Bom And Ages

[robuchan]

When my grandson insisted when he was four years old that we play checkers by his rules...which tended to change from minute to minute, I found it rather amusing. When my grandson insisted when he was five years of age that we play chess by his rules...which often changed, I found it annoying. When my grandson turned six and insisted I play backgammon by his rules, I shut the backgammon game up and said "no thanks".

Give me your rules, then. I just need some rules. I can't abide this stuff about the historical detail is reliable when it works for LGT and it's unreliable when it works against LGT.

[Calm]

[ you got your 1000, cal ]

Thank you. Now I've just got to figure out what I should do to celebrate it.

[Calm]

Give me your rules, then. I just need some rules.

I thought someone had posted a link to an article that could get you started, but can't find it. Before people start putting time into helping you with this, how much time are you willing to invest, including in reading articles and books?

I can't abide this stuff about the historical detail is reliable when it works for LGT and it's unreliable when it works against LGT.

I think this is one of your problems with your lack of awareness with how the work has preceded. I've seen Brant and others dump stuff that didn't work with the methodology even though it was faith promoting (like the Quetzalcoatl and some of the Christianized material from priests who altered religious ideas to fit into the Christian mythos better). What is mentioned on the board is the stuff that works, it isn't seen as reliable simply because it works for LGT but because it meets the standards....and you won't see stuff that doesn't meet those standards from most of the more experienced because they have been discarded. Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

I thought someone had posted a link to an article that could get you started, but can't find it. Before people start putting time into helping you with this, how much time are you willing to invest, including in reading articles and books?

Which theories and books are you talking about? LGT is not one theory; there are several LGT theories, and the reason for that is that none of them (except at the most basic level) fit the description found in the Book of Mormon. At the end of the day, all of them are "theories". None of them are "facts"--except at the most basic and obvious level.

The "Others" theory is even more diverse and obscure; and LGTs and "others" theories do not always converge. Nothing is definite--except LGT at its most basic level. It is only posters here who are behaving as though it were cast in stone. And I find it disturbing that a non-member is being harassed and driven at the moderator level for presenting perfectly reasonable and cogent arguments, and doing so with civility and good humour.

[Freedom]

Here are some rules you can follow:

1) If a religions text identifies something as miraculous, then we can reasonably assume that the results were supernatural or at least highly unusual.

2) If the text does not identify something as miraculous then we can reasonably assume that the results are normal and inline with known scientific parameters.

3) If an event is unusual but not improbable or impossible, and if it is not identified in the text as miraculous, then we can reasonably assume that it does not represent a fundamental departure from reality but rather simply a rare anomaly.

4) If an event Is unusual and improbable or impossible, and if it is not identified in the text as miraculous, then we can reasonably assume that we lack context to fully understand it, no matter how obvious the details may be.

Secular and religions biblical scholars alike generally acknowledge that the numbers in the bible are representative of something other than what modern readers may presume they mean. This does not mean we don't take them literally, it simply means that comparative documents need to be employed to understand it.

We know that numbers were often not meant to identify a specific quantity but rather a specific type of quantity. For example, 40 days in the wilderness did not literally mean 40 days, but rather a complete temporal experience. We use this style today when we say 'I have told you a million times'.

Also, we need to consider examples of data from other documents that provide insight. Numbers and genealogy are two examples where what we think is very obvious often is not. Just as the term cousin today does not mean the same in every culture, the term son did not mean the same in past cultures. Since we know that in many ancient cultures, the term 'son' was used a bit more liberally, we should always approach such terms with caution unless the text is explicit. This is particularly true when the word is used in a genealogy whose purpose is to justify authority rather than to establish family history.

If I said to you 'prepare my horses, I'm going to a banquet' you would presume I am going to ride in a wagon pulled by horses. This is because of your north american cultural bias. If I were to say 'prepare my pigs, I'm going to a banquet', you would presume I am going to eat the pigs at the banquet because, from your cultural perspective, you do not pull a wagon with a pig. In fact, my saying 'prepare my horses' likely leads you to assume there will a wagon of some sort involved since I would not ride on the back of more than one horse. In England if the queen gifted me a herd of cattle, I would consider myself very lucky. In some Asian cultures, however, I would consider myself cursed. Context is everything.

[Freedom]

Which theories and books are you talking about? LGT is not one theory; there are several LGT theories, and the reason for that is that none of them (except at the most basic level) fit the description found in the Book of Mormon. At the end of the day, all of them are "theories". None of them are "facts"--except at the most basic and obvious level.

The "Others" theory is even more diverse and obscure; and LGTs and "others" theories do not always converge. Nothing is definite--except LGT at its most basic level. It is only posters here who are behaving as though it were cast in stone. And I find it disturbing that a non-member is being harassed and driven at the moderator level for presenting perfectly reasonable and cogent arguments, and doing so with civility and good humour.

You are, again, mistaken. It is the proponents of LGT that are opened minded about the issue and are refusing to let posters like you 'prove' something that is not based on facts.

[CASteinman]

1. You picked and chose between thousands of data points to find one that would show correlation.

Yes, well that was how I backed it up. Would you like other similar examples?

2. You chose modern setting, where the life expectancy is significantly different

Not really. Two of the three people were in what are medically not modern times. Antibiotics were not known and most of the medical practices that we call modern were not around.

Only the third person lived in modern times, however this is actually a bit of a red herring.

Because modern life expectancy is only longer on average -- which is dominated by infant mortality issues. Once you get past the age of 20 any one person in ancient times may have lived as long or longer than any one person today.

You chose three generations.

Yes. But then the issue you are looking at only has three generations that seem unusual. Oh well!

As I showed you, your genealogical span does not require very long lives for most of the other people in the chain. For some reason you do not seem to be able to grasp this no matter what sort of data is presented to you. Sort of like a blind spot or something.

Since there are so many people on this site skilled at ancient things, it should be easy for them to dig up a record of ancient kings spanning six generations over 460 years.

I can show an ancient record where only one generation spans longer than that.

I don't think you actually want the evidence. I think you are fighting against accepting it.