Mark Wrights Lecture

[John Williams]

If anyone ignored those arguments, I would agree with you. Since it isn't true, I cannot.

What I meant was that these bits of circumstantial evidence aren't particularly compelling as long as there is evidence to the contrary, which there is. Obviously, the job of an apologist is to explain away the evidence to the contrary. But it's still there.

[consiglieri]

What I meant was that these bits of circumstantial evidence aren't particularly compelling as long as there is evidence to the contrary, which there is. Obviously, the job of an apologist is to explain away the evidence to the contrary. But it's still there.

But no matter the proposition, there is always evidence to the contrary.

And yet people have sat, and do sit, on death row.

And reasonable people can and do believe in the truth of certain propositions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brant Gardner]

What I meant was that these bits of circumstantial evidence aren't particularly compelling as long as there is evidence to the contrary, which there is. Obviously, the job of an apologist is to explain away the evidence to the contrary. But it's still there.

Take your issue out of the realm of apologetics and look at it the way any historical question has to be answered. An argument has be built that accounts for the data. A simplistic argument will handle only the data that support the premise, but those are easy to dismiss.

A good historical argument has to not only account for the data that fit, it must account for the data that do not fit. The accounting for the other data has to happen in such a way that the perception of not fitting is explained in such a way as to continue to validate the hypothesis. If that cannot be done, then you are still left with a weak hypothesis.

Moving back to apologetics, it is the same thing. No good apologetic argument should be made which ignores data. "Explaining away" is a loaded phrase that has the intent of describing what must be done, but with a pejorative connotation. Even in scientific theories, one must account for the data that don't fit the hypothesis.

In the particular case of the horses, steel, etc. that you mentioned, those issues would be huge if they were part of an original manuscript that claimed to describe the ancient americas. Isaiah would be huge - if the multiple author hypothesis were not still the subject of debate.

Even the apologetic arguments that appear to substantiate the case only do so if presented in an appropriate framework (with many examples of when this hasn't happened still sitting on the selves of Deseret Book Stores).

[LifeOnaPlate]

(with many examples of when this hasn't happened still sitting on the selves of Deseret Book Stores).

Amen to that. Also, Amazon gave up on sending me Second Witness Vol. 2.

[Calm]

You should try FAIR bookstore if your purchase has fallen through.

Was it taped? Can we expect a YouTube posting of the lecture? Pretty please? (With sugar on top...)

I'm assuming you've read my above post by now, but in case you've missed it:

Hope someone videoed it.

Didn't work out this time around, still happens on occasion even in this tech heavy world of ours (and thank goodness of that); be happy that someone took notes.

====

You'll just have to wait for the FAIR conference.

[poulsenll]

Even the apologetic arguments that appear to substantiate the case only do so if presented in an appropriate framework

I thought some of you might like to hear more on this topic of Convergence and its application to ancient documents. Here is an excerpt from Brant's 2006 presentation at the FAIR Conference. The entire presentation is available at the FAIR Bookstore.

The FAIR Bookstore is at

http://store.fairlds.org/

Larry P