canard78 Posted April 24, 2016 Author Posted April 24, 2016 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know the Bible times are not the BOM times, but could have they lived a lot longer? I swear I remember hearing in Sunday school that in the Bible they lived to be like 900. But I realize their calendar system could have been off or something. The ages attributed to pre-flood people in the Biblen is highly unlikely. As mentioned in the post above to CV74, 2000 years ago in the Americas people usually lived to 35-50. 2
canard78 Posted April 24, 2016 Author Posted April 24, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: It is still comparing apples to rutabagas. With such a small sample size mean and extreme are irrelevant. “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What YouThink It Means” 1
Thinking Posted April 24, 2016 Posted April 24, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: It is still comparing apples to rutabagas. With such a small sample size mean and extreme are irrelevant. If you think 19 is a small sample size, start tossing a coin and report back when you toss 19 heads in a row. That probability is 1.9x10-6 which 34 quadrillion times more likely to happen than 19 generations having an average length of 50. 1
CV75 Posted April 24, 2016 Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, canard78 said: Today, a reasonable lifespan is 70-80 years with a few exceptions reaching 100-110. If someone today claimed to know someone who was 160 or even 220, would you be a bit sceptical? Pre-Colombian life spans reached 40-50. Is it therefore odd that people in the Book of Mormon were 80-120? If you would draw up a chart like the one above listing the lifespans of the individuals who wrote the records, that would better inform my answer. Thanks you in advance! Moroni A.D. 350-421 71 Jarom 440-360 B.C. 80 Enos 515-420 B.C. 95 Alma 174-92 B.C. 82 Also, when they say "give" they may also mean "bequeath," allowing many years or even a generation or more to pass before the next writer actually took up the responsibility. I'd also rather keep "Pre-Columbian" arguments out of it since it's hard to prove whether they really apply, on a couple of counts. Edited April 24, 2016 by CV75 another thought
longview Posted April 24, 2016 Posted April 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, canard78 said: The ages attributed to pre-flood people in the Biblen is highly unlikely. Not necessarily. Pre-flood, the environment could have been a lot more "pristine" than what we are seeing today. And the bodies of pre-flood people probably had DNA that were in pretty good shape. Their immune systems were very vigorous in combatting cancers and other malignant growths or decay. After the flood you can see the biblical accounts reporting the ages of prophets declining from 900, 600, 400, 200, to 125 . . . 1
canard78 Posted April 24, 2016 Author Posted April 24, 2016 2 hours ago, CV75 said: If you would draw up a chart like the one above listing the lifespans of the individuals who wrote the records, that would better inform my answer. Thanks you in advance! Moroni A.D. 350-421 71 Jarom 440-360 B.C. 80 Enos 515-420 B.C. 95 Alma 174-92 B.C. 82 Also, when they say "give" they may also mean "bequeath," allowing many years or even a generation or more to pass before the next writer actually took up the responsibility. I'd also rather keep "Pre-Columbian" arguments out of it since it's hard to prove whether they really apply, on a couple of counts. I'm working on it (the ages). "Give" = "bequeath" - it's another theory. Often people name the person they're giving the plates to. Sometimes they even have conversations with them. So whether they give them or bequeath them probably doesn't help you much. To your last statement. I'm baffled. How can you exclude pre-Colombian evidence from the conversation. Would you ask John Sorenson to exclude pre-Colombian evidence from anything he was investigating. Tell me something: if pre-Colombian evidence showed that people lived 80+ years and had children when they were 80+ or handed precious items to grandchildren, would you still want to exclude it?
CV75 Posted April 24, 2016 Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, canard78 said: I'm working on it (the ages). "Give" = "bequeath" - it's another theory. Often people name the person they're giving the plates to. Sometimes they even have conversations with them. So whether they give them or bequeath them probably doesn't help you much. To your last statement. I'm baffled. How can you exclude pre-Colombian evidence from the conversation. Would you ask John Sorenson to exclude pre-Colombian evidence from anything he was investigating. Tell me something: if pre-Colombian evidence showed that people lived 80+ years and had children when they were 80+ or handed precious items to grandchildren, would you still want to exclude it? Here I took a stab at it: Name Relation Est. Birth Date Death Date Death Date Source Age at Death Gen. # Lehi Father 640 570 2 Ne 4 70 1 Jacob Son 595 421 Jacob 7 174 2 Enos Son + 545 420 Enos 1 125 4 Jarom Son + 490 361 Jarom 129 6 Omni Son + 440 370 Omni 70 8 Amaron Son 410 340 Omni 70 9 Chemish Brother + 350 280 Omni 70 11 Abinadom Son 320 250 Omni 70 12 Amaleki Son + 260 130 Omni 70 13 Benjamin Peer + 200 124 Mosiah 6 76 15 Mosiah Son 154 91 Mosiah 29 63 16 Alma (1) Peer + 173 91 Mosiah 29 82 18 Alma (2) Son + 123 73 Alma 45 50 19 Helaman Son 93 57 Alma 62 36 20 Shiblon Brother + 95 53 Alma 63 42 22 Helaman (2) Nephew + 35 -39 Helaman 3 74 23 Nephi (2) Son 65 1 3 Nephi 1 64 24 Nephi (3) Son ++ -1 -120 4 Nephi 1 119 25 Amos (1) Son ++ -61 -194 4 Nephi 1 133 26 Amos (2) Son ++ -121 -305 4 Nephi 1 184 27 Ammaron Brother + -181 -320 4 Nephi 1 139 29 Mormon Peer + -311 -385 Mormon 7 74 31 Moroni Son + -341 -420 79 32 Son + = father in 50s or ab/ben generations (settlement culture of ensuring survival) Son ++ = father in 60s or ab/ben generations (post-visit culture or peace and prosperity) Other + = Brother, Peer, Nephew, Etc. @ 2 x average Note that the calculated excessive average age of death occurs in three "settlement" and the four "post-Visit" cultures, and match pretty closely: 142 and 143 years, respectively. My reticence to use Pre-Columbian measures has nothing to do with John Sorenson's work or the controversies over where the Book or Mormon events took place. I don't think we know enough about the Book or Mormon peoples to apply them pro or con. We do know something about ab/ben usage among Hebrew peoples and how religious men might have larger families for longer periods, and even live longer, under certain conditions. Especially if you are going to quibble over "give" to a son vs. "bequeath" to a grandson/great-grandson. Edited April 24, 2016 by CV75 1
Guest Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 Gaps, an unrealistic ages appear in all text, and women are scarily spoken of...none are outright history books.
canard78 Posted April 25, 2016 Author Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, longview said: Not necessarily. Pre-flood, the environment could have been a lot more "pristine" than what we are seeing today. And the bodies of pre-flood people probably had DNA that were in pretty good shape. Their immune systems were very vigorous in combatting cancers and other malignant growths or decay. After the flood you can see the biblical accounts reporting the ages of prophets declining from 900, 600, 400, 200, to 125 . . . I'm curious to understand how this works. Suppose archaeological evidence in Scandinavia showed that people 4000-6000 years ago were living for 30-40 years. Now imagine that a Viking saga spoke of an ancestor from that time who lived for 900 years. How would you react to that saga? Would you take it literally? Or would you assume that it was inventive mythology? You can believe the OT contains truths without using it as a source for human history and biology. 2
canard78 Posted April 25, 2016 Author Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Pa Pa said: Gaps, an unrealistic ages appear in all text, and women are scarily spoken of...none are outright history books. I heartily agree with your last five words. The Book of Mormon is not a history book. Nor is the Old Testament. That's exactly the point of this thread. The gaps and ages are points of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not historically viable and we should stop treating it as such. 1
canard78 Posted April 25, 2016 Author Posted April 25, 2016 9 hours ago, Thinking said: If you think 19 is a small sample size, start tossing a coin and report back when you toss 19 heads in a row. That probability is 1.9x10-6 which 34 quadrillion times more likely to happen than 19 generations having an average length of 50. The problem is that for a lot of people simply don't understand statistical probability. He keeps saying this is a none issue because he doesn't appear to understand statistical significance.
Thinking Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said: So, you're saying there could still be a chance? Not any kind of a chance that I would take to Vegas. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 14 hours ago, longview said: Not necessarily. Pre-flood, the environment could have been a lot more "pristine" than what we are seeing today. And the bodies of pre-flood people probably had DNA that were in pretty good shape. Their immune systems were very vigorous in combatting cancers and other malignant growths or decay. After the flood you can see the biblical accounts reporting the ages of prophets declining from 900, 600, 400, 200, to 125 . . . Wow! That's a huge "IF" you have included in your post. IF: the world had been more "pristine" IF: pre-flood people had DNA in pretty good shape (???) IF: their immune systems were very vigorous in fighting: Cancer Malignant growths Decay How about this for some IF's? If the Bible stories were oral repetitians over periods of hundreds or even thousands of years before anybody wrote them down? If the Bible stories were "hebrewdized" versions of stories they had heard while in captivity, like Gilagamesh? If story tellers inadvertently increased the ages of the prophets for a little WOW factor of their own, making 50 into 500, 60 into 600, 90 into 900? If story tellers "stre-e-e-e-e-tched" the truth a little here and there to make their stories more interesting, or to more clearly define the moral of the story? Which of the IF senarios seem more likely to you? 1) Marvelous, miraculous, mind-blowingly enormous factors that even altered human DNA? Or 2) Mundane, humdrum, normal story telling events? You decide. 1
Guest Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 6 hours ago, canard78 said: I heartily agree with your last five words. The Book of Mormon is not a history book. Nor is the Old Testament. That's exactly the point of this thread. The gaps and ages are points of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not historically viable and we should stop treating it as such. And the Bible with persons living 900+ years. Or the Koran that borrows from the same writings? They are Spiritual guides, not a who's who and history 101 class.
USU78 Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 So ... this novel [hat tip] BoM criticism holds that unlikely lifespans on a scale far, far slimmer than those in Genesis makes the BoM as unlikely as the Bible as history. Right? I'll take it! Thnx 1
CV75 Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 7 hours ago, canard78 said: I heartily agree with your last five words. The Book of Mormon is not a history book. Nor is the Old Testament. That's exactly the point of this thread. The gaps and ages are points of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not historically viable and we should stop treating it as such. Then at least analyze it at face value! The book provides a chronological reckoning and vital statistics that we can examine in context of the “learning” and “manner” of the Jews (which apply no matter how short a gap we use), which are directly referenced as late as 78 B.C. (Alma 16:13), with references to Jewish identity even in the final chapters. 7 hours ago, canard78 said: The problem is that for a lot of people simply don't understand statistical probability. He keeps saying this is a none issue because he doesn't appear to understand statistical significance. LOL - you really give statistics and probability that kind of final say? As if they really actually prove anything?
HappyJackWagon Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 On 4/18/2016 at 8:23 AM, Storm Rider said: So I believe in a man that was the son the God; who lived and died 2000 years ago. I believe he lived a perfect life was crucified and that he rose again from the grave. I believe that he was born of the virgin, Mary. I believe that God led the children of Israel out of Egypt after Moses performed many miracles that finally broke Pharaoh's will to the point he released their slaves. I believe that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith and through this young man restored the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. You really think I am going to be concerned about a history where men were fathers over a long span of their years....on average? Please tell me that you have something better to occupy your time in order to create doubt in those that have not felt the Holy Spirit as strongly as others. How about that the vast majority of people have never seen God; or Jesus was a Jew and lived and died in a little, tiny, out of the way village in a desert land among a conquered people? How about why did children of Reuben call the alter Ed? Judging by the testimony bearing, the defensiveness of the statement, and the fact that you provide no answer to the question, you don't have an answer to the OP, do you? The problem with basing religion and theology on "history" is that it can and will be scrutinized. Why shouldn't it be? 1
oremites Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 8 hours ago, canard78 said: That's exactly the point of this thread. The gaps and ages are points of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not historically viable and we should stop treating it as such. I'd agree with the statement that, "The Book of Mormon is not a history book and we should stop treating it as such." I disagree that the Book of Mormon is not historically viable. Every time I come across a "problem" with Book of Mormon history, I find it becomes an opportunity to think about and revise my understanding of what the book is really saying. I don't have answer to the "gaps and ages" question but my first reaction is that many generations are omitted or glossed over. The Book of Mormon is not a history book or a genealogical record but it is an abridgement. It wouldn't surprise me if Mormon condensed the records down in this way. I'm not claiming that's the real answer. I hadn't thought much about this question before so this gives me a new perspective and something new to ponder as I read through the Book of Mormon again. Thank you.
thesometimesaint Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 18 hours ago, Thinking said: If you think 19 is a small sample size, start tossing a coin and report back when you toss 19 heads in a row. That probability is 1.9x10-6 which 34 quadrillion times more likely to happen than 19 generations having an average length of 50. You can flip that coin a million times It is still 50% chance.
Thinking Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 47 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: You can flip that coin a million times It is still 50% chance. You're right canard78. 1
Thinking Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 50 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: You can flip that coin a million times It is still 50% chance. Have you tossed 19 consecutive heads yet?
thesometimesaint Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
longview Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 11 hours ago, canard78 said: I'm curious to understand how this works. Suppose archaeological evidence in Scandinavia showed that people 4000-6000 years ago were living for 30-40 years. Now imagine that a Viking saga spoke of an ancestor from that time who lived for 900 years. How would you react to that saga? Would you take it literally? Or would you assume that it was inventive mythology? You can believe the OT contains truths without using it as a source for human history and biology. I have commented on dating systems in previous threads over the last few years. The various dating systems (carbon-14, strata, etc) are all heavily dependent on making many assumptions in order to make it work. But I would agree with you that not everything in the scriptures are completely accurate (see below). 6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: If the Bible stories were oral repetitians over periods of hundreds or even thousands of years before anybody wrote them down? Most "epics" are based in one form or another on the "original" events" described in the Bible (insofar as it was translated correctly). I can accept the fact that the patriarchs lived for several hundred years simply because Joseph Smith confirmed this truth. He was in the process of "refining" the Book of Moses (in our current Pearl of Great Price). He did not translate it in one fell swoop. He made several iterative passes over it adding corrections and new information. At the time of his death, he left at least two drafts. The earlier draft remained with Brigham Young which was made into our Book of Moses. The newer draft was retained by Emma Smith which then remained in custody of the RLDS. This new draft indicated the ages of both Adam and Methuselah to have been 999 years and 6 months (this information is NOT in the Book of Moses).
Thinking Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability Did you even read the article? Quote for example, if two coins are flipped the chance of both being heads is . 19 heads would be 0.519 or 0.0000019.
canard78 Posted April 25, 2016 Author Posted April 25, 2016 33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability Have you actually read the article though? The probability of getting heads on first coin toss is indeed 0.5 (or 50%). The probability is 0.5 every time you toss the coin. But... the probability of getting a head 10 times in a row is not 0.5. That's not how it works. The probability of getting 10 in a row is 0.00098 (or 1 in 1024 sets of 10 coin tosses).
Recommended Posts