Shulem wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:50 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:27 pm
Let’s let Shulem respond to my posts
I much prefer to respond to YOU rather than links about certain people writing on this subject. The beauty of this board is that we can do that freely and at whatever pace we prefer. You also know that I'm going to be respectful to you personally and treat you kindly. So, there are no worries.
You are welcome to express your objections to why Delmarva is not a dead-ringer for Smith's narrative. Bring up mountains or whatever you want. I've got cards in my deck and will play them as needed. May I enquire of what single objection comes to your mind in rejecting Delmarva as the
obvious place?
Show me your card, MG.
Lay it on the table and let's see it.
Earlier (on the other thread I think?) I brought up volcanism and links that went into specific detail. The eastern seaboard doesn’t fit the narrative in the Book of Mormon. Both you and Brandley have to ignore the internal narrative in order to justify/support your theories in regards to Delmarva. Yes, I know you responded…but your response was dependent on the Book of Mormon being a fictional production. I suppose that this divide between our presuppositions is probably insurmountable. The author of the critique I linked to in regards to Brandley’s theory brings up issues with his Book of Mormon geography. How many of those issues/objections would the correlate with your Delmarva I can’t say. That’s why, earlier, I asked you to simply point out how your Delmarva theory differentiates itself enough from Brandley’s in order to be immune from those same criticisms.
That is the simple question I’m interested in having you answer when all is said and done.
Although, again, it doesn’t really matter because I think both of you, nonbeliever and believer have a problem to deal with in explaining the contradictions within the narrative and the geography of the eastern seaboard of the United States. That’s not an issue for you, I know.
Joseph wasn’t smart enough to know that volcanism and it’s effects (albeit the incomplete understanding of ‘darkness’ used in the narrative by either Mormon or the original author) were an anachronistic entry into the narrative. C’mon. Dumb one minute, a genius the next?
Anyway, that’s my main beef with Brandley and yourself. Delmarva doesn’t fit the COMPLETE description of the events leading up to Christ’s visit to the Americas. Some of the mesoamercan models do, in the main. I had linked you to one example, but you didn’t want anything to do with it because it was the work of an apologist.
Shulem, I think that it is readily apparent that the divide between yourself and believers is insurmountable. But that’s OK. It’s fine to have different view out there in the marketplace for people to choose from. And it’s totally cool that you have a passion for your ‘truth’ and feel a compunction to put it out there.
It might be well to leave it at that.
Regards,
MG