The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Pahoran]

Let me give one example of what I consider Hamblin

[Gervin]

At random. Uh-huh.

The fact that it has been the subject of the greatest quantity of anti-Mormon nit-picking on the Internet than any other portion had nothing to do with it. Yeah, sure, I believe you. Where do I sign up to buy that bridge again?

You can call me a liar, insinuate I'm a liar, or simply believe it in your heart. I told the truth. I can't really help you with the problem you have dealing with it. I'd done exactly zero research on this topic before I started to look up the references in the Book of Mormon. You got gall.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 14 2006, 08:14 PM)

I

[Daniel Peterson]

Before I go further, remember what Hamblin states at the beginning of his paper:

Anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon are frequently [emphasis mine - dcp] based on a questionable set of assumptions . . .

So, if we are to believe Hamblin, Wilson

[Gervin]

You seem to have missed the word frequently. I've emphasized it in your quotation, so that you will recognize it while re-reading that portion of your post.

Hamblin says: Anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon are frequently based on a questionable set of assumptions concerning the nature of historical and archaeological evidence, the role of governing presuppositions, and the nature of historical proof. Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation ... etc

Hamblin goes from his "questionable set of assumptions" to the sentence that he is going to look at arguments of Wilson. "Frequently" or not, Hamblin never refers back to these with regard to metal in the Book of Mormon.

A flawed interpretation of an ancient text would, if the flaw were of a relevant kind, create a flawed presupposition that would lead one to a flawed expectation of archaeological evidence. That's at least two of the three categories.

Hamblin doesn't give any evidence that this is a flawed presupposition. He doesn't present any evidence - archaeological or otherwise - to indicate that Wilson has a flawed expectation of archaeological evidence. Is is somewhere written that Hamblin has some special power or knowledge so that whatever he says ... is so?

Wilson's actual statement was,

[Daniel Peterson]

You seem to have missed the word frequently. I've emphasized it in your quotation, so that you will recognize it while re-reading that portion of your post.

Hamblin says: Anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon are frequently based on a questionable set of assumptions concerning the nature of historical and archaeological evidence, the role of governing presuppositions, and the nature of historical proof. Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation ... etc

Hamblin goes from his "questionable set of assumptions" to the sentence that he is going to look at arguments of Wilson. "Frequently" or not, Hamblin never refers back to these with regard to metal in the Book of Mormon.

But if, as Professor Hamblin believes, Luke Wilson is wrong to read the Book of Mormon as entailing a pre-Columbian metal "industry" in Mesoamerica, that alone will generate a questionable set of assumptions and a misguided governing presupposition, which will, in turn, lead Mr. Wilson to expect a kind of archaeological evidence or historical proof that Latter-day Saints, for their part, not sharing his reading of the Book of Mormon, will feel absolutely no obligation to supply.

Incidentally, your quotation from Professor Hamblin's article, above, is actually from the abstract that precedes his article, and may or may not have actually been written by him rather than by an editor. (My personal bet is that it was written by an editor.) And it is separated from Professor Hamblin's very brief discussion of metals -- essentially one page out of a total of thirty-seven -- by roughly thirty pages of printed text, so it is highly misleading for you to suggest that the abstract, possibly not even written by Professor Hamblin at all, leads directly into the passing and peripheral treatment of metals that you have carefully selected, out of an article heavily focusing on other issues, to use as your vehicle for dismissing Professor Hamblin's article in toto.

A flawed interpretation of an ancient text would, if the flaw were of a relevant kind, create a flawed presupposition that would lead one to a flawed expectation of archaeological evidence. That's at least two of the three categories.

Hamblin doesn't give any evidence that this is a flawed presupposition.

The burden is on Mr. Wilson (or on you) to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon entails the existence of a metallurgical "industry" in the popular sense of Mr. Wilson's popular article. It is not on Professor Hamblin, who doubts it.

In archaeology "industry" means a standardized tradition associated with a specified tool or culture - in this case a metal industry is certainly implied in the variety of metals and their specific uses.

Is Mr. Wilson an archaeologist? Was his audience an audience of archaeologists? Is there any reason to believe that he was using the term industry in the narrow sense that it carries in technical archaeology?

In the narrow sense that certain Book of Mormon peoples worked metals at various times, yes, an "industry" is entailed by the Book of Mormon. But, as Professor Hamblin mentions in his single-page treatment of the issue, archaeological evidence of such "industry" is easily obscured and its technology is easily lost.

Professor Sorenson has published some very serious work on the glottochronology of pre-Columbian terms for metal(s).

Very fascinating. Meanwhile, back to Hamblin's article . . .

I was afraid that I was being too subtle for you.

Professor Sorenson's work on the glottochronology of pre-Columbian terms for metal(s) is directly relevant to the issue under discussion here.

Prove the manufacture and use of steel swords as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Prove the known working in all manner of ore as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Prove the known casting up

[Gervin]

But if, as Professor Hamblin believes, Luke Wilson is wrong to read the Book of Mormon as entailing a pre-Columbian metal "industry" in Mesoamerica, that alone will generate a questionable set of assumptions and a misguided governing presupposition, which will, in turn, lead Mr. Wilson to expect a kind of archaeological evidence or historical proof that Latter-day Saints, for their part, not sharing his reading of the Book of Mormon, will feel absolutely no obligation to supply.

Just because Hamblin says that Wilson reads the Book of Mormon

[Daniel Peterson]

Just because Hamblin says that Wilson reads the Book of Mormon

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

Let me give one example of what I consider Hamblin

[Gervin]

True. But if Mr. Wilson wants to claim that a full-scale metallurgical "industry" in the non-technical sense presumably understood by his audience and presumably intended by him is entailed by the Book of Mormon, Mr. Wilson needs to demonstrate that. The burden is on him. And simply asserting that his reading, unlike ours, is the "straight reading" of the Book of Mormon scarcely meets that burden.

What do mean by "full-scale?" Wilson didn't use that 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. I'll ask again. Hamblin says that Wilson's problem is that he interprets the Book of Mormon wrong. If Hamblin or any other LDS isn't willing to show the correct interpretation, per LDS-sanctioned reading, then Wilson's interpretation is right. Anyone with a little knowledge about how steel swords are made, how iron ore is mined and fashioned into tools and weapons, etc. will read the Book of Mormon and assume that there was an industry or a manufacturing process or a production craft - whatever term you want to parse - for making weapons and tools and decorative arts using brass, copper, iron, silver, steel, gold.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 15 2006, 12:10 AM)

I could have chosen any of the subjects in his paper.

Perhaps, in that case, you should. You chose a briefly discussed peripheral topic, representing roughly 2.5% of the totality of the article, in order to make your case for dismissing the whole thing, and your case isn't going especially well.

You're right, it isn't going well for you. 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. If you need to move onto another topic, I'll understand.

And, of course, nobody but Mr. Straw Man has suggested that they do. The question is whether the production of metal implements inescapably entails the existence -- and the archaeologically demonstrable or even already archaeologically demonstrated existence, no less -- of a large-scale metallurgical industry.

You and Hamblin like to use this phrase "large-scale." What does that mean, or how are you using it? I told you what I meant by industry - that the term has a connotation in archaeology with regard to tool making. Re "archaeologically demonstrable" existence - I believe that metal implements and swords, breastplates, head plates, shields, writing plates, agricultural tools, weapons, and other fine art objects in gold and silver and iron and copper, etc do leave an archaeological record. Do you assume they do not?

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 15 2006, 12:10 AM)

The Book of Mormon references these metals and, I suppose the technology that is easily lost, for ca. 2000 BC, between 420 and 361 B.C, between 160 and 150 B.C., about 121 BC, 74 BC, and 50 B.C.  I may be missing some dates.  What evidence is there that these technologies were lost to the Book of Mormon peoples?

I don't necessarily think that metallurgical skills were lost to the Book of Mormon peoples

Nor do I

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 15 2006, 12:10 AM)

QUOTE

Nobody is claiming that we can, at this moment, prove such things

You may have missed this statement by Hamblin: "Be that as it may, metals were known and used in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, as claimed in the Book of Mormon (emphasis mine). That statement doesn't appear to leave any doubt that steel swords were known and used in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

I'm quite confident that you're misreading Professor Hamblin. He's simply saying that the Book of Mormon says that metals were known and used in pre-Classic Mesoamerica, according to the Book of Mormon (if it is read as referring to Mesoamerica, which both Professor Hamblin and I do), and that the evidence indicates that metals were indeed known and used in pre-Classic Mesoamerica. His statement does not intend to say that the evidence demonstrates all the specifics claimed for particular metal uses in the Book of Mormon. His statement also does not say that. If you insist, I can, of course, ask him for his specific view on this specific matter, but I believe (from long and close acquaintance with him) that I already know it.

If it was simply a statement of faith then he should have been clearer. He has no clue that steel was "known" and steel swords were "used" in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. So we can correctly read his statement, "Be that as it may, the Book of Mormon says that metals were known and used in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, as claimed in the Book of Mormon." I guess that's why he and you are the scholars.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 15 2006, 12:10 AM)

QUOTE

For what it's worth, I was at the archaeological site of Piedras Negras, a few years ago, deep in the jungle of the Guatemalan Pet

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

How quaint. You personally witnessed the unearthing of the first example of writing on metal that ever emerged from a Mesoamerican excavation. This raises some very simple questions; who was the archaeologist? Who was sponsoring the dig? What was the date? What was the site?

In that short time you have managed to disparage first person evidence as irrelevant and then suggest that there must be a colusion of liars at hand. All of this because it contradicts an assumption you have made.

It is remarkable that your approach to archaology is to deny archaeological evidence as obvious fraud. That says volumes about your presuppositions and willingness to actually use sound academic principles.

Why should we believe anything you say if you are willing to cavalierly dismiss data? Surely you don't believe that all data are published immediately (or at all)? Surely you are aware that most real archaeology is communicated among the archaeologists long before it hits print - and that some never does? You profess to some knowledge of archaeology, surely you know this - yet you dismiss first hand evidence.

[Smith]

I'll ask again. Hamblin says that Wilson's problem is that he interprets the Book of Mormon wrong. If Hamblin or any other LDS isn't willing to show the correct interpretation, per LDS-sanctioned reading, then Wilson's interpretation is right.

I dont know which one it is but there is some kind of logical fallacy in that statement. There could be any number of reasons why Hamblin doesnt answer Wilsons interpretations therefore not necesarily conceeding the point.

How quaint. You personally witnessed the unearthing of the first example of writing on metal that ever emerged from a Mesoamerican excavation. This raises some very simple questions; who was the archaeologist? Who was sponsoring the dig? What was the date? What was the site?

You are clearly not intent on endearing yourself here. This looks like calling Dr Peterson's integrity to question to me and I see no reason to do that. You're behaving like a fly around a barbeque thats likely to get swatted soon.

[Gervin]

archaeological evidence

Daniel Peterson told a story, he didn't provide archaeological evidence.

Why should we believe anything you say if you are willing to cavalierly dismiss data

Daniel Peterson told a story, he didn't provide archaeological data.

I'm not calling him a liar. I said that his story raises some very pertinent questions. If the questions confound him then what should we conclude? Since I'm so uncredentialed to even talk about archaeology I'll let you fill in the blanks, Brant.

[Markk]

Hi,

If you guys want to shut Gervin up, why not just give him some tangible evidence that Jews and Christians were here in the correct BoM time frames, it shouldn't be this hard. Logical fallecy? presuppositions? glottochronological evidence? and Jackassery? Just show the evidence, just some sort of "tangible basis" for faith in the BoM story.

Mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Hi,

If you guys want to shut Gervin up, why not just give him some tangible evidence that Jews and Christians were here in the correct BoM time frames, it shouldn't be this hard. Logical fallecy? presuppositions? glottochronological evidence? and Jackassery? Just show the evidence, just some sort of "tangible basis" for faith in the BoM story.

Mark

John 1:12

Great idea! Since you are asking for the evidence, please describe exactly what such evidence would look like within a Mesoamerican context. That way we can know what to provide you with.

-Allen

[Brant Gardner]

edited in - looks like Allen and I were thinking the same thing right at the same time!

Mark:

it shouldn't be this hard

And that statement sums up the issue. Those who have no understanding of history or archaeology assume that it is simple. When someone tries to explain why it isn't that simple, they resort to the same question.

You are welcome, however, to make it simple for us.

You ask for: "some tangible evidence that Jews and Christians were here in the correct BoM time frames"

I will be happy to provide just that. Would you please explain what that might be? What shall I show you to prove that there were Christians here, for example? What would Christian pots look like? What does a Christian house look like?

Maybe you could have better luck with Jewish archaeology - except that experts have a hard time defining what it looks like in the Old World. They know where - but what of that would transfer across the ocean?

If you are so certain that this is simple, please show me how and I'll find some archaeology for you. Simple, right?

[Smith]

Markk

And while you are at it, how about some of the same supporting belief in the Bible!

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

I said that his story raises some very pertinent questions.

And therein is the problem. Those are not pertinent questions. Those were questions that directly suggested that unless it were published or otherwise verified you couldn't accept Dr. Peterson's word for it. That, sir, is tantamount to calling that man a liar and declaring collusion from those around.

The pertinent question really should be how a piece of inscribed metal fits into the archaeological/historical picture. That is pertinent. Your questions were designed to be dismissive.

You still have not written anything that suggests you have done more than learn some phrases from the archaeological digs you have been around. I still see no understanding of the interpretive side of archaeology or any indication that you understand the relationship of texts to archaeology. You haven't responded to the issues I noted about your methdological problems. Perhaps you missed that.

[Markk]

Hi Wyatt,

Before or after Jesus came to the Americas? If before, evidence of the Jewish law, if after, evidedence of Christianity. Or maybe a short or long peice of hardened steel with a once sharpend edge that would be used to attack or defend a person.

But in all reality the evidence of Jews here, should represent the evidence of of evidence found there (middle east), and also in the mix should be what the cultural evidence of the people that were here, and how it compares to the BoM story.

Allen, what is the single most impressive tangible artifact that would supprt jews and Christians in the BoM time frames?

Mark

John 1;12

[thesometimesaint]

markk:

Assuming that such an impliment existed. After some 1500 years in a jungle enviroment what would we be looking at?

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

I will be happy to provide just that. Would you please explain what that might be? What shall I show you to prove that there were Christians here, for example? What would Christian pots look like? What does a Christian house look like?

Maybe you could have better luck with Jewish archaeology - except that experts have a hard time defining what it looks like in the Old World. They know where - but what of that would transfer across the ocean?

Sure, start with the book "Manners & Customs of Bible Times", Ralph Gower, Moody Press. I'm looking at it right now, there are almost 400 pages of evidence you seek, 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, with a very exhaustive scriptual index for reference. It is a very valuable tool in biblical study I use quite often. There are other such books, I believe another one that is even more popular is by Ungar.

Thanks

mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said: Before or after Jesus came to the Americas? If before, evidence of the Jewish law, if after, evidedence of Christianity.

You missed the point. What, exactly, would you consider "evidence of the Jewish law" in a Mesoamerican context? What, exactly, would you consisder "evidence of Christianity" in a Mesoamerican context?

Until you can provide what you consider evidence, how do we know what to provide?

Markk said: Or maybe a short or long peice of hardened steel with a once sharpend edge that would be used to attack or defend a person.

Are you suggesting that such an implement, if it were found, would be evidence of Jewish or Christian culture in a Mesoamerican context? Or are you broadening the subject?

Markk said: But in all reality the evidence of Jews here, should represent the evidence of of evidence found there (middle east), and also in the mix should be what the cultural evidence of the people that were here, and how it compares to the BoM story.

Still not clear. We know, somewhat, what Jewish and Christian cultural evidence looks like in Semitic cultures, but we only know that because of the unbroken chain of culture from that day to this one within the Middle East. Given the fact that there is a broken chain of culture in Mesoamerica, how do you suggest we find the evidence you seek? How do you suggest that we even recognize the evidence you seek?

Markk said: Allen, what is the single most impressive tangible artifact that would supprt jews and Christians in the BoM time frames?

The Book of Mormon.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Smith,

Markk

And while you are at it, how about some of the same supporting belief in the Bible!

What I said is "tangible basis", I believe the bible by faith, as you believe the BoM I assume. So as a basis for my faith in the bible I can name hundreds if not thousnad of reasons of a basis for my faith, I will name five very basic tangible truths of the bible, then you name five and we can go from there.

1. The Jordon River

2. Jerusalem

3. Rome

4. On going friction between Israel and the Arab nations

5. The Jews got Israel back as God promised

Mark

John 1:12

[thesometimesaint]

markk:

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

[SlackTime]

Hmmm, I've heard that there is a salt pillar that locals claim is Lot's wife!! Not to mention the "In search of" that had pictures of Noah's ark remains on the side of Mt. Ararat

-SlackTime

[Markk]

Hi Allen

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.

Mark

John 1:12