Scientific proof for Ether 15:2

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I said no such thing. There is no historical reason to doubt such a large death number, even though we are not talking about a true body count.

I am not talking about a large number, I am talking about 2 million. You and I agree that it was not 2 million.  

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We just don't know.

Exactly, and my main point is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are not falsifiable because we don't know what to take literal. We agree more than we disagree. 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 73 AD resulted in over 1 million dead;

That is according to Josephus, I don't know how reliable his calculation is. I am asking you for good evidence of a war that killed around 200k (or more) in ancient times in a small region. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

On 5/20/2016 at 5:59 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

What? I was simply saying that the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. It is Bernard Gui that is asking for proof. Please read what I am saying before attacking me like that. 

So, do you believe it was literally 2 million? or an exaggeration? 

No, you said more then that.

I suspect it was around 2 million. For a series of wars lasting that long that is not unreasonable for that to be the final death count counting both military and civilian casualties.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

unlike the paleolithic First Nations you discuss, the major Mesoamerican cultures all shared a common system of numeration, math, astronomy, and calendar which they inherited from the Olmec.  This was a very sophisticated system, with a more accurate calendar than known anywhere else on Earth.  This included very large numbers, with calculations into the future and back into the past of thousands of years.

Moreover, although we know of no biblical Hebrew word for "million," there is such an Egyptian word, and the Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian.  However, as in ancient Egypt and other ancient cultures, counting with such large numbers was always an approximation or dead reckoning -- or sheer bluster by a king who wanted to make a reputation for himself.

Then you also know that the Egyptians used some mathematical expressions solely for symbolic purpose. A vocal offering was for a thousand bread, a thousand beer, a thousand ox, a thousand fowl, a thousand alabaster, a thousand linen. Thousand didn't represent the actual number of thousand but merely a symbol of devotion, meaning a whole bunch of bread and beer, etc.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not talking about a large number, I am talking about 2 million. You and I agree that it was not 2 million.  

Exactly, and my main point is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are not falsifiable because we don't know what to take literal. We agree more than we disagree. 

That is according to Josephus, I don't know how reliable his calculation is. I am asking you for good evidence of a war that killed around 200k (or more) in ancient times in a small region. 

That would be 2 hundred thousand.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not talking about a large number, I am talking about 2 million. You and I agree that it was not 2 million. 

You are trying to say that, because it was not an exact body count, therefore it could not have been in the neighborhood of 2 million, and I disagree.   I have no problem with such high numbers at all.  The final death toll (with women & children) may have been closer to 6 million.  We are talking here of certain orders of magnitude which you automatically reject.

................. my main point is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are not falsifiable because we don't know what to take literal. We agree more than we disagree. 

Actually they are both falsifiable on many hard scientific points having to do with real chronology, specific dates of events, settlement patterns (which provide real population figures), and a full range of cultural data.

That is according to Josephus, I don't know how reliable his calculation is. I am asking you for good evidence of a war that killed around 200k (or more) in ancient times in a small region. 

Again, I am talking about much larger orders of magnitude in small areas.  Scholars can calculate the population of Jerusalem at that time, and come to reasonable conclusions on likely death rates in that siege, and you are not required to believe it.  However, just in the small area of Mesoamerica itself, the Spanish Conquista was responsible for around 11 million deaths during the 16th century, even though that includes disease as well as warfare.  You can reject that out of hand, if you wish, but the main point is that these are entirely reasonable figures in each case.  The same applies to Shaka Zulu's war of conquest in South Africa taking around 2 million lives within only a very few short years.  British observers were on the scene.

 

[morgan.deane]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not talking about a large number, I am talking about 2 million. You and I agree that it was not 2 million.  

Exactly, and my main point is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are not falsifiable because we don't know what to take literal. We agree more than we disagree. 

That is according to Josephus, I don't know how reliable his calculation is. I am asking you for good evidence of a war that killed around 200k (or more) in ancient times in a small region. 

I don't know what you define as a "small region" or "good evidence." (I suspect the ladder is whatever you say it is.)   But Hannibal's army killed hundreds of thousands at the battles of Cannae, Lake Trasmine, and Trebia (around 80,000 just at Cannae.) Italy is fairly small. I've already discussed several conflicts of very short duration in a limited area. The area around the Yellow River is fairly small, but featured wars that killed hundreds of thousands, and one battle reportedly had 700,000 deaths. Several writers pointed out others examples such as the Zulu wars, Jewish rebellion, and the Cortez conquest.  I specialize in military history and could provide another dozen examples.  Honestly I don't see the merit in this criticism. Big armies and large numbers of casualties was extremely common in warfare, as well as misreporting numbers either deliberately or due to error.  (See my original post for more.)  I'm short on time but if you want to explain your position more I would love to hear it.  Thanks and have a great day. 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

We don't have any firm knowledge of what the Olmec language was--and no texts. We can't say for them. I'm not sure about millions, but Nahuatl certainly counted in thousands. A standard military unit was 8,000. Mesoamerican languages used base 20 rather than base 10 (they counted on their fingers and toes--not just fingers!).

Munro Edmonson has argued that the calendar, math, and likely astronomy and writing were invented by the Olmed and passed on to what he calls Anahuac (the remainder of Mesoamerica).  The numeration and calendar used certainly included figures in the millions.  

MESOAMERICAN CALENDRIC CHART.pdf

[James Tunney]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not so

The notion of "objective truth" as some kind of mirror of "reality" has been dead for 200 years at least, but those who do not specialize in these questions do not know or understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Contemporary philosophy now nearly universally agrees that "universal truth" is an illusion and what we have is essentially inter-subjective observations which taken together socially, speak of sentences upon which most of us can agree.  In other words, a whole lot of people have their subjective experience, and talk about it, and we agree with their experience unless it is private experience.  Essentially this is what science is.  Many scientists have the same experience that combining the same chemicals in the same combinations produces the same results.  Each private experience and private experience adds to the "objectivity" of chemistry.  Yet if someone suddenly did not get the same result as the others, and then others also started getting different results, a whole new theory about that reaction would have to be developed- by pooling private experiences confirmed globally

Religious experience is similar, but with different subject matter.  It is always subjective experience and all utterances about religion or morality are based on subjective, private experience.  There is no such thing as an "objective truth" that it is wrong to kill, for example, but society as a whole considers it a necessary belief for civilization to continue

Likewise, you have your understanding of the purpose of YOUR personal life, and I have mine, and we cannot debate yours vs mine, because the purpose of your life is different than the purpose of my life.

For example, solidiers might all agree that their personal purpose for their lives is to "save freedom", though the assertion cannot be shown to be objectively "true".  Ecologists may see the purpose of their lives to be to "Stop Global Warming" or "save the whales" or whatever- all based on beliefs which cannot be objectively verified.  Humanists may believe that the purpose of life is to "become the best human I can"- with of course assumptions about what "best" means etc

Similarly- and no more or less based on "objective truth" is the assertion that the purpose of life is to "fill the measure of my creation and have joy therein".

The point is that every person who has a sense of purpose in their lives has a "religion" which is not objectively verifiable, so in fact, religion is no more or less verifiable than other similar beliefs and just as "rational"

So there is absolutely no reason to assume that our view of the purpose of life is less valuable than any other.  

Of course we who hold this view find it incredibly more important than these other groups- so to us, it is of vital importance to continue missionary effort and share our view of human purpose with the rest of humanity

 

I agree that we all have the ability to make our own way. However, how do you square the above with the correlated church? It seems the correlated church wants to put everyone into a box of the reality as it sees it. So isn't the church trying to push some objective absolute?

[James Tunney]

20 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The only time I would ever use the "evidence disappeared in the jungle" excuse was if it were the reason that professional archaeologists have given. Besides, the geographic correlation I use doesn't have events in the jungle. Therefore it wouldn't do me any good. 

I don't agree that anyone is required to suspend logical disbelief. In fact, I see some very good correlations between the events described in the Book of Mormon and events that we understand from archaeology and linguistics at the same time periods and in the same places as the Book of Mormon model suggests they took place. As for showing the available evidence--it took me a book to put it together. Kofford has a preview of the chapters where I discuss the methodology behind the historical correlations.

Is there room for a non-historical book of mormon in your worldview? It seems that the evidence points toward that.

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

Is there room for a non-historical book of mormon in your worldview? It seems that the evidence points toward that.

That is a bit of a difficult question. Yes, there is room--in that I am open to evidence. However, since I clearly disagree that, in your words, "the evidence points toward that," it is current a dormant area. I have found that it is entirely plausible--and to me more powerful--as an authentic ancient record translated in modern times.

[BCSpace]

On 5/20/2016 at 1:14 PM, Bernard Gui said:

On another thread, a poster questioned whether or not science can verify Ether 15:2.

I'm open to any comments on how this could be done. I suppose it involves evidence of 2 million dead bodies from a cataclysmic battle.

Am thinking this is the only way it can be accomplished (not claiming all of them were saints...):
 

Quote

 

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Matthew 27

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I agree that we all have the ability to make our own way. However, how do you square the above with the correlated church? It seems the correlated church wants to put everyone into a box of the reality as it sees it. So isn't the church trying to push some objective absolute?

Nope.  Alma 32 says truth is "sweet fruit" in your life and D&C 93 says that truth only exists in "spheres" as actively applied by free agents acting through intelligence.

I agree though that most misunderstand that and end up applying the creedal/sectarian approach to "absolute truth", which has no substantiation in latter day revelation, which has broken from the sectarian and Greek understanding of absolute truth

An open canon demands a flexible interpretation of truth or there is no need for prophets- it would be sola scriptura all the way otherwise.

 

Quote

 

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

 

 It is up to them to accept, and they have not.   Here you have intelligence acting for itself through the agency of man within specific "spheres" of knowledge.  That ain't no unchanging objective truth

Edited May 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

On May 21, 2016 at 3:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

OOPS

OK bro, you got it!

Please continue! I like the direction you are taking this!

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

My second book, Evil Gangs and Starving Widows: Reassessing the Book of Mormon, has an entire chapter on numbers. There are several issues in play that each deserve a long response, I'll summarize each very shortly on here. 

How many people were killed? Others have pointed this out already, but if you look at chapter 14 you realize its not one giant battle but a description of the cumulative effects of the war.  In chapter 14 we see:
v 1-2 social order breaks down
v 3 civil war faction "gave battle" unto Coriantumur
v 4 more battles, travel
v 5 a long siege more deaths
v 6-10 more civil war and intrigue
v 11 two factions "give battle" across the land
v 13 another battle
v 14 army "smited"
v 16 a series of battles across the land
v 17 "many" cities overthrown and inhabitants killed
v 18-26 "swift" and "speedy" destruction across the land
v 27 more battle

So Chapter 15:2 is the result of the previous sanguine conflicts that ranged across the land. Not one single battle in front of Ramah. 

But isn't that still a ridiculous number? As a historian I have access to large amounts of historical texts. There are reports of deaths numbering in the millions from many ancient societies including China and Mesoamerica. As reported by Sorenson, the Toltecs had a war that reportedly killed almost 6 million. The Aztecs regularly fielded (and sometimes lost) armies that measured about the same size as that reported in Mormon 6. The Chinese had a single battle (at Fei River) that killed 700,000 men. They had a civil war so intense that the bleached bones of dead bodies piled up. (Compare to Ether 14:22) Thus, there is ample historical precedent for large numbers of men killed in single battles and entire wars and its not ridiculous at all to mention numbers that large. In fact, my first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the BoM, shows how the Jaredite Civil War had 7 dominant features of cataclysmic civil wars from ancient history. 

What if the Book of Mormon is just wrong on these numbers, they do sound ridiculous? Starting with the first modern historian, Hans Delbruck, disputing numbers listed in ancient texts is a cottage industry among historians. For example (as others have listed already), Herodotus lists a million man Persian army that was so big, historians calculate that the front of the army would have arrived in Greece and fought the battle before the last of the army left Persia. So obviously its wrong. When you add in the unreliability of eye witnesses, who often have to eye ball enemy numbers or have unreliable or non existent access to orders of battle, scribal error, deliberate exaggeration for a variety of reasons (to amplify the scope of defeat or victory for example,) numbers used as a colloquial, and mistaking unit numbers for troop numbers (see below), there are a host of historical examples that suggest the BoM is in good historical company if it has wrong numbers. 

Moreover, a close reading of the text using the tools of military historians suggest that size of armies was far smaller than reported. For example, if we take the military participation ratio, it allows to reconstruct army sizes based on the population. Mormon lists his army as being about 30 to 40,000 soldiers in Mormon 1 and 2, which just happens to be about 15%, the magic number that a society can raise, of the final number listed in Mormon 6. It strains credulity to believe that the Nephites fought a decades long civil war with only one seventh of their strength, but suddenly the size of their army increased by several magnitudes after 30 years of defeat. It makes more sense that the Nephites were listing their total population. See Mormon 6:7 for example, which strongly suggests that women and children were included in the order of battle. On top of that, there are historical cases of numbers representing unit numbers. Roman Centuries and Greek Myriads and the two biggest examples. So the ten thousands listed and their unit commanders, can just as easily represent a unit designation and not a number. So these ten thousands, were composed of a unit command, who is listed, and an unknown number of soldiers (perhaps about 30,000 total considering verses like Mormon 2:25) and an unknown number of women and children that totalled around 230,000. 

Then there is the matter of finding the dead soldiers. Unlike fortifications, which leave a mark, battles are notoriously difficult to locate, and even if located evidence of battle is difficult to detect. Aztec archaeologists for example say that if they relied simply upon archaeological evidence they couldn't find evidence of their military activities. One of the most studied battles, that at Hastings, had a slew of people walk all over it. (Even the exact location is still a bit under dispute and it might be as much as two miles off.) But they couldn't find anything except a few teeth, which of course doesn't denote a battle like the treasure trove of weapons and armor they expected to find. 

To answer your question then, its entirely possible that the numbers are not correctly listed in the BoM. Not only does it place the BoM in good company, as I told Steve after his post was mocked, its not just good scholarship but actually standard practice to question numbers. If the numbers are correct, millions have been killed during during intense wars, also putting it in good historical company.  This is one of those topics where a deep reading of the text and proper historical context enhance our understanding and plausibility of the text. Thanks for the good question. 

Thank you for taking the question seriously and proposing a substantial and very interesting reply. It is for this that I continue to hang around Mormondialogue!

[mfbukowski]

On 5/21/2016 at 3:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

Not so

The notion of "objective truth" as some kind of mirror of "reality" has been dead for 200 years at least, but those who do not specialize in these questions do not know or understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Contemporary philosophy now nearly universally agrees that "universal truth" is an illusion and what we have is essentially inter-subjective observations which taken together socially, speak of sentences upon which most of us can agree.  In other words, a whole lot of people have their subjective experience, and talk about it, and we agree with their experience unless it is private experience.  Essentially this is what science is.  Many scientists have the same experience that combining the same chemicals in the same combinations produces the same results.  Each private experience and private experience adds to the "objectivity" of chemistry.  Yet if someone suddenly did not get the same result as the others, and then others also started getting different results, a whole new theory about that reaction would have to be developed- by pooling private experiences confirmed globally

Religious experience is similar, but with different subject matter.  It is always subjective experience and all utterances about religion or morality are based on subjective, private experience.  There is no such thing as an "objective truth" that it is wrong to kill, for example, but society as a whole considers it a necessary belief for civilization to continue

Likewise, you have your understanding of the purpose of YOUR personal life, and I have mine, and we cannot debate yours vs mine, because the purpose of your life is different than the purpose of my life.

For example, solidiers might all agree that their personal purpose for their lives is to "save freedom", though the assertion cannot be shown to be objectively "true".  Ecologists may see the purpose of their lives to be to "Stop Global Warming" or "save the whales" or whatever- all based on beliefs which cannot be objectively verified.  Humanists may believe that the purpose of life is to "become the best human I can"- with of course assumptions about what "best" means etc

Similarly- and no more or less based on "objective truth" is the assertion that the purpose of life is to "fill the measure of my creation and have joy therein".

The point is that every person who has a sense of purpose in their lives has a "religion" which is not objectively verifiable, so in fact, religion is no more or less verifiable than other similar beliefs and just as "rational"

So there is absolutely no reason to assume that our view of the purpose of life is less valuable than any other.  

Of course we who hold this view find it incredibly more important than these other groups- so to us, it is of vital importance to continue missionary effort and share our view of human purpose with the rest of humanity

 

Well Mr Gui- I think this was the post you were talking about?

[morgan.deane]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for taking the question seriously and proposing a substantial and very interesting reply. It is for this that I continue to hang around Mormondialogue!

Thanks for reading it and for the kind words. Best wishes! 

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are trying to say that, because it was not an exact body count, therefore it could not have been in the neighborhood of 2 million, and I disagree. I have no problem with such high numbers at all. The final death toll (with women & children) may have been closer to 6 million. We are talking here of certain orders of magnitude which you automatically reject.

If the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text, then no serious historian would expect 2 million to be a good calculation. Like Stephen said, the ancients exaggerated. I don´t think they used crowd counting methods. Just like 1 million of Josephus, I think his number is highly unreliable. 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars can calculate the population of Jerusalem at that time, and come to reasonable conclusions on likely death rates in that siege, and you are not required to believe it.

So who calculated the 1 million? Scholars or Josephus? I read it was Josephus that made that calculation. 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually they are both falsifiable on many hard scientific points having to do with real chronology, specific dates of events, settlement patterns (which provide real population figures), and a full range of cultural data.

No they are not, what about horses? Where is the peer-reviewed evidence?  Brant Gardner believes horses are some other animal. 

 

[Freedom]

On 5/22/2016 at 6:19 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Just a question. When the scriptures say the Jesus fasted for 40 days, do you take that literally? 40 is a round number. Would any serious Historian believe that a person can fast for 40 days? 

 

40 is much more than a whole number, it is 4 and 10. For is physical, and 10 is perfect. Jesus fasted and had a perfect physical experience. And I have told you a million times not to take any text with exaggerated numbers seriously because it just is not done. 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/20/2016 at 2:31 PM, DJBrown said:

Many misread this portion of Ether.  If you read closely, you will see that those two million people were killed over a period of time in which there were 5 kings against whom Coriantumr fought.  And in that window of time, there are two 2-year periods described as well.

The kings against whom Coriantumr fought after Ether told Coriantumr that he would live to see the destruction of his household (Ether 13:20-21):

1.  Shared

2.  Brother Shared (Gilead)

3.  Gilead's High Priest (who murdered Gilead as he "sat upon his throne").

4. Secret combination who killed Gilead's High Priest in a "secret pass" (Lib).

5.  Shiz (Lib's brother).

So two million people died in warfare over a period of many years (The critics never understand this text or represent this correctly).

Can anybody provide examples of other locations where fields of bones have been found from battles or wars that took place in the same time period (2nd and 3rd centuries BC)?

In fact, the text of the Book of Mormon describes these bodies being left upon the ground to rot.  Anybody familiar with how long it takes for a body to completely decompose (including bones) when left on the ground?  Anybody familiar with how the conditions in Mesoamerica influence the length of time required for a body to decompose.

Suffice it to say, this is a criticism that is uninformed on many levels.

A body left on the ground will be completely decomposed (including bones) within a few years.  Heat and moisture speed up the process.  

 

I notice SkepticChristian and a few of you naysyers skipped this post by DJ, why?

[rodheadlee]

On 5/21/2016 at 10:39 PM, sunstoned said:

  This plus the Jadeite barge story really show that someone had a good imagination.

This assertion was beat up pretty good in an earlier thread.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

If the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text, then no serious historian would expect 2 million to be a good calculation. Like Stephen said, the ancients exaggerated. I don´t think they used crowd counting methods. Just like 1 million of Josephus, I think his number is highly unreliable. 

Any serious historian would want first to ask whether such a large population was even available. If not, that deep sixes the claim.  When such large populations are available, then the only question to be asked is whether such a large number (2 to 6 milliion) is at all plausible.  Since it is plausible, we are not obligated to automatically reject it just out of spite or pure negative thinking -- since that approach is unprofessional.  It is possible that such a figure is pure bluster, but we don't have evidence that it is.  Stephen Smoot covers the full range of possibilities, coming up with his personal preference at the close.  You are certainly entitled to do the same, but that does not mean that your conclusion is correct.

So who calculated the 1 million? Scholars or Josephus? I read it was Josephus that made that calculation.

Josephus estimates the population at festival time thrice yearly at from 2.5 to 3 million, many of whom were trapped in Jerusalem at the time of Roman siege.  Of those, Josephus estimates 1 million deaths, while Roman historian Tacitus estimates 600,000 (Josephus, Ant Jews, II:280, Wars Jews VI:420-426; Tacitus, Histories V, 12, 3).  Samuel Rocca, Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classic World (Mohr Siebeck, 2008/ reprint Eugene: Wipf & Stock), 333 and n. 19.

Other scholars say that such large figures are impossible, suggesting that the total population of Palestine then was only 1 million, and not all of them Jews.  Seth Schwartz, "Political, social and economic life in the land of Israel," in W. D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, and S. Katz, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism: IV, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 24.  Note that Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel (1961/1965), I, p. 67, set the figure in 8th cent. B.C. Palestine at about 1 million, and this was also the total for the British census in 1931.  The current population of that area (2014) is almost 9 million.

Magen Broshi estimates the population of Jerusalem at about 100,000 on the eve of Roman destruction.  M. Broshi, “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 4 (1978):10-15; Broshi, “The Credibility of Josephus,” JJS 33 (1982):379-384. 

However, such estimates have been all over the map: C. C. McCown, "The Density of Population in Ancient Palestine," JBL 47 (1966):425-27; A. Byatt, "Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine," PEQ 105 (1973):60; Broshi, "The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period," BASOR 236 (1979):6-7; cf. Y. Shiloh, "The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density," BASOR 239 (1980):25-35; Encyclopaedia Judaica (Keter/Macmillan, 1972), 13:866-903.

No they are not, what about horses? Where is the peer-reviewed evidence?  Brant Gardner believes horses are some other animal. 

You are denying the falsifiability of the Bible and Book of Mormon, and then you ask a hard scientific question which we have dealt with repeatedly on this board.  You can't have it both ways, Skeptic.  Do you accept science or not?  Any ancient literature can be subjected to scientific examination.  Do realize that, or are you equivocating?

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well Mr Gui- I think this was the post you were talking about?

I learned much from your post. Thank you.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

On 5/21/2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 One city alone, Teotihuacan "City of the Gods" (that's the Aztec name; we don't know the original name) in central Mexico, had a population of around 125,000 or more.  

but Teotihuacan was the largest city around 1,200 AD, about 1,000 years after Book of Mormon events, and almost 2,000 years after the Jaradites. 

On 5/21/2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

  If we take the Olmec heartland in Tabasco and Veracruz, along with neighboring Oaxaca, and central Mexico, and associated areas, there was certainly a population in the millions -- bearing in mind that the figure in Ether includes women & children.  Moreover, the overall population of the Olmec heartland drops precipitously from about 400 to 350 BC

I thought the Jaradites were a very small group compared to the Olmecs, and CFR that Mesocamerica had at least 10 million in 400 to 350 BC, and please explain how scholars know about ancient Mesoamerican populations, but not about huge wars that killed millions? 

Edited May 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[JAHS]

On 5/22/2016 at 6:19 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just a question. When the scriptures say the Jesus fasted for 40 days, do you take that literally? 40 is a round number. Would any serious Historian believe that a person can fast for 40 days? 

Sometimes when the scriptures say forty it means forty, but most of the time Bible scholars believe it is used as a nice round number that was symbolically assigned to give a value that represented "many" or "some", but it's not always easy to tell which is which. In the Bible, next to the number seven, the number forty occurs most frequently. 

It was the number of days God made it rain. (Genesis 7:4)
It was the number of years Israel ate manna (Exodus 16: 35)
It was the number of days Moses was with God in the mountain (Exodus 34:28)
It was the number of years the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness; (Numbers 14:33)
It was the number of days Christ fasted before beginning His ministry. (Matthew 4:2)
The risen Lord spent forty days with His apostles in Israel (Acts 1:1-3)
and many other places throughout the scriptures.

The number often 40 represents a period of trial, testing, probation, or mourning.

According to scripture scholars George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl:
"Sometimes the reader will be misled by the numbers of the Bible because he does not know how they originally were used. "Ten" sometimes stands for "several." "Forty," often means "many," "Seven," or "seventy," denote a large and complete number, although uncertain to the speaker." (Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, 1965)

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 4:53 PM, James Tunney said:

If the "veracity" of the church is merely based on a subjective desire to believe, then this seems to be an argument against universal truth and puts it into the realm of a subjective decision to go to the movies or stay at home on saturday night.  Either is fine, however, it seems different when I try to persuade people that going to the movies is the one and only thing to do and if you don't, then you are somehow less.  This is why if the truth claims move from the objective to the subjective "choose to believe," stance, then it seems that missionary work should be drastically toned down.  The purpose then becomes one of forcing your subjective beliefs on the public when there are many alternative lifestyles to follow that are equally good.  To justify the sacrifice of time and money to join the church, it has to be the one and only or it should be denounced or there should be a huge disclaimer given to the unsuspecting converts. 

Yep!

I'm actually not a believer in "choosing to believe". I believe a person can choose to have faith, but I don't think someone can choose to believe something they find unbelievable.

My previous comment was more about how there is room for both the believer and the non-believer to occupy the same space without absolutely proof either way.