Jump to content

More Evidence That The Bom Is True!


Mike Reed

Recommended Posts

I have heard there was NO archiological proof of the BoM. Well, this is.

Am I the only person who sees the really obvious problem with this being "evidence"?

The beginning dates for the Jaredites would be within a range of 3250 to 2800 B.C.E. So evidence of 3000 year old beekeeping wouldn't help much for the Jaredites who left the old world 4800 to 5250 years ago. The timing is off by 2 millennium!

Phaedrus

*edit jerusalem to old world

Link to comment

Am I the only person who sees the really obvious problem with this being "evidence"?

The beginning dates for the Jaredites would be within a range of 3250 to 2800 B.C.E. So evidence of 3000 year old beekeeping wouldn't help much for the Jaredites who left Jerusalem 4800 to 5250 years ago. The timing is off by 2 millennium!

Phaedrus

So because they didn't do it in the same time period it invalidates what was used for millennia? From what we have in the written word, things and the way they did them stayed much the same for over 4 thousand years.

Link to comment

It would be awesome if it was proof and I would be the first to jump up and down... but I don't see how it is proof unless it was found in south and central America. I see it as proof for the bible... but not for the BofM. Maybe they can get archaeologists to search for something similar on this continent near where we believe the ancient civilizations of the BofM were.

Just my thought. It would be cool if it was though!

Link to comment

That's awesome...Do you know of any critics that have ever used this verse to try and discredit the BoM?

I believe the point of contention is that of a lack of beekeeping within the Americas during this time frame. AFAIK, that criticism still stands (despite this groovy little dilly about desert deseret for dessert).

Link to comment

I believe the point of contention is that of a lack of beekeeping within the Americas during this time frame. AFAIK, that criticism still stands.

Actually the argument falls flat on its face, with a quick search on yahoo:

"One could also include among the domesticated animals several types of stingless honeybee"

"Toasted and ground, their seeds were added to tamales and tortillas, used as a flavoring for various sauces, used as a relish, or even mixed with ground beans to make a drink. The flesh was used to a lesser extent, often roasted or stewed in honey."

http://www.answers.com/topic/precolumbian-...central-america

An article on Pre-columbian mesoamerica.

Link to comment

Actually the argument falls flat on its face, with a quick search on yahoo:

"One could also include among the domesticated animals several types of stingless honeybee"

"Toasted and ground, their seeds were added to tamales and tortillas, used as a flavoring for various sauces, used as a relish, or even mixed with ground beans to make a drink. The flesh was used to a lesser extent, often roasted or stewed in honey."

http://www.answers.com/topic/precolumbian-...central-america

An article on Pre-columbian mesoamerica.

Groovy.

Link to comment

I say we dig under the city of Mexico and see what we can see...

Yes that is a great idea. THere must be tons of stuff under that city. I have heard there are 2 other layes of city onder the current Mexico city

Link to comment

I heard the verse used against the Book of Mormon. The objection was lack of new world evidence for the bee. The idea of them carrying the bee to the New World was also mocked. The Jaredite ship's often underwent severe storms at sea, and the Jaradites would have gotten stung. The proposed answer I read somewhere was that it's far from certain the Jaredite's actually took the bee with them to the New world.

Link to comment

I heard the verse used against the Book of Mormon. The objection was lack of new world evidence for the bee. The idea of them carrying the bee to the New World was also mocked. The Jaredite ship's often underwent severe storms at sea, and the Jaradites would have gotten stung. The proposed answer I read somewhere was that it's far from certain the Jaredite's actually took the bee with them to the New world.

This is true, the Book of Mormon never indicates that the Jaredites took bees with them to the new world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070905/ap_on_sc/ancient_honey

JERUSALEM - Archaeologists digging in northern Israel have discovered evidence of a 3,000-year-old beekeeping industry, including remnants of ancient honeycombs, beeswax and what they believe are the oldest intact beehives ever found.

"And they did also carry with them Deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee" (Ether 2:3).

I don't believe it. It is impossible. We all know that everything has already been discovered.

T-Shirt

Link to comment

I don't see this as evidence for the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is 19th century they had beekeeping back then. So any new ancient find would just be a coincidence. Now if you could find site evidence through inscriptions the Jaradites were there keeping bee's that would impress me. This site was not a Jaredite site, so has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment

I heard the verse used against the Book of Mormon. The objection was lack of new world evidence for the bee. The idea of them carrying the bee to the New World was also mocked. The Jaredite ship's often underwent severe storms at sea, and the Jaradites would have gotten stung.

The bees in mesoamerica are stingless. Another antimormon argument falls on its face.

Link to comment

I don't see this as evidence for the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is 19th century they had beekeeping back then. So any new ancient find would just be a coincidence. Now if you could find site evidence through inscriptions the Jaradites were there keeping bee's that would impress me. This site was not a Jaredite site, so has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

OK, so you subscribe to the oldy, but moldy "coincidence" theory. Just one more coincidence that precolumbian mesoamerica had stingless honeybees.

Just one of several hundred "coincidences" in the BOM.

Link to comment

The beekeeping industry evidence was found in Jerusalem. This wasn't a find of beekeeping in pre-columbian America. This was an Old World discovery that I am hesitant to even say may, or may not relate to the Book of Mormon. I don't believe the discovery directly, or indirectly relates to the Book of Mormon at all. I caution strongly against grasping at co-incidental things and telling people the Book of Mormon is confirmed. At most the beekeeping thing mentioned in the book is possible, but that's not direct evidence for the truth of the text.

Link to comment

I'm half-certain Mike was posting this with a little tongue-in-cheek.

Nope. Your 50% certainty is 50% wrong.

Mike has decided to come back to Zion. I remember him saying once "If only they could find evidence of beekeeping in Jerusalem around 2,000 BCE, I would be a believer again."

Welcome back Mike. But, I think you're going to have to stop talking about the cross so much if you want a TR.

Link to comment

Nope. Your 50% certainty is 50% wrong.

Blast. Well at least I wasn't 100% wrong (whew!)

Mike has decided to come back to Zion. I remember him saying once "If only they could find evidence of beekeeping in Jerusalem around 2,000 BCE, I would be a believer again."

Welcome back Mike. But, I think you're going to have to stop talking about the cross so much if you want a TR.

Brilliant! :P

Welcome back to the fold, Brother Reed.

Link to comment

Thanks for the warm welcome, Steuss and Cop. I can't say that I am ready to come back though. I am torn between whether or not this archeological "evidence" supports Mormonism more than this archeological "evidence" supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4335160.stm

What to do... what to do...

Surely both churches can't be true.

Which is right... which is wrong...

It is like I'm split by Borat's thong.

:P

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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