BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

[maklelan]

Sorry, but the "made up facts" (an oxymoron for sure) are on the ones who put forth something, and that is exactly what I have been doing here. You say that this happened here, well please show evidence. The onus is on the ones affirming something.

Fair enough. Your assertions about BHQ were shown absolutely conclusively to be remarkably uninformed. Your attempt to deflect that fact was shown to be even more uninformed. Engage that discussion, please.

When you show good quality evidence, as opposed to speculation, as you gave in the web links, then people will believe you.

I didn't provide the links, but I did provide several examples that show your Dead Sea Scrolls "facts" were erroneous. Despite your attempts to ignore that, it's not going to go away.

Until that time comes, even a sane degree of skepticism trumps your total lack of evidence in affirming things in the BoM.

So you also have a sane degree of skepticism regarding talking donkeys, a 6,000 year old earth, a worldwide flood 5,000 ago that saved all the animals on the planet in a boat the size of a football field, splitting a sea with a staff, and resurrection from the dead (followed by teleportation and flying)? I say you don't. Prove me wrong.

Essentially you are asking the world, "Please believe me because I am sincere, and I believe it."

I will quote this statement when you respond to my questions above about your sane degree of skepticism.

Therein is the entirety of the case that many have for choosing not to believe speculation, and implausible explanations as to how the stuff purportedly in Palmyra came there from Central America.

Nothing about it is implausible, and you haven't provided a single argument to suggest it is. All you've done is claim you don't have to respond because you don't think it's real scholarship.

BTW my faith is not the topic of the OP, so I choose not to discuss it here, OK?

Don't bring up the ability of others to critically examine their faith if you refuse to discuss the same regarding your own faith.

[John T]

This statement is nonsensical. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

agreed. In my mind, I made a complete statement, but it got lost on its way to my fingers.

it was supposed to read, "Peer review is the gold standard for persons in any profession."

1) I never intimated in any way, shape, or form that I did not want peer review for LDS scholarship. Please don't put words in my mouth, and especially in such an infantile manner. More ad homenums, huh, Dan?

2) Personal websites don't have peer review.

3) Making a nonsensical statement about peer review still does not address the websites' arguments.

Your reply demonstrates a grasp of the obvious, but not of what is important. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, they will seek peer review. Otherwise they are spewing balderdash like a volcano spews lava.

Since there is no objective independent verification of the stuff of the stuff on those websites, it remains in the realm of pop culture, and not in the realm of serious thought. If you want to dwell there, that is your choice, but do not expect yourself to be taken seriously, and please do not balk when errors are pointed out. That is being inconsistent.

I fault you for not engaging anything in the websites. You simply waved your hand and said none of them can be legitimate because they have the word "might" and because you've deemed them non-academic. Don't waste my time with these silly assertions.

See above. As I pointed out previously, the word "might" is used to locate places, cities and civilizations. Either the evidence exists, or else it does not. Your dismissing my insistence for rational and scholarly information is an attempt to have it both ways.

If it is true, it will withstand scholarly investigation. End of story.

John T, on 15 December 2009 - 12:15 PM, said:When scholars state something is is not they are presenting guesses, it is because they are presenting facts. The equivocations that I noted eviscerate the entire web site of plausible content.

Again, this is flat false, and I provided evidence. You have not engaged it, you've only reasserted your original position. Don't waste my time if you have no intention of even acknowledging evidence. If that's the case let me know so this discussion can be ended.

ROFL! Can you imagine any scholar defending his final dissertation with, "Well, this is my educated guess because I have no real facts."?

There are no statistics of any sort to determine any degree of certainty (t test) or any rigors that are normally applied to scholarly articles.

And websites are not articles, nor have you shown anything even remotely approaching "rigors" with your naive evaluation of evidence. More ad homenums, huh, Dan? Tell me, how many variants exist between 1QIsa<a> and MT again?

Relevance?

You're simply misapplying standards that you don't understand to begin with. More ad homenums, huh, Dan?

Although you infer that you want to deal with the objective, yopu have a habit of going personal, just as you do on CARM

Then you didn't read very many of them. Several involved the possibility of evidence and the potential certain streams of inquiry may have for bearing fruit. Irrespective, your statement was very clearly, "eight times the word 'might' is included in the article, and that is speculation, not scholarship." More ad homenums, huh, Dan? Blame my search function on Mozilla if you do not like it, but I counted eight times the word was used. Are you perchance equating possibility for proof?

You gave no context, you just asserted the use of "might" precludes scholarship. Do you care to equivocate here and redefine what usage constitutes non-scholarship and what usage does not, or will you just let this one slide by like you did the problem with asserting it's impossible to both prove and refute a negative? Don't skip past my responses any more if you intend to continue this discussion.

Did you not read what I posted? hope that you can understand this: the word "might" as it applies to locating cities and places is inexact, and is a guess at best. OTOH, honest scholarship states, "This is this and that is that" without equivocation.

Is that a fact? Page 32: "If our efforts are successful, someday we may really know something of what it was like in the past." Far cry indeed.

Thanks for supplying another PRIME example of what am saying!

All of archaeology is guessed-at toponyms and cult practices. I have two friends who dig every summer at Gath in Israel. One of them directs a portion of the dig. Last summer they stumbled across a cache of Philistine cult objects that had been discarded. Do you know how they decided what they were used for? They stood around and said, "Maybe it was for this," and "No, it was probably for that," until they arrived at a consensus.

By definition, this is peer review. Thanks for supplying another PRIME example of what am saying!

John T, on 15 December 2009 - 12:15 PM, said:In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred" T hat is archeology being discussed, not anthropology, there the word "might" is highly important when discussing known, pjysical locations, not guessed-at cult practices.

You're making up standards that don't apply in the real world, and you manifestly don't know the first thing about the professions to which you're ascribing these ridiculous methodologies. You cannot slip such garbage by me, so stop wasting your time.

Scholarship does not apply in the real world? Do tell me more! I suspect that the secret combinations and crypto biologists and the conspiracy theory people all tell the unvarnished truth, right?

It is "garbage" to you because it dispels your statements. If you do not like the quote you yourself provided, too bad, Deal with it, for it hoists you on your own petard.

You can not cite one incidence of the Israelites making a child sacrifice to the one, true and holy God.

Utterly meaningless. This all, of course, depends exclusively on your beliefs about what was considered a "true and holy God." In addition, you totally ignored my evidence and just barked "Nu-uh!" at me. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter directly to Yahweh in a pericope that has the consent of the author of the book of Judges and shows Yahweh directly influencing and blessing Jephthah. The verse I shared in Exodus very clearly commands Israel to sacrifice their children. If that didn't come from your "true and holy God," then where did Exod 22 come from? Don't waste my time by barking "Nu-uh!" and not engaging my evidence.

You are objecting to the quotes of the author you seem to support. Look closely at the punctuation

I do no such thing. There was no normative Israelite or Jewish religion. Again, don't put such naive words in my mouth. What I said was that it was

approved of by the authors of the Bible and commanded by God himself.

You've yet to deal with those facts. Please do so, but stop wasting my time with these amateur methodologies and made up standards.

CFR or else recant, You can not find one incidence where child sacrifice was "approved of by the authors of the Bible and commanded by God himself "

[maklelan]

agreed. In my mind, I made a complete statement, but it got lost on its way to my fingers.

it was supposed to read, "Peer review is the gold standard for persons in any profession."

And since personal websites are not associated with the academy in any professional way, that's irrelevant. And I'll thank you not to lecture me about peer review. I'm far more acquainted with the process than you.

Your reply demonstrates a grasp of the obvious, but not of what is important. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, they will seek peer review. Otherwise they are spewing balderdash like a volcano spews lava.

Again, there's no such thing as peer review for personal websites.

Since there is no objective independent verification of the stuff of the stuff on those websites, it remains in the realm of pop culture, and not in the realm of serious thought.

But peer review doesn't mean that something's right, nor does a lack of peer review mean something is wrong. You phenomenally misrepresent peer review and academic methodologies when you insist non-peer reviewed personal websites do not need to even be evaluated to be rejected.

If you want to dwell there, that is your choice, but do not expect yourself to be taken seriously, and please do not balk when errors are pointed out. That is being inconsistent.

Balk when errors are pointed out? In my quote above I point out that personal websites do not have peer review. You balked concerning that error. Care to respond?

See above. As I pointed out previously, the word "might" is used to locate places, cities and civilizations. Either the evidence exists, or else it does not. Your dismissing my insistence for rational and scholarly information is an attempt to have it both ways.

No, it's an attempt to get you to stop pretending you know what you're talking about. Evidence is not proof. It takes a lot of evidence to get to the point where "might" is no longer needed. I pointed to a publication that uses that kind of language in the exact same way. You're not an academic and you don't speak for academics, so let us define our methodologies.

If it is true, it will withstand scholarly investigation. End of story.

You have no indication whatsoever that it has not withstood scholarly investigation, you refuse to apply scholarly investigation. So what makes you think the above statement gives you carte blanche to reject it? As I've pointed out several times already, there is no such thing as peer review for personal websites.

ROFL! Can you imagine any scholar defending his final dissertation with, "Well, this is my educated guess because I have no real facts."?

Yes. Many include that, only worded professionally. Historiography works on few facts and many educated guesses. You clearly haven't read many dissertations.

Relevance?

Your double standards and utter and complete lack of familiarity with academic methodologies totally invalidate your attempts to pontificate about what is academically acceptable. Your continued refusal to even acknowledge the substance of my arguments while warning me about balking at evidence compounds this double standard.

By the way, criticizing your naive evaluation is not ad hominem. I am criticizing your evaluation, not your person. As I said before, please learn what ad hominem is before you start accusing people of it.

Although you infer that you want to deal with the objective, yopu have a habit of going personal, just as you do on CARM

Completely untrue. I have begged time and time again for people to deal with my evidence, and all I get in return is "Nu-uh!" I don't "go personal," I accurately criticize arguments.

Blame my search function on Mozilla if you do not like it, but I counted eight times the word was used. Are you perchance equating possibility for proof?

Utterly irrelevant. This does not address my concerns.

[maklelan]

Did you not read what I posted? hope that you can understand this:

That is what is considered ad hominem, John.

the word "might" as it applies to locating cities and places is inexact, and is a guess at best. OTOH, honest scholarship states, "This is this and that is that" without equivocation.

Absolutely not. Honest historiographical scholarship recognizes that we don't know everything and attempts to present the best models for the past. I am an historian and I don't appreciate you misrepresenting so flippantly my profession. I provided an example of this. Respond to it or drop this fallacious argument.

Thanks for supplying another PRIME example of what am saying!

And it was from the peer reviewed professional publication I linked to. Despite your uninformed guesses to the contrary, that is a big part of historiography and archaeology.

By definition, this is peer review. Thanks for supplying another PRIME example of what am saying!

No, it's not peer review. Peer review is blind (usually double blind) and must be much wider than the people standing around you. In addition, it's still just guessing what might be the case. You don't appear to be listening to a word that I am saying.

Scholarship does not apply in the real world? Do tell me more! I suspect that the secret combinations and crypto biologists and the conspiracy theory people all tell the unvarnished truth, right?

What you're describing is not scholarship.

It is "garbage" to you because it dispels your statements. If you do not like the quote you yourself provided, too bad, Deal with it, for it hoists you on your own petard.

Impotent posturing. This doesn't address my concerns.

You are objecting to the quotes of the author you seem to support. Look closely at the punctuation

Not a word of this addresses my concerns.

You can not find one incidence where child sacrifice was "approved of by the authors of the Bible and commanded by God himself "

Actually I've shown two of the former, of which one also satisfies the latter. I've cited both, so a CFR is superfluous. You have the references, but here are some publications that further validate my interpretation: ( Susan Ackerman, "Child Sacrifice," Bible Review 9 [1993]: 20

[Zakuska]

You can not find one incidence where child sacrifice was "approved of by the authors of the Bible and commanded by God himself "

Actually I've shown two of the former, of which one also satisfies the latter. I've cited both, so a CFR is superfluous. You have the references, but here are some publications that further validate my interpretation: ( Susan Ackerman, "Child Sacrifice," Bible Review 9 [1993]: 20

[John T]

Aaaaaaa... what was the Whole Abraham take Isaac and kill him story about?

OK, you have me on the SINGLE EXCEPTION.

However, it was never approved for general use, and the act was never committed because as the text says, it was a test of obedience and trust for Abraham because he said to Isaac, "God will provide himself a lamb". There was a ram nearby caught in a thicket that was used. Because that explains the single "exception" to the rule Dan's ...

[maklelan]

OK, you have me on the SINGLE EXCEPTION.

No, I pointed to two others and a bunch of really good scholarship on the topic. Again, just saying "Nu-uh!" doesn't make them magically go away.

However, it was never approved for general use, and the act was never committed because as the text says, it was a test of obedience and trust for Abraham because he said to Isaac, "God will provide himself a lamb". There was a ram nearby caught in a thicket that was used. Because that explains the single "exception" to the rule Dan's ...

You still have to deal with Jephthah and the commandment to sacrifice the first born son in Exodus 22. Keep in mind "Nu-uh!" doesn't work.

[John T]

No, I pointed to two others and a bunch of really good scholarship on the topic. Again, just saying "Nu-uh!" doesn't make them magically go away.

You still have to deal with Jephthah and the commandment to sacrifice the first born son in Exodus 22. Keep in mind "Nu-uh!" doesn't work.

Jephthah (Judges11) made a very rash vow. Since his was a vow to honor God, the scholarship states that he gave his son as Hanna gave her son Samuel to the Temple, to work there.

You need to re read Exodus 22 again. Nothing of what you state is there.

[maklelan]

Jephthah (Judges11) made a very rash vow. Since his was a vow to honor God, the scholarship states that he gave his son as Hanna gave her son Samuel to the Temple, to work there.

The text says neither of those things. In fact, Jephthah very clearly states he will give whatever comes out to meet him to Yahweh as a burnt offering. He daughter urged him to do exactly as he vowed, and the text says that's just what he did. Your exegesis is nothing but poor ad hoc rationalization.

You need to re read Exodus 22 again. Nothing of what you state is there.

Yes it is (Exod 22:28-29):

???????? ????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????

?

"The firstborn of your sons you will give to me, just as you shall do with your oxen and your sheep."

What manner are oxen and sheep given to God? They are sacrificed. The same is to be done with the firstborn male. Your position is indefensible. In addition, you demanded scholarship and I provided it. Respond to that scholarship and provide some of your own if you intend to engage my argument. Anything less is insufficient, and will result in your forfeiting this debate. Quit playing these juvenile and naive CARMite games and address my concerns.

[WalkerW]

All reviewed by TBMs, correct? Yeah, that is really unbiased, and really having no personal agenda and really independent.

This post showed a number of things:

1. You are too lazy to do actual research before posting (or even a Google search), which demonstrates that discussing with you is borderline pointless. Westcott is the former President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. He is not LDS. And he certainly knows more about linguistics than you do.

2. You would automatically dismiss a peer-reviewed article solely because the peers might (there is that word again) be Mormon. There is a word for that: bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. In this case, that creed, belief, or opinion is LDS.

3. Going off of #2, you dismiss scholarship because it uses the word might i.e. makes educated guesses and draws hypothetical conclusions based on evidence. However, you do not hold yourself to this same standard. You made a poor assumption and automatically dismissed a scholarly article because of it. The difference being that you made a completely uneducated guess (you did not know who Dr. Westcott was nor did you attempt to find out) and responded based on this hypothetical conclusion devoid of evidence. Yet, you expect us to take you seriously.

4. Not only has this shown you to be a bigot towards Mormons, but it has backfired in regards to your implication about Mormons. Instead, it has painted you what you attempted to paint them: biased with a personal, dependent agenda.

I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls one was bad, but you really shot yourself in the foot with this one.

[cdowis]

Walker,

Please remove the universal underlining. Your posts are almost impossible to read.

[John T]

The text says neither of those things. In fact, Jephthah very clearly states he will give whatever comes out to meet him to Yahweh as a burnt offering. He daughter urged him to do exactly as he vowed, and the text says that's just what he did. Your exegesis is nothing but poor ad hoc rationalization.

Yes it is (Exod 22:28-29):

???????? ????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????

?

"The firstborn of your sons you will give to me, just as you shall do with your oxen and your sheep."

What manner are oxen and sheep given to God? They are sacrificed. The same is to be done with the firstborn male. Your position is indefensible. In addition, you demanded scholarship and I provided it. Respond to that scholarship and provide some of your own if you intend to engage my argument. Anything less is insufficient, and will result in your forfeiting this debate. Quit playing these juvenile and naive CARMite games and address my concerns.

Here is a short compendium of Scripture indicating your error:

28 Thou shalt not revile the judges, nor curse a prince amongst thy people. 29

[John T]

This post showed a number of things:

1. You are too lazy to do actual research before posting (or even a Google search),

2. You would automatically dismiss a peer-reviewed article s

3. Going off of #2, you dismiss scholarship because it uses the word might i.e. makes educated guesses and draws hypothetical conclusions based on

4. Not only has this shown you to be a bigot towards Mormons,

I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls one was bad, but you really shot yourself in the foot with this one.

You assume much in your post--all of it is false.

Since when have become your enemy when I tell the truth?

Do not call anybody dishonest again.

[maklelan]

Here is a short compendium of Scripture indicating your error:

28 Thou shalt not revile the judges, nor curse a prince amongst thy people. 29

[maklelan]

And John, I demand you respond to the scholarship I cited. We have expectations here when people makes a CFR and demand to see scholarship. You've run like a squirrel from that scholarship since then and have evaded it with atrocious exegesis, insults, and threats to ignore me. This is a sure way to get banned from here. I want you to respond to the scholarship or I'll be reporting your behavior. You have a chance to avoid being banned. All you have to do is respond to the scholarship you demanded to see. If you are banned you have no one to blame but yourself, and going back to CARM to crow about being banned for not agreeing with Mormons, or for being too smart for us would only prove how dishonest you're willing to be. Please respond to the scholarship. The ball is entirely in your court. What happens to you is entirely your decision.

[cdowis]

An issue of protocol ==

We can make a formal request for CFR, but we do not demand anything in this forum. If they do not respond, it is a matter for the mods. Even biting sarcasm can be useful -- "Your silence is thundering in my ears."

[maklelan]

An issue of protocol ==

We can make a formal request for CFR, but we do not demand anything in this forum. If they do not respond, it is a matter for the mods. Even biting sarcasm can be useful -- "Your silence is thundering in my ears."

I am demanding only in the sense that I will notify the mods if he refuses to supply a response, to which I believe I am entitled.

[WalkerW]

You assume much in your post--all of it is false.

Since when have become your enemy when I tell the truth?

Do not call anybody dishonest again.

No, your response exposed your true colors quite well. I think my analysis was just fine. Simply saying it isn't means very little (I believe that is the "nu uh" maklelan keeps pointing out...).

[selek]

An issue of protocol ==

We can make a formal request for CFR, but we do not demand anything in this forum.

Perhaps we should...

...a certain, minimal, level of integrity and intellectual honesty would have transformed this thread- and John T's rampant lack of those qualities has been the main anchor dragging it into the depths of inanity.

It's fairly obvious that trolls like JohnT and Yeshua4life aren't here to engage, but merely to annoy and proselyte.

JohnT's and Yes hua4life's antics are the typical CARM shouting-in-lieu-of-reasoning and are the specific reason that site is a cesspool of bigotry and ignorance.

In my not so humble opinion, the mods need to add a LOT more chlorine to the baptismal font and clear out the scum floating near the edges, lest they pollute us as they have CARM.

Mak, you're wasting your time.

This thread has become a re-enactment of the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The only thing John T can do now is bleed on you- anything else you do will simply feed his delusion of invincibility. The only reason he won't admit defeat- is to tick you off.

He knows that his intellectual dishonesty is galling to genuine scholars, thinkers, and Christians, and he's exacting the only victory he can- irritating you with his mul ish obstinancy.

Let it go...and let him skulk back to CARM.

He knows he's been beaten

You are banned from the thread. This is off-topic and totally unnecssary.

[John T]

AN EXPLANATION TO ALL:

I had hoped that the fact that I have been restraining myself in an effort to create dialog with others was apparent. Obviously it is not, and yes, there will be those who disagree. That is OK with me, for the name of this place has the name

[Calm]

Therefore, exegeting a verb, and saying that is in a certain stem, is not something to CFR because the stem of a verb in Hebrew is self evident, not debatable. Likewise citing the two best lexicons in Hebrew, Genesius and the Brown Driver and Briggs in summary is not citable, for the citing is evident in the referring to the works.

These tools are in the domain of all graduate students who study Hebrew, and are indeed essentials. The reason why they are essentials is that at the graduate level, the emphasis is having an accurate translation, not fluency in the language.

Someone challenging your claims is challenging whether or not you are giving an accurate translation---which you yourself is saying is the essential issue--and that can be addressed by issuing a CFR for you to support your claims just as someone who is challenging a mathmatical equation's use of certain propositions and axioms can demand references to establish that such usage is appropriate in that particular context.

[volgadon]

Until that time comes, even a sane degree of skepticism trumps your total lack of evidence in affirming things in the BoM.

Did that hold true for the Bible in, say, 1612?

[volgadon]

I found a nifty quote by Wise, Abegg and Cook, in the introduction (pg. 23) to the Harper Collins 2005 edition of their book The Dead Sea Scrolls; a new translation.

The discoveries at the site were not, after all, facts; archaeology seldom yields those. what archaeology yields is not facts, but artifacts- which then have to be interpreted. Those interpretations, no matter how convincing they may seem, are not facts.

italics are the authors'.

[Nemesis]

Tone down the rhetoric or I will lock people out of the thread.

Nemesis

[maklelan]

AN EXPLANATION TO ALL:

I had hoped that the fact that I have been restraining myself in an effort to create dialog with others was apparent.

Dialogue means two way speech. You do not respond when evidence you demand is presented. You only reassert your conclusions. I have asked you numerous times to respond to specific concerns and specific evidence, including numerous academic publications. You have never even acknowledged that fact. That's not dialogue, and your statement above is not honest.

Obviously it is not, and yes, there will be those who disagree. That is OK with me, for the name of this place has the name