Palerider Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 When were talking ancient history all we are talking about is plausibility. Cristoforo Colombo thought to his dying day he'd landed in India. Speaking of concrete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_architecture Maybe that's the way they roll in fantasy land but when you find a stele dated to the 9th century bc that mentions the House of David, that's pretty concrete that we're talking about something more than "plausability". Sorry..........no go............
Duncan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 as someone once said those who live by the sword of Archaeology die by the sword of Archaeology, just because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it won't be found tomorrow or never existed. In the exodus I bet if we were to follow them we would find all kinds stuff that has by now gone by the way side
saemo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Besides the obvious question of 'what would evidence for the BOM look like?', as well as the issue of how archaeology differs in the climate of Central and South America compared to the Middle East, this whole idea that you can know how valid a religion is by what is left of it's ancient sites hundreds of years later is kind of ridiculous. I have no idea how Christians don't see the hole they dig for themselves when they try to use this line of reasoning. Yes, according to your hypothetical above, there would be evidence that we existed, but that, of course, does not prove that our religious beliefs, or whatever God we worship, existed. After all, we all know that the Parthenon exists, but none of us worship Zeus, or believe that the survival of that building means a darn thing when it comes to the ancient religion of the Greeks. Unless you are willing to admit that the existence of Stonehenge is evidence that the Druid religion is true, then please don't use evidence that Jerusalem exists as evidence that Christianity is true. I completely believe that Christianity is true, but it would be as dumb of me to try to prove that by using the existence of Solomon's temple as it would be for someone to try to prove that the God Apollo is real by using the existence of Troy. And likewise, if the existence of ancient places connected with a religion doesn't mean squat in regards to the truth claims of that religion, than lack of knowledge concerning ancient places connect with a religion don't mean squat either. Oh, I like that I can read about places in the Bible, and look at them today (pictures; never been to the Middle East). One of my favorites is Caesarea Phillipi. It gives a depth of meaning that otherwise isn't there. It is a very ancient site of worship, going back Ba'al, the "nemesis" of the Elohim culture in the Old Testament. It is near the "way of the sea", mentioned by Isaiah. Later, it was dedicated to the pagan god Pan. It is a site of ancient Greek battles, and Alexandrian conquest. During Jesus' lifetime a pagan temple stood, built on the rock formation of the area, in front of a grotto that according to Josephus had never had its depths measured (couldn't find the bottom). It was therefore considered to be a gate to Hades. So understanding the setting, its history, its usage through time, brings meaning to the words of Jesus when he told Peter he was the rock that his church would be built on, and the gates of hades would never prevail against it. God is present in history and so we find history (including historical artifacts) and the places where God acts in human history, woven together, not separated by time. Evidence is there. The Book of Mormon has no such places, anywhere on the planet. I don't know how anyone can look at that and not go, "wait a minute". Edited February 12, 2014 by saemo
Duncan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Oh, I like that I can read about places in the Bible, and look at them today (pictures; never been to the Middle East). One of my favorites is Caesarea Phillipi. It gives a depth of meaning that otherwise isn't there. It is a very ancient site of worship, going back Ba'al, the "nemesis" of the Elohim culture in the Old Testament. It is near the "way of the sea", mentioned by Isaiah. Later, it was dedicated to the pagan god Pan. It is a site of ancient Greek battles, and Alexandrian conquest. During Jesus' lifetime a pagan temple stood, built on the rock formation of the area, in front of a grotto that according to Josephus had never had its depths measured (couldn't find the bottom). It was therefore considered to be a gate to Hades. So understanding the setting, its history, its usage through time, brings meaning to the words of Jesus when he told Peter he was the rock that his church would be built on, and the gates of hades would never prevail against it. God is present in history and so we find history (including historical artifacts) and the places where God acts in human history, woven together, not separated by time. Evidence is always there. The Book of Mormon has no such places, anywhere on the planet. I don't know how anyone can look at that and not go, "wait a minute". book of mormon archaeology isn't a done deal
saemo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 book of mormon archaeology isn't a done dealSo I've heard. My whole life. And I'm old. 1
Duncan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) So I've heard. My whole life. And I'm old. keep going! I'm young! take heart just think of being a Christian in say the year 1026 and they didn't have any Bible archaeology to keep their faith alive! but look what is around now and what Bluebell has said previously in this thread Edited February 12, 2014 by Duncan 1
Anteojito Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 There was also no evidence in western civilization's history books and records of the American continent until Columbus landed there.Imagine what we'll discover tomorrow.The Egyptians did keep written records you know. To this date nothing has been found showing that they held the Jews captive. You would think by now something would have been found concerning millions of Jews held captive for hundreds of years. 2
saemo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 keep going! I'm young! take heart just think of being a Christian in say the year 1026 and they didn't have any Bible archaeology to keep their faith alive! but look what is around now and what Bluebell has said previously in this threadChristians have always made pilgrimages to sites that are considered to be sacred. In 1026, some of those sites were already ancient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_All_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Annunciation
Duncan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Christians have always made pilgrimages to sites that are considered to be sacred. In 1026, some of those sites were already ancient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_All_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_the_Annunciation I stand corrected but I had in mind something else and am wondering if someone in say Ireland in 1026 would have even heard of these places, let alone visited them. It's like me, I know of countries in central and south America but I don't keep up to date on various findings Edited February 12, 2014 by Duncan
saemo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) keep going! I'm young! take heart just think of being a Christian in say the year 1026 and they didn't have any Bible archaeology to keep their faith alive! but look what is around now and what Bluebell has said previously in this threadBluebell's "reasoning" is lacking in reason. (Sorry.) The point of evidence is to support what is being presented as fact, not to determine who has the truest religion. Conspiracy theories waiting for evidence, doesn't support anything. Edited February 12, 2014 by saemo 1
Duncan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Bluebell's "reasoning" is lacking in reason. (Sorry.) The point of evidence is to support what is being presented as fact, not to determine who has the truest religion. Conspiracy theories waiting for evidence, doesn't support anything. They never convicted OJ despite a whole bunch of evidence saying he did it-We can interpret evidence many different ways, as atheists are still around despite all these various places that Jesus was known to have visited, or believed to have anyways. The existence of a bit of wood with a nail driven through someone's ankle thing doesn't prove Jesus was crucified just that people were, or that person was crucified. I once heard that roughly 15% of known ancient sites in S. America were excavated-that tells me there is room for more and I am open to the possibility that someone who knows the Book of Mormon to know what they are looking for will find something. I don't think someone who doesn't know a thing about the BOM will find something in say Nicaragua and be like 'oh so that's what Moroni was talking about!" Edited February 12, 2014 by Duncan
Palerider Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Oh, I like that I can read about places in the Bible, and look at them today (pictures; never been to the Middle East). One of my favorites is Caesarea Phillipi. It gives a depth of meaning that otherwise isn't there. It is a very ancient site of worship, going back Ba'al, the "nemesis" of the Elohim culture in the Old Testament. It is near the "way of the sea", mentioned by Isaiah. Later, it was dedicated to the pagan god Pan. It is a site of ancient Greek battles, and Alexandrian conquest. During Jesus' lifetime a pagan temple stood, built on the rock formation of the area, in front of a grotto that according to Josephus had never had its depths measured (couldn't find the bottom). It was therefore considered to be a gate to Hades. So understanding the setting, its history, its usage through time, brings meaning to the words of Jesus when he told Peter he was the rock that his church would be built on, and the gates of hades would never prevail against it. God is present in history and so we find history (including historical artifacts) and the places where God acts in human history, woven together, not separated by time. Evidence is there. The Book of Mormon has no such places, anywhere on the planet. I don't know how anyone can look at that and not go, "wait a minute".
Robert F. Smith Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I have been reading the Bible Unearthed and watched the long youtube video by authors Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. They write "According to the biblical narrative, the children of Israel campled at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clar from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34. It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well watered oasis of Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai, on the borde between modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably perserved ober the centuries in the name of a nearby smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a Late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavationis and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided evne the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees" PAGE 63 The Bible Unearthed. They find no evidence for a number of other sites. Perhaps Robert Smith has the counter evidence?I haven't read their 2002 book. It was already outdated when written and suffered from an overwhelming minimalist bias. In other words, they disregarded substantial evidence for the existence of a major Davidic and Solomonic dynasty, and they did the same for the Mosaic era. The archeological situation has gotten even more troublesome for them since that time, with major discoveries at Jerusalem and Sha'araiyim, which confirm the existence of a major Davidic dynasty early on. Other scholars (hewing a middle path between the minimalists and maximalists) have employed realism in their assessments of the fabled Mosaic era, placing Midian where it should be (in what is now southern Jordan), and placing the Israelites in that same area for the long term. I have discussed various aspects of that realistic approach in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/51104640-Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .
Palerider Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 book of mormon archaeology isn't a done deal Agreed.....there are just a lot of us who aren't holding our breath anymore. When you find something of significance, give us a call.
Palerider Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 keep going! I'm young! take heart just think of being a Christian in say the year 1026 and they didn't have any Bible archaeology to keep their faith alive! but look what is around now and what Bluebell has said previously in this thread They didn't need archeology to keep their faith in Christ alive but the city of Jerusalem did exist as did others which proved they weren't living in a fantasy world either.
Palerider Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Bluebell's "reasoning" is lacking in reason. (Sorry.) The point of evidence is to support what is being presented as fact, not to determine who has the truest religion. Conspiracy theories waiting for evidence, doesn't support anything. Exactly.
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Can you take me to where Zarahemla was?So historical evidence proves that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead?Boy you really better start getting some better archaeology going fast. First line from the linked website: " Part one discusses some of the many factors supporting the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document." I'm so sorry for you guys. All you have here is conjecture. As I said before, all you have is evidence of ancient civilizations in the Americas, none of which can be definitively linked to the Lamanite or Nephite theory. Columbus almost knew this much when he landed in the New World. He didn't need the BofM to tell him........ There is NO concrete BofM evidence, especially when compared to the real evidence that archeologically supports parts of the BibleOh gosh, not again.You better dig up that empty grave fast and prove it was His!Oh wait- how is that empty grave going to prove He is your savior and died for your sins?Hmmmmm.... sounds like a problem to me.We know where Jerusalem is, therefore Jesus died for my sins. Interesting logic. Edited February 13, 2014 by mfbukowski
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Agreed.....there are just a lot of us who aren't holding our breath anymore. When you find something of significance, give us a call. as long as it's local call
Duncan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 They didn't need archeology to keep their faith in Christ alive but the city of Jerusalem did exist as did others which proved they weren't living in a fantasy world either. true but the Vietnam War doesn't prove Forrest Gump was real 3
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) There is however indisputable, direct, evidence for many portions of the Bible which is agreed upon by scholars. For example the Tel Dan Stele dated to approx. the 9th century B.C. mentions the House of David. So it is an independent corroboration of a portion of the Bible. This is significant in that, at a minimum, it gives the Bible empirical adequacy with the hope of finding more. The same would apply to the wailing walls at Jerusalem, etc. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing that any scholar (Mormon or otherwise) can point to that definitively identifies itself as being of "Nephite" or "Lamanite" culture. The best that can be pointed to (and it's a real stretch) is totally circumstantial in nature. In other words we can say, "Yes, there were ancient civilizations here in the Americas as the BofM states." Which is a lot like saying that the story of the Wizard of OZ is true because Kansas does have county fairs with balloon rides.........And an itinerant preacher son of a carpenter was a human sacrifice to a jealous God for your personal sins 2000 years ago. And this supposedly really happened. And his death corrected what some guy did 6,000 years ago by eating an apple, thereby causing all humans to die, because before that no one did. I see. What was that about the Wizard of Oz? What do the scholars say about your itinerant preacher? Surely with all that evidence they are all believers, right? No sir, no fantasy world here! After all, Jerusalem was real! Edited February 13, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 If our house were to suffer from an earthquake and be buried in the ground in 10000 years they did an archaeological dig they would find a concrete floor, bits of a barbie doll. spoons and forks thrown out by the baby, bones given to the dog.There would be some evidence that we lived there. A huge population of people would leave all kinds of evidence.Have you ever heard of the Maya? 1
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 OH, it only gets worse. I was watching a BBC documentary about the Muslims in Southern Spain, the Moors. He was walking through the ruins of a huge Moorish Palace and turning to look in the camera, said, "Though we do not know the purpose of any of these rooms ..." He was speaking of a building that was occupied in 1200 AD. Hmmmm If we can't suss out history from a building in that era, then how can we understand anything at all for the era you speak of? It has become really clear to me that loving God, and being good to each other is about the only thing we can be certain of.Heck people speculate about the moon landing and who killed Kennedy. You don't have to go back 1200 AD!
Robert F. Smith Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) There is however indisputable, direct, evidence for many portions of the Bible which is agreed upon by scholars. For example the Tel Dan Stele dated to approx. the 9th century B.C. mentions the House of David. So it is an independent corroboration of a portion of the Bible. This is significant in that, at a minimum, it gives the Bible empirical adequacy with the hope of finding more............................................But that is just the point, PaleGuy. The Tel Dan Stele is given short-shrift by Finnkelstein and Silberman in the same way that Nahom is ignored by Book of Mormon minimalists. The significance of these discoveries varies with the preconceptions of the interpreters. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing that any scholar (Mormon or otherwise) can point to that definitively identifies itself as being of "Nephite" or "Lamanite" culture. The best that can be pointed to (and it's a real stretch) is totally circumstantial in nature.In other words, serious evaluation of the Bible is on a completely different apriori footing than the Book of Mormon, regardless of the nature of the evidence adduced. In other words we can say, "Yes, there were ancient civilizations here in the Americas as the BofM states." Which is a lot like saying that the story of the Wizard of OZ is true because Kansas does have county fairs with balloon rides.........I'm not sure that even you understand that last comparison of yours. I certainly don't. At least we know that tornadoes are a common feature of life in Kansas. Apart from that fact, are you saying that everything else is mere symbol, metaphor, and parable? Careful analysis has actually detected plenty of true to life locations familiar to the the author, along with themes taken from specific literary sources, including the general need for self-esteem. See in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz . Someone with good training in either archeology or crime scene investigation (or both) might be moved to examine the hard evidence in order to determine what actually occurred at the scene and whether anything specific may be said. Seems to me that you jettison anything serious before the fact, believing that it would be a waste of your time. You give credence to the Bible in the same breath that you reject the Book of Mormon, but without given a fair hearing to the latter. Edited February 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 1
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Oh, I like that I can read about places in the Bible, and look at them today (pictures; never been to the Middle East). One of my favorites is Caesarea Phillipi. It gives a depth of meaning that otherwise isn't there. It is a very ancient site of worship, going back Ba'al, the "nemesis" of the Elohim culture in the Old Testament. It is near the "way of the sea", mentioned by Isaiah. Later, it was dedicated to the pagan god Pan. It is a site of ancient Greek battles, and Alexandrian conquest. During Jesus' lifetime a pagan temple stood, built on the rock formation of the area, in front of a grotto that according to Josephus had never had its depths measured (couldn't find the bottom). It was therefore considered to be a gate to Hades. So understanding the setting, its history, its usage through time, brings meaning to the words of Jesus when he told Peter he was the rock that his church would be built on, and the gates of hades would never prevail against it. God is present in history and so we find history (including historical artifacts) and the places where God acts in human history, woven together, not separated by time. Evidence is there. The Book of Mormon has no such places, anywhere on the planet. I don't know how anyone can look at that and not go, "wait a minute".And what of the evidence for transubstantiation? What do the scientists say about that?
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted February 13, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2014 true but the Vietnam War doesn't prove Forrest Gump was realHey, Duncan, I saw actually footage of Forrest with three Presidents!! 6
Recommended Posts