Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Michael Coe On The Book Of Mormon And Mesoamerica


Dan Vogel

Recommended Posts

I assume the Nephites spoke Hebrew the same way that Polish Jews speak Hebrew -- they were familiar with the language in a scriptural sense.

"What language did they speak?"

Mormon 9 [34] But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language;

There is no evidence in the BOM text that their venacular was Hebrew.

No other people knew their language because it had been altered by the end of their 1000-year history. But why should we be worried about Nephite vernacular? We are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing, which Mormon says had also been altered by his time. But still, depending on the date of the writing, there should still be a resemblance to Hebrew. Mormon was still calling it Hebrew and claiming that it was his preferred language. When the Mulekites migrants from Jerusalem were discovered in Zarahemla, the comment was made that "their language had become corrupted ... the people of Mosiah, could not understand them" (Omni 1:17). This would imply that the Nephites language had not been corrupted and that communication between these two Jewish groups could have otherwise occurred. This is in the second century before Christ.

Link to comment

No other people knew their language because it had been altered by the end of their 1000-year history. But why should we be worried about Nephite vernacular? We are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing, which Mormon says had also been altered by his time. But still, depending on the date of the writing, there should still be a resemblance to Hebrew. Mormon was still calling it Hebrew and claiming that it was his preferred language. When the Mulekites migrants from Jerusalem were discovered in Zarahemla, the comment was made that "their language had become corrupted ... the people of Mosiah, could not understand them" (Omni 1:17). This would imply that the Nephites language had not been corrupted and that communication between these two Jewish groups could have otherwise occurred. This is in the second century before Christ.

First, an illustration:

Here is a sample of English (Psalm 23) from 500 years ago -- the equivalent time period between Alma and Nephi:

Lauerd me steres, noght wante sal me:

In stede of fode

Link to comment

First, an illustration:

Here is a sample of English (Psalm 23) from 500 years ago -- the equivalent time period between Alma and Nephi:

Here is a sample of English (the Lord's Prayer) from about 1000 years ago, the equivalent distance from Mormon to Nephi:

These samples of English represent the spoken language of the people in England. However, the official "record-keepers" of the scriptures during this period continued to write chiefly in Latin. No one among the common people spoke Latin; no one wrote it; it was not used for day-to-day transactions of any kind. When it was determined to give the scriptures to the common people, there was not an effort to teach the common people to read Latin. Rather, the scriptures were translated from the Latin into the common vernacular. Latin continued as the exclusive province of a select few who maintained the archives of the "sacred records." We have thousands of samples from the last 1000+ years.

Quite similarly, the Book of Mormon never indicates that anyone other than the official record-keepers, or the lineage of the record-keepers was fluent in the language of the records themselves. When it speaks of "Reformed Egyptian" and Hebrew, it is always in the context of what is being written or read on their sacred plates. There is nothing to indicate what language the people actually spoke; nothing to indicate what language the common people used for day-to-day transactions of any kind. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate that the language(s) used by this particular lineage of record-keepers was ever known by anyone outside the handful of scribes themselves.

And, in comparison to the huge collection of extant manuscripts from England, can you tell us how many samples of writing we have from Mesoamerica that date to the purported Book of Mormon time frame? If there are any, can they be read?*

* (Answer: there are no manuscripts of any kind, only a mere handful of mysterious inscriptions. None of them can be read.)

on that note. One thing that has alaways intrigued me was that the nephites who followed Mosiah1 out of the land of Nephi would not understand the people of Zerahemla(mulekites). It says in Omni that "their alanguage had become corrupted" and that the mulekites were " taught in his language" and that And "after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers". In other words, we have two options: 1)the mulekites spoke a tottally different language from the nephites, 2)the mulekites spoke a distorted version of whtever the nephites spoke. Either way, they couldnt understand each other, and it wasnt until after Zerahemla learned Mosiah's language that Zerahemla gave a geneology of his fathers.

in other words, they couldnt understand each other IN ONLY 230 YEARS. If both groups spoke hebrew, and both came from Jerusalem, in 230 years, they should have understood each other, as we understand Shakespeare(1600ad). For me, it shows that the BoM people didnt have an old world language as there vernacular, anymore than irish catholics are speaking latin on the streets of boston.

Link to comment

No other people knew their language because it had been altered by the end of their 1000-year history. But why should we be worried about Nephite vernacular? We are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing,

Dearest Dan, you fall under the common error of telling the BOM what it says and teaches. Please show us ONE document, outside of the brass plates, that was written in Hebrew.

In archeology, we must look for Nephite/Lamanite and Jaredite culture, not Hebrew/jewish culture. Apparently that is something that you are unable to comprehend.

which Mormon says had also been altered by his time. But still, depending on the date of the writing, there should still be a resemblance to Hebrew.

"Should" is an interesting word, especially since there are virtually no extant records from the BOM time period in mesoamerica. Also, several scripts have been discovered.

Mayan resembles **Egyptian** in the sense that they are both in the same family (hieroglyphics). You did not know that?

Dan, your are just amazing, with an denial of facts and reality. You are living in a fantasy woirld where the Nephites wrote in Hebrew, and there are hundreds or thousands of records from the BOM time period.

Mormon was still calling it Hebrew and claiming that it was his preferred language.

Sigh. He said that it (over a thousand years) had changed so that it was unrecognizable to anyone on earth. Yes, he knew Hebrew, in the same way the european Jews knew Hebrew. The Hebrew language was not lost, but preserved only as a scriptural language, not the venacular.

When the Mulekites migrants from Jerusalem were discovered in Zarahemla, the comment was made that "their language had become corrupted ... the people of Mosiah, could not understand them" (Omni 1:17). This would imply that the Nephites language had not been corrupted and that communication between these two Jewish groups could have otherwise occurred. This is in the second century before Christ.

The Mulekites did not have the scriptures, they lost the common language of the scriptures -- Hebrew. There was no common language by which they could communicate. The Nephites knew Hebrew as the scriptural language, but that does not mean it was their venacular.

Both interpretations are possible.

Link to comment

on that note. One thing that has alaways intrigued me was that the nephites who followed Mosiah1 out of the land of Nephi would not understand the people of Zerahemla(mulekites). It says in Omni that "their alanguage had become corrupted" and that the mulekites were " taught in his language" and that And "after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers". In other words, we have two options: 1)the mulekites spoke a tottally different language from the nephites, 2)the mulekites spoke a distorted version of whtever the nephites spoke. Either way, they couldnt understand each other, and it wasnt until after Zerahemla learned Mosiah's language that Zerahemla gave a geneology of his fathers.

in other words, they couldnt understand each other IN ONLY 230 YEARS. If both groups spoke hebrew, and both came from Jerusalem, in 230 years, they should have understood each other, as we understand Shakespeare(1600ad). For me, it shows that 1)both groups werent speaking hebrew. 2)that the mulekites were definatly not speaking hebrew.

My opinion is that the people of Zarahemla most likely had their language, and to an unknown extent, even their culture absorbed/subsumed by the native inhabitants whom they encountered. And, when the people of Mosiah taught them their language, it was not likely the language used in the sacred records, but rather the current vernacular of the people themselves. Using the European scenario as an analogy -- they taught them English, not Latin. And then, anything they taught them from the scriptures would have been rendered into the common language from the "record-keeping" language. It is important to remember that the records that make up the Book of Mormon were transmitted along a single lineage. Those records were not necessarily the exclusive records of the people, but they were the records that got passed down from Nephi to Mormon over a thousand year period. An elite and very exclusive group of people, over that thousand year period, kept these records.

Also, when the sons of Mosiah went among the Lamanites, they were undoubtedly faced with the same challenge their grandfathers had faced when they joined with the people of Zarahemla. When Aaron taught the father of King Lamoni from the scriptures, there is no reason at all to suppose that he spoke to him in Hebrew, or "Reformed Egyptian" (which may have only been a written language anyway.) It is logical to assume that the sons of Mosiah learned the Lamanite language and rendered the scriptures in that language for the benefit of their hearers.

One of the constant difficulties in dealing with people who criticize the Book of Mormon is to dismantle the false assumptions that they attempt to overlay on the discussion.

Those who insist we must find inscriptions or manuscripts written in Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian in order to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true simply don't understand the nature of linguistic evolution, nor do they logically analyze the text of the Book of Mormon itself for evidence that would shed light on the question.

Link to comment

My opinion is that the people of Zarahemla most likely had their language, and to an unknown extent, even their culture absorbed/subsumed by the native inhabitants whom they encountered. And, when the people of Mosiah taught them their language, it was not likely the language used in the sacred records, but rather the current vernacular of the people themselves. Using the European scenario as an analogy -- they taught them English, not Latin. And then, anything they taught them from the scriptures would have been rendered into the common language from the "record-keeping" language. It is important to remember that the records that make up the Book of Mormon were transmitted along a single lineage. Those records were not necessarily the exclusive records of the people, but they were the records that got passed down from Nephi to Mormon over a thousand year period. An elite and very exclusive group of people, over that thousand year period, kept these records.

Also, when the sons of Mosiah went among the Lamanites, they were undoubtedly faced with the same challenge their grandfathers had faced when they joined with the people of Zarahemla. When Aaron taught the father of King Lamoni from the scriptures, there is no reason at all to suppose that he spoke to him in Hebrew, or "Reformed Egyptian" (which may have only been a written language anyway.) It is logical to assume that the sons of Mosiah learned the Lamanite language and rendered the scriptures in that language for the benefit of their hearers.

This is a total fantasy. Your analogy can only be used to make a point, to prove it. Proof-by-analogy is a fallacy. Look it up.

One of the constant difficulties in dealing with people who criticize the Book of Mormon is to dismantle the false assumptions that they attempt to overlay on the discussion.

Wow! It's not often an apologist provides his own refutation. Thanks!

Those who insist we must find inscriptions or manuscripts written in Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian in order to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true simply don't understand the nature of linguistic evolution, nor do they logically analyze the text of the Book of Mormon itself for evidence that would shed light on the question.

Who insists? It's only the kind of evidence one expects to find if the BOM is ever to be verified as an authentic ancient document. There are other kinds. Not finding Hebrew inscriptions isn't proof against the BOM, but the critics don't have the burden of proof. You do!

Link to comment

Vogel:

This is a total fantasy. Your analogy can only be used to make a point, to prove it. Proof-by-analogy is a fallacy. Look it up.

That's right, Vogel. The only fantasies that are admissible in the court of public opinion are the ones that you concoct! :P

Contrary to the consistently flawed methodology of a certain pseudo-historian, the scenario I described above is at least logically derived from the text itself. It is eminently more plausible than your suggestions of tin plates and group hallucinations. And, most of all, it has the virtue of being logically acceptable to those who are already persuaded that the Book of Mormon is historical -- and that's the only audience with whom I am concerned.

Link to comment

There are other kinds. Not finding Hebrew inscriptions isn't proof against the BOM, but the critics don't have the burden of proof. You do!

If you complain that there are not Hebrew writings in mesoamerica, you have the burden of proof that this is consistent with the BOM text and that we are able to find a sufficient sample of writings (e.g. written records) to fulfill a statistical expectation.

The individual making such a requirement can begin by giving us a listing of extant written records from the BOM time period. He/she can also give us uncontested evidence from the BOM text that the Nephites used Hebrew as their venacular, rather than as a very rare language used only as a scriptural language.

I can prove that there are few/none of those records extant.

I have given evidence from the BOM text that the BOM peoples had a language unknown to other people, unlike Hebrew.

I have now met the burden of proof.

Let's see if you can do the same. Produce these records, show us the proof from the BOM text rather than a fantasy from your mind.

Link to comment

All you've done is establish the possibility that these Hebrews did not, in fact, speak or write in Hebrew, which is a rather curious proposition. You haven't shifted the burden of proof at all.

This is the way it seems to go with BOM inconsistencies and anachronisms. Scenarios are proposed by TBMs to establish the possibility that they don't invalidate its historicity, e.g., horses are tapirs. Most of them are highly improbable, but all that is required to maintain faith is the possibility that something is true. Mission accomplished.

Link to comment
(cdowis @ May 4 2007, 06:40 AM)

If you complain that there are not Hebrew writings in mesoamerica, you have the burden of proof that this is consistent with the BOM text and that we are able to find a sufficient sample of writings (e.g. written records) to fulfill a statistical expectation.

The individual making such a requirement can begin by giving us a listing of extant written records from the BOM time period. He/she can also give us uncontested evidence from the BOM text that the Nephites used Hebrew as their venacular, rather than as a very rare language used only as a scriptural language.

I can prove that there are few/none of those records extant.

I have given evidence from the BOM text that the BOM peoples had a language unknown to other people, unlike Hebrew.

I have now met the burden of proof.

Let's see if you can do the same. Produce these records, show us the proof from the BOM text rather than a fantasy from your mind.

All you've done is establish the possibility that these Hebrews did not, in fact, speak or write in Hebrew, which is a rather curious proposition. You haven't shifted the burden of proof at all.

This is the way it seems to go with BOM inconsistencies and anachronisms. Scenarios are proposed by TBMs to establish the possibility that they don't invalidate its historicity, e.g., horses are tapirs. Most of them are highly improbable, but all that is required to maintain faith is the possibility that something is true. Mission accomplished.

No, thatâ??s not what Charles was saying at all. He is responding to the assertion (made by Vogel in this thread and by others elsewhere) that not finding traces of Hebrew writing in Mesoamerican texts is, in fact, evidence against the BoM. That assumption is completely wrapped around Vogelâ??s statement earlier in the thread:

We are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing, which Mormon says had also been altered by his time. But still, depending on the date of the writing, there should still be a resemblance to Hebrew. Mormon was still calling it Hebrew and claiming that it was his preferred language.

The clear implication is that since there have been no discoveries of Hebrew-esque writing, that that is a strike against the Book of Mormon.

All of our arguments since then have been aimed at disputing that fallacious reasoning.

Our arguments derive from the text itself! What it says. What it does not say. I realize that approach is anathema to the contramo mentality â?? both with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Contramos always want to focus the debate on those things that â??everybody knowsâ? or that â??scientists have provenâ? are true (or false, whatever the case may be.) All weâ??re saying is that the text doesnâ??t support an assumption that Nephites ever used Hebrew (or â??Reformed Egyptianâ? for that matter) as a â??lingua francaâ? â?? just as Londoners in 1300 A.D. neither spoke nor wrote Latin.

Link to comment

All you've done is establish the possibility that these Hebrews did not, in fact, speak or write in Hebrew, which is a rather curious proposition.

]I have given a specific example of the europen Jews who, over a thousand years, stopped speaking Hebrew in favor of the local venacular. I'm sure there are many other example. Even the Jews in Jerusalem took on Aramaic and Greek, etc.

I have given specific reference in the text that their language was "unknown". And you call it a "possibility".

That is indeed curious that you ignore the BOM text itself.

You haven't shifted the burden of proof at all.

The "burden of proof" is a baloney statement anyway.

This is the way it seems to go with BOM inconsistencies and anachronisms. Scenarios are proposed by TBMs to establish the possibility that they don't invalidate its historicity, e.g., horses are tapirs. Most of them are highly improbable, but all that is required to maintain faith is the possibility that something is true. Mission accomplished.

Okey dokey. You can believe anything you want. I use the BOM text itself. I use historical facts. I will place facts above your fantasy.

Link to comment

The text is ambiguous as to their spoken language. It can be argued, by you and others, that it is ambiguous as to their written language, excepting their religious recordkeepers.

However, the most likely case is that these Hebrews wrote and spoke in Hebrew. What a surprise!

As far as burden of proof, you brought it up.

I have given evidence from the BOM text that the BOM peoples had a language unknown to other people, unlike Hebrew.

I have now met the burden of proof.

Let's see if you can do the same. Produce these records, show us the proof from the BOM text rather than a fantasy from your mind.

Link to comment

All you've done is establish the possibility that these Hebrews did not, in fact, speak or write in Hebrew, which is a rather curious proposition. You haven't shifted the burden of proof at all.

This is the way it seems to go with BOM inconsistencies and anachronisms. Scenarios are proposed by TBMs to establish the possibility that they don't invalidate its historicity, e.g., horses are tapirs. Most of them are highly improbable, but all that is required to maintain faith is the possibility that something is true. Mission accomplished.

No, thatâ??s not what Charles was saying at all. He is responding to the assertion (made by Vogel in this thread and by others elsewhere) that not finding traces of Hebrew writing in Mesoamerican texts is, in fact, evidence against the BoM. That assumption is completely wrapped around Vogelâ??s statement earlier in the thread:

The clear implication is that since there have been no discoveries of Hebrew-esque writing, that that is a strike against the Book of Mormon.

All of our arguments since then have been aimed at disputing that fallacious reasoning.

Our arguments derive from the text itself! What it says. What it does not say. I realize that approach is anathema to the contramo mentality â?? both with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Contramos always want to focus the debate on those things that â??everybody knowsâ? or that â??scientists have provenâ? are true (or false, whatever the case may be.) All weâ??re saying is that the text doesnâ??t support an assumption that Nephites ever used Hebrew (or â??Reformed Egyptianâ? for that matter) as a â??lingua francaâ? â?? just as Londoners in 1300 A.D. neither spoke nor wrote Latin.

It is reasonable to assume that these Hebrews spoke and wrote in Hebrew. Consequently, not finding any archaeological evidence for this in Pre-Columbian America is evidence against the BOM's historicity. Arguments contradicting the expected use of Hebrew can be made, but they aren't compelling. There is no good reason to believe they would not have used their native language. You are dealing in possibilities, not probabilities.

Link to comment

Vogel:

That's right, Vogel. The only fantasies that are admissible in the court of public opinion are the ones that you concoct! :P

Contrary to the consistently flawed methodology of a certain pseudo-historian, the scenario I described above is at least logically derived from the text itself. It is eminently more plausible than your suggestions of tin plates and group hallucinations. And, most of all, it has the virtue of being logically acceptable to those who are already persuaded that the Book of Mormon is historical -- and that's the only audience with whom I am concerned.

No, Will, that's not what you did. Your proposition was strictly outside the BOM, and you basic position was that the book did not explicitly exclude your interpretation. That's all fine a good as an interpretation, but not as evidence. I don't care why Hebrew isn't found. No direct evidence is still no direct evidence. The burden is yours to produce it. Yet you keep giving me reasons for not being able to find it. That's your problem, not mine. When I mention Hebrew, it's not proof against the BOM as I have already stated clearly. I'm only saying the BOM is not an unprovable book. There are conceivable ways of obtaining direct evidence. Hebrew is just one possible way.

Link to comment

There are other kinds. Not finding Hebrew inscriptions isn't proof against the BOM, but the critics don't have the burden of proof. You do!

If you complain that there are not Hebrew writings in mesoamerica, you have the burden of proof that this is consistent with the BOM text and that we are able to find a sufficient sample of writings (e.g. written records) to fulfill a statistical expectation.

Didn't understand what I said? I said the absence of Hebrew is not proof against. You can't prove something doesn't exist. That's why the burden is on you to come up with something. But the continual digging without getting anything must be discouraging at some point, which is what Coe was saying. No problem getting Mayan artifacts and writing, etc. Zip for BOM. Since negative evidence is not as definitive as positive, you will have to decide. A thesis without evidence doesn't have any decisive moment when it dies; it usually fades away and replace with one that has more evidence and makes more sence.

The individual making such a requirement can begin by giving us a listing of extant written records from the BOM time period. He/she can also give us uncontested evidence from the BOM text that the Nephites used Hebrew as their venacular, rather than as a very rare language used only as a scriptural language.

What was the statistical expectation of find the Dead Sea Scrolls? But that is not my position here in any case. I responded to your arguments. The Nephite's spoken language is irrelevant here; we are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing. However, the idea that Hebrew was only a scriptural language is an assertion that you will have to prove. Regardless, even if granted, why couldn't other scribes have used Hebrew to make other records? Remember the reference in Alma to burning the scriptures shows that there were multiple copies. Will, wants to limit those copies to temples, but that's not what the BOM says. That's only a convenient assumption.

I can prove that there are few/none of those records extant.

Why do you limit the search to BOM times? There were undoubtedly survivors from the Nephites, and the Lamanites were still around.

I have given evidence from the BOM text that the BOM peoples had a language unknown to other people, unlike Hebrew.

By the time Mormon writes on the gold plates, the characters had been altered and would not be recognized as either Hebrew or Egyptian. Mayan writing was known in JS's day; it was also compared to Egyptian, but was undecipherable. But would you expect that to have been the case for the brass plates or Nephi's small plates?

I have now met the burden of proof.

No, you haven't. I don't think you know what that is. How does excusing yourself from producing direct evidence for the BOM amound to proof for it?

Let's see if you can do the same. Produce these records, show us the proof from the BOM text rather than a fantasy from your mind.

Fantasy is when you tell me the Nephites didn't speak Hebrew, or that only a few could write Hebrew and did so only when recording scripture.

Link to comment

No, thatâ??s not what Charles was saying at all. He is responding to the assertion (made by Vogel in this thread and by others elsewhere) that not finding traces of Hebrew writing in Mesoamerican texts is, in fact, evidence against the BoM. That assumption is completely wrapped around Vogelâ??s statement earlier in the thread:

We are looking for evidence of Hebrew writing, which Mormon says had also been altered by his time. But still, depending on the date of the writing, there should still be a resemblance to Hebrew. Mormon was still calling it Hebrew and claiming that it was his preferred language.

I think you have missed the nuances of my argument. See my response to Charles.

The clear implication is that since there have been no discoveries of Hebrew-esque writing, that that is a strike against the Book of Mormon.

My argument here has been that it is one possible way to achieve direct evidence as opposed to indirect and very problematic evidence. (as per my recent comments to Christensen)

All of our arguments since then have been aimed at disputing that fallacious reasoning.

Well, then, you have been dealing with a strawman.

Our arguments derive from the text itself! What it says. What it does not say. I realize that approach is anathema to the contramo mentality â?? both with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Contramos always want to focus the debate on those things that â??everybody knowsâ? or that â??scientists have provenâ? are true (or false, whatever the case may be.) All weâ??re saying is that the text doesnâ??t support an assumption that Nephites ever used Hebrew (or â??Reformed Egyptianâ? for that matter) as a â??lingua francaâ? â?? just as Londoners in 1300 A.D. neither spoke nor wrote Latin.

The assumption is that Jews from Jerusalem spoke and wrote Hebrew. Nephi mentions that his father's language consisted of the learning of the Jews, and Mormon mentions that he prefered to write in Hebrew. The Nephites couldn't communicate to the Mulekites because their language had become corrupted. Otherwise, two Hebrew speakers could have communicated. Regardless, what the Nephites spoke is irrelevant, since you concede that Hebrew was written. That's all that matters.

Link to comment

It is reasonable to assume that these Hebrews spoke and wrote in Hebrew. Consequently, not finding any archaeological evidence for this in Pre-Columbian America is evidence against the BOM's historicity. Arguments contradicting the expected use of Hebrew can be made, but they aren't compelling. There is no good reason to believe they would not have used their native language. You are dealing in possibilities, not probabilities.

I thought it was reasonable to assume that the Nephites would have spoken Hebrew - based on my very poor knowledge of the BOM because Nephi taught his children the Jewish language and someone else said that they would have written the book in Hebrew were there enough space.

Your statement also makes me wonder if the Hebrew scriptures were widely distributed or known in the BOM civilization. If they were recopied in whole or part we might think it would be on durable materials like the Hebrews did (parchment, metal) and there might be a cache of them somewhere else (like the BOM plates....).

All this said, maybe someone could be a buddy and post some of the BOM passages that deal specifically with language and writing of scripture. I would really appreciate it.

Best Regards

Asaph

Link to comment

The text is ambiguous as to their spoken language. It can be argued, by you and others, that it is ambiguous as to their written language, excepting their religious recordkeepers.

However, the most likely case is that these Hebrews wrote and spoke in Hebrew. What a surprise!

A simple test of your knowledge of history ==>> What was the venacular did the Jews speak in Jerusalem at the time of Christ?

Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

The second test of your knowledge ==>> what language did the european Jews speak? What was their venacular

You must find great solace in ignorance. No need to be confused with the facts.

As far as burden of proof, you brought it up.

Did you bother to read the posts in this thread? I was responding to someone.

Link to comment

If you complain that there are not Hebrew writings in mesoamerica, you have the burden of proof that this is consistent with the BOM text and that we are able to find a sufficient sample of writings (e.g. written records) to fulfill a statistical expectation.

Dan, you are simply amazing. No extant writings in mesoamerica somehow is my burden.

I am not your mother, Dan. You are old enough to think these things thru without my assistance.

Didn't understand what I said? I said the absence of Hebrew is not proof against. You can't prove something doesn't exist. That's why the burden is on you to come up with something.

Whatever you say, Dan. This is very very silly thinking, but I suppose you cannot see it.

But the continual digging without getting anything must be discouraging at some point, which is what Coe was saying.

Did you read my several posts on evidence for the BOM, recently discovered?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208131659

Did you read my posts on why you cannot identify physical artifacts as Nephite vs Mayan, etc?

I don't see any need to repeat myself. You don't read my posts, and don't bother to respond except with silly comments like "the burden of proof is on you" and "you must be very discouraged".

Get back to me when you grow up and speak as an adult on these issues. You are using very childish arguments.

No problem getting Mayan artifacts and writing, etc.

Please give us a listing of extant records from the BOM time period.

Let's see if you can come up with one adult fact in all of this nonsense. Give us that list, please. You said "no problem", so let's see what you have, young man.

Let's see you respond to my previous post on evidence for the BOM. I am showing you that I am not "discouraged" but have found promising evidence. It appears that your own discouragement is clouding your mind when I present facts and you respond with such nonsense as "it is your burden", "you must be very discouraged", "it is NO PROBLEM finding mayan records".

I don't mean to be rancorous, but you remind me of one of my kids. They argue for the sake of argument, and just spout nonsense.

I am disappointed that you have placed yourself at this level of discussion, coming from someone of your obvious intelligence. Perhaps your emotions, your anger, your frustration, your "discouragement" at our response to your attacks, that have overcome your good sense.

Link to comment

Do you not realize that regardless of what label you prefer to give the language of the Hebrews, nothing close to it has been discovered in Pre-Columbian America? That's the point. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just another piece of missing evidence for BOM historicity. Given the dearth of such evidence, the case in favor of its historicity is tenuous.

Link to comment

Do you not realize that regardless of what label you prefer to give the language of the Hebrews, nothing close to it has been discovered in Pre-Columbian America? That's the point. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just another piece of missing evidence for BOM historicity. Given the dearth of such evidence, the case in favor of its historicity is tenuous.

Were you aware that "not found, not exist" is a logical fallacy. Were you aware that there are virtually no records extant from the BOM time period, which is a historical fact? Were you aware whether the Nephites spoke and wrote Hebrew in the venacular is a conclusion not based on the BOM text -- it is an unfounded assumption? Were you aware that there were many languages in mesoamerica, confirmed by the BOM text == the Lamanites were unable to communicate with the Nephites, as well as the Mulekites?

Have you given this any thought at all, or were you just making an empty statement based on faulty assumptions, flawed logic, and a lack of familiarity of the historical facts.

And that is the point.

Link to comment

Were you aware that "not found, not exist" is a logical fallacy. Were you aware that there are virtually no records extant from the BOM time period, which is a historical fact? Were you aware whether the Nephites spoke and wrote Hebrew in the venacular is a conclusion not based on the BOM text -- it is an unfounded assumption? Were you aware that there were many languages in mesoamerica, confirmed by the BOM text == the Lamanites were unable to communicate with the Nephites, as well as the Mulekites?

Have you given this any thought at all, or were you just making an empty statement based on faulty assumptions, flawed logic, and a lack of familiarity of the historical facts.

And that is the point.

But we should find evidence, and we don't. This was a major civilization, despite the marginalizing of it being done by modern apologists (precisely because of the lack of evidence). There were millions of Nephites and Lamanites, if we are to believe the sacred record. Where is the evidence that they ever existed? Where are the bones and military weapons of the great battles it describes? Where are structures of their mighty cities and fortifications? Where are the chariots, steel swords, horses and elephants? Where is the Hebrew DNA?

Evidence supporting the BOM should exist. That's no fallacy. Many LDS archaeologists have devoted their careers to trying to uncover it, with little success.

Does this lack of evidence prove the BOM is not historical? No, it doesn't. But not finding evidence, when should expect to, does weaken the case for it.

Link to comment

But we should find evidence, and we don't.

Get back to us after you have done your homework. There are literally dozens of threads, hundreds/thousands of posts regarding evidence for the BOM -- pro and con. Go to those threads, and post your objections there.

Don't waste our time with such nonsense.

Link to comment

Don't waste our time.

Get back to us after you have done your homework. There are literally dozens of threads, hundreds/thousands of posts regarding evidence for the BOM. I have recented posted a specific discovery which is evidence for the BOM. Go to those threads, and post your objections there.

If you think your evidence is so impressive, I suggest you present it to someone like Michael Coe. Until you can get a non-LDS scientist to be persuaded, don't waste my time.

Link to comment

don't waste my time.

okey dokey. I will put you into ignore mode, and ask that you do the same for me.

BTW, if you could invite Coe to our forum, we will be more than happy to educate him.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...