Book Of Mormon Proven Right

[Hammer]

Flack? Call for references.

Flack:

1. antiaircraft fire, esp. as experienced by the crews of combat airplanes at which the fire is directed.

2. criticism; hostile reaction; abuse: Such an unpopular decision is bound to draw a lot of flak from the press.

I did a definition just so we are clear at what we are looking for.

I'm not saying it PROVES anything other than there is evidence that he had ACCESS to the information. You would only bet your hiking boots? I thought it was worth more than that. So are you saying that you KNOW based on EVIDENCE that Joseph NEVER SAW or HEARD of EXODUS until 1830 when he began to translate the BIBLE? Please provide that evidence that would lead you to conclude that. Or if it's just a testimony than- okay- that's the end of the story.The way I see it- you guys win. You win because you say you know and have the truth. I cannot compete with that. I can only search for truth and keep on looking when I think I have found it. It's hard to have meaningful dialoge when most people only offer sarcasm and forget to add substance. Sailgirl7

[Hammer]

I wonder if you or anyone knowledgable enough could make up a comprehensive list of all the books JS and friends were supposed to have read, obsorbed, and regurgitate in order to write the BoM in a few months time.

How old was JS when he alegedly wrote or was helped to write this book? How much time and transference of paper work was given in order to get this work accomplished.

How did the men involved see an angel? Do angels come to all frauds? I am getting a little confused about how all of these things could have taken place in so few years when most can't get anything at all done in a life time.

It also confuses me that God would validate such work to millions of people.

No one has a list? OR are they just afraid to give one out because it would be so large that it would disprove the idea that JS used them to write the BoM?

[Fortigurn]

With all the sudden interest in a change of subject, I didn't want these two comments to go unforgotten:

Also, Stegemann views the Temple scroll as an early expansion of the Torah and that it would have been a central document of law during the mid-2nd Temple period from the end of the 5th century, through the fourth or third century B.C. Lehi left Jerusalum in 588/587 B.C. (the first Temple period 1006-586 B.C.) which was almost 100 years BEFORE the time when this would have been the law.

Um, one reason the BofM did NOT use the law as found in the Temple Scroll is more than likely due to dating......... BofM Lehi travels approx around 590-585 B.C., Dead Sea Temple Scroll um approx 100 B.C...... you know, a little chronological thingy going on here.................

[sailgirl7]

Why Me and Hammer-

Please accept my apologizes for the flak. It was wrong of me.

Sailgirl7

[Hammer]

Why Me and Hammer-

Please accept my apologizes for the flak. It was wrong of me.

Sailgirl7

That's really nice of you. Apologies accepted, by me anyway.

[Chris Smith]

It is pretty well documented that there are parallels between 1 Nephi and Exodus. Lehi, in particular, parallels Moses. And in fact there is another important parallel between 1 Nephi 2 and Exodus 3 (remember that Exodus 3:18 is one of the places we find a three-day journey followed by a sacrifice):

1 Ne. 2:20

And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

Ex. 3

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey...

Furthermore, the passage as a whole is much closer to Exodus 3 than to the Temple Scroll. 1 Nephi 2 makes no mention of the temple, but the sequence of events in the passage almost exactly mirrors Exodus 3: God appears to the patriarch and tells him to take his people out of affliction and into the wilderness. God promises to take them to a choice land. The patriarch obeys, and he and his people travel three days into the wilderness, where they stop and make a sacrifice out of gratitude to the Lord. The passage seems to serve an obvious rhetorical function: it likens Lehi to Moses, and the journey of the Nephites to the Exodus from Egypt.

The Temple Scroll provides no evidence for the Book of Mormon partly because Lehi's alleged behavior is better explained by appeal to Exodus 3 and partly because of the Scroll's late date and obscure provenance. If Lehi was a Deuteronomist (and since he was a follower of Jeremiah, this is a safe bet), he probably would not have considered it acceptable to offer sacrifices outside of the Jerusalem temple. We should understand his actions in light of the traditions of his day, rather than in light of later commentaries by obscure separatist communities.

So to shrug off sailgirl's Exodus passage is frankly absurd.

Blessings,

-CK

[Fortigurn]

Add one more to the list of 'Important-posts-which-shouldn't-be-ignored-despite-the-sudden-interest-in-any-subject-other-than-the-original-claim'.

[Hammer]

I kind of smiled when I read these debates. Buddhists can debate fine points about emptiness that leave my head spinning. I think they've probably got way more scripture than the Christians and just reams of commentary on each little verse. They analyze everything to death -- then they go meditate. Or vice versa. And everything's numbered -- the 4 reminders, the 4 noble truths, the 6 paramitas, the 5 elements, the 56 thingamabobbies and the 84 watchamacallits. I think that's because they memorize everything. Those geshe's have memorized hundreds of books and can debate them all. We are all starting to sound like Buddhists here.

[Chris Smith]

I find it all quite amazing just what this farm boy knew...but I also find it all very sad. He could have made something of himself...maybe a professor of theology at a new england college. Oh well...to loose one's life for a crazy book is such a waste of life....

Joseph Smith lived one of the most interesting lives I've ever read about. Almost makes me want to be a pious fraud myself.

[Hammer]

Joseph Smith lived one of the most interesting lives I've ever read about. Almost makes me want to be a pious fraud myself.

[sailgirl7]

I will just summarize the main reasons why I think it is incorrect to take the one parallel from the Temple Scroll which says: "You shall not sacrifice any pure cow, sheep or he-goat in any of your cities which are less than three days' walk from my temple, but instead sacrifice them inside the temple." as proof of the Book of Mormon.

1. When viewed within the broader context of the entire Temple Scroll- this one point gets lost. The points of difference between the law within the scroll and the known account of Lehi- from what I've seen are overwhelming. Please show me how I am wrong if I am. For example- the different calender, the additional festivals, the description of the Temple being different than the First and Second Temple, the differences between the Essene texts and the scroll.

2. A deeper understanding of the Essenes has shown that the "City of the Temple (Jerusalem) was equated with the camp where the tabernacle was kept in the wilderness.g All the laws and bans applicable to the wilderness camp were applicable to the entire city of Jerusalem. (In some cases, the camp is equated with any city, and the bans are applicable to all cities.)"--Yigael Yadin

3. There are issues with the timeline (see previous posts.)

4. Also- the story of Moses and his Tabernacle in the wilderness seems to have been the influence for the the future temple rules- "Drawing on rules of purity established primarily in the Book of Deuteronomy for Moses' wandering community and its Tabernacle in the Wilderness, the Temple Scroll writer translates these rules into use at the future Temple City of Jerusalem"Jehon Grist, Ph.D.

5. Therefore since there is some evidence that Joseph had access to the old testament stories- it is possible that he could have used that for his source of information. Or he was just inspired of God- and none of this really matters anyway.

Please correct me where I am wrong- show me how I'm wrong.

Sailgirl7

As I was about to post this- I noticed all the other comments-so sorry.

Edit: Thank you Californiakid for your input.

[Fortigurn]

I kind of smiled when I read these debates. Buddhists can debate fine points about emptiness that leave my head spinning. I think they've probably got way more scripture than the Christians and just reams of commentary on each little verse. They analyze everything to death -- then they go meditate. Or vice versa. And everything's numbered -- the 4 reminders, the 4 noble truths, the 6 paramitas, the 5 elements, the 56 thingamabobbies and the 84 watchamacallits. I think that's because they memorize everything. Those geshe's have memorized hundreds of books and can debate them all. We are all starting to sound like Buddhists here.

I don't think this thread is anything like Buddhism. A claim was made that a certain historical document supported the Book of Mormom's claim to historicity.

That claim was falsified.

[why me]

Why Me and Hammer-

Please accept my apologizes for the flak. It was wrong of me.

Sailgirl7

Don't worry about it...I always get that reaction from women...I kinda like it.

<<<let me introduce myself...my name is why me....

[why me]

A claim was made that a certain historical document supported the Book of Mormom's claim to historicity.

That claim was falsified.

Actually where was the claim falsified? I don't see it at all as being falsified. A claim was made that an event in the dead sea scrolls matched an event in the book of mormon. It does match. Someone brings up exodus and claims that JS could have extracted that information into the book of mormon...however, exodus has a different context.

Claim: The dead sea scrolls match one aspect of the book of mormon in temple worship. This is true.

Disclaimer: No proof has been established that JS or Sidney took the idea from exodus, if they wrote the book.

The claim still stands.

[why me]

Joseph Smith lived one of the most interesting lives I've ever read about. Almost makes me want to be a pious fraud myself.

When the book of mormon was published his life became interesting. During the claimed visions his life was becoming interesting. However, before all this began to happen, his life was as interesting as watching a dung beetle swiming in a swimming pool.

[Fortigurn]

Actually where was the claim falsified? I don't see it at all as being falsified.

The claim made was 'Book Of Mormon Proved Right'. The specific claim was that the Temple Scroll 11Q19 verified that the Book of Mormon recorded accurately Jewish sacrificial orthopraxy during the era alleged for Lehi.

It has been demonstrated that:

* There is no evidence as yet that this sacrificial orthopraxy existed outside the Qumran community

* This sacrificial orthopraxy did not arise until long after the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived

* There is no evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived is reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

* There is evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived does is not reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

* There is no evidence that this passage from the Book of Mormon even describes the sacrificial orthopraxy of the Temple Scroll 11Q9

A claim was made that an event in the dead sea scrolls matched an event in the book of mormon. It does match.

That was not the claim made, but even that claim hasn't been proved true.

Claim: The dead sea scrolls match one aspect of the book of mormon in temple worship. This is true.

The claim made was 'Book Of Mormon Proven Right'. This has not yet been verified. The specific claim was that the Temple Scroll 11Q19 verified that the Book of Mormon recorded accurately Jewish sacrificial orthopraxy during the era alleged for Lehi. This claim has been falsified.

Predictably, the original claim is now being discarded for a far more general and ambiguous claim, namely 'The dead sea scrolls match one aspect of the book of mormon in temple worship'. Concerning which, see my fifth point above.

[All-Seeing Eye]

Hm. So, because the BoM says that Lehi travelled a long enough distance away from the temple, that proves the BoM to be true?

Would you also say, then, that if it turned out that the DSS were wrong, and the official distance was actually 4 days away rather than three, that this would be acceptable proof of the BoM's falsehood?

Somehow I doubt it.

[why me]

Hm. So, because the BoM says that Lehi travelled a long enough distance away from the temple, that proves the BoM to be true?

Would you also say, then, that if it turned out that the DSS were wrong, and the official distance was actually 4 days away rather than three, that this would be acceptable proof of the BoM's falsehood?

Somehow I doubt it.

No, here is the problem. If there is a correlation from another piece of work, ie, the bible etc, critics say that plagarism took place or that Joseph or Sidney got the information from somewhere, ie, a bookshop from England or from the local 'Palmyra academic bookclub' circle . And if it is not in the scriptures, then the book of mormon is not true. In other words, any comparison becomes a plagarism and any ommision becomes a premise for falsehood. And so, apologists can't win...the stack is against them.

The premise for the thread was the three day hike which corresponded with the dead sea scrolls. However, as with some critics on this thread or board, it is always helpful to play the plagarism card and have JS or someone else spend every moment of their working lives, researching for the book of mormon as JS seems to have done as a young man.

Truthfully, I feel sorry for JS. He spent so much time researching before writing it and then he spent time writing it. I just don't see where he found the time for money digging or farming. And how to explain his absences to his parents, brothers etc. And yet, his neighbors had not a clue just what a genius this man was...quite extraordinary don't you think?

Do you get the premise now?

[Fortigurn]

No, here is the problem.

I gave you five problems in my post. I recommend you address them before changing the subject.

[why me]

I gave you five problems in my post. I recommend you address them before changing the subject.

Read the first post by the original poster. That was his premise and that premise was not proven false. Your five problems do not address the original premise. Sailgirl spiced it all up with her premise of possible plagarism. Your five problems have little to do with the original premise. But they were interesting.

[Fortigurn]

Read the first post by the original poster. That was his premise and that premise was not proven false. Your five problems do not address the original premise. Sailgirl spiced it all up with her premise of possible plagarism. Your five problems have little to do with the original premise. But they were interesting.

If you had read my post, you would have found that not only did I read the first post by the OP, but all five of my points addressed it directly.

Here they are again:

The claim made was 'Book Of Mormon Proved Right'. The specific claim was that the Temple Scroll 11Q19 verified that the Book of Mormon recorded accurately Jewish sacrificial orthopraxy during the era alleged for Lehi.

It has been demonstrated that:

* There is no evidence as yet that this sacrificial orthopraxy existed outside the Qumran community

* This sacrificial orthopraxy did not arise until long after the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived

* There is no evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived is reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

* There is evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived does is not reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

* There is no evidence that this passage from the Book of Mormon even describes the sacrificial orthopraxy of the Temple Scroll 11Q9

[rhinomelon]

Rhinomelon:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for the most part, predate Christianity, and have nothing specifically to do with Christianity (no matter what Dan Brown likes to say). There are no Christian or pseudo-Christian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are from a strictly Jewish milieu. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts?

Kerry:

Oh, I'd be willing to debate you on this.......... I think you may be wrong, quite, quite wrong.......

Welcome, Lord Kerry (as urroner has instructed me to address you )!

I think I overstated the issue when I said that the DSS "have nothing specifically to do with Christianity". If you are wanting to debate me on that tack, you would undoubtedly win. The DSS give us a remarkable window into the cultural context from which Christianity originated. The apocalyptic worldview found in the sayings of Jesus and writings of Paul has much in common with that of the DSS.

What I meant to say was that there are no specifically Christian texts in the DSS, i.e. none that mention Jesus Christ or the apostles, etc (unless you accept O'Callaghan and Thiede's assertion that a tiny fragment of the original gospel of Mark is found therein, which is dubious). They are Jewish in origin, and if I remember right most of them do predate Christ.

Take care, everyone

[consiglieri]

* There is no evidence as yet that this sacrificial orthopraxy existed outside the Qumran community

I am not sure this is correct. I will admit that I know of no evidence of its existence. Thank you for adding the "as yet."

* This sacrificial orthopraxy did not arise until long after the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived

There is no evidence that this conclusion is correct. We know that this sacrificial orthopraxy was in existence around 500 years after Lehi lived. We do not know when it arose.

* There is no evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived is reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

I am aware of none.

* There is evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived does is not reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon

This seems to be an overstatement. What evidence do you have in mind that shows that the sacrificial orthopraxy of Lehi's day is not reflected in this passage?

* There is no evidence that this passage from the Book of Mormon even describes the sacrificial orthopraxy of the Temple Scroll 11Q9

Except for the fact that they appear identical, I agree with you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

There is no evidence that this conclusion is correct. We know that this sacrificial orthopraxy was in existence around 500 years after Lehi lived. We do not know when it arose.

We know what the sacrificial orthopraxy was during the 1st Temple era. We know what it was during the 2nd Temple era. We know how it is recorded in the Temple Scroll (2nd Temple era). You have claimed that the sacrificial orthopraxy of Lehi matches that of the Temple Scroll. That means it matches an extant sacrificial orthopraxy of the 2nd Temple era, when you need to match the 1st Temple era.

I am aware of none.

Thank you. So we can agree that there is no evidence that the sacrificial orthopraxy of the era in which Lehi is alleged to have lived is reflected in this passage from the Book of Mormon. This means that the original claim ('Book Of Mormon Proven Right'), is untrue.

It also means that no evidence whatever has been provided for the more specific claim that the Temple Scroll 11Q19 verified that the Book of Mormon recorded accurately Jewish sacrificial orthopraxy during the era alleged for Lehi.

This seems to be an overstatement. What evidence do you have in mind that shows that the sacrificial orthopraxy of Lehi's day is not reflected in this passage?

We have abundant evidence for the sacrificial orthopraxy of the 1st Temple era. You will find it in the Old Testament, as well as in the apocryphal literature.

Except for the fact that they appear identical, I agree with you.

But they don't appear identical. You have a journey of three days, and a sacrifice. That's it. You could get that from Exodus or even Genesis 22 (Abraham and Isaac). There is no evidence that this passage from the Book of Mormon even describes the sacrificial orthopraxy of the Temple Scroll 11Q9.

[consiglieri]

Fortigurn wrote:

We have abundant evidence for the sacrificial orthopraxy of the 1st Temple era. You will find it in the Old Testament, as well as in the apocryphal literature.

This one statement by you demonstrates that you are out of your league.

Please disregard my above attempt to discuss the matter with you in a reasonable manner.