Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Bible versus the Book of Mormon


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

And will this publication be in respected peer-reviewed academic journals or amateur publications that report the Bat Creek Stone as "fact"?

Would those "amateur publications" include, say, McCulloch, J. Huston, "The Bat Creek Inscription -- Cherokee or Hebrew?," Tennessee Anthropologist 1988 (2): 79-123, and McCulloch, J. Huston, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?" Biblical Archaeology Review (July/August 1993): 46-53.

Agree with McCulloch or not, it seems something of a misrepresentation to describe Tennessee Anthropologist and Biblical Archaeology Review as mere "amateur publications."

Link to comment

I have just watched the video and read Brant Gardner's review.

Out of interest I took a look at some of the background's of the academics who contributed to the video. None of these people are smallfry in their fields I would say, nor are they the type of 'evangelicals' who would go around picketing LDS temples. They are not avid 'anti-mormons'. Just my opinion of course.

Philip Johnston hails from Wycliffe College Oxford, which became part of the University in 1996.

http://www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk/info/psj.html

and here is more information on Williams and Gathercole.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/williams/index.shtml

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wad005/staff/simon-gathercole.shtml

I'll put myself in the position of the naive here and say that the main thrust of the films argument to me, and it is a very simple but profound one, is regardless of whether you believe the bible to be the unadulterated word of God or not, which surely is entirely another issue, there are many archaelogical evidences that support it as a historical document at least in its use of artifacts, places and so forth.

On the other hand, with regard to Proving that the Book of Mormon was at least set in an appropriate historical context in terms of artifacts, place names, culture and so forth, the LDS apologists are clutching at straws.

I see no underhand tactics here. Just an effort to say that at present there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.

I mean no disrespect here, I appreciate that it has value in much of its doctrine, and that believers find it a powerful document.

Just my very naive and simplistic opinion.

Abulafia

Link to comment
Out of interest I took a look at some of the background's of the academics who contributed to the video.  None of these people are smallfry in their fields I would say, nor are they the type of 'evangelicals' who would go around picketing LDS temples.  They are not avid 'anti-mormons'. Just my opinion of course.

Overwhelmingly, they're not. The problem is that, for example, the Old World specialists probably don't know much about the New World, and there's no reason to believe that they know much about the Book of Mormon, either. In several cases, it's clear that they are reacting not so much (or not at all) to the Book of Mormon, but to summaries of the Book of Mormon presented to them by the, shall we say?, not entirely neutral producers from Living Hope Ministries. (My position, for example, in connection with which Tom Murphy graciously pronounces me a liar, is fundamentally misrepresented in the film.)

Even in the case of the Mesoamericanists, it isn't obvious that they really know much about the Book of Mormon, and it's not clear whether they're responding to it or to some possibly misleading summation of its claims.

My suspicion is that they have been drawn into a dispute of which they likely know little or nothing, in at least most cases, and from which they would have kept their distance had they fully understood the use to which their statements would be put. They were, I would imagine, informed merely that they would be briefly filmed for a documentary film comparing archaeological support for the Book of Mormon with archaeological support for the Bible. Did they know that they were being recruited for a sectarian piece of propaganda? My guess is, No. Most reputable scholars not already intimately involved in the debate would, I think, carefully avoid such involvement in it.

the LDS apologists are clutching at straws.

We must be entirely too stupid to realize that, I guess, because I get no sense of desperation from any of the people I know at FARMS. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

I see no underhand tactics here.  Just an effort to say that at present there is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.

But the claim that there is no evidence at all for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is, simply, false.

Link to comment

Fair enough Daniel. What I meant by clutching at straws, (and I am not an expert in this area, and I am not trying to denigrate the LDS apologists. To have balance there needs to be people studying the issue who DO believe that it is a historical document) is that one would expect to find at least some written evidence, artefacts, place name evidence that would support the Book of Mormon as a historical document. I don't necessarily mean that it wouldn't be part mythical and full of the opinions of men rather than God, but there should be something that puts it in a historical context.

I'll add the proviso that I am not up with Mesoamerican History, but I do mean evidence that is more than hints that the culture is right in places when compared with ancient Judaic Culture as it would have been when Levi left. I felt that the evidence that Brant Gardner put forward wasn't convincing. I'll read it again..

Abulafia

Link to comment
What I meant by clutching at straws, (and I am not an expert in this area, and I am not trying to denigrate the LDS apologists, to get balance there needs to be people studying the issue who DO believe that it is a historical document) is that one would expect to find at least some written evidence, artefacts, place name evidence that would support the Book of Mormon as a historical document. . 

But written evidence, place-name evidence, and the like is precisely the sort of thing that is in distinctly short supply in pre-Classic Mesoamerica, as contrasted with biblical-period Palestine -- whether we're talking about the Book of Mormon or not.

Professor William Hamblin's article on the problems in anti-Mormon approaches to the geography and archaeology of the Book of Mormon sets this and other matters out very clearly. It appeared in an early issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies -- 2/1, or so, if I recall correctly. (Unfortunately, the FARMS website is temporarily down for maintenance at the moment.)

Link to comment
Could I ask for a clarification, please?

You could. Whether you accept it or not remains to be seen.

Do you mean that someday you hope archaeologists find such evidence, or that you're aware of specific research publication of which is imminent in the next few months

The latter. Dr. Steve Jones, a physicist at BYU has conducted carbon-14 dating studies on equine bones taken from various sites in the New World. It's my understanding that the dating shows that horses were present in the New World at least as recently at 0 AD. The dating is significant because prior to this time the bones had been dismissed as post-columbian relics that had somehow contaminated the sites they were found at. I have email Dr. Jones and requested a copy of the study or a publication date.

which will prove beyond any doubt that horses existed and were domesticated in the Americas during the time period of the BoM?

Ah, thank you so much for being so predictable! Note how the bar has been so subtly raised for B of M studies. Now, it's not enough that we show that horses were present. Since it appears that they were, we must now show they were "domesticated". And once we show that then there'll be another requirement we have to meet.

C'mon, you guys have insisted for how long that there were no horses. Now that it appears that there probably were that's not good enough? Please. At what point does this become a joke? And why don't you set the same bar for our fellow Christian participants on this thread in regards to camels. Does any of their evidence prove "domestication?"

And will this be actual artifacts or nibleyesque parallels?

As far as I know, real bones count as artifacts.

And will this publication be in respected peer-reviewed academic journals

I'm sure it will, though I'm curious as to what you think peer review will add to the picture. We aren't talking about methodolgy and conclusions in this one. This is a forensics test, pure science, pure and simple.

or amateur publications that report the Bat Creek Stone as "fact"?

Which is why I suspect that no matter where this information is published you will dismiss it as irrelevant. You're nothing if not predictable.

C.I.

Link to comment
And will this be actual artifacts or nibleyesque parallels?

(sigh) Poor Nibley is being blasted again. Without being able to defend himself anymore either...

So I will... I am currently reading a collection of Nibley's essays, which I hadn't run across before.

His parallels are bold. No doubt about it, and often leave the reader wondering (Is this for real?). But unlike many speculators (such as those Da Vinci Code people) he gives you REFERENCES for everyone of his parallelisms.

Want to check them out? YOU CAN!

Not only that, he INVITES you to do so. After reading a Nibley book, I am off on a voyage of exploration, checking out every source I can find (and believe me, with the Internet these days, I can find a LOT).

Nibley was not an archeologist. So he won't show you actual artifacts. He hasn't seen any. Rather, he was a scholar, who read his way through countless ancient documents. Through the records of all mankind, as it were. He waves the documents at you, and demands that you read them, too.

What more do you want?

Beowulf

Link to comment

I was able to find this conclusion from

"Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon"

by Michael Ash

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom20.html

The summary was useful to understand the LDS position.

Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect--we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties. To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies.

Abulafia

Link to comment

The argument seems to have been following a certain path. Look scholars like Dever have argued that there is no evidence for some events in the Bible (the Exodus). Some have argued there is some interesting material, like the going price for slaves (Joseph) mentioned in the Bible fits what external records tell us was the price for a slave (Kitchen).

Ash "To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies."

So we end up hoping there is some evidence in the future.

Festinger (When Prophecy Fails, (New York: Harper and Row, 1956),

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks"

Just an aside, I notice JulieAnn likes to have a dig at Evangelical fundamentalists. Something from Bonehoeffer

" In 1930 he went to the United States as a guest of Union Theological Seminary, NYC. There he was dismayed at seeing how frivolous American seminarians were concerning the study of theology. His dismay peaked the day a most moving passage frm Luther's writings in the subject of sin and foregiveness was greeted with derisive laughter. Bonhoeffer retorted 'You students at this liberal seminary sneer at the fundamentalists in America, when all the while the fundamentalists know far more of the truth and grace, mercy and judgement of God than do you"

Link to comment

Abulafia:

I felt that the evidence that Brant Gardner put forward wasn't convincing.

Not that I expect to convince everyone all of the time, but given some of the comments on this thread, I wonder of what I haven't provided convincing evidence?

Is the evidence not convincing that the film seriously misrepresents the nature of the argument?

Or, are you suggesting, as did Don, that the article didn't provide evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the latter, then perhaps you are reading the wrong article, since the evidence mounted discussed the first, but not the second issue.

I agree that it would be wonderful to have one place to go to where one might find the best arguments for the Book of Mormon as well as an analysis of the critiques against it. That, unfortunately, is book length.

Link to comment

Noel00:

So we end up hoping there is some evidence in the future.

Hardly. The point of discussion Dever's perhaps anomalous relationship to the text is to demonstrate that there is no way that archaeological data, in and of itself, is conclusive. This is even more true when one speaks of its absence.

The lesson isn't that we wait, but rather that we must carefully interpret - which is the job of the archaeologist/anthropologist.

That process is happening with the Book of Mormon, and the kinds of evidence that Dever finds that convinces him of the Bible's historicity contra others who suggest that it isn't historical in that particular time period, is the kind of information that we find in the New World and must compare to the Book of Mormon (precisely as he suggested would be done for the Bible).

That others read data differently tells us nothing more than that the process requires argumentation and careful analysis. It does not tell us that we wait. It doesn't tell us that the Bible is wrong and the Book of Mormon right, any more than it does that the Bible is right and the Book of Mormon wrong.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of the careful understanding of data and the understanding of data and text that allow it to be put together.

Link to comment
I agree that it would be wonderful to have one place to go to where one might find the best arguments for the Book of Mormon as well as an analysis of the critiques against it. That, unfortunately, is book length.

Maybe someday someone will figure out how to put a long document that is book length on the internet for many people to read. Maybe it could even have some kind of special tool for searching - an "engine" type of tool that would let you type in a word or phrase, "archeological evidence of chariots" for example, then magically transport you to that place in the book. It may not happen in our lifetime, but maybe someday....

Link to comment

horses:

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/do...nts/horses.html

now what?

elephants?

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.html

now what?

barley? steel? etc.?

for dummies like me, it's called an internet search engine, folks!

i would imagine that serious critics and serious apologists would know about these sources and much more. so why not? do people on both sides have agendas? do critics NOT want to know, or intentionally not say? do apologists only want to promote their own (group) material? (those sites have been up for a while, too.) if not, what's going on here? don't you see that's what it looks like? may i be frank and suggest to both sides to get more on the ball? it would sure make for a much better debate, don't you think?

Link to comment

On the silliness of Biblical Archaeology in the first place, see P.R. S. Moorey, A Century of Biblical Archaeology, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

This book was a shocker. For a number of reasons when I read it a few years back (yes it has taken me awhile to review it, but I am doing all I can now to bring you what is interesting! Trust me man, I have a lotta more!)

I have usually taken the approach of showing the Bible is not proven archaeologically to those who would challenge the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds. Not to disparage the Bible, for I, for one, would LOVE to have some real grist in my bag with which to prove the Bible to atheists. Hugh Nibley showed long ago (1959) in his book An Approach to the Book of Mormon, (in the Appendix) what a sorry saga archaeology is because it is not a science, but a bunch of bias know it alls (who really know very, VERY little, and completely argue about what they think they do know!) Recently William Hamblin of FARMS has shown the critically insufficient approach to the anti-Mormon approach to archaeology as well (FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, #1, Spring 1993), but now here is another voice in testimony on the problems of Biblical archaeology, and it isn

Link to comment

i just read the first few pages. pretty good.

a suggestion or two from one who knows a little about propaganda, conspiracies, and "debunking":

i wonder, though, about the audience who needs it and the purpose for writing it. scholars and interested critics probably already know much about what's told. to reach those who will be most easily influenced by it, it might be better to translate it into 6-7th grade language, and put the easier, stronger stuff first.

also, people at this level like specifics, not generals, even though the general stuff is often much stronger.

i also wonder aobut the purpose for writing it. if it is to shown all the problems, ok. if, however, it's to convince the unknowing, somewhat-interested casual common person, it might want to go like this:

get the barley part. nail it hard. provide one or two good quotes from a scientist. provide live links (seeing how most "intelligent" folks here on the board rarely click links and read what they're interested in, most reading your paper won't click anyway, so the more links, the better). then say, "come on, if it's been available to anyone, not just scholars, for the past 20+ years, do you think they might be lying to further their own "mormon church is bad" conspiracy and make money off of your buying this DVD? if they lied so openly about this, can you really trust anything else they tell you?" and, you just saved yourself a bunch of work, too--now you just point out one or two more things (horses, steel, elephant, etc.) and say, "case closed! the movie's a waste. dismissed. next!"

Link to comment

I am actually shocked and bewildered at how many of you believe this to be any good. Its the saddest rebuttal I have ever read up to now, its up to par with a response given by Michael W. Fordham which was knocked out on their rebuttal in:

Mormonism 201: Chapter 16

I myself am writing a rebuttal to his article which fails to provide any "REAL SOLID ANSWERS," It continually follows the pattern of suggestion...only more "what'ifs" and "plausibes" that the lands found have direct correlation to the Book of Mormon. I am on Mettalurgy and Writing, and I have yet to read about one clear without a doubt shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon in his response to the video. Its the same thing in every segment...Video says this, proves this with real factual evidence you can see, feel and touch. The writer continually shifts the burden of proof to the Bible and never provides solid factual evidences for the Book of Mormon...just more "what ifs" and "plausibles" and citing work done by Sorenson, all the while having the Church avoid any and all official stands on the matter. Its very sad indeed...I have worked on this for 5 and a half hours so far...very exaustive, but I want to finish this for you to read.

I am answering his segment for segment with my own, just as Richard A. Banes did on Mr. Fordham's rebuttal. So far, I am not seeing this "good" rebuttal you all speak of, only a weak scholarly attempts to explain the things left unseen. Video provides sound proof, writer alleges things are out of context and the possibilities of proof being found or existing while scholars are still denied approval or direct backing from the Church they strongly support. :P

I ache for you all...it doesn't take a scholar to see he is simply dodging the video!

Link to comment
I am actually shocked and bewildered at how many of you believe this to be any good.  Its the saddest rebuttal I have ever read up to now

Some of us are simply so ignorant and stupid that we're easily satisfied. We're quite pathetic, really, and deserve the pity of more intelligent, more learned people.

Evidence and analysis might help us, though, more than mere assertion does. Take pity on us, and demonstrate your claim.

Link to comment

asciikerr:

The writer continually shifts the burden of proof to the Bible and never provides solid factual evidences for the Book of Mormon...just more "what ifs" and "plausibles" and citing work done by Sorenson, all the while having the Church avoid any and all official stands on the matter.

Well, this is an easily checked assertion. I'll start with the idea that the article simply refers to plausibles and cites Sorenson. Sorenson is cited - when the subject is the misconstrual of one of his arguments.

I checked the bibliography. There are 37 different works cited. 4 are from Sorenson. A total of 15 were from LDS authors (one of whom is Tom Murphy, who is technically LDS, but obviously not in the same way as the others). The majority of the sources used as evidence are from non-LDS and represent some of the best-known names in Mesoamerican archaeology/ethnohistory.

The burden of proof isn't shifted to the Bible. The burden of proof is shifted to evidence and the fact that the video fails to accurately use the evidence it presents contra the Book of Mormon.

I agree with Dr. Peterson. Since your quick description doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the article, I would really need to see a demonstration of your points. Otherwise, your post does what the video does - makes easy generalizations while ignoring actual data.

Link to comment

We appear to be back to the "yuk yuk" methododology of the countermos. Point and smirk. Point and smirk. I've always liked this collaborative effort from a biblical scholar and archeaologist who deal with the same issues that frazzle the countermos in their unrelenting search for one side of the story.

In this book we do not claim that everyone, even or especially the two of us who are writing it together, must agree on all such gospel layers.  We do claim and we do agree that layering decisions are demanded both in archaeology and in exegesis, that disagreements about them do not negate but only emphasize their importance, and that they are correlatively crucial for excavating Jesus.   

John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed,  Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts  (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 13, 14.

Link to comment
I am actually shocked and bewildered at how many of you believe this to be any good. Its the saddest rebuttal I have ever read up to now, its up to par with a response given by Michael W. Fordham which was knocked out on their rebuttal in:

Mormonism 201: Chapter 16

No, yours is the "saddest" nonrebuttal. Point and smirk. Point and smirk. If you are writing a rebuttal you should easily be able to provide a few lines of that writing. Yet you provide nothing. Point and smirk isn't working well for you guys anymore.

I think the horses hit is going to be devastating to the countermos methodology. It was on their top ten list of point and smirk bullet points. They will ignore it as if they had never been made to look like blithering idiots yukking away at the very idea there might be new discoveries to their already complete world. But it will be exhibit one for scholars. This is not going to be pretty.

Link to comment

My favorite part of the review was the answer to "where are the places described in the BofM?" And the answer is: "How dare they say we don't know where any of the places are! We've known for quite a while that they are in Mesoamerica."

Not exactly an answer. You might as well have said: "They are in the Western Hemisphere of the planet called Earth." "Thanks for the pinpoint location" says the man sitting next to the Jewish temple in the city of Jerusalem in the land of Israel. Has Blake Ostler been satisfied? Can I book my BofM tour now?

I'm not sure using the lack of evidence for the Exodus is a strong comparison for the lack of evidence in the BofM. The Exodus took place much longer ago than the events in the BofM. Wouldn't it have been better to name a major event or place described in the Bible that was the same age as something in the BofM? Apples to Apples and all. (although I'm guess that you say there are no apples because the New World is so different than the Old world).

Thanks for the dialogue cool.gif

Link to comment
I'm not sure using the lack of evidence for the Exodus is a strong comparison for the lack of evidence in the BofM.  The Exodus took place much longer ago than the events in the BofM.  Wouldn't it have been better to name a major event or place described in the Bible that was the same age as something in the BofM?  Apples to Apples and all. (although I'm guess that you say there are no apples because the New World is so different than the Old world).

We know the history of the ancient Near East far, far better than we know the history of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, so I'm not sure, taking that into consideration, that a comparison between older and more recent periods really works to the unfair advantage of the Mormon side.

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...