How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[WarriorAngel]

%between%
youtube.com/watch?v=JxqosDau_co&eurl=http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6167882&highlight=video+youtube&feature=player_embedded

Debunking that archeological finds exist in Mormonism…

 

[WarriorAngel]

25,000 evidences to back the Bible.

Mormons;
No map, no source to show where anything was.
No war weapons found,
No coins he described anywhere.
He claimed 38 huge cities existed, and no burials of the ppl or the great fight warriors?
No means to create the weapons he described.
No cities found
No artifacts of any kind.

Nothing found.

 

[hosemonkey]

25,000 evidences to back the Bible.

Mormons;
No map, no source to show where anything was.
No war weapons found,
No coins he described anywhere.
He claimed 38 huge cities existed, and no burials of the ppl or the great fight warriors?
No means to create the weapons he described.
No cities found
No artifacts of any kind.

Nothing found.

Nothing found, because nothing was there in the first place.
mormonism is a fraud, full stop.
Thanks for praying for me Ski, very Catholic of you. Intercession. you know?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The Bible is the Bible. In it is Truth.

There has to be a better reason than because you say so or others believe that way? Atheists say that the Bible is false, and isa 2000 year old book. Although you may not agree with the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints believe in the Book of Mormon for the same reasons, and for the same reasons they believe in the Bible.

Any truth found within it’s pages are the ones that were lifted (mostly out of Isaiah) anyway.

Jews say that the New Testament plagiarizes from the Old Testament. Part of critical thinking for Latter-day Saints is saying that you aren’t rejecting the New Testament because of that reason, so why should they reject the Book of Mormon for that reason? Regardless of whether you believe in the Book of Mormon, that should help you understand where they’re coming from.

Just like you’ll say that the Book of Mormon and New Testament don’t even compare, Jews will say that the New Testament and Hebrew scriptures don’t even compare. Jews have a long laundry list of doctrines in the New Testament that they can’t locate in the Old Testament, and many verses that they believe directly contradict the New Testament (for example, the Messiah being a Savior & Redeemer and Son of God). For some typical examples from them whatjewsbelieve.org/

The point is not whether you agree, but rather where Latter-day Saints are coming from.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

This is an invalid argument. We are discussing the BOM vs the Bible. Most of the bible has been verified as historically accurate.

My point is that archaeologists, with the exception of religious conservative ones, don’t believe in the history of the Bible before King David’s time (and that’s being conservative). The Bible Maximalists believe in the history after David, and the Minimalists after 600 B.C. If archaeology should be the the basis of your faith, then critical thinking would tell me to REJECT THE BIBLE! What should stand in the way if archaeology, not the Holy Ghost, is the key?

The encyclopedias I look at say historians, except for the religious ones, say it was probably written in either the 600’s or 500’s B.C. The encyclopedias say those other things that I’ve mentioned a few times already about Joshua’s Conquest, Moses and the Exodus, and Abraham’s time. If God works in mysterious ways against evidence which sounds very contradictory, why couldn’t it be the same way for archaeology in the Book of Mormon?

In addition to that, when I emailed the Smithsonian, they said most archaeologists believe that the Global Flood is a work of literature, and that archaeology/geology goes against it as a real event.

We know what National Geographic, the National Academy of Sciences, and the other national science organizations say about Evolution by Common Descent and extinct apes (and Creationism Science organizations aren’t recognized as real science by the national organizations, nor considered falsifiable).

So my question PaulDupre, why shouldn’t I listen to the non-theists who keep on telling me to reject the Bible because of archaeology? They say that regardless of after 600 B.C. being accurate, since non-religious archaeologists believe archaeology goes against the history before King David, that we are to reject it as a spiritual book. The Bible is either a true document, or it’s not. It can’t be both. Many say that the Bible is a historical fiction mingled with real events, like the movie Indiana Jones. Yes I know “Indiana Jones” sounds weird as an analogy, but that’s what many skeptics say. If archaeology is the way to know of a religious book, why wouldn’t it then apply to the Bible? Before much of the evidence for the Bible after 600 B.C. was found, for many years people believed in the Bible, regardless of what skeptics and Thomas Jefferson had to say. Is archaeology the way to God?

 

[Stephen168]

My point is that archaeologists, with the exception of religious conservative ones, don’t believe in the history of the Bible before King David’s time (and that’s being conservative). The Bible Maximalists believe in the history after David, and the Minimalists after 600 B.C. If archaeology should be the the basis of your faith,………

Archaeology is not the basis of faith. It is a science which supports current history and discovers lost history. The Book of Mormon claims to be a history dating from 600BC to 421AD.

The encyclopedias I look at say historians, except for the religious ones, say it was probably written in either the 600’s or 500’s B.C.

Isn’t this when the Book of Mormon claims to have been started?

This is an invalid argument. We are discussing the BOM vs the Bible. Most of the bible has been verified as historically accurate. The fact is that the bible exists in thousands of ancient manuscripts and is corroborated by the writings of non-biblical authors who refer to the bible and quote it. The bible is universally accepted to be what it claims to be - a collection of ancient documents written during the timeframes in which they claimed to be written. Whether a person accepts the theological teachings in the bible or not does not change the fact that the bible is universally accepted as a collection of truly ancient documents, and not the imaginative creation of a 19th century con-man.

I agree.
I think you have summarized the key difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The people and places of the New Testament were/are real. Because the Book of Mormon covers the same century, there should be evidence, outside the Book of Mormon, of the places and people in it.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Archaeology is not the basis of faith. It is a science which supports current history and discovers lost history. The Book of Mormon claims to be a history dating from 600BC to 421AD.

Isn’t this when the Book of Mormon claims to have been started?

I agree.
I think you have summarized the key difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The people and places of the New Testament were/are real. Because the Book of Mormon covers the same century, there should be evidence, outside the Book of Mormon, of the places and people in it.

That is an incorrect statement. The Bible “before” the time of King David IS NOT universally accepted.

The New Testament is also NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED. There are differences between the four Gospel accounts. Matthew mentions King Herod. Luke mentions all the world being taxed or registered. Historians say King Herod died 10 years before the world being registered for the first time. There are many historians who say that the Nativity is a work of literature for this reason.

“As a result, many scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[36][37] or at least constructed from traditions which predate the Gospels.[38] Brown, for instance, who observes that “it is unlikely that either account is completely historical”,[39] suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses.[40]” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus#The_Nativity_as_myth

 

[Stephen168]

Archaeology is not the basis of faith. It is a science which supports current history and discovers lost history. The Book of Mormon claims to be a history dating from 600BC to 421AD.

Isn’t this when the Book of Mormon claims to have been started?

I agree.
I think you have summarized the key difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The people and places of the New Testament were/are real. Because the Book of Mormon covers the same century, there should be evidence, outside the Book of Mormon, of the places and people in it.
ReligiousQuest;4848759:

That is an incorrect statement.

What statement is incorrect?

The New Testament is also NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED. There are differences between the four Gospel accounts. Matthew mentions King Herod. Luke mentions all the world being taxed or registered. Historians say King Herod died 10 years before the world being registered for the first time. There are many historians who say that the Nativity is a work of literature for this reason.

Are you claiming that King Herod the Great never lived?

 

[Nepenthe]

Loads of cultures didn’t leave a lot of evidence for archaeologists to work with, especially nomadic tribes. I can easily imagine in the future some claiming that there never were any yurt-dwelling Mongols, for example. Tents, livestock, a general lack of written documents, and moving around a lot make the archaeologists’ jobs a total headache.

Now, when people build with stone, like say in Jericho (also a major trade route) or had a thing for ginormous rock monuments (Egyptians, Sumerians, etc), or even Woolly Mammoth ribs then the job gets a lot more obvious.

Also, remember that many if not most people considered Ancient Troy to be mythical until recently, when Schliemann risked it all, got out there, and actually FOUND the spot. Several cities had been built atop it even, but methodically, he worked his way down, and found that pre-classical city!

 

[ReligiousQuest]

What statement is incorrect?

Are you claiming that King Herod the Great never lived?

Sorry Stephen, when I did the quote thing it cut PaulDupre out. I was quoting you who quoted him when I said that. Paul said, “The bible is universally accepted to be what it claims to be - a collection of ancient documents written during the timeframes in which they claimed to be written. Whether a person accepts the theological teachings in the bible or not does not change the fact that the bible is universally accepted as a collection of truly ancient documents, and not the imaginative creation of a 19th century con-man.”

I said it’s incorrect that all of the Bible is universally accepted. The history before King David’s time is not universally accepted by archaeologists, except for the religious conservative ones (reasons listed in above posts). Then I pointed the same thing out with the New Testament four Gospels, and backed myself up in the claim that many scholars don’t believe in the Nativity being totally correct, with the link.

The point I’m trying to get across is that I don’t know if archaeology is the best way to falsify the Book of Mormon, because non-religious conservative archaeologists believe archaeology goes against the Bible’s history before King David’s time, and many bring up the different details in the four Gospels. Obviously, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the Book of Mormon cannot be either. If the Bible can escape archaeological criticisms, then why can’t the Book of Mormon? Obviously, there’s more of a jump, but for the time before King David’s time, there appears to be just as many problems, and mainstream biology/geology does not agree with Adam & Eve/Noah’s Ark being in harmony with the evidence. They believe they are contradicted.

 

[PaulDupre]

You missed my point completely. I did not say that it is universally accepted that the bible is historically accurate.

So let me make this as monosyllabic as possible…

Every one knows that the bible was written a very long time ago. So if it reports ancient historic events, those events may have really happened, since it was written at the time those events would have taken place.

Most people know that the BOM was written only 180 years ago, so it could not possibly be an ancient historical record. So the events it reports must be fictional.

 

[Stephen168]

Sorry Stephen, when I did the quote thing it cut PaulDupre out. I was quoting you who quoted him when I said that. Paul said, “The bible is universally accepted to be what it claims to be - a collection of ancient documents written during the timeframes in which they claimed to be written. Whether a person accepts the theological teachings in the bible or not does not change the fact that the bible is universally accepted as a collection of truly ancient documents, and not the imaginative creation of a 19th century con-man.”

I said it’s incorrect that all of the Bible is universally accepted. The history before King David’s time is not universally accepted by archaeologists, except for the religious conservative ones (reasons listed in above posts). Then I pointed the same thing out with the New Testament four Gospels, and backed myself up in the claim that many scholars don’t believe in the Nativity being totally correct, with the link.

The point I’m trying to get across is that I don’t know if archaeology is the best way to falsify the Book of Mormon, because non-religious conservative archaeologists believe archaeology goes against the Bible’s history before King David’s time, and many bring up the different details in the four Gospels. Obviously, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the Book of Mormon cannot be either. If the Bible can escape archaeological criticisms, then why can’t the Book of Mormon? Obviously, there’s more of a jump, but for the time before King David’s time, there appears to be just as many problems, and mainstream biology/geology does not agree with Adam & Eve/Noah’s Ark being in harmony with the evidence. They believe they are contradicted.

Ok, so you agree that the people and places of the Bible from 600BC to 100AD actually existed and most of them can be proved from archaeological record. And the people and places of Book of Mormon from 600BC to 421 AD can NOT be proved from the archaeological record.

 

[doggydoo]

The thing is,is that the B.O.M. is not based on history at all. This should be obvious to even the seriously deluded. Therefore, the Mormons are in it for the worship,the rituals,the congregations,which is o.k…They know this…

On the other hand Christians are regularly duped into thinking that ,just because a real setting,or a real person is mentioned THAT IT MUST BE obvious the ENTIRE bible is true.This is absurd. It is the common writing style of the time. It is neither original or unique.It is not even hard to distinguish,unless of course you have been blinded by faith.

If dirt=truth
and
water=fiction and you add them together you get mud. Just because a little dirt is in your glass does not mean your entire glass is filled to the rim with truth.

…HELLO, it is called exaggeration.

Pilate was a real person,yet he is found in other fictional works.WOW

 

[Stephen168]

The thing is,is that the B.O.M. is not based on history at all. This should be obvious to even the seriously deluded. Therefore, the Mormons are in it for the worship,the rituals,the congregations,which is o.k…They know this…

Are you claiming that Mormons know the Book of Mormon is fiction?

On the other hand Christians are regularly duped into thinking that ,just because a real setting,or a real person is mentioned THAT IT MUST BE obvious the ENTIRE bible is true.This is absurd. It is the common writing style of the time. It is neither original or unique.It is not even hard to distinguish,unless of course you have been blinded by faith.

That is not the point. The point is: A story with real people and places that has been told since the events happened could be true. While a story with fictitious people and places that was not told until 1400 years after the events is a work of fiction. The New Testament contains real people, real places, and has been told since the time of Christ. The Book of Mormon contains fictitious people, fictitious places, and has been told since the time of Joseph Smith.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Not even one thin coin - not one weapon described, nothing can be found from the testament of the BOM.

NOTHING.

INCLUDING the DNA cannot be found accurate - see first posted youtube.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But they have found evidence for some of the cities, and are finding more evidence and more cities with every passing year. The biblical civilizations, kingdoms, cities, monetary systems, languages, wars and so much more have been found and proven and many are still there to be visited.

By contrast, not one shred of evidence has ever been found for the Nephite civilization (ending circa 421 AD), which is 1800 years more recent than Joshua’s time (circa 1380 BC).

421 AD is just this morning in archaeological time. Civilizations leave artifacts. There should be Nephite artifacts all over the place, but there are none. That’s because the Nephite civilization is fictional.

No doubt neolithic dwellings will one day be treated as proof positive of the historical accuracy of “The Hobbit” (as will the “hobbits” whose remains were found a while back).​

I wish archeologists would dig up remains of “cumoms” & “cureloms” - the BoM talks about them, but does not describe them, or say what they are. FWIW, the fact something exists does not of itself mean that what is said of it in a given context is true. Cumoms can be real beings without being proof of the book that mentions them; the existence of King David, even if verified, would not prove that the texts about him are all true - any more than the existence of Ithaca proves the existence of Odysseus or the actuality of his slaughter of the suitors.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And …

Solomon’s Hittites are, however, not the Hittites of the Hittite kingdom & empire in Anatolia (which was destroyed about 1180 BC) but members of successor-kingdoms established at some point thereafter, which were absorbed by Assyria by the end of the 8th century. The Hittites in the stories about Abraham & Isaac are a puzzle.​

Something - such the references to scholars now long dead - suggests that you are relying on rather old sources.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Aztecs are Nephites? Or perhaps Lamanites?

Nonsense, everyone knows they are the Haradrim.

Now we know we what become of those mumaks - their descendants ages later are cumoms or cureloms (probably), like so:​

• beasts of Morgoth in First Age →
• mumaks in Third Age →
• mammoths ages later →
• cumoms or cureloms (probably)
  The Americas occupy the position on the globe formerly occupied by the land of Aman.

Hobbiton is 682 miles from Mt. Doom. If Hobbiton was in Southern England, Mt. Doom is probably in the region of Vesuvius - perhaps.

Saruman’s present successors: numerous

 

[mfbukowski]

Not even one thin coin - not one weapon described, nothing can be found from the testament of the BOM.

NOTHING.

INCLUDING the DNA cannot be found accurate - see first posted youtube.

You all persist in this idiocy without even knowing what you are talking about. Coins are not even mentioned in the BOM. I answered the DNA and everything else and you just repeat the same questions ignoring what I have said. The only mention of coins is in a chapter title which is incorrect. They are never mentioned in the text. Coins were not used at all in Mesoamerica. If they were mentioned it would be an evidence against the BOM. And yet, in your ignorance, you condemn the book for what is not there and should not be there.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Not even one thin coin - not one weapon described, nothing can be found from the testament of the BOM.

NOTHING.

INCLUDING the DNA cannot be found accurate - see first posted youtube.

WarriorAngel, those same DNA studies say that our most common father through Y-Chromosome was 60,000 years ago from black African DNA, not the Middle East 5,000 years ago. Those same studies say that our most common mother through mitochondrial DNA was 140,000 years ago from black African DNA. Those same DNA studies say humans and chimps share the most retrovirus DNA, and at the same sites. I keep on hearing over and over again that DNA conclusively disproves Adam & Even and also Noah’s Ark. The same geneticists who say that about the Book of Mormon also say it about the Bible. If DNA doesn’t conclusively disprove the Bible being the Word of God after all this, why would it do that to the Book of Mormon? Is God not all powerful enough to do that to the Bible with DNA, such as Noah’s Ark, but not the Book of Mormon?

Latter-day Saints often believe that there were people in the Americas long before any Lehites came over. If there was a group of a few million Siberians in the Americas at the time, and a small group of 30 came over 600 B.C., their mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA would easily not show up in tests, and they could easily mix so that a large percentage of modern Native Americans could be direct descendents from them, even if diluted. The Nephites tended to be traditional with the Law of Moses before the time of Christ and everything, but the Lamanites were not. If a group of 30 Lamanites mixed with Native Americans, it could happen. And if DNA doesn’t conclusively disprove the Bible as being the Word of God because of what it does to Noah’s Ark and Adam & Even, why would we expect it to do so with the Book of Mormon? That doesn’t make any sense, and sounds extremely hypocritical?

Just like atheists say they reject the God of the Bible for the same reason you reject Zeus, Latter-day Saints the DNA issue for the same reasons you don’t see it as a problem for the Bible.