Don't you think that the mo'pologists would have already jacked off all over this rock in a well publicized circle-jerk group mo'gasm if these horse images did anything for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
Your eloquence is overwhelming, I just don't know what to say.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
And I'm sure you're well versed in a dozen foreign languages, including coptic. Your criticisms of Nibley are actually a compliment.
But let's get back to Nibley, who is the topic of this thread ... what did you think of his talk? Did you think it dealt effectively with the problem of horses in the Book of Mormon? Do you think it enhanced Nibley's reputation as an exegete of the central texts of his religion?
I have to say that if I was the organiser of a seminar series in which a talk like that was given I would be profoundly embarrassed. Either Nibley was incapable of facing such an issue directly and addressing the evidence analytically, or he was simply trying to obfuscate the question.
And I'm sure you're well versed in a dozen foreign languages, including coptic. Your criticisms of Nibley are actually a compliment.
But let's get back to Nibley, who is the topic of this thread ... what did you think of his talk? Did you think it dealt effectively with the problem of horses in the Book of Mormon? Do you think it enhanced Nibley's reputation as an exegete of the central texts of his religion?
I have to say that if I was the organiser of a seminar series in which a talk like that was given I would be profoundly embarrassed. Either Nibley was incapable of facing such an issue directly and addressing the evidence analytically, or he was simply trying to obfuscate the question.
I've discussed tis elsewhere. The idea there were no horses in more modern times is dogma. But if I provided the links you'd say this was "propaganda", though the evidence is provided by a non-Mormon scholar. There is so much dogma in science it just isn't funny! Frankly, I'm tired of addressing it. The key is being more openminded. What truly amazes me is how former Mormons who reject "LDS dogma", swallow scientific dogma so willingly.
Well Nibley has knowledge of languages from the Middle East and Europe but certainly did not know Mayan languages. Reading Ritner's comments on his translations, I see he needed to attend a few more classes. There is a problem in that no evidence of horses have been found to have existed during the supposed Book of Mormon timeframe. RayA the Book of Mormon might in your mind give you some "spiritual" buzz, but that's all it is, a "buzz".
I've discussed tis elsewhere. The idea there were no horses in more modern times is dogma. But if I provided the links you'd say this was "propaganda", though the evidence is provided by a non-Mormon scholar. There is so much dogma in science it just isn't funny! Frankly, I'm tired of addressing it. The key is being more openminded. What truly amazes me is how former Mormons who reject "LDS dogma", swallow scientific dogma so willingly.
By all means refrain from discussing the 'horses in the Book of Mormon' issue in itself. That is not the topic of this thread.
But what do you think of Nibley's seminar, as shown in the video in the OP? That is what this thread is about. Would you, for instance, have given tenure to a candidate for an academic job who made a presentation like that on a subject in which he claimed expertise?
Chap wrote:By all means refrain from discussing the 'horses in the Book of Mormon' issue in itself. That is not the topic of this thread.
But what do you think of Nibley's seminar, as shown in the video in the OP? That is what this thread is about. Would you, for instance, have given tenure to a candidate for an academic job who made a presentation like that on a subject in which he claimed expertise?
Are you into gagging? Telling me what I can or can't discuss? Don't tell me what I must "refrain" from, A-hole. Again, you're like all the other pisspots here who reject anything which doesn't suit your anti-Mormon prejudices. And that's why I don't take any of you seriously.
aussieguy55 wrote: There is a problem in that no evidence of horses have been found to have existed during the supposed Book of Mormon timeframe. RayA the Book of Mormon might in your mind give you some "spiritual" buzz, but that's all it is, a "buzz".
And what gives you a "spiritual buzz", being a left-wing bigot and thorough closedminded anti-Mormon? You are such a pathetic human being. Really.
Chap wrote:By all means refrain from discussing the 'horses in the Book of Mormon' issue in itself. That is not the topic of this thread.
But what do you think of Nibley's seminar, as shown in the video in the OP? That is what this thread is about. Would you, for instance, have given tenure to a candidate for an academic job who made a presentation like that on a subject in which he claimed expertise?
Are you into gagging? Telling me what I can or can't discuss? Don't tell me what I must "refrain" from, A-hole. Again, you're like all the other pisspots here who reject anything which doesn't suit your anti-Mormon prejudices. And that's why I don't take any of you seriously.
No gagging from me. You can start a thread about horses in the Book of Mormon any time you want. I just had the impression you were saying you didn't want to talk about that particular subject at the moment, and my first sentence was a polite way of saying that is all right by me too.
What I have in mind is quite the reverse of gagging - I want you to share with us your opinion about what the Nibley seminar pointed to by the OP tells us about Nibley as a scholar. Won't you do that?
For someone whose personal and spiritual life is all over the place you can hardly call others pathetic. FYI I am not extreme left-wing but then I suppose anyone left of Quadrant and the Centre for Independent Studies would be considered a "commo".
OK - it is becoming clear that nobody is going to turn up here and say that the video of the seminar posted in the OP was anything but a disaster for Nibley's reputation if we apply normal standards of scholarly discourse to it.
To avoid derailments - the subject of 'horses in the Book of Mormon' is not the problem. No doubt it is possiblle to make some kind of reasonable case from the LDS view on that issue. The point is that on that video Nibley, revered LDS exegete and apologist, facing an issue that he admits can be the basis of a troublesome objection to the Book of Mormon, fails completely to do anything than waffle distractingly. It is a sad sight.
So, then: One reputation, property of the late Professor Hugh Nibley, going .... going .... (won't somebody bid for it?)