Book Of Mormon Proven Wrong

[Hammer]

I'm sorry, but parodying my words won't change the facts. It only makes your case weaker. If you believe what you've written here, then you have to acknowledge it applies to the Book of Mormon.

As it happens, disagreements among critics of the Book of Mormon as to how the Book of Mormon was written do not damage their entire case. On the contrary, they only reveal the many possible sources of the Book of Mormon, and how plausible alternatives are to the story told by the LDS church.

The important thing is how God sees it, or if God put it in there that way as a stumblling block. You do believe God does that don't you? Scriptures are full of such stumbling blocks.

There are many about the 'idol' being a stumbling block, idols can be anything we put up as most important in our spiritual lives, like 'scientific knowledge, proofs, etc., but I didn't put them here:

Jer. 6: 21

21 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

Zeph. 1: 3

3 I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

Rom. 11: 9

9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

Rom. 14: 13

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

1 Cor. 1: 23

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Cor. 8: 9

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Rev. 2: 14

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

1 Ne. 14: 1

1 And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—

2 Ne. 26: 20

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own fearning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

Mosiah 7: 29

29 For behold, the Lord hath said: I will not succor my people in the day of their transgression; but I will hedge up their ways that they prosper not; and their doings shall be as a stumbling block before them.

[Scott Gordon]

Here is an interesting tidbit:

I was reading in my German Book of Mormon, and it doesn't say "River." River would be "Fluss." Instead the word used is "Wasserlauf" That would be better tranlsated as "Water way", "Water course," or maybe even "River bed"

Not that it matters. I just thought it was an interesting choice of words.

[Hammer]

Here is an interesting tidbit:

I was reading in my German Book of Mormon, and it doesn't say "River." River would be "Fluss." Instead the word used is "Wasserlauf" That would be better tranlsated as "Water way", "Water course," or maybe even "River bed"

Not that it matters. I just thought it was an interesting choice of words.

It is significant.

[Fortigurn]

The important thing is how God sees it, or if God put it in there that way as a stumblling block. You do believe God does that don't you? Scriptures are full of such stumbling blocks.

There are many about the 'idol' being a stumbling block, idols can be anything we put up as most important in our spiritual lives, like 'scientific knowledge, proofs, etc., but I didn't put them here:

I do not believe that God lays idols as stumblingblocks in front of those who are trying to seek Him. The passages you quote speak of stumblingblocks being placed by God in front of the wicked, stumblingblocks placed in front of the righteous by the wicked, stumblingblocks placed in front of brethren by other brethren, and Christ crucified being a stumblingblock to the Jews, but not God placing stumblingblocks in front of people honestly searching for Him.

[consiglieri]

I'm sorry, but parodying my words won't change the facts. It only makes your case weaker. If you believe what you've written here, then you have to acknowledge it applies to the Book of Mormon.

As it happens, disagreements among critics of the Book of Mormon as to how the Book of Mormon was written do not damage their entire case. On the contrary, they only reveal the many possible sources of the Book of Mormon, and how plausible alternatives are to the story told by the LDS church.

What you have written here indicates that you are unwilling to play on a level playing field.

The fact that there is not universal agreement on whether the river discovered in Arabia is the River of Laman proves that the Book of Mormon is not true.

On the other, hand, the fact that critics cannot agree on the manner of production of the Book of Mormon proves . . . well, it proves that the Book of Mormon is not true.

It seems you wish to have your cake and eat it, too.

Nevertheless, the above exchange strikes me as a good candidate for a new thread, which I will start as soon as time permits.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

What you have written here indicates that you are unwilling to play on a level playing field.

The fact that there is not universal agreement on whether the river discovered in Arabia is the River of Laman proves that the Book of Mormon is not true.

On the other, hand, the fact that critics cannot agree on the manner of production of the Book of Mormon proves . . . well, it proves that the Book of Mormon is not true.

It seems you wish to have your cake and eat it, too.

Nevertheless, the above exchange strikes me as a good candidate for a new thread, which I will start as soon as time permits.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Uh, no. The point here is the same point made countless times. These claims of "a ha! we found a river" don't mean the book is true. What they do is reduce the implausibility, but that's all. No critic I have ever met has said that the book has been proven untrue. Extremely unlikely, yes, but not proven.

[Zakuska]

Uh, no. The point here is the same point made countless times. These claims of "a ha! we found a river" don't mean the book is true. What they do is reduce the implausibility, but that's all. No critic I have ever met has said that the book has been proven untrue. Extremely unlikely, yes, but not proven.

You must not know very many critics!?

There was just a thread not to long ago where living Hopes ministries of Brigham city in a video proped up Bible Archeology against BOM archeology. "Archeology proves the BOM wrong".

[Not quite me]

You must not know very many critics!?

There was just a thread not to long ago where living Hopes ministries of Brigham city in a video proped up Bible Archeology against BOM archeology. "Archeology proves the BOM wrong".

Then they are morons, obviously.

[Zakuska]

Intresting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_a..._Book_of_Mormon

[consiglieri]

Then they are morons, obviously.

I would agree with your assessment, here.

And this actually ties this thread back into the original post, wherein a recognized professor of the Old Testament used the alleged non-existence of any rivers in Arabia as evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

[T]here were no streams of any kind emptying into the Red Sea on the western shore above the southern border of Egypt.

And yet, subsequent research has discovered what appears to be just such a river.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

...wherein a recognized professor of the Old Testament...

Ouch!

[Not quite me]

I would agree with your assessment, here.

And this actually ties this thread back into the original post, wherein a recognized professor of the Old Testament used the alleged non-existence of any rivers in Arabia as evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

And yet, subsequent research has discovered what appears to be just such a river.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Note that we distinguish between "evidence" and "proof." The problem here is that y'all are overstating both yours and the critics' cases.

[Zakuska]

Dr. Gleason Archer, an authority on the ancient Middle East and the Old Testament, made the following declaration in 1973:

In 1 Nephi 2:5-8, it is stated that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. Yet neither in historic nor prehistoric times has there been any river in Arabia at all that emptied into the Red Sea. Apart from an ancient canal which once connected the Nile with the coast of the Gulf of Suez, and certain wadis which showed occasional rainfall in ancient times, there were no streams of any kind emptying into the Red Sea on the western shore above the southern border of Egypt.

Archer, Gleason, L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973, revised 1996), pp. 501-04.

I see no Differentiation here... Do you? Its stated as Absolute proof.

[Not quite me]

Dr. Gleason Archer, an authority on the ancient Middle East and the Old Testament, made the following declaration in 1973:

In 1 Nephi 2:5-8, it is stated that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. Yet neither in historic nor prehistoric times has there been any river in Arabia at all that emptied into the Red Sea. Apart from an ancient canal which once connected the Nile with the coast of the Gulf of Suez, and certain wadis which showed occasional rainfall in ancient times, there were no streams of any kind emptying into the Red Sea on the western shore above the southern border of Egypt.

Archer, Gleason, L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973, revised 1996), pp. 501-04.

I see no Differentiation here... Do you? Its stated as Absolute proof.

If he used the words "absolute proof" (and you've given no indication that he did), then I stand on my earlier statement: moron. Again, I think you're overstating his case.

[consiglieri]

Note that we distinguish between "evidence" and "proof." The problem here is that y'all are overstating both yours and the critics' cases.

I don't want to get into a long discussion of what is evidence and what is proof. Different people will view the same facts in different ways.

I tend to see the two as equivalent terms. Evidence is proof. Proof is evidence. (Have you ever noticed what a funny word "proof" is if you just sit and look at it for a while?)

A search warrant may issue based on "proof" of probable cause. A civil case must be "proven" by a preponderance of the evidence. A criminal case must be "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt. The word "proof" itself does not necessarily mean that there are no alternatives; nor that what is "proven" is the only alternative.

Better quit here before I completely contradict myself about not wanting to get into that "long discussion."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

"Never at any time has there ever been a river"... How is that not Absolute?

Theres a Geologist that has assesed our river and comes to the exact opposite assesment, both in Pre-Hsitoric and Modern Times. There is a river there.

Sandra Tanner as of 2003 was still repeating this.

But hey... I agree with your Moron assesment of these Critics.

[Not quite me]

I tend to see the two as equivalent terms. Evidence is proof. Proof is evidence. (Have you ever noticed what a funny word "proof" is if you just sit and look at it for a while?)

You really see no difference between evidence and proof? That's good to know, as it pretty much makes reasonable discussion impossible.

Carry on.

Never at any time has there ever been a river? How is that not Absolute?

Theres a Geologist that has assesed our river and comes to the exact opposite assesment, both in Pre-Hsitoric and Modern Times. There is a river there.

Sandra Tanner as of 2003 was still repeating this.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the idea that said professor ever said it was absolute proof that the book is a fraud. I'm not surprised that Mrs. Tanner repeated that. I doubt either one of them would say it was absolute proof of anything. Just evidence.

[consiglieri]

Actually, what I am saying regarding "proof" and "evidence" is that they are generally understood to be equivalent terms, as indicated by your adding the word "absolute" in front of "proof" in your last post.

All I am saying is that "proof" as well as "evidence" are of varying kinds and qualities, all of which will be determined in a largely subjective manner by the person making the assessement.

I thought that it was possible to have a reasonable discussion with me. Others apparently disagree. I suppose you can count my wife among that group.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

Actually, what I am saying regarding "proof" and "evidence" is that they are generally understood to be equivalent terms, as indicated by your adding the word "absolute" in front of "proof" in your last post.

Actually, it wasn't me who added "absolute," but it was Zak. No one I know considers the two terms even "generally" equivalent. If I ever get arrested for something, I hope you're not on the jury.

All I am saying is that "proof" as well as "evidence" are of varying kinds and qualities, all of which will be determined in a largely subjective manner by the person making the assessement.

So, you don't believe in objective truth. Fair enough.

I thought that it was possible to have a reasonable discussion with me. Others apparently disagree. I suppose you can count my wife among that group.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

As long as you hold to a malleable definition of proof, then it will be to my advantage to assume you mean evidence. As long as I remember to qualify all of your statements, I'm sure we can still talk.

[consiglieri]

I am glad (really) that you feel we can still talk. I see you as a voice of reasonableness on this board.

And if you are ever arrested for anything, you actually would probably want me on the jury. Better still, you would want me sitting by your side at counsel table.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

I am glad (really) that you feel we can still talk. I see you as a voice of reasonableness on this board.

Looks can be deceiving.

And if you are ever arrested for anything, you actually would probably want me on the jury. Better still, you would want me sitting by your side at counsel table.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I guess the best plan is to never do anything that would get me arrested, right?

Maybe I'm over the whole Mormon thing, but I find myself far less combative than I used to be. And that has to be a good thing.

[Zakuska]

Heres some more morons.

More importantly, Groat's and Wilson's contrast between a Bible that is archaeologically "proven" and a Book of Mormon that is archaeologically "disproven" is fallacious. It rests on a misrepresentation of what biblical archaeology actually demonstrates. And it relies, as will be discussed below, on a persistent refusal to look at what Latter-day Saint scholars are actually saying about the Book of Mormon. There are still numerous disputes and unanswered questions concerning archaeology and the historicity of the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible has been studied by literally thousands of professional historians and archaeologists for over a century and a half. Why, then, should we not expect similar disagreements and questions concerning the Book of Mormon, which has been seriously studied by only a few dozen professionals for only a few decades?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...Archaeology.htm

[Not quite me]

Heres some more morons.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...Archaeology.htm

Hmmm. Besides beating a dead horse, why are you repeating this mantra? I already agree with you that those who think it's been proven or disproven are morons. And btw, in the absence of the original, you have only Hamblin using the word "disproven." Maybe if he shows up, he can show these two guys as the morons you and I think they are.

[Zakuska]

No need...

1. Luke P. Wilson, "The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains," Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries (Fall 1992): 2, 3, and 5. Hereafter references to this article are given in parentheses in the text by page number and column letter: i.e. (2b) = page 2, column b. I would like to thank Janet Carpenter for research assistance, and John Sorenson, John Welch, and Stephen Ricks for useful comments.

[Not quite me]

No need...

As I said, if the quotes are not "scare" quotes, then the two dudes are indeed morons. It might surprise you that I don't hold a lot of the religious countermos in high esteem (remember my civil discussion with that Pastor a while back on that other board?).