Jump to content

Global flood literalism rides again!


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

We're spreading.

Howdy! Long time no see!

Link to comment
On 1/24/2022 at 3:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

Science is about HOW and religion is about WHY

Science is about How.  Religion is only about why because it has co-opted the why for itself.  You don't need religion for a why.  Maybe there is no why and we make our own why,

Link to comment
On 1/22/2022 at 6:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Olmec (Jaredites) invented that 360-day-year count in 3114 BC in southern Mexico, which jibes with the Hindu Kali Yuga cycle which also uses 360-day years and begins at nearly the same time

Uh no. The Olmec were no Jaredites.  Science can prove that premise false.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Science is about How.  Religion is only about why because it has co-opted the why for itself.  You don't need religion for a why.  Maybe there is no why and we make our own why,

Yes, that would be called making your own religion. Joseph did it, give it a try.

Co-opted? Oh yes, clearly a Master Plot.  Bwahahaha!!!!

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Uh no. The Olmec were no Jaredites.  Science can prove that premise false.

But what do you think about Robert Smith's statement that "The Olmec [ ] invented that 360-day-year count in 3114 BC in southern Mexico?  Do you regard that as being false?  That was his main point, not that he identifies the Olmec as Jaredites.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And your basis for that claim is . . .

...non existent.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, blarsen said:

But what do you think about Robert Smith's statement that "The Olmec [ ] invented that 360-day-year count in 3114 BC in southern Mexico?  Do you regard that as being false?  That was his main point, not that he identifies the Olmec as Jaredites.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... is it really a rabbit?

So frustrating!

Link to comment
On 1/19/2022 at 9:53 AM, rongo said:

Sure. "Only" is an odd choice of words to replace "few." Only excludes any others, while "few" is open to interpretation. 

To me, anyway. 

In the context of the phrase that is replaced, “few” is not open to interpretation. The phrase immediately and explicitly specifies eight persons. 
 

“Only” seems like a perfect choice for condensing that phrase if one is of a mind to do so. Speaking as an erstwhile editor, I can’t think of a better. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 hours ago, blarsen said:

But what do you think about Robert Smith's statement that "The Olmec [ ] invented that 360-day-year count in 3114 BC in southern Mexico?  Do you regard that as being false?  That was his main point, not that he identifies the Olmec as Jaredites.

Sure his other points seemed fine.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your basis for the claim that the Olmec were Jaraedite is.....

Interesting to see that you have no support whatsoever for your claim that "Science can prove that premise false."

The scientific basis for declaring the Olmec identical with the Jaredites is manifold, involving archeology and linguistics.  Bear in mind, of course, that no one knows what the Olmec (Los Olmecas "The People of Rubber Country") called themselves.  Olmec is a modern term applied to that mysterious high civilization (the "mother culture") which preceded the subsequent 5 major cultures of Mesoamerica.  They literally disappeared, leaving only vacant cities.

The Jaredites and Olmec are the only high civilization in the Americas at that time (literacy, calendar, major cities, etc.).  Each is coterminus:  beginning, thriving, and then ending at the same time.  As their civilization is ending, the Nephite and Mulekite cultures are beginning.  Such archeological synchronisms are quite unlikely to be accidental.

You might want to take a look at this non-LDS video of the archeological timeline.  The author is a Jew who rejects the Book of Mormon:  Matt Baker, “Timeline of the Pre-Columbian Americas,”

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Interesting to see that you have no support whatsoever for your claim that "Science can prove that premise false."

You first need to prove Jaredite existed.  Olmecs likely descended from native americans who came to America tens of thousands of years ago from Asia.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You first need to prove Jaredite existed.  Olmecs likely descended from native americans who came to America tens of thousands of years ago from Asia.

You continue to fail to support your false claim that "Science can prove that premise false."

Anthropologists do not deal in "proof," which is a common misunderstanding of what scholars do.  You demonstrate your disdain for science not only by speaking of proof, but also by suggesting origins for the Olmec just off the top of your head -- something a scholar would never do.  You first need to read books and articles on the subject, and then cite your sources.  That is how scholarship proceeds.  There are some very good reasons why the late Mike Coe posited that Mesoamerican civilizations were heavily influenced if not founded by southeast Asian culture -- such as at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, the largest temple-complex in the world.

A scholar looking at the question of Jaredite origins carefully examines the sources for clues:  Where did they originate?  What sort of culture and language do they exhibit?  How do they express that culture and language in the New World?

Since they likely come from north Mesopotamia, it is remarkable how many Jaredite personal and place-names also appear to come from that area.  This includes the appearance of the cultigen sheum in Mosiah 9:9, which comes from a Zeniffite source (Mulekites, the people last in contact with a Jaredite).  Sheum just happens to be the most common grain-name in the exact form found in ancient cuneiform Sumerian -- the founding civilization of Mesopotamia.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You first need to prove Jaredite existed.  Olmecs likely descended from native americans who came to America tens of thousands of years ago from Asia.

Wouldn't that make them Asian Americans?

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You continue to fail to support your false claim that "Science can prove that premise false."

Anthropologists do not deal in "proof," which is a common misunderstanding of what scholars do.  You demonstrate your disdain for science not only by speaking of proof, but also by suggesting origins for the Olmec just off the top of your head -- something a scholar would never do.  You first need to read books and articles on the subject, and then cite your sources.  That is how scholarship proceeds.  There are some very good reasons why the late Mike Coe posited that Mesoamerican civilizations were heavily influenced if not founded by southeast Asian culture -- such as at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, the largest temple-complex in the world.

A scholar looking at the question of Jaredite origins carefully examines the sources for clues:  Where did they originate?  What sort of culture and language do they exhibit?  How do they express that culture and language in the New World?

Since they likely come from north Mesopotamia, it is remarkable how many Jaredite personal and place-names also appear to come from that area.  This includes the appearance of the cultigen sheum in Mosiah 9:9, which comes from a Zeniffite source (Mulekites, the people last in contact with a Jaredite).  Sheum just happens to be the most common grain-name in the exact form found in ancient cuneiform Sumerian -- the founding civilization of Mesopotamia.

It is SO frustrating..... !

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You continue to fail to support your false claim that "Science can prove that premise false."

Anthropologists do not deal in "proof," which is a common misunderstanding of what scholars do.  You demonstrate your disdain for science not only by speaking of proof, but also by suggesting origins for the Olmec just off the top of your head -- something a scholar would never do.  You first need to read books and articles on the subject, and then cite your sources.  That is how scholarship proceeds.  There are some very good reasons why the late Mike Coe posited that Mesoamerican civilizations were heavily influenced if not founded by southeast Asian culture -- such as at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, the largest temple-complex in the world.

A scholar looking at the question of Jaredite origins carefully examines the sources for clues:  Where did they originate?  What sort of culture and language do they exhibit?  How do they express that culture and language in the New World?

Since they likely come from north Mesopotamia, it is remarkable how many Jaredite personal and place-names also appear to come from that area.  This includes the appearance of the cultigen sheum in Mosiah 9:9, which comes from a Zeniffite source (Mulekites, the people last in contact with a Jaredite).  Sheum just happens to be the most common grain-name in the exact form found in ancient cuneiform Sumerian -- the founding civilization of Mesopotamia.

Ok. The  Olmecs were Jaredites. 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
On 1/24/2022 at 3:29 PM, Navidad said:

Yes, I am for once in my life serious! Actually he is my wife's blood cousin, but we have been married 52 years, so in her family we all claim each other. I have read the draft of his new book and offered several reams of counsel. That really isn't editing it. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about that. I do hate commas however.

My cousin is one of the smartest young men I have ever met. He is now hard at work finding Sennacherib's circular campgrounds all over the middle east. That has a lot to do with his interest in the ark and the occasion when Sennacherib climbed to see the remnants of the ark in his own time. He had his men carve a homage to him at the site that is still there (Not the traditional Ararat site, but I can't say more). Now, I am saying too much!

My cousin survived confrontations with the Kurds who ended up serving him tea and chatting with his 12 year old daughter back in the US! It is a great book, scholarly, scientific, and narrative all at the same time. I don't know when it will come out for public consumption. He is still working out the details. He lives in the Chicago area. He was an editor for Oxford Press, so he really does not need my help!

Oh and his grandmother and grandfather had 17 children, all by single births! His dad is, of course one of them. The family stories are hilarious!  When I was young and just married I went to their house in the middle of Kansas. Fun place.
 

Navidad, are you still there?  Any idea when your wife's cousin will complete his book, who the publisher will be, etc.?  I definitely want to glom on to it when available.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Navidad, are you still there?  Any idea when your wife's cousin will complete his book, who the publisher will be, etc.?  I definitely want to glom on to it when available.

Yes, I am still here. Not posting so much since I am very busy on a book and a dissertation. Two projects at once - not a very bright idea!   I will see if I can get you a pdf of the draft text. He is currently gathering a listing of Sennacherib's circular camp sites in the middle east to compare to what he found at the ark site where Muslims, Christians, and Jews gathered to honor Noah up until the Armenian massacre.

Link to comment
On 3/17/2022 at 2:56 PM, Navidad said:

Yes, I am still here. Not posting so much since I am very busy on a book and a dissertation. Two projects at once - not a very bright idea!   I will see if I can get you a pdf of the draft text. He is currently gathering a listing of Sennacherib's circular camp sites in the middle east to compare to what he found at the ark site where Muslims, Christians, and Jews gathered to honor Noah up until the Armenian massacre.

I would greatly appreciate it.  And assume we could communicate through our MD&D account information.

I've actually done consulting work for a group doing BofM-related archaeology in Oman, and oddly enough, was the one who found a 'significant' archaeoastronomy site at the location we were studying.  Such things are fascinating to me.

 

Link to comment
On 1/19/2022 at 1:42 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Catholic dogma does not require the Old Testament to be interpreted literally. Truth can be conveyed in many ways. The truth behind the flood story (God's relationship with humans and the means of salvation) does not require the flood to have occurred. The Ark is held up as a symbol of the Church, conveying us to salvation -- hence one name for Holy Mother Church is the Barque of Saint Peter.

Studying and teaching Dante's Divine Comedy led me to the Catholic idea that interpretation can take place on 4 levels (I was exposed to this was before I was Catholic). There is the literal/historical, the allegorical, the tropological (teaching of morality), and the anagogical (mystical understanding). It appears that many people get stuck on the first -- the literal. But truth and meaning are conveyed through all four, and the lack of the literal does not negate the truth and meaning that can be found in the other three. 

In fact, I'd argue that the literal/historical level of interpretation gives the least amount of returns and causes the greatest amount of problems. If all I do is wonder if the flood literally happened, then I am ignoring what the story of the flood is trying to teach me. If I'm focused on whether or not there was an actual tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then I've lost the deeper meanings of the creation story.

Maybe because my focus is on the mystical rather than the Biblical, I am more comfortable with allegorical spiritual truth. After all, mysticism is ineffable and can only be expressed in allegory and symbol. St. John of the Cross, the mystical doctor of the Church, wrote poetry to express mystical truths. I'm not saying Biblical exegesis isn't important, I'm just saying that as a field it is less important to me for spiritual growth.

I don't believe the flood was global. I don't believe there were 2 of every animal in the ark. But I find value in the story that helps me along my spiritual walk with God.

What an excellent post (of course great minds think alike)!

As I think about Noah and the flood I ask myself a number of questions.  For example:

Why are the dimensions of the ark exact multiples of the tabernacle and temple?

Why are there 3 levels to the ark and why do the inhabitants of each level correspond to 3 levels of existence?

Why was the wood material that was used to build the ark the same material that was used to build sacred structures of the day?

Why were there 7 clean beasts and 2 unclean taken?

Why were there 8 souls saved?

Why did it rain for 40 days / nights?

Why was Noah 600 when the flood occurred?

What were the covenants that God established w Noah and his family?

Why did the ark land on the 7th month?

This not a complete list of questions that must be asked when studying the flood.  In fact, none of them are actually the most important questions to ask either.  The most important question to ask is what do these details (symbols) mean and to whom do they point us?

Wether the earth was entirely covered to the top of Mt Everest by water is irrelevant (hint: it wasn’t imho but if it was I’m ok w that too).  What is relevant is by whom and through what power is our salvation and exaltation secured?

Edited by Durangout
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...