It is currently Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:23 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:27 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20824
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
All this has done for me is to confirm my confidence in solid historical methodology and the fact that such methodology has nothing favorable to offer those who have faith in the Book of Mormon's antiquity. All who have entered the discussion to argue for its antiquity have not only failed, but they have put on public display the bankruptcy of their apologetic approaches. The Book of Mormon simply was not written in ancient Anerica. Period.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:43 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:22 pm
Posts: 37
canpakes wrote:
aussieguy55 wrote:
Hamblin latest episode bring in another -
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticm ... ost=Mormon

Interesting quote "a myriad of subtle, circumstantial details that converge between the text and the external data. " One wonders if they have really read Finkelstein's work.


Maybe I'm just reading this piece by Rappleye with the wrong set of logic-colored glasses, but there seem to be some obvious leaps and disconnects in his piece.

I note that the line you quote above immediately follows Rappleye's comparison of one historical Biblical anecdote and the lack of sufficient evidence to support it as somehow being the equal of the complete lack of evidence for the entire suite of Book of Mormon historical episodes (i.e., the entire story from cover-to-cover). Rappleye adds no improvement to the argument that Hamblin has been stumbling - and failed - to make, especially given that many archaeologists consider the Exodus to not have happened, either.

Waitaminute - on that note, maybe Rappleye actually presents a good argument in that the concept proves equal for both situations, giving solid support to the conclusion that neither happened. :wink:


Rappleye is doing the same thing FARMS used to do when responding to evangelicals back in the 90s. It's the glass house defense. "Don't throw rocks at my glass house, because those same rocks will break your house too." It's not a response to an argument, but a distraction away from the real debate. Jenkins may hold opinions that do not live up to his "rule of one," but that is meaningless in evaluating the Book of Mormon based on scientific principles.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:42 am 
Stake President
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm
Posts: 597
Looks like Jenkins has responded to Rappleye's 'Goose and Gander' post and completely unhinged every key point he attempted to make. I don't think these guys have any shame, they continue to take repeated beatings yet they still keep coming back for more. It could just be that they realize that Jenkins will tire of responding to incompetent idiocy at a certain point at which time they can claim victory. The good thing is that hopefully the apologist's supporters who follow their blogs are reading the entire exchange and seeds are being sown. There's no possible way that a faithful member of the church can read this entire exchange and not have it impact their faith. They may still try to support the apologetic arguments as they have a need and desire to believe, but on a certain level, they have to be very aware of the utter weakness of the apologetics at play. I don't feel sorry for these guys at all. They're purposely trying to muddy the waters and convolute the arguments because that is the only way that they themselves are able to maintain faith.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
Ouch.

Mormon apologists often complain that "serious" scholars don't engage the Book of Mormon in any meaningful way, but this is pretty much what happens when they do. Michael Coe may have been more polite about it, but he said essentially the same things that Jenkins has said.

Rappleye's response is interesting simply because he does exactly what Jenkins says we should expect Mormon apologists to do: refuse to put forward positive evidence and instead tender excuses for the lack of such evidence--with the added bonus of the tu quoque fallacy.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:49 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 9245
It is embarrassingly clear at this point that the person doing most damage to the Book of Mormon's claims of antiquity is not Professor Jenkins.

_________________
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
Wow, this "Blaine Johnson" is taking a page from Darth J: the Book of Mormon took place somewhere else, on an island, not in the Americas.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:15 am 
The Outcast

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am
Posts: 17063
Runtu wrote:
Wow, this "Blaine Johnson" is taking a page from Darth J: the Book of Mormon took place somewhere else, on an island, not in the Americas.

A splinter group off the Darth J-ites?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:38 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7606
Location: Cassius University
It seems that the tension is ratcheting up. Over on Hamblin's blog, he's lashing out, and claiming that Jenkins is suffering from a bad case of "misunderstanding":

Hamblin wrote:
Thus, Neal has correctly understood what I said, while you have misunderstood. He correctly responds to your misunderstanding by pointing out your errors, which clearly are misrepresentations of what I actually believe and said. Thus, both Neal and I understand the real argument I’ve made. You don’t. And your accusations that Neal is misrepresenting the argument just demonstrates how much you don’t get it. Next time, if you think I’ve said something absurd, why don’t you ask for clarification? It’s easy, and I’m happy to clarify things if there are ambiguities.


Prior to this, he reiterated his "postmodern" view of history:

Quote:
[O]ur only capacity to interact with the past is inherently indirect. We interact with the Past by studying the evidence left by past people–texts, inscriptions, art, artifacts, monuments, tools, tombs, etc. We can understand the past only by studying those things, which were made or done in the Past, but which still exist in the present. But the Past itself no longer exists; it is gone. Hence, the study of history is not empirical–that is, we cannot directly observe with our senses or experiment on the Past. History is a non-empirical discipline. This seems to me to be a patently obvious observation, and I suspect that you will actually agree with what I really said.


Hmmm. Maybe not, since "texts, inscriptions, art, artifacts, monuments, tools, tombs, etc." seem like precisely the kinds of "empirical evidence" that Jenkins has been (repeatedly) asking for. If Hamblin doesn't think that even these things are "empirical," well, then....

Much earlier in the posting, Hamblin posts some tidbits from Jenkins, which were apparently taken from an email:

Jenkins wrote:
So Bill, do I take it that you have now handed this debate over entirely to Neal Rappleye?

Hamblin wrote:
No.


So you have given up? This is important. I agreed to debate you. I am not starting a multiple sided war against every apologist who comes out of the woodwork. As I mentioned in my last post to you, Rappleye is a very weak debater, but I don’t have time for constant trench warfare.


Meanwhile, Rappleye is starting to unravel and lose his cool:

Neal Rappleye wrote:
You are welcome to laugh away. But, given that you most certainly have not read the book yourself, you really have no grounds to judge now, do you? Oh, but wait a minute, there is this:

"It's quite hilarious actually to suggest that taking a 19th century piece of fiction and trying to draw parallels between it's narrative and the actual history of the New World would be "what scholars do"."

Now, I saw what you did there. The Book of Mormon is, a priori, 19th century fiction. Therefore, no need to read an argument for its antiquity, it is ridiculous on its face. But making such certain a priori judgments is manifestly not what scholars do, or at least it is not what they are supposed to do (yet it is, patently, what Jenkins is doing). It is certainly now, as you say, "looking at the evidence and letting it lead [you] to the truth"

And about that. What can you even describe Gardner's methodology? If not, you really can't speak to its flaws, now can you? And clearly, you missed much of the point of this blog post if you think evidence can just lead a person to truth, that anything can be done without presuppositions. Here is a presupposition for you: "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles." This certainly appears to be a presupposition you are starting with. Are you willing to shed that presupposition and see where the evidence leads? Yeah, didn't think so.

Scholarship is about investigating various claims. If is historical, then it is about investigating claims about the past. Gardner is certainly doing that. Yes, indeed, he is doing with certain presuppositions, assumptions, and biases. But we all do it with those in place. It is impossible to do it without them! And, in fact, while our biases tend to blind us to certain things, they help us see others. There is simply nothing to see at all--certainly nothing meaningful--without the filtering effect of presuppositions and biases. So, we have them. We try to be clear about what they are, we construct methods designed to both help clarify and explicate our biases, and in some sense control and limit them. But we just can't get rid of them. No one can. So we deal with it. Really, they only become a serious problem when they obstruct our capacity to even consider a possibility, as they have with you and Book of Mormon historicity. And so long as that is not a possibility you (or Jenkins), not really much of a conversation to be had, now is there?


Rappleye is glossing over Jenkins' repeated assertions that he'd be more than happy to examine empirical evidence related to the Book of Mormon's historicity. It's not that people won't "even consider a possibility," it's that the apologists steadfastly refuse to put together a positive, evidence-driven case.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:28 am 
Sunbeam
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:09 pm
Posts: 44
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Neal Rappleye wrote:
Here is a presupposition for you: "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles." This certainly appears to be a presupposition you are starting with. Are you willing to shed that presupposition and see where the evidence leads? Yeah, didn't think so.


Wow, this is the money quote. Of course that is the presupposition of Jenkins and every other empirical scientist in the world today! That's called science. :lol:

Let me start with the presupposition that angels are pushing our planets through the ether and that God made man from the literal dust of the earth in a day. I wonder where the evidence will lead me then?

I think I am finally ready to call this one. It was sure a fun ride though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:42 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17101
It's not that anyone is saying it is a priori impossible for angels to deliver books and for people to translate them via psychic powers; it's that if you want to incorporate this into a theory for why a text has the features it does, this too has an evidential burden.

This:

Image

does not make for a good theory, not because miracles are impossible, but because they don't explain anything. It substitutes mystery for understanding. If instead you have a process by which the document was translated that is well-understood and known to exist, then you can generate in us expectations for what features a text will have if that process is used. That's a different thing entirely. And you don't get to circumvent that process by simply defining your miracle to produce that which you are attempting to explain.

So if you are going to leave this huge explanatory gap in your theory, the evidence that it is an ancient document must be very strong indeed. It must be so strong that you are willing to accept a heretofore unproven and mysterious process (that our ordinary experience normally tells us is false claim) must've happened. The Book of Mormon obviously doesn't have that kind of evidence in its favor.

As I've said before, the boldness of the apologists' claim here is astounding. Not only is the empirical evidence sufficient to justify the Book of Mormon as a document from antiquity - representing this very complex lost civilization being unknown by mainstream science - but it must be sufficient to justify the existence of psychic powers to explain how it came about. Joseph Smith's origin story for the Book of Mormon sounds exactly like the sort of thing a person would lie about, but the empirical evidence per apologists' in this case demonstrates that at least this one time that's exactly what happened and that telepathic powers, or something else equally spooky, are real. That's a lot of hubris when you look at what they toss out to support their empirical case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:45 pm 
Stake President
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm
Posts: 597
Jenkins has responded again:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/07/17/jenkins-20-its-all-coincidence/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/07/17/jenkins-21-the-empirical-past/

I think this debate is winding down. Jenkins has made it clear how weak the type of evidence is that Hamblin has posted thus far and it was probably the strongest and most compelling stuff Hamblin had to offer. I don't see this going any further. Hamblin will end it claiming that there can be no debate because they can't agree on methodology. I doubt Rappleye will venture into the fray again after the spanking he took either.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
Wow, Hamblin is really trying to change the subject. Here's the big problem: even if we grant that interpretation of evidence is entirely subjective (it isn't), you still have to have some evidence to interpret. So far, Hamblin doesn't have any.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:52 pm
Posts: 1495
Location: Florida
Kishkumen wrote:
All this has done for me is to confirm my confidence in solid historical methodology and the fact that such methodology has nothing favorable to offer those who have faith in the Book of Mormon's antiquity. All who have entered the discussion to argue for its antiquity have not only failed, but they have put on public display the bankruptcy of their apologetic approaches. The Book of Mormon simply was not written in ancient Anerica. Period.


But Nahom!

_________________
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:33 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7606
Location: Cassius University
This is the most significant posting yet from Bill Hamblin:

Hamblin wrote:
Philip, your original demand was:

Quote:
There are, as you say, terrific Mormon Mesoamericanists – world class people. Why don’t they [= Mormon scholars] publish in mainstream outlets on Book of Mormon themes?

And by credible [publication], I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.


Now Neal has presented you with a list of articles and books supporting historicity of the Book of Mormon published by non-LDS mainstream academic publishers and journals. Oxford University Press isn’t good enough for you? Really?

You first demanded that Mormon scholars publish pro-BOM books and articles in non-Mormon mainstream academic presses and journals. We showed you that they do. Now you say what you really wanted was non-Mormons publishing pro-BOM articles (which would, of course, make them Mormons in a very real sense). Quit changing the rules please. Philip, this is getting really noisome.

To quote your own words: “And you think any reader is going to pick up that piece of casuistry? Are you kidding?”

It is has become quite clear to me (and no doubt our readers) that nothing I present as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon will ever be accepted by you. You see, it’s all random chance! I’m sorry, the argument from coincidence is NOT a serious argument. I’m not asking you to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I’m not calling this evidence proof. I’m asking you simply to admit that there is, in fact evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Not proof. Not decisive evidence. Just evidence. Evidence that a reasonable and informed person would examine and say, yes, “Even though I reject this evidence, I can see why another reasonable and informed person might think that in it evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon.”

Note what you’ve been consistently doing.

1- I asked if a Book of Mormon king name appeared in Maya texts would you accept it as “objective evidence.” You said you would. I provided the evidence. You immediately changed the rules and demanded a different type king name. The fact that the name, date, and royal function of Akish in the Book of Mormon matches the name, date and function of U-Kix in the Maya tradition means nothing–mere coincidence. (Do you, to be consistent, reject the historicity of Abraham, since he is first mentioned in surviving texts in the Bible a good thousand years after he lived, and there is no contemporary evidence of his existence? Do you think your colleagues at Baylor are cranky pseudo-scholars if they accept the historicity of Abraham?)

2- Then I provided inscriptional evidence of a major cataclysmic dynasty-shattering war around 378 AD. Your response: well, there are lots of wars all the time. There’s no connection. Really? The date, location, and described result of the 378 Entrada matches the date, location and result or the final wars described in the Book of Mormon. And your only response is: coincidence. It’s all coincidence, nothing be coincidence. (Actually, I believe the Entrada is the first dated war mentioned in Maya records. Interestingly, it overlaps with the last dated war in the Book of Mormon.) The argument I presented is not that the Maya fought wars and the Nephites fought wars. The argument is about a very specific war at a specific time and place, with specific results.

3- I showed that there is a cluster of 4th century AD Book of Mormon names which are not only homophonous with the dozen or so 4th century AD Maya names we have, but some of which actually make sense in Maya. Your response is that it is just coincidence.

4- we provided Nahom. The date, time and location of the Book of Mormon Nahom precisely match the date, time and location of the Old South Arabian NHM inscriptions. Your response: It’s a coincidence. No, it is not. If we had several hundred or a thousand Book of Mormon names, and several hundred or a thousand Maya names we would expect some random coincidental homophony. We don’t. We only have about a dozen of each, taking only those form the 4th century AD.

For Jenkins, all evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is coincidental. The reason: Since he knows that the Book of Mormon is non-historical, any evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon must be coincidence. A finer example fallacious a priori reasoning would be hard to find.

Random coincidence is not a legitimate counter-explanation. It is an excuse to not do your homework. Your responses are not scholarship. They are mere sophistry. You don’t get to decide what is or is not evidence. You can reject the evidence for the Book of Mormon based on your personal prejudiced, biased, and uninformed opinion. But that is only your opinion. You are not the arbiter of what is or is not evidence. You are only the arbiter of what you think about the evidence.
It has become quite clear that any and all evidence I might present will be immediately declared by you to be mere coincidence.

Note, too, that, as I stated to begin with when you were constantly badgering me with the “Rule of One,” that the real issue is the interpretation of the meaning of the evidence for the Book of Mormon, not whether such evidence exists. I was obviously correct.


So, it's been interesting to watch the apologists' game plan unfold. First it was just Hamblin vs. Jenkins, with DCP chiming in and Gee posting random red herrings. Then they recruited Rappleye and Pedro O. to go to bat for them, and now--surprise, surprise!--Hamblin has trotted out the dusty old "moving the goalposts!" tactic. Really, there are all kinds of staggeringly dishonest things in Hamblin's response, such as his claim that "Neal has presented you with a list of articles and books supporting historicity of the Book of Mormon published by non-LDS mainstream academic publishers and journals." That wasn't what Jenkins has been asking for, though.

The more bizarre bit is this, which is also a tactic that's supported by DCP:

Quote:
It is has become quite clear to me (and no doubt our readers) that nothing I present as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon will ever be accepted by you. You see, it’s all random chance! I’m sorry, the argument from coincidence is NOT a serious argument. I’m not asking you to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I’m not calling this evidence proof. I’m asking you simply to admit that there is, in fact evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Not proof. Not decisive evidence. Just evidence. Evidence that a reasonable and informed person would examine and say, yes, “Even though I reject this evidence, I can see why another reasonable and informed person might think that in it evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon.”


First, Jenkins has maintained--quite consistently--that it's up to the people making the extraordinary claims to provide the evidence, and when, in response, the Mopologists have offered up tenuous/wild "coincidences," he's completely within his rights to be dismissive. (Part of his criteria has always been connected to the kinds of evidence that would hold up in reputable, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, and these "coincidences" most certainly would not.) Second, Jenkins has never asked for "just evidence": he attached qualifiers to his statement. Personal religious testimony, e.g., won't count. Nor will these wildly speculative "coincidences." All that said, it is just flat out bizarre to see Hamblin practically begging Jenkins to admit that this is (please! on any level!) "evidence."

Hamblin's anger is really showing through in this passage:

Hamblin wrote:
Random coincidence is not a legitimate counter-explanation. It is an excuse to not do your homework. Your responses are not scholarship. They are mere sophistry. You don’t get to decide what is or is not evidence. You can reject the evidence for the Book of Mormon based on your personal prejudiced, biased, and uninformed opinion. But that is only your opinion. You are not the arbiter of what is or is not evidence. You are only the arbiter of what you think about the evidence.


The "arbiter" here has all along been scholarly consensus. "Why don’t they [= Mormon scholars] publish in mainstream outlets on Book of Mormon themes?" Jenkins asks. Hamblin can try to dismiss Jenkins, the individual, as an "arbiter" of evidence; it's much harder to dismiss the entire fields of Mesoamerican history and archaeology, though, and yet there's no significant publication whatsoever in these fields on "ancient Book of Mormon studies."

Meanwhile, I noticed that DCP is playing the "impresario" in all of this, threatening to slap the label of "anti-Mormon" on Jenkins.

Extremely interesting developments--I admit that I had begun to think that Hamblin had tapped out of the debate, but instead we get this.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13777
Location: On the imaginary axis
Hamblin wrote:
... the name, date, and royal function of Akish in the Book of Mormon matches the name, date and function of U-Kix in the Maya tradition means nothing–mere coincidence.


Hey! He is repeating this, after having acknowledged that experts no longer think that the name of the king in question was pronounced anything like 'U-Kix'?

He even said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticm ... -kixakish/

Quote:
NOTE: My friend Mark Wright, a professional Maya scholar and linguist, just informed me that recent phonetic interpretations of the glyph traditionally rendered as “kix/kish” below are now thought to read “kokan.” If the new interpretation is correct, then this argument is rendered moot.


I do wish people would not say 'moot' when they just mean 'wrong'.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
I can't believe he keeps digging himself in deeper.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 8025
MisterTabernacle wrote:
Neal Rappleye wrote:
Here is a presupposition for you: "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles." This certainly appears to be a presupposition you are starting with. Are you willing to shed that presupposition and see where the evidence leads? Yeah, didn't think so.


Wow, this is the money quote. Of course that is the presupposition of Jenkins and every other empirical scientist in the world today! That's called science. :lol:


Not only that, but this isn't even the actual issue.

If a book did come from angels and was translated via a miracle, then, fine. Run with that. Jenkins isn't concerned with a miraculous translation; what Jenkins is asking for is something that confirms the story that is the result of that miraculous translation.

Or, did the angels remove all of the evidence of that, too?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:52 pm
Posts: 1495
Location: Florida
Akish and U-Kix (pay no attention to that other pronunciation) also both had opposable thumbs and 23 pairs of chromosomes and were bipedal! The parallels just keep piling up! (And like Chap's Anglo-Saxon ancestors, they both probably ate with the very same hand with which they wiped but I do not want to push that parallel too far.)

_________________
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:32 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20824
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Wow! Unbelievable. He tries to hold onto Akish after his Mesoamericanist told him why it didn't work. And the rest of this stuff is so weak. Wars dating at the same time means they must be the same war. Yikes! He should have tapped out long ago if this is his best ammo.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16721
Location: Northern Utah
Kishkumen wrote:
Wow! Unbelievable. He tries to hold onto Akish after his Mesoamericanist told him why it didn't work. And the rest of this stuff is so weak. Wars dating at the same time means they must be the same war. Yikes! He should have tapped out long ago if this is his best ammo.


The word is "flailing."

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:54 pm 
Teacher

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:25 am
Posts: 248
Chap wrote:
Hamblin wrote:
... the name, date, and royal function of Akish in the Book of Mormon matches the name, date and function of U-Kix in the Maya tradition means nothing–mere coincidence.


Hey! He is repeating this, after having acknowledged that experts no longer think that the name of the king in question was pronounced anything like 'U-Kix'?

He even said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticm ... -kixakish/

Quote:
NOTE: My friend Mark Wright, a professional Maya scholar and linguist, just informed me that recent phonetic interpretations of the glyph traditionally rendered as “kix/kish” below are now thought to read “kokan.” If the new interpretation is correct, then this argument is rendered moot.


I do wish people would not say 'moot' when they just mean 'wrong'.


Hamblin is relying on the fact that Jenkins is unwilling to chase down every last rabbit down every last hole. He is contradicting himself in order to buffalo Jenkins and simply wear him out, to the point that he is sick of engaging. This is punk.

Really? Hamblin is calling out Jenkins for being unconvinced that Akish is just a coincidence? It isn't even a coincidence. It is just plain wrong. It is a non-incidence.

I wonder why they would want to go with Akish as an evidence for the Book of Mormon anyway. It points one directly to a trope lifted straight out of the New Testament where a fetching maiden dances to please a dude which leads to a beheading. Tropes shamelessly pilfered from the New Testament pose problems for apologists, not solutions.

And the name Akish appears in variations may times in the bible, as is the case with the lions' share of other Book of Mormon names. And there is also just a little trouble that ensues when one identifies "the name, date, and royal function of Akish in the Book of Mormon" with "the name, date and function of U-Kix in the Maya tradition." Akish is a major player in the Jaredite story. Jaredites=Maya? There are a lot of facts on the ground when we are talking about Mayan history and archeology. If apologists are really going to place the book of Ether in a Mayan setting, the Book of Ether had better have a schload of consistency with the Maya and their culture and history. For instance, the Maya should have been wiped out before 100 BC, in a battle in which every Mayan man, woman, and child fought and perished by the sword, before the "days of Mosiah" (~100-ish BC) when the people of Limhi discovered the Jaredite plates. For starters.

The other explanation is that author of the Book of Mormon relied on the Bible just a smidge, and Akish is just another Bible-name remix. Achish is in the OT around 20 times. Kish is in there more times than I care to count.

Tap out, Bill. For god's sake, this is ugly.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrW, Simon Southerton, Stem, The Stig and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group