Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 BOTH THESE ARE COMPATIBLE POSITIONS. The civilizations really existed but NOT all the scriptures are literal. They do not require the history to be true to be true scripture.Same as the bible. Jerusalem existing does not prove the atonement. Why is this so difficult?There is no evidence that Book of Mormon civilizations existed and you don't seem to be capable of imagining the impact of that fact on your scripture. It's nothing like the Bible; there is evidence for the existence of civilizations described in the Bible. 1
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 To you everything is black or white. If the history is true, so is the scripture.Jerusalem is real so the earth was created in 6 days.I cannot follow that logic.CFR that I have said if the history is true then so is the scripture. Actually, don't bother - I know I've never made that claim.
Rivers Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) There is no evidence that Book of Mormon civilizations existed and you don't seem to be capable of imagining the impact of that fact on your scripture. It's nothing like the Bible; there is evidence for the existence of civilizations described in the Bible.Are your familiar with John Sorensen's Mormon's Codex? http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/mormons-codex/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/08/mormons-codex-a-preview.html Edited February 25, 2015 by Rivers 1
canard78 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 It is extremely easy find explanations, it is not extremely easy to find the evidence, but it is very easy to be creative.This pretty much sums up a large body of religious apologetics. Don't worry about evidence folks, just come up with creative explanations. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Please show then how those beliefs are based on evidence.Please first show how questions of morality are similar to questions of historical accuracy.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on? If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history? You tell me. Edited February 25, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Please first show how questions of morality are similar to questions of historical accuracy.precisely my point. They are not. Thanks for making my point for meReligious "truth claims", like moral truth claims, have nothing to do with science Edited February 25, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 For that matter show why only propositions which can be proven with evidence are "true".Prove it or retract your statement.I didn't say that MFB. I was saying I value evidence based conclusions over dogma. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) precisely my point. They are not. Thanks for making my point for meReligious "truth claims", like moral truth claims, have nothing to do with scienceI disagree. If a religious claim makes an assertion about the natural world, like a global flood, then such a claim is subject to scientific scrutiny. Claiming that the BOA is translated from an Egyptian document is a testable assertion, at least until the definition of translate is changed and the catalyst theory is introduced. Then the claim becomes a supernatural one. And yes, supernatural claims cannot be evaluated by science...but then you have to develop an approach to evaluating supernatural claims to justify why you accept certain supernatural claims and not others. What is your approach? Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Hey bro I taste the fruit (evaluate the message) not the method of transmission (there is not enough information available).There's nothing wrong with thinking the message is good while thinking the method of transmission is fiction...bro Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee 1
rodheadlee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) There's nothing wrong with thinking the message is good while thinking the method of transmission is fiction...broAs long as it doesn't contradict the message. Edited February 25, 2015 by rodheadlee
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 There is no evidence that Book of Mormon civilizations existed and you don't seem to be capable of imagining the impact of that fact on your scripture. It's nothing like the Bible; there is evidence for the existence of civilizations described in the Bible.Right, Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on?What evidence does that say about the alleged scripture that contains these fantasies?You actually believe your sins are forgiven because Jerusalem exists?? Doh!! A double standard has appeared.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Can we test it against available data?Talk about missing the point. How can we test that killing babies is wrong? Yet I am sure you hold to that position. Why? Because of evidence? Some testable, observational set of data? Or is it something else? I can see why MF gets frustrated you guys seem incapable of seeing what is being talked about.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on?Sure. What's your point? That the Bible narrative describing cultures, events, places, etc., is fictitious? You tell me. (re: If these "truth claims" of the church aren't really true - or don't hold up to basic scrutiny - what does that say about the scripture that purports to derive from this history?) Suppose you offered me legal advice and gave me personal testimonies of your legal acumen and information about the universities you attended and the degrees you earned, but I discovered that your testimonies were forged and your background fabricated. Would I be wise to follow your legal advice? If the basis of establishing my trust is a lie on your part then your legal advice - even if it has some merit - is worthless to me.
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Sure. What's your point? That the Bible narrative describing cultures, events, places, etc., is fictitious? 1. Dr. James Hoffmeier said there is no direct evidence for the Book of Exodus.2. There is no evidence for the walls of Jericho dating to Biblical times. 3. There is no conclusive evidence that King David had a powerful empire, there is a debate about that. 4. There is no evidence for domestic camels dating before 1000 BC 5. There is no evidence that Tertullian's doctrine of the Trinity was taught by early Christians, how is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 possible? Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 1. Dr. James Hoffmeier said there is no direct evidence for the Book of Exodus.2. There is no evidence for the walls of Jericho dating to Biblical times. 3. There is no conclusive evidence that King David had a powerful empire, there is a debate about that. 4. There is no evidence for domestic camels dating before 1000 BC 5. There is no evidence that Tertullian's doctrine of the Trinity was taught by early Christians, how is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 possible? So, you believe that the Bible is fiction, correct?
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) So, you believe that the Bible is fiction, correct? Some parts are probably fiction, but I do believe in the core doctrines, but I don't claim there is archaeological evidence for them. The Book of Exodus is no better than the Book of Mormon, there are some archaeologists that believe in the Book of Mormon. There are some archaeologists that believe in the Book of Exodus. Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Sure. What's your point? That the Bible narrative describing cultures, events, places, etc., is fictitious? Suppose you offered me legal advice and gave me personal testimonies of your legal acumen and information about the universities you attended and the degrees you earned, but I discovered that your testimonies were forged and your background fabricated. Would I be wise to follow your legal advice? If the basis of establishing my trust is a lie on your part then your legal advice - even if it has some merit - is worthless to me.So the fact that Jerusalem exists is evidence that Jonah was swallowed by a whale for 3 days? That seems to be what you are arguing. Some of the bible is most likely not real in every detail. The Iliad and the Odyssey describes real places yet you reject Greek mythology. Why?
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Talk about missing the point. How can we test that killing babies is wrong? Yet I am sure you hold to that position. Why? Because of evidence? Some testable, observational set of data? Or is it something else? I can see why MF gets frustrated you guys seem incapable of seeing what is being talked about.I never said that questions of morality could be resolved through the scientific method. I stated that the claim that JS translated an Egyptian document is falsifiable, that is until apologetics moves the claim into the supernatural realm. Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Some parts are probably fiction, but I do believe in the core doctrines, but I don't claim there is archaeological evidence for them. I don't claim archaeological evidence for doctrines in the Bible. The Book of Exodus is no better than the Book of Mormon,"No better" in what sense? Terence Fretheim states that the purpose of Exodus is not to record history but, rather, reflect the historical experience of the exile community - first in Babylon and later Jerusalem - and the coming to terms by this community with their understanding of God. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hU546phUN0oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Exodus#v=onepage&q&f=false
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I don't claim archaeological evidence for doctrines in the Bible. and archaeology does not prove the Book of Exodus, Joseph in Egypt, Walls of Jericho, domestic camels before 1000BC, and there is no conclusive evidence for King David's empire, let alone a big and powerful empire. Terence Fretheim states that the purpose of Exodus is not to record history but, rather, reflect the historical experience of the exile community - first in Babylon and later Jerusalem - and the coming to terms by this community with their understanding of God. Terence Fretheim is a Lutheran, you only read books by Orthodox Christians. The Book of Mormons says that same thing. 2 Nephi 5:33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates. The Book of Exodus is about the Israelites in Egypt too, not only about the exile.
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 you only read books by Orthodox Christians. CFR
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) CFR you tell me, what books have you read? Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Gervin Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 you tell me, what books have you read? Books by Eric H. Cline or Israel Finkelstein? No. You said that I only read books by orthodox Christians. I want to know the source for your statement.
Recommended Posts