Changes In Maya Civilization And Nephite Destruction

[cdowis]

Surely your memory is short.

I don't think so, but how would I know?

[grego]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208002132

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=18595&st=0

,

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=13607&st=0

,

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208131531

.

My favorite being:

QUOTE

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Oh. And in addition to these animals and metals, WE ALSO FOUND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE!! THEY SPOKE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, AND DRESSED DIFFERENTLY, AND HAD DARK SKIN. IT WAS AMAZING. WE JUST WALKED OUT OF THE WOODS AND THERE THEY WERE. [Note to future abridgers: this last paragraph may be cut for space considerations, but please be sure to leave in the part about the animals and ores. The rest of the story won't make sense if you don't know about the goats and the copper. Thanks. - Nephi]

[cdowis]

OK, now that you have refreshed the previous discussions, do you have a point, other than a walk down memory lane?

The verse I cited clearly refers to others living there when Lehi landed. The archeology is quite clear on that point, as well, including the reference that I have given on multiple occasions on the change in burial habits possibly due to the influence of the Nephites on the locals.

Excluding the outlier arguments, I see it as a settled issue.

[grego]

That's the point, cdowis. The verse you cited *doesn't* "clearly show others living there when Lehi landed".

"Archeology"? You've pinpointed their landing? CFR.

-=-=-=

including the reference that I have given on multiple occasions on the change in burial habits possibly due to the influence of the Nephites on the locals.

Excluding the outlier arguments, I see it as a settled issue.

*Possibly*? Yeah, it's possible. And?

No proof, no strong evidence--hardly anywhere. What you see as a "settled issue", is not seen by eveyrone else as a settled issue. Good luck getting a consensus, much less a scholarly consensus, on your conclusions.

[John Williams]

That's the point, cdowis. The verse you cited *doesn't* "clearly show others living there when Lehi landed".

"Archeology"? You've pinpointed their landing? CFR.

-=-=-=

*Possibly*? Yeah, it's possible. And?

No proof, no strong evidence--hardly anywhere. What you see as a "settled issue", is not seen by eveyrone else as a settled issue. Good luck getting a consensus, much less a scholarly consensus, on your conclusions.

I agree. The idea of others can only be inferred by interpretation of a few isolated verses in the Book of Mormon, which are taken as overriding the clear statements in the book that the land was held in reserve for those whom God would bring there.

[cdowis]

That's the point, cdowis. The verse you cited *doesn't* "clearly show others living there when Lehi landed".

OK, so domesticated animals do not prove that there were people. And I suppose that the archeologists finding villages, and other human remains also prove nothing.

Interesting.

[cdowis]

I agree. The idea of others can only be inferred by interpretation of a few isolated verses in the Book of Mormon, which are taken as overriding the clear statements in the book that the land was held in reserve for those whom God would bring there.

What is "clear" is that we disagree on what the BOM text states in this regard. And it quite clear that the archeological record absolutely proves that people were living there at that time period, and the BOM text clearly agrees.

The BOM clearly tells us that there were domesticated animals when Lehi landed, and that clearly means people were living there. No interpretation needed. Just a clear, simple fact.

Clearly, we will agree to disagree.

[grego]

I think you missed a few points in the threads, especially the first one.

Even if they were domesticated (does it say "domesticated" in the BoM?), that doesn't prove or necessarily show concurrent living.

-=-=-=

And I suppose that the archeologists finding villages, and other human remains also prove nothing.

Once more, CFR.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

What is "clear" is that we disagree on what the BOM text states in this regard. And it quite clear that the archeological record absolutely proves that people were living there at that time period, and the BOM text agrees with that fact.

We will simply agree to disagree.

For more education of the matter, about fifty years ago a stela was found in Izapa near the Chiapas Guatemala border that showed something resembling the tree of life until it's greatest detail. It is possible that Izapa might have been the landing ground for Lehi, but that, as well as other points of the Book of Mormon are up to speculation.

Remember, we only have about five percent of the Mesoamerican ruins uncovered...It could very easily been anywhere from Izapa southward...

[cdowis]

For more education of the matter, about fifty years ago a stela was found in Izapa near the Chiapas Guatemala border that showed something resembling the tree of life until it's greatest detail.

I would hesitate before using that as evidence for the BOM.

[grego]

and the BOM text clearly agrees.

Ok, CFR as to where "the BOM text clearly agrees".

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I would hesitate before using that as evidence for the BOM.

Probably...because the Maya glyphs can be read differently...the picture is kind of unique though.

There are more evidences out there though...hard evidence maybe not...soft evidences evidenced by the Mayan people, the way they built their cities, their culture, etc...oh there's plenty of it. I was down there for two years.

[cdowis]

I think you missed a few points in the threads, especially the first one.

Even if they were domesticated (does it say "domesticated" in the BoM?), that doesn't prove or necessarily show concurrent living.

-=-=-=

Once more, CFR.

-=-=-=

Ok, CFR.

OK, so they were domesticated. Can you see that?

Now, how long does an ox live ? How long can goats, running around without human intervention, remain domesticated? What exactly is a domesticated goat, and an ox without a human individual caring for them.

If they take care of themselves, they are ****wild****.

Can you see that?

I realize how desperately you want to deny the simple fact that the BOM tells us about these others, from the day they landed. Insult deleted. Don't do it again.

I gave you the proof, and you want to say "Nobody was around", taking care of these animals?

It boggles the mind.

[John Williams]

What is "clear" is that we disagree on what the BOM text states in this regard. And it quite clear that the archeological record absolutely proves that people were living there at that time period, and the BOM text clearly agrees.

The BOM clearly tells us that there were domesticated animals when Lehi landed, and that clearly means people were living there. No interpretation needed. Just a clear, simple fact.

Clearly, we will agree to disagree.

Claro que si. You might want to give BofM references to the clear statements of others predating the Jaredites and Nephites and the domesticated animals. I've heard them before, but others may have missed the discussion.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Claro que si. You might want to give BofM references to the clear statements of others predating the Jaredites and Nephites and the domesticated animals. I've heard them before, but others may have missed the discussion.

Other people living there? The Jaredites were there before...as well as other groups...

In the years around 600 BC there were many peoples populating the Mesoamerican area, as well as in South America...of all of them the ones that closest resembles a Semitic race happen to be the Maya and their subtribes (though the Nahuas have some Semitic overtones too). There were also Mixes, Zapotecos, Mixtecos, Zoques...not to mention the dying Olmec race (which I think based on their history were the Jaredites)

In South America reigned the Nazcas...little is known about them outside of their Nazca lines in southern Peru.

[cdowis]

Claro que si. You might want to give BofM references to the clear statements of others predating the Jaredites and Nephites and the domesticated animals. I've heard them before, but others may have missed the discussion.

The BOM begins it narrative with the Jaredites, there is no "before". But, to answer your question, Adam and his descendants lived in America.

Anyway, the discussion is whether there inhabitants here when Lehi landed.

[John Williams]

The BOM begins it narrative with the Jaredites, there is no "before". But, to answer your question, Adam and his descendants lived in America.

Anyway, the discussion is whether there inhabitants here when Lehi landed.

Well, you know what I meant. Sheesh. Anyway, show us what you have in the way of evidence.

[Gervin]

The BOM clearly tells us that there were domesticated animals when Lehi landed, and that clearly means people were living there. No interpretation needed. Just a clear, simple fact.

That reads more like a strike against the Book of Mormon; you and a small band of travelers voyage to a new world across a vast sea whereupon you land and meet new people and their animals ... and you only write about the animals. That stretches credulity.

[Hammer]

I think the OP was rightly cautious in making the point that this wasn't strong 'evidence' for the BoM. I think it is interesting that if you took the year 378 AD and go to wikipedia and looked at a completely different civilization, The Roman Empire, one would find an interesting parallel as well, the Battle of Adrianople in which two-thirds of the army of Roman emperor Valens was wiped out. Interestingly enough the article states-"the battle is often considered the start of the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century". I think the moral of the story is coincidences are not the exception, they are the rule.

At least the Mayan is on this continent or close to.

Interestingly enough we are going to see similar correlating events in many countries in just a few months. Of course this won't validate the BoM either. But boy will it validate God and all His prophets.

[John Williams]

At least the Mayan is on this continent or close to.

Interestingly enough we are going to see similar correlating events in many countries in just a few months. Of course this won't validate the BoM either. But boy will it validate God and all His prophets.

We are? Can you give me some idea of what these correlating events will be?

[grego]

OK, so they were domesticated. Can you see that?

Where was that? Like I said, Nephi doesn't say *"domesticated"*.

Did you miss the part in the first thread I posted (the link should take you *straight* to the appropriate post) about animals? Is a horse a horse, or a tapir or a deer?

-=-=-=

Now, how long does an ox live ?

It depends. However, longer than one day, even without a human.

-=-=-=

How long can goats, running around without human intervention, remain domesticated?

Domesticated... where?

-=-=-=

What exactly is a domesticated goat, and an ox without a human individual caring for them.

Starting to turn wild, if they had ever been domesticated.

-=-=-=

If they take care of themselves, they are ****wild****.

Not quite. Getting there.

-=-=-=

Can you see that?

Somewhat.

-=-=-=

I realize how desperately you want to deny the simple fact that the BOM tells us about these others, from the day they landed. I realize that your mind has been poisoned, and to allow one inch of credibility for the BOM would be devastating.

CFR. Where are the others? Anybody? Why would I desperately want to ...?

-=-=-=

I gave you the proof, and you want to say "Nobody was around", taking care of these animals?

It boggles the mind.

"Proof"?

[cdowis]

That reads more like a strike against the Book of Mormon; you and a small band of travelers voyage to a new world across a vast sea whereupon you land and meet new people and their animals ... and you only write about the animals. That stretches credulity.

They did write about them, extensively. On the Large plates. Do I really need to tell you the difference between the small and large plates? Any mention of others would have unnecessarily expanded the narrative, especially since a full account would be on the large plates.

Anything that you do not find "credible" is a reflection on your lack of knowledge of the BOM text itself.

[John Williams]

They did write about them, extensively. On the Large plates. Do I really need to tell you the difference between the small and large plates? Any mention of others would have unnecessarily expanded the narrative, especially since a full account would be on the large plates.

Is there any suggestion in the existing text that suggests "extensive" writings about others on the large plates? Seems like a big assumption to me, but I'm certainly willing to listen.

Anything that you do not find "credible" is a reflection on your lack of knowledge of the BOM text itself.

Well, it's difficult to find something credible when it's based on a text that does not exist.

[emeliza]

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Is this the scripture we are arguing over? It appears to say that these animals were for the use of men, but does not clearly say they were being used by men. It does make a distinction between goat and wild goat, but that might be more for talking about different species of goats that were around.

I can see both sides of this. Since it doesn't point out that the cows, ox, *** and horse are wild---the reader might assume they weren't wild. However at the same time it might be pointing out that these animals were typically domesticated and that is why it went into the type. And since this reads that the animals were for the use of men, the reader might assume men were using these animals. But none of that is actually clearly written in here so it is still an assumption.

The last part is that it states that even the wild animal is for the use of men (I am thinking hunting). With that statement though, I would guess that they are pointing out animals they typically know and see and not stating they saw others using these animals in the manners they were use to seeing them used.

I also agree that since they left out the part about other people being there (which would be pretty major) they were seeing other people.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Is this the scripture we are arguing over? It appears to say that these animals were for the use of men, but does not clearly say they were being used by men. It does make a distinction between goat and wild goat, but that might be more for talking about different species of goats that were around.

I can see both sides of this. Since it doesn't point out that the cows, ox, *** and horse are wild---the reader might assume they weren't wild. However at the same time it might be pointing out that these animals were typically domesticated and that is why it went into the type. And since this reads that the animals were for the use of men, the reader might assume men were using these animals. But none of that is actually clearly written in here so it is still an assumption.

The last part is that it states that even the wild animal is for the use of men (I am thinking hunting). With that statement though, I would guess that they are pointing out animals they typically know and see and not stating they saw others using these animals in the manners they were use to seeing them used.

I also agree that since they left out the part about other people being there (which would be pretty major) they were seeing other people.

You all have to remember that America is a vast land and the topography of Mesoamerica in many parts is rather forbidding...

There were several tribes that lived in these times...but each were seperated just enough that interaction was rather rare in this time period (600 BC)

The Zapotecs lived in present day Oaxaca...the dying Olmecs in SE Veracruz on to Tabasco...The Mayas started out in the Guatemalan highlands and then gradually diffused into Chiapas, Peten, and the Yucatan.

The Nephites did not know the Mulekites existed until they fled from the land of Nephi to the area of Zarahemla...That territory that is Chiapas and Guatemala is very forbidding to pass...no wonder that the huge mountain range that bisects Guatemala is regarded as a possible wilderness...