The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl
And now here you are, dogging a national museum.


Or is it that the attitude toward it is what is in the spotlight, rather than the fine institution itself?


I'd have to say it's the fickle and inconsistent nature of apologetic approaches to evidence in general.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V
Dumb add.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl

I guaranteeeee you, that if the Smithsonian were to come up with anything remotely resembling metal plates with inscriptions on them, LDS would be singing the praises of the Smithsonian forever and ever.


This has been discovered, and in myriads of places. And it is still mocked and scorned. It would be irrelevant whether the Smithsonian or Oxford University demonstrated the proof, if it has anything at all do with favorably with the Book of Mormon, it would be mocked. Proof that evidence and proof are not universally accepted by those determined not to let evidence and proof be what they are.


Are you saying that such artifacts have been discovered from the same time period of the Book of Mormon?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl
For the life of me, I'll never understand why a person would go to the trouble of registering on a board and join a thread just to write such utter anti-intellectual tripe.


Oh damn! I really have been reading too much of College Terrace and Mr. Scratch haven't I? Apparently they have rubbed off onto me. I hope soap and water is still effective to cleanse me.


I'd be somewhat interested in applying the soap and water and rubbing off what has rubbed off on you in your reading of Collegeterrace and Mister Scratch in an effort to provide a detox effect if you think it will help.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _harmony »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl

I guaranteeeee you, that if the Smithsonian were to come up with anything remotely resembling metal plates with inscriptions on them, LDS would be singing the praises of the Smithsonian forever and ever.


This has been discovered, and in myriads of places. And it is still mocked and scorned. It would be irrelevant whether the Smithsonian or Oxford University demonstrated the proof, if it has anything at all do with favorably with the Book of Mormon, it would be mocked. Proof that evidence and proof are not universally accepted by those determined not to let evidence and proof be what they are.


I think you have delusions of persecution.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_JustMe
_Emeritus
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:37 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _JustMe »

Jersey Girl

Are you saying that such artifacts have been discovered from the same time period of the Book of Mormon?


Oh not only that, but from the same place as the Book of Mormon's origins! Jerusalem, 600 B.C. religious writing on metal plates. Actually quoting and use of scripture. And discovered by non-LDS archaeologists! But I know, that doesn't count.
_JustMe
_Emeritus
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:37 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _JustMe »

harmony

I think you have delusions of persecution.


Its better than having delusions only......;)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl

Are you saying that such artifacts have been discovered from the same time period of the Book of Mormon?


Oh not only that, but from the same place as the Book of Mormon's origins! Jerusalem, 600 B.C. religious writing on metal plates. Actually quoting and use of scripture. And discovered by non-LDS archaeologists! But I know, that doesn't count.


Well, it would count if you'd ltell me what they are. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_JustMe
_Emeritus
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:37 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _JustMe »

Jersey Girl

Are you saying that such artifacts have been discovered from the same time period of the Book of Mormon?


Oh not only that, but from the same place as the Book of Mormon's origins! Jerusalem, 600 B.C. religious writing on metal plates. Actually quoting and use of scripture. And discovered by non-LDS archaeologists! But I know, that doesn't count.

Well, it would count if you'd ltell me what they are. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.


For you I would be glad to oblige. The silver plates from Jerusalem 600 B.C. discussed by Wendell J. Adams in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Also discussed in the relatively new book Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem. The JBMS articles are free on the FARMS website. They even have a search feature. I'd try first "silver plates." Hope that helps ya!
_Danna

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Danna »

JustMe wrote:Jersey Girl

Are you saying that such artifacts have been discovered from the same time period of the Book of Mormon?


Oh not only that, but from the same place as the Book of Mormon's origins! Jerusalem, 600 B.C. religious writing on metal plates. Actually quoting and use of scripture. And discovered by non-LDS archaeologists! But I know, that doesn't count.

Well, it would count if you'd ltell me what they are. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.


For you I would be glad to oblige. The silver plates from Jerusalem 600 B.C. discussed by Wendell J. Adams in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Also discussed in the relatively new book Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem. The JBMS articles are free on the FARMS website. They even have a search feature. I'd try first "silver plates." Hope that helps ya!


I love checking out evidence for the Book of Mormon, and I have not had much time lately, so I am glad I came across your post. I checked up the article you referred to, and things got quite interesting. First of all there was the FARMs article “Lehi’s Jerusalem and Writing on Metal Plates.” By William J. Adams Jnr. Which looked pretty straight forward and – by crikey – it describes the discovery of metal plates, no less, from about the time of Lehi, from Jerusalem.

Plate I, lines 14–20 and Plate II, lines 5–12 are quotations from Numbers 6:24–26 and thus are quite readable on the plates. The other parts of the plates are not quotations and are more difficult to read.
The conclusion for Book of Mormon studies is that the gap has been filled, and we can be certain that religious texts were written on precious metal plates in Lehi's Jerusalem.



Wow – fantastic I thought. Then I read closer that the plates were 1 inch by 4 inches - pretty small for record keeping one would think. Or anything other than a wee prayer or similar. And even worse, they were all rolled up. And took three years to unroll. Rolled up metal plates? Wouldn’t that make them a bit hard to read? Sounds like they were probably never intended to be unrolled after they were made.

But, there at the bottom was a reference:
Gabriel Barkay, "Priestly Blessings on Silver Plates" (in Hebrew), Cathedra 52 (1989): 46–59.

Having learned to always check a FARMs reference out, I did just that.

Bugger me, I could not find it with a standard search anywhere. So thinking that there may be slight translation problems I cranked up Google and looked for Prof Barkay’s CV. The original was in Hebrew (as Adams states), and not only were the pp wrong, but this and every other academic translation of the paper title calls the items ‘plaques’ or ‘amulets’. Looking further into what Prof Barkay says about the plaques in a variety of sources I find they are described as ‘scrolls’, ‘amulets’, ‘tiny silver scrolls’, ‘thin silver strips’ and ‘phylactery’. Never ‘plates’.

The only place in any literature where these things are called ‘plates’ is in Mormon apologetic literature.

Their value is in that they were the oldest Old Testament scripture found; that the scripture was inscribed on an amulet was not remarkable. The FARMs article appeared to conflate the significance to the scripture with the material it was written on.

It is a good thing that FARMs is not an official voice of COJCOLDS, otherwise, I might think someone were trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Smithsonian letter - Stood the test of time?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JustMe wrote:Gadianton

They haven't changed their tune on anything material.

They have acknowledged they need to however. I will post more when I return from this weekend's skamper.


If you're done skampering, could you and will you support that first claim?

"They have acknowledged they need to however."
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Post Reply