not true. The Bible never says exactly where Jerusalem is, but I can show it to you.The Book of Mormon doesn’t say where the exact location was so it would be impossible for a Mormon to tell you. They can easily get away with saying they don’t know where it is yet. I suppose they could make the case that God doesn’t really want people to know where it was and that it is not necessary to know for one’s salvation. Or they could just say it was somewhere in the Americas and be done with it.
Professional archeologist who joined the church yes.Are there any non-Mormons who believe that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward?
Comparing the way we received the Bible and the way we received the Book of Mormon makes that an apples to oranges comparison. We have next to no real information about the names of ancient cities in most of ancient America. Even if the Book of Mormon were true, it would be impossible to correlate it to ancient America because our knowledge of ancient America is so limited. This is especially true if the Book of Mormon took place in the ancient United States. By the way, do you know where Moses crossed the Red Sea?not true. The Bible never says exactly where Jerusalem is, but I can show it to you.
js was a prophet who spoke face to face with Jesus.
if it existed, we would know where it is.
Now, I would Tom to tell me exactly where it is. Opinions aside.
Well I misunderstood. I can only identify 2 places with great certainty and one with a lot.I old you exactly where I thought Zerehamla was. I will repost in case you missed it.
Charity, TOm
Wrong. You did not answer my question. Yes, you said where YOU thought it was…but that was NOT my question. I asked for THE exact location. It should be easy if the b of m is true.
Now, your opinions aside, where exactly is it?
That is true. The Bible was handed down by God. The Book of Mormon was written by js and friends using chunks of the KJV Bible. It talks about a people no one has seen in a land no one can find fighting battles that no archaeologist can locate and written in a language no one can substantiate.Comparing the way we received the Bible and the way we received the Book of Mormon makes that an apples to oranges comparison. We have next to no real information about the names of ancient cities in most of ancient America. Even if the Book of Mormon were true, it would be impossible to correlate it to ancient America because our knowledge of ancient America is so limited. This is especially true if the Book of Mormon took place in the ancient United States. By the way, do you know where Moses crossed the Red Sea?
The reality is that we don’t know exactly where a lot of the places mentioned in the Old Testament were located.Well I misunderstood. I can only identify 2 places with great certainty and one with a lot.
Can you identify all locations in the bible? I believe the Old World has numerous advantages archeologically speaking as compared to the new. The BOM does better than the bible in the old world.
Can you tell me which discile started the Christian church in Rome?
Ah…the “I can’t answer so I will shift” response so popular with Mormons who know they have no answers or evidence.Well I misunderstood. I can only identify 2 places with great certainty and one with a lot.
Can you identify all locations in the bible? I believe the Old World has numerous advantages archeologically speaking as compared to the new. The BOM does better than the bible in the old world.
Can you tell me which discile started the Christian church in Rome?
I don’t think you can complain about not finding places in the Book of Mormon if you can’t figure out where a city as prominent in the Old Testament as Sodom is. The Book of Mormon itself is clear that it is not a detailed history of the people of Lehi. We can’t ask the Mormons to prove more than what they are claiming with regards to the Book of Mormon. Now if you want to get into their claim that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites you would be on firm ground since nothing about Native Americans points to Hebrew ancestry. It is pretty clear by now that Native Americans descended from Siberians and nothing in their mtDNA or culture points to Israel.Ah…the “I can’t answer so I will shift” response so popular with Mormons who know they have no answers or evidence.
Can I find ALL the places in the Bible? No. Not ALL. Can you find ONE place in the Book of Mormon (and places in Israel do not qualify) that have been agreed upon by non-lds archaeologists?
The only one the lds prophets agreed upon using their prophet hats is Cumorah…and you reject them
The BOM does better than the bible in the old world? What does that mean?Well I misunderstood. I can only identify 2 places with great certainty and one with a lot.
Can you identify all locations in the bible? I believe the Old World has numerous advantages archeologically speaking as compared to the new. The BOM does better than the bible in the old world.
Can you tell me which discile started the Christian church in Rome?
But why don’t they excavate?I don’t think you can complain about not finding places in the Book of Mormon if you can’t figure out where a city as prominent in the Old Testament as Sodom is. The Book of Mormon itself is clear that it is not a detailed history of the people of Lehi. We can’t ask the Mormons to prove more than what they are claiming with regards to the Book of Mormon. Now if you want to get into their claim that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites you would be on firm ground since nothing about Native Americans points to Hebrew ancestry. It is pretty clear by now that Native Americans descended from Siberians and nothing in their mtDNA or culture points to Israel.
And who is to say the archaeologists won’t find all of the places in the Bible?Ah…the “I can’t answer so I will shift” response so popular with Mormons who know they have no answers or evidence.
Can I find ALL the places in the Bible? No. Not ALL. Can you find ONE place in the Book of Mormon (and places in Israel do not qualify) that have been agreed upon by non-lds archaeologists?
The only one the lds prophets agreed upon using their prophet hats is Cumorah…and you reject them
Which has always been my POV.Now if you want to get into their claim that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites you would be on firm ground since nothing about Native Americans points to Hebrew ancestry. It is pretty clear by now that Native Americans descended from Siberians and nothing in their mtDNA or culture points to Israel.
Brigham Young University’s archaeological department is very well respected especially with regards to its work in the New World. The problem is they haven’t found anything that really proves the Book of Mormon. Quoting Michael Coe:But why don’t they excavate?
There are many excavations going on as we speak finding many artifacts etc that prove people and places in the Old Testament. It is a work in progress.
The LDS church has billions of dollars and should be able to handle this without difficulty. Other than the fact that there is nothing to find…
When I was a graduate student writing my dissertation on very early cultures in the south coast of Guatemala, it was suggested to me by Alfred Kidder – who was the leading American archaeologist of his day, the leading New World archaeologist – he asked me, since he was on the board the New World Archaeological Foundation, which had been founded to find for the Mormon Church these relics, these ancient remains, to go over and see what they’re doing.
Here is the entire interview:So I did. I went over and visited and spent a wonderful week with the New World Archaeological Foundation archaeologists, who were working on a very early site in the state of Chiapas, and I was very enormously impressed with the work they were doing. It had nothing to do with the book of Mormon archaeology. These were scientific archaeologists working with wonderful field methods. They undoubtedly believed in the Book of Mormon since they were religious Mormons, but they were doing a wonderful job, and I was impressed with that.
lol…nice try. You pick the one city the Bible said totally destroyed and claimed if I can’t find it, then I can’t complain about ANY of the book of mormon cities y’all can’t find.I don’t think you can complain about not finding places in the Book of Mormon if you can’t figure out where a city as prominent in the Old Testament as Sodom is. The Book of Mormon itself is clear that it is not a detailed history of the people of Lehi. We can’t ask the Mormons to prove more than what they are claiming with regards to the Book of Mormon. Now if you want to get into their claim that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites you would be on firm ground since nothing about Native Americans points to Hebrew ancestry. It is pretty clear by now that Native Americans descended from Siberians and nothing in their mtDNA or culture points to Israel.
heck, just excavate cumorah…their “prophets” DECLARED it is the one from b of m where those huge battles took place…But why don’t they excavate?
There are many excavations going on as we speak finding many artifacts etc that prove people and places in the Old Testament. It is a work in progress.
The LDS church has billions of dollars and should be able to handle this without difficulty. Other than the fact that there is nothing to find…
Mormons have activle ylooked as well. The difference is, folks are finding Biblical evidence all the time…while other have left the lds church because there was NOTHING TO BE FOUNDAnd who is to say the archaeologists won’t find all of the places in the Bible?
At least people are actively looking…
I visited several Mayan ruins in the 1980s. There were rumors around the ward I grew up in that the Mayan ruins were BoM ruins, so I was looking for signs of a civilization that matched to the BoM. It isn’t there. Mayan civilization, culture, religion, art, etc. has nothing to do with Lamanites. Overlaying what you want to believe doesn’t hide what is actually there.TexanKnight,
I have been meaning to pull down my copy of Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon so I could answer your question, but I do not think I will get to that. Sorenson has made some slight updates in his Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (I know he sent it to his friend Michael Coe for comments and thoughts, I hope to see this someday). Interestingly, Sorenson follows William Dever’s methodology in Mormon’s Codex. Dever started his journey as a Christian, but is a rather liberal Jew now (Dever does not think archeology supports an inerrant Bible). Sorenson seems to have not had a faith transformation as he studied Mesoamerica archeology for 60 years.
Anyway, with that intro, I am pretty sure Sorenson did and still does identify the site of Santa Rosa as Zarahemla. It is in the state of Campeche in Mexico. I hope you enjoy your trip.
That being said, Nahom, as I have mentioned previously is a little known location confirmed by archeology rather precisely that is contained in a series of 81 interlocking points that show the author of the BOM was familiar in great detail with a walk from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. This archeological find of the late 20th century combined with the geography described in the BOM as Lehi walks this path is IMO remarkable.
I can reproduce the three page “Gartner list” I offered here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763930&postcount=218
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763936&postcount=219
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763946&postcount=220
then you can dismiss it without commenting on it.
But, there are some interesting places you could go and visit. Teotihuacan is where I recommend. Seeing Ancient American cement would be interesting. This is an example of something John Clark thinks is of value. Clark traces things that seemed wrong from an archeological point of view in the BOM when it was first publish in the 1830’s and things that still seem wrong. His argument is that a fraudulent book should get worse as science moves forward, but an ancient book should get better as science moves forward. He is quite clear that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward. I can no longer find his presentation from the Library of Congress symposium, but I remember being impressed when I watched/read it in 2005 or so.
Anyway, enjoy your vacation.
Charity, TOm
Yep. When I served my mission in Honduras 1984-1986, we all went to The Copan Ruins. My mission president was clear that Copan was Book of Mormon ruins. it was not till years later I was told they were not.I visited several Mayan ruins in the 1980s. There were rumors around the ward I grew up in that the Mayan ruins were BoM ruins, so I was looking for signs of a civilization that matched to the BoM. It isn’t there. Mayan civilization, culture, religion, art, etc. has nothing to do with Lamanites. Overlaying what you want to believe doesn’t hide what is actually there.
Don’t include me in y’all. I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon at all. I do believe in treating the Mormon arguments fairly however.lol…nice try. You pick the one city the Bible said totally destroyed and claimed if I can’t find it, then I can’t complain about ANY of the book of mormon cities y’all can’t find.
Again, nice try…but you just confirmed the b of m is a fraud you cannot support
Here are two experts that say there is no support for the BoM:Brigham Young University’s archaeological department is very well respected especially with regards to its work in the New World. The problem is they haven’t found anything that really proves the Book of Mormon. Quoting Michael Coe:
Here is the entire interview:
pbs.org/mormons/interviews/coe.html