How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[ReligiousQuest]

1. 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.

Either something passes an archaeology test, or it doesn’t. “Many parts” of the Bible pass the archaeology test, but that doesn’t mean that the Bible itself passes the archaeology test, because of what they have to say about Evolution, Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel and all the anachronisms between Abraham and King David’s time, which isn’t just bits and pieces now and then but a whole chunk of time contradicted.

Using the Scientific Method, for a theory to be true it has to avoid going against the evidence. If it “honestly” doesn’t fit the evidence, then it’s not true. If it does fit the evidence 100%, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true, because History of Science and Archaeology shows us there could be other theories which explain the evidence better, often found later on. To make it fair and comparable, the same criticisms of anachronisms, linguistics, archaeology, etc, for the Book of Mormon are also applied against the Bible before King David’s time by non-conservative religious archaeologists. This makes it so many huge chunks of the Bible pass with flying colors, and even better than many parts of Egyptian/Greek history, but the Bible itself does not pass the test of archaeology. Does that make sense what I’m trying to say, if archaeology is the key to faith?

In response to this, many of you say, “Well at least the Bible has much support later on.” The way I see it, I once talked to an atheist about accepting the Bible and about many parts of it being supported with archaeology later in the Bible. His response was that to most atheists it would be just as reasonable to accept the God of the Bible for that same reason as it would be to accept the Mormon faith because the Book of Mormon is lacking in evidence when their other scriptures the Doctrine and Covenants is well supported by archaeological evidence. I know you don’t agree, but do you see where I’m coming from with time periods meaning anything and some scriptures being supported while earlier parts being very long stretches of anachronisms?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

But Joseph Smith said it was a history. 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.

It may be an account, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every detail has to be correct. He said the Book of Mormon is the most correct book as far as precept wise in bringing us closer to God goes, not necessarily every grammar and historical detail.

Likewise, in the New Testament Jesus Christ refers to Adam in the same way he would talk if Adam was a real person. Secular geneticists say mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA conclusively disprove Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark. When the New Testament gives the parables of Jesus Christ, it actually says that someone is telling the story, and the parables are not worded like multi-hundred page history books. The Old Testament before King David’s time does not say that someone is telling a story, nor does it say that we’re going in and out of metaphor mode, but rather is worded the same way a mult-hundred page history book is, and runs smoothly right into the history of the other parts of the Bible. The Old Testament is divided into (1) historical books (Exodus to Esther), believed to report facts; (2) Wisdom and poetry books (from Job to Song of songs); (3) Prophets (from Isaiah to Malachi). Why is the Old Testament historical books presented in the same way that history would be?

 

[Stephen168]

Either something passes an archaeology test, or it doesn’t.

The Book of Mormon appears to fail, due to no evidence to the contrary.

“Many parts” of the Bible pass the archaeology test, but that doesn’t mean that the Bible itself passes the archaeology test, because of what they have to say about Evolution, Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel and all the anachronisms between Abraham and King David’s time, which isn’t just bits and pieces now and then but a whole chunk of time contradicted.

The New Testament passes.

Does that make sense what I’m trying to say, if archaeology is the key to faith?

For the third time- Archaeology is not the key to faith. Please review post 46, again

It may be an account, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every detail has to be correct. He said the Book of Mormon is the most correct book as far as precept wise in bringing us closer to God goes, not necessarily every grammar and historical detail.

We have not required every detail to be correct. We have asked for some detail with evidence.

Likewise, in the New Testament Jesus Christ refers to Adam in the same way he would talk if Adam was a real person. Secular geneticists say mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA conclusively disprove Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark.

Interesting, I wonder how they did that. What kind of DNA was contained in Noah’s Ark?

I know you don’t agree, but do you see where I’m coming from with time periods meaning anything and some scriptures being supported while earlier parts being very long stretches of anachronisms?

It would seem to me that an anachronism would cause science to rethink the timing of the document that contained it. I would not necessarily throw out the whole thing unless there were just too many and they contradicted each other. If a document is written about the Americas and it refers to horses at a time we thought to be 90BC, it might be believed. When it comes to light that horses were introduced to the Americas in the 16th century AD, my first reaction would be to move the story forward 1600 years and see if everything else fits. But when the story claims, 100 years after the horse reference, that Christ appears, I would have my doubts. I would think that after Christ came to the Americas in 1700 someone else would have wrote about it besides the author of this one document. Then when I’m told there is a huge battle with thousands of people, which was to happen over 500 years (1911?) after the horses, in upstate New York; I know that would have made the papers.

What I find most interesting about your approach to defend the Book of Mormon is that you have never defended the Book of Mormon. As if the destruction of the credibility of the Old Testament will prove the Book of Mormon to be true. There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, yet we can visit Rome, Corinth, Jerusalem, the Sea of Galilee, we know there were sheep, goats and donkeys around Jerusalem at the time of Christ. The Church started by Christ has been here continuously since Pentecost just as he promised. The canon of writings his Church put together has lots of evidence to defend it. Can you say the same for the Book of Mormon?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The Book of Mormon appears to fail, due to no evidence to the contrary.

And so does the Bible if using the same standards. Many chunks of the Bible do better than much of Egyptian/Greek history. However, huge long stretches are just full of anachronisms, particularly before King David’s time, so it doesn’t pass the archaeological test as “a whole”, and these anachronisms are so out of place that you can’t argue that maybe it just changes your assumptions of when it took place. Genesis mentions Abraham and Chaldea. Archaeologists say Chaldea didn’t exist until the 600’s B.C. The Book of Joshua says they conquered the city of Jericho, which is carbon dated to being destroyed 1500 B.C. Does that mean Joshua happened almost a thousand years before Abraham? Genesis also mentions Abraham seeing the Philistines, who archaeologists say didn’t come to Canaan until the 1100’s B.C., which was after the dating of Jericho also. And the city of Ai is carbon dated to be abandoned 2200 B.C., and archaeologists claim it was still abandoned during the destruction of Jericho’s time at 1500 B.C., and Hazor carbon dated to being destroyed by fire 1250 B.C. Does that mean Joshua lived to be over a thousand years when he was conquering Canaan, and since some of those 30 cities are said by archaeologists not to exist until the 600’s B.C., that Joshua took a thousand and a half years conquering Canaan? Then Exodus mentions them building a city of Ramesses. Pharaoh Ramasses didn’t exist until the 1200’s B.C. Does that mean the captivity in Egypt took place after they destroyed Jericho 1500 B.C., and Joshua was still conquering Canaan when they moved over to Egypt to become slaves because of the famine Joseph saved them from? See the comparisons I’m trying to make, by using the secular arguments. That’s why the secular archaeologists do not believe. Of course, Bible apologists say that maybe there’s something God knows that we don’t, or the naming of places was done differently than we think. Mormon apologists say the same about Book of Mormon anachronisms.

Latter-day Saint apologists say the Book of Mormon anachronisms don’t necessarily contradict, but may just mean we have to change our assumptions about how a few details in the Book of Mormon happened. It’s quite common when people move into a new area to refer to new items with names from their old area. When the Greeks first saw Hippos in Egypt, they called them river horses; which are not really horses. The Romans called the Elephants a type of cow; although elephants are not really cows, and so on. So Latter-day Saints who think about these things, usually take that perspective on the items that we still haven’t found evidence for before Columbus’ time, since the Jaredites, Lehites, etc, came from the Old World and could have brought those names over with them.
There were llamas in the New World used as pack animals. Maybe those animals were used to refer to horses or camels. Chariots? Well, archaeologists can’t find chariots yet, but they can find ancient toys that have wheels, so either it was talking about childs toys or it was a real life size chariot (but still very differently built) that was used on very rare occasions. Wood doesn’t preserve so well, so if it was a rare item it may not be found so easily; preserved chariots in the Near East have the same problem and so are a rare find. And so on with the anachronisms. You mentioned that others didn’t write about Christ coming to the Americas other than the Book of Mormon? There was the Aztec legend of the great white God, Quetzalcoatl, who would come back to visit them. When the Spanish Cortes came, the Aztecs thought he was God. Of course he didn’t help them out, but rather turned them into slaves.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Originally Posted by ReligiousQuest
Likewise, in the New Testament Jesus Christ refers to Adam in the same way he would talk if Adam was a real person. Secular geneticists say mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA conclusively disprove Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark.

Stephen168
Interesting, I wonder how they did that. What kind of DNA was contained in Noah’s Ark?

Earlier they said that if all humans came from Noah 5,000 years ago and Adam & Eve 6,000, or less than 10,000 years ago, genetics would at least be consistent with it.

DNA gets mixed from both parents from generation to generation; however, mitochondrial DNA gets passed on from mother to child with no mixing from the father. The male is also the one who decides whether it’s a girl or a boy, by passing down an X or Y Chromosome. Since females can’t pass down Y Chromosomes, only males, the Y doesn’t mix very well.

So they study the average mutation rates in mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA. From looking at the diversity of all human mitochondrial DNA, they estimated it was 140,000 years ago for our most common mother. The black African race has the most genetic diversity out of all the human races, making them believe they are the oldest. The mutations shared by all black African mitochondrial DNA are also found in the other races, but not vice versa, making them believe the other races came from them. So mitochondrial DNA suggests our most common mother was from black African DNA 140,000 years ago, and Y-Chromosome DNA suggests that all living men have a most common father 60,000 years ago from black African DNA (it’s rarer for women not to have children so that’s why they believe the difference from 140,000 years to 60,000). Since secular geneticists believe the DNA markers are more consistent with us evolving out of Africa than from the Middle East from Noah’s Ark 10,000 years ago, that’s why they say that.

Then also viruses can’t reproduce on their own, so they have to inject their RNA into living cells. On rare occasion, if it happens to an egg or sperm, it can get passed onto children. Out of all living things tested so far, humans share the most retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees.

Then of course I hear the Christian apologists’ responses to this. After hearing them, I don’t understand why the Mormon responses to DNA studies are any less valid? And just like some of the more liberal Christians believe Noah was a metaphor, I’ve heard some of the very liberal Mormons believe that there was a Lehi and family, but that they coming from Israelite blood was a metaphor for another truth, and that the rest of the Book of Mormon is correct, including Jesus Christ visiting.

See how I see a lot of the criticisms also being the same for Christians, and why it’s no less reasonable to believe in the Latter-day Saint religion than any of the Abrahamic religions, based on “genetics alone”?

 

[Mike_Dye]

How come archeologists cannot find a trace of one single civilization that the Mormon prophet claimed was given to him on the golden [and self destructing] tablets??

Not a single piece of pottery. Not a single dwelling place, not a single burial, not a trace - not a bit of anything that he claimed ever existed.

Care to explain that anyone?

Not Me, It is so sad that otherwise very intelligent people can just become followers without ever thinking things through.

 

[Jerusha]

very liberal Mormons believe that there was a Lehi and family, but that they coming from Israelite blood was a metaphor for another truth, and that the rest of the Book of Mormon is correct, including Jesus Christ visiting.

Let us look at that. If the Vikings came to North America in 980 AD, they had a Catholic Bishop in 1052 and therefore Jesus did come to North America in the form of the Eucharist in that year, they had livestock on Greenland, many of them left in 1421, and the rest of the survivors assimilated into the Native population, Hiawatha, an assimilated person with Norse ancestry was active in 1469, the account ended in 1472. Then, we have some truth in the Book of Mormon. What brought the Vikings down was the consequences of their racism, and that is what is happening to the LDS church.

Where would such a story have come from? Research indicates that it was a well-researched historical fiction by Solomon Spalding.

If it becomes impossible to prove one thing, perhaps another thing can be proven.

 

[Stephen168]

Earlier they said that if all humans came from Noah 5,000 years ago and Adam & Eve 6,000, or less than 10,000 years ago, genetics would at least be consistent with it.

Who are they? Is this a Mormon belief?

So they study the average mutation rates in mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA. From looking at the diversity of all human mitochondrial DNA, they estimated it was 140,000 years ago for our most common mother.

It seems like this group is showing that Adam did not live 8000 years ago but 140,000 years ago. Cool.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Who are they? Is this a Mormon belief?

It seems like this group is showing that Adam did not live 8000 years ago but 140,000 years ago. Cool.

“They” means the critics of Adam & Eve and Noah made the prediction when the mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome technology was coming about. So they said these new technologies will tell us the real truth, just like some like you thought the same about the Book of Mormon when DNA molecular clock was coming out.

If the Adam was 140,000 years ago, and Noah 60,000 years ago, and they were all Black Africans, the Bible gives a specific genealogy from Adam’s time to Noah’s time, and from Noah’s time to Abraham’s time. Skeptics say 140,000 year gap to 60,000 and then to Abraham’s time wouldn’t allow for the specific genealogy, unless they were all like thousands of years old, including Noah. (I’m not trying to disprove the Bible, but point out the same criticisms)

It seems like this group is showing that Adam did not live 8000 years ago but 140,000 years ago. Cool.

Likewise, many Mormons propose that there were already millions of Siberians living in the Americas when the Lehites came over 600 B.C. If a group of 30 mixed with millions 600 B.C., it would be expected that none of the 30’s mitochondrial or Y-Chromosome DNA would show up in tests done in the 2000’s, and that most Modern Native Americans could easily be direct descendants of these 30 from the Middle East, if they mixed well (which many geneticists say can easily happen), even if diluted.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Let us look at that. If the Vikings came to North America in 980 AD, they had a Catholic Bishop in 1052 and therefore Jesus did come to North America in the form of the Eucharist in that year, they had livestock on Greenland, many of them left in 1421, and the rest of the survivors assimilated into the Native population, Hiawatha, an assimilated person with Norse ancestry was active in 1469, the account ended in 1472. Then, we have some truth in the Book of Mormon. What brought the Vikings down was the consequences of their racism, and that is what is happening to the LDS church.

Or it could be that instead of 980 A.D., they came over 600 B.C., from the area of Jerusalem, and them having direct mother’s or father’s line blood from Hebrews being a metaphor (and could have already had some mix in them). Hey, if liberal Christians come up with theories like Adam & Eve left the Garden of Eden to mix with other actual humans who had already “evolved” from extinct homo apes all the time, why can’t Mormon liberals be given the same courtesy (I’m not saying I believe that way, however)?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Where would such a story have come from? Research indicates that it was a well-researched historical fiction by Solomon Spalding.

In the same regard, many skeptics of the Bible keep on saying that Jesus Christ was plagiarized from the Greek god Dionysus, Egyptian Horus, and Persian Mithras; because of parallels and the pagan gods being around before Christ’s time. They also keep on saying that the oldest scrolls we have of the Torah are after the Babylonian Conquest, and that some cities mentioned in Genesis and the Book of Joshua shouldn’t have existed until the 600’s B.C. (ex. Chaldea, you can look up Chaldea in the encyclopedia), and that there are many parallels between the Babylonian’s Epic of Gilgamesh & Noah’s Ark, and the snakes in the Garden of Eden & some Babylonian snake mythology. They accuse the Hebrews of ripping those stories off of the Babylonians from the Babylonian Conquest, and rewording them. Jerusha, does that disprove the Bible?

Do parallels disprove? The followers of the Greek god Dionysus, before Jesus’ time, drank grape juice to represent his blood, and believed if they had faith in Dionysus they would receive eternal life. The Temple of Dionysus, in one myth, changed water into wine on January 6th, the same date Jesus turned water into wine. Dionysus also was the son of a God (Zeus) and a mortal woman. He raised someone from the dead. He died a violent death, descended to the Underworld, then came back to life and then sat next to his father Zeus on his throne. The Greek Dionysus was also being practiced by some in Judea at the time of Christ. Christian apologists respond that naturally there can be parallels with other religions (why can’t we say the same about the Book of Mormon?). They also say that if prophets were giving prophecies of Jesus since Adam’s time, some parallels could make it into other religions. Likewise, if the Book of Mormon happened, the events could leak out to the Native Americans and still be around at the time of the colonists, and parallels could have then leaked out into others’ literature, since the Gold Plates came before that time even if the Book of Mormon wasn’t translated yet.

So if there are some parallels, how does that prove the Book of Mormon false if it wouldn’t disprove those parts of the Bible that I just talked about?

 

[Jerusha]

So what? All your arguments do is prove that there are some truths in all religions.

 

[Jerusha]

Or it could be that instead of 980 A.D., they came over 600 B.C., from the area of Jerusalem, and them having direct mother’s or father’s line blood from Hebrews being a metaphor (and could have already had some mix in them). Hey, if liberal Christians come up with theories like Adam & Eve left the Garden of Eden to mix with other actual humans who had already “evolved” from extinct homo apes all the time, why can’t Mormon liberals be given the same courtesy (I’m not saying I believe that way, however)?

Your interpretation canot be proven. The parallels between the book, my interpretation, and reality confirm that it is HIGHLY unlikely that your interpretation really happened.

And your description of “Liberal Christian” beliefs about the Garden is roughly similar to mine.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

So what? All your arguments do is prove that there are some truths in all religions.

My point is that you guys are ripping on other religions, and so I’m pointing out the hypocrisy.

Likewise, there are some arguments that Christians use against Muslims using particular parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What these Christians don’t realize is that similar criticisms using the Dead Sea Scrolls could be used against them. I’ve also pointed out this hypocrisy on the Internet before.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Your interpretation canot be proven. The parallels between the book, my interpretation, and reality confirm that it is HIGHLY unlikely that your interpretation really happened.

And your description of “Liberal Christian” beliefs about the Garden is roughly similar to mine.

Likewise, the parallels between many of the events of Jesus Christ with earlier pagan gods, the differences between many details in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew saying King Herod was around when Jesus was born and Luke saying all the world was taxed or registered (Herod’s death came 10 years before that), are also used as an argument from skeptics that their interpretation is highly likely.

Jesus said he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

 

[Stephen168]

“They” means the critics of Adam & Eve and Noah made the prediction when the mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome technology was coming about. So they said these new technologies will tell us the real truth, just like some like you thought the same about the Book of Mormon when DNA molecular clock was coming out.

So ‘They’ were Mormons that believed Adam lived 8000 years ago.

Likewise, many Mormons propose that there were already millions of Siberians living in the Americas when the Lehites came over 600 B.C. If a group of 30 mixed with millions 600 B.C., it would be expected that none of the 30’s mitochondrial or Y-Chromosome DNA would show up in tests done in the 2000’s, and that most Modern Native Americans could easily be direct descendants of these 30 from the Middle East, if they mixed well (which many geneticists say can easily happen), even if diluted.

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.

Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon is the source of the American aboriginals. It seems like you might have to decide between Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

 

[PaulDupre]

Or it could be that instead of 980 A.D., they came over 600 B.C., from the area of Jerusalem, and them having direct mother’s or father’s line blood from Hebrews being a metaphor (and could have already had some mix in them).

Or it could be that they came in spaceships from Kolob. Good grief! The vikings left artifacts behind that were easily recognized by archaeologists as being viking artifacts, not Hebrew. The Nephites left nothing. What does that tell you?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon is the source of the American aboriginals. It seems like you might have to decide between Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Where does it say they are the only ancestors? All I’ve seen is “ancestors” and “principle ancestors”. Typically I hear that “principle ancestors” easily means main spiritual ancestors. Direct ancestors is not something ruled out. Most of my ancestors from 600 B.C. will not show up on a mitochondrial or Y-Chromosome test, because it’s only the direct mother’s and father’s line. If there were 30 who mixed in with a million Siberians 600 B.C., it probably wouldn’t show up on these tests and after a few thousand years, everyone can be a direct ancestor of everyone else thousands of years later. Most common father (Y-Chromosomal Adam) or mother (mitochondrial Eve) is not the same as most common ancestor.

So ‘They’ were Mormons that believed Adam lived 8000 years ago.

Not Mormons, but secular geneticists, just like there were geneticists who were skeptical about the Book of Mormon.

Stephen, keep in mind I’m not trying to bash anyone’s religion or have any intent to make anyone mad. I’m just trying to point out that I don’t think it’s fair that the same criticisms used by skeptics of Christianity are then used by non-LDS Christians against Latter-day Saints.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

If mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome tests don’t disprove the Bible, then why should Mormons believe it disproves the Book of Mormon?

It’s not Mormons who say that, it’s the same researchers who publish in peer-review journals who say the genetics show most Native Americans came from Siberia, who also say that we came out of Africa 60,000 years ago and split from chimpanzees, which many count as evidence against coming from Noah’s Ark or Adam & Eve. Evangelical atheists then noticed it and used it as evidence against the Bible, just like Evangelical Protestants use it against Mormons. And Bible skeptics already made predictions before technology for the testing was even done, that it would disprove Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark if it didn’t support when they were supposed to be around.

 

[ricko]

Or it could be that they came in spaceships from Kolob. Good grief! The vikings left artifacts behind that were easily recognized by archaeologists as being viking artifacts, not Hebrew. The Nephites left nothing. What does that tell you?

It tells me that a great hoax has been dealt all the LDS believers not unlike the one man religion of the Jehovah Witness. Same song, different verse. Some individual decides he has the truth and misleads millions of people. Not hard to find followers of these man-made religions. Some people will believe anything. Lots of people believed in Jim and Tammy Baker, David Koresh(Branch Davidian), Jim Jones (Peoples Temple), Charles Russell (Jehovah Witnesses), L Ron Hubbard (Scientology), Guy Ballard (the Mighty I AM cult), Sun Myung Moon (Unification church) and of course Joseph Smith (LDS, the Mormons). One thing they all had in common, they followed a man, one man and the wrong man.

Religious cult leaders are often very charismatic and considered to be unique in some way. Often times, the leader claims to be a god, angel, or a messenger for God assigned for a specific mission. He or she is held in high reproach and gradually becomes the center of worship. It is often very dangerous to contradict or criticize the cult leader. Members who do so are often excommunicated or severely punished. Ultimately, the leader gets his way, no matter who he tramples in the process, including government authorities, etc.