SFS Post 5! Book of Mormon

[_Rambo]

I have a few questions relating to the Book of Mormon.

The first one has to do with how would Joseph know certian things about ancient Ariabia. Mike explains information on ancient Arabia available to Joseph was often wrong, and described Arabia as a barren wasteland. The Book of Mormon tells a different stories where it describes valleys of seasonal riverbeds and a place called bountiful because of its fruit and also wild honey. The nephites also used timber of Arabia. These things are now known to have existed in ancient Arabia. How would Joseph know these things about ancient Arabia?

The other question is about the "others" in the Book of Mormon land. We all know there where other people in the land at the time of 600 BC. So why are Others not Explicitly Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Mike talks about the untranslated large plates that contains more historical information and might contain details of the others. The record we have is a lineage history which deals with the Nephite records. This ony deals with the story as it relates to a particular family. That is why the nephites don't talk explicitly about other people. I guess I don't really have a question about this but what do you guys think?

The last question I have is about similar words between Hebrew and Aztecan. Mike list some examples where a Hebrew word is very similar to a Aztecan word. He evan quotes a non lds scholar Dr. Roger Westcott a professor of Emertius of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University. "Westcott explains that these examples are not merely coincidental but instead follow systematic sound-shifts and other linguistical models just as we find present in the studies of other known language family connections." What does the board think of this?

Since Mike will not be posting here anymore I will be asking more follow up questions. Thanks!

[_beastie]

I have a few questions relating to the Book of Mormon.

The first one has to do with how would Joseph know certian things about ancient Ariabia. Mike explains information on ancient Arabia available to Joseph was often wrong, and described Arabia as a barren wasteland. The Book of Mormon tells a different stories where it describes valleys of seasonal riverbeds and a place called bountiful because of its fruit and also wild honey. The nephites also used timber of Arabia. These things are now known to have existed in ancient Arabia. How would Joseph know these things about ancient Arabia?

The other question is about the "others" in the Book of Mormon land. We all know there where other people in the land at the time of 600 BC. So why are Others not Explicitly Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Mike talks about the untranslated large plates that contains more historical information and might contain details of the others. The record we have is a lineage history which deals with the Nephite records. This ony deals with the story as it relates to a particular family. That is why the nephites don't talk explicitly about other people. I guess I don't really have a question about this but what do you guys think?

The last question I have is about similar words between Hebrew and Aztecan. Mike list some examples where a Hebrew word is very similar to a Aztecan word. He evan quotes a non lds scholar Dr. Roger Westcott a professor of Emertius of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University. "Westcott explains that these examples are not merely coincidental but instead follow systematic sound-shifts and other linguistical models just as we find present in the studies of other known language family connections." What does the board think of this?

Since Mike will not be posting here anymore I will be asking more follow up questions. Thanks!

In regards to Hebrew/Aztecan connection:

There are no respected Mesoamerican scholars who assert any connection whatsoever between any Mesoamerican language and Old World languages. It is always possible to find some fringe researcher who asserts otherwise, but when the consensus of the most respected scholars in the field begs to differ, one should view the claims of the fringe with healthy skepticism.

Moreover, claiming that there is a connection between the Hebrew and a Mesoamerican language completely defeats the purpose of Limited Geography Theory. The most important assertion of LGT is that the Lehites constituted an incredibly small group of people who were immediately culturally subsumed within the larger host culture. This is why people should not even expect to find evidences of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Instead, we are told, look for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. To simultaneously assert that the Lehites actually retained their Hebraic language AND were numerous enough to influence the trajectory of a Mesoamerican language directly undermines LGT. Is it too much to expect some internal consistency in apologia? Apparently.

If the Lehites were culturally unique enough to retain their Hebraic language, AND were numerous enough to influence the evolution of Aztecan, then we should be able to find evidence of them in Mesoamerica. We can’t.

In regards to the others, the scriptures apologists cite as proof of the others have other explanations.

I haven't studied the Old World side of the Book of Mormon equation, so can't comment on your first point.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
There are no respected Mesoamerican scholars who assert any connection whatsoever between any Mesoamerican language and Old World languages.
...

Possibly there is a 2-4% overlap in Ute/Aztec and ancient Hebrew. Both are
Asian languages and the Ute/Aztec peoples are relatively recent arrivals from
Asia. They may have crossed paths with Semitic tribes somewhere along the
line. But their original language was not Hebrew and their current language is
not a corruption nor evolution of Hebrew.

It would not surprise me, that if enough micro-studies were conducted on
Amerind languages, that more affinities with ancient Middle Eastern tongues
could be documented.

Mormons will fall flat on their faces, trying to argue that American languages
evolved from whatever fictional stuff fictional Nephi & Lehi purportedly spoke.

UD

[_Rambo]

In regards to Hebrew/Aztecan connection:

There are no respected Mesoamerican scholars who assert any connection whatsoever between any Mesoamerican language and Old World languages. It is always possible to find some fringe researcher who asserts otherwise, but when the consensus of the most respected scholars in the field begs to differ, one should view the claims of the fringe with healthy skepticism.

Moreover, claiming that there is a connection between the Hebrew and a Mesoamerican language completely defeats the purpose of Limited Geography Theory. The most important assertion of LGT is that the Lehites constituted an incredibly small group of people who were immediately culturally subsumed within the larger host culture. This is why people should not even expect to find evidences of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Instead, we are told, look for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. To simultaneously assert that the Lehites actually retained their Hebraic language AND were numerous enough to influence the trajectory of a Mesoamerican language directly undermines LGT. Is it too much to expect some internal consistency in apologia? Apparently.

If the Lehites were culturally unique enough to retain their Hebraic language, AND were numerous enough to influence the evolution of Aztecan, then we should be able to find evidence of them in Mesoamerica. We can’t.

In regards to the others, the scriptures apologists cite as proof of the others have other explanations.

I haven't studied the Old World side of the Book of Mormon equation, so can't comment on your first point.

Westcott could be fringe. In Mikes book he says that Westcoot has 500 publications including 40 books.

Mike really doesn't assert that the Lehites retained their Hebraic language he is just saying the Lehites might have had some influence on the Aztecan language.

[_beastie]

Possibly there is a 2-4% overlap in Ute/Aztec and ancient Hebrew.

That is not the current stance of Mesoamerican scholars.

Mike really doesn't assert that the Lehites retained their Hebraic language he is just saying the Lehites might have had some influence on the Aztecan language.

How could the Lehites have that influence if they did not even retain their Hebraic language?

[_dblagent007]

The other question is about the "others" in the Book of Mormon land. We all know there where other people in the land at the time of 600 BC. So why are Others not Explicitly Mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Mike talks about the untranslated large plates that contains more historical information and might contain details of the others. The record we have is a lineage history which deals with the Nephite records. This ony deals with the story as it relates to a particular family. That is why the nephites don't talk explicitly about other people. I guess I don't really have a question about this but what do you guys think?

There is thread about this very topic over on MAD. It was going along fine until Cinepro brought it to a screeching halt. This post makes some of his best points. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208822145

Of course, from the Church's "global flood" view, this means that the New World was depopulated by Noah's flood, and then shortly after came the Tower of Babel and the Jaredite emigration. So, in order for there to have been "pre-Jaredites", they would have had to have high-tailed it out of the Old World and across the ocean sometime between the end of Noah's flood (commonly believed to be ~2400 BC) and the Jaredite landing ( ~2200 BC).

There are also the traditional (but still taught) views about the dividing of Pangea being a post-flood event as well. So the issue of "others" touches on several other traditional teachings that will also have to be forsaken (and hopefully expunged from the footnotes!).

Later in the thread, Ash essentially agreed with Cinepro that the global flood idea has to be jettisoned for the idea of "others" to work. However, the Church has never backed away from the global flood to date.

[_Rambo]

Possibly there is a 2-4% overlap in Ute/Aztec and ancient Hebrew.

That is not the current stance of Mesoamerican scholars.

Mike really doesn't assert that the Lehites retained their Hebraic language he is just saying the Lehites might have had some influence on the Aztecan language.

How could the Lehites have that influence if they did not even retain their Hebraic language?

I'm not sure. I'll post this at the other board in a couple of days and see what they say.

[_dblagent007]

Rambo, here is some additional information about the subject of "others" in the Book of Mormon. I think you should read them and see which one sounds more persuasive to you.

Brent Metcalfe, Reinventing Lamanite Identity, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... 020-25.pdf

John Tvedtnes, Reinventing the Book of Mormon (a response to Brent Metcalfe's article), http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=548

[_Rambo]

Rambo, here is some additional information about the subject of "others" in the Book of Mormon. I think you should read them and see which one sounds more persuasive to you.

Brent Metcalfe, Reinventing Lamanite Identity, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... 020-25.pdf

John Tvedtnes, Reinventing the Book of Mormon (a response to Brent Metcalfe's article), http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=548

Thanks!

[_Aristotle Smith]

There are two things you have to look at when analyzing Book of Mormon parallels. First, what are the hits? Second, what are the misses? The questions you are asking are only the hits. I don't think they are that convincing, but for the sake of argument lets just assume that the parallels they point out are are correct. You still have to look at the misses. For example in this post I listed some of the misses.

The other thing you have to ask yourself with the parallels in Book of Mormon apologia is: Can they be formed into a coherent picture? Specifically, the ancient near east parallels tend to undermine the mesoamerican parallels and vice-versa. Here's a simple example. One of the hits apologists point to is the fact that the geography matches the Arabian peninsula so perfectly. They assert this based on following the directions that Nephi gives and assuming his North/South, East/West directionality is the same as ours. Yet, as soon as they get to mesoamerica the limited geography theory demands that the directions are shifted by 90 degrees. They give all kinds of explanations as to why east is really north, because that's what the Tehuantepec theory demands. Well, which is it? If they can give accurate directions in Arabia, why not in mesoamerica? Or if the directions given in mesoamerica don't have any connections with what we think of as North/South and East/West, how can the directions given in the Arabian penninsula be taken as trustworthy? You can't have both without some really twisted reasoning.