Christ in Ancient Americas - A Compelling Evidence of the BOM's Authenticity

[Terraceth]

No, it's a classic Gish Gallop.

Not sure about that. A Gish Gallop is to try to throw out as many arguments as possible regardless of their validity in order to prevent the opponent from responding to them all. The problem with TimothyRB's presentation of his arguments was being way too long-winded. Let's examine just the beginning of Dante's response and TimothyRB's counter-response for an example. Here was what Dante said:

False. One of the main criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the extensive amount of egregious errors found in the Book of Mormon.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/...-of-Mormon.pdf

In response to what was essentially a brief aside before Dante got into his main point, TimothyRB let off with this long-winded response:

1. Statement and response to position one - exposing the Red Herring and Special Pleading:

In the introduction paragraph:

The Book of Mormon has always been a stumbling block for many evangelical Christians. Many attempts have given over to some interesting theories of how this text came about. One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.

The response to this is:



The respondent provided a link to a paper written by Jon Gary Williams at Apologetics Press - titled THE BOOK OF MORMON: A BOOK OF MISTAKES, ERROR, AND FRAUD. It is regarding the textual criticism Evangelical Christians utilize in their attempt to diminish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Granted, this is considered one of many main criticisms launched against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is not the de facto criticism. Also, the introduction of the egregious errors argument is considered a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

Red - Herring: Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation) Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

This is common practice among those who may disagree with another person's position. By introducing another topic and argument, the attempt is made to focus more on the textual criticism argument of the Book of Mormon instead of focusing on the presenting argument itself.

Not only is that a whole lotta text to essentially say nothing more than "don't change the subject," the charge of changing the subject is nonsensical here, because Dante then followed his comment up in his post by responding to TimothyRB's main assertion. Accusing someone of changing the subject to avoid dealing with the main point only works if they didn't actually address the main point. Even if TimothyRB doesn't believe Dante successfully disputed his main point (that of similarities between a historical account and what the Book of Mormon says), the charge of changing the subject is still wrong.

One could perhaps say that Dante was unnecessarily snide with his remark, but any snideness in it was dwarfed by TimothyRB's tone in his responding post as if it was some kind of case study, e.g. referring to Dante as "the respondent" and "the individual".

I suppose it's similar to a Gish Gallop in that the result (intentionally or not) can be to make someone give up arguing out of frustration, but it's not really quantity of arguments so much as it's simply quantity of text.

[Cow Poke]

Mere assertions lacking supporting evidence relegates your statements and responses as arrogant ignorant opinion hit piece.

Actually, your gargantuan walls of text are simply mere assertions lacking supporting evidence, so....

[Littlejoe]

No, it's a classic Gish Gallop.

It might be both actually....

[Dante]

I have provided evidence to support my assertions. Again, where is your evidence to support your assertion to be researched and studied? Based on the topic under consideration? You offer none - just opinion. Opinion is not objective. Opinion is merely your own personal interpretation of what you want to accept as truth when in reality opinion is not fact or objective.

Funny you should be asserting what's objective and what's opinion. Your so-called evidence is, as I've demonstrated, flimsy and full of holes. I've provided objective facts like what the Chronicle of Peru actually says, and the things you ignored, as well as an objective comparison between the two events, such that they are obviously not the same event.

[Dante]

Response Part Two

6. Statement and response - A cherry picking we will go

Another common tactic Evangelical Christians engage in is what is known as Cherry Picking. This refers to the act of an individual:

...only select[ing] evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

This is observed by the following statement our respondent decided to address:

What is worthy to note here, as well, is the description in 3 Nephi 11 that those who remained were gathered in the "land bountiful".

In which the individual replies:



The reason this individual is not able to see what's of worth to note about the description is the failure to address the full context of a statement:

What is worthy to note here, as well, is the description in 3 Nephi 11 that those who remained were gathered in the "land bountiful". These inhabitants witnessed the coming of Christ. Parallel this event with the recording of Pedro de Ceza de Leon, we notice there is striking similarities between the two accounts.

No. There is literally nothing in Pedro's account that is related to this. You're the one cherry picking and assuming that this is mirrored in Pedro's account, but it is not.

These similarities are not contradictory. If anything, Pedro de Ceza de Leon's account is more of what we may consider a summation of what 3 Nephi 11 describes.

I've already shown where the accounts are contradictory, and it is hardly sufficient to show that the two accounts are even remotely similar beyond very, very general statements.

This information is important because if the Book of Mormon truly is a fraud, how does it come to describe, in perfect detail, a historical event that is also recorded in another source?

It doesn't.

Furthermore, how would Joseph Smith, or any other person (if he borrowed this from the Spaulding or View of the Hebrews manuscript) know about this single most important event when the Second part of the Chronicle of Peru was not translated and published until 1883 by the Haklyut Society? This is 53 years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

The two events are completely unrelated.

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be another testament of Jesus Christ. It substantiates the notion that this text is more sacred and authentic than modern Evangelical Critics claim. Whatever their claims against this set of scripture, many are unable to provide an adequate rebuttal to the evidence presented here.

I just rebutted it thoroughly.

The reason it is worthy to note is that:

• The Book of Mormon refers to Christ's initial appearance as happening in the Land of Bountiful
• Both accounts provide enough description to share similarities in the specific event itself having occurred as separate testimonies
• The similarities are not contradictory in any form - as presented here in this essay
• The importance of this information lays out the response that if the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then how is it that we have a similar account being described in another work where the similarities are quite manifested between the two?
• Pedro's account is related to him by the Inca's as an oral tradition from Ancient times and prior to the Inca's rise and habitation of the land
• The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record and sacred text of an ancient group of people inhabiting the same lands

[List][*]That the Book of Mormon describes Christ's appearance as happening in the Land of Bountiful has absolutely zero relevance to the Peruvian account. The word "Bountiful" does not even occur once in the entire Chronicle of Peru.[*]Both accounts also provide enough description to make it absolutely conclusive that the two events cannot be the same event.[*]There is no similar account being described. The similarities are forced and cherry picked.[*]So what if Pedro's account was related to him by the Incas?[*]The Book of Mormon is an amateurish fraud.

This is evidence that is objective and in need of consideration. Not mere prejudicial dismissiveness because it does not fit within one's present worldview and assumptions. Therefore, it is worthy of proper and respectful consideration.

Indeed. I have properly and respectfully considered it in as much respect as it deserves, and found the evidence to be contrary to your assertion.

The respondent utilizes the cherry picking fallacy in this manner:

These inhabitants witnessed the coming of Christ.

The reply to this - a quote further into the fifth Chapter of the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru:



There is two things to note here. First, the respondent attempts to justify their argument by going to the fifth chapter and cherry picking a particular passage as a means to justify their refutation that Christ did not in fact visit the American inhabitants. When you actually read the context of this particular passage, Pedro de Cieza de Leon provides another account that was related to him about a secondary apostle like person that appeared to the inhabitants.

The fifth chapter is in fact where you derived your original quote from. I do not see what is the problem with going into the text of the very same chapter that you cited as evidence.

Besides this, they say that, ..., so they gave him the name Viracocha, which means "the foam of the sea."

We continue reading that the inhabitants built up a temple and placed an idol of stone, very large, but in a somewhat narrow recess. And, that nor does the figure appear to have the same kind of vestments as those found in Tiahuanaco, erected in memory of Ticiviracocha. Now, when we look back at the beginning of Chapter five, we notice that the name given to the first man to appear to the inhabitants of the land is Ticiviracocha. The second man is given the name Viracocha and the idol made, and placed, is that of the second man that came to the inhabitants.

The egregious error the respondent makes is taking Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account out of context as a response to show that it could not have been Christ himself, but they made a pagan idol. The respondent fails to take into consideration of two different accounts, of two different people, and that what Pedro refers to as passing through the province in order to see the idol, it is referencing the idol of the second man Viracocha.

False. Pedro has made his thoughts on the matter very clear:
Hence I believe that, until our times, the word of the Holy Gospel was not heard. Now we see all the temples profaned, and the glorious Cross planted in all directions.

This is not contingent on how many have come before them; even if a hundred "apostles" have appeared to the Peruvians, this statement completely negates any and all of them to be Christian, let alone Christ.

Despite this, The second account says that a long time having passed, another man resembling the first ... came and there were sick, he healed them, and there were blind, and he gave them sight ... working great things.

In the Book of Mormon, we read that Christ ministered, called twelve disciples (as he did in Jerusalem) who were given the same power and authority (cf 3 Nephi 12 - 28:12). We further read that there appeared to have been a span of about 200 years before the rise of divisions and iniquity began to occur among the inhabitants (cf 4 Nephi). The second account given to Pedro may very well be a description of one of the three Nephite Disciples whom Christ promised would tarry until His second coming.

Nope. Explicitly denied by Pedro. See above.

Finally, the respondent errors in their statement:



This, again, is dismissive. What evidence lends credibility to the accounts being superficial in their similarities? The respondent has failed to present any sound and objective evidence to lend any support to the conclusion that they are not similar, and that any similarity is mere superficial.

I've already made clear where the details contradict each other. Stop cherrypicking what I've said.

7. Statement and response seven - getting to the specific point with out conclusive evidence

Establishing an objective argument to either prove, or disprove, a hypothesis requires one to look at the information available. Up to this point, we have seen the response being less objective, more fallacious, and provides no movement toward supportive conclusion that disproves the assertion as to whether or not Christ visited the America's - based on the two accounts in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru and 3 Nephi 8-11.

Fixed that for you.

Here, we have the respondent making a conclusive response as to how they perceive the accounts:



A long time without seeing the sun versus three days of darkness

In our modern language, we use various types of references concerning time. For instance, we typically say:

• A couple of minutes
• In a minute
• A couple of Hours
• Most of the day
• Part of the day
• A few hours
• A few days
• A couple of days

And, we understand the frame of reference. Yet, they are still subjective and do not give specific detail on an exact time period.

So of course it behoves you to prove that the two accounts are describing the same time frame, which you obviously can't.

Now, going without sunlight for an extended period of time may appear to be a long time in their own experience. Yet, from a more objective viewpoint, three days does not appear to be that long of a time period.

Wait. I'm sorry. What. Goodness gracious, you can't even tell the difference between objective and subjective, can you?

Let's consider a simple scientific fact. It is well-known (not proven yet) that if a person goes beyond the speed of light, time will slow down significantly. Take for instance the movie Flight of the Navigator that came out in 1986 where a young boy was abducted by an alien space craft and then returned back to the same location - only that 8 years had passed. For the young boy, he may have experienced less time than 8 years.

This has absolutely zero to do with proving that the Peruvian account and the account in the Book of Mormon are the same. This isn't a place for you to pretend to be smart.

In a more recent series, Manifest, people on a flight experience a momentary turbulence in their flight. When they land, they discovery that they had been gone for five years. And, in an episode of The Orville - Mad Idolatry the characters crash land on a planet. When they are rescued, it is found out that the planet has a unique orbit where it appears and then disappears. When it reappears within 11 days, several centuries had passed.

It's called science fiction. The same as the Book of Mormon, except there's no science in the Book of Mormon.

Within the context of the Bible, we have passages referring to a thousand years being as one day in God's time. So, to argue any specific contradictions between the time frame of the darkness, whether it was a long time or three days, we understand that a specific duration of time elapsed where there was a significant absence of light.

No.

The question of whether the difference between a long time and three hours diminishes the evidence is not the crux of the issue.

Of course it is. It is evidence that the two accounts are unrelated.

The issue is that both accounts describe the same type of event that appear to be consistently congruent within one another.

I've already pointed out how false this is. In the Peruvian account, nothing of the sort as described in the Book of Mormon happened prior to the coming of the white man, whereas various calamities apparently happened prior to the descent of "Christ" in the account according to the Book of Mormon.

As to the comment that the Peruvians would have noted it as well is a presentist argument and presentist expectation. Meaning, the respondent expects that the account being shared ought to have our modern understanding of Time and not objectively looking at how time may be perceived by those providing the oral tradition, nor those who were participants of the actual event itself. At this point, is mere speculation of what the ancient inhabitants meant by a long time. However, we look to the account and have the description that the darkness lasted three days, and therefore may seem to fit the description of a long time without the sun.

Don't pretend as if you didn't speculate that the Peruvian account of a "long time" is somehow the same as the three days of darkness mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Again, stop cherrypicking the details.

The Peruvians weren't seeking God but were offering prayers were offered up to their Gods

Again, the respondent fails to look at the actual accounts through a more reasonable and objective standard. I am not saying that there is an error in the account being described. What I am saying is we have to understand the perception of Pedro de Cieza de Leon. He was born in Spain. The Conquestadors were predominately Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism was the de facto religion of the then known world. In fact, the protestant reformation started within 1517 and became a movement by 1521. Pedro de Cieza de Leon traveled from Spain to the America's in 1535. Pedro appears to have had converted from Judiasm to Roman Catholicism.

With this understanding in mind, we want to come to understand Pedro's perception (not ours). In his perception and worldview - with that of those of that time period - anything outside of Roman Catholicism may very well be considered pagan. Much like how modern Protestant and Evangelical Christians consider religious institutions (for instance, Mormonism) as a non-Christian religion. One, will definitely expect to refer to another culture's religious heritage as cultic and pagan.

False. Evident within Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, they are willing to acknowledge heterodoxy, but if you actually read the whole account of the Chronicle of Peru, such as the beginning of chapter 4, you will see that the gods that these people worshipped were far from Christian, since they included human sacrifices. Why is it that I need to keep bringing this up as though you are completely ignorant of what the Chronicle of Peru actually says?

Regardless, this does not appear to diminish the accounts describing the same event. For instance, let us consider another significant event in human history where we see two accounts describing the same event with variant terminology.

When Rome came up against Jerusalem, Josepheus writes his record:

...

So, again, this does not diminish and show there were significant differences to the accounts. It only shows a variant understanding of the two accounts, without compromising the integrity of the evidence. Evangelical Christians, in fact, make this claim to support the variant accounts of Christ's resurrection, and the appearance of Jesus to the Apostle Paul. All three accounts, if we take the respondents position, are guilty of providing contradictory detail that diminishes the authenticity of all the accounts.

This is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the Chronicle of Peru explicitly mentioned that the people had human sacrifices. Next time, try to actually read the source material before citing it.

Causing mountains to flatten

The respondent failed to understand the context of the account provided by Pedro de Cieza de Leon. The individual appears to miss the context of both accounts. While the reader does see that the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru has the man show great power in causing the earth to undergo a geographical change, I contend that this is referring to the way the catastrophic devastation occurred in changing the landscape. This is going back to reading the destructive nature being described in 3 Nephi 8-10. More to the point, I believe that the inference of the mans "great power" to change the face of the Earth (according to the Peruvian account) reflects back to the reason behind the experience of a long time without the sun the very reason they were offering up prayers.

I understood the context completely. Just because the context doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean I'm the one who failed to understand the context. There is no catastrophe associated with the power wielded by the white man in the Chronicle of Peru. In fact, the Chronicle is very clear about this: "As soon as such power was beheld, the people called him the Maker of created things, the Prince of all things, Father of the Sun." Whereas the catastrophe described in 3 Nephi quite obviously happened prior to the descent of "Christ". Therefore, not only are the two accounts inconsistent, they are mutually exclusive.

Again, no consistent objectivity and solid evidence being offered by the respondent. Mere speculative interpretation.

You offered up more speculative interpretation of the Chronicle of Peru which I've shown to be wrong.

Difference of what is being taught in the two accounts

Again, a very thoughtful and thorough reading of the two accounts show that Pedro de Cieza de Leon's may very well be a summation, rather than a detailed account. A Summation is because what we are reading is being shared in a form of a summary. We may not know as to the reason behind the summation of the account being provided. However, when we compare the more detailed account of Christ's visit and teaching (comprising all of 3 Nephi chapters 11-28:12) we see where the accounts share insight and commonality.

No, they don't, unless you're saying Christ's teachings happened to also include human sacrifices. In fact, the word "sacrifice" appears about 80 times throughout the whole Second Chronicle of Peru.

This does not diminish the evidence. It merely shows how the two accounts were related.

Absolutely not.

And, again, we do not know how much information was being shared by the native Indians Pedro de Cieza de Leon had encountered. Therefore, we are only able to look at what the evidence says, and how it correlates quite nicely into the more detailed account of Christ's ministry, teaching, miracles, and instructions from 3 Nephi.

The accounts are sufficient to show that they have never been Christians.

8. Statement and response eight - Dismissive argumentation without substantial evidence

We encounter another dismissive statement. The respondent fails to provide any substantial and objective evidence to support there conclusion. They merely make a superficial conclusion of:



This statement, of course, is in response to:

The evidence is beyond mere circumstances and does not appear to be sharing two different events

As the apparent contradictions have adequately been addressed, we are still left with the conclusion that the two accounts are strikingly similar.

Quite obviously not.

Outside of the logical fallacies, presentist assumptions and expectations, and mere dismissal of the evidence presented - the respondent still appears to have failed in substantiating their own contention and argument against the two accounts being irreconcilable with one another.

As I've shown, the one committing all the logical fallacies and presentist assumptions and expectations is you. And of course you're right in saying that I have failed in substantiating a contention and argument against the two accounts being irreconciliable with one another, since I am arguing in favour of it; the two accounts are indeed irreconciliable with one another.

9. Statement and response nine - Joseph Smith's awareness and level of understanding

Joseph Smith is said to have had a third grade level of education. We also are aware that Joseph Smith's family were not affluent. Understanding this, and the eyewitness testimonies of how the Book of Mormon was translated, one begins to question the validity and objectivity of what Joseph Smith may have or may not have had an understanding of. In my statement, I observed the following:

...
Here, the essay establishes that there is in fact significant corroborating evidence through Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru that establishes an actual place and significant event the Book of Mormon records. The opposition, or the respondent, has failed to meet the obligation to establish any corroborating evidence that destroys the established hypothesis and premise as to the nature of the two accounts describing the same event - from different perspectives and worldviews.

Your denial of the evidence is not a rebuttal against the evidence.

Therefore, my contention is that Joseph Smith did not have any foreknowledge of such an event, nor had access to any source material regarding this event. And, coincidentally, The View to the Hebrews theory claims that Joseph Smith borrowed from Ethan Smith's work. The problem here, is that when one reads the work of Ethan Smith, one is confronted with the historicity of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. No where in the View to the Hebrews does Ethan Smith allude to a cataclysmic event as described in 3 Nephi 8-11.

And it is my contention that Joseph Smith could not have been describing the Peruvians or the Incans for the reasons I've made clear.

John Clark further remarks:

The rival hypotheses about the book’s origins implicate four knowledge worlds of diverse content and undetermined relationship: the ancient world, the nineteenth-century world, the twenty-first-century world, and the Book of Mormon world. Environmental or naturalistic explanations see the book as a hoax tethered to its nineteenth century background. Thus, all details mentioned in the book should conform to knowledge and speculations available to Joseph Smith before the book was written in 1829. Mormon explanations see the book as history and situate it in the ancient world. These opposed views will play out differently through time because knowledge of the past has increased since Joseph Smith’s day and will continue to do so. These gains in knowledge should allow us to identify the stronger hypothesis.

This is what John Clark himself said:
Now, I’m an archaeologist, and I work in Mexico where some people think that the events occurred. So a lot of Mormons ask me every week if I find any evidence. And I tell them, “No.” ... (T)he question of how to translate what the Book says in terms of real evidence that we can grab in our hands, archaeologically, is still a huge problem.

Again, this goes back to the question of what did Joseph Smith understand and know in 1829 and the translation of the Book of Mormon? Was he aware of Pedro de Cieza de Leon's work in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru? It is highly unlikely that this information was known to Joseph Smith as the translation was not available until 1883.

And that's completely irrelevant, since the two accounts are only superficially similar.

Another respondent provided this statement with a link that does not work:



In this work - The Natural and Moral History of the Indies - we find this entry in Chapter III - That the Indians have some knowledge of God:

First, although the darknesse (sic) of infidelitie (sic) holdeth those Nations in blindenesse (sic), yet in many thinges (sic) the light of truth and reason works somewhat in them. And they commonly acknowledge a supreame (sic) Lord and Author of all things, which they of Peru called Viracocha, and gave him names of great excellence, as Pachacamac, or Pachayachanchic, which is the Creator of heaven and earth: and Vsapu, which is admirable, and other like names. Him they did worship, as the chiefest of all, whom they did honour in beholding the heaven.

This isn't evidence of knowledge of God; this is simply evidence that they were theistic, but quite obviously if you don't ignore the fact that they had human sacrifices you would have understood that they are far from worshipping the same God that we do.

Comparing this to the account of Pedro de Cieza de Leon - we understand that whom they called Viracocha came a long time after the appearance of Ticiviracocha.

A completely irrelevant detail that contributes absolutely nothing to your argument.

The prevailing issue we are running into here is what Christopher Minster articulates in his entry - Viracocha and the Legendary Origins of the Inca - where he observes:

It is important to note that although the Inca did not have writing, they had a sophisticated record-keeping system. They had a whole class of individuals whose duty it was to remember oral histories, passed down from generation to generation. They also had quipus, sets of knotted strings which were remarkably accurate, especially when dealing with numbers. It was by these means that the Inca creation myth was perpetuated. After the conquest, several Spanish chroniclers wrote down the creation myths they heard. Although they represent a valuable source, the Spanish were far from impartial: they thought they were hearing dangerous heresy and judged the information accordingly. Therefore, several different versions of the Inca creation myth exist: what follows is a compilation of sorts of the major points on which the chroniclers agree.

This is evident in comparing Pedro de Cieza Leon's account of the coming of Ticiviracocha at a time when there was darkness for a significant length of time on the land, and the second oral account describing the coming of another person that was long after the first visitation.

Countless other civilisations also have accounts where the sky turned dark due to a solar eclipse. Darkness is not unique to the Chronicle of the Book of Mormon.

What is even more interesting is that Minster mentions that the variant creation myths are due in part to the variant recordings of the various conquistadors of the time. Reading Minster's article sheds some light on the nature of who these individuals may very well be: The disciples of Christ described in 3 Nephi 12. This is for another review and comparison discussion.

Hahahahaha no.

Despite this, both respondents failed to attempt to correlate Joseph Smith's understanding of the pre-Inca's and the descriptions provided in any variant texts that came from the records of the Conquistadors.

Because neither of us are attempting to do such a thing in the first place. It might as well be an endeavour to attempt to correlate Starship Troopers and 9/11, and in fact the two have even more in common than what the Chronicle of Peru has in common with the Book of Mormon.

Regardless of whether or not the information was available in general. The question is whether or not Joseph Smith had access to such information, possessed significant knowledge of, and utilized such information to formulate the descriptive detail of a cataclysmic event and the coming of Christ to the inhabitants of the region.

The question is completely irrelevant since Joseph Smith wasn't describing the same event.

10. Statement and response ten - arguing from presumptive ignorance and intellectual suicide


In responding to the following statement:

I have asked many Christian Pastors, Evangelical Christians, and Critics of Mormonism, and others, who lay claim that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon - as to how such a momentous event not only shows proof that Jesus Christ did visit the inhabitants of the ancient America's - has a recorded historic account that mirrors and summarizes the actual event itself in 3 Nephi.

The individual makes this statement:



This is an argument from a false presumption and based on ignorance. It creates a commitment to intellectual suicide. Reason is that the respondent presumes I had not read the full text of the Chronicle of Peru and then makes the conclusion that had I fully read the Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru, I would absolutely understand that the account does not describe Christ's coming to the inhabitants of the America's as a recorded historical account. Sadly, the respondent does not provide any alternative supporting evidence for their personal presumption of whether or not I have fully read it, and makes a serious egregious transgression of false assumptive conclusion that had I read the text in full, I'd most likely not draw the conclusion that the two accounts have significant similarities and mirror one another as historical accounts.

I have demonstrated your repeated ignorance of the Chronicle of Peru. I have absolutely no need to provide any evidence for whether you read the Chronicle, apart from the fact that I consistently pointed to parts where you outright ignored the details, which means you're simply cherrypicking from the Chronicle. And yes, my argument - that you would not have drawn such a foolish conclusion have you actually read the Chronicle in full, rather than simply in part - still stands.

And, when I concluded my assertion with this statement:

This challenge has been given to many people in the past 15 years since I have initially discovered the account written by Pedro de Cieza de Leon.

The respondent relies on the egregious presumption:



Again, we see the false assumption perpetuated that I had not fully read the account. In actuality, I have read the first and second part of the Chronicles of Peru on three different occasions and studied both accounts at length on two separate occasions prior to drawing my conclusion to further establishing my own doubts and questions to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Either you are lying or you are a very poor reader that somehow misses all the references to human sacrifices in the Chronicle.

In fact, it was by mere happenstance when I was studying various accounts of the destructiveness of Volcanic Eruptions that I happened upon Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account and read it. This interested me in reading the first account, and then reading the second account. This was over the past 30 some years. These two volumes were lost over the years, however, I have had accessibility to the second part and working to purchase all three parts of the four volume chronicles.

Don't you know? They're all available online for free thanks to Project Gutenberg. Here.

Additionally, we see this as being more dismissive of the respondent than actual engagement in conversation. And, therefore, it is evident that the respondent failed to take the seriousness of the evidence into proper and respectful consideration. The respondent fell prey to their own ego involvement and overconfidence effect without offering up any respectful, and supportive, objection that may be taken into consideration.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. I've addressed the so-called evidence at length that I consider them sufficiently debunked.

The lack of serious investigation, honest approach to allow for openness in discussion, and offering up potential opportunities for further learning and understanding shows more of the immaturity means by which critics of the Book of Mormon approach any significant evidence presented to them.

All this is completely meaningless in light of the fact that the evidence has already been addressed.

[TimothyRB]

I'm currently away at work so I couldn't respond to part 2, which I'll get back to when I return home from work, but the one making all the assertions lacking supporting evidence here is you. I've already shown just how flimsy and contradictory your so-called evidence is.

I have provided evidence to support my assertions. Again, where is your evidence to support your assertion to be researched and studied? Based on the topic under consideration? You offer none - just opinion. Opinion is not objective. Opinion is merely your own personal interpretation of what you want to accept as truth when in reality opinion is not fact or objective.

[Roy]

Timothy RB, that's a classic elephant hurl.

No, it's a classic Gish Gallop.

Moderated By: mossy

Roy, you aren't allowed to post here. Please take note for the future.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Roy]

One obvious problem:

And, one of the most catastrophic and devastating volcanic eruptions is that of August 1883. This is the first time that an eruption like this had a global impact.

It's not the first time.

The eruption of Thera circa 1600BC affected civilisations in Europe, Africa and China.
The eruption of Tambora in 1815 was much more powerful than Krakatoa, and caused a global "year without a summer".
The Indonesian eruption in 1257 caused issues from New Zealand to Europe.

[Dante]

Mere assertions lacking supporting evidence relegates your statements and responses as arrogant ignorant opinion hit piece. When you are able to bring actual evidence with an intellectual honest and objective approach, I will further engage in conversation. If you are willing to do nothing more than respond with cherry picking hit pieces, then there is no need to further dialogue with you.

Your choice.

I'm currently away at work so I couldn't respond to part 2, which I'll get back to when I return home from work, but the one making all the assertions lacking supporting evidence here is you. I've already shown just how flimsy and contradictory your so-called evidence is.

[Littlejoe]

Timothy RB, that's a classic elephant hurl. Pick a point or two and work it out not barrage us with massive walls of text. That's really bad form....and this is not your blog.

[TimothyRB]

Mere assertions lacking supporting evidence relegates your statements and responses as arrogant ignorant opinion hit piece. When you are able to bring actual evidence with an intellectual honest and objective approach, I will further engage in conversation. If you are willing to do nothing more than respond with cherry picking hit pieces, then there is no need to further dialogue with you.

Your choice.

[Dante]

1. Statement and response to position one - exposing the Red Herring and Special Pleading:

In the introduction paragraph:

The Book of Mormon has always been a stumbling block for many evangelical Christians. Many attempts have given over to some interesting theories of how this text came about. One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.

The response to this is:



The respondent provided a link to a paper written by Jon Gary Williams at Apologetics Press - titled THE BOOK OF MORMON: A BOOK OF MISTAKES, ERROR, AND FRAUD. It is regarding the textual criticism Evangelical Christians utilize in their attempt to diminish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Granted, this is considered one of many main criticisms launched against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is not the de facto criticism. Also, the introduction of the egregious errors argument is considered a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

Red - Herring: Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation) Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

This is common practice among those who may disagree with another person's position. By introducing another topic and argument, the attempt is made to focus more on the textual criticism argument of the Book of Mormon instead of focusing on the presenting argument itself.

False. The fact is no one cares about so-called archeological evidence for anything in the Book of Mormon so long as there are all these errors in the Book of Mormon. The appeal to so-called archeological evidence is a red herring.

A secondary logical fallacy is also imposed on the respondents statement as well: Special Pleading. In committing special pleading, the respondent appears to justify their position of the Book of Mormon being fraudulent because of egregious errors. This is the same argument many atheists and critics of the Bible utilize as there is evidences that support egregious errors within the text. In fact, this latter position is known as Textual criticism of the Bible. The special pleading occurs when many critic's point to textual errors of the various manuscripts, translations, and transcription of the Book of Mormon: Yet, fail to apply the same rules of logic and argumentation against the various manuscripts, translations, and transcriptional errors found within the Biblical Text.

False. The same rules of logic and argumentation against the various manuscripts, translations, and transcriptional errors found within the Biblical text have been applied and found to be supportive of the authenticity of the Bible. You can't make up claims like this and expect anyone to take you at your word for it.

And, those who did comment on the post - have pointed out how I have falsely claimed that the archaeological evidence argument is one of the main stumbling blocks. In the end, it is a frivolous means to engage in addressing the presenting evidence and information. Or, not having any purpose or inherit value to the conversation.

As much as it is frivolous of you to claim all the above.

2. Statement and response to position two - addressing a hasty generalization fallacy

In the introductory paragraph, a hypothesis is proposed:

However, what if there existed an actual historical recording of the most singular and significant event that brings forth a close to the criticism? Not only a recording that lends credibility to this magnificent event, it correlates geographically to a specific place.

This is a hypothesis concerning whether or not there is actual archaeological evidence and credibility to a particular event where there is a geographical location being mentioned. We understand that a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The respondent made this hasty generalized statement as an apparent point of refutation to the hypothesis:



It is considered a hasty generalization fallacy because of the presenting biased belief and presumption that there is no archaeological evidence present to confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. And, since hasty generalization deals with drawing conclusions on a small sample size, it also deals with dismissing small samples and evidences that may lead to a better grasp of additional information that is typical of similar situations. In this case, denying any potential historical record or evidence fails because it denies that there may be historical accounts that exist, yet to be found.

False. I have already provided argumentation against the so-called archeological evidence. Just because you encounter my opposition to your claim before you read my arguments doesn't mean that the conclusion is not justified. If hasty generalisation deals with drawing conclusions from a small sample size, then it can only mean you provided a small sample size, since I've actually addressed all your claims here.

When someone brings up the argument that no such evidence exists to authenticate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I remind them that some of the major archaeological evidences that have been discovered were by small and insignificant artifacts. For instance, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were a happenstance discovery by a shepherds boy when he threw a rock into a cave and heard something break. Therefore, not only is it egregiously wrong to argue from a position of silence, it is even more egregiously wrong to argue from silence when evidence is being presented that substantiates claims. Furthermore, there are still non-existent evidences when it concerns the Biblical text.

None of this is matters so long as the Book of Mormon is so egregously erroneous.

3. Statement and position three - addressing the false interpretation of the narrative

In the first parallel of the Second Part to the Chronicles of Peru and 3 Nephi 8-11, the focus was on the nature and precedent of the condition and state of existence being described in both accounts. Both accounts describe a time when there were no lights, and the inhabitants were in distress, offering up prayers.

The respondent makes a faulty conclusion that is not congruent within the context of 3 Nephi 8-11:



First, there was no mention of the darkness being the result of the solar eclipse. Second, a reading of the immediate context will preclude any conclusion that it was describing a solar eclipse:

And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.

3 Nephi 8:19 does not describe a solar eclipse where there are thunderings, lightenings, and storms, tempest and quakes. In fact, when you go back and read 3 Nephi 8:5-18, one reads the catastrophic event that took place. This event fits within the description of what happens during a catastrophic volcanic eruption. This is substantiated by several people who have observed and studied this specific text of scripture.

Why yes, thanks for noticing that the event described by the Peruvians was not congruent to the description of 3 Nephi 8-11.

Alvin K. Benson writes in his article - Geological Upheaval and Darkness in 3 Nephi 8 -10 - as to the significant detailed account:

As with all prophecies of the Lord, fulfillment of the Nephite prophecies came with total and unerring certainty. When the Master—hanging on the cross just outside Jerusalem—gave up his life, the American continent experienced great calamities. Speaking about the events recorded in 3 Nephi 8–10, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated: “No single historical event in the whole Book of Mormon account is recorded in so great detail or such extended length as the fulfillment of the signs signifying that Jesus had been lifted up upon the cross and had voluntarily laid down his life for the world” (542).


Benson further observes:

Both Zenos and Nephi prophesied that the events described in 3 Nephi 8–10 would be accompanied by fire (1 Nephi 12:4; 19:11; 2 Nephi 26:6); and indeed 3 Nephi 9:11 states that the Lord “did send down fire.” It is quite probable that this may refer to lightning accompanying volcanic activity triggered by the quaking earth (3 Nephi 8:17). Photos of erupting volcanoes, such as Mount Vesuvius in 1944 (Fodor 15) and Sakura-jima in 1987 (Kemp 40–41), show hundreds of lightning bolts in the ash clouds above those volcanoes. The friction between fine volcanic ash particles in the atmosphere is very effective in generating severe lightning without any attending rain, leaving the ground and wood very dry. It is interesting that after hours of thunderstorm activity of unprecedented fury and violent earthquakes, the Nephites’ wood was still referred to as being “exceedingly dry” (3 Nephi 8:21).

Furthermore, if volcanic eruptions lasted for several hours, as indicated in 3 Nephi 8, an enormous amount of ash would have been discharged into the atmosphere. The ash from a volcano can rise to great heights (many thousands of feet) and then spread out in the stratosphere to cover a large region with an inpenetrable cloud of dust (Goldner and Vogel 37–43; Warren and Ferguson 42). Volcanic ash, smoke, and gases, along with dust and debris rising into the air from a large earthquake, could have produced the “vapor of darkness” spoken of in 3 Nephi 8:20 and 10:13. Professor Hugh Nibley also suggests that the vapor of darkness may have resulted from volcanic activity (267). Furthermore, volcanic ash and lava can be carried up to bury cities (Berger 57–61), and Nephi records that the earth was carried up on the city Moronihah (3 Nephi 8:10) and not down, as one would expect in a landslide.

Also, in 3 Nephi 10:13, inference can be drawn that people died from suffocation from “the vapor of smoke and of darkness.” Warren and Ferguson record that when the ash from a volcanic eruption “begins to fall back toward the earth, it is accompanied by many gases, including hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, carbonic acid, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. If the ash fall is heavy, people will naturally suffocate, not only from the ash content itself but from these gases, which are lethal in large quantities” (42). In several modern cases, volcanic gases have collected in low spots after an eruption, killing people, animals, and vegetation (Montgomery 105–106; Macdonald 251–52, 257). The fate of a particular city would depend on its location relative to fault lines and volcanoes, and upon the direction of the wind carrying volcanic ash and gases. In the regions of the surviving Nephites, the concentration of volcanic gases may have been sufficient to prevent the ignition of fires but not high enough to suffocate people. Because most volcanic gases are heavier than air, they tend to hug the ground; hence, at ground level, concentrations could have been high enough to prevent ignition of the Nephites’ dry tinder. However, in the more righteous cities, lethal concentrations may not have been present a few feet above the ground allowing the more righteous to survive.

Since this detailed description of a catastrophic event appears to focus more on a geographical event, there is no room to infer that this was caused by the astronomical event of a Solar Eclipse. And, as Benson points out, this was more of a local and not a global event. Furthermore, it offers more credibility and support to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as the very description is similar across all accounts concerning major volcanic eruptions - too include three days of heavy darkness as a result of it.

One of the evidences for a volcanic eruption to cause three days of darkness is that regarding the great eruption of 1912 when Novarupta erupted in June of 1912. The events described are similar to that of 3 Nephi 8-10:

At Kodiak, 100 miles (160 km) southeast of the eruption center, the air became thick with ash and, for 60 hours, darkness was so complete that a lantern held at arm’s length could scarcely be seen. The terrified townspeople, some temporarily blinded by the sulfurous gas, crowded onto the U.S. Revenue Cutter Manning docked in Kodiak harbor, while one foot of ash (30 cm) smothered their town with three closely spaced periods of ash fall. The weight of the ash collapsed roofs in Kodiak; buildings were wrecked by ash avalanches that rushed down from nearby hill slopes; other structures burned after being struck by lightning from the ash cloud; and water became undrinkable.

And, earthquakes always come before a major Volcanic Eruption.

One of the more famous accounts of a volcanic eruption is described by Pliny the Younger. His description of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD is now known as a Plinian Eruption and is categorized as one of the most violent forms of volcanic eruption:

The largest and most violent of all the types of volcanic eruptions are Plinian eruptions. They are caused by the fragmentation of gassy magma, and are usually associated with very viscous magmas (dacite and rhyolite). They release enormous amounts of energy and create eruption columns of gas and ash that can rise up to 50 km (35 miles) high at speeds of hundreds of meters per second. Ash from an eruption column can drift or be blown hundreds or thousands of miles away from the volcano. The eruption columns are usually shaped like a mushroom (similar to a nuclear explosion) or an Italian pine tree; Pliny the Younger, a Roman historian, made the comparison while viewing the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and Plinian eruptions are named for him.

Plinian eruptions are extremely destructive, and can even obliterate the entire top of a mountain, as occurred at Mount St. Helens in 1980. They can produce falls of ash, scoria and lava bombs miles from the volcano, and pyroclastic density currents that raze forests, strip soil from bedrock and obliterate anything in their paths. These eruptions are often climactic, and a volcano with a magma chamber emptied by a large Plinian eruption may subsequently enter a period of inactivity.

And, one of the most catastrophic and devastating volcanic eruptions is that of August 1883. This is the first time that an eruption like this had a global impact.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35543[/ATTACH]
SYMONS_1888_Krakatau


This eruption caused a Tsunami, the loudest sound in recorded human history, and claimed more than 35,000 victims. The devastating explosion was heard over 3,000 miles. And, it blocked out the sun for about two days, and caused global impact on the way people seen the sunset. In fact, the famous Scream Painting by artist Munch may very well have captured this event.

That's all fine and well, but none of that ties the events in Peru with the account in the Book of Mormon. If the account of the Peruvians had followed a volcanic eruption, they would have told of all the earthquakes and lightnings, but no, they didn't, because the Peruvian account is not caused by a volcanic eruption. They would have been familiar with volcanic eruptions since there are many active volcanoes in Peru.

Now, I agree that a solar eclipse would not amount to any causation for humanity to engage in wailings, mourning's, and call to repentance. However, a major catastrophic event may very well awaken people to the reality of our very own fragile human existence and the reality that there may be a God. Then, again, the text of 3 Nephi 8-11, the catastrophic event, and the appearance of Christ to the Ancient Inhabitants solidify an actual historical event that is supported by numerous evidences.

No.

Since my essay contends that Christ appeared first to those inhabitants around Lake Titicaca, we also want to consider the additional archaeological evidence where the Lake actually has ancient ruins underwater. The BBC News Reports this:

The ruins of an ancient temple have been found by international archaeologists under Lake Titicaca, the world's highest lake.

A terrace for crops, a long road and an 800-metre (2,600 feet) long wall was also found under the waters of the lake, sited in the Andes mountains between Bolivia and Peru.

Dating back 1,000 to 1,500 years ago, the ruins are pre-Incan.

They have been attributed to the indigenous Tiwanaku or Tiahuanaco people, said Lorenzo Epis, the Italian scientist leading the Atahuallpa 2000 scientific expedition.

The holy temple measures 200m by 50m (660ft by 160ft) almost twice the size of an average football pitch.

There are some interesting speculations surrounding the Lake, the sunken temple, and the Pre-Inca's that resided in this area.

Regardless of the differing speculations, the evidence is becoming more and more corroborating of the account contained in 3 Nephi 8-11. That is, there appears to be sufficient evidence between the nature of Pedro de Ceiza de Leon's account in Chapter Five of the Second Part to the Chronicles of Peru and that of 3 Nephi 8-11, and archaeological discoveries dating back to the exact time period of this catastrophic event.

You're so focused on the account in the Book of Nephi that you're ignoring how it contradicts the Peruvian account.

4. Statement and response to position four - argument from a presentist viewpoint

One of the problems that arise in these types of discussions is our present view point and modern day expectations when it comes to historical accounts. In the response to the second part of the comparison of the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru to that of 3 Nephi 11:8-15 concerns the appearance of Christ. The respondents contention is this:



There are two separate arguments contained in this faulty statement. First, is the presentist viewpoint, and the second is the conclusion of engaging in human sacrifices. Neither account provides any information regarding human sacrifices. That is an inference the respondent provides within the context of comparing the two accounts. Therefore, there is no need to address this. What will be addressed is the first part of the response to determine whether or not the comparison of the two accounts are reflective of the same event and person of that event.

The account about human sacrifices was provided by Pedro de Cieza de Leon, if only you read further from the snippet you were so focused on.

In Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account, we read:

Things being in this state, the sun, shining very brightly, came forth from the island of Titicaca, in the great lake of the Collao, at which every one rejoiced

Things being in what state? The second part of this account refers to the first paragraph of Chapter Five regarding the nature and state of darkness and distress the inhabitants found themselves in. A state where the sun had not shown and darkness was upon them. And, we understand that darkness is the mere absence of any light.

Yet there is still nothing to tie the two accounts together.

In 3 Nephi 10:9, we have this being written, and how it correlates with the account from Pedro de Cieza de Leon, as to the sudden light that dispelled the darkness:

And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away.

Bear in mind that darkness is the absence of light. Both accounts, variant in their renderings, describe disbursement of the darkness.

Notice that significant events such as earthquakes are not present in the Peruvian account. Furthermore, the Peruvian account did not even describe the period of darkness as three days.

In Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account, we read this:

Presently afterwards, they say, that there came from a southern direction a white man of great stature, who by his aspect and presence called forth great veneration and obedience.

In 3 Nephi 11:8, we read the following:

And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

What the respondent failed to recognize is that both accounts describe a man descending and that in Pedro's account, the oral tradition being delivered is a white man whereas the account in 3 Nephi 11:8 says that Christ descended clothed in a white robe. There are logical justifications as to how these accounts are describing the same person in different tones.

Because both accounts do not describe the same thing.

First, we want to keep in mind that the oral tradition being related to Pedro de Cieza de Leon was in the native Incan language. It was translated into the Spanish language that Pedro de Cieza de Leon understood. In his prologue to the First part of the Chronicle of Peru, Pedro says this:

I SET out from Spain, where I was born and bred, at such a tender age that I was scarcely thirteen complete years old when I sailed; and I spent more than seventeen years in the Indies, many of them in the discovery and conquest of new provinces, others in new settlements, and in travelling over different countries. As I noted the many great and strange things that are to be seen in this new world of the Indies, there came upon me a strong desire to write an account of some of them, as well those which I had seen with my own eyes as those which I had heard of from persons of good repute. But when I considered my small stock of learning I put aside my desire, holding it to be a vain thing; for I remembered that it was for learned doctors to write histories, throwing light upon them by their learning and judgment, while those who are not learned would be presumptuous even if they thought of writing. I, therefore, passed some time without giving heed to my former intentions. At last the Almighty God, who can do anything, favoured me with His divine grace, and awoke in me the memory of what I had before forgotten. Taking heart, I then determined to spend some part of my life in writing history, to which resolution I was moved by the following considerations.

His work was translated from Spanish to English by Clements R. Markham and published by the HAKLUYT SOCIETY.

In such translation, some information may be lost. What we do see is that both are descriptors and very well may be referencing the observation of how Christ appeared verses the ontological descriptor of his skin color. An example would be seeing someone afar off dressed in white. Based on your perception, the person may appear to be white in color. Another example is when someone reports a criminal activity and attempts to describe a vehicle and sometimes, within the limitation of darkness, they may say it is a white vehicle due to how color is distorted. However, whether it is describing the person as being white or wearing a white robe, the accounts still hold significant similarities within each other.

Except everything that followed is contradictory.

Both accounts also describe the specific nature of Christ's visit. Again, the account we have recorded in Pedro Cieza de Leon's Second Part of his Chronicles in Peru are more of a summation; the account in 3 Nephi 8-11 expands on what Christ taught. Again, this points to more to how the accounts are more harmonious than they are at odds with one another.

This ignores all the contradictions I've pointed out.

5. Statement and response - Observation clarified and a Faulty Premise

The respondent makes an observation appears to need correcting. And, yes, there needs to be a correction to the statement. This observation concerns the following:

And, Isla del Sol is said, by Inca legends and mythology, to be the birthplace of the Sun. What we notice in Pedro de Ceza de Leon's historical account is that the Indians describe the coming of a man with great power. His brightness caused the darkness to disappear - as in how the Sun rises. Now, we know that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the west. The account here signifies that this man came from a Southern direction, from the Island of Titicaca.


The respondent makes this clear:



And, I agree with this. However, both accounts actually show that Christ came after the dissipation of the darkness and the coming of the Sun. So, while the respondent adequately pointed out an error on my part, we both made false connections. It is only after a careful examination of the context of both passages, we find that the coming of Christ is after the sun had appeared and not the causation of the sun to appear. Furthermore, it was not the solar eclipse that disappeared, it was the darkness caused by the volcanic eruption.

It remains to be proven that the Peruvian account concerns a volcanic eruption.

However, the respondent goes on to make this faulty assertion:



This is in response to my observation that we understand and know that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Pedro's account reports that the individual appearing to the inhabitants of the Pre-Inca's came from a southerly direction:

that there came from a southern direction a white man of great stature

I am merely pointing out an observation that we understand the sun to rise from the east and sets in the west. As to the nature of the direction an individual was coming from, the account we read appears to be different (as the respondent points out).

In the account of 3 Nephi 11, the inhabitants hear something and attempt to turn toward the direction of the sound. We also read that once the darkness dissipated, they looked about and then looked up toward heaven. 3 Nephi does not provide an exact direction. However, the account given in the Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru says that the man came from a southern direction with no additional information provided. It is only when we examine the context of both passages that we may confidently conclude that Christ descended from a Southernly direction when he appeared to the inhabitants.

No, we may not conclude such when there is still no evidence to tie the two accounts together.

It is much like referencing something and how another party interprets it. For example, if we say that something is on the Television, we are referring to a show. Yet, if we were to go to another country and say that something is on TV, the interpretation is quite literally taken that we are referring to something that is occupying a space on top of the TV set and not a show. Regardless, whatever direction and how this person appears, both accounts are more focused on who this individual is and what this individual taught.

Except in this case the description in both accounts are mutually exclusive.

The second part of the respondents statement refers back to an established biased assumption that is based on two faulty premises: Ego involvement and Overconfidence effect. The respondent appears to make an assertion that is based on a subjective confidence in their judgment as being more reliable than objective accuracy. Which is impacted by the fact that one's proneness toward one's own investment because of group membership & one's own emotional commitment that they’re unlikely to rethink or revise it.

This is you projecting your own problems onto me.

This act of dismissal of the evidence being presented is another common tactic utilized by some Evangelical Christians. Since they are driven by their own investment in how the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, they are not concerned with any reason to rethink their position or even attempt to revise it. This is because they have strong subjective confidence in their own judgments, and the judgments of others who collectively hold membership in a collective emotional commitment, as being more reliable and accurate than objectivity. This type of dismissive statement does not provide any credible and objective support as to how the accounts are non-supportive of one another. Again, it is because of the entrenched belief that one has already concluded the Book of Mormon to be fictitious and therefore, no amount of credible, or objective accurate information may prove otherwise.

I didn't just dismiss the evidence. I pointed out clearly where they are contradictory to the Peruvian account and where they are uncorroborated. The reverse could also be said about you being driven by your own investment in how the Book of Mormon is true and thus you are not concerned with any reason to rethink your position or even attempt to revise it. All such claims are irrelevant when it comes to evidence, which you have none.

The contention here is a concrete account of what is being shared in regards to the coming of a man that fits well within the context and description of 3 Nephi 8-11. It is this very contention that individuals, like this respondent, are not willing to give themselves over to an objective and logical reason to discuss.

False. Both accounts have been shown to be unrelated.

[TimothyRB]

Response Part Two

Response Part Two

6. Statement and response - A cherry picking we will go

Another common tactic Evangelical Christians engage in is what is known as Cherry Picking. This refers to the act of an individual:

...only select[ing] evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

This is observed by the following statement our respondent decided to address:

What is worthy to note here, as well, is the description in 3 Nephi 11 that those who remained were gathered in the "land bountiful".

In which the individual replies:

I don't see what's of worth to note about this description, since it has nothing to do with the Peruvians.

The reason this individual is not able to see what's of worth to note about the description is the failure to address the full context of a statement:

What is worthy to note here, as well, is the description in 3 Nephi 11 that those who remained were gathered in the "land bountiful". These inhabitants witnessed the coming of Christ. Parallel this event with the recording of Pedro de Ceza de Leon, we notice there is striking similarities between the two accounts. These similarities are not contradictory. If anything, Pedro de Ceza de Leon's account is more of what we may consider a summation of what 3 Nephi 11 describes.

This information is important because if the Book of Mormon truly is a fraud, how does it come to describe, in perfect detail, a historical event that is also recorded in another source? Furthermore, how would Joseph Smith, or any other person (if he borrowed this from the Spaulding or View of the Hebrews manuscript) know about this single most important event when the Second part of the Chronicle of Peru was not translated and published until 1883 by the Haklyut Society? This is 53 years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be another testament of Jesus Christ. It substantiates the notion that this text is more sacred and authentic than modern Evangelical Critics claim. Whatever their claims against this set of scripture, many are unable to provide an adequate rebuttal to the evidence presented here.

The reason it is worthy to note is that:

• The Book of Mormon refers to Christ's initial appearance as happening in the Land of Bountiful
• Both accounts provide enough description to share similarities in the specific event itself having occurred as separate testimonies
• The similarities are not contradictory in any form - as presented here in this essay
• The importance of this information lays out the response that if the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then how is it that we have a similar account being described in another work where the similarities are quite manifested between the two?
• Pedro's account is related to him by the Inca's as an oral tradition from Ancient times and prior to the Inca's rise and habitation of the land
• The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record and sacred text of an ancient group of people inhabiting the same lands

This is evidence that is objective and in need of consideration. Not mere prejudicial dismissiveness because it does not fit within one's present worldview and assumptions. Therefore, it is worthy of proper and respectful consideration.

The respondent utilizes the cherry picking fallacy in this manner:

These inhabitants witnessed the coming of Christ.

The reply to this - a quote further into the fifth Chapter of the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru:

When I passed through this province, I went to see the idol, for the Spaniards affirm that it may have been some apostle. I heard many declare that it had legends written{8} on its hands. But this is nonsense, unless my eyes were blinded, for although I looked closely I could not see anything of the kind. The hands were placed over the haunches, the arms twisted, and on the girdle were indications that the vestments were fastened with buttons. Whether this or any other was intended for one of the glorious apostles who, in the days of his preaching, had passed this way, God Almighty knows. I know not, and can only believe that if he was an apostle, he would work with the power of God in his preaching to these people, who are simple and with little guile; and there would be some vestige of his visit. Yet what we see and understand is that the Devil had very great power over these people, God permitting it, and that in these places very heathenish and vain sacrifices were offered up. Hence I believe that, until our times, the word of the Holy Gospel was not heard. Now we see all the temples profaned, and the glorious Cross planted in all directions.

There is two things to note here. First, the respondent attempts to justify their argument by going to the fifth chapter and cherry picking a particular passage as a means to justify their refutation that Christ did not in fact visit the American inhabitants. When you actually read the context of this particular passage, Pedro de Cieza de Leon provides another account that was related to him about a secondary apostle like person that appeared to the inhabitants.

Besides this, they say that, a long time having passed, they again saw another man resembling the first, whose name they do not mention; but they received it from their forefathers as very certain that wherever this personage came and there were sick, he healed them, and where there were blind he gave them sight by only uttering words. Through acts so good and useful he was much beloved by all. In this fashion, working great things by his words, he arrived at the province of the Canas, in which, near to a village which has the name of Cacha, and in which the Captain Bartolome de Terrazas holds an encomienda, the people rose against him, threatening to stone him. They saw him upon his knees, with his hands raised to heaven, as if invoking the divine favour to liberate him from the danger that threatened him. The Indians further state that presently there appeared a great fire in the heaven, which they thought to be surrounding them. Full of fear and trembling, they came to him whom they had wanted to kill, and with loud clamour besought him to be pleased to forgive them. For they knew that this punishment to threatened them because of the sin they had committed in wishing to stone the stranger. Presently, they saw that when he ordered the fire to cease, it was extinguished, so that they were themselves witnesses of what had come to pass, and the stones were consumed and burnt up in such a wise as that large blocks could be lifted in the hand, as if they were of cork. On this subject they go on to say that, leaving the place where these things happened, the man arrived on the sea coast, where, holding his mantle, he went in amongst the waves and was never more seen. And as he went, so they gave him the name Viracocha, which means "the foam of the sea."

We continue reading that the inhabitants built up a temple and placed an idol of stone, very large, but in a somewhat narrow recess. And, that nor does the figure appear to have the same kind of vestments as those found in Tiahuanaco, erected in memory of Ticiviracocha. Now, when we look back at the beginning of Chapter five, we notice that the name given to the first man to appear to the inhabitants of the land is Ticiviracocha. The second man is given the name Viracocha and the idol made, and placed, is that of the second man that came to the inhabitants.

The egregious error the respondent makes is taking Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account out of context as a response to show that it could not have been Christ himself, but they made a pagan idol. The respondent fails to take into consideration of two different accounts, of two different people, and that what Pedro refers to as passing through the province in order to see the idol, it is referencing the idol of the second man Viracocha.

Despite this, The second account says that a long time having passed, another man resembling the first ... came and there were sick, he healed them, and there were blind, and he gave them sight ... working great things.

In the Book of Mormon, we read that Christ ministered, called twelve disciples (as he did in Jerusalem) who were given the same power and authority (cf 3 Nephi 12 - 28:12). We further read that there appeared to have been a span of about 200 years before the rise of divisions and iniquity began to occur among the inhabitants (cf 4 Nephi). The second account given to Pedro may very well be a description of one of the three Nephite Disciples whom Christ promised would tarry until His second coming.

Finally, the respondent errors in their statement:

The similarities are only very superficial and they do not possess the same details at all.

This, again, is dismissive. What evidence lends credibility to the accounts being superficial in their similarities? The respondent has failed to present any sound and objective evidence to lend any support to the conclusion that they are not similar, and that any similarity is mere superficial.

7. Statement and response seven - getting to the specific point with out conclusive evidence

Establishing an objective argument to either prove, or disprove, a hypothesis requires one to look at the information available. Up to this point, we have seen the response being less objective, more fallacious, and provides no movement toward supportive conclusion that disproves the assertion as to whether or not Christ visited the America's - based on the two accounts in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru and 3 Nephi 8-11.

Here, we have the respondent making a conclusive response as to how they perceive the accounts:

Here is where the two accounts differ:

• No amount of time specified in the Peruvian account with regards to how long the darkness lasted, in contrast to the account in the Book of Mormon that specified it to be three days, accompanied by many other fantastic events that, if true, would have been noted by the Peruvians as well.
• The Peruvians weren't seeking God; the account says "great prayers and vows were offered up to their gods" meaning that they were still pagan, as can be understood if only you read the rest of the account.
• The Peruvian account does not mention anything about a bright light, and in fact mentions that the man appeared from the south, in contrast to the Mormon account that "Christ" descended from heaven.
• The Mormon account does not contain any such description of having power and authority to cause mountains to flatten. In fact, the accounts are contradictory in that the
• Peruvians said that the white man who appeared performed those great feats after he appeared to them, in contrast to all the death and destruction that supposedly transpired in the three hours during the three days of darkness in the Mormon account.
• Both accounts differ on what has been taught them by the man who appeared to them.

A long time without seeing the sun versus three days of darkness

In our modern language, we use various types of references concerning time. For instance, we typically say:

• A couple of minutes
• In a minute
• A couple of Hours
• Most of the day
• Part of the day
• A few hours
• A few days
• A couple of days

And, we understand the frame of reference. Yet, they are still subjective and do not give specific detail on an exact time period.

Now, going without sunlight for an extended period of time may appear to be a long time in their own experience. Yet, from a more objective viewpoint, three days does not appear to be that long of a time period. Let's consider a simple scientific fact. It is well-known (not proven yet) that if a person goes beyond the speed of light, time will slow down significantly. Take for instance the movie Flight of the Navigator that came out in 1986 where a young boy was abducted by an alien space craft and then returned back to the same location - only that 8 years had passed. For the young boy, he may have experienced less time than 8 years.

In a more recent series, Manifest, people on a flight experience a momentary turbulence in their flight. When they land, they discovery that they had been gone for five years. And, in an episode of The Orville - Mad Idolatry the characters crash land on a planet. When they are rescued, it is found out that the planet has a unique orbit where it appears and then disappears. When it reappears within 11 days, several centuries had passed.

Within the context of the Bible, we have passages referring to a thousand years being as one day in God's time. So, to argue any specific contradictions between the time frame of the darkness, whether it was a long time or three days, we understand that a specific duration of time elapsed where there was a significant absence of light.

The question of whether the difference between a long time and three hours diminishes the evidence is not the crux of the issue. The issue is that both accounts describe the same type of event that appear to be consistently congruent within one another.

As to the comment that the Peruvians would have noted it as well is a presentist argument and presentist expectation. Meaning, the respondent expects that the account being shared ought to have our modern understanding of Time and not objectively looking at how time may be perceived by those providing the oral tradition, nor those who were participants of the actual event itself. At this point, is mere speculation of what the ancient inhabitants meant by a long time. However, we look to the account and have the description that the darkness lasted three days, and therefore may seem to fit the description of a long time without the sun.

The Peruvians weren't seeking God but were offering prayers were offered up to their Gods

Again, the respondent fails to look at the actual accounts through a more reasonable and objective standard. I am not saying that there is an error in the account being described. What I am saying is we have to understand the perception of Pedro de Cieza de Leon. He was born in Spain. The Conquestadors were predominately Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism was the de facto religion of the then known world. In fact, the protestant reformation started within 1517 and became a movement by 1521. Pedro de Cieza de Leon traveled from Spain to the America's in 1535. Pedro appears to have had converted from Judiasm to Roman Catholicism.

With this understanding in mind, we want to come to understand Pedro's perception (not ours). In his perception and worldview - with that of those of that time period - anything outside of Roman Catholicism may very well be considered pagan. Much like how modern Protestant and Evangelical Christians consider religious institutions (for instance, Mormonism) as a non-Christian religion. One, will definitely expect to refer to another culture's religious heritage as cultic and pagan.

Regardless, this does not appear to diminish the accounts describing the same event. For instance, let us consider another significant event in human history where we see two accounts describing the same event with variant terminology.

When Rome came up against Jerusalem, Josepheus writes his record:

Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence"

And in Tacitus account of the same event:

Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world."

Both accounts record the same event. However, both accounts differ on who spoke. Josephus says a great multitude. Tacitus reports it was a superhuman voice attributed to the Gods. Yet, both accounts share striking similarities to the historical events that took place when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This is the same type of linguistic style we find in two different accounts. From one person's perspective, and worldview, it may be correlated that the inhabitants were praying to their gods. Whereas, in the account of the Book of Mormon, we have the inhabitants praying to God. More specifically, they were praying in mourning to the demise and catastrophic events that had taken place.

So, again, this does not diminish and show there were significant differences to the accounts. It only shows a variant understanding of the two accounts, without compromising the integrity of the evidence. Evangelical Christians, in fact, make this claim to support the variant accounts of Christ's resurrection, and the appearance of Jesus to the Apostle Paul. All three accounts, if we take the respondents position, are guilty of providing contradictory detail that diminishes the authenticity of all the accounts.

Causing mountains to flatten

The respondent failed to understand the context of the account provided by Pedro de Cieza de Leon. The individual appears to miss the context of both accounts. While the reader does see that the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru has the man show great power in causing the earth to undergo a geographical change, I contend that this is referring to the way the catastrophic devastation occurred in changing the landscape. This is going back to reading the destructive nature being described in 3 Nephi 8-10. More to the point, I believe that the inference of the mans "great power" to change the face of the Earth (according to the Peruvian account) reflects back to the reason behind the experience of a long time without the sun the very reason they were offering up prayers.

Again, no consistent objectivity and solid evidence being offered by the respondent. Mere speculative interpretation.

Difference of what is being taught in the two accounts

Again, a very thoughtful and thorough reading of the two accounts show that Pedro de Cieza de Leon's may very well be a summation, rather than a detailed account. A Summation is because what we are reading is being shared in a form of a summary. We may not know as to the reason behind the summation of the account being provided. However, when we compare the more detailed account of Christ's visit and teaching (comprising all of 3 Nephi chapters 11-28:12) we see where the accounts share insight and commonality.

This does not diminish the evidence. It merely shows how the two accounts were related. And, again, we do not know how much information was being shared by the native Indians Pedro de Cieza de Leon had encountered. Therefore, we are only able to look at what the evidence says, and how it correlates quite nicely into the more detailed account of Christ's ministry, teaching, miracles, and instructions from 3 Nephi.

8. Statement and response eight - Dismissive argumentation without substantial evidence

We encounter another dismissive statement. The respondent fails to provide any substantial and objective evidence to support there conclusion. They merely make a superficial conclusion of:

The evidence proves that the two accounts are irreconcilable.

This statement, of course, is in response to:

The evidence is beyond mere circumstances and does not appear to be sharing two different events

As the apparent contradictions have adequately been addressed, we are still left with the conclusion that the two accounts are strikingly similar. Outside of the logical fallacies, presentist assumptions and expectations, and mere dismissal of the evidence presented - the respondent still appears to have failed in substantiating their own contention and argument against the two accounts being irreconcilable with one another.

9. Statement and response nine - Joseph Smith's awareness and level of understanding

Joseph Smith is said to have had a third grade level of education. We also are aware that Joseph Smith's family were not affluent. Understanding this, and the eyewitness testimonies of how the Book of Mormon was translated, one begins to question the validity and objectivity of what Joseph Smith may have or may not have had an understanding of. In my statement, I observed the following:

This information is important because if the Book of Mormon truly is a fraud, how does it come to describe, in perfect detail, a historical event that is also recorded in another source? Furthermore, how would Joseph Smith, or any other person (if he borrowed this from the Spaulding or View of the Hebrews manuscript) know about this single most important event when the Second part of the Chronicle of Peru was not translated and published until 1883 by the Haklyut Society? This is 53 years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

In response to this, our respondent makes this statement:

Just because it was yet to be fully translated during his time doesn't mean he couldn't have heard of the parts that were translated from someone who is familiar with the source. Furthermore, as we have seen, the two accounts contain significant differences, such that the similarities are insignificant.

The question being posited here is: Did Joseph Smith have awareness and knowledge of such a descriptive event prior to his translation of the Book of Mormon?

For the sake of argument: Let us test this assumption to see if it is accurate.

John Clark makes this observation in his work - Archaeological Trends and the Book of Mormon Origins - by saying:

... what Joseph Smith knew and understood about the book ought to be research questions rather than presumptions. Thanks in large part to his critics, it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.

Clark also observes that Joseph Smith had speculations of a more limited geographical area (now known as the Mesoamerican Model for the Book of Mormon):

The book speaks specifically only of a limited land about the size of Pennsylvania. In 1842, after reading about ancient cities in Central America, Joseph speculated that Book of Mormon lands were located there

This places Joseph Smith's understanding of a geographical location 14 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. Clark further contends that there are two lessons he takes away from this:

First, Joseph did not know exactly where Book of Mormon lands were; second, he considered their location an important question addressable through scholarship. The book makes hundreds of claims about ancient peoples in the Americas. It has always been clear to people on both sides of the controversy that antiquities could be, and should be, used to corroborate or destroy the book’s pedigree.

Clark's latter observation: It has always been clear to people on both sides of the controversy that antiquities could be, and should be, used to corroborate or destroy the book's pedigree. I take this to mean exactly as it is stated.

Here, the essay establishes that there is in fact significant corroborating evidence through Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru that establishes an actual place and significant event the Book of Mormon records. The opposition, or the respondent, has failed to meet the obligation to establish any corroborating evidence that destroys the established hypothesis and premise as to the nature of the two accounts describing the same event - from different perspectives and worldviews.

Therefore, my contention is that Joseph Smith did not have any foreknowledge of such an event, nor had access to any source material regarding this event. And, coincidentally, The View to the Hebrews theory claims that Joseph Smith borrowed from Ethan Smith's work. The problem here, is that when one reads the work of Ethan Smith, one is confronted with the historicity of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. No where in the View to the Hebrews does Ethan Smith allude to a cataclysmic event as described in 3 Nephi 8-11.

John Clark further remarks:

The rival hypotheses about the book’s origins implicate four knowledge worlds of diverse content and undetermined relationship: the ancient world, the nineteenth-century world, the twenty-first-century world, and the Book of Mormon world. Environmental or naturalistic explanations see the book as a hoax tethered to its nineteenth century background. Thus, all details mentioned in the book should conform to knowledge and speculations available to Joseph Smith before the book was written in 1829. Mormon explanations see the book as history and situate it in the ancient world. These opposed views will play out differently through time because knowledge of the past has increased since Joseph Smith’s day and will continue to do so. These gains in knowledge should allow us to identify the stronger hypothesis.

Again, this goes back to the question of what did Joseph Smith understand and know in 1829 and the translation of the Book of Mormon? Was he aware of Pedro de Cieza de Leon's work in the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru? It is highly unlikely that this information was known to Joseph Smith as the translation was not available until 1883.

Another respondent provided this statement with a link that does not work:

The Natural and Moral History of the Indies, the classic work of New World history originally published by José de Acosta in 1590 The published story of Viracocha long pre-dates the BOM. and it makes quite an interesting read.

In this work - The Natural and Moral History of the Indies - we find this entry in Chapter III - That the Indians have some knowledge of God:

First, although the darknesse (sic) of infidelitie (sic) holdeth those Nations in blindenesse (sic), yet in many thinges (sic) the light of truth and reason works somewhat in them. And they commonly acknowledge a supreame (sic) Lord and Author of all things, which they of Peru called Viracocha, and gave him names of great excellence, as Pachacamac, or Pachayachanchic, which is the Creator of heaven and earth: and Vsapu, which is admirable, and other like names. Him they did worship, as the chiefest of all, whom they did honour in beholding the heaven.

Comparing this to the account of Pedro de Cieza de Leon - we understand that whom they called Viracocha came a long time after the appearance of Ticiviracocha.

The prevailing issue we are running into here is what Christopher Minster articulates in his entry - Viracocha and the Legendary Origins of the Inca - where he observes:

It is important to note that although the Inca did not have writing, they had a sophisticated record-keeping system. They had a whole class of individuals whose duty it was to remember oral histories, passed down from generation to generation. They also had quipus, sets of knotted strings which were remarkably accurate, especially when dealing with numbers. It was by these means that the Inca creation myth was perpetuated. After the conquest, several Spanish chroniclers wrote down the creation myths they heard. Although they represent a valuable source, the Spanish were far from impartial: they thought they were hearing dangerous heresy and judged the information accordingly. Therefore, several different versions of the Inca creation myth exist: what follows is a compilation of sorts of the major points on which the chroniclers agree.

This is evident in comparing Pedro de Cieza Leon's account of the coming of Ticiviracocha at a time when there was darkness for a significant length of time on the land, and the second oral account describing the coming of another person that was long after the first visitation.

What is even more interesting is that Minster mentions that the variant creation myths are due in part to the variant recordings of the various conquistadors of the time. Reading Minster's article sheds some light on the nature of who these individuals may very well be: The disciples of Christ described in 3 Nephi 12. This is for another review and comparison discussion.

Despite this, both respondents failed to attempt to correlate Joseph Smith's understanding of the pre-Inca's and the descriptions provided in any variant texts that came from the records of the Conquistadors. Regardless of whether or not the information was available in general. The question is whether or not Joseph Smith had access to such information, possessed significant knowledge of, and utilized such information to formulate the descriptive detail of a cataclysmic event and the coming of Christ to the inhabitants of the region.

10. Statement and response ten - arguing from presumptive ignorance and intellectual suicide


In responding to the following statement:

I have asked many Christian Pastors, Evangelical Christians, and Critics of Mormonism, and others, who lay claim that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon - as to how such a momentous event not only shows proof that Jesus Christ did visit the inhabitants of the ancient America's - has a recorded historic account that mirrors and summarizes the actual event itself in 3 Nephi.

The individual makes this statement:

Reading the full text of the Chronicle of Peru, you would know that this is absolutely not the case.

This is an argument from a false presumption and based on ignorance. It creates a commitment to intellectual suicide. Reason is that the respondent presumes I had not read the full text of the Chronicle of Peru and then makes the conclusion that had I fully read the Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru, I would absolutely understand that the account does not describe Christ's coming to the inhabitants of the America's as a recorded historical account. Sadly, the respondent does not provide any alternative supporting evidence for their personal presumption of whether or not I have fully read it, and makes a serious egregious transgression of false assumptive conclusion that had I read the text in full, I'd most likely not draw the conclusion that the two accounts have significant similarities and mirror one another as historical accounts.

And, when I concluded my assertion with this statement:

This challenge has been given to many people in the past 15 years since I have initially discovered the account written by Pedro de Cieza de Leon.

The respondent relies on the egregious presumption:

Did you even read the whole account by Pedro de Cieza de Leon? Quite obviously not.

Again, we see the false assumption perpetuated that I had not fully read the account. In actuality, I have read the first and second part of the Chronicles of Peru on three different occasions and studied both accounts at length on two separate occasions prior to drawing my conclusion to further establishing my own doubts and questions to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

In fact, it was by mere happenstance when I was studying various accounts of the destructiveness of Volcanic Eruptions that I happened upon Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account and read it. This interested me in reading the first account, and then reading the second account. This was over the past 30 some years. These two volumes were lost over the years, however, I have had accessibility to the second part and working to purchase all three parts of the four volume chronicles.

Additionally, we see this as being more dismissive of the respondent than actual engagement in conversation. And, therefore, it is evident that the respondent failed to take the seriousness of the evidence into proper and respectful consideration. The respondent fell prey to their own ego involvement and overconfidence effect without offering up any respectful, and supportive, objection that may be taken into consideration.

The lack of serious investigation, honest approach to allow for openness in discussion, and offering up potential opportunities for further learning and understanding shows more of the immaturity means by which critics of the Book of Mormon approach any significant evidence presented to them.

[TimothyRB]

Response Part One

1. Statement and response to position one - exposing the Red Herring and Special Pleading:

In the introduction paragraph:

The Book of Mormon has always been a stumbling block for many evangelical Christians. Many attempts have given over to some interesting theories of how this text came about. One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.

The response to this is:

False. One of the main criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the extensive amount of egregious errors found in the Book of Mormon.

The respondent provided a link to a paper written by Jon Gary Williams at Apologetics Press - titled THE BOOK OF MORMON: A BOOK OF MISTAKES, ERROR, AND FRAUD. It is regarding the textual criticism Evangelical Christians utilize in their attempt to diminish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Granted, this is considered one of many main criticisms launched against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is not the de facto criticism. Also, the introduction of the egregious errors argument is considered a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

Red - Herring: Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation) Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

This is common practice among those who may disagree with another person's position. By introducing another topic and argument, the attempt is made to focus more on the textual criticism argument of the Book of Mormon instead of focusing on the presenting argument itself.

A secondary logical fallacy is also imposed on the respondents statement as well: Special Pleading. In committing special pleading, the respondent appears to justify their position of the Book of Mormon being fraudulent because of egregious errors. This is the same argument many atheists and critics of the Bible utilize as there is evidences that support egregious errors within the text. In fact, this latter position is known as Textual criticism of the Bible. The special pleading occurs when many critic's point to textual errors of the various manuscripts, translations, and transcription of the Book of Mormon: Yet, fail to apply the same rules of logic and argumentation against the various manuscripts, translations, and transcriptional errors found within the Biblical Text.

And, those who did comment on the post - have pointed out how I have falsely claimed that the archaeological evidence argument is one of the main stumbling blocks. In the end, it is a frivolous means to engage in addressing the presenting evidence and information. Or, not having any purpose or inherit value to the conversation.

2. Statement and response to position two - addressing a hasty generalization fallacy

In the introductory paragraph, a hypothesis is proposed:

However, what if there existed an actual historical recording of the most singular and significant event that brings forth a close to the criticism? Not only a recording that lends credibility to this magnificent event, it correlates geographically to a specific place.

This is a hypothesis concerning whether or not there is actual archaeological evidence and credibility to a particular event where there is a geographical location being mentioned. We understand that a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The respondent made this hasty generalized statement as an apparent point of refutation to the hypothesis:

No such historical record exists.

It is considered a hasty generalization fallacy because of the presenting biased belief and presumption that there is no archaeological evidence present to confirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. And, since hasty generalization deals with drawing conclusions on a small sample size, it also deals with dismissing small samples and evidences that may lead to a better grasp of additional information that is typical of similar situations. In this case, denying any potential historical record or evidence fails because it denies that there may be historical accounts that exist, yet to be found.

When someone brings up the argument that no such evidence exists to authenticate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I remind them that some of the major archaeological evidences that have been discovered were by small and insignificant artifacts. For instance, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were a happenstance discovery by a shepherds boy when he threw a rock into a cave and heard something break. Therefore, not only is it egregiously wrong to argue from a position of silence, it is even more egregiously wrong to argue from silence when evidence is being presented that substantiates claims. Furthermore, there are still non-existent evidences when it concerns the Biblical text.

3. Statement and position three - addressing the false interpretation of the narrative

In the first parallel of the Second Part to the Chronicles of Peru and 3 Nephi 8-11, the focus was on the nature and precedent of the condition and state of existence being described in both accounts. Both accounts describe a time when there were no lights, and the inhabitants were in distress, offering up prayers.

The respondent makes a faulty conclusion that is not congruent within the context of 3 Nephi 8-11:

A solar eclipse followed by repentance isn't a unique event at all. It has happened during the Eclipse of Thales, where a battle was stopped because the soldiers perceived it to be the wrath of the gods against them, and so they made peace. Furthermore, the duration of the darkness wasn't even specified by the Peruvians; it could be less than a day for all it matters, since an eclipse lasting more than 7 minutes is already highly unusual even for modern times.

First, there was no mention of the darkness being the result of the solar eclipse. Second, a reading of the immediate context will preclude any conclusion that it was describing a solar eclipse:

And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.

3 Nephi 8:19 does not describe a solar eclipse where there are thunderings, lightenings, and storms, tempest and quakes. In fact, when you go back and read 3 Nephi 8:5-18, one reads the catastrophic event that took place. This event fits within the description of what happens during a catastrophic volcanic eruption. This is substantiated by several people who have observed and studied this specific text of scripture.

Alvin K. Benson writes in his article - Geological Upheaval and Darkness in 3 Nephi 8 -10 - as to the significant detailed account:

As with all prophecies of the Lord, fulfillment of the Nephite prophecies came with total and unerring certainty. When the Master—hanging on the cross just outside Jerusalem—gave up his life, the American continent experienced great calamities. Speaking about the events recorded in 3 Nephi 8–10, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated: “No single historical event in the whole Book of Mormon account is recorded in so great detail or such extended length as the fulfillment of the signs signifying that Jesus had been lifted up upon the cross and had voluntarily laid down his life for the world” (542).


Benson further observes:

Both Zenos and Nephi prophesied that the events described in 3 Nephi 8–10 would be accompanied by fire (1 Nephi 12:4; 19:11; 2 Nephi 26:6); and indeed 3 Nephi 9:11 states that the Lord “did send down fire.” It is quite probable that this may refer to lightning accompanying volcanic activity triggered by the quaking earth (3 Nephi 8:17). Photos of erupting volcanoes, such as Mount Vesuvius in 1944 (Fodor 15) and Sakura-jima in 1987 (Kemp 40–41), show hundreds of lightning bolts in the ash clouds above those volcanoes. The friction between fine volcanic ash particles in the atmosphere is very effective in generating severe lightning without any attending rain, leaving the ground and wood very dry. It is interesting that after hours of thunderstorm activity of unprecedented fury and violent earthquakes, the Nephites’ wood was still referred to as being “exceedingly dry” (3 Nephi 8:21).

Furthermore, if volcanic eruptions lasted for several hours, as indicated in 3 Nephi 8, an enormous amount of ash would have been discharged into the atmosphere. The ash from a volcano can rise to great heights (many thousands of feet) and then spread out in the stratosphere to cover a large region with an inpenetrable cloud of dust (Goldner and Vogel 37–43; Warren and Ferguson 42). Volcanic ash, smoke, and gases, along with dust and debris rising into the air from a large earthquake, could have produced the “vapor of darkness” spoken of in 3 Nephi 8:20 and 10:13. Professor Hugh Nibley also suggests that the vapor of darkness may have resulted from volcanic activity (267). Furthermore, volcanic ash and lava can be carried up to bury cities (Berger 57–61), and Nephi records that the earth was carried up on the city Moronihah (3 Nephi 8:10) and not down, as one would expect in a landslide.

Also, in 3 Nephi 10:13, inference can be drawn that people died from suffocation from “the vapor of smoke and of darkness.” Warren and Ferguson record that when the ash from a volcanic eruption “begins to fall back toward the earth, it is accompanied by many gases, including hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, carbonic acid, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. If the ash fall is heavy, people will naturally suffocate, not only from the ash content itself but from these gases, which are lethal in large quantities” (42). In several modern cases, volcanic gases have collected in low spots after an eruption, killing people, animals, and vegetation (Montgomery 105–106; Macdonald 251–52, 257). The fate of a particular city would depend on its location relative to fault lines and volcanoes, and upon the direction of the wind carrying volcanic ash and gases. In the regions of the surviving Nephites, the concentration of volcanic gases may have been sufficient to prevent the ignition of fires but not high enough to suffocate people. Because most volcanic gases are heavier than air, they tend to hug the ground; hence, at ground level, concentrations could have been high enough to prevent ignition of the Nephites’ dry tinder. However, in the more righteous cities, lethal concentrations may not have been present a few feet above the ground allowing the more righteous to survive.

Since this detailed description of a catastrophic event appears to focus more on a geographical event, there is no room to infer that this was caused by the astronomical event of a Solar Eclipse. And, as Benson points out, this was more of a local and not a global event. Furthermore, it offers more credibility and support to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as the very description is similar across all accounts concerning major volcanic eruptions - too include three days of heavy darkness as a result of it.

One of the evidences for a volcanic eruption to cause three days of darkness is that regarding the great eruption of 1912 when Novarupta erupted in June of 1912. The events described are similar to that of 3 Nephi 8-10:

At Kodiak, 100 miles (160 km) southeast of the eruption center, the air became thick with ash and, for 60 hours, darkness was so complete that a lantern held at arm’s length could scarcely be seen. The terrified townspeople, some temporarily blinded by the sulfurous gas, crowded onto the U.S. Revenue Cutter Manning docked in Kodiak harbor, while one foot of ash (30 cm) smothered their town with three closely spaced periods of ash fall. The weight of the ash collapsed roofs in Kodiak; buildings were wrecked by ash avalanches that rushed down from nearby hill slopes; other structures burned after being struck by lightning from the ash cloud; and water became undrinkable.

And, earthquakes always come before a major Volcanic Eruption.

One of the more famous accounts of a volcanic eruption is described by Pliny the Younger. His description of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD is now known as a Plinian Eruption and is categorized as one of the most violent forms of volcanic eruption:

The largest and most violent of all the types of volcanic eruptions are Plinian eruptions. They are caused by the fragmentation of gassy magma, and are usually associated with very viscous magmas (dacite and rhyolite). They release enormous amounts of energy and create eruption columns of gas and ash that can rise up to 50 km (35 miles) high at speeds of hundreds of meters per second. Ash from an eruption column can drift or be blown hundreds or thousands of miles away from the volcano. The eruption columns are usually shaped like a mushroom (similar to a nuclear explosion) or an Italian pine tree; Pliny the Younger, a Roman historian, made the comparison while viewing the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and Plinian eruptions are named for him.

Plinian eruptions are extremely destructive, and can even obliterate the entire top of a mountain, as occurred at Mount St. Helens in 1980. They can produce falls of ash, scoria and lava bombs miles from the volcano, and pyroclastic density currents that raze forests, strip soil from bedrock and obliterate anything in their paths. These eruptions are often climactic, and a volcano with a magma chamber emptied by a large Plinian eruption may subsequently enter a period of inactivity.

And, one of the most catastrophic and devastating volcanic eruptions is that of August 1883. This is the first time that an eruption like this had a global impact.

https___blogs-images.forbes.com_davidbressan_files_2016_08_SYMONS_1888_Krakatau.jpg
SYMONS_1888_Krakatau


This eruption caused a Tsunami, the loudest sound in recorded human history, and claimed more than 35,000 victims. The devastating explosion was heard over 3,000 miles. And, it blocked out the sun for about two days, and caused global impact on the way people seen the sunset. In fact, the famous Scream Painting by artist Munch may very well have captured this event.

Now, I agree that a solar eclipse would not amount to any causation for humanity to engage in wailings, mourning's, and call to repentance. However, a major catastrophic event may very well awaken people to the reality of our very own fragile human existence and the reality that there may be a God. Then, again, the text of 3 Nephi 8-11, the catastrophic event, and the appearance of Christ to the Ancient Inhabitants solidify an actual historical event that is supported by numerous evidences.

Since my essay contends that Christ appeared first to those inhabitants around Lake Titicaca, we also want to consider the additional archaeological evidence where the Lake actually has ancient ruins underwater. The BBC News Reports this:

The ruins of an ancient temple have been found by international archaeologists under Lake Titicaca, the world's highest lake.

A terrace for crops, a long road and an 800-metre (2,600 feet) long wall was also found under the waters of the lake, sited in the Andes mountains between Bolivia and Peru.

Dating back 1,000 to 1,500 years ago, the ruins are pre-Incan.

They have been attributed to the indigenous Tiwanaku or Tiahuanaco people, said Lorenzo Epis, the Italian scientist leading the Atahuallpa 2000 scientific expedition.

The holy temple measures 200m by 50m (660ft by 160ft) almost twice the size of an average football pitch.

There are some interesting speculations surrounding the Lake, the sunken temple, and the Pre-Inca's that resided in this area.

Regardless of the differing speculations, the evidence is becoming more and more corroborating of the account contained in 3 Nephi 8-11. That is, there appears to be sufficient evidence between the nature of Pedro de Ceiza de Leon's account in Chapter Five of the Second Part to the Chronicles of Peru and that of 3 Nephi 8-11, and archaeological discoveries dating back to the exact time period of this catastrophic event.


4. Statement and response to position four - argument from a presentist viewpoint

One of the problems that arise in these types of discussions is our present view point and modern day expectations when it comes to historical accounts. In the response to the second part of the comparison of the Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru to that of 3 Nephi 11:8-15 concerns the appearance of Christ. The respondents contention is this:

The parts that you bolded are not reflected in the Chronicle of Peru. One would think that if Christ had indeed appeared to them, they would not have had human sacrifices.

There are two separate arguments contained in this faulty statement. First, is the presentist viewpoint, and the second is the conclusion of engaging in human sacrifices. Neither account provides any information regarding human sacrifices. That is an inference the respondent provides within the context of comparing the two accounts. Therefore, there is no need to address this. What will be addressed is the first part of the response to determine whether or not the comparison of the two accounts are reflective of the same event and person of that event.

In Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account, we read:

Things being in this state, the sun, shining very brightly, came forth from the island of Titicaca, in the great lake of the Collao, at which every one rejoiced

Things being in what state? The second part of this account refers to the first paragraph of Chapter Five regarding the nature and state of darkness and distress the inhabitants found themselves in. A state where the sun had not shown and darkness was upon them. And, we understand that darkness is the mere absence of any light.

In 3 Nephi 10:9, we have this being written, and how it correlates with the account from Pedro de Cieza de Leon, as to the sudden light that dispelled the darkness:

And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away.

Bear in mind that darkness is the absence of light. Both accounts, variant in their renderings, describe disbursement of the darkness.

In Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account, we read this:

Presently afterwards, they say, that there came from a southern direction a white man of great stature, who by his aspect and presence called forth great veneration and obedience.

In 3 Nephi 11:8, we read the following:

And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

What the respondent failed to recognize is that both accounts describe a man descending and that in Pedro's account, the oral tradition being delivered is a white man whereas the account in 3 Nephi 11:8 says that Christ descended clothed in a white robe. There are logical justifications as to how these accounts are describing the same person in different tones. First, we want to keep in mind that the oral tradition being related to Pedro de Cieza de Leon was in the native Incan language. It was translated into the Spanish language that Pedro de Cieza de Leon understood. In his prologue to the First part of the Chronicle of Peru, Pedro says this:

I SET out from Spain, where I was born and bred, at such a tender age that I was scarcely thirteen complete years old when I sailed; and I spent more than seventeen years in the Indies, many of them in the discovery and conquest of new provinces, others in new settlements, and in travelling over different countries. As I noted the many great and strange things that are to be seen in this new world of the Indies, there came upon me a strong desire to write an account of some of them, as well those which I had seen with my own eyes as those which I had heard of from persons of good repute. But when I considered my small stock of learning I put aside my desire, holding it to be a vain thing; for I remembered that it was for learned doctors to write histories, throwing light upon them by their learning and judgment, while those who are not learned would be presumptuous even if they thought of writing. I, therefore, passed some time without giving heed to my former intentions. At last the Almighty God, who can do anything, favoured me with His divine grace, and awoke in me the memory of what I had before forgotten. Taking heart, I then determined to spend some part of my life in writing history, to which resolution I was moved by the following considerations.

His work was translated from Spanish to English by Clements R. Markham and published by the HAKLUYT SOCIETY.

In such translation, some information may be lost. What we do see is that both are descriptors and very well may be referencing the observation of how Christ appeared verses the ontological descriptor of his skin color. An example would be seeing someone afar off dressed in white. Based on your perception, the person may appear to be white in color. Another example is when someone reports a criminal activity and attempts to describe a vehicle and sometimes, within the limitation of darkness, they may say it is a white vehicle due to how color is distorted. However, whether it is describing the person as being white or wearing a white robe, the accounts still hold significant similarities within each other.

Both accounts also describe the specific nature of Christ's visit. Again, the account we have recorded in Pedro Cieza de Leon's Second Part of his Chronicles in Peru are more of a summation; the account in 3 Nephi 8-11 expands on what Christ taught. Again, this points to more to how the accounts are more harmonious than they are at odds with one another.

5. Statement and response - Observation clarified and a Faulty Premise

The respondent makes an observation appears to need correcting. And, yes, there needs to be a correction to the statement. This observation concerns the following:

And, Isla del Sol is said, by Inca legends and mythology, to be the birthplace of the Sun. What we notice in Pedro de Ceza de Leon's historical account is that the Indians describe the coming of a man with great power. His brightness caused the darkness to disappear - as in how the Sun rises. Now, we know that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the west. The account here signifies that this man came from a Southern direction, from the Island of Titicaca.


The respondent makes this clear:

The Peruvian account has them saying that the white man came after the sun had appeared, not that the white man caused the eclipse to go away.

And, I agree with this. However, both accounts actually show that Christ came after the dissipation of the darkness and the coming of the Sun. So, while the respondent adequately pointed out an error on my part, we both made false connections. It is only after a careful examination of the context of both passages, we find that the coming of Christ is after the sun had appeared and not the causation of the sun to appear. Furthermore, it was not the solar eclipse that disappeared, it was the darkness caused by the volcanic eruption.

However, the respondent goes on to make this faulty assertion:

Per the Peruvian account, the white man has nothing to do with the rising of the sun. Plus, the account in the Book of Mormon has "Christ" descending from heaven, and not the south.

This is in response to my observation that we understand and know that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Pedro's account reports that the individual appearing to the inhabitants of the Pre-Inca's came from a southerly direction:

that there came from a southern direction a white man of great stature

I am merely pointing out an observation that we understand the sun to rise from the east and sets in the west. As to the nature of the direction an individual was coming from, the account we read appears to be different (as the respondent points out).

In the account of 3 Nephi 11, the inhabitants hear something and attempt to turn toward the direction of the sound. We also read that once the darkness dissipated, they looked about and then looked up toward heaven. 3 Nephi does not provide an exact direction. However, the account given in the Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru says that the man came from a southern direction with no additional information provided. It is only when we examine the context of both passages that we may confidently conclude that Christ descended from a Southernly direction when he appeared to the inhabitants.

It is much like referencing something and how another party interprets it. For example, if we say that something is on the Television, we are referring to a show. Yet, if we were to go to another country and say that something is on TV, the interpretation is quite literally taken that we are referring to something that is occupying a space on top of the TV set and not a show. Regardless, whatever direction and how this person appears, both accounts are more focused on who this individual is and what this individual taught.

The second part of the respondents statement refers back to an established biased assumption that is based on two faulty premises: Ego involvement and Overconfidence effect. The respondent appears to make an assertion that is based on a subjective confidence in their judgment as being more reliable than objective accuracy. Which is impacted by the fact that one's proneness toward one's own investment because of group membership & one's own emotional commitment that they’re unlikely to rethink or revise it.

Because his account has absolutely nothing to do with the fictional account in the Book of Mormon.

This act of dismissal of the evidence being presented is another common tactic utilized by some Evangelical Christians. Since they are driven by their own investment in how the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, they are not concerned with any reason to rethink their position or even attempt to revise it. This is because they have strong subjective confidence in their own judgments, and the judgments of others who collectively hold membership in a collective emotional commitment, as being more reliable and accurate than objectivity. This type of dismissive statement does not provide any credible and objective support as to how the accounts are non-supportive of one another. Again, it is because of the entrenched belief that one has already concluded the Book of Mormon to be fictitious and therefore, no amount of credible, or objective accurate information may prove otherwise.

The contention here is a concrete account of what is being shared in regards to the coming of a man that fits well within the context and description of 3 Nephi 8-11. It is this very contention that individuals, like this respondent, are not willing to give themselves over to an objective and logical reason to discuss.

[ke7ejx]

He's been on several times since the response went up, and has posted in defense of his honor elsewhere. Apparently he's still working on a response here.

You mean the one where I'm so horribly mean to him?