Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff,

If you can't do any better than this, there will be no point in me responding further.

You have not shown one document from the time of Christ, much less the apostles. I await your reply.

[Jeff K.]

Should we interpret Jeff to mean that it was incumbent on us to show that there were New Testament writings during the time of Christ (on earth), that is, before Jesus had ascended and any of the NT writings had actually been written? Of course not, and I reasonably and fairly did not press the point. I took him to mean that there were not thousands of NT writings generally anywhere between those two points in time.

You yourself chose the parameters, and I have shown you that the parameters are wrong.

I go on to account for the simple fact that no real originals exist, and the scriptures of the Old World themselves repleat with questionable copies provide no true answer to their accuracy other than earlier copies contradict later copies (and what of the earlier copies still and their impact on those used as a basis for accuracy now?).

Finally given the significantly lower literacy rate in the New World, given the diversity of language in the New World whose writings are significantly more rare. A double standard has been expressed regarding a demand for accuracy towards the Book of Mormon while a lack of indepth critique eixists for the Bible itself.

Are double standards disengenuous? I think so.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

If you can't do any better than this, there will be no point in me responding further.

It is a simple statement to the parameters you provided. Is it really so hard to admit error?

[Hughes]

If that truly is the case then using my previous example of 2 Peter, just what "credible evidence" (without resorting to internal evidence and personal testimony since you deny their validity when used as evidence for the Book of Mormon) do you have that it is not pseudepigrapha? Yes, this is a CFR.

What credible evidence do I rely on for 2 peter? I rely on the fact that, "As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine." Link to source

Now, it must be noted that 2 peter doesn't compare to the issue with the BoM. Not in the least.

All of christian teaching doesn't rest on 2 Peter, but all of Mormonism does rely on the BoM.

No I am not agreeing. But again I do find it amusing and entertaining that you so lightly dismiss such divine evidence. To do that, you must be terribly internally conflicted. I am also amused and entertained that your definition of "credible evidence" somehow is so narrowly defined so as to exclude NHM, chiasmus and other Hebraisms, cement, weights and measures, appropriate time frames for Hebrew/Egyptian names, Hebrew roots in Uto-Aztecan linguistic studies, mesoamerican/Book of Mormon fortress structure, mesoamerican/Book of Mormon seasonal warfare, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I shall await with bated breath your explanation as to why you "accept and am convinced" of the authenticity of 2 Peter and the evidence you shall use to buttress the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter without resorting to internal evidence and testimony. I suspect that once again I shall be entertained and amused.

I suspect that you will be unable to support the Bible when dealing with the same constraints you insist on those supporting the Book of Mormon.

All of the evidences you mentioned, "NHM..." etc. start with the assumption that the BoM was translated correctly and accurately from the Golden Plates. It is precisely this assumption that I'm seeing no credible evidence for. You even supported this by saying the only way to know it's true is to have a personal testimony concerning the accuracy of the book.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff,

My patience with you has run out. My only error was in assuming you were really interested in the facts.

It is a simple statement to the parameters you provided. Is it really so hard to admit error?

[Hughes]

Yes but what is your credible evidence?

the evidence for the bible being accurate historically and spiritually is many and varied. Since that would be a different topic, I'm only going to state what I've stated.

[Jeff K.]

What credible evidence do I rely on for 2 peter? I rely on the fact that, "As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine." Link to source

Now, it must be noted that 2 peter doesn't compare to the issue with the BoM. Not in the least.

All of christian teaching doesn't rest on 2 Peter, but all of Mormonism does rely on the BoM.

You conflate a verse with an entire book. Interesting. Do you see the illogic in doing so or do you apply a double standard?

Mormons base their faith on the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and living prophets. You provide, as the basis of your faith, only your interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation I might add that is both controversial and contradictory within your own community and sect of Christianity. All Christian teaching does not rest in one Bible, it rests on much more, from the LDS point of view.

It is your position that is precarious, ours is triangulated and less open to the varied interpretation that led to many different churches choosing different methods of worship, education, emphasis, and of course authority.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

My patience with you has run out. My only error was in assuming you were really interested in the facts.

Let us know when you provide them, so far you have obfuscated. I have pinned you with a fact and you refuse to acknowledge such.

[Vance]

Vance,

May I remind you that Jeff had originally written this (emphasis added):

Then your basic reasoning is faulty, unless you can show that there were thousands of New Testament writings during the entire period from Christ until Gutenberg, which there weren't.

And he is correct with the "from Christ" part until the first manuscripts appeared. And he is WRONG from that point to Gutenberg.

He should admit his error, just as you need to admit yours.

Now, I wish Jeff would move on and either defend his original claim that there were not thousands of NT manuscripts during that "entire period from Christ until Gutenberg" (which one Mormon has already pointed out was incorrect) or admit that claim was incorrect.

His claim is partially correct and partially incorrect. He should admit his error, just as you should admit yours.

Then maybe we could move on.

[Vance]

Jeff,

My patience with you has run out. My only error was in assuming you were really interested in the facts.

Sorry, but that is NOT your "only error".

You made an erroneous statement and are unwilling to admit it.

[Jeff K.]

the evidence for the bible being accurate historically and spiritually is many and varied. Since that would be a different topic, I'm only going to state what I've stated.

Accurate historically?

Consider that the Epistles are not widely found among the early Christian writing, and a large number of epistles in the New Testament are actually anonymous. Of the 21 epistles 13 were allegedly written by Paul, six of those thirteen are heavily disputed by scholars. Did Paul for instance really write the letters to Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians? adn the Pastoral Epistles of Timonthy 1 and 2 are regarded by most scholars as not having been written by Paul.

James was accepted because people thought it was written by Jesus's brother, but the author doesn't claim that. Peter 1 and 2 claim to be written by Simon Peter, but most scholars think that 2 wasn't written by Peter. The same for Jude.

Everyone knows Corinthians 1 and 2 but most have never heard of Corinthian 3, and yet it is found in a number of ancient manuscripts and was part of the New Testament canon accepted by the churches in Syria and Armenia.

I could go on... But your stance for accuracy (and one assumes interpretation being part of that accuracy) is open to a great deal of debate.

I do applaud your search for truth spiritually, as I have mentioned earlier, such is important. Though it was dismissed when the double standard was engaged in critiquing the Book of Mormon.

[Jeff K.]

He should admit his error, just as you need to admit yours.

Now worries there, a number of manuscripts were probably available at the time of Gutenberg, copies of copies of copies. Changes upon changes upon changes..... I admit there could be many.

But documents dating from the time of Christ or the apostles? No, not one.

[Calm]

Out of curiosity (and asking instead of looking up because I've been awake all night and feel like I just may head off to bed in a minute or so if I read something interesting enough to ponder for a bit, but not so interesting as to drive me to stay awake waiting for an answer, lol), from what date does the earliest copy of a full text of one of the New Testament books date to? Not just fragments or even most of the text, but all of it more or less in the form (if not the language) that we have today?

Oh yeah....and what NT book is it?

Just wondering if there is a significant amount of time between dating of the fragments found to when researchers can start dealing confidently with full texts.

[Jeff K.]

The oldest is a large postage stamp sized fragment of John dated around 125 AD.

[Hughes]

You conflate a verse with an entire book. Interesting. Do you see the illogic in doing so or do you apply a double standard?

I'm sorry Jeff, I haven't a clue what you mean here? Conflating what verse exactly?

Mormons base their faith on the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and living prophets. You provide, as the basis of your faith, only your interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation I might add that is both controversial and contradictory within your own community and sect of Christianity. All Christian teaching does not rest in one Bible, it rests on much more, from the LDS point of view.

It is your position that is precarious, ours is triangulated and less open to the varied interpretation that led to many different churches choosing different methods of worship, education, emphasis, and of course authority.

The Mormons base their faith on the Book of Mormon and the Bible (as it's correctly translated) and the supposed living prophets. All of which is viewed through the perspective and assumption that Mormonism is true as taught by Joseph Smith. In essence, all it is based on the claims of one man, Joseph Smith. For which I can find no credible evidence that the BoM was accurately translated from the Plates.

So, "triangulated"? Not at all. All of mormonism rests on the untestable claims of one man.

[Jeff K.]

Versus the untestable claims of Christ and the Bible?

Or perhaps you have a documented peer reviewed article of people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, or perhaps the murderer Moses leading an entire people out of Egypt?

Again, let us not have a double standard.

[Hughes]

Accurate historically?

Consider that the Epistles are not widely found among the early Christian writing, and a large number of epistles in the New Testament are actually anonymous. Of the 21 epistles 13 were allegedly written by Paul, six of those thirteen are heavily disputed by scholars. Did Paul for instance really write the letters to Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians? adn the Pastoral Epistles of Timonthy 1 and 2 are regarded by most scholars as not having been written by Paul.

James was accepted because people thought it was written by Jesus's brother, but the author doesn't claim that. Peter 1 and 2 claim to be written by Simon Peter, but most scholars think that 2 wasn't written by Peter. The same for Jude.

Everyone knows Corinthians 1 and 2 but most have never heard of Corinthian 3, and yet it is found in a number of ancient manuscripts and was part of the New Testament canon accepted by the churches in Syria and Armenia.

I could go on... But your stance for accuracy (and one assumes interpretation being part of that accuracy) is open to a great deal of debate.

I do applaud your search for truth spiritually, as I have mentioned earlier, such is important. Though it was dismissed when the double standard was engaged in critiquing the Book of Mormon.

I take note that nothing you said discredits the claim of historicity of the texts. Thanks.

[Jeff K.]

Actually it does since it reflects a lack of knowledge at to the accuracy of the texts. It also reflects that the information is incomplete, and finally that scholars who study the texts for years dispute the authorship. Other than that I am sure they are hugely accurate and precise.

[Hughes]

What credible evidence do I rely on for 2 peter? I rely on the fact that, "As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine." Link to source

Now, it must be noted that 2 peter doesn't compare to the issue with the BoM. Not in the least.

All of christian teaching doesn't rest on 2 Peter, but all of Mormonism does rely on the BoM.

You conflate a verse with an entire book. Interesting. Do you see the illogic in doing so or do you apply a double standard?

I'm sorry Jeff, I haven't a clue what you mean here? Conflating what verse exactly?

Versus the untestable claims of Christ and the Bible?

Or perhaps you have a documented peer reviewed article of people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, or perhaps the murderer Moses leading an entire people out of Egypt?

Again, let us not have a double standard.

I'm still unclear how I'm conflating a verse with an entire book?

[Hughes]

Actually it does since it reflects a lack of knowledge at to the accuracy of the texts. It also reflects that the information is incomplete, and finally that scholars who study the texts for years dispute the authorship. Other than that I am sure they are hugely accurate and precise.

Actually it doesn't. In order to discredit the historicity of the texts, you need to post contradictory evidence (evidence that contradicts the historical claims of a document). "Incomplete" information is simply that. It is incomplete but it is not contradictory.

[SilverKnight]

I'm sorry Jeff, I haven't a clue what you mean here? Conflating what verse exactly?

The Mormons base their faith on the Book of Mormon and the Bible (as it's correctly translated) and the supposed living prophets. All of which is viewed through the perspective and assumption that Mormonism is true as taught by Joseph Smith. In essence, all it is based on the claims of one man, Joseph Smith. For which I can find no credible evidence that the BoM was accurately translated from the Plates.

So, "triangulated"? Not at all. All of mormonism rests on the untestable claims of one man.

I'm going to take your above statement and apply it to the bible. You tell me if I make any errors with it:

-----------

The Christians base their faith on the Bible and the supposed Holy Spirit. All of which is viewed through the perspective and assumption that the Bible is true as taught by numerous theologians and ministers. In essence, all it is based on the claims of one book, the Bible. For which I can find no credible evidence that the Bible was accurately translated or is anything more than a regional collection of religious myths, local pseudo-history and cultural folklore.

All of Christianity rests on the untestable claims of one book.

----------

As far as I can tell, that statement is a fairly accurate description of the Bible.

It also seems to be, more or less, your argument on why mormons have 'blind faith'.

It would seem, according to your own argument, that your faith is just as 'blind' as mormons'.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

[stemelbow]

The Mormons base their faith on the Book of Mormon and the Bible (as it's correctly translated) and the supposed living prophets. All of which is viewed through the perspective and assumption that Mormonism is true as taught by Joseph Smith. In essence, all it is based on the claims of one man, Joseph Smith. For which I can find no credible evidence that the BoM was accurately translated from the Plates.

So, "triangulated"? Not at all. All of mormonism rests on the untestable claims of one man.

That seems like a silly complaint coming from someone who, presumably, is Christian. We do not know if the gospels are accurate translations of Jesus' own words either. So following your logic you are left with blind faith and therefore, seeing as it is your critique of LDS, can't logically believe the beliefs you believe....or whatever.

Of course, there are plenty of more tacks to take. considering all the evidences initially listed here, and argued for in extensive works, one can at least take the thread seriously, read the works, and provide argument against any claims to these evidences. One can at least do that much, if one is a critic. Or one can spout off complaining about the very things that many find troubling about the complainers own belief system.

Or, as another wholly other tack, one can come to the realization that faith is indeed evidence, and really is the only evidence God suggests as that which we should live by.

Either way, the proposed argumentation that LDS are wrong because they can't prove to you that the BoM represents what was on the golden plates seems as pointless as an atheist arguing that Christians can't have the truth because their claims rest upon the teachings of Jesus, which teachings initially given in a language other than the records we currently have. Coming from a Christian, consider where the Christian is coming from, this whole thing is quite silly. And no effort to actually engage the works of Brant has occurred, in the process.

love,

stem

[Vance]

No worries there, a number of manuscripts were probably available at the time of Gutenberg, copies of copies of copies. Changes upon changes upon changes..... I admit there could be many.

But documents dating from the time of Christ or the apostles? No, not one.

Now that we have that out of the way, it would be appropriate for Bowman to admit his error.

So, Bowman, what say you?

[Jeff K.]

Actually it doesn't. In order to discredit the historicity of the texts, you need to post contradictory evidence (evidence that contradicts the historical claims of a document). "Incomplete" information is simply that. It is incomplete but it is not contradictory.

Not that is incorrect. Marvel Comics dug up a thousand years from now and whose authorship was presumed to be President Obama does not mean that Wolverine actually existed. Your logic is flawed. You presume that information is accurate but do not seem to undertand the context that the lack of verified authorship brings to the table. What if it wasn't Paul but an anti Roman Greek? Especially if different groups were contesting doctrinal questions and using false authorship in order to bolster their position (and perhaps even yours ). This means the historicity is not as strong as you may wish it to be. Your interpretation as to what is "historicity" is almost as incomplete as the Bible is.

The earliest extant canon containing Paul's letters is from the 2nd century:

It is a canon compiled by Marcion, the founder of Marcionism. Marcion did not include any of the modern Gospels, only his Gospel of Marcion, which according to his enemies he had edited from the Gospel of Luke, whereas he claimed that it was their version which was edited from his original gospel. He includes ten epistles by Paul, omitting the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy), as well as To the Hebrews.

There is also a list by an unknown author in Rome, usually named the Muratorian Canon. This includes all thirteen of the letters containing Paul's name; it includes other texts since declared to be non-canonical.

Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts (c. 200), contains the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1

[Vance]

I'm going to take your above statement and apply it to the bible. You tell me if I make any errors with it:

-----------

The Christians base their faith on the Bible and the supposed Holy Spirit. All of which is viewed through the perspective and assumption that the Bible is true as taught by numerous theologians and ministers. In essence, all it is based on the claims of one book, the Bible. For which I can find no credible evidence that the Bible was accurately translated or is anything more than a regional collection of religious myths, local pseudo-history and cultural folklore.

All of Christianity rests on the untestable claims of one book.

----------

As far as I can tell, that statement is a fairly accurate description of the Bible.

It also seems to be, more or less, your argument on why mormons have 'blind faith'.

It would seem, according to your own argument, that your faith is just as 'blind' as mormons'.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Unfortunately, Hughes has shown an inability to grasp this concept. You, sir Knight, are not the first to point this out to him.

I would put him on "ignore" if I knew where the button was. As it is, I don't waste any more of my time reading his posts, only the replies to them.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Hughesianisms cacophany.

Blind faith

Blind faith

Blind faith

ad infinitum