Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by webbles

  1. Rajah, does your theory actually have the Book of Mormon being historically based in that location? Or is it just that someone who knew about the area wrote a book of the ancient inhabitants using various myths and legends?
  2. Ok, where in that last 2.5 hours? Dr. Ritner talks about a lot of things during that. But I don't remember him "[explaining] why they appear to add credibility but actually says very little"
  3. I don't recall Dr. Ritner talking about that in part 3. Do you have timestamp?
  4. I'm not talking about the plates that Joseph Smith said he had. I'm talking about the plates that the Book of Mormon itself talks about. See Mormon 6:6. If we accept that the Book of Mormon is historical, then Mormon existed and he wrote Mormon 6:6 which means he gave actual plates to Moroni. And then Moroni took these plates and hid them somewhere. So if a 16th person translated it, he had to have either gotten access to the plates or access to a copy of it. How he "translated" it is beside the point. If you believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and don't believe in G
  5. And his theory is fascinating to me. But it still has the problem of getting the plates from south Asia to Europe and this 16th century person would need the expertise to translate this old language. Kind of the same issues with an American text. The bolded is false. Joseph Smith claimed to receive the translation of the plates by revelation. So it isn't "simply an oral history". But that is beside the point of what I'm asking. If someone accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon but doesn't believe in God and angels, they already have to ignore everything Joseph Smith said a
  6. Here's the finished transcription. The three files are for each of the podcast parts. Each file has one line for each minute of the podcast and is labeled with "Xm:" where X is the minute in the podcast (though it might be a minute off because in some of the parts, the first minute was just music that had no speech that the system could detect). This should help in finding the speech in the actual podcast. Edited to add: This is an automated transcript. It is not 100% correct. So if something doesn't seem right in the transcript, double check the podcast to find out what was really s
  7. But that 16th century person would still have to have gotten the original history from the Americas. And the chance that a 16th century person would be able to translate the text is really small. Unless we also say that it wasn't a written history, and instead it is an oral history. But an oral history wouldn't sound like the Book of Mormon so who ever wrote it down would have had to have re-structured the text and at that point, how much of the original oral history can we depend on? That doesn't sound like believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
  8. This made me wonder, is it possible to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and not believe in God or angels? Unlike the Bible, the provenance of the Book of Mormon is tied up with God and angels, so it feels like that is really difficult, if not impossible to do. Similarly, can someone believe in the historicity of D&C 7 (a document written by the apostle John) and not believe in God or angels? Both have the same provenance and both a purported to be historical records.
  9. I'm working on transcribing the podcast. I'm using an automated speech-to-text system. It isn't perfect but it looks like it gets a good portion of it. Here's an example of the first minute of the podcast: It looks like the phrase "mormon stories podcast" gets really messed up ("warminster's boast" and "more mysteries by cast"). Egyptian terms from later on also look to be really messed up. It won't label who is speaking and can only convert 1 minute sections so words at the boundary might be messed up. But would it be useful?
  10. A month ago, would people in that situation get tested? I always assumed that probable cases were not encouraged to get tested. I think they did that at the beginning because of test supplies but I also thought they just continued with the policy since there really isn't a point in testing probable cases.
  11. I should have looked more at the Johns Hopkins site. This infographic is pretty cool: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/tracker/overview It shows you each state and the trend in new cases, cases per capita, and positive tests from last week and the week before.
  12. But halving the number of tests should increase the percentage of positive tests. I would assume that those who obviously sick would still be tested. In Texas, that definitely looks like it is happening. The positive test percentage has doubled since the beginning of August (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/texas). In Utah, it doesn't look that way. The positive test percentage has hardly budged (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/utah). A few other random samples: Mississippi hardly budged (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/mis
  13. I found Michael Rhodes translation of the Hypocephalus from 1977. You can see it at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4125&context=byusq. The translations for figures 5, 6, and 7 can be found on the 15th and 16th page (page numbers 272 and 273). It mentions basically the same thing you have above.
  14. In my search on sensitivity and specificity of the covid-19 tests, I found a press release from Co-Diagnostics, Inc (http://codiagnostics.com/co-diagnostics-releases-covid19-sensitivity-and-specificity-data/) that says that they have a 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. They are the testing agency behind TestUtah, TestIowa, and TestNebraska. Shortly after that press release, Iowa announced their own evaluations of Co-Diagnostics and found it to be 95% sensitive and 99.7% specific (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2020/05/14/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-coronavirus-covid-
  15. We don't have the lineage of Alma, Nephihah, Helaman, or Moroni. How do we know that they are pure-blooded descendants of Nephi? If the original Lehites mixed with a larger group, then it is possible that Alma, Nephihah, Helaman, Moroni, etc might be descendants of mostly the the large population with little or no actual ancestry back to the original Lehites/Mulekites. So, the people in charge of the government would have been cultural Nephites and Lamanites, not pure-blooded descendants.
  16. The math isn't based on how much of the population you test nor is it based on what parts of the population you test. It is based on the prevalence of the disease. If you want to run the calculations based off the entire population, then you would use the infection rate of the entire population. But if you only want to run the calculations based on those that are symptomatic or those with close contact, then you would just use the infection rate of that group. Going with the numbers, lets say that the entire population is 100,000 and the test is 97% accurate and the disease is prevalent in
  17. Since I don't think we actually have the correct sensitivity rate or the specitifity rate of the tests in question, nor do we know the infected percentage of people in the population (either the tested population or the entire population), the numbers that strappinglad used were just a wild guess. But the math is still the same. I think your concerns are focused in the wrong direction. Whether we test the entire population or not doesn't change the math, it just changes which infection rate to be applied. As you point out, we don't know that number so any use of the math will be a wild
  18. Here's an example of dealing with mammograms: https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/math-mammograms/ The article explains the math in a slightly graphical manner but the answer to the above is C. Only one woman with a positive mammogram would actually have breast cancer if the three statements are true. And this is with a test that has a 90% sensitivity and 91% specificity.
  19. Out of the 100,000 people, 15,000 have the disease (15% of the population). Out of those 15,000 infected people, 14,250 will test positive with a 97% accurate test. Out of the 85,000 uninfected people, only 4,250 will test positive (3% false positives if the test is 97% accurate). So, a total of 18,500 people will test positive. Out of those 18,500 people that test positive, 4,250 will not have the disease. 4250/18500 is 14.9%. So, if you randomly test a person and that person gets a positive test, then that person will actually not have the disease 14.9% of the time.
  20. It depends on what does "97% accuracy" mean. Generally, a test has a "sensitivity" (true-positive) rate and a "specificity" (true-negative) rate. Both of those rates are rarely the same. It looks like strappinglad is giving an example where both the sensitivity and the specificity are 97%. And his numbers are correct in that case. But even if you give different sensitivity and specificity rates, you'll get those odd results. The reason in why it is over 3% is because the 3% is the accuracy of the test in determining if you have the disease (technically the sensitivity rate) or if you
  21. I just want to point out that we have 28% of the original manuscript. Skousen mentions that at https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/changes-in-the-book-of-mormon. Also, he says that Helaman 13 through the end of Mormon in the first edition was based off of the original manuscript instead of the printers manuscript. So there is original text to work with.
  22. I'm pretty sure all Egyptologists (both members and non-members) say that it is Min. So it isn't just Ritner who is saying that. As for how to reconcile the fact that it is Min vs the explanation that Joseph Smith gave (which is about revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood), you might try what Muhlestein (a member and Egyptologist) said: There's some similar things mentioned at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_2/Identification_of_the_ithyphallic_Egyptian_god_"Min"_as_"God_sitting_upon_his_thro
  23. That is probably a picture of the god "Min" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_(god)). He is normally shown that way with the erect phallus. Also, the phallus was probably removed accidentally instead of intentionally. It is in the original printing plate (see https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/2) and was in many of the earlier editions. According to http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixVI-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf, in the 1920's, they made a new printing plate and didn't do a very good job with fac
  24. Is this the portrait you are talking about? (I got it from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Lucy_Mack_Smith_Painting_with_Book_of_Abraham_Vignette.jpg) Do we know when that portrait was painted? Could the fascimile have been based on what was published, versus what was actually on the papyrus?
  25. That is an guess of what Fasc 1 might look like. So that is just as accurate as the one that is in the scriptures. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lion_couch_scenes_featuring_Anubis has some actual examples. Most of them have the person mummified so they aren't similar to Fasc 1. A few do have a phallus but they also have the person entirely naked. So that isn't similar to Fasc 1.
×
×
  • Create New...