posted
You're coming through loud and clear. I definitely consider you an expert on scientific inquiry.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Physical anthropologists can detect all sort of things about heredity, race, etc. from bone structure. Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
What college was your degree from? I've asserted that "I doubt" something - an undeniably true statement. I do doubt it.
You've asserted that something is definitely true. Unless you have a college degree in the subject, by your own standards, we should ignore your far more definite statement because of your lack of such a degree.
We have two opposing non-expert views. One is couched in terms of doubt, the other certainty. Why should we accept yours over mine unless you have the proof you demand from me?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, in other words, your question has been answered many times by many people. That you continue to ignore the answers is your own responsibility.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ignored the screen name when I answered - a mistake on my part. You seemed to be a genuine seeker of knowledge. There also seemed to be a gap in communication between two people. I am quite capable of bridging such gaps, and do so fairly often. I am also interested in the topic.
I had no idea you were so picky about credentials. You certainly haven't given a lot of credence to them in the past.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Physical anthropologists can detect all sort of things about heredity, race, etc. from bone structure. Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
Steven: Thus far in the thread you have been politely responded to and carefully corrected, and you seem determined to start a fire when nobody seems interested.
Yes, there SHOULD be SOME genetic evidence somewhere, but Mormons can neither accurately state where the people of the Book of Mormon ended up or where they are now. The last mention in the record is 300+AD somewhere in current day New York. It seems to indicate that even the person who wrote those final passages was far from home, and that his people fought a genocidal series of wars with their neighbors over a significant geographical area until he and those of his ethnicity all died.
Yes Initially alot of Mormons believed that the ONLY people in the Americas were the people from the Tower of Babel, and Lehi + decendants (as well as another group of Israelites from the tribe of Judah, whose language was corrupted as they did not bring writings with them). There is no passage in the BOM however that supports such a sweeping claim. It was an assumption that I believe is completely wrong. South and North America are an INCREDIBLY large land mass, and its most likely the people in the BOM did not explore the entire breadth of the land.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
All this to say, I think it's possible that there has been contact between the middle east and/or Africa prior to Columbus or Leif Erickson's voyages. I saw a special on public TV about a large civilization in sub-saharan West Africa that existed well before the birth of Christ. I don't doubt that there could have been trade across the Atlantic between that group and the Toltecs and other groups.
However,
I am seriously doubting that any Jewish heritage I have comes from my Native American ancestors. I have an open mind about it, because stranger things have happened. yes they have.
However,
taking potshots at my dietary habits is poor sport, largely because I know Hatrack doesn't want to hear about it. have you seen any Dr. Price threads lately? I don't frickin' think you have.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At what point did steven decide that we were trying to persuade him, via scientific evidence, that the Book of Mormon was true? Was it Jon Boy's link? I mean, I'm sure it was informative, but scientific evidence isn't the reason we accept the Book of Mormon, nor is it supposed to be.
Steven, I don't care if you don't believe in the Book of Mormon. I'm not threatened by it, and your opinion really doesn't affect the reasons why I accept it. So ... I don't know, I'm just wondering why you're doing this. It's like you're trying to bait us into persuading you of something that we don't really care if you believe. It seems really weird and pointless.
I'm willing to correct your gross misstatements of Mormon doctrine, for the sake of clarity and avoiding spreading misconceptions. But persuading you to believe in Mormon doctrine, when you have no interest in exploring the question from a spiritual and moral perspective? What a collossal waste of time that would be.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
But seriously, in a thread where you are demanding genetic proof concerning religious beliefs, it's not out of line to point out that your own personal beliefs don't stand up well to that same scrutiny.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But seriously, in a thread where you are demanding genetic proof concerning religious beliefs, it's not out of line to point out that your own personal beliefs don't stand up well to that same scrutiny.
Or that you are apparently refusing to read someone else's link concerning evidence when you've been so dogged about getting people to read yours.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, I am not going to discuss Dr. Price's work or my own eating habits here. End of story.
What pissed me off was that Jon Boy posted a 20+ page article without summarizing its points. 1-3 pages is fine. A summary, please.
Did I not just say
"I am seriously doubting that any Jewish heritage I have comes from my Native American ancestors. I have an open mind about it, because stranger things have happened. yes they have. "
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me also point out that if you hadn't claimed to have scientific proof for your personal beliefs about nutrition, nobody would have really cared. If you had said "this is what I believe, even if I cannot prove it scientifically", that would have been that.
Likewise, we have make no scientific claims about the Book of Mormon. We believe it is true, but cannot prove it scientifically.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, it's clear that you didn't believe me when I said I am done discussing Dr. Price's work here.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that you are not seriously asking but are, I don't know, goofing around by trying the bait the Mormons. I'm not taking you remotely seriously. That it is YOU who is demanding scientific proof for something that has already been stated to have been adopted on spiritual grounds make it even funnier. You may wish to erase the memories of your hilarious claims of scientific rigor, but they are still out there.
If you really want to know about the Book of Mormon, you could start with Jon Boy's link or (and this is the one I recommend) read it for yourself and pray to know if it is true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deleted the double post that led Rat to exclaim about the "Ron sandwhich."
Lyrhawn, religion per se was not an issue in the recent gubernatorial election in Michigan, but Dick DeVoss' Amway connection was--in fact, much of the time, the Jennifer Granholm ads seemed to be running against Amway Corp., banking on the negative feelings some people have about Amway by reminding voters in virtually every ad that DeVoss was a CEO of Amway.
Interestingly, Amway Corp. ran several ads during the election campaign promoting itself, and trying to present Amway people as just people like anyone else. One such ad ended with a grandfatherish man grinning wryly and saying, "I'm Amway-you got a problem with that?"
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: steven: The evidence in that article actually indicates that there was simply an influx of Semitic vocabulary in one region of the Americas. This would mean that there were other people there first.
I already gave you a very simplified summary in this post. I didn't know you wanted more than that because you didn't ask.
Basically, there appears to be a large influx of Semitic vocabulary (mostly Hebrew and Egyptian, if I remember correctly) in the Uto-Aztecan language family (which stretches from the northern Great Basin down to Southern Mexico). The research has discovered about 1000 similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew, mostly consisting of vocabulary items but also including a good number of grammatical features. The article also discusses systematic sound correspondences, which is absolutely essential when proposing linguistic relations.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to point out, in case there's any confusion or misunderstanding, that I don't think the study I linked to (or any other study, for that matter) is either a substitute for reading the Book of Mormon or a shortcut to gaining a testimony of it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many have pointed to evidence they say indicates that Egyptians sailed to South America. They probably took some of their slaves with them.
Most of the Amerinds are commonly believed to be descended from Asian peoples who crossed the former Bering Land Bridge (which is now a shallow strait), then migrated south, down the western coast of the American continent.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It seems to me that you are not seriously asking but are, I don't know, goofing around by trying the bait the Mormons. I'm not taking you remotely seriously. That it is YOU who is demanding scientific proof for something that has already been stated to have been adopted on spiritual grounds make it even funnier. You may wish to erase the memories of your hilarious claims of scientific rigor, but they are still out there.
If you really want to know about the Book of Mormon, you could start with Jon Boy's link or (and this is the one I recommend) read it for yourself and pray to know if it is true.
The Book of Mormon has never really made sense to me. I know a little bit about Judaism, and a know a little bit about languages, and I know a very little bit about genetics, and I can't reconcile my knowledge with what the Book of Mormon says about the transplants.
No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
But, not belonging to the faith, I can't really be expected to have any, and I respect those of you that do. I just felt stephen was getting lonely.
P.S. And I believe Jewishness comes from Mommy, and tribe comes from Daddy. Someone said something about it way up there somewhere.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
Could have been Phoenicians, too. Lots of boats, it's not all that weird to think that one could have gotten blown off course and wound up in the Americas. Very few people wouldn't leave all that much in the way of DNA, but a higher material culture could result in linguistic traces.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
Could have been Phoenicians, too. Lots of boats, it's not all that weird to think that one could have gotten blown off course and wound up in the Americas. Very few people wouldn't leave all that much in the way of DNA, but a higher material culture could result in linguistic traces.
The Bering Straight Landbridge I buy.
Egyptians and Phoenicians sailing to America I don't buy at all. To say nothing of the fact that I question whether their boats could have even made the journey, they would have starved long before they made it. Even a large, post Phoenician quinquerieme wouldn't have been large enough to carry the kinds of supplies needed for a transAtlantic journey, especially not given the size of the crew those ships generally carried. They don't sail primarily by wind power, but with oar power. The sails wouldn't have been big enough to get them over the ocean fast enough, especially not when it was a several month journey even for faster ships, and the slave oarsmen would have died of starvation before adding much of a benefit to the task.
I suppose it is theoretically possible, if there was an especially well laden ship, with a light crew that was blown very quickly from the westernmost point of Africa to the easternmost point of South America with no interruptions, then maybe a ship could have made it. But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
I'd need to see some pretty major proof to buy this theory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
In regards to language, Jon Boy posted an article about linguistic influences of Egyptian and Hebrew languages on uto-Aztechian languages. This was, of course, unknown at the publishing date of the Book of Mormon. However, as Ron and Lisa pointed out, it is also theorized that perhaps Egyptians or Phoenicians explored that far, bringing some of their slaves.
As others on the thread have said, no amount of logical arguments or proofs will convince someone of the validity of the BOM. Furthermore, no one is really trying. There's really no point.
For example, if unequivocal DNA evidence is found linking Native Americans to ancient Hebrew people, do you really think people will suddenly say, "Wow, the Book of Mormon must be true?" No way. There always exist alternate explanations and possibilities such as the sailing Egyptians one offered in this thread.
Just like the Bible, a belief in the validity of the Book of Mormon can't really be arrived at by judging historical evidence.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was in high school, I came back to the student recreation center one day to find a gay friend of mine doodling all over the cover of my course notebook.
And I was all like "Hey .. hey! what are you doing! Are those unicorns?"
There were indeed unicorns and dippy smiling hearts and flowers and rainbows and moonbeams and god knows what else, all doodled in cutsey glitter pen he'd borrowed from some sacker for the purpose of punishing me for leaving my stuff in the care of my dutiful and ever-trustworthy friends.
He said "I'm fagging up your notebook!"
Then everyone else started laughing and I said "Gwargh! Luke! Quit fagging up my notebook!" One of the student counselors from the tolerance project had actually come within earshot just to hear that. It was actually a comic setup. Of all the counselors, why specifically the one who has the primary responsibility to make sure that we're tolerating everyone else to an extremely P.C. extent? Her name was Ms. Meyer, I think. She was also an accounting whiz and was often found slotting as a de-facto treasurer of the school.
"What did you just say?" She said.
I pointed accusingly at Luke and stated, with a comical pout. "He's fagging up my notebook and won't quit it."
I probably would have been crucified on the spot had Luke not then smiled a big cheesy smile and proudly held up my now thoroughly fagged-up notebook, complete with a now polka-dotted unicorn who he had labeled "Spunkins the Spotted Uni-Quorn." Instead, she gave us a cursory lecture attempting to explain to us that we shouldn't use offensive language. When we insisted that we thought it was fine to use when no offense was intended, she then took us to her office immediately for another less-than-cursory lecture on how we should understand that the language is offensive and we shouldn't be using it even to trivialize it, since someone somewhere might still be offended.
Twenty minutes later, we leave. And then Luke turns to me and says "That was pretty gay."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when one of my favorite Latin professors flipped out when we referred to a TV character in a "wife-beater." He had never heard the phrase before, and he was horrified. I see his point - humor only works when it strikes a chord, and making jokes about a stereotype legitimizes it in a way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Lyrhawn: Ever heard of Thor Heyerdahl?
I didn't say it was impossible, just that I'm highly skeptical, especially in the face of zero proof of such, that ships notorious for their slow speed and unreliability could have made a journey that even high seas ships barely made 2,000 years later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
They most certainly did, to wit,
a) Bronze weapons (iron depending on period) b) Better tactics c) Eurasian disease environment
Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs? (Unless there were and nobody has looked, of course.) In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Does anybody else think schools have no business policing what children say when it comes to expressing an opinion? I feel like context is important, but should somebody be disciplined to this extent at all?
I am not sure how I feel about this all, I personally wonder if its right for schools to censore what students say at all outside the "Imminent lawless action" test.
If a student goes so far as to say, "I can't stand being around Mexicans," does the school attempt to discipline, educate, or allow the statement to stand?
Should we really use polls that most children have no idea about as a defense for suing them?
I just don't feel comfortable about the lengths being used to punish this girl at all, regardless of the fact we share the same religious beliefs.
I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
edited for grammar and some clarity upon second thought.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
How harshly was she punished? I didn't see that in the article.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
How harshly was she punished? I didn't see that in the article.
Edit: I just reread and misunderstood but its her parents that are suing the school apparently.
However,
quote:Rice got a warning and a notation in her file
Obviously I do not know the details of the warning, but I think the warning + notation in her file is ridiculous.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Duh? They're red-skinned savages! They would waylay and annihlate anyone who came to their shores!
As opposed to, you know, greeting and trading with them and even sharing survival techniques. We've never documented that happening.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
They most certainly did, to wit,
a) Bronze weapons (iron depending on period) b) Better tactics c) Eurasian disease environment
Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs? (Unless there were and nobody has looked, of course.) In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Alright they might not be, but natives in general, American Indians and Thanksgiving aside, weren't generally inviting from what I've read. But it'd depend entirely on when and where they landed. South American Incas and Mayans were much more quick to anger and violence in general than some of their northern east coast neighbors. It's not an automatic assumption, but it's also not unfounded considering their history.
And you'll have to forgive me, but I don't consider bronze age weapons a serious advantage over the Incas or Mayans, and if they went to North America, indeed, into INLAND north America as some of the claims suggest, they'd meet Apaches and Cherokees, who were deadly as all hell. You're suggesting that a single ship blown off course, ot let's give them a lot more credit, three or four ships, carrying sufficient numbers of troops, could have had THAT much of an advantage over natives?
I'm willing to say they'd have an advantage, but like I said, not's not really there. Tactics, sure, but then again, tactics aren't really technological are they? Neither is disease, unless you're suggesting they thought of themselves as living biological weapons. So we come back to bronze. Bronze age weapons alone aren't enough of an advantage, and their tactics aren't especially worthwhile when there would be so few of them, I doubt they'd have enough to even form a phalanx, which probably would have been the popular tactic of the time, depend on the time period.
A lot depends on when this happened, and where in the Americas they were supposed to have landed, and really it also depends on whether or not it was Egyptians or Phoenicians.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs?
Many of the plagues that were so deadly to the people who met the spaniards developed because of cities (density of population sufficient to create endemic disease) and close proximities to domestic animals. 1000 years before that, only one of those factors existed. Without density to support active disease at all times, it's much less likely such migrants had the disease when they traveled.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to point out that it's not necessary at all to believe the Book of Mormon stories took place in the Americas to be Mormon.
My own best guess is that there are plenty of other potential settings for the BoM. It's not meant to be an anthropology text, nor to give us archeological or technological information. That it was dug up from a place in the Americas is evidence that it was buried there. However, when an angel from another .... (I don't know what word to use ... dimension or astral plane would be the science fiction word for it, what's the religious word for other places like heaven?)... place ... directs you to something, then later takes it back, it doesn't seem to me to be at all necessary that it originally came from the spot where you found it. If Moroni himself came there from elsewhere, enough to physically shake someone's hand, which we believe he did, then why are we positive the book wasn't brought from another planet, dimension, astral plane, etc. as well? We're flat out told that there are other sheep, and that nobody knows where they are but they're not lost to the Father. Where are they? They could be on other planets, other dimensions, or places that we don't have physics concepts yet to describe. God knows more about physics than we do. He knows more about his universe. His purpose with scriptures has not been to teach us that stuff, but rather, to teach us spiritual knowledge we need in order to advance from our current condition to something higher.
I'm not trying to change any Mormon's mind. To me it's not that important either way. But I just want to mention this so that people who aren't LDS will understand that refuting the existence of BoM societies in the Americas makes no difference. Plenty of Mormons don't tie their faith to whether or not BoM societies were located in the Americas.
I personally believe the book is literally true, but that it's perfectly possible that it didn't take place on this continent. God gave us the book. He didn't tell us everything about the context of the book, because that was irrelevant.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, I would be extremely wary of taking such a stance on the BOM. The BOM to a very adequate degree provides doctrine that makes its location in the Americas a certainty. That, coupled with the fact that it predicts the means and circumstances of its own revelation to mankind makes it a matter of authenticity that the events it describes takes place at the very least in the north or south American continents.
Using the dimensions POV on the BOM basically renders it, a nice book of stories, and little else. People have been attempting to give the Bible the same treatment for centuries now, and it cheapens the message of the book to the point of uselessness.
Why do we need to literally accept that Jesus lived in Jerusalem, or that he performed the atonement. Because to say those things are true relatively speaking inaccurately depresses Jesus' necessity to mankind's ultimate happiness.
If the gospel is not the perfect plan of happiness, it has certainly been given far more attention then it deserves.
If the geography and history of the BOM were unimportant I honestly believe the writers would not have put so much emphasis on them. They make it a point to outline landscapes, timelines, and historical facts while stating that the words they speak are true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs?
Many of the plagues that were so deadly to the people who met the spaniards developed because of cities (density of population sufficient to create endemic disease) and close proximities to domestic animals. 1000 years before that, only one of those factors existed. Without density to support active disease at all times, it's much less likely such migrants had the disease when they traveled.
Are we perhaps thinking of different periods? Carthage was a reasonably large city, surely.
quote:Tactics, sure, but then again, tactics aren't really technological are they?
They most certainly are.
quote:Neither is disease, unless you're suggesting they thought of themselves as living biological weapons.
They don't have to think of themselves that way in order to actually be biological weapons. You can hardly be suggesting that Cortes thought of himself as a plague carrier, but he certainly made good use of the fact.
quote:South American Incas and Mayans were much more quick to anger and violence in general than some of their northern east coast neighbors. (...) Apache, Cherokee
None of which cultures exist at the time we are discussing. In particular, the Apache and Cherokee were deadly and hostile because they'd seen what had happened on the East Coast, indeed some of them were refugees from that disaster.
quote:You're suggesting that a single ship blown off course, ot let's give them a lot more credit, three or four ships, carrying sufficient numbers of troops, could have had THAT much of an advantage over natives?
Why not? Pizarro had 150 men, remember, not all of them soldiers. And it's not the weapons so much as the armour that gives an advantage; bronze armour works just as well as iron, especially against stone weapons, and armour is absolutely decisive in hand-to-hand combat.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Blade, why would it matter whether it happened in America or on some other planet, though? It still happened! It's authentic and true.
And what about people on other worlds who have to learn of Christ's life that took place on our world and not their own? Does that makes it any less real to them? Does that make it a fantasy? Understand that I'm not saying the BoM is fiction, or a fairy tale. I'm saying that it actually happened, it's a true record handed down to us. It just doesn't seem important to me whether or not this physical continent where I now stand was the setting.
The geography and history are described, yet they don't match very closely any particular spot in the Americas. This is another reason to rethink that requirement.
I understand that to many people it seems very important that the Americas are THE place that it had to have happened, but I don't understand why that is. To me it is just as valid no matter where it happened.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am contending the geography and history could (and in fact did) certainly have taken place on the American continents.
The people who wrote the Book of Mormon stated that *this* land was the land of promise as described by God, and that because of their iniquity they were removed from it, and we have their record to help us understand how they lost it. It states that the people who would eventually settle this land (us) would be held to the same obligation, and in the day we do not, we will likewise be removed from the land.
If all of that is figurative, it deals a blow to the literalist manner in which the words are written, to the point I would contend, that it becomes merely a book of moral stories, and not very well told at that.
The Book of Mormon claims to have a mission and purpose that far surpasses THAT intention.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's a fun conversation, and I'd argue with you a bit more, but first we have to narrow down a time. Exactly when are we talking? You bring up Carthage, but Phoenicians were around long before they ever settled in Carthage. It's a period of time that could span 500 years. That changes the tactics, the weaponry, the armor, what a ship would likely have on board (which could be ZERO weapons and/or soldiers), the type of ship used, and other factors. And I wonder how bad the disease problem would have been. The plague hadn't hit yet, I think it's likely that a couple hundred guys, just off the boat, wouldn't be as bad as the type of European that came to town 2,000 years later. A lot happened, biologically, in those 2,000 years, and we didn't have a lot of the acquired immunities that killed so many natives later on way back then.
Anyway, define the year it happened, within say, 50 years, even a 100 years, and we could continue, otherwise we're on different pages.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Second, the Hebrew settlers of the Americas mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not Jews, but rather, were mostly members of the lost tribe of Manasseh, if I remember correctly.
I don't know what that means to you, but to me it is paradoxical impossibility. Jew DOES NOT mean "from the tribe of Judah." Or rather, it was so derived, but rapidly became the name for all Hebrews/Israelites/what-ever-other-names-y'all-have-for-us.
Like kleenex. Or xerox. Or ketchup! It's a generification.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sidestepping *all* discussion of Mormon doctrine, about which I know zippo...
One small colony of European visitors could be vulnerable to American Indians, because one was: Vinland. They didn't get wiped out, but they did decide they'd better leave. I suspect that the one ship didn't spread major diseases to the area, because once the nastier diseases hit after 1492, they spread like forest fires. Which among other things showed they hadn't been to North America previously, or there'd have been better immunity.
posted
rivka, I didn't realize that. I knew about the derivation, and assumed it was still part of the meaning of the word. I guess the fact that I always hear about the "Hebrews" and the "children of Israel" wandering in the wilderness with Moses, but I never really hear about the "Jews" doing that, I assumed that calling folks "Jews" was a tribe-specific thing.
But I guess since Judah wasn't just a person and a tribe, but also a nation ... yeah, I can understand why it would have a broader application. Whoops Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
That reminds me of this one guy from high school that said he would not vote for a woman president simply because she was a woman. The whole class was appalled at his comment but he stood by it. Little white trash bastard.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
