Jump to content

Gervin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

138 Excellent

About Gervin

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,538 profile views
  1. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    There is no evidence that Oliver didn't receive a revelation on the topic. There's no evidence that Joseph Smith didn't receive a revelation on the topic. Both men had purportedly been witness to the most astounding spiritual revelatory experience ever recorded in human history. Could he have had a revelation that wasn't shared with Joseph? Could Joseph have had a revelation and only tell Oliver? There's no basis for claiming that Oliver was offering only an opinion. If, in fact, he had wrongly used Cumorah for over a decade then why did Joseph Smith not see fit to correct, amend, or qualify Oliver's statement? Or why not set the record straight when writing the history? Avoidance implies intent; why did Joseph "avoid" the name?
  2. in reference to It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a written text would be hidden away for centuries upon centuries, only to be discovered, determined to be indecipherable, translated by spiritual means, and then spirited away, a mere decades (or less) from the text being competently translated and presented to the world in situ. Perhaps by non-believer, as you prefer.
  3. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive
  4. I'm satisfied that you can't defend your conclusion that archaeologists know the exact location of the temple; I knew that you couldn't because I know more than a little about Temple Mount. I've read extensively on the topic and have been on top of and underneath the Mount on numerous occasions. I have no idea who John Dehlin is, but your ad hominem attack on him pretty much follows form. I've also come to the conclusion that there is no fruitful dialogue with you, and with that I bid you adieu.
  5. You're going to have to make an effort here to defend your statement. You said: The site was not forgotten, and it is the highest point on the Temple Mount. Always was. Archeologists know where it was and can explain why. Kindly provide a quote or the name of an archaeologist who explains why or how, based on archaeology, the site of the temple is known. If you'll focus on answering the question, and not attacking me, then you will have a done a great service to scholarship: teaching someone something they didn't know. Can you do it? I wonder ...
  6. I read the first and listened to the second. The first article says there is NO archaeological evidence for the location of the Temple. Placing it on the rock that now is surrounded by the Dome of the Rock is simply speculative. Scholars simply don't know.
  7. I was on Temple Mount with a very knowledgeable person who had a hypothesis about the location that seemed to make sense, but I know of no agreement as to the actual location. I'd be curious if you have a reference for the bolded statement. I've had some interesting experiences on Temple Mount; my wife was openly chastised for sitting on a small wall (she was 5 months pregnant). Many years later, our son (the one she was carrying) was thrown off Temple Mount for climbing on top of the Western Gate. He wanted a better view.
  8. I was in the Old City, near the Wailing Wall, and wandered into a small museum that housed implementations of worship to be used at the time when the Temple is restored. They were made/forged based on descriptions from the Torah. So, some folks are proactively planning for this time.
  9. Just a point of clarification from a life-long member of Southern Baptist churches. The Southern Baptist Convention is not a body devised to oversee churches, their programs, or their staff. Every church that affiliates with the SBC is autonomous in how they operate, who they hire, what they preach. There are tenets of faith and contributions to missions that keep a church affiliated with the SBC, but each church makes their own bylaws, develops their own budgets, and focuses their ministries on the needs they identify. BTW, my particular church conducts background checks on all hires and people who work with kids (people like me).
  10. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    I don't have access to your intro and bibliography. Just list the non-Mormon scholars who detected Egyptian influences in Mesoamerica. Invoking the Bible is a non sequitur. Your ad hominem attacks show the lack of charity that is part and parcel of your communication "style." When did you last present your findings at a non-Mormon event or conference? Scholarly minds would like to know. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/church-releases-statement-on-book-of-mormon-geography I assume that the President is ok with the statement, above, that clearly states that the setting of the book is not known.
  11. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    I'll amend my statement to say, "there is not one person in the world who would credibly claim that ancient Israelites, writing in Hebrew and Egyptian, traveled to, populated and warred in the Americas, for a thousand years." You're right; there are many false claims out there. If there is a statement by any authoritative church member that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, then I'm certainly wrong. I'll attach my apology to their declaration, if you'd be so kind to provide it.
  12. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    CFR You missed the point. Certainly, a Biblical narrative helps in decoding the geography and archaeology of the Middle East, but we would still be learning about Edomites, and Caananites, and Romans from the stuff that was pulled from the ground. The Book of Mormon has no narrative to verify or authenticate the archaeological findings of Mesoamerica. Any such connection can only be made by first believing that the Book of Mormon is set in Mesoamerica. I would say that the president of the church agrees with me that Mesoamerica is not the setting for the Book of Mormon. If he's stated otherwise, in his official capacity, please post that information.
  13. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    If the Book of Mormon didn't exist, there is not one person in the world who would claim that ancient Israelites, writing in Hebrew and Egyptian, traveled to, populated and warred in the Americas, for a thousand years. It's a lazy defense on your part to claim, without proof, a connection to cultures and societies that are far removed from the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. I'm sure many in church leadership have read Sorenson as you suggest, yet they agree with me that there is no setting for the Book.
  14. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    Here’s a link to the chapters. Would you be so kind as to show me which one I should refer to? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329896783_CITY_CRAFT_AND_RESIDENCE_IN_MESOAMERICA
  15. Gervin

    Statement on Book of Mormon geography

    https://mariecom.wp.tulane.edu/product/city-state-and-residence-in-mesoamerica/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ https://www.archaeology.org/ https://utmesoamerica.org/research-publications You won't find any references to Book of Mormon landforms, geography, anthropology in MesoAmerica, etc. in the above, so, I think these make good for good references. This rag seems to focus on the geography of the Middle East and how it relates, or doesn't, to descriptions in in the Pentateuch, rest of the Old Testament and New Testament: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/
×