consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 Okay, you guys think you're so smart. Well, maybe there actually is a river in Arabia. But there's no way it is in the same location described in the Book of Mormon!All the Best!--Consiglieri
Ray Agostini Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It appears that RayA would rather not argue that Dr. Archer has proven the Book of Mormon to be a fraud.How come?I don't believe, for a start, that the BoM is a fraud. Disbelieving in historicity does not equate to believing fraud.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 A close reading of the second paragraph of the Book of Mormon Title Page would reveal otherwise. But that's not the purpose of this thread, now is it?Jerubaal, I'm not seeing that in the Title Page text. The Title Page says nothing at all, that I can see, about the ultimate end of the Jaredites.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 I don't believe, for a start, that the BoM is a fraud. Disbelieving in historicity does not equate to believing fraud.Leaving aside the fact that your position makes next-to-no sense to me personally, do you not at least find the recent discovery of the existence of the river in Arabia as some evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
charity Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I don't believe, for a start, that the BoM is a fraud. Disbelieving in historicity does not equate to believing fraud.How does this work? If something is held up as an historic account, but isn't, how can it not be a fraud? I really do not understand this. Please explain your position.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 How does this work? If something is held up as an historic account, but isn't, how can it not be a fraud? I really do not understand this. Please explain your position.I've met several believing Mormons who say that the Book of Mormon is revealed scripture but is not historical. Kind of like the way some people deal with the Book of Job.
Ray Agostini Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Leaving aside the fact that your position makes next-to-no sense to me personally, do you not at least find the recent discovery of the existence of the river in Arabia as some evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?No, none at all, because there are too many other factors to be weighed, particularly when it comes to BoM anachronisms. The incorporation and expansion of Biblical stories and clear 19th century explanations for phenomena which would have been completely unknown to Jews living in 600 BC is quite strong evidence that the BoM is an expansion trying to make sense, and make it relevant to modern readers. Just imagine of Nephi and Lehi were real Jews. Would they be writing so explicitly about "Christ"? This is quite indecipherable to the Jew. And in 600 BC - unthinkable.
AndyOne Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "Nahom was obvisouly previously named and settled."Obvisouly (sic)? Because of an altar with the inscription "NHM" - which is commonly translated as Nihm? Not so obviously.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 No, none at all, because there are too many other factors to be weighed, particularly when it comes to BoM anachronisms. The incorporation and expansion of Biblical stories and clear 19th century explanations for phenomena which would have been completely unknown to Jews living in 600 BC is quite strong evidence that the BoM is an expansion trying to make sense, and make it relevant to modern readers. Just imagine of Nephi and Lehi were real Jews. Would they be writing so explicitly about "Christ"? This is quite indecipherable to the Jew. And in 600 BC - unthinkable.This sounds like the... how in the world would have Joseph known argument that critics are always complaining about. (Just like UD is doing on the other thread)2600 year mind reading does not a solid argument make. What of all the things we are finding out the 2600 year Jews did beleive. Like Margaret Barker re Ancient Wisdom texts intact in the BOM?
why me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Google Earth. Yes!Last year at the time of the "Dubai Ports World" scandal, I went looking around Arabia with Google Earth. I noticed something quite interesting--The "more fertile parts" that Lehi & Co. traveled through were actually green, while the rest of Arabia was a very dead, reddish-brown sand color.Clearly, Joseph Smith, or perhaps Sidney Rigdon, had access to Google Earth. Possibly at the Cornell University Library. Well, the last time I checked Uncle Dale's site there was no mention of google earth during sidney's time. However, the uncle has a lot of rabbits in his hat...I am sure that he pull out a nice rabbit for us to see.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "Nahom was obvisouly previously named and settled."Obvisouly (sic)? Because of an altar with the inscription "NHM" - which is commonly translated as Nihm? Not so obviously.Sure it is... what did they do there? Bury the dead. You've seen the mummies and grave yard havent you? People thought it was a rock query, not a grave yard.
Ray Agostini Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 2600 year mind reading does not a solid argument make. 2,600 year old prophecy into the future does not make much sense, either. Unless it's understood in a "redactory" context.
AndyOne Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "Sure it is... what did they do there?"Do your own research. Start with the Queen of Sheba exhibit.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 2,600 year old prophecy into the future does not make much sense, either. Unless it's understood in a "redactory" context.Its all in the translation man... all in the translation.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "Sure it is... what did they do there?"Do your own research. Start with the Queen of Sheba exhibit.Who says that I havent?Nahoms on an ancient map of SA. Right where the BOM places it. Yes the vowels don't necesarrily line up. But what are vowels among Hebrews?
Ray Agostini Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 How does this work? If something is held up as an historic account, but isn't, how can it not be a fraud? I really do not understand this. Please explain your position.My position is that God inspires people through experience and texts not unique to Mormonism as well. I don't believe in "only true religions", which encourage a tinge of smugness about differing beliefs. ALL truth is not in the BoM. But perhaps God realises that this is a good medium to start with, for some. I see valuable teachings in the BoM but don't believe this is the "only way".
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Yes the vowels don't necesarrily line up. But what are vowels among Hebrews?More to the point, the vowels in "Hihm" are simply guesses by an English-speaking writer in order to make "NHM" pronounceable in an English text. The fact that they picked vowels different from "Nahom" is utterly without any significance whatsoever.
AndyOne Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "The fact that they picked vowels different from "Nahom" is utterly without any significance whatsoever."Right, just keep telling yourself that. I don't think you'll find very much agreement among those experts who have studied the issue, but, hey, why in the world would anyone just assume it should be Nihm? Do you know?
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 "The fact that they picked vowels different from "Nahom" is utterly without any significance whatsoever."Right, just keep telling yourself that. I don't think you'll find very much agreement among those experts who have studied the issue, but, hey, why in the world would anyone just assume it should be Nihm? Do you know?OK, one more time. They didn't "just assume it should be Nihm." There is no "should be" involved. They don't know what the vowels are, so they just arbitrarily pick out vowels so that they can pronounce the word when they are talking about it. There is no significance whatsoever to the vowels in "Nihm".
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Heres the coordinates of the proposed Shipping port in Bountiful.Latitude: 17
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Heres the coordinates of the proposed Shipping port in Bountiful.Latitude: 17
why me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 My position is that God inspires people through experience and texts not unique to Mormonism as well. I don't believe in "only true religions", which encourage a tinge of smugness about differing beliefs. ALL truth is not in the BoM. But perhaps God realises that this is a good medium to start with, for some. I see valuable teachings in the BoM but don't believe this is the "only way".I think that you have a point up to a point. Unfortunately, just how the book of mormon was discovered and how it transpired would say that you are wrong about the book of mormon. If sidney or joseph wrote it, then I would say nice job and then put it in my shelf under fine fiction. But certainly not for inspiration. But I also think that god helped CS Lewis in his talents as he did C. K. Chesterton. And a host of others who wrote inspired texts. But the book of mormon is a different fish to fry. The story of its discovery makes it so.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Correct... but you need to Follow Brother Potters Thesis that they used the same Port to launch to the New world.The Jaredites planted grain and left it. Kind of like the Pioneers crossing the planes planting crops for those who would come after. Ask yourself this... Where did the honey come from that Nephi found in Bountiful?Easy Answer... Babylon where the Jaredites came from.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I think that you have a point up to a point. Unfortunately, just how the book of mormon was discovered and how it transpired would say that you are wrong about the book of mormon. If sidney or joseph wrote it, then I would say nice job and then put it in my shelf under fine fiction. But certainly not for inspiration. But I also think that god helped CS Lewis in his talents as he did C. K. Chesterton. And a host of others who wrote inspired texts. But the book of mormon is a different fish to fry. The story of its discovery makes it so.I've met people who believe there were plates and angels and all that, but that the book is an inspired allegory.
why me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I've met people who believe there were plates and angels and all that, but that the book is an inspired allegory.And I presume that you are referring to the book of mormon or to some people who have seen plates and angels?The point that I was trying to make to Ray is that the book of mormon is in a different league because of the story on how it was discovered. If true, then the book is a true work of god for the people who live in these present times. If untrue, then it deserves to be put on the shelf under fine fiction and at times plagarized for a fine sermon (without mentioning the source). The origin claim about the book of mormon cannot be compared to CS Lewis or C.K. Chesterton who wrote fine inspired religious texts. The truth claim either puts the book of mormon in the scripture section or on the fine fiction section as an oddity of 19th century religious fiction.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.