Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

III Nephi 2:11 through 4:28

especially 

3 Nephi 4 [1] And it came to pass that in the latter end of the eighteenth year those armies of robbers had prepared for battle, and began to come down and to sally forth from the hills, and out of the mountains, and the wilderness, and their strongholds, and their secret places, and began to take possession of the lands, both which were in the land south and which were in the land north, and began to take possession of all the lands which had been deserted by the Nephites, and the cities which had been left desolate.

So YOU give me a parallel in your chosen century.  Something that Joseph Smith copied from that vast library in Palmyra, NY with his forth grade education.  That same library where he got Paanchi, Pahoran, and sheum.

Also I strongly suggest that you do not mention pirates again, or I am out of here.  You need something really really impressive at this point.

It would have helped if you had read the Wikipedia article I linked to. Tacfarinas’ armies were composed largely of semi-nomadic tribesmen. “They spent the summers on the central plateau of Tunisia and the Aurès mountains of northeast Algeria where there was good grazing.” The mountains are where they lived (during the campaign season, at least), attacked from, and retreated to. 

Also, notice what happens in 3 Nephi 4 when the robbers try to lay siege to the Nephites. The Nephites are able to defeat them by attacking them in conventional battles. A very similar thing happened with Tacfarinas when he tried to besiege Roman fortresses. The Romans were able to beat them in a conventional battle, even with smaller numbers, and drive them back to the mountains.

My hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon was produced in the 17th Century by someone heavily influenced by Grotius. Joseph Smith couldn’t possibly have done it nor do I believe anybody in his day could have. 

Also. . . pirates!  Aren’t they just maritime robbers?

Edited December 24, 2017 by JarMan

[Gray]

On 12/22/2017 at 7:34 AM, Bobbieaware said:

My point is I’m glad to see that for the sake of discussion you’re willing to suspend your disbelief and at least theoretically consider the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be an actual historical account of an ancient people. I say this because it appears to me you’ve made up your mind and fancy yourself as having a sure knowledge the Book of Mormon is an ahistorical work of pure fiction. So it seems to me it’s a step in the right direction for an unbeliever, such as yourself, to at least theoretically approach the Book of Mormon as a possible authentic history; for in this discussion unless the Book of Mormon is at least theoretically considered to be a possible real and true historical account there’s no purpose in wanting to participate other than having a cynical desire to debunk. But I think you’re better than that.

I think it's highly unlikely that the Book of Mormon is historical, yes. But I'm happy to explore the issue.

That doesn't make me an unbeliever. The Book of Mormon being historical or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's scripture. That's the fundamentalist's false dichotomy.

[cdowis]

 

Quote

Also, notice what happens in 3 Nephi 4 when the robbers try to lay siege to the Nephites. The Nephites are able to defeat them by attacking them in conventional battles. A very similar thing happened with Tacfarinas when he tried to besiege Roman fortresses. The Romans were able to beat them in a conventional battle, even with smaller numbers, and drive them back to the mountains.

 

Were the TAcfarininas deserters from the  Roman cities?  Did they constantly rob from the Romans over the space of decades?  Did they write the Roman leaders and invite them to become joined with them (indicative of their affiliation with each other), or that they would destroy their cities otherwise?  Did the Romans use slash and burn techniques to starve their opponents and force them out into the open.

My hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon was produced in the 17th Century by someone heavily influenced by Grotius. Joseph Smith couldn’t possibly have done it nor do I believe anybody in his day could have. 

I admire your research effort and imagination, but you have a fatal flaw in your analysis.  See below

Also. . . pirates!  Aren’t they just maritime robbers?

Right;;  Just randomly mixing and match of the elements and get the desired results is a way to prove ANYTHING.  You don't start looking at commonalities.  You try to disprove your hypothesis by looking at the differences.  Otherwise you are just thrashing about and suffering from confirmation bias.

It's called the scientific method.

Anyway, enough of the calculus lesson.  Best o luck to you.

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Were the TAcfarininas deserters from the  Roman cities?

Many of them were, yes.

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Did they constantly rob from the Romans over the space of decades?

In Tacfarinas' case it was 10 years before he was finally vanquished by the Romans. But there are many examples of robbers during the Roman Empire. You should read "Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality" by Thomas Gruenwald for a good summary of the actions of many of these robbers over a period of hundreds of year. Many historians, in fact, have cited the role these robbers played in the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire.

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Did they write the Roman leaders and invite them to become joined with them (indicative of their affiliation with each other), or that they would destroy their cities otherwise?

Yes. Didn't you read the Wikipedia article?

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Did the Romans use slash and burn techniques to starve their opponents and force them out into the open.

Quite possibly. It's noted that as a result of these battles there was severe disruption of the province's grain production. This caused grain prices to soar and grain riots in the empire.

Ultimately I'm not claiming that the Book of Mormon is a precise retelling of any particular stories. My hypothesis is that there is a clear and significant influence.

[Bobbieaware]

19 hours ago, JarMan said:

Many of them were, yes.

In Tacfarinas' case it was 10 years before he was finally vanquished by the Romans. But there are many examples of robbers during the Roman Empire. You should read "Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality" by Thomas Gruenwald for a good summary of the actions of many of these robbers over a period of hundreds of year. Many historians, in fact, have cited the role these robbers played in the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire.

Yes. Didn't you read the Wikipedia article?

Quite possibly. It's noted that as a result of these battles there was severe disruption of the province's grain production. This caused grain prices to soar and grain riots in the empire.

Ultimately I'm not claiming that the Book of Mormon is a precise retelling of any particular stories. My hypothesis is that there is a clear and significant influence.

This reminds me of one of those zealous, just clever enough to be dangerous, detectives you see on those real-life murder mystery documentaries on TV. Early on in an investigation he has a strong hunch suspect A is guilty, and then with a singleminded dedication he sets out to gather “evidence” to build a purely circumstantial case because he’s almost sure he’s right, even though there is no actual hard forensic evidence against the man. 

Meanwhile, our “hero” simultaneously turns a blind eye to any and all the obvious exculpatory evidence brought to his attention that might otherwise clear the suspect and set him free. The detective continues to pursue what was at first just a visceral hunch until his overactive imagination has transformed that mere hunch into cocksure certitude, as a hardshell wall is erected around his thought processes that’s impervious to any reasonable attempt to get him to look oustside of his own contrived views and examine other possible scenarios, suspects,and leads.

At the end of the episode (there are many other similar episodes one can find with only minor variations on this tragic, oft-repeated theme), suspect A is cleared with irrefutable DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, and with the real perpetrator sitting in prison under a life sentence after making a full, highly-detailed and tearful confession. Nevertheless, our intrepid ‘Inspector Clouseau’ continues to believe suspect A is the real guilty party because his obsessive one track mind is convinced beyond all doubt it is so, and there is no thing and no one that will ever be able to convince him otherwise.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Bobbieaware