Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Bertram]

Dan Vogel,

I have just recently entered into this Tread, so I hope that you forgive me for not doing an extensive research into your Posts!

I am therefore, for my own "lazy" reasons, somewhat adrift of your actual beliefs, on matters "supernatural", in particular!!

I posed the Question to the open forum in one of my posts/responses to thesometimesaint:

Would you also consider it a "supernatural" occurence when Mary was visited by a Heavenly Messenger, prior to, the revelation that,she would conceive our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

I hope you don't consider that I am going off thread, as I feel it is important to ascertain your method of analysing your thesis on the discovery, and, the revealing of the Book of Mormon, to the World!!

[thesometimesaint]

Bertram:

I think we can safely assume that Dan is an Atheist. But I'll let him clarify if I am wrong.

From Wiki:

The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. Though supernatural refers chiefly to the cause of phenomena (an interpretation), if a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural. Because phenomena must be subject to verifiable measurement and peer group review to contribute to scientific theories, science cannot approach the supernatural; see scientific method.

"Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so." --Galileo

[Dale]

I thought the case for total Asian origins only rested on DNA studies. The Book of Mormon indicates the Lamanites were a different race than the Nephites. Can we safely assume that Israelite DNA would survive if the more dominent race produced children. I don't know this, but what if Israelite looking children born to family's were killed by the victorious Lamanites.

[thesometimesaint]

Dale:

Both Nephi and Laman were sons of Lehi. The separated into two different groups. Both groups quickly devolved into simple political affiliations.

Not much different than countries refering to their founders as "Founding Fathers".

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel,

I have just recently entered into this Tread, so I hope that you forgive me for not doing an extensive research into your Posts!

I am therefore, for my own "lazy" reasons, somewhat adrift of your actual beliefs, on matters "supernatural", in particular!!

I'm a skeptic of all claims of the paranormal. I can't say the supernatural doesn't exist; I only question the evidence upon which such claims rest.

I posed the Question to the open forum in one of my posts/responses to thesometimesaint:

Would you also consider it a "supernatural" occurence when Mary was visited by a Heavenly Messenger, prior to, the revelation that,she would conceive our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

I hope you don't consider that I am going off thread, as I feel it is important to ascertain your method of analysing your thesis on the discovery, and, the revealing of the Book of Mormon, to the World!!

I'm not sure NT stories can be read so straightforwardly as you assume, as if written by someone who thinks like a modern.

[charity]

We aren't writing New Testament stories as "moderns." The stories were written down and then the translation reaffirmed hundreds of years ago. How many centuries has the New Testament story of Mary's visit from Gabriel been around?

[Dale]

What I was wondering is whether Jewish DNA is so strong that it could survive in an Asian DNA dominated population.

[Dan Vogel]

What I was wondering is whether Jewish DNA is so strong that it could survive in an Asian DNA dominated population.

We know Asian DNA shows up, and Israelite DNA doesn't. Ancient Mayan bones yield Asian DNA. Apologetic explanations for the lack of Israelite DNA rest squarely on the LGT and local colonization theories. This requires critics to accept these two highly problematic ad hoc theories first. Of course, DNA can't "prove" the BOM false, because the lack evidence is never definitive. But it does represent another dead end for the BOM. Any theory can be saved if one is willing to make adjustments to background assumptions used to interpret the evidence. But the multiplying of ad hoc assumptions is not a good sign.

[Dan Vogel]

We aren't writing New Testament stories as "moderns." The stories were written down and then the translation reaffirmed hundreds of years ago. How many centuries has the New Testament story of Mary's visit from Gabriel been around?

Let me try again. I'm not sure the Gospels can be read like we read a history book.

[Zakuska]

What I was wondering is whether Jewish DNA is so strong that it could survive in an Asian DNA dominated population.

I think this is where the thread I started a few days ago comes in. About the Mongolian Girl has been proven by DNA to be a direct ancestor of a southern russian group. It directly related to the answer of your question.

Also some relvance is the lineage and DNA make up of Nephi and Co's wifes. We can acertain that Ishmael was a servant/slave yet Im not sure it ever mentions from where. Since the DNA we need to be looking for is not "Modern Israelite" in nature. Im not sure it is a dead end Dan.

[maklelan]

True, but the Maya that I'm talking about originated in Asia, not Israel.

No, other completely distinct ancient Native Americans from the northwest of the United States share close genetic ties with modern Asian DNA, but that doesn't prove one single thing. You can't be so absolute with such specific and inconclusive evidence.

[maklelan]

I'm a skeptic of all claims of the paranormal. I can't say the supernatural doesn't exist; I only question the evidence upon which such claims rest.

Then why did your book begin with a statement that you will not accept any claims of supernatural occurences as at all true? It sounds like you definitely are saying that the supernatural doesn't exist. When you publish a book that shows the argument for your assumption about the fictitious nature of all claims of the supernatural then maybe you can say that you actually "question the evidence" at all. At this point it seems more like you flatly dismiss the evidence and then concoct an alternate theory.

[cdowis]

>About the Mongolian Girl has been proven by DNA to be a direct ancestor of a southern russian group.

She was proven to be a direct descendant of a specific individual, not a generalized group. Is this thread going to wander into the DNA thread? If we had a sample of Sara's (Lehi's wife) DNA, we could definitely settle the issue, but we do not. We do know, however, that when we consider the DNA from specific individuals, we get interesting results. For example, the Greek woman and the full blooded Amerindian, which showed a common ancestor.

The antis are taking a generalized observation and drawing a specific conclusion -- the Amerindians have DNA similar to Asiatics, therefore there is no genetic connection to Lehi. The Greek/Amerindian study shows this conclusion is flawed.

Please show me that I am wrong. Help me out.

[cdowis]

Dan snipply asks

>Do you have proof of any other Maya?

Dan, I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. I merely point out the flawed logic and unproven assumptions in your statements.

That is sufficient for me.

You assume all Maya come from Asian, presumably over the Beiring strait (since the Jaredites may be asiatic, and you certainly will not entertain that connection). I merely point out your assumption, and many of your statements flow from those unproven assumptions.

When you use the word "Maya", you are saying "non-BOM people". I am pointing out that Maya may also mean both nonBOM and BOM people. "Maya" is a modern invention, simply a classification put on a group of people by modern archeologists. The actual ancient "maya" may strenously disagree, as the three groups in Iraq are distinct, individual groups within one national boundary. Apparently such a possibility did not cross your mind.

[Stormin' Mormon]

I was down in Central America in August and visited the ruins of Altun Ha, Lamanai, Dzibunche, Becan, Chicana, Balamku, Palenque, Yaxchilan, Tikal, and Kaminaljuyu. The one thing that impressed me more than anything else is how little we know about the Pre-Classic (Book of Mormon Era) and how much information has been lost to us forever. Consider the following:

Kaminaljuyu, one of the greatest cities of the Pre-Classic has mostly been bulldozed to make way for modern day Guatemala City. There is very little left of that ancient city to open a window on the Pre-Classic.

The largest pyramid in Mesoamerica is located at El Mirador, a city which controlled a larger territory than any other Mayan city that came after it. It is a pre-classic site, and remains to this day, mostly unexcavated. How much knowledge of the Pre-Classic will come to light if the right interest and investment is brought to bear on El Mirador is unknown.

The City of Nueva Esperanza may contain, in the words of one archeologist, the "find of the century." It is a Mayan city built atop an Olmec settlement. The potential knowledge that the site could provide is vast. It remains to this day, unexcavated.

The famaous palace of Palenque brings in thousands of tourists a day. The local economy relies on that tourist traffic. The Palace sits atop older settlements, some of them Pre-Classic. Archeologist may do some minor probing, but they will not destroy that famous ruin to uncover the Pre-Classic sites beneath it.

Throughout my journey, as I stood atop temples and towers, I would look off into the jungle and see mounds covered in dense jungle vegetation. Our guide identified these mounds as unexcavated temples.

Even in Tikal, one of the most studied and excavated sites in the new world, there are still massive temples that have not yet been uncovered. The Pre-Classic area of Tikal is called "The Lost World" because it was unknown and unexcavated for so long.

The vast majority of Pre-Classic sites are unknown or unknowable. If we know very little about Pre-Classic Sites, then we know even less about Book of Mormon sites, which would be contemporary with the Pre-Classic. Let's not assume that becuase so many Classic sites have been found and understood, that the earlier eras of Mesoamerica are likewise understood.

[Dan Vogel]

I think this is where the thread I started a few days ago comes in. About the Mongolian Girl has been proven by DNA to be a direct ancestor of a southern russian group. It directly related to the answer of your question.

Also some relvance is the lineage and DNA make up of Nephi and Co's wifes. We can acertain that Ishmael was a servant/slave yet Im not sure it ever mentions from where. Since the DNA we need to be looking for is not "Modern Israelite" in nature. Im not sure it is a dead end Dan.

It is as far as our current state of knowledge is concerned.

[Dan Vogel]

No, other completely distinct ancient Native Americans from the northwest of the United States share close genetic ties with modern Asian DNA, but that doesn't prove one single thing. You can't be so absolute with such specific and inconclusive evidence.

All Native Americans thus far tested show origin from Asia. Do you have any evidence of Israelite DNA? No. And it doesn't matter what the reason is. I think I have been clear that the lack of Israelite DNA doesn't prove the BOM false. So until you find some israelite DNA (or some other kind of evidence), we can't talk about non-Asiatic Mayans. We know Asiatic Maya exist. Israelite Maya is just a claim in need of evidence.

[Confidential Informant]

All Native Americans thus far tested show origin from Asia. Do you have any evidence of Israelite DNA? No.

Actually, you are incorrect. If I'm not mistaken one of the studies cited by Murphy in his book report showed that presence of Sephardic Jewish DNA among the native population of. . . I think it was Columbia.

Of course, this was explained as being of post-columbian origins and intermixing.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

Then why did your book begin with a statement that you will not accept any claims of supernatural occurences as at all true? It sounds like you definitely are saying that the supernatural doesn't exist. When you publish a book that shows the argument for your assumption about the fictitious nature of all claims of the supernatural then maybe you can say that you actually "question the evidence" at all. At this point it seems more like you flatly dismiss the evidence and then concoct an alternate theory.

My book begins with a nearly identical state as you quoted me here saying. I am not rejecting the supernatural out-of-hand. I have yet to see evidence of the supernatural that bears investigation, so a naturalistic position is the default.

The BOM would be good evidence for the supernatural, but I remain unpersuaded by the evidence. My rejection of BOM historicity leads me to question some of JS's claims about supernatural visitations. Even then, I cannot say the BOM is not inspired or that JS is not a prophet. I only suggest that he could have been an inspired prophet in a different way than what he presented for faith promoting reasons. But there is no way to test those kinds of claims.

[cdowis]

>So until you find some israelite DNA (or some other kind of evidence), we can't talk about non-Asiatic Mayans.

Let's make another rule:

You cannot speak of non-Asiatic Mayans.

We can.

[Dan Vogel]

Actually, you are incorrect. If I'm not mistaken one of the studies cited by Murphy in his book report showed that presence of Sephardic Jewish DNA among the native population of. . . I think it was Columbia.

Of course, this was explained as being of post-columbian origins and intermixing.

C.I.

In that sense you are right, but not helpful.

>So until you find some israelite DNA (or some other kind of evidence), we can't talk about non-Asiatic Mayans.

Let's make another rule:

You cannot speak of non-Asiatic Mayans.

We can.

You can talk about non-Asiatic Mayans all you want at church.

[cdowis]

You can talk about non-Asiatic Mayans all you want at church.

Just curious. What happens if we break your rules?

You will refuse to talk to us????

[Dan Vogel]

Dan snipply asks

>Do you have proof of any other Maya?

Dan, I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. I merely point out the flawed logic and unproven assumptions in your statements.

That is sufficient for me.

When are you going to start doing that, because I wouldn't want to miss it.

You assume all Maya come from Asian, presumably over the Beiring strait (since the Jaredites may be asiatic, and you certainly will not entertain that connection). I merely point out your assumption, and many of your statements flow from those unproven assumptions.

I haven't said all Mayans are from Asia. I said the only one's we know about come from Asia.

Jaredites from Asia? Nibley speculated that Jared's group licked up some Asians on the way through that region, but that's pure speculation to fit his needs. For obvious reasons, it has no force with critics.

When you use the word "Maya", you are saying "non-BOM people". I am pointing out that Maya may also mean both nonBOM and BOM people. "Maya" is a modern invention, simply a classification put on a group of people by modern archeologists. The actual ancient "maya" may strenously disagree, as the three groups in Iraq are distinct, individual groups within one national boundary. Apparently such a possibility did not cross your mind.

I know you think what we call the Maya includes "BOM peoples" (i.e., descendants of Lehi). That's fine. Now prove it.

[cksalmon]

I guess I would ask, "What is the testable hypothesis by which one would determine if some subset of the Mayans was the fabled BoM peoples?"

It would need to be specific enough to rule out superficial similarities and broad enough to include all relevant groups.

Otherwise, we're dealing with circularity here. As in, this people group demonstrates some characteristics consonant with BoM historicity, but beyond that, I'm not sure.

I would be willing to look at evidence for BoM historicity beyond superficial similarities if that evidence can be shown to be plausible evidence that BoM historicity is the favorable alternative to its lack.

I haven't seen it yet.

And that's hardly convincing to the skeptic. Especially not to one trained in logical discourse.

Best to all.

CKS

[Dale]

It's been awhile since I looked at Tom Murphy's American Apocrypha article. But I think his case was based primarily on studies of living people. I think if I recall right he mentioned some corpses that have been studied. I am still not convinced his conclusions are definitive against my beliefs.