VideoGameJunkie Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 This is an article that possibly claims that Lehi's family could have never come to America. http://phys.org/news/2016-01-genetic-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor.html Thoughts? I tried copying and pasting the text to my post, but the board wouldn't let me post it for some reason.
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 This article does not appear to address Book of Mormon claims specifically. Nevertheless, there are a number of theories I have heard by Mormons arguing for a different landing place than America. I expect such theories, unpopular as they may be currently, are largely prompted by an overwhelming lack of archeological evidence in the Americas for the Nephite civilization. 2
smac97 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I had always thought that Lehi traveled across the Pacific, not the Atlantic. Thanks, -Smac 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I had always thought that Lehi traveled across the Pacific, not the Atlantic. Thanks, -Smac What made you think Pacific?
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 15, 2016 5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: What made you think Pacific? The narrative in The Book of Mormon states that Lehi and his family traveled south from Jerusalem, then east until they came to the seashore. Since we know where Jerusalem is located, traveling south, then east would probably put them on the southern or eastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, as follows: So although I suppose it's possible that the Lehite's sea voyage took them south around Cape of Good Hope and then west across the Atlantic, they may have also simply headed east and then kept going east to the west coast of the Americas. This website posits that, based on the text and on historic trade winds which flow eastward in the southern hemisphere, the most likely course of travel would have been across the Pacific. A few more resources: http://pt.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World http://mormonmatters.org/2009/04/20/unconventional-book-of-mormon-geography-theories/ https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/09/in-search-of-lehis-trail-part-1-the-preparation?lang=eng https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/16-lehi-s-journeys Thanks, -Smac 6
ksfisher Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see any mention of Lehi in the article.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith No you wouldn't. 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith I do wonder what happened to all the swords and weapons from the great wars.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith Duplicate Edited January 16, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted January 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith Suggesting that a coin might support BofM claims is part of the problem, Johnnie. There are no coins in the BofM, so searching for them is like searching for any other non-existent artifact -- a wild goose chase. If one wants to understand what archeology, genetics, or anthropology have to offer in the way of evidence, one must first understand those disciplines. Spend a few years at your local college or university learning about those things, including several seasons of relevant archeological work (in the field and in the lab), and then readdress the question. 5
Robert F. Smith Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: What made you think Pacific? Most scholars who have considered the question at all, suppose that Lehi and his clan came across the Pacific Ocean. However, most also speculate that Mulek ben Zedekiah came across the Atlantic (with either a Phoenician or Egyptian boat and crew). 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 On 1/15/2016 at 3:03 PM, consiglieri said: This article does not appear to address Book of Mormon claims specifically. Nevertheless, there are a number of theories I have heard by Mormons arguing for a different landing place than America. I expect such theories, unpopular as they may be currently, are largely prompted by an overwhelming lack of archeological evidence in the Americas for the Nephite civilization. And you base that claimed "overwhelming lack of archeological evidence in the Americas for the Nephite civilization" on what? I assume that you have read the best books and articles on the subject and have rejected the data and interpretations for cause. Is that correct? I'd be very interested in any columns you have written reviewing the evidence and drawing that conclusion. Got any? Meantime, you might want to read my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” illustrated lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , Do NOT use a name that a poster has not disclosed. 3
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: ... a Nephite pottery shard... Honest question: what exactly would 'a Nephite pottery shard' look like? 6
strappinglad Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Isn't an " overwhelming lack of ... evidence " an oxymoron ? Just recently there appeared evidence that a vast culture inhabited the Amazon basin. The evidence ? Soil ! No walls, , no buildings , no writings, just the quality of the soil. Imagine, a society of thousands and, given the huge area concerned, likely millions , of people occupying an area and leaving just ...soil. 2
Anijen Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Most scholars who have considered the question at all, suppose that Lehi and his clan came across the Pacific Ocean. However, most also speculate that Mulek ben Zedekiah came across the Atlantic (with either a Phoenician or Egyptian boat and crew). I also recall touring temple square where the visitors center had posited a pacific route (along a wall tour). 1
longview Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Most scholars who have considered the question at all, suppose that Lehi and his clan came across the Pacific Ocean. However, most also speculate that Mulek ben Zedekiah came across the Atlantic (with either a Phoenician or Egyptian boat and crew). How about a ship of Tarshish , a city near Gibraltar in the southern part of Spain? Jonah took one from Joppa to go to Tarshish. 2
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 It sounds to me like this anthropologist is specifically referring to the Solutrean hypothesis and had nothing to do with Lehi. She says that there was no evidence of Transatlantic crossings before the Beringia crossing. The Solutrean hypothesis is based on pre Clovis technology found at Eastern sites and tied (by a small group of anthropologists) to Kennewick man who has since been linked through DNA to modern Northwest tribes (and not the Solutrean Europeans). 2
sunstoned Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Suggesting that a coin might support BofM claims is part of the problem, Johnnie. There are no coins in the BofM, so searching for them is like searching for any other non-existent artifact -- a wild goose chase. If one wants to understand what archeology, genetics, or anthropology have to offer in the way of evidence, one must first understand those disciplines. Spend a few years at your local college or university learning about those things, including several seasons of relevant archeological work (in the field and in the lab), and then readdress the question. Robert, can you name one scholar who has spent a few years at a local college or university learning about these things who supports the Book of Mormon paradigm? Of course I am talking about an impartial scholar. Not some BYU/church person who's livelihood is tied directly to what he/she says about the Book of Mormon. Is there any non-LDS scholar who supports the Book of Mormon narrative? No there is not. Not one. There are more people who believe in flying saucers and alien abductions than believe in the BofM. If you want to believe the BofM, that is fine. I support this. I was a believer once, for almost 30 years I was a believer. So I know where you are coming from. But don't pretend that there is any scholarly evidence supporting the BofM. There is not. Edited January 16, 2016 by sunstoned 2
Freedom Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Robert, can you name one scholar who has spent a few years at a local college or university learning about these things who supports the Book of Mormon paradigm? Of course I am talking about an impartial scholar. Not some BYU/church person who's livelihood is tied directly to what he/she says about the Book of Mormon. Is there any non-LDS scholar who supports the Book of Mormon narrative? No there is not. Not one. There are more people who believe in flying saucers and alien abductions than believe in the BofM. If you want to believe the BofM, that is fine. I support this. I was a believer once, for almost 30 years I was a believer. So I know where you are coming from. But don't pretend that there is any scholarly evidence supporting the BofM. There is not. the problem with this argument is that it supposes there is some other narrative they are following.
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: Robert, can you name one scholar who has spent a few years at a local college or university learning about these things who supports the Book of Mormon paradigm? Of course I am talking about an impartial scholar. Not some BYU/church person who's livelihood is tied directly to what he/she says about the Book of Mormon. Is there any non-LDS scholar who supports the Book of Mormon narrative? No there is not. Not one. There are more people who believe in flying saucers and alien abductions than believe in the BofM. If you want to believe the BofM, that is fine. I support this. I was a believer once, for almost 30 years I was a believer. So I know where you are coming from. But don't pretend that there is any scholarly evidence supporting the BofM. There is not. I disagree. There is some. Is it enough together to be conclusive or convincing? Not really. Enough to be plausible? I think so. 1
Stargazer Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith So... just how do you think an archaeologist would recognize a pottery shard as "Nephite" when (a) he didn't know anything about Nephites, (b) if he did know anything would consider them fictional, and (c) for that matter, WE have no way to know how to distinguish a Nephite pottery shard from any other kind? Or how he would recognize any kind of trinket as Nephite? But from your posting history, JC, I would have to say that you wouldn't believe it if an archaeologist did find any kind of artifact and labeled it as Nephite. So, no, I don't think you would LOVE it. 4
Stargazer Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 9 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I do wonder what happened to all the swords and weapons from the great wars. Why would you wonder that? The Nephites and the Lamanites were far from the only people where they were. How would you recognize a Nephite sword if you found one? In fact, the weapons used in Mesoamerica (and no, I don't believe the Heartland claptrap) were well-described by the Conquistadors. They were not made of iron or bronze, but of materials more commonly to hand, such as wood and obsidian. Surely you've heard of the macuahuitl? It's been talked about here before.
Gervin Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: So... just how do you think an archaeologist would recognize a pottery shard as "Nephite" when (a) he didn't know anything about Nephites, (b) if he did know anything would consider them fictional, and (c) for that matter, WE have no way to know how to distinguish a Nephite pottery shard from any other kind? Or how he would recognize any kind of trinket as Nephite? But from your posting history, JC, I would have to say that you wouldn't believe it if an archaeologist did find any kind of artifact and labeled it as Nephite. So, no, I don't think you would LOVE it. If you listen to Robert F. Smith's advice and take some classes and do some fieldwork, you'll probably learn that scholars examine hundreds and thousands of artifacts and many of them on a very small scale. Sometmes something small can be the find of a lifetime. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm Excavations in Israel - a country relatively small in area - reveal cultures going back to the Bronze Age. Scholars can distinguish between an Edomite vs a Canaanite pottery sherd by relating it to material, workmanship, style, functionality, markings/inscriptions, cross-referenced to other finds, other locations, offered up for scrutiny, etc.. It's simply their business to find and note distinguishable characteristics. If you posit a Hebrew culture in an American setting - a culture that brought with it religion, language, agricultural skills, a writing system, engineering knowledge, etc, etc, - then I think it's fair to expect that that culture left traces distinguishable from the cultures they encountered. I hope they would teach that at any of the schools Mr. Smith might recommend. Anyway, I'm constantly amazed at what they keep pulling out of the ground back in Palestine. Edited January 16, 2016 by Gervin 1
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted January 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Gervin said: If you posit a Hebrew culture in an American setting - a culture that brought with it religion, language, agricultural skills, a writing system, engineering knowledge, etc, etc, - then I think it's fair to expect that that culture left traces distinguishable from the cultures they encountered. Of course, part of the problem is positing a Hebrew culture in the American setting. That is a different question from positing a family from Israel in an American setting. I can't see any logical model of immigration where a small people enter a larger population and succeed in retaining previous cultural styles for very long. That would be particularly true when the plants, animals, and climate are completely different. Human history argues against positing a Hebrew culture--even if we do posit Lehi's family in the Americas. 10
Recommended Posts