It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:44 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:11 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:25 pm
Posts: 946
Themis wrote:
Most members who spout NHM haven't even taken the time to realize NHM it is being used as a tribal name and not a place name.

Perhaps.

Equally likely is that those who claim NHM is only used as a tribal name and not a place are creating a false dichotomy instead of representing reality.

Locations often take on the name of the tribe occupying them. Saxony, Wessex, Sussex and Essex were named after the Saxon tribe. England and Anglia were named after the Angles. Lombardy was named after the Lombards. And so on.

So for that reason and others, much of the NHM counterargument doesn't come across to me as very consistent or fair.

_________________
Joseph Smith: "I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bofm/alm ... ang=eng#20
Red pill: https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/New Testament/acts/ ... ang=eng#10
Blue pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU


Last edited by hagoth7 on Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:40 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:25 pm
Posts: 946
Chap wrote:
hagoth7 wrote:
... From what I gathered from part of his argument, it would appear that when ZRHML and BNTFL are eventually discovered (and I believe they will be discovered one day), the academic response will be, "well how can we be sure that such spellings aren't just random coincidence, and how can we be sure there aren't dozens of other ZRHML's and BNTFL's scattered throughout the America's, etc."

...


You think that (on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text) the geographical entity therein called 'Bountiful' was actually called by that name by its inhabitants?...

No. I am not asserting that the Nephites anciently spoke English, if that helps clarify my intended meaning.

_________________
Joseph Smith: "I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bofm/alm ... ang=eng#20
Red pill: https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/New Testament/acts/ ... ang=eng#10
Blue pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13708
Location: On the imaginary axis
Chap wrote:
hagoth7 wrote:
... From what I gathered from part of his argument, it would appear that when ZRHML and BNTFL are eventually discovered (and I believe they will be discovered one day), the academic response will be, "well how can we be sure that such spellings aren't just random coincidence, and how can we be sure there aren't dozens of other ZRHML's and BNTFL's scattered throughout the America's, etc."

...


You think that (on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text) the geographical entity therein called 'Bountiful' was actually called by that name by its inhabitants?...


hagoth7 wrote:
No. I am not asserting that the Nephites anciently spoke English, if that helps clarify my intended meaning.


OK - so we are agreed that one place name that will NEVER be found in the Americas in an ancient inscription in a semitic (non vowel marking) script of Nephite origin will be BNTFL, (unless by amazing coincidence there was a real semitic place name with the same consonant sequence as the English word 'Bountiful').

Or if it is found, it will be 99.99% likely to be a rather sad modern fake by someone who assumed the Nephites spoke cod King James English.

_________________
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 24, 2015 7:42 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Cave
EAllusion wrote:
But there is ample evidence of resurrected ghost-beings leading people to secret treasures that contain lost golden books that can be translated via telepathy in Joseph's Day. Clearly Hamblin holds no evidential double standards here.


I don't think the apologists see it this way. The apologists pretend they are ignoring the supernatural elements and the debacles of Smith and face a text. Nothing more and nothing less. Where did that text come from based only on the text?

Suppose centuries ago after the first translations of the Iliad into modern languages some army came down and destroyed Europe but took a huge colony of French slaves thus preserving the French language. Suppose after centuries things change, and French becomes a dominant world language. Suppose in this modern world a 12-year-old boy is on a unmemorable trip with mom and dad, passes through a university town, and finds himself rummaging through a neglected pile of books in a university library and discovers the only extant text of the Iliad and it happens to be in French. He steals it. When he gets home, he copies the text onto paper line by line, and when he's finished, he burns the original. Years later, he claims an angel visits him and gives him a stack of gold plates. A short time later, he produces the full text of the Iliad that he claims to translate. He gains some friends but mostly enemies, and he starts a new religion that is essentially a sex cult with himself in charge. After a couple centuries of struggle, the religion grows and matures, the history of the Church is whitewashed and there are highly educated members of this church who believe in the Iliad. They worship Zeus with zeal and teach the Iliad is a real ancient text. Some scholars who chop gourds in half on alters while mumbling gibberish on Sundays claim that the Iliad is a real ancient text and are looking for the city of Troy. One scholar points out there is a lot of myth in the text, but the basic story is real and that Troy is real and demands the scholarly community to take it seriously. He plays both sides, of course, because in his back pocket is the marvelous story of a young boy who miraculously translated the gold plates and so he can swap some of the myth in the text out for credibility. These scholars are dedicated to Troy only due to their brainwashed upbringing. However the story goes from here and whatever the apologists arguments are, the truth is that Troy was a real city. And if the scholarly world disagrees, then they are wrong, and the apologists are right.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
Gadianton wrote:
I don't think the apologists see it this way. The apologists pretend they are ignoring the supernatural elements and the debacles of Smith and face a text. Nothing more and nothing less. Where did that text come from based only on the text?

Suppose centuries ago after the first translations of the Iliad into modern languages some army came down and destroyed Europe but took a huge colony of French slaves thus preserving the French language. Suppose after centuries things change, and French becomes a dominant world language. Suppose in this modern world a 12-year-old boy is on a unmemorable trip with mom and dad, passes through a university town, and finds himself rummaging through a neglected pile of books in a university library and discovers the only extant text of the Iliad and it happens to be in French. He steals it. When he gets home, he copies the text onto paper line by line, and when he's finished, he burns the original. Years later, he claims an angel visits him and gives him a stack of gold plates. A short time later, he produces the full text of the Iliad that he claims to translate. He gains some friends but mostly enemies, and he starts a new religion that is essentially a sex cult with himself in charge. After a couple centuries of struggle, the religion grows and matures, the history of the Church is whitewashed and there are highly educated members of this church who believe in the Iliad. They worship Zeus with zeal and teach the Iliad is a real ancient text. Some scholars who chop gourds in half on alters while mumbling gibberish on Sundays claim that the Iliad is a real ancient text and are looking for the city of Troy. One scholar points out there is a lot of myth in the text, but the basic story is real and that Troy is real and demands the scholarly community to take it seriously. He plays both sides, of course, because in his back pocket is the marvelous story of a young boy who miraculously translated the gold plates and so he can swap some of the myth in the text out for credibility. These scholars are dedicated to Troy only due to their brainwashed upbringing. However the story goes from here and whatever the apologists arguments are, the truth is that Troy was a real city. And if the scholarly world disagrees, then they are wrong, and the apologists are right.


Excellent analogy.

I was thinking this morning of the numerous times I've heard apologists say that, at worst, there is an evidentiary stalemate regarding the Book of Mormon, thus requiring one to pray about it to know its truth. At best, they tell me, evidence is "trending toward support" of the Book of Mormon. I have long puzzled over this because, if anything, the evidence (archaeology, DNA, Egyptology, and so on) seems to be accumulating against Mormon claims.

This business between Hamblin and Jenkins has caused me to have a sort of epiphany. Apologists complain, correctly, that serious scholars don't pay any attention to the claims of Mormonism. So, unlike the rest of academia, the proliferation of articles from FARMS and Jeff Lindsay and others is ignored by reputable scholars, which would tend to dampen the enthusiasm of apologists or at least get them to rethink some of their "wow, how did Joseph get that right?" claims. Instead, apologetics is a very insular occupation, and even the most fantastical or far-fetched theories are greeted with excitement. Recall the infamous "Mt. Doom" article in the Deseret News about a KEP theory that fell apart as soon as it was presented.

In a nutshell: More and more apologetic material is being produced, and few, if any, reputable scholars have taken the time to debunk it, so the apologists assume this means a trend in their favor. As Hamblin has demonstrated over and over in the last couple of months, when someone does shine a questioning light on these claims, they turn out to be as flimsy as U-Kix and Nahom.

_________________
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 24, 2015 8:23 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 16746
Hi Gad,

I agree with what you describe as how the apologists like Hamblin are imagining the argument. Suppose we assume that NHM is genuine geographic information in the Book of Mormon text. The problem is that "maps" is a plausible basis for explaining why the text has the feature it does. What Hamblin argues is that there isn't sufficient evidence in favor of geographic information being transmitted to Smith in that manner and some evidence to doubt it. So, while it is superficially consistent with the data before us, we cannot substantiate that theory. Fair enough. But if he wants to argue that means of transmission doesn't have enough evidence in favor of it to say it happened, then the same issue is created with his theory for how Smith got information that made its way into the text. Saying he found a genuine ancient text and was able to translate it is not the absence of a theory to be believed by default. It's its own theory which requires its own support. I threw in the bit about spirit beings and supernatural translation because that's is how he thinks those feats were accomplished.

What Hamblin is really doing is engaging in a fairly transparent argument from ignorance. It is highly similar to people who believe that extraterrestrials built the pyramids at Giza. They are able to reject any theory as to how people accomplished it as lacking substantiation due to the complexity and incompleteness of historical information. Yet their preferred theory, which is by far the wackiest of them all, is held up almost by default with scraps of data they assign far too much significance to.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:35 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13117
hagoth7 wrote:
Themis wrote:
Most members who spout NHM haven't even taken the time to realize NHM it is being used as a tribal name and not a place name.

Perhaps.

Equally likely is that those who claim NHM is only used as a tribal name and not a place are creating a false dichotomy instead of representing reality.

Locations often take on the name of the tribe occupying them. Saxony, Wessex, Sussex and Essex were named after the Saxon tribe. England and Anglia were named after the Angles. Lombardy was named after the Lombards. And so on.

So for that reason and others, much of the NHM counterargument doesn't come across to me as very consistent or fair.


The inscriptions are being used only as a tribal name and not as a place name. Sure locations can be called after a group, person, etc. The inscriptions are not being used in this way. They are identifying the tribe of the person who donated the pillars. That's it. I am being consistent and fair. Can you be? :wink: Could the place be named after the tribe? Maybe, but then so could a lot of other locations, making it less likely this one is. The other problem is trying to figure out which of many possibilities NHM means. Nahom is not one of the more likely options.

I wonder if FAIR tells it's readers the information I just brought up? Who really is being consistent and fair?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:39 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 16746
Unsurprisingly, I think it is fairly obvious that the Book of Mormon is a pseudo-Biblical tale that is the byproduct of the cultural milieu that existed in early 19th century New York. As Don Bradley once said, it if the book was lost to history and a copy was randomly dug up today, historians probably could relatively easily date it to that approximate time and place.

Likewise, it is fairly obvious that the Book of Mormon narrative has no meaningful connection to the history of New World peoples.

What gets me, is that the the more I learn about these topics through passive interest in LDS apologetics, the more obvious this becomes. Knowing more doesn't complicate the picture or cause more self-doubt. It simply strengthens what is obvious and deepens my sense of how ludicrously implausible an ancient Book of Mormon is. In fact, the Book of Mormon turns out to be a fantastic document for sharpening understanding of Joseph Smith's era. It has great historical value as a window into 19th century religious beliefs and ideas about pre-Columbian history.

That apologists genuinely do imagine this ever-growning case in their favor is, while expected, also quite crazy to think about. I think it comes from what Runtu described - the ever accumulating volume of apologetic material.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
EAllusion wrote:
Unsurprisingly, I think it is fairly obvious that the Book of Mormon is a pseudo-Biblical tale that is the byproduct of the cultural milieu that existed in early 19th century New York. As Don Bradley once said, it if the book was lost to history and a copy was randomly dug up today, historians probably could relatively easily date it to that approximate time and place.

Likewise, it is fairly obvious that the Book of Mormon narrative has no meaningful connection to the history of New World peoples.

What gets me, is that the the more I learn about these topics through passive interest in LDS apologetics, the more obvious this becomes. Knowing more doesn't complicate the picture or cause more self-doubt. It simply strengthens what is obvious and deepens my sense of how ludicrously implausible an ancient Book of Mormon is. In fact, the Book of Mormon turns out to be a fantastic document for sharpening understanding of Joseph Smith's era. It has great historical value as a window into 19th century religious beliefs and ideas about pre-Columbian history.

That apologists genuinely do imagine this ever-growning case in their favor is, while expected, also quite crazy to think about. I think it comes from what Runtu described - the every accumulating volume of apologetic material.


Well said. You make me think of the "Late War" book, which to me isn't a possible "source" for the Book of Mormon but rather, like the BofM, gives us a good idea of how people thought, what they were interested in, and how they wrote in Joseph Smith's day. You don't have to go hunting for obscure points of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's time and place. Frontier America circa 1830 permeates the book, informs its contents and writing style, and explains why it was so successful.

_________________
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 24, 2015 9:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8207
Location: What does the fox say?
EAllusion wrote:
Hi Gad,

I agree with what you describe as how the apologists like Hamblin are imagining the argument. Suppose we assume that NHM is genuine geographic information in the Book of Mormon text. The problem is that "maps" is a plausible basis for explaining why the text has the feature it does. What Hamblin argues is that there isn't sufficient evidence in favor of geographic information being transmitted to Smith in that manner and some evidence to doubt it. So, while it is superficially consistent with the data before us, we cannot substantiate that theory. Fair enough. But if he wants to argue that means of transmission doesn't have enough evidence in favor of it to say it happened, then the same issue is created with his theory for how Smith got information that made its way into the text. Saying he found a genuine ancient text and was able to translate it is not the absence of a theory to be believed by default. It's its own theory which requires its own support. I threw in the bit about spirit beings and supernatural translation because that's is how he thinks those feats were accomplished.

What Hamblin is really doing is engaging in a fairly transparent argument from ignorance. It is highly similar to people who believe that extraterrestrials built the pyramids at Giza. They are able to reject any theory as to how people accomplished it as lacking substantiation due to the complexity and incompleteness of historical information. Yet their preferred theory, which is by far the wackiest of them all, is held up almost by default with scraps of data they assign far too much significance to.


My winz the webz insight of the day.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:55 am 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am
Posts: 1494
A couple of thoughts on Nahom/NHM.

I don't think the NHM evidence is as strong as apologists think it is, but not because I think Joseph likely got it from a map. I consider that possibility extremely remote. The resemblance between "Nahom" and NHM can be reasonably chalked up as an interesting coincidence.

When David P. Wright briefly weighed in the question on the ZLMB board back in 2002, he wrote the following:
Quote:
A large number of BM names and words have the suffixed element -om (Abinadom, Antiomno, Corom, Cumom, Curelom, Ezrom, Jacom, Jarom, Shiblom, Shilom [not necessarily Hebrew sh-l-m!; see the caution below], Sidom, Zeezrom). Those ending in -um may represent the same suffix: Antionum, Jeneum, Helorum, Mocum, which could include also the -antum and -ancum names: Antum, Coriantum, Irreantum, Moriancum, Moriantum, Ripliancum, Seantum, Teancum. (It is less clear that -'em names/words Ethem, Gazelem, Sherem, Shelem, [+ ? Zara-HEM-la/nah?] and -am names/words Luram, Zeram, Seezoram, Zoram should be included.)

The large number of names or words with -om (-um) indicate that this element may not be part of the word stem or root in many cases, but a suffix separate or distinct from the root. Thus is it difficult to argue decisively, even from a traditionalist perspective, that Nahom derives from a Semitic root n-h-m (as in the Arabic place name Nehhem) or the root n-kh-m (connected with mourning). Just because there are Semitic roots with a final -m which can be correlated with Nahom does not mean that they are in fact to be correlated. The word stem or root may be Nah- with an -om suffix. . . .

One could argue that -om names, which are found throughout the BM (early Nephite, late Nephite, Jaredite), are an indication that a single mind conceived them all. Recall too that -e/antum (and related -ianton) type names appear in all three literary-cultural periods: Irreantum (early Nephite); Coriantum, Coriantumr, Coriantor (Jaredite); Corianton, Moriantum, Seantum (late Nephite). This is not what one expects from an ancient document which reflects discrete cultural-historical periods, but is explainable if Joseph Smith invented the names and wrote the BM."

But what about Wadi Sayq? As Daniel Peterson recently noted, "Wadi Sayq, as a likely candidate for Lehi’s Old World 'Bountiful,' is part of the case regarding Nahom/NHM." But anyone who spends the time to wade through the intramural debates over the various candidates for the Book of Mormon's Bountiful will soon discover that none of the proposed candidates are very plausible: one has no timber at all, while the other has no suitable timber; one has a harbor but was also a bustling sea port, while the other was not populated but doesn't have a suitable harbor; one doesn't have a mountain nearby as required by 1 Ne. 18:3, while the other has a mountain but is only accessible by sea and only during certain months; ore is all but impossible to find in the area—"only the Marbat Plain and a tiny exposure of basement rock at a small wadi between Raykut and Mughsayl are likely to yield ore"; all of the proposed sites are currently closed to the ocean by a sandbar which may or may not have been there in Nephi's day, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am
Posts: 2485
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Dr. Scratch wrote:

Quote:
Not exactly a model of civility. What is perhaps worse is that Rappleye, in his Disqus avatar, is sporting some kind of Goofy/Stoner/Raver headgear:

Image

Perhaps a bowl of "Cracklin Oat Flakes" is in order for Brother Rappleye?


ROFL! Nice one. :cool:

_________________
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland


Last edited by gramps on Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
gramps wrote:
Perhaps a bowl of "Cracklin Oat Flakes" is in order for Brother Rappleye?

ROFL! Nice one. :cool:


Hamblin might actually do better in his "debate" if he ate a bowl.

_________________
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 24, 2015 11:57 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 9212
Runtu says:
Quote:
In a nutshell: More and more apologetic material is being produced, and few, if any, reputable scholars have taken the time to debunk it, so the apologists assume this means a trend in their favor.


This is the best explanation I've seen for the breathtaking arrogance of Rappleye as he responds to Jenkins (note this is a comment on a Jenkins' blog Post):

Quote:
Dr. Jenkins, … I have quietly paid attention to your various blog posts on the Book of Mormon, but have not felt a need to comment or respond. Frankly, your lack of engagement with the actual literature on these topics have made your comments so unrelated to the what is actually going on that it has seemed entirely unnecessary to respond. ….I hope you will likewise understand why I therefore do not see a need to respond to you.
(my emphasis added.)

Rappleye then continues commenting for 5 or 6 very dry paragraphs, in the face of no apparent need (!), then he states this:

Quote:
As I indicated above, I am hardly… interested in having a long debate with you…. So, while you are welcome to make whatever comments in response you feel so inclined to make, don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
(my emphasis added.)

Both comments are from: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... 2079278388

Mother of God, where in the academic world is this considered an appropriate way to address a colleague, much less the way a student should address a distinguished member of the academic world he is attempting to join?!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:10 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20285
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Nevo wrote:
But what about Wadi Sayq? As Daniel Peterson recently noted, "Wadi Sayq, as a likely candidate for Lehi’s Old World 'Bountiful,' is part of the case regarding Nahom/NHM." But anyone who spends the time to wade through the intramural debates over the various candidates for the Book of Mormon's Bountiful will soon discover that none of the proposed candidates are very plausible: one has no timber at all, while the other has no suitable timber; one has a harbor but was also a bustling sea port, while the other was not populated but doesn't have a suitable harbor; one doesn't have a mountain nearby as required by 1 Ne. 18:3, while the other has a mountain but is only accessible by sea and only during certain months; ore is all but impossible to find in the area—"only the Marbat Plain and a tiny exposure of basement rock at a small wadi between Raykut and Mughsayl are likely to yield ore"; all of the proposed sites are currently closed to the ocean by a sandbar which may or may not have been there in Nephi's day, etc.


That looks like an interesting coincidence to me.

_________________
“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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:08 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 7174
Location: Lakeside in Palm Tree Paradise
Nevo wrote:
But what about Wadi Sayq? As Daniel Peterson recently noted, "Wadi Sayq, as a likely candidate for Lehi’s Old World 'Bountiful,' is part of the case regarding Nahom/NHM." But anyone who spends the time to wade through the intramural debates over the various candidates for the Book of Mormon's Bountiful will soon discover that none of the proposed candidates are very plausible: one has no timber at all, while the other has no suitable timber; one has a harbor but was also a bustling sea port, while the other was not populated but doesn't have a suitable harbor; one doesn't have a mountain nearby as required by 1 Ne. 18:3, while the other has a mountain but is only accessible by sea and only during certain months; ore is all but impossible to find in the area—"only the Marbat Plain and a tiny exposure of basement rock at a small wadi between Raykut and Mughsayl are likely to yield ore"; all of the proposed sites are currently closed to the ocean by a sandbar which may or may not have been there in Nephi's day, etc.

Arguing that the NHM inscription is evidence for the authenticity of the Old World events described in the Book of Mormon has the effect of narrowing down the Nephite ship building site and departure point to somewhere along the southern coast of modern day Oman or Yemen. For all practical purposes, it also pretty much limits the design and sail plan of the ship to that of a dhow.

The problem is that in 600 BCE, as now, it was (and is) not possible to build dhows, or any other ocean going craft, with materials available along, or anywhere near, the coast of Oman or Yemen, or the UAE, for that matter.

As noted before on this board, people who lived on the Arabian peninsula anciently procured their dhows from the Kerala region of India. In fact, historians place the development of the dhow in India around 600 BCE.

While traditional dhows are now built in Oman and the UAE, the materials for these craft must be imported, and much of it still comes from India.

Also as noted previously (and shown below), the dhow is a lateen-rigged sailing vessel.
Image
These things are fine as coastal cargo vessels. However, as has been shown by modern sea trials of these craft, as traditionally built, they are not capable of open ocean sailing, and certainly not capable of transoceanic passages.

As to the wadis themselves, images the advocates have provided of their favorite candidates are not very convincing, even when taken from the most favorable angles possible and cropped to perfection.

I too have photographs of the Omani wadis - lots of ''em. I also have images of the coastal plain and mountains, and after seeing how this 'building a boat in a wadi' fairy tale continues to propagate among the faithful, I plan to put on display a bit of Omani ground truth, and show folks what these wadis and surrounding areas really look like when the camera is not pointed in the most Mormonistic direction possible.

_________________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:01 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7485
Location: Cassius University
A new posting from Jenkins. He makes an interesting point in response to Hamblin's complaints about the "coincidence" criticism of Nahom. Jenkins cites the multiple parallels from View of the Hebrews:

Jenkins wrote:
Now, Book of Mormon apologists have an explanation for these resemblances. The one book cannot have influenced the other, they say, because there are differences between the two texts, and they can point to some “unparallels” as well as parallels. Let us for the sake of argument accept that disingenuous and utterly unconvincing defense. Even so, we unquestionably have many striking parallels between the two texts. I have a simple explanation for that, namely that Smith was using the View when he wrote Book of Mormon, and the one profoundly influenced the other.

So what is your alternative explanation? Is it all just coincidence?


As Hamblin has already said:

Hamblin wrote:
Coincidence is not an argument, or even an explanation. It is an excuse


D'oh!

Elsewhere, Jenkins has posed an extremely provocative question, and I hope that Hamblin answers it (or any Mopologist, for that matter), though I'm willing to bet money that he won't:

Quote:
So here is my question, and it is very straightforward, requiring only a yes or no answer: Do you believe in the story of the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event?

My own answer, as I have said, is No. See? No equivocation.

If you do believe its literal historicity, how do you reconcile that with all the archaeological evidence of pre-Babel languages and civilizations?

If you don’t believe it, does that mean that you see at least parts of the Book of Mormon as symbolic, metaphorical and/or mythical, without a basis in literal historical reality?

In that case, are other faithful LDS believers free to believe that other sections of the Book of Mormon are symbolic, metaphorical and/or mythical, as opposed to literally historical? Which sections are those? Might it for example include all claims about early settlement in the New World?

Or are such matters of faith and belief entirely left to the conscience and discretion of individual LDS believers?

One request. Please don’t give me smoke and mirrors about Babel being a localized event, as LDS apologists do when trying to explain the Flood. It’s clear that this Tower of Babel story assumes the Genesis story as backdrop, and that is explicitly “the language of all the earth.”

I look forward to a specific answer.


Such an important set of questions! It cuts straight to the heart of the debate on whether or not the Mopologists are hardliner fundamentalists, though long-time students of Mopologetics will recognize that these questions echo some of the same ones that Dr. Shades formulated in his "Chapel/Internet Mormon" checklist. Perhaps he should have zeroed in on the Tower of Babel question, though, since that is one of the stories that *needs* to be true in order to authenticate the Book of Mormon as a historical text. If there was no Tower of Babel, then where did the Jadeites come from?

This question ought to be posed to every apologist: Neal Rappleye, Brant Gardner, DCP, Smoot, etc.

My prediction? None of them will answer it.

_________________
"[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: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8207
Location: What does the fox say?
We must remember, god was the designer of the Nephite vessel. I think it looked more like:

Image

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:14 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Cave
Doctor Scratch wrote:
My prediction? None of them will answer it.


I agree. Not a single one from the Mormon Interpreter crowd dare answer this question.

Here is the question:

Quote:
Do you believe in the story of the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event?


It won't be answered. I guarantee it.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:28 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13708
Location: On the imaginary axis
Gadianton wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
My prediction? None of them will answer it.


I agree. Not a single one from the Mormon Interpreter crowd dare answer this question.

Here is the question:

Quote:
Do you believe in the story of the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event?


It won't be answered. I guarantee it.


Well, maybe ldsfaqs can give us an answer.

Ldsfaqs? Do you believe in the story of the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event?

_________________
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: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 7174
Location: Lakeside in Palm Tree Paradise
Dr. Scratch,

Thanks for posting the link to the good Professor's latest volley. I particularly liked this part of the introduction.
Prof. Jenkins wrote:
You’ll notice that in what follows, I have several specific and clearly phrased questions for Dr. Hamblin. Past experience suggests that the odds of getting a concrete answer are not high.
The subheadings for what follows are:

1. The Nahom Strikes Back
2. Return of the Nahom
3. When You Wish Upon A Star
4. Bill Hamblin: An Apology
5. Coincidences and Excuses
6. These Aren’t The Nephites You’re Looking For!
7. Scattering The Peoples

I will also include a brief musical interlude.

Professor Jenkins surely deserves our respect and admiration. He has provided the most fun this board has had in a long, long time, and has done it with humor and great style.

He has managed to push Mopologetics into yet another crisis, and in full view of the Mormon public this time.

_________________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: consiglieri, Dr. Shades, fetchface, Google [Bot] and 18 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