Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

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

Recommended Posts

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, ..................  ..........................................................................................................   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.  

...........................................................................  

Yes, that tunnel is described in the OT, but the truly spectacular find was the long inscription inside that tunnel -- the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, more or less contemporary with the digging of that tunnel.

 

However, most people commenting on the archeological evidence for biblical events are referring to secular historical events, not miracles.

Share this post


Link to post

................................................................   

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.

......................................................  

Even though you have been informed of accurate and up to date information along all those lines, you ignore it and dredge up the same old tired and hackneyed comments on the Book of Mormon, perhaps because that does not require any effort on your part.  The result is tantamount to the blood libels continuously thrown at the Jews.  That they are lies does not at all matter to the polemicists.  They continue their blasphemies despite real evidence to the contrary.  So it is with the anti-Mormon crowd and their straw men.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Which brings me back to the OP. If there's so much conclusive and clear evidence why does Peterson fill is column with "we haven't found it yet" excuses?

Share this post


Link to post

Which brings me back to the OP. If there's so much conclusive and clear evidence why does Peterson fill is column with "we haven't found it yet" excuses?

 

Because evidence is never conclusive. What it is just evidence. The conclusions are up to each of us. IE; We have pretty good evidence that Yeshua bar Yosef was a real person. Whether you conclude that he is Jesus the Christ is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post

Which brings me back to the OP. If there's so much conclusive and clear evidence why does Peterson fill is column with "we haven't found it yet" excuses?

Further to thesometimesaint's comments, archaeology just does not work this way. We have explained this point to you over and over again so I am not sure if there is any value in repeating it, but what we find is pots and pans. We do not find stories. If I give you a book that takes place somewhere in the Americas and it mentions cows and pigs, as well has high mountains, does finding cows and pigs in Colorado prove the book true? 

 

What you have to consider is that the book fits so perfectly in the central america region and was produced at a time when virtually nothing was known of this region. Consider the science behind the formation of the universe. Science says we should find certain things, and when these things are discovered it confirms the predictions. It does not prove it, and we find many Christians rejecting the science despite the evidence because it goes against their belief of a young earth. This is ironic because they use this same science to try to prove the book of mormon false. They argue that mormons need absolute proof that the book of mormon is true before it should be considered, but they can believe in a god that goes against all the laws of physics. 

 

I provided a list of evidences earlier that was ignored. Go back to my list and explain why these findings are of no value. 

Share this post


Link to post

What if it actually doesn't exist and they never find it?

 

Well, at least they're still looking:

 

http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/feature.php?id=29

 

I have some friends that just got back from Nauvoo and they were shown around the dig site by Wayne May.

 

But I'm sure this dig isn't reputable in some way and anything that might be found will be dismissed by critics for one reason or another.  I'm no expert on archaeology so these people might be controversial, frauds, or on a wild goose chase, but it does my heart good to know people are still looking.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that tunnel is described in the OT, but the truly spectacular find was the long inscription inside that tunnel -- the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, more or less contemporary with the digging of that tunnel.

 

However, most people commenting on the archeological evidence for biblical events are referring to secular historical events, not miracles.

I do know know of many experts who argue that the bible is not very very old. Because it is very old, these types of finds are no different in my opinion than finding a broom or a castle to prove Harry Potter. You do not find any non-christian archaeologists racing to get baptized by these types of finds because they do not prove anything in the bible. They just conform that some of the references in the bible refer to real events. We have no proof of Abraham, of David's divine call, of Elijah or of Daniel in the lions den. If we find evidence of a guy named Daniel in Iraq, this does nothing to prove his story is true, It only proves that whoever wrote the story based it on a real person. 

 

If absolute proof is discovered that Jesus was a real person, and if we find primary sources that confirm some of the miracles mentioned in the bible, we will find that the non-Christians will be unimpressed because all this would show is that he was a real guy and that people of his time genuinely believed that he could perform miracles. I can show you hundreds of personal testimonies of alien abductions, yet we are unmoved.  

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.amazon.com/True-History-Joseph-Smith-ebook/dp/B00SSBDB4U/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1432832125&sr=8-9&keywords=Michael+Cooney#reader_B00SSBDB4U

 

Recently, I read a comment from the author of the book "The True History of Joseph Smith by his sister", maybe in Social, I can't remember.  But after reading the comment, I went and ordered it on Kindle.  As I've read the first two or three pages, it spells out that JS did have thorough knowledge of the Bible.  He would memorize passages.  I remember reading on the board a short time ago, a comment by someone saying he didn't read the Bible all that much, how could they be so sure?  Yet I read in the first few pages in the story by his sister Sophronia, supposedly, that his father taught them nightly from the Bible.  So wondered if some of the BoM is from Joseph, and a great deal of inspiration also.  Or is this book hogwash?    

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.amazon.com/True-History-Joseph-Smith-ebook/dp/B00SSBDB4U/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1432832125&sr=8-9&keywords=Michael+Cooney#reader_B00SSBDB4U

 

Recently, I read a comment from the author of the book "The True History of Joseph Smith by his sister", maybe in Social, I can't remember.  But after reading the comment, I went and ordered it on Kindle.  As I've read the first two or three pages, it spells out that JS did have thorough knowledge of the Bible.  He would memorize passages.  I remember reading on the board a short time ago, a comment by someone saying he didn't read the Bible all that much, how could they be so sure?  Yet I read in the first few pages in the story by his sister Sophronia, supposedly, that his father taught them nightly from the Bible.  So wondered if some of the BoM is from Joseph, and a great deal of inspiration also.  Or is this book hogwash?    

 

He probably knew much of the Bible in general terms. I'm not convinced he was a Bible expert. IE; He didn't know ancient Jerusalem was a walled city until Emma told him it was.

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.amazon.com/True-History-Joseph-Smith-ebook/dp/B00SSBDB4U/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1432832125&sr=8-9&keywords=Michael+Cooney#reader_B00SSBDB4U

 

Recently, I read a comment from the author of the book "The True History of Joseph Smith by his sister", maybe in Social, I can't remember.  But after reading the comment, I went and ordered it on Kindle.  As I've read the first two or three pages, it spells out that JS did have thorough knowledge of the Bible.  He would memorize passages.  I remember reading on the board a short time ago, a comment by someone saying he didn't read the Bible all that much, how could they be so sure?  Yet I read in the first few pages in the story by his sister Sophronia, supposedly, that his father taught them nightly from the Bible.  So wondered if some of the BoM is from Joseph, and a great deal of inspiration also.  Or is this book hogwash?    

 

Tacenda I am sure you must be on to something here.  He must have made it all up from his knowledge of the Bible.  That is why they are so much alike.  :crazy:  8P  :air_kiss:

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.amazon.com/True-History-Joseph-Smith-ebook/dp/B00SSBDB4U/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1432832125&sr=8-9&keywords=Michael+Cooney#reader_B00SSBDB4U

 

Recently, I read a comment from the author of the book "The True History of Joseph Smith by his sister", maybe in Social, I can't remember.  But after reading the comment, I went and ordered it on Kindle.  As I've read the first two or three pages, it spells out that JS did have thorough knowledge of the Bible.  He would memorize passages.  I remember reading on the board a short time ago, a comment by someone saying he didn't read the Bible all that much, how could they be so sure?  Yet I read in the first few pages in the story by his sister Sophronia, supposedly, that his father taught them nightly from the Bible.  So wondered if some of the BoM is from Joseph, and a great deal of inspiration also.  Or is this book hogwash?

It's a novel, which means you have to consider whether the source of any particular is actual, based on research, or imaginative, where the author fills in the gaps.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Share this post


Link to post

 

Recently, I read a comment from the author of the book "The True History of Joseph Smith by his sister"....  Or is this book hogwash?

You do know the book is a work of fiction, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Which brings me back to the OP. If there's so much conclusive and clear evidence why does Peterson fill is column with "we haven't found it yet" excuses?

 

Because it is important to keep healthy expectations re: the limitations of archaeology, what we do and don't have in terms of raw data, and what is still unknown. With such things in mind we can properly temper our exceptions of the kind of evidence there is, what such evidence looks like, and why it is significant, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post

Further to thesometimesaint's comments, archaeology just does not work this way. We have explained this point to you over and over again so I am not sure if there is any value in repeating it, but what we find is pots and pans. We do not find stories. If I give you a book that takes place somewhere in the Americas and it mentions cows and pigs, as well has high mountains, does finding cows and pigs in Colorado prove the book true? 

 

What you have to consider is that the book fits so perfectly in the central america region and was produced at a time when virtually nothing was known of this region. Consider the science behind the formation of the universe. Science says we should find certain things, and when these things are discovered it confirms the predictions. It does not prove it, and we find many Christians rejecting the science despite the evidence because it goes against their belief of a young earth. This is ironic because they use this same science to try to prove the book of mormon false. They argue that mormons need absolute proof that the book of mormon is true before it should be considered, but they can believe in a god that goes against all the laws of physics. 

 

I provided a list of evidences earlier that was ignored. Go back to my list and explain why these findings are of no value. 

 

You're kind of missing the point. They were all fine evidences. Supportive and faith promoting certainly but not conclusive proof.

 

But that's not the point. If, as you say, the list has such value then why is Peterson still saying "Don't worry, we'll find something soon," in his essay. Surely making that defense means that whatever evidence has been amassed is simply not very convincing. If it were, he wouldn't be saying "we'll find some soon" he'd be saying "here it is."

Share this post


Link to post

You're kind of missing the point. They were all fine evidences. Supportive and faith promoting certainly but not conclusive proof.

 

But that's not the point. If, as you say, the list has such value then why is Peterson still saying "Don't worry, we'll find something soon," in his essay. Surely making that defense means that whatever evidence has been amassed is simply not very convincing. If it were, he wouldn't be saying "we'll find some soon" he'd be saying "here it is."

We will likely never find conclusive proof. The only way to find proof is if we find a written record that will collaborate the book of mormon. There is certainly ZERO conclusive proof of the bible. If the evidence for the bible were so convincing, why hasn't the entire world converted to Christianity? What you have to do is explain how it is possible that all of these links have been found that shows the book is not a fraud. How, I ask you, could Joseph have come up with so many accurate links to both the old world and new if none of these links were known when he wrote the book. 

Share this post


Link to post

We will likely never find conclusive proof. The only way to find proof is if we find a written record that will collaborate the book of mormon. There is certainly ZERO conclusive proof of the bible. If the evidence for the bible were so convincing, why hasn't the entire world converted to Christianity? What you have to do is explain how it is possible that all of these links have been found that shows the book is not a fraud. How, I ask you, could Joseph have come up with so many accurate links to both the old world and new if none of these links were known when he wrote the book. 

 

It's a bit of apples and oranges when trying to compare the BOM to the Bible in terms of archeology and what a "hit" would mean.

 

The Book of Mormon came about because Joseph Smith translated a set of gold plates he said were given to him by an angel.  These aren't oral and written stories transferred over centuries and complied into the Bible.  The BOM deals with completely previously unknown places and lines of people.  If Zarahemla was unearthed, or a lineage of kings then judges found that match with the BOM, or the breakdown of weights and measures... that would mean considerably more that Bible scholars unearthing the ancient Jericho or finding out that there actually was a King David.  

Share this post


Link to post

It's a bit of apples and oranges when trying to compare the BOM to the Bible in terms of archeology and what a "hit" would mean.

 

The Book of Mormon came about because Joseph Smith translated a set of gold plates he said were given to him by an angel.  These aren't oral and written stories transferred over centuries and complied into the Bible.  The BOM deals with completely previously unknown places and lines of people.  If Zarahemla was unearthed, or a lineage of kings then judges found that match with the BOM, or the breakdown of weights and measures... that would mean considerably more that Bible scholars unearthing the ancient Jericho or finding out that there actually was a King David.  

Agreed. So we wait for a written record. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure that having a "sword stained with blood" is a literary device, not a literal description.  It means that your sword has blood on it because you killed someone (or something). 

 

I'm pretty sure that "stained with blood" is a literary device NOW, and in the English language, but isn't it at least possible that the Nephites didn't use that as a literary device, and were being quite literal?  Is "stained with blood" a literary device in Hebrew, not to be taken literally?  I wouldn't know, but...

 

You have heard of the word "presentism", haven't you?

 

I've seen paintings by some of the Old Masters which depicted events in the Middle East, and they put contemporary clothing on the figures they painted.  Because they didn't know how those people dressed, and either made a conscious or unconscious decision.

Share this post


Link to post

You do know the book is a work of fiction, right?

Is it fiction, but also true? I'm so glad I'm reading it. I'm just past the point where the town of Palmyra spreads rumors that the Smith's dug up Alvin's body and dissected it. Not in those words entirely, I don't think. But not what had actually happened. There was an autopsy before the burial but the rumor mill turned it into something crazy. Then Joseph, Sr. dispelled the rumor when he took an ad out of the paper and rebuked the town gossipers. Then to have the preacher who helped lay him to rest say that Alvin was going to hell was just insult to injury. They threw the preacher out and layed him to rest themselves. Wow, my heart goes out to the Smith family as I'm reading a novel about their lives. Not a plain history. Makes it easier to get engulfed in the story. Which seems to be in the words of Sophronia.

Earlier in the novel Sophronia describes how Joseph eventually memorized the Bible. He didn't like to read and memorize but would listen while others read to him throughout his life, one of the readers was Sally Chase.

Share this post


Link to post

We will likely never find conclusive proof. The only way to find proof is if we find a written record that will collaborate the book of mormon. There is certainly ZERO conclusive proof of the bible. If the evidence for the bible were so convincing, why hasn't the entire world converted to Christianity? What you have to do is explain how it is possible that all of these links have been found that shows the book is not a fraud. How, I ask you, could Joseph have come up with so many accurate links to both the old world and new if none of these links were known when he wrote the book.

As a bible sceptic (not just a BoM sceptic) it doesn't really help your argument that there's little evidence for the Bible. The idea that the Hebrews could have invented creation and divine preference myths sounds entirely plausible to me.

If there was even as little evidence for the Book of Mormon as there is for the bible then we'd have something compelling. There's nothing even close.

Imagine finding a cave in the Americas with the equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Ketef Hinnom Scrolls. Your list is a series of convergences, not compelling evidences.

How could Joseph have known? He couldn't. He was either inspired in his dictation or we're simply finding what you'd expect to find with a 500 page book and an almost limitless supply of geographic options and time periods. Eventually, something, by coincidence is going to match.

On the other hand we have the multitude of modern world themes and topics which equally draw it to an eighteenth century production. Conveniently you can just shrug those off as being "loose translation" or messages "for our day."

Share this post


Link to post

Is it fiction, but also true?

 

Is this a serious question?

 

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

Imagine finding a cave in the Americas with the equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Ketef Hinnom Scrolls. Your list is a series of convergences, not compelling evidences.

 

 

While I understand what you are saying, you are using an unrealistic standard for your comparison.  The Dresden Codex which is the oldest known Mesoamerican codex dates to somewhere around the 11th or 12th century.  This is 700 to 800 years after the close of the Book of Mormon and 1400 years or so after the creation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

If you took the same Dead Sea Scrolls and stored them in the same pottery jars and placed them in caves in Mesoamerica instead of Qumran only the pottery would have remained.  The rate of biological decay is substantially higher in Mesoamerica than in the arid Middle East.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you're asking for the impossible and then complaining when you don't receive it.

 

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

Is this a serious question?

 

-guerreiro9

Think Work and the Glory Series. Since posting I've read several histories of the Smith family. And think the author woved the truth in a story format. So far I'm gathering that Sophronia as narrator is what is fiction. Or it's the screenplay of a true story. But still researching and reading the novel. But put it here in this topic because my research tells me JS wasn't an illiterate farm boy and read or heard the Bible read on a daily basis from a young age. I don't understand people saying, on this board can't remember who, that he may not have had one even. My take is, that he could have memorized the passages of the Bible and integrated them into the BOM. He loved the Bible, studied it and could have been a preacher in the local churches, but didn't believe in what all those churches had to say.

Share this post


Link to post

While I understand what you are saying, you are using an unrealistic standard for your comparison. The Dresden Codex which is the oldest known Mesoamerican codex dates to somewhere around the 11th or 12th century. This is 700 to 800 years after the close of the Book of Mormon and 1400 years or so after the creation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If you took the same Dead Sea Scrolls and stored them in the same pottery jars and placed them in caves in Mesoamerica instead of Qumran only the pottery would have remained. The rate of biological decay is substantially higher in Mesoamerica than in the arid Middle East.

I understand what you are saying, but you're asking for the impossible and then complaining when you don't receive it.

-guerreiro9

I was under the impression the Nephites wrote on metal plates... They seem to last relatively well.

Share this post


Link to post

Think Work and the Glory Series. Since posting I've read several histories of the Smith family. And think the author woved the truth in a story format. So far I'm gathering that Sophronia as narrator is what is fiction. Or it's the screenplay of a true story. But still researching and reading the novel. But put it here in this topic because my research tells me JS wasn't an illiterate farm boy and read or heard the Bible read on a daily basis from a young age. I don't understand people saying, on this board can't remember who, that he may not have had one even. My take is, that he could have memorized the passages of the Bible and integrated them into the BOM. He loved the Bible, studied it and could have been a preacher in the local churches, but didn't believe in what all those churches had to say.

 

It's not a good idea to conflate a novel with history even if they are historical novels. I don't know as the Church claims JS was illiterate. He probably had the equivalent of a third grade education as of the time the Book of Mormon was being translated. Emma knew more about the world and the Bible than did her husband Joseph.

 

Traditionally the family Bible was handed down to the oldest daughter. So why it is possible that Joseph had a Bible it is pretty unlikely that it was the family Bible. Also keep in mind that books were scarce in rural New York of the early 1800's.

 

Sure he could have memorized large sections, but there is no indications that he did. The Smith family was highly religious and young Joseph attended differing revivals in the area. He was genuinely confused about the competing claims of the differing churches.  Thus the need to pray.

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...