3,000 Year old Wheel Discovered...No Not Nephite

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The question of wheels is a discussion that arises around the Book of Mormon, but is not actually based in the Book of Mormon. Yes, wheels were known--though I believe most examples were north of Nephite lands and later in time. However, it is still a red herring for either side of the discussion because the New World portion of the Book of Mormon does not mention them, nor does it provide any evidence that they were used (same issue for horses, they never alter Nephite culture/civilization).

Wheels are simply an assumption based on a modern reading of chariot. I have found one text mentioning chariots in Mesoamerica that referred to four wheeled objects--some of these specific "toys." The problem is the word and our assumptions about it. The fact that wheels were known, but that they were never influential in Mesoamerican civilization, remains a conundrum--but one that has nothing to do with the actual Book of Mormon.

So not only do we have bad logic, we also have Brant making the excellent point that the argument is irrelevant to the BOM.

The whole thing hinges on the translation of one word.

Not to mention that the "history" in a religious text does not "verify" the spiritual message anyway.  People read about the talking donkey in the bible and have no problem.

So that's at least 4 reasons right there that this thread should have been a non-starter.

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, semantic ambiguity.  Titles.  The same person can be a mother and a daughter- and guess what - ALL mothers are daughters.  Just a little wrinkle in the logic there

But black and white thinkers don't understand that.

This thread is a waste of time. 

Agreed.

And the analogy fails not because a mother can't also be a daughter, but that a mother is not equal to her own daughter.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How's this from Chapter 13?

 

“That rejection and China’s abandonment of oceangoing ships (as well as of mechanical clocks and water-driven spinning machines) are well-known historical instances of technological reversals in isolated or semi-isolated societies. Other such reversals occurred in prehistoric times. The extreme case is that of Aboriginal Tasmanians, who abandoned even bone tools and fishing to become the society with the simplest technology in the modern world (Chapter 15). Aboriginal Australians may have adopted and then abandoned bows and arrows. Torres Islanders abandoned canoes, while Gaua Islanders abandoned and then readopted them. Pottery was abandoned throughout Polynesia. Most Polynesians and many Melanesians abandoned the use of bows and arrows in war. Polar Eskimos lost the bow and arrow and the kayak, while Dorset Eskimos lost the bow and arrow, bow drill, and dogs.”

Excerpt From: Jared Diamond Ph.D. “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.” W. W. Norton, 1999-01-01. iBooks. 
 

Thanks for finding this

[Johnnie Cake]

On February 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Its a trap to make such a leap in logic.  Just because  A = B and B = C does not necessarily mean that that C would = A. To assert that because Ancient Americans put wheels on their toys does not mean that they put wheels on "other practical purposes" This is a logical fallacy.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, semantic ambiguity.  Titles.  The same person can be a mother and a daughter- and guess what - ALL mothers are daughters.  Just a little wrinkle in the logic there

But black and white thinkers don't understand that.

This thread is a waste of time. 

Mfbukowski, you're a smart guy surly you don't support JAHS's logic...quoted above

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for finding this

Glad to help.

i've read Guns a couple of times as well as other books other similar books.  I've found that as I take the Book of Mormon account out of some alternate reality and place it in the real world among real people, that it becomes more faith affirming to me.  These were real people who got up in the morning just like we do.  They may have looked at the world differently than I do, but we were all created by the same God and are all blessed by his sons atonement.  

[Johnnie Cake]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Glad to help.

i've read Guns a couple of times as well as other books other similar books.  I've found that as I take the Book of Mormon account out of some alternate reality and place it in the real world among real people, that it becomes more faith affirming to me.  These were real people who got up in the morning just like we do.  They may have looked at the world differently than I do, but we were all created by the same God and are all blessed by his sons atonement.  

Yeah it had just the opposite affect on me...it describe a world so foreign to that described in the Book of Mormon and the church. Evolution, an earth billions of years old, Polynesia populated by Asians, no steel, the impact germs would have had on an indigenous civilization who comes in contact with old world civilizations etc etc etc. I believed G,G&S, it made perfect sense the Book of Mormon no longer did...it felt out of place in the actual working word Diamond described

Edited February 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[volgadon]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yeah it had just the opposite affect on me...it describe a world so foreign to that described in the Book of Mormon and the church. Evolution, an earth billions of years old, Polynesia populated by Asians, no steel, the impact germs would have had on an indigenous civilization who comes in contact with old world civilizations etc etc etc. I believed G,G&S, it made perfect sense the Book of Mormon no longer did...it felt out of place in the actual working word Diamond described

He leans rather heavily to a simplistic biological and technological determinism. Kind of ruined the book for me, especially when it doesn't mesh with the actual history of the conquest.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Mfbukowski, you're a smart guy surly you don't support JAHS's logic...quoted above

If I support someone I say so or give a rep point.  

I am not sure what quote of JAHS you had in mind, but I certainly support Brant's reply to JAHS

It is very hazardous logically to cite general rules of logic which work in abstract and then apply them to the language of an actual argument as has been done here- that approach is always debatable because real language is made of ambiguous words whereas the rules of logic are not ambiguous.  They reflect the rules we use to think and really the way our minds/brain have evolved (or been created) to work.

We know so little about how Joseph did the "translation", I feel that speculation about it is bound to go nowhere.  I can think of a few faith scenarios that are easily compatible with the book being "true" that would cover just about anything I have seen a critic bring up, plus of course there is the fall back that the work is a "translation" in the same sense that the "Inspired Translation" is- which is no translation at all, but completely an inspired re-write of sections of the Bible.

I have a testimony that Joseph was inspired, and frankly I don't care where he got the text, though I do believe the whole plates and translation story as the church tells it.  I believe it is perfectly possible that God could have done it that way for His own reasons, and it is not up to me to decide how he deals with his children!

But I have a few theories.  

[Johnnie Cake]

20 minutes ago, volgadon said:

He leans rather heavily to a simplistic biological and technological determinism. Kind of ruined the book for me, especially when it doesn't mesh with the actual history of the conquest.

Ever read 1491?  Gives another point of view on the impact old world migrations had on the native populations...why wouldn't a Lehite migration had the same impact, yet where's the evidence?

Edited February 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If I support someone I say so or give a rep point.  

I am not sure what quote of JAHS you had in mind, but I certainly support Brant's reply to JAHS

It is very hazardous logically to cite general rules of logic which work in abstract and then apply them to the language of an actual argument as has been done here- that approach is always debatable because real language is made of ambiguous words whereas the rules of logic are not ambiguous.  They reflect the rules we use to think and really the way our minds/brain have evolved (or been created) to work.

We know so little about how Joseph did the "translation", I feel that speculation about it is bound to go nowhere.  I can think of a few faith scenarios that are easily compatible with the book being "true" that would cover just about anything I have seen a critic bring up, plus of course there is the fall back that the work is a "translation" in the same sense that the "Inspired Translation" is- which is no translation at all, but completely an inspired re-write of sections of the Bible.

I have a testimony that Joseph was inspired, and frankly I don't care where he got the text, though I do believe the whole plates and translation story as the church tells it.  I believe it is perfectly possible that God could have done it that way for His own reasons, and it is not up to me to decide how he deals with his children!

But I have a few theories.  

Enjoyed reading your thoughts

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ever read 1491?  Gives another point of view on the impact old world migrations had on the native populations...why wouldn't a Lehite migration had the same impact, yet where's the evidence?

In the view of many Mormon scholars the "migration" consisted of what- 20-30 souls?- who brought their religion, started a community and then joined other cultures as subcultures.  And though I am not an expert, a close reading of the BOM shows evidence that there were "other" cultures which they eventually joined while keeping their distinctive religion.   The idea is that they existed perhaps similarly to how the LDS live within other cultures while keeping their own beliefs as a "peculiar" people

Though I am not sure if I totally accept it, I think that is a reasonable construction which works to take care of the issues it was designed to eliminate.

Edited February 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

In the view of many Mormon scholars the "migration" consisted of what- 20-30 souls?- who brought their religion, started a community and then joined other cultures as subcultures.  And though I am not an expert, a close reading of the BOM shows evidence that there were "other" cultures which they eventually joined while keeping their distinctive religion.   The idea is that they existed perhaps similarly to how the LDS live within other cultures while keeping their own beliefs as a "peculiar" people

The mere exposure of a single Lehite to new world populations would have been catastrophic to the indigenous American populations who did not have old world immunities 

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The mere exposure of a single Lehite to new world populations would have been catastrophic to the indigenous American populations who did not have old world immunities 

Yeah because they had the same germs in 600BC as 1491AD.  CFR

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah because they had the same germs in 600BC as 1491AD.  CFR

You can't be serious...different germs same impact.  Old world immunities evolved over 10s of thousands of years due to human exposure to the herd animals i.e. Horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, dogs etc, all the animals not present in the Americas, that new world civilizations were not exposed to.  

I suggest you actually read guns,germs and steel before you enter a discussion regarding the subject matter in the book

 

BTW, smallpox, the most deadly of old world introduced diseases has been identified as far back as 1500BCE....well before the Lehite timeline. And yes it was present in Israel 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Brant Gardner]

36 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ever read 1491?  Gives another point of view on the impact old world migrations had on the native populations...why wouldn't a Lehite migration had the same impact, yet where's the evidence?

Yes, of course I have read it. No, it is not a comparable situation. The amount of immigration, the militaristic nature of the immigration, and the nearly hemispheric reach of the immigration is dramatically different.

Good book, though.

[Brant Gardner]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...different germs same impact.  Old world immunities evolved over 10s of thousands of years due to human exposure to the herd animals i.e. Horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, dogs etc that new world civilizations were not exposed to.  

An Old World population would certainly have immunizations that the New World population didn't. However, it must also be carrying the disease vectors. Not every person who has an immunity carries the ability to transfer a disease to which they are immune. The most deadly of the diseases were those where the Old World populations were not as sick as the New World populations. The lack of exposure created a more virulent reaction, but the Old World person was sick to begin with. 

With the larger numbers of immigrants following the Spanish conquest, the opportunities for disease vectors increased dramatically. It wasn't the simple presence of an Old World person with immunities/resistances based on their exposure to herd animals.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

An Old World population would certainly have immunizations that the New World population didn't. However, it must also be carrying the disease vectors. Not every person who has an immunity carries the ability to transfer a disease to which they are immune. The most deadly of the diseases were those where the Old World populations were not as sick as the New World populations. The lack of exposure created a more virulent reaction, but the Old World person was sick to begin with. 

With the larger numbers of immigrants following the Spanish conquest, the opportunities for disease vectors increased dramatically. It wasn't the simple presence of an Old World person with immunities/resistances based on their exposure to herd animals.

It only took one sick slave to kill millions of Aztecs this is a fact, plus it wasn't limited to just one disease...Eurasian diseases such as influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who had no immunity 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[volgadon]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ever read 1491?  Gives another point of view on the impact old world migrations had on the native populations...why wouldn't a Lehite migration had the same impact, yet where's the evidence?

Mann's book is vastly superior to Diamond's, and, in fact, contradicts Diamond on several important points. I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on this when reading them. You yourself have brought up Vikings in America multiple times. Why did their migration not have the same impact? Hint: Biogenetics are a complex topic.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ever read 1491?  Gives another point of view on the impact old world migrations had on the native populations...why wouldn't a Lehite migration had the same impact, yet where's the evidence?

Very small numbers, small location area, limited contact. I can think of a few more if you want.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, volgadon said:

Mann's book is vastly superior to Diamond's, and, in fact, contradicts Diamond on several important points. I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on this when reading them. You yourself have brought up Vikings in America multiple times. Why did their migration not have the same impact? Hint: Biogenetics are a complex topic.

Perhaps no contact with native populations or perhaps due to their northern European origination...there are multiple variables at play, while the Nephites and Jaradite with the new world view, merged with the existing indigenous populations rather then the old church world view of being the very foundation of their existence in the new world

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It only took one sick slave to kill millions of Aztecs this is a fact, plus it wasn't limited to just one disease...Eurasian diseases such as influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who had no immunity 

"Sick" is the operative word here. You missed Brant's point that in the BOM we have a TINY group of immigrants who were not sick entering the population 

[cdowis]

On 2/19/2016 at 0:53 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

One thing I've never had an apologist explain is how exactly does a culture "forget" the obviously beneficial benefits of the Wheel in their culture?  Why would Nephi and Company merely walk away from the wheel? 

You have not asked this apologist.

You are assuming that chariots are "obviously beneficial" to the Nephites.  Now tell be about the terrain of mesoamerica --

level, desert-like such as we find in the Near East, OR tropical forests, mountains and extensive river systems.   How useful is a chariot riding  through mountains, crossing rivers  and tropical forests?  Or would you more likely march/walk and use boats.

Reading the Book of Mormon, there is no mention of chariots in warfare, but it seems likely the rich and wealthy used them, such as a king, or a wealthy farmer.  Horses and chariots tend to be very expensive to maintain -- stables, food, servants to care for them. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You have not asked this apologist.

You are assuming that chariots are "obviously beneficial" to the Nephites.  Now tell be about the terrain of mesoamerica --

level, desert-like such as we find in the Near East, OR tropical forests, mountains and extensive river systems.   How useful is a chariot riding  through mountains, crossing rivers  and tropical forests?  Or would you more likely march/walk and use boats.

Reading the Book of Mormon, there is no mention of chariots in warfare, but it seems likely the rich and wealthy used them, such as a king, or a wealthy farmer.  Horses and chariots tend to be very expensive to maintain -- stables, food, servants to care for them. 

"Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi;" (Alma 18: 9)

Sure sounds to me like they were using these horses and chariots for transportation to the land of Nephi.

"And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies. (3 Nephi 3: 22)

Here the horses and chariots appear to be useful in defending against their enemies.

 

 

[Brant Gardner]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here the horses and chariots appear to be useful in defending against their enemies.

Yes, just like the cattle and herds... and all their substance. The defensive action was to remove anything that could be used (and most of it was food items) so that the incoming enemy wouldn't have them. You could say that therefore the horses and chariots were "defending," but certainly not in direct military action.

 

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Sure sounds to me like they were using these horses and chariots for transportation to the land of Nephi.

Remembering that it sounds this way because of your preconception of the relationship between horse and chariot, is there any actual evidence beyond what you impute to the text? Of course, if English were the original language of the text you would have a strong point. However, as a translation where you don't know for sure what word was translated into "horse" and "chariot," how can you be sure that this is something more than just "sounds to me?" You might look as the events and actions of "horses" in the Book of Mormon--and you will find that we can be sure that they are animals who move and eat. Past that, there is no description of even how they move, or what they eat. If you look at "chariots" you will find that in Joseph Smith's time that might even be a four wheeled wagon--so the default assumption of a military vehicle is an even more recently exclusive meaning. 

[cdowis]

50 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi;" (Alma 18: 9)

Sure sounds to me like they were using these horses and chariots for transportation to the land of Nephi.

It sure sounds to me that the KING was being conveyed in a royal chariot to a kingly feast in honor his father, rather than using ordinary transportation.  Just curious, does the King of England ride around in a Chevy truck?

It came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies. (3 Nephi 3: 22)

Here the horses and chariots appear to be useful in defending against their enemies.

And you cannot think of ANY other way of interpreting their use of chariots here.  

Yes, I guess it is possible that someone could use a moving van directly in battle. Give it some thought and you will come up with something, rather than war chariots.  There is no mention of armaments, soldiers, preparing for battle, etc but merely stuff from one place to another.

 

50 minutes ago, JAHS said: