robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Irrelevant? Really? The whole point of the topic is on others.edited to show my last paragraph Robuchan was posting about;The evidence you're talking about is external. That's why I say it is irrelevant. I'm requiring internal evidence, as I believe the book is fiction. The point about population size is internal, so that's relevant.
robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 The evidence you're talking about is external. That's why I say it is irrelevant. I'm requiring internal evidence, as I believe the book is fiction. The point about population size is internal, so that's relevant.Apologists are in a lot of trouble if you want to use 2M as an actual death count for the last battle of the Jaredites, so I think you can't pick and choose when you take BOM numbers seriously. Gardner already told me the 2M number is not actual.
Calm Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Didn't America have a big internal war within 400 years of its founding? And how large of an original population with continual immigration did that take?
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) The evidence you're talking about is external. That's why I say it is irrelevant.Please examine those sentences with your next sentence; I'm requiring internal evidence, as I believe the book is fiction.So you want evidence from a book you do not even believe in? I'm sorry, I am used to people who do not believe in the Book of Mormon they usually want external evidence to prove the Book of Mormon. I owe you an apology, sorry again.The point about population size is internal And my point is; the population is not internal. I do not believe the growth of the Lamanites, Jaredites, Mulekites, and the Nephites bloomed without the interaction of others. So that you might understand by interaction I mean; conversion, marriage, or apostasy to or with the others.so yes, I think it is relevant. Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 As for textual evidence from the pages of the Book of Mormon I think there is ample. There is not the need to have a literal mentioning of others in the Book of Mormon to accept that there were in fact others. IMO opinion others are implied by many statements and facts, to name a few; large population growth, changing of language, changing of beliefs and mores. Not to mention that in Mesoamerica the setting of the Book of Mormon fits well, such as; cement cities, deforestation, written language, population, similar religious cultures i.e. baptism, sacrament, and sacrifice to name a few.Again to say that all the people of the Book of Mormon existed without the influence and connection to other people in over a two thousand year span (the Great Tower to the end of the Nephite civilization) is to me highly unlikely.
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Oh yeah. We went through this. There is no word enemy in this verse. Omni 1:17 says;And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.Wars commonly do not happen with your friends or families and if they did they would also be called enemies. Or are you really suggesting because the word enemy is not mentioned these wars they had were not with enemies? Then if you are, you are seriously stretching the interpretation of the verse.400 years is plenty of time to have internal contentions and wars. I never said it wasn't. What I said and what the verse implies is these contentions and wars were with enemies. And that these enemies like in all wars were both internal and external. I would advocate that some were internal and some were with other people.Didn't America have a big internal war within 400 years of its founding?Yes, but you can not say that all the soldiers of the Civil War came from three small family groups. Your analogy implies others and contributes to my theory of others (even though you did not actually write others). I am wrong if you are saying that the Civil War was only fought among the descendants of three families.How big must a skirmish be before it is called a war? What does it matter? A war is a war.The conflict between the saints and the Missourians was labeled a war.I see your point, but I was not arguing what conflict needs a label. Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 Omni 1:17 says;Wars commonly do not happen with your friends or families and if they did they would be called enemies. Or are you really suggesting because the word enemy is not mentioned these wars they had were not with enemies? Then if you are, you are seriously stretching the interpretation of the verse.I never said it wasn't. What I said and what the verse implies is these contentions and wars were with enemies. And that these enemies like in all wars were both internal and external. I would advocate that some were internal and some were with other people.Yes, but you can not say that all the soldiers of the Civil War came from three small family groups. Your statement implies others and contributes to my theory of others (even though you did not actually write others).What does it matter? A war is a war.I see your point, but I was not arguing what conflict needs a label.External enemy is what I should have written.Adding the element of Others to this passage is unnecessarily complicating the matter. 400 years is plenty of time to pass for wars to occur within a group. Especially when no detail or context of the wars is presented, and it could have been something on a very small scale.Every single time the Others theory is read into the BOM it's an over-complication of the text.
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) External enemy is what I should have written.External is others.Adding the element of Others to this passage is unnecessarily complicating the matter.I am not complicating matters. The Zarahemlaites had wars with someone, that someone was not Lamanites. These wars were with enemies external and internal.400 years is plenty of time to pass for wars to occur within a group.I agree. Especially when no detail or context of the wars is presented,In the text of the Book of Mormon some battles are in detail others are just mentioned. However to have a war implies enemies. The text does not say if these enemies only descended from Mulek's family. Since these wars occurring before they even knew what a Lamanite or Nephite was. To me and from the other things mentioned in Omni implies indigenous neighbors. and it could have been something on a very small scaleI agree, I add some of the contentions and wars could have been on a large scale as well..Every single time the Others theory is read into the BOM it's an over-complication of the textEvery single time, really? I have to disagree.. Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
William Schryver Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I want to apologize for my last post. I was obviously upset and lashed out, unnecessarily.Just put him on ignore. He's nothing but a provocateur.
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Just put him on ignore. He's nothing but a provocateur.I know, look how I was sucked into this.Will I know your a busy guy, but please post more often. (sorry for the divergence). Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 These wars were with enemies external and internal..Does the text say this or even imply this? Why do you assume this? It's a simple and obvious explanation to assume the wars were internal.
robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 I know, look how I was sucked into this.Will I know your a busy guy, but please post more often. (sorry for the divergence).Yes, please post more.
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Does the text say this or even imply this? The text of the Book of Mormon implies others I have already mentioned Omni.Why do you assume this? I know this from my own education in history and anthropology, from my own independent study, from reading the Book of Mormon (many, many times), and from reading peered reviewed papers, journals and books. It's a simple and obvious explanation to assume the wars were internal.yes, I know for you it is.For me, it is simple reasoning, that is; there was an indigenous population. To me the obvious explanation is that the people of the Book of Mormon must have seen and interacted with these people. IMO the Nephites and Lamanites interacted with some of these people. Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
robuchan Posted July 6, 2012 Author Posted July 6, 2012 The text of the Book of Mormon implies others I have already mentioned Omni.I know this from my own education in history and anthropology, from my own independent study, from reading the Book of Mormon (many, many times), and from reading peered reviewed papers, journals and books.yes, I know for you it is.For me, it is simple reasoning, that is; there was an indigenous population. To me the obvious explanation is that the people of the Book of Mormon must have seen and interacted with these people. IMO the Nephites and Lamanites interacted with some of these people.So it's back to the external sources of information. If we were both believing Mormons, you'd win me over. What I'm looking for is evidence from the text.Let's cross Omni 1:17 "wars" off the list.Every single verse you could throw in a "could be". Let's ignore the could be's and the might be's and stick to what the text says.
Anijen Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) What I'm looking for is evidence from the text. Fair enough, here are a few;The Testimony of the Three WitnessesGold PlatesPossible routes Lehi took to BountifulNahomAkkadian She'umCurses and oathsCognate AccusativesCement BuildingsStone boxesWeapons of warColophonsChiasmusCorrelation with the HopiAllegory of the olive treeEgyptian namesHebrew conditional sentencesCasting (throwing) of arrowsHuman sacrificeCorrelating politiesIt came to passLachish letters backs up LehiIllumination from stonesSimilarities in the cutting off of armsSymbolism of the Tree of LifeZoquean movement correlationSocial hierarchies1st and 2nd Nephi parallel established patterns of ethnogenesisNumbers and datesEvery single verse you could throw in a "could be". Let's ignore the could be's and the might be's and stick to what the text says.In a scientific method you are saying lets throw out all the hypothesis.Could be means, well, that it could beJeff Edited July 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt
rodheadlee Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Does the text say this or even imply this? Why do you assume this? It's a simple and obvious explanation to assume the wars were internal.Because the science states there were others in the area.
robuchan Posted July 7, 2012 Author Posted July 7, 2012 Fair enough, here are a few;The Testimony of the Three WitnessesGold PlatesPossible routes Lehi took to BountifulNahomAkkadian She'umCurses and oathsCognate AccusativesCement BuildingsStone boxesWeapons of warColophonsChiasmusCorrelation with the HopiAllegory of the olive treeEgyptian namesHebrew conditional sentencesCasting (throwing) of arrowsHuman sacrificeCorrelating politiesIt came to passLachish letters backs up LehiIllumination from stonesSimilarities in the cutting off of armsSymbolism of the Tree of LifeZoquean movement correlationSocial hierarchies1st and 2nd Nephi parallel established patterns of ethnogenesisNumbers and datesIn a scientific method you are saying lets throw out all the hypothesis.Could be means, well, that it could beJeffLet's not bite off more than we can chew. I'm focused specifically on the validity of the Others theory right now.
ERayR Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 To me it is not one stand out hit you in the face thing. It is a preponderance of the evidence. It is all the internal evidences that have been presented numerous times in numerous posts combined with the external evidence that there were people here in great numbers, from many different sources. Put them together and to me it is obvious that there were others.
Recommended Posts