Last week we looked at the M2C claim that the Book of Mormon authors used a Mayan calendar. I pointed out it is an illusory correspondence, like all M2C correspondences.
But actually, it's not even a correspondence at all.
The M2C "correspondences" are no more real than the black dots in this optical illusion. When you carefully examine them, they vanish.
Specifically, we looked at this M2C claim:
We have known for years that Samuel the Lamanite's four hundred year prophecies in Helaman 13:5, 9 are examples of Mesoamerican (Maya) baktun prophecies. A baktun is 20 katuns, 144,000 days or 400 years. Another clear example of a baktun prophecy is Alma 45:10. Moroni reports baktun history in Mormon 8:6. Then, to erase all doubt about the time reckoning system his culture used, Moroni ends his record by reporting one final katun history Moroni 10:1.
http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/10/5-year-prophecies.html
A reader pointed out that a "baktun" is not 400 years, contrary to the M2C scholarship. It is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 solar years. The entire premise of the "correspondence" is false.
First, there is no "correspondence" between the Book of Mormon authors' reference to 400 years and Mayan calendar terms or counts.
Second, Book of Mormon authors never prophesied about a period of 394.25 years.
But the Old Testament Hebrews did use 400 years for prophecy.
_____
Which do you think makes more sense?
On the Hebrew hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames identical to Biblical time frames involving Biblical events that Book of Mormon authors actually wrote about.
On the M2C hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames different from Mayan time frames involving Mayan events that Book of Mormon authors never wrote about.
How does anyone fall for these illusory M2C "correspondences" any longer?
_____
More fun: the term "baktun" itself was invented by scholars.
See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%27ak%27tun
_____
Understanding M2C is not a difficult, complex analysis that requires advanced degrees. It's simply a case of spot the difference.
Why is it so difficult for M2C intellectuals to spot the difference?
Because...
But actually, it's not even a correspondence at all.
The M2C "correspondences" are no more real than the black dots in this optical illusion. When you carefully examine them, they vanish.
 |
| Illusory black dots |
We have known for years that Samuel the Lamanite's four hundred year prophecies in Helaman 13:5, 9 are examples of Mesoamerican (Maya) baktun prophecies. A baktun is 20 katuns, 144,000 days or 400 years. Another clear example of a baktun prophecy is Alma 45:10. Moroni reports baktun history in Mormon 8:6. Then, to erase all doubt about the time reckoning system his culture used, Moroni ends his record by reporting one final katun history Moroni 10:1.
http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/10/5-year-prophecies.html
A reader pointed out that a "baktun" is not 400 years, contrary to the M2C scholarship. It is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 solar years. The entire premise of the "correspondence" is false.
First, there is no "correspondence" between the Book of Mormon authors' reference to 400 years and Mayan calendar terms or counts.
Second, Book of Mormon authors never prophesied about a period of 394.25 years.
But the Old Testament Hebrews did use 400 years for prophecy.
_____
Which do you think makes more sense?
On the Hebrew hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames identical to Biblical time frames involving Biblical events that Book of Mormon authors actually wrote about.
On the M2C hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames different from Mayan time frames involving Mayan events that Book of Mormon authors never wrote about.
How does anyone fall for these illusory M2C "correspondences" any longer?
_____
More fun: the term "baktun" itself was invented by scholars.
See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%27ak%27tun
_____
Understanding M2C is not a difficult, complex analysis that requires advanced degrees. It's simply a case of spot the difference.
Why is it so difficult for M2C intellectuals to spot the difference?
Because...
No comments:
Post a Comment