How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[ReligiousQuest]

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…

doggydoo, in the same exact way that Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. talk about Jesus Christ being their personal Redeemer & Savior and that they love him with all their heart just for the social recognition and rituals. What type of statement is that? That is called religious hatred to say that no one but yourself can really believe. What I don’t understand is why you guys get upset when atheists say that about you, but you don’t have any problems doing it to others using the same exact criticisms?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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.

Stephen, that’s just the thing. The sources I can find on the Bible say that the Torah wasn’t written until about 600 B.C., based on linguistic & archaeological evidence and dating of scrolls, and only the religious scholars believe it was earlier. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible If the Bible was written 600 B.C., why should I believe in the history earlier than King David’s time (1000 B.C.)? If it was written 600 B.C., how can I trust Moses was real, Abraham was real, Noah was real, etc? That just doesn’t make any sense?

The earliest dating of any of the surviving New Testament scrolls is hundreds of years after the New Testament times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament I hear people say that they left Christianity because they decided they couldn’t trust the New Testament. See where my cognitive dissonance comes in rejecting one and not the other?

Likewise, Doctrine and Covenants mentions historical locations, which can be verified as real places and events. See where I’m coming from?

 

[Stephen168]

See where I’m coming from?

I think I know where you have been coming from since your first post on this thread. You believe the EVENTS described in the Old Testament which predate 600BC can not be proved from historical/archaeological record. The EVENTS of the Book of Mormon can not be proved from the historical/archaeological record; therefore if one accepts the pre-600BC events of the Old Testament on faith then it is reasonable to accept the Book of Mormon on faith.

Now where I’ve been coming from is two fold. While the Book of Mormon does not even claim to predate 600BC, it also claims to continue until 421AD. As you point out, there are pieces of the Old and New Testament which predate 421AD. So you have created a standard for the Old Testament which you are not holding to the Book of Mormon. To be fair we should compare events dating from 600BC to 421AD.

Second the Old and New Testament describes PLACES, and, PEOPLE contained in the historical/archaeological record. I agree; real PLACES and PEOPLE do not necessarily prove real EVENTS. But you can never have real EVENTS without real PEOPLE and PLACES. George Washington was real. Mt Vernon is real. The Yorktown battlefield is real. Was George Washington the President of the United States? Probably. Did he throw a coin across the Potomac River? Probably not. Alice was not real. Wonderland is not real. So as much as I’d like to believe; the events described in Alice in Wonderland will never be real.
To summarize: Comparing the Bible to the Book of Mormon is a false analogy and to reasonably expect the events described in the Book of Mormon to be true; one would have to prove places and people(s).

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I think I know where you have been coming from since your first post on this thread. You believe the EVENTS described in the Old Testament which predate 600BC can not be proved from historical/archaeological record. The EVENTS of the Book of Mormon can not be proved from the historical/archaeological record; therefore if one accepts the pre-600BC events of the Old Testament on faith then it is reasonable to accept the Book of Mormon on faith.

Now where I’ve been coming from is two fold. While the Book of Mormon does not even claim to predate 600BC, it also claims to continue until 421AD. As you point out, there are pieces of the Old and New Testament which predate 421AD. So you have created a standard for the Old Testament which you are not holding to the Book of Mormon. To be fair we should compare events dating from 600BC to 421AD.

Second the Old and New Testament describes PLACES, and, PEOPLE contained in the historical/archaeological record. I agree; real PLACES and PEOPLE do not necessarily prove real EVENTS. But you can never have real EVENTS without real PEOPLE and PLACES. George Washington was real. Mt Vernon is real. The Yorktown battlefield is real. Was George Washington the President of the United States? Probably. Did he throw a coin across the Potomac River? Probably not. Alice was not real. Wonderland is not real. So as much as I’d like to believe; the events described in Alice in Wonderland will never be real.
To summarize: Comparing the Bible to the Book of Mormon is a false analogy and to reasonably expect the events described in the Book of Mormon to be true; one would have to prove places and people(s).

My point isn’t whether something has support before 421 A.D., 600 B.C., or any time period. It’s whether it has support when archaeologists say there should be support, such as many events before King David where much of it should have support, and many say that some in ancient Judah made it up since religion can be used for political reasons.

Where I’m coming from is that the reason archaeologists know where a lot of places in the Bible are is not because they discovered the locations of the cities, but because everyone has always known where most of them were. If the Bible can mention over a million Israelites leaving Egypt and going into Canaan without a record from any outside peoples nor archaeological evidence, and many other serious events before King David’s time, and National Geographic saying that to this day little evidence have been found for David and Solomon with many skeptics for those two kings (the Bible talks about large kingdoms in very specific places archaeologists can look for), then why couldn’t it be the same for the Book of Mormon? The difference is the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere from Alaska to the tip of South America, rather than a geographic location the size of New Jersey for a lot of the Bible before David. American archaeologists keep on saying that they don’t know what the names were for a lot of the ancient American cities. That’s part of where I’m coming from.

The other part of where I’m coming from is, let’s use your example and say someone wrote a book about the United States government existing 500 AD, or even George Washington? Since we always learn in history that they didn’t exist until the 1700’s, you probably wouldn’t believe the book. Likewise, archaeologists keep on saying that many of the cities and places in the Bible before King David’s time did not come into existence until hundreds and maybe even a thousand or more years later (Chaldea, Philistines, many cities from the Book of Joshua not until 600 B.C., cities of Ai/Jericho/Hazor not matching up carbon dating by a thousand years, Canaan not being free from Egyptian rule before 1200 B.C., etc). Archaeologists, other than religious conservatives, usually count that as evidence “against”, not for. Likewise, the same criticism is used against things in the Book of Mormon.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Stephen, and also radiometric dating says humans are much older than the Bible says they should be. Evangelicals say that carbon dating can’t be proved, but then turn around to use carbon dating against some things in the Book of Mormon at without even questioning it. The Book of Mormon mentions elephants during the time of the Jaredites, probably 2200 B.C., but carbon dating finds most mammoths gone 10,000 years ago and a few populations that survived just a couple of thousand years before the Jaredites time. Evangelicals then point a finger. Then other Christians are liberal and believe Genesis is not literal, but rather a metaphor for real truth. I’ve also met quite a few Latter-day Saints who believe quite a bit of the Book of Mormon happened literally, but that many details are metaphors, and some items were names for animals that reminded them of Old World animals.

The National Academy of Sciences also says that Evolution is both a theory and fact in the same way that germs causing disease is both a theory and fact. Geologists don’t say that Noah’s Flood could have happened, they say it didn’t unless some miracle happened. Evangelicals dismiss that and then point a finger at the Book of Mormon.

 

[mfbukowski]

My point isn’t whether something has support before 421 A.D., 600 B.C., or any time period. It’s whether it has support when archaeologists say there should be support, such as many events before King David where much of it should have support, and many say that some in ancient Judah made it up since religion can be used for political reasons.

Where I’m coming from is that the reason archaeologists know where a lot of places in the Bible are is not because they discovered the locations of the cities, but because everyone has always known where most of them were. If the Bible can mention over a million Israelites leaving Egypt and going into Canaan without a record from any outside peoples nor archaeological evidence, and many other serious events before King David’s time, and National Geographic saying that to this day little evidence have been found for David and Solomon with many skeptics for those two kings (the Bible talks about large kingdoms in very specific places archaeologists can look for), then why couldn’t it be the same for the Book of Mormon? The difference is the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere from Alaska to the tip of South America, rather than a geographic location the size of New Jersey for a lot of the Bible before David. American archaeologists keep on saying that they don’t know what the names were for a lot of the ancient American cities. That’s part of where I’m coming from.

The other part of where I’m coming from is, let’s use your example and say someone wrote a book about the United States government existing 500 AD, or even George Washington? Since we always learn in history that they didn’t exist until the 1700’s, you probably wouldn’t believe the book. Likewise, archaeologists keep on saying that many of the cities and places in the Bible before King David’s time did not come into existence until hundreds and maybe even a thousand or more years later (Chaldea, Philistines, many cities from the Book of Joshua not until 600 B.C., cities of Ai/Jericho/Hazor not matching up carbon dating by a thousand years, Canaan not being free from Egyptian rule before 1200 B.C., etc). Archaeologists, other than religious conservatives, usually count that as evidence “against”, not for. Likewise, the same criticism is used against things in the Book of Mormon.

This seems to be the basis for much of the misunderstanding here- what the Book of Mormon calls “Zarahemla” might now be know as “Teotihuachan” so people assert there is no evidence of Zarahemla, say, which is absurd. And then it is asserted that this identification of Z with T in this example is “revisionism” whereas in fact it has always been part of the Mormon view that the ruins throughout mesoamerica were from BOM peoples. How anyone can assert that there is no evidence of Nephites is just beyond my understanding. It seems to be just pure ignorance.

Even if you look at a paperback Book of Mormon with pictures in it, the pictures depict people interacting in cities with pyramids exactly like those found in mesoamerica. How could anyone possibly not “get” that the ruins are presupposed by Mormons to be those of the BOM peoples is beyond me. You may disagree that those ruins have anything to do with the BOM but that is another argument, but to say that they don’t exist is just… ignorant.

In my 30 years as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, I never believed that all native Americans were descended from those who traveled with Nephi. Never ever. Would not be possible. I don’t even think that it is possible for any population to grow that large from a dozen people-- though certainly I know very little about population genetics.

But I am out of here for a while. Catch y’all later possibly

 

[Stephen168]

My point isn’t whether something has support before 421 A.D., 600 B.C., or any time period. It’s whether it has support when archaeologists say there should be support, such as many events before King David where much of it should have support, and many say that some in ancient Judah made it up since religion can be used for political reasons.

Where I’m coming from is that the reason archaeologists know where a lot of places in the Bible are is not because they discovered the locations of the cities, but because everyone has always known where most of them were. If the Bible can mention over a million Israelites leaving Egypt and going into Canaan without a record from any outside peoples nor archaeological evidence, and many other serious events before King David’s time, and National Geographic saying that to this day little evidence have been found for David and Solomon with many skeptics for those two kings (the Bible talks about large kingdoms in very specific places archaeologists can look for), then why couldn’t it be the same for the Book of Mormon? The difference is the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere from Alaska to the tip of South America, rather than a geographic location the size of New Jersey for a lot of the Bible before David. American archaeologists keep on saying that they don’t know what the names were for a lot of the ancient American cities. That’s part of where I’m coming from.

The other part of where I’m coming from is, let’s use your example and say someone wrote a book about the United States government existing 500 AD, or even George Washington? Since we always learn in history that they didn’t exist until the 1700’s, you probably wouldn’t believe the book. Likewise, archaeologists keep on saying that many of the cities and places in the Bible before King David’s time did not come into existence until hundreds and maybe even a thousand or more years later (Chaldea, Philistines, many cities from the Book of Joshua not until 600 B.C., cities of Ai/Jericho/Hazor not matching up carbon dating by a thousand years, Canaan not being free from Egyptian rule before 1200 B.C., etc). Archaeologists, other than religious conservatives, usually count that as evidence “against”, not for. Likewise, the same criticism is used against things in the Book of Mormon.

You are still talking about events before the time of the Book of Mormon. You have shown no proof of the Book of Mormon in the historical/archaeological record. The point of the thread is there is no evidence for any of the places, peoples or events in the Book of Mormon (600BC to 421AD). At the same time we have lots of evidence for the New Testament which is older than the Book of Mormon claims to be. Evidence from the 5th century should be easy if the Book of Mormon is true. You have tried very hard to keep from comparing apples to apples; Book of Mormon to New Testament. Why?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

You have shown no proof of the Book of Mormon in the historical/archaeological record.

Stephen, no one here has shown any proof for the events before King David’s time, that mainstream archaeology isn’t able to debunk with publicly verifiable evidence.

You are still talking about events before the time of the Book of Mormon.
QUOTE]

Stephen, first explain what the year 600 B.C. has to do with anything? Why is it a magical year?

My point isn’t that before 600 B.C. is a magical number, while 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. is not a magical number. That has nothing to do with it, and you know it. It has to do with whether archaeologists say, “We’d reasonably expect that if these events really occurred, we’d have to find certain evidences out there that would be 100% expected to fall into place as a bare minimum requirement.” Those who don’t believe in the Bible say that it is reasonable and thinking to expect that if the Book of Joshua really did take place, those cities would actually exist as a bare minimum requirement. If Abraham existed, it would be reasonable to expect Chaldea, Philistines, nomads on camels would exist during that time as a bare minimum requirement (archaeologists say Chaldea didn’t exist until the 600’s B.C. rather than Abraham’s expected time, in the same exact way they don’t believe the U.S. existed until the 1700’s rather than 500 B.C.). The National Academy of Sciences say Evolution is a theory and fact in the same way “germs causing disease” is both a theory and fact. They do not then turn around and say Adam & Eve have a good chance of actually happening.

Stephen, maybe this is a better way to word this: Instead of asking why can’t a Latter-day Saint follow after your footprints in still believing in scriptures, why isn’t it any less reasonable for an atheist to reject the Bible because of the history before King David going against archaeology? Why isn’t it any less reasonable for them to reject it than you rejecting the Book of Mormon? Atheists keep on pointing out all of the “common sense” anachronisms before David’s time that are verifiable, and say that it isn’t reasonable to believe in something that has no evidence. They say that our oldest scrolls of the New Testament are dated hundreds of years after the New Testament times, and since many already accuse the writers as trying to push their religion and engaging in a fraud, why trust it? Why should a Latter-day Saint reject the Book of Mormon for the same criticisms, but then not reject the New Testament, is what I’m trying to understand, when these criticisms of the New Testament can be backed up with publicly verifiable evidences? Scholars also say the evidence shows us that the Book of Daniel and Epistles of Peter are not what they claim to be; the conservative religious object to the mainstream, just like Mormons object to criticisms against the Book of Mormon. Again my point isn’t to prove or disprove any one’s religion, but to show where Latter-day Saints are coming from.
Stephen168;4854543:

You have tried very hard to keep from comparing apples to apples; Book of Mormon to New Testament. Why?

For the same reason you still believe in the Bible as a spiritual connection to God, despite criticisms. National Geographic says there is a debate about whether the Bible is a historical account, or a historical fiction mingled with real events/places. The movie Indiana Jones has real places and events, but usually people consider it to be a fictional account mixed with some real stuff.

The Smithsonian says although the Bible has many parts more accurate than ancient Greek and Egyptian history, there are problems with quite a few parts, and thus better thought of as a religious book rather than a history or science book.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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?

Amen

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!

We are not referring to a few cases of nomads here, we are referring to Smith’s alledged 38 cities of millions of ppl. and a giant war that NOT one single historian has recorded.
Something would have been found of 38 cities.
Millions of ppl is not an obscure number. In fact we have thousands of cities in America and 350,000,000 million.
I would consider the numbers propogated by Smith would be a states size.
Its incredulous to believe millions left not even a tomb, a coin, or a weapon.
In my acreage alone we have found older spears, and really old coins from earlier times in America. Altho to be honest the dates are hard to read now.

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.

If you watched the youtubes, you would find they are recent.
Debunking claims that there is proof.

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.

Comparing millions of ppl to nomadic tribes [which left some sort of imprint on society or we wouldnt know they existed] is quite different.

Large wars do not go untraced without some sort of ‘Indian’ legend.

I know of no Indian [Native American] legend that corresponds to Smith’s story.

However; interestingly enough, the Native Americans have recorded a great flood. [As did the Egyptians, and a few other areas]

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, no one here has shown any proof for the events before King David’s time, that mainstream archaeology isn’t able to debunk with publicly verifiable evidence.

I would guess that is because we are Christians and the thread is about the evidence for the Book of Mormon. As Christians our faith rests on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

You are still talking about events before the time of the Book of Mormon.

Stephen, first explain what the year 600 B.C. has to do with anything? Why is it a magical year? Please review posts 46, 52, 63

My point isn’t that before 600 B.C. is a magical number, while 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. is not a magical number. That has nothing to do with it, and you know it. It has to do with whether archaeologists say, “We’d reasonably expect that if these events really occurred, we’d have to find certain evidences out there that would be 100% expected to fall into place as a bare minimum requirement.” Those who don’t believe in the Bible say that it is reasonable and thinking to expect that if the Book of Joshua really did take place, those cities would actually exist as a bare minimum requirement. If Abraham existed, it would be reasonable to expect Chaldea, Philistines, nomads on camels would exist during that time as a bare minimum requirement (archaeologists say Chaldea didn’t exist until the 600’s B.C. rather than Abraham’s expected time, in the same exact way they don’t believe the U.S. existed until the 1700’s rather than 500 B.C.).

Yes, if the Gospels actually took place, we would expect the Sea of Galilee to exist, the city of Jerusalem to exist, Bethlehem to exist, maybe evidence of wine production, and sheep production. If the Book of Mormon were true what would we expect to find or not find in America?

Why should a Latter-day Saint reject the Book of Mormon for the same criticisms, but then not reject the New Testament, is what I’m trying to understand, when these criticisms of the New Testament can be backed up with publicly verifiable evidences?

I would expect a Mormon to reject the Book of Mormon for the same reasons I would. There is evidence supporting the New Testament and there is none supporting the Book of Mormon. In fact is seems as time goes by there is evidence proving the Book of Mormon story to be false.

You have tried very hard to keep from comparing apples to apples; Book of Mormon to New Testament. Why?

For the same reason you still believe in the Bible as a spiritual connection to God, despite criticisms. You did not answer the question

The movie Indiana Jones has real places and events, but usually people consider it to be a fictional account mixed with some real stuff.

Yes, please review post 63.

The Smithsonian says although the Bible has many parts more accurate than ancient Greek and Egyptian history, there are problems with quite a few parts, and thus better thought of as a religious book rather than a history or science book.

I don’t see ‘religious’ and ‘history’ as being mutually exclusive. But you do bring up a point. The New Testament does not claim to be a history, while the Book of Mormon does. So the book which claims to be a history has no evidence to support that claim.

 

[WarriorAngel]

youtube.com/watch?v=hUKjvG1rEJE&NR=1

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I don’t see ‘religious’ and ‘history’ as being mutually exclusive. But you do bring up a point. The New Testament does not claim to be a history, while the Book of Mormon does. So the book which claims to be a history has no evidence to support that claim.

When Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, he said it is the most correct precept wise in bringing one to Christ, not grammar or history wise. The New Testament brings us closer to Christ, Mormons also believe the Book of Mormon and Old Testament do too.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I would guess that is because we are Christians and the thread is about the evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Christianity is based out of Judaism. Judaism is based out of Moses and Abraham. All of the Abrahamic religions are based out of those two. Since archaeologists, who are not the religious conservatives, say archaeological evidence goes against Moses and Abraham, then why should we even believe if archaeology is where it’s at? Likewise, if it counts to have scripture later on that actually has verifiable evidence that no one can dispute, the Doctrine and Covenants, part of the Latter-day Saint Standard Works official scripture, is backed up by historical evidence. If archaeology is the key to faith, it really doesn’t matter if everything after David is true. If everything before him is false, then the Bible fails as the Word of God also.

If this thread is about archaeology of the Book of Mormon, and not of the Bible, Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Please review posts 46, 52, 63

If it’s true that the Book of Mormon starts at 600 B.C., then how do you explain why the Book of Ether is claimed by most historians to be 2200 B.C.? It happened right after the Tower of Babel’s time. Why do most skeptics say most of the proposed anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are found in the Book of Ether, 2200 B.C.? If you say that anachronisms can not start counting against a religious book until after the date of 600 B.C., then why should the apparent anachronisms from the Book of Ether count?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I agree; real PLACES and PEOPLE do not necessarily prove real EVENTS. But you can never have real EVENTS without real PEOPLE and PLACES.

That’s one of my main points for the history before King David’s time, which is comparable to the Book of Mormon because a very huge percentage of the proposed anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are found in the Book of Ether, which many say should have happened 2200 B.C., which is before the 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. time period.

If real events and places don’t prove, but instead are needed in order to be true, it would mean that if the Book of Joshua happened, those 30 cities would have needed to exist, rather than archaeologists saying quite a few of them not existing until the 600’s B.C. The city of Ai, Jericho, and Hazor would need to have been destroyed within a human lifetime, rather than carbon dating saying Ai was abandoned 2200 B.C., Jericho destroyed 1500 B.C., and Hazor by fire 1250 B.C. For Abraham to exist, then we’d expect the things mentioned by him would exist at that time (approximately 2000 B.C.): Chaldea (rather than 600’s B.C.), Philistines (rather than 1100 B.C.), nomads on camels, etc.

I know you don’t agree, but do you see where others of different faiths of your own are coming from?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t see ‘religious’ and ‘history’ as being mutually exclusive. But you do bring up a point. The New Testament does not claim to be a history, while the Book of Mormon does. So the book which claims to be a history has no evidence to support that claim.
ReligiousQuest;4856267:

When Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, he said it is the most correct precept wise in bringing one to Christ, not grammar or history wise.

But Joseph Smith said it was a history.
Pearl of Great Price:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

And there does not appear to be any evidence of this ‘account.’ “the source from whence they sprang” would be a description of there origin; like the source of a river perhaps.

 

[Stephen168]

Christianity is based out of Judaism.

Orthodox Christianity is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I have noticed that 19th century American religions do seem to have an obsession with Judaism.

Likewise, if it counts to have scripture later on that actually has verifiable evidence that no one can dispute, the Doctrine and Covenants, part of the Latter-day Saint Standard Works official scripture, is backed up by historical evidence.

Cool but we are talking about the Book of Mormon. Of course aren’t all 19th century documents?

If archaeology is the key to faith, it really doesn’t matter if everything after David is true.

Please review post #46

 

[Stephen168]

If it’s true that the Book of Mormon starts at 600 B.C., then how do you explain why the Book of Ether is claimed by most historians to be 2200 B.C.? It happened right after the Tower of Babel’s time. Why do most skeptics say most of the proposed anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are found in the Book of Ether, 2200 B.C.? If you say that anachronisms can not start counting against a religious book until after the date of 600 B.C., then why should the apparent anachronisms from the Book of Ether count?

I’m not sure who the mythical ‘you’ you are refering too but it isn’t me. For two reasons 1) I never said it 2) Over and over I’ve been saying it is only fair to compare evidence of the Book of Mormon to evidence of the New Testament. Is Ester in the Mormon New Testament?

 

[Stephen168]

That’s one of my main points for the history before King David’s time, which is comparable to the Book of Mormon because a very huge percentage of the proposed anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are found in the Book of Ether, which many say should have happened 2200 B.C., which is before the 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. time period.

If real events and places don’t prove, but instead are needed in order to be true, it would mean that if the Book of Joshua happened, those 30 cities would have needed to exist, rather than archaeologists saying quite a few of them not existing until the 600’s B.C. The city of Ai, Jericho, and Hazor would need to have been destroyed within a human lifetime, rather than carbon dating saying Ai was abandoned 2200 B.C., Jericho destroyed 1500 B.C., and Hazor by fire 1250 B.C. For Abraham to exist, then we’d expect the things mentioned by him would exist at that time (approximately 2000 B.C.): Chaldea (rather than 600’s B.C.), Philistines (rather than 1100 B.C.), nomads on camels, etc.

I know you don’t agree, but do you see where others of different faiths of your own are coming from?

Is this the New Testament?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I’m not sure who the mythical ‘you’ you are refering too but it isn’t me. For two reasons 1) I never said it 2) Over and over I’ve been saying it is only fair to compare evidence of the Book of Mormon to evidence of the New Testament. Is Ester in the Mormon New Testament?

Post 63 you said, “While the Book of Mormon does not even claim to predate 600BC, it also claims to continue until 421AD. As you point out, there are pieces of the Old and New Testament which predate 421AD. So you have created a standard for the Old Testament which you are not holding to the Book of Mormon. To be fair we should compare events dating from 600BC to 421AD.”

It appears like you’re saying that before 600 B.C. in the Bible shouldn’t count, but rather the time after 600 B.C. in order to make it comparable to the Book of Mormon’s time period?

My point is that the time period shouldn’t matter, but rather if there should be evidence for certain types of events, which are lacking. Non-religious conservative archaeologists say that most everything before King David’s time is considered full of anachronisms and shouldn’t be that way if they happened. They also say that there are various parts of the Bible between the time period from King David to 600 B.C., and a few segments after 600 B.C., where if these certain event happened we would reasonably expect there would be certain types of evidence found.

When I hear critics of the Book of Mormon bring up what appears to be anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it seems like most of them are from the Book of Ether, more than the time period after 600 B.C. The Book of Ether is a record of the Jaredites who were not from Israel, but rather the Tower of Babel time period, which predates 600 B.C. and is expected to be 2200 B.C. The Nephites who came from Judah 600 B.C. later on were given some of their records.