Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[iepuras]

Oh, and one last point. The fact that we know the locations mentioned in the Exodus doesn’t work in our favor at all.

Because, you see, if** we know the locations but still** cannot find any archaeological evidence, we’re far worst off than the Mormons who can always say "well, we don’t know exactly where to dig, America being such a large continent and all".

Actually, we do know one place we should dig to find BOM artifacts as per Joseph Smith. He was very clear that the hill Cumorah in New York was the place of the final great battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Now why doesn’t the LDS church dig there to prove to the world of the truth of the BOM?

Excavate Cumorah!

 

[Erethorn]

Excavate Cumorah!

Whether the Mormons excavate Cumorah or not doesn’t change the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.

Excavate Tell ed-Dab’a/Qantir !

Excavate Tjeku !

Excavate Ain el Qadeis !

By the way, these are modern day locations for what we believe, according to the Bible, to be stations of the Exodus, that is, places passed by by a company of roughly 2 million people.

For the rest of the stations (almost 30) we are as much in the dark as the Mormons regarding their location.

Stations of the Exodus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, but answer this question : what remains of the Christian religion if we take out the book of Exodus ? Can the Bible, and the Gospel especially, stand without the Exodus ?

How does Christian revelation depend on Exodus? Does the incarnation require Exodus? Has Exodus been proven totally false?

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, but answer this question : what remains of the Christian religion if we take out the book of Exodus ? Can the Bible, and the Gospel especially, stand without the Exodus ?

First, there IS evidence

biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php

Second, this thread is about the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. Third, you are, for whatever reason, mixing apples and oranges.

You see, both BOM and the Bible (Exodus included, or course) are claimed to be whole and perfect. So, if you use the lack of archaeological evidence as criteria for belittling the Mormons belief in the BOM, shouldn’t you use the same criteria to reflect upon your belief in the Bible and in the book of Exodus, which is an integral part thereof ?

Again…wrong. But tell you what…you go walk the streets of Zerehemla and I will go walk the streets of Bethlehem. I will give you a head start

Mind you, the events described in the Book of Exodus are of the same historical amplitude and significance as those in BOM.

Fine…the Exodus started in Egypt…can you find Egypt? Now, go find Bountiful from the Book of Mormon…

Isn’t it a bit ironic that we belittle the mormons’ faith in the BOM based on the fact that he can’t produce hard evidence for the millions supposedly fighting at hill Cumorah while we can’t produce one shred of evidence for the millions who supposedly crossed/inhabited the Sinai desert for 40 years ?

Really? Do you? The battles at cumorah where hundreds of thousands died and there is ZERO evidence from it. Yet, there IS evidence of the Exodus.

But they do. It took place in the Americas.

Wow…you gonna try to be a little more specific than 2.5 continents? lolol

 

[lax16]

Whether the Mormons excavate Cumorah or not doesn’t change the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.

Excavate Tell ed-Dab’a/Qantir !

Excavate Tjeku !

Excavate Ain el Qadeis !

By the way, these are modern day locations for what we believe, according to the Bible, to be stations of the Exodus, that is, places passed by by a company of roughly 2 million people.

For the rest of the stations (almost 30) we are as much in the dark as the Mormons regarding their location.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_list

Many scholars and archaeologists **are **excavating these areas and writing and discussing their findings.

The Mormon church issued an official statement that the Hill Cumorah is in New York, as Joseph Smith said (and could walk to from his home). They have not excavated the area and I don’t know if they have ever attempted to.

I don’t see much of a connection between the two.

 

[lax16]

Actually, we do know one place we should dig to find BOM artifacts as per Joseph Smith. He was very clear that the hill Cumorah in New York was the place of the final great battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Now why doesn’t the LDS church dig there to prove to the world of the truth of the BOM?

Excavate Cumorah!

Yes, if Joseph Smith said he was there and knew where it was, how could there be any question at all??? Not to mention, the annual pageant held there…

I agree, Excavate Cumorah!!!

 

[JamesCollins]

Cut them some slack?

If I choose to sit in my house and abuse alcohol in my house because I do not know any better…then cut me slack. But if I go out to teach others, including children that abusing alcohol is GOOD and that all other ways of enjoyment are bad, then I am responsible for those whose lives I destroy. What did Jesus say was worse? Destroying the body or destroying the soul?

We have a choice. If the LDS Church teaches good doctrine that assures salvation, then we need to welcome with open arms say no more.

But, if it is not true doctrine, and if it risks salvation, then do we do anyone any good by accepting it and cutting slack? What did Jesus say? Was He tolerant of those who defiled truth? How did Jesus handle those who defiled the Temple? He said He was here to turn Father against son. He killed the fig tree that was not fruitful.

It is a decision. Do we believe the LDS is true?

Or is it false doctrine?

THEN decide how God wants us to treat false doctrine

I tried to read the Trinity into the Bible when I was coming out of Mormonism. It is simply not there. The only way we can get the Trinity is by relying on the teachings of the Catholic Church. That Protestants accept our tradition with regards to the Trinity simply shows that Protestants don’t really rely on sola scriptura. A person relying solely on the Bible would probably wind up being a Unitarian.

 

[Sabacthani]

When I was LDS, I admittedly never really looked into the matter of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. I was aware of various books and articles written on the matter, and that LDS apologists generally seem to believe that the New World portion of it took place in Mesoamerica, but I haven’t actually looked into these evidences to evaluate them.

So, what are these evidences? Are they strong, compelling evidences that lead one to conclude that the events described in the Book of Mormon really are historical? I know that “Mormon’s Codex” was recently published; 800+ pages on the subject of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. So, 800+ pages later, what is the conclusion? Are LDS any closer to finding real, historical locations for the Book of Mormon events?.

In the old world, yes. Lehi’s trek through what’s now Saudi Arabia checks out pretty exactly, down to the “bountiful” oasis on the coast where Nephi supposedly built the ship. I’ve seen it claimed and corroborated that there’s some archeological evidence there of Lehi’s sojourn there, but haven’t seen response to it from nonLDS sources.

 

[Sabacthani]

I tried to read the Trinity into the Bible when I was coming out of Mormonism. It is simply not there. The only way we can get the Trinity is by relying on the teachings of the Catholic Church. That Protestants accept our tradition with regards to the Trinity simply shows that Protestants don’t really rely on sola scriptura. A person relying solely on the Bible would probably wind up being a Unitarian.

Well, from a STRICT reading of the Book of Mormon text, you can’t even say that Lehi settled in the Americas. As far as the text says the Nephites and Lamanites might have been in Australia or Africa or New Zealand.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, from a STRICT reading of the Book of Mormon text, you can’t even say that Lehi settled in the Americas. As far as the text says the Nephites and Lamanites might have been in Australia or Africa or New Zealand.

Mormon scripture tells us what the Book of Mormon is about, and Mormon scripture have been proven to be wrong about the truth of Mormon scripture.

 

[TexanKnight]

In the old world, yes. Lehi’s trek through what’s now Saudi Arabia checks out pretty exactly, down to the “bountiful” oasis on the coast where Nephi supposedly built the ship. I’ve seen it claimed and corroborated that there’s some archeological evidence there of Lehi’s sojourn there, but haven’t seen response to it from nonLDS sources.

Actually, it doesn’t. If one takes a lot of liberties, it does. But in reality, it doesn’t

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, from a STRICT reading of the Book of Mormon text, you can’t even say that Lehi settled in the Americas. As far as the text says the Nephites and Lamanites might have been in Australia or Africa or New Zealand.

Problem is, that goes against LDS “prophets”

Bummer…and I was ready to believe they were actually prophets

 

[Strevel]

Well, from a STRICT reading of the Book of Mormon text, you can’t even say that Lehi settled in the Americas. As far as the text says the Nephites and Lamanites might have been in Australia or Africa or New Zealand.

Providing that the tale of the BOM ever even happened, which it did not. If they would have landed in that scenario of Australia, etc… the story line would have reflected that. It reflects the Americas, Central America.
To address the original question of “Is there Any Any Book of Mormon Evidence” anywhere at all. The answer is a resounding “NO”! I was a Mormon for most of my life. There is not a single bit of evidence of anything that the BOM says. Even their DNA is different! Think about that on folks. The DNA traces of the Middle Eastern people do not exist in the Central Americans. There are DNA similarities between them and the Asians tho. They came over a land bridge when we had lower ocean levels and ice covered more of the earth. Their Ancestors came from Asia aqnd not the Middle East. JS was full braggadocio.

Don

 

[Erich]

That Protestants accept our tradition with regards to the Trinity simply shows that Protestants don’t really rely on sola scriptura.

To say nothing of the fact that they (and Mormons for that matter) accept our tradition with regards to the New Testament’s Table of Contents.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes…the Mormons have a huge problem. They say there was no priesthood after about 100 AD (depending to whom you speak…they all have different answers) yet they accept, and js plagiarizes from, the King James of the Bible, which was edited after being compiled by people who, according to them, were not truly led by God.

Quite the conundrum.

Almost as bad as the total lack of any evidence to any of their claims

 

[Tarquin]

What is a trick question?

Why would he have to mean the ancestors of Aztecs?

The Aztec empire was formed, if I understand correctly, in the 1300s and 1400s by an alliance of tribes, including the Mexica. These tribes were “Nahua” people who had apparently migrated from further north seven or eight hundred years earlier. “Aztecs” properly speaking were not around during the alleged visitation by Jesus. Their ancestors might have been.

 

[Sabacthani]

Providing that the tale of the BOM ever even happened, which it did not. If they would have landed in that scenario of Australia, etc… the story line would have reflected that. It reflects the Americas, Central America.
To address the original question of “Is there Any Any Book of Mormon Evidence” anywhere at all. The answer is a resounding “NO”! I was a Mormon for most of my life.

You ignored my point about the Book of Nephi’s geography mapping perfectly to Saudi Arabia, including the Oasis Bountiful. So your statement’s false as to “anywhere at all.”

I believe that Jerusalem is also where he said it is.

 

[Sabacthani]

Yes…the Mormons have a huge problem. They say there was no priesthood after about 100 AD (depending to whom you speak…they all have different answers) yet they accept, and js plagiarizes from, the King James of the Bible, which was edited after being compiled by people who, according to them, were not truly led by God.

Quite the conundrum.

Not at all a conundrum. One can be led by God without having the priesthood.

 

[TexanKnight]

Not at all a conundrum. One can be led by God without having the priesthood.

hmmm…yet they compile and translate the Bible that js plagiarizes, mistakes and all, then accepts as LDS Scripture though no Priesthood was involved.

Makes one wonder that if all that can be done without the Priesthood and authority, then maybe it is not needed at all

 

[Tarquin]

Yes, but answer this question : what remains of the Christian religion if we take out the book of Exodus ? Can the Bible, and the Gospel especially, stand without the Exodus ?

I have no problem reading and accepting the teachings of the New Testament in isolation from Exodus.

You see, both BOM and the Bible (Exodus included, or course) are claimed to be whole and perfect. So, if you use the lack of archaeological evidence as criteria for belittling the Mormons belief in the BOM, shouldn’t you use the same criteria to reflect upon your belief in the Bible and in the book of Exodus, which is an integral part thereof ?

The same methods should theoretically be applied in the study of items in a like category. In this case that would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc. However, I do not believe there is any Mormon claiming that the Book of Mormon as published is “whole and perfect” in terms of the history, revelations, and doctrines the book itself promises to provide. Nor do I believe most Catholics would say the Bible is “whole and perfect” in the sense that nothing else is needed for the understanding of doctrine and practice.

Speaking for myself, I do not use “the lack of archaeological evidence” to belittle Mormons, which is not to say they may not occasionally feel belittled. I do, however, “belittle” their evidence and doctrines in the sense of the word meaning “regard as less impressive and important than appearances indicate.” If you wish to do that to the Bible, I have no objection, although I might respond with reasons for my disagreement, depending on what you post, presumably on a separate thread titled “archaeological evidence for Exodus”.

Mind you, the events described in the Book of Exodus are of the same historical amplitude and significance as those in BOM.

That has not been demonstrated.

Isn’t it a bit ironic that we belittle the mormons’ faith in the BOM based on the fact that he can’t produce hard evidence for the millions supposedly fighting at hill Cumorah while we can’t produce one shred of evidence for the millions who supposedly crossed/inhabited the Sinai desert for 40 years ?

My rejection of the Book of Mormon is based on far more than “the fact that he can’t produce hard evidence” for one scene in the book. My belief in God is not dependent on the “millions” you dubiously portray as “supposedly” crossing and inhabiting the Sinai desert for 40 years.

I stress the point: there is no archaeological evidence for ANY of the WHOLE Book of Exodus.

You ask us to use the same criteria in judging Exodus (“and the Bible”) as we use in judging the Book of Mormon. Will you now do that? Will you now take the same criteria you have used for the book of Exodus – “I stress the point there is no archaeological evidence for ANY of the WHOLE Book of Exodus” – and apply it to the Book of Mormon? What will you say – “I stress the point there is archaeological evidence” or “I stress the point there is no archaeological evidence” for the Book of Mormon?

TexanNight: “Mormons cannot even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place”

But they do. It took place in the Americas. They also agree, pretty much, on where the hill Cumorah is and also on where the Garden of Eden was, while us Catholics have no ideea where TGE was, except it probably wasn’t in Missouri…

”in the Americas”. Well, then, we know where Exodus took place – on the planet Earth! Seriously, “the Americas” is not what one expects as a genuine location for specific events in the Book of Mormon, any more than one expects to hear ‘Euro-asia’ as the place where the Exodus took place, or ‘North America’ for the site of the U.S. Civil War. For the Civil War, we identify battlegrounds, hills, cemeteries, rivers, cities, bays harbors, islands. For the Old Testament, we identify large empires, true, but also cities and monuments, kings, temples, rivers and trade-routes. The Book of Mormon names cities and features, churches, shipping and battles. Specifics such as those, not continents and planets, are what one expects when speaking about archaeological evidence.

Besides, speaking in specific terms not generic ones like Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, I know where the Sinai is, that the people in Exodus are supposed to have travelled around in. Where in “the Americas” did the Book of Mormon take place? Mormons can’t agree whether it was the entire western hemisphere, a small area in Central America, or an area between those. Mormons can not point to a single place (smaller than planet or continent level) “where the Book of Mormon took place.” Mormons do not agree where the hill Cumorah is, not even “pretty much”, and in fact argue for multiple hill Cumorahs.

“The Garden of Eden”!? The Book of Mormon mentions the Garden of Eden in four verse, plus refers to making another place “like Eden,” none of which provide any information regarding its geographic location, size, or appearance. Genesis gives specific geographical details regarding the location of Eden. The Book of Mormon does not.