John T vs. the Book of Mormon

[John T]

Please back up your assertion.

Read chapters 3, 7. 10, 11, 12

[John T]

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?

What I am stating is that the fact that a highly significant event written in the BoM is not mentioned is indeed an important thing.

Of course, not every event in the history of Judah or Israel is not mentioned in Scripture, to believe that is absure. However, since the Bible is redemptive history of the covenantal relationship that he has with Israel, any event that seals with that is indeed significant. That is why the episode about the Benjaminites is so important; it underscores the importance of maintaining the tribal structure.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I am stating is that the fact that a highly significant event written in the BoM is not mentioned is indeed an important thing.

Of course, not every event in the history of Judah or Israel is not mentioned in Scripture, to believe that is absure. However, since the Bible is redemptive history of the covenantal relationship that he has with Israel, any event that seals with that is indeed significant. That is why the episode about the Benjaminites is so important; it underscores the importance of maintaining the tribal structure.

And thus the strawman continue. The BoM is not about the "maintaining a tribal structure". It is about 2 families. You assume that everything of importance must be in the bible. Well, my good fellow, were is that principal taught in the bible?

[Zakuska]

And thus the strawman continue. The BoM is not about the "maintaining a tribal structure". It is about 2 families. You assume that everything of importance must be in the bible. Well, my good fellow, were is that principal taught in the bible?

Tell me about it!

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.

Where does the BOM claim that 2 tribes "DISAPPEARED"?

It says that two families traveled to the American continent. It no where says that other members of those same families, Lehis cousins or perhaps sisters and brothers families, did not remain in Jersualem.

[volgadon]

Read chapters 3, 7. 10, 11, 12

As I have already stated, chp 3 contains more than 12 portions and nowhere does it say that one to each tribe. In fact, those listed are from Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

Chp 7 is a list of people from JUDAH, BENJAMIN and LEVI.

10 fails to mention anyone but JUDAH, BENJAMIN and LEVI.

Likewise 11 and 12.

Now please read 2 Kings 15 and 17.

[David Bokovoy]

What I am stating is that the fact that a highly significant event written in the BoM is not mentioned is indeed an important thing.

Of course, not every event in the history of Judah or Israel is not mentioned in Scripture, to believe that is absure. However, since the Bible is redemptive history of the covenantal relationship that he has with Israel, any event that seals with that is indeed significant. That is why the episode about the Benjaminites is so important; it underscores the importance of maintaining the tribal structure.

The Book of Mormon makes no claim that Lehi was a royal and/or even a strong political figure during the time period. Lehi was simply one of many nameless prophets who went about telling the people that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed if they did not repent ( 1 Nephi 1). The Book of Mormon does not claim that Jeremiah knew Lehi, and it certainly doesn't suggest that anyone in Babylon, including Ezekiel, knew the Book of Mormon figure.

The Book of Mormon simply presents Lehi's clan as one of thousands of families scattered via the Babylonian conquests. So from Jeremiah and Ezekiel's perspective, Lehi's familial exodus out of Jerusalem wouldn't have been "a highly significant event" and as you yourself now acknowledge, not every event in the history of Judah or Israel, let alone in the lives of the various families that occupied the region appears documented in the Bible.

Sorry John. You're going to have to do a heck of a lot lot better than that if you want to even be considered a mid tier critic.

[volgadon]

I should have asked for this in the begining.

John, please provide the references in the BoM stating that two tribes left.

[John T]

"When you are wrong, admit it, then move on." is a motto I try to follow when I have to retract a statement. Such is the case of this:

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).

I admit that I was confused about the intricate details of the story, and I believed that the "lost tribes" are purportedly Native Americans who trace their ancestry from two Jewish tribes who moved as a group to the Americas, according to the BoM. Through research, I discovered that according to the BoM, the Native Americans are purportedly descendants of two Semitic families, not Semitic tribes. My bad.

Nevertheless, if that were true, then there would be a significant reduction in the mitochrondial DNA (mDNA) in the gene pool due to the number of relatives coming from that narrow gene pool. but that is another discussion for another thread, not here, though.

But that does not seem to square with this statement from the LDS encyclopedia:

For Latter Day Saints, the Lost tribes are Israelites other than either the Jewish people or the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 29:13). LDS sources provide some information about their situation and announce that descendants of these lost tribes will be virtually involved in the events of the last days.

But 2 Nephi 29:13 presents even more questions than answers:

And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

That is because according to this part of LDS Scripture, the Native Americans should be able to read and write Hebrew. But they were not able to do either, and lost other accouterments of civilization on that treacherous journey such as the ability to mine and smelt iron, and they lived in stone age long houses or tee pees, and forgot their skills of animal husbandry. Thus they were nomadic tribes, having no way to live in cities or any stable settlement.

So I stand corrected on that detail, and move on. Let's deal with the rest of that post, OK?

[maklelan]

"When you are wrong, admit it, then move on." is a motto I try to follow when I have to retract a statement.

And yet you have utterly ignored repeated attempts from me to get you to address your documented errors on multiple other threads. Why is that?

[Zakuska]

That is because according to this part of LDS Scripture, the Native Americans should be able to read and write Hebrew. But they were not able to do either, and lost other accouterments of civilization on that treacherous journey such as the ability to mine and smelt iron, and they lived in stone age long houses or tee pees, and forgot their skills of animal husbandry. Thus they were nomadic tribes, having no way to live in cities or any stable settlement.

Theres a problem here John. The illterate Lamanites rose up and killed the prophet Nephite record keepers. The prophet Nephite record keepers did not write "Hebrew" but reformed Egyptian. And we have no records if the Lamanites even knew how to read.

[volgadon]

"When you are wrong, admit it, then move on." is a motto I try to follow when I have to retract a statement. Such is the case of this:

What about your list of archaeological evidences, when are you going to retract that?

I admit that I was confused about the intricate details of the story, and I believed that the "lost tribes" are purportedly Native Americans who trace their ancestry from two Jewish tribes who moved as a group to the Americas, according to the BoM. Through research, I discovered that according to the BoM, the Native Americans are purportedly descendants of two Semitic families, not Semitic tribes. My bad.

Reading a book before you attack it saves you having to wipe the egg off your face.

Nevertheless, if that were true, then there would be a significant reduction in the mitochrondial DNA (mDNA) in the gene pool due to the number of relatives coming from that narrow gene pool. but that is another discussion for another thread, not here, though.

Just make sure on that other thread to address the same problems with regards to Adam and Eve, and Noah.

But that does not seem to square with this statement from the LDS encyclopedia:

What don't you understand about the lost tribes NOT being Lamanites or Jews?

But 2 Nephi 29:13 presents even more questions than answers:

That is because according to this part of LDS Scripture, the Native Americans should be able to read and write Hebrew. But they were not able to do either, and lost other accouterments of civilization on that treacherous journey such as the ability to mine and smelt iron, and they lived in stone age long houses or tee pees, and forgot their skills of animal husbandry. Thus they were nomadic tribes, having no way to live in cities or any stable settlement.

You have the record of the Jews, yet you certainly don't read Hebrew.

So I stand corrected on that detail, and move on. Let's deal with the rest of that post, OK?

You mean your ignorance of the Bible?

[morgan.deane]

"When you are wrong, admit it, then move on." is a motto I try to follow when I have to retract a statement. Such is the case of this:

I admit that I was confused about the intricate details of the story, and I believed that the "lost tribes" are purportedly Native Americans who trace their ancestry from two Jewish tribes who moved as a group to the Americas, according to the BoM. Through research, I discovered that according to the BoM, the Native Americans are purportedly descendants of two Semitic families, not Semitic tribes. My bad.

Nevertheless, if that were true, then there would be a significant reduction in the mitochrondial DNA (mDNA) in the gene pool due to the number of relatives coming from that narrow gene pool. but that is another discussion for another thread, not here, though.

But that does not seem to square with this statement from the LDS encyclopedia:

But 2 Nephi 29:13 presents even more questions than answers:

That is because according to this part of LDS Scripture, the Native Americans should be able to read and write Hebrew. But they were not able to do either, and lost other accouterments of civilization on that treacherous journey such as the ability to mine and smelt iron, and they lived in stone age long houses or tee pees, and forgot their skills of animal husbandry. Thus they were nomadic tribes, having no way to live in cities or any stable settlement.

So I stand corrected on that detail, and move on. Let's deal with the rest of that post, OK?

Sorry John. Nothing in 29:13 suggests that Native Americans should or would read and write hebrew. To illustrate this point consider that I don't read, speak, or understand Hebrew in any way, and yet I can read the words of the Jews and Nephites (as translated for me today).

But lets look at other scriptures in the Book of Mormon for more info concerning what the average Nephite could read. As Zakuska correctly pointed out, the Nephites wrote their scripture in a language they called reformed Egyptian . So as the Book of Armaments would say, reading and writing Hebrew is "right out". In 1 Nephi 1:1, Mosiah 1:2 and 3 Nephi 6:12 we see that like many other ancient societies, relatively few members of society could read and write. 2 Nephi 29 refers to the latter days, and is fulfilled through the translations found here: http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10151&storeId=10151&categoryId=13654&langId=-1&cg1=13603&cg2=14653&cg3=&cg4=&cg5= While scriptures refering to comtemporary Nephite society tell a different story and are also accurate. Both points reinforce my contention that many criticisms of the Book of Mormon result from a lack of historical context and or an lack of indepth analysis of the text.

[Mordecai]

Gen 49:22 Joseph [is] a fruitful bough, [even] a fruitful bough by a well; [whose] branches run over the wall:

Ezekiel 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

I've heard that Jewish tradition interprets Gen. 49:22 to mean that a portion of the descendants of Joseph would be separated by the ocean from the main body of the Jews.

Mormons have support for "sticks" in Ezekiel actually representing records, i.e. wax writing boards, (See Herbert G. May

[ebeddoulos]

Read chapters 3, 7. 10, 11, 12

John T,

The 12 tribes are not mentioned in "chapters 3, 7. 10, 11, 12" and all your bluster and posturing will not make it so. But you already knew that didn't you?

I believe you will find the listings of the twelve tribes in their various configurations below. Based on this chart, maybe this will help you enlighten us as to where your little theory fits. Surely since everything of import concerning the tribes is recorded in the Bible, maybe you can tell us (using only the Bible and without resorting to conjecture and personal opinion of course) how these variences fit into your little theory. Are you up for it, cupcake?

List of..|.List of....|.Moses