The Book of Mormon is not a history book

[Brant Gardner]

The fatal problem with claims of historicity for the Book of Mormon, as it relates to Mesoamerica, is that we have an authentic contemporary written history for the place and time period involved.

I have come to this thread late, so I responded to a later post prior to finding this one. No wonder you made errors in the second. The claim that "we have an authentic contemporar written history for the place and time period involved" is absolutely incorrect--and not even close to being correct. Let's start with "written." As I noted before, there is only one relatively long text from Book of Mormon times (San Bartolo) and it isn't translated. However, the context is religious, not historical.

The next problem is "history." The closest we come to "history" in the written texts is a description of particular events. Thus we can trace the seating of the kings and certain military events. However, those are the raw data to create a history, and not history in itself. The "histories" that we have from the Maya come from the time of the Conquest and follow different conventions from our modern histories, so the way that the correlate to what we would consider history is also in question (the Popol Vuh, Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, Annals of the Cakchiquels).

Archaeologists have created an understanding of history based on the evidence, and that tends to change with new evidence. What they write is hardly contemporaneous with the Book of Mormon.

If that is your "fatal problem," it simply doesn't exist, let alone become fatal.

In Joseph Smith's time the Mayan and Olmec languages could not be translated or understood. Now they can. We have a fairly complete written record of what was going in Mesoamerica during the period covered by the Book of Mormon, and there is no resemblance whatsoever between the authentic written record and the Book of Mormon narrative - none.

I have already mentioned your error in understanding what is available in the written record, you repeated yourself here. However, th next statement, that there is no correspondence between Mesoamerican history (however it is recovered) and the Book of Mormon is as uninformed as your other hypotheses. There are actually quite a few correlations between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon, in places that are much more difficult to occur by accident. These involve the locations and movements of peoples, including linguistic movements in the Book of Mormon occurring in the same place, time, and direction as the archaeological/linguistic data indicate. There are quite a number of correlations that I submit are beyond coincidence.

I haven't seen any indication that you handle the data well enough to have found them, so your assumption can be easily explained.

With demonstration of the utter absence of Semitic DNA in New World human genome prior to the arrival of Europeans in the 1,500's and the retreat in Churches claims about the Nephites and Lamanites as early inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, it amazes me that the apologists even bother.

And with this reference, you solidify your position as one who has grabbed a few pieces of information without any actual understanding of the field. I strongly suggest that you learn something about what scientists actually mean when they trace genetic lineages before you inappropriately apply their evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

Has Jeff found a single senine? Has he found pre-Columbian steel (or iron) arms and armor? Has he found pre-Columbian horses? Has he found chariots? Has he found Zarahemla?

These various questions indicate that you haven't carefully read the Book of Mormon, as well as that you haven't read the mainstream archaeological reports (or even general books) on the New World. Had you done so, you would know that senines are not coins, and you would know that tons of processed iron have been found in Olmec sites (Jaredite?), etc. Indeed, anyone who can create a bloom of iron can make steel, which is merely carburized iron (blacksmiths make it by heating iron in hot coals, hammering it in order to both shape the implement and to add carbon, then to quench it, then to heat it again, etc.). How do you imagine the Samurai made steel swords centuries ago?

Apologetic literature (whether evangelical or Mormon) has first to be read and understood before it can be responded to in any meaningful way. You might want to start at the Maxwell Institute site at http://mi.byu.edu .

[Ariarates]

There are actually quite a few correlations between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon, in places that are much more difficult to occur by accident. These involve the locations and movements of peoples, including linguistic movements in the Book of Mormon occurring in the same place, time, and direction as the archaeological/linguistic data indicate. There are quite a number of correlations that I submit are beyond coincidence.

Brant, when you use the terms "correlation" and "coincidence" here, do you mean it in the statistical sense? If so, I would be very interested to learn what these correlations are. Thanks!

[Robert F. Smith]

Nor does the liberal Mormon routine.

Ether requires the Tower of Babel.

The Book of Abraham requires a global deluge. (See "Egyptus.")

Christianity requires neither of these events.

As I wrote, quit while you are behind.

The book of Ether never mentions the Tower of Babel (which many scholars consider an anachronism in the Bible anyhow, since the Tower of Babel is much too late), but only a great tower (Ether 1:3,33). This is indicative of greater authenticity of the Book of Mormon over the Bible.

Likewise, the Book of Abraham never mentions a global deluge, but only that the land of Egypt was discovered by a woman when it was under water, later settling her sons in it. I read that as an indication of the annual Nile inundation (which no longer takes place, due to the High Dam at Aswan). Indeed, since we know when the annual inundation was at its highest, we can even say approximately when that woman (the mother of the first pharaoh) arrived: circa September during a year in the late 4th millennium B.C.

I don't know where you live, but you might try taking a course or two at a local bible college, such as Biola. They can familiarize you with the Bible and on how to read and analyze texts. You can find such colleges or seminaries in your area via the internet. There are even correspondence courses on the Bible. Once you become fairly familiar with the basics, you might even decide to study Greek, Hebrew, archeology, etc. I think you would find it exciting and worthwhile, quite apart from whether you wish to engage in polemic or irenic apologetics at some future time. We'll still be here.

[44Foxtrot]

Your suggestion over states the actual case. The best understood is the Maya script, but not all glyphs, and hence not all texts, can be completely deciphered. Some have had modifications in their translation in the last 10 years or so. However, even for the Maya, this refers to the script from the Classic period. The precursor to this has been discovered in San Bartolo, dating to between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100, but that script cannot be read at the present time (though there are glyphs that appear to be either the same or very similar).

There is no indisputable script for the Olmec. The Epi-Olmec script has a limited number of examples, but is again pretty late and has only a single large text (the La Mojarra Stela).

I have actually spoken with Justeson about this, and some of their evidence is pretty good, and includes data suggesting that the Maya glyphic system borrowed from the Epi-Olmec. Unfortunately, however, this is a controversial translation. Houston and Coe attempted to use Justeson and Kaufman's translation on a different Epi-Olmec text, and were unable to translate. I am not aware that the controversy has been resolved. Nevertheless, it far over reaches the data to suggest that Olmec texts can be read. Technically, there are none available (there is one that might be very early writing, but Houston does not believe that it is).

This is the story of the decipherment of the Classic glyphs, almost all of which post date the Book of Mormon. The sole contemporary text (from San Bartolo) cannot be translated at this time.

We understand a tremendous amount about Egypt and Babylon, and quite a bit about Ninevah. They are not the religion described in the Bible. Ergo the Bible's people and religion didn't exist? Even more to the point in Mesoamerica, the best information we have, archaeologically and textually, postdates the Book of Mormon. Should I be surprised that here is no evidence for Nephite religion during a time period when the text says I shouldn't find it?

The entire issues is significantly more complex that you are presenting it here.

This is where your imprecision is quite evident. We have Maya glyphs in different media only for the Classic - post dating the Book of Mormon (save for the San Bartolo text which I have mentioned, and which is different). We do not have any pure Olmec texts, and very few Epi-Olmec texts.

The issue of "reformed Egyptian" begins with trying to understand what the text means, and that is not agreed upon among LDS scholars. To suggest that it doesn't exist based on your similarly incomplete understanding of the nature of written texts in Mesoamerica is quite hasty. There are other texts that are known in a few examples, but where the translation is unknown. There are no books dating to Book of Mormon times, a few carved glyphs, and now one painted text - however, only a date from the area where the Book of Mormon is believed to have occurred.

Brant Gardner,

Thank you for a reasoned and tempered response. Within the gaps in knowledge on the issue, there is certainly room for interpretation. Like the scientific community, I tend to look for the non-supernatural explanation. And as I mentioned, the scientific community has certainly made it's call.

I do not disagree with you in the specifics of your response, with the exception of your characterization of "Reformed Egyptian". Given your knowledge of issue, and the cited references, I assume that you have a formal academic background in this area or are a very knowledgeable lay person.

With such a background, and given that the "Reformed Egyptian" characters we have from Joseph Smith can be matched (one to one) with Tironian Note and Oghan shorthand script characters used by Catholic Priests in Ireland, do you honestly believe that these characters, none of which, to my knowledge have been found in Mesoamerica to date, will someday be found in Mesoamerica and then be shown by credibel scientists to be anything different than Tironian Notes and Oghan shorthand script?

I started with the problem of "Reformed Egyptian" because I see it as an easily understood and non-controversial fatal argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Either the Anthon Characters were "Reformed Egyptian" or they were not.

The scientific community, starting with Prof. Anthon himself, says that they were not. The best match to these "Caractors" is a form of writing used by the Catholic Church in Europe up until the 8th or 9th century and available in the Northeastern US (and to the Smith family) in the 1820's in the form of the Mitchell Manuscript or copies thereof.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, when you use the terms "correlation" and "coincidence" here, do you mean it in the statistical sense? If so, I would be very interested to learn what these correlations are. Thanks!

Certainly not statistics! I'm a social scientist who was trained before they started really liking statistics --good news for me because I don't get along well with numbers.

So, expect a "softer" correlation, but still one that doesn't fit the typical parameters of independent invention or random occurrence.

[44Foxtrot]

And with this reference, you solidify your position as one who has grabbed a few pieces of information without any actual understanding of the field. I strongly suggest that you learn something about what scientists actually mean when they trace genetic lineages before you inappropriately apply their evidence.

Brant,

Thanks for the patronizing aside, Turns out that I am a scientist.

I have a Ph.D. from a leading European medical school and did a post doc at MIT. I have published on genetic and epigenetic effects of chemical carcinogens, and count among my friends and colleagues one of the epidemiologists who did much of the statistical work for the molecular biology team that determined the existence and approximate age of the mitochondrial Eve.

I will tell you that I know of no credible scientist who believes, based on DNA evidence, that Semites came from the Middle East to the western hemisphere between 2500 BC and 600 AD. Not one. And until such a finding is published in the peer reviewed literature, I suggest that you lose a great deal of credibility when you claim, or even suggest, anything to the contrary.

[Robert F. Smith]

The first point I will address is related to language. I claimed that at least two major New World languages contemporary in time and place with the Mesoamerican version of the Book of Mormon. Both Olmec (2000 BC - 400 AD), and Mayan (500 BC - 1200 AD), of which we have countless examples, can now be understood and dictionaries for both languages are available.

For references regarding Olmec, please see A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing, by J.S. Justeson and T Kaufman Science 1993, and for Mayan, please see Breaking the Mayan Code by Michale D. Cole.

So we do understand the contemporary languages and from these writings and other archeological evidence, we understand a lot about the religions of the area, and they are not as described in the BoM. The Mayans worshiped nature gods (sun, rain, and corn gods for example) and practiced human sacrifice, none of which are mentioned in the BoM. The Mayan creation myths have humans who can talk being made by Itzam Na from water and maize. Again, no such stories or beliefs in the Book of Mormon.

We most certainly do not know Olmec and there are no Olmec dictionaries. Olmec hieroglyphs are very rare at best. Justeson and Kaufman made a learned foray into late Olmec hieroglyphs, and they (and others) have shown that the Olmec created the ancient Mesoamerican calendar (which was later adopted by other cultures in the area), and we can read most of their dates. No one knows Olmec language, and scholars have only been able to come up with lists of cognate terms which are probably derived from Olmec. Indeed, we do not even know what the Olmec called themselves, the term "Las Olmecas" (the people of rubber country) being a modern term used to describe the mysterious people who created Olmec civilization and then disappeared. The situation is even darker concerning the once powerful civilization of Teotihuacan.

We also know little about the Classical Maya language, although we can read their books and inscriptions fairly well now, i.e., we understand the glyphs, even if we don't know how they were pronounced. The Maya dictionaries which exist are of modern Mayan dialects spoken throughout Guatemala and in the Yucatan. That sometimes helps with the Classical inscriptions, but the modern Maya cannot read their own ancestors inscriptions, and we are still not able to read the earliest Maya inscriptions, i.e., Pre-Classic. In time, and with a larger corpus of inscriptions, we may be able to do that. What needs to be borne in mind is that the Book of Mormon events take place before the Maya Classic. So your comparisons with the myths of the Classic Maya are not necessarily applicable. Moreover, some scholars consider the Maya to be the descendants of the Lamanites, not the Nephites. And it was the Lamanites who specifically practiced human sacrifice (Mormon 4:14), though at the end the Nephites were equally as evil, even engaging in cannibalism (Moroni 9:8-10, 18-20), which we know was practiced from time to time in the New World.

[Robert F. Smith]

As early as 1979, and including a letter in 1998, a series of letters and written statements from the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society have repeatedly and unequivocally stated that there is no evidence for a connection between the New World archeology and Book of Mormon subject matter or narrative.

In other words, according to the Simthsonian and National Geographic Society, the two scientific institutions most involved in the relevant research, there is no credible evidence whatsoever for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

I am unaware of any non-Mormon scholar at either the National Geographic Society or the Smithsonian Institution having read and done any scientific comparison of the Book of Mormon with what is now known of New World archeology. Their statements have not been phrased in your language, but have been an attempt to dissociate themselves and their institution from what seems to them a ridiculous religious (not scientific) controversy. Unlike the Bible, which has been under close scientific scrutiny now for well over a century, the Book of Mormon has not been studied with any sort of scientific seriousness by non-Mormon scholars. And in your case, you are completely unaware of the real issues, and it is precisely for the benefit of people like you (who have never taken the subject seriously) that they issued their statements.

Instead, you throw out a grab-bag of odds and ends which demonstrate your extreme lack of familiarity with New World science. You are unaware that barley was grown right here in the western hemisphere. You are unaware that elephants in the form of mastodons and mammoths once roamed far and wide in the Americas, the last pockets of them probably becoming extinct (because hunted vociferously by man) during the Jaredite period (the only mention of them is in Ether 9:19). You need to bone up on your New World archeology. You can find a good deal of helpful information at http://mi.byu.edu .

[Kevin Christensen]

.

With such a background, and given that the "Reformed Egyptian" characters we have from Joseph Smith can be matched (one to one) with Tironian Note and Oghan shorthand script characters used by Catholic Priests in Ireland, do you honestly believe that these characters, none of which, to my knowledge have been found in Mesoamerica to date, will someday be found in Mesoamerica and then be shown by credibel scientists to be anything different than Tironian Notes and Oghan shorthand script?

Try this:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[cdowis]

And CFRs were provided.

You are mistaken. He gave references to issues that I did not bring up. He talked about the fact that we can read Mayan, but that was not the issue.

Read post 51. YOU now can give the references where there are many written records from the BOM time period, and we have through information on mesoamerica from that time period.

I look forward to your references to those records.

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

44Foxtrot, on 08 October 2010 - 05:43 PM, said:

The fatal problem with claims of historicity for the Book of Mormon, as it relates to Mesoamerica, is that we have an authentic contemporary written history for the place and time period involved. In Joseph Smith's time the Mayan and Olmec languages could not be translated or understood. Now they can. We have a fairly complete written record of what was going in Mesoamerica during the period covered by the Book of Mormon, and there is no resemblance whatsoever between the authentic written record and the Book of Mormon narrative - none.

(emphasis mine)

This is a formal CFR request.

Your entire post is full of utter nonsense, but we will examine it one assertion at a time.

[Robert F. Smith]

the "Reformed Egyptian" characters we have from Joseph Smith can be matched (one to one) with Tironian Note and Oghan shorthand script characters used by Catholic Priests in Ireland, do you honestly believe that these characters, none of which, to my knowledge have been found in Mesoamerica to date, will someday be found in Mesoamerica and then be shown by credibel scientists to be anything different than Tironian Notes and Oghan shorthand script?

The scientific community, starting with Prof. Anthon himself, says that they were not. The best match to these "Caractors" is a form of writing used by the Catholic Church in Europe up until the 8th or 9th century and available in the Northeastern US (and to the Smith family) in the 1820's in the form of the Mitchell Manuscript or copies thereof.

I have seen comparisons of Tironian Notes and Ogham with the "Caractors" apparently presented to Prof. Anthon (who knew very little about Egyptian), and I see no such one-to-one correspondence. Nor did Anthon. Looks like Egyptian hieratic to me, and that was also the case with non-Mormon Egyptologists William C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker on separate occasions, when they were approached by Mormon scholars (by Stanley B. Kimball and Richard L. Bushman, respectively). Hayes even started translating the first line of the Anthon Transcript, finding it to be a date formula, and gave the paper he used to Kimball. Parker told Bushman that it looked like Egyptian hieratic, but that it was in a language unknown to him, such as Meroitic.

[44Foxtrot]

I have seen comparisons of Tironian Notes and Ogham with the "Caractors" apparently presented to Prof. Anthon (who knew very little about Egyptian), and I see no such one-to-one correspondence. Nor did Anthon. Looks like Egyptian hieratic to me, and that was also the case with non-Mormon Egyptologists William C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker on separate occasions, when they were approached by Mormon scholars (by Stanley B. Kimball and Richard L. Bushman, respectively). Hayes even started translating the first line of the Anthon Transcript, finding it to be a date formula, and gave the paper he used to Kimball. Parker told Bushman that it looked like Egyptian hieratic, but that it was in a language unknown to him, such as Meroitic.

I think that the data are pretty clear.

Immediately below are the Anthon Caractors from an image shown on FAIR.

The column on the left in the illustration below shows characters from the Anthon "Caractors" transcript, created by Joseph Smith and carried by Martin Harris to Prof. Anthon for review. The column on the right below shows corresponding Tironian note characters. The characters with the hatched slanted lines in the Anthon Transcript are Irish Ogham shorthand, a shorthand used by Catholic Priests that appeared in the Mitchell Manuscript.

This is evidence leads to simple conclusion. No "nuance" or "sophisticated reading of the data" or other obfuscation is required.

To be verified, the assertion that the Book of Mormons is as claimed by Joseph Smith would require that these characters be found carved on wood or in stone or in codices in Mesoamerica and that, when translated, they provide a very different picture of contemporary civilization than has been gathered from all of the archeological evidence to date.

[TAO]

The column on the left in the illustration below shows characters from the Anthon "Caractors" transcript, created by Joseph Smith and carried by Martin Harris to Prof. Anthon for review. The column on the right below shows corresponding Tironian note characters. The characters with the hatched slanted lines in the Anthon Transcript are Irish Ogham shorthand, a shorthand used by Catholic Priests that appeared in the Mitchell Manuscript.

Note however that many of the characters (for example, the one that looks like a birthday cake, as well as the one that looks like a double c with a dot on the outside, as well as many others) do not appear on your list of Tironian characters.

If I scanned the Anton characters into OCR, I would guess that less than half would appear on that Tironian transcript.

[44Foxtrot]

Note however that many of the characters (for example, the one that looks like a birthday cake, as well as the one that looks like a double c with a dot on the outside, as well as many others) do not appear on your list of Tironian characters.

If I scanned the Anton characters into OCR, I would guess that less than half would appear on that Tironian transcript.

Did you check the Ogham shorthand and old Gaelic components as I suggested? A combination of Tironian Notes, Old Gaelic, and Ogham shorthand (accounting for the vertical slanted hash mark characters with horizontal underlines) derived from old Gaelic were used by Catholic Priests in Ireland starting in the 8th or 9th century to as late as the 17th century.

I think you will see that essentially all of Joseph Smith's "Caractors" were most likely copied from a manuscript that was thought by many to be Phoenician in the US in the early19th century.

Again, the simplest explanation for "Reformed Egyptian", and one that does not require the supernatural would be that, since they Characters in the Mitchell Manuscript could not be read by anyone known to Joseph Smith at the time, and since they were thought to be of Phoenician origin, he felt safe in using them as his "Reformed Egyptian".

In the end, however, it does not matter. Since the characters copied onto the note to Prof. Anthon have, in fact, be shown to be the same as were used by Catholic Priests in Ireland for several hundred years starting in the 8th century at the earliest, that is their provenance.

Anyone who claims that these characters are in fact "Reformed Egyptian" and were delivered to Joseph Smith by supernatural means, having been used in the New World centuries before being compiled and used by Irish Catholic priests, is doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Nathair/|\]

Again, the simplest explanation for "Reformed Egyptian", and one that does not require the supernatural would be that, since they Characters in the Mitchell Manuscript could not be read by anyone known to Joseph Smith at the time, and since they were thought to be of Phoenician origin, he felt safe in using them as his "Reformed Egyptian".

Why must we reject the supernatural? For some of us it's an everyday reality.

Yours under the mystic oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Brant Gardner]

I have a Ph.D. from a leading European medical school and did a post doc at MIT. I have published on genetic and epigenetic effects of chemical carcinogens, and count among my friends and colleagues one of the epidemiologists who did much of the statistical work for the molecular biology team that determined the existence and approximate age of the mitochondrial Eve.

Excellent credentials. How is it that with those credentials you miss the essence of the mitochondrial research, which understands that you trace remaining data, not all possible data?

Perhaps you are under the assumption that the Book of Mormon requires that we believe that there was only Semitic genetic material in the New World. It doesn't, and I know of few LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon who believe that it should have.

I will tell you that I know of no credible scientist who believes, based on DNA evidence, that Semites came from the Middle East to the western hemisphere between 2500 BC and 600 AD. Not one.

If your point is that the DNA evidence points to a different migration pattern, then you are simply repeating things we already know, and have known for a very long time (much longer than DNA evidence has been available). If you assume that the LDS scholarly position is that there had to be exclusive Semitic DNA, then this would explain your application of the data to the wrong problem.

I would assume that since you have done such work, you are aware of the problems of finding specific DNA (when you aren't exactly sure what it is you are looking for) from perhaps 30 people mixing into a much larger population 2600 years ago. Not finding it is hardly indicative that it wasn't (or could not have been) there.

[TAO]

Did you check the Ogham shorthand and old Gaelic components as I suggested? A combination of Tironian Notes, Old Gaelic, and Ogham shorthand (accounting for the vertical slanted hash mark characters with horizontal underlines) derived from old Gaelic were used by Catholic Priests in Ireland starting in the 8th or 9th century to as late as the 17th century.

Not sure. I just checked the two documents you posted, and found that they didn't relate. In fact, I found that many of the symbols were so 'normal' that assuming they were from shorthand was rather ridiculous, because someone could just as easily point out they were from somewhere else. The symbols are common, and not unique to the shorthand you provided. Many languages have them. The language of the Nephites easily could have as well.

I think you will see that essentially all of Joseph Smith's "Caractors" were most likely copied from a manuscript that was thought by many to be Phoenician in the US in the early19th century.

Nope, didn't see such

Again, the simplest explanation for "Reformed Egyptian", and one that does not require the supernatural would be that, since they Characters in the Mitchell Manuscript could not be read by anyone known to Joseph Smith at the time, and since they were thought to be of Phoenician origin, he felt safe in using them as his "Reformed Egyptian".

Why would we give bias to the simple? Explanations are explanations. But neither does their simplicity nor complexity make them correct. And as you haven't really shown me anything, well, I have to say I'm not convinced.

In the end, however, it does not matter. Since the characters copied onto the note to Prof. Anthon have, in fact, be shown to be the same as were used by Catholic Priests in Ireland for several hundred years starting in the 8th century at the earliest, that is their provenance.

But they aren't, that's what I was pointing out to you.

Anyone who claims that these characters are in fact "Reformed Egyptian" and were delivered to Joseph Smith by supernatural means, having been used in the New World centuries before being compiled and used by Irish Catholic priests, is doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What evidence, you have shown none? You have shown me that most languages contain characters that are common to man, despite their location.

[44Foxtrot]

Not sure. I just checked the two documents you posted, and found that they didn't relate.

So let me get this straight.

You did not have a look at Ogham script, or old Gaelic, as I suggested,

But you nonetheless conclude that my claims regarding the Anthon characters, which include Ogham script and old Gaelic, are invalid.

[44Foxtrot]

I have seen comparisons of Tironian Notes and Ogham with the "Caractors" apparently presented to Prof. Anthon (who knew very little about Egyptian), and I see no such one-to-one correspondence. Nor did Anthon. Looks like Egyptian hieratic to me, and that was also the case with non-Mormon Egyptologists William C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker on separate occasions, when they were approached by Mormon scholars (by Stanley B. Kimball and Richard L. Bushman, respectively). Hayes even started translating the first line of the Anthon Transcript, finding it to be a date formula, and gave the paper he used to Kimball. Parker told Bushman that it looked like Egyptian hieratic, but that it was in a language unknown to him, such as Meroitic.

If you read my post on the subject you will see that the one-to-one correspondence was not to Tironian notes alone but to a combination of Tironian notes, Ogham shorthand and old Gaelic as used extensively by Irish Catholic Priests between the 8th and 17th centuries. You seem to be unaware of the Detroit Manuscript, which was written using these characters, and its connection to the Smith family. The Detroit Manuscript, or portions of it as available to the Smith family, make a much more plausible source for "Reformed Egyptian" than do supernatural gold plates.

[Ariarates]

So, expect a "softer" correlation, but still one that doesn't fit the typical parameters of independent invention or random occurrence.

By what standard do you determine, then, what is coincidence and what isn't? I'm not saying statistical analysis is the only method, just curious to know how you intend to convince a person that is skeptic toward BoM historicity claims.

[sethpayne]

Try this:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/paraiba.php

[Brant Gardner]

By what standard do you determine, then, what is coincidence and what isn't? I'm not saying statistical analysis is the only method, just curious to know how you intend to convince a person that is skeptic toward BoM historicity claims.

That is an appropriate question, and one that ethnohistorians have to deal with all of the time. In most cases, there aren't statistics that allow for the understanding of how two different things might be connected. The first step is recognizing that there are false positives, things that appear parallel but which have no social-genetic connection (not dealing with a biological connection here). The easiest examples come from attempts to discern between independent invention and diffusion.

Two cultural traits that can easily be explained through independent invention do not constitute a non-random connection. While there might have been some direct connection, none is required to explain the presence of the item/trait.

Some diffusion is known from historical sources. When there are no such sources, the case has to be made form the number of correlated traits. There are several studies that attempt this, and the better ones have a larger number of interrelated traits that appear in the same way. In some, there is actually some genetic evidence suggesting diffusion.

In the case of linking a text to archaeology, there is a similar problem that is simply adapted to the different nature of the task at hand. For example, to show that there is a correlation between a certain hill community in Israel with the Bible, Dever shows that that not only do the house types follow the text, but they are at the right time period and place for those house types as described in the text. He then uses the absence of pig bones (contrasted with the significant presence in known Philistine locations) as a plausible indication of the community following that part of the dietary code (an interesting example of the positive use of negative evidence). His suggestion is that when there are that many things that correlate between archaeology and the text, then you have a "correspondence" that can establish a datum that matches text and dirt.

Beyond that, however, even one such complex is insufficient to make the case for an entire document. What is required is a large number of complex correlations that fit text and archaeology in non-random, non-independent invention, methods. For example, a text indicating that during a particular time period there were changes in the nature of political organizations should have correlates on the ground if the text is authentically representing events that occurred. The interaction of location, historical context, and text should explain more of the text than could be done without the location or time.

One interesting geographic correlation is the explanation for how the party leaving the City of Nephi to search for the City of Zarahemla (from which their fathers had left) could get lost. The directions should have been simple "go to the river and follow it." Zarahemla should have been hard to miss. In the posited region, however, there are two major rivers with headwaters a mile apart. Following the wrong river not only misses Zarahemla, but the timing of the travel and the area into which they eventually arrived also fit with the geography and cultural information for that time period.

Again, were there only one such correlation, it might still be random. However, when the same geography, culture, and history continue to have similar complex correspondences with the text, it becomes a much more solid case--and the same type of case Dever suggests is required for archaeology to connect to the Biblical text.

[TAO]

So let me get this straight.

You did not have a look at Ogham script, or old Gaelic, as I suggested,

But you nonetheless conclude that my claims regarding the Anthon characters, which include Ogham script and old Gaelic, are invalid.

I'm not sure, I just compared the texts you gave me. If you would like me to compare other texts, I need a reference link, so that I can locate the other texts.

But yah, so far on what you've given me, it hasn't really done much.

Also, I noted that the symbols are pretty common in all languages (exe 'A' symbol)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Brant,

Thanks for the patronizing aside, Turns out that I am a scientist.

I have a Ph.D. from a leading European medical school and did a post doc at MIT. I have published on genetic and epigenetic effects of chemical carcinogens, and count among my friends and colleagues one of the epidemiologists who did much of the statistical work for the molecular biology team that determined the existence and approximate age of the mitochondrial Eve.

I will tell you that I know of no credible scientist who believes, based on DNA evidence, that Semites came from the Middle East to the western hemisphere between 2500 BC and 600 AD. Not one. And until such a finding is published in the peer reviewed literature, I suggest that you lose a great deal of credibility when you claim, or even suggest, anything to the contrary.

Ugo Perego has some boast-worthy credentials, and I rather liked his discussion of the DNA/BoM issue. Disregard it if you wish, but it seems as solid and reasonable as can be. Should give pause to any reasonable person who might otherwise claim that DNA somehow disproves the BoM.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=796