Stephen168
New member
What is manna?
- Status
J
Jerusha
Guest
I love your pun. Manna was the food that God supplied the Jews in Exodus. It means “what is it?”
In the Book of Mormon, JS & Co. often praised “the plain and simple truths” contained in the Book of Mormon. I find the archaic language and convoluted reasoning to be anything but.
R
ricko
Guest
Is it valid to claim, as some defenders of the historicity of the Book of Mormon do, that these names — cow, horse, etc. — are simply being used as substitutes for native New World animals such as peccaries or tape deer? Matheny argues that this is not legitimate because the Book of Mormon descriptions occur in specific literary contexts that assume complex old world systems for the raising and use of the various domestic animals:
I mean in Alma there [18:10; 20:6,8] , you know he’s using the stable there preparing the horses for King Lamoni, and also he’s preparing the King’s chariots because they’re going to take a trip from one city to another over the royal highway. And also the horses are pastured, no less. So there are contexts within the Book of Mormon itself. These are not just substitutions, it seems to me, but the authors of the Book of Mormon there are providing the context, they’re not trying to describe a tape deer or something else, it seems to me. This is a weak way to try to explain the presence of these names in the Book of Mormon.20
I mean in Alma there [18:10; 20:6,8] , you know he’s using the stable there preparing the horses for King Lamoni, and also he’s preparing the King’s chariots because they’re going to take a trip from one city to another over the royal highway. And also the horses are pastured, no less. So there are contexts within the Book of Mormon itself. These are not just substitutions, it seems to me, but the authors of the Book of Mormon there are providing the context, they’re not trying to describe a tape deer or something else, it seems to me. This is a weak way to try to explain the presence of these names in the Book of Mormon.20
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA genealogy tests can only tell you which ancestors you may have, and CAN NOT rule out any possibilities of who some of your ancestors may be. Mitchondrial DNA only tracks mother to mother to mother to mother, etc. Y-Chromosome DNA only tracks from son to father to father to father to father, etc. I keep on seeing again and again that since they only take two paternal direct lines, many of your ancestors are left out. One ancestor from a few thousand years can be the direct descendant of a very large group of people (these direct mother and father’s lineage tests would leave out most of my ancestors from 600 B.C.).
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071101_genealogy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy#Drawbacks
utexas.edu/features/2007/ancestry/
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also says that the Book of Mormon does not disagree with other peoples living over in the Americas:
"The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.
Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex." newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon
Stephen, that’s a double standard. The Book of Genesis, part of the Bible (the Word of God as you claim), in chapters 5 and 11 give a specific detailed genealogy with exact names and time in years. If the Bible can do that and still be the Word of God, why can’t Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is much much more vague than your interpretation of the Bible in that aspects we’re comparing, and still believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God? That’s just a double standard. You say Joseph Smith said so? So how do you explain why Moses also said so in the Book of Genesis (compared to the Pearl of Great Price), and again, Moses much more specific in his wording.
Stephen, if you can claim that we don’t know when it happened when Genesis 5 & 11 make it so detailed it’s not vague, then why can’t Latter-day Saints take the same stance on, “We don’t know if most came from the Middle East”?
So explain how that can’t apply to the Pearl of Great Price where it talks about the Native Americans? Genesis is very specific in it’s genealogy, with exact names of people, and exact numbers of years between each one of them, from Adam all the way until Abraham. DNA genealogy saying our most recent common mother being 140,000 years ago from Africa and most recent common father 60,000 years ago from Africa, when it says Noah let out in the Middle East and didn’t have tens of thousands of years between the black African race and the other races (after Noah); this DNA fits the Bible account a lot less than what genetics is given about the Book of Mormon.
So why can’t we be fair? Why can’t it apply to how people interpret the quote from the Pearl of Great Price you gave us? This just doesn’t make any sense why you get to set the standards (when the Bible is so much more detailed in what it actually said, even to the last details of human names and time in years)?
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
We know that they had llamas as pack animals back then; why can’t one be in a stable. If Romans can get away with calling elephants “cows” and Greeks calling hippos “river horses” in their own Greek language, than why couldn’t they call llamas “horses” in their own language?
You say context matters? Then you say that the cities in the Bible before King David’s time existed? Archaeologists say these are all anachronisms, making it so Abraham would have to live in 600 B.C., Joshua living in 2200 B.C., and Moses sometime after 1200 B.C. Tower of Babel, Noah’s Ark, and Adam & Eve are full of anachronisms. Do you see why non-religious conservative archaeologists don’t believe? Do you understand why Mormons still believe after you still believe in the Bible, after it being all anachronismed out before King David’s time?
S
sambos671
Guest
because the other 12 tribes on the Galactica picked them up and too them back to Cobal. Sheegsh didn’t you know that?
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
Stephen, so it’s perfectly okay to accept the anachronism for the Bible: Abraham didn’t live until 600 B.C., Joshua was alive before 2200 B.C., Moses wasn’t around until after 1200 B.C., and so on, but the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are just totally unacceptable? I don’t understand?
Do you see where my confusion is coming from?
Stephen168
New member
First list a few anachronisms from the Old and New testament. An anachronism is an object out of place and/or time.You keep saying they are there but you have not clearing listed any. It seems to me you have been talking about a shattered Mormon time line for the Old Testament.
Stephen168
New member
The reason I bring up manna is because we don’t know exactly what it was except miraculous food provided by God to feed the Jews in the desert. Sometimes I think of it as bread because Christ compared himself to manna as the bread of life that came down from heaven. He said his flesh is the bread that we may eat and live with him forever.
Even though, we don’t know what manna was, we did not translate it as bread or anything else we know.
The Greeks knew what a horse was, the Hebrews knew what a horse was, Joseph Smith knew what a horse was, and God made the horse. When the Greeks saw a Hippopotamus they did not call it a hippo because they knew it was not a horse. The called it a river horse. Now Mormons would like use to believe when Hebrews got to America they would called something that they knew was NOT a horse, a horse. If Joseph Smith was God’s right hand man, I’m sure the ‘the plain and simple truth.’ would have been revealed in the translation process.
Stephen168
New member
The Mormon Church can say anything it wants today. But the guy that wrote it claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of the source if the American Aborigines,
DNA evidence is just the cherry on top of what scientist have known for years.
R
ricko
Guest
Comparing the bible to the BOM is like comparing cheeries to bowling balls, there is no comparison. Everytime a problem with the BOM is pointed out to Mormons their defense is to try and pock holes in the bible. Why don’t you folks address the problems in the BOM with answers to those problems (if you can). Yall are like a couple of kids comparing dads as to who is better or not. Anyway this thread is NOT about the bible, it’s about no archeological evidence for the cities and millions of people in the BOM.
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
This is because Mormons have to use CRITICAL THINKING. If the Bible can be completely blown apart for EVERYTHING before King David’s time by anachronisms, and archaeologists believe it’s a myth, with the exception of religious conservative archaeologists, then critical thinking says us Mormons should also REJECT the Bible. If we don’t, then critical thinking says it shouldn’t matter for the Book of Mormon either. It’s not little holes being poked. It’s a very big segment from Genesis all the way to King David’s time.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
For the Mormon revisionists who now want to claim that there were just a few Nephites (and hence no archaeological trace of their civilization), what about the Jaredites?
Five million suddenly-dead people leave artifacts and skeletal remains. Where are the artifacts from these wars, and from the 5-million person civilization that fought these wars?
The Etruscans were only about 800,000 people, and yet archeaologists have been able to reconstruct, from the artifacts they left behind, a vivid picture of their civilization and culture, down to the last detail.
Why is there no trace of the relatively huge Jaredite civilization?
Paul
Two million soldiers, plus the wives and children of those soldiers, we’re talking at least 5 million people killed in these battles (assuming a minimum of 1 child per family).
Five million suddenly-dead people leave artifacts and skeletal remains. Where are the artifacts from these wars, and from the 5-million person civilization that fought these wars?
The Etruscans were only about 800,000 people, and yet archeaologists have been able to reconstruct, from the artifacts they left behind, a vivid picture of their civilization and culture, down to the last detail.
Why is there no trace of the relatively huge Jaredite civilization?
Paul
Stephen168
New member
You have not listed any anachronisms for the Old or New Testament but you have listed a few for the Book of Mormon. Where is the critical thinking?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
What happened to the Olmecs? Gone. Period.
Stephen168
New member
Did they leave any artifacts behind?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
And yet they left behind such a treasure-trove of artifacts and fossils that we have a vivid picture of what their culture and civilization was all about.
By contrast, there is absolutely no trace of the 5-million-plus Jaredites. Nothing. Nada. Is that reasonable? No.
Likewise, there is not a trace of the high-tech Nephites, their 38 concrete cities, their chariots, their highways, their horse stables, their steel works and steel weapons, their gold and silver mines, their silk farms, their grape vineyards and wineries, their bee hives, their elephants, the pollen from their wheat, barley and flax farms…
Nothing. Nada. ???
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
I understand where you’re coming from. Where’s the evidence? Whether you agree with my reasoning or not, this is the critical thinking that I use:
Both Exodus and Numbers mentions that the Israelites had 600,000 men of age who left Egypt, not including the women and children; typically scholars estimate 2 million altogether but most say at least over a million Israelites in the Exodus is a very safe estimate. The land of Canaan was an Egyptian province until about 1200 B.C., and you had to get permission from the to settle, or even make an economic decision. Since they kept records of those who settled and there is no record from sources outside the Bible (including the Egyptians) of the Israelites settling the land of Canaan before 1200 B.C. (plus the Bible says almost 500 years passed between the Exodus and Solomon), secular archaeologists do not believe. The Egyptians had military posts all over the Sinai Peninsula and kept records of those who passed through. Since they were able to track all these others down, and they weren’t able to notice “over a million” Israelites passing through, that’s what archaeologists think of that. In the past 150 years, archaeologists also have not been able to track down archaeological evidence of a route of over a million Israelites; after many years of searching. Archaeologists also say if “over a million slaves” left Egypt, Egypt would have noticed their economy and something in their records would have noticed. A History Channel showing of Old Testament archaeology is found at YouTube. It’s in a 10 part series, and part 2 of the History Channel show talks about the Exodus (and some of those Exodus points I just mentioned) and is only 8:52, which specifically talks about this youtube.com/watch?v=v2HqrIwz0Pw&NR=1 Paul, if you don’t mind, will you watch this, so you’ll at least know what I’m comparing to for the Jaredites?
The first book of Matthew gives the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, as a history. The third book of Luke gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus, as a history; so it doesn’t give the impression the lineage of the Old Testament is a metaphor (and if it does, why not think Joseph Smith was speaking metaphorically when he said the Book of Mormon is a history?).
So my critical thinking tells me, “If the Exodus can still be true after no trace of over a million Israelites sneaking past all that stuff, why can’t the Jaredites?” Do you see where my thinking is leading me?
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
Post 112 summarizes various Old Testament anachronisms I’ve talked about, chronology in order the Bible gives for events plus archaeology for these events. There’s actually much more, so when I get back later today I’ll include more, and also add references for all the ones I’ve pointed out so far.
Post 116 shows genetics as an anachronism to the specific genealogy in years given in Genesis 5 & 11, plus the “New Testament” genealogies of Christ presented as a history in Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-17.
The post I just posted for Paul also has a youtube video for a History Channel showing of archaeology on the Old Testament; it’s worth watching (if you want to know why I’m making comparisons with the Bible and Book of Mormon; after David’s time it’s no longer fair to compare, but you get the point).
R
ReligiousQuest
Guest
Alisha, I’m not saying that I don’t believe in God or the New Testament or Bible. I was pointing out that the same criticisms of plagiarism are made with the New Testament, because of many parallels between Jesus Christ and the Greek Dionysus, Persian Mithras, and Egyptian Horus, with those pagan gods dating before the time of Christ.
If these parallels don’t disprove the New Testament, etc, etc from the other Bible parallels I’ve pointed out, then why does that mean parallels with the Book of Mormon disproves? I’m not saying it proves the Book of Mormon; you can still believe it’s not true. I’m just saying I don’t believe that’s a fair way to falsify!
- Status