Jump to content

John T vs. the Book of Mormon


volgadon

Recommended Posts

I found a post by John T on the other booard, which I'd like to discuss here, in an environment where discussion is actually possible.

He entitled it The Bible attests to the BoM

The bible is a witness to itself, and to the Book of Mormon. This is admission seems strange coming from a Christian, but please bear with me on this, and you will see how true that really is.

According to the BoM storyline, two tribes of Israel (c. 600BC) traversed together the entire Arabian Peninsula, like Moses did many years before (about 1000) and sailed from a port on the western or southern Arabian peninsula, and rounded Africa, sailing the treacherous waters of the Antarctic Sea. Seventy-foot waves are common in that sea, and the pilgrims navigated both the Southern and Northern Atlantic oceans to land somewhere in North, Central of South America (please permit this slight anachronism for the sake of clarity).

Because the Bible does not record that event, I submit that Biblical silence is a strong testimony against that event. Normally, I would not posit an argument from silence, for that is weak, and speculative. My adage is that

Link to comment

I found a post by John T on the other booard, which I'd like to discuss here, in an environment where discussion is actually possible.

He entitled it The Bible attests to the BoM

I find it deliciously ironic that his signature line is this. "Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts."

How did two families become two tribes?

Link to comment

I found a post by John T on the other booard, which I'd like to discuss here, in an environment where discussion is actually possible.

He entitled it The Bible attests to the BoM

I find it deliciously ironic that his signature line is this. "Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts."

This guy has some awesome arguments. "I don't like argmuments from silence", and then all he does is argue from silence. Most convincing.

Link to comment
According to the BoM storyline, two tribes of Israel (c. 600BC) traversed together the entire Arabian Peninsula, like Moses did many years before (about 1000) and sailed from a port on the western or southern Arabian peninsula, and rounded Africa, sailing the treacherous waters of the Antarctic Sea. Seventy-foot waves are common in that sea, and the pilgrims navigated both the Southern and Northern Atlantic oceans to land somewhere in North, Central of South America (please permit this slight anachronism for the sake of clarity).

First of all it is two families, not two tribes, so really, your whole argument has fallen apart from the get go.

Second, not the entire Arabian Peninsula. There is nothing to show that Moses ever set foot in the Arabian Peninsula. Likewise, we doon't know that Lehi and co. rounded Africa, sailing the treacherous waters of the Antarctic sea, as the BoM does not say. Same goes for the rest of your geographic assumptions.

Nobody is claiming that the journey was an easy one, but it seems like you are claiming that God couldn't help them. Little faith, eh.

Because the Bible does not record that event, I submit that Biblical silence is a strong testimony against that event. Normally, I would not posit an argument from silence, for that is weak, and speculative. My adage is that
Link to comment
SECOND

The historical writers of Nehemiah and the Priest Ezra do not mention any sort of lost tribe. That is significant because the cup bearer to the King Artaxerxes in Shushan, he clearly mentions his mourning for the city of Jerusalem, and the nation conquered, then dispersed in 586 BC, the event known as the Babylon Captivity. The first chapter details how depressed he was, and details the conditions of the former inhabitants of the city.

Your reading of the bible is almost as good as your reading of the BoM.

Ezra and Nehemiah record the return of Judah, Benjamin and several of the Levites, not of all of the 12 tribes.

There were lost tribes, you can read about it in this great book called the Bible.

Significantly absent is any mention of the event mentioned by the BoM in his laments to the King, and since Artaxerses reigned c 444 BC the event would be over 150 years old, then, but there is no mention of the event. What IS most significant in this book is that the work of rebuilding the wall was assigned to each of the twelve tribes, to build a specific portion of the wall. If there were any missing tribes, they could not have been assigned a work place on the wall.

Also, the priest Ezra did not mention it in his book . I cut this short for the sake of brevity

Right, so an old event done secretly that nobody in Jerusalem really knew about was not related by Nehemiah to the king proves that it did not happen. Well, Nehemiah didn't mention a lot of things.

There were significantly more than 12 portions, nor does it say that work places were assigned according to the 12 tribes.

Link to comment
THIRD

None of the prophets alive after 600 BC mention it, that is after the captivity of Israel in 720 BC, and before the Babylonian Captivity in 586 BC. That means that the major Prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel would know about this event.

Ezekiel and Daniel know little about anything taking place in Judah.

Jeremiah was in prison at the time.

Likewise, the Minor prophets, Hosea, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (originally written in Italian!).

IN ITALIAN??????????????? I'm issuing a HUGE CFR.

At any rate, all but the last three are totally irrelevant.

Most telling about the purported BoM events is the book of Lamentations. Written by the "Weeping Prophet" Jeremiah, it is a series of laments, or sorrows of the prophet, and the heart of God for all the tragedies that befell Jerusalem and Judah. It is utterly inconceivable that such a book would omit such a happening that two entire tribes of Israel would suddenly disappear, and leave the land, as the BoM states.

The author of Lamentations is anonymous. Later traditions attributed it to Jeremiah. Be that as it may, it is not a detailed, blow-by-blow account of those years. Why would the flight into the wilderness of two families merit a mention?

Link to comment
FOURTH

In the NT, neither Jesus, nor the genealogies of the Synoptic Gospels mentioned in Matthew of Luke mention that, for the event would also be in the lore of the Jews. The entire twelve tribes are mentioned in various times and in various situations so as to absolutely preclude any possibility of any

Link to comment
It is utterly inconceivable that such a book would omit such a happening that two entire tribes of Israel would suddenly disappear, and leave the land, as the BoM states.

Strawmen are indeed useful. This whole argument is nothing but a pathetic attempt to smear the BoM. It is one of the worst I have seen. Good job John T.

Link to comment

JohnT,

(please permit this slight anachronism for the sake of clarity).

What Anachronism is that?

Because the Bible does not record that event, I submit that Biblical silence is a strong testimony against that event. Normally, I would not posit an argument from silence, for that is weak, and speculative. My adage is that
Link to comment

First of all it is two families, not two tribes, so really, your whole argument has fallen apart from the get go.

Second, not the entire Arabian Peninsula. There is nothing to show that Moses ever set foot in the Arabian Peninsula. Likewise, we doon't know that Lehi and co. rounded Africa, sailing the treacherous waters of the Antarctic sea, as the BoM does not say. Same goes for the rest of your geographic assumptions.

Nobody is claiming that the journey was an easy one, but it seems like you are claiming that God couldn't help them. Little faith, eh.

Why would the biblical authors record an event that they did not know of? Lehi and family fled by night, or at least before dawn, telling no one where they were headed for, in fact, they themselves did not know. Biblical silence here says absolutely nothing.

Were there not flights of individuals, indeed, entire groups, recorded in the Bible?

The Book of Judges.

Why do you put Israel in parenthesis?

Nearly destroying a tribe during a civil war and then working towards its preservation hardly parallels the flight of two families commanded by God.

TWO FAMILIES not two tribes. That is a strong assertion that you either did not read the BoM or did not pay any attention.

I agree with the bold statement. In fact, most of the criticisms of the BoM from that site result from either an obvious misreading or an excessively narrow interpretation of the text. Those of the have read it carefully and studied the book know better. For more examples of their "excellent" research look at a thread called "The Land of Promise" or "Elephants in the BoM". There are many more but I don't care enough to look them up.

What I found even more sad was how many of them try to argue that they don't even need to READ the book before lecturing us about its supposed innaccuracies. So people who literally haven't read the book let alone researched it in depth then choose to absolutely gurantee that the book is completely false. Then they get incredibly defensive and attack me (or those that do know the book) for suggesting that they read it before claiming they are an "expert" on it. As Mak said, its truly a bizarro world over there.

Link to comment

I found a post by John T on the other booard, which I'd like to discuss here, in an environment where discussion is actually possible.

He entitled it The Bible attests to the BoM

I find it deliciously ironic that his signature line is this. "Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts."

Thank you for posting that thread starter here. I wanted to post it here, but I thought that if I began it, it may not get past the mods as it could be considered being against the rules here.

Link to comment

I agree with the bold statement. In fact, most of the criticisms of the BoM from that site result from either an obvious misreading or an excessively narrow interpretation of the text. Those of the have read it carefully and studied the book know better. For more examples of their "excellent" research look at a thread called "The Land of Promise" or "Elephants in the BoM". There are many more but I don't care enough to look them up.

What I found even more sad was how many of them try to argue that they don't even need to READ the book before lecturing us about its supposed innaccuracies. So people who literally haven't read the book let alone researched it in depth then choose to absolutely gurantee that the book is completely false. Then they get incredibly defensive and attack me (or those that do know the book) for suggesting that they read it before claiming they are an "expert" on it. As Mak said, its truly a bizarro world over there.

Just recently, James Banta made some hilarious comments about CARM.

At least there he would get truth..
They use your own history and standard works to tell the real story of mormonism..
Link to comment

This guy has some awesome arguments. "I don't like argmuments from silence", and then all he does is argue from silence. Most convincing.

Partially true.

If there were one single absence of something, that would indeed be a very bad argument from silence, and a logical error. However, we have a span of about 200 years from the earliest prophets to the prophets alive at c. 600 BC who did not once mention the event, and i cited about ten prophets. That is very significant.

One argument has not been dealt with is the FACT that Nehemiah mentioned all 12 tribes, assigning them a portion of the Wall to rebuild.

therefore, combiniinng the silence from so many different sources, and the attentions of Nehemiah and the NT, they together provide a potent witness.

Link to comment

Ezekiel and Daniel know little about anything taking place in Judah.

Jeremiah was in prison at the time.

That Jeremiah was in prison has no relevance to his ability to know what happened outside of what his circumstances were.

As to your assertion about Ezekiel, it is weaker than your argument about Jeremiah, for he was a free man.

IN ITALIAN??????????????? I'm issuing a HUGE CFR.
It is a joke. Read his name again like mal achi, and it sounds like Italian
The author of Lamentations is anonymous. Later traditions attributed it to Jeremiah. Be that as it may, it is not a detailed, blow-by-blow account of those years. Why would the flight into the wilderness of two families merit a mention?

The author is Jeremiah, and as the "weeping prophet", the content of the book is entirely consistent with his book,

Link to comment

That Malachi was purportedly written in a language that wouldn't exist for about a millennia and a half after his death?

No the anachronism was attributing the nation name Israel to the twelve tribes, I did it as a convenience, since the nation of Israel did not exist until later.

Link to comment

Partially true.

If there were one single absence of something, that would indeed be a very bad argument from silence, and a logical error. However, we have a span of about 200 years from the earliest prophets to the prophets alive at c. 600 BC who did not once mention the event, and i cited about ten prophets. That is very significant.

One argument has not been dealt with is the FACT that Nehemiah mentioned all 12 tribes, assigning them a portion of the Wall to rebuild.

therefore, combiniinng the silence from so many different sources, and the attentions of Nehemiah and the NT, they together provide a potent witness.

This does not take into account that others from the 2 tribes that you say are missing because of the BOM could be assigned to build the wall. The BOM never claims that the entire tribe left.

Link to comment

That Jeremiah was in prison has no relevance to his ability to know what happened outside of what his circumstances were.

On the contrary, the flow of information would have been limited.

As to your assertion about Ezekiel, it is weaker than your argument about Jeremiah, for he was a free man.

But far from Judah, so if anythiing, the assertion is stronger.

It is a joke. Read his name again like mal achi, and it sounds like Italian

HAHA.

The author is Jeremiah, and as the "weeping prophet", the content of the book is entirely consistent with his book,

Can you back up the assertion? Once again, I repeat, Lamentations is not a detailed blow-by-blow account.

Link to comment

JohnT,

No Posterity? How do we jump to that half-witted conclusion? Baby Benjamites were being drafted as "Soldiers" during this civil war? How about the old men? All this says is all the soldiers were killed. It says nothing about not having a posterity. rolleyes.gif

I gave the references previously in the OP at CARM, Judges 20 and 21.

Please read the two chapters, then make comments about the event, thanks.

Link to comment

Partially true.

If there were one single absence of something, that would indeed be a very bad argument from silence, and a logical error. However, we have a span of about 200 years from the earliest prophets to the prophets alive at c. 600 BC who did not once mention the event, and i cited about ten prophets. That is very significant.

One argument has not been dealt with is the FACT that Nehemiah mentioned all 12 tribes, assigning them a portion of the Wall to rebuild.

therefore, combiniinng the silence from so many different sources, and the attentions of Nehemiah and the NT, they together provide a potent witness.

Just becuase it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again your whole arguemnt is one from silence. That is not very concincing. Ironically mine is also from silence.

Here is the real question, why does it need to be mentioned? Because you say so. That is really convincing.

Link to comment

I gave the references previously in the OP at CARM, Judges 20 and 21.

Please read the two chapters, then make comments about the event, thanks.

Well lets see he have a bunch of Benjamite men at the rock Rimmon. Who take Daughters of Shiloh to wife. Sure seems they had a posterity to me.

Link to comment

I try to take seriously criticism raised against the Book of Mormon, but in all honesty, I have a hard time believing that anyone, and I do many ANYONE would actually assume that the Bible would narrate every single event that took place in the capital of Judah, let alone in the lives of the thousands of individual families scattered via the Babylonian conquests.

I mean, is John honestly trying to suggest that if an ancient event is not documented in the Bible then it never occurred? Are we to assume therefore that since the Bible never documents the individual experiences and journeys of specific exilic families that these people therefore, did not truly exist?

From a biblical perspective, the history of this time period is documented in the book of Kings which as a royal chronicle, never discusses the events and journeys of specific families without some sort of tie to the monarchies. According to Kings, following the rebellion of Zedekiah, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar appointed an administrator named Gedaliah from the local population (see 2 Kings 25:22-24). Apparently, a military officer from the Davidic family assassinated Gedaliah, his family, and his Babylonian guards (2 Kings 25:25-26; Jeremiah 40:13-41:3). As a result, many of the inhabitants of Judah fled to Egypt taking the prophet Jeremiah with them (Jeremiah 41:17-43:7). This act of rebellion prompted a third Babylonian exile in 581 and there are absolutely no records whatsoever of what occurred in Judah during this time period. Forget about specific families! We don't even know what happened to all of the royals! That

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...