Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

Recommended Posts

The Book of Mormon, like any ancient book, cannot be proven.

 

Then you have no business calling it "ancient."  

Share this post


Link to post

The evidence you are talking about are no more evidence for the bible than finding a broom is evidence of Harry Potter. We have no proof that any of the events occurred. All we have is a book that is very old, but that is not news. The age of the book is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the stories. You can way we know King David is mentioned in other books, but that does not mean the King David described in the bible ever existed. There is no evidence for any of the new testament. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the primary texts. The dates do not match up with the historical record, and none of the people mentioned can be confirmed. Despite this, the critics here fully accept it as scripture.

As a critic I guess, I'll gladly say that there are a lot of problems with the Bible as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Then you have no business calling it "ancient."

That's a good point.

Share this post


Link to post

The arguments really need the background information. My book The Gift and Power covers the types and when they are used. I think that a functional translation is the default--that is, it is the one that should be assumed unless there is evidence for a different type and a logical explanation for why it occurs. For example, I look at what I think is the reason that names were pretty tightly controlled, yet curelom and cumom are left untranslated.

I can see where someone translating is aware of a word in their own language that they think is a fitting or close replacement for the word they're reading, so they use that word from their language.  But then in other cases, the original word is too curious or unique, and they opt to just keep that word and let it be (e.g., curelom and cumom).  Is that the kind of thing you mean, Brant?

Share this post


Link to post

How do you know what the Nephites called steel? Or obsidian? or meteoric iron? How do you they even had different names? Redwood, teak, doug fir are all called wood.

I have already posted quotes which show that the Nephites might have had steel making technology, but they have been ignored

Share this post


Link to post

If the BOM is not historical then it implies that the person or persons responsible for the publication of the book were knowingly deceptive.  The book makes extraordinary claims about our world and, specifically, the actions of people and cultures in the New World.  The book is rife with a myriad of incongruities, inconsistencies, and implausibilities - and I'm not talking about the spiritual claims contained therein.

You seem to not understand that the Bible has even more problems than the BOM.

Talking donkeys?

Living in a whale?

Parting a sea?

No evidence that the exodus even happened?

6 day creation?

Talking snakes?

That's just the beginning of biblical "historic claims"

Was whoever wrote that "knowingly deceptive"?

Every point you make applies several times over to the Bible. I don't know how you could believe that without a testimony, which you deny is possible.

Share this post


Link to post

You seem to not understand that the Bible has even more problems than the BOM.

Talking donkeys?

Living in a whale?

Parting a sea?

No evidence that the exodus even happened?

6 day creation?

Talking snakes?

That's just the beginning of biblical "historic claims"

Was whoever wrote that "knowingly deceptive"?

Every point you make applies several times over to the Bible. I don't know how you could believe that without a testimony, which you deny is possible.

The Bible is filled with stories, and many are parables.

Share this post


Link to post

The Bible is filled with stories, and many are parables.

And?

Share this post


Link to post

And?

For instance, those on your list.

Share this post


Link to post

The arguments really need the background information. My book The Gift and Power covers the types and when they are used. I think that a functional translation is the default--that is, it is the one that should be assumed unless there is evidence for a different type and a logical explanation for why it occurs. For example, I look at what I think is the reason that names were pretty tightly controlled, yet curelom and cumom are left untranslated.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

Then you have no business calling it "ancient."  

There you go throwing insults again but failing to address the challenges to your position. This is the game you play over and over again. You rush in posturing and pretending but you consistently fail to address any of the responses to your claims. 

Share this post


Link to post

The Bible is filled with stories, and many are parables.

Well that is convenient isn't it. the bible is the word of God and where ever there is a problem, we will just call it a parable and move on. The problem is, the bible is a religious text that embraces the supernatural. If you reject the supernatural, you must reject the bible. 

Share this post


Link to post

The evidence you are talking about are no more evidence for the bible than finding a broom is evidence of Harry Potter. We have no proof that any of the events occurred. All we have is a book that is very old, but that is not news. The age of the book is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the stories. You can way we know King David is mentioned in other books, but that does not mean the King David described in the bible ever existed. There is no evidence for any of the new testament. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the primary texts. The dates do not match up with the historical record, and none of the people mentioned can be confirmed. Despite this, the critics here fully accept it as scripture. 

I think that the Biblical description of a tunnel dug during Hezekiah's reign, and then an archaeological discovery of where the tunnel was supposed to be located along with radiocarbon dating is pretty strong evidence for that particular account in the Bible, and is a lot different than saying that just because a Harry Potter book describes a tunnel the Harry Potter book must be correct.   You're really going against a massive weight of authority to say the Bible has no archaeological evidence, unless you are redefining the concept of evidence.  Sure, there's lots of things in the Bible with no evidence, but that doesn't explain away the huge amount of evidence.  

 

For further reference, there's the very early references to Jesus in Josephus.  (I tend to discount that evidence, but it is "evidence").   

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwqwwwwwwwwq                                            YU

 

 

OOPS sorry that was my cat posting.

Edited by rodheadlee

Share this post


Link to post

You seem to not understand that the Bible has even more problems than the BOM.

 

 

One unique Book of Mormon problem is that there is zero verification of the people and places described in the book (despite the claims of those who claim the book as a religious text).  Scholars don't seem particularly shy about dealing with the "problems" of the Bible, because so much is known about the world and culture of the Bible.

 

Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now know what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how they built their cities, and with whom they traded. Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered. Modern excavation methods and a wide range of laboratory tests have been used to date and analyze the civilizations of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors the Philistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. In a few cases, inscriptions and signet seals have been discovered that can be directly connected with individuals mentioned in the biblical text. But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. - Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman - The Bible Unearthed

 

The claims made by the Book of Mormon, as to the culture, people, language, metallurgy, crops, animals, geography, etc., are devoid of any verification.  Ignorance may be bliss, but don't pass it off as knowledge.  Please.

Share this post


Link to post

One unique Book of Mormon problem is that there is zero verification of the people and places described in the book (despite the claims of those who claim the book as a religious text).  Scholars don't seem particularly shy about dealing with the "problems" of the Bible, because so much is known about the world and culture of the Bible.

 

Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now know what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how they built their cities, and with whom they traded. Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered. Modern excavation methods and a wide range of laboratory tests have been used to date and analyze the civilizations of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors the Philistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. In a few cases, inscriptions and signet seals have been discovered that can be directly connected with individuals mentioned in the biblical text. But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. - Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman - The Bible Unearthed

The claims made by the Book of Mormon, as to the culture, people, language, metallurgy, crops, animals, geography, etc., are devoid of any verification.  Ignorance may be bliss, but don't pass it off as knowledge.  Please.
Zero verification? You have watched Journey of Faith, right? And you know about Mulek and the seal with his name. And read Sorenson and watched the FAIR Presentations by

Gardner and Poulson on very specific geographic corrolations? And look at the SEHA essay on the two cylinder seals with symbols that resemble those on the Anthon transcript? What we have may not persuade you, but when you say "zero" and list a wide range of topics on which a lot of work has been done, and you don't bother to recognize what has been done, it's an open question as to whose ignorance is on display.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Share this post


Link to post

Ignorance may be bliss, but don't pass it off as knowledge.  Please.

 

Whether you accept it or reject it the info is there.   Your "Ignorance may be bliss, but don't pass it off as knowledge.  Please."

 

Share this post


Link to post

You are doing it again Gervin, making claims but refusing to acknowledge any of our responses. 

Share this post


Link to post

One unique Book of Mormon problem is that there is zero verification of the people and places described in the book (despite the claims of those who claim the book as a religious text).  Scholars don't seem particularly shy about dealing with the "problems" of the Bible, because so much is known about the world and culture of the Bible.

 

Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now know what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how they built their cities, and with whom they traded. Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered. Modern excavation methods and a wide range of laboratory tests have been used to date and analyze the civilizations of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors the Philistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. In a few cases, inscriptions and signet seals have been discovered that can be directly connected with individuals mentioned in the biblical text. But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. - Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman - The Bible Unearthed

 

The claims made by the Book of Mormon, as to the culture, people, language, metallurgy, crops, animals, geography, etc., are devoid of any verification.  Ignorance may be bliss, but don't pass it off as knowledge.  Please.

Have you ever met a person who introduces himself and then has a nice discussion with you and then 15 minutes later re-introduces himself with the same words and tells all the same stories all over again?

 

You remind me of Yogi Berra, a great wit and baseball player.   With you it's deja vu all over again.

 

It's always the same arguments and the same refutations.  You disappear for a while and start all over again ignoring all other comments but your own little speech.

 

Then you sit down, and a week later it's the same speech again.

 

Oh well.  Have a good life.  No need to interact anymore, you have nothing to say that we have not heard anyway, again and again.  Maybe if you get some new material, we can resume, but til then, as we say in Mormondom, adieu.

Share this post


Link to post

Gervin:

 

Barley has been found in ancient new world

SEE

I really like Mike's stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Have you ever met a person who introduces himself and then has a nice discussion with you and then 15 minutes later re-introduces himself with the same words and tells all the same stories all over again?

 

I thought you were describing yourself, to be followed by a Rorty Youtube posting. 

 

You remind me of Yogi Berra, a great wit and baseball player.   With you it's deja vu all over again.

I'll take that as a compliment - Hall of Fame, MVP for 3 seasons, and one of the best catchers of all time.  Considering the crap I catch from people on this board, it's apt.  Thanks!!

 

It's always the same arguments and the same refutations.  You disappear for a while and start all over again ignoring all other comments but your own little speech.

I'm glad to answer comments that have a modicum of reasonableness or thought behind them.  To be chided for not considering a 1970 essay on the Anthon Caracters as verifiable evidence of the Book of Mormon honestly doesn't merit any kind of response.  Mike Ash reading a script on New World barley, same.  So, I'll counter that believers in the BoM drag out the same old (in some cases, very old) faith-promoting arguments with little or no critical acumen.  I get it: spiritual belief in the BoM is the first requirement for belief in historicity.  If I'm redundant, it's likely based on the hope of an adherent using some perspective, especially as it relates to historicity.  You don't qualify so your self-censorship is timely.

 

Then you sit down, and a week later it's the same speech again.

 

At 2000 posts over 10 years I'm hardly here on a weekly basis.  I have a life.  It's not like I've got over twenty three thousand posts in 78 months or something :)

 

Oh well.  Have a good life.  No need to interact anymore,

Great!  I hope you start today.

Share this post


Link to post

You remind me of Yogi Berra, a great wit and baseball player.   With you it's deja vu all over again.

 

 

I think you misspelled that.  Isn't is spelled Yogi Bear?

Share this post


Link to post

I think you misspelled that.  Isn't is spelled Yogi Bear?

And that reminds me of my old girlfriend Shirley Ujest.

Share this post


Link to post

Did Dan Peterson just tacitly acknowledge that there's no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628607/Much-left-to-discover-between-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html

Peterson effectively seems to be saying that the so-called critics are right, there is no archaeological evidence. But it's not because there's none to be found, it's just because we haven't looked in the right place yet.

 

I would point you to the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences...."

 

That book is FULL of meat on the ground evidences from all the history and sciences fully verifying 1st Nephi.

Over and over again bullseyes, in the right time, place, order, directions, etc. according to the BOM record.

 

It's all right there for anyone to see for themselves.  The first and only to the point hard science validating work of the BOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...