This is what archeologists do.

[_marg]

There is NO on this board (or any non-believer I have ever heard), who would state that there will never ever be any new archaeological discoveries.

Again... there is NO one on this board who would state there will never ever be any new archaeological discoveries.

Please take this in.

If you mean archeological evidence which supports the Book of Mormon being historically true, then I disagree. Given the claims of the Church, given not only the lack of evidence but the counter evidence for their claims, I reject completely the claim that the Book of Mormon is historically true. For operational purposes, I hold to the opinion there will never be any archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims.

[_Trevor]

For operational purposes, I hold to the opinion there will never be any archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims.

I agree. We shouldn't waste our lives revisiting the same issues. While there might be the tiniest sliver of possibility that some bizarre claim is actually true, the prudent person does not grind a lifetime away seeking the fairy's gold. The prudent person gets on with real life, because it is too precious to fritter away in useless enterprises. The real gold is time.

[_truth dancer]

If you mean archeological evidence which supports the Book of Mormon being historically true, then I disagree. Given the claims of the Church, given not only the lack of evidence but the counter evidence for their claims, I reject completely the claim that the Book of Mormon is historically true. For operational purposes, I hold to the opinion there will never be any archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims.

No, I meant any archaeological discoveries. I'm pretty sure everyone here believers new discoveries will be made. We are not surprised when new discoveries show up throughout the world.

Again... there is NO one on this board who would state there will never ever be any new archaeological discoveries.

I think most non-believers do not think there will be archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, (because the Book of Mormon is not true), but most of us certainly think there will be more discoveries.

:-)

~dancer~

[_beastie]

TD said it well, in my opinion:

There is NO on this board (or any non-believer I have ever heard), who would state that there will never ever be any new archaeological discoveries.

Again... there is NO one on this board who would state there will never ever be any new archaeological discoveries.

Please take this in.

What many will say, is that the likelihood of anyone finding archaeological evidence that supports many of the claims in the Book of Mormon is very unlikely.

Do you understand the difference?

Let me give you some examples....

While it is possible that someone might find evidence that the people of Catal Hyuk used the internet, it is unlikely.

While it is possible that I might find a alien spacecraft in my backyard, it is highly unlikely.

While it is possible that we discover quakers on the moon, it seems rather unlikely.

Do you see the difference?

While OF COURSE there will be new archaeological discoveries in the Americas, the chance of anything coming to light that supports various Book of Mormon claims seems remote.

She says the chance of finding any archaeological discovery that supports various Book of Mormon claims is remote. This is a wise claim. It's less accurate to use more categoric language. For example, while in Joseph Smith' time period, it was commonly believed that ancient America was populated by two groups that constantly battled, in the early twentieth century scholars decided that ancient Mesoamericans were led by peaceful calendar-obsessed priests. So when later discoveries revealed that ancient Mesoamerica engaged in constant battles, it could be said to be a discovery that supported one particular Book of Mormon claim.

The point isn't that each and every claim Book of Mormon apologists make is false. The point isn't that a future discovery won't support some particular apologetic claim - it might. I believe Trevor noted this earlier on another thread, that even if it were discovered, one day, that metallurgy was practiced in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period after all, the Book of Mormon would be no more an ancient Mesoamerican document than it is today. The problem isn't isolated claims, rather, it is the totality of the Book of Mormon that is the problem.

So I think TD was phrasing her statement in a way that recognized this possibility.

In my essays, I use similarly cautious language, by talking in terms of probabilities. Is it possible that, for example, an alien culture planted frozen "bad guy" aliens in earth's volcanoes, and those alien bad guys thawed out and are on the earth? Well, it's as possible as the idea that there really is a fat guy in a red suit cranking out toys for Christmas. If, one day, evidence is uncovered that demonstrates that these claims are actually reality-based, then lots of people will have to reformulate their beliefs. (and wonder why santa has apparently kept us on the "bad kid" list so long)

Some things may be possible, but are so unlikely that it is reasonable to refer to them as impossible. That is the scenario with the premise of the Book of Mormon being an ancient Mesoamerican document. Is it possible that, one day, new discoveries will reveal the existence of a powerful Judeo-Christian polity in Mesoamerica? Sure, it's possible, but so unlikely that it is reasonable to refer to it as impossible. But apologists like to create entire arguments based on semantic issues such as this, so why not cut them off at the pass and use more exact language.

[_Trevor]

The point isn't that each and every claim Book of Mormon apologists make is false. The point isn't that a future discovery won't support some particular apologetic claim - it might. I believe Trevor noted this earlier on another thread, that even if it were discovered, one day, that metallurgy was practiced in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period after all, the Book of Mormon would be no more an ancient Mesoamerican document than it is today. The problem isn't isolated claims, rather, it is the totality of the Book of Mormon that is the problem.

That is the crux of the whole matter. But it is the job of apologists to lure critics into endless individual wranglings about horses, elephants, metallurgy, grain, KJV quotes, etc., etc., etc., all the while missing the point that the book, taken as a whole, is so riddled with problems that there is little reason, outside of spiritual conviction, for considering it a genuine ancient document.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I love this. Especially this completely scientific piece of logic. "Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse."

Oh, he did, did he?

So are you suggesting Joseph might not have meant horse when he wrote down horse? We can't trust that Joseph Smith wrote down what he really meant? I think what Coe is saying is that when an author (translator) writes something down, we have to assume it's what they really mean. Don't blame the reader for taking the author's words at face value.

[_charity]

I love this. Especially this completely scientific piece of logic. "Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse."

Oh, he did, did he?

So are you suggesting Joseph might not have meant horse when he wrote down horse? We can't trust that Joseph Smith wrote down what he really meant? I think what Coe is saying is that when an author (translator) writes something down, we have to assume it's what they really mean. Don't blame the reader for taking the author's words at face value.

You do know what translators do, don't you? They take the word that has been written and put that word into the language they are translating into. If the Nephite prophet used the word "****" (the Nephite word for horse) when he was looking at a tapir, then the tranlsator would translate the word as "horse."

[Guest]

You do know what translators do, don't you? They take the word that has been written and put that word into the language they are translating into. If the Nephite prophet used the word "****" (the Nephite word for horse) when he was looking at a tapir, then the tranlsator would translate the word as "horse."

You don't know what religious charlatans do, do you, charity? They make up their own religious texts, stage their own miracles, and all with an eye to setting themselves up as important people. If you only understood this, you wouldn't waste your time trying to defend a position that has no merit, i.e. that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

[_Mister Scratch]

I love this. Especially this completely scientific piece of logic. "Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse."

Oh, he did, did he?

So are you suggesting Joseph might not have meant horse when he wrote down horse? We can't trust that Joseph Smith wrote down what he really meant? I think what Coe is saying is that when an author (translator) writes something down, we have to assume it's what they really mean. Don't blame the reader for taking the author's words at face value.

You do know what translators do, don't you?

Yes, *I* do, since I have engaged in translation before.

They take the word that has been written and put that word into the language they are translating into.

Yep. That's correct.

If the Nephite prophet used the word "****" (the Nephite word for horse) when he was looking at a tapir, then the tranlsator would translate the word as "horse."

This doesn't make any sense at all. Whoever wrote the original word would have used the correct word. If the word didn't make sense to Joseph, then Joseph Smith would have used the foreign-seeming word, just like he did with Cureloms, Cumoms, and so forth.