The problem with Limited Geography,

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's right. I'm bitter. I'm bitter about the fictional and deranged view of the world I was fed for 21 years. I'm bitter you teach these fictions as if they were history to youth.

So your response to me is to link two articles about 12,000 year old ruins in Turkey. In Turkey!

I have a challenge for you. I've said there's no evidence to support the Book of Mormon. None. I could marshal a great deal that goes the other way including "translated" text that was cribbed from the KJV, talk of horses and steel, etc. You want to have it both ways. You don't want to abandon claims of historicity and still hold out for some occult archeological dig with all the old world animals and implements of steel and gold books described in the B of M. Just give me a mustard seed of evidence. Give me a speck. No one would give it fair consideration like I would, I promise you. I bet you can't do that.

You are lost in a vindictive cycle of show me histrionics. I linked to the articles as an abstract connection to support the reality that there is no certainty in the knowledge of ancient peoples –even your beloved Mediterranean cultures. In this very forum you have unwittingly supported the notion of uncertainty with your citing of the numbers of Visigoths who may have sacked Rome!

You don’t want evidence; you want your innocence back. I can’t give either to you. Search, ponder and pray –or don’t. But don’t pretend that your mythos is anything more than a fictional and deranged view of the world ... such arrogance is unhealthy.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Indy, it's patently false that it's easy to imagine an acient army could have hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

The Mauryan army had multiple Aksauhini's. The standing army had three-quarter million troops, one of the largest armies in the world at the time.

http://www.allempires.com/article/in..._ancient_india

The expansion and defense of the empire was made possible by what appears to have been the largest standing army of its time[citation needed]. According to Megasthenes, the empire wielded a military of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

Also, southern Mexico, at the time of European arrival, had the highest population density in the world.

Moreover, even with modern knowledge, there are still disputes over the number of dead in wars, sometimes the disputed number is the hundreds of thousands! (i.e. Vietnam).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are lost in a vindictive of cycle of show me histrionics. I linked to the articles as an abstract connection to support the reality that there is no certainty in the knowledge of ancient peoples –even your beloved Mediterranean cultures. In this very forum you have unwittingly supported the notion of uncertainty with your citing of the numbers of Visigoths who may have sacked Rome!

You don’t want evidence; you want your innocence back. I can’t give either to you. Search, ponder and pray –or don’t. But don’t pretend that your mythos is anything more than a fictional and deranged view of the world ... such arrogance is unhealthy.

Of course it's uncertain. That's what science is all about. Why is that so hard for you to get? As soon as someone tells me they have all the answers I stop listening. But you need to give me a platform, some basis on which to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, or I'm not interested and I'm not going to hold out the possiblity of historicity any more than I would of Lord of the Rings', especially with all the impeaching evidence, as I have noted. If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about go to the Israel as occupiers thread and see Oxcoug's and my debate about historicity of the Pentateuch and the Iliad.

Let me as you a question: If your mantra is nothing is certain, why are you so certain the Book of Mormon is a historical account, absent even a mustard seed of evidence? Your certainty there's something out there (in the face, as I have noted, of a great deal of evidence impeaching the B of M), doesn't seem to jibe with "nothing is certain." Are you saying you're agnostic on the issue, just hoping?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.allempires.com/article/in..._ancient_india


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

Also, southern Mexico, at the time of European arrival, had the highest population density in the world.

Moreover, even with modern knowledge, there are still disputes over the number of dead in wars, sometimes the disputed number is the hundreds of thousands! (i.e. Vietnam).

People still accept mythical accounts (corroborated by extant ancient chronicles) as the best available evidence. It's not unusual to read about millions of Persians invading Greece, even though we know it's really not true. It's fun to contemplate that. But military scientists don't believe it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Of course it's uncertain. That's what science is all about. Why is that so hard for you to get? As soon as someone tells me they have all the answers I stop listening. But you need to give me a platform, some basis on which to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, or I'm not interested and I'm not going to hold out the possiblity of historicity any more than I would of Lord of the Rings', especially with all the impeaching evidence, as I have noted. If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about go to the Israel as occupiers thread and see Oxcoug's and my debate about historicity of the Pentateuch and the Iliad.

Let me as you a question: If your mantra is nothing is certain, why are you so certain the Book of Mormon is a historical account, absent even a mustard seed of evidence? Your certainty there's something out there (in the face, as I have noted, of a great deal of evidence impeaching the B of M), doesn't seem to jibe with "nothing is certain." Are you saying you're agnostic on the issue, just hoping?

The mustard seed of evidence is the practical application of its precepts in my everyday life and the benefits derived therefrom.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

People still accept mythical accounts (corroborated by extant ancient chronicles) as the best available evidence. It's not unusual to read about millions of Persians invading Greece, even though we know it's really not true. It's fun to contemplate that. But military scientists don't believe it.

That's why I believe those Indian and Persian empires didn't exist.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That's why I believe those Indian and Persian empires didn't exist.

I bet if you dug a hole for a house in those areas you might run into all kinds of evidence of humans thousands of years old.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I bet if you dug a hole for a house in those areas you might run into all kinds of evidence of humans thousands of years old.

Unlike in the new world. Where there is no evidence of humans thousands of years old.

[Indy Coug]

I'm sure the Mayans/Aztecs/etc. developed pyramid "technology" in a vacuum and independent of the Egyptians, Chinese and many others.

I'm sure the presence of cocaine in Egyptian mummies was from extraordinarily effective jetstreams rather than the ability to sail between continents.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Unlike in the new world. Where there is no evidence of humans thousands of years old.

That's my point. There are in the New World, and they are thousands of years old, though not as densely primarily because of lack of domesticable food and geographic barriers. We can make educated guesses about the origins of these cultures. It has nothing to do with Israel.