Peterson draws up an archetypal straw man....

[_I have a question]

Critics of the Book of Mormon often argue that no evidence exists for contact between the ancient Near East and the Americas. Accordingly, proof of such contact would demolish a principal objection to Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... erica.html

He then takes yet another leap...

If the thesis of Brian Stubbs’ "Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan" is correct, he has furnished precisely that proof.

[_moksha]

Dr. Peterson could also have advanced the argument of a strong contact between Atlantis and the Americas since there had been no previously reported evidence of Cureloms and Curmoms in the Americas before such contact was established. This helps to establish an even stronger link for Hebrew colonization since Atlantis was located between the ancient Yemen point of embarkation and a limited geographic area in Mesoamerica.

[_krose]

Oh no, not Stubbs again [facepalm].



Just think how many fun things we could insert into these blanks:

If _____'s thesis about _____ is correct, we have proof _____!


If Alex Jones's thesis about Sandy Hook is correct, we have proof that the US government pretended to murder children to influence politics!

If Kyrie Irving's thesis about the earth is correct, we have proof the world is flat!

[_Philo Sofee]

Oh no, not Stubbs again [facepalm].



Just think how many fun things we could insert into these blanks:

If _____'s thesis about _____ is correct, we have proof _____!


If Alex Jones's thesis about Sandy Hook is correct, we have proof that the US government pretended to murder children to influence polit

If Kyrie Irving's thesis about the earth is correct, we have proof the world is flat!

Yes the ghost of Nibley forever haunts them as it has convinced them all they need is to make it possible, no matter how unlikely. This is a much weaker and hence useless method than going with the probabilities. Sure it's possible eagles can fly and soar at the top of Cumulo Nimbus clouds 55,000 feet high, but is it probable they do so on a daily basis?
Sure its possible that the ancient Phoenicians colonized Australia and Greenland too, but is it probable?
Sure its possible that a man can workout all his life, eat healthy, exercise 12 hours a day, and get a good nights 8 hour rest, and high jump over a bar 14'6", but is it probable?

So long as apologists let Nibley's ghost haunt them they can never get at what is actually more realistic. That, they think, is the key to keeping testimony. A much stronger, more realistic method is working with the probable and going with it, provisionally realizing we are human and new information will come about that makes it so we have to change our minds. But in the meantime we are entirely justified in going with what is most probable, even if we are in error at the time.
John with. Loftus book "The Outsider Test of Faith" is the fundamentally strongest book on this I have ever read. If apologists want to know what makes critics tick and why they come out as they do against apologetic arguments, Loftus will remain an absolute ***must read*** book.

[_Symmachus]

Some asshole put this in a comment at Faith-Promoting Rumor a while ago:

Stubbs should attempt to publish his work in a reputable journal. I say "attempt" because I doubt it would get past the anonymous review stage, if it would even get there, since his basic methodology is pretty amateurish: selecting words based on questionable and totally impressionistic semantic resemblances.

Moreover, he is using as as a pretty substantial data set a reconstructed language—a hotly contest one at that—and he seems not to be aware that reconstructed "languages" are not necessarily reflections of a spoken language at a given point of time but rather a linguistic shorthand to explain observable correspondences between attested languages. Using a hypothetically reconstructed (but unattested) language as a data set to hypothesize another (also unattested) reconstructed language is basically using a hypothesis as evidence for another hypothesis.

Also, notice in that document you posted that he doesn't establish sound correspondences with any basic lexical sets: body parts, numbers, etc. These tend to be least susceptible to arbitrary semantic interpretation, and this is why historical linguists will work with these sorts of data sets first. Most of Stubbs's correspondence sets require special pleading so that he can use them to establish his predetermined sound changes. For example, he attempts to provide evidence for one sound change by comparing the Aramaic word for "corpse" and the Hopi word for "skin, fur." On what linguistic grounds should they be compared at all? The only discernible linguistic reason is that they fit Stubbs's hypothesized sound change—so, in order to provide evidence for the sound change, he picks correspondences whose main criteria is that they seem to fit his sound change, despite the fact that there is nothing about "corpse" that necessarily means "skin, fur." it's circular reasoning. That's just picking one example at random; almost everything looks to be of that caliber.

On the other hand, it's much harder to play those kinds of semantic games with lexical sets like body parts, numbers, pronouns, etc. but, alas, Stubbs doesn't have that most basic feature of a linguistic reconstruction.

Also, many of these sound changes he proposes are typologically improbable. Some of them will call into question many basic principles of phonology, if not *his* grasp of phonology.

And his Semitic data (and that of *attested* Uto-Aztecan languages) is arbitrary: he seems to pick Arabic, Syriac/Aramaic, or Hebrew as it suits these sound changes he makes up.

I will say this: it's a noble effort to try to show systematicity. Nibley and his imitators have lacked the impulse towards systematicity. Stubbs has the veneer of systematicity and he clearly recognizes the need for it, but unfortunately his veneer is laid atop just more of the same impressionistic stuff.

Following his "methodology," I could make English and Akkadian related. After all, English "she" is a phonological match with Akk. "ši"—and they both mean "she"! And Arabic and English are related because the the Arabic verb "qatala" (kill) has a cognate in English "cut." To explain that, let me just invent two sound changes: Arabic q > English c (or k, depending on spelling), and "l" drops away between two vowels; after that, final "a" is dropped. Now, let's test that sound change: Arabic qitta ("cat") should yield English kitta, which is pretty close to English Kitten. What about the velarized "t" in Arabic. Well, Hebrew is to the rescue! For in Hebrew, "qatal" has a velarized "t," so now we can say "Semitic velarized "t" > English aspirated t." Oh, and then there's Arabic 'ard and English "earth"...

It looks like Uto-Aztecan, Semitic (Arabic and Akkadian), and English are probably related then. In fact, I think there may be even some way to combine both Stubbs's work AND Skousen's Early Modern English schtick (after all, emphatic past tense syntax—all that "did" stuff of Brother Carmack—is a feature of literary Arabic!).

Maybe that is the "new direction" Book of Mormon Studies needs.

[_tapirrider]

Comments to the article show that defenders are making all kinds of excuses to disregard the need for being published in scientific journals and are quite content with any self published crank writing that supports the Book of Mormon.

[_grindael]

As soon as you read this,

The first was published in BYU Studies by Dirk Elzinga... The second, written by John Robertson, professor of linguistics emeritus at Brigham Young University, appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture and online at mormoninterpreter.com.

You know that the rest is all BS. Every time.

[_tapirrider]

As soon as you read this,

The first was published in BYU Studies by Dirk Elzinga... The second, written by John Robertson, professor of linguistics emeritus at Brigham Young University, appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture and online at mormoninterpreter.com.

You know that the rest is all ____. Every time.

Oh but that is peer review. Non-LDS scholars can take BYU's word for it.

[_grindael]

And I thought chiasmus was the end all of silly. Why is it that all they can produce is esoteric BS having to do with word associations? Because they fill their books and papers with jargon that means absolutely nothing but looks impressive to the gullible.

How come such a groundbreaking discovery that the Ancient American's language has elements of Egyptian and Semitic influences hasn't been submitted to a leading scientific journal but has to be published in Mormon apologist publications?

Ah, ah, ah, ah....Covfefe! (Excuse me!)

The possibilities are endless when you simply make crap up and camouflage it in a pile of esoteric jargon.

Anyone see the Putin interview with Megan Kelly of NBC? He would make an outstanding Mopologist.

And hot damn, you can read all about it if you want to cough up $193 https://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Explan ... 0986318930

[_grindael]

The only review of Stubbs book is priceless...

This is a revolutionary, paradigm-changing book. Native American cultures did not live for millennia in splendid isolation between the impassable Atlantic and impenetrable Pacific. Cultural contact with the Old World pre-dated the Norse in Newfoundland as Michael Coe is now suggesting with Angkor Wat/Maya correlations. Brian Stubbs deserves to be read carefully. I highly recommend this book for serious students of native American cultures.

Yet Coe said this about the Book of Mormon:

"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere."

And then there is the review of Stubbs dumbed down version:

This book is intriguing. It leaves emotional bias aside and provides the reader with many language-based evidences for consideration when discussing the veracity of The Book of Mormon. It introduces and explains the linguistic evidence found in the translation of a scripture which covered several cultures, centuries and even areas of land. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to know more regarding how many Native American languages of today are descended from the languages used by Nephi, a prophet originally raised in Jerusalem over 2,600 years ago. It's well written, with explanations aimed for all to understand!

Yeah, it's obvious that she totally understood what Stubbs wrote.