Are cureloms imaginary?

[Stargazer]

On 7/6/2017 at 9:26 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I fully discuss the ancient weights & measures system in Alma 11 in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  For you it is just another magician saying "Shazzam."  Meanwhile you ignore real scholarship.  Pray tell, how do you make up words in an ancient system unknown in 1830?

A "tell" to someone unfamiliar with the ancient world, yes -- as long as he has a vivid imagination.  It helps if you know nothing of the archeology of the New World,  and are fully ignorant of the presence of many types of high quality grains, including barley, corn (maize), quinoa, amaranth, etc.  That way any false statement seems correct to him -- he has made his ignorance the measure all reality.  Instead of scholarship, your apriori beliefs control everything you say.

Indeed, the BofM comes up with the most common word for "grain" used in ancient Mesopotamia, sheum (Mosiah 9:9).  How is that even possible, since the BofM is all hokum -- according to you.

I just downloaded your article and put it on my tablet so I can read it later, but I noticed when skimming the beginning that you say that you're about to publish a book "which addresses both Bible and Book of Mormon difficulties in great detail."  Well, that was back in 2014, so, have you now published the book?  And how can I get a copy?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I just downloaded your article and put it on my tablet so I can read it later, but I noticed when skimming the beginning that you say that you're about to publish a book "which addresses both Bible and Book of Mormon difficulties in great detail."  Well, that was back in 2014, so, have you now published the book?  And how can I get a copy?

Sorry, Stargazer, I am still adding data to that book, and have had a series of reverses and other tasks which had to be taken care of immediately.  And here it is halfway thru  2017.

[RevTestament]

On 7/6/2017 at 0:48 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I said "fundamentalist" Christian dating, arguing that lack of familiarity with the actual biblical text has led many into falsehood -- for example, that there is a basic and fundamental biblical dating, which there is not.  The various Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic versions all disagree -- something the KJV doesn't explain to the unwary.  You even take for granted that a Sumerian year is a year, thus missing the point that placing sexigesimal numbers in decimal notation results in a very different year count.  That is the problem you face.

It seems to me that your man is probably just following the Septuagint dating of things. The problem is not solved by assuming a sexigesimal unit since no one knows whether to do that or not. i agree that the Masoretic text does sometimes disagree with itself probably based on difficulty ascertaining a base digit but where that appears the difficulty does not appear to arise from trouble with a sexigesimal base.

Quote

My specific and systematic views on the Exodus are contained in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

Thank you. I am sorry, I probably seemed a bit snippy. Yes, you are on the right track. Ramses II is not the Pharaoh of the exodus. Good for you. You have some useful archaeological tips in there.

Quote

Genesis is not a professional history text, and a good deal of it need not be taken chronologically.  It is filled with liturgy, poetry, and epic, including chiasms which fold back in on themselves, along with duplicate accounts of similar events.  As I have pointed out repeatedly, the primeval history was old thousands of years before the Hebrew language existed.  And the earliest complete Hebrew text of the Bible we have today is thousands of years after the time of King David.  We need to be in awe of the time-depth we face.

Although Genesis is apparently not confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls, it is confirmed by the Septuagint(Yes, it has different dating). It is also referred to by Jesus.  I have no reason to dismantle it. Joseph Smith did not. Nor do I.

[Honorentheos]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:26 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I fully discuss the ancient weights & measures system in Alma 11 in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  For you it is just another magician saying "Shazzam."  Meanwhile you ignore real scholarship.  Pray tell, how do you make up words in an ancient system unknown in 1830?

I had hoped you'd made some movement on this subject since our last conversation given the obvious issue with your understanding of what it meant for a system to base-8. It doesn't look like it has.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I had hoped you'd made some movement on this subject since our last conversation given the obvious issue with your understanding of what it meant for a system to base-8. It doesn't look like it has.

 

Thanks for reminding me of last year's discussion, in which you utterly rejected fact and logic.  It should seem clear to anyone going over that discussion that engaging in objective analysis was not your purpose.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, Honorentheos said:

I sincerely doubt Johnny Cake arrived at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not a historical record a priori. People who came to that conclusion a priori probably don't waste their time on Mormon message boards.

A false claim if there ever was one.  The absence of logic and substantive argument is the dead giveaway that the judgment is apriori.

On 7/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, Honorentheos said:

The topic of whether or not the BoM is historical is overwhelming. I've seen pages and pages of threads on the most minute of subtopics under that category. It seems a bad faith argument to say that one must refute the BoM to assert cureloms, an animal only attested in the BoM and no where else, are the product of Joseph Smith's imagination.

Sounds very  much like a moot point to me:  When faced with an animal name which has no solid etymology or description, it is simply irresponsible to claim that it cannot correspond to an actual animal.  One needs actual evidence to go either way on the question.  Only a deeply prejudicial mind accepts an automatic apriori negative conclusion.  Surely there are better ways to make a substantive judgment.

On 7/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, Honorentheos said:

Here's the thing. If we had a geographical and chronological context for the BoM that believers could actually agree on, we could limit the discussion to look for non-BoM sources that support the existence of cureloms. But you guys can't even agree on where or when most of the BoM took place. But supposing you did agree and we had that, where is the corresponding attestations? An ancient near eastern language containing roots that have meanings related to functions that the hypothetical animal the curelom may or may not have performed given the 19th c. text we have doesn't really specify what they were even used for? Uh, ok.

You make the false claim that the general New World locale and timeline for the Book of Mormon are unknown, and thus nothing can be said about cureloms.  Not only are your premises false, but your suggested connection to cureloms is illogical.  Moreover, just to be sure that you have covered all your bases, you add that, even if the New World and general chronology were known for the BofM, that wouldn't make any difference.   Any strawman will do, because the strawman is your substitute for real discussion.

On 7/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, Honorentheos said:

Cureloms are imaginary. Right now, they only exist in people's minds. If there is a historic analog it is yet to be proven and supported. If there is a modern descendent it is yet to be identified and confirmed.

Unless, of course, one wishes a priori to assign some truth value to their existence absent evidence excluding the BoM...  

False.  The curelom exists in a book which claims to be ancient.  It would only be imaginary if it could be shown that (1) the BofM is imaginary, and (2) that the composer of the BofM did not deliberately insert a reference to a known beast -- even if under a pseudonym.  I have argued reapeatedly that declaring the curelom to be imaginary requires evidence.  The same is required in declaring that it is a real animal.  Why is that you don't like evidence-based discussion?  Why do you prefer apriorism?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It seems to me that your man is probably just following the Septuagint dating of things. The problem is not solved by assuming a sexigesimal unit since no one knows whether to do that or not. i agree that the Masoretic text does sometimes disagree with itself probably based on difficulty ascertaining a base digit but where that appears the difficulty does not appear to arise from trouble with a sexigesimal base.

You seem to be assuming that the sexigesimal option is merely off-the-wall.  Bokovoy explains why he and other scholars find it necessary.  Their reasons are compelling.  Indeed, in summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded:  

Quote

 If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 – the exact total of the Sumerian King List.   Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, I:108, citing John Watson, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 130; cf. Carol A. Hill, “Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 55/4 (2003):239-251, online at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf . .

Quote

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

In further explanation of the need for a sexigesimal base (instead of the decimal base we erroneously use here), I add Raúl López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” Answers in Genesis, Dec 1, 1998, online at https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list/ ,

Quote

When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian portion of the King List are represented with the early Sumerian numerical system, the total and all of the numbers except two need only two different symbols. These are the two largest units of the system, so that the numbers are expressed as multiples of 3600. The total (241,200) needs six 10x602 signs, six 602 signs, and six 10x60 signs. The duration of the lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have the precision of one year, and the majority of the ages have units. If Adam the first man and Noah the Flood hero are not included to match the contents of the Kings List, their total ages would be 6695. If the ages are rounded to the two highest digits as in the Sumerian list, the final number has six 103 signs, six 102 signs, and six 10 signs for a total of 6660. Thus, the totals of both the adjusted Genesis and Sumerian lists have six of the signs for ten times the square of the base, six of the signs for the square of the base, and six signs for the next lower value of their respective system. In addition, when the number representing the sum of the ages of the biblical patriarchs is interpreted as having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.

That is why it is compelling.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Honorentheos]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A false claim if there ever was one.  The absence of logic and substantive argument is the dead giveaway that the judgment is apriori.

You seem to like using the term "apriori" as a pejorative rather than in a way that appears informed by context and history. That's your new go-to ad hominal attack? Considering the clear issues with your measurement apologetic and now clear intention to not modify it despite a fatal flaw and new information being pointed out, you might want to be careful with that. That looks like a rooster and he's taking a bearing back home looking like he has every intention of roosting when he gets there.  

Despite your apparent redefining of the term "apriori" to suit your own purposes (and man, I would think terribly poor things about people if it were successful because that's just a dictionary away from being obvious misuse of the term) the dismissal of curelom because the BoM fails to achieve a minimum standard of evidence for being historic sufficient to overcome the counter evidence is informed. The probability the BoM will turn out to be historical not just a work of spiritual fiction was understandably considered higher when it was composed in the 19th century. And it should have been. It was written to take then-current theories about the Native Americans and the evidence that gave rise to those theories into account. It was written to answer questions common to religious dispute in the time and place it was written, again being the 19th century American frontier. It was written using common assumptions of the time about the reliability of the Genesis account. To the informed 21st c. reader, that probability is considerably low. It takes an a priori assumption the BoM is historic given the ephemeral and slap-dash nature of the involved apologetics that assume historicity.

To be honest, your approach to this is becoming a bit outdated itself, going the way of the curelom. Already the apologetics that set historicity aside in favor of spiritual, individual meaning are gaining ground. Waving one's hands around some ancient language and cultural tidbits and claiming a bullseye even seems to be leaving fewer and fewer Mormons impressed.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Honorentheos

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You seem to be assuming that the sexigesimal option is merely off-the-wall.  Bokovoy explains why he and other scholars find it necessary.  Their reasons are compelling.  Indeed, in summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded:  

In further explanation of the need for a sexigesimal base (instead of the decimal base we erroneously use here), I add Raúl López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” Answers in Genesis, Dec 1, 1998, online at https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list/ ,

That is why it is compelling.

It is believed the King List was created at about the time of the Akkadian dynasty (after Noah); possibly at the last gasp of Ur for power by a King wishing to "show" his nobility and ancient divine authority. Who is to say a real list of patriarchs wasn't artificially inflated by converting their reigns into sexigesimal numbers? Why do scholars always assume that biblical prophets use pagan mythology to create the Torah etc? It is a repeated theme even until the time of Christ. Why? Because Satan knew Christ was coming so was trying to usurp his rightful place. Hence, before Christ the emperors were the morning star, and before them the Pharaohs, etc. After Christ we have a whole school of gnostics creating texts we know consistently different from scripture. It's a Satanic impulse to change the truths of God I guess.

So you want to do the "scholarly" thing and replace scripture with notions from a king list we know was created as mythology? That dog don't hunt with me. If we did that all the time Yeshua, our Morning Star would get replaced too. Ain't happening in my book, but you are welcome to take that road if you wish.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It is believed the King List was created at about the time of the Akkadian dynasty (after Noah); possibly at the last gasp of Ur for power by a King wishing to "show" his nobility and ancient divine authority. Who is to say a real list of patriarchs wasn't artificially inflated by converting their reigns into sexigesimal numbers? Why do scholars always assume that biblical prophets use pagan mythology to create the Torah etc? It is a repeated theme even until the time of Christ. Why? Because Satan knew Christ was coming so was trying to usurp his rightful place. Hence, before Christ the emperors were the morning star, and before them the Pharaohs, etc. After Christ we have a whole school of gnostics creating texts we know consistently different from scripture. It's a Satanic impulse to change the truths of God I guess.

So you want to do the "scholarly" thing and replace scripture with notions from a king list we know was created as mythology? That dog don't hunt with me. If we did that all the time Yeshua, our Morning Star would get replaced too. Ain't happening in my book, but you are welcome to take that road if you wish.

I guess the devil caused a lot of mischief in your paradigm. Are you a D&C 77 young earth creationist or do you change the meaning of day to time period?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I guess the devil caused a lot of mischief in your paradigm.

Being the father of lies, yes he has.

Quote

Are you a D&C 77 young earth creationist or do you change the meaning of day to time period?

The earth is very old, but its creation is described in the six periods of its generation per Gen 2:1-4. The Lord has used days several ways in scripture, so one must be alert to its use. Sometimes a day refers to a year, see Exodus and Ezekiel. When hour measuring units are used, I believe it corresponds to a thousand of our years.

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It is believed the King List was created at about the time of the Akkadian dynasty (after Noah); possibly at the last gasp of Ur for power by a King wishing to "show" his nobility and ancient divine authority. Who is to say a real list of patriarchs wasn't artificially inflated by converting their reigns into sexigesimal numbers?

Scholars normally go by the evidence available, and we know that Sumero-Akkadian civilization began with a sexigesimal system, major parts fo which we still use today in the West.  To suppose otherwise is just absurd.   There is no evidence to support getting it backwards.

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Why do scholars always assume that biblical prophets use pagan mythology to create the Torah etc? It is a repeated theme even until the time of Christ. Why? Because Satan knew Christ was coming so was trying to usurp his rightful place. Hence, before Christ the emperors were the morning star, and before them the Pharaohs, etc. After Christ we have a whole school of gnostics creating texts we know consistently different from scripture. It's a Satanic impulse to change the truths of God I guess.

Medieval scholars often took that approach:  That the close similarities of very ancient works and the Bible was a Satanic plot to mislead.  Hugh Nibley correctly took the very different view that we should fully expect that every culture on the planet would have very similar traditions, passed down through time in their own language and culture, often in oral and epic form.  The Bible is merely a late form of all that, and is best understood as a human attempt to tell God's story.  Try Peter Enns, “The Bible Tells Me So,” Spring Arbor Univ (SAU), Michigan, Focus 2017 Keynote 1, Feb 14, 2017, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHU6eIlhWOk .

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So you want to do the "scholarly" thing and replace scripture with notions from a king list we know was created as mythology? That dog don't hunt with me. If we did that all the time Yeshua, our Morning Star would get replaced too. Ain't happening in my book, but you are welcome to take that road if you wish.

Scholars do rightly make every effort to actually understand biblical and other ancient texts as they were first formulated, and to understand the languages and grammatical & literary forms used, in order to actually understand them.  Ignoring the evidence would be the ultimate mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

You seem to like using the term "apriori" as a pejorative rather than in a way that appears informed by context and history. That's your new go-to ad hominal attack? Considering the clear issues with your measurement apologetic and now clear intention to not modify it despite a fatal flaw and new information being pointed out, you might want to be careful with that. That looks like a rooster and he's taking a bearing back home looking like he has every intention of roosting when he gets there.  Despite your apparent redefining of the term "apriori" to suit your own purposes (and man, I would think terribly poor things about people if it were successful because that's just a dictionary away from being obvious misuse of the term)

It appears to me that you are in favor of apriori or intuitive responses as being the best approach to issues of historicity in this or that literature, and you are certainly entitled to that illogical approach.  Indeed, some people tout such an approach as superior to reason and logic.  So have at it.

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

 the dismissal of curelom because the BoM fails to achieve a minimum standard of evidence for being historic sufficient to overcome the counter evidence is informed. The probability the BoM will turn out to be historical not just a work of spiritual fiction was understandably considered higher when it was composed in the 19th century. And it should have been. It was written to take then-current theories about the Native Americans and the evidence that gave rise to those theories into account. It was written to answer questions common to religious dispute in the time and place it was written, again being the 19th century American frontier. It was written using common assumptions of the time about the reliability of the Genesis account. To the informed 21st c. reader, that probability is considerably low. It takes an a priori assumption the BoM is historic given the ephemeral and slap-dash nature of the involved apologetics that assume historicity.

You have it backwards.  The BofM was clearly much more vulnerable to logical and rational attack when it came forth in 1830 than at any time since then -- only because we know so much more now about the ancient world.  After all, the immediate review of Alexander Campbell of the BofM by was very effective and telling.  Only now can we see the major flaws in his reasoning and information environment.  Why do you reject reason and logic?

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

To be honest, your approach to this is becoming a bit outdated itself, going the way of the curelom. Already the apologetics that set historicity aside in favor of spiritual, individual meaning are gaining ground. Waving one's hands around some ancient language and cultural tidbits and claiming a bullseye even seems to be leaving fewer and fewer Mormons impressed.

I have no problem with those who put spiritual experience first.  It is a matter of choice, and the Church does emphasize the Holy Spirit.  What surprises me is your disdain for scholarship.  Why do you have such contempt for hard data?  Why are so afraid of it?

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It appears to me that you are in favor of apriori or intuitive responses as being the best approach to issues of historicity in this or that literature, and you are certainly entitled to that illogical approach.  Indeed, some people tout such an approach as superior to reason and logic.  So have at it.

You have it backwards.  The BofM was clearly much more vulnerable to logical and rational attack when it came forth in 1830 than at any time since then -- only because we know so much more now about the ancient world.  After all, the immediate review of Alexander Campbell of the BofM by was very effective and telling.  Only now can we see the major flaws in his reasoning and information environment.  Why do you reject reason and logic?

I have no problem with those who put spiritual experience first.  It is a matter of choice, and the Church does emphasize the Holy Spirit.  What surprises me is your disdain for scholarship.  Why do you have such contempt for hard data?  Why are so afraid of it?

Ah, Robert. You and I went the rounds over your oh-so-flawed apologetic "hard data" and "scholarship" regarding the measurement system in the Book of Mormon being more reflective of a base-8 system compared to a binary one. And it was quite clear that you didn't actually understand how base-8 even worked. Anyone with the slightest mathematical ability ought to be able to read through and see the problems in your suggested "scholarship".

I happen to find logic quite persuasive when it turns out to be coherent and logical. BoM apologetics have yet to achieve that in any case I can recollect.

Also, keeping in mind that the BoM is not self-sufficient but requires faith in it's origin and worldview, your curelom theories needs to be sufficiently compelling to call into question:

- The theory of evolution and origin of species by natural selection (BOM claims a literal creation, Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve)

- The geological evidence against a global flood (the BoM claims such was real and that the New World, once uncovered by the flood, was preserved by God for those whom He elected to bring out of the corrupted world.

- The physics that are in contradiction to the global flood being an historic event (and note, the LDS claims of exhaltation for the Earth demand that this be an historic event when the Earth was baptized...as above, so below...)

- The Documentary Hypothesis regarding the multi-century development of the Torah (BoM assumes "the record of the Jews" in the Brass Plates were essentially the Old Testament in existence prior to the Babylonian captivity, assuming past traditional views that Moses was the actual author of the Torah)

- Deutero-Isaiah (assumes scriptures assigned to Isaiah were all written by one Man prior to the Babylonian captivity rather than what is known to modern scholarship that much of it was written afterward includes sections quoted in the Books of Nephi prior to the text actually being written)

- An historic understand of Abraham as legend (BoM assumes there is one person named Abraham who was the father of the peoples of the Book, and the Genesis account is reliable regarding him and his supposed descendants.)

- The physics that are in contradiction with the migration of the Jaredites (there isn't much in Ether that holds up unless one assumes divine privilege to manipulate reality. In which case, we're not talking about logic and scholarship but whether one believes there is sufficient reason to accept miraculous events occurred some 4000 years ago that brought a new civilization from the fertile crescent to the New World in wooden submarines with improbable cargo and logistics issues. Not to mention the glowing rocks.)

-The linguistic evidence against early Mesopotamians being the earliest and primary settlers of the New World (The BoM assuming that the Jaredites were alone here, and therefore responsible for any archeological evidence pre-dating the 7th c. BCE in the Americas. Granted, most members who are on this board have long ago moved into a modified belief that adds to the text to place the Jaredites among others who arrived before the traditional dating of the global flood but hey, I get it. If one a priori wishes to believe in the BoM and then needs to confabulate explanations for evidence that makes that much less probable I understand.  )

- Proto-Christian metal working, armored, agrarian with domesticated work animals and highly cooperative settlers in the New World being completely unattested in the archeological record of the New World in the time frame claimed (Nephites not only can not be found in the archeological record, there is zero evidence of their incredibly out-balanced technological and cultural artifacts making their way into the surrounding culture of the actual archeological record. There is no "Nephite-shaped hole" one can use the artifact evidence to find the Nephites settlements.)

- The genetics of the modern day Native Americans not matching the claims of the BoM or Joseph Smith and most modern prophets. It's interesting that up until genetic research and genome mapping became a thing, modern LDS prophets had no problem telling the world they had the record of the ancestors of the Native America peoples, and proselytizing them accordingly. But now even the BoM itself had language modified to back off of that claim. Logic and reason seem to have something to say about that. Of course, I'm opposed to logic and reason so I'm ignoring that in favor of my aprior assumption the BoM was a 19th c. fraud. Speaking of...

- The cultural match of the BoM is far higher for 19th c. frontier Christianity and beliefs than it is for the 1000 year period it claims to primarily cover in the New World.

- Smith, a known participant in the creation of the BoM regardless of one's views about his prophethood, lied to his wife about having sexual relations with other women. He lied to the world about codifying sexual behaviors that were deviant from the parent cultural norms. And he lied manipulated his followers using sex and power. The BoM, to be taken seriously as a potential historic text, has to overcome it's authors documented deceitful behavior and apparent lack of concern for the emotional impacts of his choices on others.

- The 19th c. cultural beliefs about race and people of darker skin color. Race being a social construct and all of us being of African descent, the LDS Church has serious issues to deal with in explaining how modern day restoration was necessary of a corrupted original Christian church given it now appears quite tolerant of the most egregious of corruptions of the restored gospel.

- The assumed authorship of the New Testament gospels and clear plagiarism of the KJV of the Bible. Given the quotes from the NT that were given in the BoM are claimed to be original to the mouth of Christ and kept separated from the corrupting influences of centuries of copying, doctrinal change, and other completely expected influences on the text we have in the KJV of the Bible the text of the BoM should be a real archeological treasure to biblical scholarship. But it isn't, and fails to show even moderately reasonable preservation of ms original language or to align better with biblical research. The parsimonious explanation is that author of the BoM had the KJV of the Bible, assumed it was close to accurate, and made minor edits in places like the italicized words which showed they did not even understand how that worked.

I could keep going. But I need to go off and strangle logic and reason in the cradle elsewhere as part of my diabolical attempt to impose superstition and bias on the unsuspecting. Cheers!

Edited July 9, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Ah, Robert. You and I went the rounds over your oh-so-flawed apologetic "hard data" and "scholarship" regarding the measurement system in the Book of Mormon being more reflective of a base-8 system compared to a binary one. And it was quite clear that you didn't actually understand how base-8 even worked. Anyone with the slightest mathematical ability ought to be able to read through and see the problems in your suggested "scholarship".

Naturally I disagree and see that the shoe was on the other foot, but I am willing to stand on the non-Mormon sources I cited, and to allow the free market-place of ideas to decide the issue.  You seem to prefer ad hominems and a strawman propaganda smokescreen.

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I happen to find logic quite persuasive when it turns out to be coherent and logical. BoM apologetics have yet to achieve that in any case I can recollect.

Also, keeping in mind that the BoM is not self-sufficient but requires faith in it's origin and worldview, your curelom theories needs to be sufficiently compelling to call into question:................................................

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

That was about 14 categories of Book of Mormon (and Joseph Smith) problems which you listed, many of them long ago shown to be false claims or strawmen.  But you also suggested that the list could easily go on, and of that I have no doubt.  I commend you for going to all that trouble to list your pet peeves with the BofM.  What I would really like you to do with all that (unless you can think of someone who has already done it well), is to publish it in book form, with complete details and footnotes showing your sources.  You should try to bring to bear good evidence and good logic to back up those claims, at the same time taking account of pro-BofM accounts (as for example on the FairMormon website, or in published books and articles you may find on each topic).  Hopefully, you can do better than some of the anti-Mormon books which have gone before.  You should have some respect for the free market-place of ideas, in which such views must carry their own weight.

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I could keep going. But I need to go off and strangle logic and reason in the cradle elsewhere as part of my diabolical attempt to impose superstition and bias on the unsuspecting. Cheers!

I like it a lot better when you use reason and logic, instead of the childish display here of a fit of pique.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars normally go by the evidence available, and we know that Sumero-Akkadian civilization began with a sexigesimal system, major parts fo which we still use today in the West.  To suppose otherwise is just absurd.   There is no evidence to support getting it backwards.

Medieval scholars often took that approach:  That the close similarities of very ancient works and the Bible was a Satanic plot to mislead.  Hugh Nibley correctly took the very different view that we should fully expect that every culture on the planet would have very similar traditions, passed down through time in their own language and culture, often in oral and epic form.  The Bible is merely a late form of all that, and is best understood as a human attempt to tell God's story.  Try Peter Enns, “The Bible Tells Me So,” Spring Arbor Univ (SAU), Michigan, Focus 2017 Keynote 1, Feb 14, 2017, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHU6eIlhWOk .

Scholars do rightly make every effort to actually understand biblical and other ancient texts as they were first formulated, and to understand the languages and grammatical & literary forms used, in order to actually understand them.  Ignoring the evidence would be the ultimate mistake.

Trying to understand ancient texts and cultural mythologies is one thing - it's quite another to believe that the Bible is based upon them. However, God is not against using common cultural images such as dragons to make His points. This does not mean the composer created fiction based on cultural images. God uses what we know to communicate to us - our cultural images, our language, etc. 

I realize our time is still based on the sexigesimal system - 60 secs per min, and 60 min per hour, and even the 12 months are all directly tied to it. But we have every reason to believe that whoever created the king list artificially inflated the reigns of the kings using a sexigesimal system. Their reigns of thousands of years make even the patriarchal longevity in the Bible look timid. However, to believe that the composer of Genesis used the King list to author Genesis just because the conversion from a sexigesimal system results in similar numbers is a bit of a stretch. If you believe in Adam as I do, it is not surprising, because I believe Adam lived in the area. He was Sumerian. I don't accept the American garden of Eden. Eden is a Sumerian word meaning plain - but you probably know this. Who knows what happened after Adam, but there is no contemporary ancient text to attest to him. We are left with the books of Moses  about 3000 years later arising about 3000 years later. I wish I had more to offer about it, but I don't. But I believe that day will come when we will learn more about Adam.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Trying to understand ancient texts and cultural mythologies is one thing - it's quite another to believe that the Bible is based upon them. However, God is not against using common cultural images such as dragons to make His points. This does not mean the composer created fiction based on cultural images. God uses what we know to communicate to us - our cultural images, our language, etc. 

I realize our time is still based on the sexigesimal system - 60 secs per min, and 60 min per hour, and even the 12 months are all directly tied to it.

   That system is also still used in geometry, geographic coordinates, astronomy, etc.

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But we have every reason to believe that whoever created the king list artificially inflated the reigns of the kings using a sexigesimal system. Their reigns of thousands of years make even the patriarchal longevity in the Bible look timid. However, to believe that the composer of Genesis used the King list to author Genesis just because the conversion from a sexigesimal system results in similar numbers is a bit of a stretch. If you believe in Adam as I do, it is not surprising, because I believe Adam lived in the area. He was Sumerian. I don't accept the American garden of Eden. Eden is a Sumerian word meaning plain - but you probably know this. Who knows what happened after Adam, but there is no contemporary ancient text to attest to him. We are left with the books of Moses  about 3000 years later arising about 3000 years later. I wish I had more to offer about it, but I don't. But I believe that day will come when we will learn more about Adam.

Adam is a Hebrew word meaning "man," and the reference is archetypal.  That is not his personal name.  Same for Eve.  The account of Creation & Garden are symbolic and figurative, and we still practice the same liturgy in LDS temples today -- all of us being adams and eves in each endowment session.  There is no reason to attribute Sumerian heritage to the adam of the Creation & Garden story, even though it does make sense to see the Jaredites as Sumero-Akkadian in heritage.

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adam is a Hebrew word meaning "man," and the reference is archetypal.  That is not his personal name.  Same for Eve.  The account of Creation & Garden are symbolic and figurative, and we still practice the same liturgy in LDS temples today -- all of us being adams and eves in each endowment session.  There is no reason to attribute Sumerian heritage to the adam of the Creation & Garden story,..

Ah, but there is. The first writing system, and the first uniform agricultural system arose at the time. Recorded history starts with Sumeria - and Adam. How did some Hebrews get that right 3000 years later? Like you I accept Adam as figurative - he was not the literal, biological father of us all, but he is our spiritual father, as he was the first to introduce God's word into the world - the first seal opened.

[Honorentheos]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Naturally I disagree and see that the shoe was on the other foot, but I am willing to stand on the non-Mormon sources I cited, and to allow the free market-place of ideas to decide the issue.  You seem to prefer ad hominems and a strawman propaganda smokescreen.

That was about 14 categories of Book of Mormon (and Joseph Smith) problems which you listed, many of them long ago shown to be false claims or strawmen.  But you also suggested that the list could easily go on, and of that I have no doubt.  I commend you for going to all that trouble to list your pet peeves with the BofM.  What I would really like you to do with all that (unless you can think of someone who has already done it well), is to publish it in book form, with complete details and footnotes showing your sources.  You should try to bring to bear good evidence and good logic to back up those claims, at the same time taking account of pro-BofM accounts (as for example on the FairMormon website, or in published books and articles you may find on each topic).  Hopefully, you can do better than some of the anti-Mormon books which have gone before.  You should have some respect for the free market-place of ideas, in which such views must carry their own weight.

I like it a lot better when you use reason and logic, instead of the childish display here of a fit of pique.

Oh? I suspect we're confusing reason and logic to equal the degree one is willing to follow another down a particular rabbit hole rather than as a rough description of the tools used to arrive at a conclusion.

To be fair, I could ask that you conduct sufficient archeological excavations at a select number of sites that correspond with the claims of the BoM and catalog the results including those finding that do not align with the interpretation of the BoM being historical.

Thing is, there isn't anything on my list that is conclusively overturned or answered. Take the first item on the list - the Garden of Eden and literal Adam and Eve. I could have attended any LDS church service in the United States today, polled those in attendance, and been very likely to find that the congregation includes higher than the National average numbers of individuals who do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it pertains to the evolution of the human species. Pew studies have consistently shown Mormons to be incredibly unlikely to accept this fundamental bedrock theory of entire branches of science (see: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/ for example). Not only is this not answered, I suspect that whatever answer you personally feel is valid that explains it is a very small minority view among Mormons generally. In the marketplace of ideas that is Mormonism, it seems the culture is enforcing a prejudice against science. I assume those who are informed on the topic move out of the group, into a minority view, or shrug it off as less important to them than their predetermined belief that the BoM is the word of God and Mormonism is true. Whatever true means in that context, which I assume to roughly mean worthy of trust and largely factual in it's claims.

How then do you brush this off as simple prejudice against the BoM being historical? One item in and we're seeing polls showing Mormons are out of step with the science and even the national average in a nation that has incredibly low numbers compared to other developed nations.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Ah, but there is. The first writing system, and the first uniform agricultural system arose at the time. Recorded history starts with Sumeria - and Adam. How did some Hebrews get that right 3000 years later? Like you I accept Adam as figurative - he was not the literal, biological father of us all, but he is our spiritual father, as he was the first to introduce God's word into the world - the first seal opened.

Adam is The Word?

Edited July 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Adam is The Word?

I would say Adam is a stone - the first revelation of God to man. So yes, he is a part of the word, as was Peter, and all the prophets.

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:21 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You still haven't answered my question:  How do you know that cureloms never existed?  What evidence did you call upon?  You seem to think that assertion is the same as evidence.  How do you exclude something you cannot even define?

If you said that Lewis Carroll's jabberwock was a figment, I would agree.  Why?  Because that is the explicit context and intention of Carroll.  If instead, we are reading a historical document of some sort, and it refers to an unknown animal by a strange name (which we may have trouble etymologizing), does that mean the animal is a figment?  Of course not.

You have taken your apriori belief that the BofM is non-historical and extrapolated from that to declare false any substantive claims about  history made by the BofM.  Yet, a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than apriori fancy.  You seem to be under the impression that negative assertions need no evidentiary support.  I have spoken about this matter in many venues, and have previously cited my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

I do not ask that, like Tertullian, you believe in a religion "because it is absurd," but rather because of good, hard evidence in its favor -- which could not exist if the BofM were not historical.

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and my original response to the OP where in I stated that Yes Cureloms are imaginary.  Robert, has accused me of "taking [my] a priori beliefs that the Book of Mormon is non-historical and extrapolated from"... there to form a conclusion that Curelom's are imaginary.  What Robert has failed to take into consideration is that my a priori beliefs were that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, an ancient book translated from Golden Plates received from an angel describing the religious history of the inhabitants of this continent.  Those beliefs were built on decades of study and participation in church curriculum.  I firmly believed that the book was all that it claimed to be. 20 years ago if you would have asked me, I would have told you that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was indestructible.

Well it turned out that it wasn't, I made the mistake of actually pulling at some of the loose threads in the books truth claims.   I merely read the book and took its claims whole cloth...I supplemented this reading with instruction from the Church curriculum in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute, the later two, from which I graduated.  I also formed the basis of my beliefs from reading church publications such as the Era.   Everything that I both read and was taught supported a very naïve hemispheric model...one that unbeknownst to me conflicted with science.  

In the mid 1980's I read an article in Dialogue on population growth within the BoM that destroyed for me any possibility of the Book fitting with in the traditional hemispheric model...still I persisted going on to serve in the bishopric and on the high council...having successfully or so I thought doubting my doubts and putting them on the back burner...giving preference to my a priori beliefs, then seemingly like a domino falling, one problem after another began to form around Book of Mormon truth claims, DNA, Geography, 19th Century religious arguments, Anachronisms, all of my preconceived conclusions of what I believed the book to be the very foundation upon which I had built my testimony began to crumble before my very eyes....the biggest problem is that all of this conflicting information was more credible to me than the apologetic explanations coming from the church. It resolved hundreds of problems within the book. The more I studied the more man made the book became until it was just plain obvious that it was in fact man made.

So Robert, I don't expect you to understand my journey nor agree with my conclusions...but my a priori beliefs slowly shifted and changed over the course of 2 decades because of evidence that conflicted with and was more credible than counter evidence that was provided by the church itself. One of the most difficult and painful conclusions of my life was admitting that I had been wrong about the BoM.  I was heavily invested in it being true...I wanted it to be....I've paid a price for concluding otherwise...

For Cureloms not to be imaginary, the Book itself must first be what it claims to be...its truth claims should be self evident...but the entire world view that is promoted by the book does not nor has it ever existed in real time or history.  

But the bottom line is that this thread is just another useless discussion where nothing ever changes. Each side gets to argue back and forth with the only result being that we each end having confirmed our a priori beliefs...both yours and my new ones.  For me to again change my current POV back and regain a belief in the book, that broke my heart, you would have to provide irrefutable evidence to support its truth claims . Something I know you can not do.  Its a bar, that I sadly admit, is one too high for a man made book that purports to be a historical record to meet because I do however agree with you that "a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than a priori fancy" both yours and mine.

My eyes have been opened.  Which is why I feel this entire discussion is pointless and a complete waist of our time, despite what minor pleasure we each might believe we get from taking jabs at what we both see as each others a priori fantasies.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and my original response to the OP where in I stated that Yes Cureloms are imaginary.  Robert, has accused me of "taking [my] a priori beliefs that the Book of Mormon is non-historical and extrapolated from"... there to form a conclusion that Curelom's are imaginary.  What Robert has failed to take into consideration is that my a priori beliefs were that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, an ancient book translated from Golden Plates received from an angel describing the religious history of the inhabitants of this continent.  Those beliefs were built on decades of study and participation in church curriculum.  I firmly believed that the book was all that it claimed to be. 20 years ago if you would have asked me, I would have told you that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was indestructible.

Well it turned out that it wasn't, I made the mistake of actually pulling at some of the loose threads in the books truth claims.   I merely read the book and took its claims whole cloth...I supplemented this reading with instruction from the Church curriculum in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute, the later two, from which I graduated.  I also formed the basis of my beliefs from reading church publications such as the Era.   Everything that I both read and was taught supported a very naïve hemispheric model...one that unbeknownst to me conflicted with science.  

In the mid 1980's I read an article in Dialogue on population growth within the BoM that destroyed for me any possibility of the Book fitting with in the traditional hemispheric model...still I persisted going on to serve in the bishopric and on the high council...having successfully or so I thought doubting my doubts and putting them on the back burner...giving preference to my a priori beliefs, then seemingly like a domino falling, one problem after another began to form around Book of Mormon truth claims, DNA, Geography, 19th Century religious arguments, Anachronisms, all of my preconceived conclusions of what I believed the book to be the very foundation upon which I had built my testimony began to crumble before my very eyes....the biggest problem is that all of this conflicting information was more credible to me than the apologetic explanations coming from the church. It resolved hundreds of problems within the book. The more I studied the more man made the book became until it was just plain obvious that it was in fact man made.

So Robert, I don't expect you to understand my journey nor agree with my conclusions...but my a priori beliefs slowly shifted and changed over the course of 2 decades because of evidence that conflicted with and was more credible than counter evidence that was provided by the church itself. One of the most difficult and painful conclusions of my life was admitting that I had been wrong about the BoM.  I was heavily invested in it being true...I wanted it to be....I've paid a price for concluding otherwise...

For Cureloms not to be imaginary, the Book itself must first be what it claims to be...its truth claims should be self evident...but the entire world view that is promoted by the book does not nor has it ever existed in real time or history.  

But the bottom line is that this thread is just another useless discussion where nothing ever changes. Each side gets to argue back and forth with the only result being that we each end having confirmed our a priori beliefs...both yours and my new ones.  For me to again change my current POV back and regain a belief in the book, that broke my heart, you would have to provide irrefutable evidence to support its truth claims . Something I know you can not do.  Its a bar, that I sadly admit, is one too high for a man made book that purports to be a historical record to meet because I do however agree with you that "a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than a priori fancy" both yours and mine.

My eyes have been opened.  Which is why I feel this entire discussion is pointless and a complete waist of our time, despite what minor pleasure we each might believe we get from taking jabs at what we both see as each others a priori fantasies.

I thought apostate exit stories were not welcome on this board.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no reason to attribute Sumerian heritage to the adam of the Creation & Garden story, even though it does make sense to see the Jaredites as Sumero-Akkadian in heritage.

I'm not sure that's completely right, although I do suspect Gen 1 & 2 did function as a quasi-ritualistic text much like we use them. I suspect, despite 2 Ne 2, that the versions on the brass plates were different than our Genesis. But the arguments for borrowing from Babylon are quite strong made primarily on the basis of the similarity of Gen 1 & 2 to several myths including Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. The Enuma Elish in particular has long been noted to have tons of similarities. The main difference is that the snake is a good guy in the Babylonian version and bad in the Jewish one. The Babylonian version I believe is dated to the 12th century wheras the Jewish version in Gen 2 is a bit more complex to date. (Here ignoring the accounts in Psalms which are usually considered the earliest accounts) Gen 1 I think most likely arose during the exile via a mix of Babylonian accounts and the earlier Jewish accounts.

The other reason to think the accounts late is the shift from a more Mormon like God amongst already existent beings to God creating the forces he battles. (Although even in Genesis 1 chaos is there before creation) The common example of this raised is God creating the sea monsters in Gen 1:21 but in the accounts in Isaiah, Job and Psalms God battles these monster as part of creation. (More closely paralleling the Canaanite myths) So many take this to be a Jew presenting an account of creation influenced by the older Babylonian myths yet opposing them in key ways. Some see Gen 1:2's "tehom" for the "deep" as possibly an echo of the name Tiamat too.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and my original response to the OP where in I stated that Yes Cureloms are imaginary.  Robert, has accused me of "taking [my] a priori beliefs that the Book of Mormon is non-historical and extrapolated from"... there to form a conclusion that Curelom's are imaginary.  What Robert has failed to take into consideration is that my a priori beliefs were that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, an ancient book translated from Golden Plates received from an angel describing the religious history of the inhabitants of this continent.  Those beliefs were built on decades of study and participation in church curriculum.  I firmly believed that the book was all that it claimed to be. 20 years ago if you would have asked me, I would have told you that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was indestructible.

Well it turned out that it wasn't, I made the mistake of actually pulling at some of the loose threads in the books truth claims.   I merely read the book and took its claims whole cloth...I supplemented this reading with instruction from the Church curriculum in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute, the later two, from which I graduated.  I also formed the basis of my beliefs from reading church publications such as the Era.   Everything that I both read and was taught supported a very naïve hemispheric model...one that unbeknownst to me conflicted with science.  

In the mid 1980's I read an article in Dialogue on population growth within the BoM that destroyed for me any possibility of the Book fitting with in the traditional hemispheric model...still I persisted going on to serve in the bishopric and on the high council...having successfully or so I thought doubting my doubts and putting them on the back burner...giving preference to my a priori beliefs, then seemingly like a domino falling, one problem after another began to form around Book of Mormon truth claims, DNA, Geography, 19th Century religious arguments, Anachronisms, all of my preconceived conclusions of what I believed the book to be the very foundation upon which I had built my testimony began to crumble before my very eyes....the biggest problem is that all of this conflicting information was more credible to me than the apologetic explanations coming from the church. It resolved hundreds of problems within the book. The more I studied the more man made the book became until it was just plain obvious that it was in fact man made.

So Robert, I don't expect you to understand my journey nor agree with my conclusions...but my a priori beliefs slowly shifted and changed over the course of 2 decades because of evidence that conflicted with and was more credible than counter evidence that was provided by the church itself. One of the most difficult and painful conclusions of my life was admitting that I had been wrong about the BoM.  I was heavily invested in it being true...I wanted it to be....I've paid a price for concluding otherwise...

What is that price Johnnie? 

Yes, you were wrong about the BoM. It does not teach a Hemispheric model. Early Church ideas were wrong about it. So? That doesn't mean the book is untrue. I have found many points in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith simply could not have gotten right if it were a work of fiction. This is by accepting archaeology and routine scientific dating methods. Simply because the book is not what you were taught  - a hemispheric model for the Americas, doesn't in the least suggest a conclusion that it is fiction. Such a conclusion is like saying I have found out the Bible is not about all of Eurasia, but only a speck of land on one edge of the Mediterranean Sea, and therefore it's a false book because it claims God's name will fill the earth. I am not going to list all the archaeological findings which support the Book of Mormon in this thread - that is beyond its scope, and actually I've already written well over a hundred pages on it. There is no way to do it justice here. Suffice it to say, there is no way Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon on his own as fiction. The reason for the OP was not to discuss all the archaeology of the Book of Mormon, but to whether there is any evidence for use of one word in the BoM. Arguing that the model of the BoM you were taught was crushed, and there is no archaeology to support the BoM and therefore it is fictional and therefore one can dismiss "curelom" is beyond the scope of this thread since I would have to post over a hundred pages of archaeological findings, pictures, graphs, etc to show there is scientific findings which support the BoM quite well. Can you please stick to the question at hand, and not an attack on the Book of Mormon as a whole? Thanks.