Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[fox_goku]

>Some apparent anachronisms, such as the application of New Testament quotations to pre-Christian texts,

Your assumption is incorrect. The NT authors are constantly quoting OT sources, *including* missing books in the OT. The so-called "NT quotations" are actually quotations by Paul and others from OT sources, as evidenced by their inclusion in the BOM.

You have it backwards.

Personally, I think the most honest approach is to assume New Testament quotations came from the New Testament until there is hard evidence to the contrary.

It is just a hypothesis that such quotations could have a common source in the "Old Testament" era. I think parsimony dictates that the simplest explanation is best, even if it is not the most favorable toward the BofM.

[maklelan]

I think parsimony dictates that the simplest explanation is best, even if it is not the most favorable toward the BofM.

This is true, but when we try to hold non-Mormons to that then we have trouble. Take NHM for example. The simplest explanation for it is that it's the place named in the Book of Mormon, but in that instance the non-Mormons throw parsimony out the window because the assumption that the supernatural is completely false is apparently the only assumption that scholars are allowed to enlist without any back-up. So how do we treat issues that fall in favor of the Book of Mormon when the law of parsimony is called upon?

[Dan Vogel]

Then it becomes a matter of framing the question.

If I say, "The Book of Mormon peoples lived in meso-America," then I must provide evidence to prove my claim.

Now, if you say, "The Book of Mormon is not an historic document, but a 19th century production" then the ball is in your court. You must prove your claim. You cannot demand that I provide proof to refute your statement.

19th century production would be the default position.

[Dan Vogel]

>Some apparent anachronisms, such as the application of New Testament quotations to pre-Christian texts,

Your assumption is incorrect. The NT authors are constantly quoting OT sources, *including* missing books in the OT. The so-called "NT quotations" are actually quotations by Paul and others from OT sources, as evidenced by their inclusion in the BOM.

You have it backwards.

[charity]

DAn Vogel, the specific argument is not the point. The idea is that if you make the statement, then you must provide proof.

[antishock8]

DAn Vogel, the specific argument is not the point. The idea is that if you make the statement, then you must provide proof.

Hmm... how about this?

The Book of Mormon is not true.

Proof:

All American archaeological ruins prove the existence of non-Jewish Amerinds only.

Wow. I just did it. I just proved that the BofM is not true. Huh... that seems too easy. What's the catch?

[charity]

antishock8, your proof is not proof, of course. That is the catch. Your statement is incorrect because it is incomplete. Your statement should be, "All the ruins discovered so far have been non-Jewish Amerindian." Then with the qualification, you are correct, but you have also not proven the Book of Mormon is not true.

Same deal as if I, as a defense attorney, paraded 1,000 people onto the witness stand saying, "I did not see John Jones committ the crime." Then the prosecution puts one person on the stand who says, "I saw John Jones committ the crime" and all my thousand weren't worth a thing. That's what you just did. "This ruin is not Lehite, that ruin is not Lehite. . ." When that one comes up with "Zarahemla" carved in a door post, you are toast.

[antishock8]

When that one comes up with "Zarahemla" carved in a door post, you are toast.

Indeed... 'tis going to happen some day... I'm sure.

[charity]

Tell you what, antishock8, let's set up a time to meet on the other side, and see who was right?

[Dale]

I don't know where the Book of Mormon text say's the Nephites left old world style ruins.

I do not think based on DNA studies you can discount what you think has been disproven.

I am not sure anything has been discovered. I know of no history outside the Book of Mormon that exists to contradict it. No ancient map exists to contradict it. If a propose place could not be Zarahemla then show me the real name.

[maklelan]

Hmm... how about this?

The Book of Mormon is not true.

Proof:

All American archaeological ruins prove the existence of non-Jewish Amerinds only.

Wow. I just did it. I just proved that the BofM is not true. Huh... that seems too easy. What's the catch?

You've not been apprised of the DNA research since 2000 have you?

[antishock8]

You've not been apprised of the DNA research since 2000 have you?

I specifically avoided mentioning genetic research because this is a thread devoted to archaeology. If you would like to start a thread about Amerind genetics I would be more than happy to contribute nothing of a substantive nature to the discussion.

[maklelan]

I specifically avoided mentioning genetic research because this is a thread devoted to archaeology.

Then why did you just submit it as the entire base of your disbelief?

[antishock8]

Then why did you just submit it as the entire base of your disbelief?

I did not do that. Perhaps you're a bit confused? I'm not really how much more plain it can be... the Book of Mormon is really a matter of faith. There is no proof of its veracity.

[cdowis]

"The Book of Mormon is not true.

Proof:

All American archaeological ruins prove the existence of non-Jewish Amerinds only.

Wow. I just did it. I just proved that the BofM is not true. Huh... that seems too easy. What's the catch?"

May I suggest that you take a class in logic, and show this to the professor. I see several flaws in your logic, but you don't have to take my word for it.

[cdowis]

>I agree that Archeology speaks for itself. While not EVERY SINGLE physical places/events in the Bible has been found yet there are ENORMOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDINGS that attests to its HISTORICITY.

I assume that you are aware that there are many athiests within the archeological community, including Biblical archeology. The issue is not whether it relates actual history, but whether it is the inspired word of God.

Demonstrating that some events do indeed have a historical basis obviously does not prove this issue.

>Unfortunately many of my LDS friends will use the "God change things...." or "How about the Jonah story..." etc and the likes to DISPROBE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE which is fatally wrong defense and comparison of BoM and the Bible.

Please do not insult us with your phoney "LDS arguments".

Is the Bible the word of God? Please post your arguments on the newsgroups alt.athiesm or talk.origins and convince some of the nonbelievers there. Get back to us with your results. Give them your url links and see how they respond.

[cdowis]

>The BoM requires a whole other leap of faith entirely, since the evidence for its historicity is not endorsed by any reputable non-Mormon scholar of which I am aware.

The BOM, as a book delivered by an angel, cannot be investigated by the scientific community, it cannot taken seriously.

If *anything* in the book is proven to be historically correct, outside of the bounds of the possibility of JS's range of knowledge, then the entire basis of the book, the existance of angels, modern prophets, the appearance of the Father and the Son, must be accepted.

And what secular scientist is willing to take on that premise? The BOM simply lies outside the possibility of serious scientific investigation, outside the LDS community.

The Bible, on the other hand, can be accepted by secularists, considering that no divine means was used in its production.

Take note, for example, of Dan Vogel's response to my recent post on so-called NT citations in the BOM. Having no intelligent response, he simply uses mockery, a "rotfl" as his official response. It is just too funny for words, angels, golden plates, etc etc. It simply cannot be taken seriously.

In another post, Dan says "The default position is that the bom is a 19th century production." He is actually saying is that the default position is that there are no angels, no golden plates. And he is simply incapable of moving from that position. Any other position is impossible to contemplate.

[antishock8]

"The Book of Mormon is not true.

Proof:

All American archaeological ruins prove the existence of non-Jewish Amerinds only.

Wow. I just did it. I just proved that the BofM is not true. Huh... that seems too easy. What's the catch?"

May I suggest that you take a class in logic, and show this to the professor. I see several flaws in your logic, but you don't have to take my word for it.

There's a logic class? Hmm... maybe that's my problem... I didn't go to logic class.

I guess archaeology proving the existence of non-Jewish Amerinds only really isn't proof the Book of Mormon is not true... because... logically... the Book of Mormon is full of Jewish people... millions I daresay... and.... wait... dang it... I didn't take a 'logic class' so I don't know how to finish this thought.

It's ok. Faith is a wonderful thing for some people I believe.

[charity]

antishock8, You have not defined what a "jewish" ruin would look like in a vastsly different geographical area. You think different climates don't matter? How does a flat roofed building work in an area which gets 50 inches of rain a year, as opposed to 28 inches? how does hot and humid differ from hot and dry?

[Dale]

One does have internal textual evidences for the Book of Mormon. Books like Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited details those evidences. The believers is limited to trying to show parallel evidence. Hugh Nibley, and others have noticed a lot of semitic qualities in the text. Direct evidence has been harder because Meso-American archeology has not produced much for believers to work with.

The case against the Book of Mormon is not based on direct evidence against the books claim's. It is instead trying to demonstrate the book conflicts with what limited stuff we do know. The critics case is based on parralel evidence also. Until they have direct evidence against the text I don't need direct evidence to prove the text. So no direct major evidence that would settle the matter for or against the text.

[thesometimesaint]

antishock8:

What does a "Jewish" ruin look like?

[charity]

Good point, Dale. Doesn't surprise me. You are very logical and sensible. A nice calming influence on the hotter heads, too.

[antishock8]

antishock8:

What does a "Jewish" ruin look like?

That's a good question. Do they look anything like this? Also, ruins... I'm sure... are more than just structures... potteries... monies... weaponry...

Anyway... I'm pretty sure millions of Jews would have left a distinctly Middle Eastern stamp on their habitats, no? They were semi-literate and did follow the manners and traditions of their fathers... so I think there would be a cultural legacy...

[antishock8]

antishock8, You have not defined what a "jewish" ruin would look like in a vastsly different geographical area. You think different climates don't matter? How does a flat roofed building work in an area which gets 50 inches of rain a year, as opposed to 28 inches? how does hot and humid differ from hot and dry?

Oh? You know where the BofM people's lived? That's interesting. There are many deserts across the Americas, Charity... as you should know. But please... since you have solved the mystery I would really like to know where the BofM people lived so we can get on with our archaeological research. This is very exciting...

Anti-shock, the rudeness is getting old. If you want to snipe in lots of threads then you need to give some substance along with it.

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

I don't know where the Book of Mormon text say's the Nephites left old world style ruins.

They were taught to build in the fashion of the OW, the BoM says that, this fashion was passed on

Alma 16:13 And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.

Like almost every topic in posts like this common contextual sense has to be explained away. Like steel actually being wood and rock, or millions meaning thousands or less, or North being East. Yet, certain things are taken rock solid as written, Narrow neck, temple, and biblical quotes. It's really a pick and choose process that changes as need be, as does LDS theology.

The BoM if taken in context is a story of millions upon millions of people of Jewish decent that had a very complicated interstructure, economy, and system of belief. It was a warring people with massive armies comparable to the great verifiable armies that have existed, French, Prussian, Roman..etc. They built massive cities out vast amounts of natural resources and populated them, they had a tax system with prisons for those who violated, they had temples, synagogues, and churches...it goes on and on. Just looking at that along can you imagine the interstructure it would have taken to supply the needs of a civilization like that.

What would be your brief scenario of the BoM like I gave in the last paragraph?

Mark

John 1:12