Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[urroner]

When we read text, do we always let the text explain itself, even when we say we do?

When Christ said to "turn the other cheek," what did he mean? Did he mean it how we teach it today or does it mean something very different?

When the Bible says there is no other God beside God, how does the text explain itself? Does that mean there is no other God as is commonly taught today?

Just because we attempt to let the text explain itself and we try to not force anything onto the text, because of our experiences, culture, and knowledge, we always end up forcing things onto text.

[Markk]

Hi Monk,

I'mnot sure what your last question was, but I didn't change the topic sometimes did, I only responded to him.

I guess you question was ...

"You DO know that they have discovered such cement in Mesoamerica, used to build cities? Are you saying that unless we can find the "cement mountain" that it doesn't really exist?

What cites were built, what time lines, by whom, and was it inthe mannor discribes in the BoM. I would love to see that data.

The "cement mountain" was a personal example to sometimes, we live in the same town and not far there is a cemnt plant whih has scared the land over the last hundred years or so, my point to him was from the scale discribed by the BoM there would be enormus daamage to the land to supply enough cement for cities populated by the people discribed in the BoM. Ifit's clam sheels then i hope you would know were to get the shells and get them to the people of the North in numbers enough to build the cities as discribed.

mark

john 1:12

[The_Monk]

What cites were built, what time lines, by whom, and was it inthe mannor discribes in the BoM. I would love to see that data.

Perhaps with your dedication to what the text actually says, you coudl provide the BoM's lengthy description of how cement was used in building these citites (as you say "he mannor discribes in the BoM")?

[Brant Gardner]

So give me some BOM evidence, I asked this over and over, what is the single most concrete tangible eveidence that supports the BoM, and the single most excepted location of BOM site, then we canwork back words from there and see?

You will never get a response from me that lists "the single most" of anything. Historical arguments simply don't work that way. Even if I had one really fascinating tangible detail - it could be coincidental if it weren't connected to a lot of supporting information.

What you are asking for is the longer argument. I presented some of the information at the last FAIR conference along with a handout that gave the longer list of points. I'll see where we are in getting it posted. It always loses formatting when I put in a message.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

The BoM does stand on its own. It is the importations of cultural expectations of someone living in the 21st Century that I am questioning.

[Markk]

Hi urroner,

Great question? but questions like that can be answered in context to the text it's self, it's clear what Jesus meant when reading the text, you don't get the context from a outside source. When it comes to the nature of God, all we have his word, will we ever understand His nature, no, and He tells us that. All i know is the Bible says very clearly there is but one God, over and over, yet it also says that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, i don't understand it, but I believe itthroughthe insight the Bible gives me.

If you force something outside the text into the text it has to compliment the text, not contradict it. The best defense of the lackof BoM evidence is silence, adding things into the text just adds to the open can of worms, thats why the LDS leaders are silent, they have learned their lessons.

Bottomline is true LDS arceology exists only in writing, it is not actual a tangibal reality.

mark

John 1;12

[The_Monk]

I'll second what Sometime and Urroner said, and then withdraw from this pointless argument. I have more important things to devote my time to at the moment than running in circles.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

Jesus called someone a fox. Without a cultural understanding of what Jesus meant by it. Am I too assume that they were literally a fox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox

I am starting to agree with The Monk. This is starting sound like the "It Is/It Isn't" play.

Around around the Mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel. Pop goes the weasel.

[urroner]

Hi urroner,

Great question? but questions like that can be answered in context to the text it's self, it's clear what Jesus meant when reading the text, you don't get the context from a outside source. When it comes to the nature of God, all we have his word, will we ever understand His nature, no, and He tells us that. All i know is the Bible says very clearly there is but one God, over and over, yet it also says that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, i don't understand it, but I believe itthroughthe insight the Bible gives me.

If you force something outside the text into the text it has to compliment the text, not contradict it. The best defense of the lackof BoM evidence is silence, adding things into the text just adds to the open can of worms, thats why the LDS leaders are silent, they have learned their lessons.

Bottomline is true LDS arceology exists only in writing, it is not actual a tangibal reality.

mark

John 1;12

Apparently you don't realize it, but you are forcing things into the text of the Bible that the text itself isn't even saying.

Turning the other cheek meant something very different back then then it does now.

As far as there only being one God and no other, it seems that there are many Christian scholars that are saying that the verses used by many EVers mean something very different than the interpretation the EVers are forcing onto it even if they are aware that they are twisting the text completely out of context.

[TAK]

The_Monk

in the KJV, why does chariot mean a chariot, but a unicorn means something else? A candle means something else?

I suppose that is why context is important..

BTW, it was a charge of the critics that there was no cement in Mesoamerica.

Really? Who and when?

[USU78]

USU78 has also went so far as presenting a allogorical response to the clear text.

The proper term is "poetic." There's lots of that sort of thing going on in religious literature. Would folks in public life were more poetic nowadays.

And as for the assertion that Nephite swords were of steel, I point you to the actual text:

And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their chatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Doesn't quite say Nephi made 'em out of steel, now, does it? Anybody care to venture a guess about "after the manner of it" means?

Here are some further references to the odd usage for those interested:

1 Ne. 11:18 ('manner of the flesh'=reference to sex)

1 Ne. 12:3 ('manner of wars and contentions'=pattern of history)

1 Ne. 18:2 ('manner which was learned by men'=pattern of building)

2 Ne. 5:14 ('manner of it'=pattern of swordmaking)

2 Ne. 5:16 ('manner of temple of Solomon'=pattern of building)

2 Ne. 5:27 ('manner of happiness'=method of living)

2 Ne. 6:2 ('manner of his holy order'=pattern of worship)

2 Ne. 20:24 ('manner of Egypt'=see identical Isaiah passage)

2 Ne. 20:26 ('manner of Egypt'=see identical Isaiah passage)

2 Ne. 25:5 ('manner of the things of the Jews'=pattern of treatment of texts)

2 Ne. 25:6 ('manner of the Jews'=pattern of treatment of texts)

Jarom 1:13 ('manner of wars and contentions'=pattern of history)

Mosiah 27:8 ('manner of of his iniquities'=pattern of manipulation)

Mosiah 28:16 ('manner of old times'=pattern of history)

Mosiah 29:23 ('manner of his own wickedness'=pattern of poor government)

Alma 1:6 ('manner of his preaching'=pattern of manipulation)

Alma 3:4 ('manner of the Lamanites'=pattern of body marking)

Alma 11:4 ('manner of the Jews'=pattern of weights and measures)

Alma 16:13 ('manner of the Jews'=pattern of building)

Alma 18:43 ('manner of the Lamanites'=pattern of ritual mourning)

Alma 30:58 ('manner of Korihor'=pattern of manipulation)

Alma 37:39 ('manner of so curious a workmanship'=pattern of construction)

Alma 49:8 ('manner . . . [previously unknown]'=pattern of defense construction)

Alma 51:27 ('manner of fortifications'=pattern of defense construction)

3 Ne. 3:26 ('manner of his instruction'=pattern of defense preparation)

3 Ne. 4:7 ('manner of robbers'=pattern of dress)

Morm. 1:2 ('manner of learning'=pattern of education)

Ether 2:16 ('manner of building'=pattern of construction)

Ether 10:33 ('manner of the ancients'=ritual pattern)

Ether 15:15 ('manner of war'=pattern of defense preparation)

Moro. 6:9 ('manner of workings of Spirit'=pattern of worship)

Compare those with:

Gen. 18:11 ('manner of women'=Sarah's menopause)

Gen. 19:31 ('manner of all the earth'=reference to sex)

Ex. 21:9 ('manner of daughters'=legal duty towards daughter in law)

Judg. 18:7 ('manner of Zidonians'=system of government)

2 Kgs. 17:33 ('manner of the nations'=method of worship)

2 Chr. 13:9 ('manner of the nations'-method of worship)

Isa. 10:24 ('manner of Egypt'=reference to the Plagues)

Isa. 10:26 ('manner of Egypt'=reference to the Plagues)

Ezek. 20:30 ('manner of your fathers'=method of worship)

Ezek. 23:15, 45 (concerning manner of dress and form of judgment)

Amos 4:10 ('manner of Egypt'=reference to the Plagues)

John 2:6 ('manner of the Jews'=ritual compliance)

Acts 15:1 ('manner of Moses'=ritual compliance)

Rom. 6:19 ('manner of men'=plain speech)

1 Cor. 15:32 ('manner of men'=gladiator conflict)

Gal. 2:14 ('manner of Gentiles'=ritual compliance)

Gal. 3:15 ('manner of men'=plain speech)

Abr. 1:9 ('manner of the Egyptians'=pattern of worship)

Abr. 1:11 ('manner of the Egyptians'-pattern of worship)

Abr. 1:25 ('manner of the government of Ham'=pattern of government)

I do not include the D&C references, of which there are six.

[antishock8]

It was a direct quote from antishock8, and he has failed to respond to the evidence.

Are you sure that's an accurate quote, or are you quoting yourself?

[Dan Vogel]

You're downplaying the correlation a little too much there. It's within the bounds of trai lthat one person travelled once in all of history and there isn't a piece of it that deviates from the account. It's the right time, the right place, next to the right things, used for the right reason and carrying the right name.

I think we got our wires crossed. I was referring to Mesoamerican cities, as was Ostler. Nihm would not be a BOM city anymore than Jerusalem would.

Nihm isn't going to establish BOM arachaeology, so I would suggest changing subjects. Nevertheless, I'll respond to satisfy you. While you might offer it as a possible correlation, I believe it isn't as certain as you make out.

From the text we gather that the place must have had a specific name;

Nahom, right? We have no idea what NHM stood for, but I'll stick with Nihm. Why not? Nahom is Hebrew, while Nihm is Arabic with a different meaning. One has a hard H, and the other a soft. Some apologists have speculated that the Lehites renamed the place with "sorrow, mourning" because of Ishmael's death and burial there.

I know apologists like to mention the BOM says "was called" and imply that it was called Nahom before the Lehites came, but that's an assumption. The text is not clear. It could mean "called [by us]". The text does not mention seeing others on the desert trip; it would have greatly helped your case if it had.

it must have utilized that name around 600 BC;

What name? Nahom. No. But rather NHM, which may or may not correlate.

it must have been a burial ground;

Nothing in the BOM says that Ishmael was buried in a cemetery, but humans typically have burial grounds wherever they live.

it must have been close to the Frankincense Trail;

Nothing in the BOM says Lehi traveled a well-known route. As I said before, the BOM makes it sound as if they staid near the coastline, where it was fertil, not inland where Nihm is located. JS was aware that the coastline and especially where Bountiful is located was fertile.

Claims to the contrary, Smithâ??s contemporaries knew that southern Arabia was fertile. Jedidiah Morseâ??s 1802 Geography described it thus: â??But the southern part of Arabia, deservedly called the Happy, is blessed with an excellent soil, and, in general, is very fertile. There the cultivated lands, which are chiefly about the towns near the seacoast, produce ... oranges, lemons, pomegranates, figs, and other fruits; honey and wax in plenty, with a small quantity of corn and wine.â?23

-----------------------

23. Morse, Geography Made Easy, 388. For claims that Smithâ??s contemporaries were not informed about the southern Arabian coast, see Aston and Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, 29-30; and Eugene England, â??Through the Arabian Desert to a Bountiful Land: Could Joseph Smith Have Known the Way?â? in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1982), 145-46.

and it must lie due west of a piece of Arabian coastline that must fulfill specific criteria.

In reality you have only one possible correlation--NHM. Bountiful is a separate issue.

It's ridiculously reductionistic to say the Book of Mormon says "nothing."

What does the BOM say about NHM besides the general location? Nothing. From the BOM, you know nothing about Nihm, or the Nihmites.

You of all people are perfectly aware that much information can be gleaned from pages of history, and often with a fair degree of certainty.

No, I don't. I would say that the degree of certainty varies with the kind of evidence being used.

NHM fits every one of those criteria to a T, including lying due west of the only tiny spot on the face of this earth that fulfills every single criterion mentioned by Nephi.

I think this is an exaggeration. As I recall, some of the criteria involve trade with peoples not mentioned in the text.

It's ludicrous to insist that anyone would doubt this site if it were a biblical place, utterly ludicrous.

Those dealing with Bible sites aren't also dealing with historicity issues. The Bible has earned a degree of trust that the BOM has not earned. Even at that, Bible scholars can still be wrong.

The use of the word in a certain manner by a few people does not confine me to the same interpretation of the word. You may use it how you wish, but just because a Mormon uses it in the same way does not mean I'm beholden to that interpretation.

I'm not quoting your fellow apologists because they have some kind of authority that you must accept; I was hoping that you would see the logic in their statements. The point I'm trying to make is that BOM archaeology, if it can be called that, is a very speculative venture.

[Dan Vogel]

Why is Dan Vogel quoting a person from 1975?

If you would just pause for a moment and reflect, I'm sure you would be able to answer your own question. What does the Green say? And what does Ferguson say? Now, you tell me how those statements no longer apply to our situation?

[Dan Vogel]

Are we to accept that BG is the last word on everything, even those subject outside his impressive expertise?

Moreover, it would be useful for DV to have acquired a little more familiarity with Stubbs' more recent work, which expands quite a bit on his earlier exploratory article, before declaring the subject closed.

I've got the article sitting on my desk. I've read it a couple of times, and will have to read it more to appreciate fully what appears to be going on here.

USU "English and Hittite are related, but the evidence therefor is far sparser than what Stubbs appears to have demonstrated" 78

If you are going to dismiss BG, nothing I could say would matter. I haven't read his latest study, not have I read his earlier work recent enough to have a firm gasp on its contents and arguments. Nevertheless, since this is just a discussion board, I'll venture an opinion that such work is highly speculative and far less certain than finding a Hebrew inscription or codex. How this evidence fits in with the BOM is not clear to me either.

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

Where is NaHoM refered to anywhere but the BoM?

[Doctor Steuss]

Really? Who and when?

"There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times."

John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah Evangel 33/6 (September 1986): 8.

Edit:

Also...

Thomas D.S. Key, Sc.D., Ed.D. (Biology), Th.D. (1985), â??A Biologist Examines the Book of Mormonâ? (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, XXX-VIII, 2, June 1985).

Key lists cement on his list of anachronisms (also highways).

[Dan Vogel]

Markk:

From Wikipedia:

The macahuitl (sometimes also referred to by the more general term macana, which describes the general class of this weapon) was a common item in the armoury of the Aztec military forces and other cultures of central Mexico at the time of the 16th century Spanish conquest of the region, along with other implements such as the chimalli (a round shield), the tlauitolli (bow), and the atlatl (spear-thrower).[1] Although sometimes referred to as a type of wooden sword, its appearance was closer to that of a club or a paddle. It was capable of inflicting serious damage and lacerations owing to the rows of obsidian blades affixed to its perimeter.[2]

Aztec warriors as shown in the 16th century Florentine Codex (from Vol. IX). Note that each warrior is brandishing a maquahuitl.

Enlarge

Aztec warriors as shown in the 16th century Florentine Codex (from Vol. IX). Note that each warrior is brandishing a maquahuitl.

The macahuitl was â??three to four feet long, and three inches broad, with a groove along either edge, into which sharp-edged pieces of flint or obsidian were inserted, and firmly fixed with some adhesive compoundâ?.[3] The rows of obsidian blades were sometimes discontinuous, leaving gaps along the side while at other times, the rows were set close together, forming a â??continuous cutting edgeâ?.[4]

Additionally, the macahuitl existed in one-handed or two-handed grips as well as rectangular, ovoid, or pointed forms. The two-handed macahuitl was sometimes said to be â??as tall as a manâ?.[5]

Was it a sword?

In theory, your discusson of sword/macahuitl is acceptable. But in relation to the BOM, it seems to be ad hoc. Nephi made swords patterned after Laban's steel sword. I find it difficult simply substituting a macahuitl because you know Mesoamerica didn't have metallurgy unti about 900 A.D. I also find it difficult seeing Ammon using a macahuitl to cut off all those arms so quickly.

[urroner]

In theory, your discusson of sword/macahuitl is acceptable. But in relation to the BOM, it seems to be ad hoc. Nephi made swords patterned after Laban's steel sword. I find it difficult simply substituting a macahuitl because you know Mesoamerica didn't have metallurgy unti about 900 A.D. I also find it difficult seeing Ammon using a macahuitl to cut off all those arms so quickly.

Ammon and the Mesoamerican Custom of Smiting off Arms

The Book of Mormon story about Ammon smiting off the arms of the Lamanite thieves who scattered King Lamoni's flocks fits a cultural pattern known from pre-Spanish Mesoamerica. Cutting off an enemy's arm in battle not only rendered him utterly helpless but also netted the victor a grisly trophy to carry from the scene of battle that would validate his prowess in hand-to-hand combat. Documents from Mexico and Guatemala reveal such a pre-Columbian custom.

Do you realize how sharp obsedian can be?

[maklelan]

Are you sure that's an accurate quote, or are you quoting yourself?

I hit the quote button at the bottom right of your post and then wrote my response underneath it. It should be accurate.

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Sometimes,

I'm not sure what that has to do with the BOM discription of the swords they used. The BOM says they were made of molten steel. 16 century flint laiden wood clubs used by Aztecs has nothing to do with what the BOM teaches.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people force things into a text that do not exist, or even have anything to do with what the text says.

Was it a sword? maybe, was a club?, maybe, but what we can know for certain is, it is not what is refered to a sword as discribed by BOM, not even close.

Mark

John 1:12

They are not only contextualizing the text but correcting it based on the assumption that it was written in ancient Mesoamerica, there evidence is therefore thesis-laden and circular. This procedure might be acceptable if the BOM's historicity were not in question, but it is.

[Markk]

Hi USU78

Doesn't quite say Nephi made 'em out of steel, now, does it? Anybody care to venture a guess about "after the manner of it" means?

9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of asteel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib. (Eth. 7:9)

Here it plainly does say swords, plural, were made of steel.

The BoM says:

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomonâ??s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship there of was exceedingly fine.

The context is clear here what manner would mean in this context. He didn't want his people to be destroyed, I doubt with all the knowlage and resourses this text relates they would build wood clubs and put flint in the wood to create a shape edge.

Also the BoM says:

11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?

This is referring to steel, copper, gold and silver does not rust, neither does wood, cankering is a caracteristic of metal, as is rust. Now if it said the swords were molded, split and dried out, I might agree your point was valid.

Explain to me why steel swords is such a taboo here, what would admitting tha tthe BoM actual had a great working knowlage of steel do to your testimony?

Mark

John 1;12

[Dan Vogel]

Thomas Stuart Ferguson wrote in 1975:

QUOTE

I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong. (quoted in Stan Larson, QUEST FOR THE GOLD PLATES, 26).

I find it humerous that you find this statement of any significance. Dan, is this the best you can do? A non-archeologist, who had no specific ideas on where the BOM lands were located, using the archeology of .... what year, Dan. What year is he talking about? Is this a recent statement, or some citation quoted in antimormon books which is several decades old -- thirty years old, dear fellow.

Surely, an award winning author would not use such nonsense.... would he?

I quoted it to show that believers also recognize the lack of direct evidence and that the phrase BOM archaeology is misleading. Ostler said the same thing last year. But when I say it, it's suddenly anti-Mormon. My point is not difficult or tricky. It's meant to put perspective on the evidence that we don't have and what we have left to deal with. That's all.

[maklelan]

I think we got our wires crossed. I was referring to Mesoamerican cities, as was Ostler. Nihm would not be a BOM city anymore than Jerusalem would.

Now you're qualifying a general statement. Book of Mormon archaeology refers to archaeology that deals with lands, peoples and things mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Now, if you'd like to qualify it as "post-First Nephi Book of Mormon archaeology," or "New World Book of Mormon archaeology" then do so from the onset, but otherwise it includes everything discussed in the Book of Mormon. Question: Is there such thing as Akkadian archaeology?

Nihm isn't going to establish BOM arachaeology, so I would suggest changing subjects.

Why not? If NHM is Nahom then everything has to be true as well. If you want to start the argument over and specify that you would like to compartmentalize the Book of Mormon narrative before engaging in discussion then we can start over.

Nevertheless, I'll respond to satisfy you. While you might offer it as a possible correlation, I believe it isn't as certain as you make out.

Luckily belief has little to do with scholarship, as you make so abundantly clear as often as you get the chance.

Nahom, right? We have no idea what NHM stood for, but I'll stick with Nihm. Why not? Nahom is Hebrew, while Nihm is Arabic with a different meaning. One has a hard H, and the other a soft. Some apologists have speculated that the Lehites renamed the place with "sorrow, mourning" because of Ishmael's death and burial there.

In what other way could Nephi have recorded the name so that it would have any meaning to someone who didn't speak Sabean?

I know apologists like to mention the BOM says "was called" and imply that it was called Nahom before the Lehites came, but that's an assumption. The text is not clear. It could mean "called [by us]".

We stick to exegesis, not eisegesis.

The text does not mention seeing others on the desert trip; it would have greatly helped your case if it had.

Argument from silence.

What name? Nahom. No. But rather NHM, which may or may not correlate.

If you want to argue that two exactly identical words in Semitic languages are only speculatively identical because one has the arbitrary addition of English vowels and the other does not then you betray a complete lack of understanding of transliteration techniques and Semitic languages in general.

Nothing in the BOM says that Ishmael was buried in a cemetery, but humans typically have burial grounds wherever they live.

Not true. Humans typically set apart an area for burial, and it can be near their settlement or far from it, and in the Ancient Near East burials almost always took place in a specified location. Along the Incense Trail there were burial grounds that were for the use of the travellers. Burial in a random location would run the risk of ritual impurity for others as well as the exposure of the carcass or its destruction by animals.

JS was aware that the coastline and especially where Bountiful is located was fertile.

A source, please.

In reality you have only one possible correlation--NHM. Bountiful is a separate issue.

So you'd like to investigate them individually, but you'll base your argument on the weakness of isolated correlations.

What does the BOM say about NHM besides the general location? Nothing. From the BOM, you know nothing about Nihm, or the Nihmites.

"Nothing" and "the general location" are two entirely different things, and knowing the general location opens up numerous doors, so please don't use hyperbole when it makes no sense to.

No, I don't. I would say that the degree of certainty varies with the kind of evidence being used.

OK. I like our evidence. We've got an altar, an inscription that amtches, a specific location with a matching landmark, a burial ground and dating that matches perfectly.

I think this is an exaggeration. As I recall, some of the criteria involve trade with peoples not mentioned in the text.

Not for this Bountiful, that's for the Potter Bountiful, which doesn't work. The one I speak of has all of the geological and geographical stuff exactly matching.

Those dealing with Bible sites aren't also dealing with historicity issues.

So it's the chicken or the egg, and you say chicken if I say egg, but then you say egg because I say chicken. Circular reasoning. You can't cite historicity problems when investigating evidence that is acting solely to support historicity.

I'm not quoting your fellow apologists because they have some kind of authority that you must accept; I was hoping that you would see the logic in their statements. The point I'm trying to make is that BOM archaeology, if it can be called that, is a very speculative venture.

I'll repeat the question that I asked earlier, and I would appreciate a serious response: Is there such a thing as Akkad archaeology?

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

They are not only contextualizing the text but correcting it based on the assumption that it was written in ancient Mesoamerica, there evidence is therefore thesis-laden and circular. This procedure might be acceptable if the BOM's historicity were not in question, but it is.

Context has to count for something, to me it is the only true way to interpret a writing, I understand that other things factor in, but never at the expense of the context.

When I read the BoM in context it tells of a very advanced people, who economy and interstructure would have to have been unbelievable in size, I would say comparable to early 18 hundreds New York, harbors ports, mills, foundries, or even early Rome. Then when you add in factors that are not listed in the BoM that would have to have been to make the economy and interstructure develop and succeed is staggering, feeding these people and families, feeding the armies, having a government that could survive the periods keep it together as long as they did would be enormous.

Mark

john 1:12