Cognate accusatives

[maklelan]

I loved when the eminent Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay stated that the Book of Mormon "doesn't make sense to me. . . . I don't think it has anything to do with the culture of 600 BC, and I'm an expert on that period."

I'm curious to what degree Barkay has interacted with the Book of Mormon. Do you know? The anti-Mormon production from which that soundbite comes does not say.

True, he probably hasn't delved much into it, but he hasn't had to and wouldn't waste his time in doing so.

Of course he hasn't had to. Superficial impressions are good enough for one so eminent.

His statement is accurate nonetheless.

Based on what? You're certainly not an expert on the period. Other experts, like Barker and Rabin disagree.

Even on hearing the barest of details about the BoM such an assessment can be made by an expert such as Barkay.

Your logic is becoming grotesque. You honestly think that drawing such a conclusion based on "the barest of details" is an indication of his expertise rather than a quite critical methodological shortcoming?

I think that i'm coming to the realization that the BoM apologists really are clutching at straws and it is probably not much use trying to discuss or persuade them (altho I do enjoy the nature of the arguments).

And what is bringing you to that realization? All the arguments you've lost on this board and Barkay's ricochet off the topic?

They have already made up their minds. further, and this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in, they use their formidable academic prowess to try to explain away any criticism of the BoM sometimes with the most outrageous of explanations (horses and chariots in the BoM for instance). Sometimes they come up with some clever little innovations. But at the end of the day, these are more clever than convincing.

I've yet to see any thorough evaluation of any of our claims. Rather I see vague blanket assertions that you and I both know you don't have the skills or resources to back up with evidence.

[maklelan]

CFR

It's from the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon DVD.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Dismissal. Yes you grant some minor points to Packham, but ultimately you just wipe him out as if none of his arguments are really serious....

For a textbook example of what you just described (plus a pretty good example of dramatic irony), see below:

I think that i'm coming to the realization that the BoM apologists really are clutching at straws and it is probably not much use trying to discuss or persuade them (altho I do enjoy the nature of the arguments). They have already made up their minds. further, and this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in, they use their formidable academic prowess to try to explain away any criticism of the BoM sometimes with the most outrageous of explanations (horses and chariots in the BoM for instance). Sometimes they come up with some clever little innovations. But at the end of the day, these are more clever than convincing.

[canterdogs]

It's clear that statement by Barkay touched some raw nerves with LDS. But surely they must be used to this. Michael Coe is dismissive of the BoM and has been for some time despite having a tremendous amount of respect for their scholars who work on real problems.

[WalkerW]

Since Barkay isn't available and all you have is that soundbite, perhaps you can tell us what is wrong with Barker's view found here. Coe published an article in Dialogue regarding his doubts about the Book of Mormon. Sorenson's monumental work An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was published years after. He has a new book being published either this year or next. Coe may not believe the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't magically rid us of Sorenson's credentials or scholarship. I wonder if you have ever read Sorenson's work or that of John Clark or Brant Gardner (even Brian Stubbs' linguistic work).

[cdowis]

It's clear that statement by Barkay touched some raw nerves with LDS. But surely they must be used to this. Michael Coe is dismissive of the BoM and has been for some time despite having a tremendous amount of respect for their scholars who work on real problems.

Logical fallacies do indeed bother us. For example, "appeal to authority", as found in wiki:

Appeal to Authority

Explanation

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

We are only asking for the specific evidence and we can make our own conclusion. We invite your autorities here into this forum to discuss their conclusions. For example, I have written several months ago to Michael Coe specifically, and requested that he discuss his ideas with us. There was silence.

He has some interesting things to say about the BOM, but I think some of his statements are based on false assumptions. He is not an expert on the BOM, for example, and he needs to clear up some of his misconceptions. I do not know of any instance where he has debated the issue, only declared his fiats in published form. He has avoided, to my knowledge, an open discussion and debate.

If you want to quote the experts, be prepared to give us the evidence, the specific facts. Or, have them come here and speak directly with us.

A simple Appeal to authority, without proof or evidence, is a logical fallacy, and you should know better.

[maklelan]

It's clear that statement by Barkay touched some raw nerves with LDS.

No, it was the vapid appeal to authority followed by the horrifically fallacious assertion that the Book of Mormon is so false that an expert doesn't even need to look closely at it to know it's false.

But surely they must be used to this.

No.

Michael Coe is dismissive of the BoM and has been for some time despite having a tremendous amount of respect for their scholars who work on real problems.

Two scholars does not really support "used to it."

[Tarski]

It's interesting to me, as I reflect back on my mission and read my missionary journals, that as I studied scripture and studied the words of church leaders I began to express myself similarly, especially in my journal writing.

Me also and I chuckle now at how I might sound to myself now if I could listen to my young missionary self.

These days I am sure that I probably use a lot of phrases and tropes that I pick up from reading popular science and philosphy books.

I wouldn't be surprised if JS sounded quite Biblical when he was in the mood.

I dreamed a dream too.

[kolipoki09]

Me also and I chuckle now at how I might sound to myself now if I could listen to my young missionary self.

These days I am sure that I probably use a lot of phrases and tropes that I pick up from reading popular science and philosphy books.

I wouldn't be surprised if JS sounded quite Biblical when he was in the mood.

I dreamed a dream too.

Depending on whose talks I was listening to the most, I tended to wax a little "McConkie-ish" in my day, though toward the end I sounded more like Truman Madsen. I could never come close to writing or speaking like Hugh Nibley though.

[volgadon]

Gabriel Barkay is a good archaeologist, but he tends to think a little too highly of himself. That he dismissed the BoM out of hand with hardly a glance actually reflects very poorly on him, canterdogs. It is hardly a compliment to his scholarly prowess.

[canterdogs]

Gabriel Barkay is a good archaeologist, but he tends to think a little too highly of himself. That he dismissed the BoM out of hand with hardly a glance actually reflects very poorly on him, canterdogs. It is hardly a compliment to his scholarly prowess.

What of Michael Coe? I just read the interview with PBS. He regards the BoM story as an impossibility. It is true that he also mentions certain things in the Bible have not got any archaeological support. But he also mentions that there are quite a lot of discoveries that Biblical archaeologists can be rightly proud about. But for the BoM - nothing at all. And the overwhelming, in fact unanimous, opinion of his colleagues are in agreeance. I think that one can and should dismiss the BoM story out of hand on reading it, especially with what all the scholars are saying.

You know its easy for a Mormon scholar to use their knowledge and cleverness to nit pick here and there. To make some poor simpleton like me look foolish because of my lack of knowledge of Hebrew etc. But you can't escape from the fact that the BoM story is impossible. This has been attested to by all non-Mormon scholars. To anyone with just a passing knowledge of the history of the americas, the story sound completely fanciful. That's what it sounded like to me. And lo and behold, all scholars agree.

As for Barker, she never commented on the plausibility of the BoM story. I suspect that she thinks the whole thing is make-believe, or else she'd be a Mormon herself. She may find it interesting, but ultimately I don't think she thinks it is an accurate history of real people.

[Anijen]

What of Michael Coe. And the overwhelming, in fact unanimous, opinion of his colleagues are in agreeance. I think that one can and should dismiss the BoM story out of hand on reading it, especially with what all the scholars are saying.

the BoM story is impossible. This has been attested to by all non-Mormon scholars.

canterdogs your bias is showing. CFR that every colleague of Michael Coe were unanimous, This is a board rule you have to show it or retract it. I call on you to publicly retract it, because it is not true. Oh I would CFR you also on your egregiously flippant comment that "the BoM story is impossible. This has been attested to by all non-Mormon scholars" but I know you couldn't back that up as well. in fact you have lost any credibility you thought you might have had. I know of a few scholars who are actual converts, oh my imagine that, somewhere someone is feinting in shock over that news. Just an FYI those converts happened to be scholars before they converted.

just saying

Anijen

[canterdogs]

canterdogs your bias is showing. CFR that every colleague of Michael Coe were unanimous, This is a board rule you have to show it or retract it. I call on you to publicly retract it, because it is not true. Oh I would CFR you also on your egregiously flippant comment that "the BoM story is impossible. This has been attested to by all non-Mormon scholars" but I know you couldn't back that up as well. in fact you have lost any credibility you thought you might have had. I know of a few scholars who are actual converts, oh my imagine that, somewhere someone is feinting in shock over that news. Just an FYI those converts happened to be scholars before they converted.

just saying

Anijen

Book of Mormon "impossible"? All scholars view the BoM as fanciful? Not my words but Michael Coe's words:

One might wonder how my profession in general, the profession of archaeology, has used Book of Mormon archaeology -- or let's say archaeology done by Mormons; I always separate these two things out. I think that for the Book of Mormon, even though they don't know much about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism, they take the whole thing as a complete fantasy, that this is a big waste of time. Nothing can ever come out of it because it's just impossible that this could have happened, because we know what happened to these people. We can read their writings: They're not in reformed Egyptian; they're in Maya.

The bottom line is that the BoM story is just not plausible. you can't get away from this conclusion no matter how smart you are. You can't make something that didn't happen as though it did happen. That's the impossibility of it.

[canterdogs]

The above is precisely why Gabriel Barkay could say what he did about the BoM. There is no need to do detailed study into whether archaeology supports the BoM. In fact that is what Mormon scholars have done and absolutely nothing that has turned up in support of it in any way. That is exactly what the Mesoamerican scholars expected. But the faith of LDS can assert things that are not as though they were. The Book of Abraham is perhaps the most stark example. It is was a transparent fraud. "Joseph just used the papyri as inspiration" they say. "It doesn't matter what the text really say, what matters is that he used it as some sort of divining instrument to restore the writings of Abraham". Well you can say these sorts of things in the face of any kind of evidence.

[Vance]

Book of Mormon "impossible"? All scholars view the BoM as fanciful? Not my words but Michael Coe's words:

So then he has no credibility.

The bottom line is that the BoM story is just not plausible.

Tell that to the Millions that believe it (plausible = believable).

you can't get away from this conclusion no matter how smart you are.

Talk about closed mindedness on display.

You can't make something that didn't happen as though it did happen. That's the impossibility of it.

More drivel.

[Anijen]

Book of Mormon "impossible"? All scholars view the BoM as fanciful? Not my words but Michael Coe's words:

The bottom line is that the BoM story is just not plausible. you can't get away from this conclusion no matter how smart you are. You can't make something that didn't happen as though it did happen. That's the impossibility of it.

You still did not answer the CFR you said it, not Micheal Coe, so I want your sources. Just to remind you, here is what you said and it is on this I call a CFR;

And the overwhelming, in fact unanimous, opinion of his colleagues are in agreeance

You admit you are not an expert yet you criticize them. You make absolute statements and react offended when we question you. I mean how are we out of line here? Just making statements like "anyone can see" or "that's the impossibility of it" then you do not back your theory up with any evidence but just saying it so doesn't make it it so. Seriously many posters on here are very qualified and are outstanding scholars. It seems you are used to debating with some rube who without questing accepts what you say as truth yet you seem surprised when the level of knowledgeable responses to your posts is contrary to your opinion.

[Anijen]

The above is precisely why Gabriel Barkay could say what he did about the BoM. There is no need to do detailed study into whether archaeology supports the BoM. In fact that is what Mormon scholars have done and absolutely nothing that has turned up in support of it in any way. That is exactly what the Mesoamerican scholars expected. But the faith of LDS can assert things that are not as though they were. The Book of Abraham is perhaps the most stark example. It is was a transparent fraud. "Joseph just used the papyri as inspiration" they say. "It doesn't matter what the text really say, what matters is that he used it as some sort of divining instrument to restore the writings of Abraham". Well you can say these sorts of things in the face of any kind of evidence.

Just a FYI I know of two expert archeologist (both specialize in Mesoamerica) who where converted. Seems to me that any lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon didn't hinder their choice in getting baptized.

[canterdogs]

You still did not answer the CFR you said it, not Micheal Coe, so I want your sources. Just to remind you, here is what you said and it is on this I call a CFR;

You admit you are not an expert yet you criticize them. You make absolute statements and react offended when we question you. I mean how are we out of line here? Just making statements like "anyone can see" or "that's the impossibility of it" then you do not back your theory up with any evidence but just saying it so doesn't make it it so. Seriously many posters on here are very qualified and are outstanding scholars. It seems you are used to debating with some rube who without questing accepts what you say as truth yet you seem surprised when the level of knowledgeable responses to your posts is contrary to your opinion.

I haven't been offended nor have I accused anyone of being out of line. My simple point is that the overwhelming consensus of scholars, as Michael Coe states, is that the BoM is indeed impossible - his words not mine. I have investigated the claims of the church, I don't believe them. I may not be a Biblical scholar or an anthropologist, but most people aren't. But that doesn't stop us from making a reasonable judgement about Mormonism. And, as it turns out, evidence, history, scripture is against Mormonism. The presence of a vigorous apologetic machine that is forced to defend just about all of Mormonism's peculiar claims is evidence of this. I can say, unabashedly, that those, no matter how smart, who continue to believe in the BoM are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest or self-deceived so that they can remain in the faith. And I don't think I need to have a PhD to make that statement.

[WalkerW]

I'm curious as to how someone can dismiss the Book of Mormon or Mormonism as impossible "even though they don't know much about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism." How exactly does this make sense? And considering a minute percentage of all Mayan sites have been excavated, I find this rather premature.

And, as it turns out, evidence, history, scripture is against Mormonism.

I'd have to say "no" on this. Especially the last two (which in a sense can act as the first). The recent scholarship surrounding the divine council in ancient Israel I think is a big plus for Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

The presence of a vigorous apologetic machine that is forced to defend just about all of Mormonism's peculiar claims is evidence of this

How? Does this mean I can rule out all other religious sects since they all have their own apologetics?

I can say, unabashedly, that those, no matter how smart, who continue to believe in the BoM are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest or self-deceived so that they can remain in the faith.

I can say, unabashedly, that this is sheer jackassery at its finest. You've done nothing but appeal to authority. Tell me: have you read Sorenson, Gardner, or Clark? Have you actually read Michael Coe's work? Or are you using soundbites again?

[WalkerW]

Feel free to elaborate on what exactly is impossible about the Book of Mormon scenario. Don't tell me that it is impossible because Michael Coe says it's impossible. I want specifics.

By the way, Michael Coe considers himself "irreligious." Should I disbelieve all religious claims now that Coe has spoken?

[cdowis]

I haven't been offended nor have I accused anyone of being out of line. My simple point is that the overwhelming consensus of scholars, as Michael Coe states, is that the BoM is indeed impossible - his words not mine.

But YOU are citing him, as if his opinion meant something. Did you read my post on the logical fallacy of citing authority? Do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

If you are going to quote Coe here in this forum, you need to either 1. defend what he has said, or 2. have him come to this forum to defend his opinion.

My first question is, has he actually read the Book of Mormon? Has he done an extensive analysis of the text? For example, what language did the Nephites speak: hebrew, reformed egyptian, or something else. Does he know the answer to this very basic question on the BOM text.

YOU NEED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, if you are going to cite Coe or any other supposed expert. They need to know the BOM to make a judgement.

If you cannot defend Coe, and answer these basic questions, stop taking us for fools.

[maklelan]

What of Michael Coe? I just read the interview with PBS. He regards the BoM story as an impossibility. It is true that he also mentions certain things in the Bible have not got any archaeological support. But he also mentions that there are quite a lot of discoveries that Biblical archaeologists can be rightly proud about. But for the BoM - nothing at all. And the overwhelming, in fact unanimous, opinion of his colleagues are in agreeance. I think that one can and should dismiss the BoM story out of hand on reading it, especially with what all the scholars are saying.

You know its easy for a Mormon scholar to use their knowledge and cleverness to nit pick here and there. To make some poor simpleton like me look foolish because of my lack of knowledge of Hebrew etc. But you can't escape from the fact that the BoM story is impossible. This has been attested to by all non-Mormon scholars. To anyone with just a passing knowledge of the history of the americas, the story sound completely fanciful. That's what it sounded like to me. And lo and behold, all scholars agree.

As for Barker, she never commented on the plausibility of the BoM story. I suspect that she thinks the whole thing is make-believe, or else she'd be a Mormon herself. She may find it interesting, but ultimately I don't think she thinks it is an accurate history of real people.

So basically you're arguing that you can't sustain the argument yourself so you'll make weak appeals to authority. When those fall flat and non-Mormon authorities are produced which don't preclude the plausibility of the Book of Mormon you'll assume that they must be lying because (again, you'll assume) they'd get baptized otherwise. I think it's clear what kind of logic is driving your argument.

[canterdogs]

I think it is the apologists whose logic is wrong. They begin with the assumption that the BoM is true. Then they try to construct arguments based on this assumption.

Bible scholars can see evidence to back their faith. The evidence reinforces faith. We can't obtain evidence for the resurrection and ascension etc. But there are evidences supporting the Bible, enough to know that the history recorded there has some semblance of historical veracity. We have some of the cities, we have evidence for the peoples it talks about... The irreligious Coe even states that the discoveries Bible archaeologists have made are impressive. Our faith doesn't exist in a vacuum. All this reinforces our faith. We look forward to the return of Jesus, an event we can't prove will take place. But because of the evidence we see in the Bible in addition to supernatural works of the Holy Spirit in our lives and churches, we feel that our faith is based on something real. Whatever can be said about the BoM historical veracity, you can't say any of what can be said about the Bible.

on Barker, her speciality is temples. She does not say anything about the plausibility of the BoM events taking place in the Americas. She might find some things in the BoM interesting. But that doesn't mean that she supports the BoM as a accurate history. I wonder what her views are on this... I doubt that she takes them seriously...

Let's not lose sight of what my original post was about. I did take the time to investigate one of the apologists claims. Namely that cognate accusatives appear in the BoM. I did not find this convincing as these are in the Bible too, and in some very famous texts e.g. Joseph "dreaming a dream" about his brothers. Surely this literary device was borrowed from the Bible. So, although I'm not an expert, I think its a little unfair to just portray me as a simpleton who doesn't know anything about Mormon apologetics.

[maklelan]

I think it is the apologists whose logic is wrong. They begin with the assumption that the BoM is true. Then they try to construct arguments based on this assumption.

Bible scholars can see evidence to back their faith. The evidence reinforces faith. We can't obtain evidence for the resurrection and ascension etc. But there are evidences supporting the Bible, enough to know that the history recorded there has some semblance of historical veracity. We have some of the cities, we have evidence for the peoples it talks about... The irreligious Coe even states that the discoveries Bible archaeologists have made are impressive. Our faith doesn't exist in a vacuum. All this reinforces our faith. We look forward to the return of Jesus, an event we can't prove will take place. But because of the evidence we see in the Bible in addition to supernatural works of the Holy Spirit in our lives and churches, we feel that our faith is based on something real. Whatever can be said about the BoM historical veracity, you can't say any of what can be said about the Bible.

Modern scholarship unilaterally undermines a historical view of everything in the Bible prior to the rise of the Israelite state. The majority of the historical data from then until the Greco-Roman period is largely, but not entirely, in favor of the broader narrative (not the prophetic activity or the attribution of certain events to divine intervention). Regarding Jesus, we have no firm grasp on any events from his life. We know the traditions about his death aren't found in the earliest material, nor are the traditions about his birth. We know his divinity was a notion that developed well after the oral traditions were in place. We know the miracles he performed served to relativize the Christian community to key events in Israel's history (primarily the Exodus, the second giving of the law, and the lives of certain major prophets). We know resurrection and ascension were rather stock motifs back then. How do all these thing reinforce the faith of Bible scholars?

on Barker, her speciality is temples. She does not say anything about the plausibility of the BoM events taking place in the Americas. She might find some things in the BoM interesting. But that doesn't mean that she supports the BoM as a accurate history. I wonder what her views are on this... I doubt that she takes them seriously...

So you're claiming now that she's not a specialist and so doesn't have as good a grasp on the issues, and probably doesn't buy any of it anyway. And what do you base these theories on? Certainly not just your own assumptions.

Let's not lose sight of what my original post was about. I did take the time to investigate one of the apologists claims. Namely that cognate accusatives appear in the BoM. I did not find this convincing as these are in the Bible too, and in some very famous texts e.g. Joseph "dreaming a dream" about his brothers. Surely this literary device was borrowed from the Bible. So, although I'm not an expert, I think its a little unfair to just portray me as a simpleton who doesn't know anything about Mormon apologetics.

I'm not really a big fan of appealing to cognate accusatives, but I think it's been shown many times over that you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to analyzing philological arguments concerning the Book of Mormon.

[canterdogs]

Of course some things are controversial in the Bible. I never pretended that there weren't. But the problems of the Bible's historical veracity pale in comparison with the BoM. Again, it always seems that LDS try to drag the Bible down to the level of the BoM and say "see, the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales too. It's ok though, we just need blind faith"

I did say Barker was a specialist. But she has nothing to say about the historical veracity of the BoM.

Nice one mak, just cast me aside like a dumb Protestant (you LDS really do need to do something about your superiority complex). I took the time to examine one of the apologists' claims. I am not a linguist, never claimed to be. But at least I checked out the argument for myself. Turns out that even you don't think it's a particularly good argument... but not without taking a swipe at me. Well done.