I'm far from an expert on the Book of Abraham. But I can judge that the LDS apologists appear to be trying to confuse issues rather than addressing them.
richardMdBorn wrote:I'm far from an expert on the Book of Abraham. But I can judge that the LDS apologists appear to be trying to confuse issues rather than addressing them.
C'mon, richard. You can understand the difference between content and production!
Critics want to focus on production. Apologists quite rightly say, we don't know how it was produced, and your guesses and speculations don't mean much.
Apologists, on the other hand, want to focus on content, for which there is quite a bit of evidence for authenticity, which of course, the critics want to ignore.
harmony wrote:Did we ever resolve the problem that Daniel's apologetics aren't supported by his credentials?
We have settled the fact that your characterization of his credentials and his apologetics is inaccurate. Check out his publications. They fit very well with his degrees in Greek, philsophy, and Near Eastern languages and cultures. Add to that that runtu thinks that experience in general Church callings, which Dr. Peterson has had, and lifelong study of Book of Mormon and Church history also qualifies one for apologetics, and I think the bases are pretty well covered.
You can argue with runtu over his ideas. I think the academic degrees are sufficient.
charity wrote: You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.
Hey, I drank the water in Tijuana and did not have the runs. Can these learned Gentlemen match that? Yet in the final analysis all of our poop stinks. The only difference in this instance is that my toilet paper does not have the word Veritas printed on it. There is no doubt these men operate on a high level - higher than myself - but Runtu is a smart cookie as well and so are a lot of other people here.
Charity is as chaotic with quotes as She can be, I have inserted my reflexions in brown. (I'm sorry, I wasn't able to reassemble the whole quote.)
charity wrote:
ludwigm wrote: - Show the "caractors" which are originated to Joseph Smith (or not), to any nonmormon expert of ancient language, egyptology or linguistic! {/quote]
This is a strawman argument, probably arising because you don't understand what the Book of Mormon said. Their language was known only to themselves. It wasn't Egyptian.
I didn't talk about Book of Mormon. The "caractors" originated from Joseph Smith, he said they are from the plates. Please reflex to that.
ludwigm wrote: - Ask any nonmormon expert of egyptology about the egyptian remains in America (e.g. sold mummies)
See agove.
I don't see any overlapping the egyptian remains in America and any text agove.
ludwigm wrote: - Ask any nonmormon expert of linguistic about hebrew in native new world languages!
Brian Stubbs has been doing work in this area, which is recognized by non-LDS linguist. Check out this link.
1. It would be better to read a link from a non-LDS-biased site, from more than one linguist. 2. In Hungary, in the beginning of the XX. century, there was many "expert" who proved that all ancient language (hebrew, sumerian, greek, egyptian to list only the most important ones) are of hungarian origin, based on a few word which sound similar. This is good for entertainment or word game. I like them, but only for amusement. As the "maxwellinstitute" page You have produced.
ludwigm wrote: - Show the DNA data of the amerindians to any nonmormon expert of genetics!
The leading critic of the Book of Mormon on DNA has made the strongest statement by a geneticist in favor of the current state of the studies. Simon Southerton has said himself that there should be no trace of "Hebrew" DNA from a small colony of people, such as the Lehites, due to the bottleneck effect. Can't get better than that.
Was it a small colony? Are they not principal? The Book of Mormon says nothing about other people, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of the world.
ludwigm wrote: - Show the geographical data(??) of the two Cumorahs to any nonmormon expert of geography. (One Cumorah for the plates, another for the battle of millions. Or is there a third Cumorah for cement-houses? )
I hope any geography would have a better grasp of what the Book of Mormon says than you obviously do.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one) You should say something about the two (or three) Cumorah.
- Geology? Was there a volcano eruption or an earthquake which has deleted only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth?
Actually, geological evidence does place great volcanic evidence where the Book of Mormon describes it. You aren't up on the science in this area.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one), You should say something about the great volcanic evidence of the Book of Mormon which speaks about deleting only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth.
ludwigm wrote: Harmony is right. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. They all want to work with facts. When they find some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source, then they begin to handle it. Then, after evaluation, they make hypotheses, then they make theories, then don't drive themselves in despair if it faults. This is the way science works. And it works.
I guess you haven't kept up with the work of many scientists in this field. But it is easier to cling to the told material which fits with your agenda than to do with the new.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one), You should say something about the findings of Your experts. For example some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
There wouldn't be so much trouble with posts, if you would refrain from making such shotgun attacks. Pick one or two, instead of dozens! All my replies in red, then
ludwigm wrote:Charity is as chaotic with quotes as She can be, I have inserted my reflexions in brown. (I'm sorry, I wasn't able to reassemble the whole quote.)
charity wrote:
ludwigm wrote: - Show the "caractors" which are originated to Joseph Smith (or not), to any nonmormon expert of ancient language, egyptology or linguistic! {/quote]
This is a strawman argument, probably arising because you don't understand what the Book of Mormon said. Their language was known only to themselves. It wasn't Egyptian.
I didn't talk about Book of Mormon. The "caractors" originated from Joseph Smith, he said they are from the plates. Please reflex to that.
You talked about the 'caractors' from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The response to that is that in the Book of Mormon itself it is written that their language is a mixture, and changed so that "no man knows our language." The 'caractors' were in this strange language.
Mormon 9: 32-34 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation
This means that no expert, LDS or non-LDS is going to be able to translate them. Except with mean prepared specifically.
I don't see any overlapping the egyptian remains in America and any text above.
Why do you think there would be Egyptian remains in America? These were not Egyptian people. They were Semitic.
ludwigm wrote: - Ask any nonmormon expert of linguistic about hebrew in native new world languages!
Brian Stubbs has been doing work in this area, which is recognized by non-LDS linguist. Check out this link.
1. It would be better to read a link from a non-LDS-biased site, from more than one linguist. 2. In Hungary, in the beginning of the XX. century, there was many "expert" who proved that all ancient language (hebrew, sumerian, greek, egyptian to list only the most important ones) are of hungarian origin, based on a few word which sound similar. This is good for entertainment or word game. I like them, but only for amusement. As the "maxwellinstitute" page You have produced. Then you weren't reading. Stubbs work is not in shallow word similarities, and has been recognized by non-LDS linguists. Laugh if you want, but your amusement is as shallow as the arguments you deride.
ludwigm wrote: - Show the DNA data of the amerindians to any nonmormon expert of genetics!
The leading critic of the Book of Mormon on DNA has made the strongest statement by a geneticist in favor of the current state of the studies. Simon Southerton has said himself that there should be no trace of "Hebrew" DNA from a small colony of people, such as the Lehites, due to the bottleneck effect. Can't get better than that.
Was it a small colony? Are they not principal? The Book of Mormon says nothing about other people, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of the world. About 30 people came from the Old World. "Principal" means most important, not most numerous. The Book of Mormon says plenty about "others." You just have to study it, and not just skim the pages. Please read this, then tell me about the lack of others.
ludwigm wrote: - Show the geographical data(??) of the two Cumorahs to any nonmormon expert of geography. (One Cumorah for the plates, another for the battle of millions. Or is there a third Cumorah for cement-houses? )
I hope any geography would have a better grasp of what the Book of Mormon says than you obviously do.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one) You should say something about the two (or three) Cumorah. The Hill Cumorah in New York State was named by people of the 1800's because of its association with the fact that Joseph found the plates there. It had nothing to do with the geographical feature named IN the Book of Mormon. And there is cement in Meso-America. - Geology? Was there a volcano eruption or an earthquake which has deleted only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth?
Actually, geological evidence does place great volcanic evidence where the Book of Mormon describes it. You aren't up on the science in this area.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one), You should say something about the great volcanic evidence of the Book of Mormon which speaks about deleting only the Book of Mormon remains from the surface of the Earth. Why are you asking about "deleting" evidence? NO one ever said anything about deleting. There are ruins which will be found. Have you read the statement by the non-LDS archeologist that said you could be talking 10 feet away from something significant and not even find it in the jungle. And there is the possibility that Nephite remains have been found but just not identified as such. Can you describe exactly what would be found from a group of 30 people, who end up in an environment completely foreign to their homeland?
ludwigm wrote: Harmony is right. Experts in those fields distance themselves from anything remotely connected to Mormonism. They all want to work with facts. When they find some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source, then they begin to handle it. Then, after evaluation, they make hypotheses, then they make theories, then don't drive themselves in despair if it faults. This is the way science works. And it works.
I guess you haven't kept up with the work of many scientists in this field. But it is easier to cling to the old material which fits with your agenda than to do with the new.
Instead of evaluating my knowledge (which is undoubtedly a low level one), You should say something about the findings of Your experts. For example some pottery, building, grave, fraction of manuscript, or any real, existing data source. Again, please read what I said. Before you can say that something is of a specific culture, you have to be able to identify that culture. Then anything you can find can be attributed. It is a rough job. There are archeologists who believe that some of what has been found is actually Nephite. But we can't identify it because we don't know the markers.
So then it appears Charity concedes the point - DCP's degrees in Islamic studies and background in, say, Greek, have nothing to do with his "credential" to be an LDS apologist. So she must point to the same credentials many of us share - learning via the church through callings and BYU classes. In the end, he has no more "credentials" than most of us.
I do want to make one correction - Brant Gardner does have credentials that have to do with his area of apologetics. He has a master's degree in Mesoamerican studies, and had worked on his PhD. He has not made this his career, and his degree is dated, along with what he was probably taught while obtaining it, but he still has it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.