How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[ReligiousQuest]

So, in the end I suppose I could say to you “why are you here on a Catholic board attacking us?” with your reference to sinning priests, but I won’t. What purpose would that serve?

I found a post where they were attacking Mormons, this post. Since I know a lot about Bible Minimalism, I didn’t think what was being posted on this thread was being honest and so that’s why I posted. I wasn’t trying to say that anyone was wrong. If I came to your discussion board posting a thread saying “Catholics aren’t Christian”, then I wouldn’t feel so much for being aggressive. Protestants and Catholics come to LDS posts that I’ve seen and keep on aggressively posting comments like, “Mormons aren’t Christians.” Then they keep on bringing up arguments about how Hindus believe Krishna has some similarities with Christ, and that doesn’t automatically make Hindus Christians. Then someone has to keep on pointing out that Hindus do not self-identify as Christians in national surveys while LDS do, and that social scientists do not label Hindus as Christians while they group LDS into that category. It would be like someone saying Baptists aren’t Christians because they believe in the Bible, and the Bible has some similarities with Hindu text, and Hindus aren’t Christians. LDS do not believe in Krishna, they believe their beliefs center around Jesus Christ of Nazareth, regardless of whether that’s what others think. Whether LDS beliefs are true, they’re still in the World Religion Christianity. It’s not like I’m coming to attack you, but to rather point out what Bible Minimalism has to say about the Bible, since I don’t feel this post is being honest when attacking others.

 

[ricko]

It’s funny how Mormorns defend their church by launching attacks against the Catholic Church and the bible.
The best defense is a good offense?

 

[Jerusha]

That is all they have left. They have backed themselves into a corner, and they are scared. Sort of like a dog with a broken leg.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

That is all they have left. They have backed themselves into a corner, and they are scared. Sort of like a dog with a broken leg.

So because I say that the evidence only makes sense when I believe that all of Christianity is wrong or that the same criticisms shouldn’t be only applied to LDS and not Christianity, that’s faulty reasoning? If I notice that many of the replies Christians apologists have are similar for what LDS apologists use, I can’t think the same way? (for that long list of points that I listed)

 

[ricko]

Nope, it doesn’t make sense and neither do you. What’s the matter? Can’t you defend the Mormon church without attacking the questioner? If there is truth in the Mormon church then you should prove that, which you have never, never done.

I predict that with the advent of the internet and the truth of Mormon beliefs spreading all over, that a Mormon apostle will have a “revelation” from God and start changing some of their outrageous beliefs. Notice how the Jehovah Witnesses don’t predict the end of the world anymore? They were caught with their pants down so much that they stopped doing it. It’s already happend in the Mormon church. When the world started making it too hot for Mormons about not allowing blacks in the priesthood, what happened? A Mormon apostle decided it was time for a “revelation” from God to change the rules for blacks.

 

[Stephen168]

I just use Occam’s Razor and tell myself that I can’t just be choosy and reject LDS while accepting Christianity. Personally, it seems reasonable that I would have to either choose and reject them both -

. In reality, the corner you have painted yourself into is Judaism (Old Testament) and Mormonism (Book of Mormon); both or neither.
What I have been trying to point out over and over again is you can not make the same comparisons with the New Testament. As a Christian, my religion is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The New Testament supports my faith in Christ. The people, and places described were there at the time, as they still are today. The Gospels and Letters of the New Testament are proven by historians to be first century documents. There is no historical or scientific proof of the Book of Mormon. It is a 19th century document; that is why the people and places described in it have never existed.

 

[East_Anglican]

Here’s a way to understand where Latter-day Saints are coming from with the Book of Mormon: Why do people still believe in the Bible being the Word of God when most secular archaeologists say there is no evidence for the history of the Bible before King David’s time? All the sources I’ve found say that the archaeologists who believe in the Bible before King David’s time are the religious conservative ones.

The Book of Joshua lists 30 cities that the Israelites conquer. Archaeologists say that if Joshua’s Conquest happened, a bare minimum requirement would be that these cities would actually have existed back then. However, archaeologists can’t find evidence for many of these cities existing (yes, Jericho did, but they can’t find evidence for many of the other ones). Thus, the archaeologists who believe in the Book of Joshua are the religious conservatives.

The Bible talks about Moses and the Exodus. Archaeologists say that the land of Palestine was a province of Egypt until the 1100’s B.C., and that if you wanted to settle the area you needed permission from the Egyptians. However, archaeologists can’t find any records from the Egyptians of the Israelites coming into the area before that time. The Egyptians had many military posts all throughout the Sinai Peninsula, and kept records of those who passed through. They don’t have records of a mass Israelite Exodus. The only way through would have been a southern route through a dangerous desert, and in the last 150 years archaeologists haven’t found evidence that a large group of Israelites passed through that route.

The Bible lists some cities, places, and items that Abraham had experiences with. Archaeologists say that we’re lacking in evidence that some of these cities, places, and items existed 2000 B.C. Obviously the “secular” archaeologists don’t believe in Abraham because of this reason.

Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA studies support all humans coming out of Africa 60,000 years ago from black African DNA lineage groups, rather than from Noah’s Ark in the Middle East 5,000 years ago. Seeing some of the DNA, anarchism, and archaeological comparisons here?

Just like Christians feel awkward rejecting the Bible because the secular archaeologists don’t agree with the Bible’s history before King David’s time, that’s how Latter-day Saints feel about the Book of Mormon.

The differance is that cities were supposed ot exist in America around 2000 years ago. Where else in the world can you find no evidence for cities that existed 2000 years ago?

 

[East_Anglican]

2 Kings 10:27
They demolished the sacred stone of Baal and tore down the temple of Baal, and people have used it for a latrine to this day.

I post this scripture to point out that writers during Old Testament times were so thoruogh they told where the public conveniences were in their day.

Mysteriously there is no mention of any people leaving palistine in boats to another land in The Bible or in any other ancient literiture of that time.

 

[NewSeeker]

The differance is that cities were supposed ot exist in America around 2000 years ago. Where else in the world can you find no evidence for cities that existed 2000 years ago?

Yes, that’s exactly right. The Bible says Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. We know where Jerusalem is. Bible stories can be linked to places that actually existed. The Book of Mormon cannot be linked to Nephite cities that actually existed, since they never existed in the first place.

ReligiousQuest, can you point to the location of Zarahemla? Do you know of any artifacts that support the BoM claim that any Nephite cities ever existed? Perhaps a Nephite coin has been found, or a stele with the name Pahoran inscribed on it. It doesn’t matter which name, any name will do, so long as it’s from the BoM. Do you have anything at all?

NS

 

[ricko]

Yes, that’s exactly right. The Bible says Jesus was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. We know where Jerusalem is. Bible stories can be linked to places that actually existed. The Book of Mormon cannot be linked to Nephite cities that actually existed, since they never existed in the first place.

ReligiousQuest, can you point to the location of Zarahemla? Do you know of any artifacts that support the BoM claim that any Nephite cities ever existed? Perhaps a Nephite coin has been found, or a stele with the name Pahoran inscribed on it. It doesn’t matter which name, any name will do, so long as it’s from the BoM. Do you have anything at all?

NS

I can answer for Religious Quest.

Ahem. Can YOU point to where the Dead Sea crossing was? Where are the artifacts that the Jews left behind? There is no historical evidence for the bible before King Davids time. Therefore if you can’t prove evidence of anything before King David’s time why should I have to provided evidence of any Nephite cities?

 

[NewSeeker]

I can answer for Religious Quest.

Ahem. Can YOU point to where the Dead Sea crossing was? Where are the artifacts that the Jews left behind? There is no historical evidence for the bible before King Davids time. Therefore if you can’t prove evidence of anything before King David’s time why should I have to provided evidence of any Nephite cities?

LOL! Yes, that does seem to be the trump card s/he likes to play. In anticipation of this inevitable response, the answer is:

Whether the Bible recounts true events before King David’s time is not the issue. The issue whether the Book of Mormon is ancient, as Joseph Smith claimed it was. It’s indisputable the Bible is ancient. You claim the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people. Let me ask you again: where is your evidence to support this claim. We know Jerusalem existed 2,000 years ago and that there were Jews living there. What’s your evidence that Zarahemla existed and that there were Nephites living there (feel free to pick any other Nephite city; it doesn’t have to be Zarahemla)? Surely you have something, some artifact somewhere that shows that Nephites were real and not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination.

NS

 

[ReligiousQuest]

. In reality, the corner you have painted yourself into is Judaism (Old Testament) and Mormonism (Book of Mormon); both or neither.
What I have been trying to point out over and over again is you can not make the same comparisons with the New Testament. As a Christian, my religion is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The New Testament supports my faith in Christ. The people, and places described were there at the time, as they still are today. The Gospels and Letters of the New Testament are proven by historians to be first century documents. There is no historical or scientific proof of the Book of Mormon. It is a 19th century document; that is why the people and places described in it have never existed.

From the view of the rest of the World Religion, you worship the Pope and Marry.

And why do you keep on saying that against the New Testament, when the history channel keeps on saying that many of the New Testament artifacts were found to be frauds? The details of Jesus’ trial in the New Testament contradict the Roman and Jewish customs of the time, so non-Christians often don’t believe the New Testament.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The differance is that cities were supposed ot exist in America around 2000 years ago. Where else in the world can you find no evidence for cities that existed 2000 years ago?

And the cities for the Book of Joshua didn’t exist at the time. We already discussed that. So why won’t you say your Pope is a fraud but you live a double standard and expect the same for other religions?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

2 Kings 10:27
They demolished the sacred stone of Baal and tore down the temple of Baal, and people have used it for a latrine to this day.

I post this scripture to point out that writers during Old Testament times were so thoruogh they told where the public conveniences were in their day.

Mysteriously there is no mention of any people leaving palistine in boats to another land in The Bible or in any other ancient literiture of that time.

The Book of Mormon also says that a lot of the civilization was completely destroyed and went into the Sea.

The book of John talks about other sheep Jesus would have to visit. And the New Testament also says that he wasn’t to go to the Gentiles, but that his apostles would do that.

Mysteriously there are no prophecies of Jesus or your Pope in the Old Testament that actually say it’s the Messiah, only hints (where Jews have many verses to claim it’s taken out of context). I’ve told people time and time again, If you can show me one Old Testament verse, I will convert away from the LDS church into your religion right away. Only need one verse, one verse, that prophecies of Jesus’ first coming and actually talks about the Messiah (two parts). No one has been able to do that yet.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

LOL! Yes, that does seem to be the trump card s/he likes to play. In anticipation of this inevitable response, the answer is:

Whether the Bible recounts true events before King David’s time is not the issue. The issue whether the Book of Mormon is ancient, as Joseph Smith claimed it was. It’s indisputable the Bible is ancient. You claim the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people. Let me ask you again: where is your evidence to support this claim. We know Jerusalem existed 2,000 years ago and that there were Jews living there. What’s your evidence that Zarahemla existed and that there were Nephites living there (feel free to pick any other Nephite city; it doesn’t have to be Zarahemla)? Surely you have something, some artifact somewhere that shows that Nephites were real and not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination.

NS

Before a century ago, they didn’t find archaeological evidence for the Bible and so many were not believers. Why are you any different than one of those non-believers earlier? Remember Doubting Thomas? Is that the only reason you believe, because a few places were found, while many were contradicted (everything before King David’s time)? Should I believe in Greek Mythology because they found the city of Troy?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Nope, it doesn’t make sense and neither do you. What’s the matter? Can’t you defend the Mormon church without attacking the questioner? If there is truth in the Mormon church then you should prove that, which you have never, never done.

I predict that with the advent of the internet and the truth of Mormon beliefs spreading all over, that a Mormon apostle will have a “revelation” from God and start changing some of their outrageous beliefs. Notice how the Jehovah Witnesses don’t predict the end of the world anymore? They were caught with their pants down so much that they stopped doing it. It’s already happend in the Mormon church. When the world started making it too hot for Mormons about not allowing blacks in the priesthood, what happened? A Mormon apostle decided it was time for a “revelation” from God to change the rules for blacks.

So what I’m trying to understand is when I bring up the point from post #456 with a non-LDS Christian, they always say that it’s not a good reason to reject Christianity and to have faith; then you guys want me to use the exact same reasons on the LDS Church? I just don’t get it? I also notice that most LDS want to think for themselves, rather than let you guys decide their lives, and don’t understand that line of reasoning being used against LDS.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I can answer for Religious Quest.

Ahem. Can YOU point to where the Dead Sea crossing was? Where are the artifacts that the Jews left behind? There is no historical evidence for the bible before King Davids time. Therefore if you can’t prove evidence of anything before King David’s time why should I have to provided evidence of any Nephite cities?

So what I’m trying to understand is when I bring up the point from post #456 with a non-LDS Christian, they always say that it’s not a good reason to reject Christianity and to have faith; then you guys want me to use the exact same reasons on the LDS Church? I just don’t get it? I also notice that most LDS want to think for themselves, rather than let you guys decide their lives, and don’t understand that line of reasoning being used against LDS.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

And after all of this, I just don’t understand why you hate being called anti-Mormons instead of true critics?

 

[atheist1]

LOL! Yes, that does seem to be the trump card s/he likes to play. In anticipation of this inevitable response, the answer is:

Whether the Bible recounts true events before King David’s time is not the issue. The issue whether the Book of Mormon is ancient, as Joseph Smith claimed it was. It’s indisputable the Bible is ancient. You claim the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people. Let me ask you again: where is your evidence to support this claim. We know Jerusalem existed 2,000 years ago and that there were Jews living there. What’s your evidence that Zarahemla existed and that there were Nephites living there (feel free to pick any other Nephite city; it doesn’t have to be Zarahemla)? Surely you have something, some artifact somewhere that shows that Nephites were real and not a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination.

NS

Seems like a fair question to me. Is there any archaeological evidence in support of the fable concerning the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years?

 

[Stephen168]

From the view of the rest of the World Religion, you worship the Pope and Marry.

Mostly, just ignorant people that don’t know any better. Of course there are some anti-catholic folks who know better and just like to bring up the subject to distract from the real conversation. Which one are you?

And why do you keep on saying that against the New Testament, when the history channel keeps on saying that many of the New Testament artifacts were found to be frauds?

The New Testament is a first century document. It tells a story about real people and real places. By my faith I believe the story. All you have is a story; no people and no places. All you have is hope that maybe; just maybe, somebody will find something contrary to the mountain of evidence which proves the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work of fiction.