Coggins7 wrote:I really don't think Hamblin and Sorenson are at loggerheads here as is claimed. The core point regarding texts is attaching actual names to Book of Mormon places, such as cities or regions, which is not possible at this point, and may never be, as we have no understanding of a number of the ancient languages used.
But, as has been pointed out, this seems a red herring. Why would Joseph Smith translate the wrong names? Or even different names, for that matter? Why would the ancient scribes have written incorrect names? That is what seems so wrongheaded about the approach of Profs. Hamblin, Sorenson, and et. al. To claim that the names would be different from the names in the Book of Mormon is tantamount to admitting that the Book of Mormon itself is flawed historically (hence my OP). Do the LDS apologists really want to go down that road?
Sorenson is looking at physical evidence and asking whether or not connections to Book of Mormon peoples are plausible.
And yet if you go back and inspect Prof. Hamblin's posts, you will see that he believes that "empirical evidence" of the variety Sorenson is looking for is "impossible." What's "inconsistent" about Hamblin's position is that he likes to discredit "empirical evidence" that supports other ancient cultures, but appears to be totally gung-ho about "empirical evidence" which would help to verify the Book of Mormon.
I don't think these are necessarily inconsistent. Indeed, is some Rosetta stones do eventually turn up, it would be just as relevant to the plausibility or lack thereof of Sorenson's approach to placing Book of Mormon peoples as Hamblin's
More on this later after I've had a chance to study the matter a little more.
I find it very interesting indeed that you were just lecturing The Dude and others on their "lack of knowledge," and yet here you are admitting that you are uninformed on this "matter."