When I read about this it was through Kyle Rasmussen’s evaluation of this presentation, he put all the anachronisms into an appendix, I was referring to that, sorry!
No, the charts don’t.
Actually, I did much more than look at charts. I don’t go by power point slides when evaluating work. If you’re interested, here’s is the link to Rittenhouse’s piece, see the appendix with the list of what Roper defines as “anachronisms”: https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-14/
A couple of my favorite “ anachronisms” that Roper considers to have been resolved and therefore can be used as evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon are:
“arts,”
“journeying for 3 days,”
“Civilization,” and
“River in a Valley.”
Okay, then. Like I said, not a legit paper.
I’m not seeing an appendix with anything contributed by Matt Roper having to do with anachronisms. Also not finding the “favorite anachronisms” you’re referring to. So far your batting average for accurately sourcing your information seems to be lacking.
In the episode by Kyler Rasmussen you linked to I did find this:
…if the Book of Mormon is authentic, why are there any anachronisms at all? Shouldn’t decades of archaeological effort have been able to accurately uncover everything important about Mesoamerican society and, if so, shouldn’t we be able to draw bright and complete lines from the Book of Mormon’s claims to those various peoples?
The short answer to those questions is no. Archaeology is far from an exact science—new discoveries happen all the time that can nullify previous anachronisms, with recent use of LiDAR in Mesoamerica being an excellent example. The picture of Mesoamerican life was very different even five years ago, and it so happened that those new discoveries aligned exceptionally well with the Book of Mormon. Even if the archaeology is accurate, there are other potential sources of error, particularly when it comes to our understanding of the Book of Mormon.
I’m flummoxed as to why you don’t see the charts in Roper’s presentation as being interesting in the sense that so many of the original ‘anachronisms’ have now been debunked.
But maybe I really shouldn’t be surprised.
I honestly think that critics, in some cases, are somewhat blind to the presentations of material that is disfavorable to their positions.
I hope you’re not making up appendix and footnote materials that don’t exist.
I’m willing to be corrected.
Regards,
MG
Oops you’re right I linked to episode 14 not 15 which is Ropers analysis
The “Appendix—List of Anachronisms” is at the end.
Not sure why you’re quoting from KR’s ep 14 when you know it’s not referring to Roper.
I’m flummoxed as to why you don’t see the charts in Roper’s presentation as being interesting in the sense that so many of the original ‘anachronisms’ have now been debunked.
Because pretty charts don’t constitute proof that anachronisms have been overturned.
Roper’s methodology for both defining anachronisms and then defining their “resolution” is nonsensical and illogical.
I’m flummoxed as to why you don’t see the charts in Roper’s presentation as being interesting in the sense that so many of the original ‘anachronisms’ have now been debunked.
Because pretty charts don’t constitute proof that anachronisms have been overturned.
Roper’s methodology for both defining anachronisms and then defining their “resolution” is nonsensical and illogical.
Hi Shulem! Roper is debunked so let’s get back to your topic…
Yeah, sure he is.
Alright, I guess I’m done here. Go ahead and whistle your merry tune.
For those that have eyes to see and ears that hear the links and information are there. Anachronisms are not what they used to be.
Work to be done? Yes.
Marcus, I must say, you’ve shown a bit of sloppiness that I wouldn’t think your old moniker would have fallen prey to. Oh wait, I take that back.
Sure. You certainly are entertaining in your lack of knowledge, I’ll give you that. Meanwhile, feel free to argue a point about a source YOU brought into the conversation. So far, we’ve heard about pretty charts.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Alright, so the Nephites rode horses in which the Spaniards so graciously provided, assumedly on credit at a rather high interest rate. Horses in the Book of Mormon are not one of my favorite subjects. The chariots and horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon give a sense of being in Egypt. I have a feeling, a very strong feeling, that Joseph Smith was influenced by what he read in the Bible concerning horses and chariots and he automatically placed them in his story in order to make it seem biblical. That was another mistake on his part.
Your responses to my posts solidify/reinforce, for me, the lengths at which critics will turn a blind eye to facts. Even when they are put right in front of their eyes.
Okay, then. Like I said, not a legit paper.
Any time you’d like to add something to your comment, feel free to reveal more than this: