Jump to content

The Book of Mormon and archeology


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Old World archeology and New World archeology are two completly different animals. Critics of the Book of Mormon tend to conflate the two.

Two see what I mean, take the following test for Greece and Mesoamerica.

1) Give me the original indegenous names for 10 cities that were founded and/or populated between 2,000bc to 420ad.

2)Give me the names of 10 kings that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

3)Give me the names of 10 different written works(histories,hymns,myths,love poems) that were written between 2,000bc to 420ad.

4)Give me the dates and basic story behind 10 wars,the names of the generals and major battle fields, 2,000bc to 420ad

5)Give me the names of 10 oracles/priests of any religious background that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

If you take my little test, you'll see the inherent difficulty of proving the BoM true or false by only using the scientific method.

Link to comment

Old World archeology and New World archeology are two completly different animals. Critics of the Book of Mormon tend to conflate the two.

Two see what I mean, take the following test for Greece and Mesoamerica.

1) Give me the original indegenous names for 10 cities that were founded and/or populated between 2,000bc to 420ad.

2)Give me the names of 10 kings that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

3)Give me the names of 10 different written works(histories,hymns,myths,love poems) that were written between 2,000bc to 420ad.

4)Give me the dates and basic story behind 10 wars,the names of the generals and major battle fields, 2,000bc to 420ad

5)Give me the names of 10 oracles/priests of any religious background that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

If you take my little test, you'll see the inherent difficulty of proving the BoM true or false by only using the scientific method.

Link to comment

The Book of Mormon makes several assertions about its environment. These are more likely to be falsifiable. I would suggest you start with those.

Can't we prove were they are the same as we did Troy?

Link to comment

Old World archeology and New World archeology are two completly different animals. Critics of the Book of Mormon tend to conflate the two.

Two see what I mean, take the following test for Greece and Mesoamerica.

1) Give me the original indegenous names for 10 cities that were founded and/or populated between 2,000bc to 420ad.

2)Give me the names of 10 kings that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

3)Give me the names of 10 different written works(histories,hymns,myths,love poems) that were written between 2,000bc to 420ad.

4)Give me the dates and basic story behind 10 wars,the names of the generals and major battle fields, 2,000bc to 420ad

5)Give me the names of 10 oracles/priests of any religious background that lived between 2,000bc to 420ad.

If you take my little test, you'll see the inherent difficulty of proving the BoM true or false by only using the scientific method.

No need to asnwer all of them. We can't even answer number one. IF we can't do that then how are we supposed to know if they are BoM place names?

Basically the same answer applies to all of them.

Link to comment

I would point out, too, that Europe, the Mediteranean, the Middle East, etc. were all crossroads for conquest and civilization for millennia. There is much more known about ancient names, outside observations and confirmation, etc. in the record based on this state of things.

The Western Hemisphere *is* a completely different animal, as the OP suggests. There are inherent difficulties in piecing together place names, etc. that the Old Word doesn't face. This isn't brought up as "special pleading" or "leaving an out," but simply to state a factor that plays a role as well.

Link to comment

I would point out, too, that Europe, the Mediteranean, the Middle East, etc. were all crossroads for conquest and civilization for millennia. There is much more known about ancient names, outside observations and confirmation, etc. in the record based on this state of things.

The Western Hemisphere *is* a completely different animal, as the OP suggests. There are inherent difficulties in piecing together place names, etc. that the Old Word doesn't face. This isn't brought up as "special pleading" or "leaving an out," but simply to state a factor that plays a role as well.

If we hadn't killed off 90 percent of the Native inhabitants maybe we could have connected the New World names instead of using European bias. Polynesians can name you every civilization name and island and regions. Also if Scientists start listening to Native Americans instead of discounting their stories they might learn something.

Link to comment

John Larsen:

How do you test for God using the Scientific Method?

You look for evidence of said god and test it like you would any other hypothesis. What is confusing about this to you?

Do you think science has helped prove, disprove or had absolutely no bearing on the existence of Artemis?

Link to comment

If you take my little test, you'll see the inherent difficulty of proving the BoM true or false by only using the scientific method.

Are you sure the Book of Mormon doesn't make any claims about the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations that would be expected to show up in the archaeology of those eras?

Link to comment

Are you sure the Book of Mormon doesn't make any claims about the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations that would be expected to show up in the archaeology of those eras?

No, the BoM does make many claims about the,Jaredites Nephites and Lamanites that would be expected to show up in the archaeology of those eras.

However, the claims that would constitute absolute proof, 100% verifiable people and places, are untestable for those eras.

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...