Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Scholars Seek Site Of 1540 Battle


Aluwid

Recommended Posts

All or most of them have been found.

Now, prove me wrong.

Your statement "all or most of them have been found" proves you wrong. You don't know if it's "all or most." You don't know if it's none or one.

Tsk tsk, Gervin. You're trying to evade the issue.

Anyway, you're wrong that I've been proven wrong.

Whether or not I have solid grounds for asserting that all or most of your neat little list of cities (a list that I've seen before) have been found is a separate and logically distinct issue from the question of whether or not I'm right.

You might, for example, have a box, in which you claim that there is a rabbit. If I'm asked whether your claim is true, I might answer that it is. Now, let's assume that I have no reason to choose "true" over "false." I might still, nonetheless, be correct in my answer. I certainly wouldn't be proved wrong because I had no solid grounds for it.

Logic, dear fellow. It's an interesting subject.

If you are ready to commit to quantity then use my handy found/not found list, above, to give us the names of the cities you've found.

First, why don't you share with us the names of the cities on that list that you can prove that archaeologists have not located?

I really, really like that article from Professor Hamblin that I've recommended. Reading it, and taking its principles to heart, would spare certain critics of the Church considerable embarrassment.

Link to comment
I am not familiar with archaeological evidence having been associated with such ancient battles. I am anxious to see the information to which you refer.

When the Germans ambushed three Roman legions in some heavily wooded areas in the time of Augustus. Even today you can find bits of Roman uniforms -- mostly metal bits of weapons, buckles -- in the area, though nothing of leather or skeletal remains. This is the only area I know of, though. Had it been done in an open field, however, probably nothing would have survived.

Link to comment

You know, when they find ancient Roman settlments and such in Europe, they're always able to find things that can directly prove it was Roman. 

Perhaps because we know Rome... :P

Perhaps when we find those other sites, we can directly prove they were from Zarahemla... after we find and prove Zarahemla, that is.

Link to comment

"Book of Mormon cities have been found--prove me wrong,"

Where is the Hebrew writing? Where are the Egyptian Hieroglyphs? Where are the chariots? Where is the evidence of advanced metallurgical technology? Book of Mormon cities are described as having populations in the millions, but the largest known ancient Mesoamerican city had a population of around half a million.

These are not unreasonable requirements. We can, in fact, make some very reasonable assumptions about what we should expect to find if an ancient Mesoamerican city were populated by Semitic immigrants--all the moreso when we have a document that tells us exactly which technologies and cultural elements these immigrants favored. And judging by these immanently reasonable assumptions, you have been proved wrong.

So while the logical possibility that BoM cities have been found cannot be disproved (just like you can't disprove the logical possibility that Joseph Smith was an alien clone from another universe), the practical probability of such a declaration, given the evidence at hand, renders it implausible.

Or maybe Joseph Smith was an alien clone....

Prove me wrong.

Link to comment
"Book of Mormon cities have been found--prove me wrong,"

Where is the Hebrew writing? Where are the Egyptian Hieroglyphs? Where are the chariots? Where is the evidence of advanced metallurgical technology? Book of Mormon cities are described as having populations in the millions, but the largest known ancient Mesoamerican city had a population of around half a million.

These are not unreasonable requirements. We can, in fact, make some very reasonable assumptions about what we should expect to find if an ancient Mesoamerican city were populated by Semitic immigrants--all the moreso when we have a document that tells us exactly which technologies and cultural elements these immigrants favored. And judging by these immanently reasonable assumptions, you have been proved wrong.

So while the logical possibility that BoM cities have been found cannot be disproved (just like you can't disprove the logical possibility that Joseph Smith was an alien clone from another universe), the practical probability of such a declaration, given the evidence at hand, renders it implausible.

Or maybe Joseph Smith was an alien clone....

Prove me wrong.

1. Who says that Hebrew writing was widespread? The Book of Mormon does not claim that.

2. Who says Reform Egyptian was widespread writing. The Book of Mormon does not claim that. Though from what I understand, the Mayan language is a Egyptian like writing system of pictures.

3. Who says that Chariots where in widespread use? The Book of Mormon does not say that. What kind of Chariots where they?

4. Who says that there was widespread, advanced metal usage in the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon does not claim that.

5. Who says the Book of Mormon describes cities in the millions? The Book of Mormon does not claim that. It does describe battles often in terms of thousands or in the case of the Jaredites of 2 million people but that is not necessarily the cities.

Perhaps you can come with some reasonable issues rather than straw man points.

Link to comment

>I don't know, why not start with the one Joseph Smith said it was.

We all agree that there is a hill in NY call the Hill Cumorah. Does anyone on this forum disagree?

The question is where the last battle was fought.

Do you have a problem staying focused on that issue? Now, can you give us a quote fr JS on that specific issue?

> These are not unreasonable requirements.

They are if they contradict or are not supported by what is stated in the BOM. We make no claim that there was a *Hebrew* culture in mesoamerica. We claim that there was a Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite civilizations there.

Link to comment
Where is the Hebrew writing?

Until quite recently, there wasn't even Hebrew inscriptional evidence demonstrating that Jerusalem was known, anciently, as Jerusalem. Most of the cities of Israel/Palestine have been identified by external factors (typically, the sheer continuity of onomastic tradition, which is, for the most part, lacking in the Americas) in the absence of inscriptions. Your expectations of ancient artifactual evidence do not appear to based in experience with ancient artifactual reality.

Besides, there is no necessary reason to assume that the Book of Mormon emerged from a massive Hebrew-speaking culture. I myself am strongly inclined to think that Hebrew was not the daily language of speech.

Moreover, not much pre-classical writing of any kind survives in the cities of Mesoamerica.

Where are the Egyptian Hieroglyphs?

Why would I expect to find Egyptian hieroglyphs?

Where are the chariots?

First question: What, exactly, were those chariots? Then we can talk about the where.

Where is the evidence of advanced metallurgical technology?

Certainly not in the Book of Mormon!

Book of Mormon cities are described as having populations in the millions, but the largest known ancient Mesoamerican city had a population of around half a million.

Where are these alleged descriptions to be found?

These are not unreasonable requirements.

They are, in fact, quite unreasonable demands.

We can, in fact, make some very reasonable assumptions about what we should expect to find if an ancient Mesoamerican city were populated by Semitic immigrants--all the moreso when we have a document that tells us exactly which technologies and cultural elements these immigrants favored.  And judging by these immanently reasonable assumptions, you have been proved wrong.

This is silliness. There are so many unjustified and unjustifiable assumptions, so many uncritical and na

Link to comment
Back on topic, if you dare, would you care to prove what DP cannot; that Mormon cities have been found? If not, perhaps there are some Cat Stevens lyrics you can share with me.

Gervin, for your list to have even the slightest semblence of rigor, you need to provide the following:

A list of the phonetic pronunciation of Precolumbian sites based on pre-400 AD inscriptional evidence. I suspect several dozen toponyms would do, but several hundred would be much better. It is pointless to proclaim that we don't know the location of BOM cities unless you have a set of data to which we can compare the BOM toponyms. Do you have that data? If so, I'd love to see it. If not, then there can be not meaningful test of BOM toponyms.

Link to comment
A list of the phonetic pronunciation of Precolumbian sites based on pre-400 AD inscriptional evidence. I suspect several dozen toponyms would do, but several hundred would be much better. It is pointless to proclaim that we don't know the location of BOM cities unless you have a set of data to which we can compare the BOM toponyms. Do you have that data? If so, I'd love to see it. If not, then there can be not meaningful test of BOM toponyms.

DP says the location of some, if not many Book of Mormon cities have been found. Perhaps he can give you phonetic pronunciations of Precolumbian sites.

But really, what do phonetic pronunciations of Precolumbian sites have to do with Book of Mormon cities? Do you have eviddence that even places the culture described in the Book of Mormon in a Precolumbian setting?

Link to comment
DP says the location of some, if not many Book of Mormon cities have been found. Perhaps he can give you phonetic pronunciations of Precolumbian sites.

I suspect Professor Peterson was making an epistemological point. I suspect you don't understand what he is saying.

But really, what do phonetic pronunciations of Precolumbian sites have to do with Book of Mormon cities? Do you have eviddence that even places the culture described in the Book of Mormon in a Precolumbian setting?

As I thought. You apparently don't have the slightest understanding of how we correlate ancient toponyms with modern archaeological sites.

In the absence of cultural and linguistic continuity--which is clearly absent in the case of the BOM, since Nephite civilization was destroyed--how would you go about demonstrating that modern archaeological site X is the location of a particular ancient toponym? The only way I know if is through discovery of ancient inscriptional evidence that gives the ancient name of that site. Can you suggest another method?

Link to comment

1.

I suspect Professor Peterson was making an epistemological point.  I suspect you don't understand what he is saying.

You are, as usual, completely right, Dr. Hamblin. In both of your suspicions.

But M. Gervin doesn't seem to realize that he doesn't understand, so he's very, very confident.

2.

Grego, I can't prove that the cities that have been found are Book of Mormon cities any more than M. Gervin can prove that they aren't. Unlike M. Gervin, though, I'm aware of that fact.

Link to comment
As I thought. You apparently don't have the slightest understanding of how we correlate ancient toponyms with modern archaeological sites.

I'm not sure who "we" is in the sentence, above.

In the absence of cultural and linguistic continuity--which is clearly absent in the case of the BOM, since Nephite civilization was destroyed

Could you slow down for a fellow as poor as I? What evidence do you have that the destruction of Nephite civilization resulted in the absence of cultural and liguistic continuity?

Link to comment
I agree with the prominent (LDS) Mesoamerican archaeologist John Clark that we've found many Book of Mormon cities already. It's just a matter of identifying them as such.

I can hardly believe John Clark made this statement, and I am astounded that it is being rehashed as if it carries some sort of apologetic benefit. It seems to be that special brand of claim that rings solidly in the ears of the believer, while being entirely non-sensical to those that are even mildly skeptical of the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

The problem lies in the redefinition of the "Jaredites" and "Nephites" as being a subset of a dominant group. Where their language, culture and religion are all perpetuated as a minority group overwashed with pagan Olmec or Mayan culture.

To see the weakness in Clark's statement, simply replace the words "Book of Mormon" with any fictional or made-up society of your choosing:

The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no cities have been located, are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if you stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would you know?

Try any of these:

"Cities from the Land of Oz have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that artifacts from the Land of Oz have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are."

"Remnants of Middle Earth have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Middle Earth artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are."

Try it with your own favorite land of make-believe!

As your read the two examples above, what is your initial reaction? What would you think if someone, even a respected archaeologist, made the claim? You would probably do what most other archaeologists have done since Clark made the claim: ignore it.

But what if you felt compelled to engage the claim? Would you deny the truthfulness of the claim based on the obvious fact that Oz and Middle Earth aren't real places? Well aren't you closed minded (and, apparently, part of the problem). And can you answer the simple question: If someone did find Oz or Middle Earth, how would they know? As your assumptions are laid bare, I can show you how either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other supposedly fictitious land, can be made to fit the geography and archaeology of Central America.

If I can only shift the burden of proof onto you, instead of me having to support my claim of "invisible evidence", I can dance around all day as you frantically try to find something in the thousands of pages of historical records of Oz or Middle Earth that can't be evaded.

And can you imagine how convincing the Oz books and Middle Earth books will look to people in the future? I can only imagine John Clark's great, great, great grandson following in his footsteps as he seeks to bolster the faith of the Followers of Oz, who insist that Oz was a real place with archaeological evidence carefully hidden among the ruins of 20th Century midwestern-America.

Link to comment
I can hardly believe John Clark made this statement, and I am astounded that it is being rehashed as if it carries some sort of apologetic benefit.

I'm not surprised. You're the same fellow who thinks that the finding of ancient golden plates weakens the case for the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, he did, and it does.

Try any of these:

"Cities from the Land of Oz have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that artifacts from the Land of Oz have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are."

"Remnants of Middle Earth have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Middle Earth artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are."

Try it with your own favorite land of make-believe!

As your read the two examples above, what is your initial reaction?

My initial reaction is that you've missed the point by several kilometers.

Professor Clark is not presenting affirmative evidence for the Book of Mormon. He's demonstrating the weakness of a common negative argument. He's pointing out the really quite obvious fact that failure to have located "Made in Zarahemla" on an ancient Mesoamerican potsherd doesn't demonstrate that it wasn't.

What would you think if someone, even a respected archaeologist, made the claim?

I would grasp his point, and I would agree with it. I would see that he was not offering evidence for either Oz or Middle Earth, but that, rather, he was offering a specific illustration of the famous and generally accepted archaeological dictum that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You would probably do what most other archaeologists have done since Clark made the claim: ignore it.

Do you have any evidence that Professor Clark's academic peers are aware of his statement and have averted their eyes in embarrassment at their colleague's irrationality? Please do supply it, if you have it.

But what if you felt compelled to engage the claim?  Would you deny the truthfulness of the claim based on the obvious fact that Oz and Middle Earth aren't real places?

I would note the obvious difference between the asserted-but-disputed historicity of the Book of Mormon and the never-asserted historicity of Oz and (Tolkien's) Middle Earth, and I would make the appropriate distinctions. And, having made them, I would only challenge these claims about Oz and Middle Earth if I had failed to grasp the epistemological point being made.

I can show you how either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other supposedly fictitious land, can be made to fit the geography and archaeology of Central America.

Can you? Really?

Talk is cheap. I eagerly await your demonstration. Please make it as detailed and as true to the relevant text as Professor Sorenson's. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...