The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Freedom]

I hope I made sense and this wasn't a stupid post

Good post.

I have not seen the movie but I have seen many 'documentaries' on tv. Many of them are of the same slant. They make the documentary to make money, not to educate their viewers. Movies on extra-terrestrials, 9-11, JFK, espionage, and so forth. They take the most extreme examples and ignore all real evidence and science. They slap it together to look like a documentary but only the truly ignorant accept it. Sadly most people who spend the time to watch them are truly ignorant.

[noel00]

Well Aberdeen has the famous (to evangelicals) I Howard Marshall. St Andrews where Carl Mosser obtained his degree and Edinborough (Paul Owen). A book Marshall edited on New Testament Intepretation is suggested reading in intro NT courses here. It seems many LDS think Evangelicals only hang around Bible Colleges. Seen Alister McGrath's publishing record?

[Confidential Informant]

It seems many LDS think Evangelicals only hang around Bible Colleges.

Another unsupported accusation. Evidnece, please, of this predilection on the part of LDS?

C.I.

[noel00]

A review of Dever's book states

"Dever fails to take seriously the archaeological work that tends to support the patriarchal and Exodus accounts, such as Kenneth Kitchen

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems many LDS think Evangelicals only hang around Bible Colleges. Seen Alister McGrath's publishing record?

Evidence, please?

(I know for a fact that they also hang around temple open houses and around Temple Square.)

Seen Alister McGrath's publishing record?

Better still, I've seen his actual books. I own several, and have read them. (Says Peterson with his customary snarl.)

On the complex matter of biblical historicity, Nevo, I'm aware of and sympathetic to the kinds of issues you raise. Brant will testify that I gave him no directive on this topic for his review (nor, for that matter, on any other), but I know from considerable personal experience that, the minute a Latter-day Saint begins to point out that the same kinds of arguments can sometimes be leveled against the historicity or accuracy of the Bible as are leveled against the Book of Mormon, our less reasonable critics will immediately proceed to ignore that issue and to squawk loudly about supposed Mormon contempt for the Bible. It's tiresome and rather irritating, but there you have it.

[noel00]

The point Evangelicals may raise with LDS like yourself, is that you are quick to use the work of Dever but do not mention that of Kitchen, a man with degrees in both Biblical Studies and Egyptology who takes a different view. What it not KItchen who said that the price Joseph was sold for as a slave was the going price for slaves that time period? Camels were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence that they did exist during that period has been published. That video/dvd was not meant for academic audiences but distillated for those with little background in the area. But those who were interviewed did seem to have the qualifications to make such judgements

From a "less reasonable critic" who "squawks" to a "rational and reasonable gentleman apologist" who never God forbid "squawks"

[Daniel Peterson]

The point Evangelicals may raise with LDS like yourself, is that you are quick to use the work of Dever but do not mention that of Kitchen, a man with degrees in both Biblical Studies and Egyptology who takes a different view.

If so, they would (as usual) be wrong. I own Kitchen's relatively new book-length defense of biblical historicity, and have already cited it several times in a large manuscript on which I'm working.

That video/dvd was not meant for academic audiences but distillated for those with little background in the area. But those who were interviewed did seem to have the qualifications to make such judgements.

Then why are there so many errors in the film? No Israelite temples outside of Jerusalem? Come on. I've visited the ruins or sites of at least two of them, on Elephantine Island near Aswan, in Egypt, and at Tel Arad, near Be'ersheva.

I'll grant that some of the experts in the film are quite reputable. In those cases, I think they were simply being abused by the folks who produced the movie.

[Brant Gardner]

noel00:

While Dever might complain that these scholars are too conservative for his taste, it cannot be denied that they are working with the archaeological data.

As I read your post, you seem to be saying that there is more than one side to the argument, and that even someone like Dever, who supports some aspects of biblical historicity against those who would totally deny it may have critics who see other ways to read data.

Don't you believe that it would be important to understand that positions are open to debate, with some good arguments and evidence on all sides?

The point I made in the review is that the film doesn't provide that perspective of either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. The very fact that you are interesting in bringing up support for early biblical historicity contra Dever suggests that LDS desires to be able to present our best arguments for the Book of Mormon are just as natural and just as valid a desire.

I also thought that your comment that these other scholars were working with archaeological data was quite important. I often see comments about whether or not archaeological data prove the Book of Mormon. That is a problematic statement because archaeological data really don't do much at all. They must be interepreted and different people may interpret them differently. Since you suggest that there is data that scholars of the biblical world may see differently, you are underlining the important issues for archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Most archaeologists tend to see much of the same data - and read it differently. They create arguments to support their conclusions which others do or do not accept, depending upon how well the argument has been created or upon the personal mindset of the writer.

The data just don't prove a thing, witnessed by your suggestion that Dever and other archaeologists all work with archaeological data, but draw different conclusions.

[Confidential Informant]

It all reminds me of a George Carlin quip:  "Didja' ever notice how all off your things are "stuff" but all of everyone else's stuff is "crap.""

Irony.

C.I.

Did anyone else catch the dripping irony of Noel's post? For example, he says:

The point Evangelicals may raise with LDS like yourself, is that you are quick to use the work of Dever but do not mention that of Kitchen, a man with degrees in both Biblical Studies and Egyptology who takes a different view.

Of course, this sentence is easily reworked to enhance its irony:

"The point [Mormons] may raise with [critics] like yourself, is that you are quick to use the work of [Coe] but do not mention that of [sorenson/Clark/Gardner et. al] a man with degrees is [add relevant degrees here. They all have them from the highly reputable schools] who take a different view.

What it not KItchen who said that the price Joseph was sold for as a slave was the going price for slaves that time period?

Was it not [Gardner] who said that [the book of Mormon] matched the cultural, political and social conditions of the time period?

Camels were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence that they did exist during that period has been published.

[Horses] were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence they did exist during that time period has been published.

C.I.

Edited to add: Of course, in regards to Camels, if we are going to be consistent with our critics, it isn't enough that "scraps of evidence" have been found. The evidence must show that cames were domesticated, used as vehiclels for cargo and transport, etc., and not just random wild animals roaming the landscape.

ci

[noel00]

"[Horses] were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence they did exist during that time period has been published"

What scraps of evidence outside the hallowed halls of FARMS exists for horses during the time supposedly covered by the BOM events?

I see this attack on the Bible as an attempt to neutralise critics. Oh well there is no real evidence to support the historicity of some of the events in the Bible (exodus, conquest of Canaan) so who r you to attack the BOM.

You laud Gardiner's work and yet has any qualified scholar outside the LDS ever critiqued it. I read his material in ZLMB, I may be thick, but I could not follow his logic.

DCP elsewhere refers to the work of Gee, Nibley etc in relation to the BOA, Ritner in instance after instance corrects Nibley's translation ("misread by Nibley") Journal of Near Easten Studies , 62 No 3 (2003) PP 161 - 180. It like a reassurance that all the critics have been put in their place.

[William the Conqueror]

Camels were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence that they did exist during that period has been published.

C.I.

Edited to add: Of course, in regards to Camels, if we are going to be consistent with our critics, it isn't enough that "scraps of evidence" have been found. The evidence must show that cames were domesticated, used as vehiclels for cargo and transport, etc., and not just random wild animals roaming the landscape.

What are these scraps of evidence and how many scraps are there?

As for scraps of evidence I for one would be happy to have a scrap that showed that camels were wild animals roaming the landscape. Whether or not they were domesticated is secondary. However if they were roaming the landscape I am sure they would have become domesticated.

So where and what are these scraps?

[Confidential Informant]

"[Horses] were once thought to be an anacronism but low and behold scraps of evidence they did exist during that time period has been published"

What scraps of evidence outside the hallowed halls of FARMS exists for horses during the time supposedly covered by the BOM events?

Don't know anything about FARMS stuff on the subject. I am , in fact, awaiting the publication of some stuff from mesoamerican archeologists that confirm the precolumbian existence of horses dating to about 0 ad.

BTW, let me show you one more thing:

What scraps of evidence outside the hallowed halls of [Evangelcal publishing house] exists for camels duirng the time supposedly covered by the Biblical events?

See how easy that was?

I see this attack on the Bible as an attempt to neutralise critics.

I didn't attack the Bible, I only pointed out the delicious irony of your defense of it. If anyone attacked it it was Nevo folling Dever. But then, I wouldn't qualify what they said as an attack as they were just point out "facts."

Oh well there is no real evidence to support the historicity of some of the events in the Bible (exodus, conquest of Canaan) so who r you to attack the BOM.

Are you saying the juxtaposition is not valid? Good lord, the lack of evidence undermines the very basis of the Biblical narrative. No Garden of Eden, No global flood, no joseph in Egypt, no hebrew slavery, no exodus, no domination of palestine. Those aren't small things.

You laud Gardiner's work and yet has any qualified scholar outside the LDS ever critiqued it.

I've no idea. But let's refer to Clark, and yes his work has been critiqued by non-LDS. We're talking data here, Noel, not conclusions. Dever uses a set of data and arrives at a conclusion. Kitchen uses the same data and arrives at a different conclusion. Brant is using the same data as Coe and the same methods. He just reaches a different conlcusion.

But keep going, your defense is hilariously entertaining.

I read his material in ZLMB, I may be thick, but I could not follow his logic.

And that somehow disqualifies it? I don't understand quantum loop theory either, but that doesn't mean it isn't dead on correct. I suspect the explanation lies in your own comment.

DCP elsewhere refers to the work of Gee, Nibley etc in relation to the BOA, Ritner in instance after instance corrects Nibley's translation ("misread by Nibley") Journal of Near Easten Studies , 62 No 3 (2003) PP 161 - 180. It like a reassurance that all the critics have been put in their place.

Of course, Ritter REJECTS the reality of the Joseph in Egypt story, the Jewish bondage, the Exodus, et al. Do you agree with his critiques in this regard also? Or do you only agree with him when he critiques LDS views?

C.I.

[William the Conqueror]

So where and what are these scraps?

By the way I don't have a voracious appetite. I'm just asking for enough scraps to make a meal. If all you do is throw me a bone, I'll just give to to my dog.

I would be satisfied with good soup bones.

[Daniel Peterson]

Am I on Candid Camera? Is this a joke? Less than three short hours ago, I referred to the tiresome, irritating, and intellectually lazy anti-Mormon mantra that, in order to salvage the Book of Mormon, Mormons attack the Bible:

I know from considerable personal experience that, the minute a Latter-day Saint begins to point out that the same kinds of arguments can sometimes be leveled against the historicity or accuracy of the Bible as are leveled against the Book of Mormon, our less reasonable critics will immediately proceed to ignore that issue and to squawk loudly about supposed Mormon contempt for the Bible.

[William the Conqueror]

Don't know anything about FARMS stuff on the subject.  I am , in fact, awaiting the publication of some stuff from mesoamerican archeologists that confirm the precolumbian existence of horses dating to about 0 ad. 

BTW, let me show you one more thing: 

What scraps of evidence outside the hallowed halls of [Evangelcal publishing house] exists for camels duirng the time supposedly covered by the Biblical events?

See how easy that was?

Oh well there is no real evidence to support the historicity of some of the events in the Bible (exodus, conquest of Canaan) so who r you to attack the BOM.

Are you saying the juxtaposition is not valid? Good lord, the lack of evidence undermines the very basis of the Biblical narrative. No Garden of Eden, No global flood, no joseph in Egypt, no hebrew slavery, no exodus, no domination of palestine. Those aren't small things.

Don't know anything about FARMS stuff on the subject. I am , in fact, awaiting the publication of some stuff from mesoamerican archeologists that confirm the precolumbian existence of horses dating to about 0 ad.

Is this awaiting for publication of some stuff the scraps you are alluding to? That almost sounds like 'hope against hope' -Romans.

BTW, let me show you one more thing:

What scraps of evidence outside the hallowed halls of [Evangelcal publishing house] exists for camels duirng the time supposedly covered by the Biblical events?

See how easy that was?

And very easily answered. Yes there is plenty of evidence for camels in the Old World during the time period of biblical events, and horses too.

Oh well there is no real evidence to support the historicity of some of the events in the Bible (exodus, conquest of Canaan) so who r you to attack the BOM.

Are you saying the juxtaposition is not valid? Good lord, the lack of evidence undermines the very basis of the Biblical narrative. No Garden of Eden, No global flood, no joseph in Egypt, no hebrew slavery, no exodus, no domination of palestine. Those aren't small things.

Yes there is no archeological evidence to support the historicity of those events, but they do have archeological evidence of some the Kings of Israel found on the Stellas of the Assyrians, etc.

Again I am waiting for some scraps but if it is a forthcoming publication from MesoAmerican archeologists, then how long should I expect to wait? A lifetime?

[noel00]

"Scraps" for camels

The Camel and the Wheel, Richard W. Bulliet, Columbia:1990 (orig. ed. 1975).

60-64 of his book

A 3.5 ft cord of camel hair from Egypt, dated around 2500 BC. Buillet believes it is "from the land of Punt, perhaps the possession of a slave or captive, and from a domestic camel"

The bronze figurine from the temple of Byblos in Lebanon. It is in a foundation with strong Egyptian flavoring, and is dated before the sixth Egyptian dynasty (before 2182 BC). Although the figure could be taken as a sheep, the figure is arranged with items that would strongly require it to be a camel (e.g., a camel saddle, camel muzzle, etc.)

Two pots of Egyptian provenance were found in Greece and Crete, both dating 1800-1400 BC, but both in area so far removed from the range of the camel as to suggest its presence in the intermediate areas (e.g., Syria or Egypt) during an earlier time. Both have camels represented, and one literally has humans riding on a camel back.

A final piece of strong evidence is textual from Alalakh in Syria, as opposed to archaeological: a textual ration-list. There is a entry for 'camel fodder' written in Old Babylonian. "Not only does this attest the existence of camels in norther Syria at this time, but the animal involved is clearly domestic." [HI:TCAW:64].

Any "scraps" for horses in Mesoamerica?

[Dale]

As to attacking the Bible if these critics are right about the Book of Mormon they must be right about the Bible. If wrong about the Bible how do we know they are right about the Book of Mormon?

Tell me of any source outside of an Evangelical publication that disagrees with these critics on the Bible?

[noel00]

http://www.liv.ac.uk/sace/organisation/peo...aff/kitchen.htm

[William the Conqueror]

As to attacking the Bible if these critics are right about the Book of Mormon they must be right about the Bible. If wrong about the Bible how do we know they are right about the Book of Mormon?

Tell me of any source outside of an Evangelical publication that disagrees with these critics on the Bible?

I'm not sure which critics you are referring to. Apparently there are three categories: 1. The ones who say some of the OT is historically accurate, but not all of it. 2. The ones who say almost none of the OT is historically accurate and 3. Those who say the Bible i.e.: OT is entirely reliable historically, however this category might not be defined as a critic (depends on your definition).

As to what 1,2, or 3 believe about the BOM, I think there could be a variation on the authenticity of BOM as to 1 and 2, but probably the concensus of 3 would be that the BOM is not authentic. However there might be exceptions.

However I think you were referring to 1 and/or 2 by your last statement.

My take on this would be to answer NO, that is there probably aren't any sources outside of Evangelical publications that would disagree with the form/source critics on the Bible.

[solomarineris]

From this thread, two things become distinctively apparent;

1- I cannot find any trace of Zarahemla

2- I cannot find any evidence of Exodus

[juliann]

Any "scraps" for horses in Mesoamerica?

You know what is really, really funny? These "scraps" are what you guys hoot and holler about when they are put up by Mormons. Isn't this where we are supposed to break into howls of mocking laughter and make a caravan of Arabs riding sheep with Photoshop camel heads?

"Although the figure could be taken as a sheep, "

The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[avidreader]

A fascinating critique! As I was puzzling over how a critic could stumble so badly over that part about "riding horses into battle," it occurred to me where this must come from. Anybody remember that famous painting of Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty? And he's on horseback! And it's right there, in living color, in many editions of the Book of Mormon. Not in the text, mind you, but an illustration. This is where artistic license gets you into trouble...or where the depth of scholarship is limited to looking at the pictures.

[Dale]

I thought the critics had more exposure to critical literature than to apologetics for the defense. The part about riding horses into battle is based on a simpler reading of the text. The same reading caused the artist of picture to paint it that way.

How do we know the Book of Mormon horses wern't horses as we mean horses?

[Sampson]

This horses topic just keeps coming up again and again. I am not in anyway an expert on the subject but I have translated to finnish an interesting article about the problems with anti-mormons claims to BOM geography. Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.

This is something Hamblin wrote on animals:

The range of possible Latter-day Saint explanations for seeming discrepancies between the animals of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon include:

1. A species may have existed only in small numbers-introduced by, and limited to the civilizations of the Nephites-which subsequently became extinct. The existence of small herds of animals in a limited region would likely leave no archaeological evidence. For example, we know that the Norsemen probably introduced the horse, cow, sheep, goat, and pig into North America in the eleventh century.107 Nonetheless, these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.108

2. A species may have existed at the time of the Nephites, but archaeological evidence of its existence has not been discovered, or has not been properly interpreted. The horse is an excellent example of this possibility. Although generally thought to have been extinct by the end of Pre-Classic times (before A.D. 300), possible horse remains have been found in various locations in Mesoamerica, which seem to be from archaeological strata contemporary with pre-Colonial Mesoamerican civilizations.109

The Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe were a nomadic people for whom horses represented both a major form of wealth and the basis of their military power. Estimates are that each Hun warrior may have had has many as ten horses.110 Nonetheless, "To quote S. Bokonyi, a foremost authority on the subject, 'We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns.' "111 During the two centuries of their domination of the western steppe, the Huns must have had hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare despite their vast herds, why should we expect extensive evidence of the use of horses in Nephite Mesoamerica, especially considering the limited references to horses in the Book of Mormon text?112

3. The Book of Mormon text may have used familiar Egyptian or Hebrew terms for new unknown types of animals which the Nephites discovered in the New World. This option has been frequently mocked by anti-Mormons who are apparently unaware of the nature of Pre-Modern naming ambiguities.113 When Pre-Modern peoples encountered new species for which they didn't have a name, they followed one of two possible courses of action: they either adopted a foreign name for that animal, or they transferred to the new animal the name of an animal with which they were familiar. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a new type of animal in the Nile Valley, they called it the "horse of the river," the hippo-potamos, or hippopotamus. Are we to assume that Greek civilization didn't exist at all because they chose to call the Nile hippopotamus a "horse," rather than adopting the Egyptian name h bw? When the Romans first encountered the elephant in the army of Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280 B.C., they called it the "Lucca bos, Lucanian cow."114 Likewise, the Maya called the horse a "deer,"115 while the Arabs call the turkey a dik hindi, or "Indian Rooster." Given this phenomenon in other civilizations, why is it preposterous for the Book of Mormon peoples to have called the Mesoameri-can turkey-for which they had no name-a chicken, just as the Arabs called the Indian turkey?116 If such a linguistic phenom-enon in the Book of Mormon is seen as evidence for discounting the very existence of Book of Mormon civilization, must we not also do away with the Greeks, Romans, Maya, and Arabs?

In summary, although important questions certainly remain, there are various ways in which the apparent anachronisms and ambiguities of the Book of Mormon text concerning metals, plants, and animals can be accounted for.

Somehow it seems weird for me to not even acknowledge the possibility of an alternate explanation. If there where horses relatively small numbers, what would the probability of finding archeological evidence for them? They aren't actually a vital part of the Book of Mormon story, they aren't mentioned that often.

But like I said, I am not an expert but nevertheless I don't see how the absence of evidence for pre-columbian horses disproofs the BOM.

[urroner]

From ZLMB:

A Nephite on his horse