Testing Biblical Historicity Using Secular Methodologies

[wenglund]

As a general rule, and unlike good folks such as Rob Bowman, we LDS aren't in the business of pro-actively challenging the origins of non-LDS scripture.

And, as a general rule, and unlike good folks such as Rob Bowman, we LDS test the verity of our own scriptures by putting our trust in God, rather than man. We prefer spiritual methodologies when testing spiritual things, whereas good folks like Rob seem to prefer secular methodologies.

These two things seem to work in our favor since, unlike with good folks such as Rob, our spiritual methodologies tend not to come back to bite our own faith; whereas. as may be demonstrated in this thread, the use of certain secular methodologies by religionists may come back to bite their faith.

Since this principle seem lost on certain good people, this thread is devoted to putting the Bible to the same or similar secular tests as those employed by the Rob Bomans of the world in relation to LDS scriptures.

Make no mistake, this exercise shouldn't be interpreted as LDS bashing the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, and have had this confirmed to us by God. Rather, the intent here is to give other Christians good reason to minimize their reliance on secular methodologies in spiritual matters, and maximize their reliance on divinely instituted spiritual means for testing spiritual things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As mentioned in another thread, and as best I can tell, here essentially is one of Rob's secular methodology for determining the origins of sacred text (see HERE):

1) If the idioms and other speech forms of a given text all fit easily and obviously in the time frame of the earliest extant translation, then one may reasonably presume that the origins of the given text are the time of the earliest extant translations.

2) If the earliest extant translation of a given text contains similar phrasing, or seem to quote, another text available to the translator at the time of the earliest extant translation of the given text, then one may reasonably presume that the origins of the given text are at the time of the earliest extant translations.

3) If the genre or message of a given text is very much like what religious activists used at the time of the earliest extant translation, then one may reasonably presume that the origins of the given text are at the time of the earliest extant translations.

When Rob speaks of "text," he isn't necessarily referring to entire books or canon of scripture. He can, as in this case, be referring to a relatively short passage of scripture (several verses).

With this in mind, it would be interesting to see how various passages of the Bible may fare under his secular scrutiny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Bart Ehrman's experience is a cautionary tale when it comes to placing secular proofs first, and spiritual methods somewhere at the back of the pack.

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Rob doesn't even do the secular well.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

[Mudcat]

As a general rule, and unlike good folks such as Rob Bowman, we LDS aren't in the business of pro-actively challenging the origins of non-LDS scripture.

I think given the curious origins of LDS Scriptures (thinking mostly about the BoM, but also the PoGP), this is likely a very prudent course.

[wenglund]

Let's begin with the creation and garden accounts in the Book of Genesis.

According to my research, the earliest extant manuscript for the Book of Genesis is from Tanakh at Qumran (1Q1), written in Hebrew script, dated to the second century BCE. (See HERE).

This puts at least approximately 4000 years between the events in question and the earliest extant manuscripts; whereas there is only about 2000 years difference between the earliest events in the Book of Mormon and the earliest extant manuscripts.

Using Rob's secular methodology, let see if the creation and garden accounts in the bible originated in 2 BCE, thus drawing into question, in Rob's mind, the historicity of the creation and Garden accounts.

First, we need to determine if idioms and speech forms of the Qumran text fit easily and obviously in the venacular of 2 BCE. And, if they do, then according to Rob's thinking, one may reasonably conclude that the creation and garden accounts originated in 2 BCE.

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Your criticism of my approach to the Book of Mormon as "secular" is devoid of any substance. What is it about my approach that is "secular"? I'm not questioning miracles. I'm not doubting the existence and activity of angels. I'm not denying God's existence, power, or revelation.

Let me comment briefly on what you do say. The three points you enumerate are not secular arguments. They are historical, evidential arguments--and arguments you do not seem to understand very well. Furthermore, the case against the Book of Mormon is cumulative, meaning that it is the synergy of the various independent lines of evidence that gives the arguments more than mere plausibility. If a book first appears in the nineteenth century, with no text or copy dating earlier than the nineteenth century, and it is written in nineteenth-century style, using nineteenth-century genres, quoting and alluding to texts available to nineteenth-century people but not to the ancient people who supposedly wrote it, addressing concerns specific to nineteenth-century people, it is a nineteenth-century book!

You are also mistaken in claiming that I am basing my argument against the Book of Mormon's antiquity on one chapter. That is absolutely false. Someone else brought up a couple of verses in that chapter and tried to find evidence of antiquity in just one turn of phrase used there, and you apparently don't see anything wrong with that! But I presented an argument using the whole chapter, and somehow I am supposedly turning a blind eye to the rest of the Book of Mormon. In another thread, in which I was asked what evidence I thought showed that the Book of Mormon originated in the nineteenth century, I quickly cited both external and internal evidences, including facts pertaining to the Book of Mormon as a whole as well as to numerous chapters in it (notably its use of the KJV Bible).

I will repeat that the kinds of arguments that I am presenting are not the type of secular arguments used by atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics against the Bible. If you think they are, please give some specific examples of arguments such secularists use against the Bible that I have used against the Book of Mormon.

Let me quote an article from LDS.org to show that the methodology I use is not secular:

"Concerning ancient Jewish and Christian documents, the possibility exists that entire documents, or parts of them, were forged in antiquity. It is worthwhile to note that this sort of phenomenon has not been confined to ancient forgers—a number of publications have appeared in the last two or three centuries that were acclaimed as translations of very old texts concerned with the Messiah or with Israel’s history. But Edgar J. Goodspeed has written several books that demonstrate that these so-called ancient works are really modern forgeries. Such fabrications include the Antiquarian Gospel, the Confession of Pontius Pilate, the Twenty-ninth Chapter of Acts, most versions of the Book of Jasher, the Long-Lost Second Book of Acts, and the Nazarene Gospel. (See Strange New Gospels, University of Chicago Press, 1931.)

One such fiction that has enjoyed popularity in recent years is the Archko Volume. This work was first published in 1884 by Reverend W. D. Mahan, who claimed it represented the translation of documents he had found at the Vatican in Rome and in Constantinople, Turkey. Reverend Mahan claimed that these texts were translated by two famous English and Scottish scholars. These “famous” scholars are otherwise unknown and the existence of the original texts has never been demonstrated.

Soon after the publication of the Archko Volume, a number of pamphlets were written against it, proving it to be fiction. In one pamphlet, it is shown that Reverend Mahan lifted a passage directly out of Lew Wallace’s book, Ben Hur, which was first printed in 1880!"

S. Kent Brown and C. Wilfred Griggs, "The Messiah and the Manuscripts," Ensign, Sept. 1974, 73 (68-73).

Notice two points that Brown and Griggs make here about the Archko Volume. The first is that "the existence of the original texts has never been demonstrated." The same is true of the Book of Mormon. Like the Archko Volume, all we have for the Book of Mormon is an English work claimed to be the translation of an inaccessible original work in another language. The second point they make is that the Archko Volume was shown to have "lifted a passage" from a book dating from the nineteenth century, "proving it to be fiction" in its claim to be an ancient book. Again, the Book of Mormon has the very same problem: it lifts passages from the KJV Bible, including passages from the New Testament.

So, were LDS scholars Brown and Griggs, in an article in Ensign, endorsing "secular" arguments against the Archko Volume? Are such arguments "secular" when used against the Book of Mormon but not when used against the Archko Volume?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let's begin with the creation and garden accounts in the Book of Genesis.

According to my research, the earliest extant manuscript for the Book of Genesis is from Tanakh at Qumran (1Q1), written in Hebrew script, dated to the second century BCE. (See HERE).

"Tanakh at Qumran" is not a specific manuscript. Tanakh is simply the Hebrew name for what Christians call the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, I just got a phone call from my daughter's school and I have to pick her up because she is sick. I will return to this issue later.

[wenglund]

Wade,

You wrote:

"Tanakh at Qumran" is not a specific manuscript. Tanakh is simply the Hebrew name for what Christians call the Old Testament.

If you would note the parenthetical "1Q1" (which identifies a specific fragment of a specific scroll from a specific cave at Qumran) in my post, and click on the link, it should be clear that I knew this already. But, I appreciate you mentioning it for the benefit of those who may not have known.

Unfortunately, I just got a phone call from my daughter's school and I have to pick her up because she is sick. I will return to this issue later.

I hope she gets better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

I wish her to have nothing serious, and speedy recovery.

[rameumptom]

Rob, is making claims about the Book of Mormon that there are no evidences for it being outside a 19th century framework. He obviously is ignoring the hundreds of articles written by FARMS, FAIR, and many others (including Wade and me) regarding such things.

That Rob claims it to be a "historical" evidence, is a bunch of balonie. It is an archaeological or philological issue. If something is written in a certain period and uses terminology from that period, it does not necessarily mean it originated in that timeframe. I think what Wade is alluding to is the concept that 1Q1 was written in Hebrew script that matches the period. This does not mean that it did not come from previous examples that could have used a more ancient type. For what it is worth, you could compare the Bible's creation story with that of more ancient Semitic creation stories and find similarities. However, the wording will be different, and there is no Adam or Garden of Eden to speak of.

That the BoM contains Hebraisms (such as chiasmus), which date back to the proper time period, is evidence that at least some of the writing is ancient. That the BoM contains dozens of names (NHM, Pahoran, Paanchi, etc) that date back thousands of years to the right time period, shows that at least that portion of the text is not a 19th century add on, should be considered.

To pull up a few anachronistic phrases and condemn the whole book simply because Joseph Smith would or could easily write things in the vernacular of his day in order to describe the real ancient meaning is silly. For instance, using the French word "adieu" was because Joseph knew the term and what it meant. It does not mean that ancient Nephites spoke French, but that the word best described the meaning.

If we are to go with secular evidence, then we need to determine whether we should discuss sola scriptura or not. If so, then the concept of the Creation being literal needs to also be considered, and compared with modern scholarship. Of course, there are two (or more) Creation stories in the Bible, so good luck deciding which to go with. Personally, I think the earliest forms of the Creation will go back only to 850BC, and the Jahwist.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your criticism of my approach to the Book of Mormon as "secular" is devoid of any substance.

Your blindness to the substance is remarkable.

What is it about my approach that is "secular"?

Everything (see below).

I'm not questioning miracles. I'm not doubting the existence and activity of angels. I'm not denying God's existence, power, or revelation.

Secular methodologies don't, themselves, deny those things--though secularists may use secular methodologies, as you have done with the Book of Mormon, to deny certain spiritual things.

A methodology is secular not based on its denial of spiritual and revelatory things, but rather because they operate to the exclusion of, or apart from spiritual and revelatory things. Wikipedia has this to say about "secular" or "secularity": "For instance, eating and bathing may be regarded as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them."

Your approach is man made, and is reliant strictly upon mortal man, and considers only the things of mortal man. There is nothing inherently religious about it. It could just as soon be used to test the historicity or origins of non-religious books as religious.

Scientific methodologies like historiography, textual critical analysis, hermeneutics, archeology, anthropology, sociology and the like, while at times utilized by religionist in relation to their spiritual faith, are nevertheless secular.

Let me comment briefly on what you do say. The three points you enumerate are not secular arguments. They are historical, evidential arguments--and arguments you do not seem to understand very well.

Someone evidently doesn't understand, and it will be made clear below who that is, if not already.

Furthermore, the case against the Book of Mormon is cumulative, meaning that it is the synergy of the various independent lines of evidence that gives the arguments more than mere plausibility.

Nothing I said suggest otherwise.

If a book first appears in the nineteenth century, with no text or copy dating earlier than the nineteenth century, and it is written in nineteenth-century style, using nineteenth-century genres, quoting and alluding to texts available to nineteenth-century people but not to the ancient people who supposedly wrote it, addressing concerns specific to nineteenth-century people, it is a nineteenth-century book!

Essentially, that is what I said. But, if you like, I am fine with using your exact language.

You are also mistaken in claiming that I am basing my argument against the Book of Mormon's antiquity on one chapter. That is absolutely false.

You are mistaken and absolutely false about me making such a claim. In fact, I implicitly suggested otherwise when I said: "When Rob speaks of 'text,' he isn't necessarily referring to entire books or canon of scripture. He can, as in this case, be referring to a relatively short passage of scripture (several verses)." Furthermore, I went on to apply your secular methodology to select passages in the Bible, beginning first with the creation and garden account in the Bible, and this in acknowledgment that your secular approach may only call into question the historicity of those passages that fail the test of your approach.

I will repeat that the kinds of arguments that I am presenting are not the type of secular arguments used by atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics against the Bible. If you think they are, please give some specific examples of arguments such secularists use against the Bible that I have used against the Book of Mormon.

First things first. I am going to use your secular methodology to test passages in the Bible, and then once that is done, if necessary I will then point out the similarities with your methodology as compared with those of secularists. I am confident that since I will be relying on secular resources in the course of testing biblical passages using your secular approach, that the similarities will be made self-evident.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Great thread!

All my best to Rob's daughter- it seems she has been having problems, and I am praying for her.

It is impossible to prove spiritual truth with historic evidence.

Even many of those who were there and saw the miracles for themselves did not accept Christ as the savior; so WE are supposed to believe it on historic evidence 2000 years later??

Edited February 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[robuchan]

You can't prove spiritual truth with historical evidence. But you can disprove spiritual truth with historical evidence.

I saw God. You can't prove that (or disprove it).

"I retired early to bed on Aug 1 of 2011 around 9 pm and as I was praying, God appeared to me and talked to me for three hours and when it was over I looked at the clock it was midnight."

This can be disproved with historical evidence. For example, many witnesses saw me at a bar from 8 pm to 11:30 pm on Aug 1 of 2011. There's a credit card receipt for me getting gas at a 7-11 at 11:45 pm Aug 1, 2011. And I recorded in my journal in Oct 2011 that I was seeking an experience with God, but I had never seen him.

Edited February 22, 2012 by robuchan

[Bob Crockett]

[Rob, is making claims about the Book of Mormon that there are no evidences for it being outside a 19th century framework. He obviously is ignoring the hundreds of articles written by FARMS, FAIR, and many others (including Wade and me) regarding such things.

I don't consider this a very compelling argument.

That Rob claims it to be a "historical" evidence, is a bunch of balonie. It is an archaeological or philological issue. If something is written in a certain period and uses terminology from that period, it does not necessarily mean it originated in that timeframe.

It is far from baloney. Angels and gold plates are, really, beyond rational belief to 99.99 percent of humankind.

That the BoM contains Hebraisms (such as chiasmus), which date back to the proper time period, is evidence that at least some of the writing is ancient.

And I stick to the Brant Gardner school here, that such Hebraisms do not exist or exist in the Book of Mormon only by reason of the influence of the Bible.

To pull up a few anachronistic phrases and condemn the whole book simply because Joseph Smith would or could easily write things in the vernacular of his day in order to describe the real ancient meaning is silly. For instance, using the French word "adieu" was because Joseph knew the term and what it meant. It does not mean that ancient Nephites spoke French, but that the word best described the meaning.

There are more than a few anachronistic phrases, but again I like Brant Gardner's assessment and explanation for these and agree with him.

[robuchan]

I don't consider this a very compelling argument.

It is far from baloney. Angels and gold plates are, really, beyond rational belief to 99.99 percent of humankind.

And I stick to the Brant Gardner school here, that such Hebraisms do not exist or exist in the Book of Mormon only by reason of the influence of the Bible.

There are more than a few anachronistic phrases, but again I like Brant Gardner's assessment and explanation for these and agree with him.

I think Brant Gardner's approach is the most defensible case for the Book of Mormon, given the existing evidence today.

Still weak, IMHO, but the best one.

[mfbukowski]

You can't prove spiritual truth with historical evidence. But you can disprove spiritual truth with historical evidence.

I saw God. You can't prove that (or disprove it).

"I retired early to bed on Aug 1 of 2011 around 9 pm and as I was praying, God appeared to me and talked to me for three hours and when it was over I looked at the clock it was midnight."

This can be disproved with historical evidence. For example, many witnesses saw me at a bar from 8 pm to 11:30 pm on Aug 1 of 2011. There's a credit card receipt for me getting gas at a 7-11 at 11:45 pm Aug 1, 2011. And I recorded in my journal in Oct 2011 that I was seeking an experience with God, but I had never seen him.

No, unfortunately you are wrong. All that shows is that you were lying about seeing God. That is not a spiritual truth. If you had told me what God told you- and if I had my own spiritual confirmation - ie: if God told me the same thing. THAT would be a spiritual truth.

And the fact that you lied about it has nothing to do with God telling me the same thing.

[robuchan]

No, unfortunately you are wrong. All that shows is that you were lying about seeing God. That is not a spiritual truth. If you had told me what God told you- and if I had my own spiritual confirmation - ie: if God told me the same thing. THAT would be a spiritual truth.

And the fact that you lied about it has nothing to do with God telling me the same thing.

Isn't this what we're getting down to... Whether or not people have lied about seeing God? Or had something revealed to them from God? Whether it be from Nephi, Abraham, or Joseph Smith? When things like this are tied to historical and scientific facts, they can be tested and proved with history and science.

From my hypo, if along with my lie about seeing God, I told you something God told me, and the spirit confirmed it to you. What would the spirit be confirming, exactly? That I saw God. That what I learned from God was true. That God exists and loves you and it's not a bad thing to want to seek him? What would you think if God confirmed what I told you and then you found out it was a lie?

[mfbukowski]

Isn't this what we're getting down to... Whether or not people have lied about seeing God? Or had something revealed to them from God? Whether it be from Nephi, Abraham, or Joseph Smith? When things like this are tied to historical and scientific facts, they can be tested and proved with history and science.

From my hypo, if along with my lie about seeing God, I told you something God told me, and the spirit confirmed it to you. What would the spirit be confirming, exactly? That I saw God. That what I learned from God was true. That God exists and loves you and it's not a bad thing to want to seek him? What would you think if God confirmed what I told you and then you found out it was a lie?

You said nothing about what God told you. What God told me has nothing to do with what God told you. We need to have individual testimonies of all the principles of the church- not just that "Joseph saw God"

Spiritual beliefs are logically justifiable in the same way that moral beliefs are- and they have nothing to do with history. Can you prove through history that it is wrong to kill babies for fun? Good luck with that one. Both moral and spiritual beliefs are justified because they work for us- morals work for society and religious beliefs work for the individual- giving meaning to their lives, and allowing them to create a comprehensive world view.

Society could not exist without morals.

You cannot prove for example that Jesus was the Christ with historical evidence. It is tenuous to even prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed on historical evidence- but I think it is probably likely (using only historical evidence) that he did exist. Of course on a spiritual level, I am certain that he not only existed, but was indeed the son of God and the annointed savior of the world. But certainly history does not show that at all.

Whether or not Joseph saw God or where the Book of Mormon came from is irrelevant to the historical evidence also. I believe both those things based on spiritual evidence because God "told me" personally by revealing it to my heart, that these things are true.

I would laugh at anybody who told me a story like that about the plates and all - and in fact did until I myself investigated it further and in fact received a testimony of it

[mfbukowski]

I found this post on another thread currently in progress

Correct. That's my point. God could do a lot of things to slow down or speed up church growth if he wants to. Let's not blame certain church history facts on God not being competent enough to have his church grow if they had or hadn't happened.

Now I am really confused by your position.

Here you seem to say that church history has nothing to do with what God wants.

It seems your position on that thread is quite different than your position here. What gives?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let's begin with the creation and garden accounts in the Book of Genesis.

According to my research, the earliest extant manuscript for the Book of Genesis is from Tanakh at Qumran (1Q1), written in Hebrew script, dated to the second century BCE. (See HERE).

This puts at least approximately 4000 years between the events in question and the earliest extant manuscripts; whereas there is only about 2000 years difference between the earliest events in the Book of Mormon and the earliest extant manuscripts.

Oops. There are no extant manuscripts for the Book of Mormon. There are extant manuscripts for an English composition that is claimed to be a translation of an original-language text of which no copies exist at all.

The Book of Mormon also mentions the creation of the world, but you don't see me arguing that the Book of Mormon is inauthentic because our earliest version of the Book of Mormon dates at least six thousand years after creation. Such an argument is completely irrelevant. I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon was written too long after the events it narrates to be considered historically reliable. Hence your counter using the Bible fails because it attributes to me an argument I don't use.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a prophet producing a text based on divine inspiration in which he gives an account of the creation of the world. I believe Moses did just that. Here's a scenario that would be problematic. Suppose Genesis began with the words "I, Moses," and proceeded to give an account of the creation of the world. However, our earliest version of this account is written in Greek and dates from the first century BC. Furthermore, in this "Genesis" the creation account divides the cosmos into sublunar and superlunar worlds, and describes the sublunar world as composed of earth, water, air, and fire. Based on this information, we would have to assign "Genesis" to a date sometime after Aristotle (i.e., third century BC or after). As for the real Genesis, we have no such problems that call into question that Genesis is what it purports to be.

You wrote:

Using Rob's secular methodology, let see if the creation and garden accounts in the bible originated in 2 BCE, thus drawing into question, in Rob's mind, the historicity of the creation and Garden accounts.

First, we need to determine if idioms and speech forms of the Qumran text fit easily and obviously in the venacular of 2 BCE. And, if they do, then according to Rob's thinking, one may reasonably conclude that the creation and garden accounts originated in 2 BCE.

Even though our earliest copy of Genesis dates from the second century BC (not 2 BC!), no historian or biblical scholar, secular or otherwise, thinks Genesis dates from the second century BC.

[robuchan]

You said nothing about what God told you. What God told me has nothing to do with what God told you. We need to have individual testimonies of all the principles of the church- not just that "Joseph saw God"

Spiritual beliefs are logically justifiable in the same way that moral beliefs are- and they have nothing to do with history. Can you prove through history that it is wrong to kill babies for fun? Good luck with that one. Both moral and spiritual beliefs are justified because they work for us- morals work for society and religious beliefs work for the individual- giving meaning to their lives, and allowing them to create a comprehensive world view.

Society could not exist without morals.

You cannot prove for example that Jesus was the Christ with historical evidence. It is tenuous to even prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed on historical evidence- but I think it is probably likely (using only historical evidence) that he did exist. Of course on a spiritual level, I am certain that he not only existed, but was indeed the son of God and the annointed savior of the world. But certainly history does not show that at all.

Whether or not Joseph saw God or where the Book of Mormon came from is irrelevant to the historical evidence also. I believe both those things based on spiritual evidence because God "told me" personally by revealing it to my heart, that these things are true.

I would laugh at anybody who told me a story like that about the plates and all - and in fact did until I myself investigated it further and in fact received a testimony of it

You can not prove or disprove through history that killing babies for fun is wrong. But if I told you God came to me on Aug 1, 2011 at 10 pm and told me killing babies for fun is wrong, that fact can be disproved through historical fact. When what you call a spiritual truth is tied to historical fact, then it is possible to disprove it through historical fact. If your spiritual truth is generic such as killing babies for fun is wrong, then yes I agree with you. But all the important LDS truth claims are tied to actual events, so history and science come into play.

[robuchan]

I found this post on another thread currently in progress

Now I am really confused by your position.

Here you seem to say that church history has nothing to do with what God wants.

It seems your position on that thread is quite different than your position here. What gives?

Sorry, I'd like to help but I don't understand what you mean by the positions being incongruent.

[wenglund]

Oops. There are no extant manuscripts for the Book of Mormon. There are extant manuscripts for an English composition that is claimed to be a translation of an original-language text of which no copies exist at all.

The Book of Mormon also mentions the creation of the world, but you don't see me arguing that the Book of Mormon is inauthentic because our earliest version of the Book of Mormon dates at least six thousand years after creation. Such an argument is completely irrelevant. I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon was written too long after the events it narrates to be considered historically reliable. Hence your counter using the Bible fails because it attributes to me an argument I don't use.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a prophet producing a text based on divine inspiration in which he gives an account of the creation of the world. I believe Moses did just that. Here's a scenario that would be problematic. Suppose Genesis began with the words "I, Moses," and proceeded to give an account of the creation of the world. However, our earliest version of this account is written in Greek and dates from the first century BC. Furthermore, in this "Genesis" the creation account divides the cosmos into sublunar and superlunar worlds, and describes the sublunar world as composed of earth, water, air, and fire. Based on this information, we would have to assign "Genesis" to a date sometime after Aristotle (i.e., third century BC or after). As for the real Genesis, we have no such problems that call into question that Genesis is what it purports to be.

Even though our earliest copy of Genesis dates from the second century BC (not 2 BC!), no historian or biblical scholar, secular or otherwise, thinks Genesis dates from the second century BC.

The desperate level of silly quibbling, defensiveness, and lack of comprehension in this knee-jerk response is so alarming to the point that I question whether it would be charitable and/or productive for me to press forward with my object lesson. Truth is, my heart wasn't in it to begin with since the whole negative approach thing, particularly in relation to a book I hold sacred, runs contrary to my nature. It is also a topic the depths of which are sufficiently outside my field of experience. And, so, for my part I am going to let things stand as is and leave Rob free to take care of his daughter. Adieu...

I will not close the thread so as to allow others to continue discussing the issue if they wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

You can not prove or disprove through history that killing babies for fun is wrong. But if I told you God came to me on Aug 1, 2011 at 10 pm and told me killing babies for fun is wrong, that fact can be disproved through historical fact. When what you call a spiritual truth is tied to historical fact, then it is possible to disprove it through historical fact. If your spiritual truth is generic such as killing babies for fun is wrong, then yes I agree with you. But all the important LDS truth claims are tied to actual events, so history and science come into play.

Your logic doesn't work.

The proposition

"Killing babies for fun is wrong"

Has absolutely no logical entailment nor is it in any way "tied to"- whatever that is supposed to mean- the proposition

"God visitied robuchon at time t"

If you cannot see that, there really isn't much more to discuss.