Youtube Apologetics


cdowis
 Share

Recommended Posts

anachronisms

Dehlin's Essay claims:  Cimeter: The curved, bladed weapon, mentioned 3 times in the Book of Mormon, originated with the Ottoman empire in the 9th Century. Not only is it an Asian word for blade, it’s also made of anachronistic steel. It remains unknown how Lehi would be aware of it, as the word was unused in any contemporary Hebrew literature.

The Review's Counter to that claim:

The Origins of Curved, Bladed Weapons

Curved, bladed weapons—which scholars freely call scimitars—have been known since the Bronze Age. Some scholars believe such weapons were known in the ancient Near East as early as the 3rd millennium BC.1 It’s certainly attested by the 2nd millennium BC. Describing weapons from the Later Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BC), archaeologist Amihai Mazar wrote, “Sickle-shaped scimitars are known both from actual finds and from Egyptian artistic depictions.”2 Mazer shows an illustration of the Egyptian weapon, which he captions as “a scimitar.” 

In Canaan, “the curved sickle-sword, r scimitar” is known even earlier, in the Middle Bronze Age.3 An Egyptian text written in the early 2nd millennium BC mentions the plundering of weapons, including scimitars, from Canaanite towns: “copper-cum-wood [weapons]: (battle)-axes, 10; scimitars, 33; daggers, 12; knives (?), 11.”4

There’s even evidence that Israelites specifically used curved-bladed swords. Boyd Seevers, an expert in Old Testament warfare, said, “Likely the typical early Israelite sword was a sickle-sword, which had a handle attached to a straight shaft that continued into a curved blade.”5 The only known artistic depiction of Israelite swords, from Assyrian reliefs dated to ca. 700 BC, illustrates them as curved-bladed weapons.6

For what it is worth, curved weapons that leading Maya scholars Mary Miller and Simon Martin have described as “scimitar-like” are also known in Mesoamerican art going back to the early pre-Classic period (ca. 1500–900 BC).7

So the existence of curved-bladed weapons, which scholars have freely referred to as scimitars, is well attested long before the Ottoman empire or the 9th century AD. 

Asian Word for Blade

First, what’s an “Asian” word? This generalization is unhelpful, and also pretty racist. Asia is a huge continent, with literally hundreds of different languages and cultures—which includes the Middle-East, where Israel is. So technically a “Hebrew” word is an “Asian” word. 

I assume that what they mean is it’s a Persian word, but even that is not really accurate. Scimitar is an English word—and there’s no problem with it showing up in an English translation. As quoted above, Egyptologist Donald Redford used “scimitar” in his English translation of an Egyptian word referring to curved-bladed weapons from around 2000 BC.8 So again, not clear what the problem is.

As for the origins of the word, its etymology goes back to 15th century French (cimeterre) and Italian (scimitarra). It’s origins beyond that are uncertain. Some think it comes from the Persian shimshir, but others think that connection is unsatisfactory.9

Anachronistic Steel

There’s a whole section on steel elsewhere in the essay, which I or one of my compatriots might decide to deal with in detail later. For now, I’ll just say three things:

1. Steel is definitely not anachronistic for Lehi’s time. Tests performed on iron objects from the early Iron Age proved that nearly all of them were technically made of steel.10 What’s more, a steel Israelite sword has specifically been found dated to the 7th century BC.11

2. The Book of Mormon never says what their “cimeters” are made out of (Enos 1:20; Alma 27:29; Alma 44:8).

3. Scimitars needn’t necessarily be made out of steel. As noted, sickle-shaped swords referred to as scimitars by scholars are known from the Bronze Age, and where made out of bronze, and sometimes even wood. In Mesoamerica, scimitar-like blades were made out of flint.12

The Word Unused in Contemporary Hebrew Literature

Obviously, the Englishword scimitar is not used in any Hebrew literature from Lehi’s day. But as noted, words translated as “scimitar” by scholars are known in the ancient Near East, going back to well before Lehi’s day. Obviously, since Israelites had curved swords (as noted above), they probably had a word for such swords as well. And indeed, there is just such a Hebrew word: kidon (כידון), defined as “javelin or short curved sword.”13Roland De Vaux explains:

[Kîdôn] is usually translated ‘javelin’, … [m]ore probably, however, the kîdôn was a scimitar … like those shown on monuments discovered in excavations.14

In 1 Samuel 17:6 and 45, P. Kyle McCarter translates kidon as “scimitar,” and defines it as “a heavy, curved, flate-bladed, Oriental sword with a cutting edge on the outer (convex) side of the blade.”15

Significantly, the term kidon shows up twice in Jeremiah (6:23; 50:42), a contemporary prophet with Lehi—so it is used in “contemporary Hebrew literature.”

Conclusion

I honestly can’t imagine someone writing a single paragraph with more factual errors than this one. And while I’ve made it a point to cite mainstream academic sources here, it’s not like Mormon scholars have not pointed this out—in response to this very criticism—before.16 So why does critical literature, including here Dehlin’s essays, keep repeating this nonsensical claim over and over and over?

Perhaps it’s because they did nothing more than read the Wikipedia article on “scimitar”—a shallow and superficial research method if ever there was one. Or perhaps it’s because they know for many who lose faith over articles like this, it’s the cumulative effect of the arguments. Piling on one claim after another—no matter how tenuous—can overwhelm the unsuspecting reader who does not know any better, and doesn’t have the means to factcheck the information presented. 

If this is the case, it’s easy to see why critics might continue to repeat old claims long since debunked, since reducing the number of arguments does not ultimately serve the cumulative effect very well. But it’s also extremely unethical. So let’s give Dehlin the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he really just didn’t know any better—his understanding of the topic too superficial. This still seriously undermines the credibility of the essays.

Author Alexander CampbellPosted on February 13, 2019Categories Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, UncategorizedTags anachronisms, archaeology, Book of Mormon, cimeter, scimitar, steel."

On the Honey Bee:

Dehlin's Essay says:  The Mormon Stories essay on “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” argues that the mentioning of Jaredite beekeeping is anachronistic:

“The Jaradites are described in Ether as having carried honey bees to the New World, while ignoring the improbability of transporting bees in a totally enclosed submarine for a year. The honey bee is not native to North America.”

To support this claim, the article hyperlinks to a 2006 article from ScienceDaily.

The Reviews counter to that claim:

The only reference to honeybees in the Book of Mormon is in the book of Ether:

“And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.”

Ether 2:3

Ignoring for now the arguably ancient etymology of deseret, it must be pointed out that the text actually does not describe the Jaredites taking honeybees with them across the ocean. It rather describes them carrying honeybees before they cross the ocean in the “valley of Nimrod” as they went “forth into the wilderness” (Ether 2:4–5). It might be assumed that the Jaredites took honeybees with them to the New World, but when the text catalogues New World Jaredite fauna (Ether 9:18–19), honeybees are absent.

Apiculture in ancient Egypt is documented as early as the third millennium BC.1 It is striking that the Jaredite word for honeybee, deseret, has a plausible Egyptian etymology (dšrt).2 It seems probable that Jaredite apiculture was imported from ancient Egypt, since evidence for beekeeping in Mesopotamia (the supposed homeland of the Jaredites) is scant, with the clearest data for Mesopotamian apiculture coming long after Jaredite times.3 A plausible reading of the Book of Mormon text could argue that the Jaredite honeybees did not survive the group’s pan-Mesopotamian (and pan-Eurasian?) migration.4

The claim made by Dehlin that there is no native pre-Columbian apiculture is demonstrably wrong. “Yucatan was a thriving center of apiculture from pre-Columbian times, persisting, little changed, to the present,” and there are several known native North American honeybee species.5 The Spanish described native honey-producing beekeeping upon their arrival in the Yucatan,6 and Michael D. Coe, whom Dehlin has interviewed and often cites as an authority on Book of Mormon archaeology, has discussed native Mesoamerican apiculture and specifically speaks of the “stingless honeybee” as a domesticated New World animal.7 Other scholars have also discussed the significance of apiculture in ancient Mesoamerican history and culture.8

Most recently, an article published in the journal Latin American Antiquity in June 2018 documents the existence of pre-Columbian beekeeping among the pre-Classic Maya. 

While the Jaredites are usually associated by Book of Mormon scholars with Olmec culture,9 which is older than Maya culture, the attestation of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican apiculture refutes Dehlin’s sweeping claim that “the honey bee is not native to North America.”10 In fact, the species Melipona beecheii is native to Mesoamerica, and was used for collecting honey. As were the species Partamona bilineata and Tetragonisca angustula, to name just two others. The “honey bee . . . not native to North America” spoken of in the ScienceDaily article cited by Dehlin is referring to is a different, more common species (the European honeybee or Apis mellifera).

So even if the Jaredites did manage to bring honeybees to the New World (which the Book of Mormon never actually explicitly claims happened), there is abundant archaeological and zoological evidence for their domestication and use in pre-Columbian North America. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71583-review-of-dehlins-truth-claims-essays/

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TALENT

>>you take away from the completed work of Christ on the cross.

Christ disagrees with you ==>>
John.3 [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark.16 [16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
 
Matt 25 [29] For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. [30] And cast ye the UNPROFITABLE servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of the church study the Bible in Sunday school, and, in addition, the youth have early morning seminary where they study the OT and NT.
++++++

A new study from the Pew Research Center shows that Mormons score among the highest of all religion groups in their knowledge of Christianity, the Bible and other religious information. .... In the study, Mormons scored higher than any other group in questions about the Bible and Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<It proves that the KJV was used in the translation process, which apparently included the errors. It is not an issue of translation but of the translation method/ process. He took shortcuts, none of which are substantive.

No big deal -- the Bible itself is not inerrant, as you pointed out.
Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 
>>Joseph Smith bragging about keeping the church together better than Christ
 
If you want to "share the truth", may I suggest that you read the Bible. John 14 [12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and *greater works than these shall he do* because I go unto my Father.
John 6 [66] From that time many of [Christ's] disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
 
The antiMormons have deceived you. Christ's mission was the atonement, and the building of the church itself was then given to his disciples. Joseph Smith  was only referring to the building up of Christ's church here on the earth, as he was called by Christ Himself.
Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the dedication ceremonies for the Rome Italy Temple President Nelson stated:

"This is a hinge point in the history of the church. Things are going to move forward at an accelerated pace, of which this is a part," he said, later adding, "The church is going to have an unprecedented future, unparalleled; we're just building up to what's ahead now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>116 pages altered missing manuscript

And how do you detect the alterations if the entire manuscript, or just a few pages are completely re-written.  Handwriting analysis was not developed until decades later.  Someone would simply re-write the manuscript with a few changes, and how would you detect the alterations?

In fact, if you are the owner of a newspaper, such as Obediah Dogberry, you simply print the altered manuscript, and don't even bother to display any altered manuscript, or just a few pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Not a trace of their DNA left." genetics

Since you pretend to be knowledgeable on DNA population studies, how do you deal with the issue of the Founder Effect?

Professor,  let's take an example of what that means in the real world outside the university. Please tell us the DNA characteristics of Lehi's family. He was descended from Joseph and an Egyptian princess, so he was not a genetic Jew. So, when the DNA samples were compared, what exactly did they use for the DNA for Lehi in that comparison??

Please, sir, don't be technical  so that we can comprehend your analysis.
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Joseph Smith was a Mason

Many Americans celebrate our founding father and all they did to help create our country. What few of them know is that many of the founding fathers were also freemasons. Some of the more notable founding fathers to also be masons are: George Washington, Ben Franklin lead the Pennsylvania chapter, Paul Revere lead a Massachusetts chapter, John Hancock, and Chief Justice John Marshall who greatly influenced the shaping of the Supreme Court. All together it is believed that about nine of the fifty-six men that signed the Declaration of Independence were masons, and about thirteen of the thirty-nine that signed the US Constitutions were also masons.  http://projects.leadr.msu.edu/uniontodisunion/exhibits/show/freemasons-and-the-murder-of-w/freemason-and-the-founding-fat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salvation

We do not teach nor believe that only members of the LDS church will be saved. There are many good, honorable people on the earth and there is a place in heaven where there are "many mansions". Some mansions will be in the presence of Christ and others in the presence of the Father. We will choose where we spend eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excommunication letter
 
<< being kicked out for asking questions.>>
In his letter the local leader stated, “I want you to know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause. Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions. **But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to CONVINCE others that Church teachings are in error** [EMPHASIS MINE]
 
Church discipline is not designed to be the end of the process, but the beginning of the road back to full fellowship. One who leaves the Church is always welcome to attend weekly worship services and is always welcome to return to Church membership through the grace and Atonement of Jesus Christ.”
 
Videos of Hearings
These videos only show the end process after previous discussions with the bishop/ church leaders. The ONLY issue under consideration at this final meeting is the individual's membership and whether they sincerely desired to continue as a member or to continue to publically oppose church teachings.
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church has now guidelines to prevent such situations, where the young people are allowed the choice of someone in the room with them or an adjoining room  during the interview. This was an abuse of their calling and the church is doing something to prevent this from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to understand the words of Brigham Young is that he sometimes uses rather colorful language to get his point across.

Christ used parables, and Bigham used shocking hyperbole -- clearly, like the parables, he was not talking literally. He is very similar to a certain politician who uses colorful language -- on occasion they sound completely unhinged. Like the parables, if someone is contemplating adultery, the image of that javelin will come to mind..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>why would the Bible say
The Bible has neither tongue nor mouth. It is a book, and man presumes to speak for it, including prophet, Satan and Pharasee.
Anyway, do you have a question, or is this just hysterical ranting and raving
Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put on your seatbelt. A thought experiment ==>>

Sin did not exist until Satan was "created". Adam and Eve only disobeyed God when Satan tempted them. God knew that this would happen when he created Satan that evil would come into existence and that Adam would fall.

With His foreknowledge, He could have created another Michael, who would chose obedience but He created knowingly and entity that would choose evil.

Therefore God did not create Satan, did not create evil, but SATAN and EVIL have always existed even as Christ and Righteousness are eternal.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share