When is a bullseye not a bullseye?

[_moksha]

Were the stories of Captain Kidd and his buried gold treasure at Comoros known to young men in Joseph Smith's day?

[_Runtu]

Were the stories of Captain Kidd and his buried gold treasure at Comoros known to young men in Joseph Smith's day?

That seems to be Pomeroy Tucker's claim.

[_hobart]

I got a new teddy bear for Valentine's day and was searching for a new name for it. The other night, in bed, it came to me....I remember joking that it came to me as a revelation because it just sort of popped in my head (I don't really believe in personal revelation, and I'm sure a teddy bear wouldn't be important enough for God to out of His way). Anyway, it came to me as clear as day....Culpeper! So I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it in my waking hours. But where in the world did I get that name from? I looked on Wikipedia to see where I might have heard it before. Of course! A county in Virgina; I had been looking at Google earth in the Washington DC area a few weeks ago and remember thinking that the counties in VA were named a lot more interestingly than those in UT. Maybe there is something more to subconscious thinking; maybe Joseph didn't know he was taking the names from a place he had seen/heard of before?

[Guest]

Link?

As to bullseyes in general, my argument has always been that bullseyes should be expected, given enough material between any two groups you surely will find overlaps. The question is, it mere coincidence or geniune chiasmus. I usually argue for coincidence.

That's a point on the issue no apologist ever wants to address:

Even if the Book of Mormon were not historical, you would expect there to be at least some "bullseyes" from random chance, right? How can you claim to find a bullseye you wouldn't expect until you have properly identified the bullseyes you would expect? Obviously, apologists claim to be able to identify and divine which bullseyes are from chance, and which are true evidence of Book of Mormon historicity. I'd just like to see their methodology in writing.

Totally. Bullseyes should be natural when you take two massive civilizations:

1) The Ancient Near East [and all it's little sub civs]
2) The Americas [and really the apologists will grasp at anything from Alaska to Chile right?]

Where there are tons of place names, names, geographical locations, etc over centuries of time you should certainly have some similarity. Mathematical probability has to just about gurantee it at some point (read a book called Innumeracy if you want a mind blowing read on math in everyday life) you will get overlaps/bullseyes, especially when you allow for spelling deviations.

Spelling deviations really expand the possibility of finding bullseyes, and almost give you unlimited opportunities to find bullseyes. I mean really how many letters have to be off? Three? Does a vowel in the right place mean that you're allowed to consanants to be off somewhere else in the world? Before you know it you will find yourself in a place where words only need a couple of matching letters to be iron clad proof of chiasmus!

There is no methodology on which are chance and which aren't except for what's expedient. Ignore the bad ones, laud the good ones.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suspect that you don't know enough to have that opinion, B23.

Hours on the internet do not a scholar make.

What have you actually read?

[_Bond James Bond]

I suspect that you don't know enough to have that opinion, B23.

Probably not. I guess I suck.

Hours on the internet do not a scholar make.

Curses.

What have you actually read?

Nuthin.

[_John Larsen]

I suspect that you don't know enough to have that opinion, B23.

Hours on the internet do not a scholar make.

What have you actually read?

Meeeooow

[_Chap]

Hours on the internet do not a scholar make.

Let's say each post represents 5 minutes on this board - probably pretty fair taking into account reading that does not result in a post.

5*3942/60 = 300 (to one significant figure)

That is then an estimate of the number of hours that particular scholar has spent on the internet since July 2007, assuming that he has visited no other websites (an assumption which is probably, shall we say, conservative)

Reckoning a working week at 40 hours, that give us about 8 working weeks out of the last year and a half spent on this board alone.

Of course all this is really quite Old Testament.

[_Daniel Peterson]

When I begin pontificating on subjects of which I know little or nothing, based merely on participation on a message board, you'll have a point.

Incidentally, Chap, if you say you'd like me to leave, I'll happily leave.

[_harmony]

When I begin pontificating on subjects of which I know little or nothing, based merely on participation on a message board, you'll have a point.

Incidentally, Chap, if you say you'd like me to leave, I'll happily leave.

Chap is not in a position to make that declaration. No one is. Besides... without you, there's no use for chocolate syrup or whipped cream, and that would be sad.