Theistic Isolationism

[Arnox]

Or are you saying they're equally valid and supernatural?

More or less, yes. Depends on the text.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

More or less, yes. Depends on the text.

So there has never been any fraudster taking advantage of people through mumbo jumbo in history? They're all supernatural prophets and beyond explanation? Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Arnox]

So there has never been any fraudster taking advantage of people through mumbo jumbo in history?

I said it depends on the text. lol Some texts, and the events surrounding them, are far more inexplicable than others.

 

[Houseman]

I didn't say they do, nor did you.. but they are ridiculed, laughed at, and ignored. They are banned from many places they go to. They are persecuted.

Well, I said "persecution", and that implies something more than just being ridiculed, laughed at, ignored, or banned.
Christians have been killed and jailed for being Christians. Jesus wasn't just talking about being mocked. Matthew 16:24-26 explicitly talks about being willing to die.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Well, I said "persecution", and that implies something more than just being ridiculed, laughed at, ignored, or banned.
Christians have been killed and jailed for being Christians. Jesus wasn't just talking about being mocked. Matthew 16:24-26 explicitly talks about being willing to die.

So, Jews are speaking the absolute truth then? Even though it clashes with christian denominations?

 

[Houseman]

So, Jews are speaking the absolute truth then? Even though it clashes with christian denominations?

Neither Jesus nor I said that only those who are persecuted have the truth. Arnox just said "truth hurts" and I responded with a similarity from the bible.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I said it depends on the text. lol Some texts, and the events surrounding them, are far more inexplicable than others.

Some are more inexplicable than others, but without repeatable evidence it's still just fiction. What's not inexplicable is that a young man growing up in a deeply christian nation would have read the bible.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Neither Jesus nor I said that only those who are persecuted have the truth. Arnox just said "truth hurts" and I responded with a similarity from the bible.

And yet, truth and bible are as far from each-other as possible. Like Fact and Fiction. My initial post about the brainwashing tactic stands.

 

[Houseman]

And yet, truth and bible are as far from each-other as possible. Like Fact and Fiction. My initial post about the brainwashing tactic stands.

If you say so.

 

[Arnox]

Some are more inexplicable than others, but without repeatable evidence it's still just fiction. What's not inexplicable is that a young man growing up in a deeply christian nation would have read the bible.

I could leave this be, but I think I want to pursue this further and see what you have to say regarding certain information and phenomena. I just so happen to have a book from my old LDS days talking about in-real-life evidence that the Book of Mormon is legit, or at very least in this case, supernaturally procured. I'll break it out and list just a few things from it. The book sourced is Reexploring the Book of Mormon by John W. Welch. There are 85 evidences listed in this book in total.

1. 65-75 total days were spent translating the entire 590 pages of the first edition of the Book of Mormon with the words being written down with a quill pen no less. This was also done alongside Joseph Smith's other duties, both mundane and otherwise.
2. Studying some of the very original manuscripts, it's made quite clear that Joseph Smith dictated the entire Book of Mormon line by line and never went back during translation to cross out, revise, or otherwise modify the dictated text.
3. The Book of Mormon makes decent use of colophons which are very characteristic of ancient writings. Furthermore, editorial comments are fittingly used to take the place of some relatively modern writing devices such as paragraphs and certain punctuation.

 

[Houseman]

snip

Is there anything in the Book that mentions a place, or person, that was unknown to history at that time, but later confirmed to exist?

There are more than a few examples of this in the bible. A person, place, thing, or event is mentioned, and history has no record of it. Then, a new discovery is made that confirms what the bible says.

Is there anything like this for the Book of Mormon?

Mentioning things already found in the bible, of course, does not count.

 

[Arnox]

Is there anything in the Book that mentions a place, or person, that was unknown to history at that time, but later confirmed to exist?

There are more than a few examples of this in the bible. A person, place, thing, or event is mentioned, and history has no record of it. Then, a new discovery is made that confirms what the bible says.

Is there anything like this for the Book of Mormon?

Mentioning things already found in the bible, of course, does not count.

Mmmmmm... Just super quickly skimming through the contents for something, I found the following.

The characters of Lehi and Nephi in the Book of Mormon had known Egyptian (per their writings) and had probably gone through parts of Egypt in their journey as well. Fast-forwarding to January of 1984, at the Museo Nacional in San Salvador, two "ushabti" Egyptian funerary statuettes were spotted in a display case by a Gareth W. Lowe. According to the display caption, they had been excavated from the eastern beaches of Acajutla, Sonsonate.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I could leave this be, but I think I want to pursue this further and see what you have to say regarding certain information and phenomena. I just so happen to have a book from my old LDS days talking about in-real-life evidence that the Book of Mormon is legit, or at very least in this case, supernaturally procured. I'll break it out and list just a few things from it. The book sourced is Reexploring the Book of Mormon by John W. Welch. There are 85 evidences listed in this book in total.

1. 65-75 total days were spent translating the entire 590 pages of the first edition of the Book of Mormon with the words being written down with a quill pen no less. This was also done alongside Joseph Smith's other duties, both mundane and otherwise.
2. Studying some of the very original manuscripts, it's made quite clear that Joseph Smith dictated the entire Book of Mormon line by line and never went back during translation to cross out, revise, or otherwise modify the dictated text.
3. The Book of Mormon makes decent use of colophons which are very characteristic of ancient writings. Furthermore, editorial comments are fittingly used to take the place of some relatively modern writing devices such as paragraphs and certain punctuation.

Problems with the Book of Mormon | Catholic Answers

There are some serios problems with the Book of Mormon that the LDS church cannot adequately explain. Here's what you need to know.

www.catholic.com

Matthew 16:18 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Arnox]

Problems with the Book of Mormon | Catholic Answers

There are some serios problems with the Book of Mormon that the LDS church cannot adequately explain. Here's what you need to know.

www.catholic.com

I could actually answer all of these, but keep in mind what we were originally talking about. I'm not arguing that the Book of Mormon is from God. I AM claiming though that the Book of Mormon has very supernatural origins. Again, if I had to say, I think that the LDS church and the Book of Mormon are Satanic/demonic, but not in the usual way people use those terms.

Matthew 16:18 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Not sure what the point of this link is. Yes, there's a ton of different translations of the Bible.

 

[Houseman]

Mmmmmm... Just super quickly skimming through the contents for something, I found the following.

The characters of Lehi and Nephi in the Book of Mormon had known Egyptian (per their writings) and had probably gone through parts of Egypt in their journey as well. Fast-forwarding to January of 1984, at the Museo Nacional in San Salvador, two "ushabti" Egyptian funerary statuettes were spotted in a display case by a Gareth W. Lowe. According to the display caption, they had been excavated from the eastern beaches of Acajutla, Sonsonate.

So we have Egyptian statuettes that were were found on the beach in El Salvador. How does this relate to Lehi and Nephi? Did they travel to El Salvador too?

 

[Arnox]

So we have Egyptian statuettes that were were found on the beach in El Salvador. How does this relate to Lehi and Nephi? Did they travel to El Salvador too?

As said before, they spoke Egyptian and probably went through some parts of Egypt on their journey to the Americas. How they or the statuettes ended up specifically at those beaches though, I have no idea, though there are many possibilities.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I could actually answer all of these, but keep in mind what we were originally talking about. I'm not arguing that the Book of Mormon is from God. I AM claiming though that the Book of Mormon has very supernatural origins. Again, if I had to say, I think that the LDS church and the Book of Mormon are Satanic/demonic, but not in the usual way people use those terms.

The original point of yours being that all supernatural stuff are real but still supernatural (a contradiction in itself), and mine being that all supernatural stuff (that hasn't been explained) is bogus until explained. You're going the extra, extra, mile to invoke needless actors to tie together disparate red strings.

Not sure what the point of this link is. Yes, there's a ton of different translations of the Bible.

The point being that even a single phrase of single book of a single religion gives various vague meanings of interpretations. They can't all be "true".

 

[Houseman]

As said before, they spoke Egyptian and probably went through some parts of Egypt on their journey to the Americas. How they or the statuettes ended up specifically at those beaches though, I have no idea, though there are many possibilities.

So what, then, is the significance of this?
Lots of people spoke Egyptian. Lots of people traveled.

It would be something if these artifacts were found, say, among the ruins of Native Americans. That could be used as evidence for the claims that the Native Americans are the real Jews or whatever.

The point being that even a single phrase of single book of a single religion gives various vague meanings of interpretations. They can't all be "true".

What you linked is not a good example of that. There are many ways that you can say the same thing in English. Given any English sentence, the sentence can be arranged in different ways, using different words, without any loss of meaning. In English, you can change the words of a sentence and still preserve the meaning. The meaning of an English sentence can easily be preserved, even if you replace many of the words.

See?

 

[Arnox]

The original point of yours being that all supernatural stuff

I'm not saying all stuff that is claimed to be supernatural is actually supernatural though. Also, when I say supernatural, I mean something that happened that, even through all avenues. cannot be explained by regular mundane explanations. This is very much not some alien concept in science either. In fact, isn't a huge reason for science to explore the unknown to quantify and categorize it? As cool and as far as we've come with our modern scientific knowledge, we still hardly have a total monopoly on all truth ever known and discovered. As a supernatural anecdotal example of something that cannot be otherwise normally explained, I know a person who has told me they were thinking of something one day that they had never told anyone else about, and about a day later, their significant other was told all about it by a spirit. This person I know is also definitely NOT known to bullshit whatsoever. Now please explain that through a regular mundane explanation.

The point being that even a single phrase of single book of a single religion gives various vague meanings of interpretations. They can't all be "true".

You know, this is, funnily enough, one of the justifications for the Book of Mormon coming out. Putting that aside though, I don't know what exactly is going on with the Bible. Only that there is an entity behind it as well, AKA Yahweh. I am not a fan. There's some very good wisdom in parts of the New Testament though.

So what, then, is the significance of this?
Lots of people spoke Egyptian. Lots of people traveled.

Ohhhhhh, I see what you're saying now.

Yeah, this is a fair point, though the book also somewhat agrees with this and says that this is definitely not absolute concrete proof, but you must admit it is incredibly strange that these statuettes which should normally be in Egyptian burials are in South America.

Did you want another example from the book?

 

[Houseman]

Yeah, this is a fair point, though the book also somewhat agrees with this and says that this is definitely not absolute concrete proof, but you must admit it is incredibly strange that these statuettes which should normally be in Egyptian burials are in South America.

Even if it is strange, there's nothing here that especially links this archeological find with the BoM specifically.

Did you want another example from the book?

Yes please.

 

[Arnox]

Yes please.

Alright, lessee then...

It is claimed in the Book of Mormon that the Spirit of God would work upon Christopher Columbus and he would be compelled for spiritual reasons to sail across the ocean. During Joseph Smith's time though, it was said that Christopher Columbus' reasons for sailing out were actually primarily scientifically based and logical. In 1985, scholarship began to heavily indicate the opposite, that Columbus' reasons for his voyage actually were primarily spiritual in nature.

 

[Houseman]

It is claimed in the Book of Mormon that the Spirit of God would work upon Christopher Columbus and he would be compelled for spiritual reasons to sail across the ocean. During Joseph Smith's time though, it was said that Christopher Columbus' reasons for sailing out were actually primarily scientifically based and logical. In 1985, scholarship began to heavily indicate the opposite, that Columbus' reasons for his voyage were primarily spiritual in nature.

1 Nephi 13:12 says "And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land."

This just says that a man, let's assume Columbus, was inspired to travel. It doesn't mention what he thought, or his motivation. The verse doesn't say he was motivated by a spiritual desire, just that he was motivated by the spirit, which is how I understand "came down and wrought upon" him. God's spirit could conceivably manipulate someone into doing something for selfish reasons, too. Going by the precedent set by the Old Testament, it doesn't matter why or how these people got the job done, only that they did.

For example, in the Old Testament, God used non-Israelite kings, such as Cyrus of Persia, to attack Israel's enemies, such as Babylon. See also Revelation 17:17.

"Compelled by the spirit" and "Compelled for spiritual reasons" are not necessarily the same thing.


Bring me another!

 

[Arnox]

Bring me another!

For this next one, I passed over a lot of other evidences before settling on this current one not because I thought they didn't have any merit, but because I really wanted to find something that was at least close to a smoking gun, metaphorically speaking.

The Book of Mormon has long been criticized for saying that there were horses in the Americas before Columbus showed up, but recent research and archaeology have turned up more and more evidence of horses that actually were on the continent before Columbus. Since this book is now rather old though (published in 1992), I decided to look to see if there was much more modern non-LDS evidence for this, and yep.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/

New Research Rewrites the History of American Horses

Native Americans spread the animals across the West before Europeans arrived in the region, archaeological evidence and Indigenous knowledge show

Will Sullivan
Daily Correspondent
April 3, 2023

The narrative about horses in North America told in several written histories is due for an update, according to a study published last week in the journal Science. After examining archaeological remains of horses, researchers suggest Indigenous peoples had spread the animals through the American West by the first half of the 1600s—before they encountered Europeans.

The findings align with oral histories from Indigenous groups, which tell of interactions with horses prior to colonizers arriving in their homelands. Meanwhile, written European texts from the 1700s and 1800s claimed that horses only spread through the area after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, a Native American uprising that temporarily expelled Spanish colonizers from much of modern New Mexico.

More than 80 scientists and scholars co-authored the paper, including experts from Pueblo, Pawnee, Comanche and Lakota nations, according to an article in the Conversation by two of the authors.

“We have always known and said that we came across horses before we came across the Spanish,” Jimmy Arterberry, a paper co-author and Comanche historian, tells Christina Larson of the Associated Press (AP).

Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation. Spanish settlers likely first brought horses back to the Americas in 1519, when Hernán Cortés arrived on the continent in Mexico. Per the new paper, Indigenous peoples then transported horses north along trade networks.

To trace when the animals spread, researchers radiocarbon dated and analyzed the DNA of the remains of more than two dozen horses found across the Western U.S. The remains had been stored in archaeological collections countrywide, per Live Science’s Kristina Killgrove.

Three of the horses, with remains from Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, date to before the Pueblo Revolt. And rather than simply roaming the countryside on their own, the horses appear to have been part of Native American culture. Dental damage on one horse and bony growths on the skull of another suggest people had put bridles on the animals, per Science News’ Bruce Bower. Certain chemical elements in the creatures’ teeth signaled they ate maize, an Indigenous crop. And another horse had a healed facial fracture, meaning it might have been given veterinary attention, per Live Science.

The researchers compared the ancient horses’ DNA with that of modern horses and found that the centuries-old equines had largely Spanish ancestry. Together, the findings suggest horses spread “from Spanish settlements in the American Southwest to the northern Rockies and central Great Plains by the first half of the 17th century,” per the paper.

The research “provides exciting new evidence” that “clearly shows horses spread along Native social networks in North America,” Nicole Mathwich, an archaeologist at San Diego State University who did not contribute to the research, tells Live Science.

The findings also highlight the importance of Indigenous oral traditions in understanding history, says co-author Yvette Running Horse Collin, an evolutionary geneticist at the Center for Anthropobiology and Genomics of Toulouse in France and a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, to the AP.

“Our cultures have been so misrepresented for so long,” she says to the publication. “Too often history has been told around us, without us.”

 

[Houseman]

For this next one, I passed over a lot of other evidences before settling on this current one not because I thought they didn't have any merit, but because I really wanted to find something that was at least close to a smoking gun, metaphorically speaking.

The Book of Mormon has long been criticized for saying that there were horses in the Americas before Columbus showed up, but recent research and archaeology have turned up more and more evidence of horses that actually were on the continent before Columbus. Since this book is now rather old though (published in 1992), I decided to look to see if there was much more modern non-LDS evidence for this, and yep.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/

"There were horses before Columbus" and "there were horses during the time of the events covered in the BoM" are not necessarily the same thing.

The 1500s, and the 300s, for example, are two widely different time periods. The 300s are technically "before" the 1500s, but there have to be some limits. We can't just extrapolate backwards forever.

 

[Arnox]

"There were horses before Columbus" and "there were horses during the time of the events covered in the BoM" are not necessarily the same thing.

The 1500s, and the 300s, for example, are two widely different time periods. The 300s are technically "before" the 1500s, but there have to be some limits. We can't just extrapolate backwards forever.

Ok, but if they were found to be before the 1500s, even if was only 1450, then where did they come from? Did they just magically fall out of the sky?