Worship[ edit ] The main temple to Enki was called E-abzu, meaning " abzu temple" also E-en-gur-a, meaning "house of the subterranean waters"a ziggurat temple surrounded by Euphratean marshlands near the ancient Persian Gulf coastline at Eridu. It was the first temple known to have been built in Southern Iraq. Four separate excavations at the site of Eridu have demonstrated the existence of a shrine dating back to the earliest Ubaid periodmore than 6, years ago. Over the following 4, years, the temple was expanded 18 times, until it was abandoned during the Persian period.
Oaks, Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Critics' Arguments Latter-day Saints are repeatedly encouraged to rely on a witness of the spirit i. Holy Ghost to personally authenticate the truthfulness of the origins and content of the Book of Mormon.
Given constant encouragement from general and local leaders of reliance on supernatural manifestations a testimony over testable claims, it is not surprising that many faithful Latter-Day Saints seem unfazed by empirical evidence or the lack of it contradicting Book of Mormon claims, whether the research is conducted by Mormon or non-Mormon archaeologists and historians.
Of even greater concern is that many faithful LDS members, by virtue of the admonition of their leaders mentioned aboveare not even aware of the perplexing problems contained in the Book of Mormon text.
As a result, they are usually unable to effectively dialogue with critics without resorting to faith-based claims in a testimony which carry no authoritative weight for the many dedicated experts in the fields of archaeology, history, linguistics, genetics, etc.
This page details some problems that arise by accepting the Church-sanctioned teachings of the origin and content of the BOM as well as responses to those problems from the LDS Church, apologists and devout members.
Anachronisms An anachronism is when writing contains something from a future time period which couldn't realistically be in the time period they've written it into.
Count the clock," with Cassius replying, "The clock has stricken three. Shakespeare took something familiar to him, a clock that strikes the hours, and placed it in his story before such clocks existed. Because the play is fictional, it is seen as simply an error on Shakespeare's part. If, however, someone were to claim that they had found an ancient writing from 44 BC that had the play written on it, it would clearly be seen as a forgery because of the clock anachronism.
If the play "Julius Caesar" were purported to be a historical document, originally written in Latin in 44 BC and translated by someone in the 's, claiming that God gave them the translation of that document, would that one clock anachronism be enough for you to disbelieve that it was truly from 44 BC or a translation from God?
If it would require more than one anachronism for you to disbelieve, how many such anachronisms would be needed for you to realize the writing was not what it claimed to be? For many apologists, if something is possible, no matter how implausible, that is enough to assuage their concerns.
For critics, the idea is not what is possible, but what is probable.
What is the probability of a reference to a clock that strikes hours realistically appearing in a document from 44 BC? A "Julius Caesar" apologist would believe so much in the historicity of the "Julius Caesar" document that she would try any method possible to wave away the clock anachronism.
The critic would try to prove the clock was an anachronism, thereby proving its fraudulent provenance. The apologist may say that what the original document was referring to was simply a sundial, but the person translating it knew that it was some sort of timepiece and chose a timepiece they were familiar with, a clock.
The critic would point out that the phrase "count the clock" and the word "stricken" clearly refer to clocks that make noise and that in the particular scene in "Julius Caesar" it was 3: So, although the apologist's explanation seemed to make sense, on further examination it crumbles.
The apologist cannot leave it there, she must do whatever twisting and turning it takes to maintain her belief in the "truthfulness" of the document and its translation. This will lead to ever more absurd explanations and possibly outright lies to protect her belief about the historicity of the document at all costs.
Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon present a problem for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's statements that a the gold plates existed and b they contained a historical account from the time period it claims. It might be easy to brush off an anachronism or two, but how many anachronisms need to be found in the Book of Mormon for someone to say that the book was not what Joseph claimed it to be?
Both critics and apologists understand that for each verifiable anachronistic item appearing in the Book of Mormon the odds increase significantly that the book's origins and content are not what they are claimed to be.
Not only does an increase in the frequency of anachronisms increase the probability that a work is not historically accurate, but the nature in which the anachronistic word is used can do so as well.
In the clock example above, if "clock" were mentioned alone, it would be easier to pass off as some sort of translation error. But when the idea within which the anachronistic word is embedded relies on a specific meaning for that word, such as the idea that the clock must "strike" and be used at night, then the probability of it being an actual anachronism instead of just a simple mistake increases.
When one looks at the frequency and context of Book of Mormon anachronisms "horses" in the BOM are often found coupled with either "chariots" or "cattle," both of which are also anachronismsit's hard to imagine any other origin than it being the product of the mind s of a 19th century author s.
Most critical thinkers believe the simplest, most logical answer is probably the correct one based on the idea of Occam's Razor. This is not to say that some answers and reasons can't be more complex, but when the preponderance of reasons and answers explaining a theory are complex, it might be time to give up trying to support that theory.
Besides simply chronological anachronisms, the Book of Mormon contains items that might not be simply out of time, but they are geographically out of place for the time period the Book of Mormon covers.
The Church teaches that the first inhabitants of the Americas were the Jaredites, arriving in the New World and beginning their historical records "approximately B.
This means that anything mentioned in the Book of Mormon takes place from approximately BC to approximately AD. An example of something in the correct time period for parts of the world, but out of place for the Americas is steel.
The same is true for many animals, such as horses, elephants, goats, donkeys, etc. Below are some of the contradictory and often anachronistic items in the Book of Mormon text.Yes - Atlantic C (Very Good / Great) Best song: Looking Around In the beginning.
Yes started out as a conversation between Anderson and self-taught bassist Chris Squire at a bar where Anderson was essentially the janitor. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. Introduction This article is about red and near-infrared light therapy for healing recent injuries and a few other possible things like fibromyalgia pain, dementia, retinal injuries, and wrinkles.
In The Sun Also Rises, we can look to Paris and Spain as the two most important settings in the novel. In Paris, the depiction of the life there presents debauchery, vagueness of purpose, and a Describe the scenes on the train.
Oct 11, · In the book, The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, each character followed either the roles of bull or steer. Specially Robert Cohn and Mike, they are two opposite characters which represented the contrast between a bull and a steer.
First, go to The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy and read the entry "FUTURE HISTORY". The read the TV Trope's Standard Sci-Fi History (you might also want to read the TV Trope's Standard Sci-Fi tranceformingnlp.comyed, formulaic, derivative, and space opera; but very common).
Also check out this website's historical timeline of (mostly) real world events.. The 's flavored future history below is.