James Tunney Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: How nice of you to be so considerate. Fact is, however, that you have no idea what real archeology entails, and I suggest that you spend a few seasons on real digs somewhere to see what actually goes on. Meantime, here is a new find in Korea which has everyone doing a double-take because it wasn't supposed to be possible or likely, https://www.yahoo.com/news/bizarre-long-headed-woman-ancient-kingdom-revealed-125757440.html , BofM truth claims are forever possible even when it appears they are highly improbable. If archeologists find something concrete that proves the BofM please let the world know and I will listen.
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 6 hours ago, James Tunney said: BofM truth claims are forever possible even when it appears they are highly improbable. If archeologists find something concrete that proves the BofM please let the world know and I will listen. Concrete in Mesoamerica. SEE https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&i=9401
Robert F. Smith Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 12 hours ago, James Tunney said: BofM truth claims are forever possible even when it appears they are highly improbable. If archeologists find something concrete that proves the BofM please let the world know and I will listen. You are off to a pretty bad start by making a statement which verifies what I just said about your knowledge of secular archeology. Only someone completely unfamiliar with real archeology would talk about "something concrete that proves the BofM." Archeology does not deal in proof of anything, and the same applies to history generally. Get a few semesters of actual archeology or anthropology under your belt and we might have some interesting conversations. Until then you will always wrongly believe that proof is available pro or con for nearly everything, while real historians will tell you frankly that history is not facts but the interpretation of facts. Thus, although it is impossible to prove the Exodus happened, or that Jesus was resurrected, there is a preponderance of secular evidence that certain ancient events actually happened and that certain ancient individuals actually existed. The same applies to the Book of Mormon, even though you are unaware of that fact. Had you read widely, you might be familiar with evidence which has been assembled indicating that ancient cultures having the attributes of those in the BofM actually existed in the times and places indicated by that BofM. You can read and make your own decision on the matter: See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , See also my “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, Feb 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 . “’The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 . “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 , and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 . “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807. 4
James Tunney Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are off to a pretty bad start by making a statement which verifies what I just said about your knowledge of secular archeology. Only someone completely unfamiliar with real archeology would talk about "something concrete that proves the BofM." Archeology does not deal in proof of anything, and the same applies to history generally. Get a few semesters of actual archeology or anthropology under your belt and we might have some interesting conversations. Until then you will always wrongly believe that proof is available pro or con for nearly everything, while real historians will tell you frankly that history is not facts but the interpretation of facts. Thus, although it is impossible to prove the Exodus happened, or that Jesus was resurrected, there is a preponderance of secular evidence that certain ancient events actually happened and that certain ancient individuals actually existed. The same applies to the Book of Mormon, even though you are unaware of that fact. Had you read widely, you might be familiar with evidence which has been assembled indicating that ancient cultures having the attributes of those in the BofM actually existed in the times and places indicated by that BofM. You can read and make your own decision on the matter: See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , See also my “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, Feb 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 . “’The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 . “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 , and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 . “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807. Doesn't the evidence point to people of Asiatic origins? Sure there were peoples that lived in the americas at the supposed time of the book of mormon but these came from asia over 15,000 years ago at least and not from Jerusalem in 600 b.c. I don't expect you to admit it or anything to the contrary of your predetermined historicity conclusion, however. That was my original point about bias.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 6 hours ago, James Tunney said: Doesn't the evidence point to people of Asiatic origins? Sure there were peoples that lived in the americas at the supposed time of the book of mormon but these came from asia over 15,000 years ago at least and not from Jerusalem in 600 b.c. I don't expect you to admit it or anything to the contrary of your predetermined historicity conclusion, however. That was my original point about bias. Everyone is prone to bias, pro or con, on almost any subject, which is why scholarly endeavors are a community effort. Scholars conduct tightly controlled research projects, and report on their conclusions according to rigorous rules and standards. They constantly react to one another's conclusions and give substantive reasons for agreement or disagreement. This is the way that the scholarly enterprise proceeds and progresses. Your approach, on the other hand, is to take your negative bias and lack of familiarity with the Near Eastern and American archeology, and to make apriori statements about the Book of Mormon question. Might it not be better to at least familiarize yourself with the subject before drawing your predetermined conclusions? 4
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 19 hours ago, James Tunney said: Doesn't the evidence point to people of Asiatic origins? Sure there were peoples that lived in the americas at the supposed time of the book of mormon but these came from asia over 15,000 years ago at least and not from Jerusalem in 600 b.c. I don't expect you to admit it or anything to the contrary of your predetermined historicity conclusion, however. That was my original point about bias. No; it really doesn't have any effect on the BoM. No archaeologist that I know of claims that all peoples whoever came to the America's were Asiatic. Further a small group of less than 20 people would have little to no genetic effect on a much larger population of millions. SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng 1
James Tunney Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: No; it really doesn't have any effect on the BoM. No archaeologist that I know of claims that all peoples whoever came to the America's were Asiatic. Further a small group of less than 20 people would have little to no genetic effect on a much larger population of millions. SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng Isn't the current debate among archaeologists about whether there were waves of migration to the americas from asia or one migration around 25,000 years ago? http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html These archaeologists and anthropologists, except the mormon ones, believe the Native Americans came from asia and not Israel. So, isn't it possible that the bias of needing a faithful conclusion governs the mormon scientist in this area?
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 The BoM is a record of a people some 2,700 year ago. Not 25,000. No archaeologist that I know doesn't accept that some Vikings sailed to the New World in about 1100 CE. Also SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=balcks+in+South+America+before+Columbus+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Gervin Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The BoM is a record of a people some 2,700 year ago. Not 25,000. No archaeologist that I know doesn't accept that some Vikings sailed to the New World in about 1100 CE. How many archeologists do you know - and how many of these support a Hebrew migration to the New World? Just curious.
James Tunney Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The BoM is a record of a people some 2,700 year ago. Not 25,000. No archaeologist that I know doesn't accept that some Vikings sailed to the New World in about 1100 CE. Also SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=balcks+in+South+America+before+Columbus+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 The idea is that Native Americans came from asia and not Israel. There is evidence of Vikings in the new world to be sure, and evidence of Romans recently found in England, but no evidence of Israelites in the new world or jaredites before them. This is what archaeologists, except the mormon ones, find. So, it seems like bias towards historicity is the culprit. Also, Dr. Murphy's threatened excommunication is probably an incentive to maintain bias as well.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 11 hours ago, James Tunney said: Isn't the current debate among archaeologists about whether there were waves of migration to the americas from asia or one migration around 25,000 years ago? http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html These archaeologists and anthropologists, except the mormon ones, believe the Native Americans came from asia and not Israel. So, isn't it possible that the bias of needing a faithful conclusion governs the mormon scientist in this area? So now you are going to divide scientists up into separate groups of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Musllim, infidels, etc., with their separate biases? Is that how you account for science and scientific debate? Based again on your complete lack of familiarity with any branch of science, and your own predetermined conclusions? Wouldn't it be better if you were to understand what science is actually about, and then draw conclusions from the evidence? Or are you afraid to try that? On the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, do you see it as a problem that we have only Roman Catholic and Jewish justices? No Protestants, or other religions. Does this automatically skew their decisions based on their religious biases?
Kevin Christensen Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 On 6/23/2016 at 6:04 PM, James Tunney said: Doesn't the evidence point to people of Asiatic origins? Sure there were peoples that lived in the americas at the supposed time of the book of mormon but these came from asia over 15,000 years ago at least and not from Jerusalem in 600 b.c. I don't expect you to admit it or anything to the contrary of your predetermined historicity conclusion, however. That was my original point about bias. This demonstrates a controlling assumption that the Book of Mormon describes the peopling of the unpopulated continent, rather than migrations of people to an already populated continent. It is a difference that happens to make all of the difference. Try Matt Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors," http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 for starters, let it sink it, and then look again. Best, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 2
James Tunney Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: This demonstrates a controlling assumption that the Book of Mormon describes the peopling of the unpopulated continent, rather than migrations of people to an already populated continent. It is a difference that happens to make all of the difference. Try Matt Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors," http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 for starters, let it sink it, and then look again. Best, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA I'm aware of the apologetic and it strikes me as moving the goal post. I think the book of mormon means what it says that the land was supposedly devoid of others prior to the jaredites. The Lord supposedly wanted the americas to be his special land where only the righteous would dwell. Of course, therefore, words don't mean what they appear to mean when a certain conclusion must be met.
James Tunney Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: So now you are going to divide scientists up into separate groups of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Musllim, infidels, etc., with their separate biases? Is that how you account for science and scientific debate? Based again on your complete lack of familiarity with any branch of science, and your own predetermined conclusions? Wouldn't it be better if you were to understand what science is actually about, and then draw conclusions from the evidence? Or are you afraid to try that? On the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, do you see it as a problem that we have only Roman Catholic and Jewish justices? No Protestants, or other religions. Does this automatically skew their decisions based on their religious biases? You're creating a strawman.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 22 hours ago, Gervin said: How many archeologists do you know - and how many of these support a Hebrew migration to the New World? Just curious. Personally not many at all. I know of a few more.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, James Tunney said: I'm aware of the apologetic and it strikes me as moving the goal post. I think the book of mormon means what it says that the land was supposedly devoid of others prior to the jaredites. The Lord supposedly wanted the americas to be his special land where only the righteous would dwell. Of course, therefore, words don't mean what they appear to mean when a certain conclusion must be met. The BoM doesn't say that. That's a silly as saying since The Iliad and the Odyssey doesn't mention ancient China. The Chinese didn't exist.
James Tunney Posted June 25, 2016 Posted June 25, 2016 It does in 2 Nephi 1:8-9. Even Mr. Roper's apologetic concedes that this is a valid reading of the text. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7
Robert F. Smith Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 9 hours ago, James Tunney said: You're creating a strawman. Do you even know what a "straw man" is, James? Seriously. Nothing you have said thus fare indicates any familiarity with science, evidence, the ancient world, or even the BofM. If you are not prepared to engage in substantive discussion, how are we to tell whether you have any idea what historicity might mean? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 10 hours ago, James Tunney said: I'm aware of the apologetic and it strikes me as moving the goal post. I think the book of mormon means what it says that the land was supposedly devoid of others prior to the jaredites. The Lord supposedly wanted the americas to be his special land where only the righteous would dwell. Of course, therefore, words don't mean what they appear to mean when a certain conclusion must be met. Your comment here, James, is based on a simple misreading by you of the text.at Ether 2:5, where the Jaredites are led "into that quarter where there never had man been." Anti-Mormons always misread that verse because they don't read in context. That verse describes Jaredite journeying in the Old World wilderness, long before they arrive at the great ocean and prepare to cross to the New World in Ether 2:13. Context is so important, for both BofM and Bible. 8 hours ago, James Tunney said: It does in 2 Nephi 1:8-9. Even Mr. Roper's apologetic concedes that this is a valid reading of the text. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 The problem is, James, that if we take 2 Ne 1:8-9 to mean that no one had ever come to the New World before the Nephites, that would be in conflict with the thousands of years of Jaredite history in the New World which preceded the Nephite history -- including the survival of Coriantumr discovered by the people of Zarahemla. Naturally, if you are unfamiliar with the BofM, that will make no sense to you, including the fact that the book of Ether was translated before second Nephi. Your not understanding the chronological sequence of BofM cultures, along with the translation sequence is what spells curtains for your comments here. Here again, familiarizing yourself with scholarly method and discourse would help you a lot. A further problem for you may be your belief that the word "land" means something like hemisphere or continent, when even in English (not to mention Hebrew) that is not the case. You need to take serious stock, James. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 On 6/24/2016 at 2:08 PM, Gervin said: How many archeologists do you know - and how many of these support a Hebrew migration to the New World? Just curious. Another non sequitur. C'mon Gervin: Can't you at least address the substance of his argument?
thesometimesaint Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 19 hours ago, James Tunney said: It does in 2 Nephi 1:8-9. Even Mr. Roper's apologetic concedes that this is a valid reading of the text. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 The Book of Mormon isn't about all lands of the America's. Even Dr. Sorenson disagrees with you.
James Tunney Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Do you even know what a "straw man" is, James? Seriously. Nothing you have said thus fare indicates any familiarity with science, evidence, the ancient world, or even the BofM. If you are not prepared to engage in substantive discussion, how are we to tell whether you have any idea what historicity might mean? A straw man is falsely attributing an easily refuted argument to an opponent when the opponent didn't make the argument. I believe you were trying to do that by claiming that I want to have a religious test for scientists or the supreme court. I never said that. My point is and has been that the question of historicity is so sacrosanct with the believing mormons that perhaps there is a little bias in their conclusions? At this point, experts like Dr. Coe and Dr. Thomas Murphy rightly point out that there isn't evidence that supports historicity. According to Dr. Murphy, no one other than mormon scientists even bother with the historicity question because the conclusion against it is already reached. All that is left is a hope that some day there will be something found. While anything is possible, maybe it's not too probable at this point?
thesometimesaint Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
James Tunney Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Your comment here, James, is based on a simple misreading by you of the text.at Ether 2:5, where the Jaredites are led "into that quarter where there never had man been." Anti-Mormons always misread that verse because they don't read in context. That verse describes Jaredite journeying in the Old World wilderness, long before they arrive at the great ocean and prepare to cross to the New World in Ether 2:13. Context is so important, for both BofM and Bible. The problem is, James, that if we take 2 Ne 1:8-9 to mean that no one had ever come to the New World before the Nephites, that would be in conflict with the thousands of years of Jaredite history in the New World which preceded the Nephite history -- including the survival of Coriantumr discovered by the people of Zarahemla. Naturally, if you are unfamiliar with the BofM, that will make no sense to you, including the fact that the book of Ether was translated before second Nephi. Your not understanding the chronological sequence of BofM cultures, along with the translation sequence is what spells curtains for your comments here. Here again, familiarizing yourself with scholarly method and discourse would help you a lot. A further problem for you may be your belief that the word "land" means something like hemisphere or continent, when even in English (not to mention Hebrew) that is not the case. You need to take serious stock, James. Your reading of the text is clearly possible as is the limited geography theory. I think the shrinking evidence for historicity definitely warranted a shrinking geographical theory. However, I am old enough to remember that the church used to teach a hemispheric model, and that the Jaredites were the first peoples here, and that the Lamanites were the "principle" ancestors of the native americans, and not merely among them. You may want to "gaslight" that fact away now, or put it down the memory hole, but the bofm did say "principle" in the introduction and was changed to "among" due to the facts not supporting the prior church position. Nevertheless, I will take "serious stock" if you will too.
James Tunney Posted June 26, 2016 Posted June 26, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: The Book of Mormon isn't about all lands of the America's. Even Dr. Sorenson disagrees with you. The church used to teach a hemispheric model for the book of mormon. I guess you don't remember that? Do you remember when "principle" was changed to "among" in the introduction?
Recommended Posts