New Findings in the (Maybe Not So) New World

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

The value is in determining what the scriptures are actually claiming.  According to Parry (an expert on ancient Biblical Hebrew), the Bible is clearly claiming that Noah's flood covered the entire planet.

Obviously it's okay to disagree with that, but it's not okay to presume that people who support the Global Flood theory are doing so out of ignorance for what the scriptures actually teach in their original language and cultural context.  This isn't a case of ignorance vs. education.

Proof-texting isn't a good idea to determine the validity of a claim. The Bible has been read to show a flat earth; that Pi is the whole number 3; that putting sticks in the ground changes the genetics of farm animals; just to name just a few.  Ignorant people making ignorant claims is as old as mankind. Everyone is entitled to the own opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts. 

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

The value is in determining what the scriptures are actually claiming.  According to Parry (an expert on ancient Biblical Hebrew), the Bible is clearly claiming that Noah's flood covered the entire planet.

I think the issue is the arguments he makes. I assume for instance given you're prior comments that you don't accept the Book of Abraham as Egyptian just because Mormon Egyptologists like John Gee say it is. So why the double standard with Parry?

Quote

Obviously it's okay to disagree with that, but it's not okay to presume that people who support the Global Flood theory are doing so out of ignorance for what the scriptures actually teach in their original language and cultural context.  This isn't a case of ignorance vs. education.

I think the problematic word is "actually" as it suggests no ambiguity.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is the arguments he makes. I assume for instance given you're prior comments that you don't accept the Book of Abraham as Egyptian just because Mormon Egyptologists like John Gee say it is. So why the double standard with Parry?

I don't think cinepro believes in a global flood. Rather, he is pointing out that in order to propound a local flood, one must go against clear support for a global flood in LDS scriptures and what LDS prophets and Church organs have consistently taught (i.e., "unnuanced" to allow for a local flood). 

In this specific case, he was pointing out that Parry's expertise in Hebrew doesn't have a bearing on this --- nor does an individual's relative Hebrew ability.

In either case, he is not arguing for a global flood, but rather, pointing out that those who seek out of embarrassment to get rid of the global flood are dashed against the rocks of LDS scriptures and prophet precedent. For many, it is not as simple as the "nuancers" would like it to be for all.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think cinepro believes in a global flood. Rather, he is pointing out that in order to propound a local flood, one must go against clear support for a global flood in LDS scriptures and what LDS prophets and Church organs have consistently taught (i.e., "unnuanced" to allow for a local flood). 

Well yes I knew that. However that wasn't the argument he was making with Parry. I was critiquing his argument not his position. Again I'd disagree about nuance since while I agree most accept a traditional global flood Widstoe was far more nuanced. It's Widstoe that I notice of late tends to get quoted the most. As we discussed earlier Widstoe admittedly tries to have it both ways. He describes a local flood and then calls it global if it rains everywhere. But that's still a significant position. However I'd be the first to admit that an explicit local flood hasn't been taught in Conference or church magazines even though I think it's what ends up being the correct position.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe General Conference was ever meant to be an exposition on science.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 However I'd be the first to admit that an explicit local flood hasn't been taught in Conference or church magazines even though I think it's what ends up being the correct position.

Would you admit that church magazines have explicitly taught against a local flood?

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is the arguments he makes. I assume for instance given you're prior comments that you don't accept the Book of Abraham as Egyptian just because Mormon Egyptologists like John Gee say it is. So why the double standard with Parry?

 

If we were talking about an ancient Hebrew document interpreted by most Hebrew scholars as being ancient cooking recipes, and Joseph Smith took those Hebrew writings and "translated" them into a document about ancient Noah whom was known from other sources and claimed these ancient Hebrew documents told the story of a great flood, and Parry came along and offered a similarly creative interpretation such as Gee does with the BoA as to why these recipes are actually a quasi-Biblical record as Joseph Smith said they were, then yes, I would be just as skeptical of Parry's motives and explanation.

But since we're talking about ancient Hebrew that everyone seems to agree actually tells the story of Noah and the Ark, I find Parry to be a valid counterpoint to those who would argue that knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture and language lead to a "local flood" interpretation of the story.

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Would you admit that church magazines have explicitly taught against a local flood?

Sure. I think I already said that. The Parry article was in the Ensign. 

BTW - to your other point I'm sure you know that most Hebrew scholars don't think the Noah story is a single account. So your distinction between Parry and Gee is inapt. Parry actually is quite at odds with how most read that chapter At a minimum most distinguish between the P and Y sources. But I suspect you likely already knew that.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Sure. I think I already said that. The Parry article was in the Ensign. 

BTW - to your other point I'm sure you know that most Hebrew scholars don't think the Noah story is a single account. So your distinction between Parry and Gee is inapt. Parry actually is quite at odds with how most read that chapter At a minimum most distinguish between the P and Y sources. But I suspect you likely already knew that.

 

Right.  But the point is that RFS made an appeal to "courses of study" as a way to try and persuade someone that they were ignorant on the subject, and that additional study would bring them around to the more educated view. 

I'm just pointing out that it's possible to become a world-class scholar in Biblical Hebrew and still read the Noah account and say "Yep, that's a global flood."  If anything, LDS scholars show us that there is no point at which education in Biblical and historical subjects will automatically bring enlightenment on Biblical and historical subjects.  It may happen for some, but if someone is committed to a certain view of things at the start of their studies, they can probably maintain that view for the duration of their education and subsequent lives.  They could even find a calling as an apologist who uses their education to try and creatively blend their previous beliefs with their new-found knowledge, in a mad race to get it all on paper before their head explodes.

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Right.  But the point is that RFS made an appeal to "courses of study" as a way to try and persuade someone that they were ignorant on the subject, and that additional study would bring them around to the more educated view. 

I'm just pointing out that it's possible to become a world-class scholar in Biblical Hebrew and still read the Noah account and say "Yep, that's a global flood."  If anything, LDS scholars show us that there is no point at which education in Biblical and historical subjects will automatically bring enlightenment on Biblical and historical subjects.  It may happen for some, but if someone is committed to a certain view of things at the start of their studies, they can probably maintain that view for the duration of their education and subsequent lives.  They could even find a calling as an apologist who uses their education to try and creatively blend their previous beliefs with their new-found knowledge, in a mad race to get it all on paper before their head explodes.

The text in the final form it takes definitely can be read as a global flood. That doesn't mean the word for earth in the chapter only means the whole world. If only because culturally they didn't even think in those terms. (Again disk world with water in sky and below earth with the earth on the disk being much smaller than what we think of as earth) It's the step of translating from the Hebrew context to the modern context where I think Parry is going beyond that Biblical Hebrew. In exactly the same way that when John Gee talks about the book of breathings he's on firm ground in his expertise but when he speculates about how the Book of Abraham might have been transmitted with the papyri he's really going well beyond his expertise. He might be making use of his expertise just as Parry was. But we should probably distinguish the parts of the argument that depend upon their expertise and the parts of the argument that don't.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The text in the final form it takes definitely can be read as a global flood. That doesn't mean the word for earth in the chapter only means the whole world. If only because culturally they didn't even think in those terms. (Again disk world with water in sky and below earth with the earth on the disk being much smaller than what we think of as earth) It's the step of translating from the Hebrew context to the modern context where I think Parry is going beyond that Biblical Hebrew. In exactly the same way that when John Gee talks about the book of breathings he's on firm ground in his expertise but when he speculates about how the Book of Abraham might have been transmitted with the papyri he's really going well beyond his expertise. He might be making use of his expertise just as Parry was. But we should probably distinguish the parts of the argument that depend upon their expertise and the parts of the argument that don't.

The whole earth has always been the simplest and most straightforward reading (Occam's razor), without any knowledge of Hebrew necessary. To argue the "nuanced" position that the author(s) of the Noah account(s) in the OT really had a local flood in mind, and meant "local land" instead of "whole earth" is to do tapir/horse nuancing. 

Separate from all of this in the LDS perspective is the baptism of the earth doctrine. Under that, a global flood and later global conflagration are required. A local flood would be the equivalent of baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Even Widtsoe felt compelled to include an "instantaneous" covering of everything by rain as part of the flood for that very reason.

I realize that local flooders simply don't believe that a global flood was possible and that it conflicts with science, and that that is their main reason for their belief, not that the text requires it. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by rongo

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

The whole earth has always been the simplest and most straightforward reading (Occam's razor), without any knowledge of Hebrew necessary. To argue the "nuanced" position that the author(s) of the Noah account(s) in the OT really had a local flood in mind, and meant "local land" instead of "whole earth" is to do tapir/horse nuancing. 

The issue is translating from one context to the other. Of course the simplest way to translate it is just to say it means the whole earth and dispatch with how they conceived of the earth. That doesn't mean it's the best way. Despite people's appeal to Ockham (which was about multiplying metaphysical categories unnecessarily, not real parsimony) often the simplest understandings are wrong.

To say what the authors of Genesis 7 (uninspired scribes accepting and deleting texts and merging different texts around 400 - 200 BC) had in mind of course is to recognize that what they had in mind wasn't the world as we understand it. They didn't know it was a sphere for instance. So how they read whatever texts they were editing may very well have been wrong. It's fine of course to appeal to their understanding. But then you have to do it completely which meant no flooding of America for instance since that wasn't in mind and thus wasn't part of their intentions.

Thus the problem of translating to a radically new context.

Again, I don't dispute in the least this simple reading is possible. That it reflects what  Noah experienced I'm far more dubious about. I'm more with Nephi here. "At the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men." (1 Ne 14:23) The problem is that the book we have isn't from Noah's mouth. It's from people living thousands of years later who weren't inspired prophets. I think it safe to say the account of Noah we have is problematic.

Quote

Separate from all of this in the LDS perspective is the baptism of the earth doctrine. Under that, a global flood and later global conflagration are required. A local flood would be the equivalent of baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Even Widtsoe felt compelled to include an "instantaneous" covering of everything by rain as part of the flood for that very reason.

LOL. You just said sprinking or pouring wasn't equivalent to a local flood and then acknowledged Widstoe allowed for rain to do this. Don't you see the inherent contradiction there? 

In any case what the LDS needs is a symbolic baptism of the earth. The earth isn't getting converted and needing to make covenants. It's symbolic. A local flood satisfies that symbolism just as well as a global flood. The problem is that what worked great as symbolism for people with a very limited knowledge and experience doesn't work as well for people who are aware of what we are today. But we have to ask when the symbol was made and what it symbolized. The claim that you need a true global flood covering Everest just to make the symbolism makes no sense. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

Since posting the OP this paper has popped up in a few online threads about the possibility neanderthals or denisovans in the Americas. I don't understand all the arguments in there, and since this is a pre-print it will likely get totally wrecked in peer review, but I thought it was interesting that these discussions are even happening. Demonstrating again that ancient DNA can and will disrupt everything.

On The Peopling Of The Americas: Molecular Evidence For The Paleoamerican And The Solutrean Models

"Morphological and archaeological studies suggest that the Americas were first occupied by non-Mongoloids with Australo-Melanesian traits (the Paleoamerican model), which was subsequently followed by Southwest Europeans coming in along the pack ice of the North Atlantic Ocean (the Solutrean model) and by East Asians and Siberians arriving by way of the Bering Strait. Past DNA studies, however, have produced different accounts. With a better understanding of genetic diversity, we have now reinterpreted public DNA data. Consistent with our recent finding of a close relationship between South Pacific populations and Denisovans or Neanderthals who were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures, the ~9500 year old Kennewick Man skeleton with Australo-Melanesian affinity from North America was about equally related to Europeans and Africans, least related to East Asians among present-day people, and most related to the ~65000 year old Neanderthal Mezmaiskaya-1 from Adygea Russia among ancient Eurasian DNAs. The ~12700 year old Anzick-1 of the Clovis culture was most related to the ~18720 year old El Miron of the Magdalenian culture in Spain among ancient DNAs. Amerindian mtDNA haplotypes, unlike their Eurasian sister haplotypes, share informative SNPs with Australo-Melanesians, Africans, or Neanderthals. These results suggest a unifying account of informative findings on the settlement of the Americas."

"Our results suggest that South West Europeans of ~15000-20000 years ago such as El Miron had a special genetic connection with the Clovis people Anzick-1 in North America, more so than East Europeans and Siberians of that age. Consistent with leaving Europe in ancient times, the genomes of these people are largely absent in present-day Europeans, which is unlike all other ancient European genomes examined here. Such results suggest that the part of ancestry in Anzick-1 that is shared with El Miron could only have come from Europeans who had come to North America by way of the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, people of the Clovis culture appear to be the progeny of Europeans and the first South Americans. This explains the morphological finding that the first North Americans show traits in between modern Australo-Melanesians and Europeans. Our results also showed a fraction of present-day Native Americans to share more ancestry with Kennewick Man or El Miron. Some North Native Americans showed replacement of El Miron genomes with Kennewick Man related African genomes, consistent with the first North Americans occupying an unresolved morphological position between modern South Pacific and European populations."

Edited May 3, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[katherine the great]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Since posting the OP this paper has popped up in a few online threads about the possibility neanderthals or denisovans in the Americas. I don't understand all the arguments in there, and since this is a pre-print it will likely get totally wrecked in peer review, but I thought it was interesting that these discussions are even happening. Demonstrating again that ancient DNA can and will disrupt everything.

On The Peopling Of The Americas: Molecular Evidence For The Paleoamerican And The Solutrean Models

"Morphological and archaeological studies suggest that the Americas were first occupied by non-Mongoloids with Australo-Melanesian traits (the Paleoamerican model), which was subsequently followed by Southwest Europeans coming in along the pack ice of the North Atlantic Ocean (the Solutrean model) and by East Asians and Siberians arriving by way of the Bering Strait. Past DNA studies, however, have produced different accounts. With a better understanding of genetic diversity, we have now reinterpreted public DNA data. Consistent with our recent finding of a close relationship between South Pacific populations and Denisovans or Neanderthals who were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures, the ~9500 year old Kennewick Man skeleton with Australo-Melanesian affinity from North America was about equally related to Europeans and Africans, least related to East Asians among present-day people, and most related to the ~65000 year old Neanderthal Mezmaiskaya-1 from Adygea Russia among ancient Eurasian DNAs. The ~12700 year old Anzick-1 of the Clovis culture was most related to the ~18720 year old El Miron of the Magdalenian culture in Spain among ancient DNAs. Amerindian mtDNA haplotypes, unlike their Eurasian sister haplotypes, share informative SNPs with Australo-Melanesians, Africans, or Neanderthals. These results suggest a unifying account of informative findings on the settlement of the Americas."

"Our results suggest that South West Europeans of ~15000-20000 years ago such as El Miron had a special genetic connection with the Clovis people Anzick-1 in North America, more so than East Europeans and Siberians of that age. Consistent with leaving Europe in ancient times, the genomes of these people are largely absent in present-day Europeans, which is unlike all other ancient European genomes examined here. Such results suggest that the part of ancestry in Anzick-1 that is shared with El Miron could only have come from Europeans who had come to North America by way of the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, people of the Clovis culture appear to be the progeny of Europeans and the first South Americans. This explains the morphological finding that the first North Americans show traits in between modern Australo-Melanesians and Europeans. Our results also showed a fraction of present-day Native Americans to share more ancestry with Kennewick Man or El Miron. Some North Native Americans showed replacement of El Miron genomes with Kennewick Man related African genomes, consistent with the first North Americans occupying an unresolved morphological position between modern South Pacific and European populations."

Wow.  I'm having a hard time even deciphering some of the sentences in this abstract.  What I know is that Neanderthals were absolutely not archaic Africans with Eurasian admixture.  Neanderthal was a very unique species of human whose evolutionary history began in Europe so I have no idea where they get that idea.  At any rate, yeah, a non peer reviewed study is really about as authoritative as a third grade science project.  One point pretty much everyone is science will agree with is that humans are mutts.  We are a combination of our own species with gene flow from several other archaic species of humans.  Pure bloodlines simply don't exist--the antiquity and frequency of gene flow never seems to end.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2017 at 3:00 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

Another shake up in the chronology of human (homo) populations in North America 

"An Ice Age site in San Diego, Calif., preserves 130,000-year-old bones and teeth of a mastodon that show evidence of modification by early humans. Analysis of these finds dramatically revises the timeline for when humans first reached North America, according to new research."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170426143033.htm

 

I grew up in San Diego. Always thought the folks around there were fairly primitive.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:39 AM, hope_for_things said:

The more I think about these kinds of evidences that contradict the claims of religions, the more I think that our evolved brains really are hard wired to want to believe in the propositions promoted by an external divine authority.  We are a few centuries after the enlightenment, and groups of fundamentalists who reinterpret ancient texts in literal ways and who ignore scientific evidence are thriving.  Why is this the case?  Humans must have evolved to not think critically, and instead be drawn to believe in things that don't logically make sense. Why? 

Dude you can do better.

Falling in love, fighting off lions, not eating our own babies, morality in general, emotions promote survival.

Do you think that logic itself did not evolve? The very way we see the world including what you call logic is necessary for survival.

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Dude you can do better.

Falling in love, fighting off lions, not eating our own babies, morality in general, emotions promote survival.

Do you think that logic itself did not evolve? The very way we see the world including what you call logic is necessary for survival.

 

I'm open to suggestions, how else do you explain the phenomena of the rise of fundamentalist religions in a modern educated world?   Perhaps its satisfying an emotional craving enough to that people will ignore their more rational thinking in favor of appeals to external authorities?   

I also think there is some evidence that more fantastical claims become more compelling than the mundane.  I might need to study psychology and sociology to better grasp what is happening that is causing these trends in our society.  

[thesometimesaint]

Fanciful stories are more emotionally satisfying than less prosaic facts. IE; We all can enjoy the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But Mordor doesn't really exist.

[rodheadlee]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:48 AM, clarkgoble said:

Again storm surges for leaving I get. Storm surges for arriving seem more problematic IMO.

During the tsunami of 2009 in Samoa yachts were washed up a half of mile from the water. My friends boat would up behind the LDS Church in the parking lot.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

During the tsunami of 2009 in Samoa yachts were washed up a half of mile from the water. My friends boat would up behind the LDS Church in the parking lot.

Yes but that's not ending up on Mt Ararat.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes but that's not ending up on Mt Ararat.

Let alone Mt. Everest.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Let alone Mt. Everest.

Everest is growing. It wasn't as tall back then . . .  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Everest is growing. It wasn't as tall back then . . .  

About 46 feet less, not counting for erosion.