DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

[Gervin]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I am curious about Clark's criteria for his claims.  I asked specific questions.  Rather than admitting that you have no answers, you waste your time and mine telling me what an inadequate poster I am. 

Until you make an attempt at an explanation or defense of Clark's claim, I'm just going to go with the obvious conclusion that you're full of crap.  If anyone disagrees, I hope they're willing to give some explanation for Clark's conclusions.

[RevTestament]

15 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 do not know exactly what Clark had in mind, but I have personally seen some of these artifacts - and yes, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately (so that more people can get a chance to see something) - they are strewn about in museums. I saw a "headplate" in a Museum in Tallahassee - breast plates too. Breastplates are actually fairly common artifacts, although whether they were just ceremonial or used for war would probably be disputed.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gervin said:

I am curious about Clark's criteria for his claims.  I asked specific questions.  Rather than admitting that you have no answers, you waste your time and mine telling me what an inadequate poster I am. 

Until you make an attempt at an explanation or defense of Clark's claim, I'm just going to go with the obvious conclusion that you're full of crap.  If anyone disagrees, I hope they're willing to give some explanation for Clark's conclusions.

If you were in fact  interested, you would have reviewed the material I suggested for you.  Since you automatically reject science in favor of apriorism, that is not an option.  In order to have a conversation about anything, there must actually be two or more participants.  You are a non-participant by choice, but it doesn't have to be that way.  You could actively take part in the discussion.  However, that would mean actually addressing substantive issues.  You prefer name-calling.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I do not know exactly what Clark had in mind, but I have personally seen some of these artifacts - and yes, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately (so that more people can get a chance to see something) - they are strewn about in museums. I saw a "headplate" in a Museum in Tallahassee - breast plates too. Breastplates are actually fairly common artifacts, although whether they were just ceremonial or used for war would probably be disputed.

Correct, and Gervin could easily have looked at the beautiful museum pieces shown in color in John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1998), which I described and cited above.  I think that he fears that he may be confronted with actual examples of what John E. Clark was talking about, and that might leave him having to explain his automatic rejection of anything substantive.  Science is only for the willing.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/1/2016 at 1:29 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Book of Mormon
9 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).

A colleague of mine who reads Chinese and knows Chinese history had the following comments:

Quote

There are indeed legends about the founding of the Funan empire (in modern Cambodia and Malaysia) in the medieval Chinese standard history Liangshu (Book of Liang). It would be a lot of work to try to find the pages without exact citations, but Western knowledge generally comes though a monograph by the great Sinologist Paul Pelliot - "Quelques textes chinois concernant l'Indochine hindouisśe." 1925. In: Etudes Asiatiques, publiées à l'occasion du 25e anniversaire de l'EFEO.- Paris: EFEO, II: 243-263.

The passage that Mr. Manchou seems to be referring to was summarized by G. Coedes, in his Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Univ. of Hawaii Press, 1968) as follows:

The first king of Funan was a certain Hun-t'ien, that is Kaundinya, who came either from India or from the Malay Peninsula or the southern islands. This king, having dreamed that his personal genie delivered a divine bow to him and directed him to embark on a large merchant junk, proceeded in the morning to the temple, where he found a bow at the foot of the genie's tree. He then boarded a ship, which the genie caused to land in Funan. The queen of the country, Liu-ye, "Willow Leaf," wanted to pillage the ship and seize it, so Hun-t'ien shot an arrow from his divine bow which pierced through Liu-ye's ship. Frightened, she gave herself up, and Hun-t'ien took her for his wife. But, unhappy to see her naked, he folded a piece of material to make a garment through which he had her pass her head. Then he governed the country and passed power on to his descendants." (p. 37)

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

del

Edited February 6, 2016 by Gervin

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You could actively take part in the discussion.  However, that would mean actually addressing substantive issues.  

I don't know how else to ask for you to explain Clark's criteria.  I've provided links to NPS standards and guidelines and tried to engage in exactly how Clark reaches his conclusion.  You're constant carping about me shows me that you have nothing to say on the topic.  Aren't you a proponent of Clark?  

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct, and Gervin could easily have looked at the beautiful museum pieces shown in color in John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1998), which I described and cited above.  I think that he fears that he may be confronted with actual examples of what John E. Clark was talking about, and that might leave him having to explain his automatic rejection of anything substantive.  Science is only for the willing.

Fears? What a odd take.  What's your favorite picture in the album?  Post it with an explanation of how it can be considered Book of Mormon-related.  I promise not to reject anything until you have explained Clark's methodology.

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are indeed legends about the founding of the Funan empire (in modern Cambodia and Malaysia) in the medieval Chinese standard history Liangshu (Book of Liang). It would be a lot of work to try to find the pages without exact citations, but Western knowledge generally comes though a monograph by the great Sinologist Paul Pelliot - "Quelques textes chinois concernant l'Indochine hindouisśe." 1925. In: Etudes Asiatiques, publiées à l'occasion du 25e anniversaire de l'EFEO.- Paris: EFEO, II: 243-263.

The passage that Mr. Manchou seems to be referring to was summarized by G. Coedes, in his Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Univ. of Hawaii Press, 1968) as follows:

The first king of Funan was a certain Hun-t'ien, that is Kaundinya, who came either from India or from the Malay Peninsula or the southern islands. This king, having dreamed that his personal genie delivered a divine bow to him and directed him to embark on a large merchant junk, proceeded in the morning to the temple, where he found a bow at the foot of the genie's tree. He then boarded a ship, which the genie caused to land in Funan. The queen of the country, Liu-ye, "Willow Leaf," wanted to pillage the ship and seize it, so Hun-t'ien shot an arrow from his divine bow which pierced through Liu-ye's ship. Frightened, she gave herself up, and Hun-t'ien took her for his wife. But, unhappy to see her naked, he folded a piece of material to make a garment through which he had her pass her head. Then he governed the country and passed power on to his descendants." (p. 37)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the text. I appreciate it, and hope there could be more discussion on the topic.

There were several different versions of the Hun-t'ien story found in Chinese records. Most were translated into French by Paul Pelliot in the early 20th century. I've read them and in some cases Hun-t'ien is referred to as Houen-Houei, or some variant of that. I'd be interested to hear your friend's interpretation of the Chinese characters used in the name, as the words hou and hui in Chinese often refer to people from the Middle East, particularly Arabs. Here's the original translation by Pelliot, its in French but Chinese characters are included inline.

Most scholars these days reject Coedes' suggestion that Hun-t'ien was Kaundinya or any other Brahmin or Buddhist from India. Brahminism doesn't take hold in Southeast Asia until the late 4th century AD when an Indo-Scythian named Candana was directed by a heavenly voice to go to Funan. Its more likely one of Candana's descendents named Qiáochénrú in the Chinese records is the historical Kaundinya. Here is an interesting analysis by Micheal Vickery, in the footnotes you can see where Pelliot suggests the word "genie" in the account could also be translated as a singular god.

Some have speculated that the foreign ruler might have come from lands west of India, with one Cambodian scholar even suggesting that he was from the Arabian Peninsula or Egypt. There have been some that connect the foreigner to the legend of Maran Mahavamsa or Merong Mahawangsa, the legendary founder of Kedah who came by boat from some point on the Arabian Peninsula. What I find interesting is that the word "Maran" is Aramaic for "Lord" while Merong represents the dragon in the Siamese zodiac, and is synonymous with the name Maroni. So we have two legends of the founding of Funan/Zhenla/Kedah, both telling the story of foreigners from the west who were directed across the sea to a new land. The marriage to Liu-ye represents foreign rule over the previous inhabitants.

My point in even mentioning all this is that there are iron furnaces dating back to 600 BC near Kedah, a point that Lehi's party would have surely passed on their journey. These archaeological findings, combined with legends of a founding ruler from the West called Maran (Aramaic for "Lord") or Maroni, could be breadcrumbs helping us trace the path of Lehi to the New World.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Gervin said:

I don't know how else to ask for you to explain Clark's criteria.  I've provided links to NPS standards and guidelines and tried to engage in exactly how Clark reaches his conclusion.  You're constant carping about me shows me that you have nothing to say on the topic.  Aren't you a proponent of Clark?  

I am a proponent of anthropology and the scientific method, which you regularly reject.  I am a proponent of substantive discussion, which you also reject in favor of apriori prejudice.  Since you clearly reject specific examples and refuse to even look at the museum pieces cited, that indicates great fear on your part of the consequences of actually looking at artifacts.

This reminds me of the great Jewish scholar Solomon Zeitlin, who was so wedded to his preconceived notions that he even refused to look at photographs brought to him by the great William F. Albright.  Why?  Because he was so certain that any scrolls found near the Dead Sea had to be Medieval in origin.  Today Zeitlin is gone, and no scholar holds such an untenable position.

Your NPS standards and guidelines (as I pointed out previously) are vague generalities and do not get at the nuts and bolts of real archeology and anthropology.  Take some courses in those disciplines and then come back for a real discussion.  You are obviously not up to it at this time.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Gervin said:

 

Quote

 

Robert F. Smith said:

. . .  Gervin could easily have looked at the beautiful museum pieces shown in color in John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1998), which I described and cited above.  I think that he fears that he may be confronted with actual examples of what John E. Clark was talking about, and that might leave him having to explain his automatic rejection of anything substantive.  Science is only for the willing.

 

Fears? What a odd take.  What's your favorite picture in the album?  Post it with an explanation of how it can be considered Book of Mormon-related.  I promise not to reject anything until you have explained Clark's methodology.

Without knowing anything at all about the subject, you claimed that there were no artifacts and that John Clark was wrong.  I cited an entire book of such artifacts.  You refused to look at it.  I have no favorite artifact, but prefer to see them as a very large group -- of which Sorenson's book is merely a representative sampling.  A sincere inquirer would want to examine that book firsthand and ask specific questions of Mesoamerican archeologists such as Sorenson, Clark, and Gardner, all of whom have written on the subject.

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am a proponent of anthropology and the scientific method, which you regularly reject.  

CFR for any scientific method I've rejected.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Gervin said:

CFR for any scientific method I've rejected.

The scientiific method excludes pretending to do science by asking for a CFR, when you know you have rejected the reading of scientific sources cited, looking at scientific examples in museums and elsewhere (many online), and failing to use good reasoning and logic in evaluation of those sources.  The scientific method demands give and take in any scientific discussion.  You have rejected all these and more.  Indeed, as usual, this indicates even more clearly that you have no idea what science entails.  Thus, your need for several years of course work at a local college or university.

[Gervin]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The scientiific method excludes pretending to do science by asking for a CFR, when you know you have rejected the reading of scientific sources cited, looking at scientific examples in museums and elsewhere (many online), and failing to use good reasoning and logic in evaluation of those sources.  The scientific method demands give and take in any scientific discussion.  You have rejected all these and more.  Indeed, as usual, this indicates even more clearly that you have no idea what science entails.  Thus, your need for several years of course work at a local college or university.

CFR that I've rejected any scientific method you've presented.  You have not provided scientific methodology for Clark's conclusions.  You reference links, pictures in a coffee table book, and complain about my lack of education.  You have not presented in any science. Period.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, Gervin said:

CFR that I've rejected any scientific method you've presented.  You have not provided scientific methodology for Clark's conclusions.  You reference links, pictures in a coffee table book, and complain about my lack of education.  You have not presented in any science. Period.

Since you don't know what science is, and have a strong antipathy for it, of course you are upset to have nonsense called by its real name.  It is a very simple matter for someone truly interested in science to take a look at real artifacts and give responses.  Since you have no idea what that means, you are frustrated.  Which leads to your declarative but meaningless sentences.  It doesn't have to be that way.  You could at least make an attempt, but you have yet to do so.  The core secret of science is substantive discussion, not your repetitive "tis so, tis not" diatribes.

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is a very simple matter for someone truly interested in science to take a look at real artifacts and give responses.  

If it's so simple, show me a Book of Mormon artifact.  Then I'll give you a response.

[volgadon]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

If it's so simple, show me a Book of Mormon artifact.  Then I'll give you a response.

It is as if that other discussion on the nature of archaeology never happened.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Gervin said:

If it's so simple, show me a Book of Mormon artifact.  Then I'll give you a response.

I gave you the citations, but you refuse to look.  Doubtless because you are afraid to respond substantively.  Too dangerous to your mindset, since then you  might have to change your apriori paradigm.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Jim Stiles]

On 1/26/2016 at 3:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You are in denial here on this board, Gervin, but you would never get by with those claims on an evangelical board.  The entire basis of evangelical Christianity rests on claims to biblical historicity, and their critics regularly attack them on that basis.  Here are volumes from one author:

McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1979).
McDowell, Josh, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1975); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Nelson, 1999); third revised version in one volume of his Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 2 vols. (1972, 1975); 2nd ed. (1979, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense: The Best of Josh McDowell, ed. Bill Wilson (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics are Asking About the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1980) = Answers to Tough Questions: What Skeptics Are Asking About the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell, The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to Answering the Tough Questions (Harvest House Publ., 2013).

The claim is not that "Because Jerusalem exists, then Jesus is the Christ of God."  The claim is "If Jerusalem did not exist, then Jesus was not the Christ of God."

If the Bible was a collection of fables, then Christianity cannot be true.  The historicity of the Bible is a necessary condition for Christianity, but it is not a sufficient condition.

[Gervin]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you the citations, but you refuse to look.  Doubtless because you are afraid to respond substantively.  Too dangerous to your mindset, since then you  might have to change your apriori paradigm.

I don't refuse to look; I don't own these books,  You do.  If you believe they show the artifacts that Clark claims are from the Book of Mormon, what is keeping you from posting a picture or description, with an explanation of why it is from the Book of Mormon (per Clark)? 

You can continue to denigrate me, but it only shows a lack of understanding and constructive dialogue on your part.  If you can't defend Clark you should man up.  I don't think you can do either.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The claim is not that "Because Jerusalem exists, then Jesus is the Christ of God."  The claim is "If Jerusalem did not exist, then Jesus was not the Christ of God."

If the Bible was a collection of fables, then Christianity cannot be true.  The historicity of the Bible is a necessary condition for Christianity, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Then it is a  circular argument and irrelevant

 The existence of the world is another necessary but insufficient condition which is irrelevant to anything.  That is a very poor argument 

We are talking here about sufficient arguments 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The claim is not that "Because Jerusalem exists, then Jesus is the Christ of God."  The claim is "If Jerusalem did not exist, then Jesus was not the Christ of God."

I have never heard the matter put quite so simplistically, and no evangelical Christian would ever say that in anything but a Mormon context.  It is tantamount to saying that because ancient Greece and Mt Olympus exist, therefore Zeus is head of the divine pantheon.  Or that, if ancient Mycenean Greece did not exist, then Zeus was not a real god.  All based on the analysis of Homeric Epic.

If the Bible was a collection of fables, then Christianity cannot be true.  The historicity of the Bible is a necessary condition for Christianity, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Thus, if the Iliad and Odyssey are mere collections of fables, then ancient Greek religion cannot be true, and the historicity of such epic is a necessary condition for ancient Greek religion, but not a sufficient condition.

Evangelical Christian apologists never talk like that, Jim.  Why?  Because it would throw the Bible under the bus (or into a cocked hat), since it can be demonstrated beyond cavil that the Bible contains many fables (quite aside from Jesus' parables), aporias, and anachronisms.  None of the supernatural or miraculous claims of the Bible or Homeric Epic can be demonstrated via logic or science, and neither document is infallible or inerrant in content.  Despite that, you apparently believe that a key issue is the existence of an actual, well-known biblical geography set over against the lack of such for the Book of Mormon, and in this you are in error.

Purely as a matter of science, we know where the Book of Mormon took place with great specificity, and we can match that geography with particular cultures which existed at just the right place and time.  The Jaredites for example are coterminus with the Olmec, the literate mother culture of about five successor Mesoamerican cultures.  The artifacts of those cultures are well-known to science and are displayed in many museums -- just as surely as those of ancient Israel and of ancient Greece.  Which should not be possible, given the preposterous nature of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

On 2/8/2016 at 8:57 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Purely as a matter of science, we know where the Book of Mormon took place with great specificity, and we can match that geography with particular cultures which existed at just the right place and time.  The Jaredites for example are coterminus with the Olmec, the literate mother culture of about five successor Mesoamerican cultures.  The artifacts of those cultures are well-known to science and are displayed in many museums -- just as surely as those of ancient Israel and of ancient Greece.  Which should not be possible, given the preposterous nature of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

The Jaredites date to about 2500 BC. I'm not an expert in the Olmec culture, but they don't seem to date back near that far. In less than a thousand years a whole culture in the Book of Mormon rose and fell.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The Jaredites date to about 2500 BC. I'm not an expert in the Olmec culture, but they don't seem to date back near that far. In less than a thousand years a whole culture in the Book of Mormon rose and fell.

Jaredite culture begins about 3100 BC.  The florescence of Olmec culture does not come until until the mid-2nd millennium BC, but a hint at their more primitive beginnings can also be set at around 3100 BC, since that is the date they themselves set as the the beginning of the calendar which they bequeathed to the rest of Mesoamerica.  Like the ancient Egyptians, Olmec culture rose and fell over a period of almost three thousand years.  The successor Nephite culture (merely one of several) rose and fell within a thousand years.

[Jim Stiles]

On 2/8/2016 at 11:57 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Evangelical Christian apologists never talk like that, Jim.  Why?  Because it would throw the Bible under the bus (or into a cocked hat), since it can be demonstrated beyond cavil that the Bible contains many fables (quite aside from Jesus' parables), aporias, and anachronisms.  None of the supernatural or miraculous claims of the Bible or Homeric Epic can be demonstrated via logic or science, and neither document is infallible or inerrant in content.  Despite that, you apparently believe that a key issue is the existence of an actual, well-known biblical geography set over against the lack of such for the Book of Mormon, and in this you are in error.

Purely as a matter of science, we know where the Book of Mormon took place with great specificity, and we can match that geography with particular cultures which existed at just the right place and time.  The Jaredites for example are coterminus with the Olmec, the literate mother culture of about five successor Mesoamerican cultures.  The artifacts of those cultures are well-known to science and are displayed in many museums -- just as surely as those of ancient Israel and of ancient Greece.  Which should not be possible, given the preposterous nature of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

The Bible does not contain anachronisms, however the Book of Mormon is chuck full of anachronisms.