Non-LDS Experts in Archeology and Egyptology

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You pose some good questions.  I think if there were we would be hearing a lot about them on boards like this and in church publications.  

And they are rather simple questions.  IMO, there are no experts (outside of the church) who support the truth claims of the church that the BoM is a historical, ancient text and that the BoA translation is legitimate.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Why would we expect there to be? There's clearly no public evidence for such. Maybe in the future such evidence might appear but there's certainly nothing there right now and various things that would lead any non-Mormon scholar to think them 19th century productions.

Millions of people killed in the BoM, along with steel, chariots, wheels, horses, and the list goes on and on...

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Even the church essay says the following concerning the BoA (not assuming):

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

Moreover'

"Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found. Just six centuries earlier the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes."

Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, 2004.
 

Ether 15:

2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.

Do you actually think this is new information to us?

Why are you even posting it?   That is precisely why I answered you the way I did.  Re-read my answers and you will see I refuted your points before you had enough honesty to actually present them as arguments.

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I'm just providing references of an expert Egyptologist who says the Book of Abraham is a failed translation by JS; the church's essay, in some many words, says the same thing.  But once again, you deflect my questions, so it appears it is a big NO to all three questions I asked in my post.  

No, wrong again

You asked 

"Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text?

Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? 

Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA? "

I said

"I am not sure, but I don't keep track of what Archaeologists personally believe and i've never heard of any academic  peer reviewed Archaeology Journals attacking the Book of Mormon either" Meaning I don't know any names but I also don't know any real academic peer reviewed Journals who attack it either, meaning if it was fake then why wouldn't someone say so in an academic journal, where are we to know where a non LDS member specialist would "maintain/support" for the BOA or BOM

Then I took up your question about Archaeology and said, those who live by the sword of archaeology die by the sword of archaeology, just because you can't find it doesn't mean no one else will and doesn't mean it never existed or you could be looking for the wrong thing altogether or have stuff that you don't know what it is and your interpretation is correct"

That's how it works

Then I asked what specialists exist and you provided some links (deflection # 1, you never responded to that)

I said then email them then

Then you go back to "My question is about non-LDS affiliated researchers.  I'm sure I could email 100 experts around the world in egyptology, and I would bet my money they would say Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA is an absolute failure, based on the papyri we have today."(deflection #2)

then I said

"You assume too much. You're assuming non LDS specialists have read the BOA or BOM, you assume that they are familiar with it's content enough to make comparisons to artifacts discovered, you assume that people know where the BOM took place, you assume that every site is has been dug up and artifacts correctly identified and every specialist agrees with others, Why do you make these assumptions? "

You never answered why you are making these assumptions(deflection#3)

then I said you again that you assume non LDS specialists are familiar with the BOA and BOM

then you, for some reason, give what the Church essay has to say about the BOA and then give a quotation from Simon Southerton and a quotation from Ether? why was that, i don't know(deflection#4, why were we all of a sudden talking about the Church essay and a plant geneticist's thoughts about human genetics?)

then I said as long as you are emailing ask them their opinion about where Egyptians came from, because scholars don't agree and I provided a link about what else scholars don't agree on

Then for some reason you provided Robert Ritner CV, for whatever (deflection#5) and then I answered by providing Dr. John Gee's CV

and here we are. YOU deflected, at least 5 times😕

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

No, wrong again

You asked 

"Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text?

Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? 

Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA? "

I said

"I am not sure, but I don't keep track of what Archaeologists personally believe and i've never heard of any academic  peer reviewed Archaeology Journals attacking the Book of Mormon either" Meaning I don't know any names but I also don't know any real academic peer reviewed Journals who attack it either, meaning if it was fake then why wouldn't someone say so in an academic journal, where are we to know where a non LDS member specialist would "maintain/support" for the BOA or BOM

Then I took up your question about Archaeology and said, those who live by the sword of archaeology die by the sword of archaeology, just because you can't find it doesn't mean no one else will and doesn't mean it never existed or you could be looking for the wrong thing altogether or have stuff that you don't know what it is and your interpretation is correct"

That's how it works

Then I asked what specialists exist and you provided some links (deflection # 1, you never responded to that)

I said then email them then

Then you go back to "My question is about non-LDS affiliated researchers.  I'm sure I could email 100 experts around the world in egyptology, and I would bet my money they would say Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA is an absolute failure, based on the papyri we have today."(deflection #2)

then I said

"You assume too much. You're assuming non LDS specialists have read the BOA or BOM, you assume that they are familiar with it's content enough to make comparisons to artifacts discovered, you assume that people know where the BOM took place, you assume that every site is has been dug up and artifacts correctly identified and every specialist agrees with others, Why do you make these assumptions? "

You never answered why you are making these assumptions(deflection#3)

then I said you again that you assume non LDS specialists are familiar with the BOA and BOM

then you, for some reason, give what the Church essay has to say about the BOA and then give a quotation from Simon Southerton and a quotation from Ether? why was that, i don't know(deflection#4, why were we all of a sudden talking about the Church essay and a plant geneticist's thoughts about human genetics?)

then I said as long as you are emailing ask them their opinion about where Egyptians came from, because scholars don't agree and I provided a link about what else scholars don't agree on

Then for some reason you provided Robert Ritner CV, for whatever (deflection#5) and then I answered by providing Dr. John Gee's CV

and here we are. YOU deflected, at least 5 times😕

 

 

I provided you with a non-LDS scholar who reviewed the BoA translation and absolutely destroyed Joseph Smith's failed translation, IMO.  I provided you with other info, as you asked, so it's clearly not a "deflection," rather, your cognitive dissonance appears to affect your understanding that the BoA has already been examined by an outside expert (peer review as you mentioned) and he provided his assessment.

Once again, from my original post, it appears the answer is no for all three of my questions.  

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Ok.  LDS or any schisms.  

If you are going to keep shifting the goalposts I am not going to play this game anymore.

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you actually think this is new information to us?

Why are you even posting it?   That is precisely why I answered you the way I did.  Re-read my answers and you will see I refuted your points before you had enough honesty to actually present them as arguments.

You never refuted anything; you just brought up the bible and faith, both of which don't relate to my orignal questions.  Regardless if you think this is new info or not, I think it makes a valid point, along with the questions I asked. IMO, it appears there are no non-LDS experts who even believe in the historicity of the BoM or BoA.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) archeologists who maintain/support the BoM being a historical, ancient text?

Likewise, are there any non-LDS (not paid by the church) egyptologists who accept Joseph Smith's translation of the BoA as legitimate? 

Are there any organizations outside the LDS Church that support/maintain the historicity of either the BoM or BoA?  

God would never permit that to happen, nope.  

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you are going to keep shifting the goalposts I am not going to play this game anymore.

You can think whatever you like, but the answer appears to still be...zero. The Community of Christ doesn't even regard the BoA as scripture, correct?  Is there one non-LDS expert in egyptology (not to include any breakoffs) who confirms the BoA is a legitimate translation?  

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Are there any non-Christian archaeologists who support that Jesus is the Christ?

Obviously not or they would be Christians.  Your question is similar.  Historic facts are not evidence for spiritual truths.

Being an eyewitness to the crucifixion did not make people Christians.  Why would it?    I recently read a wonderful quote from Galileo in a wonderful paper.  Galileo said that Scriptures are for teaching us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes.

The Book of Mormon teaches us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go or how they went historically.

I think one difference is that non-Christian archeologists would agree that parts of the bible contain actual history of real people and places.  

[The Nehor]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

You can think whatever you like, but the answer appears to still be...zero. The Community of Christ doesn't even regard the BoA as scripture, correct?  Is there one non-LDS expert in egyptology (not to include any breakoffs) who confirms the BoA is a legitimate translation?  

 

Do you think you are proving some grandiose point with this question? It was never a contested point. Your grandstanding as if you are proving something conclusive comes across as nebbish and puerile.

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I provided you with a non-LDS scholar who reviewed the BoA translation and absolutely destroyed Joseph Smith's failed translation, IMO.  I provided you with other info, as you asked, so it's clearly not a "deflection," rather, your cognitive dissonance appears to affect your understanding that the BoA has already been examined by an outside expert (peer review as you mentioned) and he provided his assessment.

Once again, from my original post, it appears the answer is no for all three of my questions.  

Nope, wrong again. I provided you with another scholar that doesn't "destroy" the BOA, I never asked you to provide one in the first place anyways, 5 deflections still. I want to ask you in the nicest possible way but are you okay? does someone take care of you? do you want me to call someone for you?🤔

[Kevin Christensen]

Mark Wright (an LDS Mesoamericanist) reported here a few years back on the archeologist couple in charge of the site at Teotihuacan, and how they had joined the church based on their perception of how the Book of Mormon fit their understanding of Mesoamerican archeology.  Do they count if they joined the church?  Or do you rule them out because they did?   He's one of the interviewees in the Journey of Faith: The New World video if you want a record of him talking about it.

And there is this, Margaret Barker, a non-LDS Old Testament Scholar on the Book of Mormon.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smith-and-preexilic-israelite-religion

Citing Southerton at this stage is not addressing the cutting edge of scholarship.  Rather the blunt and discarded trash heap.

Watch the National Geographic special on The Mayan Snake Kings and how the use of LiDar surveys have radically changed the Mesoamerican picture in ways that has knowledgeable LDS quite excited.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/lost-treasures-of-the-maya-snake-king/

And regarding language and Mesoamerica, you should at least be aware of Brian Stubbs.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1403&index=7

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Nope, wrong again. I provided you with another scholar that doesn't "destroy" the BOA, I never asked you to provide one in the first place anyways, 5 deflections still. I want to ask you in the nicest possible way but are you okay? does someone take care of you? do you want me to call someone for you?🤔

You haven't provided anything...just keep letting that cognitive dissonance play its course.  

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you think you are proving some grandiose point with this question? It was never a contested point. Your grandstanding as if you are proving something conclusive comes across as nebbish and puerile.

Just asking the questions...

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Mark Wright (an LDS Mesoamericanist) reported here a few years back on the archeologist couple in charge of the site at Teotihuacan, and how they had joined the church based on their perception of how the Book of Mormon fit their understanding of Mesoamerican archeology.  Do they count if they joined the church?  Or do you rule them out because they did?   He's one of the interviewees in the Journey of Faith: The New World video if you want a record of him talking about it.

And there is this, Margaret Barker, a non-LDS Old Testament Scholar on the Book of Mormon.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smith-and-preexilic-israelite-religion

Citing Southerton at this stage is not addressing the cutting edge of scholarship.  Rather the blunt and discarded trash heap.

Watch the National Geographic special on The Mayan Snake Kings and how the use of LiDar surveys have radically changed the Mesoamerican picture in ways that has knowledgeable LDS quite excited.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/lost-treasures-of-the-maya-snake-king/

And regarding language and Mesoamerica, you should at least be aware of Brian Stubbs.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1403&index=7

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

 

Non-LDS paid experts is what I am referring to...it looks like both of these guys are paid by the church.  Didn't the National Geographic Society state that they do NOT use the BoM in any of their research?  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Just asking the questions...

Yes, I have met your kind before.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Still a boring tactic but common amongst the aforementioned nebbish and puerile.

Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

23 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

You haven't provided anything...just keep letting that cognitive dissonance play its course.  

you don't know what the means but maybe you can email a pyschology prof.? a non LDS one too!

Edited November 28, 2018 by Duncan

[Kevin Christensen]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Non-LDS paid experts is what I am referring to...it looks like both of these guys are paid by the church.  Didn't the National Geographic Society state that they do NOT use the BoM in any of their research?  

The Teotihuacan site archeologist was not and has not been paid by the church.  And Barker is not paid by the church.  And I think you are confusing the National Geographic Society with the Smithsonian who famously issued a range of form letters saying they have not used the Book of Mormon.  (John Sorenson has written on that.  And it also happens that Betty Meggars of the Smithsonian has endorsed Sorenson's work on  Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas. )  And you misunderstanding the reason for my citing this year's program on the Mayan Snake Kings and LiDar.   It's not that those involved in the program even thought about the Book of Mormon.  It's that those who know the Book of Mormon can easily see the implications of the radical new findings. 

http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/02/lidar.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think one difference is that non-Christian archeologists would agree that parts of the bible contain actual history of real people and places.  

Well, only up to the point where the texts are judged to have been written. Late texts from the Hellenistic or even Persian era that deal with earlier history are frequently seen as having no actual history and any references come from contemporary knowledge when the text was written. Heck, there's tons of people who even doubt the Davidic Kingship. 

To draw an analogy, most non-LDS archeologists would agree that there are native Americans and that those inspired Joseph to write the Book of Mormon. It doesn't mean there were Jewish Nephites in America. In the same way they'd say the fact there was a Jewish community in Israel and Egypt in Hellenistic times doesn't mean there were Jews in Egypt at the time of Moses or even any Moses at all.

Scholars would accept there were Christians in first century Palestine but that's about as significant as claiming there were Mormons in 1840's Illinois.

Edited November 28, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I have met your kind before.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Still a boring tactic but common amongst the aforementioned nebbish and puerile.

How dare people ask questions...

[Ouagadougou]

40 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The Teotihuacan site archeologist was not and has not been paid by the church.  And Barker is not paid by the church.  And I think you are confusing the National Geographic Society with the Smithsonian who famously issued a range of form letters saying they have not used the Book of Mormon.  (John Sorenson has written on that.  And it also happens that Betty Meggars of the Smithsonian has endorsed Sorenson's work on  Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas. )  And you misunderstanding the reason for my citing this year's program on the Mayan Snake Kings and LiDar.   It's not that those involved in the program even thought about the Book of Mormon.  It's that those who know the Book of Mormon can easily see the implications of the radical new findings. 

http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/02/lidar.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

And have they found any evidence from LiDar to support the BoM narrative?  I haven't seen any.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

And have they found any evidence from LiDar to support the BoM narrative?  I haven't seen any.

Read John 9 carefully sometime.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, only up to the point where the texts are judged to have been written. Late texts from the Hellenistic or even Persian era that deal with earlier history are frequently seen as having no actual history and any references come from contemporary knowledge when the text was written. Heck, there's tons of people who even doubt the Davidic Kingship. 

To draw an analogy, most non-LDS archeologists would agree that there are native Americans and that those inspired Joseph to write the Book of Mormon. It doesn't mean there were Jewish Nephites in America. In the same way they'd say the fact there was a Jewish community in Israel and Egypt in Hellenistic times doesn't mean there were Jews in Egypt at the time of Moses or even any Moses at all.

WRT to the text, what about the numerous anachronisms and King James Bible version errors? 

[Hoosier]

If there were non-lds archaeologists who believed in the historicity of the BofM, they would be lds by now so you would dismiss them. As for the BofA, from what I've read, there were multiple scrolls along with the mummies that Joseph Smith had, one of which was described as long enough to fill the room when unrolled. All that survived is a small scrap so how does any Egyptologist know if his translation of a scroll was correct. They don't have it.

As for there not being a shred of evidence for the BoM, how do you identify it as evidence or not? There could be tons of it. Let's suppose 1,000 years from now archaeologists dig up my neighbor's yard and find a bowl and cup. They could do an analysis and determine what it was made of, date it to roughly late 20th/early 21st century, American culture. By markings on it, they may even be able to tell the manufacturer, production lot number and trace it to the exact employee who made it if they find the manufacturer's records. Now my question to you is, from this archaeological evidence, what religion is my neighbor? That's the kind of thing you're dealing with when you ask for archaeological evidence of Nephites or Lamanites.