Ryan Dahle Posted July 31, 2018 Author Posted July 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, cinepro said: There are different kinds of responses. Sometimes a response adequately addresses an issue and resolves it, but sometimes it doesn't. A good way to tell is whether or not that issue continues to be brought up by those who are familiar with the response. It's pretty much a given that believers are going to accept almost any "response" that is offered. That's not difficult. But let's not pretend that just because a response is offered the issue has been resolved, or that because believers accept a response that it is rock-solid and totally sound (although I suspect that for most people offering a response, having the believers accept it and maintain their belief is enough, if not the primary objective.) Who is pretending that "because a response is offered the issue has been resolved"? My point was that win-win seems unaware that responses have indeed been made to the issues he raised, and his lack of engagement with these responses, combined with his seeming lack of awareness about the evidences I had brought up about the Book of Abraham and Enoch, inclined me to not discuss these issues with him.
JarMan Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Grotius didn’t believe that Solomon’s fleets could reach the Indies, let alone the Jaredites reaching America 1500 years earlier. He was so unconvinced the ancients could travel such great distances that he believed Ophir was in Arabia. So its hard to imagine he’d be the author of a Jaredite adventure across the Pacific. Would you mind providing your source for this? 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: This conversation reminds me of a map we’ve already looked at, showing where 17th century explorers and mapmakers placed the islands of the Indies. The Solomon Islands were named after Solomon because the Spanish navigator Alvaro de Mendana believed them to be Ophir, directly below California. Two things here: first, this map is from 1589. Second, if you look at the entire map it is still a vast distance from Asia to meso-America. Grotius would almost certainly have been aware of the Joan Blaeu map from 1635 that I posted earlier. He knew just how vast the Pacific Ocean was. 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Grotius probably did know about the 600 BC journey of the Jews to Cochin, India. Within a few years of his death the Dutch were set up in Cochin and already discussing the black and white Jews they found there, and the missing pre-exilic Biblical texts that they had brought with them from Yemen, and kept safe in iron boxes along with their brass plates. IMO, this is the foundational narrative of the Book of Lehi. You may have previously provided references to support your claim that this journey was known about in the 17th Century. Would you mind providing them again? 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: That's also what I expected to find. But instead I found the opposite to be true: Haystack Prayer Meeting The first American missionaries were directly influenced by Claudius Buchanan's account (Star in the East) of the first temple Black Jews of Cochin, and their brass plates. These missionaries were also followers of Oliver Cowdery's great Uncle Nathanael Emmons, who was slightly frustrated that the young missionaries weren't interested in the Native Americans, and were sailing off to places like India, Sri Lanka and Burma. I'm referring to 16th and 17th Century Europeans. The Spanish didn't waste much time setting up missions in the new world. Grotius undoubtedly also saw America as a mission field. 12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Joseph was something special. He was revealing scripture from all over. Within a few months of publishing the Book of Mormon he was revealing Old World scripture. According to David Whitmer, his next feat was to be the translation of the records of the tribes that wandered through Asia. That's incredibly significant IMO. Moroni was going to replace the Golden Plates with another set of scriptures, from Asia. The revelatory work Joseph was called to do was more expansive, geographically, than we seem willing to allow. Interesting. . . but I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Rajah Manchou Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, JarMan said: Would you mind providing your source for this? I've only done a few searches on Grotius' views on Ophir. You might have primary sources, which would trump what I've found. This comes from Dissertation qui peuvent servir de prolegomenes de l'ecriture sainte, Emery , 1720: Basically says that "Grotius believed that the vessels of Solomon did/could not go as far as the Indies, but rather to the port of the city, that Arrian named Aphar, Ptolemy Sappera, and Etienne Saphirina, that were on the coasts of Arabia." But I admit we'd need a skilled French speaker to translate that phrase accurately. Or better yet, the primary sources for Grotius' comments on Ophir. But the point that you haven't really addressed here yet is that it is clear that Grotius did not believe that Jews had settled in America. I know you have said that he really did believe that they had, but just didn't discuss it publicly. Rather than post any more maps or irrelevant content, could you explain why Grotius might write a book about Jews in the Americas, when he is on record saying that he did not believe Jews were ever in America? 1
Rajah Manchou Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, JarMan said: You may have previously provided references to support your claim that this journey was known about in the 17th Century. Would you mind providing them again? It would require a lot of space to go into detail, and I've done that a number of times already here, with no engagement. So here's the summary: The Bible mentions the Rechabites, a pre-exilic group that modern scholars suspect were "worshippers of the chariot throne". Rechab/Merkab = chariot. The Lord covenanted with the Rechabites that they would "stand before Him forever". The Rechabites disappear from the Biblical record in 600 BC but centuries of speculation about the Rechabites lead to the development of a tradition that the Rechabs had been led in the 6th century BC to a promised land of their own, somewhere on the opposite shores of the Great Waters not far from Ophir and Havilah, the Land of Gold. Of course this sounds like what we'd expect to find in the Book of Lehi. Fast forward to 1492/1498 when Iberian explorers, driven by promises of the gold of Ophir/Havilah, set out to discover the Indies. Columbus goes west and Vasco de Gama goes east. Columbus fully expected to find Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Christians there, but he didn't. On the other hand, Vasco de Gama did. In Cochin India, the Portugeuese discovered large communities of Hebrew-speaking Jews, and Aramaic-speaking Christians. In 1500, the Portuguese set up the first European settlement in Cochin, bringing with them the horrors of the Inquisition. The Cochin Jews and Thomas Christians suffered terribly under the Portuguese, forcing them to relocate. The Dutch arrive in the early 17th century, and after a number of battles on land and sea, eventually force the Portuguese out, establishing Cochin as one of the primary trading posts of the VOC. The Dutch did a lot to assist and support the Cochin Jews and Thomas Christians, restoring much of what the Portuguese had destroyed. From 1500 until 1830, there was quite a lot of speculation about who these Malabar Jews/Christians were, when they had arrived, what their scriptures (brass plates) contained, and how far they had spread across the Indies. Most importantly, there was speculation that these East Indian Jews could be the fabled Rechabites, known by that time as Rahmans, or Jewish Brahmans. I honestly don't know how much Grotius would have known about the Jews in Cochin. I'll leave that to you, if you are interested. But the speculation was surely there, starting as early as the 1500s, when the Europeans found Jews with synagogues and apocryphal scriptures, in the Indies. Edited August 1, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 1
win-win Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Dahle said: Here are just 10 samples of lines of evidence that fit this description well: 1. the comprehensive argument for Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon 2. the comprehensive onomastic studies of the Book of Mormon, including lots of good proposals for Hebrew or Egyptian wordplays 3. the numerous links between extant Abrahamic texts and the Book of Abraham 4. the extant Enoch material that aligns so well with the Book of Moses 5. studies on Book of Mormon warfare 6. olive culture in the Book of Mormon 7. the system of weights and measures in the Book of Mormon 8. the cumulative weight of intertextual analysis 9. King Benjamin’s coronation speech and its ancient Near Eastern analogues 10. stylometric analysis (and no, the Holmes and Jockers studies do not count as valid counterarguments) 1 & 2. Your definition of comprehensive is very different than mine. What are your most compelling arguments for Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? I began researching and came to a complete stop upon discovery that apologists were using the ‘’comprehensive’’ theory that Nahom was another name for NHM in Yemen. I was embarrassed and needed to distance myself from extreme nonsense of this nature. You haven't addressed the issues I presented. Consider that your idea of wordplay, or Reformed Egyptian, could just as easily have been channeled from a mischievous ginn or speaking in tongues. A few years ago I watched a series of events that people experienced without explanation. One person began speaking a language that nobody could understand. An expert heard the recording and claimed the dialect was ancient extinct; something that the person had no way of knowing. I began researching the act of getting information through tongues. I encountered a number of people, one of whom was a member of the Joyner congregation. The person kept saying the word Allah and inshallah over and over very quickly. Not exactly Christian, so there's that to consider. Another New York vlogger kept using a word that was ancient Sanskrit no longer spoken. The word was an ancient name for Shiva. After a few more similar situations I discovered a pattern even though it’s doubtful that any of the people knew each other in real life. One of the people kept saying the word Shaka and Ash, which are African for life and Hindu Sanskrit for hope. I asked the person to define the context of life and hope. The man became enraged. The Book of Mormon contains some names which appear to be Greek. Did the Nephites speak Greek? Where was the residue of Grecian words in the real America as a result of this? Was the residue only in the Book of Mormon America? How do you explain such things? Does it take extreme out-on-a-limb thinking to engage in apologetics of this type? Anachronisms were lifted from the King James Bible, showing a penchant for plagiarized Hebrew wordplay from at least one source. 3. Are you referring to the Book of Abraham as in non-Abrahamic funerary papyri? Where do the incorrect phallic symbol translations fall into your categorization and analysis? 4. Refer to my previous explanation of the book of Enoch resurgence prior to, and during, Joseph Smiths era. 5. Some of the authors I’ve already presented provide thorough analysis although you aren't interested. Quote Quote For example, the Book of Mormon details the fortifications made by one Captain Moroni. It explains that he and his men cast up large mounds of dirt to protect their cities. Well…look around the American continent and you can find ancient mounds. Evidence, right? If you want it to be, sure. But keep in mind, this same section says that Moroni and his men fought with swords, scimitars, shields, helmets and breast plates. It also suggests that their enemies attacked them at the places of fortification. This causes some problems. First of all, no such ancient weapons or armor have ever been discovered. Not a single one. Second, if you look at the mounds, many are not all that big. Were the Lamanites foolish enough to attack in one single fortified place? Why not surround the town or go around the fortifications? Given the archaeological findings as they related to ancient America, there were very, very few massive cities. The Book of Mormon details several of them, and very close together to boot. So while you find one cherry picked piece of evidence from the narrative, looking at it in context reveals many things that are most certainly false. Could there have been massive wars involving millions of combatants with swords and armor? I guess…but we would have found these artifacts by now. The Romans would have been around at the same time and we are still finding their artifacts, weapons, cements, etc. So there is no proof of the Book of Mormon. You can cherry pick pieces of evidence if you want to, but when viewed holistically there’s a reason not a single credible person outside the church believes the Book of Mormon has any setting in reality. Ancient mounds were of archaeological interest during Smith's era. The rest is easily filler - or fodder; and not good filler at that, but the rest of the religious theatrics and obeyance criteria are enough to keep it from being honestly questioned or investigated by some folks. Others tackle such fears and discover that the Truth will indeed set them free from error or lies. 6. Are you referring to the fact that wheat or olives are located in America? Domesticated plants including wheat were first farmed about 10,000 years ago and were brought to America via Columbus. Likewise olives were introduced by Spanish colonists bringing the olive to the New World, where its cultivation prospered in present-day Peru and Chile. Olive tree cultivation quickly spread along the valleys of South America's dry Pacific coast. How would Joseph Smith know about this? I've already explained that him and his group were extremely interested in archaeology and archeological information such as market trade was and still is a topic of interest. I learned about past and present market trade in 5th grade. Market trade has always been a constant staple educational topic. Why do you think it wouldn't have been known during Smith's era when folks were extremely interested in all historic things related to Meso-American and other archaeological information. 7. This has been addressed by authors like Dr. Coe, whom you don't apparently wish to entertain or accept. Have you tried engaging your argument with him? In 1973, Coe addressed the issue in an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought: Quote Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples.... Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.... The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has even shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere. —a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given” (Alma 11:3). This is kindergarten material. This could easily be interchanged with any weight system, including kilos. Joseph missed the Troy ounce system for what it’s worth. Let’s be silly for a moment and say that a dronch of gold equals a plooth of silver. Is there Let’s look at calendars. Anciently calendars were considered extremely important. However, according to the Book of Mormon the highest numbered day is the twelfth, but the total number of months in a year and the number of days in a month is not explicitly stated. Yet the Book also references a week, which isn’t a Hebraism but rather an anachronism. One of many. Nevertheless many ancient tribal calendars known to legit sociologist archaeologists reveal that none resemble the Book of Mormon’s very limited definition of an extremely important tribal measurement of time. That doesn’t stop Orson Pratt from first proposing that the Nephite calendar probably had exactly 365 days, the same as the Egyptian civil calendar in use at Lehi's time, and also the same as the Native American calendar used thereafter. How does this relate to the actual calendar information that is provided? It doesn’t. The pattern repeats itself similarly in the conundrum between various leaders providing differing locations and data about the Hill Cumorah. 8. The cumulative weight of intertextual analysis provides many people with the required information necessary to know they’ve been sold a bill of goods by a number of charlatans. 9. King Benjamin’s coronation speech? Old Testament parallels to Mosiah's coronation can be found in 1 Kings 1:34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12, 14, 17; 23:3; and 2 Chronicles 6:13. Do you suppose any of the group cracked open an old testament and/or Torah? Joseph Smith Junior and Senior, plus their buddies, were involved in Free Masonry. There are elements similar to Freemasonry and the Jewish tradition of Kabbalah providing easy access to information if they wanted it, and apparently they obviously wanted it. 10. What study will you accept and why?
win-win Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: From 1500 until 1806, there was quite a lot of speculation about who these Malabar Jews were, when they had arrived, what their scriptures (brass plates) contained, how far they had spread across the Indies and what their relationship was to the nearby Christians communities that seemed to date back to the 1st century AD. Most importantly, there was speculation that these East Indian Jews could be the fabled Rechabites, known by that time as Rahmans, or Jewish Brahmans. I honestly don't know how much Grotius would have known about the Jews in Cochin. I'll leave that to you, if you are interested. But the speculation was surely there, starting as early as the 1500s, when the Europeans found Jews with synagogues and apocryphal scriptures, in the Indies. Did you catch the contradiction? Speculation that the community started in the 1st century ce, but this same speculation started as early as the 1500's. How does this make any sense? I researched for years and couldn't come up with any valid Christian artifacts dated to the first or 2nd century in any area that disciples were alleged to have visited.
JarMan Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: I've only done a few searches on Grotius' views on Ophir. You might have primary sources, which would trump what I've found. This comes from Dissertation qui peuvent servir de prolegomenes de l'ecriture sainte, Emery , 1720: Basically says that "Grotius believed that the vessels of Solomon did/could not go as far as the Indies, but rather to the port of the city, that Arrian named Aphar, Ptolemy Sappera, and Etienne Saphirina, that were on the coasts of Arabia." But I admit we'd need a skilled French speaker to translate that phrase accurately. Or better yet, the primary sources for Grotius' comments on Ophir. But the point that you haven't really addressed here yet is that it is clear that Grotius did not believe that Jews had settled in America. I know you have said that he really did believe that they had, but just didn't discuss it publicly. Rather than post any more maps or irrelevant content, could you explain why Grotius might write a book about Jews in the Americas, when he is on record saying that he did not believe Jews were ever in America? Grotius didn’t categorically reject Jews ever being in America. He objected to the idea that the 10 lost tribes came to America in accordance with 4 Esdras. The reasons he gave are that he rejected the authority of the work and that America was unknown at the time. Remember, the Book of Mormon isn’t about the 10 lost tribes anyway I think you’re losing sight of the fact I am hypothesizing a fictional story. Grotius doesn’t have to believe Jews were ever in America to write a story about Jews in America. It’s also possible he wanted to draw attention away from himself in case his work was discovered.
Rajah Manchou Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, JarMan said: I think you’re losing sight of the fact I am hypothesizing a fictional story. Grotius doesn’t have to believe Jews were ever in America to write a story about Jews in America. Haven't lost sight of that, I'm just saying that if it is a fictional story written about a fictitious people in a fictitious land, why are you claiming it is based in America? The internal geography fits nothing in America. The animals aren't found in America. The material objects described in the text aren't found in America. If it is a fiction, why worry about where these people lived? Could the East Indies fit just as well as the West Indies? If the former is more historically accurate than the later, why defend the latter?
Rajah Manchou Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, win-win said: Did you catch the contradiction? Speculation that the community started in the 1st century CE, but this same speculation started as early as the 1500's. How does this make any sense? I researched for years and couldn't come up with any valid Christian artifacts dated to the first or 2nd century in any area that disciples were alleged to have visited. I'm not arguing that Thomas converted Indians to the Gospel in the 1st century CE. I'm saying that those Christians in India claim that Thomas did, and for many centuries researchers have been trying to determine if there is any truth to the claims. The same goes for the Cochin Jews. Some claim to be first temple Jews, others claim to be second temple Jews. I think the genetic evidence places them closer to the second temple. But all this would not be known in the early 19th century when Claudius Buchanan visited Cochin, and wrote the Star in the East about the 1st temple black Jews and their brass plates carried with them from Sena in Yemen, 25 miles from Nehem. I believe the history described in Buchanan's Star in the East was a source for the Book of Lehi. Edited August 1, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
JarMan Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Haven't lost sight of that, I'm just saying that if it is a fictional story written about a fictitious people in a fictitious land, why are you claiming it is based in America? The internal geography fits nothing in America. The animals aren't found in America. The material objects described in the text aren't found in America. If it is a fiction, why worry about where these people lived? Could the East Indies fit just as well as the West Indies? If the former is more historically accurate than the later, why defend the latter? It’s a fictional story in a real land. It was written to the natives of America as a missionary tool. The idea was to convert them to Christianity. But not the Catholic version brought by the Spanish and Portuguese. And not the Calvinist version brought by the English and Dutch either. But true Christianity. The Christianity of the Book of Mormon. If Grotius was the author this doesn’t fit your setting since the Dutch came after his death. The geography fits meso-America. The animals and objects fit Europe, not America or Asia. This is presumably an artifact of translation which was done by a European.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 1, 2018 Author Posted August 1, 2018 10 hours ago, win-win said: You haven't addressed the issues I presented. That's because, as I stated before, you clearly aren't familiar with any of the evidences that I am talking about, nor do you seem interested in understanding them before trying to refute them. Which confirms to me that this would be a time-wasting conversation. So I'll let you "win" this mostly one-sided conversation, seeing that is what you seem to want most out of it. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted August 2, 2018 Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) On 8/1/2018 at 10:55 AM, JarMan said: It’s a fictional story in a real land. It was written to the natives of America as a missionary tool. The idea was to convert them to Christianity. But not the Catholic version brought by the Spanish and Portuguese. And not the Calvinist version brought by the English and Dutch either. But true Christianity. The Christianity of the Book of Mormon. If Grotius was the author this doesn’t fit your setting since the Dutch came after his death. The Dutch were in Coromandel (India) and the East Indies since 1601. If Grotius was the author, he had been writing about the East Indies as early as 1609, the Malacca Strait in particular. He would have had a very good idea about the shape, size and distances between the Dutch colonies in the former Kingdom of Judea. On 8/1/2018 at 10:55 AM, JarMan said: The geography fits meso-America. The animals and objects fit Europe, not America or Asia. This is presumably an artifact of translation which was done by a European. The animals (eg. domesticated elephants) and objects (eg. silk) fit Asia, not Europe or America. The internal map of the Book of Mormon fits near perfectly over the Dutch colonies in Judea. This is why I've been interested in your model. The internal map also aligns with archaeological sites sharing Book of Mormon toponyms dating back to the Book of Mormon time period. The geography fits, the animals and objects all fit, the archaeological timeline fits, the Judeo-Christian traditions fit. the toponyms fit, the ancient highways fit, etc. Land NorthwardLand of ZarahemlaLand Southward For two years I've invited anybody familiar with Book of Mormon geography to find even one point where the Book of Mormon timeline and internal geography don't line up with the Malay Peninsula. There are plenty of Book of Mormon geography experts on this board. If the geography I propose is wrong, it should only take a couple of minutes to demonstrate it. Edited August 2, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
Ryan Dahle Posted August 2, 2018 Author Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: For two years I've invited anybody familiar with Book of Mormon geography to find even one point where the Book of Mormon timeline and internal geography don't line up with the Malay Peninsula. There are plenty of Book of Mormon geography experts on this board. If the geography I propose is wrong, it should only take a couple of minutes to demonstrate it. Well, I'm not an "expert" in BofM geography by any means, but after looking at your model, I have a few questions about it. It seems you have interpreted a prominent mountain range which runs north and south as the "narrow strip of wilderness" that divided the land of Nephi (controlled by the Lamanites) from the Nephite lands northward. We are given the most detail about this strip of wilderness in Alma 22:27: Quote 27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided. I think the bolded section above is chiastic and should look something like this: which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness which ran from the sea east even to the sea west and [ran] round about on the borders of the seashore and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla [and ran] through the borders of Manti by the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west and thus were the lamanites and the Nephites divided The outer layers emphasize the division between major lands and peoples, the next layers shows the directionality and boundaries of the division, and the middle layers describe what areas the division ran "about" and "through". This reading suggests that the wilderness not only ran from the "sea east even to the sea west" but that it also ran "from the east towards the west." We can be fairly confident that the phrase "running from the east towards the west" doesn't refer to its immediate antecedent (the river Sidon) because the text always seems to indicate that the Sidon runs from south to north, based on the fact that armies are always described as being either east or west of it. Also, both your map and Sorenson's have the Sidon running from south to north. So the chiastic structure (which links the east-west directionality with the east-west sea boundaries) combined with what we know about the river Sidon, strongly suggests that narrow strip of land was running in an east-west direction, which makes the best sense because it was dividing the land northward from the land southward. This interpretation seems to conflict with your strip of wilderness that runs virtually north to south, and which somewhat awkwardly divides the land northward from the land southward. Edited August 2, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
win-win Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 On 8/1/2018 at 8:13 AM, Ryan Dahle said: That's because, as I stated before, you clearly aren't familiar with any of the evidences that I am talking about, nor do you seem interested in understanding them before trying to refute them. Which confirms to me that this would be a time-wasting conversation. So I'll let you "win" this mostly one-sided conversation, seeing that is what you seem to want most out of it. On 8/1/2018 at 8:13 AM, Ryan Dahle said: That's because, as I stated before, you clearly aren't familiar with any of the evidences that I am talking about, nor do you seem interested in understanding them before trying to refute them. Which confirms to me that this would be a time-wasting conversation. So I'll let you "win" this mostly one-sided conversation, seeing that is what you seem to want most out of it. I've read the idea of warfare, weight measurement, etc, and don't agree with them for reasons that were put forward. I don't know how clearer or concise to write. Olive trees. Your point 'olive trees' is not explicit. Are you saying that Zenos or Nephi knew about olive trees in a location that didn't have any pre-Columbian? Olive trees are written in the Torah and the Bible, therefore Joseph Smith would easily have access to any tales about olive trees. Are you sure you were looking for a conversation and refutation and not blind agreement, because it seems like the latter. In that case it certainly would be, and is, a time-waster for myself and I won't bother any longer. There is simply no logical explanation that would please you. Why did you bother with an invitation? You could have just as easily said that anyone who has looked into my points and doesn't agree need not attempt to refute it. Sadly you are assuming that my title win-win is what ""I"" want most out of it. You clearly aren't familiar with the term of communication outcome called win-win which allows both sides to discuss in a manner that will reach an understanding and therefore a win-win for everyone. It's a positive counter to a position such as yours that wants to always be right, while nothing presented will satisfy you if it doesn't agree with your programmed belief. Everything you've presented have logical answers that you refuse to consider or refute, while claiming that the one who doesn't agree doesn't know the information. You are obviously deeply triggered by my comments and are going into illogical defiance. I understand that. I was there for awhile myself until I became honest and upfront about wanting to know the Truth no matter what and at any cost; in which case God wins. You aren't ready for that and the triggering response is evident. You want Joseph Smith and your religion to win at any cost or at any claim in the face of absurdity. All the best.
JarMan Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: The Dutch were in Coromandel (India) and the East Indies since 1601. If Grotius was the author, he had been writing about the East Indies as early as 1609, the Malacca Strait in particular. He would have had a very good idea about the shape, size and distances between the Dutch colonies in the former Kingdom of Judea. The animals (eg. domesticated elephants) and objects (eg. silk) fit Asia, not Europe or America. The internal map of the Book of Mormon fits near perfectly over the Dutch colonies in Judea. This is why I've been interested in your model. The internal map also aligns with archaeological sites sharing Book of Mormon toponyms dating back to the Book of Mormon time period. The geography fits, the animals and objects all fit, the archaeological timeline fits, the Judeo-Christian traditions fit. the toponyms fit, the ancient highways fit, etc. Land NorthwardLand of ZarahemlaLand Southward For two years I've invited anybody familiar with Book of Mormon geography to find even one point where the Book of Mormon timeline and internal geography don't line up with the Malay Peninsula. There are plenty of Book of Mormon geography experts on this board. If the geography I propose is wrong, it should only take a couple of minutes to demonstrate it. The Book of Mormon mentions corn, barley, and wheat. We would expect an Asian setting to mention millet and rice, but definitely not corn, which is a new world crop. I've mentioned before that silk is used as a literary topos. Let me flesh that out a little bit. Silk is mentioned six different times in the Book of Mormon. All six include references to fine-twined linen (5 times) or fine linen (1 time). All six references also mention gold and silver. Two references mention scarlets. Now compare Revelation 18:12: "The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet. . ." Now Ezekiel 16:10: "I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk." And Ezekiel 16:13: "Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work. . ." The only other mention of silk in the bible is Proverbs 31: "22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant." My conclusion is that the mention of silk in the Book of Mormon is simply biblical phrasing metaphorically representing prosperity or wealth, particularly fine clothing. There's no need to believe the writer or translator intended to refer to actual silk. I think a list of Book of Mormon weaponry, metallurgy and animals will also show a close match with what we would expect from an early modern European translator, not what would be expected in an ancient Asian setting. The mention of elephants is really the only thing pointing away from Europe and toward Asia. But again, they were only used by Book of Mormon people who presumably passed through elephant country on their way to the new world. As for geography, I'm not one who has studied it very closely. From looking at the various maps my guess is that there was enough known about meso-American geography by 1635 to create the Book of Mormon. Edited August 3, 2018 by JarMan
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 23 minutes ago, JarMan said: The Book of Mormon mentions corn, barley, and wheat. We would expect an Asian setting to mention millet and rice, but definitely not corn, which is a new world crop. Barley and wheat were common in Asia during the Book of Mormon time period. The name Java comes from Ptolemy's Jabadiu, or "Barley Island". In contrast, barley and wheat were not common in the Americas. Millet and rice could be sheum and neas. Corn was a word used in the Bible to describe all grains, not maize. I'm proposing a model that has no anachronisms. With a geography that fits. That corresponds to archeological sites and historical 6th century BC Israelite groups with brass plates that date to the Book of Mormon time period. I'm proposing a model that allows for silk to be silk and elephants to be elephants. Horses can be horses, and not horsey-things, like a hippopotamus. But minds seem to be made up that its Mesoamerica, or bust. So I'll leave it there.
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Well, I'm not an "expert" in BofM geography by any means, but after looking at your model, I have a few questions about it. It seems you have interpreted a prominent mountain range which runs north and south as the "narrow strip of wilderness" that divided the land of Nephi (controlled by the Lamanites) from the Nephite lands northward. We are given the most detail about this strip of wilderness in Alma 22:27: Thanks for having a look. "The king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided." So we have the king's land which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness that runs from the sea east to the sea west. But we don't know wich way this wilderness runs. But the text also mentions that the land of Zarahemla was divided from the king's land by the borders of the wilderness which was on the north that ran through the borders of Manti, past the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west. This is the wilderness that divides the Lamanites from the Nephites, and it appears to run north/south. This orientation makes sense when we consider the next two verses. "Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore. And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites." The Land of Zarahemla is nearly surrounded by the Lamanites. If the strip of wilderness that served as the border was in the south and ran east to west, why would Lamanites be in the borders by the seashore in the east? How could the Nephites be nearly surrounded by Lamanites if the border that divided them was in the south and ran east to west?
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JarMan said: We would expect an Asian setting to mention millet and rice, but definitely not corn, which is a new world crop. In describing the inhabitants of Central Asia, Grotius mentions corn: "Horace, speaking of the Scythians and the Getae, represents their Way of living in the following Manner, that they lived in the Fields, and drew their moveable Huts with Waggons, whenever they changed Place, that they did not divide their Lands by Acres; that the Corn and Fruits which their Grounds produced, were free and common to all; that they sowed no more than would suffice for one Year, and chearfully succeeded one another in their annual Labour." Lib. III. Od. XXIV. ver. 9, &c. - Grotius. Edited August 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 1
JarMan Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Barley and wheat were common in Asia during the Book of Mormon time period. The name Java comes from Ptolemy's Jabadiu, or "Barley Island". In contrast, barley and wheat were not common in the Americas. Millet and rice could be sheum and neas. Silk is silk but millet and rice are sheum and neas? 3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Corn was a word used in the Bible to describe all grains, not maize. Corn is not a word used in the bible. Corn is the word the English translator used to describe whatever Greek word in the bible that generally means grain. Sometimes corn is not literally corn, but is grain in general. And sometimes silk is not silk, but riches, particularly expensive clothing. 3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: I'm proposing a model that has no anachronisms. With a geography that fits. That corresponds to archeological sites and historical 6th century BC Israelite groups with brass plates that date to the Book of Mormon time period. I'm proposing a model that allows for silk to be silk and elephants to be elephants. Horses can be horses, and not horsey-things, like a hippopotamus. But minds seem to be made up that its Mesoamerica, or bust. So I'll leave it there. I've never claimed horses were horse-y things or hippopotamus. My theory is that the writer listed animals using the native words for the animals. The translator didn't know what the native words meant so he "translated" them using the words he was familiar with. He used the word horse because it showed up in context with chariots. 3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: In describing the inhabitants of Central Asia, Grotius mentions corn: "Horace, speaking of the Scythians and the Getae, represents their Way of living in the following Manner, that they lived in the Fields, and drew their moveable Huts with Waggons, whenever they changed Place, that they did not divide their Lands by Acres; that the Corn and Fruits which their Grounds produced, were free and common to all; that they sowed no more than would suffice for one Year, and chearfully succeeded one another in their annual Labour." Lib. III. Od. XXIV. ver. 9, &c. - Grotius. Grotius never mentions corn. The English translator does. In a translated work we cannot insist on a literal translation in some places but allow for a non-literal translation in other places. Bringing up instances of translation into English where corn doesn't really mean corn just strengthens my argument that silk doesn't have to mean silk and horse doesn't have to mean horse. Here are the animals that exist in Book of Mormon lands as far as I can tell from a brief search: sheep, horse, a$$, cattle, oxen, swine, goat, wild goat, cow, serpent, honey bee, vulture, dog, whale, elephant, curelom, cumom. We also see some general terms like beast, fish, creature, fowl, etc. These are all animals that would be quite common to a European writer. The elephant is the only one not native to Europe. Notice also that lions are mentioned several times. But every single time lion is mentioned similistically (except for the direct biblical quotations). In other words things are described as being like or as a lion. But no lions literally exist. This is just how Europeans would describe them since lions didn't exist in Europe either. But they did exist in Asia. And there are many other common Asian animals that find no mention in the Book of Mormon such as the water buffalo, zebu, duck, and chicken. When I get a chance I'll go through the weapons and armor and show that, they too, are European not Asian. Edited August 3, 2018 by JarMan
Ryan Dahle Posted August 3, 2018 Author Posted August 3, 2018 4 hours ago, win-win said: Are you sure you were looking for a conversation and refutation and not blind agreement, because it seems like the latter. In that case it certainly would be, and is, a time-waster for myself and I won't bother any longer. There is simply no logical explanation that would please you. Why did you bother with an invitation? You could have just as easily said that anyone who has looked into my points and doesn't agree need not attempt to refute it. I don't think you carefully read the OP. The point wasn't to debate the issues that I brought up. Here is what I said in the conclusion of the OP, which specified the intent and scope of my inquiry: Quote Why is it that so many people, on their way out of the LDS church, don’t seriously engage with this massive body of evidence that could potentially help revitalize their testimonies? I have personally invited quite a few individuals struggling with faith to take this information seriously and to engage it thoroughly, and in essentially all cases the response has been to essentially ignore the offer. I guess I want to hear from some of you—who have chosen to not seriously engage these evidences—explain why you have made this choice, especially in light of my analysis above. And I am being sincere here. I don’t want to rehash each of these issues and prove I am right. I just genuinely want to understand your rationale. So first of all, I'm guessing that you aren't and probably never were a member of the LDS church. I assume you would have mentioned something about it, if you had been. So, although I may be wrong, I assume my post wasn't addressed to you in the first place. Second of all, I explicitly stated that the purpose of the post wasn't to "rehash each of these issues and prove I am right." I just wanted to hear the rationale, from a specific group of people, for why they didn't engaging the evidences. Third of all, do you actually consider yourself to be well-informed about these issues? You wrote: 5 hours ago, win-win said: I've read the idea of warfare, weight measurement, etc, and don't agree with them for reasons that were put forward. What do you mean you've read the "idea" of these topics? Do you mean that you have studied the expansive body of LDS scholarship pertaining to them. Or perhaps do you mean that you quickly looked them up on your favorite anti-Mormon website and then, for some reason, agreed whole-heartedly with whatever critique they offered. I'm strongly guessing the latter is the case. Am I wrong? So maybe you can tell me what evidence you think you are informed enough about to responsibly discuss. You seem to have just barely learned about NHM, so that is out of the question. You seem to think NHM accounts for the entirety of the Hebrew evidence, so that is out of the question. You seem to not even understand what Olive Culture is referring to. You think Michael Coe should have something to say about the weights and measures evidence, which is irrelevant because it mostly has to do with the system's brilliant elegance and its connections with Egyptian and Mesopotamian systems. You seem to think that Laurence's 1821 translation is somehow big news, or that it reduces the Enochic connections I mentioned. And so on and so forth. You clearly aren't well read on these topics. So maybe you can explain why I somehow have an obligation to explain them to you, when the OP most probably wasn't addressed to you, when it explicitly stated that I didn't want to rehash them, and when you clearly have an agenda to prove me wrong at all costs. I'm quite confident that no matter what evidence is raised, no matter how good it may be, your little anecdotes about amazing feats of psychosis can explain it all away anyways. So I'll tell you what. If you can convince me that you are well-informed about any of these topics, I will discuss it with you. Which one of them have you seriously studied and what are the publications you have read about it?
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JarMan said: Silk is silk but millet and rice are sheum and neas? Silk is silk. Rice and millet are not mentioned in the text. We don't know what sheum and neas refer to. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: Corn is not a word used in the bible. Corn is the word the English translator used to describe whatever Greek word in the bible that generally means grain. Sometimes corn is not literally corn, but is grain in general. And sometimes silk is not silk, but riches, particularly expensive clothing. I imagine both of us Googling to find out when the word "corn" was first used to describe Mesoamerican "maize". 😂 Although an interesting question, I gave up. We're hairsplitting. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: I've never claimed horses were horse-y things or hippopotamus. My theory is that the writer listed animals using the native words for the animals. The translator didn't know what the native words meant so he "translated" them using the words he was familiar with. He used the word horse because it showed up in context with chariots. What native Mesoamerican animals do you suppose the European author of the Book of Mormon really meant to describe?Sheep = Horse = A$$ = Cattle = Oxen = Swine = Goat = Elephant = The Spaniards found dogs, ducks and deer. There aren't enough domesticated animals in Mesoamerica to match. So you're left with a model that seems to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon author/translator was ignorant, and knew nothing about Mesoamerica and its inhabitants. The stronger model, in my opinion, is one that has an identical match for each animal and object described. Horses are horses, instead of a mistranslation of an animal that can't be identified. That would demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is solidly based in history, and the author/translators knew what they were talking about. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: Bringing up instances of translation into English where corn doesn't really mean corn just strengthens my argument that silk doesn't have to mean silk and horse doesn't have to mean horse. Not at all, because corn was originally a common European term to refer to things that were not maize, before maize was known. Using the term corn to refer to maize is a more recent American thing isn't it? Wouldn't that suggest that the author/translator was American? We shouldn't expect a European translator to use the word corn to describe maize. The usage of the term corn to describe maize does not support your thesis. Silk, on the other hand, is a word that comes from the name given to the seres, a legendary blue-eyed Oriental people of large stature living just beyond India who first domesticated the silkworm and developed sericulture. The etymology of the word silk supports the argument that the Book of Mormon is a text describing a Jaredite-like silk-producing, elephant-taming, chariot-riding group of people living just beyond India. We should expect the author of the Book of Mormon to use the word silk to describe the fabrics produced by a fair-skinned and long-lived people of large stature with the ability to forge "seric steel" and weave silk fabrics. The usage of the term silk to describe the clothing of an oriental people supports my thesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serica Edited August 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
Ryan Dahle Posted August 3, 2018 Author Posted August 3, 2018 10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: So we have the king's land which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness that runs from the sea east to the sea west. But we don't know wich way this wilderness runs. But the text also mentions that the land of Zarahemla was divided from the king's land by the borders of the wilderness which was on the north that ran through the borders of Manti, past the head of the river Sidon running from the east towards the west. This is the wilderness that divides the Lamanites from the Nephites, and it appears to run north/south. I think that this interpretation definitely opts for a weak textual reading. Here is the passage again: Quote And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamationthroughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which RAN from the sea east even to the sea west, and ROUND ABOUT on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, THROUGH the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided. In my view, the passage fairly clearly uses prepositions "round about" and "through" to refer back to the verb "ran." In contrast, your reading says that the borders of the wilderness which were "on the north by the land of Zarahemla" are also "through the borders of Manti." So you have "boarders ... through the boarders." Not only that, but you have wilderness borders being described as "through the borders of Manti" which isn't a wilderness area. It makes a lot more sense to have the narrow strip of wilderness, mentioned earlier, running "round about" and "through" these separate regions. This doesn't create a weird wilderness/settled border overlap, and the chiastic structure supports this more coherent reading, which structure you didn't address. Obviously, no one can prove what the Mormon meant by his statements, but if you'r textual analysis is wrong on this point, which I think it is, then that may cause a problem for your geography theory.
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think that this interpretation definitely opts for a weak textual reading. Almost impossible to discuss this without a map. Here’s a quick one: The Narrow Strip of Wilderness (referred to as a “line” in other chapters) in this model is the Kangar-Pattani Line which has served as a border between ecosystems, languages and civilizations for millennia. This line isn’t pronounced on maps, but is obvious at ground level. You can see what I mean with this ground-level pic of the Thai-Malay border. You can also see how important this line has been throughout the political history of the area and also in the ongoing insurgency/conflict due to the British not respecting this line and shifting the border south. South of this line are Malay-speaking Muslims, north of this line are Thai Buddhists. The Kangar-Pattani Line also served as a border between distinct populations through the Book of Mormon period. Also, the capital city in the capital parts of the land sits on the river that runs south to north. It was a city with wooden walls named Srah, dating back to the period of Zarahemla. The cluster of cities east of Srah, identified themselves with their founder, named Marong or Maroni. I can’t imagine a more distinct “hit" than a cluster of cities along the eastern coast of a kingdom named Srah that identify with a founding figure named Maroni, in a matching geography, dating back to the correct time period. If NHM is bullseye #1, than Maroni is bullseye #2. And most importantly the first civilization on the peninsula, just south of the line, dates back to the same decade Nephi would have arrived. Iron furnaces date back to the 6th century BC, and the lead archeologist suspects the technology came by sea, from the west.Sungai Batu Archaeological certified as dating back to 582 BC Edited August 3, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
Ryan Dahle Posted August 3, 2018 Author Posted August 3, 2018 23 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: The Narrow Strip of Wilderness (referred to as a “line” in other chapters) in this model is the Kangar-Pattani Line which has served as a border between ecosystems, languages and civilizations for millennia. This line isn’t pronounced on maps, but is obvious at ground level. You can see what I mean with this ground-level pic of the Thai-Malay border. You can also see how important this line has been throughout the political history of the area and also in the ongoing insurgency/conflict due to the British not respecting this line and shifting the border south. South of this line are Malay-speaking Muslims, north of this line are Thai Buddhists. The Kangar-Pattani Line also served as a border between distinct populations through the Book of Mormon period. Also, the capital city in the capital parts of the land sits on the river that runs south to north. It was a city with wooden walls named Srah, dating back to the period of Zarahemla. The cluster of cities east of Srah, identified themselves with their founder, named Marong or Maroni. I can’t imagine a more distinct “hit" than a cluster of cities along the eastern coast of a kingdom named Srah that identify with a founding figure named Maroni, in a matching geography, dating back to the correct time period. If NHM is bullseye #1, than Maroni is bullseye #2. And most importantly the first civilization just south of the line dates back to the same decade Nephi would have arrived:Sungai Batu Archaeological certified as dating back to 582 BC That makes more sense. I still disagree with the interpretation, but at least your narrow strip runs from east and west. My reading places it in the borders of Manti and Zarahemla, though. And I still don't think you addressed my exegetical considerations. That's ok though, I doubt we will come to agreement on this. Thanks for the map and clarification. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said: That makes more sense. I still disagree with the interpretation, but at least your narrow strip runs from east and west. My reading places it in the borders of Manti and Zarahemla, though. And I still don't think you addressed my exegetical considerations. That's ok though, I doubt we will come to agreement on this. Thanks for the map and clarification. Seriously? Case closed?
Recommended Posts