Marcus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:23 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:40 pm
Footnotes? Defined anachronism? Are you making this up? Would you quote from the footnotes (there aren’t any) the definition of anachronism and how Roper resolves ‘the problem’?
When I read about this it was through Kyle Rasmussen’s evaluation of this presentation, he put all the anachronisms into an appendix, I was referring to that, sorry!
I would suggest others read the paper for themselves and pay special attention to the slides.
It’s a very good paper. Charts show that MANY of the original so called anachronisms have been debunked.
No, the charts don’t.
Towards the bottom of Matt’s presentation look at the two charts showing how many of the original ‘anachronisms’ have been resolved.
I doubt you even read through the whole presentation.
Actually, I did much more than look at charts. I don’t go by power point slides when evaluating work. If you’re interested, here’s is the link to Rittenhouse’s piece, see the appendix with the list of what Roper defines as “anachronisms”:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-14/
A couple of my favorite “ anachronisms” that Roper considers to have been resolved and therefore can be used as evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon are:
“arts,”
“journeying for 3 days,”
“Civilization,” and
“River in a Valley.”
Okay, then. Like I said, not a legit paper.
I’m not seeing an appendix with anything contributed by Matt Roper having to do with anachronisms. Also not finding the “favorite anachronisms” you’re referring to. So far your batting average for accurately sourcing your information seems to be lacking.
In the episode by Kyler Rasmussen you linked to I did find this:
…if the Book of Mormon is authentic, why are there any anachronisms at all? Shouldn’t decades of archaeological effort have been able to accurately uncover everything important about Mesoamerican society and, if so, shouldn’t we be able to draw bright and complete lines from the Book of Mormon’s claims to those various peoples?
The short answer to those questions is no. Archaeology is far from an exact science—new discoveries happen all the time that can nullify previous anachronisms, with recent use of LiDAR in Mesoamerica being an excellent example. The picture of Mesoamerican life was very different even five years ago, and it so happened that those new discoveries aligned exceptionally well with the Book of Mormon. Even if the archaeology is accurate, there are other potential sources of error, particularly when it comes to our understanding of the Book of Mormon.
I’m flummoxed as to why you don’t see the charts in Roper’s presentation as being interesting in the sense that so many of the original ‘anachronisms’ have now been debunked.
But maybe I really shouldn’t be surprised.
I honestly think that critics, in some cases, are somewhat blind to the presentations of material that is disfavorable to their positions.
I hope you’re not making up appendix and footnote materials that don’t exist.
I’m willing to be corrected.
Regards,
MG
