Most compelling evidence for/against the Book of Mormon?

[Gervin]

On September 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, cdowis said:

Gervin, I don't think nothing ( to be crude).  I made no statement at all.  

Anyway, I am simply questioning your assertion.  Your use of the word "known" is interesting, rather than "speculating", so let's see what you got SPECIFICALLY in the preClassic period of Mayan culture.

You see, I know the difference between opinion/speculation/assertion and fact/ data.  So help me out.

If you perform a wiki search of "pre classic maya" you'll find a list of mayan cities that should sate your curiosity; real places excavated to reveal actual remnants of material cultures.  Happy hunting. 

[Honorentheos]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.  I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value. As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.  I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  However, there is no accounting for taste.

A  Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.

B      I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value.

C          As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  

C          Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.

B      I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  

A  However, there is no accounting for taste.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

The "pieces of silver" is actually a good example of metal being used for exchange that isn't a coin.

But if a community decides that a certain weight of silver will have a set value, and in order to make it easier on people they're going to make these pieces of silver distinguishable on sight so people don't have to weigh them every time, and then they give it a name for people to refer to them, then they've just invented coins.

Yes, and that is why coins were eventually invented -- in fact not long after Lehi left Jerusalem, minting began in Anatolia.  However, the set values which a certain weight of silver, gold, or copper had carried names, same as later coins.  Just as  the weight of the early shekel was not a minted coin, but did later become such.  That was the purpose of the limestone dome weights used in Classical Israel (which were backed up by royal weights made of metal).

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

A  Actually, I was being quite sincere, cdowis.

B      I just think that certain examples of chiasmus are very memorable -- aside from being of mnemonic value.

C          As for poetry, they can have a very pleasing architectonic structure.  

C          Indeed, some poems (including children's  nursery rhymes) are chiastic.

B      I thought that you might find the examples I cited pleasing.  

A  However, there is no accounting for taste.

Clever, Honorentheos, although I don't find it convincing.  

I try to be just a bit more systematic:

ABR 3,21-23 EXAMPLE.pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm definately talking about place-values because that is what defines a system. It's incredibly wrong to state that the Nephite system is base-8 .................................................................

...................................................................

In contrast, which the Kletter evidence helps show, the Judaean system does exactly what a base-8 notation system should do. It progresses to 77, then it moves to the 100, sixty-four position. The 1450 g weight is equal to two of these units.

Again, for the 77 time, the Nephite system in Alma 11 is not a base-8 system. At best it's a binary system (halving and doubling) with an odd unit at the end equal to the sum of the units from the whole senum to the ezrom.

It's black and white. It doesn't matter how many apologists believe the Nephite system is base-8. It's not. It's not even that hard to see why it's not. 

Equating multiplication with base-notation is incredibly off. 

More gobbledygook in order to cover up your misdirection and intransigence.

If the system in Alma 11 were binary, then it would be easy to see that everything was either doubled or halved.  That's what binary means.

Dever deliberately contrasted the normative Egyptian decimal system with the Israelite-Egyptian adapted system using a base-module of 8 shekels, followed by multiples of 8, because he wanted us to see how simple the overall systems were, and how easily they could be converted back and forth for mercantile reasons.  You have certainly made hash of that.  As is your wont.

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More gobbledygook in order to cover up your misdirection and intransigence.

If the system in Alma 11 were binary, then it would be easy to see that everything was either doubled or halved.  That's what binary means.

Dever deliberately contrasted the normative Egyptian decimal system with the Israelite-Egyptian adapted system using a base-module of 8 shekels, followed by multiples of 8, because he wanted us to see how simple the overall systems were, and how easily they could be converted back and forth for mercantile reasons.  You have certainly made hash of that.  As is your wont.

I'm sure countrycowboy will agree with you, because numbers. But it's a fact that the Nephite system is not base-8 as described in Alma 11. I can't lay it out more plainly and anyone who fails to see it has 143 problems and base notation is one.

Dever's showed something meaningful and applicable to the actual evidence available in the near east where we see real, attested cultures that left evidence behind for examination. I find the reality that the Kletter weight being potentially 128 shekels, or two 64 (200 in base-8 ) shekel units consistent with the evidence. He doesn't try to tell people that the maneh should equal 56 shekels. He doesn't try and compel anyone to see the 7/8 shekel unit as having a primary position in the Judaean system. He is making completely different arguments for completely different reasons.

Having appropriated his evidence and then wrongly applied it, the "hash" you see made of it is the over-extended structure you created by trying to make it into something it was not: a system to reconcile Egyptian, Judaean, and some American pre-Columbian system that is unattested in the archaeological record.

Your apologetic is dead. May it rest in piece.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Risingtide]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 If the OT had all the detail, would they have rejected Him? Therein lies the rub. 

That's a very interesting point RT. I've never considered it. Thanks.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm sure countrycowboy will agree with you, because numbers. But it's a fact that the Nephite system is not base-8 as described in Alma 11. I can't lay it out more plainly and anyone who fails to see it has 143 problems and base notation is one.

Dever's showed something meaningful and applicable to the actual evidence available in the near east where we see real, attested cultures that left evidence behind for examination. I find the reality that the Kletter weight being potentially 128 shekels, or two 64 (200 in base-8 ) shekel units consistent with the evidence. He doesn't try to tell people that the maneh should equal 56 shekels. He doesn't try and compel anyone to see the 7/8 shekel unit as having a primary position in the Judaean system. He is making completely different arguments for completely different reasons.

Having appropriated his evidence and then wrongly applied it, the "hash" you see made of it is the over-extended structure you created by trying to make it into something it was not: a system to reconcile Egyptian, Judaean, and some American pre-Columbian system that is unattested in the archaeological record.

Your apologetic is dead. May it rest in piece.

Once again you create a straw man in talking of "some American pre-Columbian system" that I did not discuss.  I dealt only with the BofM text in the ANE context which it presupposes.  If we cannot even agree on that, then what hope is there for any agreement on its appliciation anywhere in the Americas -- which you would automatically reject in any case.  You are only interested in beating dead horses.  That is the only thing that keeps your polemic alive.

[Honorentheos]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you create a straw man in talking of "some American pre-Columbian system" that I did not discuss.  I dealt only with the BofM text in the ANE context which it presupposes.  If we cannot even agree on that, then what hope is there for any agreement on its appliciation anywhere in the Americas -- which you would automatically reject in any case.  You are only interested in beating dead horses.  That is the only thing that keeps your polemic alive.

I have to say that is an amazingly ironic post. The basics of base notation killed your apologetic and you switched to dismissing the obvious fatal flaw in your argument because I noted that the Book of Mormon system described in Alma 11 is unattested in the archaeological record (as opposed to those Devers describes) and every bit fits the description of being "American pre-Columbian" if it is what it claims to be.

Base-8. It would be your friend and guide you to truth if you'd only let it.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Honorentheos

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Risingtide said:

That's a very interesting point RT. I've never considered it. Thanks.

You are welcome. Paul says, if it wasn't a mystery to them, God's plan would have been frustrated.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Your apologetic is dead. May it rest in piece.

DId you mean pieces?

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I have to say that is an amazingly ironic post. The basics of base notation killed your apologetic and you switched to dismissing the obvious fatal flaw in your argument because I noted that the Book of Mormon system described in Alma 11 is unattested in the archaeological record (as opposed to those Devers describes) and every bit fits the description of being "American pre-Columbian" if it is what it claims to be.

Base-8. It would be your friend and guide you to truth if you'd only let it.

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

[morgan.deane]

3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

I've often said the only horses in the BoM are the ones that critics and apologists keep beating to death.  I respect those who want to make any argument for or against the BoM. Things like the CES letter might bother some people so there is a needed place for line by line rebuttals of some items and restating research. Personally, I value the time I spend expanding our conversation about the BoM instead of repeating arguments I've heard for decades.  Thats why I'm looking at re assessing our understanding of the BoM, such as my recent FAIR presentation and I've been applying to the Mormon Theology Seminar: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/futile-victory-in-jacob-726.html

You'll notice that there are valuable things to say about the BoM without ever having to comment on its historicity. (Though as a historian it would be ridiculous to say that placing the BoM in history is useless.)  This desire to expand the conversation is also why I don't spend too much time here. But I liked your comment about beating a dead horse because I feel the same way. Cheers! 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, morgan.deane said:

I've often said the only horses in the BoM are the ones that critics and apologists keep beating to death.  I respect those who want to make any argument for or against the BoM. Things like the CES letter might bother some people so there is a needed place for line by line rebuttals of some items and restating research. Personally, I value the time I spend expanding our conversation about the BoM instead of repeating arguments I've heard for decades.  Thats why I'm looking at re assessing our understanding of the BoM, such as my recent FAIR presentation and I've been applying to the Mormon Theology Seminar: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/futile-victory-in-jacob-726.html

You'll notice that there are valuable things to say about the BoM without ever having to comment on its historicity. (Though as a historian it would be ridiculous to say that placing the BoM in history is useless.)  This desire to expand the conversation is also why I don't spend too much time here. But I liked your comment about beating a dead horse because I feel the same way. Cheers! 

Trust me, I understand.  I left the Church in 1989 and returned in 2015.  As an attorney, I found so many things about the Church I felt I could defeat in court.  

Last year, it occurred to me as I was on the road back:  Jesus was defeated in Court...did that mean He was wrong?

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, Gervin said:

If you perform a wiki search of "pre classic maya" you'll find a list of mayan cities that should sate your curiosity; real places excavated to reveal actual remnants of material cultures.  Happy hunting. 

You make an assertion and you are putting the burden on me to prove it?  Interesting.

Thank you for the honor, but I decline your invitation.  You will have to do your own hunting.... alone.

Edited September 7, 2016 by cdowis

[Risingtide]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You are welcome. Paul says, if it wasn't a mystery to them, God's plan would have been frustrated.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Excelent catch RT. 

[Honorentheos]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If only you could do your times tables and quit denying Dever's archeological construct, we'd both be in hog heaven.  You take the usual polemic way out by changing the goal posts and falsifying the non-Mormon sources -- and throwing in a nice dose of gobbledygook.

 

5 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes, I agree with you.  I love how you keep proving him wrong and defending the truth.  Your apologetics are not dead.....but the horse he keeps beating is.....and has been.

Let's keep going, why don't we?

On to gold. In Alma 11, starting in verse 14, we get this:

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

 15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

 16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

 17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

No mention of smaller denominations of gold, just silver.

So what?

Well, back to the idea that the Nephite system is base-8. In the gold system, it begins with the senine, to the seon, then the shum, culminating with the limnah.

 5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

In other words, the gold system has a 1, 2, 4, and 7 where the limnah is worth seven senine.

It really should go without saying, but clearly Robert F. Smith and Countryboy are proof positive you can't assume that, but the gold system isn't even close enough to a base-8 notation system to be able to set up the problem well. Why? Because the simplicity of it being a binary system with an odd culminating unit lacks complexity to even demand a notation system.

I know you'll be back without comment on how to repair your apologetic, Robert. And CB will probably add another substance-less comment. But it just gets worse and worse for your pet apologetic.

And, again just in case anyone is feeling like this is an attack on the BoM itself, the entire apologetic is contradicted by the Book of Mormon. 

[UtahTexan]

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

 

Let's keep going, why don't we?

On to gold. In Alma 11, starting in verse 14, we get this:

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

 15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

 16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

 17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

No mention of smaller denominations of gold, just silver.

So what?

Well, back to the idea that the Nephite system is base-8. In the gold system, it begins with the senine, to the seon, then the shum, culminating with the limnah.

 5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

In other words, the gold system has a 1, 2, 4, and 7 where the limnah is worth seven senine.

It really should go without saying, but clearly Robert F. Smith and Countryboy are proof positive you can't assume that, but the gold system isn't even close enough to a base-8 notation system to be able to set up the problem well. Why? Because the simplicity of it being a binary system with an odd culminating unit lacks complexity to even demand a notation system.

I know you'll be back without comment on how to repair your apologetic, Robert. And CB will probably add another substance-less comment. But it just gets worse and worse for your pet apologetic.

And, again just in case anyone is feeling like this is an attack on the BoM itself, the entire apologetic is contradicted by the Book of Mormon. 

oh...are you still here with your stuff?  lol.

I must say, I love it that you keep getting beat yet keep coming back....the dead horse population loves you

 

[Honorentheos]

12 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

oh...are you still here with your stuff?  lol.

I must say, I love it that you keep getting beat yet keep coming back....the dead horse population loves you

 

I recognize it seems like a good idea to offer up contentless back-slaps because there isn't much to lose, right? I mean, why not right?

But lean in, CountryBoy, I have a secret just for you. See, this is all going on the internet. And you might not realize this yet but you have signed your name in permanent ink to this position. And it's as wrong as wrong gets.

So, this whole dead horse thing? It's just adding up to more and more points against that wrong position that you approve of but have not contributed to or even attempted to state in a way that shows you know what the conversation is about. 

So, keep posting. Cuz this is forever, amigo. And I feel the spirit when I think about it.

But, there's always hope for you CB. You COULD try and point out where it is exactly that you think I'm wrong and Robert has proven it time after time. Fill your lamp, little lady, the bridegroom cometh!

Honorentheos has been thread banned.

[UtahTexan]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I recognize it seems like a good idea to offer up contentless back-slaps because there isn't much to lose, right? I mean, why not right?

But lean in, CountryBoy, I have a secret just for you. See, this is all going on the internet. And you might not realize this yet but you have signed your name in permanent ink to this position. And it's as wrong as wrong gets.

So, this whole dead horse thing? It's just adding up to more and more points against that wrong position that you approve of but have not contributed to or even attempted to state in a way that shows you know what the conversation is about. 

So, keep posting. Cuz this is forever, amigo. And I feel the spirit when I think about it.

But, there's always hope for you CB. You COULD try and point out where it is exactly that you think I'm wrong and Robert has proven it time after time. Fill your lamp, little lady, the bridegroom cometh!

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

Let's hear you take on what you think makes the Nephite system base 8, cowboy. Put it in writing with Robert. Confirm you have no idea what it means for something to be base 8. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

You make an assertion and you are putting the burden on me to prove it?  Interesting.

No, I'm responding to your assertion that what we know about pre-classic Mayan culture is based on speculation.  If you don't want to defend your assertion, I'll understand  

 

[cdowis]

14 minutes ago, Gervin said:

No, I'm responding to your assertion that what we know about pre-classic Mayan culture is based on speculation.  If you don't want to defend your assertion, I'll understand  

 

I already gave you the reference, in case you did not read my post.

You would agree that discussion is a waste of time.  Best of luck to you.

Edited September 8, 2016 by cdowis

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I see that, when bested, you resort to calling names and being demeaning.

I am glad my words are forever, as you say.  To support truth forever is an excellent thing....

I am sorry Robert has reduced you to insults and name-calling

CB, come on. Nobody has been "bested" in this conversation. Any outside observer (and there are several) can see that it has been a great back and forth with a lot of interesting info on a specific detail of the Book of Mormon. 
It has helped clarify some questions I've had on the Nephite monetary system. There's been good stuff from both Robert and Honorentheos.

It's true the conversation has run its course; the horse has been beaten. But your comments remind me of a fly hovering, waiting for more dead horse juice.