Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 How do you even know what argument I'm presenting? Can you please just answer the question?You are arguing, it appears, that because this region was un-populated, it proves that the entire continent was un-populated. You stated at the beginning that this area must represent the entire continent. If you are not trying to defeat the theory of 'others' on the American Continent, than what other possible argument could you be presenting? 1
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 1. Right.2. Right.3. Right.Easy explanation. He already knows he has lost the argument, which he doesn't want to admit, so he tries to create the illusion of victory by knocking down a straw man, and beating a retreat!So please establish for me, based on the text, how large this area would be in square kilometers? Remember, an exceeding high wall is about 6 feet. I maintain that his hypothesis is flawed because it is based on a false premise. His premise is that this vacant region is the entire continent. For me, walking an exceeding great distance would be about 30-50 kilometers. I think that any reasonable person would consider this an exceeding great distance to travel.
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 If I were walking, Oklahoma would be an exceeding great distance, by car its a little over an hour.'Exceeding great distance' does not necessarily mean across the continentIt would be impossible for someone to tour the entire continent, inspecting every valley and every harbor and establish that the entire continent was empty. This would not even be possible today. They would also have to return and report back so the author could record it. Even if they had satellite technology this could not be achieved. All we can conclude is they went to some region that was a great distance from their current location and it was no longer inhabited. Stanley Park in Vancouver used to be inhabited but not it is not. It is a great distance from my home. Of course, being in Vancouver, it is not devoid of trees. 2
Anijen Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Still does not explain the evidence of others. Note, I am not arguing if there were others or not in the Book of Mormon. I am making the factual statement that there is evidence of others that had occupied the Americas and their descendants still live today. Open up a history book and see when it says people migrated here via the Beringia land bridge. National Geographic has human migration to this hemisphere as early as twenty-thousand years ago. This was before the Jaredites. These are others pure and simple. Edited June 29, 2012 by Jeff Holt
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You are arguing, it appears, that . . .He is not "arguing" anything. He is asking a series of simple questions, which once you have answered he can tell you what he is "arguing" for.
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 So please establish for me, based on the text, how large this area would be in square kilometers? . . .I don't know what the relevance of that is to the questions he was asking. I was merely answering his questions.
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Still does not explain the evidence of others. Note, I am not arguing if there were others or not in the Book of Mormon. I am making the factual statement that there is evidence of others that had occupied the Americas and their descendants still live today. . . .The debate is not about whether there were "others" or not; but whether there is credible evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were; or if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people at any stage in their history.
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 He is not "arguing" anything. He is asking a series of simple questions, which once you have answered he can tell you what he is "arguing" for.He stated the following at the opening:What is the interpretation of Helaman 3 within the LGT/Others theory?I answered this. Absolutely nothing. Isn't this the most natural interpretation?1. The Nephites expanded northward covering a large area, implying the entire continent.I answered this too. This conclusion is not plausible. Covering a large area at most would be an area the size of Central Park, but more likely the size of a football field. 2. The land was uninhabited (no Others).3. The land was previously inhabited by the Jaredites not Others. As I stated, the football field at my children's high school is now inhabited. This point has nothing to do with LGT/Others theory.
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I don't know what the relevance of that is to the questions he was asking. I was merely answering his questions.You said that the direction and size is known. Exactly what is the size if it is known? I was merely asking to you provide clarification to your response to help us determine the validity of your claim.
Bernard Gui Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) If I were walking, Oklahoma would be an exceeding great distance, by car its a little over an hour.'Exceeding great distance' does not necessarily mean across the continentFor me, the walk between the recliner and the refrigerator is an exceeding great distance.That's why I keep Mrs. Gui around.Bernard Edited June 29, 2012 by Bernard Gui 1
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 The debate is not about whether there were "others" or not; but whether there is credible evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were; or if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people at any stage in their history.And my argument that finding a region that was formerly populated but now is not signifies nothing for this argument. It simply indicates that they found an area of undetermined size that is now abandoned. There are dozens if not hundreds of ghost towns across the United States. Nobody could, based on this evidence, conclude that the Unites States is devoid of people. To me this suggests that they passed through many regions that were populated and finding one what was abandoned was significant to them.
Bernard Gui Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) You said that the direction and size is known. Exactly what is the size if it is known? I was merely asking to you provide clarification to your response to help us determine the validity of your claim.Well, a Nephite could walk the border in 1.5 days. And the Nephites could effectively defend the borderand hem in the Lamanites. Bernard Edited June 29, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Anijen Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) The debate is not about whether there were "others" or not; but whether there is credible evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were; or if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people at any stage in their history.Robuchan who started this thread wrote;What is the interpretation of Helaman 3 within the LGT/Others theory?Isn't this the most natural interpretation?1. The Nephites expanded northward covering a large area, implying the entire continent.2. The land was uninhabited (no Others).3. The land was previously inhabited by the Jaredites not Others. My post on the evidence of others has more to do with the topic than yours; "whether there is credible evidence in the Book of Mormon"I stand by my post specifically this; "human migration to this hemisphere as early as twenty-thousand years ago. This was before the Jaredites. These are others pure and simple." Edited June 29, 2012 by Jeff Holt
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 You said that the direction and size is known. . . .When did I say that?
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Well, a Nephite could walk the border in 1.5 days. And the Nephites could effectively defend the borderand hem in the Lamanites.Bernardso therefore this region is how many kilometers away and how many hectares in size? I don't see any numbers here. From my perspective, Mount Baker is enormous and a great distance even by Car. I can see it from Vancouver. If I took a month of work and walked there in back would this provide a clear reflection of the geography, population and climate of all of North America?
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 When did I say that?Well, you agreed in post 24 that the direction and size is described. I would submit that saying something is big not by any stretch of the imagine provide a description of its size. My son's shoes are big, my brothers truck is big, the town of Fort St John is big.
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 And my argument that finding a region that was formerly populated but now is not signifies nothing for this argument. It simply indicates that they found an area of undetermined size that is now abandoned. There are dozens if not hundreds of ghost towns across the United States. Nobody could, based on this evidence, conclude that the Unites States is devoid of people. To me this suggests that they passed through many regions that were populated and finding one what was abandoned was significant to them.That is irrelevant to everything that I have ever said on this subject. You are changing the goal posts. I have never argued that there were no "others". I don't know whether there were or not. All I have ever argued for is that there is no credible evidenced in the Book of Mormon that there were "others;" or that if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people any time during their history as recorded in the Book of Mormon. My argument as always been against those who have been promoting that thesis (which includes you)--not whether there were "others" per se or not.
zerinus Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Well, you agreed in post 24 that the direction and size is described. . . .I didn't, and neither did he. I was merely agreeing with what he said. Go and read it again.
cursor Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) What is the interpretation of Helaman 3 within the LGT/Others theory?Isn't this the most natural interpretation?1. The Nephites expanded northward covering a large area, implying the entire continent.2. The land was uninhabited (no Others).3. The land was previously inhabited by the Jaredites not Others.Consider the span of years being covered in Helaman 3.At verse 3, Mormon tells us of the "exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land." This happen in the forty and sixth year of the reign of the judges. Clearly they traveled as far as the former land of the Jaredites. They settled only in "whatever parts [that] had not been rendered desolate and without timber."At verse 8, Mormon says that they "began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." Some interpret this as a large scale migration and subsequent growth that filled the entire North American continent. How long would that take? How many years?Here's the kicker ... at verse 18 the same 46th year of the judges is just ending. How could the possibly "cover the face of the whole earth" in just one year? It's clear here that Mormon is referring to a much smaller geographic setting. Edited June 29, 2012 by cursor 2
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I didn't, and neither did he. I was merely agreeing with what he said. Go and read it again.He said 'It's geographic direction and size is described generally' you said 'yes' I said 'you agreed that the direction and size is described' you then say "I didn't and neither did he'
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 That is irrelevant to everything that I have ever said on this subject. You are changing the goal posts. I have never argued that there were no "others". I don't know whether there were or not. All I have ever argued for is that there is no credible evidenced in the Book of Mormon that there were "others;" or that if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people any time during their history as recorded in the Book of Mormon. My argument as always been against those who have been promoting that thesis (which includes you)--not whether there were "others" per se or not.well, fortunately this discussion is not about you. The underlining argument from the op is that the book of Mormon says there were no others, but the archaeology proves that there were others. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is false. You do not only argue that there is no credible evidence that there were no others, but you insist that you are right and that everybody is wrong. You are welcome to your opinion but you have not proven yourself to be right, nor are you qualified to mock the many great minds that disagree with you. You asked for names, I provided you a half dozen, you then ignored them. You have an opinion that is not substantiated by a single other church author or qualified expert who has looked at the evidence, it is you who has no credible evidence to support your position. You are welcome to it as I am to mine. I have to proof of others but I do not pretend that I do have such proof. You, on the other hand, to indulge in such pretend. Regardless, it is you that is changing the subject as you have been advised by other respondents. 1
rodheadlee Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 That is irrelevant to everything that I have ever said on this subject. You are changing the goal posts. I have never argued that there were no "others". I don't know whether there were or not. All I have ever argued for is that there is no credible evidenced in the Book of Mormon that there were "others;" or that if there were, that they interacted with the Book of Mormon people any time during their history as recorded in the Book of Mormon. My argument as always been against those who have been promoting that thesis (which includes you)--not whether there were "others" per se or not.No but there ceratinly is evidence that the BoM covers but a small portion of the records.Helaman14 But behold, a ahundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of btemples, and of synagogues and their csanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Consider the span of years being covered in Helaman 3.At verse 3, Mormon tells us of the "exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land." This happen in the forty and sixth year of the reign of the judges. Clearly they traveled as far as the former land of the Jaredites. They settled only in "whatever parts [that] had not been rendered desolate and without timber."At verse 8, Mormon says that they "began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." Some interpret this as a large scale migration and subsequent growth that filled the entire North American continent. How long would that take? How many years?Here's the kicker ... at verse 18 the same 46th year of the judges is just ending. How could the possibly "cover the face of the whole earth" in just one year? It's clear here that Mormon is referring to a much smaller geographic setting.It says that they "began to cover the face of the whole earth." So under the narrative, they didn't necessarily actually cover the whole earth from north, south, east, and west seas in a single year. But still, Helaman 3, however it is interpreted, presents an archaeological problem. Whoever and wherever these Nephites were, they were supposed to have founded their geographic region beginning in about 45 BC. So who is this mystery civilization that crossed the narrow neck and began to "cover the earth" between the four "seas" in about 45 BC, who wasn't already there before 45 BC?
Freedom Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 It says that they "began to cover the face of the whole earth." So under the narrative, they didn't necessarily actually cover the whole earth from north, south, east, and west seas in a single year. But still, Helaman 3, however it is interpreted, presents an archaeological problem. Whoever and wherever these Nephites were, they were supposed to have founded their geographic region beginning in about 45 BC. So who is this mystery civilization that crossed the narrow neck and began to "cover the earth" between the four "seas" in about 45 BC, who wasn't already there before 45 BC?Where does it suggest, other than that one small location formerly inhabited by Jaradites, that the area was not already populated? If you came to Vancouver you would see that Indians (people from India) 'cover the earth' in this region'. They are in every community.
robuchan Posted June 29, 2012 Author Posted June 29, 2012 OK, a had a thought about this Others theory when I made the OP, but I think I misunderstand it, so my thought is not relevant. See there is some good to listening and seeking to understand.Walk this through me, though. So the Jaredites and Nephites were living basically right next door to each other. Both thoroughly mixed with Others but not each other. Both having risen to dominate the culture, supplying the kings, etc. Both were unique for the area for their advanced technology, writing systems, etc. Yet they never knew of each other?
Recommended Posts