Physical Proof for the Book of Mormon

[Hughes]

Acutally it is only proof that there are copies of something. What that something was we have no idea. It is not even proof that there were originals. Original what?

Moot question. YOu don't need the originals to prove that it is true.

That Something exists (copies) is "physical proof" of something is it not? That the BoM doesn't even have that is not a moot point when talking about physical proof.

So, then, "the copies" that we have of the Book of Mormon, "are at least proof of an original".

Thanks for supporting our position.

Doesn't matter. We don't have the originals of the Bible either.

Sorry they aren't copies in the original language.

Perhaps in the same place as the original texts of the Bible are located. Can you show us the original stone tablets of the Ten commandments, the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps we will also find the original texts of the BOM there as well.

So, show us the location and we shall see what else we can find.

Just curious, did you ever make it out of elementary school. Your posts betray a lack of intelligence beyond 8th grade.

Your arguments are very silly and juvenile.

Asking for at least a copy of the original is juvenile? Or pointing out that if there are no copies, then physical proof is missing?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That Something exists (copies) is "physical proof" of something is it not? That the BoM doesn't even have that is not a moot point when talking about physical proof.

Ok by that logic there is then there is proof that teh BoM came from an original.

Sorry they aren't copies in the original language.

There is not an aramic original of Jesus word's. Therefore the bible is false and your faith in it is blind.

Asking for at least a copy of the original is juvenile? Or pointing out that if there are no copies, then physical proof is missing?

ACtually what is juvenile is your glaring double standard and to pretend that that does not matter.

[Hughes]

Ok by that logic there is then there is proof that teh BoM came from an original.

There is not an aramic original of Jesus word's. Therefore the bible is false and your faith in it is blind.

ACtually what is juvenile is your glaring double standard and to pretend that that does not matter.

No one claims that Jesus wrote a book. Nor does anyone claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.

The fact remains as I've stated. No copies equals no physical proof.

[Zakuska]

No one claims that Jesus wrote a book. Nor does anyone claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.

The fact remains as I've stated. No copies equals no physical proof.

Lets take the Epistle of Luke...

Luke 1

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Lukes letter is already a second hand account from the get go.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No one claims that Jesus wrote a book. Nor does anyone claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.

The fact remains as I've stated. No copies equals no physical proof.

I don't care if you claimed it or not. We are looking for an original source. The fact of the matter is that Jesus more than likely spoke Aramic. The fact is that not a single document is in Aramic speaks volumes to your "orginal source" issues.

And your fact of "No copies equals no physical proof" does not make any sense, is that even an argument you are seriously trying to make?

[Eldwynn]

The ultimate proof is in a legend passed second hand with just a few similarities? Maybe if they started naming city names, or people, I might be interested in looking further, but this is hardly physical proof of all.

There are hundreds of creation legends that are wrong (you even believe this). There are many different accounts of a global flood across several cultures. Does this somehow prove that we have to believe it happened? I sure hope not, because it contradicts so many fundamental principles of science, starting with the water cycle.

You live in Seattle, so do I. Perhaps you should stop conversing with the weakest BOM critics there are- hypocritical evangelical ministers.

[maupayman]

You are confused. Who told you that we were trying to impress anyone with BOM geography?

It is scripture, and as a witness for Christ, it stands on its own.

Perhaps, impress was not the best choice of words. There are plenty of people on here constantly claiming there is strong evidence for the Book of Mormon location, yet even believing members can't seem to agree on where this evidence leads.

[Calm]

No one claims that Jesus wrote a book. Nor does anyone claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.

Is not the original source of Jesus' words Jesus?

If so, then the original language of those words would have been Aramaic, correct?

If so, then we do not have a text or even a copy of the original text of Jesus' words, only a translation of them as given in the NT by someone other than Jesus.

How is this different from the translation given by JS of the BoM text?

[ebeddoulos]

No one claims that Jesus wrote a book. Nor does anyone claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.

The fact remains as I've stated. No copies equals no physical proof.

Of all your statements that you made recently, that has got to be your most amatuerish. There actually are those who believe that the New Testament (or its sources) were originally written in the Aramaic language. It is called Aramaic Primacy and its supporters make a very strong case. I suggest that you read "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English" by Glennn Davis Bauscher. You can get an overview of it HERE.

The supporters of this theory provide evidence by showing how some perplexing New Testament references that do not work in Greek make perfect sense in Aramaic. Possibly the most well known and simple example that Aramaic primacists use is the parable of the "camel (???????) through the eye of a needle." (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25) In Aramaic, the word for "camel" (????) is spelled identically to the word for "rope" (????). The phrase "rope through the eye of a needle," is more easily understood than is a

[Hughes]

Lets take the Epistle of Luke...

Luke 1

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Lukes letter is already a second hand account from the get go.

And yet we have copies of Luke, in the language he wrote in.

I don't care if you claimed it or not. We are looking for an original source. The fact of the matter is that Jesus more than likely spoke Aramic. The fact is that not a single document is in Aramic speaks volumes to your "orginal source" issues.

And your fact of "No copies equals no physical proof" does not make any sense, is that even an argument you are seriously trying to make?

If you're actually looking for physical proof as the thread title suggests, then yes, having no extant copies of the plates equal no physical proof.

Is not the original source of Jesus' words Jesus?

If so, then the original language of those words would have been Aramaic, correct?

If so, then we do not have a text or even a copy of the original text of Jesus' words, only a translation of them as given in the NT by someone other than Jesus.

How is this different from the translation given by JS of the BoM text?

How is it different? Well, tell me exactly where on the plates is the book of Nephi located?

You see, with the biblical text, we can all argue about chapter and verse, and which was translated correctly or not. It's a great privilege that we don't have with the BoM.

Each book of the NT isn't claiming to be the exact original words of Jesus in Aramaic, but the words of that particular writer as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sort of curious (I honestly don't know), was Joseph Smith told not to make copies?

Of all your statements that you made recently, that has got to be your most amatuerish. There actually are those who believe that the New Testament (or its sources) were originally written in the Aramaic language. It is called Aramaic Primacy and its supporters make a very strong case. I suggest that you read "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English" by Glennn Davis Bauscher. You can get an overview of it HERE.

The supporters of this theory provide evidence by showing how some perplexing New Testament references that do not work in Greek make perfect sense in Aramaic. Possibly the most well known and simple example that Aramaic primacists use is the parable of the "camel (???????) through the eye of a needle." (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25) In Aramaic, the word for "camel" (????) is spelled identically to the word for "rope" (????). The phrase "rope through the eye of a needle," is more easily understood than is a

[Calm]

Each book of the NT isn't claiming to be the exact original words of Jesus in Aramaic, but the words of that particular writer as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, the essential Biblical text is the text that is the result of inspiration from God, not any other original sources used even when the words of Jesus but rather what the inspired authors ended up with even when they translated the words of Jesus into the language of the NT texts.

Since the same claim is being made for the English version of the Book of Mormon, that it was produced by inspiration from God, what makes this text any less essential than the nonoriginal, yet inspired texts of the Biblical authors?

[caudicus]

The OP claimed that there was physical proof of the Book of Mormon.

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? Is it just that the OP doesn't understand what proof is?

Even if this story exists, and it can be proven. How is proof of this story proof of the Book of Mormon?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

The OP claimed that there was physical proof of the Book of Mormon.

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? Is it just that the OP doesn't understand what proof is?

Even if this story exists, and it can be proven. How is proof of this story proof of the Book of Mormon?

http://books.google.com/books?id=yQc7AAAAIAAJ&dq=Chronicler+Pedro+Cieza+de+Le%C3%B3n&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=IuZGS67gNIXQsgOoqIH2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CC0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=Chachapoya&f=false

[Tango]

Brant has written a marvelous six volume commentary on the BOM--Second Witness. I suggest you read it. If you don't, I suspect you're not really serious.

It is rather astonishing that so many critics haven't informed themselves of the serious and important scholarship on the subject, yet feel perfectly free to proclaim there is no evidence for the BOM.

What you consider "Proof" is at best conjecture, much like I could specifically conclude that Gandalf was a wizard, and that there actually was a Sm

[Tango]

I don't care if you claimed it or not. We are looking for an original source. The fact of the matter is that Jesus more than likely spoke Aramic. The fact is that not a single document is in Aramic speaks volumes to your "orginal source" issues.

And your fact of "No copies equals no physical proof" does not make any sense, is that even an argument you are seriously trying to make?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus more than likely spoke Aramic

Bravo, love it when you mix facts with "more than likely"

[ERayR]

There is no other evidence supporting it.

Not true. Spend a while here. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

[ERayR]

What you consider "Proof" is at best conjecture, much like I could specifically conclude that Gandalf was a wizard, and that there actually was a Sm

[jiggypoo]

Interesting description. Has any other records been found from others peoples/sources that validate this? I would expect some to come to light with such an event happening. Further, while it has some correlations to the BOM, is there the possibility it could be explained by contemporary sources? If this description can be confirmed by unrelated sources and pass falsification, you would have a solid piece of evidence for the BOM. From there, we would need to discover other direct evidence to correlate the other claims on the BOM with peoples of that area, atleast in my opinion.

[ERayR]

Interesting description. Has any other records been found from others peoples/sources that validate this? I would expect some to come to light with such an event happening. Further, while it has some correlations to the BOM, is there the possibility it could be explained by contemporary sources? If this description can be confirmed by unrelated sources and pass falsification, you would have a solid piece of evidence for the BOM. From there, we would need to discover other direct evidence to correlate the other claims on the BOM with peoples of that area, atleast in my opinion.

There are always ways of explaining away if you want to. Moses parting of the waters has been explained away as a natural phenomenom so I am thinking about any thing else could be too.

[jiggypoo]

There are always ways of explaining away if you want to. Moses parting of the waters has been explained away as a natural phenomenom so I am thinking about any thing else could be too.

Hello ERayR,

Your comment is not useful to our discussion of proof, evidence and looking for correlated evidence for the BOM. If proof is being claimed, then I am interested in seeing how this evidence was elevated to the level of proof. This passage standing alone cannot validate the claims of the BOM because there are so many other claims that must organically exist as well. IF those exist and can be established as having a relationship to the area and its people, I am interested in those. If not, then this claim of proof is weak. Its just the way reality works. Truth is self-evident. Atleast, that is how I see it.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

we all know the Book of Mormon is just a heavily plagiarized piece of fiction.

Definition of Plagarism:

To credit the work of another as your own work.

Prove that Joseph Smith took credit for the things that were written in the Book of Mormon in the way the pure and true definition of Plagarism defines it and not in the way that it is being misused by evangelical Critics (like yourself).

And, if such is true that Joseph Smith Plagarized much of the Bible and therefore the Book of Mormon is false then we have to conclude the following as well:

1) The Noah account of building an ark and the flood is false and plagarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh since the Epic of Gilgamesh and the flood story from Sumaria predate the Noah Account in the Hebrew Bible and Context. Therefore, that part of the Bible is heavily plagarized fictional account based on a previous account.

2) Matthew relies heavily on and quotes from the Old Testament, therefore, Matthew plagarized from the Old Testament and therefore his account and gospel is false because of his plagarism of the Old Testament.

3) All of Paul's epistles are suspect because he plagarized from the Old Testament and therefore because he plagarized from the Old Testament, Pauls epistles are suspect.

By the end of the day, your Plagarized argument and criticism has just thrown out 95% of the Bible and call into questions those authors and writers because they all have plagarized from one another.

Are you willing to admit that the Bible is a plagarized work just as much as the Book of Mormon? If not, then how can you say that the Book of Mormon is plagarized

[ERayR]

Hello ERayR,

Your comment is not useful to our discussion of proof, evidence and looking for correlated evidence for the BOM. If proof is being claimed, then I am interested in seeing how this evidence was elevated to the level of proof. This passage standing alone cannot validate the claims of the BOM because there are so many other claims that must organically exist as well. IF those exist and can be established as having a relationship to the area and its people, I am interested in those. If not, then this claim of proof is weak. Its just the way reality works. Truth is self-evident. Atleast, that is how I see it.

I too see truth as self evident. The problem is you need to look at all the evidence. You had made the comment about evidence being explained by contemporary sources. My observation is that while contemporary sources may offer an explanation it need not be the correct one. When one looks at and correlates all the Book of Mormon evidences one comes with a pretty solid case for the Book of Mormon. The trouble is too many take it one piece at a time and reject it because it can be explained by contemporary source when if the evidences were correlated the case for contemorary sources begins to unravel.

[jiggypoo]

I too see truth as self evident. The problem is you need to look at all the evidence. You had made the comment about evidence being explained by contemporary sources. My observation is that while contemporary sources may offer an explanation it need not be the correct one. When one looks at and correlates all the Book of Mormon evidences one comes with a pretty solid case for the Book of Mormon. The trouble is too many take it one piece at a time and reject it because it can be explained by contemporary source when if the evidences were correlated the case for contemorary sources begins to unravel.

ERayR,

I agree, ERayR, that one needs to consider all the evidence. This is why I asked if there was correlating evidence from other records/peoples, etc for this proposed proof. I'm not rejecting the evidence. I'm simply asking for more information to make a more informed decision.

[LeSellers]

The fact of the matter is that Jesus more than likely spoke Aramic.

Bravo, love it when you mix facts with "more than likely"

The fact of the matter is that Jesus did speak Aramaic. We have examples in the Bible text where the author gives us Jesus' Aramaic words and then translates them into Greek.

41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Both of these quotes are in Aramaic in the Greek texts although in Greek characters).

Lehi

[ERayR]

ERayR,

I agree, ERayR, that one needs to consider all the evidence. This is why I asked if there was correlating evidence from other records/peoples, etc for this proposed proof. I'm not rejecting the evidence. I'm simply asking for more information to make a more informed decision.

One always tries to get all the evidence possible on which to base ones decisions. The problem is that we never have all the evidence we would like to have. That being said there is a great deal of evidence available but most of the time critics take each bit of evidence individually and do not consider it as a whole. When considered as a whole the sum of the evidence out weighs its parts. Spend some time with what is available at Maxwell Institute and on FAIR. Consider the parts a part of a jig saw puzzle. What is already there makes a pretty impressive picture.