Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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

canard78

By canard78
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

canard78 said:

You're right that the location sets restrictions and limitations. I get that. I'm not saying there's some cover-up happening. I'm sure that any archaeologist worth his or her salt would be delighted to be the first one to announce to the world that they had excavated the remains of a Jewish settlement in the Americas. When the Viking settlement was discovered there was no attempt to suppress the find.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is being deceptive whatsoever. I agree that the Americas are relatively unexcavated. They are not, however, entirely unexcavated. 

 

Your mention of a crime scene reminded me of an illustrated cartoon book that my parents owned. It was a book about the Book of Mormon being on trial (I think the actual book had a mouth, arms, legs... anyone remember that one?).

 

I replied:

Yes, a yokel who knew nothing of archeology or of crime scene investigation (there were no real CSIs in his day) did write such a book.  His case was of no value, and he later apostatized.  False premises, false conclusions.

I was in error to say that he apostatized. I had another lawyer in mind and failed to verify my offhand memory. So, I will edit that item out. Sorry.

Bob Crockett Grand Master

Bob Crockett

Posted
Posted (edited)

CFR that they claimed to be linguists of any kind.

 

Isn't this the "pot" calling the kettle "black"?  And did you leave anyone out of these horrific attacks by Sorenson?   :pirate:

"[Paul Fields] has extensive experience in textual analysis and linguistic computing."  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/7RoperFieldsNepal_JS%20Times%20and%20Seasons%20and%20CA%20Ruins.pdf.  He has no experience and doesn't claim it elsewhere.  You know very well what statistical analysis is; the Roper & Fields article about the 1 Oct 1842 article is not. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

"[Paul Fields] has extensive experience in textual analysis and linguistic computing."  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/7RoperFieldsNepal_JS%20Times%20and%20Seasons%20and%20CA%20Ruins.pdf.  He has no experience and doesn't claim it elsewhere.  You know very well what statistical analysis is; the Roper & Fields article about the 1 Oct 1842 article is not. 

 

When you all get it figured out for sure let me know.  In the mean time I'll feed my delusions.

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted (edited)

CFR that they claimed to be linguists of any kind.

 

Isn't this the "pot" calling the kettle "black"? .......................................................................................  

"[Paul Fields] has extensive experience in textual analysis and linguistic computing."  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/7RoperFieldsNepal_JS%20Times%20and%20Seasons%20and%20CA%20Ruins.pdf.  He has no experience and doesn't claim it elsewhere.  You know very well what statistical analysis is; the Roper & Fields article about the 1 Oct 1842 article is not. 

That is a pretty thin basis on which to state that both Roper & Fields claimed to be linguists.  As for Fields having extensive experience in linguistic computing, I'd like to know what that means before declaring him a liar.

 

All in all, it appears that you spoke too hastily on the matter.

 

What is your opinion on the new analysis of Benjamin Winchester's editorials in the Times & Seasons?  Is it based upon extensive experience in texual analysis and linguistic computing?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Bob Crockett Grand Master

Bob Crockett

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm critical of the Roper & Fields article for its quality, content, methodology and claims.   Quit trying to push me to call one of them a liar.   That will be as fruitless as my efforts to have you acknowledge that there is no statistical methodology involved in their article.

 

Odd, isn't it, that the Sorenson adherents claim statistical methodology, claim science and the scientific method and make scientific conclusions, yet don't rely on the scientific method?  Is there anybody with a PhD in the fields of linguistics, stylometry, anthropology or archaeology who claims that Dr. Sorenson relies on the scientific method in Map, Codex or Ancient?  Just one?

 

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written.  Its inner workings are an amazement to me.  But people will get confused with the Book of Mormon's truths when they see failures of Dr. Sorenson's analysis (or Rod Meldrum's) which they will very most likely see.

Edited by Bob Crockett
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written.  Its inner workings are an amazement to me.  But people will get confused with the Book of Mormon's truths when they see failures of Dr. Sorenson's analysis (or Rod Meldrum's) which they will very most likely see.

 

Not if they are not basing their testimonies of that work on its geography.  Geography is irrelevant.  It happened somewhere but it is not about geography, it is about salvation and salvation has no geography.

3
Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

I'm critical of the Roper & Fields article for its quality, content, methodology and claims.   Quit trying to push me to call one of them a liar.  .....................................................

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

So you are retracting your false statement that "they falsely claimed to be linguists"?

 

I am, by the way, not defending their article, but I do encourage you to fashion your critique of their article based on scientific considerations, rather than ad hominems.

1
  • 1 month later...
Hamilton Porter Mentor

Hamilton Porter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Actually, my friend Brian Stubbs (now a retired teacher of linguistics at College of Eastern Utah) is a latecomer to the debate, and his expertise is in both Semitic and Uto-Aztecan languages.  You can see the preview and summary of his forthcoming book on the subject online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN .

 

However, the first serious work along these lines (in the early 1960s) was the formal comparison by non-Mormon scholars of the grammar and vocabulary of a Oaxacan family of languages with Hebrew.  This was done under the supervision of the famed linguistic scholar Morris Swadesh at the INAH in Mexico City.  I extend and summarize the results in my "Sawi-Zaa," 2011 version 2, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA .  Sawi-Zaa is not related to Uto-Aztecan.

 

The late Mary LeCron Foster (UC Berkeley), also non-Mormon, ought to be of some interest, since she delivered formal papers to learned societies on Old World languages in the New World, including ancient Egyptian among the Maya.

See her “Old World Language in the Americas, 1,” paper presented April 20, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San Diego, CA, and her “Old World Language in the Americas, 2,” paper presented Sept 7-10, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Language Origins Society, Selwyn College, Cambridge University,Cambridge, England.  I cannot access copies of those papers.

 

Did the Swadesh thing go mainstream? Per Stubbs many attempts to link native languages to Hebrew have been deemed kookery now.

Edited by Hamilton Porter
Bob Crockett Grand Master

Bob Crockett

Posted
Posted

So you are retracting your false statement that "they falsely claimed to be linguists"?

 

I am, by the way, not defending their article, but I do encourage you to fashion your critique of their article based on scientific considerations, rather than ad hominems.

OK, why don't you tell me which one of them is a linguist?  

KevinG Grand Master

KevinG

Posted
Posted

What would you accept as archeological evidence that would support the Book of Mormon?

 

"Nephi slept here." or Llama saddles.

jkwilliams Grand Master

jkwilliams

Posted
Posted

403 Forbidden

 

See it still doesn't exist.   :rofl:

I'm assuming he's referring to the stylized parrot glyphs that some people think look like elephants.

1
Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm assuming he's referring to the stylized parrot glyphs that some people think look like elephants.

Yes there are parots but there is a glyph with a definate tusk, and 4 legs.

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=mayan+elephant+glyph&safe=strict&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=K4K8ZF9T9-Q-UM%253A%253B1jNeqDrBnB4vRM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.strangehistory.net%25252F2010%25252F07%25252F22%25252Fmongol-elephants-in-america%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=K4K8ZF9T9-Q-UM%253A%252C1jNeqDrBnB4vRM%252C_&biw=1129&bih=755&usg=__orRkdmBqAh9yFV7vg_R1LiLd23s%3D&ved=0CDgQyjdqFQoTCIL1roDRn8gCFYdCkgodI_8B4A&ei=x0oMVsL1IoeFyQSj_oeADg#imgrc=K4K8ZF9T9-Q-UM%3A&usg=__orRkdmBqAh9yFV7vg_R1LiLd23s%3D

Edited by Zakuska
Teancum Grand Master

Teancum

Posted
Posted

I'm critical of the Roper & Fields article for its quality, content, methodology and claims.   Quit trying to push me to call one of them a liar.   That will be as fruitless as my efforts to have you acknowledge that there is no statistical methodology involved in their article.

 

Odd, isn't it, that the Sorenson adherents claim statistical methodology, claim science and the scientific method and make scientific conclusions, yet don't rely on the scientific method?  Is there anybody with a PhD in the fields of linguistics, stylometry, anthropology or archaeology who claims that Dr. Sorenson relies on the scientific method in Map, Codex or Ancient?  Just one?

 

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written.  Its inner workings are an amazement to me.  But people will get confused with the Book of Mormon's truths when they see failures of Dr. Sorenson's analysis (or Rod Meldrum's) which they will very most likely see.

 

 

Why is it the most correct book written?  What do you base this on other than the statement by JS?  How do you make such a determination?  If it really is the most correct book why did Joseph rarely if ever use it as the basis for his sermons and teachings that we have today?

KevinG Grand Master

KevinG

Posted
Posted

 

I see a representation of an impotent Tucan.  Or a Constrictor who swallowed a cat.   :crazy:

jkwilliams Grand Master

jkwilliams

Posted
Posted

I'm not seeing it. Can you be more specific?

jkwilliams Grand Master

jkwilliams

Posted
Posted

421 1.13

 

I have another image of that that is clear and you can see the tusk.

What I see is the parrot-head affix next to a suffix glyph. In the suffix, we see 4 vertical lines dividing the bottom third of the cube into 5 sections. If you look at the other suffixes in the series, they are not bodies attached to the head at all. What leads you to believe this one is?

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

Clearer Version:  421 1.13

 

Definate Tusk

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-NUzRLal6hMUnZBeXF6UjlDTW8/view?usp=sharing

 

 

More about the Copan Macaws/Elephants

 

 

Then there are the long-nosed gods of the Maya.  The glyph that stands for the Mayan city of Copan contains the image of a divinity with a long tubelike nose. In the mid-1920s, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith named this figure an elephant, an identification rejected by American anthropologists such as Alfred Tozzer and Herbert Spinden, who pronounced it a macaw, a native form of parrot.  A Macaw, though is an unlikely candidate, because there is nothing tubular about its large well-proportined beak. If the Glyph is indeed an elephant, it points to a South or Southeast Asian influence.  No modern form of the animal has existed in the Americas since the mastodons and mammoths became extinct the last ice age.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=xlNnw05uDVgC&pg=PT114&lpg=PT114&dq=mayan+elephant+glyph&source=bl&ots=Eu9PXA0cLf&sig=vV8jsqG4HE3YKYgpZrQBRUiYVds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgKahUKEwjpwp3N1Z_IAhVFBpIKHcCbAB0#v=onepage&q=mayan%20elephant%20glyph&f=false

Edited by Zakuska
jkwilliams Grand Master

jkwilliams

Posted
Posted

Clearer Version:  421 1.13

 

Definate Tusk

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-NUzRLal6hMUnZBeXF6UjlDTW8

Definite broken link.

 

 

Just as I thought, that citation rests on Barry Fell. Again, you're putting two glyphs together and saying they make an elephant. That's like saying a capital T and an h next to each other are actually a chair under a tree.

You can do better than this.

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

What about this one:

 

MayanElephant.gif

 

Note the size compared to the human, the protruding ears, and the elongated trunk with a highly curved and rounded end.  All characteristics you will not find in the native macaw.  You can even see the pointed lower lip as seen in the elephant image below.  Note that asian elephants are often tusk-less and have smaller ears than their African counter-parts.  The depiction above looks like an Asian elephant to me with a man riding it. 

 

 

What seems more likely, this:

scarlet-macaw.jpg

Or, this:

isolated-asian-elephant-asiatic-white-35

Edited by pogi
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...