A "Duh!" Moment for Bill Hamblin

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is the most recent (and quite stupid) thread started by Prof. Bill "Did I really use the 'K'-word?" Hamblin on the aptly named MADboard:

Gen 4:22 tell us that Tubal-cain, an antediluvian descendent of Cain, "worked copper and iron." According to traditional biblical chronology, he lived before the rise of archaeologically verified iron working in the ANE. So, I have two questions:

1- For inerrantists, why do archaeologically unsubstantiated claims of metal-working in the Book of Mormon prove it is false, while similar claims in the Bible do not prove it is false. For an Evangelical to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon because of metal-working issues seems a blatant double standard if one insists, at the same time, on the historicity of the Bible, despite its unverified claims of antediluvian metal-working.

2- From a secularist perspective, an account of ancient legendary heroes working unknown metals in the Bible [Tubal-Cain] does not prove the Israelites did not exist. So why does an ancient legendary heroes [Shule the Jaredite] working unknown metals in the Book of Mormon prove that Nephites didn't exist?

It seems to me we need a consistent standard in evaluating such things, and neither the inerrantists nor the secularists are willing to apply their standards consistently.

Why does Prof. Hamblin's mind seem to work in such a simplistic and formulaic way, I wonder? It's almost as if he's a robot.... Anyways, as to his first point: fair enough. Much of the Bible *does* seem like allegory (at least imho). As for the second point---is he trying to embarrass himself? What an asinine comparison. The reason that the Israelites aren't proven non-existent via this analogy is because the Israelites did many other things. If Prof. Hamblin his misplaced his Rhetoric 101 textbook (and I'm referring specifically to the part on Logical Fallacies), then I suggest he rummage through his messy office in order to find it.

While he's at it, he can try to locate the "missing" 2nd Michael Watson Letter.....

[_Scottie]

No single problem does very much damage to Mormonism. It's when you take the whole that it just becomes too much to overcome.

Hell, if it had only been a single question of whether ancient Americans had metallurgy or not, I'd still be a TBM today!

[_Runtu]

No single problem does very much damage to Mormonism. It's when you take the whole that it just becomes too much to overcome.

Hell, if it had only been a single question of whether ancient Americans had metallurgy or not, I'd still be a TBM today!

Notice that our buddy Zakuska took a shot at me even though I didn't even post on that thread. Honestly, when he was going on all those ridiculous tangents in the Jaredite steel thread, I thought he might be angry that he came across looking completely idiotic. I guess I was right.

[_the road to hana]

.2- From a secularist perspective, an account of ancient legendary heroes working unknown metals in the Bible [Tubal-Cain] does not prove the Israelites did not exist. So why does an ancient legendary heroes [Shule the Jaredite] working unknown metals in the Book of Mormon prove that Nephites didn't exist?

Uh, 'cause descendants of the Israelites currently exist?

[_Gadianton]

Why does Prof. Hamblin's mind seem to work in such a simplistic and formulaic way, I wonder? It's almost as if he's a robot.... Anyways, as to his first point: fair enough. Much of the Bible *does* seem like allegory (at least imho).

Certainly, and I doubt many critics believe in the existence of Cain, descendents of Cain, Moses, Adam, and Enoch.

As for the second point---is he trying to embarrass himself? What an asinine comparison. The reason that the Israelites aren't proven non-existent via this analogy is because the Israelites did many other things. If Prof. Hamblin his misplaced his Rhetoric 101 textbook (and I'm referring specifically to the part on Logical Fallacies), then I suggest he rummage through his messy office in order to find it.

This is a great professor who will be doing a stint at Oxford this summer, right? Yes, there's plenty of evidence the Jews came from somewhere, that there was something like the Babylonian captivity even if going back further gets questionable, like, Egyptian captivity. Oh, and then there's that little point that there are no Gold plates or any evidence whatsoever for anything at all from the Book of Mormon, if there were, then the "steel" issue might play into an exaggerated and distorted history rather than as one of many points that mark the entire book as a 19th century fraud.

While he's at it, he can try to locate the "missing" 2nd Michael Watson Letter.....

Two can play at the simplistic logic game. By his kind of reasoning, I could argue that he's trying for a double standard here. We critics are supposed to just believe him in good faith that there really was a 2nd letter, but the apologists won't for a second believe those who said they saw a longer spaulding manuscript.

[_Sethbag]

Here's the difference. If Israelites, who knew about the working of copper and iron, had "legendary heroes" as part of their mythology, who they'd invented in their minds, using copper and iron, that wouldn't be all that surprising, would it? If nothing else, one might say they were simplisticly projecting backwards their own technology into the time and circumstances of their legendary heroes.

In the case of the Nephites, however, since the Nephites themselves didn't know about the working of copper and iron, how would they know about it to invent legendary heroes using the stuff? Their legendary heroes using it would be astonishing, since the idea should never even have occurred to those who penned the legends.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Oh, and are we admitting now that Shule the Jaredite was in fact fictional? Now that, my friends, is very interesting indeed.

[_The Dude]

That is so dumb, Bill Hamblin must be kidding.

[_moksha]

After my experience in Church last Sunday, I suspect that many of these arguments are not aimed at satisfying critics, but to lead the faithful to feeling satisfied that "Dan Perterson and his friends" have provided proof against the critics's arguments. To that end, the quality of the argument does not matter.

[_karl61]

Samuel, Kings, Chronicles are historical fiction and mention lots of wars, thousands of chariots (where did joseph get his ideas), great victories, who had slaves and lots of good food etc. I think it's true that they are myths. They are likely stories created by a small tribe, who were at one time slaves, likely very hungry, who wrote myths of how their ancestors lived and great hope that they will experience that too. Get a new readable Bible and Samuel, Kings and Chronicles puts the Rings trilogy to shame.

[_beastie]

After my experience in Church last Sunday, I suspect that many of these arguments are not aimed at satisfying critics, but to lead the faithful to feeling satisfied that "Dan Perterson and his friends" have provided proof against the critics's arguments. To that end, the quality of the argument does not matter.

This is absolutely true. The real purpose of apologetics is not to provide reliable information that can be verified in external sources, but rather to reassure believers that "really smart people have studied this and still think it's true, so you're not being dumb to believe in it as well, despite all the apparent evidence to the contrary".

I once had a missionary flat out tell me this - that if someone as smart as Hugh Nibley believed it, that was good enough for him!!!

Apologia is not meant to be carefully scrutinized, which is why apologists are so irritated when critics do just that.