The Bible Answer Man

[altersteve]

and I never said I believe based on archeological evidence. Just that it gives me a good feeling. as I suppose going to church on sunday does for you. It's just added proof for his existence that I think is awesome.

No, it's not proof, it's evidence. Two very different things. And if you don't believe based on archaeological evidence, then what do you base your belief on? Surely not on the witness of God, since you say such a concept conflicts with your faith.

[Jesterss]

No, it's not proof, it's evidence. Two very different things. And if you don't believe based on archaeological evidence, then what do you base your belief on? Surely not on the witness of God, since you say such a concept conflicts with your faith.

Now you're just being argumentative. Perhaps you should take that into our private message. or did you "overlook" the little red "new message"?

[wenglund]

I could write a book right now that had far more archeological evidence than the BOM... anyone can write for their time.

Fine. The same can be said about the Bible. But, what does than mean in terms of the point you were trying to make?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jesterss]

Fine. The same can be said about the Bible. But, what does than mean in terms of the point you were trying to make?

That your point had no relevance. So what was your point?

[wenglund]

That your point had no relevance. So what was your point?

Could you please explain why you think my point is not relevant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

Now you're just being argumentative. Perhaps you should take that into our private message. or did you "overlook" the little red "new message"?

I was going to get to that tomorrow. I don't feel like looking up a bunch of scriptures for you. Interesting, though, how you simply claim I'm being argumentative without addressing the points I've made, which makes it seem to me like you don't have a response. So I'm going to ask again: how do you know the Bible is true?

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, a poster here, used to work with Hank at CRI and could likely give you some insight on the matter.

I'm not sure Hanigraff and Bowman see eye to eye these days. Bowman was part of a rebellion against Hanigraffs control of the Christian Research Institute. http://www.equip.org/breaking_the_silence/setting-the-record-straight-a-response-to-recent-attacks-against-the-christian-research-institute

[ldsfaqs]

It's a common thing when you are part of a group/ideology that some in the group in public don't represent it as perfectly or as well as one would like. As a conservative also, I often see or here conservatives address something, especially when contrasting liberalism with conservatism, that I don't think they do a good job, thus not making our argument seeming as strong or weaker than it actually is.

But, that's actually life itself. Often it can be due to not being as prepared, experienced, being on air or TV etc., while the critic is an expert already and well prepared with his attacks. No matter the group, not everyone is an expert or professional in the subject they believe in, thus their presentation skills when going public can seem lacking. This is one reason why the Gospel teaches us to read and seek out the best, the best books, the best professionals, etc. for all truth. I can see the difference.

[cdowis]

The disadvantage of calling his radio show is that he is very much in control. He can talk over you, he can easily change the subject if he becomes uncomfortable with your response. Indeed he can push a button to shut you up and move to the next person.

That's why I gave up calling such shows, and spend my time on forums, where he cannot dominate the conversation. He has "all the answers" and the caller is often unprepared for the questions, and always on the defense. The internet forum levels the playing field.

[Ron Beron]

Hank's show has been on for decades, and with all the LDS callers and writers, both good and bad, he has heard from during that time, I have yet to see him change his negative portrayal of the Church even in the slightest. For as long as he continues with the show, rest assured that he will continue to recycle the same old propaganda, and nothing any LDS caller may say will likely change that.

The good news is, it is doubtful that his propaganda will have a permanent affect on the honest seekers after Christ, and he is drawing attention to the Church and piquing people's interest.

So, I wouldn't fuss and fret over what you may hear on his show. Life is to short and it isn't healthy or in our interest to grant Hank much if any control over our emotions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

More importantly, he has lost stations. He is primarily heard on XM/Serious satellite radio and not much else. The local affiliate here in Orange County (the birthplace of CRI) doesn't carry his show anymore. He seems relegated to selling his and others wares and not addressing with any substance or knowledge the things he pretends.

[Ron Beron]

Have you ever watched a show something along the lines of "mountain of fire".. I think that's the name of it, but it's quite interesting...

Basically, where the catholics claim that mount sinai is, is false. (One of many of my reasons not to follow the catholic church). Anyway, the real location, which I believe after watching this documentary and ones played on the History channel. Give a very accurate depiction of Jabal Al Laws being the actual mount sinai location. In Saudi Arabia.. Follows biblical mentionings to the T.

Edit: you can YouTube mountain of fire and watch it... about 50 minutes long.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Zakuska]

Have you ever watched a show something along the lines of "mountain of fire".. I think that's the name of it, but it's quite interesting...

Basically, where the catholics claim that mount sinai is, is false. (One of many of my reasons not to follow the catholic church). Anyway, the real location, which I believe after watching this documentary and ones played on the History channel. Give a very accurate depiction of Jabal Al Laws being the actual mount sinai location. In Saudi Arabia.. Follows biblical mentionings to the T.

Edit: you can YouTube mountain of fire and watch it... about 50 minutes long.

Thanks Jestress. Ive read some on the Jabal Al Laws theory. I'll watch it and tell you what I think. (Thanks for the head up on the Holy Grail of America too)

[BCSpace]

Love it when Walter was there. We used to harass him all the time and win debates (as evidenced by the hang ups).

[Jesterss]

Thanks Jestress. Ive read some on the Jabal Al Laws theory. I'll watch it and tell you what I think. (Thanks for the head up on the Holy Grail of America too)

Sounds good, thank you as well for the reference. I have a hard time finding some references here at work due to our firewall..

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have called into Hank's show a couple of times. I got on once and lost my connection another time (cell phone).

I am an EV, but like you.. I have a mixed bag sort of feeling about Hank.

That being said, Hank does have call screeners, just like any credible radio show host of note. I speculate, but I imagine the purpose of these screeners is to keep the show exciting and to keep up their boss' image.

To distance myself from the immediate scenario. Let me posit another.

Rush Limbaugh has a conservative radio show. Say.. three liberals call in on a specific issue. The screeners feel one of the three is really a dufus, one moderately informed, and the last is well informed, highly articulate and so forth. Which one goes on the show?

If you do ever decide to go on, my advice would be to appear to be an LDS who is a little mixed up about the facts... , until you actually get on air. It would probably be a good experience for all.

Good luck with that.

edit add..

Rob Bowman, a poster here, used to work with Hank at CRI and could likely give you some insight on the matter.

He was tutored by Walter Martin, to this day the late Walter Martin’s name is used on one other worst anti-Mormon sites out there…buy the way although we can be called a “cult” and be attacked daily the site does not allow the term anti-Mormon to be used.

[Jesterss]

I was going to get to that tomorrow. I don't feel like looking up a bunch of scriptures for you. Interesting, though, how you simply claim I'm being argumentative without addressing the points I've made, which makes it seem to me like you don't have a response. So I'm going to ask again: how do you know the Bible is true?

It depends on how you're speaking. At one point you were speaking of scientific, archeological evidence, then you changed it to belief. So which do you want? I provided both already.

1. Archeologically, mount sinai does exist. Jabal Al Lawz fits the description in Exodus very well. Which gives credit to the bible as being at least accurate in its depiction of exodus. (there are others as well, but we were speaking only of exodus)

2. God revealed this location to us, despite what the catholics want us to believe mount sinai to be. So God provides us with proof. If we reject it, that's on us.

Spiritually proving God isn't a matter between us. And I can't tell you that he exists or that he doesn't from a human standpoint. So I don't know what you're wanting me to tell you. You can't "prove" that he exists. But we can prove that the things that we believe have been inspired by him, have been very accurate and do exist, leading us to the obvious conclusion that he does exist..

Another show I find interesting, The Star of Bethlehem. It's a documentary on the birth and death of Jesus from an astronomical point of view. The guy who discovered this is baptist and he does biblical exegesis to align with astronomy, but he is actually a lawyer. I would recommend this to anyone. Does not conflict with any christian beliefs. Pretty cool really.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

The American midwest and plains are like the Saudi Arabia?

[altersteve]

It depends on how you're speaking. At one point you were speaking of scientific, archeological evidence, then you changed it to belief. So which do you want? I provided both already.

1. Archeologically, mount sinai does exist. Jabal Al Lawz fits the description in Exodus very well. Which gives credit to the bible as being at least accurate in its depiction of exodus. (there are others as well, but we were speaking only of exodus)

2. God revealed this location to us, despite what the catholics want us to believe mount sinai to be. So God provides us with proof. If we reject it, that's on us.

Spiritually proving God isn't a matter between us. And I can't tell you that he exists or that he doesn't from a human standpoint. So I don't know what you're wanting me to tell you. You can't "prove" that he exists. But we can prove that the things that we believe have been inspired by him, have been very accurate and do exist, leading us to the obvious conclusion that he does exist..

Another show I find interesting, The Star of Bethlehem. It's a documentary on the birth and death of Jesus from an astronomical point of view. The guy who discovered this is baptist and he does biblical exegesis to align with astronomy, but he is actually a lawyer. I would recommend this to anyone. Does not conflict with any christian beliefs. Pretty cool really.

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the Bible. You're avoiding the question, so I'm going to ask it again. It's very simple. How do you know the Bible is true? Archaeology can prove that the Bible is accurate archaeologically, but it cannot prove that it is the word of God. Only the Holy Ghost can do that.

Edited October 11, 2011 by altersteve

[Ron Beron]

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the Bible. You're avoiding the question, so I'm going to ask it again. It's very simple. How do you know the Bible is true? Archaeology can prove that the Bible is accurate archaeologically, but it cannot prove that it is the word of God. Only the Holy Ghost can do that.

Unfortunately, archaeology cannot "prove" the Bible as being accurate since there are events that occurred biblically that cannot be verified archeologically.

[LeSellers]

there are events that occurred biblically that cannot be verified archeologically.

There are also events that could be "verified archeologically", but which have not been, in spite of there being a specific search for evidence, to wit, the Exodus. There is no evidence of a forty-year trek through Sinai by millions of people: no camp sites, no bones (of either people or animals), nothing.

Jesterss, I believe, claimed that there is a mountain that meets the criteria in Exodus for Sinai, but the fact is, we do not know where Sinai is. If we were to apply the same standard to, say, Nephi's Bountiful, we would say that there is a spot, in Oman, Wadi Sayq, that meets all of the Book of Mormon criteria, so we have found it (thus proving the Book of Mormon to be true). (There are several alternatives that meet at least as many of those criteria as the proposed sites for Sinai.)

Lehi

[wenglund]

Jesterss, I believe, claimed that there is a mountain that meets the criteria in Exodus for Sinai, but the fact is, we do not know where Sinai is.

Lawrence Garder has said:

"Something which should be recognized at this stage is that, at the time of Moses (about 1350 BC), there was no mountain called Mount Sinai. There was no mountain by that name even in the days of Jesus - nor even for another 300 years. It should also be remembered that the Old Testament which is familiar to us today stems from a 10^th-century Hebrew text and is, therefore, 600 years younger even than the canonical New Testament compiled in the 4^th century.

"The mountain now generally known as Mount Sinai sits in the south of the peninsular - quite near to the bottom point of the upturned triangle - and it was given its name in the 4^th century by a mission of Greek Christian monks 1700 years after the time of Moses. It is now sometimes called Gebel Musa (or Mount of Moses) and there is still a Christian retreat there called St Catherine’s Monastery. However, this is not the Sinai mountain which the Bible calls Mount Horeb.

"In the late 1890s, the British Egyptologist Sir William Flinders Petrie, a professor at the University College, London, applied to the Egypt Exploration Fund to take an expedition into Sinai. By January 1904, his team had departed and in the March of that year they took their expedition to the heights of Mount Serâbît. In the following year Petrie published the detailed results of his findings, but added to his report the fact that, to his dismay, this information would not be made available to the Egypt Exploration Fund subscribers who would receive only maps and a general outline.

"Furthermore, Petrie explained that, from the time of that Sinai expedition (even though he had taken previously funded teams into Egypt), his sponsorship by the Fund was terminated - ostensibly because he had broken the binding rule of the Articles by divulging something which was contrary to Bible teaching. He had, in fact, discovered the great secret of the sacred mountain of Moses - a secret which not only made sense of the Exodus portrayals, but which blew the lid totally from their common scriptural interpretation."

The article goes on to make some fascinating points about the so-called Mt. Sanai that bear further investigation. (click on the link above and do a page search for the word "Sinai")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

It should also be remembered that the Old Testament which is familiar to us today stems from a 10th-century Hebrew text and is, therefore, 600 years younger even than the canonical New Testament compiled in the 4th century.

Even if we did not have the DSS we would have had the LXX and writers such as Philo and Josephus.

[altersteve]

Unfortunately, archaeology cannot "prove" the Bible as being accurate since there are events that occurred biblically that cannot be verified archeologically.

I only meant that the parts of the Bible that have been archaeologically verified are archaeologically accurate. Whether or not it is the word of God is another matter. This is what cannot be proven.

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

The American midwest and plains are like the Saudi Arabia?

No? I never said they were. What are you trying to get at?

[LDSGuy]

Should we give the Bible Answer Man the time of day? I mean he is just regurgitating the some old anti-mormon rhetoric. Just the other day he had Sandra Tanner on the radio program. I love how these people say that their not against mormons but mormonism. They love mormons but also love to misrepresent, distort and lie about its doctrines.