Jenkins 28: THE MYTH OF THEREFORE (Original)

Last updated on: July 23, 2015 at 6:01 pm by William Hamblin

Jenkins 28: THE MYTH OF THEREFORE (Original) 2015-07-23T18:01:25-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Jenkins objected to me interspersing comments with his text. So here is his original, without my comments. My response can be found here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/07/23/jenkins-28-the-myth-of-therefore/

===================

A nice case study of rhetoric in action!

I love the way you frame a question, in the rich tradition of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

You asked this:

My question for Philip is: “If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic match with the BOM Nahom–and hence evidence for (though not proof of) the historicity of the BOM–what additional qualities of evidence of place, personal or ethnic names would make it acceptable?

See what happens here? You take a true statement, namely that NHM was an authentic ancient name, and then add the toxic and spurious “therefore” that accepting that fact constitutes evidence for the Book of Mormon (and a “hence” thrown in for good measure). You are trying to frame a dichotomous choice between either (a) accepting the documented reality of the ancient name (and therefore, you think, of the Book of Mormon) and (b) rejecting the name, with its well-documented and well researched evidence.

This is a bogus choice, for multiple reasons. So what about Nahom?

First, the evidence is of a place that cannot be located, and certainly not with any precision. It is a large area. It refers to a man who is the grandson of a Nihmite.

Second, and critically, it is also a modern (19th-20th century name) which could have been (and assuredly was) acquired from many maps at the time. If it was just an ancient name, you might be on to something. As it is, as usual, you have nothing.

“Therefore” the presence of the name in the ancient world proves absolutely nothing whatever concerning the Book of Mormon.

Do you find that these rhetorical games actually work with some people? Not adults, surely?

So, have you stopped inventing your Nephites?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 23, 2015

Jenkins 28: The Myth of "Therefore"

Next Post

September 8, 2015 How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the patriarch whose faith led to the near-sacrifice of his son?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaac Jacob Joseph Abraham