Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

In your last post you made it clear that you did not say this, but some phoney poster using your name. You would not make such an inane, silly remark as you made clear in the post above.

I was speaking to the group of Mulekites, just as Amaleki did when he wrote:

"Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." (Omni 1:15) (emphasis mine).

You then turned it into a discussion of "every single" individual found at Zarahmela (however, the only individual named is Zarahemla himself), which I did not do. Btw, no member of this group or "people" ever set foot in Jerusalem because their discovery occurred hundreds of years after their ancestors had left Jerusalem. As I quoted from the current CES manual, the Mulekites found by the Nephites represented, as a group, the "seed of Judah," now in the Americas with the "seed of Manasseh" (via Lehi) and the "seed of Ephraim" (via Ishmael), all Israelites.

I accept your heartfelt apology.

But my challenge still stands: please give me just one lineage discussed in the BofM text (post-Jaredite) that does not go back to an Israelite immigrant.

[cdowis]

>please give me just one lineage discussed in the BofM text (post-Jaredite) that does not go back to an Israelite immigrant.

There are none.

OK, your turn. Give me just one lineage discussed in the New Testament that does not go back to an Israelite.

Are we playing some sort of game?

[Rollo Tomasi]

>please give me just one lineage discussed in the BofM text (post-Jaredite) that does not go back to an Israelite immigrant.

There are none.

Thank you.

Give me just one lineage discussed in the New Testament that does not go back to an Israelite.

Why? Are you arguing that ancient Israelites are not the "principal ancestors" of modern-day Israelites?

[cdowis]

>Are you arguing that ancient Israelites are not the "principal ancestors" of modern-day Israelites?

Still beating that dead horse?

You still think "principal ancestor" is a really a big deal, don't you. The BOM is false, the church is false, and you have proven it right here on this forum.

I am impressed.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You still think "principal ancestor" is a really a big deal, don't you.

No, but it has been the topic we've been discussing for pages now.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Of course, Dan. The problem though is that much of what you see as anachronisms, blunders, and incongruities, exist as such because of your fundamental approach to the text. You consider, for example, the use of the "horse" in the text as evidence in favor of your theory, when in fact, it isn't evidence. Marco Polo saw a rhinocerous and not a unicorn. Your evidence only becomes such when you decide from the beginning that the text is a modern creation of Joseph's, and you read it in that fashion.

The problem is that

[Confidential Informant]

On the other hand, we both agree that

[JNclone]

Confidential Informant:

And what happens to your argument if the new study that is due out shows that horses are not an anacronism?

Why then, it will be disproved. But since that study has not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal and subjected to critical scrutiny, it is a little out of place to rely on it at this stage.

I would however bet a fair amount of money that in five (or twenty, or fifty) years from now you will not find the Smithsonian institution telling its visitors that there were pre-Columbian horses in North or Meso-America dating from within the last two millennia.

(But if things turn out otherwise, what will they do with the poor old tapirs then, I wonder?)

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

The problem is that

[cdowis]

>I find the idea that every anachronistic use of the NT can be explained by postulating a lost OT text a bit remote

Please explain.

You are asserting that there are few/no lost such texts which have been discovered in the past, there is no indications within the Bible itself that there are many lost books and texts. The idea that there are actual OT texts which are missing is an idea that is incomprehensible, absurd, very unlikely?

And you have studied this possibility carefully, as a scholar of Biblical history and texts?

Or, are you speaking of your view that a book delivered by an angel is an absurd idea. That any attempt to explain any issues of authenticity are an absurdity on piled top of an absudity.

And your comment has nothing to do with science but simply an expression of your world view.

[Benjamin McGuire]

cdowis writes:

>I find the idea that every anachronistic use of the NT can be explained by postulating a lost OT text a bit remote

Please explain.

You are asserting that there are few/no lost such texts which have been discovered in the past, there is no indications within the Bible itself that there are many lost books and texts. The idea that there are actual OT texts which are missing is an idea that is incomprehensible, absurd, very unlikely?

I would tend to agree with Dan on this point. There are a couple of specific instances where I would be willing to stick my neck out and make this suggestion (and it wouldn't be simply a blind assertion, but rather part of a larger argument on sources used in the Book of Mormon). Dan isn't suggesting that a couple of suggestions like this would be beyond the pale. He is suggesting that to use this argument to refer to every alleged apparent reference, quotation, allusion, and reinscription of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon is highly unprobable.

Ben

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

On the other hand, we both agree that

[cdowis]

>He is suggesting that to use this argument to refer to every alleged apparent reference, quotation, allusion, and reinscription of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon is highly unprobable.

I am referring to specific textual simularities, not just in concepts or ideas. An almost word-for-word simularity.

Now if you want to broaden the comment to "allusions, references" etc, I would suppose that this is based on the assumption that there are certain doctrines which are uniquely Christian (Pauline) in nature. Nephi could not have known the name of Jesus, for example.

And, as I said, that assumption depends upon your worldview, not science. With a belief that the gospel was revealed for centuries prior to the birth of Christ, I personally find it very likely. Others, with a naturalistic worldview, do not see the possibility of angels and divine communication. Thus, for one it is very possible, for the other it is "unlikely".

And that is what separates the two worlds. Not science, not a superiority in objectivity, but the way we see the world.

It all comes down to how "likely" is the reality of angels.

[juliann]

I would however bet a fair amount of money that in five (or twenty, or fifty) years from now you will not find the Smithsonian institution telling its visitors that there were pre-Columbian horses in North or Meso-America dating from within the last two millennia.

(But if things turn out otherwise, what will they do with the poor old tapirs then, I wonder?)

You are seriously suggesting that a scientific institution would ignore evidence of that kind? Your final comment is the perfect summation. It does not matter what long held assumption is turned on its head. It only matters what has not been found. The countermo will ignore everything and just move onto to the next "gotcha" as if nothing ever happened.

But something will happen when the horse banner has to be lowered. It proves that not all the information is in. It shows that long held traditional views can be and are being overturned. It doesn't take many of the earth shattering kinds before pretty much everything is up for grabs.

Personally, I have never understood the mentality of anyone who would make a Custer's Last Stand to defend what isn't supposed to be there when archaeology and science are advancing at a dizzying rate with new theories and findings popping up at every turn.

[Greg Smith]

(But if things turn out otherwise, what will they do with the poor old tapirs then, I wonder?)

The constant harping on "tapir" is a good example of how people don't seem to get Sorenson's argument.

The argument is not "well, maybe some Nephite somewhere might have named a horse a tapir," or something. The critics seems to refuse to engage Sorenson's point on this issue. Since few show any sign of actually having read it, I attach it for your convenience :

"The lowland Maya at first named all the big animals of the Spaniards

[charity]

greg smith wrote: "it would be nice if people would actually engage Sorenson's argument."

I think the reason is that most people who use the "isn't a tapir a desperation call" argument have never read Sorenson's work at all. They read where some made the statement ridiculing the idea, and just take that in as though they actually knew something. Makes me think of the "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt." Come to think of it, a lot of the repeated verbatim anti arguments fall into that category these days.

Oh, no, that means we are about to get into the old "adieu" and "land of Jerusalem" dumb arguments again.

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt Gardner,

On the other hand, we both agree that

[Mark Beesley]

Who is publishing this "new" study showing pre-Colombian horses in the Americas? And when is it due out. And when it is published, will the antis publish an apology and repent and be baptized?

(I put "new" in quotes because it's not really new. We have a centuries old record that confirms that there were horse in the Americas before Columbus.)

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

Not having an original and having an alleged translation doesn

[Brant Gardner]

mbeesley:

We have a centuries old record that confirms that there were horse in the Americas before Columbus

I am interested in the centuries old data. The problem on the face of it is that much of what was published over 100 years ago would not stand as evidence for a modern investigation. With just that tidbit of information I would be inclined to dismiss the data. However, if you could post it I would have a better idea.

As for the new information, there have been anomalous finds of horse bones and teeth in strata where they shouldn't have been. These have tended to be under-reported in the literature precisely because they were anomalous. There has been an assumption that they must be modern and somehow inserted into earlier strata (even though archaeologists can usually tell this). The new studies have finally subjected the material to scientific testing. My understanding is that the results are positive for horse and positive for pre-contact dates. Past that, I do not know and am waiting for the publication of the results like anyone else.

Since the results are not out, I suggest caution on both sides. It would be just as incorrect for proponents to clearly say that there were pre-Columbian horses as it is for opponents to say that there were none. There is enough information available that the wisest course on the issue of the horse is to wait for the publication of the evidence and not be caught being dogmatic where actualy evidence will easily prove someone wrong.

[noel00]

Brant,to your knowledge is there any word in the languages spoken by these people for the item that would have hitched them to the chariot/sledge? In the wall paintings are there any instances of Tapir or horses being used. I believe there is some of a child sitting on a Tapir. Why not pulling a sledge?

[Brant Gardner]

noel00:

Brant,to your knowledge is there any word in the languages spoken by these people for the item that would have hitched them to the chariot/sledge?

That is a strange question. You are asking me if I can figure out what Maya/Zoque or whatever word might be similar to whatever someone was thinking when they used the word "chariot"? The fact that you include "sledge" tells me that you have already made a decision about what it must be - but that is backwards from the way such decisions have to be made.

In terms of relevant information to either the Book of Mormon or Mesoamerica, you have asked an unanswerable question - not because of a problem with either languages or history - but because of the question itself.

In the wall paintings are there any instances of Tapir or horses being used.

I am unaware of the presence of either a horse or a tapir, though there are some longer-snouted images that might be a form of tapir-representation.

The only "riding" images of which I am aware appear to be in a shamanistic context.

Now, of course, I have to ask - why the question? Are you presuming the very issue at hand, which is the behavior of animals in the Book of Mormon? If so, could you tell me where any animal is ridden in the Book of Mormon (excluding passages from the OT)?

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt Gardner,

Not having an original and having an alleged translation doesn

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

I haven

[StudioD]

Most forgers have followed the easier path of publishing a