342 replies to this topic

[volgadon]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

This point has already been refuted.

http://www.mormondia...9-bom-and-ages/

Hate to break it to you, but you haven't exactly refuted anything. You tried to fit a caricature of Freedom's comment into your arbitrary category, and dismissed all arguments on that basis only. The Sherem argument isn't dependant on the exact population numbers, nor on what kinship terms were used.

[robuchan]

volgadon, on 08 July 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Hate to break it to you, but you haven't exactly refuted anything. You tried to fit a caricature of Freedom's comment into your arbitrary category, and dismissed all arguments on that basis only. The Sherem argument isn't dependant on the exact population numbers, nor on what kinship terms were used.

Yes, it's based on population numbers.  The logic is that the population after that many years would be too small to not know each other.  That's the entirety of the argument.

[cursor]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

i'm baffled by this.  

That kinda says it all ... doesn't it?

[robuchan]

volgadon, on 08 July 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Hate to break it to you, but you haven't exactly refuted anything. You tried to fit a caricature of Freedom's comment into your arbitrary category, and dismissed all arguments on that basis only. The Sherem argument isn't dependant on the exact population numbers, nor on what kinship terms were used.

You're welcome to post in that thread if you didn't think Freedom did an adequate job explaining the issue.

[calmoriah]

Quote

You're welcome to post in that thread if you didn't think Freedom did an adequate job explaining the issue.

Another example of not representing what someone said accurately....

[volgadon]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

You're welcome to post in that thread if you didn't think Freedom did an adequate job explaining the issue.

I said YOU caricatured his comment.

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Yes, it's based on population numbers.  The logic is that the population after that many years would be too small to not know each other.  That's the entirety of the argument.

I said EXACT population numbers.

[robuchan]

volgadon, on 08 July 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I said YOU caricatured his comment.



I said EXACT population numbers.

What do you mean by exact?

If a typical mother has at least 8 children grow to adulthood, men live to 130 years old, and generation spans average 77 years, how do you extrapolate a population size with any degree of exactness?  How do you even identify the correct year Sherem appeared?  How do you even get it within 200 years?  None of this stuff means anything.  Every single historical reference in the BOM you guys have an answer to take away any meaning (actual descendant, brother, horse, 2 million death battlefied, etc, etc).  How can you possibly attempt to be remotely precise about the population at Sherem's time?

[volgadon]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

What do you mean by exact?

I thought you a fan of plain words.

Quote

If a typical mother has at least 8 children grow to adulthood, men live to 130 years old, and generation spans average 77 years, how do you extrapolate a population size with any degree of exactness?  How do you even identify the correct year Sherem appeared?  How do you even get it within 200 years?  None of this stuff means anything.  Every single historical reference in the BOM you guys have an answer to take away any meaning (actual descendant, brother, horse, 2 million death battlefied, etc, etc).  How can you possibly attempt to be remotely precise about the population at Sherem's time?

For the lengthy life spans, I already recommended you read Isaiah 65. Have you? If all you are willing to do is fling dirt, am I wasting so much good bandwidth?

[ANACO]

Brant Gardner, on 08 July 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Just a note. The crystal skulls are not Aztec or Maya. They are modern forgeries, some of the more famous likely from Germany (and bearing the marks of modern tools).

Nice attempt. Now I know your truthful.
This is not a modern forgery. It's an actual skull of Maya Royalty, according to archeologists:

http://www.world-mys...s.com/MSkl4.jpg
It's found in the Merida Museum in Mexico.

"The deformed skull of a Maya, deformed at birth for religious beliefs."
http://www.ratware.p...xico_merida.htm

It appeared you excluded that link in my message from your reply.

Kind regards.

[Freedom]

One day i hope robuchan will learn something about ancient documents. sigh.

[Bernard Gui]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few
years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only
if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

[Brant Gardner]

ANACO, on 08 July 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Nice attempt. Now I know your truthful.
This is not a modern forgery. It's an actual skull of Maya Royalty, according to archeologists:

I can tell the difference between a human skull and a crystal skull. The crystal skulls are forgeries.

[Brant Gardner]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

i'm baffled by this.  

I thought it was a rather simple question, and one that you did not answer. What do you think is the relationship of ancient texts to history?

If you prefer, a similar question is whether you expect that an ancient text will always report events with the precision a modern writer should?

[DBMormon]

Quote

Just to see this was worth reading this thread

[robuchan]

volgadon, on 08 July 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

I thought you a fan of plain words.



For the lengthy life spans, I already recommended you read Isaiah 65. Have you? If all you are willing to do is fling dirt, am I wasting so much good bandwidth?

Yes, I read the verses.  I didn't understand your point.  It seems to #1 in my list, but I wasn't sure.

[robuchan]

Brant Gardner, on 09 July 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

I thought it was a rather simple question, and one that you did not answer. What do you think is the relationship of ancient texts to history?

If you prefer, a similar question is whether you expect that an ancient text will always report events with the precision a modern writer should?

The account of war between Nephites and Lamanites in the 18th year of the reign of the judges is so dissimilar to the account of Noah and the ark, in terms of how and when they were recorded relative to the actual event, that I hardly think they're worth comparing.

To answer your question, yes and no.  Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths.  The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways.  1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth.  Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

So, no I don't expect the Book of Mormon to be unreliable on any matters: historical or doctrinal.

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense.  How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

[calmoriah]

Freedom, on 09 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

One day i hope robuchan will learn something about ancient documents. sigh.

Unlikely as his needs (at least the ones he thinks are important) appear to be well filled by the status quo.....

[calmoriah]

DBMormon, on 09 July 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

Just to see this was worth reading this thread

Are you a fan of smilies, I go on a binge from time to time finding oddly appropriate ones.

[robuchan]

calmoriah, on 09 July 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Unlikely as his needs (at least the ones he thinks are important) appear to be well filled by the status quo.....

Are you skilled in reading ancient documents?  I guess everyone here but me is skilled in reading ancient documents?  And when you are and you read the BOM, all historical facts going against LGT are rejected due to this advanced knowledge of ancient documents, and all historical facts going for LGT are accepted also due to this knowledge of ancient documents?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

robuchan, on 09 July 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

The account of war between Nephites and Lamanites in the 18th year of the reign of the judges is so dissimilar to the account of Noah and the ark, in terms of how and when they were recorded relative to the actual event, that I hardly think they're worth comparing.

To answer your question, yes and no.  Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths.  The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways.  1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth.  Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

So, no I don't expect the Book of Mormon to be unreliable on any matters: historical or doctrinal.

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense.  How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

You are perhaps one the the most disingenuous people I have seen. I know that you know that the text, in several places, doesn't claim perfection and acknowledges that there are likely errors.

Your arguments are full of half-truths, cherry-picking, and predetermined conclusions based on your biases rather then fact.

Do you happen to work in the law profession?