Franktalk wrote: At one time the entire civilization of Assyria was considered a myth. That is because man had not found anything from that culture for over 2500 years.
Who the heck considered the "entire civilization of Assyria" to be a myth? When did this happen? Respectfully, Franktalk, where do you get this stuff?
Franktalk wrote:At one time the entire civilization of Assyria was considered a myth. That is because man had not found anything from that culture for over 2500 years. The lack of hard evidence for the Assyrians was used to "prove" the Bible was a fable of man. But around 1865 Nineveh was uncovered. So did men start to say that the Bible is actually an eye witness account of history? No they just went onto the next unproven item and continued to say that the Bible is a fable. You see that it was not the evidence that mattered but the agenda of attacking the Bible that was important. Now many who repeat these kinds of arguments do not know that they are pawns of a much larger attack on faith in God. That is sad but true. For me I think patterns occur all of the time so when I see Nineveh hidden for 2500 years I expect some other cities to remain buried for the same time. So using 400 AD as our starting point I expect to see an old Nephite city in 900 years. I see no reason to make all kinds of statements about things that all work out in time. You see I have faith.
Franktalk wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:Nineveh and it's ruins were discovered in 1847-48 and even then it wasn't really lost. Just no one had published anything about it. The reason that Nineveh was not discovered by science before that is because no one was really looking for it. The science of archaeology didn't really fall into it's own until the early twentieth century.
Since then, however there has been a great deal of scholarly work on all continents. Research and excavations in Meso America and North America have continued to this day and are still continuing. Even after more than a hundred years of serious research, no evidence has shown up that could point to a Nephite civilization. Nothing. Not even the smallest artifact. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that no such civilization ever existed?
Oh really,
"The British Museum was established in 1753, largely based on the collections of the physician and scientist Sir Hans Sloane. The museum first opened to the public on 15 January 1759 in Montagu House in Bloomsbury, on the site of the current museum building."
Many universities and private collectors started much earlier. Why don't you go ring some bells and gaze upon the Paris skyline.
Will someone kindly explain to me how Franktalk's note about the date of the foundation of the British Museum is supposed to be an effective response to Quasimodo? It seems quite irrelevant. Everybody knows that collections of antiquities and curiosities long pre-date scientific archeology.
And can Franktalk cite any anti-Christian writings earlier than the rediscovery of Nineveh in 1847-8 that suggested that ancient Assyria was a myth, on the grounds that the Bible was unreliable? I suspect he is just making this up. CFR?
Such information is available to those willing to use Google, even if they do not have the rudiments of a classical education. So there is no excuse for ignorance.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I listened to the entire Michael Coe podcast series a couple nights ago, and even stayed up way too late because I couldn't stop listening. This is obviously no raging anti-Mormon here. I did hear him get a couple of niggling details wrong in some of the things he said that Mormons believe, but these were not important enough to change the importance of what he said, and he revealed an absolutely astonishing level of knowledge and understanding of Mormon beliefs for a guy who has never been a Mormon. He was able to talk intelligently about some topics that probably 50% of active Mormons don't even know (such as the Book of Abraham).
Ldsfaqs, you can throw around anti-Mormon as if the mere invocation of it proves your point, but that is a horribly naïve attitude, and you should rethink, or perhaps more accurately, start thinking.
Ldsfaqs, I'm pretty confident that you haven't listened to the Michael Coe podcast yet. Would I be wrong?
I have some substantive comments to make about the Coe podcast, but I will make them in a separate post from this one.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Coe discussed the crops listed in the Book of Mormon, such as wheat, and pointed out that no evidence of cultivated wheat in the Americas has been found prior to the Europeans showing up. He discussed that we should have found wheat pollen, and that extensive pollen studies have been shown from layers of dirt or sediment from ponds or other sources that show the pollen from the various plants growing at the time the sediments were laid down. This is all interesting stuff, and goes to show that the wheat itself is absent from the archeological record.
What is just as important a question, but wasn't raised in the podcast, is what Coe thinks should have been predictable about the societies described in the Book of Mormon as cultivating the wheat. This is into Guns, Germs, and Steel kind of stuff, and I noticed that Dr. Coe's approach to the "have we found [...] yet?" questions differed markedly from the Jared Diamond approach. I chalk this up to the fact that Michael Coe has studied what has actually been found in Mesoamerica, while Jared Diamond's research was directed at what the things we've found about the ancient civilizations we've studied tells us about the arc of civilization itself, and the progression and direction of various societies over time.
I'd really love to have heard Dr. Coe's opinion on what things should have been predictable about societies that had cultivated wheat. I think wheat is a nail in the Book of Mormon's coffin precisely because the cultivation of wheat would have lead to an absolute explosion of population, which is the opposite of what we find in the Book of Mormon (the industrious wheat-farming Nephites were always dwarfed by the filthy, idle, animal-skin-wearing Lamanites). The explosion of population of the wheat-farming Nephites over the course of a thousand years would have been so marked as to make a "limited" Nephite population impossible.
Again, Dr. Coe talked about the lack of horses and carts and chariots and whatnot, but his remarks seem limited to the absence of these things themselves, and he didn't address the wider question of what these technologies would have meant to a civilization that possessed them, and whether there is evidence of these technological ramifications in the Americas. I'm talking about the benefits domesticated horses, horse-drawn chariots and wagons and so forth would have conferred upon a civilization, and what this would have meant about the relationship of such a civilization and its local competitors who did not possess these technologies.
Anyhow, there are definitely questions I'd have loved to see Dr. Coe address, but they didn't stop me from thoroughly enjoying the interview. It was really good stuff, and I liked hearing his voice, his mannerisms, his obvious enjoyment and enthusiasm for the subject, etc.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
"The British Museum was established in 1753, largely based on the collections of the physician and scientist Sir Hans Sloane. The museum first opened to the public on 15 January 1759 in Montagu House in Bloomsbury, on the site of the current museum building."
Many universities and private collectors started much earlier. Why don't you go ring some bells and gaze upon the Paris skyline.
I've been to the British Museum, Frank. You should take a trip someday and have a visit (some lovely old pubs in that area, too). Plan a couple of days to see all of it. Sorry, there is no Nephite section.
The advance of Archaeology as a true science (not just wealthy amateurs that did more damage than good... Elgin Marbles?) is unrelated to the early existence of the British Museum.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Quasimodo wrote:The advance of Archaeology as a true science (not just wealthy amateurs that did more damage than good... Elgin Marbles?) is unrelated to the early existence of the British Museum.
I am not sure that is true. By placing value on the artifacts early I think the net result was more saved then not. But destruction of large ancient structures is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the mounds in the United States were destroyed because they were viewed as worthless.
Quasimodo wrote:The advance of Archaeology as a true science (not just wealthy amateurs that did more damage than good... Elgin Marbles?) is unrelated to the early existence of the British Museum.
I am not sure that is true. By placing value on the artifacts early I think the net result was more saved then not. But destruction of large ancient structures is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the mounds in the United States were destroyed because they were viewed as worthless.
I see that Franktalk is back. I also see that he is making no attempt here to defend his previous claim that Nineveh was thought to be a myth before Layard made his discoveries, a claim that he was apparently making in order to suggest that it might be reasonable to expect skepticism about Zarahemla to go the same way.
Of course I would love to see him reply to my post on this topic, if he does have an effective answer.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: I see that Franktalk is back. I also see that he is making no attempt here to defend his previous claim that Nineveh was thought to be a myth before Layard made his discoveries, a claim that he was apparently making in order to suggest that it might be reasonable to expect skepticism about Zarahemla to go the same way.
Of course I would love to see him reply to my post on this topic, if he does have an effective answer.
I see that you are stuck on Zarahemla. Now imagine you clone yourself and go back two hundred years. Get the picture?