Bom Bull'sâ??eyes

[cdowis]

"sheum"

How strange. I consider this a slam dunk, and your counterargument very tepid at best. Your argument is based on an Akkadian word, written in Hebrew/Egyptian, and translated into English? You don't like the spelling?

To be polite, this is really silly.

You did not answer my question, do you consider this a coincidence?

[Sargon]

Along with this... we should add Ma. Barkers remarks on said dream at the Joseph Smith Symposium.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margar...arker-talk.html

Yes, that is precisely what I was referring to.

[Matt Amos]

Here are a few more examples of pre-1830 knowledge of ancient metal inscriptions, taken from Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in six volumes from 1776-1789 (bold emphasis mine):

(Vol. 3) In the presence of the clergy and people, the three daughters of Arcadius dedicated their virginity to God; and the obligation of their solemn vow was inscribed on a tablet of gold and gems; which they publicly offered in the great church of Constantinople.

(Vol. 4) In the seventh year of his peaceful reign, Theodoric visited the old capital of the world; the senate and people advanced in solemn procession to salute a second Trajan, a new Valentinian; and he nobly supported that character by the assurance of a just and legal government, in a discourse which he was not afraid to pronounce in public, and to inscribe on a tablet of brass.

(Vol. 4) But although these venerable monuments were considered as the rule of right and the fountain of justice, they were overwhelmed by the weight and variety of new laws, which, at the end of five centuries, became a grievance more intolerable than the vices of the city. Three thousand brass plates, the acts of the senate of the people, were deposited in the Capitol: and some of the acts, as the Julian law against extortion, surpassed the number of a hundred chapters.

(Vol. 6) The decree of the senate, which granted the most ample prerogatives to the emperor Vespasian, had been inscribed on a copper plate still extant in the choir of the church of St. John Lateran.

[Chris Smith]

"sheum"

How strange. I consider this a slam dunk, and your counterargument very tepid at best. Your argument is based on an Akkadian word, written in Hebrew/Egyptian, and translated into English? You don't like the spelling?

To be polite, this is really silly.

You did not answer my question, do you consider this a coincidence?

I did answer your question. Yes, I consider it a coincidence. Moreover, you do not appear to have understood my counter-argument, since your summary of it bears little resemblance to what I said in the link provided.

[Zakuska]

Matt,

Good Find. Now the only question is did this book find a place in DarthMouth Library?

[Chris Smith]

Matt,

Good Find. Now the only question is did this book find a place in DarthMouth Library?

Gibbon was an extremely well-known historian. I don't know what libraries had a copy, but it's safe to say that if Gibbon repeatedly discusses records written on metal plates, the idea was not "laughable" in JS's milieu.

[cdowis]

I did answer your question. Yes, I consider it a coincidence. Moreover, you do not appear to have understood my counter-argument, since your summary of it bears little resemblance to what I said in the link provided.

Really? Here is your exact post with emphasis mine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whoa, whoa... Just a sec. I want to weigh in on the sheum thing still. I did the research that CKS suggested I do. What I came up with was the sheum was an Akkadian word from the third millennium BCE. After that time, it was *************************************spelled************************************ and pronounced differently (Sorenson, American Setting p. 186). Sorenson therefore suggests that the term was brought over by the Jaredites. The trouble with this suggestion, of course, is that Mosiah 9:9 places the term on the lips of a Mulekite who has been instructed in the Nephite language some 2000 years later. That this word could survive 2,000 years of transmission by Jaredites-- who (if FARMS is to be believed) lived among and interacted regularly with other Mesoamerican cultures-- is frankly hard to believe. Even if it survives transmission, it must also survive the Ramah genocide and somehow pass into either Nephite or Mulekite usage. While it is remarkable to find that a Book of Mormon word that refers to an agricultural crop of some kind has a perfect parallel and a similar usage in an authentically ancient language, the means of transmission simply seems too outrageous to be believable.

Not to be a downer, but I give sheum no more than a 6. I can conceive of much better parallels than this.

-CK

++++++++++++++++++

Now, pray tell us how I distorted your argument so that it was unrecognizeable. I have your words on bold.

Do you understand how loan words are used. Do you understand that the pronounciation may differ from the original language. Do you know latin loan words in English which pronounciation bears little resemblance to the actual Latin.

You are just amazing. We truly live on different planets.

[Sargon]

I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

At the very least it demonstrates that in this particular bit of the story Joseph did not copy Spalding!

[Sargon]

I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

At the very least it demonstrates that in this particular bit of the story Joseph did not copy Spalding, who apparently believed that writing on parchment would be more acceptable to his audience!

But, for now, I see your point Chris.

When I had removed the Cover I found that it contained twenty-eight rolls of parchment -- & -- that when - - - appeared to be manuscrips written in eligant hand with Roman letters & in the Latin Language.

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm#pg011b

[USU78]

At the very least it demonstrates that in this particular bit of the story Joseph did not copy Spalding!

If the use of metal plates as media of preservation of important texts in the context of "hidden up scripture" was so well known by JSJr and his contemporaries, why did this become and remain such an issue for the boobirds that only recently they stopped making the argument for the absurdity of the Golden Plates as historical artifact? Why such a big deal for so very long if Gibbons' report of Roman practices (admittedly outside our target timeframe and real estate) was such an obvious source? Why weren't the contemporary or later XIXth Century boobirds accusing JSJr of plagiarizing Gibbons?

[Sargon]

If the use of metal plates as media of preservation of important texts in the context of "hidden up scripture" was so well known by JSJr and his contemporaries, why did this become and remain such an issue for the boobirds that only recently they stopped making the argument for the absurdity of the Golden Plates as historical artifact? Why such a big deal for so very long if Gibbons' report of Roman practices (admittedly outside our target timeframe and real estate) was such an obvious source? Why weren't the contemporary or later XIXth Century boobirds accusing JSJr of plagiarizing Gibbons?

Great point.

I think Chris's objection was that in the article he referred to Tvetdnes cited only one weak example of a critic complaining about the issue. Check post #28.

[Zakuska]

Great point.

I think Chris's objection was that in the article he referred to Tvetdnes cited only one weak example of a critic complaining about the issue. Check post #28.

I added 2 more...

see post #44

[Matt Amos]

I haven't tracked down the Stuart Martin book (edit: never mind, I see now that it was the "gold will corrode" claim quoted earlier in this thread), but here is a link to John Hyde's criticism.

Starting with #6 on page 217:

6. The plates. We must remember that it is a Hebrew youth, who "has lived at Jerusalem all his days," until he leaves for "the wilderness." He had no other privileges than those enjoyed by others of his circumstances and time. He did as others did. His ideas could extend but very little further than others. The writing materials then in use, and it was then only very few who could use them, would be those such a youth would be familiar with. Now the Jews did not use plates of brass at that time. Their writing materials were

1. Tablets smeared with wax.

2. Linen rubbed with a kind of gum.

3. Tanned leather and vellum.

4. Parchment (invented by Attalus of Pergamos).

5. Papyrus. (M. Stuart, O. Test. Can.)

All the writings of the Jews long anterior and subsequent to Zedekiah were in rolls. (Isa., xxxiv. 4; Jer., xxxvi. 25;

From there, he goes on to complain about the various contents claimed by the BoM to have been recorded upon the plates of brass, and that they would have "formed an immense volume and a great weight".

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is the opposite of a bull's eye when you look into it a little deeper.I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

I think we ought to look more into why Chris Smith talks about this stuff instead of helping his own fellow Christians reach a better understanding of their own faith and what not...

I'm quite willing to give JS credit where credit is due.

I've seen you do it; I believe it.

[MSilva]

This is the opposite of a bull's eye when you look into it a little deeper.

Sorry, but I fully disagree: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/2nephi12.shtml

I've never understood why FARMS wrote an entire book on this. Yes, ancient people wrote on gold plates. Is it so implausible that JS either guessed or was aware of that? When cataloging "bull's eyes", I'd think we should focus on things that JS had a low likelihood of guessing or knowing about.

Yes! It is! Indeed one of first atacks against Joseph was that ancient people wrote in papyrus and scrolls, not in metal plates...

[Noggin]

Noggin, you believe Joseph Smith, or anyone, is capable of "writing" a book like the Book of Mormon in the time it took and still be able to articulate how to answer each and everyone of the Bible prophecies? That's some ability. For someone as uneducated as Joseph Smith I'm amazed at how well he comprehended the Bible and how skilled he was at writing.

Okay... I already explained that Joseph Smith had a copy of biblical prophecy laying in his lap (my theory) and that is why the BOM is able to so precisely incorporate so many Christ prophecies in its pages... but you persist with this unlearned Joseph Smith reasoning...

so then I have to ask you that if this comprises your foundation for Mormon testimony, what are you going to do with the Muslim prophet Muhammad? I hope the claim that Joseph Smith was unlearned is not what you rest your testimony of the Book of Mormon on. From a Muslim website:

1) Muhammad replies to the archangel Gabriel: â??I am not learned!â? The angel commands him a second time with the same result. For the third time, the angel continues.

â??Read! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created- Created man, from a (mere) clot of congealed blood; Read! And Thy Lord is most bountiful, - He who taught (the use of) the pen, - Taught man that which he knew not. Holy Qurâ??an, Chapter 96,Verse 1-5.

2) And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I Pray thee: And he saith, I am not learnedâ? Holy Bible Isaiah 29:12

Muhammad was absolutely unlettered and un-learned. No human had ever taught him a word. His teacher was the creator.

â??He does not speak (aught), of (his own) desire It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.â? Holy Qurâ??an, Chapter 53, Verse 3-5.

Without any human learning, he put to shame the wisdom of the learned

If you believe the Book of Mormon is true because you believe Joseph Smith was unlearned and therefore could not have written it... you need to drop what you are doing and pick up a copy of the Quran today, read what came from that unlearned man, and adapt Muslim principle into your life. When you begin to live a life that is good, honorable, and full... when you see blessings unfold in your life on account of Muslim practice and principle, prayer and worship according to what the unlearned Mohammad caused to be written down (claimed to flow driectly from God or Allah no less), you must then conclude that the Quran is true and will therefore need to drop your faith in Mormonism.

or not?

Noggin

[ed2276]

Okay... I already explained that Joseph Smith had a copy of biblical prophecy laying in his lap (my theory) and that is why the BOM is able to so precisely incorporate so many Christ prophecies in its pages... but you persist with this unlearned Joseph Smith reasoning... so then I have to ask you that if this comprises your foundation for Mormon testimony, what are you going to do with the Muslim prophet Muhammad? I hope the claim that Joseph Smith was unlearned is not what you rest your testimony of the Book of Mormon on. From a Muslim website:If you believe the Book of Mormon is true because you believe Joseph Smith was unlearned and therefore could not have written it... you need to drop what you are doing and pick up a copy of the Quran today, read what came from that unlearned man, and adapt Muslim principle into your life. When you begin to live a life that is good, honorable, and full... when you see blessings unfold in your life on account of Muslim practice and principle, prayer and worship according to what the unlearned Mohammad caused to be written down (claimed to flow driectly from God or Allah no less), you must then conclude that the Quran is true and will therefore need to drop your faith in Mormonism.or not?Noggin

Noggin, I can't speak for Tribunal as to what his reason for belief in the truthfulness of the BoM is, but I can speak for myself. It has nothing to do whatever with whether Joseph Smith was learned or unlearned. It has nothing to do with any of the issues of archaeology, geography, chiasmus, etc. I accepted the BoM as true long before I had ever heard of these kinds of issues. I received a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Now, the only reason we LDS are engaged in pointing out these other things in the context of Joseph being unlearned is in answer to people like you, who reject that spiritual foundation and demand proof outside a spiritual context. So, we go into archaeology, chiasmus, and so forth in the context of Joseph's unlearnedness (?). I find these things interesting, even fascinating, but this is not the foundation of my testimony

BTW:If there is something within the Q'uran or the teachings of Isalm that is true and will help me to be a better person I will embrace it.

[Chris Smith]

I think we ought to look more into why Chris Smith talks about this stuff instead of helping his own fellow Christians reach a better understanding of their own faith and what not...

You're welcome to browse my blog. You'll find that I blog about the Bible and mainstream Christian theology and history at least as much as I do Mormonism. I like to hang out on Mormon forums, though, because your religion is just a heckuva lot more interesting than mine. :-)

[Chris Smith]

Sorry, but I fully disagree: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/2nephi12.shtml

Lindsay's sidebar admits,

The definitive analysis of the issues involved has now been published: "Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish: Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16" by Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, 2005, pp. 12-25. This is available in HTML or PDF (best) formats.

The authors show that a popular LDS view on this verse does not completely fit the facts. The Septuagint may actually be a reasonable translation of the existing Masoretic text, and comparison of the two manuscripts does not necessarily support the idea of a more ancient original text with three instead of two elements. The value of 2 Nephi 12:16 as intrinsic evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity is certainly less clear.

Pike, Seely, and even Lindsay are to be commended for admitting that there are problems here. I don't know that I'd call the Pike and Seely essay the "definitive" analysis, though. They're basically just appreciating the earlier work of David P. Wright.

-Chris

[Noggin]

Noggin, I can't speak for Tribunal as to what his reason for belief in the truthfulness of the BoM is, but I can speak for myself. It has nothing to do whatever with whether Joseph Smith was learned or unlearned. It has nothing to do with any of the issues of archaeology, geography, chiasmus, etc. I accepted the BoM as true long before I had ever heard of these kinds of issues. I received a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Now, the only reason we LDS are engaged in pointing out these other things in the context of Joseph being unlearned is in answer to people like you, who reject that spiritual foundation and demand proof outside a spiritual context. So, we go into archaeology, chiasmus, and so forth in the context of Joseph's unlearnedness (?). I find these things interesting, even fascinating, but this is not the foundation of my testimony

BTW:If there is something within the Q'uran or the teachings of Isalm that is true and will help me to be a better person I will embrace it.

I am glad that you would embrace goodness wherever it is found. Tribunal seemed, however, to explain that at least a portion of their testimony was based on something to do with Joseph Smith being unlearned. That's why I poked at it with Muslim context the way I did.

If you want to bring other elements into proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon, like archeology, chiasmus, NHM and so forth, ought we also look at other claimed inspired scriptural texts that directly oppose or conflict with the Book of Mormon claim to truthful historicity?

Should we not examine, for example, the Qu'ran and all the evidence Muslims produce in similar fashion (as is happening here on this thread pro BOM) to prove that the Qu'ran is truth... i.e. God's only truth? Muslims reject the Book of Mormon (else they'd be Mormon). Couldn't we see what archeological, linguistic, and historical bullseyes we can find to prove the Quran is what it says it is.. a rejection of Jesus as the Christ and a statement that Abraham was a "good and faithful Muslim", etc. Practically anyone can see this if they have the agenda, i.e. pre conceived comfirmation bias, to do so.

I mean, if this forum is going to engage in proof finding missions... why the myopia in stopping at the Book of Mormon? One can "find" more than enough evidence for the Qu'ran's truthfulness (again, if the agenda is there).

My point is this: For every NHM, Chiasmus or archeological support piece (which, btw hardly goes recognized in the secular scientific world... I don't see scientists running after a Nobel Prize in discovering, arguably, the most ground breaking notion that Amerindians descended chiefly from Hebrew origins).. for every strain or tidbit this thread comes up with pro Book of Mormon there is an equal or better counterpart that the Muslims also have found or strain at to support the Qu'ran.

Same thing with the Jews... they have libraries full of proof as to how Jesus was no Messiah (yes, I know you all know this but I state it as part of my belabored point).

Noggin

[Calm]

Couldn't we see what archeological, linguistic, and historical bullseyes we can find to prove the Quran is what it says it is.

What would you suggest we look for from the text in these areas?

[Noggin]

What would you suggest we look for from the text in these areas?

Well good question. Pretty much most of the participants on this thread appear to have a pre conceived confirmation bias that the Book of Mormon is true history and therefore will probably not bother putting any sort of the same amount of energy into proving that the Qu'ran is true (God's only approved text as to how mankind should act and what they should do in order to merit heaven).

Once I began to suspect that the Book of Mormon was not historically factful, I began to do research in other perceived sacred texts claimed to have been approved exclusively by God as a prescription for mankind pertaining to salvation in some next world state of being.

I found just what my last post explains. The Muslims are extremely adept at making just as good, if not a better case for Islam through the Qu'ran than most of you are doing here on this thread. I mean, google it... For the more absurd out there stuff try reading how Muslim scientists point at how the Qu'ran supports all we now know of Quantum Physics and Planck theory( eh... long before Quantum theory was discovered) to grant faith building substance to Islam. But that's fluff stuff. There are more basic items parallelling tidbits already discussed on this thread like archeological proof, linguistics, and then outside of this thread: biology, astronomy, human development. All things that are supposedly impossible for a 7th century man to know but science and archeology/ geology have now explained and verified. The same point is made by observing the rigor involved with the Jewish scholars utterly destroying the Messianic claim of Jesus Christ.

It's all about seeing what one wants or needs to see in the text they consider holy and God given. Every last major world religion with an exclusivity claim to protect excels in the academic apologist arena. Each of them create pretty grandiose documentation. I find humor in it. You all are, basically, exclusively true! Yet you all cannot simultaneously be exclusively True!! And that fact alone is what keeps stoking your fires. Much of the time the lengths each religion goes to in order to prove themselves as exclusively true is very odd to watch. This thread is like that for me.

I often wonder what would happen if each religion just once opened up and forced themselves to put the exact same effort that they employ proving themselves exclusively true towards each and every other religion out there.

I think that this world would be much a more kind and understanding and enjoyable place to live if that happened.

Where to look? You decide. If objective analysis is important to you, then you'll begin that journey.

Noggin

[Chris Smith]

Really? Here is your exact post with emphasis mine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whoa, whoa... Just a sec. I want to weigh in on the sheum thing still. I did the research that CKS suggested I do. What I came up with was the sheum was an Akkadian word from the third millennium BCE. After that time, it was *************************************spelled************************************ and pronounced differently (Sorenson, American Setting p. 186). Sorenson therefore suggests that the term was brought over by the Jaredites. The trouble with this suggestion, of course, is that Mosiah 9:9 places the term on the lips of a Mulekite who has been instructed in the Nephite language some 2000 years later. That this word could survive 2,000 years of transmission by Jaredites-- who (if FARMS is to be believed) lived among and interacted regularly with other Mesoamerican cultures-- is frankly hard to believe. Even if it survives transmission, it must also survive the Ramah genocide and somehow pass into either Nephite or Mulekite usage. While it is remarkable to find that a Book of Mormon word that refers to an agricultural crop of some kind has a perfect parallel and a similar usage in an authentically ancient language, the means of transmission simply seems too outrageous to be believable.

Not to be a downer, but I give sheum no more than a 6. I can conceive of much better parallels than this.

-CK

++++++++++++++++++

Now, pray tell us how I distorted your argument so that it was unrecognizeable. I have your words on bold.

Do you understand how loan words are used. Do you understand that the pronounciation may differ from the original language. Do you know latin loan words in English which pronounciation bears little resemblance to the actual Latin.

You are just amazing. We truly live on different planets.

The portion you bolded was a summary of part of Sorenson's argument. It wasn't the point of my post. I don't know how things work on your planet, but on my planet meaningful communication is achieved by reading everything your opponent has to say instead of just the first few lines. Happy polemicizing,

-Chris

[cdowis]

Well good question. Pretty much most of the participants on this thread appear to have a pre conceived confirmation bias that the Book of Mormon is true history and therefore will probably not bother putting any sort of the same amount of energy into proving that the Qu'ran is true (God's only approved text as to how mankind should act and what they should do in order to merit heaven).

We will be held responsible on our decision on the Book of Mormon, as well as other books which claim to be the word of the Lord, including the Koran.

The Koran does not teach the resurrection, atonement and the saving doctrines of Christ. The Book of Mormon does.

I feel comfortable in my decisions relative to these books. I see no need to test the veracity of any claimant to revelation who is not a witness to my Saviour and his teachings.

[Noggin]

We will be held responsible on our decision on the Book of Mormon, as well as other books which claim to be the word of the Lord, including the Koran.

The Koran does not teach the resurrection, atonement and the saving doctrines of Christ. The Book of Mormon does.

I feel comfortable in my decisions relative to these books. I see no need to test the veracity of any claimant to revelation who is not a witness to my Saviour and his teachings.

Shall I quote you the hundreds of verses in the Qu'ran that state that you will be held responsible for your decision on the verdict of teh Qu'ran? Do you know that the Muslims call you a foolish "people of the book"?? (Book meaning New Testament). You make a baseless point. How do you know you are more correct than the Muslims? How can you claim it?

I pretty much thought you would reply with a statement like that.

So then okay nix the Qu'ran. Nix it I say, fine... we don't need that to prove the point I am making.

Instead, let's go with your basic tenet of faith that Jesus is Christ.

Jews read the same old testament prophecies that you do, and they also pick apart the claims found in the New testament relative to the prophecies about Jesus Christ. Yet how do you explain the plethora of extremely intelligent PHD wielding Jewish theologians who have studied and poured themselves into each and every chapter and verse, dissecting, deciphering, consulting their God and employing their intellect to come up with the conclusion that your Jesus is no Savior?

My point is that this thread is doing the same dissecting, pouring over, straining, deciphering, consulting one's intellect and God to come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is actual history.

Both the Jews and the Mormons cannot be simultaneously exclusively true. It's impossible on the most basic levels. Yet both religions do exactly what this thread is all anxiously engaged in doing. Jews have archeology, linguistics, exegesis, you name it... they have it in spades and have been at it for centuries longer than Mormons.

Don't you see that if there was actual proof of Jesus Christ's claims, the Jews would have found it by now?

Or are you willing to bet that they would not have found it by now?

And if so, what does that say about you?

How can you be so sure that what you feel (for surely your testimony is based on feelings not actual tangible proof) is any more correct than what the Jews feel?

Feelings do not substantiate. Feelings only support pre conceived confirmation biases.

I can already attempt a prediction on your response. You'll try to claim that your testimony is not feelings based, it is pure knowledge that opens up, expands your intellect and flows into your mind and spirit. But if you argue that way, it seems that you are going to have to also claim that God is not inspiring, leading, opening up the intellects and understandings of the brilliant Jewish PHD wielding scholars... some of whom have even pulled apart verse by verse the Book of Mormon. The Jews are spiritually blind, unable to see what is so "plainly" right in front of their faces, and you are not?

And that is where, in my opinion, the LDS arrogance begins. Most religions are arrogant this way. Such arrogance begins with the respective pre conceived confirmation bias.

Noggin