So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[Bob Crockett]

Yes I mock. No I haven't been there. Yes I learn little. Yes I use hyperbole and even call it hyper bowl. You've caught me.

I despair that I'm going to be a heartlander.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

Well, so did the Romans and Hebrews if you give account to excavation of coins in mounds.

Can you point me to where I can see a Hebrew coin excavated in the Americas? I can't wait to finally see an artefact that supports the proposal that Jews/Hebrews populated the Americas pre-Columbus.

[hagoth7]

 

...If you don't believe me, just look at the progression of apologetics.  Now we are taking about "others" and that the Lehites were not alone.  That they occupied just a small area and not the full continent...All of this nonsense came about because science has progressed, in DNA, linguistics and archaeology.... 

Not true. Sjodahl was suggesting an LGT model almost a century ago.

[canard78]

But that is just what you suggested when you said "And yes, there might be a few examples of Barley in the Americas, but that's not evidence that this barley was brought by a group of Jews, is it?" You are unable to accurately separate out the various types of evidence and their value. For you all evidence mentioned in connection with the Book of Mormon is all of the same type and serves the same purpose.

You've misread me. In this thread I'm asking for evidence that independently points towards Lehites/Jews living in the Americas. Thesometimesaint proposed Barley as such. I don't expect Barley to be evidence of Jews in America. I have never said it should be. My statement that you are quoting was making exactly that point to thesometimesaint.

But isn't that just what I and others have been saying? Why would it even become an issue?

Exactly. We agree on the significance of Barley and the role it plays in exploring the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Everything I've said about Barley is in agreement with your points about it so I don't see why you're getting your teeth stuck into it. To repeat: finding American Barley refutes a critique but does not act as evidence for the book (just as finding trees, rivers and mountains don't per se). Of course barley doesn't (and couldn't) act as evidence of Jews in America. And I've not expected it to

Again, Sorenson's entire volume has only one type of evidence -- convergences -- and nothing more?

You even admit that it is not solely a volume of convergences. Well, then, what else is in there, and does it pass muster as real archeology? What purpose does it serve?

Actually, I didn't admit it is not solely a volume of convergences. I acknowledged (as I always have) that a convergence is a valid class of evidence for the BoM.

Sorenson bases Mormon Codex on convergences. He takes the text of the BoM and then shows parallels in the real world. The BoM talks of a time of dark and light skinned people and then points to paintings of the same. The BoM talks of a narrow pass, Sorenson points to a possible candidate. The BoM talks of a segregation between Nephites and Mulekites, he points to a city with gravel courtyard with an apparent division.

If the staring point were the archaeological finds, none of them would cause the observer to think that Jews populated the Americas. Instead you have to start with the BoM and pull artefacts and evidence towards it. I accept that process as building a small pile of evidence for the BoM. But nothing to date has caused any scholar to independently say: "Artefact X suggests a Jewish migration to and populating of the Americas." You might (again) call that a straw man. It's not, because that the question I had when starting this thread.

Edited August 9, 2015 by canard78

[hagoth7]

I don't see many Vikings or Romans on the highstreets any more but they seem to have managed to leave plenty of evidence behind them.

For the record, I would assert that some of the Vikings and Romans were Nephites.

 

[Auggybendoggy]

They fail to see the hypocrisy of this argument when cities like Los Vegas are filled with Christians but 99% of the art and architecture provides no evidence of this. 

 

 

Technically, that's would not be hypocrisy.  But to the point, if Las Vegas does have churches and if it were buried beneath the earth, there would be Christian evidence found.  I was just at the Excalibur a month ago and noticed a church across the street on Las Vegas Blvd with a large cross.  So it's not a good comparison.

 

[hagoth7]

...But nothing to date has caused any scholar to independently say: "Artefact X suggests a Jewish migration to and populating of the Americas." You might (again) call that a straw man. It's not, because that the question I had when starting this thread.

As addressed earlier in this thread and elsewhere, Stubbs' early manuscript already appears to have negated your statement. Language is an artifact. Is there any reason not to acknowledge that here?

[canard78]

What would a Nephite culture look like, if found in the midst of Formative Mesoamerican civilizations? Realizing, of course, that nearly everything done in Mesoamerican archeology has been in the later Classic and Post-Classic Maya period. There have been some notable exceptions, but the bulk of interest has long been upon the Maya region and history -- and influences upon it from elsewhere.

Of course, "a substantive civilization would . . . leave traces and evidences," but what would that mean? For example, we can see many of the "traces and evidences" of Olmec high culture in later Mesoamerica.

Would we recognize the traces and evidences of Jaredite culture, or of Nephite culture in the New World, if we ran across it? Isn’t it likely that, if the Book of Mormon is authentic, that we have already run across just such archeological traces and evidence without realizing it? What might we have missed in our haste to find a direct, wholesale transfer of the culture of late pre-Exilic Judah into the New World – via two small boatloads of people from the Middle East, who find themselves living a wholly new environment, and in the midst of some very different sorts of people. A very numerous set of peoples with a variety of languages and already having a foreign cult, calendar, and sophisticated astronomy, math, and writing systems.

On the one hand you propose that some of the names and the systems of measuring found in the BoM can be shown to correlate with Old World names, words and systems. You propose that these old world influence are still happening 500+ years after the "two small boatloads" arrived. But at the same time you say we should not expect to find any evidence of the boatloads in the Americas?

How does that make sense? On the one hand the Nephites hold onto their culture so closely that they continue living the law of Moses; they retain their language and writing system; they continue to name people, places and things using old world roots; they teach their religion to the people and have Nephite rulers for 100s of years.

And yet... That writing, that language, that religion, that naming approach, that measure system, that culture cannot be found in the Americas? Not a single trace of it. Instead the Nephites kept that culture for 100s of years bit did it in a way that was completely muffled by the other cultures around them?

Can a foreign elite have dominated a small sector of these cultures? We already know that such took place regularly, as with the rulers from Teotihuacan in central Mexico dominating some Maya City States. No reason at all why the Nephites and Lamanites cannot have done likewise. We need to be sensitive to the sorts of traces and evidences which this might have left, rather than expecting a reprise of Elephantine.

And how do we conclude that Teotihuacans dominated Maya city states? Archaeology. The historical record. That's what's lacking in the BoM narrative.

[canard78]

As addressed earlier in this thread and elsewhere, Stubbs' early manuscript already appears to have negated your statement. Language is an artifact. Is there any reason not to acknowledge that here?

Stubbs has already been addressed in this thread, including a response from Brant Gardner who discretely said "for the record, I am not a fan of Stubbs' work." Cinepro also referenced several people who had evaluated Stubbs and not given his work much credibility.

For the record: Language absolutely is an artefact. Is we found Egyptian or Hebrew epigraphy in Mesoamerican I'd absolutely accept that as evidence. Equally, if we had credible and substantial evidence of Hebrew influences on the language of the Americas I'd also accept that...

...but we have neither.

[bofmmodel]

Stubbs has already been addressed in this thread, including a response from Brant Gardner who discretely said "for the record, I am not a fan of Stubbs' work." Cinepro also referenced several people who had evaluated Stubbs and not given his work much credibility...

 

Those statements have also been addressed.  The linguists that Brant Gardner agrees with were commenting on an 11-year-old paper called "Voiding the Void" that Stubbs wrote to an LDS audience.  Clark was correct to identify it as insufficient to convince a linguist because Stubbs was not addressing it to linguists at the time.

 

Read the follow-up stuff about Stubbs from earlier last week and read what we are discussing in the separate topic specifically about Stubbs' proposal.  I don't want to have to repeat myself too much.

[canard78]

Those statements have also been addressed. The linguists that Brant Gardner agrees with were commenting on an 11-year-old paper called "Voiding the Void" that Stubbs wrote to an LDS audience. Clark was correct to identify it as insufficient to convince a linguist because Stubbs was not addressing it to linguists at the time.

Read the follow-up stuff about Stubbs from earlier last week and read what we are discussing in the separate topic specifically about Stubbs' proposal. I don't want to have to repeat myself too much.

Grant wasn't commenting on it, Cinepro was. Grant simply said this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65404-so-theres-no-archaeological-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon/page-25#entry1209513157

But thanks, I'd not seen that thread, I'll have a look.

[thesometimesaint]

I didn't bring up barley, I was replying to thesometimesaint who claimed Barley was evidence for the Book of Mormon:

My reply wasn't what you are suggesting it was. I wasn't asking for evidence that New World Barley was brought over by the Lehites. I was pointing out that finding evidence of ancient barley is not itself evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon. Instead finding New World Barley refutes evidence against the Book of Mormon. Finding barley does nothing towards proving the book historically accurate (and I'm not even suggesting it should). It merely helps to dismiss an evidence that it is historically inaccurate.

 

A species of ancient Barley has been discovered in the New World.

SEE http://mormonchallenges.org/book-of-mormon-5-barley-and-wheat/

An article in Science 83, however, revealed that pre-Columbian domesticated barley had been discovered by archaeologists at an ancient Hohokam Indian site in Arizona.

 

You asked "And yes, there might be a few examples of Barley in the Americas, but that's not evidence that this barley was brought by a group of Jews, is it?". The Book of Mormon does not mandate that the Lehites brought Barley with them only that it was grown.

Edited August 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Bob Crockett]

Can you point me to where I can see a Hebrew coin excavated in the Americas? I can't wait to finally see an artefact that supports the proposal that Jews/Hebrews populated the Americas pre-Columbus.

The Haywood book I pointed you to above.  

 

I don't really believe it, but the guy was reputable.

[canard78]

A species of ancient Barley has been discovered in the New World.

SEE http://mormonchallenges.org/book-of-mormon-5-barley-and-wheat/

An article in Science 83, however, revealed that pre-Columbian domesticated barley had been discovered by archaeologists at an ancient Hohokam Indian site in Arizona.

You asked "And yes, there might be a few examples of Barley in the Americas, but that's not evidence that this barley was brought by a group of Jews, is it?". The Book of Mormon does not mandate that the Lehites brought Barley with them only that it was grown.

So then it's not evidence for the Book of Mormon is it? It's evidence against a critique of the book. There's nothing about Barley that counts towards it being historical.

I only said the above because you had stated that Barley was evidence for the Book of Mormon and criticised me for not accepting it. You brought up barley.

[canard78]

The Haywood book I pointed you to above.

I don't really believe it, but the guy was reputable.

Sorry, I missed it. Could you repost?

[thesometimesaint]

So then it's not evidence for the Book of Mormon is it? It's evidence against a critique of the book. There's nothing about Barley that counts towards it being historical.

I only said the above because you had stated that Barley was evidence for the Book of Mormon and criticised me for not accepting it. You brought up barley.

 

I don't know what it is you are claiming then. The Book of Mormon claims that Barley was grown in the America's. A species of Barley has been found in Pre-Columbian America. That is an evidence for one of claims of the Book of Mormon.

[canard78]

I don't know what it is you are claiming then. The Book of Mormon claims that Barley was grown in the America's. A species of Barley has been found in Pre-Columbian America. That is an evidence for one of claims of the Book of Mormon.

Rivers and mountains have also been found in pre-columbian America. So what?

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers and mountains have also been found in pre-columbian America. So what?

 

Le Sigh.

[Robert F. Smith]

Rivers and mountains have also been found in pre-columbian America. So what?

No critic ever denied that rivers and mountains existed in pre-Columbian America.  They have denied that barley was present, along with a host of other claims -- which have since also been shown to be false.  It has been in the nature of a response, not that it proves the Book of Mormon to be authentic.  And, in any case, as Dan Vogel might say, these convergences are only coincidental or based on the early 19th century information environment available to Joseph.  Those distinctions are important, canard, even though you don't take them seriously.

[canard78]

No critic ever denied that rivers and mountains existed in pre-Columbian America. They have denied that barley was present, along with a host of other claims -- which have since also been shown to be false. It has been in the nature of a response, not that it proves the Book of Mormon to be authentic. And, in any case, as Dan Vogel might say, these convergences are only coincidental or based on the early 19th century information environment available to Joseph. Those distinctions are important, canard, even though you don't take them seriously.

I absolutely do take them seriously. Vogel's problem is that he has an absolute conclusion about the Book of Mormon which means the evidence has to follow the conclusion. From the other end of the scale, you have the same issue.

I think we agree on Barley. It refutes an evidence against the BoM. That's it though.

[thesometimesaint]

I absolutely do take them seriously. Vogel's problem is that he has an absolute conclusion about the Book of Mormon which means the evidence has to follow the conclusion. From the other end of the scale, you have the same issue.

I think we agree on Barley. It refutes an evidence against the BoM. That's it though.

 

How is it evidence against the Book of Mormon?

[canard78]

How is it evidence against the Book of Mormon?

It's not. I didn't say it was. If, in the past, barley was described as anachronistic. If it's now been found in the right time and place then it's no longer an evidence against.

[Robert F. Smith]

Technically, that's would not be hypocrisy.  But to the point, if Las Vegas does have churches and if it were buried beneath the earth, there would be Christian evidence found.  I was just at the Excalibur a month ago and noticed a church across the street on Las Vegas Blvd with a large cross.  So it's not a good comparison.

 

Yeh, and what about the Luxor hotel-casino?  What if an alien archeologist dug that up a millennium from now?  What would he conclude?

 

One can read a wonderful archeological spoof on just such a problem of much later interpretation in David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries (1979).

[Robert F. Smith]

On the one hand you propose that some of the names and the systems of measuring found in the BoM can be shown to correlate with Old World names, words and systems. You propose that these old world influence are still happening 500+ years after the "two small boatloads" arrived. But at the same time you say we should not expect to find any evidence of the boatloads in the Americas?

Never said that "we should not expect to find any evidence."  Where did you get that from?

 

How does that make sense? On the one hand the Nephites hold onto their culture so closely that they continue living the law of Moses; they retain their language and writing system; they continue to name people, places and things using old world roots; they teach their religion to the people and have Nephite rulers for 100s of years.

And yet... That writing, that language, that religion, that naming approach, that measure system, that culture cannot be found in the Americas? Not a single trace of it. Instead the Nephites kept that culture for 100s of years bit did it in a way that was completely muffled by the other cultures around them?

Never said that it "was completely muffled by the other cultures."  The better approach is to actually quote me, canard.  Please engage my actual arguments

 

And how do we conclude that Teotihuacans dominated Maya city states? Archaeology. The historical record. That's what's lacking in the BoM narrative.

Exactly my point.  Glad to see that we agree on that much at least.  Now you need to extrapolate from that and ask the serious question, which I will repeat for you:  What would Nephite culture look like under those conditions?  That is an open-ended question dealing with what sort of archeological finds one might expect under the known conditions in Mesoamerica?  You demand a reprise of Elephantine, which is not realistic at all, and ignores what we have seen elsewhere -- as with the Lemba Jews in South Africa:

 

Barry Bickmore has reviewed the Jewish tribal traditions of the Lemba, citing University of London Professor Tudor Parfitts’ research on DNA markers of Kohanim within the Buba subclan of the Lemba tribe of Venda, South Africa (they claim to be Jews and to have originated in Sena – clearly Yemenite Sena in the Wadi Masila of the Hadramaut).  Of course there are plenty of indications of genetic connections with the Hadramaut, i.e., the Lemba Y-chromosomes and Hadramaut Y-chromosomes showed overlap.  More importantly, there was also present a Cohen modal haplotype within their subclan, the Buba – higher than within the general Jewish population of Kohanim!!  So their Jewish ancestors probably came along with general Semitic incursions into East Africa from South Arabia, and then moved slowly south through the area of Great Zimbabwe.  This historical migration should not escape the notice of those who cannot believe in important Book of Mormon migrations which seem not to have left behind obvious Jewish culture.

 

See the PBS-TV Nova program “Lost Tribes of Israel,” first broadcast Feb 22, 2000 (Boston: WGBH, 2000) --  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ transcripts/2706israel.html ; Mark G. Thomas, et al., “Y Chromosomes Traveling South: The Cohen Modal Haplotype and the Origins of the Lemba – the ‘Black Jews of Southern Africa’,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 66 (2000), 674-686.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we agree on Barley. It refutes an evidence against the BoM. That's it though

It's not. I didn't say it was. If, in the past, barley was described as anachronistic. If it's now been found in the right time and place then it's no longer an evidence against.

 

I'm a little slow this morning. I still don't understand. Please clarify.