The Book of Mormon vs. The King James Version of the Bible

[Watchmen]

Could you please provide an example of how I am playing any sort of "word games"?

You accuse me of these types of things often, but you can never get any further than the accusation.

How about you PROVE that I am playing a "word game" and while you're at it, finally answer my question and provide the link I've asked for.

Also, just to get the jump on you, my use of the ACTUAL DEFINITION of a given word is not "playing a word game", so don't even try it.

You twist basic words like "principal." It's really self-evident, but you have the blinders on.

 

[Watchmen]

Your assumption that science is perfect, complete or can magically disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon are assumptions.

Science does, in fact, provide evidence against the Book of Mormon. That's not an assumption.

 

[Watchmen]

You don't even know or use the correct definition so the words "principal", "primary", "foremost" or "chief".

I do not consider your opinion about any "language" or "context" of anything to be of any value because you consistently use your own definitions of words and not the actual definitions of those words then you judge what has been written by your own definitions and not the actual definitions.

The most the Bible Dictionary claims is that the JST may "to some extent" help restore lost things. Obviously it was not the "intent" of the inspired translation to restore or correct, but it may happen as a consequence.

In fact, evidence seems to show that the purpose that God had in commanding Joseph Smith to retranslate the Bible was so that he would receive further revelation on Biblical doctrines and principles and record them as new scripture (such as D&C 76).

Now, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Do you consider any other translations of the Bible to be attempts to "correct" the Bible or restore lost things?

Can you now provide a link that the CES letter you have been mentioning?

Here's the link to the CES Letter. http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I'm sure you'll read it with your blinders on.

 

[Prestor John]

Not necessarily. In fact the tower of Babel is a commonly referred to story for describing the phenomenon of vastly differnet people, cultures and languages.

Exactly, people believed that there was one group of Africans, one group of Asians, one group of Caucasians and one group of Native Americans.

They assumed that all Native Americans descended from the same group of people. They never considered that other groups of people could have migrated to the Americas.

This assumption led many early Saints to believe that the Lehites were the only inhabitants of the Americas and the only ancestors of the Native Americans, since they knew of no other.

However, the Book of Mormon never once made either of those claims and in fact supports that idea that the Lehites were not alone in the promised land and not the only ancestors of the Native Americans.

Your assumption that science is in total error when it is against your religious beliefs is a bias.

I never claimed that science was in total error or even in error at all.

If you feel that the science is wrong and that they are in error then I would take it up with them.

I don't believe that science is wrong.

I believe that science is right, but that not all the theories and assumptions made about science are right.

People travelled across the Siberian Land Bridge. Neither I nor the LDS Church contest that fact.

However, it is an assumption that all the peoples who inhabited the Americas came across the Siberian Land Bridge.

However no one in the scientific community has found issue with it so far.

This is demonstrably false.

Many scientists theorize that many people from various locales migrated to the Americas over many millennia.

Other Migration Theories - Bering Land Bridge National Preserve (U.S. National Park Service)

A few relevant excerpts,

"Once the first humans made it over, it appears that multiple migrations took place over the next several millennia, not only across the ice-free corridor, but also along the coast by boat."

"The most important thing to realize is that even the most current and modern theories we have are entirely speculative and continually evolving."

As it stands it is one of the most solid descriptions of the recent migration and evolution of the human race. They have taken tens of thousands of samples and millions since. They took care to specifically get genetically diverse samples so that we have samples from all places on earth. That was the point of the study.

It would not take into account a small group of only a few dozen people arriving and breeding into a larger populace.

 

[Prestor John]

You twist basic words like "principal." It's really self-evident, but you have the blinders on.

Can you please explain how providing three different dictionary definitions and using that definition is "twisting" anything?

Could you also explain why I or anyone else should use your personal definition of the word "principal" over the actual definition of the word "principal"?

Science does, in fact, provide evidence against the Book of Mormon. That's not an assumption.

No it does not.

Many assumptions and theories formulated may disagree with the claims made in the Book of Mormon, but the evidence itself does not.

Here's the link to the CES Letter. http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I'm sure you'll read it with your blinders on.

Thank you for finally providing a source.

You have yet to prove that I have any blinders at all, while it has been proven extensively that you have some very big ones installed.

 

[Watchmen]

Can you please explain how providing three different dictionary definitions and using that definition is "twisting" anything?

Could you also explain why I or anyone else should use your personal definition of the word "principal" over the actual definition of the word "principal"?

No it does not.

Many assumptions and theories formulated may disagree with the claims made in the Book of Mormon, but the evidence itself does not.

Thank you for finally providing a source.

You have yet to prove that I have any blinders at all, while it has been proven extensively that you have some very big ones installed.

Let's take evidence. The evidence shows native Americans descended from Asiatic people. The evidence does not show they descended from people of the Middle East. Maybe evidence will come forward some day that supports the ancestoral claim in the BoM, but I doubt it. So, your statement that thyou evidence does not disagree with the BoM is flat out wrong.

 

[Prestor John]

Let's take evidence. The evidence shows native Americans descended from Asiatic people.

Then I will need to ask you the same questions I asked Monk of Reason:

"Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?"

Unless you take into account all relevant factors, you are jumping to conclusions.

The evidence does not show they descended from people of the Middle East.

Which Middle East? The current Middle East or the Middle East of 2600 years ago?

Does the Book of Mormon claim that all Native Americans descend from people from the Middle East?

Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

Maybe evidence will come forward some day that supports the ancestoral claim in the BoM, but I doubt it.

Me too.

I don't think we will ever get to the level to be able to pinpoint one ancestor out of many thousands.

The Book of Mormon records only a handful of people migrating to the Americas from Jerusalem.

So, your statement that [the] evidence does not disagree with the BoM is flat out wrong.

You have yet to show any evidence that disagrees with the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon never claimed that there were not already people inhabiting the Americas before the Lehites arrived.

The Book of Mormon also never claimed that other ancient Amerindians could not have Asiatic descent.

You see how you are trying to debunk claims that the Book of Mormon never made?

You keep jumping to conclusions.

 

[Watchmen]

Then I will need to ask you the same questions I asked Monk of Reason:

"Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?"

Unless you take into account all relevant factors, you are jumping to conclusions.

Which Middle East? The current Middle East or the Middle East of 2600 years ago?

Does the Book of Mormon claim that all Native Americans descend from people from the Middle East?

Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

Me too.

I don't think we will ever get to the level to be able to pinpoint one ancestor out of many thousands.

The Book of Mormon records only a handful of people migrating to the Americas from Jerusalem.

You have yet to show any evidence that disagrees with the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon never claimed that there were not already people inhabiting the Americas before the Lehites arrived.

The Book of Mormon also never claimed that other ancient Amerindians could not have Asiatic descent.

You see how you are trying to debunk claims that the Book of Mormon never made?

You keep jumping to conclusions.

Nope. No jumping to conclusions necessary. It's clear you don't understand genetics or the studies. Have you even read the studies about where Native Americans came from?

 

[Prestor John]

Nope. No jumping to conclusions necessary. It's clear you don't understand genetics or the studies. Have you even read the studies about where Native Americans came from?

Are you referring to the CES Letter or to some other study you have yet to provide a link to?

 

[Watchmen]

Are you referring to the CES Letter or to some other study you have yet to provide a link to?

I'm asking generally.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm asking generally.

I have not seen anything that proves the conclusion you are jumping to.

 

[Watchmen]

I have not seen anything that proves the conclusion you are jumping to.

You didn't answer my question. Have you read any studies about where Native Americans descended from?

 

[Prestor John]

You didn't answer my question. Have you read any studies about where Native Americans descended from?

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer all the questions I asked you that you chose to ignore.

 

[Watchmen]

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer all the questions I asked you that you chose to ignore.

Your non-answer is an answer, thank you very much. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about re the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Exactly, people believed that there was one group of Africans, one group of Asians, one group of Caucasians and one group of Native Americans.

They assumed that all Native Americans descended from the same group of people. They never considered that other groups of people could have migrated to the Americas.

This assumption led many early Saints to believe that the Lehites were the only inhabitants of the Americas and the only ancestors of the Native Americans, since they knew of no other.

However, the Book of Mormon never once made either of those claims and in fact supports that idea that the Lehites were not alone in the promised land and not the only ancestors of the Native Americans.

There seems to be zero evidence however that any other ancestors other than what we have discovered (all of course being from Asia) in their history.

I never claimed that science was in total error or even in error at all.

I don't believe that science is wrong.

I believe that science is right, but that not all the theories and assumptions made about science are right.

People travelled across the Siberian Land Bridge. Neither I nor the LDS Church contest that fact.

However, it is an assumption that all the peoples who inhabited the Americas came across the Siberian Land Bridge.

It would be a false assumption to think that only ever one migration happened that is for sure. But it isn't a false assumption to say that no one from the Jewish tribes made it to North America.

This is demonstrably false.

Many scientists theorize that many people from various locales migrated to the Americas over many millennia.

Other Migration Theories - Bering Land Bridge National Preserve (U.S. National Park Service)

A few relevant excerpts,

"Once the first humans made it over, it appears that multiple migrations took place over the next several millennia, not only across the ice-free corridor, but also along the coast by boat."

"The most important thing to realize is that even the most current and modern theories we have are entirely speculative and continually evolving."

It would not take into account a small group of only a few dozen people arriving and breeding into a larger populace.

You need to read more into your links. They are not in contrast with the theory. No one is in constrast with the theory. Even this article as well as other articles state that the migrations happened from the same place. Just that there may have been more than one migration and that some of it may have been by boat.

A single frindge theory stated that they thought there may have been some shared origin with Australian aboriginals. However tracking the Y chromosome comes up dry on that theory.

 

[Prestor John]

Your non-answer is an answer, thank you very much. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about re the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.

I don’t understand why you feel that you are entitled to answers to your questions when you completely failed to answer any of my questions posed to you.

Let me go over these with you:

1.) At the very start of this thread after I asked for you to supply the verses in question, a member named Sententiae gave his opinion about the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church and religion in general.

After I asked Sententiae a question concerning his opinion, you came to his defense in post #7 by claiming that,

“His argument is based on reason, logic, and actual evidence.”

This claim is demonstrably false because anyone could just read his comment and notice that he provided no evidence. He just shared his opinion. I said as much in post #10 and then asked you to share the reason, logic or evidence that Sententiae shared.

Instead of answering my question you made an ad hominem attack against me by claiming in post #17 that I did not know how to read or understand Sententiae’s points.

This led me to ask you again to share the portion of Sententiae’s comment where he offered any evidence to support his opinion in post #20.

Again, instead of answering my question in post #22 you made another ad hominem attack against me by claiming that my bias somehow caused me to miss the evidence that Sententiae provided.

2.) After you finally supplied an example for the OP and asked your rote question about the Book of Mormon and the JST, I asked you the following clarifying question in post #12, which you never answered:

“What do you believe the Inspired Version of the Bible to be?”

I wanted this clarified before I gave my answer because I did not want there to be any misconceptions about my answer or the JST.

I had to ask you this same question again in post #21 because you gave an answer that was not an answer.

However, your refusal to answer my clarifying question did not stop you from claiming in post #24,

“No one, Prestor John included, has been able to explain this. I think we all know why.”

Therefore, before receiving your answer to my clarifying question, I went ahead and answered your question in post #28, which caused the very same confusion that I knew it would because of the misconceptions you have about the JST.

I could have addressed those misconceptions first before answering your question to avoid that confusion, but you refused to answer my question, so I wasn’t given that chance.

Your refusal to answer my question was expected and led me to say in post #32,

“No wonder you ran away from my question!”

3.) I asked you in post #34 if you could quote Joseph Smith claiming that his inspired version was an attempt to correct the Bible.

Rather than admit that you could not provide that quote because no such quote exists, you shared a bunch of information about the JST that did not answer my question or support your claims about the JST.

4.) In my response to all that information in post #41, I asked you two questions which were,

“You'd think that if the Prophet wanted to "correct" the Bible, he would have tried to quote the Lord telling him to do so. You know, to "deceive" his many gullible followers?”

“Notice how the LDS Bible Dictionary did not claim that Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to "correct" the Bible?”

To be honest you did “answer” these questions in post #46, but you did so by making an unfounded claim about the Lord’s intent when He commanded the Prophet to translate the KJV and then that the LDS Dictionary agreed with you, even though it never claimed that Joseph Smith was trying to “correct” anything.

Basically, you simply shared your opinion again without offering any supporting evidence.

5.) This sharing of your opinion caused me to ask you various questions in post #51,

“According to who?

Even if it was a call to "redo" the Bible, does that necessarily make it an attempt to restore things that had been lost or could it be an attempt to make the text clearer for the reader?

Take for example all the many different English "translations" of the Bible we have today. Yes, many people took it upon themselves to "redo" the Bible, but did they do this to "correct" the Bible? Or to restore lost knowledge?

Or did they do it because they believed that the text was difficult to understand or that the translation could be done better?

Would you accuse everyone who has retranslated the Bible of trying to "correct" the Bible or trying to restore lost knowledge?”

In post #54, instead of answering these questions you AGAIN stated your opinion that the sources you cited agreed with you. Even though that was demonstrably false.

6.) In response to your non-answer I asked in post #56,

“Now, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Do you consider any other translations of the Bible to be attempts to "correct" the Bible or restore lost things?”

You never answered these questions.

7.) After you accused me of playing “word games” in post #58, I asked you in post #59 to provide an example of me playing “word games.”

I then claimed that using the actual definition of a word was NOT a “word game” and that you would need something else.

However, you had nothing else and in post #61 you claimed that I “twisted” the word “principal” even though I was using its ACTUAL DEFINITION.

You never offered any example of me playing any “word games.”

8.) After you tried to claim that using the actual definition of a word was somehow playing “word games”, I asked you in post #65,

“Can you please explain how providing three different dictionary definitions and using that definition is "twisting" anything?

Could you also explain why I or anyone else should use your personal definition of the word "principal" over the actual definition of the word "principal"?”

You never answered these questions.

9.) After you made your claim about DNA evidence disproving the claims made in the Book of Mormon I asked you many questions in post #67,

"Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?"

“Which Middle East? The current Middle East or the Middle East of 2600 years ago?

Does the Book of Mormon claim that all Native Americans descend from people from the Middle East?”

Instead of answering these questions you made yet another ad hominem attack against me in post #68 by claiming that I was ignorant of genetics and of the specific study that you had never provided a link to.

This leads us to where we are now.

You are now demanding that I answer your question and you claim that my proposed quid pro quo was a “non-answer” and that I don’t know about the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.

So, I will ask you, in light of the fact that you consistently refused to answer so many of my questions – what makes you feel that you are entitled to my answer?

Answer my questions and then I will answer yours.

It would also be great if you actually supplied a link to this “study” you keep referring to.

 

[Prestor John]

There seems to be zero evidence however that any other ancestors other than what we have discovered (all of course being from Asia) in their history.

As I already shared from the link I provided,

“The most important thing to realize is that even the most current and modern theories we have are entirely speculative and continually evolving.”

If you had actually read the article I provided, you’d know that there is a theory (based on discovered artifacts) that the earliest settlers of the Americas may have been ancient Europeans who travelled by boat across the Atlantic Ocean. The style of stone tools (called Solutrean) found in east-central France bear remarkable resemblance to artifacts found in Clovis, New Mexico.

This theory does not contest the idea of people travelling to the Americas across the Siberian Land Bridge. It only proposes that these ancient Europeans may have made their way to the Americas before those who crossed the Siberian Land Bridge.

You, like Watchmen, are jumping to conclusions.

It would be a false assumption to think that only ever one migration happened that is for sure.

Yap.

But it isn't a false assumption to say that no one from the Jewish tribes made it to North America.

You base this opinion on what exactly?

You need to read more into your links.

I provided only the one link.

They are not in contrast with the theory.

What theory? That people crossed into the Americas by way of Beringia?

I never claimed that that theory was false or that the link I provided contrasted it.

No one is in [contrast] with the theory.

Yes, this would include myself and the LDS Church.

Do you not recall when I said in post #44,

“The LDS (aka "Mormon") Church does not deny that people migrated across the Siberian Land Bridge, however, the Siberian Land Bridge only theory has been disproved long ago.”

You even quoted me saying in post #64,

“People travelled across the Siberian Land Bridge. Neither I nor the LDS Church contest that fact.

However, it is an assumption that all the peoples who inhabited the Americas came across the Siberian Land Bridge.”

Are you trying to claim that I believe no ancient people travelled to the Americas via the Siberian Land Bridge?

If so, that is demonstrably false.

Even this article as well as other articles state that the migrations happened from the same place.

Not everyone agrees that all the ancient people that migrated to the Americas were from Asia, Siberia specifically.

Just that there may have been more than one migration and that some of it may have been by boat.

The article mentions the possibility of people from central-France.

A single [fringe] theory stated that they thought there may have been some shared origin with Australian aboriginals. However tracking the Y chromosome comes up dry on that theory.

Tracking the Y-chromosomes of who?

Again, what is the sample size? Have all indigenous peoples been sampled? From North, Central and South America?

I don’t think the DNA of a few volunteers is enough to make claims of “all” people coming from the same place.

It also would not disprove the assimilation of only a couple dozen Israelites.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As I already shared from the link I provided,

“The most important thing to realize is that even the most current and modern theories we have are entirely speculative and continually evolving.”

If you had actually read the article I provided, you’d know that there is a theory (based on discovered artifacts) that the earliest settlers of the Americas may have been ancient Europeans who travelled by boat across the Atlantic Ocean. The style of stone tools (called Solutrean) found in east-central France bear remarkable resemblance to artifacts found in Clovis, New Mexico.

This theory does not contest the idea of people travelling to the Americas across the Siberian Land Bridge. It only proposes that these ancient Europeans may have made their way to the Americas before those who crossed the Siberian Land Bridge.

You, like Watchmen, are jumping to conclusions.

First of all this isn't a scientific study nor is it a peer reviewed article. It is a single page on a National Parks of Alaska website. You don't seem to understand the links that you are refering to.

You base this opinion on what exactly?

The fact that Y chromosomal DNA does not bear any sort of resemblance to the Y chromosomal DNA of any known Native American groups. Not to mention there would be significat archealogical evidence of a group of people going from the Middle east all the way to the Americas.

What theory? That people crossed into the Americas by way of Beringia?

I never claimed that that theory was false or that the link I provided contrasted it.

You are in stark contrast with the current understanding of human migration to North America. There is zero evidence that anyone from the Jewish tribes made it to America prior to colonization in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Yes, this would include myself and the LDS Church.

Do you not recall when I said in post #44,

“The LDS (aka "Mormon") Church does not deny that people migrated across the Siberian Land Bridge, however, the Siberian Land Bridge only theory has been disproved long ago.”

You even quoted me saying in post #64,

“People travelled across the Siberian Land Bridge. Neither I nor the LDS Church contest that fact.

However, it is an assumption that all the peoples who inhabited the Americas came across the Siberian Land Bridge.”

Are you trying to claim that I believe no ancient people travelled to the Americas via the Siberian Land Bridge?

If so, that is demonstrably false.

Indeed. However they still all came from east asia. Zero came from Europe till the Vikings for a short while. And then never again until colonization where Africans and Europeans made the treck. Both of which happened a long time after natives arived.

Not everyone agrees that all the ancient people that migrated to the Americas were from Asia, Siberia specifically.

The article mentions the possibility of people from central-France.

Yeah they do.

The article mentions they have similar tools. Not that they are gentically similar. Also if you read your own article that theory that mentions France is from a "radical theory" with "minimal support" with a basis in a theorized extremely ancient Solutrean people who did not have written word, advanced architecture or art. In fact little to nothing is known about these people. The only thing we have on the solurean culture is a few diamond shaped arrowheads and bone crafted fishhooks which appear to be similar in design with Native American concepts of a specific region.

To continue this article ONLY ever talks about people who have come to the new world EARLIER than the 15,000 year ago land bridge. Acording to both archealogical evidence AND Jewish traditional history the Jews only first came about a little less than 4 thousand years ago. This misses the target window that is being talked about by about 12-26 thousand years.

Tracking the Y-chromosomes of who?

Again, what is the sample size? Have all indigenous peoples been sampled? From North, Central and South America?

I don’t think the DNA of a few volunteers is enough to make claims of “all” people coming from the same place.

It also would not disprove the assimilation of only a couple dozen Israelites.

We have a completed human genome and sampling of every race and virtually every demographic on the planet to create an incredibly accurate and detailed genetic map of the world and its history. Just because it disagrees with your religion doesn't make it less legitimate.

 

[Watchmen]

I don’t understand why you feel that you are entitled to answers to your questions when you completely failed to answer any of my questions posed to you.

Let me go over these with you:

1.) At the very start of this thread after I asked for you to supply the verses in question, a member named Sententiae gave his opinion about the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church and religion in general.

After I asked Sententiae a question concerning his opinion, you came to his defense in post #7 by claiming that,

“His argument is based on reason, logic, and actual evidence.”

This claim is demonstrably false because anyone could just read his comment and notice that he provided no evidence. He just shared his opinion. I said as much in post #10 and then asked you to share the reason, logic or evidence that Sententiae shared.

Instead of answering my question you made an ad hominem attack against me by claiming in post #17 that I did not know how to read or understand Sententiae’s points.

This led me to ask you again to share the portion of Sententiae’s comment where he offered any evidence to support his opinion in post #20.

Again, instead of answering my question in post #22 you made another ad hominem attack against me by claiming that my bias somehow caused me to miss the evidence that Sententiae provided.

2.) After you finally supplied an example for the OP and asked your rote question about the Book of Mormon and the JST, I asked you the following clarifying question in post #12, which you never answered:

“What do you believe the Inspired Version of the Bible to be?”

I wanted this clarified before I gave my answer because I did not want there to be any misconceptions about my answer or the JST.

I had to ask you this same question again in post #21 because you gave an answer that was not an answer.

However, your refusal to answer my clarifying question did not stop you from claiming in post #24,

“No one, Prestor John included, has been able to explain this. I think we all know why.”

Therefore, before receiving your answer to my clarifying question, I went ahead and answered your question in post #28, which caused the very same confusion that I knew it would because of the misconceptions you have about the JST.

I could have addressed those misconceptions first before answering your question to avoid that confusion, but you refused to answer my question, so I wasn’t given that chance.

Your refusal to answer my question was expected and led me to say in post #32,

“No wonder you ran away from my question!”

3.) I asked you in post #34 if you could quote Joseph Smith claiming that his inspired version was an attempt to correct the Bible.

Rather than admit that you could not provide that quote because no such quote exists, you shared a bunch of information about the JST that did not answer my question or support your claims about the JST.

4.) In my response to all that information in post #41, I asked you two questions which were,

“You'd think that if the Prophet wanted to "correct" the Bible, he would have tried to quote the Lord telling him to do so. You know, to "deceive" his many gullible followers?”

“Notice how the LDS Bible Dictionary did not claim that Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to "correct" the Bible?”

To be honest you did “answer” these questions in post #46, but you did so by making an unfounded claim about the Lord’s intent when He commanded the Prophet to translate the KJV and then that the LDS Dictionary agreed with you, even though it never claimed that Joseph Smith was trying to “correct” anything.

Basically, you simply shared your opinion again without offering any supporting evidence.

5.) This sharing of your opinion caused me to ask you various questions in post #51,

“According to who?

Even if it was a call to "redo" the Bible, does that necessarily make it an attempt to restore things that had been lost or could it be an attempt to make the text clearer for the reader?

Take for example all the many different English "translations" of the Bible we have today. Yes, many people took it upon themselves to "redo" the Bible, but did they do this to "correct" the Bible? Or to restore lost knowledge?

Or did they do it because they believed that the text was difficult to understand or that the translation could be done better?

Would you accuse everyone who has retranslated the Bible of trying to "correct" the Bible or trying to restore lost knowledge?”

In post #54, instead of answering these questions you AGAIN stated your opinion that the sources you cited agreed with you. Even though that was demonstrably false.

6.) In response to your non-answer I asked in post #56,

“Now, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Do you consider any other translations of the Bible to be attempts to "correct" the Bible or restore lost things?”

You never answered these questions.

7.) After you accused me of playing “word games” in post #58, I asked you in post #59 to provide an example of me playing “word games.”

I then claimed that using the actual definition of a word was NOT a “word game” and that you would need something else.

However, you had nothing else and in post #61 you claimed that I “twisted” the word “principal” even though I was using its ACTUAL DEFINITION.

You never offered any example of me playing any “word games.”

8.) After you tried to claim that using the actual definition of a word was somehow playing “word games”, I asked you in post #65,

“Can you please explain how providing three different dictionary definitions and using that definition is "twisting" anything?

Could you also explain why I or anyone else should use your personal definition of the word "principal" over the actual definition of the word "principal"?”

You never answered these questions.

9.) After you made your claim about DNA evidence disproving the claims made in the Book of Mormon I asked you many questions in post #67,

"Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?"

“Which Middle East? The current Middle East or the Middle East of 2600 years ago?

Does the Book of Mormon claim that all Native Americans descend from people from the Middle East?”

Instead of answering these questions you made yet another ad hominem attack against me in post #68 by claiming that I was ignorant of genetics and of the specific study that you had never provided a link to.

This leads us to where we are now.

You are now demanding that I answer your question and you claim that my proposed quid pro quo was a “non-answer” and that I don’t know about the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.

So, I will ask you, in light of the fact that you consistently refused to answer so many of my questions – what makes you feel that you are entitled to my answer?

Answer my questions and then I will answer yours.

It would also be great if you actually supplied a link to this “study” you keep referring to.

Your non-answer is an answer, thank you very much. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about re the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.

 

[Prestor John]

First of all this isn't a scientific study nor is it a peer reviewed article. It is a single page on a National Parks of Alaska website. You don't seem to understand the links that you are [referring] to.

I know and understand exactly what type of reference I shared. I know it is your MO to tell people that disagree with you that they do not understand or that they are ignorant in an attempt to derail them, but it is not going to work here.

My one reference is still one more reference than you have shared because you have shared none.

Since you seem to be claiming that the reference I shared is somehow lacking, would you mind sharing a reference that claims that our study of the ancient Americas is not continually evolving?

Or that there is not a theory about possible ancient European migration to the Americas?

The fact that Y chromosomal DNA does not bear any sort of resemblance to the Y chromosomal DNA of any known Native American groups.

What Y chromosomal DNA? From whom have the samples been taken? How many samples?

Mind sharing a source?

Not to mention there would be [significant] [archeological] evidence of a group of people going from the Middle east all the way to the Americas.

Who is to say that there isn’t?

Are you unaware of the many parallels in lore, religion, architecture and language between ancient Mesoamerica and the ancient Middle East?

So much similarity that many of those “ancient alien” theorists often try to use those same parallels to show an extraterrestrial connection between the two regions and peoples.

You are in stark contrast with the current understanding of human migration to North America.

How?

I know people came across the Siberian Land Bridge anciently. The Book of Mormon records people being in the Americas before the Lehites arrived.

It is important to always keep in mind that our current theories change as we find and understand more and more.

There is zero evidence that anyone from the Jewish tribes made it to America prior to colonization in the 15th and 16th centuries.

There is also no evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ lived, died and was Resurrected, but I still believe He did.

Only a handful of Israelites came to the Americas and they quickly assimilated into the local population.

Humor me for a moment, imagine that the events in the Book of Mormon actually took place, and then tell me what evidence you would expect to find today?

Indeed. However they still all came from [East Asia]. Zero came from Europe till the Vikings for a short while. And then never again until colonization where Africans and Europeans made the [trek]. Both of which happened a long time after natives [arrived].

Are you claiming that all Amerindians of North, Central and South America have been sampled?

If all Amerindians have been sampled, would there be any sign of this little group of Israelites if you take into account what the Book of Mormon records?

Yeah they do.

If everyone does agree that all Amerindians came from Siberia then it should be easy to share a source that makes that claim?

The article mentions they have similar tools. Not that they are [genetically] similar.

I know what the article mentions. Have all the remains of the people who made and used those tools been sampled?

Also if you read your own article that theory that mentions France is from a "radical theory" with "minimal support" with a basis in a theorized extremely ancient Solutrean people who did not have written word, advanced architecture or art. In fact little to nothing is known about these people. The only thing we have on the [Solutrean] culture is a few diamond shaped arrowheads and bone crafted fishhooks which appear to be similar in design with Native American concepts of a specific region.

Yes, I read the article.

The theories of the Earth revolving around the sun and it being round were also considered “radical” at some point and it took time for them to gain support.

The idea that those theories are radical is not enough to dismiss them and it shows that “everyone” does not agree that all Amerindians came from Siberia.

Did those who crossed the Siberian Land Bridge have a written word, advanced architecture and art?

To continue this article ONLY ever talks about people who have come to the new world EARLIER than the 15,000 year ago land bridge.[According] to both [archeological] evidence AND Jewish traditional history the Jews only first came about a little less than 4 thousand years ago. This misses the target window that is being talked about by about 12-26 thousand years.

I never claimed that this article proved the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

It only proves that "everyone” does not agree on the origins of all the Amerindians.

We have a completed human genome and sampling of every race and virtually every demographic on the planet to create an incredibly accurate and detailed genetic map of the world and its history.

Can you provide any sources that can answer all the questions I have asked and you have ignored?

Just because it disagrees with your religion doesn't make it less legitimate.

Is that what you think I am claiming?