Article claiming possibly Lehi's family never came to America?

[volgadon]

15 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I do wonder what happened to all the swords and weapons from the great wars.

battlefield archaeology doesn't tend to yield a lot of findings, even in the old world.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Gervin said:

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. 

I aware of all that, and yes, I agree that it is amazing what they keep pulling out of the ground.  Thanks for the recommendations, but at 64 years old I don't think I am going to be relaunching myself in a brand new career.  And if I did, it would be astrophysics, which interests me far more than archaeology.

However, I don't know if you were trying to contradict my post, or just adding some items of interest.

Nevermind.  Here's my point: if they dug up an artifact in Mesoamerica that had clear Israelite characteristics, the first thing they would assume is that it was site contamination.  Nobody is going to go off claiming that what they found might indicate that people from Palestine had visited at some time in the distant past.  Horse bones have been found in cenotes in the Yucatan, do you know that?  Don't CFR me on it, because I read about it here on this forum some time back and I have no idea how to locate it now.  But when they found these bones, since they do not correspond with what is believed about New World horses (namely that they were introduced by the Spaniards), they ascribed the bones to site contamination from after the Spaniards arrived, even though the bones were found in the right setting to be contemporaneous with the other artifacts that were being recovered.

In short, unless someone unearthed the actual city of Zarahemla with Hebrew inscriptions and clear indications that it was contemporaneous with the surrounding cultures, they will not recognize what they find as Hebrew.  And the actual site of the city of Zarahemla was probably re-used by subsequent cultures in much the same way that the site of Troy in Asia Minor was found to be the site of seven or more cities that had been destroyed and rebuilt on the site over a millennium or so.

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

 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. 

I agree. So how do you explain this small family entering a larger population and retaining a religion based on the Law of Moses with admixtures of Christianity for nearly 1,000 years?

[Sevenbak]

19 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I do wonder what happened to all the swords and weapons from the great wars.

Wonder no more... and this is just one collection.

http://copperculture.homestead.com/moreartifacts.html

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sevenbak

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I had always thought that Lehi traveled across the Pacific, not the Atlantic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rodney Meldrum vehemently disagrees with you.

 

[Teancum]

19 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).

CFR for peer reviewed scholars who even take the BoM seriously.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Rodney Meldrum vehemently disagrees with you.

I am okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Rodney Meldrum vehemently disagrees with you.

 

Yeah, but it is hard to trust people who make a ton of money selling said belief.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

 

 

"And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) 

wood and obsidian don't rust.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

CFR for peer reviewed scholars who even take the BoM seriously.

Jeff Lindsay has some interesting thoughts on this subject:

Quote

Most scholars, even when puzzled by evidence for the Book of Mormon, simply will not go on record supporting it, and with good reason. The Book of Mormon presents itself as a bizarre miracle - delivered to a farm boy by an angel, translated with the power of God. It's risky enough for scholars to go on record as believing in God (Forest Mims, for example, was denied a position at Scientific American that had been offered to him when it was learned that he believed God created the universe.) To go on record as supporting the Book of Mormon is much worse - not only for the peer pressure, for the obviously personal dilemma: if you believe it's true, then why aren't you a Mormon? Non-LDS scholars supporting the Book of Mormon directly are extremely rare (there are some!), but much less rare is non-LDS scholars proving things that strongly confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, such as those who now say that many ancient peoples wrote on metal plates, or that Alma was a Jewish man's name, or that ancient peoples did come by oceanic voyages to the Americas (laughable in the nineteenth century), etc. Many laughable "errors" in the Book of Mormon have become confirmed as valid in the past century.

...

Several non-LDS people with strong knowledge of ancient Semitic practices or language have been impressed with the Semitic nature of the Book of Mormon. For example, the eminent scholar William Foxwell Albright wrote a letter to a critic of the Book of Mormon in 1966 stating that, in spite of his not being a Book of Mormon believer, it was surprising to find two authentic Egyptian names (Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor [Pahoran]) "in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian,'" and suggested that Joseph Smith might have been some kind of "religious genius" (Albright to Grant S. Heward, Baltimore, Maryland, 1966, as cited by John Tvedtnes, "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," presented at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Aug. 12-17, 2001.) Much more impressive scholarly evidence for the authenticity of many Book of Mormon names is presented in the article by John Tvedtnes that I just cited, which he presented to an international body of scholars. The paper is now available online at FAIRLDS.org.

Michael Ash has written an entire article on this subject: Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

John Tvedtnes has also written an article on this subject: Non-LDS Scholars and the Book of Mormon

Personally, I am not particularly disconcerted by a dearth of non-LDS scholars . . .

• A) who are qualified in field(s) germane to evaluating The Book of Mormon (archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, etc.),
• B) who have performed meaningful, substantive, dispassionate analysis and research in the relevant field(s),
• C) who are familiar with the actual text of The Book of Mormon (rather than with, say, vague, generalized "ancient Jews in the Americas"-type notions of the text),
• D) who have combined the foregoing skills and research and prepared their findings in written, "scholarly," peer-reviewable form,
• E) who actually have had such findings reviewed by other qualified scholars, 
• F) who are willing to put their professional careers at risk of ridicule (or worse) by having such research published,
• G) who have been able to find a scholarly (and non-LDS) venue willing to publish such research, and
• H) who have actually had such research published.

Doesn't it seem a bit unrealistic to expect qualified non-LDS scholars to be lining up for publishing opportunities about . . . The Book of Mormon?

The Bible is a different story, of course.  It looms far larger on the public consciousness.  Plus there are orders of magnitude more data about ancient Bible-related civilizations than about "Book of Mormon" civilizations.  And yet how far has such extensive scholarship progressed in terms of "proving" or "disproving" the religious claims of The Bible?  Not very.  From the Ash article cited above:

Quote

William Dever is a non-LDS biblical archaeologist, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, and head of the university’s Near Eastern Studies Department. He claims that archaeology should never be supposed to prove the Bible in any sense. “After a century of modern research,” writes Dever, “neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era.” After more than a century of modern research, archaeology has never substantiated a variety of biblical narratives, including the existence of Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Moses, or an Israelite presence in Egypt.

Ash then goes on to illustrate some of the meaningful differences between Old World research with research potentially pertaining to areas where The Book of Mormon took place. The entire article is worth a read.

In sum, I'm not particularly bothered by what I think to be largely a "red herring" type of argument (pertaining to scholarly investigation of The Book of Mormon).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2016 by smac97

[Sevenbak]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

"And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) 

wood and obsidian don't rust.

Nor can it be "molten out of a hill" to make "swords of steel".

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

"And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) 

wood and obsidian don't rust.

More likely they used metal for a time and then lost the ability sometime later. Metal swords were probably never common.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

More likely they used metal for a time and then lost the ability sometime later. Metal swords were probably never common.

Do you think they would really forget how to do something as important as metal working?

[Sevenbak]

58 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Do you think they would really forget how to do something as important as metal working?

Nephi prophesied that they would dwindle over many generations and become idle, loathsome and filthy.  Doesn't sound industrious to me.  If something isn't used or taught, it's forgotten.   

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Do you think they would really forget how to do something as important as metal working?

Yes, it has happened in cultures in the Old World. A group of families jealously protects their secrets because it is a source of wealth and if they die out or get killed what do you do?

This is normal. There are a couple of retired engineers in their 70s and 80s making a fortune contracting for the government in helping with our ICBM systems as they are the only people left alive who helped build them and can update them. They refuse to share that knowledge because of how much they can charge.

I see it in the company I work for now. We built a piece of technology a customer needed and built a lot of them and kept selling them. When our stock ran out we realized no one left had any idea how they were built. We had to basically reverse-engineer the things and build a new model that was similar to the original.

In an industrial society with extensive records we can usually go back to first principles and reverse-engineer old tech or build new tech that can do the same thing but in a society with limited literacy and no one wanting to write down their secrets it is easy to lose stuff.

We are still not sure what Greek Fire was made of though we have modern equivalents (napalm). The ability to create concrete In the Greek and Roman way was lost in the dark ages and in some ways it is better then modern concrete and we are not exactly sure what they put in it. We still cannot reproduce original damascus steel.

There are all kinds of reasons it could have been lost: family died out, plague killed them, lost access to source materials, too expensive, change in cultural focus, and yada yada yada.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Gervin said:

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 .

Probably not "the find of a lifetime," but very important nonetheless.  Most of those viewing Hezekiah's seal will miss the prime significance of the 'ankh signs and the winged sun-disk, and be unable to place it in the proper context of the many Israelite seals with Egyptian iconography.  They will be still less able to reflect on the Egyptian language and characters used for the Brass Plates of Laban, and of the Book of Mormon itself.   Context is everything, but without training one cannot place anything in context.

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.

Since Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, and Phoenicians are all Canaanites, and speak Canaanite dialects, it is often difficult to distinguish among them.  The moreso since much of their material culture is virtually the same.  One can see this in the Book of Ruth and elsewhere in the Bible.  Of course, excavations in Israel go back at least to paleolithic times, and I participated in such an excavation at Tell el-'Ubeidiyah in the Jordan Valley.

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.

Correct.  And adequate excavation should show that at the proper time and place.

 I hope they would teach that at any of the schools Mr. Smith might recommend.

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

You will note that I did not recommend any particular school in which to study anthropology, archeology, and genetics.  The standards are pretty much the same regardless of which school and which country in which such study is sought.  However, an understanding of those disciplines is necessary before a meaningful conversation can take place on the issues you, sunstoned, and Johnnie Cake have raised.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/16/2016 at 0:07 AM, 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.

Your anti-Mormon bigotry is clearly displayed here for all to read.  The scientific standards of anthropology remain the same regardless of who applies them, and all other scholars (from all walks of life) are the judges of impartiality -- not you.  Why do you so fear the direct application of science to 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.

You are long on assertion, and very short on fact.  You do not cite sources, and you do not know the language of science or scholarship.  You prefer childish "tis so, tis not" debate, to scientific discussion.  Is that because you so fear the consequences of fair and impartial debate?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Quote

 

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).

 

CFR for peer reviewed scholars who even take the BoM seriously.

This is a contemptuous and classic non sequitur.  It is a fact that the majority of scholars who have discussed the path across the sea taken by clan Lehi was the Pacific ocean.

You responded with a red herring CFR completely unrelated to that question.  Is that because you are incapable of addressing the original question? For shame.

[Russell C McGregor]

On 1/16/2016 at 8:07 PM, 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.  

Rather typical bit of poisoning the well.

There are, of course, no "impartial scholars" in any field, anywhere. Anyone who is interested enough in a subject to invest that much time and effort learning about it is ipso facto much too invested to be "impartial."

But the nasty, spiteful (and false) insinuation that LDS scholars only defend the Book of Mormon because their "livelihood" depends upon it is vicious.
 

On 1/16/2016 at 8:07 PM, sunstoned said:

Is there any non-LDS scholar who supports the  Book of Mormon narrative?  No there is not.  Not one.

Well, duh!

To "support the Book of Mormon narrative" would be to believe in the Book of Mormon. What do you call a Book of Mormon believer, Sunstoned?

Is a more thoroughly circular argument to be found, anywhere?
 

On 1/16/2016 at 8:07 PM, sunstoned said:

There are more people who believe in flying saucers and alien abductions than believe in the BofM.

The argumentum ad populum would be a fallacy if any LDS scholar had attempted to make it in favour of the Book of Mormon. If I'm unaware of any such attempt; but in any event, it is likewise a fallacy when you try to make it.

 

On 1/16/2016 at 8:07 PM, sunstoned said:

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.

In your opinion.

But actual credentialled scholars who are not anonymous, and who are no less "impartial" than your good self, disagree.

 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You are long on personal attacks, but you did not answer my question.  This is a typical apologist response.  Make a lot of noise and obfuscate.  Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Rather typical bit of poisoning the well.

There are, of course, no "impartial scholars" in any field, anywhere. Anyone who is interested enough in a subject to invest that much time and effort learning about it is ipso facto much too invested to be "impartial."

But the nasty, spiteful (and false) insinuation that LDS scholars only defend the Book of Mormon because their "livelihood" depends upon it is vicious.
 

Well, duh!

To "support the Book of Mormon narrative" would be to believe in the Book of Mormon. What do you call a Book of Mormon believer, Sunstoned?

Is a more thoroughly circular argument to be found, anywhere?
 

The argumentum ad populum would be a fallacy if any LDS scholar had attempted to make it in favour of the Book of Mormon. If I'm unaware of any such attempt; but in any event, it is likewise a fallacy when you try to make it.

 

In your opinion.

But actual credentialled scholars who are not anonymous, and who are no less "impartial" than your good self, disagree.

 

You and your buddy Robert are both very predictable.  Instead of addressing the topic, you attack the messenger.  Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? 

I think this was asked above, but I'm genuinely confused. Why would a 'non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative' remain a 'non-Mormon'?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is a contemptuous and classic non sequitur.  It is a fact that the majority of scholars who have discussed the path across the sea taken by clan Lehi was the Pacific ocean.

You responded with a red herring CFR completely unrelated to that question.  Is that because you are incapable of addressing the original question? For shame.

Contempt?   Who is heaping contempt on whom? If you want to heap shame on me I heap it back at you. why is it wrong to ask for non LDS scholars who take the claims that people from Israel migrated to the Americas me that the BoM gives an accurate account of such migration?  Your post simply said scholars.   It did not distinguish LDS vs non LDS  scholars.  Thus it was disingenuous.  So for shame on you.

Had you made the distinction I would have agreed with you whole heartedly.   And I do in regards to LDS scholars who argue for a Pacific migration.  Without it there was nothing contemptuous in my post nor was it a non sequitur.

 

 

[volgadon]

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 7:21 AM, Gervin said:

saw 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. 

With the exception of Jericho recently, not a lot is pulled out of the ground in Palestine. Quibble aside, that important finds are still being discovered in one of the most frequently excavated countries in the world should recommend a little epistemic humility when it comes to your dismissive attitude towards the BoM and archaeology. Very little archaeological work has been done in the Americas in comparison with the Middle East. When I was a kid my parents would take me and my siblings to different places around Israel each week. My mother quizzed us about pottery shards. Not a new concept for me, but you might be surprised to hear that it is not as conclusive or useful a tool as you suppose. First, the meaning assigned variations is highly interpretative. For example, how do you decide that a style is ethnic rather than local. Not only that, many of these descriptions are based on assumptions, such as a certain tel being such and such a biblical site. Other tools are now preferred, such as the presence or absence of pig bones, as they potentially tell us a good deal more. The Americas suffer when it comes to literary and other texts that archaeologists need in their reconstructions of the material past.

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

"And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) 

wood and obsidian don't rust.

Which is why the Aztecs et al. created the macuahuitl!  Metal objects were highly subject to rust in the jungle environment, which goes a long way towards understanding why we don't see much in the way of iron implements in Mesoamerica.  They clearly knew some metallurgy, and could make wonderful things out of gold (which doesn't rust, either), and I believe they also made things out of copper, but copper alloyed so that it didn't rust so badly.

It's kind of surprising that the sword of Laban was able to be preserved over all those centuries after Nephi lifted it from Laban's corpse.  And that it didn't rust away -- though with periodic maintenance this could be done.