I have come to realize

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Great points.

Except...

...for the two hundred years following Jesus' visit in which everybody in the land was a believing, baptizing, TBM Christian.  There were no "others."

 

 

They were also living in a totally peaceful, communal society for those two centuries.

For at least 200 years, the Christians weren't "part of a culture".  They were the culture.  And according to The Book of Mormon, they did believe and act like everyone else.

So to the degree that we are able to see what religion and economic system an ancient people practiced, we could at least rule out a group from being in Book of Mormon lands if it is discerned that there were any non-Christians, or poor, or wars in their area during the first two centuries after Jesus' death.

 

 

Some of the things you're looking for here are pretty subjective.

How do you define poor? Or rich for that matter?  It usually seems to be based on you comparing yourself to those around you. In an egalitarian society there would be no rich or poor, but that's not to say that your or I wouldn't define them as poor compared to our standard of living.

The text also does not say that there were no wars.  During certain years in 4 Nephi it says there were no contentions and others that they were at peace.  But it does not explicitly say that there were no wars.

How do you tell a Christian from a non-Christian in a culture from 2000 years ago?  We cannot expect Book of Mormon Christian to have developed the same set of symbols that Palestinian or European Christians did.  How do you tell one from the other?  

[sam]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

The text also does not say that there were no wars.  During certain years in 4 Nephi it says there were no contentions and others that they were at peace.  But it does not explicitly say that there were no wars.

 

4Nephi

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

Wow that is a huge stretch to call people who were the happiest people created by god were killing each other in acts of war.

[sam]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Some of the things you're looking for here are pretty subjective.

How do you define poor? Or rich for that matter?  It usually seems to be based on you comparing yourself to those around you. In an egalitarian society there would be no rich or poor, but that's not to say that your or I wouldn't define them as poor compared to our standard of living.

The text also does not say that there were no wars.  During certain years in 4 Nephi it says there were no contentions and others that they were at peace.  But it does not explicitly say that there were no wars.

How do you tell a Christian from a non-Christian in a culture from 2000 years ago?  We cannot expect Book of Mormon Christian to have developed the same set of symbols that Palestinian or European Christians did.  How do you tell one from the other?  

The should share the beliefs culture and language.

[sam]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Some of the things you're looking for here are pretty subjective.

How do you define poor? Or rich for that matter?  It usually seems to be based on you comparing yourself to those around you. In an egalitarian society there would be no rich or poor, but that's not to say that your or I wouldn't define them as poor compared to our standard of living.

The text also does not say that there were no wars.  During certain years in 4 Nephi it says there were no contentions and others that they were at peace.  But it does not explicitly say that there were no wars.

How do you tell a Christian from a non-Christian in a culture from 2000 years ago?  We cannot expect Book of Mormon Christian to have developed the same set of symbols that Palestinian or European Christians did.  How do you tell one from the other?  

oops I meant they should share the same beliefs culture and language as Hebrews or the old world.

[ksfisher]

Just now, sam said:

4Nephi

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

Wow that is a huge stretch to call people who were the happiest people created by god were killing each other in acts of war.

I've got a friend I work with who says the happiest time in his life was when he and his family were living in a refugee camp.  Happiness is subjective.

My point in what I was writing is that the text does not come right out and say there was never a war during the 200 years that Cinepro referred to.  The people of whom Mormon was writing about were happy, they were peaceful.  That does not mean that there were not conflicts with other people.  Unless you are imagining a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography, there were people who were not Nephites living who may have come into conflict with the Nephites during that time.  The text does not preclude that.  It does say that no matter what else weas going on around them they were able to maintain peace within their land. 

[sam]

is there anyway to delete a duplicated post?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, sam said:

 But all evidence is showing that Father Clercq used characters that they already have. 

CFR (and not just a link to a page or even multiple such links).

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, sam said:

is there anyway to delete a duplicated post?

No. You can edit it to be almost nothing, or edit it to respond to another post....

only mods can delete it.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, sam said:

is there anyway to delete a duplicated post?

Nope, only mods can delete posts as opposed to content of posts.

Add-on:  Urggg...if my ipad hadn't crashed, I would have been first, RevTest.  You won't beat me next time.  

Edited September 7, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, sam said:

oops I meant they should share the same beliefs culture and language as Hebrews or the old world.

Why?  How much culture do we share from even our ancestors in the very lands we live in from 600 years ago?  While things were slower to change overall due to technology, somethings probably changed even faster if there was not widespread use of records or skills to keep the knowledge fresh in the culture.

[sam]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I've got a friend I work with who says the happiest time in his life was when he and his family were living in a refugee camp.  Happiness is subjective.

My point in what I was writing is that the text does not come right out and say there was never a war during the 200 years that Cinepro referred to.  The people of whom Mormon was writing about were happy, they were peaceful.  That does not mean that there were not conflicts with other people.  Unless you are imagining a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography, there were people who were not Nephites living who may have come into conflict with the Nephites during that time.  The text does not preclude that.  It does say that no matter what else weas going on around them they were able to maintain peace within their land. 

 

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

Verse 15 would preclude any type of social unrest or a attack by another civilization.

 

[Brant Gardner]

1 minute ago, sam said:

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

Verse 15 would preclude any type of social unrest or a attack by another civilization.

Actually, the most common use of contention in the Book of Mormon signifies internal dissent. Wars describe external conflict. Interestingly, from the beginning Nephi said they were to record wars and contentions. In Mormon's edited text we more clearly find the distinction.

[sam]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR (and not just a link to a page or even multiple such links).

My contention is that Clercq used characters that the Mik Mac were familiar with.

https://archive.org/stream/newrelationofgas05lecl/newrelationofgas05lecl_djvu.txt

He tells us  that he first conceived the idea of them in the second year of his mission,
that is in 1677, and that they were suggested to him when
he noticed that certain Indian children made marks with
charcoal upon birch bark, and counted these off as they
repeated each word of the prayers.

[Brant Gardner]

48 minutes ago, sam said:

Does the Zoque culture have Hebrew beliefs culture and language?

To the same extent as do North American cultures (as verified by archaeology).

Quote

North American tribes do have have Hebrew beliefs culture language and practices.

You keep saying that. There is no acceptable evidence in linguistics to support you suggestion of language (Brian Stubbs information is for a different region).

All of your evidence comes from questionable sources that have never been documented by accepted scholarly methods. So--the Zoque have about the same qualifications. Spanish priests saw a lot of Christianity and Judaism in the Aztecs and Maya. We know they were mistaken, but they are the very same kind of writings that you are using to support your hypothesis.

Quote

Historians and adventures from different countries and centuries have commented and noted these similarities. If the Zoque culture is the Nephites then they should have something to show for it.

And they do, with the same quality of evidence--which is to say--not very good at all. North American adventurers were not better or worse than their earlier Spanish counterparts. In fact, what they wrote, what they found, and the ways they described natives in Christian terms are extremely similar (and equally as wrong).

I now return to my request that you provide one modern anthropologist or archaeologist who supports any of your assertions.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope, only mods can delete posts as opposed to content of posts.

Add-on:  Urggg...if my ipad hadn't crashed, I would have been first, RevTest.  You won't beat me next time.  

I had a CFR first too  he he

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

CFR please

also specific to Clercq:

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Please point me to this "evidence." I would be quite grateful. Any tree bark, petroglyphs etc with these symbols? What did Clercq say about it if anything?

I see he is trying to respond finally. Thank you Sam.

[sam]

9 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Actually, the most common use of contention in the Book of Mormon signifies internal dissent. Wars describe external conflict. Interestingly, from the beginning Nephi said they were to record wars and contentions. In Mormon's edited text we more clearly find the distinction.

The Nephites and the Lamanites were at peace with one another the Book of Mormon states that anybody against the Nephites were considered Lamanites. Since it does not state any wars with anybody at all  I would take it at its word.

[sam]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I had a CFR first too  he he

also specific to Clercq:

I see he is trying to respond finally. Thank you Sam.

This is from clercqs own writing page 131 New Relations of Gaspesia

"Our Lord inspired me with the idea of them the second
day of my mission, when, being much embarrassed as to
the method by which i should teach the Indians to pray to
god, I noticed that some children were making marks with
charcoal upon birch-bark, and were counting these with the
finder very accurately at each word of prayers which they
pronounced."

He says he formed the characters but in my opinion it was from what he saw the mic mak children writing on birch bark.

[Brant Gardner]

17 minutes ago, sam said:

  I would take it at its word.

Yes, you did take it at its word. It is just that the contextual use of that word in the Book of Mormon has a different meaning that the one you read into it.

[Brant Gardner]

7 minutes ago, sam said:

He says he formed the characters but in my opinion it was from what he saw the mic mak children writing on birch bark.

In other words, you don't believe the man who provided the evidence you are using?

[sam]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

To the same extent as do North American cultures (as verified by archaeology).

You keep saying that. There is no acceptable evidence in linguistics to support you suggestion of language (Brian Stubbs information is for a different region).

All of your evidence comes from questionable sources that have never been documented by accepted scholarly methods. So--the Zoque have about the same qualifications. Spanish priests saw a lot of Christianity and Judaism in the Aztecs and Maya. We know they were mistaken, but they are the very same kind of writings that you are using to support your hypothesis.

And they do, with the same quality of evidence--which is to say--not very good at all. North American adventurers were not better or worse than their earlier Spanish counterparts. In fact, what they wrote, what they found, and the ways they described natives in Christian terms are extremely similar (and equally as wrong).

I now return to my request that you provide one modern anthropologist or archaeologist who supports any of your assertions.

Jewish hamsa symbol used by Pre history native Americans.

Belief in flying serpents as stated by nephi. These depictions found on pottery

Old world Assyrian ties when the tribe of Manasseh was deported to the Assyrian empire

[sam]

9 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

In other words, you don't believe the man who provided the evidence you are using?

 I believe he say Micmac children writing Egyptian Hieroglyphs unless you can prove that Clercq knew and could read Egyptian Heiroglyphs which at that time was probably impossible. 

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, sam said:

My contention is that Clercq used characters that the Mik Mac were familiar with.

https://archive.org/stream/newrelationofgas05lecl/newrelationofgas05lecl_djvu.txt

He tells us  that he first conceived the idea of them in the second year of his mission,
that is in 1677, and that they were suggested to him when
he noticed that certain Indian children made marks with
charcoal upon birch bark, and counted these off as they
repeated each word of the prayers.

Thank you for responding, but that is nothing new. He doesn't seem to say exactly where the characters came from - if they were the characters the Indians were using... What we lack is direct evidence that the Natives themselves used these characters or whether they came from deClercq himself.

I hope you don't feel we are all ganging up on you, but unfortunately, I think there is a need to be demanding of the quality of the evidence on certain issues because there is evidence that a lot of so-called artifacts were forgeries or plants or something else.

For instance while it might be tempting to believe in the Newark Decalogue Stone, a close analysis raises questions. While I don't believe the artifacts themselves were faked by Wyrick, I believe they were real Hebrew artifacts, but I believe someone planted them as a practical joke or more likely, as an attempt to get him fired. I believe they probably found themselves in the US by a Sephardic Jew who left Spain for the new free world.

Hence, the need to rely on more positive findings.

Here, I will state that it seems to me there has been a certain reluctance on the part of American archeologists to carefully consider certain areas of Native archeology such as metallurgy. It still seems that if archeologists examine or entertain certain areas suggestive of a diffusionist model, that they can find themselves in danger of getting fired.

[sam]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you for responding, but that is nothing new. He doesn't seem to say exactly where the characters came from - if they were the characters the Indians were using... What we lack is direct evidence that the Natives themselves used these characters or whether they came from deClercq himself.

I hope you don't feel we are all ganging up on you, but unfortunately, I think there is a need to be demanding of the quality of the evidence on certain issues because there is evidence that a lot of so-called artifacts were forgeries or plants or something else.

For instance while it might be tempting to believe in the Newark Decalogue Stone, a close analysis raises questions. While I don't believe the artifacts themselves were faked by Wyrick, I believe they were real Hebrew artifacts, but I believe someone planted them as a practical joke or more likely, as an attempt to get him fired. I believe they probably found themselves in the US by a Sephardic Jew who left Spain for the new free world.

Hence, the need to rely on more positive findings.

Here, I will state that it seems to me there has been a certain reluctance on the part of American archeologists to carefully consider certain areas of Native archeology such as metallurgy. It still seems that if archeologists examine or entertain certain areas suggestive of a diffusionist model, that they can find themselves in danger of getting fired.

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you for responding, but that is nothing new. He doesn't seem to say exactly where the characters came from - if they were the characters the Indians were using... What we lack is direct evidence that the Natives themselves used these characters or whether they came from deClercq himself.

I hope you don't feel we are all ganging up on you, but unfortunately, I think there is a need to be demanding of the quality of the evidence on certain issues because there is evidence that a lot of so-called artifacts were forgeries or plants or something else.

For instance while it might be tempting to believe in the Newark Decalogue Stone, a close analysis raises questions. While I don't believe the artifacts themselves were faked by Wyrick, I believe they were real Hebrew artifacts, but I believe someone planted them as a practical joke or more likely, as an attempt to get him fired. I believe they probably found themselves in the US by a Sephardic Jew who left Spain for the new free world.

Hence, the need to rely on more positive findings.

Here, I will state that it seems to me there has been a certain reluctance on the part of American archeologists to carefully consider certain areas of Native archeology such as metallurgy. It still seems that if archeologists examine or entertain certain areas suggestive of a diffusionist model, that they can find themselves in danger of getting fired.

Nobody can adequately explain away why and how the mic mak have Egyptian hieroglyphs. Until somebody can do that I stand by my assertations 

[RevTestament]

Yeah, but you said "But all evidence is showing that Father Clercq used characters that they already have"

It seems to me there is no "evidence" of this other than the nature of the symbols themselves, and the fact that about four of them have some Egyptian-seeming provenance. How about the hundreds of others? No evidence from him that he copied symbols being used by the Mic Mac children, etc. Although we do know Natives used bark to draw picture stories etc, I don't believe any survive which show this kind of writing... at all. NO one ever claimed the N. American Natives could write that I know of in any language at the time of colonization by Europeans.

Edited September 7, 2016 by RevTestament

[Calm]

Your link also states:

Quote

Again, Father Druillettes, referring to the Abnakis, wrote in the Relation of 1651-52^: "Some would write their lessons after a fashion of their own, using a bit of charcoal for a pen, and a piece of bark instead of paper. Their characters were new, and so peculiar that one could not recognise or understand the writing of another...