Cognate accusatives

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

I'm guessing you missed all those books and articles she's written on pre-Exile Israelite religion? The ones where she presents an image of ritual, belief, practice, and conflict which almost exactly matches all those outrageous claims from the Book of Mormon?

[canterdogs]

I'm guessing you missed all those books and articles she's written on pre-Exile Israelite religion? The ones where she presents an image of ritual, belief, practice, and conflict which almost exactly matches all those outrageous claims from the Book of Mormon?

I'll paraphrase Coe here: You can set the scene, but there are no actors.

So you have one scholar who thinks there are interesting things in the BoM. BUT did these people ever exist? Barker may set the scene, but there are no actors. That's the whole point.

[cdowis]

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.

Of course.

I have a spiritual witness that it is true. Naturally you reject such a testimony, rejecting modern revelation and prefer the theologians and Biblical scholars to tell you what to believe. Anyway, this is my hobby. I look for evidence for the veracity of the BOM. And there is lots of it. It is also interesting to refute the flawed arguments of the antiMormons -- logical fallacies is one of your favorite tools, for example.

I made a simple request to back up your arguments with facts, but you have not done so.

Bible scholars can see evidence to back their faith.

Are you talking about the Jewish scholars, or the ones who are atheists? Christians are not the only scholars, you know. (another flawed argument collapses) Apparently there is not enough evidence in the Bible to convince the Jews of Christianity, or the atheists that there is a Divinity.

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.

And if you accept the BOM as true, it automatically means that there are angels, and God speaks today through His prophets. So, an atheist can accept the Bible as actual history, and still remain an atheist.

We have some of the cities, we have evidence for the peoples it talks about...

We are fortunate to have a historical continuity from antiquity in the Middle East. We still have the names of the cities, such as Jerusalem. In mesoamerica, those ancient names have been lost. Archeologists do not have the ancient names of those cities, so they give them modern names. "Mayan" and "Olmec", for example, are modern names, not their true names.

We have the dry desert in the middle east, we have dense rainforests in mesoamerica, where entire cities have been buried. We have records preserved in the middle east, the mayan written records were almost totally destroyed.

The problem with artifacts is identification. Even if we were in an authentic Nephite city, we could not identify the artifacts as Nephite, or Mayan, or something else. We could be standing in the city of Zarahemla, but would not know it.

But there is compelling evidence for the BOM. There is a tapestry of evidence, if you have an open mind and willing to look at it.

And finally

I'll paraphrase Coe here: You can set the scene, but there are no actors.

Are you going to respond to my posts? If you are going to cite Coe and other experts, are you going to address the issues I have raised. Has he read the BOM, does he even know what language they were using?

The fact that you have ignored these issues tell us a great deal about yourself.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'll paraphrase Coe here: You can set the scene, but there are no actors.

So you have one scholar who thinks there are interesting things in the BoM. BUT did these people ever exist? Barker may set the scene, but there are no actors. That's the whole point.

Er, Barker is an Old Testament scholar. Her work focuses on the ancient Near East. Coe works in the New World. The only part of the Book of Mormon which specifically names any geography is the early bit, in Jerusalem and then through the Arabian Peninsula. Barker has written about how 'prophets' left Jerusalem around 600BC because they were opposed to what they deemed a move to push Judaic religion into apostasy. Sound familiar? Coincidentally, the 'old way' which these 'prophets' were trying to preserve mirrors the supposedly anachronistic faith practiced in the Book of Mormon in great detail. Sounds like we have some actors.

You, of course, will find none of this impressive in the same way that you dismiss the consensus of scholars who like to point out that an event like parting the Red Sea is completlely without any evidence and, more to the point, impossible.

[canterdogs]

Look, I accept that archaeology has found no evidence of the exodus and other things talked about in the OT. But, we still have much much more evidence that the Bible talks about real people and real events than we do for the BoM. It doesn't prove anything, but at least we know that the Bible events did not occur in a vacuum.

In addition, we have the testimony of the actual people the OT talks about. They are still around and they weren't conveniently wiped out (that is another prob i have with the BoM. It seems that God allows His chosen people to be conquered and enslaved, but He has always protected them from extermination. That the American Hebrews were allowed to be completely wiped out by their idolatrous enemies does not seem right... In the Bible we have the opposite. The Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations were the ones completely wiped out, not God's people. just little things like this just don't make sense to me and many others).

I'm not falling into the trap of saying that the Bible is completely verified in archaeology (and neither do Living Hope btw... They do accurately paint the picture that, in comparison with the BoM, archaeological evidence for the Bible is abundant).

[kolipoki09]

Look, I accept that archaeology has found no evidence of the exodus and other things talked about in the OT.

Good, you shouldn't. Nor should anyone else.

But, we still have much much more evidence that the Bible talks about real people and real events than we do for the BoM. It doesn't prove anything, but at least we know that the Bible events did not occur in a vacuum.

You know, the Doctrine and Covenants talks about real people and real events that can (for the most part) be verified by archaeology. I've even been a participant in searching for artifacts surrounding these events. In comparison to Old World archaeology and history, the New World has barely scratched the surface. The fact that the Bible mentions certain peoples and practices in a particular area and time does not in any way, bear testament to whether they were actually God's people, that there was a God who intervened in their history, or whether any miracles (the 'meat' of the Biblical narrative) ever took place. The very same assumptions you're making about the Bible could be made largely about the works of Charles D*ckens. (sorry about the filter) We know London exists, that many of the very streets in his books existed and even some of the people. We know there were paupers, beggars, Christians, and accountants living in mid 19th-Century Britain. Does that prove that Ebeneezer Scrooge was visited by three ghosts telling past, present, and future? Does this illustrate irrefutably that Scrooge had a change of heart?

In addition, we have the testimony of the actual people the OT talks about. They are still around and they weren't conveniently wiped out (that is another prob i have with the BoM. It seems that God allows His chosen people to be conquered and enslaved, but He has always protected them from extermination. That the American Hebrews were allowed to be completely wiped out by their idolatrous enemies does not seem right... In the Bible we have the opposite. The Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations were the ones completely wiped out, not God's people. just little things like this just don't make sense to me and many others).

We never claimed that the Book of Mormon peoples were "conveniently wiped out" either. I'm surprised you're actually making this claim, which makes me wonder how familiar you are with Mormonism to begin with. God didn't seem to have any problem letting ten Israelite tribes virtually disappear from the historical record. Did God protect those who were in a state of apostasy? The Egyptians and Babylonians weren't "completely wiped out" either. In fact, their own histories are comparably as rich and compelling to many Near Eastern scholars as that of ancient Israel. There are literally millions of Egyptian and Babylonian descendants walking the earth today.

I'm not falling into the trap of saying that the Bible is completely verified in archaeology (and neither do Living Hope btw... They do accurately paint the picture that, in comparison with the BoM, archaeological evidence for the Bible is abundant).

Once again, the fact that(some) cities mentioned in the Bible can be found today does not bear truth to virtually any of the faith claims made therein. By the way, have you seen the LDS response to the Bible vs. Book of Mormon DVD?

[cdowis]

Look, I accept that archaeology has found no evidence of the exodus and other things talked about in the OT. But, we still have much much more evidence that the Bible talks about real people and real events than we do for the BoM. It doesn't prove anything, but at least we know that the Bible events did not occur in a vacuum.

How does it help to compare archeology in the Bible for the BOM. Another example of flawed logic. It makes no sense to "keep score". These are not competing football teams.

I already gave specific reasons why archeology in the middle east is easier and much more productive than in mesoamerica. Considering the differences in the climate, topology, and the retention of ancient records, it is reasonable to expect a difference.

In addition, we have the testimony of the actual people the OT talks about. They are still around and they weren't conveniently wiped out

You have personally spoken to Moses and Abraham? Your mind has fallen off a cliff.

(that is another prob i have with the BoM. It seems that God allows His chosen people to be conquered and enslaved, but He has always protected them from extermination.

The Lamananites are still found among us today. The Lord warned the Nephites that they would be destroyed completely, but gave a promise to the Lamanites, also descendants of Lehi, that they would survive.

And we find those descendants today. They were not completely destroyed. And even some of the Nephites who dissented survived. You clearly do not know very much about the very book that you are criticizing. Your criticism is based on ignorance.

How embarrasing.

That the American Hebrews were allowed to be completely wiped out by their idolatrous enemies does not seem right... In the Bible we have the opposite. The Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations were the ones completely wiped out, not God's people. just little things like this just don't make sense to me and many others).

This is the "If I were God" syndrome. It is commonly found among atheists, especially when discussing evolution vs ID.

"If I were God, this is what I would have done. Since he did not do it my way, there is no God."

Do you understand how flawed your logic is? Can you wrap your mind that your mind is full of nonsense.

I'm not falling into the trap of saying that the Bible is completely verified in archaeology (and neither do Living Hope btw... They do accurately paint the picture that, in comparison with the BoM, archaeological evidence for the Bible is abundant).

You have fallen into the trap that you can make reasonable conclusions based on ignorance, flawed assumptions and illogical thinking.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'll paraphrase Coe here: You can set the scene, but there are no actors.

So you have one scholar who thinks there are interesting things in the BoM. BUT did these people ever exist? Barker may set the scene, but there are no actors. That's the whole point.

Rather than paraphrase Coe, how about reading him closely.

In the PBS series on The Mormons, Coe first puts Joseph Smith in a category:

I really think that Joseph Smith, like shamans everywhere, started out faking it. I have to believe this -- that he didn't believe this at all, that he was out to impress, but he got caught up in the mythology that he created.

The point of placing Joseph Smith in a category is so that it can provide predictions and explanations for his actions. Yet as Coe describes Joseph

[canterdogs]

Kevin, on Gardner's comments: I appreciate what he's saying here. But you can't escape from the fact that the BoM makes claims about the civilization that lead one to expect to find some traces of Hebrew or Semitic origins. They built a temple, they (supposedly) kept the Mosaic Law, there were synagogues etc... I mean taking Gardner's statement you would think that the BoM is talking about Mayans or something, not ancient Hebrews who moved to the Americas.

and with margaret barker, i think you are moving the goal posts. Coe looks at the anthropological claims of the BoM. Barker looks at the literary and theological claims...it;s possible to make up a book about Never Never Land that describes things that seem to parallel what we find in the ancient near east. But does this mean these things were real? No. The setting may be there. But the actors aren't. I should also note from coe's PBS interview, that he indeed did read Sorenson's work on the diffusion studies. Coe stated that it was an impressive study -BUT this would be "true of all civilizations". What the apologists seem to be saying, then, is really nothing at all. (as a sidenote this is exactly the same position they hold on DNA, on city identification etc they say that these things, essentially, can never say anything about the BoM) You therefore can't prove or disprove it. It can't be a valid theory. yes this does lead us to faith. So I wonder whether you've ever said to yourself "lets cast off all my preconceptions and biases in favor of the BoM. Does this actually make any sense at all? How likely is it that a civilization would all of a sudden appear to Joseph Smith that no one else ever heard of and that there exists no material, textual evidence? Might Joseph or some other sinister being have made this up? Might my spiritual confirmation be coming from another source, given that the whole thing seems, frankly, far-fetched?" These things are important questions.

As for the Sidon argument, I mean i'll have to look more closely at it... but, frankly, despite what you've said about it, you really can't be certain about its location. You really can't. You may be convinced that there really was a River Sidon, but you can't be sure that it is the Grijalva. That's the bottom line... And that brings out the larger picture. Surely, at the very least, we should be able to know where the BoM events have taken place. We won't be able to ever prove the miracles etc, but we should be able to locate the places it talks about. How else can we distinguish between the BoM and, say, the Lord of the Rings?

With the BoM scholars you've really do have flawed logic. in the face an absolute absence of data, they are arguing that the presence could, might exist. But the absence of something doesn't imply the presence of it. This is flawed logic. instead of ruling it out, they rule it in. Whatever might be said of the archaeological and other deficiencies we have for the Bible, you can not argue that there is no data all. We, indeed, do have impressive data. The BoM doesn't have this. Period.

[Hamba Tuhan]

How else can we distinguish between the BoM and, say, the Lord of the Rings?

This is a really good and very important question. In your case, how do you personally distinguish between the Bible and, say, the Odyssey?

[canterdogs]

This is a really good and very important question. In your case, how do you personally distinguish between the Bible and, say, the Odyssey?

We have ample manuscript support for the Bible. We have the testimony of the early church which we know a lot about... so this not a problem for me.

[kolipoki09]

We have ample manuscript support for the Bible. We have the testimony of the early church which we know a lot about... so this not a problem for me.

What manuscript support are you referring to? In comparison to the Bible, the Book of Mormon has fared much better in the "original manuscript" category. Ehrman notes:

Not only to we not have the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later--much later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places...Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. (Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 10)

Like Ehrman, I believe many of these differences are insignificant, just as is the case with the Book of Mormon. However, the Bible still faces the problem of dealing with the FACT that it is hard to know what the original words of the Bible really were when there are no words to compare them.

We know a lot about the early church. In comparison to the practices and beliefs of the early church, Latter-day Saints are MUCH closer to them than fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestantism.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We have ample manuscript support for the Bible. We have the testimony of the early church which we know a lot about... so this not a problem for me.

This answer confuses me. We have heaps of 'manuscript support' for Greek mythology as well, and we know a lot about early Greek religion. You must have a reason why you, like me, embrace the Bible as being of God whilst the Odyssey is not. After all, they're both supported in identical ways by archaeology, and we can see their actual descendants, etc.

[canterdogs]

I am talking about manuscript evidence in the original languages. Of course no one finds the BoM manuscript evidence convincing... we don't have any manuscript in the original language. we can't place the document in antiquity... The fact that we have what the scribes purport to have translated from the plates is not convincing at all.

i don't think the early church had the endowment ceremony and all the other things Mormonism has tacked on (celestial marriage and so on). That wasn't a restoration of anything. It was an invention at best. We do know what the early church practiced. It is recorded in the NT and in other writings. Mormonism is simply not there.

[canterdogs]

This answer confuses me. We have heaps of 'manuscript support' for Greek mythology as well, and we know a lot about early Greek religion. You must have a reason why you, like me, embrace the Bible as being of God whilst the Odyssey is not. After all, they're both supported in identical ways by archaeology, and we can see their actual descendants, etc.

we have more for the bible, much more...

you are trying to drive into validating the Mormon test of truth.... I will not. What if I get a spiritual testimony for the Odyssey? No this is not the way. My belief is that the spiritual confirmation that Mormon experience is either self-deception or perhaps from some other source.

[Hamba Tuhan]

i don't think the early church had the endowment ceremony

You might like to read this, then.

[Hamba Tuhan]

we have more for the bible, much more...

Would you please enumerate what specifcally we have 'more for the Bible'?

As a related question, what did Medieval Christians, specifically those who lived before there was such a thing as Biblical archaeology or other such studies, have in order to recommend Christian myth* over, say, the Teutonic myths they had been used to?

-----

*Used in its academic sense. I unreservedly embrace Christian myth as truth.

[kolipoki09]

Kevin, on Gardner's comments: I appreciate what he's saying here. But you can't escape from the fact that the BoM makes claims about the civilization that lead one to expect to find some traces of Hebrew or Semitic origins. They built a temple, they (supposedly) kept the Mosaic Law, there were synagogues etc... I mean taking Gardner's statement you would think that the BoM is talking about Mayans or something, not ancient Hebrews who moved to the Americas.

Tell me, what have you thought about studies into current Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic parallels? How about the Hopi Nakwatch? In recent years, the number of 'anachronisms' in the Book of Mormon has been virtually cut in half.

and with margaret barker, i think you are moving the goal posts. Coe looks at the anthropological claims of the BoM. Barker looks at the literary and theological claims...it;s possible to make up a book about Never Never Land that describes things that seem to parallel what we find in the ancient near east. But does this mean these things were real? No. The setting may be there. But the actors aren't. I should also note from coe's PBS interview, that he indeed did read Sorenson's work on the diffusion studies. Coe stated that it was an impressive study -BUT this would be "true of all civilizations". What the apologists seem to be saying, then, is really nothing at all. (as a sidenote this is exactly the same position they hold on DNA, on city identification etc they say that these things, essentially, can never say anything about the BoM) You therefore can't prove or disprove it. It can't be a valid theory. yes this does lead us to faith. So I wonder whether you've ever said to yourself "lets cast off all my preconceptions and biases in favor of the BoM. Does this actually make any sense at all? How likely is it that a civilization would all of a sudden appear to Joseph Smith that no one else ever heard of and that there exists no material, textual evidence? Might Joseph or some other sinister being have made this up? Might my spiritual confirmation be coming from another source, given that the whole thing seems, frankly, far-fetched?" These things are important questions.

Does the truthfulness of anything depend upon how "far-fetched" it is? If that's the case, the faith claims of the Bible should probably be tossed aside. Coe has skimmed over the anthropological claims of the Book of Mormon. He, like you, has never read it in its entirety. Coe has not critically examined Book of Mormon scholarship in years, because he has decided a priori that Joseph Smith was not the person he claimed he was. This can be said for many scientists examining religious texts. You're correct in stating that these are indeed "important questions." Did you come to a belief in the faith claims of the Bible based solely upon material or textual evidence? Did you undertake a scientific study of the Biblical narrative without any prior background or belief in it and come to receive a spiritual witness of the truthfulness and infallibility of the Bible based on your research? Billions of people in the world believe the Bible is just as "far-fetched" as the Book of Mormon.

As for the Sidon argument, I mean i'll have to look more closely at it... but, frankly, despite what you've said about it, you really can't be certain about its location. You really can't. You may be convinced that there really was a River Sidon, but you can't be sure that it is the Grijalva. That's the bottom line... And that brings out the larger picture. Surely, at the very least, we should be able to know where the BoM events have taken place. We won't be able to ever prove the miracles etc, but we should be able to locate the places it talks about. How else can we distinguish between the BoM and, say, the Lord of the Rings?

Can you be absolutely certain about the majority of the cities and locations mentioned in the Bible? Would conclusive evidence for the location of Mount Sinai prove that what Moses received the Law from God there? You may be convinced Jebel Musa is the location of Sinai, but you're not sure are you? That's the other side of the coin canterdogs. Can you distinguish the Bible from D*cken's A Christmas Carol or the works of Victor Hugo? Both provide historical and geographic settings for wonderful stories. How do you KNOW which one is actually true canterdogs? You're applying a double standard.

With the BoM scholars you've really do have flawed logic. in the face an absolute absence of data, they are arguing that the presence could, might exist. But the absence of something doesn't imply the presence of it. This is flawed logic. instead of ruling it out, they rule it in. Whatever might be said of the archaeological and other deficiencies we have for the Bible, you can not argue that there is no data all. We, indeed, do have impressive data. The BoM doesn't have this. Period.

I'd like to see a specific example (preferably from a book by Sorenson or other LDS scholars) where they've applied flawed logic that you haven't for the Bible. We're not claiming to play with a full deck of cards...but we're not playing without any cards at all. Read Sorenson's book. I know you haven't, so start with that one. Wait...try reading the Book of Mormon completely through for a start. Right now you're making assumptions and claims about the Book of Mormon that the text doesn't make for itself...showing precisely where you stand in regard to actually understanding the Book of Mormon. You can't argue that the Book of Mormon has no data at all EITHER. You've decided a priori that the Book of Mormon is false without even hald-heartedly engaging the overwhelming amount of material on the subject. With a broad brush you've painted LDS scholars and theologians as using "flawed logic" while never citing any specific examples or hearing the case of the defense. You have characterized my faith and the faith of several others on this board as being sub par to your own, while systematically ignoring answers to your issues and claiming there are none. Soon, you'll pronounce this entire exercise as a complete waste of time and insist on telling Mormons how "blind" and "irrational" they are. You'll tout issues you believe are problems with the Book of Mormon while refusing to engage the fact that the same criticisms can be applied to the Bible with the same results.

[kolipoki09]

I am talking about manuscript evidence in the original languages. Of course no one finds the BoM manuscript evidence convincing... we don't have any manuscript in the original language. we can't place the document in antiquity... The fact that we have what the scribes purport to have translated from the plates is not convincing at all.

In what language was the first version of Genesis written? No one finds BoM manuscript evidence convincing? Have you read Royal Skousen's The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text? Who am I kidding. Of course you haven't. We can't place the text as being in antiquity? Margaret Barker thought it was certainly probable, at least as far as the exodus narrative was concerned. What did you think of John Tvedtnes and David Bokovoy's study on the Semitic structure of the Book of Mormon entitled Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible? How do you know that the Genesis narrative of today matches that of what it did during the Davidic Kingdom?

i don't think the early church had the endowment ceremony and all the other things Mormonism has tacked on (celestial marriage and so on). That wasn't a restoration of anything. It was an invention at best. We do know what the early church practiced. It is recorded in the NT and in other writings. Mormonism is simply not there.

Have you ever read Pistis Sophia? Better yet, how about Genesis 32? Isaiah? Deuteronomy? Job? Covenant Marriage was an invention? So the keys of the kingdom bestowed upon Peter didn't apply to marriage? You exhibit very little familiarite with the extensive amount of esotericism, myth, covenant, or ritual surrounding the Biblical narrative, Pseudepigrapha, or Patristic literature.

[Hamba Tuhan]

you are trying to drive into validating the Mormon test of truth.... I will not.

By the way, I honestly am not trying to 'drive' you anywhere. I'm genuinely interested in what sort of epistemology you function under. I've not got a clear picture from any other Christian. I served my mission in a predominantly godless corner of America, but I met a couple one day who were Evangelical Lutherans and who actually agreed to let us come back the next evening. During our discussion, I asked them why they accepted the Bible to be the word of God. I was shocked (in the completely-didn't-see-it-coming way) when they started to talk about archaeology and internal consistency. Intrigued, I pointed out to them that the world is filled with 'scriptures' for which we can dig up their claimed settings and which contain at least as much internal consistency, and then I asked them basically what I've asked you: How do you differentiate between what comes from God, like the Bible, and what doesn't, like the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita. In response, they threw my companion and me out of their house. Consequently, I'm still genuinely curious.

[canterdogs]

I do think internal consistency and archaeology are important, because, though a spiriitual text, the Bible does make claims about people and places. If these were not real, then you have problems. As it turns out we do have ample data that corroborates the Biblical account. This does strengthen faith. It does not prove the events certainly took place, but it does provide some basis for our faith. In other words, it means our faith is not baseless - the Bible talks about real people and real civilizations in which we do find evidence for as we would expect.

what about the role of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit plays a significant role for Protestant Christians. He is the very presence of God on earth today. So for Protestants God is certainly not silent. We seek the fellowship of the Holy Spirit every day as we read God's Word and live our lives in accordance with Christ's commands. We feel that as we read scripture and, more importantly, as we apply the teachings of scripture to our lives, the Holy Spirit is with us. The Holy Spirit also convicts of sin - as the Savior taught. Thus He points to Jesus as the only solution for lost sinners.

Through these things we can know that the scriptures (OT and NT) are the Word of God.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, on Gardner's comments: I appreciate what he's saying here. But you can't escape from the fact that the BoM makes claims about the civilization that lead one to expect to find some traces of Hebrew or Semitic origins. They built a temple, they (supposedly) kept the Mosaic Law, there were synagogues etc... I mean taking Gardner's statement you would think that the BoM is talking about Mayans or something, not ancient Hebrews who moved to the Americas.

Gardner's point has to do with the kind of material culture that historical Nephites and Lamanites would leave. If we approach the problem with the wrong set of expectations, looking the wrong places, using the wrong methods, prematurely jumping to the wrong conclusions, we are not likely to find what we are looking for. That is what happened to Tom Ferguson, and Ferguson provided Coe with his paradigmatic example of how to approach the problem.

What Ferguson did not think through is what happens when a boat with a few adults land in a region already occupied. Do they recreate their Old World lifestyle, such that it sticks out as an alien intrusion, or do they adopt local crops, pottery, building materials, and thereby blend in, making it just as difficult to identity from some randomly examined ruins, 2000 years from now, whether that bit of porcelain is a Methodist toilet, or a Mormon toilet, or a Catholic toilet. That is part of the problem. When the Spaniards arrived, they came in waves, with armies, priests, re-enforcements, making conquests. They imposed their own material culture more than they adopted an existed one. When the Chinese arrived, they came in waves and built Chinatowns for themselves. The Nephites came in one boat and archeology says that people were already there. If they behaved logically, they would have adopted the material culture of that they found here. Have you read Gardner's The Social History of the Early Nephites? Or Discerning the Book of Mormon Production Culture? It would help.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Social_History_of_the_Early_Nephites.html

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Case_for_Historicity.html

and with margaret barker, i think you are moving the goal posts. Coe looks at the anthropological claims of the BoM. Barker looks at the literary and theological claims...it;s possible to make up a book about Never Never Land that describes things that seem to parallel what we find in the ancient near east. But does this mean these things were real? No. The setting may be there. But the actors aren't.

Does this assertion on your part mean that you have carefully surveyed all the available evidence, and weighed all the competing models? No.

If you are only looking for Waldo, thinking that if there is an actor, he must look like Waldo and no one else, you miss the evidence and information provided by the crowds.

I should also note from coe's PBS interview, that he indeed did read Sorenson's work on the diffusion studies. Coe stated that it was an impressive study -BUT this would be "true of all civilizations".

Have you read Sorenson's more recent work? This should give you an idea of what Coe claims is coincidentally true of all civilizations.

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Coe resisted Sorenson's earlier work on diffusion of cultural traits, claiming coincidence, so Sorenson did another article demonstrating a wide range of biological transmission. In the face of that kind of evidence, Coe has admitted that there must have been ocean crossings.

What the apologists seem to be saying, then, is really nothing at all. (as a sidenote this is exactly the same position they hold on DNA, on city identification etc they say that these things, essentially, can never say anything about the BoM) You therefore can't prove or disprove it. It can't be a valid theory. yes this does lead us to faith. So I wonder whether you've ever said to yourself "lets cast off all my preconceptions and biases in favor of the BoM. Does this actually make any sense at all?

What a good idea. Cast off all my preconceptions, everything I have read in favor of the Book of Mormon, and just look at it from your perspective. How could I not agree with you?

The problem is why should I cast off everything I have read? None of the skeptical approaches to the Book of Mormon that I have read are at all comprehensive. I typically see people treating the Book of Mormon as a soap bubble they need only prick once to make disappear. They explain far less of what I see than does the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. "Coincidence" or "Someone else did it," or "he did it somehow" or "My favorite authority dismisses it without a thought," do not explain what I know.

How likely is it that a civilization would all of a sudden appear to Joseph Smith that no one else ever heard of and that there exists no material, textual evidence?

This is both a poor framing of the situation, and a blanket assertion about material evidence that I do not agree with.

Might Joseph or some other sinister being have made this up? Might my spiritual confirmation be coming from another source, given that the whole thing seems, frankly, far-fetched?" These things are important questions.

And I have, of course, wrestled with them. I have written a long FAIR essay detailing 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. I included a study of Biblical passages describing what a person should do to see truth, with corresponding warnings about what not to do. I have studied scriptural passages describing how the Holy Spirit operates. I have done several studies of comparative religion, and of paradigm debate and change in science. I've even been published many times, going through peer review, including at Oxford Press. Have you done more than that?

As for the Sidon argument, I mean i'll have to look more closely at it... but, frankly, despite what you've said about it, you really can't be certain about its location. You really can't. You may be convinced that there really was a River Sidon, but you can't be sure that it is the Grijalva. That's the bottom line...

It's not just that a single candidate answers the description. It's the convergence of things around that identification. I know the criteria for valuing paradigms.

And that brings out the larger picture. Surely, at the very least, we should be able to know where the BoM events have taken place. We won't be able to ever prove the miracles etc, but we should be able to locate the places it talks about. How else can we distinguish between the BoM and, say, the Lord of the Rings?

I've read the Book of Mormon through more than 10 times, and done lots of detailed study, and I keep up on the literature. And I have read the Lord of the Rings five or six times. I don't have any trouble distinguishing their content, genres, inspiration, and historicity. You are expecting that likening the Book of Mormon to the Lord of the Rings defines the problem. I don't accept the likening as valid. The Inklings and the Witnesses and the claims of the books are quite distinct.

With the BoM scholars you've really do have flawed logic. in the face an absolute absence of data, they are arguing that the presence could, might exist. But the absence of something doesn't imply the presence of it. This is flawed logic.

If we really had an "absolute absence of data" we would not even have a Book of Mormon, let alone, a 600 BCE Jerusalem, and Arabian Deseret, a 600 BCE Nahom altar, a Bountiful, a Sidon, a single narrow strip of wilderness, the rise of cultures at the right time and place, etc. Your claim that we have absolutely nothing is a rather conspicuous flaw in your reasoning here. Not enough to persuade you, perhaps. But when you say absolutely nothing, you don't make your self persuasive.

instead of ruling it out, they rule it in. Whatever might be said of the archaeological and other deficiencies we have for the Bible, you can not argue that there is no data all. We, indeed, do have impressive data. The BoM doesn't have this. Period.

More assertion that demonstrates blindness. Get back to me after you have read the linked articles. Carefully is best.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[kolipoki09]

I do think internal consistency and archaeology are important, because, though a spiriitual text, the Bible does make claims about people and places. If these were not real, then you have problems. As it turns out we do have ample data that corroborates the Biblical account. This does strengthen faith. It does not prove the events certainly took place, but it does provide some basis for our faith. In other words, it means our faith is not baseless - the Bible talks about real people and real civilizations in which we do find evidence for as we would expect.

Your primary assumptions that I'm taking issue with is that because you find "ample data" agreeing at least geographically with some of the places mentioned in the Bible that I somehow have baseless faith when it comes to my belief in the Book of Mormon. That's categorically false. You've shown how unfamiliar you really are with Mormon scholarship in relation to cultural, linguistic, or archaeological work in favor of the Book of Mormon narrative. Perhaps you might benefit from something Robert Boylan published this year:

On Not Understanding the Book of Mormon

what about the role of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit plays a significant role for Protestant Christians. He is the very presence of God on earth today. So for Protestants God is certainly not silent. We seek the fellowship of the Holy Spirit every day as we read God's Word and live our lives in accordance with Christ's commands. We feel that as we read scripture and, more importantly, as we apply the teachings of scripture to our lives, the Holy Spirit is with us. The Holy Spirit also convicts of sin - as the Savior taught. Thus He points to Jesus as the only solution for lost sinners.

Through these things we can know that the scriptures (OT and NT) are the Word of God.

So what you're basically saying is that by the power of the Holy Spirit, you can know the truth of whether something came from God, or whether it came from man?

[canterdogs]

The Holy spirit's job as described by Jesus is to lead people to Him. He is not some divining device you call on to know whether this, that or the other thing is true. God expects us to use our judgement. As Protestants, we have faith that the Biblical account is the Word of God. We can see the places. There is some evidence that can corroborate events. We know the civilizations were real. The Holy Spirit's job is to lead us to Jesus, not to manifiest the truth of just anything. According to Jesus, the HS has a very specific role. He's not to be used just so we can "know the truth of something". <br>

[Daniel Peterson]

According to Jesus, the HS has a very specific role.

That's correct.

In John 14:26, Jesus says of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit that "he shall teach you all things [???? ??????? ?????]."

I take it that you reject that verse?