd Petersen. Hugh Nibley,
emeritus professor of ancient studies atBYU, was the first to point out the
Egyptian nature of the Book of Mormon names Paanchi and Pahoran. (citation
from FARMS web site) ===============
I am quite curious how high your level of "I am impressed" is. How high is
that bar when talking abt a "book delivered by an angel"? Would such
evidence of another manuscript which was found in the dirt be considered
evidence of its authenticity?
Exactly how high is that bar when considering a "divine document".
Anyway, while the dirt evidence is cetainly not strong ("interesting
parallels"), the textual evidence is quite convincing.
For example, here is the rest of my post which I cited above.
================= 2. James H. Charlesworth, the noted specialist on Old World
Pseudepigrapha, wrote an article comparing certain aspects of the BOM with
the pseudepigrapha and came to the following conclusion, "there are many
other important parallels between the pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon
that deserfe careful examination." 3. Krister Stendahl, then dean of
Harvard Divinity School wrote "I have applied standard methods of historical
criticism, redaction criticism, and genre criticism (to the BOM). From such
perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and shows
many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic recasting of
biblical material...It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon stands within
both of these traditions if considered as a phenomenon of religious texts."
(Citations #2 and #3 are found in the book "Reflections on Mormonism", the
proceedings of a conference at BYU where several nonLDS scholars were invited
to present papers). ==============
Textual analysis of the BOM has been going on for decades, while the "BOM
archeology" has only been in the last decade. The textual evidence is not
something you can dismiss so easily, my friend.
Any response?? Are you willing to "dig" into the textual evidence, instead
of "digging" at us re archeology?
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
cdo...@my-deja.com
> > Answer: Computer wordprint analyses have soundly refuted this claim. Two
> > separate exhaustive wordprint studies have shown that the wordprint patterns of
> > the Book of Mormon's authors do NOT match those of Joseph Smith, or of Oliver
> > Cowdery, or of Solomon Spaulding. The Berkley Group wordprint study was
> > conducted by a group that included only one member of the LDS Church. The
> > group set out to disprove the wordprint study that had been done by scholars at
> > Brigham Young University.
>
> Everything I've read about wordprint analyses suggests that this isn't the
> case. I can't find anything about this Berkley group, whatever it is.
====================== Using the technique of wordprint analysis, a team of
researchers have come to the following conclusions: I. The probability is
greater than 99.99% that JS, Cowdery and Spaulding did NOT write the books of
Alma or Nephi ( JS and the book of Alma is 99.5%) II. There is also
99.999% probability that the author of Nephi is NOT the author of Alma.
Thus, these books were written by two different authors, whoser identity is,
at the present, unknown. 1. What is "wordprint"? The statistical analysis
of incidental words in a document 5000 words or greater. Such words are "in,
the, a, with, without" etc, within in a certain context. 2. Is this a
"Mormon thing"? The Berkley team consisted of both LDS and nonLDS
researchers. 3. How reliable is this test? It has been used in such
projects as determining the author of the "Federalist Papers". This
technique is based on known statistical principles, and is very simple to
test against "real world" examples. This technique has been extensively
tested against various authors to verify its reliability. 4. Is it possible
to fake? It was successfully tested against talented authors (Twain,
Heinlein, Johnson) who attempted to alter their writing style. 5. What abt
translations? Wouldn't the translator's wordprint be imposed on a
translation? Testing shows that the wordprint of the original author is still
very evident even in a translation. ==========
I took this information from an article published by FARMS. I am not aware
of any other publication of the article.
Tourniquet
Your
> > charges of hypocrisy are negligible.
>
> Ok, Mr. Athiest, then let me correct you on your first error of several
in your
> reply: I did not outright charge you with hypocrisy. I simply said that
IF
> one is going to site the SI and NGS on the BOM, then one should be
prepared to
> also accept their views on the Bible and creation.
>
You implied it. What's more you took a one on one e-mail and posted it
publicly. That is considered more than just rude.
> > >The Smithsonian's claims about the BOM have been answered by
> > >LDS scholars, and the Smithsonian has yet to respond to those
> > >answers.
> >
> > No, they've been apologized by. They haven't been responded to
> > because no secular organization will take them seriously and for very
> > good reasons.
>
> Typical arrogant, closed-minded atheistic polemic. Have you even read
Dr. John
> Sorenson's reply to the SI statement? Do you know who Sorenson is and
what his
> considerable qualifications are?
One person out of many will not convince me. There's a nut in every group.
>
> For your information, Sorenson is highly regarded by non-Mormon
anthropologists
> and archaeologists. He was invited to contribute to the watershed volume
MAN
> ACROSS THE SEA. He has been published in non-Mormon journals in both the
U.S.
> and Mexico.
They don't however hold his viewpoints. He does his work well, fine, they
still don't agree with his theories on whether or not Mormonism is true.
>
> For your further enlightenment, the SI has backed away from its original
letter
> and has issued a revised version that basically washes its hands of the
whole
> issue. One of the SI's own scientists came out and said he disputed the
> anti-diffusionist views expounded by the SI.
That's only because no organization wants to go to war against a major
religion. You see it everywhere. They don't attack Christianity or
Muslims as a whole either. Talking to them individually however gets
different results.
>
> The SI hasn't answered Sorenson's reply because it doesn't want to have
to
> confront the evidence and arguments Sorenson presents, not because
Sorenson
> isn't qualified or doesn't make credible arguments.
From what I've seen no Mormon with such statements yet is qualified.
>
> If the replies to the SI statement on the BOM have been so amateurish,
why not
> tackle one of them yourself? If you think Sorenson's reply is too hard
to
> handle, how about taking on Diane Wirth's critique in A CHALLENGE TO THE
> CRITICS?
For one thing, I don't have the area of expertise. However, I wouldn't
mind trying. I bet I could knock down more of them than you give me credit
for. Maybe I can't, but I'll try. Go ahead and post a few.
>
> > >If this is your criterion for rejecting the BOM, then you also must
be
> > >willing to reject the Bible because no non-believing archaeologist
> > >believes in its complete historical accuracy. Indeed:
> > >
> > >Name me one non-believing archaeologist who believes the city of Ai
> > >was occupied when the Bible says it was.
> >
> > I'm an atheist . . .
>
> Yes, so obviously this and other invitations wouldn't apply to you, would
they?
No, they wouldn't.
>
> I've snipped your repeated answer of "I'm an athiest" to all of the other
> challenges.
>
Okay, cool.
> [SNIP]
>
> > Go ahead and research my past. You'll see I've always been fair. I'm
> > against both sides.
> >
> > >Otherwise, why cite them as authoritative, unless you, too, reject
the
> > >Bible just as they do?
> >
> > I do. Perhaps everyone's claims that you don't do your research
> > aren't too far off base. Tourniquet
>
> "Everyone's claims"? What you're actually referring to are the claims of
a
> handful of anti-Mormon critics who post regularly in this and other LDS
> newsgroups.
Yes. Why would I talk about the choir? They're already behind you right
from the start. However, I don't even see too many of them rallying behind
you.
>
> On a purely logical note, the fact that, heaven forbid, I did not
"research"
> your past and your beliefs, and that I was unaware of your atheistic
views, is
> hardly a valid basis for claiming I don't do my research! That's a
rather
> silly argument.
I don't see why. That's a rather silly defense by you.
>
> Speaking of arguments, I would now invite you to respond to some points
I've
> made repeatedly about BOM evidence. Allow me to repeat them for your
> convenience:
>
> Anti-Mormon Claim: Joseph Smith or some other person of that period could
have
> written the Book of Mormon.
Okay . . . here we go.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Answer: Computer wordprint analyses have soundly refuted this claim.
Give documentation. For one thing I have never heard of computer word
print analysis. I do know what my own mind shows me and that is that the
same phrases, bad grammar, and just plain boring descriptions are used time
and time again. What's more, when I showed this to my English Professor
unfamiliar with the book he said that he felt it had been written by one
man. This backed up my own feelings. I know critics since the book was
written have also said the same. So until I learn anything about your
"wordprint analysis" I'm afraid I have to go with human experts.
Two
> separate exhaustive wordprint studies have shown that the wordprint
patterns of
> the Book of Mormon's authors do NOT match those of Joseph Smith, or of
Oliver
> Cowdery, or of Solomon Spaulding.
Don't match those of Joseph Smith? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Compare it to the Book of Abraham and its nearly identical. After all, he
wrote that. lol
The Berkley Group wordprint study was
> conducted by a group that included only one member of the LDS Church.
The
> group set out to disprove the wordprint study that had been done by
scholars at
> Brigham Young University. After years of detailed research, the Berkley
Group
> announced that its wordprint analysis confirmed the BYU wordprint study
in all
> essential areas.
Okay, again, can you post their report?
>
> Other evidence likewise refutes the charge that the Book of Mormon was
authored
> in the early 1800s. The Book of Mormon contains information about the
ancient
> New World and about the ancient Near East that no man in Joseph Smith's
day
> could have known.
More like lucky guesses. The amount of things he got wrong about the new
world was phenomenally more impressive . . . for us who like to laugh.
>
> Anti-Mormon Claim: There is no evidence of the Book of Mormon. There is
no
> archaeological evidence, no linguistic evidence, no historical evidence,
etc.,
> etc., that supports the book.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
> Answer: This is a very outdated claim. There is a growing mountain of
evidence
> of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. For example:
Here we go . . .
>
> * The Book of Mormon contains dozens of lengthy, highly complex examples
of an
> ancient Hebrew writing style known as chiasmus. No one in America knew
> anything about chiasmus in 1830, and only a handful of scholars in Europe
knew
> anything about it at the time. It wasn't until years later that chiasmus
came
> to be widely recognized and studied by scholars.
I have seen these so called examples and found several similar things in
essays I wrote as a child. Basically put when you describe it as stating
an idea, babbling about it, and then restating it any book is full of them.
Especially for people looking for them. However, if we assume it really
is full of these things it's not too surprising as the Bible was full of
them and a great deal of the Bible was pasted into the Book of Mormon.
>
> * The Book of Mormon's story of the journey of Lehi's family through the
> ancient Arabian desert contains many elements that were simply unknown in
> Joseph Smith's day.
Like what?
>
> * The Book of Mormon's land area corresponds to that part of the New
World
> known as Mesoamerica (southern Mexico and central and northern Central
> America). Not only this, but in those cases when the Book of Mormon
describes
> the topography of certain areas of land, that topography matches the
topography
> of the corresponding area of Mesoamerica.
I have yet to see this even from Mormon archeologists. More like wishing
something to be true and it becoming that. I do know they haven't found
any evidence of the civilization, and that's the most important part.
>
> * At the time the Book of Mormon was written, the common view was that
the
> inhabitants of the ancient Americas had been primitive savages. Early
> anti-Mormons attacked the Book of Mormon for claiming there were advanced
> civilizations in the ancient New World. Of course, the Nephite record
was
> later proven accurate on this crucial point.
And wrong on some crucial others. For instance, wrong about who was truly
first to this "promised land."
>
> * Numerous names in the Book of Mormon have been shown to be authentic
ancient
> Near Eastern names.
Like what? I think one of them was lifted from the name of a city. Alma
was a name common to people at the time. I see far too evidence to the
contrary than to the
>
> * When the Book of Mormon was written, and for years afterward, the
> overwhelming consensus among scholars was that the peoples of ancient
> Mesoamerica were peaceful, and that warfare was virtually unknown among
them.
Joseph Smith wouldn't have been aware of this at all. It seems totally
reasonable that given the war like nature of the Indians he would have
assumed they were that way. Or maybe given the war like nature of people
in general. Above all the claim Mormons so often make that Joseph
"couldn't have possibly known" goes against you as well too. Joseph
couldn't have possibly known this scholars viewpoint and as such it
actually makes more sense that he didn't uphold it.
> As late as the 1970s one prominent anti-Mormon author criticized the Book
of
> Mormon because it records prolonged extensive warfare. The Book of
Mormon has
> now been proven correct on this point. Archaeologists have discovered
that
> wars were quite common in ancient Mesoamerica. Numerous ancient
fortified
> cities have been found. Some of these fortified cities match the
fortified
> cities that are described in the Book of Mormon.
Or the fortified cities we have today. In either case, no one will tell
you they are the ones from the Book of Mormon.
>
> * The account of Christ's visit to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon is
> powerfully supported by numerous ancient American legends of a Great
White God
> who came anciently to the Americas, who established a church, who taught
and
> healed the people, and who promised to return.
A legend people created well after it surpassingly happened. In fact, the
legend appears to have started only in the last few hundred years.
>
> * The Book of Mormon's description of cement highways was long attacked
by
> critics. For years there was no evidence of ancient cement roadways
dating
> to the Book of Mormon period. However, over the last twenty years or so,
> several such cement highways have been discovered.
Similar to those in Rome.
>
> Anti-Mormon Claim: All non-Mormon scholars who have commented on the
Book of
> Mormon have said there is no evidence for it.
No, no one would be that dumb. There just is a preponderance of evidence
as to its falsehood. Any man guessing at what a culture might be like is
going to get some things right.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
>
> Answer: This is incorrect. Such non-Mormon scholars as Thor Heyedahl and
Cyrus
> Gordon have acknowledged there is evidence that supports the Book of
Mormon's
> authenticity. Other non-Mormon scholars have likewise noted evidence
that
> confirms aspects of the Book of Mormon.
Now here's here challenge, quote them saying they feel it's correct (not a
mormon one).
Tourniquet
Tourniquet
> For a guy who rejects both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you sure do
> spend alot of your waking hours worrying about what we believe. Ever
tried
> getting a life?
Come now Alma, what I'm doing is no different than what you are. I like
discussion, and as for waking hours, I only spend an hour on here a day
max. It's no biggie for me. Now what's with this childish insulting
stuff?
Bastard.
Tourniquet
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Tourniquet" <kilr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
> > > >The Smithsonian's claims about the BOM have been answered by
> > > >LDS scholars, and the Smithsonian has yet to respond to those
> > > >answers.
> > >
> > > No, they've been apologized by. They haven't been responded to
> > > because no secular organization will take them seriously and for very
> > > good reasons.
The position of the Smithsonian is not an apology of what they wrote, but an
apology that they ever got themselves in the middle of this mess. The people
at SI have not likely changed their position, but their willingness to
publically state that position.
snip
> > For your further enlightenment, the SI has backed away from its original
> letter
> > and has issued a revised version that basically washes its hands of the
> whole
> > issue. One of the SI's own scientists came out and said he disputed the
> > anti-diffusionist views expounded by the SI.
>
> That's only because no organization wants to go to war against a major
> religion.
No, this is not correct. The diffusionist contraversary goes well beyond the
BOM, and there has been a sea change at SI on that very issue.
snip
>> The Book of Mormon contains information about the
> ancient
> > New World and about the ancient Near East that no man in Joseph Smith's
> day
> > could have known.
>
> More like lucky guesses.
And at what point does it stop being "lucky guesses"? Is chiasmus a "lucky
guess", the Hebrew constructs and grammar (some of whihc appear only in the
written manuscript but were edited out of the published book), the authentic
egyptian names, the discovery that Jews wrote Hebrew using egyptian
characters (reformed egyptian?), the writing on metal plates which were
placed in a stone box (King Darius), the appearence of mayan names in the
BOM, the admission by nonLDS scholars that the BOM follows certain ancient
textual traditions, the appearance of an ancient civilization in the place
and time period described in the BOM (Olmec)..........
That Smith farm must have had quite a library!
The amount of things he got wrong about the new
> world was phenomenally more impressive . . . for us who like to laugh.
And would you please give us a listing of the things that were **wrong**.
And please give us proof that they were wrong.
And, before you respond, read my recent post abt archeologists having egg on
their face on the "clovis wall" (do a search on that term under my name)
according to a recent newspaper article.
Yep, let's all have a hearty laugh together. Show us your proof, show us
your evidence. No assertions, no opinions, no speculation -- show us proof
where "JS got it wrong". OK.
As an athiest, you live on proof, on evidence. So pleeze show us what ya
got. I'm calling your bluff.
>
> >
> > Anti-Mormon Claim: There is no evidence of the Book of Mormon. There is
> no
> > archaeological evidence, no linguistic evidence, no historical evidence,
> etc.,
> > etc., that supports the book.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> >
> > Answer: This is a very outdated claim. There is a growing mountain of
> evidence
> > of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. For example:
>
> Here we go . . .
>
> >
> > * The Book of Mormon contains dozens of lengthy, highly complex examples
> of an
> > ancient Hebrew writing style known as chiasmus. No one in America knew
> > anything about chiasmus in 1830, and only a handful of scholars in Europe
> knew
> > anything about it at the time. It wasn't until years later that chiasmus
> came
> > to be widely recognized and studied by scholars.
>
> I have seen these so called examples and found several similar things in
> essays I wrote as a child.
Oh, really. And how long were they?
Would you please share those with us.
Now look at Alma chapter 36 -- the entire chapter is a chiasmus, with Christ
at the center of the chiasmus.
Now show us something that you have written, as a child or as an adult prior
to this date, that is comparable. Let us compare your chiasmus with the
complex chiasmus in the BOM.
Basically put when you describe it as stating
> an idea, babbling about it, and then restating it any book is full of them.
Your description of chiasmus is..... inadequate. do you really know what it
is?
> Especially for people looking for them. However, if we assume it really
> is full of these things it's not too surprising as the Bible was full of
> them and a great deal of the Bible was pasted into the Book of Mormon.
I really like the simplicity of that argument -- the Bible has it, so farmboy
smith should have no problemo writing one.
Could you please identify some of those in the Bible, and show your hand at
writing one yourself, or, indeed, show us a lengthy chiamus from an ordinary
books.
Also please note that chiasmus was unknown until recently, so writing one
deliberately is .... cheating. But let's see what you can offer us.
Anyway, you make it sound trivial, so, as an athiest, let's see your proof.
You base you salvation, your nonbelief in God, on proof. So here's your
chance to give some of that proof. Show us chiasmus with at least the
complexity in the BOM in any other word besides the Bible or the BOM.
>
snip
>
> I have yet to see this even from Mormon archeologists. More like wishing
> something to be true and it becoming that. I do know they haven't found
> any evidence of the civilization, and that's the most important part.
I think you, as an athiest, engage in wishful thinking as well. You offer
assertions but no proof.
>
> >
> > * At the time the Book of Mormon was written, the common view was that
> the
> > inhabitants of the ancient Americas had been primitive savages. Early
> > anti-Mormons attacked the Book of Mormon for claiming there were advanced
> > civilizations in the ancient New World. Of course, the Nephite record
> was
> > later proven accurate on this crucial point.
>
> And wrong on some crucial others. For instance, wrong about who was truly
> first to this "promised land."
Uh..... this shows your ignorance of both the BOM and LDS teachings. The BOM
makes no statement on who was the **first** to live in America.
In case you were unaware, according to LDS doctrine, the American continent
was occupied millenia before the Jaredites ever arrived.
As an athiest, with your very salvation at stake, I would thing that you
should at least know the basics. Or are you no longer interested in such
trivial issues as what happens after death. You've already "proven" to
yourself that is the end of existence, and why bother. I personally do not
think that attitude is very useful with so much at stake, but whatever floats
your boat, as they say. snip
AlmaTheYounger
I wrote:
> > For a guy who rejects both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you sure do
spend alot of your waking hours worrying about what we believe. Ever tried
> > getting a life?
Tourniquet wrote
> Come now Alma, what I'm doing is no different than what you are. I like>
discussion, and as for waking hours, I only spend an hour on here a day>
max. It's no biggie for me. Now what's with this childish insulting>
stuff?
>
> Bastard.
>
> Tourniquet
Now, now tourny!! Actually, what you do would be analogous to my posting
incessantly on the alt.religion.atheist newsgroup. I choose not to waste my
time on a topic that is completely irrelevant to my like. Obviously you
have some perverse interest in Mormonism. Could it be thou art an apostate?
cdo...@my-deja.com
> > > >LDS scholars, and the Smithsonian has yet to respond to those
> > > >answers.
> > >
> > > No, they've been apologized by. They haven't been responded to
> > > because no secular organization will take them seriously and for very
> > > good reasons.
Let me put this into perspective. I asked the Smithsonian to conduct a
public discussion of their letter -- to show to the public that they were not
religion basing, that their statement was based on solid scientific ground.
They flatly refused.
They made the assertions, they made the claims, they attacked the Book of
Mormon based on "science". And when someone called their bluff, they folded
their tent and disappeared into the night.
The "damage" had already been done. They questioned the validity of the BOM,
and, when asked to defend their position, they then "suddenly realized" that
it was a "religious issue".
And this conversation with them was held thru my local congressional office.
Tourniquet
> Now, now tourny!! Actually, what you do would be analogous to my
posting
> incessantly on the alt.religion.atheist newsgroup. I choose not to waste
my
> time on a topic that is completely irrelevant to my like. Obviously you
> have some perverse interest in Mormonism. Could it be thou art an
apostate?
Why do Christians post here against Mormons? Why do Mormons constantly (in
fact it's a commandment to) go out and convert the people. Convince them
the errors of their ways.
I'm just your typical human being trying to push something I believe in
like you or anyone else.
Now Alma, could it be that you are afraid of discussion? Too many people
entering your little circle?
Tourniquet
Doug Weller
cdo...@my-deja.com said...
>
> Let me put this into perspective. I asked the Smithsonian to conduct a
> public discussion of their letter -- to show to the public that they were not
> religion basing, that their statement was based on solid scientific ground.
>
agree that they probably decided that their first letter was inappropriate.
cdo...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> In article <7j3bc6$je2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on Wed, 02 Jun 1999 13:25:35 GMT,
> cdo...@my-deja.com said...
> >
> > Let me put this into perspective. I asked the Smithsonian to conduct a
> > public discussion of their letter -- to show to the public that they were not
> > religion basing, that their statement was based on solid scientific ground.
> >
> How often does the Smithsonian as an institution get into such discussions? I
> agree that they probably decided that their first letter was inappropriate.
>
The history of the SI letter is rather interesting. Hunter's book on "BOM
archeology" written in the late 1950 made some rather outrageous claims.
Around that time there was a letter circulating among the members in Chicage,
I believe, which made the absurd claim that SI used the BOM as a resource for
archeological exploration.
Anyway, an individual wrote the SI regarding those claims -- he asked 12
specific questions which touched on Hunter's claims in his book. Some
individual in the anthropology dept answered each question, and a strong
statement was made denying the use of the BOM as a reference.
Anyway, as time passed, SI received several inquires regarding their view of
the BOM. This letter was "dusted off" and sent to the respondents.
Unfortunately, the original letter was not included, so the 12 questions
became 12 points, and, instead of a response to Hunter's book, it was
accidently transformed into an "offical" statment regarding the BOM.
A few revisions were made to correct some of the most egregious errors, but
the basic letter (and its fallacies) remained until a series of
correspondences between myself and the public affairs officer at SI, David
Umanski. They held a series of meentings, and the decision was made to issue
the new letter, which basically disclaims the BOM as a reference guide for SI
and no further comment on the bona fides of the BOM.
Tourniquet
> public discussion of their letter -- to show to the public that they were
not
> religion basing, that their statement was based on solid scientific
ground.
>
>
> They made the assertions, they made the claims, they attacked the Book of
> Mormon based on "science". And when someone called their bluff, they
folded
> their tent and disappeared into the night.
Have you tried going one on one with members rather than the entire
organization?
>
> The "damage" had already been done. They questioned the validity of the
BOM,
> and, when asked to defend their position, they then "suddenly realized"
that
> it was a "religious issue".
Why is that surprising?
Tourniquet
Tourniquet
> The position of the Smithsonian is not an apology of what they wrote, but
an
> apology that they ever got themselves in the middle of this mess. The
people
> at SI have not likely changed their position, but their willingness to
> publically state that position.
I think this was what I was saying.
> No, this is not correct. The diffusionist contraversary goes well beyond
the
> BOM, and there has been a sea change at SI on that very issue.
Okay, fill in the details so a response can be made.
>
>
> snip
>
> >> The Book of Mormon contains information about the
> > ancient
> > > New World and about the ancient Near East that no man in Joseph
Smith's
> > day
> > > could have known.
> >
> > More like lucky guesses.
>
> And at what point does it stop being "lucky guesses"? Is chiasmus a
"lucky
> guess", the Hebrew constructs and grammar (some of whihc appear only in
the
> written manuscript but were edited out of the published book), the
authentic
> egyptian names, the discovery that Jews wrote Hebrew using egyptian
> characters (reformed egyptian?),
I guess it stops being lucky as soon as a trillion other mistakes aren't
made. The evidence you do name (chiasmus) seems no where near convincing.
Every other paragraph becomes a chiasmus to the believer.
the writing on metal plates which were
> placed in a stone box (King Darius),
Because it occurs somewhere else in history? Find some plates written on
in South America.
the appearence of mayan names in the
> BOM,
When does this occur? This is new to me, please list.
the admission by nonLDS scholars that the BOM follows certain ancient
> textual traditions, the appearance of an ancient civilization in the
place
> and time period described in the BOM (Olmec)..........
Okay, but find me an archeologist who thinks the Olmecs are the same group
from the Book of Mormon.
>
> That Smith farm must have had quite a library!
Again, none of your stuff so far seems anything but circumstantial.
Especially the Olmec part. I don't see many comparisons between the two
groups.
>
> The amount of things he got wrong about the new
> > world was phenomenally more impressive . . . for us who like to laugh.
>
> And would you please give us a listing of the things that were **wrong**.
> And please give us proof that they were wrong.
*Sigh*
Have you never surfed the popular anti-mormon web? I suppose to sum it up
let me just say since even the most devoted Mormon scholar can only see
possible ties between the Book of Mormon (unlike Biblical scholars who can
find the places, names, etc., written on walls) which they hope will pan
out someday it seems shaky at best.
>
> And, before you respond, read my recent post abt archeologists having egg
on
> their face on the "clovis wall" (do a search on that term under my name)
> according to a recent newspaper article.
>
> Yep, let's all have a hearty laugh together. Show us your proof, show us
> your evidence. No assertions, no opinions, no speculation -- show us
proof
> where "JS got it wrong". OK.
>
> As an athiest, you live on proof, on evidence. So pleeze show us what ya
> got. I'm calling your bluff.
Okay, okay. It's late, I'm tired, and I can even tell that my previous
responses are a weak attempt on my part. However, now I'll try to get
serious.
Lets start with this, how come to date no culture discovered has been
positively identified as a Nephite or Lamanite one? The Bible's locations
exist, we see them, we know they're there. Whether or not we agree if
everything happened as they said it did is another story. Tell me why this
isn't so with the Book of Mormon, and we'll start our argument there.
>
> Oh, really. And how long were they?
>
> Would you please share those with us.
>
> Now look at Alma chapter 36 -- the entire chapter is a chiasmus, with
Christ
> at the center of the chiasmus.
Before I go too far into this chiasmus thing, tell me YOUR definition. Is
it stating an idea, blabbing about it, and then stating it again or
something deeper? This does essential follow the essay form you're given
in high school.
>
> Now show us something that you have written, as a child or as an adult
prior
> to this date, that is comparable. Let us compare your chiasmus with the
> complex chiasmus in the BOM.
Give me the definition of a chiasmus first. If it's the same one I was
given (stating an idea, talking about it, and stating it again) I'll do it.
>
>
>
> Basically put when you describe it as stating
> > an idea, babbling about it, and then restating it any book is full of
them.
>
> Your description of chiasmus is..... inadequate. do you really know what
it
> is?
Apparently not. This is what Mormons in the area tried to tell me it was.
Please give me the better definition.
>
> I really like the simplicity of that argument -- the Bible has it, so
farmboy
> smith should have no problemo writing one.
If the Bible was what he was imitating it seems more than plausible.
>
> Could you please identify some of those in the Bible, and show your hand
at
> writing one yourself, or, indeed, show us a lengthy chiamus from an
ordinary
> books.
Isn't it true the Bible has them? Surely that's a given. Give me your
definition about a Chiasmus before I search for more.
>
> Also please note that chiasmus was unknown until recently, so writing one
> deliberately is .... cheating. But let's see what you can offer us.
Fine. Definition first.
>
> Anyway, you make it sound trivial, so, as an athiest, let's see your
proof.
I'm all too willing to give it.
>
> You base you salvation, your nonbelief in God, on proof. So here's your
> chance to give some of that proof. Show us chiasmus with at least the
> complexity in the BOM in any other word besides the Bible or the BOM.
Surely even you know that is possible. All I have to do is look through
Hebrew text from the past. lol
> Uh..... this shows your ignorance of both the BOM and LDS teachings. The
BOM
> makes no statement on who was the **first** to live in America.
No it doesn't. Reading the Book of Mormon implies they're all alone. It's
as simple as that. There is no mention of other groups and therefore I'm
not going to add them. I suppose one could say that just because it
doesn't mention them doesn't mean they aren't there but that seems pushing
it.
>
> In case you were unaware, according to LDS doctrine, the American
continent
> was occupied millenia before the Jaredites ever arrived.
Please document this. I have never heard this.
>
> As an athiest, with your very salvation at stake, I would thing that you
> should at least know the basics.
Then go to alt.atheism. Anyone there from experts to amateurs will love to
have a crack at you. I'm moving one day from now so I really can't give
you the attention you deserve (though I'd like to). However, if you feel
ripped off I trust in my friends on that newsgroup. They can and will
discuss this with you.
Or are you no longer interested in such
> trivial issues as what happens after death. You've already "proven" to
> yourself that is the end of existence, and why bother.
You're deliberately trying to taunt me. I assure you it isn't necessary as
I'm interested in this stuff anyway.
I personally do not
> think that attitude is very useful with so much at stake, but whatever
floats
> your boat, as they say.
My attitude? To what are you referring?
Tourniquet
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Tourniquet" <kilr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Let me put this into perspective. I asked the Smithsonian to conduct a
> > public discussion of their letter -- to show to the public that they were
> not
> > religion basing, that their statement was based on solid scientific
> ground.
> >
> > They flatly refused.
> >
> > They made the assertions, they made the claims, they attacked the Book of
> > Mormon based on "science". And when someone called their bluff, they
> folded
> > their tent and disappeared into the night.
>
> Have you tried going one on one with members rather than the entire
> organization?
If you could give me a name and an e-mail address of .... say... Betty
Meggars, or anyone else. I would love to have them one-on-one with me here
on ARM. I asked them to do that.
>
> >
> > The "damage" had already been done. They questioned the validity of the
> BOM,
> > and, when asked to defend their position, they then "suddenly realized"
> that
> > it was a "religious issue".
>
> Why is that surprising?
It was not at all.
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Tourniquet" <kilr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
> >
> > And at what point does it stop being "lucky guesses"? Is chiasmus a
> "lucky
> > guess", the Hebrew constructs and grammar (some of whihc appear only in
> the
> > written manuscript but were edited out of the published book), the
> authentic
> > egyptian names, the discovery that Jews wrote Hebrew using egyptian
> > characters (reformed egyptian?),
>
> I guess it stops being lucky as soon as a trillion other mistakes aren't
> made.
And please name said errors. From a trillion, you should have no problemo
finding a couple.
> The evidence you do name (chiasmus) seems no where near convincing.
Yeh, I know. JS was lucky.
> Every other paragraph becomes a chiasmus to the believer.
You statement trips off the lips of someone who has not bothered to look into
the issue at all.
Short, sweet, a superficial sound bite.
Why not look into this and give us specifics. Read the article by Welch on
Alma Chapter 36 ("Re-exploring the Book of Mormon" and "Book of Mormon
Authorship Revisited".
Now show such extensive chiasmus in other writings --> 5 - 10 elements.
You say that "every other chapter" becomes a chiasmus. Let me see you back
up your claim.
>
> the writing on metal plates which were
> > placed in a stone box (King Darius),
>
> Because it occurs somewhere else in history? Find some plates written on
> in South America.
Are you aware of what happened to virtually every gold object in Mesoamerica?
>
> the appearence of mayan names in the
> > BOM,
>
> When does this occur? This is new to me, please list.
Joseph Allen "Exploring the Lands of the BOM", p. 37+. An example -->> one
of the few cities in Mesoamerica with its original name is the Belize city
Lamanai. Allen proposes that this name corresponds to Lamoni, a Lamanite
king who lived in approx. the same area (the BOM Land of Jershon). In the
BOM cities were named after the founder.
>
> the admission by nonLDS scholars that the BOM follows certain ancient
> > textual traditions, the appearance of an ancient civilization in the
> place
> > and time period described in the BOM (Olmec)..........
>
> Okay, but find me an archeologist who thinks the Olmecs are the same group
> from the Book of Mormon.
OK, and give me a list of nonLDS archeologists who have ever read the BOM.
>
> >
> > That Smith farm must have had quite a library!
>
> Again, none of your stuff so far seems anything but circumstantial.
That's what I said -->> Joseph Smith was very lucky. Those two previously
unknown authentic Egyptian names -- pure luck. =========== In a letter
addressed to Grant S. Heward of Midvale, Utah, an outspoken critic of the
book of Abraham, William Foxwell Albright, the doyen of American ancient Near
Eastern studies, wrote: "There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith
had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal
of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when the
Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it
is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and
Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection
with a reference to the original language as being "Reformed Egyptian."" etc
(see previous post for details of letter) ========
The correlations between Mayan names -- pure luck. The city of Nahum (on the
Arabian peninsula) and the corresponding location in the BOM -- pure luck.
The writing of Hebrew using the Egyptian symbols (reformed egyptian) -- pure
luck.
======== Closer to Lehi's time are Israelite documents from the ninth to
sixth centuries B.C., from which we learn that the Israelites adopted the
Egyptian hieratic numerals and mingled them with Hebrew text.12 More
important, however, are Hebrew and Aramaic texts-languages used by the Jews
of Lehi's time-that are written in Egyptian characters. One of these is
Papyrus Amherst 63, a document written in Egyptian demotic and dating to the
second century B.C.13 The document had, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, been
preserved in an earthen jar and was discovered in Thebes, Egypt, during the
second half of the nineteenth century. For years, Egyptologists struggled
with the text but could make no sense of it. The letters were clear, but they
did not form intelligible words. In 1944, Raymond Bowman of the University of
Chicago realized that, while the script is Egyptian, the underlying language
is Aramaic.14 Bowman managed to translate portions of the text, but it did
not become the object of serious study until the 1980s.15 Among the writings
included in the religious text is a paganized version of Psalms 20:2-6. Here,
then, we have a Bible passage, in its Aramaic translation, written in late
Egyptian characters.
In 1965, during excavations at the southern Judean site of Arad, a number of
ostraca were found. Most of the documents were written in Hebrew and dated to
ca. 598-587 B.C.16 One, however, dating "to the seventh century B.C.," was
written in Egyptian hieratic.17 Here, then, was evidence that Egyptian
writing was known in an Israelite city. This was not surprising, for Egyptian
documents from an earlier time had been discovered at the Phoenician
(Lebanese) city of Byblos. =========
What LUCK!
Chiasmus, and a dozen other poetic devices, and the use of Hebrew
grammatical structures -- pure luck for farmboy Joseph Smith. Wordprint
studies showing multiple authors -- that clever and devious JS (pure luck
that he knew that we would check him out).
More LUCK for Joseph Smith -->>
Research from prominent nonLDS scholars showing:
1. James H. Charlesworth, the noted specialist on Old World Pseudepigrapha,
wrote an article comparing certain aspects of the BOM with the pseudepigrapha
and came to the following conclusion, "there are many other important
parallels between the pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon that deserfe
careful examination." 2. Krister Stendahl, then dean of Harvard Divinity
School wrote "I have applied standard methods of historical criticism,
redaction criticism, and genre criticism (to the BOM). From such
perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and shows
many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic recasting of
biblical material...It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon stands within
both of these traditions if considered as a phenomenon of religious texts."
================
What LUCK!
Again, pure luck that JS was able to write this book, fooling even the
experts.
But he hasn't got you fooled. You tell us abt a "trillion errors".
As you say, just circumstantial, just flat-out lucky.
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Tourniquet" <kilr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
> >
> > The amount of things he got wrong about the new
> > > world was phenomenally more impressive . . . for us who like to laugh.
> >
> > And would you please give us a listing of the things that were **wrong**.
>
> > And please give us proof that they were wrong.
>
> *Sigh*
>
> Have you never surfed the popular anti-mormon web?
I have corresponded with them for years. Just do an author search here on
ARM.
I suppose to sum it up
> let me just say since even the most devoted Mormon scholar can only see
> possible ties between the Book of Mormon (unlike Biblical scholars who can
> find the places, names, etc., written on walls) which they hope will pan
> out someday it seems shaky at best.
Why did you change the subject? I asked for "proof that it is wrong", so
that we can "have a laugh together".
snip
> > As an athiest, you live on proof, on evidence. So pleeze show us what ya
> > got. I'm calling your bluff.
>
> Okay, okay. It's late, I'm tired, and I can even tell that my previous
> responses are a weak attempt on my part. However, now I'll try to get
> serious.
Saving the best for last. OK, let's see what you got.
> Lets start with this, how come to date no culture discovered has been
> positively identified as a Nephite or Lamanite one? The Bible's locations
> exist, we see them, we know they're there. Whether or not we agree if
> everything happened as they said it did is another story. Tell me why this
> isn't so with the Book of Mormon, and we'll start our argument there.
1. For all of the ancient cities in Mesoamerica, virtually none of the names
are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is remarkably
similar to a BOM name.
2. Virtually all of the records in Mesoamerica were destroyed. There is, for
Palestine, a relatively continous recorded history. No such continuity
exists for mesoamerica.
3. I was informed that for every dollar spent on archeology in mesoamerica,
$39 are spent on Biblical archeology.
4. Modern names in Palestine often reflect the Biblical names -- Jerusalem,
Jericho, etc. But, let's suppose that we did not know today where Jerusalem
is. Strictly from the text of the Bible itself, without the use of modern
names, could you locate Jerusalem?? Is there enough geographical description
in the Bible to tell you precisely where it is without the help of modern
names?
>
> >
> > Oh, really. And how long were they?
> >
> > Would you please share those with us.
> >
> > Now look at Alma chapter 36 -- the entire chapter is a chiasmus, with
> Christ
> > at the center of the chiasmus.
>
> Before I go too far into this chiasmus thing, tell me YOUR definition. Is
> it stating an idea, blabbing about it, and then stating it again or
> something deeper? This does essential follow the essay form you're given
> in high school.
> > Basically put when you describe it as stating
> > > an idea, babbling about it, and then restating it any book is full of
> them.
> >
> > Your description of chiasmus is..... inadequate. do you really know what
> it
> > is?
>
> Apparently not. This is what Mormons in the area tried to tell me it was.
> Please give me the better definition.
1. http://www.farmsresearch.com/jbms/jbmsv4_2/welch.htm
2. www.geocities.com/CapitalHill/3500/index21.html#chi
===========
What is a Chiasmus?
A chiasmus is an inverted parallelism. A simple chiasmus, i.e., a-b-b-a, may
consist of four lines. An example is shown in Mark 10:31:
a. But many that are first
b. shall be last;
b. and that the last
a. shall be first in all things.
A complex chiasmus, i.e., a-b-c-c-b-a, comprises more than four lines. An
example of a complex chiasmus is shown in John 17:6.
a. I have manifested thy name unto the men
b. Which thou gavest me
c. out of the world:
c. Thine they were,
b. And thou gavest them me;
a. And they have kept thy word.
Here the introversion shows that the Father's name is synonymous with His
Word. Further, when "thine they were" is spoken of, "out of this world" is
either synonymous or complimentary as it completes the passage. These verses
may be viewed with greater levels of understanding when thus contrasted in
parallel or chiastic form.
An example of another benefit to be gained by chiastic analysis is found in
Matthew 7:6. Here, two simple parallelisms are inverted.
a1. Give not that which is holy
b1. unto dogs,
a2. neither cast ye your pearls
b2. before swine,
b2. Lest they [the swine]
a2. trample them under their feet,
b1. And [the dogs] turn again
a1. and rend you [or tear you, and that which is holy, to pieces].
As Robert Breck points out, "Translators of the RSV/NRSV clearly missed the
inversion ... They render the last line "and turn to attack you" (NRSV: "and
turn and maul you"). This implies that the action is accomplished by the
swine. The Greek, however, uses a verb that can only refer to an attack by
dogs, ..." (Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language, p. 29). As shown, the
intent of the writer is clarified when read chiastically: "if you give that
which is holy to dogs, they will turn on you and tear you [being God's holy
one] to pieces; if you cast you pearls before swine, they will trample the
pearls under their feet.
This "structural symmetry" helps to "identify peaks or points of prominence .
. . found both on the level of individual poems and in larger units such as
the book of a prophet" (Discourse Perspectives on Hebrew Poetry in the
Scriptures, Ernst R. Wendland, p. 67) and makes all the references that much
more clear. Any adequate study of the scriptures should deal with the
composition in its entirety and not limited to individual passages or random
couplets. It should be "progressive, systematic, and comprehensive" in all
facets. Careful and deliberate attention must be paid to all the exegetical
tools available, e.g., typological and rhetorical analysis, the understanding
of metaphoric pseudonyms, parallelisms, allegorical and covenantal language,
figures of speech, a thorough understanding of its historical setting as well
as the prophetical implications, all of which are superimposed on a larger
poetic framework. These operational procedures must be employed in order to
produce a thorough analysis, which would explain both the substance as well
as the tenor of the text.
As Ernst Wedland wrote, "Once the organizational structure of a poetic piece
has been fairly well-established and its individual points of prominence
identified, it is often useful to summarize the results by constructing a
thematic and/or semantic outline of the whole. ... The traditional
classification according to three types of parallelism - synonymous,
antithetic, and synthetic - has tended to obscure the fact that a more
diverse set of syntagmatic relations link the elements of colon couplets and
clusters in the text, and hence much more precise designations are possible,
even necessary, for analysis" (Discourse Perspectives on Hebrew Poetry in the
Scriptures, Ernst R. Wendland, p. 16-17).
One overriding thematic outline, frequently employed in the scriptures and
other prophetic works, is identified as "Davidic Chiasmus" or "Davidic
Parallelism." If the poetic or scriptural composition is
prophetico-messianic, it may be examined, analyzed and then re-analyzed from
top to bottom in terms of its sequential interpropositional "Davidic"
connections. This methodology may give the reader a better comprehension of
the structure, content, function and application of the text in its fullest
semantic and pragmatic sense.
==============
There are basic, simple chiasmus (to which you refer) -- with a two or three
elements, but there are also those which are quite extensive.
For example, there may be 10 elements, and the central element is Christ.
Note his comment on the Davidic chiasmus, which we find in the Book of
Mormon.
Perhaps the most complex chiasmus is found in Alma chapter 38, where there
are subchiasmatic elements (a1, a2, etc) within an overall chiastic structure
of 5 elements, of which Jesus Christ is the central figure in the total
structure (element F).
I know....
Joseph Smith was LUCKY.
Sigh.
snip
>
> > Uh..... this shows your ignorance of both the BOM and LDS teachings. The
> BOM
> > makes no statement on who was the **first** to live in America.
>
> No it doesn't. Reading the Book of Mormon implies they're all alone. It's
> as simple as that.
Not really.
Omni 1 [21] And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his
people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he
dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.
We know that the Jaredites still were living in this area when Lehi arrived.
Coriantumr live with the mulekites (who arrived AFTER Lehi), so there were
obviously Jaredites living here when Lehi arrived. The last battle of the
jaredites was approx 400BCE.
There is no mention of other groups and therefore I'm
> not going to add them.
There were jaredites still here, and Lehi found oxen and domesticated goats
when they arrived.
I suppose I cannot force you to see the truth.
I suppose one could say that just because it
> doesn't mention them doesn't mean they aren't there but that seems pushing
> it.
It explicitly mentions that others were here -- do you know where an ox comes
from? The BOM simply does not go into details.
>
> >
> > In case you were unaware, according to LDS doctrine, the American
> continent
> > was occupied millenia before the Jaredites ever arrived.
>
> Please document this. I have never heard this.
Thank you admitting that you knowledge of LDS doctrine is rather weak. Most
antis proclaim that they know more than the LDS themselves.
Anyway, any LDS can tell you that this is documented in the scriptures. Adam
and his descendants lived on the American continent until Noah and the flood
took them elsewhere.
Pretty basic stuff -- Adam-ondi-ahman, etc etc.
>
> >
> > As an athiest, with your very salvation at stake, I would thing that you
> > should at least know the basics.
>
> Then go to alt.atheism. Anyone there from experts to amateurs will love to
> have a crack at you.
Been there, done that. Do an author search, and take a look at my posts
there. They took a crack at me, and I came out quite nicely,
thankyouverymuch. I received several compliments on my posts.
I didn't do so hot in talk.origins, but I'm getting there.
I'm moving one day from now so I really can't give
> you the attention you deserve (though I'd like to). However, if you feel
> ripped off I trust in my friends on that newsgroup. They can and will
> discuss this with you.
Yep. Very nice people, and more open-minded IMO than some I have met here on
ARM.
>
> Or are you no longer interested in such
> > trivial issues as what happens after death. You've already "proven" to
> > yourself that is the end of existence, and why bother.
>
> You're deliberately trying to taunt me.
Am I? :<)
I assure you it isn't necessary as
> I'm interested in this stuff anyway.
>
> I personally do not
> > think that attitude is very useful with so much at stake, but whatever
> floats
> > your boat, as they say.
>
> My attitude? To what are you referring?
>
> Tourniquet
>
--
--
duwa...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Now show such extensive chiasmus in other writings --
> 5 - 10 elements.
First, you need to show that chiasmus was used in any ancient-American
writing. And, yes, Joseph Smith did use chiasmus in his other writing,
including the D&C as well as his personal journal. It's an easy style
of writing to pick up. Not surprisingly, they are found in the Bible,
which Joseph Smith heavily plagiarized when writing the Book of Mormon.
Here is a simple example I learned in nursery school:
Hickory dickory dock
The mouse ran up the clock
The clock struck 10
The mouse ran down
Hickory dickory dock
You may view many examples of chiasmus at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/. Examples are drawn from The
Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of
Great Price.
The one place you won't find them, however, are among the writings of
any ancient-American civilization. Interesting, don't you think, that
the ancient civilizations of America, where the Book of Mormon
supposedly originated, does not have this style of writing, but Joseph
Smith's other writings do.
Regards,
Duwayne Anderson
Tourniquet
> And please name said errors. From a trillion, you should have no
problemo
> finding a couple.
>
Steel.
Calendar.
Last I checked those were errors.
>
> > The evidence you do name (chiasmus) seems no where near convincing.
>
> Yeh, I know. JS was lucky.
Know, my perspective you have to remember was that everywhere you look you
see them. Hey, could you give me a non-Mormon reference to chiasmus? I
just want to be sure they aren't a new Mormon discovery. I'm sure they're
not, this will just help me better figure out what they are.
>
> > Every other paragraph becomes a chiasmus to the believer.
>
> You statement trips off the lips of someone who has not bothered to look
into
> the issue at all.
No, I have. Now be careful. I told you what those in the area told me
they were. You can't fault me, just my teachers (who were Mormon religion
teachers).
>
> Short, sweet, a superficial sound bite.
>
> Why not look into this and give us specifics. Read the article by Welch
on
> Alma Chapter 36 ("Re-exploring the Book of Mormon" and "Book of Mormon
> Authorship Revisited".
>
> Now show such extensive chiasmus in other writings --> 5 - 10 elements.
>
> You say that "every other chapter" becomes a chiasmus. Let me see you
back
> up your claim.
First, let me know what they are. It's hard for me to just go out and by a
book mind you.
>
> >
> > the writing on metal plates which were
> > > placed in a stone box (King Darius),
> >
> > Because it occurs somewhere else in history? Find some plates written
on
> > in South America.
>
> Are you aware of what happened to virtually every gold object in
Mesoamerica?
I'm aware that if writing on gold plates was their chief form of writing it
seems you'd find some evidence for it.
>
>
> >
> > the appearence of mayan names in the
> > > BOM,
> >
> > When does this occur? This is new to me, please list.
>
> Joseph Allen "Exploring the Lands of the BOM", p. 37+. An example -->>
one
> of the few cities in Mesoamerica with its original name is the Belize
city
> Lamanai. Allen proposes that this name corresponds to Lamoni, a Lamanite
> king who lived in approx. the same area (the BOM Land of Jershon). In
the
> BOM cities were named after the founder.
Hmmm . . . a little interesting. I'm not sure how much weight I should
give just one. Can you give me more? While you're at it, can you explain
the whole Moroni name bit?
>
>
> >
> > the admission by nonLDS scholars that the BOM follows certain ancient
> > > textual traditions, the appearance of an ancient civilization in the
> > place
> > > and time period described in the BOM (Olmec)..........
> >
> > Okay, but find me an archeologist who thinks the Olmecs are the same
group
> > from the Book of Mormon.
>
> OK, and give me a list of nonLDS archeologists who have ever read the
BOM.
Are you going to tell me that out of six billion people there isn't a
single archeologist that has read the thing who is non Mormon? Gee, if not
we ought to hire one. Truthfully I have spoken to a few, but big well
known ones they were not. Maybe we should both pitch in and pay for one to
do just that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > That Smith farm must have had quite a library!
> >
> > Again, none of your stuff so far seems anything but circumstantial.
>
> That's what I said -->> Joseph Smith was very lucky. Those two
previously
> unknown authentic Egyptian names -- pure luck. =========== In a letter
> addressed to Grant S. Heward of Midvale, Utah, an outspoken critic of the
> book of Abraham, William Foxwell Albright, the doyen of American ancient
Near
> Eastern studies, wrote: "There does appear to be evidence that Joseph
Smith
> had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great
deal
> of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when
the
> Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and
it
> is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and
> Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection
> with a reference to the original language as being "Reformed Egyptian.""
etc
> (see previous post for details of letter) ========
As far as I can tell when he tried to translate Egyptian which we have the
original characters for it was way off. Explain that.
>
> The correlations between Mayan names -- pure luck. The city of Nahum (on
the
> Arabian peninsula) and the corresponding location in the BOM -- pure
luck.
There has not been and never will be the name Nephite found or Lamanite.
Promise you that.
I still just see luck, yes. A so called prophet of God wouldn't have
screwed up when he translated Egyptian.
>
> Chiasmus, and a dozen other poetic devices, and the use of Hebrew
> grammatical structures -- pure luck for farmboy Joseph Smith. Wordprint
> studies showing multiple authors -- that clever and devious JS (pure luck
> that he knew that we would check him out).
That world print study is a highly debated thing right now. You should
know that. There have been numerous other studies which indicate just the
obvious. Be fair. You can't throw out every study that doesn't suit your
purpose. You still haven't given me a definition of a Chiasmus, and what's
more, the whole Hebrew grammatical structures bit. You throw out a million
things at me (I obviously don't have access to every book on the planet
just like Joseph Smith didn't) and rather than explain them to me you throw
more of them at me. This makes it difficult to refute, though probably
looks good for you from your perspective when all I can say is, "Explain
that last bit please . . ."
>
> More LUCK for Joseph Smith -->>
>
> Research from prominent nonLDS scholars showing:
>
> 1. James H. Charlesworth, the noted specialist on Old World
Pseudepigrapha,
> wrote an article comparing certain aspects of the BOM with the
pseudepigrapha
> and came to the following conclusion, "there are many other important
> parallels between the pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon that deserfe
> careful examination." 2. Krister Stendahl, then dean of Harvard
Divinity
> School wrote "I have applied standard methods of historical criticism,
> redaction criticism, and genre criticism (to the BOM). From such
> perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and
shows
> many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic
recasting of
> biblical material...It is obvious to me that the Book of Mormon stands
within
> both of these traditions if considered as a phenomenon of religious
texts."
> ================
>
> What LUCK!
>
> Again, pure luck that JS was able to write this book, fooling even the
> experts.
Would you mind telling me what the hell peseudepigraphic is?
>
> But he hasn't got you fooled. You tell us abt a "trillion errors".
>
> As you say, just circumstantial, just flat-out lucky.
No, I'm just saying you give me very little to go on. You are the one
making the claim, you have to prove your position. Should I go and post a
list of all the errors I have read about the Book of Mormon and if I do,
will you refute them? I would find that most interesting and since you
obviously seem to know a lot about it it should be a breeze to you.
Tourniquet
Doug Weller
kilr...@hotmail.com said...
>
> Are you going to tell me that out of six billion people there isn't a
> single archeologist that has read the thing who is non Mormon? Gee, if not
> we ought to hire one. Truthfully I have spoken to a few, but big well
> known ones they were not. Maybe we should both pitch in and pay for one to
> do just that.
>
>
that should exist between mesoamerican civilizations and ANE ones, if the BOM
is true. Archaeologists don't need to read the BOM to find them.
Doug Weller
cdo...@my-deja.com said...
>
> 1. For all of the ancient cities in Mesoamerica, virtually none of the names
> are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is remarkably
> similar to a BOM name.
>
>
"The name "Lamanai," in fact, appears in 16th and 17th century documents as a
Spanish rendering of a Maya name, which we think was originally Laman'ayin
("submerged crocodile")."
Sorry, Charles, you'll have to do better than that.
For those interested in this site, see
http://www.rom.on.ca/digs/belize/on-land.html
Interesting site. Occupied since around 1500 bce until the 18th century ce
(Did the BOM people supposedly take it over and then...?). And despite the
comments I've seen here that anything this old would have had all its mudbrick
dissolved, they seem to have managed to learn quite a bit.
duwa...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> It really doesn't matter. What matters is finding the clear
> indisputable links that should exist between mesoamerican >
> civilizations and ANE ones, if the BOM
> is true. Archaeologists don't need to read the BOM to find them.
This point's been made on ARM many times, and ignored just as often.
It's an excellent point, however, and deserves to be repeated.
Regards,
Duwayne Anderson
Tourniquet
>
>
> Why did you change the subject? I asked for "proof that it is wrong", so
> that we can "have a laugh together".
Okay, clarify here, you can never prove anything wrong.
>
>
> > > As an athiest, you live on proof, on evidence. So pleeze show us what
ya
> > > got. I'm calling your bluff.
> >
> > Okay, okay. It's late, I'm tired, and I can even tell that my previous
> > responses are a weak attempt on my part. However, now I'll try to get
> > serious.
>
> Saving the best for last. OK, let's see what you got.
The other guy here said it better. Read his chiasmus (sp?) stuff.
> 1. For all of the ancient cities in Mesoamerica, virtually none of the
names
> are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is
remarkably
> similar to a BOM name.
>
> 2. Virtually all of the records in Mesoamerica were destroyed. There is,
for
> Palestine, a relatively continous recorded history. No such continuity
> exists for mesoamerica.
We know a great deal about the area. I don't buy it.
>
> 3. I was informed that for every dollar spent on archeology in
mesoamerica,
> $39 are spent on Biblical archeology.
Okay, good. You would still expect something clearer than the picture
you're getting.
>
> 4. Modern names in Palestine often reflect the Biblical names --
Jerusalem,
> Jericho, etc. But, let's suppose that we did not know today where
Jerusalem
> is. Strictly from the text of the Bible itself, without the use of
modern
> names, could you locate Jerusalem?? Is there enough geographical
description
> in the Bible to tell you precisely where it is without the help of modern
> names?
It happens over there. They discover new cities that were once buried and
link them to biblical stuff, or stories, etc.
> >
> > Apparently not. This is what Mormons in the area tried to tell me it
was.
> > Please give me the better definition.
>
>
> 1. http://www.farmsresearch.com/jbms/jbmsv4_2/welch.htm
>
> 2. www.geocities.com/CapitalHill/3500/index21.html#chi
>
> ===========
>
>
>
>
> What is a Chiasmus?
>
> A chiasmus is an inverted parallelism. A simple chiasmus, i.e., a-b-b-a,
may
> consist of four lines. An example is shown in Mark 10:31:
>
Isn't that what I said it was?
>
>
>
>
> a. But many that are first
> b. shall be last;
> b. and that the last
> a. shall be first in all things.
We shall come to Britain
But it will be Georgia
And then Georgia
Shall come to Britain
Makes no sense, but it seems to be what you're describing. It also fits
the essay style I talked about. Five paragraphs, first speaks the idea,
next three talk about it, final one states it again slightly different.
This would be abbba in your language.
>
>
>
>
>
> A complex chiasmus, i.e., a-b-c-c-b-a, comprises more than four lines. An
> example of a complex chiasmus is shown in John 17:6.
Talk longer, get longer.
>
>
>
>
>
> a. I have manifested thy name unto the men
> b. Which thou gavest me
> c. out of the world:
> c. Thine they were,
> b. And thou gavest them me;
> a. And they have kept thy word.
>
>
So at least you are admitting they are in the Bible.
> I know....
>
>
> Joseph Smith was LUCKY.
>
Not lucky, just normal.
> Sigh.
>
>
>
> snip
> >
> > > Uh..... this shows your ignorance of both the BOM and LDS teachings.
The
> > BOM
> > > makes no statement on who was the **first** to live in America.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Reading the Book of Mormon implies they're all alone.
It's
> > as simple as that.
>
> Not really.
>
> Omni 1 [21] And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of
his
> people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he
> dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.
>
> We know that the Jaredites still were living in this area when Lehi
arrived.
> Coriantumr live with the mulekites (who arrived AFTER Lehi), so there
were
> obviously Jaredites living here when Lehi arrived. The last battle of
the
> jaredites was approx 400BCE.
I was implying numerous other cultures. The Jaredites all died off leaving
only Nephites, Lamanites, and the people of Zarahemla. That doesn't come
close to the amount of cultures that should have been there.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no mention of other groups and therefore I'm
> > not going to add them.
>
> There were jaredites still here, and Lehi found oxen and domesticated
goats
> when they arrived.
>
> I suppose I cannot force you to see the truth.
Okay, left over by the Jaredites.
>
> I suppose one could say that just because it
> > doesn't mention them doesn't mean they aren't there but that seems
pushing
> > it.
>
> It explicitly mentions that others were here -- do you know where an ox
comes
> from? The BOM simply does not go into details.
The Jaredites. I don't think anyone else had an ox.
> >
> > Please document this. I have never heard this.
>
> Thank you admitting that you knowledge of LDS doctrine is rather weak.
Most
> antis proclaim that they know more than the LDS themselves.
I do believe I know a great deal as I have read all the standard works,
Mormon Doctrine, and many a magazine and Ensign for the space of many
moons. However, I will never claim to know it all. That would be silly.
Oh, throw the Journal of Discourses in there for good measure.
>
>
> Anyway, any LDS can tell you that this is documented in the scriptures.
Adam
> and his descendants lived on the American continent until Noah and the
flood
> took them elsewhere.
>
> Pretty basic stuff -- Adam-ondi-ahman, etc etc.
Oh, shoot. I forgot about that one. I was aware of it however. They
moved though after the flood still not explaining the lack of other
cultures.
>
> >
> > >
> > > As an athiest, with your very salvation at stake, I would thing that
you
> > > should at least know the basics.
> >
> > Then go to alt.atheism. Anyone there from experts to amateurs will
love to
> > have a crack at you.
>
> Been there, done that. Do an author search, and take a look at my posts
> there. They took a crack at me, and I came out quite nicely,
> thankyouverymuch. I received several compliments on my posts.
>
> I didn't do so hot in talk.origins, but I'm getting there.
I have a hard time believing that. Did they give you compliments? If so I
am impressed. I've never seen any Christian come out of their without
being bloodied and bruised.
>
>
>
>
> I'm moving one day from now so I really can't give
> > you the attention you deserve (though I'd like to). However, if you
feel
> > ripped off I trust in my friends on that newsgroup. They can and will
> > discuss this with you.
>
> Yep. Very nice people, and more open-minded IMO than some I have met
here on
> ARM.
>
*Grin*
>
> >
> > Or are you no longer interested in such
> > > trivial issues as what happens after death. You've already "proven"
to
> > > yourself that is the end of existence, and why bother.
> >
> > You're deliberately trying to taunt me.
>
> Am I? :<)
Yeah, I think so.
Tourniquet
Tourniquet
impress me with your knowledge.
Tourniquet
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<MPG.11c780f17...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <7jjj7j$qn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:17:52
GMT,
> cdo...@my-deja.com said...
> >
> > 1. For all of the ancient cities in Mesoamerica, virtually none of the
names
> > are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is
remarkably
> > similar to a BOM name.
> >
> >
Doug Weller
GMT, kilr...@hotmail.com said...
Someone said:
> > I didn't do so hot in talk.origins, but I'm getting there.
>
> I have a hard time believing that. Did they give you compliments? If so I
> am impressed. I've never seen any Christian come out of their without
> being bloodied and bruised.
>
You probably don't realise that some of the evolutionists who regularly post
there are Christians.
cdo...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> In article <7jjj7j$qn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:17:52 GMT,
> cdo...@my-deja.com said...
> >
> > are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is remarkably
> > similar to a BOM name.
> >
> >
OK, and........?????????
And it is still King Lamoni.
And:
> "The name "Lamanai," in fact, appears in 16th and 17th century documents as a
> Spanish rendering of a Maya name, which we think was originally Laman'ayin
> ("submerged crocodile")."
Yes, and..........??????
Submerged crocodile would be a very good appelation for someone who becomes
king. The crocodile is known for waiting patiently in the river, waiting to
pounce on its prey, as compared to the warrior who directly attacks his
enemies.
Yep, "submerged crocodile" is an appropriate title for a politician who
patiently, quietly destroys his foes.
King "submerged crocodile".
>
> Sorry, Charles, you'll have to do better than that.
I truly miss your point here.
>
> For those interested in this site, see
> http://www.rom.on.ca/digs/belize/on-land.html
>
> Interesting site. Occupied since around 1500 bce until the 18th century ce
> (Did the BOM people supposedly take it over and then...?).
Well, as I said, people were here when Lehi landed. Names of cities DO
change over the centuries, as you know.
Again, I **truly** have missed your point. You hide your meanings in
innuendo and obfustication.
Please be direct. Make your point, come out with it.
What assertions are you attempting to make.
You are disappointed in WHAT? What point did I fail to make????
Speak up ==>> Be clear, be concise.
You are an educator, and you know precisely what I mean.
Please be explicit
And despite the
> comments I've seen here that anything this old would have had all its mudbrick
> dissolved, they seem to have managed to learn quite a bit.
What are you talking about????? I have no clue to your meaning here.
Mud bricks dissolving?? Huh?
Be clear, be precise, speak clearly and don't mumble your words.
Please.
>
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
--
cdo...@my-deja.com
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> In article <7jjj7j$qn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:17:52 GMT,
> cdo...@my-deja.com said...
> >
> > are extant. One exception is Lamonai, which, as I pointed out, is remarkably
> > similar to a BOM name.
> >
> >
No, let's spell it Lamanai.
=========
The ruins of Lamanai, one of Belize's largest ceremonial centers, are located
on the banks of the 30 mile long New River Lagoon in North Central Belize.
============
http://www.travelbelize.org/la.html
cdo...@my-deja.com
duwa...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
I assume that from your post that if we can demonstrate chiasmus in ancient
american records, you will accept the BOM as authentic. Is that correct?
Are you certain abt your statement here??
>
> The one place you won't find them, however, are among the writings of
> any ancient-American civilization. Interesting, don't you think, that
> the ancient civilizations of America, where the Book of Mormon
> supposedly originated, does not have this style of writing, but Joseph
> Smith's other writings do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
duwa...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7jjkvv$rhg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> I assume that from your post that if we can demonstrate chiasmus in
> ancient
> american records, you will accept the BOM as authentic. Is that
>correct?
We've been over this before, Charles, but let's do it one more time.
To accept an idea within the framework of science, the idea needs to do
at least two things:
1) It must be consistent with all the facts.
2) It must be the simplest, least fantastic explanation.
Now, there are at least two explanations for the Book of Mormon's
origin. One is that someone from the 19'th century wrote it (Joseph
Smith or someone else). The other is that Joseph really did get it from
an angel, and that the Book of Mormon represents a literal historical
document of ancient-American origins.
The presence of chiasmus in Joseph Smith's many other writings (see
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/ as an example) makes it clear
that the existence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is consistent with
the idea Joseph wrote the Book.
If chiasmus were found among ancient-American writings (and you have --
characteristically -- provided no evidence of that) it still would not
prove the Book of Mormon. The reason, simply put, is that chiasmus is a
natural style of writing that shows up all over the place. In other
words, it's a trivial correlation. It would provide little more
evidence for the Book of Mormon than "hickory dickory dock" would get.
As with so much evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon, the evidence is
decidedly non-symmetrical. The absence of chiastic writing among
ancient Americans is much stronger evidence against the Book of Mormon
because if the Book of Mormon were true, chiasmus among ancient American
writing _must_ exits. On the other hand, if chiasmus is found among
ancient-American writing that does not invalidate the _fact_ that Joseph
used chiasmus in his other writings, and so chiasmus would _still_ point
to Joseph as the author. When considered in conjunction with all the
_other_ failings of the Book of Mormon regarding Hebrew, horses, steel,
etc., and in conjunction with the requirement to accept the simplest
explanation, finding chiasmus among ancient-American writing would do
very little to get the Book of Mormon out of its current morass.
Regards,
Duwayne Anderson
duwa...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Be clear, be precise, speak clearly and don't mumble your words.
> Please.
Could this be the same Charles who says Mormonism is consistent with
evolution, in spite of the precise, clear, un-mumbled words of Mormon
prophets to the contrary?
Duwayne Anderson