From Idaho State Journal

[Daniel Peterson]

Was it the 'correct' place, or a place that could be construed as being consistent with the BoM narrative?  Did it 'match' the BoM description, or was it just the letters NHM, with the vowel sounds missing, so we have no idea if the word was the same or not?   

NHM appears to be in the correct location, and forms part of a correctly located geographic dyad with Wadi Sayq, a good candidate for Old World Bountiful. The name also seems, from archaeological evidence, to have been used for the same location at the time of Lehi. So it fits both geographically and chronologically.

[Confidential Informant]

Its still nice to have evidence wherein the Bible and other historical sources touch.

Why? What does it prove? How do you know the Bible isn't anything more than a 2000 year old version of Stephen King's "The Stand"?

Do you grasp the comparison? "The Stand" is a large apocalyptic tome. All of the cities/states and places it mentions are "real" places that you and I can readily find on a map. The highways mentioned actually exist. Many of the people mentioned are real people (singers, politicians, etc).

Based on the logic that Richard is employing, since all of the above is true, if I found this book 2000 years from now and I knew that archeology had uncovered a place called Bolder and another place called Las Vegas, then I can now believe that a gov't created "super flu" wiped out over98% of the world's population in less that three weeks. That after holocaust, two factions formed, one which followed a diviely inspired black woman and formed its headquarters in Bolder, and another which followed a supernatural, evil being which centered in Las Vegas (appropriately enough). That a group of 4 people were called from bolder to infiltrate the Las Vegas group, that only 3 made it, that one was killed right away and the other two died when one of the evil one's lackeys, in an attempt to recoup his lost trust, rolled into town with a nuclear warheap which was then divinely detonated, killing the martyrs but taking the whole of Las Vegas and its inhabitants with it.

My point:

1. The narrative of that story is no more fantastic than the narrative of the New or Old Testament.

2. The narrative takes place amidst a "real" background of actual places.

3. A person reading that book 2000 years from now could no more verify or falsify that story than you and I can verify the atonement/resurrection or second coming.

So tell me, what real good does the fact that you know the Bible is "old" do for you?

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

NHM appears to be in the correct location, and forms part of a correctly located geographic dyad with Wadi Sayq, a good candidate for Old World Bountiful. The name also seems, from archaeological evidence, to have been used for the same location at the time of Lehi. So it fits both geographically and chronologically.

Don't forget the "river of water" discovered in the valley in just about the right spot to be the "valley of Lemuel."

Nailing NHM on the head could be coincidence. Nailing NHM and Wadi Sady(Bountiful) is pushing the limits of coincidence. Nailing NHM, Bountiful AND the Valley of Lemuel (complete with river of water) goes beyond coincidence to the point where you've got to establish that Smith had source materials to aid him.

Now, some critics have claimed that this was the case (SR over on ZLMB is one of them). He has an elaborate theory about how this was accomplished. It involves maps and texts discovered in disparate parts of the world. In order for Smith to have gotten this right, he'd have had to have access to any number of elite libraries and literary collections and would have had to spend months, if not years, of study to get it just right. The funny thing is, Nahom is mentioned only in passing in one verse. It is mentioned only to note that Ishmael was buried there. So, why would Smith have dedicated so much time and study to correctly identfy a place which is mentioned in one verse and never again? And yet, on the other hand, the places of Zarahemla, Nephi, Ammonihah etc., are mentioned extensively, and yet Smith (according to critics) apparently spent no time at all coming up with plausible site locations for any of those cities?

Thus goes the logic of the critic.

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

So tell me, what real good does the fact that you know the Bible is "old" do for you?

Homer is also old. It also describes actual places. Does this prove that Zeus is king of heaven?

Historical verisimilitude does not prove historicity.

[Bill Hamblin]

In order for Smith to have gotten this right, he'd have had to have access to any number of elite libraries and literary collections and would have had to spend months, if not years, of study to get it just right.

See my forthcoming intellectual autobiography of Joseph Smith entitled, Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years.

[MAsh]

What I am asking for, waiting for, is ANYTHING. Truly, Dan, ANYTHING, that might give significant, incontrovertible, definitive evidence of any BOM battles, or stories, or cultures, or peoples, or society.

The vast majority of battles in history have left absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they occurred. No surviving accounts, no texts, no art work, no archaeological evidence.

By the way, Dan is talking about ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence, a quite different category than the type of evidence Richard came up with.

Finally, can you name the ten most important battles that occurred in Mesoamerica before 400 AD?

How many of these battles are described in detailed texts?

How many of these battles have left art work?

How many of the battlefields have been identified archaeologically?

Sorry to jump in like a drive-by, but I saw these queries by Dr. Hamblin. I don't know about any other boardmembers, but I sure would like to know the answers to these questions. Bill, can you fill us in?

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com

[Calm]

Now, some critics have claimed that this was the case (SR over on ZLMB is one of them).

Sorry to interrupt, but I think it's important not to argue against a strawman here. While there are those whose argument requires that Joseph have access to all this variety of material, there are those who only require him to have access to a manuscript of someone that does, sr being one of them. The hard work was done, in sr's mind, long before Joseph started his composition.

sr believes that someone else did all the research and Joseph ripped it all off. Playing devil's advocate here, I think he'd probably point to the passing references as evidence of his hypothesis, Joseph didn't know the value of what he had and therefore only used the 'good stuff' in minor ways.

sr has not demonstrated any connections with any candidate for 'original author' in his hypothesis. Apparently he doesnt' think he needs to, proving the existence of such a person is all that is necessary, putting him in contact with JS in some way is not required in his view.

In mine it is; proving a smoking gun without putting it in the immediate vicinity of the defendant is not going to convict anyone.

[Daniel Peterson]

That's correct. sr1030's argument is that an unidentifed author or authors at an unspecified time in an unspecified place, acting on unspecified motives, assembled all the sources and composed the original text of the Book of Mormon and then, for reasons unspecified, permitted Joseph Smith to publish it as "his" and, again for reasons unspecified, didn't complain. Since the unidentified author or authors have no determinate human characteristics, he or she is capable, or they are capable, of essentially unlimited feats of research and composition. And, most elegantly of all, since sr1030's theory is so completely vague, it cannot really be falsified.

[Calm]

Yep, that's pretty much it. It sounds interesting and then when you intently ask "What's next?" and receive his response "What do you mean 'What's next'? I'm done! Proved my point!", there is a great sense of being let down.

I'd be more hopeful about it if he expressed any ambition to make the dots connect, but he has done the exact opposite, refused to see any need to even attempt this, so one is definitely left hanging in the breeze no matter how good his hypothesis about available materials gets.

[rabanes]

DREV: No amount of success in the world can make up for weakness in the home.

RA: Hmm, I'm not really sure where you think this line of attack is supposed to go or what it is supposed to do. Perhaps the weaknesses in my home, and I am sure they are plenty, should best be left up to my wife to point out.

DREV: I do not you, nor do I care to, but if you're really the workaholic you claim to be, i would suggest you concern yourself with your family. Your work is not important compared to your wife and children (if you have any).

RA: Well, thanks for the advice, but my love of working in relation to time divisions between it and my responsibilities for family was worked out years ago by me and my wife, several years into what is now our 20 year marriage. But I agree with your observation that work is clearly not as important as family.

DREV: Oh is the easily amused comment your lame way of trying to insult me?

RA: Insult you? I was really only seeking to draw attention t oyour own remark that seemed a bit odd to me. Did you really find what I said "hilarious"? If you did, then indeed, you are easily amused. If you did not, then why would you say you dopund it hilarious?

DREV: I could care less how "educated" you think you are.

RA: First, I think you mena to say "I COULDN'T" care less. Your comment, as it now reads, is saying that you actually could care less. Second, I do not think I am all that educated at all. I feign no higher education, and have always presented myself as a lay apologist/religion journalist who writes in a popular style, while at teh same time seeking to be as scholarly as possible.

DREV: I could careless if you have degrees from havard,yale, or stanford.

RA: I have no degrees. And admit as much. No degrees

[Confidential Informant]

Richard,

Why not ignore the fluff posts and respond to the more subtantive stuff? This thread shows some promise, but it could crash and burn at any second also.

C.I.

[Scott Gordon]

RA: Agreed. And I do have a testimony. I testify to you that Jesus, God's Son, came into this world to save us from our sins by his death, and that by faith in him we receive by grace the wonderful gift of eternal life. I testify to you that he established his Church on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, and I testify that Christ's promise about the gates of hell not not prevailing against his church has been fulfilled and shown to be true.

peace-out,

R. Abanes

Nice testimony Richard.

I agree with it and say Amen!

In fairness of full disclosure, I believe I should say that I would interpret the last line a bit differently than you do.

Hell (or Hades) is where the dead were waiting. Because Jesus broke down those gates, the Gates of Hell did not prevail and keep us trapped in our fallen state.

We can feel confident that the verse is not talking about an apostacy because for "the church" to be in Hell (Hades) where the gates would have had any power over it at all...keeping it trapped...the church would have had to be dead. That would undermine your position. On second thought, maybe this verse is talking about the apostacy in which case it fully supports the LDS view.

The other possibility is that the gates left their moorings and went on a rampage attacking the church where ever they found it......hmmmmm...that imagery really doesn't work.

The Gates of Hell keep things trapped in Hell. The only way for them to "prevail" is for us (or the church) to remain trapped. Gates don't destroy.

I am grateful for Jesus Christ as he broke down those gates 1 Cor 15:21-22.

Scott

[rabanes]

SG; Hell (or Hades) is where the dead were waiting. Because Jesus broke down those gates, the Gates of Hell did not prevail and keep us trapped in our fallen state.

RA: Actually, we do not really disagree. I was not making reference to the apostasy at all. You are right. This passage shows that Christ and his church assailed the gates of hell, and they were not able to withstand (prevail) against the righteous onslaught and atoning sacrifice! Praise God. Since Christ's death, hell no longer has its hold on those who come to faith in the Lord. are we actually agreeing!!???? Hmmmmm, basically, I think so, yes.

Now, if you want to talk apostasy!!!

[Confidential Informant]

Praise God. Since Christ's death, hell no longer has its hold on those who come to faith in the Lord. are we actually agreeing!!???? Hmmmmm, basically, I think so, yes.

Now, if you want to talk apostasy!!!—don't get me started!!!

peace,

RA

RA: Actually, we do not really disagree. I was not making reference to the apostasy at all. You are right. This passage shows that Christ and his church assailed the gates of hell, and they were not able to withstand (prevail) against the righteous onslaught and atoning sacrifice!

The question is, of course from which side did they assail those gates? Since gates are essentially a passive form of inceration, it would only make sense that those gates could prevail only if you were behind them and not permitted to leave. Of course, Christ's descent into hell the post-mortem preaching of the gospel to the dead is well attested in the New Testament and among the early Christian Fathers.

But the verse in questions doesn't mention Christ's triumph over the gates of hell, it only mentions the Church's triumph. The relevant question then becomes, at what point was the Church behind those gates?

C.I.

[aznative]

Just Curious,

I realize that you say it was 'just a joke' but for such a joke you sure do push it off on people. Remember Edward?

Of course, the only thing going right by anyone is the message of the true gospel of Jesus Christ going right past you.

Sorry it took so long to respond. Responsibilties and all.

Later.

[rabanes]

CI: The question is, of course from which side did they assail those gates? Since gates are essentially a passive form of inceration, it would only make sense that those gates could prevail only if you were behind them and not permitted to leave.

RA: I offer Bible Study #1 - This is a prime example of how Mormons are even more literalists than EVs. My understanding of the passage

[Confidential Informant]

I love being lecutred on Greek by a guy who couldn't read a lick of it if it was placed in front of him.

I will, of course, demur to more knowledgable denizens on this list who actually can read it to see if they concur with your rendering and exegis.

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

I will, of course, demur to more knowledgable denizens on this list who actually can read it to see if they concur with your rendering and exegis.

Alas, as usual, Richard is wrong on just about everthing.

But especially his Greek.

[Guest Just Curious]

I love being lecutred on Greek by a guy who couldn't read a lick of it if it was placed in front of him.

Did Joseph Smith know how to read greek?

[Daniel Peterson]

Did Joseph Smith know how to read greek?

What, please, has that got to do with anything mentioned on this thread?

Tangents, rabbit trails, irrelevancies, sidetracks. Dead threads. Doomed discussions.

[Beowulf]

I don't think he did, but contra a certain Church of England reverend who told the world he spoofed JS into mis-identifying a Greek psalter, I think JS recognized Greek when he saw it.

The same thing happened to John Taylor a few years later, when at a debate someone showed him Japanese kana writing and tried to get him to bite. He would not.

Beowulf

[juliann]

Interesting parsing, RA.

My understanding of the passage—i.e., Matt. 16:18—is based on the greek terms used for "gates of hell" (pulai hadou). They, quite literally, should be translated "powers of death."

I am unsure as to why pule should be translated as anything but gate or door. Power and death are quite different words in Greek. Apparently, literalism does have its benefits but you do score on creativity.

When we look at Matt. 16:18 "...and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" we get a picture of a "gate" through which one enters the "world of the dead" from which there is no return. So....to be of any threat or efficacy the gates must have someone/thing contained inside them. That this was a known distinction is further evidenced by the use of the term without "gates" in Acts 2:27 and Matt. 11:23. Hendriksen says that to argue that the "gates of hell" will not overpower the church one must demonstrate in exactly what sense the gates of that realm are trying to overcome the church and are failing.

William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 649-50.

Do gates have any purpose other than to keep something in or out? Isn't that why RA must rewrite the verse to say dunamis rather than pule?

[rabanes]

DCP: (quoting me "this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc." This is flatly untrue. . . .and not overstated at all. The Limited Geography Theory (LGT) is neither new, nor contemporary, nor modern, nor a "spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc." Every element of your characterization of the LGT is false, and your characterization is, thus, altogether false. Hence, "flatly untrue."

RA: Dan, perhaps in the length of this thread, you have misread something, because here, in your latest post, you have switched subjects. My remark "this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc." has nothing to do with limited geography (LGT), but instead, was in reference to the assertion by Matt that the DNA evidence shows "The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas." (see Matt's post at http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...y%20true&st=15).

Whether or not the LGT is valid or new is an entirely separate issue from whether or not the number of BOM was small. I can see nothing in Roper's article that would suggest that 19th century Mormons, or very many 20th/21st century Mormons believe such a thing. Recently, however, this notion has started becoming quite popular thanks to FARMS. The old classic notion of Nephites, Jaredites, and Lamanites filling North and South America just cannot hold anymore. So, we are talking about BOM people populations, not where they lived (although that would certainly come into play at some point).

DCP: (quoting me - "From what I have seen and heard, admittedly as an outsider, nearly ALL Mormons I have ever spoken to, and just about every popular LDS book I have on my shelf, state that all Native Americans, as well as South Americans, and many Islanders are descended from Israelites and that these Israelites were the colonizers of the New World, and that they were the primary colonizers of the New World. . . .) Irrelevant. Your statement was that the LGT is a recent ad hoc spin necessitated by recent archaeological discoveries and, specifically, by DNA research. Even if the Hemispheric Theory is old and widespread, that fails to demonstrate that the Limited Geography Theory is recent and ad hoc.

RA: Hmm. Really??? We're crossing up at some point. Here is the context of what I said in my post, Oct 25 2004, 09:00 AM at the above URL link.

_______BEGIN

"MATT: Here are four theories I think are consistent with (but not proved by) the DNA evidence: 1) The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas. RA: Unfortunately, this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc. It contradicts what Joseph Smith, the very founder of the LDS faith stated, and other early Mormons believed. Now, this is very interesting, because what we have is modern BYU professors and FAIR-like apologists correcting none other than the likes of Smith, Young, Taylor, et al. Today's Mormons are "restoring" if you will, or re-directing, or re-stating, or re-correcting

[rabanes]

BILL: Alas, as usual, Richard is wrong on just about everthing. But especially his Greek.

RA:

"The gates of hell translates pulai hadou which means in all probability not 'the powers of evil,' but 'the powers of death.'" (R.V.G. Tasker, "The Gospel According to St Matthew," in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 162).

"The powers of death: literally, 'the gates of Hades or Sheol. . . . The gates suggest the picture of a fortress or prison [this is called imagery] which lock in the dead and lock out their rescuers. This would imply that the church is on the offensive, and its Master will plunder the domain of Satan" (The Eerdman's Bible Commentary, p. 837).

"The gates of hades shall not prevail against it (equivalent to Sheol), the realm of the dead. Gates. The entrance to Hades, which is usually death. Christ's Church . . . . would not be at the mercy of death, for the Lord's resurrection would insure the resurrection of all believers" (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 959).

"The gates of Hades (pulai haidou) shall not prevail against it. . . . Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. . . . Christ's church will prevail and survive because he will burst the gates of hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of his people or church. . . . The wealth of imagery in Matt. 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklesia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1:132-133).

"In Matthew 16:18 the statement that the "gates of Hades" will not overcome the church is a reference either to the failure of the infernal powers to defeat the church or to the church's greater power to retain her members than the grave has over its victims (The New International Dictionary of the Bible, p. 374).

Enough!

RAbanes

[Guest Just Curious]

Just Curious,

I realize that you say it was 'just a joke' but for such a joke you sure do push it off on people. Remember Edward?

What about Edward...I remember him vividly and I have prayed for him many times since then that somehow the Lord would prompt him to get the help he needs. You cannot imagine how I felt for him and how scared for his safety and health I was. I think you may misjudge me..