And here we go again. What Dr. Hamblin does here is precisely what I expected and predicted, namely to give me reasons why he cannot produce evidence to support his case, rather than actually giving me the evidence. What he is trying to do is to start a debate in which I accept his presuppositions about the lack of evidence, with the goal of losing track of the central theme: why can\u2019t he produce any evidence whatever?<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He also shoots himself in both feet with one particular line. He is trying to explain the lack of Middle East inscription evidence in Meso America, and carries on, \u201cBut the Book of Mormon deals almost entirely with the Preclassic period (c 1800 BCE -200 CE). \u00a0During that period there are perhaps a few dozen inscriptions. \u00a0No books. \u00a0The inscriptions are nearly all short, often marginally legible, fragmentary, and often can\u2019t be read because of script and language issues.\u201d Um, exactly. So if the great Book of Mormon civilization is there, why is it not producing hundreds and thousands more inscriptions, in Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian, etc? It sort of suggests that civilization isn\u2019t there, right?<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n You assuredly know the Book of Mormon better than I do, so I might be in error here, but I thought that the Book deals with the period through approximately 400 AD\/CE. \u00a0Is that wrong? Do you mean 200?<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I am reading your comment as carefully as I can, but you just misunderstand my question about falsifiability, and have not answered it.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n You write this, \u201cJenkins asks about the question of falsifiability. \u00a0I\u2019ll set aside the problem\u00a0that this is really a methodology issue for empirical experimental science, which doesn\u2019t really work with non-empirical historical questions.\u201d No, what I am asking is this: for you personally, what is the point that would make you lose faith in the case you make supporting the Book of Mormon. As I said, \u201cWhat is that potential deal-breaker for you? If you reply that no piece of external evidence could shake your belief, however overwhelming it might seem, then you are stating explicitly that your view is a matter of faith, and not of science, scholarship or history. If that is so, then there is no point in trying to argue the issue in such terms. It is purely internal to you. Just don\u2019t pretend that you have any claim in the realm of science, scholarship or history.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If that is not clear, please let me know and I will rephrase it in some other form. But this really needs to be answered. I\u2019ve told you what the deal-breakers are for myself, and I\u2019d like us to be on equal terms, please.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" And here we go again. What Dr. Hamblin does here is precisely what I expected and predicted, namely to give me reasons why he cannot produce evidence to support his case, rather than actually giving me the evidence. What he is trying to do is to start a debate in which I accept his presuppositions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1814,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n