Jump to content

Most compelling evidence for/against the Book of Mormon?


Recommended Posts

I need to thank Robert and Nevo for so clearly debunking Honorentheos and gervin.  This has been interesting, though it truly seems dead horses have been beaten and beaten.

I appreciate your research.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I believe Kletter is as incredulous of a 16 dbn weight and you should be of a 16 dollar bill because it fails to work with the decimal to base 8 conversion and would be an anomaly if it were accepted that the unmarked weight was a 128 shekel weight. He doesn't say it's 128 shekels, but that it would equal 128 shekels using the common weight for a shekel but that this makes no sense given it would require an inconsistent dbn conversion.

Yeh, a 16 dollar bill would be an anomaly, if and only if we were dealing with the minting of paper money.  The same applies to the proverbial 3-dollar bill.  Since the Judean system was weight-based, however, an Egyptian merchant would have no trouble at all in understanding the relative value of a 128 shekel weight as 16 diban.  That is about half the weight of a late Bronze Age copper oxhide ingot at from 28-30 kg each (such as were found in the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks), which was about the weight of a talent (Egyptian krkr = Israelite kikkar).  Rates of exchange further complicate any mercantile activity, since 1 diban of gold might equal 2 dibans of silver (at a 1:2 rate of exchange), and that 1 diban of gold might be worth 30 diban of copper (at 1:30).

14 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Again, following the arguments in your own paper,. 160 qite is no more decimal than a dollar sixty cent piece is likely to appear anytime in an America currency. As the expert, he balks at the implications. It represents an example that is breaking the rules he is following if he accepts a dbn unit that is not divisible by 5. It's again worth repeating that it's unmarked, so the denomination is unknown and being speculated on.

Once again, we are not dealing with the U.S. minting of denominational money, and a barter economy is not restrained by decimal strictures.  For example, the relative value of grain in ancient Egypt would vary from year to year according to the quality of the annual inundation of the Nile.  When, for example, the rate of exchange of copper for wheat was 1 diban of copper for 1 h3r "sack" of grain, that would mean that 91 grams of copper would be weighed out in payment for 48 liters of wheat or barley.   Thus, one can calculate the relative buying power of the copper diban in a funerary context:  The metal for Tutʿankhamun's solid gold coffin cost 36,000 copper diban, not to mention the expert workmanship.  In stark contrast, the total cost of a burial of an ordinary farmer or soldier might run around 22 copper diban, with 20 diban of that going for an undecorated wooden coffin.  For upper classes in the New Kingdom, the total burial cost might run around 700 diban, and for the elite perhaps around 3,500 diban, with half or more in each case going for the linen wrapping.

In the time of Ramesses IX (Dyn. 20), some bribes of officials are recorded at 4½ and 4 gold qite, which would be 41 gm and 36.4 gm of gold, respectively (British Museum Papyrus 10054 Recto 1:11-12, and 10053 Verso 3:13-16).  Some 17th Dynasty tomb robbers came up with 160 diban of gold – enough to buy around 10 to 12 head of cattle.    The price for a pair of sandals at the Egyptian town of Deir el Medina ranged from 1 to 3 copper diban, a price which remained stable for about a century-and-a-half.  Sources on request.

14 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Also, it's clear when he says multiples of 4, 8, or 16 above this weight, he means multiples of maneh. This is clear because he specifically equates them to 25, 50 and 100 dbn.

No he doesn't.  He is speaking specifically of the 40-shekel inscribed weight (on page 106), which is equivalent to 5 diban, when he says that "this is the border-line, one step before the Maneh is reached . . . .  It is possible that the multiples of 4 or 8 continued into the heavier units," i.e., the mina and so on, and that is the position which I am taking.  Kletter chooses not to do so, instead maintaining the traditional view of 50 or 60 shekels being a mina.  You are already on the next page (107), and ignoring what I had pointed out to you.

14 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 This is consistent with something he says earlier where a 2.5 maneh weight is simply not useful for day-to-day use (it far exceeds the types of trades people would have been carrying on in normal, personal business) and would have been evidence for large, inter-regional trade taking place in Tel Malhata, so he speculates that there may have been even greater units in use under such conditions.

Which is why I have listed above the sorts of business transactions well-known in Egypt.  We have no such detailed records from Israel & Judah simply because of the lack of inscriptions (or of papyri and vellum) which could survive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cute, Honorentheos. So cute.  :pirate:

However, I only mentioned the use of 7 as  "a device to avoid irrational fractions in calculations" (Powell), not as sole justification of a 56-shekel mina (7 x 8 shekels).  None of the parallels drawn stand by themselves.  That is the nature of a complex system.

I think the bigger challenge for your 56-shekel maneh is the idea it's logical there would be a 7/10 of a dbn that serves as a logical place for aligning the two systems. Extrapolating from the decimal currency we use in the US, we know why our common denominational measures within such a system are designed to be efficient in providing units that are based on 1/4 of a dollar (25 cents) 1/10 of a dollar (10 cents), a half dollar (50 cents), 1/20 of a dollar (5 cents) and the penny at 1/100 of a dollar (1 cent).

Looking back at your table, there are Hebrew denominations indicated in parenthesis and equivalent to 40, 60, and 70 Egyptian qites.

None of us would consider it logical to see a 60 cent piece as belonging in a system as it would require 5 total units before it reestablishing itself back at a common base 10 denomination equaling 3 dollars. The $3 bill itself is so odd there's an expression about it, and this unlikely denomination would then take four to get to another reasonable base 10 denomination, or 15 dollars. And from here? it would take six $15 bills, if there was such a unit, to get a denomination that returns back to a whole of $100. The ratios to use this unit range from 1/5, 1/4, to 1/6 to reconcile it to a decimal system. Quite ungainly.

Doing this for the 70 cent piece, (based on your suggestion of 70 Egyptian qite/7 dbn equaling the 56 shekel measure required to correlate with a maneh) we would see denominations of either $3.50 or $7, then equal denominations going forward. It's difficult to imagine a more unlikely denominational coin showing up in American currency.

Doing the same for an 80 cent piece, we would see denominations of $4 at 1/5 of 400, which does divide into $20 as 1/5 of 20 and 1/25 of 100. As 0.8 equals 1/125 of 100 it becomes an odd unit but not entirely improbable. It also makes discoveries of 400 shekel weights intriguingly consistent with the conversion to 8 maneh or 50 dbn.

Looking back at Kletter's tentative conclusions of how to reconcile the unusual large unmarked weight discovered with the Egyptian/Judaean system, he concludes that the most likely denomination for it's mass is equal to 128 shekels, but that this does not reconcile with the Egyptian system because 1.6 dbn would be odd. However, supposing we accept that 2 * 0.8 is not entirely ungainly when seen as part of the way Egyptians and the Hebrews may have reconciled their currencies, it's possible that the ratio works for practical reasons of conversion extended out further into larger hypothetical units. It is also pleasingly symmetrical as 8*8 + 8*8, or eight 8-shekel units, doubled. Speculative but interesting if one does not attempt to try to use it to define a maneh. At a minimum, it illustrates how your system breaks down in attempting to demonstrate a parallel between a hypothetical Nephite system and an equally hypothetical 56-shekel maneh. We don't know that the weight is Judaean or has any relationship to a maneh, but the potential it has for being a smaller large denomination weight used for regional trade is interesting. It just doesn't help you out at all as it would sit outside of your table and should be at the 64 shekel/80 qite column if there was one.

It seems unlikely that the weight is actually related to a maneh, and at 128 shekels it doesn't help your argument out that a maneh should equal 56 shekels in contradiction to all the evidence that a shekel is fairly defined.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, a 16 dollar bill would be an anomaly, if and only if we were dealing with the minting of paper money.  The same applies to the proverbial 3-dollar bill.  Since the Judean system was weight-based, however, an Egyptian merchant would have no trouble at all in understanding the relative value of a 128 shekel weight as 16 diban.  That is about half the weight of a late Bronze Age copper oxhide ingot at from 28-30 kg each (such as were found in the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks)

I'm cutting off the quote right here. You're arguing that standardization can be detached from it's context because you can apply a future standard in the gram and kilogram to hold consistency.

Standardization of units and their relationships is at the heart of your argument. It's jumping ship to another argument entirely to say that a currency model and a weight model fail to illustrate a point because of their modality. It's the relationship in ratio that is meaningful and must be consistent.

That said, as you'll note above, I'm somewhat inclined to think there could be a use for a 1.6 dbn weight that remains consistent with the need to have a conversion weight at such high values and going up from there. I don't think it's supportive of your argument, though. But we'll see what smoke you try to lay down.

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He is speaking specifically of the 40-shekel inscribed weight (on page 106), which is equivalent to 5 diban, when he says that "this is the border-line, one step before the Maneh is reached . . . .  It is possible that the multiples of 4 or 8 continued into the heavier units,"

When Kletter speculates that there might be weights that extend past the 40 shekel unit at multiples of 4 or 8, he quickly points to an example of a 400 shekel, 8 maneh weight that was discovered but with only the 400 shekel marking. Where you see in this the possibility of a 56 shekel unit, and that it equals a maneh, is bizarre. 

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I think the bigger challenge for your 56-shekel maneh is the idea it's logical there would be a 7/10 of a dbn that serves as a logical place for aligning the two systems. Extrapolating from the decimal currency we use in the US, we know why our common denominational measures within such a system are designed to be efficient in providing units that are based on 1/4 of a dollar (25 cents) 1/10 of a dollar (10 cents), a half dollar (50 cents), 1/20 of a dollar (5 cents) and the penny at 1/100 of a dollar (1 cent).

Looking back at your table, there are Hebrew denominations indicated in parenthesis and equivalent to 40, 60, and 70 Egyptian qites.

None of us would consider it logical to see a 60 cent piece as belonging in a system as it would require 5 total units before it reestablishing itself back at a common base 10 denomination equaling 3 dollars. The $3 bill itself is so odd there's an expression about it, and this unlikely denomination would then take four to get to another reasonable base 10 denomination, or 15 dollars. And from here? it would take six $15 bills, if there was such a unit, to get a denomination that returns back to a whole of $100. The ratios to use this unit range from 1/5, 1/4, to 1/6 to reconcile it to a decimal system. Quite ungainly.

There are lots of "ungainly" systems which have been used, but which were really not so ungainly.  I mentioned in my FairMormon lecture, for example, the old "bit" system used in the USA, with one bit worth 12.5 cents.  You may be too young to recall, Honorentheos, but back in the 1940s we children used to sing "Shave and a haircut, two bits.  Who is the barber? Tom Mix."  A hold over from the old days in Colonial and early USA when people depended upon the Spanish Real as equivalent to a dollar, and then cut it into 8-bits.  Coin of the realm, and legal tender.  I see no problem with Dever in his base-8 notation for Jewish shekels, nor with advancing it beyond the 40-shekel unit to a 56-shekel mina.  But you are certainly entitled to your preferences.

47 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Doing this for the 70 cent piece, (based on your suggestion of 70 Egyptian qite/7 dbn equaling the 56 shekel measure required to correlate with a maneh) we would see denominations of either $3.50 or $7, then equal denominations going forward. It's difficult to imagine a more unlikely denominational coin showing up in American currency.

Doing the same for an 80 cent piece, we would see denominations of $4 at 1/5 of 400, which does divide into $20 as 1/5 of 20 and 1/25 of 100. As 0.8 equals 1/125 of 100 it becomes an odd unit but not entirely improbable. It also makes discoveries of 400 shekel weights intriguingly consistent with the conversion to 8 maneh or 50 dbn.

Looking back at Kletter's tentative conclusions of how to reconcile the unusual large unmarked weight discovered with the Egyptian/Judaean system, he concludes that the most likely denomination for it's mass is equal to 128 shekels, but that this does not reconcile with the Egyptian system because 1.6 dbn would be odd. However, supposing we accept that 2 * 0.8 is not entirely ungainly when seen as part of the way Egyptians and the Hebrews may have reconciled their currencies, it's possible that the ratio works for practical reasons of conversion extended out further into larger hypothetical units. It is also pleasingly symmetrical as 8*8 + 8*8, or eight 8-shekel units, doubled. Speculative but interesting if one does not attempt to try to use it to define a maneh. At a minimum, it illustrates how your system breaks down in attempting to demonstrate a parallel between a hypothetical Nephite system and an equally hypothetical 56-shekel maneh. We don't know that the weight is Judaean or has any relationship to a maneh, but the potential it has for being a smaller large denomination weight used for regional trade is interesting. It just doesn't help you out at all as it would sit outside of your table and should be at the 64 shekel/80 qite column if there was one.

It seems unlikely that the weight is actually related to a maneh, and at 128 shekels it doesn't help your argument out that a maneh should equal 56 shekels in contradiction to all the evidence that a shekel is fairly defined.

We may not have adequate evidence currently to settle the question in the absolute sense, but much of what you say here makes no sense, even though you make a couple of intriguing suggestions.  At the very least, the Nephite system makes excellent sense in light of the Israelite base-8 shekel.

Link to post
On 9/3/2016 at 2:51 PM, Honorentheos said:

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

It's a sour product you're selling, Robert. The believing member would be well advised to take the Book of Mormon at face value and walk away from what you would have them buy into. Just the way it is, amigo.

I'd like to respond to this approach of yours once more, Honorentheos, while suggesting that the BofM is not always mathematically suited to be taken "at face value" -- like the gera weights, for example.  Thus, although we can do the math for BofM chronology, and for the weights in Alma 11, that literal usage may not be viable for the basic narrative of the text.  Not for the BofM, nor for the Bible (or any other literary work).  Taking any human narrative at face value may be fraught with their as well as our own interpretive limitations -- even if we get it entirely right, which seems unlikely (and how would we prove it, in any case?).

I am thinking of the thousands of suggested anachronisms in the biblical and BofM texts.  It isn't only that you read Alma 11:4 naively and literally, but that you treat it the way a modern evangelical christian would read a biblical verse -- as infallible and inerrant -- which surely you do not intend.  The proof is in the pudding, Honorentheos.  Or, at least in the eating thereof.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We may not have adequate evidence currently to settle the question in the absolute sense, but much of what you say here makes no sense, even though you make a couple of intriguing suggestions.  At the very least, the Nephite system makes excellent sense in light of the Israelite base-8 shekel.

It makes no sense to point out how units with different base division would need to be reconciled to their bases at common points to be useful? Huh.

As to the Nephite system being base-8. Let's examine what that really would mean.

The basic silver unit, a day's pay for a judge and a basic measure of barley or "every kind of grain" is the senum.

1/8  Leah    
 1/4  Shiblum    
 1/2 Shiblon    
1 Senum    
2 Amnor    
4 Ezrom    
7 Onti    

Above it there are three units, below it three unit. For it to be base-8 rather than binary, there should be some evidence that the system of units relies on a base-8 number system. A true base-8 system would have units at the 8, 64, 512, etc., places. It's one of the things I'm now interested in with the 128 shekel weight that makes some sense in the Egyptian/Judaean conversion system as would be (2) of the 64 place units under a base-8 system. But it also illustrates why your strange idea about a 56-shekel maneh is just so much hand waving. It doesn't make sense.

So, back to the Nephite system. The Leah through Senum units are consistent with a binary system of halving or doubling the unit before or after. This also holds true up to the Ezrom. But at the Onti, we don't end up with a unit that is holding the "8" position in an base-8 monetary system. Rather, it's described by the omniscient narrator as being equal to the sum of the units before it. "Equal to them all". We assume this means the Senum through the Ezrom and arrive at a unit equal to 7 Senum. But supposing it was meant to include ALL the units mentioned in the text for silver, it would be 7-7/8 Senum. Either way, it's not part of a base-8 system of numbers and units.

So what about the gold units?

       
1 Senine    
2 Seon    
4 Shum    
7 Limnah

The text tells us that an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons, a silver unit equal to 1/2 of a senum. So while not part of the gold system of measures its value falls between a senine and a seon if a senine equals a senum.

So again, we're back to looking at the Limnah as being "the value of them all". Intuitively, we leave out the antion because it wasn't in the original list and have a limnah equal to 7 senine. Including the antion because, well, you seem to be inconsistent on that but let's say it's part of the gold system, we end up with  8-1/2 senine to the limnah.

Either way, we lack a unit of measure that occupies the 8-place that would be necessary for the Nephite system to be base-8.

So. At any point you are welcome to go back to believing in the Book of Mormon text and accept the Judaean system has nothing to tell us about the Nephite system. Because it doesn't.

ETA: To quickly address the attempt to say the Leah is the basic unit, if the leah holds the "ones" place and a senum holds the "eight" or 10 place in your base-8 theory, the next basic unit should equal 8 senum and 64 leah. The Onti equals 7 Senum (not even possible to imagine how you'll attempt to say this is still base-8 but I'm curious to see you try) and 56 leah which is somewhat like saying the US currency system should have pennies, dimes, and a dollar that equals three 25 cent pieces while still claiming it's decimal. It's just nonsense as arguments go.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post

I also have to say I'm amused by the people giving you rep points for being so obviously wrong.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd like to respond to this approach of yours once more, Honorentheos, while suggesting that the BofM is not always mathematically suited to be taken "at face value" -- like the gera weights, for example.  Thus, although we can do the math for BofM chronology, and for the weights in Alma 11, that literal usage may not be viable for the basic narrative of the text.  Not for the BofM, nor for the Bible (or any other literary work).  Taking any human narrative at face value may be fraught with their as well as our own interpretive limitations -- even if we get it entirely right, which seems unlikely (and how would we prove it, in any case?).

I am thinking of the thousands of suggested anachronisms in the biblical and BofM texts.  It isn't only that you read Alma 11:4 naively and literally, but that you treat it the way a modern evangelical christian would read a biblical verse -- as infallible and inerrant -- which surely you do not intend.  The proof is in the pudding, Honorentheos.  Or, at least in the eating thereof.

At some point, its going to become clear to you that the system described in the Book of Mormon does not resemble the system of Egyptian/Judaean trade you rely on. When that happens, you'll be glad the text was so clear that one shouldn't expect this.

Because your entire premise is CRAZY wrong. You may not see it, and those giving you rep points may not see it, but it's so far off from having demonstrated parallels between the Nephite and near eastern systems of measure while reinforcing the binary nature of the Nephite system it's hard to believer you're still debating it.

Link to post
5 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I need to thank Robert and Nevo for so clearly debunking Honorentheos and gervin.  This has been interesting, though it truly seems dead horses have been beaten and beaten.

I appreciate your research.

You have no idea how funny this is, I am guessing. But it's hilarious.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

You have no idea how funny this is, I am guessing. But it's hilarious.

I am relieved that you see humor in your futile attempts.

Would you like more clubs with which to beat the dead horse now?

Link to post
35 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I am relieved that you see humor in your futile attempts.

Would you like more clubs with which to beat the dead horse now?

Futile attempts to change Robert F. Smith's assessment of the quality of his apologetic? Perhaps. Futile attempts to watch people rep point a post he put up that has zero factual information in it unless he quotes a near eastern archaeologist who is not saying anything about anything related to New World measurements systems or the Book of Mormon, while contradicting facts regarding what the Book of Mormon says about itself, the lack of correspondence between the Nephite system and the near eastern system? Ah, but they're so...delicious.

It's interesting to see how much it really comes down to team loyalties rather than actual agreement with a particular argument. Our friend Robert seems to sincerely believe he's pointing out ways that the Book of Mormon has aligned with 20th century discoveries in the near east. He does this by claiming Alma 11 describes a base-8 system (it doesn't), it aligns exceeding well with the Israelite system (it doesn't) and the Egyptian system (it's even worse for this one) while ignoring what the Book of Mormon has to actually say (because that's how sophisticated apologetics work when dealing with civilizations unattested in the archaeological or anthropological record I guess) and dismissing obvious issues with the Book of Mormon's claims that are directly derived from 19th century racist beliefs about the Native Americans.

But you know all that. It's just team baseball, I know.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

It makes no sense to point out how units with different base division would need to be reconciled to their bases at common points to be useful? Huh.

As to the Nephite system being base-8. Let's examine what that really would mean.

The basic silver unit, a day's pay for a judge and a basic measure of barley or "every kind of grain" is the senum.

1/8  Leah    
 1/4  Shiblum [shilum]  
 1/2 Shiblon    
1 Senum    
2 Amnor    
4 Ezrom    
7 Onti    

Above it there are three units, below it three unit. For it to be base-8 rather than binary, there should be some evidence that the system of units relies on a base-8 number system. A true base-8 system would have units at the 8, 64, 512, etc., places. It's one of the things I'm now interested in with the 128 shekel weight that makes some sense in the Egyptian/Judaean conversion system as would be (2) of the 64 place units under a base-8 system. But it also illustrates why your strange idea about a 56-shekel maneh is just so much hand waving. It doesn't make sense.

So, back to the Nephite system. The Leah through Senum units are consistent with a binary system of halving or doubling the unit before or after. This also holds true up to the Ezrom. But at the Onti, we don't end up with a unit that is holding the "8" position in an base-8 monetary system. Rather, it's described by the omniscient narrator as being equal to the sum of the units before it. "Equal to them all". We assume this means the Senum through the Ezrom and arrive at a unit equal to 7 Senum. But supposing it was meant to include ALL the units mentioned in the text for silver, it would be 7-7/8 Senum. Either way, it's not part of a base-8 system of numbers and units.

So what about the gold units?

       
1 Senine    
2 Seon    
4 Shum    
7 Limnah

The text tells us that an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons, a silver unit equal to 1/2 of a senum. So while not part of the gold system of measures its value falls between a senine and a seon if a senine equals a senum.

So again, we're back to looking at the Limnah as being "the value of them all". Intuitively, we leave out the antion because it wasn't in the original list and have a limnah equal to 7 senine. Including the antion because, well, you seem to be inconsistent on that but let's say it's part of the gold system, we end up with  8-1/2 senine to the limnah.

Long before anyone thought to compare the Israelite-Egyptian system laid out by Dever,  the consensus among LDS scholars was always that the total was 7, and to Matthew Bowman it looked like base-8.  Why?  Well, if we do our 8-times tables and lay out the system with the leah in 1 shekel position, we have 

diban

qite

sheqel

mina

leah

7

70

56

1

56           7 x 8 = 56

6

60

48

 

               6 x 8 = 48

5

50

40

 

               5 x 8 = 40

4

40

32

 

32           4 x 8 = 32 

3

30

24

 

24            3 x 8 = 24

2

20

16

 

                2 x 8 = 16

1

10

8  base

1/7

8              1 x 8 = 8

½

5

4

 

4

2

2

 

2

1/10

1

1

 

1

Which fills in some blanks, but shows what the Nephite system is likely based on at the outset, even if it cannot be proven.  I can understand your not accepting this, but I don't understand why you are so intent in casting aspersions upon it.  Is it simply a reflex with you?  Sheer meanness?

Quote

Either way, we lack a unit of measure that occupies the 8-place that would be necessary for the Nephite system to be base-8.

So. At any point you are welcome to go back to believing in the Book of Mormon text and accept the Judaean system has nothing to tell us about the Nephite system. Because it doesn't.

ETA: To quickly address the attempt to say the Leah is the basic unit, if the leah holds the "ones" place and a senum holds the "eight" or 10 place in your base-8 theory, the next basic unit should equal 8 senum and 64 leah. The Onti equals 7 Senum (not even possible to imagine how you'll attempt to say this is still base-8 but I'm curious to see you try) and 56 leah which is somewhat like saying the US currency system should have pennies, dimes, and a dollar that equals three 25 cent pieces while still claiming it's decimal. It's just nonsense as arguments go.

Everything is nonsense to mitnagdim.  That is in their nature.  Nothing can make any sense, since to admit that it makes any sort of sense is considered a sign of weakness in their polemic.  All or nothing.  Is that the honorable way, Honorentheos?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to post

It's because base-8 number systems mean something. It's because there is no placeholder in the Nephite system at the eight position, or "10" when the base changes from the ones to the eights, or from eights to sixty-fours. It's because the table you pinned above clearly shows this. It's because just reviewing actual evidence from the archaeological record (in the case of the Kletter 1450 g weight at a hypothetical 128 shekels) actually aligns with a true base-8 system even though he didn't see this in his reporting on his findings.

Again, to be base-8, the Nephite Onti would need to total 64 Leah.

It's math.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
24 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Futile attempts to change Robert F. Smith's assessment of the quality of his apologetic? Perhaps. Futile attempts to watch people rep point a post he put up that has zero factual information in it unless he quotes a near eastern archaeologist who is not saying anything about anything related to New World measurements systems or the Book of Mormon, while contradicting facts regarding what the Book of Mormon says about itself, the lack of correspondence between the Nephite system and the near eastern system? Ah, but they're so...delicious.

It's interesting to see how much it really comes down to team loyalties rather than actual agreement with a particular argument. Our friend Robert seems to sincerely believe he's pointing out ways that the Book of Mormon has aligned with 20th century discoveries in the near east. He does this by claiming Alma 11 describes a base-8 system (it doesn't), it aligns exceeding well with the Israelite system (it doesn't) and the Egyptian system (it's even worse for this one) while ignoring what the Book of Mormon has to actually say (because that's how sophisticated apologetics work when dealing with civilizations unattested in the archaeological or anthropological record I guess) and dismissing obvious issues with the Book of Mormon's claims that are directly derived from 19th century racist beliefs about the Native Americans.

But you know all that. It's just team baseball, I know.

It has nothing to do with loyalty.  it has everything to do with you getting reamed by Robert.  Yet, you just keep posting......it is funny to watch you get beat and keep trying.  You are making me laugh

Link to post
2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

It has nothing to do with loyalty.  it has everything to do with you getting reamed by Robert.  Yet, you just keep posting......it is funny to watch you get beat and keep trying.  You are making me laugh

So you believe that a system that lacks a place holder in either the eights or sixty-four position depending on which unit you define as prime is a base-8 system? Because...?

You disbelieve that the Israelite system itself clearly includes units that are based on other base systems such as the 20 gerah maneh? Despite this being attested to in multiple places including the Bible?

You disbelieve that the Book of Mormon includes a clear statement that what we have in Alma 11 should not be expected to align with that of the Jews as it says?

You disagree that it's far easier to see the Nephite system as simply halving or doubling prior units in a binary way? Because of the non-base-8 system claimed above? What's been your favorite bit of condensing evidence here, Country Boy? Be specific. I'm curious.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

So you believe that a system that lacks a place holder in either the eights or sixty-four position depending on which unit you define as prime is a base-8 system? Because...?

oh no...I am not gonna get into this with you....I have seen so much of this topic I am ready to vomit.....I am satisfied with the fact you have been handily beaten.  You know it, too......if you were right, you would have stopped a long time ago.  

Link to post
11 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

oh no...I am not gonna get into this with you....I have seen so much of this topic I am ready to vomit.....I am satisfied with the fact you have been handily beaten.  You know it, too......if you were right, you would have stopped a long time ago.  

Got it. Scared of math.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Got it. Scared of math.

Seriously?  Are you so far gone that a simple decline to a topic that has been going on forever means math scares me?  Is this the kind of nonsensical attack you have been reduced to?

smh.  Fine.....if that makes you feel like you have finally won, I will let you have it......

now....feel better?

Link to post
22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Seriously?  Are you so far gone that a simple decline to a topic that has been going on forever means math scares me?  Is this the kind of nonsensical attack you have been reduced to?

smh.  Fine.....if that makes you feel like you have finally won, I will let you have it......

now....feel better?

But I was looking forward to you pointing out a specific item you really thought highlighted how Robert F. Smith's theory and defense of it absolutely slayed me. Please?

Link to post
Just now, Honorentheos said:

But I was looking forward to you pointing out a specific item you really thought highlighted how Robert F. Smith's theory and defense of it absolutely slayed me. Please?

I have no interest.  I am satisfied with the outcome and the fact he bested you.  Then, your weak attempt at an attack makes me have even less desire.

Don't you have anything better to do than be on an LDS board telling us how wrong we are?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Not here to tell everyone they're wrong. Just interested that it takes almost zero evidence to create confirming support while obvious mathematical conflict isn't enough to cause some reconsideration of an argument that's even contradicted by the Book of Mormon itself. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I have no interest.  I am satisfied with the outcome and the fact he bested you.  Then, your weak attempt at an attack makes me have even less desire.

Don't you have anything better to do than be on an LDS board telling us how wrong we are?

As Honorentheos has pointed out many many times, the BOM itself says the Nephites didn't use the same system as the Jews in Jerusalem. It says clearly that we shouldn't expect to see a relationship.

For they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

So who is telling you that you are wrong? Those who argue that the systems are not related, or those arguing that they are the same? What does the Book of Mormon say on the issue and why are we ignoring that?
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Not here to tell everyone they're wrong. Just interested that it takes almost zero evidence to create confirming support while obvious mathematical conflict isn't enough to cause some reconsideration of an argument that's even contradicted by the Book of Mormon itself. 

So your life is such that you feel the need to be on an LDS board telling us we have no basis?

I am really sorry

Link to post
9 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

So your life is such that you feel the need to be on an LDS board telling us we have no basis?

I am really sorry

According to the Book of Mormon you have no basis in claiming the Nephites reckoned after the manner of the Jews.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll. 
      What do you think? 
      --Erik
    • By HappyJackWagon
      As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.
      We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.
      But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?
      It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.
      Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.
      The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.
    • By Calm
      Posting this even before I get a chance  to read it (dinner bell just rang and I missed it conference time) .  That is how much I like you guys:
       
      http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/history-and-historicity-in-the-book-of-mormon
    • By mfbukowski
      I don't really have the time right now to push this thread along, but in terms of full disclosure this is about historicity making value statements true, or whether or not historical individuals endorsing them make them more true or credible.
       
      This is the proposition:
       
      "People should give of themselves selflessly"
       
      I would maintain that we "know this is true" just based on being human and having lived a few years on this planet.  It works for humanity, and so we see it as a "good thing to do".
       
      Here David Letterman "bears his testimony" of the principle, as recorded in Reader's Digest, March, 2014, page 34
       
      I think this is a true principle, but not because David Letterman wrote it.
       
      I think that Santa Claus would also endorse it.
       
      But someone might argue that it could not be a true principle because there is no evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole or that Santa even exists.
       
      But even mythic figures can teach true principles.
       
      (By that I am not meaning to imply that God or Christ are "myths" in the sense that word is often taken hereabouts- ie: "fictitious" )
       
      I find this similar to those who think that the scriptures require historical evidence to be "true".  I do not hold that position.  I believe that the scriptures ARE "historical", contain true history, but that fact must be taken on faith where no evidence exists, which is actually most cases.  So historicity of scripture is itself a faith-based position.  That is why those who do not have the faith, debate the position.
       
      Further, Mother Theresa, a historiclal figure, who lived in India, would definitely also endorse the statement on giving as being "true".
       
      Are you more likely to endorse the principle because David Letterman is a historical person?   Or would you endorse it because you know it is true based on your own experience?
       
      How is historicity relevant to the truth of this statement?  It appears that some believe such moral statements are "true" strictly because they are in the scriptures and the scriptures can be proven "true" by their historicity.
       
      Again, I do not intend to contribute much because I have made my opinions clear here already.
       
      I fail to see how historicity is at all relevant to the truth of such statements as this moral belief, and therefore I question that historicity is relevant to the moral beliefs preached in scripture, though many seem to think that historicity absolutely makes or breaks the truth of such propositions.   I don't see it at all.
       
      Educate me.
    • By mfbukowski
      In another thread about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, now locked for inexplicable reasons, I made the following comment
      http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64358-is-belief-in-the-book-mormon-as-history-important/?p=1209432815
       
      bcuzbcuz returned this VERY important point, about which I think everyone has questions.  This raises important issues key to most people here, and I propose we deal with it directly in this thread
       
       
      I thought for a minute and had very little time, and my first notion was to answer quickly and somewhat snarkily - as is my usual "natural man" tendency when I post with little time, something like this:
       
      Yeah, well we all have to deal with the fact that ALL scriptural interpretation effectively IS the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture", like it or not.  It is impossible to separate scripture from its interpretation when we think about theological issues, because we grow up with philosophical predispositions inherited from our times.
       
      Those who grew up in the church inherited 19th century interpretations, and now we have at least 20th century interpretations- no telling what will happen when we finally start making 21st century interpretations of the Book of Mormon.
       
      Of course I never made that reply because the thread was locked.  Hence this discussion.
       
      New data brings with it new interpretations of data, and that is the natural process of human thought.  Looking out at the horizon, one could well believe the earth is flat, and so many thought for thousands of years.
       
      But the data made that belief difficult.  Ships going over the horizon disappeared from the bottom up, the last thing visible being the top of their mast.  The view from the ship was similar- the first thing to disappear looking back into port was the shoreline, then the hills, then the highest mountains, but eventually they also disappeared into the distance.
       
      The only explanation possible for this phenomenon was that the earth was "in fact" round, and so that "modern" conception was born.
       
      There is no reason to think that religious thinking is any different.  YET  MORMONS GET CRITICISM for following the same rules of thought that have been used by mankind forever.
       
      Paradigms shift.  There is a famous philosopher of Science, Thomas Kuhn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn, who has gotten credit largely for "discovering" paradigm shifts, but that idea had been around for perhaps a hundred years before he came along.
       
      If you aren't familiar with the concept, that wikipedia article is a good place to start.
       
      But because we have been raised with the paradigm that "TRUTH never changes" - a pagan Greek idea- we are stuck with the Neoplatonic sectarian Christian idea that this is the case.
       
      Now we are reaping the damage from accepting the philosophy and theology of the apostasy, and grafting the apostasy "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" into the Restoration "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" with results that leave us with questions like the one bcuzbcuz raises.   This is not a trivial issue, it goes to the core of Mormon doctrine and its interpretation.
       
      So how do we get out of this quandary?   Come on class, pretend we are seminary.  What is the usual right answer to all questions in seminary?
       
      "Pray, follow the spirit, and keep the commandments"
       
      Philosophies come and go, interpretations come and go, science even comes and goes, new paradigms come and go, but God will always communicate with his children.  It is what He does.  It's his job as our Father.  He has to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives.
       
      You can't do that without communication. 
×
×
  • Create New...