Book of Mormon?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

What about the dead sea scrolls? How could it be that after 1,947 years, someone found those scrolls?

they were in caves. not just lying on the ground and still they were dug up if I remember correctly they were not just found lying there. also another big difference is we still have these scrolls where is the original BOM?

 

[BartBurk]

Even if I were to again come to believe in the Book of Mormon by some miracle, I would not become a member of the LDS Church. In the Book of Commandments, chapter 4, it claims God told Joseph Smith:

…and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

In Doctrine and Covenants section 12 this verse is changed to say:

And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you, and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

So what did God tell Joseph Smith? Did God change his mind between 1829 and 1835? This is only one of several changes that took place between the original revelation in the Book of Commandment and the rewriting in the Doctrine and Covenants. Even if the Book of Mormon could somehow be true, it was supposedly Joseph’s only work that God asked him to do.

This was probably written this way because the plan was that Sidney Rigdon would take over once Joseph produced the Book of Mormon. Poor Rigdon got rolled.

 

[ricko]

Not by faith alone

[Biblical Archaeology News] One of the great friends of the Bible is the field of archaeology. Over and over, the biblical record has been validated by archaeological finds. Here is a list of some new ones reported in the Associated Press, December 9, 1996.

• An ancient stone inscription in Tel Dan in the Golan Heights refers to the “House of David” and speaks of him as “King of Israel.” There have also been references to David found in excavations in Jerusalem.
• A stone tablet bearing the name of the Phoenician city of Ekron of Biblical fame in 1 Samuel has been found.
• Excavations at Shechem where Abraham built an altar to God shows that an organized community existed there at that time.
• An Ivory Pomegranate purchased by Israel for $550,000 is believed to be a relic from Solomon’s temple. It has an inscription that says “Holy to the priests, belonging to the Temple of Yahweh.”
• Studies at Masada have uncovered a wine jug inscribed with the name of Herod–a first.
• Excavations show ancient Egyptian forts along the Sinai’s Mediterranean coast which would explain why Moses led the Children of Israel inland through the Sinai wilderness.
• Excavations at Hazor show that the city was burned as the Bible describes in Joshua.

There is scientific evidence backing up the bible. These are only recent finds. I didn’t list the previous years finds as it would have taken up too much room. Faith and reason binds the Catholic Church and a little scientific fact doesn’t hurt either!

 

[ricko]

The Book of Mormon is thought by some to be based on historical people, places and events, however:

The first issue in evaluating this work, is its originality (or lack thereof).
–When someone who knows the Bible reads through The Book of Mormon, it becomes quite obvious that multiple and extensive portions --even whole chapters-- of the Bible were copied (basically word-for-word) from the King James version of the Bible (even incuding the same peculiar translation errors of the KJV). For example, Moroni 10:8-17 is obviously copied from 1Cor. 12:4-11; 2Nephi chapters 12 through 24 are copied from Isaiah chapters 2 through 14. And there are many more. Such portions are clearly not original to The Book of Mormon, demonstrating that Joseph Smith was liberally copying text directly from the King James Bible. Therefore, such copied Bible texts must be excluded from consideration as to the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Similarly, people and places from the Bible (such as David, Isaiah, Israel and Jerusalem) must be excluded from consideration to verify the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Only original portions should be used.

 

[Beltany13]

So I was perusing a mormon wesite claiming the manifestations of Christ to the native people of America are actually real, when dealing with the question of whether this is true or not they simply answer by saying that you need to pray to the holy spirit and you’ll get a ‘fuzzy warm’ feeling inside. So, my question is this, is there any real evidence? Were there Christians in the new world when the Europeans came that had not been properly catechised by any human being? Please, show proof that the book is legit.

It’s hogwash.
catholic.com/library/problems_with_the_book_of_mormon.asp

 

[ricko]

1. • No ancient cities named uniquely and originally by The Book of Mormon --(B.O.M.)-- (eg, the large city of “Zarahelma”) have ever been located in the Americas.
2. • No ancient peoples or nations (eg, the “Lamanites” and “Nephites”) unique to The Book of Mormon (B.O.M.) have ever been found or mentioned in any archaeological inscriptions anywhere in the world.
3. • No individual persons (eg, Nephi, Lehi, Zoram or Shule) unique to the Book of Mormon (not found in the Bible) have ever been mentioned in any archaeological inscriptions found anywhere in the world.
4. • No widely-attested genuine inscriptions in any language resembling Hebrew (which the B.O.M. Lamanites and Nephites supposedly spoke in the Americas) have ever been found in the Americas. Resource: Native American Indians --on their own languages and heritage
     Website: native-languages.org/iaq.htm
5. • No genuine inscriptions in any language resembling Egyptian (to possibly correspond to Joseph Smith’s “reformed Egyptian” --the language in which The Book of Mormon was supposedly originally given) have been found in the Americas.
6. • No archaeological inscriptions have been found which might indicate that ancient inhabitants in the Americas had Hebrew or Christian beliefs, as is maintained in The Book of Mormon.
7. • No B.O.M. cultural artifact of any kind (eg, the coins described in Alma 11:4-19, or weights and measures) has ever been found in the Americas.

(Above 7 points, ref: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, by Hal Hougey, p.12)

1. • The Book of Mormon says that Nephi and Shule (who supposedly lived in the Americas in 600 BC) possessed “steel” implements along with the knowledge to “forge” steel (1Nephi 4:9, 16:18 ; 2Nephi 5:15 ; Ether 7:9), -----and although iron-rich dirt was mined for its red color, still, refined “Iron remained unknown in the Americas until the arrival of Columbus” in 1492 A.D., and the actual forging of steel is even much more recent.

(Ref: Encyclopedia Britannica, '86, Vol.21, “Iron Production …History”, p.361)

1. • The Book of Mormon says that people it describes in the Americas (in about 90 BC) possessed and used silk (Alma 4:6 ; Ether 9:17 & 11:24), --whereas it has not been shown that silk was ever known by people in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans after the time of Columbus.

(Ref: Encyclopedia Americana, '95, Vol.26, “Textile …History of Textiles”, p.568)

1. • The Book of Mormon supposedly predicts (in about 90 BC) that Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) --whereas Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4) as accurately predicted in Micah 5:2.
2. • The Book of Mormon says that believers were called “Christians” back in 73 BC (per Alma 46:15) --but the reality is: the Bible (in Acts 11:26) states this first occurred in Antioch, which was in about 35 AD.
3. • No ancient copies (before the 1800s A.D.) of The Book of Mormon have been found anywhere, and opened for scholarly inspection …including the golden “plates” that Joseph Smith supposedly used.
     More instances could be cited (which you can read about by clicking HERE), but suffice it to say that it is because of the above situation, that I am not aware (for instance) of the existence of any map of the cities and places in the Americas spoken of in The Book of Mormon which are confirmed by any non-Mormon archaeological scholars of any standing.

When this country was explored, for instance by Lewis and Clark among others, it was found to be unspoiled by any humans. No evidence of any cities, roads, writings, steel, concrete or anything else to show that there was any civilization except for a few million native indians from one ocean to the other. Since it was virgin country, any traces of any cities such as described in the BOM would have been untouched and undistrubed and easy to find. Regardless of how much faith you have you cannot will something to be that never was.

 

[dianaiad]

OK.

We believe that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus Christ. “Only Begotten” rather demands this. We do NOT believe that God the Father had to have sexual intercourse with Mary to accomplish this.

In fact, it has been pointed out that because of the Book of Mormon, we are about the only group that believes in the divine nature of Christ who HAS to believe that Mary was a virgin at His birth.

It seems that the original Hebrew word that the KJV has translated as ‘virgin’ may well mean “woman of royal birth,” not “woman who has never had sex.” There is some wiggle room, in other words, for most people.

But not us.

Why?

Because of the Book of Mormon, where it talks about a vision in which a young virgin would give birth to the savior…using that English word, ‘virgin.’

If Joseph Smith was translating that with divine aid, one can assume that a word as important as that one wouldn’t be translated as ‘virgin’ in the English sense (woman who has never had sex). It would have been translated as “woman of a royal house” or “woman of royal birth.”

However, there is this trinitarian issue–or rather, a modalist issue to be argued against here; there were a bunch of people arguing that it was the Holy Ghost (or rather, God wearing that ‘mask’ or persona) who was the father of Christ.

Because we emphasize the individual natures of the Members of the Godhead…as three Individuals who share a common purpose and intent–and that “something:” “God,” --it is very important to us to understand that while this conception was done with the aid of the Holy Ghost, it is God the Father Who is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is not.

I repeat; it is a trinitarian issue, not a prurient one.

 

[M0nkey]

To believe in the bible or in the book of mormon or in the koran, one must have faith. There is no evidence that god exists regardless of the holy book.

Well, it doesn’t require faith alone to believe what the bible says. One could easily verify that Jesus was really there at the time and place the bible says it is. What people have come to find out about this man, and C.S. Lewis puts it very nicely, is that you can’t say by studying the historical Jesus that Jesus was a nice good man who did many nice things. He was either lying, crazy, or correct and that’s really God in the flesh speaking to you through His gospel.