The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Markk]

Hi

Please show archaeological evidence of Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, or the Resurrection.

Give me a break, your reaching here, read my post again..."tangible evidence for a basis of faith." I take the above by faith, but I have a solid tangible basis for my faith that the people and time were real.

Mark

John 1;12

[thesometimesaint]

markk:

Even with the Bible we take the existance of certain people(s) as a matter of faith. There are no original documents extent for the N.T. let alone the O.T.. Even if we had the originals we have no way of knowing, outside of faith, if they were lieing or if it was just the raving of a few madmen.

I know who Batman is. Said The Riddler

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

full color pictures, diagrams, and illustraions of many idems from sandals to musical instruments, dwellings and irrigation systems, mill press's and loads of pottery ,aromor and weapons,

That is great for the Old World. I notice that much of what is there is similar to the same kinds of things in the larger cultural area - not specifically Hebrew at all.

Now the question is, with a change in hemisphere, climate and natural resources, what do we realistically expect to arrive in the New World? The history of very small populations entering larger, established populations, tells us that the direction of borrowing would be from larger to smaller.

Are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon can only be historical if it violates the way history works? That would be a strange case.

If however, you assume that to be historical it ought to behave like other historical populations, none of the evidence you suggest ought to be applicable.

We are back to squre one. I don't know what to look for.

[SlackTime]

Markk:

full color pictures, diagrams, and illustraions of many idems from sandals to musical instruments, dwellings and irrigation systems, mill press's and loads of pottery ,aromor and weapons,

That is great for the Old World. I notice that much of what is there is similar to the same kinds of things in the larger cultural area - not specifically Hebrew at all.

Now the question is, with a change in hemisphere, climate and natural resources, what do we realistically expect to arrive in the New World? The history of very small populations entering larger, established populations, tells us that the direction of borrowing would be from larger to smaller.

Are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon can only be historical if it violates the way history works? That would be a strange case.

If however, you assume that to be historical it ought to behave like other historical populations, none of the evidence you suggest ought to be applicable.

We are back to squre one. I don't know what to look for.

Hey Brant, (Total new world archeology novice here)

Admittedly, in a jungle, pottery would disintegrate, but ovens and kilns might endure. Have we found ovens and kilns that might have been applicable to pottery?

Roads would get grown over, but may still be traceable or spotable on satellite maps. Have we found any of those?

I assume much of the mid-east culture of the small group would get subsumed by the larger indigenous group, but we may still see mideastern "quirks" come out in temple carvings, decorations, artifacts, have any "quirks" of that sort shown up?

The destructions in 3rd Nephi seem to me to be very much like a large volcanic eruption combined with earthquake activity, have we any indication that such a cataclysm occurred in the 1st century AD?

-SlackTime

[Brant Gardner]

Slack Time:

Admittedly, in a jungle, pottery would disintegrate, but ovens and kilns might endure. Have we found ovens and kilns that might have been applicable to pottery?

Fired pottery lasts under certain conditions - and shards show up in trash pits. Pottery is one of the ways that dating is accomplished. I don't know about the kilns. Definitely pots, however.

Roads would get grown over, but may still be traceable or spotable on satellite maps. Have we found any of those?

The road system is much more extensive than originally thought. There are later ceremonial paved roads, but the road system has been traced out though various means. There were more roads than thought many years ago.

I assume much of the mid-east culture of the small group would get subsumed by the larger indigenous group, but we may still see mideastern "quirks" come out in temple carvings, decorations, artifacts, have any "quirks" of that sort shown up?

I am not aware of any - but then I am not sure what such a quirk might be. The problem with both Israelite and Christian iconography was that they borrowed heavily from the iconography around them and simply adapted the icon to their own meaning. Assuming that was the way they seemed to work, that identical process in the New World would give us similar iconography that was used differently - but with no way to know what the "difference" was based on the icon itself.

The destructions in 3rd Nephi seem to me to be very much like a large volcanic eruption combined with earthquake activity, have we any indication that such a cataclysm occurred in the 1st century AD?

This was an active volcanic region. There are several known eruptions around that time. The problem is dating them. Both of the largest are respectively south and north of the Nephite lands - but that doesn't preclude a general volcanic instability around that time. The destruction of Cuicuilco to the north is generally accepted to have occurred near the time of Christ. There is an important eruption south of Book of Mormon lands that is usually dated 100 years or so later (with some C-14 dates that would be earlier).

[SlackTime]

Brant,

Thanks, I know I should research this stuff myself, but I have been too lazy.

-SlackTime

[awyatt]

I am a Carpenter by trade, I have been doing it for many years, I was taught and served a apprenticeship that took several year to even come close to master. The Jewish culture, or any culture, has its customs and ways of doing trade work, if they were indeed here it would be very evident by this fact, no if or butts. Thats why in architecture there are differnt influences from differnt cultures. It can evolve and may have varience in materials available, but basic trade customs would be very evident and a clear trail of any evolution would be even more evidence that would be very evident.

I agree with you 100%. We can look at Jewish behavior in a Semitic context and see evidences. We can look at Jewish behavior in a European context and see evidences. We can look at Jewish behavior in any number of other contexts and see evidences. In some of those contexts there is overlap, but some also have unique instances of behavior or artifacts that are not evident in other contexts.

Likewise, we can look at Christian behavior or artifacts in a Roman, Greek, Italian, Russian, American, or whatever context. In some of these contexts there is absolutely no overlap; in others there is.

The point, again, is how would we know if we found evidence of "Christian' culture in a Mesoamerican context? Particularly when the "context" in which that culture was practiced was wiped out. Look at it this way:

1. A group of Semitic people following the law of Moses migrated to Mesoamerica. (These weren't Jews, mind you--they weren't of the tribe of Judah. They were Hebrews, but not Jews.)

2. Part of the group rejected the law of Moses and refused to follow it.

3. Both the practicing and non-practicing groups of Semitic people mingled with existing populations, or created their own kingdoms/states that interacted with existing populations.

4. These two groups of Semitic peoples adopted the languages, traditions, trade, and customs of the existing populations, but at least one of the Semitic peoples continued to practice the law of Moses while operating within this larger "Mesoamerican context."

5. At least one of these Semitic groups (the one that rejected the law of Moses) intermarried with the existing populations. We don't know about intermarriage with the other group; it may or may not have happened.

6. The one Semitic group that continued to follow the law of Moses did so for 600 years, with various bouts of personal and cultural apostasy and revival.

7. Christ comes and visits all the people in the New World. The law of Moses is fulfilled, the law is no longer practiced, and all are converted to Christ.

8. Christian teachings are followed for almost 400 years.

9. An apostate group rejects Christian teachings and evenutally becomes the majority.

10. The apostate group wipes out the minority followers of the Christian teachings, leaving only non-Christians.

Tell me, Markk--why do you think that the symbols and culture of the Christians at step 7 should match those symbols and culture of the Christians in the Old World? They wouldn't match, as the last interaction with the Old World was 600 years earlier, so the question remains: how do we determine "Christian" evidences in a Mesoamerican context?

-Allen

[Daniel Peterson]

What do mean by "full-scale?"  Wilson didn't use that term.

That's true. However, as I suggested to you earlier, the non-archaeologist Wilson's use of the term industry in a non-scholarly publication aimed overwhelmingly at non-scholar non-archaeologists leads me to suspect that he did not intend, and that his audience did not understand, his use of the term industry in the very narrow academic-archaeological way in which you, Gervin, now want to use and understand the term.

You can spend your time parsing words if you'd like but it only reflects an inability to actually deal with the claims of the Book of Mormon.

My use of full-scale is meant to bring out what Wilson and most of his audience probably had in mind when envisioning a "metallurgical industry" for the Book of Mormon.

Your objection to "parsing words" is stunningly misguided, particularly when, after all, we're talking about the proper interpretation of a text (!). If we're actually to talk about the claims of the Book of Mormon, we have to be as certain as possible about precisely what those claims are. Otherwise, it's rather like doubling one's speed when, in fact, one has no idea in which direction one ought to be traveling -- and then complaining that those who want to consult the map are just wasting time. The misuse of ambiguous words is a major stumbling block in textual exegesis and in the study of ancient documents. To skim over that possibility and to treat it as if raising the issue were mere sophistry and obfuscation is to reveal a mindset strikingly indisposed to serious scholarly investigation.

I'm content to stay on this topic until we've determined that Hamblin actually means what he says with regard to metals in the Book of Mormon.

I have, of course, never denied that Professor Hamblin means what he says. I have every confidence that he does. (Where do you come up with this nonsense?)

I tend to think, though, that he doesn't mean what he plainly doesn't say.

For that reason, I'm disinclined to let you assign to him intentions and meanings that I know for a fact are foreign to his thinking. You can, if you choose, view that as a merely sophistic desire to parse words. I see it, rather, as a limit on your interpretive license.

You and Hamblin like to use this phrase "large-scale."

Professor Hamblin uses it precisely once in his thirty-seven page article. I've explained why I've used it. I expect that his reason for using it is identical to mine.

What does that mean, or how are you using it?

I've explained that I mean by it the rather vague (but certainly large) image of "industry" that a non-archaeologist writer and a non-archaeologist audience are likely to conjure up from its mention in a non-archaeological publication in an industrial age, which may be quite misleading when talking about what is typically called, for very good reasons, a pre-industrial society.

I told you what I meant by industry - that the term has a connotation in archaeology with regard to tool making.

And I've repeatedly said that I have no reason to believe that that narrow definition is what Mr. Wilson or his target audience

[Gervin]

That's true. However, as I suggested to you earlier, the non-archaeologist Wilson's use of the term industry in a non-scholarly publication aimed overwhelmingly at non-scholar non-archaeologists leads me to suspect that he did not intend, and that his audience did not understand, his use of the term industry in the very narrow academic-archaeological way in which you, Gervin, now want to use and understand the term.

My use of full-scale is meant to bring out what Wilson and most of his audience probably had in mind when envisioning a "metallurgical industry" for the Book of Mormon.

I've explained that I mean by it the rather vague (but certainly large) image of "industry" that a non-archaeologist writer and a non-archaeologist audience are likely to conjure up from its mention in a non-archaeological publication in an industrial age, which may be quite misleading when talking about what is typically called, for very good reasons, a pre-industrial society.

Wilson provided an example in his paper of what he meant by industry. I've highlighted some key words.

The tools that the people [in cultures that did have metallurgical industries] used are primitive but nonetheless they are there, and they spell out a system of exploitation of those natural resources. In refining ores and then bringing these to casting and true metallurgical processes is another bit of technology that leaves a lot of evidence. You can't refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind or . . . that is, impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore . . . Also blooms off [sic] into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferrous metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were performing these tasks, they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things . . . non-ferrous metallurgical industries have similar evidences. No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. The evidence is absent

Someone might read bloom and think flower, blossom and think rose, and float and think rootbeer and ice cream, but I think the correct idea for "industry" is conveyed without too much confusion. If you'd like, I can post the processes associated with each of the metals in the Book of Mormon and we can discuss how each process to produce swords and tools, etc. might have looked.

There is a point to the famous archaeological truism, which you seem to want to turn on its head, that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. You should probably repeat that principle to yourself twenty or twenty-five times each morning, perhaps while you're brushing your teeth.

Deep. I bet most every serious research paper on archaeological evidence has that catch-all disclaimer. You know, it has a corollary. You can repeat it a few hundred times each day, perhaps while you

[Daniel Peterson]

If you'd like, I can post the processes associated with each of the metals in the Book of Mormon and we can discuss how each process to produce swords and tools, etc. might have looked.

That would be quite unnecessary and beside the point, which is that the image of a "ferrous metallurgical industry" is likely to mislead ordinary readers, and that the fact that, thus far, "The evidence is absent" from what we know of the very obscure world of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica does not constitute decisive evidence of the absence of some small-scale basic metal-working. It merely represents a challenge for believers in Book of Mormon historicity not unlike the archaeological challenges that exist for students of many ancient texts (including the Bible, the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc.), where the text makes claims that cannot be archaeologically verified.

The complete absence of evidence might imply the evidence of complete absence.

Indeed it might. Obviously. But that word might is not insignificant. The complete absence of horse bones from professional archaeological digs in Central Asia might, for example, imply the complete absence of horses from Hunnic society during late antiquity. But nobody seriously maintains that the Huns didn't have horses. The ancient chronicles are trusted over the lack of archaeological data.

Where in the world do you come up with such things? It wasn't "a statement of faith" -- simply or otherwise.

Your sentence reads,

[asciikerr]

For those who haven't had the opportunity to watch it for themselves yet...

I've posted dates & times it will be aired on PAX 16 and the linkage to watch it for free online. At no cost to you... Also I'm almost done w/my response to FARM's review, almost being hopefully within the month. Its a bit hard tracking down all the sources used and finding all the appropriate sources to push my agenda as some would say. Either way, I've certainly enjoyed my time reading up on all the latest happenings in the scholary world which in no way shape form directly represents the Church's stance. Cheers!

FREE ONLINE VIEWING OF BIBLE vs BOOK OF MORMON

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

That is great for the Old World. I notice that much of what is there is similar to the same kinds of things in the larger cultural area - not specifically Hebrew at all.

If you see the book you will see that it is full of Jewish antiquity, color photos that are very Jewish. And in all reality it wouldn't matter if it was Jewish or Gentile, allot of evidence we would expect to see would still be apparent, some with strict Jewish influence mixed with gentile influence, I'm sure Rome had a large influnce of early Jewish culture. In other words, it is what they new. Just as early Spanish colonies refelected Spanish culture, and English colonies reflect the English culture, If Jews did indeed migrate then obviously there finds would reflect their culture, which was mixed, but still very Jewish.

Now the question is, with a change in hemisphere, climate and natural resources, what do we realistically expect to arrive in the New World? The history of very small populations entering larger, established populations, tells us that the direction of borrowing would be from larger to smaller.

The BoM speaks of many larges citys, to imply that they were already populated is wild guess at best, and a argument of silence, that goes against the context of the BoM and authoritive teaching and implications. If a history is written about peoples that had imigrated to a larger socity it would have been noted. Hel. 3:9 is very clear about "their", being the Jews, and verse 10 talks of shipping and a thriving industry of logging and cement which built many cities. Cement as you know is a nothing without sand and gravel which makes concrete, get a bag of cemet and add water and see if you can make a dwelling with out the additives, so I would expect to see great quarries that would have scard the land. I've done my share of concrete construction and the majority of the work and material are what we call in the trades "false work", they are forms and braces and scaffolding etc, to set up a concrete building you more or less pour it in one or to days, yet it takes months of false work to make it possible. while ancient cement is different than today portland, it is still cement and needs sand for mortor, and sand and gravel for a concrete. The shipping big enough to carry lumber amount large enough for cities, a not to mention the ships (alma 63:7). Also just read Helamen 3:14...come on Brant are you telling me that there would not be any tangible evidence of this?

So I would expect to see vast amounts of Jewish and Old world culture not to mention the antiquity of tools and massive logistical needs to build cities as described, and this is just part of one chapter I picked randomly from th etopical index about cites.

Anyway I got to go, more later

Mark

john 1;12

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

If you see the book you will see that it is full of Jewish antiquity, color photos that are very Jewish.

Still missing the point. Let me try an appeal to authority. Something I was reading this evening:

There was always a certain ambivalence about representative art in ancient Israel. This was especially because Israel had no native artistic traditions and thus usually borrowed art from its "pagan" neighbors, which led to conflicting associations and ultimately to the religious syncretism that the later Yahwistic parties so vigorously denounced.

William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? , 2001, 236

You are describing a culture from a different place and time and ignoring the problems if changing climate and natural resources (you might read Jared Diamond, Germs, Guns, and Steel for the relevance of those factors).

Just as early Spanish colonies refelected Spanish culture, and English colonies reflect the English culture,

You have your historical situations a bit confused. There is a major difference between a conqueror and a small colony. The dynamics are completely different. Still, you haven't yet described anything that would certainly mark Israelite material culture in the New World.

Clothing won't do, because it isn't preserved and rapidly adapts to local conditions. Food complexes won't do, because they change. Housing styles won't do, because the climate is different and the housing will adapt to the climate. Art won't do because, as Dever notes, there isn't much that is actually Israelite - they borrow.

You are still a long way from any usable criteria.

The BoM speaks of many larges citys, to imply that they were already populated is wild guess at best, and a argument of silence, that goes against the context of the BoM and authoritive teaching and implications.

Boy, that is a tough sentence to unpack. Are there large cities in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times and in the areas suggested for the Book of Mormon? Yes. There can be no reasonable argument about cities or their sizes. They existed.

As for the issues of whether there were other people in the New World, you seem to be saying that since earlier prophets didn't preach this it cannot be true. That is a fascinating way of reading LDS history, and not one that we would accept. I have a hard time with someone telling me what I cannot believe because they believe it should be otherwise (except they don't believe it at all!). Confusing.

If a history is written about peoples that had imigrated to a larger socity it would have been noted.

Would you like to support that statement? As contrary evidence, i offer the Popol Vuh, Annals of the Cakchiquels, and Title of the Lords of Totonicapan as evidence. Those chronicles are about peoples who came into an area and conquered the previous peoples - know from archaeology - but not mentioned in the texts.

I side with actual history. Would you like to support the statement with anything other than your opinion?

Hel. 3:9 is very clear about "their", being the Jews, and verse 10 talks of shipping and a thriving industry of logging and cement which built many cities. Cement as you know is a nothing without sand and gravel which makes concrete, get a bag of cemet and add water and see if you can make a dwelling with out the additives, so I would expect to see great quarries that would have scard the land.

Before you get too far into your cement argument, you should be aware that archaeologists accept the fact that there are cement buildings in Mesoamerica. In fact, Teotihuacan has a very high grade cement. That is secular knowledge, not LDS wishful thinking.

Whatever argument you thought you were making about cement, it is contradicted by well-accepted data.

So I would expect to see vast amounts of Jewish and Old world culture not to mention the antiquity of tools and massive logistical needs to build cities as described, and this is just part of one chapter I picked randomly from th etopical index about cites.

And your information doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon at all. You have no Israelite markers that would clearly cross the ocean. Your evidence for cities seems to assume that they don't exist - except that they do. You can have all the evidence of city making (and cement) that you want.

Does that mean you have now accepted the Book of Mormon, since that area has just what you thought wouldn't be there <grin>?

[Smith]

Hi

Please show archaeological evidence of Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, or the Resurrection.

Give me a break, your reaching here, read my post again..."tangible evidence for a basis of faith." I take the above by faith, but I have a solid tangible basis for my faith that the people and time were real.

Mark

John 1;12

"Tangible evidence" is not a basis for Faith. Faith is a gift of the Spirit, where is there archaeological evidence for that?

We have evidience of Troy and of Athens and of Greeks on their pottery etc, does that mean we need to worship Zeus and use the Illiad as scripture? (As Dr. Peterson pointed out elsewhere around here) So I am afraid the request for tangible evidence doesnt cut it.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

So lets get back to evidence, you have none, and it is 100 % speculation on your part. That

[Beowulf]

Markk, Brant just SHOWED you the evidence.

You want cities? CHECK

You want cement in those cities? CHECK (again!)

Merely asserting that cement requires massive infrastructure (which I am sure that it does) is not sufficient reason to reject it. The cement is actually THERE. Right where the BofM claims it should be, and right WHEN it should be.

If you want to attack the BofM, please stick to assertions where evidence has yet to be found...

And btw, your probing questions about Jewish/Christian influences in the Americas got blank stares for a reason. Brant and Dan Peterson have patiently been explaining why this is on this thread for some time now (and which Bill Hamblin did a thread on more than a year ago here on FAIR).

This is (to sum up yet again) that we CANNOT know what a Jewish/Christian artifact will look like. Especially when Israel freely borrowed from its neighbors for its religious imagery, and when early Christians (yes again!) freely borrowed from their neighbors. By analogy, Lehi and sons could have (and most surely did) borrowed from their neighbors as well.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Beowulf

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

What was the change in climate, and what resources were different, in other words, where did they reside for you to make such a statement.

I apologize. I didn't realize until you made this statement that you really are quite unaware of the modern scholarship on the Book of Mormon. I had assumed that if you were willing to attempt to engage in issues of archaeology that you had actually done your homework.

The standard introduction to LDS thought on this topic is John L. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. The basic location for Book of Mormon Events is Guatemala and southern Mexico (including the gulf coast for the oldest civilizations).

This is there area where the geography fits, the topography fits, the hydrology fits, the climate fits, there are cities in appropriate locations at the right times, there are known historical interactions of people who are in the right locations at the right times.

However, it is important to understand that while there is historical and archaeological evidence that matches with the Book of Mormon, there is nothing that proves it. In the reading I was doing in Dever he noted the very same thing for the Bible.

The truth of the matter, as I have sought to show thoughout this book, is that archaeology by definition cannot "prove" the Bible's theological intepretation of events, can at best only comment on the likelihood of the events in question having happened historically. But, if it is any comfort to believers, archaeology, by the same token, cannot *disprove* the Bible's assertions of the meaning of events. Dever, [iWhat Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, 282

Archaeology has some limitations. Working within those limitations, the Book of Mormon is very comfortable in a Mesomerican setting, while understandably falling short of being "proven."

I am speaking of culture, all people have culture not just conquering nations, I think you should look at history,

I assure you that I look at history a lot, and for a fairly wide geography and time depth. You are correct for invading and conquering cultures, but not for smaller groups who are moving in. Look for the lasting cultural impact of the Vikings in America. If it were not for the continuous influx of Europeans, what was the impact of Jamestown? When Israel entered Canaan they adopted the material culture of the Canaanites and made it difficult to find them archaeologically. History supports my thesis.

the BoM clearly tells of a conquering nation of Jews fighting war after war,

Would you be offended if I suggest that your reading of the Book of Mormon is superficial if you make this statement? These wars come hundreds of years after the initial entrance into the New World and are always defensive, not offensive. Your assertion is simply incorrect.

Your spinning, there would be more than ample evidence,

And you continue this assertion without any backing support at all. I am telling you what history and archaeology tell us. You give me your opinion, which (at the moment) does not appear to be grounded in either an understanding of history or archaeology. That is the reason I keep asking for the type of evidence and the reason you still haven't come up with anything. Your large cities and cement examples didn't work very well because they are there. You may wonder about the infrastructure of cement, but that is not a Book of Mormon issue because it was really there.

You worry about shipping - buy Mesoamericans did that. Just because you don't know how they did it doesn't mean they didn't - and those are questions for Mesoamericanists, not the Book of Mormon. That information is already known, even if you were unaware of it.

what you fail to talk about is the actual evidence that is there and could it be supportive.

This was the early criticism of the article I wrote on the film (to return to the topic of the thread). Of course it wasn't the intent of the review at all. However, I'll give you a list of things you can work on. This is the kind of stuff that Dever calls "convergences," places where the text and the information from archaeology converge at the right place and time into a context that fits both simultaneously.

Geography

A discussion of geography is critical because there is so much geographical description in the Book of Mormon that a failure to locate its settings anywhere in the world would be a serious problem. There are two general locations in the Book of Mormon, the Old World and the New.

The Old World description concerns the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, and three major geographic markers have been correlated to this part of the narration. The first is the river that continually runs to the sea. A plausible location for the river that fits both the travel distance from Jerusalem and the requirement that it continually flow to the sea has been found.

The second geographic marker, Nahom, also fits into the travel parameters of Lehi's group. A location called NHM belongs to the correct time period, and all indications point to its being located in the right place.

The third location to be identified is Bountiful. Several characteristics are required of this location, and a plausible site has been identified. In addition, the descriptions of the travel fit. For example, S. Kent Brown sees evidence of night travel in the Book of Mormon text, which is the preferred time to travel in that area.

The Old World geography places these key geographic markers in the correct locations to match the descriptions of travel given in the text. The geographical descriptions form an interrelated set of conditions that must all be met, and they are. Troy was found with such a set.

A discussion of New World geography, however, must begin with less surety because we don't have the beginning point, such as Jerusalem, to tie the geography to the text. However, the text provides a rather consistent internal map. I defer to John Sorenson here, as his geographic analysis is extensive, and I have never seen it seriously assailed. The typical disagreement is the location of Cumorah, and that is minor in the total assessment of the geographic correlations.

The Sorenson summary discusses the following points:

Consistent determinable distances

Consistent topographical descriptions

Correlation to a known geography, including mountains, valleys, and rivers

Plausible correlation to known topographical relationships ("up" and "down" are consistent with physical directional movement and fit with the topography of the area)

Plausible archaeological remains for many of the named cities that C-14 tests (and sometimes Maya Long Count) date to Book of Mormon times

Parallels to the known distribution of cultural groups, particularly linguistic groups (and regions of interaction)

Cultural Correlation

Having a plausible location now requires the examination of the text of the Book of Mormon to see whether or not it fits into that cultural area. In this instance a few more operating assumptions need to be specified:

Based on known history of the New World and known modes of cultural interaction, it is expected that the Book of Mormon people (who entered with relatively few numbers) would have been absorbed into the material culture that already existed. What is more, they also would have absorbed the local languages as the common spoken language.

"Nephite" and "Lamanite" are polity designations, not lineage designations (there is ample textual evidence for this as people move from one group to the other).

While the Nephites attempted to preserve a Mosaic religion, that was not the case for the surrounding cultures. It is in the conflicts with those outside cultures that we have the opportunity for the best information about the nature of the majority culture of the New World.

Beginning with that foundation, here is a set of cultural correspondences and explanations that come from the Mesoamerican cultural context in which the Book of Mormon may be plausibly placed:

The Lehites entered the area during the middle of the Preclassic period, a time of broad changes in the Maya civilization. City size was increasing and society was growing more complex. The general trend was toward greater social differentiation and the beginnings of kingship in Maya city-states. This trend is mirrored in the conflicts witnessed as early as the book of Jacob. The twin evils against which Jacob preaches

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

I'll tell you what, I'll start a study of Hel. chapter 3 and we can do a honest exogesis of the text. And we can see what the comtext would demand. So far all I have seen offerd is a isogenical approach to the BoM arch. Meaning you guys are taking a pre-conceived ideology, based on making the BoM work, and then bend twist and spin reality and common sense to keep your faith alive, which I understand, I was once there.

More later, Take care

mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Somehow, Markk, if that is your response, I suspect that we won't have any more conversations.

[asciikerr]

I apologize. I didn't realize until you made this statement that you really are quite unaware of the modern scholarship on the Book of Mormon. I had assumed that if you were willing to attempt to engage in issues of archaeology that you had actually done your homework.

I actually need some help w/my homework, but only if you have the time.

I'm currently reading through your critique of the film regarding TEMPLES. It specifically deals with Dever and a "temple" that was excavated at Arad (not far East of Beersheba). The ostraca (potsherds w/writing) from the excavated site bearing the inscription "house/temple of Yahweh." In conjunction with the Elephantine documents that shows a group of Israelites leaving Israel and moving to a home on the Nile, where they built a replica of Solomon's Temple.

According to: Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know? 181.

I haven't been able to pickup Dever's book as of yet (yeah I know!) concerning the matter , but is this possibly related to:

a "Temple of Yahweh" in Arad excavated between 1962-74 by Yohanan Aharoni & Amiran? Because I believe they found a pair of masseboth (erected stones) that dated around the same time mentioned in your writing (8th-7th B.C). This "confirmed" Israelite temple (by way of 2 small inscribed ostraca/potsherds) in Arad also supposedly housed a pair of deities (Yahweh and Asherah?). They may have even housed their own priests that were outside of the Levitical priesthood or that of Aaron. Some have even compared this temple to an Iron Age fortress more so than a hebrew temple. There was also an article in The Jerusalem Post from the 1970's concerning these artifacts that Dever mentions. There was some mention of how they used these potsherds for business transactions specifically. Is this one and the same place spoken of by Dever? I'm sure once I pickup Dever's book this will all be answered for me...but I'm just trying to do some pro-active studying on the matter.

I think there is also some history concerning the Samaritan faith and a rebellion that goes back to the 10 Northern tribes of Israel during time of Solomon's son Rehoboam. The kingdoms were divided as North & South, Israel/Samaria and Judah. I recall reading something about the king of Israel building his own rival temples to keep his own people from going over to Judah to worship in Jerusalem.

Any feedback you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance...

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Nope I'm still here, unless you are saying that you don't want to discuss this? Relax, Mormonism won't fall because of our conversation, nor will the Christian faith. Just two people with different opinions, actually I'm a nice person.

This is there area where the geography fits, the topography fits, the hydrology fits, the climate fits, there are cities in appropriate locations at the right times, there are known historical interactions of people who are in the right locations at the right times

That

[Brant Gardner]

asciikerr:

This "confirmed" Israelite temple (by way of 2 small inscribed ostraca/potsherds) in Arad also supposedly housed a pair of deities (Yahweh and Asherah?).

Are you suggesting that pre-exilic temples did not have asherah? I would think that was pretty well established. What is your understanding of the relationship between the pre-exilic and post-exilic religion?

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

I would assume that you are a nice person. Regardless of how nice your are, I don't see this conversation going anywhere. If you believe that matching archaeology to a text is not a correct methodology, you have disqualified some of the best evidence you might have for the Bible, since artifacts must be interpreted in some context that gives them meaning. If you start with the artifact and have no context in which to understand it, you won't be able to do much with it.

Since I am suggesting a methodology that is parallel to what professional archaeologist Dever uses when he suggests that there is evidence of a historical Israel, I am not sure why your opinion disqualifies that method. Are you sure that your opinions about what ought to happen with archaeology are better than his?

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

That is a cop out Brant, you need to deal with the reality of what the BoM says.

Helamen 3:14 But behold, a hundredth 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 temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, 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.

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

And the problem is that right at the time Helaman says that all of this is there - the archaeology tells us that all of this is there. Of course there is less information about shipping because of the type of vessels they used, but there is nothing in that statement that contradicts anything found by archaeologists.

Which I have said before and you simply repeat your assertion without adding anything to the conversation or indicating that you have any familiarity with Mesoamerica. It isn't a cop out. Its a worn out.