volgadon Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 MM, you should have read your source closer. Try p. 90.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Xx9YzJq2B9wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rainer+Albertz,+%22Israel+in+exile%22&source=bl&ots=kdeoRdEenp&sig=6pQvOzKj4AVRb0RLWeyHb2_oVmo&hl=en&ei=hPsdTNSMNMmHcbDUnI0N&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=artisans&f=false
Mortal Man Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 It was over 3000 the second time, according to Kings 25:19. Did you flip the dates?No, I count 67 people in 2 Kings 25:19.As for swords, which verse did he make one in,2 Nephi 5:14and would it be difficult?I think that making steel swords with no steel would be difficult.Ships and temples... he was instructed by the Lord how to do.How many helpers did the Lord provide? It took thirty thousand men, seventy thousand carriers, eighty thousand stonecutters and thirty-three hundred foremen a period of seven years to build Solomon's temple. Nephi accomplished this same feat with perhaps a dozen or two of his fellow refugees, or did he recruit thousands of Mayans for the effort?
Mortal Man Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) MM, you should have read your source closer. Try p. 90.http://books.google....rtisans&f=falseHe is assuming that the Deuteronomistic writers switched the numbers but there is no good reason to assume that.You should take this up with Bill Hamblin. Edited January 7, 2012 by Mortal Man
TAO Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 No, I count 67 people in 2 Kings 25:19.Woops, those people died... wrong verse. However, would verse 26 work? Or is that only referring to the people who had been taken to Babylon?2 Nephi 5:14How difficult is it to make a sword?I think that making steel swords with no steel would be difficult.You are talking to apologists here. Think less directly. There are several topics if you searched for it, I am guessing.How many helpers did the Lord provide? It took thirty thousand men, seventy thousand carriers, eighty thousand stonecutters and thirty-three hundred foremen a period of seven years to build Solomon's temple. Nephi accomplished this same feat with perhaps a dozen or two of his fellow refugees, or did he recruit thousands of Mayans for the effort?The verse says that it wasn't built of 'so many precious things', and 'it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple'. Perhaps it was a bit smaller?
TAO Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I'll add this as well. http://www.mormondia...usalem-597-bce/Wait... so this topic is essentially a duplicate of what happened in that one =P.
Mortal Man Posted January 7, 2012 Author Posted January 7, 2012 I'll add this as well. http://www.mormondia...usalem-597-bce/Your point being?
volgadon Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Your point being?That we've gone over this before and several excellent refutations to your points have been offered.
volgadon Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 He is assuming that the Deuteronomistic writers switched the numbers but there is no good reason to assume that.You should take this up with Bill Hamblin.The point is that the source you use paints a different picture to what you are saying. The issue really isn't cut and dried.
Mortal Man Posted January 7, 2012 Author Posted January 7, 2012 That we've gone over this before and several excellent refutations to your points have been offered.I'm afraid I couldn't find any "excellent refutations" in that thread. Perhaps you could point one out.At any rate, all I'm trying to do is suggest questions to ask in Gospel Doctrine class this upcoming Sunday.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I am appalled that Mortal Man is continuing this nincompoopery. As has been noted, all of these issues were answered many times, yet he simply repeats his original position ad nauseum. Not worthy of a response. 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I am appalled that Mortal Man is continuing this nincompoopery. As has been noted, all of these issues were answered many times, yet he simply repeats his original position ad nauseum. Not worthy of a response.Did you know that JS got most of his ideas from VoH? Edited January 7, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Freedom Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I have a catholic friend who has some really good arguments against the Book of Mormon and our doctrines. I wish he would post here. His arguments are logical, and his approach is polite. He abandons an argument when it is shown to be flawed, and is genuinely interested in the other side of the story. So many critics do not come here to scrutinize, they come here to grandstand and mock. They could even have good arguments, but their childish behavior destroys their credibility. 2
bluebell Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 At any rate, all I'm trying to do is suggest questions to ask in Gospel Doctrine class this upcoming Sunday.Why?
Bill Hamblin Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Did you know that JS got most of his ideas from VoH?REALLY?!?!?!? I've never heard that one before!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 At any rate, all I'm trying to do is suggest questions to ask in Gospel Doctrine class this upcoming Sunday.I note that FAIR has put together a resource of study aids linked to each gospel doctrine lesson. It might be helpful in countering the sort of class-time ambush that Mortal Man appears to be advocating here. Perhaps teachers and students should take a look.
volgadon Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I'm afraid I couldn't find any "excellent refutations" in that thread. Perhaps you could point one out.You had already pointed out one yourself. If that isn't enough, try posts #5, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 41, 51, and 64.Also, would you care to answer the questions in post #49? At any rate, all I'm trying to do is suggest questions to ask in Gospel Doctrine class this upcoming Sunday.Your disingenuity isn't particularly artful.
Anijen Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Perhaps if MM would just take Moroni's challenge he might gain a testimony and spare us all his thinly veiled sarcasm. I am wondering why he parades himself as LDS when his posts always seem negative toward the church, its leaders, and the scriptures.Just an observation, I could be wrong.
Mortal Man Posted January 7, 2012 Author Posted January 7, 2012 Why?Why pose questions outside the officially approved questions in the manual? I dunno, Satan is probably making me do it.
volgadon Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Why pose questions outside the officially approved questions in the manual? . . .No, she is asking why pose your specific set of questions which is geared towards casting doubt on the historicity of the BoM.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Why pose questions outside the officially approved questions in the manual? I dunno, Satan is probably making me do it.I dont' think satan is making you do anything. I think the 14 year old in you was in charge replying to my post but i think you could probably power through that if you cared enough.To clarify for you though, why do you care what questions people ask in sunday school?It's a natural question since it's odd that you would spend time and energy on getting people in a religion you don't believe in to ask questions in a class you won't be a part of, and since you said it was your purpose for starting the OP i assumed you would be able to explain yourself. Edited January 7, 2012 by bluebell
Mortal Man Posted January 7, 2012 Author Posted January 7, 2012 I note that FAIR has put together a resource of study aids linked to each gospel doctrine lesson. It might be helpful in countering the sort of class-time ambush that Mortal Man appears to be advocating here. Perhaps teachers and students should take a look.The only thing on the FAIR study page even remotely related to my questions is this bizarre assertion.“Jerusalem in 600 BC: The Book of Mormon only gives brief details about the situation in Jerusalem around 600 BC, but in those few details the Book of Mormon provides an accurate, albeit brief, sketch of the religious and political circumstances.”An accurate sketch of the political circumstances? Where, exactly, in the BoM can we read about the revolt of Judah c. 601 BC, leading to the 15-month siege of Jerusalem, followed by its surrender and the replacement of its top political figure?I don’t see how the FAIR page could possibly counter the sort of ambush you appear to be anticipating, much less a sustained siege by the forces of nincompoopery. I think that the FAIR-informed teacher would have no choice but to surrender his class to the invaders and yield up many class members to be led away into spiritual Babylon.
altersteve Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 The only thing on the FAIR study page even remotely related to my questions is this bizarre assertion.“Jerusalem in 600 BC: The Book of Mormon only gives brief details about the situation in Jerusalem around 600 BC, but in those few details the Book of Mormon provides an accurate, albeit brief, sketch of the religious and political circumstances.”An accurate sketch of the political circumstances? Where, exactly, in the BoM can we read about the revolt of Judah c. 601 BC, leading to the 15-month siege of Jerusalem, followed by its surrender and the replacement of its top political figure?Straw man alert.It never says it provides a comprehensive sketch of Jerusalem's political circumstances, it says it gives a brief one. In other words, it doesn't tell us everything, but what it does tell us is accurate.
Freedom Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Straw man alert.It never says it provides a comprehensive sketch of Jerusalem's political circumstances, it says it gives a brief one. In other words, it doesn't tell us everything, but what it does tell us is accurate.The book of mormon can't be true because it never tells us Nephi was wearing sandals. No sandals? Are you kidding? Ridiculous. 2
Mortal Man Posted January 7, 2012 Author Posted January 7, 2012 You had already pointed out one yourself. If that isn't enough, try posts #5, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 41, 51, and 64.There are several problems here, not the least of which are the mutually contradicting theories offered by Bill, Robert, David et al. However, the biggest problem with that thread is the string of absurd claims and assertions tossed out by Bill. For example,the 587 rebellion occurred in part precisely because the court was sure Yahweh would protect Jerusalem.The 587 rebellion occurred in part because the court was sure Pharaoh Hophra would protect Jerusalem. Jeremiah 37 spells out that Jerusalem would burn precisely because the court had rejected Yahweh.Also, would you care to answer the questions in post #49?There’s not a single question in that post; it is entirely devoid of question marks.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I'll add this as well. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52547-conquest-of-jerusalem-597-bce/I just took a look at this link. There are some very good responses in this thread of a year ago. Suffice it to say Mortal Man's questions do not present the problem he makes it out to be, and they fall into the asked-and-answered category. This all fits the anti-Mormon tactical pattern that could be summarized this way: Continually raise criticisms that have already been answered, and never take cognizance of responses that have already been given.
Recommended Posts