Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

volgadon

A Sobering Quote on Biblical Archaeology

Recommended Posts

Although not the only area where conventional understanding flies in the face of a straightforward reading of the text, there is something particularly challenging about squaring the geographic identification of places mentioned in the Bible with what the text tells us about these places. More difficult than place names proper is pinpointing the location of events when the coordinates given by the text are obscure or missing.

Between the Lines of the Bible.

Chapter 12: Contemporary Assumptions and Geographic Enlightment.

Yitzchak Etshalom.

Share this post


Link to post

They may not know where 'everything' is geographically located in the bible, but they know a lot of geographical locations.

There is speculation where Bountiful may be in the BoM, but until they can 'reasonably' find a location (here is Zarahemla sign) this will always be an issue for non-members.

Share this post


Link to post

They may not know where 'everything' is geographically located in the bible, but they know a lot of geographical locations.

There is speculation where Bountiful may be in the BoM, but until they can 'reasonably' find a location (here is Zarahemla sign) this will always be an issue for non-members.

And yet many Bibilical sites have been established on far less. How is that fair and/or objective?

Share this post


Link to post

And yet many Bibilical sites have been established on far less. How is that fair and/or objective?

Sites in the middle east, Africa, Asia, etc., have the plausibility factor that the individuals of that time 'could' travel to these areas.

It takes A LOT more faith that the individuals of that time could make such a journey to the Americas. IMO, it takes less to establish some of the geographical sites in the bible than it does for the BoM. Is that fair - not really. IMO, it's an outlandish claim that LDS members have the faith to believe. Reasonable non-members need some evidence to accept. Geographical support is one way to achieve this IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

Sites in the middle east, Africa, Asia, etc., have the plausibility factor that the individuals of that time 'could' travel to these areas.

It takes A LOT more faith that the individuals of that time could make such a journey to the Americas. IMO, it takes less to establish some of the geographical sites in the bible than it does for the BoM. Is that fair - not really. IMO, it's an outlandish claim that LDS members have the faith to believe. Reasonable non-members need some evidence to accept. Geographical support is one way to achieve this IMO.

I dunno about that. The Jericho problem makes the Book of Joshua problematic. And, therefore, much more a matter of faith.

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno about that. The Jericho problem makes the Book of Joshua problematic. And, therefore, much more a matter of faith.

Or how about when the Bible gets facts flat wrong? Such as the King Nibonidus issue?

Share this post


Link to post
There is speculation where Bountiful may be in the BoM, but until they can 'reasonably' find a location (here is Zarahemla sign) this will always be an issue for non-members.

"An issue", perhaps, but it is illogical in the extreme.

If there is a "Bountiful", there is a "Zarahemla". No other reasonable alternative exists.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

"An issue", perhaps, but it is illogical in the extreme.

If there is a "Bountiful", there is a "Zarahemla". No other reasonable alternative exists.

Lehi

With the thought that Bountiful is likely in middle east and Zarahemla is somewhere in the Americas.........I've always understood why it's selling point for the LDS faithful. As a non-member I'll keep the option open that Bountiful 'may' be a possible answer but I'm not sold there has to be a Zarahemla.

All stories should have a reasonable believable beginning. That doesn't mean everyone should jump to the same ending (Zarahemla) IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
With the thought that Bountiful is likely in middle east and Zarahemla is somewhere in the Americas.........I've always understood why it's selling point for the LDS faithful. As a non-member I'll keep the option open that Bountiful 'may' be a possible answer but I'm not sold there has to be a Zarahemla.

All stories should have a reasonable believable beginning. That doesn't mean everyone should jump to the same ending (Zarahemla) IMO.

Not even when they come from the same source?

Share this post


Link to post

all good stories should have a good beginning........it's whether or not we are still believing by the time we get to the end.

Share this post


Link to post

Heres a good example for us to use as a test for objectivity... The recently announced Joseph in Egypt Coins that I posted about Here.

Christians (such as the many gullable hook-line-and-sinker types on CARM) will look at the evidence and feel vindicated because it could show that Joseph In the Bible was a real Person.

Likewise...

Some Mormons might look at the evidence and feel vindicated because it could show that Joseph In the Bible and in the BOM was a real Person.

But when one takes into account that...

The Koran actually claims Joseph set up a bartter system for Pharoahs wheet using coins as trade commodities...

One can just see the politicing involved to deny and or substantiate the claim!

Share this post


Link to post
all good stories should have a good beginning........it's whether or not we are still believing by the time we get to the end.

Human nature being what it is, you don't find jealousy and hate motivations of real people who won't stop until the object of that jealousy and hate is destroyed utterly?

USU "Thinking about Gaza" 78

Share this post


Link to post

all good stories should have a good beginning........it's whether or not we are still believing by the time we get to the end.

This of course is objective in and of itself. Was the story written as fiction/fantasy or a legitimate history?

One must also ask if said people have every really read their Bible and all the magicall happenings contained there in.

Such as floating ax heads. Talking Donkeys. Gulivers Travels and the like.

Some of us can still believe even after such tall tales.

Share this post


Link to post

Human nature being what it is, you don't find jealousy and hate motivations of real people who won't stop until the object of that jealousy and hate is destroyed utterly?

USU "Thinking about Gaza" 78

I must admit that I do enjoy correcting misconceptions about my own faith in this regard.

This of course is objective in and of itself. Was the story written as fiction/fantasy or a legitimate history?

This is the reason the BoM story is still an open ended question for me. While I'm open-minded about the possible explanation of Bountiful, reason hasn't caught up to accept the possibility of Zarahemla. So at this point, it is fiction/fantasy but I've left the door open (for my wife's sake) that it may be legitimate history.

Share this post


Link to post
More difficult than place names proper is pinpointing the location of events when the coordinates given by the text are obscure or missing.

This is the big one for the BoM.

We have very little in the way of geographical information, because the Nephite redactors had a different goal in mind then the scribes of royal courts. The Bible contains a lot more on geography, because that geography was tid up with politics. Who owned what, that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Or how about when the Bible gets facts flat wrong? Such as the King Nibonidus issue?

Actually, I read something on that issue from Adventist scholars a few years back - which proved the critics were being too hasty.

Share this post


Link to post

To me, archeological correlation has always been a false prop for faith...and an apple and oranges comparison when it comes to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I love both books, hold them to be true scripture, and accept both on the basis of faith...not proof.

You could have 10,000 identifiable locations from the Bible...and still prove nothing more than the fact that the Bible can be traced back in time to the supernatural stories it tells. If we found the actual location of...oh...lets...say...the actual identifable grave of King David...it would not prove any of the supernatural claims in the Bible about it to be true. It would not prove the Bible to be true.

On the other hand, if you found the actual, real Nephi's temple and were able to verify that it was a Jewish-style temple named for a fellow called Nephi...you would have just proven the Boof of Mormon to be true.

Six

Share this post


Link to post

To me, archeological correlation has always been a false prop for faith...and an apple and oranges comparison when it comes to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I love both books, hold them to be true scripture, and accept both on the basis of faith...not proof.

You could have 10,000 identifiable locations from the Bible...and still prove nothing more than the fact that the Bible can be traced back in time to the supernatural stories it tells. If we found the actual location of...oh...lets...say...the actual identifable grave of King David...it would not prove any of the supernatural claims in the Bible about it to be true. It would not prove the Bible to be true.

On the other hand, if you found the actual, real Nephi's temple and were able to verify that it was a Jewish-style temple named for a fellow called Nephi...you would have just proven the Boof of Mormon to be true.

Six

Thus the fact that the BoM should be approached with faith and then strengthened with reason. You can't really do it the other way around IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Thus the fact that the BoM should be approached with faith and then strengthened with reason. You can't really do it the other way around IMO.

Which is all very interesting since many (Most it seems) traditional Christian Bible believers depend on human-created/found evidence as the basis for believing in the Bible for themselves...and how they prove the Bible to others.

Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula.

Six

Share this post


Link to post

Which is all very interesting since many (Most it seems) traditional Christian Bible believers depend on human-created/found evidence as the basis for believing in the Bible for themselves...and how they prove the Bible to others.

How ridiculous. Over 50% of Christians depend on human-created evidence as the basis for believing in the Bible? CFR
Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula.
CFR. Or stop spiking your egg-nog.

Share this post


Link to post

Which is all very interesting since many (Most it seems) traditional Christian Bible believers depend on human-created/found evidence as the basis for believing in the Bible for themselves...and how they prove the Bible to others.

After Hussein was overthrown during the time the local Christians were being persecuted, I found it interesting when I saw a bishop from Iraq and he actually could speak the language spoken by Jesus. You add the fact that it's reasonable to associate parts of the Bible to the location of Baghdad, it all simply builds upon your belief in the bible through both reason and geography.

Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula.

Six

The BoM doesn't have the privelege of geographical confirmation as the Bible. It can only be approached with faith first and then reason.

With the bible, it can be approached from both reason (geographical) and faith.

But the important thing is that everyone's belief in Jesus can only be approached with faith that he died as was resurrected. No one is going to be shown any physical evidence to support our Christian belief.

Share this post


Link to post

Thus the fact that the BoM should be approached with faith and then strengthened with reason. You can't really do it the other way around IMO.

I would say the same thing goes for the Bible.

"The Just shall live be faith"

and all.

Share this post


Link to post

CFR. Or stop spiking your egg-nog.

Try this post from a "Christian" on CARM.

NHisImage:

You're missing the point - there is no evidence and God never tells us to have blind faith as Mormons do. (Nothing that you've given me has actually been any proof positive evidence and you know it. You have to have blind faith to believe it.) Having blind faith is a "cognitive dissonance thing" and it's a Mormon/cult virus.

I had to respond to the poster thusly...

Aaaa... No my dear...Im sorry to have to Inform you of this... but it is you who is missing the point... the very definition of Faith in the Bible is "Blindness"

Heb 11

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Otherwise it is not Faith at all, but "Perfect Faith" or as Paul puts it "Perfect Knowledge".

Share this post


Link to post

Try this post from a "Christian" on CARM.

I had to respond to the poster thusly...

I don't know what CARM is but I was responding to Bsix's statement:

"Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula."

I challenge that statement. If you believe the statement is true then provide a basis for your belief.

Share this post


Link to post
I found it interesting when I saw a bishop from Iraq and he actually could speak the language spoken by Jesus.

Correction, a language related to the one spoken by Jesus. Hey, I can speak one of the BoM languages, if we want to play that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...