Scientists find massive society

[Avatar4321]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/scientists-find-massive-mayan-society-under-guatemala-jungle/2018/02/02/f4084488-0880-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

posted before I finished sorry

what i found intriguing:

And the extensive defensive fences, ditch-and-rampart systems and irrigation canals suggest a highly organized workforce.

captain Moroni?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Avatar4321

[HappyJackWagon]

That technology sounds amazing. Unlike other BoM archaeology this seems to fit the correct general timeline. That would be very cool to find some BoM evidence.

[strappinglad]

Something about not being able to see the forest(of structures ) for the trees, comes to mind. When I travelled the coast of Central America it was flat land with a few trees and bushes and dozen of mounds dotted all along the way.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

And the extensive defensive fences, ditch-and-rampart systems and irrigation canals suggest a highly organized workforce.

"Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land." Alma 48:   8

Edited February 3, 2018 by JAHS

[theplains]

49 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/scientists-find-massive-mayan-society-under-guatemala-jungle/2018/02/02/f4084488-0880-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

What makes this society in Guatemala a product of people mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Jim

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/scientists-find-massive-mayan-society-under-guatemala-jungle/2018/02/02/f4084488-0880-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

posted before I finished sorry

what i found intriguing:

 

 

captain Moroni?

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That technology sounds amazing. Unlike other BoM archaeology this seems to fit the correct general timeline. That would be very cool to find some BoM evidence.

I think you mean some more evidence

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I think you mean some more evidence

Uh...no. I meant what I said.

[Thinking]

Even though the Book of Mormon introduction was changed from principal ancestors to among the ancestors, it seems that any time there is a discovery about some civilization that occupied some of the land in South America, Mormons immediately begin connecting the ruins to the Book of Mormon.

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

captain Moroni?

 

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Quote

And the extensive defensive fences, ditch-and-rampart systems and irrigation canals suggest a highly organized workforce.

"Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land." Alma 48:8

Companies like this one benefit from some Mormons' insatiable desire to find physical evidence to solidify what they believe.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

captain Moroni?

While it would have been there are the time of Moroni it dates to well after.

 

The big hope is that they find records that survived there.

Edited February 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Avatar4321]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While it would have been there are the time of Moroni it dates to well after.

 

The big hope is that they find records that survived there.

That would be very nice though we have no reason to expect that we could translate such records.

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

What makes this society in Guatemala a product of people mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Jim

Right place right time evidence of building fortifications they were previously unknown.

whethet they are or not, I have no clue but this discovery does two things

1) it demonstrates that there is a lot of precolombian America we don’t know about and can find.

2) it shows fortified cities existed in the right time period unknown previously

regardless it’s fascinating

[Metis_LDS]

It's very exciting to see this discovery.  There will be more humbling discoveries about was what was lost.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Even though the Book of Mormon introduction was changed from principal ancestors to among the ancestors, it seems that any time there is a discovery about some civilization that occupied some of the land in South America, Mormons immediately begin connecting the ruins to the Book of Mormon.

 

Companies like this one benefit from some Mormons' insatiable desire to find physical evidence to solidify what they believe.

I actually agree with you on this, that they are taking advantage of this desire and making a bundle of money off it. 
There's nothing wrong with going on these tours if you are going to just see the sights, but if you are only going expecting to see something that is evidence for the Book of Mormon you are wasting your money.
Nobody knows for sure where it all happened.

 

[cdowis]

It is important to note the 15 million inhabitants  --  one argument against the Book of Mormon is the large population, especially  the number of dead at the War of Extinction at the end.

Edited February 4, 2018 by cdowis

[Gray]

Buried lede: on one of the walls they found graffiti saying "Amalickiah wuz here"

[carbon dioxide]

The BBC has an article to http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42916261

"The archaeologists were struck by the "incredible defensive features", which included walls, fortresses and moats. They showed that the Maya invested more resources into defending themselves than previously thought, Mr Garrison said."

I wonder who they were defending themselves against? 

" Another discovery that surprised archaeologists was the complex network of causeways linking all the Maya cities in the area. The raised highways, allowing easy passage even during rainy seasons, were wide enough to suggest they were heavily trafficked and used for trade."

One odd thing about all this.  So apparently the Maya were advanced enough make all this stuff but apparently not smart enough to discover or use the wheel.  I am sure somebody in that culture saw something roll and got an idea from that that would lead to them using a wheel. 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Sevenbak]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

One odd thing about all this.  So apparently the Maya were advanced enough make all this stuff but apparently not smart enough to discover or use the wheel.  I am sure somebody in that culture saw something roll and got an idea from that that would lead to them using a wheel. 

 

Since they made children’s toys with the axle and wheel, I think it’s absurd to assume they didn’t use the wheel on a larger scale, just because it hasn’t been documented yet.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Sevenbak

[juliann]

This brings me back to the days when one of the proofs against the BOM was that there just weren't enough people for as many deaths as the BOM claimed. And one more anti-BOM defense bites the dust. 

I find it interesting that the cries for proof still ascend but not once have I ever seen these critics acknowledge how many of their talking points have been quietly dropped, never to be admitted to again. I still remember the ZLMB days when they were insisting that their were no great civilizations when the Nephites arrived, it all happened later. Then the timeline changed.  I've said this for a long time, somebody should be keeping track of all of their oops! because their entire premise rests on their blind faith that the discovering has all been done. And they do not admit to what they used to insist was proof against the BOM.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Since they made children’s toys with the axle and wheel, I think it’s absurd to assume they didn’t use the wheel on a larger scale, just because it hasn’t been documented yet.

I've always thought it very strange to think that there could only be one migration route to the Americas. I still think it is strange to make a stand that there is no horseyness in BOM times after nonstop discoveries of what wasn't supposed to be coming at us from every angle. 

I still remember arguing with a MesoAmerican hobbiest/self-proclaimed expert after reading five books that there was trade along the coast, each city didn't have to make everything itself. There really is a strain of fundamentalism running through the everything has been discovered folk. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

This brings me back to the days when one of the proofs against the BOM was that there just weren't enough people for as many deaths as the BOM claimed. And one more anti-BOM defense bites the dust. 

I find it interesting that the cries for proof still ascend but not once have I ever seen these critics acknowledge how many of their talking points have been quietly dropped, never to be admitted to again. I still remember the ZLMB days when they were insisting that their were no great civilizations when the Nephites arrived, it all happened later. Then the timeline changed.  I've said this for a long time, somebody should be keeping track of all of their oops! because their entire premise rests on their blind faith that the discovering has all been done. And they do not admit to what they used to insist was proof against the BOM.

 I made some remarks on this concept years ago.  See here:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.
...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

Quote

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Brandt Gardner then weighed in:

Quote

Quote

Smac: Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

Gardner: That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

Quote

Smac: So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

Gardner: Yes. Dangerous.

Quote

Smac: The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Gardner: Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.o

I think this is a point worth considering as time goes on.

My sense is that we will never get a "smoking gun."  There will never be definitive, irrefutable scientific/empirical/archaelogical "evidence" demonstrating the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.  I'm quite okay with that.  After all, we are supposed to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).  However, I think the Book of Mormon is, over time, accumulating bits and pieces of evidence which, cumulatively, are just really hard chalk up to the various alternative (naturalistic) explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon.  New world "archaeological evidence" is scant and debateable, but Nahom and its associated data points are really quite interesting.  Textual and linguistic and other evidences continue to accumulate.  

I'm not sure how significant this new find is.  I look forward to hearing and reading more about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Buried lede: on one of the walls they found graffiti saying "Amalickiah wuz here"

which was on the side of hill named Cumora.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I made some remarks on this concept years ago.  See here:......................................

My sense is that we will never get a "smoking gun."  There will never be definitive, irrefutable scientific/ empirical/ archaelogical "evidence" demonstrating the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.  I'm quite okay with that.  After all, we are supposed to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).  However, I think the Book of Mormon is, over time, accumulating bits and pieces of evidence which, cumulatively, are just really hard chalk up to the various alternative (naturalistic) explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon.  New world "archaeological evidence" is scant and debateable, but Nahom and its associated data points are really quite interesting.  Textual and linguistic and other evidences continue to accumulate.  ...................................

I wasn't on this board back in 2007 when you and Brant had that insightful exchange, and I think the key comment there from Brant is that he would demand far more convincing evidence for Book of Mormon historicity than he would of the Bible -- simply because of the problematic gap in transmission of the BofM.

Of course, with the introduction of the Early Modern English step in the transmission process, we are left with an even greater mystery and irony that the Book of Mormon can't possibly be explained by natural means.  It is, as several of us have said, "preposterous."  All the more reason why we do not need a "smoking gun," nor "definitive, irrefutable scientific, empirical, archaeological evidence."  Given its preposterous nature, we only need a Bayesian indicator of statistical likelihood --- which should be impossible if the Book is fiction.  That is, no more than a preponderance of hard, forensic evidence should be necessary to make a reasonable case for the BofM.  That is the same degree of convincing evidence necessary to sway a jury in a civil suit.  Finding actual "proof" is a bridge too far, and I think that we should all be quite satisfied with the assemblage of evidence already extant.

[Sevenbak]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

which was on the side of hill named Cumora.

 

Actually, Amalakiah would’ve left his name on the side of the Mount named Antipas.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 I made some remarks on this concept years ago.  See here:

 

Not the same concept though. There has never been a divergence from our stand that the BOM can't be proved that I'm aware of and I've been at this a pretty long time. 

My "concept" is that critics have continually made mocking accusations that the BOM is untrue because of some piece of history or archaeology that later turns out to be untrue. They then stop using that talking point and just move on to the next as if they never said anything. That has nothing whatsoever to do with smoking guns or proof of the BOM. It has to do with the intellectual honesty of die hard critics who pick the wrong stuff to DISprove the BOM and then won't admit to their own errors.