Tobin wrote:Darth J wrote:I didn't say that the conquistadors were serious archaeologists. I said "significant study." The Portugese and the Spaniards kept records of what they observed, and their records of what they observed do not support the claim that the Book of Mormon tells a true story. Serious archaeology from that time forward has not made the Book of Mormon claims more likely. It has made them less likely.
What were the conquistadors doing to the native Americans at the time they were supposedly ponderously and meticulously perserving a record of their culture? They were wiping them out, destroying their culture, robbing, raping, and enslaving them. Oh, and forcing them to worship Christianity and to learn Spanish. I wonder what kind of picture we would have if we had relied on the Nazis impressions of the Jews and their culture and civilization?
Despite your non-response, the conquistadors actually did observe things in the New World and wrote down what they observed. Here's a start:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32474/32 ... 2474-h.htmIt's not relevant to "Book of Mormon geography" whether the conquistadors slanted things in their own favor. Because the conquistadors were around a long time before the Book of Mormon was published, they would not have known that they were supposed to omit things that would affirm the historicity of the Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica.
Conquistador 1: "Capitan, look at all these steel swords and chariots the natives have! And their coronation ceremonies are just like what the ancient Hebrews did!"
Conquistador 2: "Quiet, Esteban! We must not write that down, lest a Yankee money-digger write a story a couple hundred years from now about such things! We must suppress all this compelling evidence that such a story is true, on the off chance that it gets written long after we're dead!"
Darth J wrote:Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan was impressive enough for early Mormons to assert that the ruins down there corroborated the Book of Mormon, despite no factual basis for doing so. You're only following that same pattern, without one single piece of evidence to substantiate your claim that the Book of Mormon story happened in Mesoamerica---or anywhere else in the world.
Great. We have a jungle cruise book with pictures. Mind you they didn't have cameras at the time or it would have been all pictures.
These are your sources of 182 years of careful study of ancient American civilization? No wonder you find no evidence of the Book of Mormon. I seriously question your judgement about what sources you rely on to evaluate a civilization that existed almost 1700 years ago. You seem to have some odd views of what is legitimate research and scholarship. You also seem to believe that civilizations closer to our time period accurately reflect older civilizations.
Yes, Tobin. When I say there have been over 182 years of continual observation and study of ancient ruins and artifacts in Mesoamerica, clearly I don't mean that this book is part of that ongoing process, and knowledge has been building since that time. I must instead mean that we are forever frozen in time with just that one book. Your reasoning is unassailable. I should have known that I'm outmatched in this battle of wits.
Anyway, I believe you were saying something about having some basis other than unsupported assumptions and naked assertions for claiming that the Book of Mormon narrative happened in Mesoamerica?
Based on that, I guess you think that studying Muslim civilizations that dominate the Middle East now are a good way to understand ancient Hebrew/Hittite/Egyptian civilizations that were there before.
Oh, so what you're saying is that studying one civilization does not give you valid knowledge about a completely different civilization, and you can't simply juxtapose from one to the other.
Huh, Tobin. How about that?