Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8261
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Robert,
Please identify a single correct item from the translation provided by Joseph Smith of facsimile 3.
Thank you.
Please identify a single correct item from the translation provided by Joseph Smith of facsimile 3.
Thank you.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Tobin wrote:Robert,
I think you've now had the Themis experience. He doesn't discuss or exchange ideas. He doesn't own up the facts or even acknowledge them when they are inconvenient and even those he cites are superficial references at best. He brings nothing to the table other than anti-mormon propaganda that has become his new gospel and doctrine.
CFR I would like to see more then your usual baseless assertions.
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Bazooka wrote:(I'm being flippant. Your work seems considered and well researched. But you do seem to have avoided specific responses to some of Themis's questions. I have found Themis to be worth the effort of dialoging with)
I even commented on some of his article, and sure he may disagree with my comments, but I don't see him engaging in discussion of why they are wrong. I could certainly be wrong on them, but how is Bob going to convince anyone if he wont even try to do more then call it nonsense and call the person an anti. Is this the state of apologetics these days? How good are their arguments of they can't convince many of us LDS members.
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:05 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Bazooka wrote:Robert F Smith wrote:Themis,
You are now inventing and attributing to me positions which I have not taken, possibly because you are afraid to read and respond to my "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .
Why are you afraid to reply to my actual statements and examples? I provide plenty of scholarly examples. You say that you have taken decades to arrive at your current position. Too bad you didn't bother to read scholarly discussions of the issues, and instead simply uncritically took in the anti-Mormon position.
Bob
Bob,
I've read your article and then I prayed about it.
I didn't get the feeling that it was true.
So it can't be true, right?
(I'm being flippant. Your work seems considered and well researched. But you do seem to have avoided specific responses to some of Themis's questions. I have found Themis to be worth the effort of dialoging with)
If that is true, I am still waiting for the beginning of such a discussion to begin. So far, we have monologue in which Themis hears the sound of his own voice and nothing else.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Robert F Smith wrote:If that is true, I am still waiting for the beginning of such a discussion to begin. So far, we have monologue in which Themis hears the sound of his own voice and nothing else.
I find it frustrating sometimes when I am trying to be open and discuss an issue with someone who I think is lying about me, and for what ever reasons does not want to discuss my questions. I can only hear my own voice when the other person refuses to talk. I will still try to view you in a positive light since I know discussion boards can bring out the worst in us. I will be open anytime you want to discuss your article or some of the questions I and others have asked.
have a great day Robert.
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10719
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Robert F Smith wrote:If that is true, I am still waiting for the beginning of such a discussion to begin. So far, we have monologue in which Themis hears the sound of his own voice and nothing else.
I suspect you are alone in that opinion.
What I see is you avoiding discussing or responding to Themis points/questions and I don't get why.
That is your prerogative of course, but you are seeming evasive, at least to me.
Themis, it may be worth you bullet pointing the top three points/questions you feel Robert has yet to respond to. He can then, if he chooses, respond to each in turn.
If he chooses not to, well the evasiveness will have been confirmed if not the reason why.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8261
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Robert,
Please explain away the following problems:
*Written by Abraham's own hand.
*A narrative of the discovery of "Egypt" after the flood of Noah with the inclusion of the waters receding off of the face of the land of Egypt despite the geological and archaeological record showing that no such event occurred in any reasonable biblical time frame. Egyptian civilization existed before, through and after, uninterrupted, through any such flood.
*Population growth after such a global cataclysm to have the population of Egypt at the time of Abraham. So account for the population growth from the flood roughly 2300 bc to the lifetime of Abraham 1940'ish bc (from 2 people to roughly 2 to 4 million people depending on the study in 300 or so years).
*The inclusion of numerous anachronism, which are generally indicative of fake historical narratives. Pharaoh, Egypt, Ur of Chaldeans, Potiphers Hill. Said anachronism are consistent with Joseph's inclusion of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.
Please explain away the following problems:
*Written by Abraham's own hand.
*A narrative of the discovery of "Egypt" after the flood of Noah with the inclusion of the waters receding off of the face of the land of Egypt despite the geological and archaeological record showing that no such event occurred in any reasonable biblical time frame. Egyptian civilization existed before, through and after, uninterrupted, through any such flood.
*Population growth after such a global cataclysm to have the population of Egypt at the time of Abraham. So account for the population growth from the flood roughly 2300 bc to the lifetime of Abraham 1940'ish bc (from 2 people to roughly 2 to 4 million people depending on the study in 300 or so years).
*The inclusion of numerous anachronism, which are generally indicative of fake historical narratives. Pharaoh, Egypt, Ur of Chaldeans, Potiphers Hill. Said anachronism are consistent with Joseph's inclusion of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Bazooka wrote:
Themis, it may be worth you bullet pointing the top three points/questions you feel Robert has yet to respond to. He can then, if he chooses, respond to each in turn.
If he chooses not to, well the evasiveness will have been confirmed if not the reason why.
I doubt it will any good since I and others have been fairly clear, but I can list two for now.
1.Why should we consider Egyptological understanding of fac 3 incorrect.
2.Chiasmus. I have already written some of my views and even asked Bob why they would be wrong. he has only said they are nonsense. I usually think someone knows they don't have an argument when all they can do is dismiss them like that.
Several people have asked him about fac 3, and he has completely ignored these questions as though no one asked any question. His own article from what I remember doesn't say one thing about the fac 3 problems. The only mention is a small argument that I agree with against another argument no one is making.
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:05 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Bazooka wrote:
Themis, it may be worth you bullet pointing the top three points/questions you feel Robert has yet to respond to. He can then, if he chooses, respond to each in turn.
If he chooses not to, well the evasiveness will have been confirmed if not the reason why.
Themis wrote:I doubt it will any good since I and others have been fairly clear, but I can list two for now.
1.Why should we consider Egyptological understanding of fac 3 incorrect.
2.Chiasmus. I have already written some of my views and even asked Bob why they would be wrong. he has only said they are nonsense. I usually think someone knows they don't have an argument when all they can do is dismiss them like that.
Several people have asked him about fac 3, and he has completely ignored these questions as though no one asked any question. His own article from what I remember doesn't say one thing about the fac 3 problems. The only mention is a small argument that I agree with against another argument no one is making.
In a real discussion there is real give & take. Comments are made and responded to. By both sides. Both parties are sincere. You don't understand this at all, and make a mockery of real discussion.
In your false version of what has happened on this thread, you declare yourself a full participant in the conversation, the innocent party as it were. In fact, anyone reading this thread can see that you did not respond to my detailed, scholarly comments -- probably because you are incapable of doing so, and are fearful of the consequences of coming to grips with Egyptological reality.
People like you who are content to bear false witness are not likely to find others willing to carry on a discussion with someone who will not play by the rules. As an example, you deliberately and falsely state that I did not comment on fac. 3, and you never responded to my comments on fac. 3. Your fear to engage in a real discussion is palpable.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:41 pm
Re: Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret
Robert F Smith wrote:In a real discussion there is real give & take. Comments are made and responded to. By both sides. Both parties are sincere. You don't understand this at all, and make a mockery of real discussion.
In your false version of what has happened on this thread, you declare yourself a full participant in the conversation, the innocent party as it were. In fact, anyone reading this thread can see that you did not respond to my detailed, scholarly comments -- probably because you are incapable of doing so, and are fearful of the consequences of coming to grips with Egyptological reality.
People like you who are content to bear false witness are not likely to find others willing to carry on a discussion with someone who will not play by the rules. As an example, you deliberately and falsely state that I did not comment on fac. 3, and you never responded to my comments on fac. 3. Your fear to engage in a real discussion is palpable.
For a supposed academic you use a lot of accusatory language and personal attacks. Everyone that disagrees with you "fears to engage in a real discussion".
As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you. - O'Sensei