-- "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David wrote:
>> Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the
>> Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated
>> here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so
>> there must be more of a connection established to
>> the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards.
***BLAINE: Dave, you wrote "all those who believe the Bible consider the
Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East
after Noah's flood." This seems to be saying that just because a majotrity of
people believe something it is true. In other words, are you asking me to go
with a belief simply because it is popular?
BLAINE:
> Describing the connection I am making between art depicting
> men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites,
> Jaredites, and Mulekites as only "imaginary" is, I would say,
> very cynical.
Skeptical would be a more accurate word than cynical to describe my
perspective. I do not consider the book of Mormon to be a historical book.
I consider it a novel, an imaginery account that draws upon several sources.
***BLAINE: If it is just a novel, it is a lousy one. Have you ever heard of
rave reviews from pro writers of fiction saying how exciting it is to read?
Nope, me neither. It is the truth, however, and like the Bible, it often leans
a little toward being dry reading.
My word "imaginery" was not reflective of the connection you were making,
but of the Nephites themselves. I hesitated to insert the word, but I
wanted to communicate to you that the lack of a historical reality that
exists in my mind concerning the Nephites.
Blaine wrote:
> You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the
> Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me
> one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible
> or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO "proof" tells
> me he ever even lived.
Au contraire. The proof of the Bible is that we have historical men who
have testified to what is recorded there. The Bible is filled with a
genealogical basis going back to the very first man Adam. To argue that the
Bible is myth would be to argue that the Jews of today do not exist. In the
Jewish people, we find a culture and life as described in the writings of
the Bible. This is not true for the book of Mormon. The people it speaks
about are imaginary. It claims they once existed but then got wiped out.
The Bible does not proceed by this method. The Bible speaks about its
people in real terms and continues to give us promise concerning them. I
can look all over the world, find Jews scattered just as the Bible says,
also see them being called back to their land, just as the Bible says. I
can read about the customs and rituals handed down to them in the Bible, and
I can find these people still doing them. Even in Africa, there are tribes
who continue such practices.
***BLAINE: I was trying to restrict my comments to the person of Jesus, whom
you cannot prove ever existed. The Bible in general is a different matter.
You cannot assume because the Bible has historical credibility that you can
prove the existence of Jesus Christ as a Son of God, or anything else. As He
said to Peter, after Peter declared Him to be the Son of the Living God, "Flesh
and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven." In other
words, He (Jesus) was admitting you cannot know who he truly was (IS) unless
it comes from above, via the Holy Spirit, by way of revelation.
Blaine wrote:
> You can't even tell me what the man looked like.
> Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed,
> blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what?
> All you have to go on is your "imagination." Yet
> you accept him unquestioningly.
I would not say that I accept him unquestioningly. I have a healthy
skepticism toward what I read in the Bible too. As for his physical
characteristics, I don't care much about that. I do care about the
characteristics of his personality and person.
BLAINE: But by way of reason, we should be able assume that if He were really
so well thought of by his disciples, someone would have taken a moment to at
least jot down a little about his physical appearance. It is only natural for
humans to want to know what someone looks like, to take their measure, so to
speak. Why was this never done? Joseph Smith was painted by several painters,
an image of his face was cast as a death mask upon his departing this life, so
great was the reverence and esteem his followers held for him.
Blaine wrote:
> How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons,
> who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are
> "proof" that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of
> Meso-America?
I am different because I consider all possible explanations, not just the
ones that I hope to find. I approach the Bible this way too.
***BLAINE: Well said, but I do doubt you approach the Bible entirely as you
say. It seems abundantly clear you accept a lot on the basis of imagination
alone. (:
Blaine wrote:
> At least we know from BoM descriptions of them that they
> were "fair," large of stature, intelligent, and had a language
> that was unreadable except by inspired seers.
> That is a lot, I would say.
But the statutes you pointed us to showed a man of small stature with a
beard. Doesn't that contradict the Book of Mormon?
***BLAINE: I can't see that there is any way of telling their size from the
stone relif images, there is nothing in the way of background to compare them
sizewise.
Blaine wrote:
> Bible experts and archeologists have had two thousand years
> to uncover the present wealth of knowledge largely substantiating
> the Bible, yet you complain that in 200 years we have not acquired
> a comparable wealth of exact information regarding these peoples.
> I say this is just plain cynicism on your part.
Most archaeologists do not go about trying to establish the Bible. Some
have even attempted to criticize the Bible as myth based upon archaeology.
The problem is that the Bible is so rooted in historical reality that such
attempts, while gaining momentum at times in the short run, always fail in
the long run.
Your complaint about needing more time for the evidence to come to light is
the same argument that evolutionists rely upon for their theories. One must
also consider the possibility that no matter how much time one has, the
evidence does not support the conclusion desired. This is not cynicism.
This is healthy skepticism.
***BLAINE Still there was far more time, in a desert environment, regards
Bible archaology, compared to a rain forest where building decay and plant life
grows so thick it is not much time before the jungle invades and completely
covers most sites in Meso America, as is the case with BoM sites.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
