Book Of Mormon Criticism: Lack Of Evidence Of Large Armies. A Find In Egypt Of A Persian Army Lost 2500 Years Is Intriguing

[KevinG]

A find in Egypt of a Persian army lost 2500 years is intriguing in light of the criticism that the remains of armies from thousands of years ago are not forthcoming in America.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ENizFYf96Y#t=18

[canard78]

2,500 soldiers dead from a culture already clearly established.

100s of 1000s/an entire civilisation dead from a culture still not even acknowledged as having existed at all by non-Mormon historians.

Interesting, but not much support for the Book of Mormon.

[KevinG]

2,500 soldiers dead from a culture already clearly established.

100s of 1000s/an entire civilisation dead from a culture still not even acknowledged as having existed at all by non-Mormon historians.

Interesting, but not much support for the Book of Mormon.

 

I wasn't posting this as support for the Book of Mormon you silly goose.  

 

I was intrigued by how difficult it was to find the evidence of an established event, from an established culture, in an established geography...  when we receive critiques for not finding evidences in an undefined geography, where natural forces would degrade evidence much faster than in the desert.  It does take some of the sting out of the criticisms.  Not as much as the discovery of concrete in meso-america, but it does moderate the critiques just a bit.

 

By the way where do you get the hundreds of thousands?  I wasn't aware that the Book of Mormon (or even its changed title page) claimed those numbers?   Even the most famous of Heleman's Armies had 2000 souls.

[toujours]

Probably Mormon 6

[morgan.deane]

A find in Egypt of a Persian army lost 2500 years is intriguing in light of the criticism that the remains of armies from thousands of years ago are not forthcoming in America.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ENizFYf96Y#t=18

I commented on this about the nature of evidence and the difficulties in finding battlefield evidence here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-apology.html

 

As I wrote in the post, I believe its a good example of the difficulty of battlefield archaeology.

[Calm]

How long do you think it will take for a movie to be made of this particular "lost army"?

 

Nice blog, md.

 

"drowned in the sands"….what a phrase, beautiful.

Edited November 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

2,500 soldiers dead from a culture already clearly established.

 

It is apparently 50,000 soldiers from 2500 years ago….

 

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/cambyses-army-remains-sahara.htm

 

The tale of Cambyses' lost army, however, faded into antiquity. As no trace of the hapless warriors was ever found, scholars began to dismiss the story as a fanciful tale.

 

Interesting...

 

The team communicated their finding to the Geological Survey of Egypt and gave the recovered objects to the Egyptian authorities.

"We never heard back. I'm sure that the lost army is buried somewhere around the area we surveyed, perhaps under five meters (16.4 feet) of sand."

Would be a shame if this was never followed up on….

Edited November 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

2,500 soldiers dead from a culture already clearly established.

100s of 1000s/an entire civilisation dead from a culture still not even acknowledged as having existed at all by non-Mormon historians.

Interesting, but not much support for the Book of Mormon.

I don't know which non-Mormon historians you have been reading (if at all), but several great, advanced civilizations are universally acknowledged to have existed in Mesoamerica, with populations in the millions.  For a thorough discussion of how such civilizations may have been part of the Book of Mormon narrative, you might want to have a glance at John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013).

 

I know of no non-Mormon historian or anthropologist who fails to acknowledge the existence of these extraordinary Mesoamerican civilizations, and all of them are also cognizant of the continual warfare with large armies which took place in the annual dry season (late Autumn through Spring):

 

Susan Toby Evans and David L. Webster, eds., Archaeology of Central Mexico and Ancient Central America: An Encyclopedia, 2nd ed.  (NY: Routledge, 2010).

Richard Bodley Scott, Graham Briggs, and Rudy Scott Nelson, Blood and Gold: The Americas at War (Osprey Publ., 2009), 9-11.

Geoffrey E. Braswell, ed., The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction (Univ of Texas Press, 2003), 331.

Heather McKillop, The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives (New York: Norton, 2004).

Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm .

Michael D. Coe, Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 4th ed..(London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994), 81, powerful ideology, a strong hierarchy, and a unitary religion pervaded a large area under Olmec influence, even if there is no evidence of military conquest and rule.

[The Nehor]

Probably Mormon 6

 

I am not sure how accurate Mormon 6 is if read literally. Army of 10,000? Is that the actual size of each army or is it the equivalent of a military unit in excess of a thousand? The Dead Sea Scrolls talk about military units of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand. What would you call a tribal army of two thousand under that organization?

 

There is no indication that Nephite society formed a new central government after Christ. Wouldn't these be units that swore fealty to tribal leaders? What are the odds that each would bring exactly ten thousand? What are the odds that even if they did this order of battle would be full after years of fighting a losing war?

Edited November 27, 2014 by The Nehor

[morgan.deane]

I am not sure how accurate Mormon 6 is if read literally. Army of 10,000? Is that the actual size of each army or is it the equivalent of a military unit in excess of a thousand? The Dead Sea Scrolls talk about military units of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand. What would you call a tribal army of two thousand under that organization?

 

There is no indication that Nephite society formed a new central government after Christ. Wouldn't these be units that swore fealty to tribal leaders? What are the odds that each would bring exactly ten thousand? What are the odds that even if they did this order of battle would be full after years of fighting a losing war?

I think this is on the right track. Some ancient words stood for a number and a unit. But the size of that military unit could change. Centurion means one soldier of one hundred. But by the late Roman Empire, Centuries only had 80 people. Myriad is another ancient word that have this problem. So when I see "ten thousand" listed so often in Mormon chapter 6 I start to that is a unit name and not necessarily a number. For example, by the end of the American Civil War some units in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had only a fraction of their normal strength. (They did this out of pride because units didn't want to retire their colors and consolidate.) So if a general is listed as having "his ten thousand" there is a strong chance this refers to a unit name rather than a number.

Further, I find it odd that Mormon would begin his war of survival with 30,000 soldiers. (Mormon 2:42) But after many years of defeats, defections, and the loss of their capital city and lands, he had 7 times that number in the final battle. (Just from a logistical point of view I have a problem with this increase.) But when you look at the MPR this supposedly sudden increase in size makes more sense. The Military Participation Ratio is a formula historians use to figure out army and population sizes and other items. Basically its how many soldiers a society can muster for war. The high limit is usually 15% of the population can be mobilized for war. (Though ancient Sparta managed to muster about 25% due to special circumstances.) For example, historians estimate that the U.S. MPR for WWII was 12%. So 30,000 would be about 15% of 200,000. This is close to the number listed in the final battle of course. This being the number of the total population gains strength when we read Mormon 6:7. If you read it carefully it sure seems to suggest that the order of battle included women and children. Towards the end of any war a nation scrapes the bottom of the barrel to fill out their army.

I have a chapter on numbers in my upcoming book so I appreciate your thoughts; its always good to know my research is one the right track.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................  

.................................................  

I have a chapter on numbers in my upcoming book so I appreciate your thoughts; its always good to know my research is one the right track.

Of course you are correct.   And the same is true for the biblical unit numbers.

[canard78]

Oh yes, I forgot. These days with the Book of Mormon horse means llama, barley means cocoa bean and 100s of 1000s means "about 213-ish." The stone in the hat thought it would be a funny game to say one thing and mean the other.

The latest new one I'm seeing emerging on some discussions here is that black skin in the scriptures (Book of Mormon/Moses 7:22) doesn't refer to pigmentation... Oh no, silly reader, they simply meant that their souls were metaphorically darkened by sin. What's next?

[The Nehor]

Oh yes, I forgot. These days with the Book of Mormon horse means llama, barley means cocoa bean and 100s of 1000s means "about 213-ish." The stone in the hat thought it would be a funny game to say one thing and mean the other.

Next time you read an account of a war make sure to assume that all units are at full-strength throughout the conflict. Considering how many divisions defended Berlin at the end of the Second World War it is a miracle the Allies were able to eventually triumph against that many full divisions.

[Calm]

If the BoM is an ancient text from the same original culture of the Bible that we would see parallel usages of idioms and symbolic constructs for the time.

Or do you believe that both the Bible ans the BoM should be read like a modern history text, something I thought you were not prone to do but if not, I can't figure out your criticism

[canard78]

If the BoM is an ancient text from the same original culture of the Bible that we would see parallel usages of idioms and symbolic constructs for the time.

Or do you believe that both the Bible ans the BoM should be read like a modern history text, something I thought you were not prone to do but if not, I can't figure out your criticism

Just the way that when the Book of Mormon doesn't fit the evidence it gets redefined until it does.

The fact that the Book of Mormon is full of biblical references, and I can clearly see that "10,000 men" has roots in Biblical terminology, stands as evidence for a historical basis. Personally, I see it as being equally strong evidence for an "inspired remix" model.

On the one hand, the Lehites were such a small and insignificant group that their DNA vanished into the mesoamerican melting pot. On the other, they were culturally so strong that 1000 years after a small family left their homeland, the culture they had genetically assimilated with were now using old world military phraseology.

When reading the Book of Mormon, it's new world when it suits and old world when it suits, it's a loose translation when it suits and a tight translation when it suits, all with very little consistency.

[canard78]

I don't know which non-Mormon historians you have been reading (if at all), but several great, advanced civilizations are universally acknowledged to have existed in Mesoamerica, with populations in the millions. For a thorough discussion of how such civilizations may have been part of the Book of Mormon narrative, you might want to have a glance at John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013).

I know of no non-Mormon historian or anthropologist who fails to acknowledge the existence of these extraordinary Mesoamerican civilizations, and all of them are also cognizant of the continual warfare with large armies which took place in the annual dry season (late Autumn through Spring):

Susan Toby Evans and David L. Webster, eds., Archaeology of Central Mexico and Ancient Central America: An Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (NY: Routledge, 2010).

Richard Bodley Scott, Graham Briggs, and Rudy Scott Nelson, Blood and Gold: The Americas at War (Osprey Publ., 2009), 9-11.

Geoffrey E. Braswell, ed., The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction (Univ of Texas Press, 2003), 331.

Heather McKillop, The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives (New York: Norton, 2004).

Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm .

Michael D. Coe, Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 4th ed..(London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994), 81, powerful ideology, a strong hierarchy, and a unitary religion pervaded a large area under Olmec influence, even if there is no evidence of military conquest and rule.

And yet with all of those options to choose from, not one of them has been identified as the Nephite civilisation wiped out in 600AD or the Lamanite one that did it.

I own and have read Mormon's Codex. He presents a lot of convergences but nothing conclusive. I was left impressed with the detail of his work but unconvinced that he had found Zarahemla and the Nephites.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Oh yes, I forgot. These days with the Book of Mormon horse means llama,

 

That is a popular online anti-mormon straw man. That has happened many times in the past, for example some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs". It is just an idea, but that idea is a reasonable possibility.

 

 

100s of 1000s/an entire civilisation dead from a culture still not even acknowledged as having existed at all by non-Mormon historians.

 

But non-mormon historians do not have the history of Book of Mormon cities. "We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite" 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/behind-the-mask-behind-the-curtain-uncovering-the-illusion-a-review-of-the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon

 

 

Just the way that when the Book of Mormon doesn't fit the evidence it gets redefined until it does.

 

The critics redefine their arguments. 

The Book of Mormon geography of Arabia was defined before the evidence was found. 

Sorenson predicted 2,000 year old ruins in Lake Atitlan. 

Edited November 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[omni]

Oh yes, I forgot. These days with the Book of Mormon horse means llama, barley means cocoa bean and 100s of 1000s means "about 213-ish." The stone in the hat thought it would be a funny game to say one thing and mean the other.

The latest new one I'm seeing emerging on some discussions here is that black skin in the scriptures (Book of Mormon/Moses 7:22) doesn't refer to pigmentation... Oh no, silly reader, they simply meant that their souls were metaphorically darkened by sin. What's next?

If only Joseph had some divine help while translating to add clarification. Apparently the 15th century translation committee weren't great editors.

[bcuzbcuz]

Next time you read an account of a war make sure to assume that all units are at full-strength throughout the conflict. Considering how many divisions defended Berlin at the end of the Second World War it is a miracle the Allies were able to eventually triumph against that many full divisions.

What??? You're only poster # 13 and you're already retreating back to Godwin's law? Permit me to smirk.

Edited November 27, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[bcuzbcuz]

I wasn't posting this as support for the Book of Mormon you silly goose.  

 

I was intrigued by how difficult it was to find the evidence of an established event, from an established culture, in an established geography...  when we receive critiques for not finding evidences in an undefined geography, where natural forces would degrade evidence much faster than in the desert.  It does take some of the sting out of the criticisms.  Not as much as the discovery of concrete in meso-america, but it does moderate the critiques just a bit.

 

By the way where do you get the hundreds of thousands?  I wasn't aware that the Book of Mormon (or even its changed title page) claimed those numbers?   Even the most famous of Heleman's Armies had 2000 souls.

I don't see how any reasonable, responsible, fact based discussion about a recent find of Persian artifacts in the western desert of Egypt has anything to do with a discussion about present, past or future archeological finds in MesoAmerica. There is no A=B=C link at all.

The Italian lead groups that have uncovered these skulls, bones and weapons may answer a 2,500 year old question about a missing Persian army but that has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe that argument is being made here. Just that lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of lack.

[canard78]

I don't believe that argument is being made here. Just that lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of lack.

Given the title if this thread is: "Book Of Mormon Criticism: Lack Of Evidence Of Large Armies. A Find In Egypt Of A Persian Army Lost 2500 Years Is Intriguing" would it not be fair to assume that the OP was more focused on the Book of Mormon's current paucity of evidence and suggesting we don't worry about it in light of this new find.

[Pinecone]

Mormon 6:15 states that the bodies of the slain Nephites were left upon the ground to moulder and return to their mother earth.

Or maybe we are to believe that Mormon and the surviving 24 Nephites took the time to bury them all so that you can have a more accurate record than that found on the gold plates?

[Pinecone]

But I suppose no one finds this intriguing:

"One, the "Great Mound on the Rouge" in Delray at the junction of the Rouge and Detroit rivers, captured the fancy of early historians. It was 400 feet long, 200 feet wide and 40 feet high. It was so packed with bones that they were easily exposed by wandering cattle."

http://www.detroittechnomilitia.com/main/index.php/techno-history/detroit-history/120-detroits-curse-indian-burial-mounds

Nope. No ancient bones found in North America.

[ERayR]

But I suppose no one finds this intriguing:

"One, the "Great Mound on the Rouge" in Delray at the junction of the Rouge and Detroit rivers, captured the fancy of early historians. It was 400 feet long, 200 feet wide and 40 feet high. It was so packed with bones that they were easily exposed by wandering cattle."

http://www.detroittechnomilitia.com/main/index.php/techno-history/detroit-history/120-detroits-curse-indian-burial-mounds

Nope. No ancient bones found in North America.

 

Straw man.  I don't know anybody that makes that claim.  They just aren't in the right places or am I to beleive somebody took time to haul them from the "Hill Cumorah" to where they are found.