I am sorry, I really do not see any dishonesty here. I find inconclusive but interesting findings. If it becomes seen that horses were in the America in some locations in Book of Mormon times that hardly proves the book to be history.It would eliminate one simple and minor argument against the book being real records.
The main text and the footnote run in different directions. "May" in the main text becomes "sorry the pertinent issue could not be tested."
I mean, wait until the testing can be done, right? With the Book of Mormon, it is always hope sold as research. It is a research of things hoped for and evidence as yet to be seen.
Kishkumen, what I read was that the deposit layers that the horse bones were found in were dated. The footnote remarked upon is a discretionary observation that the bone itself was not testable. It is my understanding that dating by deposit layers is normal primary dating procedure yielding relative but not exact dates.
The Book of Mormon article pointed out that there would not be chance of later bones get mixed into lower stratum. I suspect a more likely difficulty might be the possibility of older(horse fossils) materials being mixed with newer ones when first deposited in the given location.
,,,
The link I posted was found withing the footnote above the footnote being criticized.
I am sorry, I really do not see any dishonesty here. I find inconclusive but interesting findings. If it becomes seen that horses were in the America in some locations in Book of Mormon times that hardly proves the book to be history.It would eliminate one simple and minor argument against the book being real records.
You are making reasonable statements, but the issue is with what was quoted iin the OP:
...horses may have been in the Americas during Book of Mormon times after all...
Looking at all the sources given, including the one you referenced, here is the closest to that statement i have found:
. Its most unique character lies in producing Equus specimens of Post-Pleistocene to Pre-Columbian age. C-14 dates obtained from this site have yielded ages ranging from 41000 to 930 years before the present (YBP)
Materials on which the dates were obtained include carbon fragments, carbonized wood, snail shells and organic sediments. Most of these were found juxtaposed or else very closely associated with horse bones and/or teeth.
Thank you Huckelberry. It appears this is where they took the figure from that they use.
If I'm reading this correctly, all of the horse bones they were able to carbon date, dated no later than 380 years ago. Also, two of the charcoal samples found at the exact same depth had a difference of 200-300 years, and there's another one that was taken about 8 inches below another, that dated to 1800 years sooner. Then, there's a 7,000 year gap between dates.
Then there's this rascally statement: "We completely agree with statements that an assessed charcoal sample recovered adjacent to a skeletal element does not necessarily create a precise age for that vertebrate specimen." *sad-trombone*
Thank you Huckelberry. It appears this is where they took the figure from that they use.
If I'm reading this correctly, all of the horse bones they were able to carbon date, dated no later than 380 years ago. Also, two of the charcoal samples found at the exact same depth had a difference of 200-300 years, and there's another one that was taken about 8 inches below another, that dated to 1800 years sooner. Then, there's a 7,000 year gap between dates.
Then there's this rascally statement: "We completely agree with statements that an assessed charcoal sample recovered adjacent to a skeletal element does not necessarily create a precise age for that vertebrate specimen." *sad-trombone*
Great catch, Dr. S. Regarding the rascally statement, its interesting how "not necessarily" metamorphosed into "importantly"
Importantly, several horse specimens were recovered in close association with materials carbon dated to Book of Mormon times (see table).7
I think you've captured the exact moment when footnote 7 went wrong.
I am sorry, I really do not see any dishonesty here. I find inconclusive but interesting findings. If it becomes seen that horses were in the America in some locations in Book of Mormon times that hardly proves the book to be history.It would eliminate one simple and minor argument against the book being real records.
You are making reasonable statements, but the issue is with what was quoted iin the opening post:
...horses may have been in the Americas during Book of Mormon times after all...
Looking at all the sources given, including the one you referenced, here is the closest to that statement i have found:
. Its most unique character lies in producing Equus specimens of Post-Pleistocene to Pre-Columbian age. C-14 dates obtained from this site have yielded ages ranging from 41000 to 930 years before the present (YBP)
Materials on which the dates were obtained include carbon fragments, carbonized wood, snail shells and organic sediments. Most of these were found juxtaposed or else very closely associated with horse bones and/or teeth.
That does not support the statement that "horses may have been in the Americas during Book of Mormon times after all.."
But referring back to the opening post, it's my opinion that the statement prior to footnote 7 was deliberately misleading.
Marcus,
I am not particularly invested in this question but do find my self with a bit of curiosity about it. I doubt resolution will be arrived at quickly. There were in Pleistocene times lots of horses in the America. They died out. The article is about findings which appear to indicate some horses survived later, into the time period of the Book of Mormon story. The bones were found they were dated by dating material in the layers in which the bones were found. That is not perfect dating but certainly is strong enough to justify those careful words, may have been found in Book of Mormon times.
You appear to be seeing something I am missing entirely. (?)
The link you note is to a highly abbreviated summary. The link I made is to a more complete scientific article.
Festinger in chapter 1 of When Prophecy Fails writese "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." p.3.
Some time ago I had an email exchange with Royal Skousen from BYU on the Book of Abraham facsimiles.I read what he said on his CV page (p.39)
His response.
Dear Noel,
I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles. Here’s what’s on my curriculum vitae, at the end in the section entitled “Fundamental Scholarly Discoveries and Academic Accomplishments by Royal Skousen from about 1970 to 2020; first placed online in 2014”, on page 39:
“The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.”
Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons. Yes, the engraver took a part from elsewhere on the hypocephalus and used it to fill up the missing part. I myself would like to see the Book of Abraham with the two secondary insertions in the first chapter removed that connect the text with the papyri and, in fact, no facsimiles or any connection with the Kirtland papyri. The actual text of the Book of Abraham has many interesting things, but the whole discussion has been hijacked by the papyri.
I am sending on my views to Dan Peterson and John Gee. I give you permission to post online what I have written in the ending section of my vita.
With best wishes, Royal
Dr Givens seems to hold a similar view.
Hi Noel
My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.
As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.
Warm regards
Terryl
Both scholars in the face of the evidence have changed their view or made it public regarding the Book of Abraham.
The JWs when confronted with the failure of the world to end as they prophesied in 1975 said later that this view was only held by some in the movement and they were wrong
When the writings of Seventh Day Adventist prophetess were shown to be plagiarized of other writings without sources cited it was argued she was inspired to used these sources.
Festinger writes " The person may try to change one or more beliefs, opinions or behaviours involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and thus cause the total dissonance to be reduced or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship/ p.28.
Noel Hausler added this excellent observation to Dan's blog, that in the face of contrary evidence to a belief, believers will often double down and increase their fervor:
noel: "In When Prophecy Fails Festinger writes " 'Increased fervor following the disconfirmation of a belief...The individual must have social support.. if a believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another , we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct' P.4. m"
Dan: An excellent observation, noel. Permit me to add that, in biochemistry and metabolism, beta-oxidation is the catabolic process by which fatty acid molecules are broken down in the cytosol in prokaryotes and in the mitochondria in eukaryotes to generate acetyl-CoA, which enters the citric acid cycle, and NADH and FADH2, which are co-enzymes used in the electron transport chain. It is named as such because the beta carbon of the fatty acid undergoes oxidation to a carbonyl group. Beta-oxidation is primarily facilitated by the mitochondrial trifunctional protein, an enzyme complex associated with the inner mitochondrial membrane, although very long chain fatty acids are oxidized in peroxisomes.
Dan's childish response is always the same: "I'm going to call your evidence irrelevant."
You always know it's a good argument when Dan reverts to ad-hom attacks in defense. Classic comedic Dan.
Not only that, I am willing to bet he plagiarized someone! It sounds like something James Tour writes...
Noel Hausler added this excellent observation to Dan's blog, that in the face of contrary evidence to a belief, believers will often double down and increase their fervor:
Dan's childish response is always the same: "I'm going to call your evidence irrelevant."
You always know it's a good argument when Dan reverts to ad-hom attacks in defense. Classic comedic Dan.
Not only that, I am willing to bet he plagiarized someone! It sounds like something James Tour writes...
You are making reasonable statements, but the issue is with what was quoted iin the opening post:
Looking at all the sources given, including the one you referenced, here is the closest to that statement i have found:
That does not support the statement that "horses may have been in the Americas during Book of Mormon times after all.."
But referring back to the opening post, it's my opinion that the statement prior to footnote 7 was deliberately misleading.
Marcus,
I am not particularly invested in this question but do find my self with a bit of curiosity about it. I doubt resolution will be arrived at quickly. There were in Pleistocene times lots of horses in the America. They died out. The article is about findings which appear to indicate some horses survived later, into the time period of the Book of Mormon story. The bones were found they were dated by dating material in the layers in which the bones were found. That is not perfect dating but certainly is strong enough to justify those careful words, may have been found in Book of Mormon times.
You appear to be seeing something I am missing entirely. (?)
The link you note is to a highly abbreviated summary. The link I made is to a more complete scientific article.
I agree with you on that. I read the source you linked (it was in footnote 6) and my point was that the "highly abbreviated summary" was making assumptions and generalized statements that the "more complete scientific article" did not support. They implied it did, and in my opinion they were playing fast and loose with the truth, which mopologetic writings frequently seem to do.
