Based on a meticulous reading of the relevant passages in both 1 Nephi and the Old Testament as well as on a detailed understanding of the history of Israel and surrounding nations in the late seventh century BC and the early sixth century BC, Professor Chadwick argues that Lehi left Jerusalem for his ultimate destination in the New World in the year 605 BC, and, even more specifically, sometime in November of that year.
I find Professor Chadwick’s argument entirely plausible.
It’s a very complex argument, drawing on a great many significant facts, some of them large but many quite small. The suggestion of a specific month and year is interesting. However, what impresses me most about it is how well, how snugly, the Book of Mormon’s account of Lehi appears to fit the historical data.
Wait, are we now saying the Book of Mormon IS historical?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
The Book of Mormon is not historical. It is a novel written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in an attempt to introduce more religious folklore into the world's religious economy. The book is a sham. The book is fake. It's not real. It is made up stories and contains plagiarisms and stolen ideas and material from other sources.
I know the Book of Mormon is not true. I know it with all my heart and mind. The book is a lie and was invented and created through a lying spirit of Smith and Cowdery.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
So......who among us is going to show Chadwick is wrong then? I don't have time at the moment to jump onto his materials as I am wrapping up the research paper for a sermon I am giving at the Unitarian Universalist Church in February. I intended on sharing it here, but it will be far too large, so when I finish I can send email attachments to those interested. It's on the Symbolism of the Tree. I am going to seriously try to wrap it all up this weekend as I have a 3 day weekend - woo hoo! However, I'd like to see Chadwick refuted instead of simply dismissed.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Dumb Peterson wrote:However, what impresses me most about it is how well, how snugly, the Book of Mormon’s account of Lehi appears to fit the historical data.
Wouldn't he like to say the same for the Book of Abraham and Smith's silly Explanations of the Facsimiles?
So they're saying that the Book of Mormon, which relies entirely on the Bible, is true because Lehi left at a time where it would make sense for him to leave if you read the Bible a lot?
Is that what I'm getting or is there more evidence that Joseph Smith could not have possibly known?