tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post2564151751047532387..comments2024-03-26T10:31:54.453-07:00Comments on Book of Mormon setting: What neutrality means to FairMormonjonathan3dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-76956796319900980202016-07-21T16:54:47.034-07:002016-07-21T16:54:47.034-07:00FairMormon's work in a few areas is ... disapp...FairMormon's work in a few areas is ... disappointing. Especially its utter lack of critical thinking in its acceptance of spurious "scholarship" (Mainfort and Kwas), which it would breezily dismiss if the challenged artifact (in this case the Bat Creek inscription) could be connected to their pet theory. McCulloch, who at least they cite in a footnote (albeit with the gratuitous slight), did a serviceable job demolishing Mainfort and Kwas's supposed silver bullet -- the Masonic text which, on further examination, is dissimilar in every way that matters for the Bat Creek inscription to be authentic.<br><br>Granted, McCulloch's theory (Cyrus Gordon's theory, really), that the Bat Creek inscription may have come from a group of Hebrew refugees sometime around 100 A.D., was also not without its problems -- as Frank Moore Cross pointed out, the inscription's (genuine) Paleo-Hebrew script is much older than 100 A.D. The script (though not the inscription) dates between the 10th century, B.C., down to about 135 B.C. at the latest.<br><br>But wouldn't we expect that genuine Hebrew script, if it related to the Nephites in the Americas, would be older than that used in Israel circa 100 A.D.? Wouldn't we expect the Hebrew script to be that used before the Babylonian exile? (Which, fwiw, Paleo-Hebrew is.) Just because the stone was buried around 100 A.D. does not mean that the people who did the burying came to America in 100 A.D. There could have been a long-established population of Hebrew-writing people living in the area. Which, I believe, is what the Book of Mormon postulates.<br><br>Frankly, the Bat Creek inscription is good evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And I can't help but wonder if the only reason Fair challenges it, rather than aiding its defense, is due to some fear that its acceptance would be better evidence for a rival geographic theory than the one they uncritically accept.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05263912077675667154noreply@blogger.com