Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Calm said:

He is probably an ancestor of a lot more than just .5%.  That number is for his known direct line (father to son) genetic descendants and does not account for all of his genealogical or maybe even his genetic autosomal descendants.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VqleW9YzLww

 

I got my dna ancestry thingy (a technical term) from ancestry dot com.

Pretty interesting. Proves conclusively that I am bi-polish. ;)

Somebody from Finland got in there too and even a little Irish.  That's about it.

Posted
On 1/27/2016 at 7:48 PM, Gervin said:

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

 
Quote

 

mfbukowski said:

Bob is the expert on the evidence and has written about it extensively and I will leave that up to him.

So YES there IS historical evidence for the BOM ...

 

This pretty much sums it up for me:

Bob is the expert + leave it up to Bob = there IS historical evidence

As usual, Gervin, you miss the point and apply bad logic.

An honest response would be to read and respond to the writings which Mark mentions.  Mark is talking philosophy and logic, while I am talking hard science.  You appear to be unable to deal with either.

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As usual, Gervin, you miss the point and apply bad logic.

An honest response would be to read and respond to the writings which Mark mentions.  Mark is talking philosophy and logic, while I am talking hard science.  You appear to be unable to deal with either.

Perhaps you can help me "deal" with some science.  On another thread a link to a paper by John Clark included this statement:

Quote

 

"The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology."

 

 

 

 

My question to you is, on what scientific basis can someone make a statement that artifacts are "masked" and "not recognized for what they are?"  

Edited by Gervin
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Gervin said:

Perhaps you can help me "deal" with some science.  On another thread a link to a paper by John Clark included this statement:

My question to you is, on what scientific basis can someone make a statement that artifacts are "masked" and "not recognized for what they are?"  

Yep, it's ridiculous to assert that the sun doesn't go around the earth- after all it goes down in the west and comes up in the east. 

It is what it is, after all.  On what basis can you assert that the earth rotates around the sun and this "masks" the obvious facts so that things are "not recognized for what they are" that the sun goes around the earth?

Uh, it's called a "paradigm shift".  A new theory.  A hypothesis.  A different way of defining the alleged "facts".  You should read up on the idea.

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
5 hours ago, Gervin said:

Perhaps you can help me "deal" with some science.  On another thread a link to a paper by John Clark included this statement:

Quote

"The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." It would be helpful and honest if you would cite your sources each time you provide a quote.

My question to you is, on what scientific basis can someone make a statement that artifacts are "masked" and "not recognized for what they are?"  

John E. Clark has spent a lifetime doing archeology in Mesoamerica (he is professor of anthropology at BYU, and has been the head of the NWAF -- which has done more excavation and more reports on Mesoamerica than any other organization).  He has written and edited standard sources such as (with Mary Pye) Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica (NGW-Stud Hist Ar, 2006).

The quote you provide from him seems entirely reasonable and in line with standard archeology and anthropology.  Most excavations worldwide are of sites which cannot be identified by their ancient name or culture, although that is sometimes possible in a literate and historical context (where much cross correlation and detective work have been done).  Perhaps I just don't understand what you see wrong with that statement.  Could you enlighten me?

Posted (edited)
On 1/27/2016 at 8:10 PM, salgare said:

It seemed the one paper I read used the text of the book itself as evidence (i.e. weights and measures).

Based on the Hamblin/Jenkins debate I can see that one needs to be pretty specific about the category (lack of better word) of the evidence.

For example their debate was archaeological / linguistic.  How would your classify/categorize your evidence Robert?

I cover the broad range in different articles:  theological, linguistic, historical, archeological, poetic, literary, text criticism, etc., but especially in combined systems in which one must use several disciplines simultaneously.  I have provided you only a sampling.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Posted
On January 28, 2016 at 7:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

I got my dna ancestry thingy (a technical term) from ancestry dot com.

Pretty interesting. Proves conclusively that I am bi-polish. ;)

Somebody from Finland got in there too and even a little Irish.  That's about it.

How much Neanderthal?

 

Posted
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The quote you provide from him seems entirely reasonable and in line with standard archeology and anthropology.  Most excavations worldwide are of sites which cannot be identified by their ancient name or culture, although that is sometimes possible in a literate and historical context (where much cross correlation and detective work have been done).  Perhaps I just don't understand what you see wrong with that statement.  Could you enlighten me?

Clark claims that, naming conventions aside, Book of Mormon artifacts and cities are known. https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/20079/18639

How is this determination made using standard archaeological and anthropological criteria?  I don't see it in his paper.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Gervin said:
 
Quote

Robert F. Smith said:

The quote you provide from him seems entirely reasonable and in line with standard archeology and anthropology.  Most excavations worldwide are of sites which cannot be identified by their ancient name or culture, although that is sometimes possible in a literate and historical context (where much cross correlation and detective work have been done).  Perhaps I just don't understand what you see wrong with that statement.  Could you enlighten me?

Clark claims that, naming conventions aside, Book of Mormon artifacts and cities are known. https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/20079/18639

How is this determination made using standard archaeological and anthropological criteria?  I don't see it in his paper.

If you read anthropologists Brant Gardner or John Sorenson, you will see how that is done in very specific terms, and Clark likely had in mind the sorts of artifacts which Sorenson richly displays in his wonderful coffee-table book Images of Ancient America (cited below).  But perhaps it would be easier to summarize the negative, where the result is that no correlation can be made and we come up dry:  The various geographic theories do not all work.  Most of them fly in the face of a fact-based comparison with the real world.

1.  The complete hemispheric model (including North & South America) has impossibly great distances and a virtually impassable narrow neck.  Archeology discloses no unity or continuity of cultures over the vast area required.  The Book of Mormon describes very short distances.

2.  Andean civilizations of South America certainly had high culture, but just not high enough -- especially lacking literacy, the use of cement, etc.  Again, the distances are too great and do not match those of the BofM.

3.  Variations on the Heartland theory do provide some impressive earthworks and copper technology, but do not have literacy, high population, cement, or the short distances of the BofM.

If these problems pervaded all the Americas, then we would have to admit that the BofM could have taken place nowhere|erehwon in the New World.  However, since the key ingredients of BofM civilization can be found in Mesoamerica, and at just the right times, the negatives do not persist.  One must be willing to address the case in published sources to see how that works out in detail:

Sorenson, John L., “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture,” part 1, Ensign, 14/9 (Sept 1984), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng .

Sorenson, John L., “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture,” part 2, Ensign, 14/10 (Oct 1984), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture-part-2?lang=eng .

Sorenson, John L., An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1985).  Available online.

Sorenson, John L., Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1998).

Gardner, Brant A., Traditions of the Fathers:  The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Posted
12 hours ago, katherine the great said:

How much Neanderthal?

 

skaz ploktp

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If these problems pervaded all the Americas, then we would have to admit that the BofM could have taken place nowhere|erehwon in the New World.  

Serious problems do pervade all models based in the Americas. There is no possibility of silk production in the New World. Horses, elephants, swords, chariots, iron...theses things have not been found in Mesoamerica from 2500 BC to 420 AD.

You didn't include the Malay/Burmese model in your list of Book of Mormon geographies. In SE Asia all the above anachronisms are resolved and the geography fits the Book of Mormon text almost exactly. And there is a strong possibility that a group of people from the Arabian Peninsula settled there around 600 BC, settling in an area with evidence of iron forging dating back to 600 BC. These is strong evidence of early Persian/Arabian influence in the early Malay kingdoms and other kingdoms across Southeast Asia.

Do you imagine a point in time when Book of Mormon scholars might be willing to consider that the BofM could have taken place somewhere we never would expect? 

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Serious problems do pervade all models based in the Americas. There is no possibility of silk production in the New World. Horses, elephants, swords, chariots, iron...theses things have not been found in Mesoamerica from 2500 BC to 420 AD.

You didn't include the Malay/Burmese model in your list of Book of Mormon geographies. In SE Asia all the above anachronisms are resolved and the geography fits the Book of Mormon text almost exactly. And there is a strong possibility that a group of people from the Arabian Peninsula settled there around 600 BC, settling in an area with evidence of iron forging dating back to 600 BC. These is strong evidence of early Persian/Arabian influence in the early Malay kingdoms and other kingdoms across Southeast Asia.

Do you imagine a point in time when Book of Mormon scholars might be willing to consider that the BofM could have taken place somewhere we never would expect? 

Just curious- on this view how do the plates get to Western New York?  It appears the only option would be supernatural.

Admittedly we are dealing with an unexplainable story anyway, but it is hard to imagine how this idea improves its over-all plausibility as literal history.

At least on the two Cumorah theory they could have possibly been hand carried that far over years of travel, a view which actually is a plausible interpretation from the text itself

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just curious- on this view how do the plates get to Western New York?  It appears the only option would be supernatural.

Admittedly we are dealing with an unexplainable story anyway, but it is hard to imagine how this idea improves its over-all plausibility as literal history.

At least on the two Cumorah theory they could have possibly been hand carried that far over years of travel, a view which actually is a plausible interpretation from the text itself

This is the most challenging problem for the Asian model. 

The most plausible solution I can come up with is not much different than the two Cumorah theory. Southeast Asia is chock full of legends and myths of a Golden Book that was taken by a "white" younger brother" who left by boat with the promise that the golden book would one day be returned. These oral legends are not limited to the well-known Karen, they exist in hundreds of oral histories throughout the region even reaching up into Tibet. One such group is the Bnei Manashe, or the "People of Manasseh", in Burma. They live in an area called Zoram and to this day call their leader Zoramthanga, and even have a website called Zoram News. I understand that oral histories and matching names such as Zoram are problematic and provide no reliable detail or proof, but the pervasiveness of these legends across Southeast Asia does lend some weight to the argument.

Additionally, there is evidence that a person (or rather a group of people) fled sectarian conflict in Southeast Asia carrying with them their written histories. This group is called the Antaimoro or Antemorona, which means the "People of Moro" or the people of Morona. They were likely the first to settle in the Comoros Islands, which has as its capital the city of Moroni. DNA testing has revealed that the Antemoro have arabic and/or semitic origins, with substantial traces of J1 and T1 haplogroups, the markers most commonly associated with the Babylonian exile. They aren't so different genetically from the Lemba of Zimbabwe who have strong genetic links to Palestine and a faint cultural memory of Jewish rituals. Its high speculation, but not impossible that the Antemorona could be connected in some way to the account of Moroni, ancient Hebrews migrating west with their historical records through Moroni in the Comoros Islands and going as far as the New World. There is some DNA evidence of Malay seafarers reaching the New World before Columbus, and since the Malay had reached almost every continent before Moroni's departure it's much easier to imagine a historical record being carried to the New World anytime between 420 AD and 1820 AD then it is to imagine two migrations of Hebrews sailing there in 600 BC.

I cannot imagine a scenario where a sailing vessel in 600 BC could navigate past the Malay Peninsula and across the Pacific Ocean. Such a journey is not possible without relying on a divine or supernatural explanation. Maritime technology in Lehi's time barely had the range to reach India, let alone Guatemala. I believe this is the first real problem of any Book of Mormon geography set in the New World. Such a journey would not be possible until Malay and Polynesian seafarers appear on the scene.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Posted
8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Serious problems do pervade all models based in the Americas. There is no possibility of silk production in the New World. Horses, elephants, swords, chariots, iron...theses things have not been found in Mesoamerica from 2500 BC to 420 AD.

You didn't include the Malay/Burmese model in your list of Book of Mormon geographies. In SE Asia all the above anachronisms are resolved and the geography fits the Book of Mormon text almost exactly. And there is a strong possibility that a group of people from the Arabian Peninsula settled there around 600 BC, settling in an area with evidence of iron forging dating back to 600 BC. These is strong evidence of early Persian/Arabian influence in the early Malay kingdoms and other kingdoms across Southeast Asia.

Do you imagine a point in time when Book of Mormon scholars might be willing to consider that the BofM could have taken place somewhere we never would expect? 

Regarding silk, for instance, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=45

Much depends on your conceptions on what is behind translated words.

Brant Gardner has discussed the Malay hypothesis here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/testing-a-methodology-a-malaysian-setting-for-the-book-of-mormon/

All paradigm choice involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved," "which paradigm is better?" and how a person makes that decision, and which paradigm has the most future promise for meeting as yet unresolved problems. (See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Posted
6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:



I cannot imagine a scenario where a sailing vessel in 600 BC could navigate past the Malay Peninsula and across the Pacific Ocean. Such a journey is not possible without relying on a divine or supernatural explanation. Maritime technology in Lehi's time barely had the range to reach India, let alone Guatemala. I believe this is the first real problem of any Book of Mormon geography set in the New World. Such a journey would not be possible until Malay and Polynesian seafarers appear on the scene.

8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt aconstruct a ship, after the bmanner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.

2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding silk, for instance, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=45

Much depends on your conceptions on what is behind translated words.

 

Although Sorenson has done a tremendous job identifying silk-like materials in Mesoamerica, its still very difficult to convince critics that pineapple fiber or rabbit hair is the same thing as silk. Why not instead consider a location that had real silkwork silk dating back to the right time? 

In Southeast Asia the elephants are not woolly mammoths, they are just normal elephants. Horses are not tapir or deer. Swords = swordsIron smelting = iron smelting etc.

Brant Gardner's article on the Malay geography is a fantastic intro to the model as presented by Ralph Olsen over 10 years ago, but a lot of new archaeological and genetic research has come out since. The model has come a long way since Brant wrote the article. For example, the map is quite a bit different with distances and locations lining up with John Clark's internal Book of Mormon map. New placenames and toponyms have been found such as Sidon, MulekMoronZoram, and Judea. There's even an ancient city called Lamanite.

After reading Gardner's article again, I'm confident all of the problems he identified have since been resolved.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Posted
13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Serious problems do pervade all models based in the Americas. There is no possibility of silk production in the New World. Horses, elephants, swords, chariots, iron...theses things have not been found in Mesoamerica from 2500 BC to 420 AD.

Actually, the BofM stacks up pretty well on that short listing:  horses and elephants are very likely to have survived in small pockets into BofM times, swords are well known (macuihuitls), and iron was used among the Olmec by the  ton.

As for "silk," one must bear in mind that, at the time of the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, silk from wild cocoons was woven into a fine cloth, and there were even other fine cloths there which could be described as "silklike."  One must a least be familiar with the basics before condemning the BofM to imaginary problems.

You didn't include the Malay/Burmese model in your list of Book of Mormon geographies. In SE Asia all the above anachronisms are resolved and the geography fits the Book of Mormon text almost exactly. And there is a strong possibility that a group of people from the Arabian Peninsula settled there around 600 BC, settling in an area with evidence of iron forging dating back to 600 BC. These is strong evidence of early Persian/Arabian influence in the early Malay kingdoms and other kingdoms across Southeast Asia.

Do you imagine a point in time when Book of Mormon scholars might be willing to consider that the BofM could have taken place somewhere we never would expect? 

There are also other geographies which more or less fit the Book of Mormon, including a nice one for Greece.  The ultimate problem for those correlations is that they don't fit the text very well in other respects.  The New World is a prophetic must.

 

Posted
5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt aconstruct a ship, after the bmanner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.

2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.


Book of Mormon
And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord spake unto my father by night, and commanded him that on the morrow he should take his journey into the wilderness. 10 And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.

Book of the Leang (roughly translated from Mandarin)
There was a man from a far country who had a dream that a spirit gave him two arcs and commanded him to take to the sea in a boat. In the morning he awoke and found the arc(s) he had seen in his dream. He then took to the sea and was directed to the land of Funan (Malay/Cambodia).

Posted
18 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

......................................There is some DNA evidence of Malay seafarers reaching the New World before Columbus, and since the Malay had reached almost every continent before Moroni's departure it's much easier to imagine a historical record being carried to the New World anytime between 420 AD and 1820 AD then it is to imagine two migrations of Hebrews sailing there in 600 BC.

You left out the Jaredites, who come in about 3100 BC.

I cannot imagine a scenario where a sailing vessel in 600 BC could navigate past the Malay Peninsula and across the Pacific Ocean. Such a journey is not possible without relying on a divine or supernatural explanation. Maritime technology in Lehi's time barely had the range to reach India, let alone Guatemala. I believe this is the first real problem of any Book of Mormon geography set in the New World. Such a journey would not be possible until Malay and Polynesian seafarers appear on the scene.

Such technology was evidently available already in about 3500 BC, so that we can explain how Middle Jomon pottery styles from Kyushu and Honshu, Japan, show up in Valdivia, Ecuador, at that early date.  See Betty Meggars, Clifford Evans, and Emilio Estrada, Early formative period of coastal Ecuador: the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. I (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1965), and subsequent publications.

Moreover, Phoenician navigation was far superior to the later Polynesian seafaring, and India was a regular destination of such craft coming out of Etzion Geber on the Red Sea -- in Classical Israelite times.

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such technology was evidently available already in about 3500 BC, so that we can explain how Middle Jomon pottery styles from Kyushu and Honshu, Japan, show up in Valdivia, Ecuador, at that early date.  See Betty Meggars, Clifford Evans, and Em
ilio Estrada, Early formative period of coastal Ecuador: the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. I (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1965), and subsequent publications.

The presence of Jomon pottery in Ecuador would not demonstrate that Hebrews were able to sail from the Middle East to America, it demonstrates that austronesians from East Asia and Southeast Asia were likely making the journey. It strengthens the plausibility of the Malay model.
 

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, Phoenician navigation was far superior to the later Polynesian seafaring, and India was a regular destination of such craft coming out of Etzion Geber on the Red Sea -- in Classical Israelite times.

Phoenicians sailing to India in classical Israelite times does not demonstrate that Hebrews were sailing to the New World. It demonstrates that Hebrews could have, and likely were according to many accounts, sailing to India and "Further India" (Malay). Not beyond. This demonstrates that the Malay model is worth considering more carefully.

There is mounting genetic and archaeological evidence that Arab/Hebrew migrants from the Arabian Peninsula were present on the Malay Peninsula, India, Burma, China, Madagascar, Comoros Islands and Zimbabwe during Classical Israelite times. There is no such evidence of these groups in the New World, at least not yet. I'm only suggesting we should follow the trail leading up to the moment the Book of Mormon was revealed in New York. Why leap over all that fascinating information?

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Posted
52 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The presence of Jomon pottery in Ecuador would not demonstrate that Hebrews were able to sail from the Middle East to America, it demonstrates that austronesians from East Asia and Southeast Asia were likely making the journey. It strengthens the plausibility of the Malay model.
You were arguing that such seafaring was not possible at such an early date.  I countered that position, and even called to your attention the Jaredites -- whom you neglected to mention.

Phoenicians sailing to India in classical Israelite times does not demonstrate that Hebrews were sailing to the New World. It demonstrates that Hebrews could have, and likely were according to many accounts, sailing to India and "Further India" (Malay). Not beyond. This demonstrates that the Malay model is worth considering more carefully.

You argued that the technology was not available until the very late Polynesian period.  Phoenician navigation was superior not only to the much later Polynesians, but was even superior to that of the Vikings and Columbus.  Underestimating the available technology makes it appear that the Lehites and Mulekites could not have done it, which is in error.

There is mounting genetic and archaeological evidence that Arab/Hebrew migrants from the Arabian Peninsula were present on the Malay Peninsula, India, Burma, China, Madagascar, Comoros Islands and Zimbabwe during Classical Israelite times. There is no such evidence of these groups in the New World, at least not yet. I'm only suggesting we should follow the trail leading up to the moment the Book of Mormon was revealed in New York. Why leap over all that fascinating information?

We should not give short shrift to any of that information.  Indeed, it shows how pregnant with possibilities real DNA research can be.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We should not give short shrift to any of that information.  Indeed, it shows how pregnant with possibilities real DNA research can be.

Agreed, my interest in Asia and the Indian Ocean is its potential role as a stepping stone towards the New World. As we wrap our heads around the presence of Hebrews and Christians migrating away from the Middle East we'll have a better grasp of the possibilities of these groups reaching the Americas. There is a trail of genetic and archaeological information moving in that direction.

I've just finished "The Lost History of Christianity" by Phillip Jenkins and was surprised to learn that the claims of the Book of Mormon are not at all unbelievable in the context of hundreds of thousands of Christians (Church of the East) expanding east across Asia and south through Africa. Of course, Jenkins doesn't dare touch speculation that Hebrews reached the New World, but there is a vast middle ground in between that is full of opportunities for collaboration with non-Mormon scholars.

The apostles were given the command to go forth and carry the Gospel into all the world. Scholars like Jenkins and Moffett have traced their path as far as India, China, Burma and possibly Malay. If we believe the Gospel was carried beyond that point, we'd need to pick up where non-Mormon scholars drop off. I feel the Malay Model provides an acceptable meeting point. That's why it is called a model, a tool to help us understand. In time, it might not be necessary. But at present it does offer an interesting argument for the historical plausibility of all claims made in the Book of Mormon. In time, the leap across to the New World would not be too much of a stretch, so long as we connect all points in between.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Posted
On 1/31/2016 at 4:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

if you read anthropologists Brant Gardner or John Sorenson, you will see how that is done in very specific terms, and Clark likely had in mind the sorts of artifacts which Sorenson richly displays in his wonderful coffee-table book Images of Ancient America (cited below).

I don't think this isn't the scientific conversation I was promised.  I'm curious about Clark's assertion that Book of Mormon artifacts reside in the museums of the world.  How is his claim understood using agreed-upon criteria?  You obviously don't know either, speculating about what Clark "likely had in mind." 

On 1/31/2016 at 4:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

But perhaps it would be easier to summarize the negative,

Of course it would be.  I'm more interested in Clark's claims about artifacts ... whatever the preferred location.

Posted
14 hours ago, Gervin said:

I don't think this isn't the scientific conversation I was promised.  I'm curious about Clark's assertion that Book of Mormon artifacts reside in the museums of the world.  How is his claim understood using agreed-upon criteria?  You obviously don't know either, speculating about what Clark "likely had in mind." 

Of course it would be.  I'm more interested in Clark's claims about artifacts ... whatever the preferred location.

I guess the most noteworthy and characteristic thing about your approach, Gervin, is your complete rejection of science.  You absolutely refuse to even consider it or to read anything about it, making lame excuses for neglecting the actual sources -- of which I have given you many.  Maybe you need several years of college courses in anthropology to appreciate what has already been said, or maybe that would do no good at all -- since you may be predisposed to reject anything which doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices.  I have so far seen nothing from you which would indicate the slightest interest in science.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...