I really appreciate the enthusiasm you put into your posts here. Your biggest problem with your theory is that DNA has PROVEN THAT NOBODY has come from the middle east and settled in the americas. Your own mormons even proved that and has since been removed from your community. DNA can locate lineage down to ONE PERSON! Sorry the bom is proven as fiction and I don’t see much of a future for its members but the one true Church…The Roman Catholic Church.
hi, first, guess what, the reason we know the dating of the cities you mention is because they exist. For instance, in the case of Jericho, it was dated to within a 100 years of the Biblical time frame. Since the Bible has never claimed to be a historical record, I’d say this is more than good enough for me.
Like I asked. Pick One from the Old and one from the New. Horses in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism by the definition of the word. I think we both agree there are none in the New Testament and you don’t seem to be able to explain one from the Old Testament.Likewise, I don’t see one anachronism from the Book of Mormon. Not even a SINGLE ONE! My reasoning, if not one of these Bible anachronisms is an anachronism, why should any of YOUR Book of Mormon “anachronisms” be anachronisms?
If the Bible says Joshua came after Abraham, and that Joshua destroyed Ai, Jericho, Hazor during a lifetime and after Abraham, and Abraham left the Ur of the Chaldeans before Jericho destroyed these places, and Abraham and Isaac interacted with the Philistines before Joshua conquered these cities, how is that not anachronisms?
Archaeologists say the Chaldeans didn’t exist until about 1000 B.C., with Ur being under their control to be called “Ur of the Chaldeans” until the 600’s B.C. The Philistines didn’t exist until 1100’s B.C. The city of Jericho was carbon dated to be destroyed 1500 B.C. (which comes before 1100’s/600’s B.C.). The city of Ai was carbon dated to be abandoned 2200 B.C., Hazor by fire 1250 B.C. (obviously not within a human lifetime of Joshua, and way before the peoples/cities mentioned for Abraham). The Bible mentions the Israelites leaving the city of Ramesees, who didn’t exist until the 1200’s B.C., way after Jericho and Ai.
That just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever how those are not anachronisms in chronology and time periods for any of those particular Old Testament stories to make any sense archaeologically, but then the Book of Mormon “anachronisms” are real anachronisms? The New Testament’s Luke chapter 3 and Matthew chapter 1 give the genealogy of the Old Testament as a real history, not metaphor, and why would a metaphor say Joshua came way after Abraham’s time, when it was really trying to say the exact reverse?
Explain???
**OK already, I’m a wishy washy Catholic, so to avoid this debate lets just jump to the New Testament!
**What is the difference between a scholar and on archaeologist? I thought an archaeologist was a scholar. You have them conflicting to some how make your case.
Your critical thinking has a flaw especially with regard to evidence. Your basic claims is that if we don’t find evidence of a particular event in the bible therefore its false. This would be comprable to the story of Troy in Homers Illiad. For many years all educated people believed the story to be that one of pure fiction because there was no evidence of this event. Fair. It is resonable. I would have said the same thing in the early 1800. But when Troy was actually discovered they said it was at least partly true. Fair. This is how you approach the bible.
It’s funny how all the names the BOM gives things sound made up, Like, Maroni, Lamanites, Nephites, seer stone, Zarahemla. sounds like he was trying to make them sound like things from the Old and New Testament. Where is the original manuscripts or plates it was written on? What was the original language that he said he translated it from?
Were the Jaredites into the mesoamerican ballgame and bloodletting?
That is not my claim. My claim is that part of the method used in archaeology is if archaeological evidence appears to directly contradict an event, it’s always possible to reason to see things in a different way so it no longer contradicts (ex. the Philistines not existing until the 1100’s B.C.? Some apologists say there could have been some others with the same name as “Philistines” 2000 B.C. and that technically Abraham hasn’t been disproved from this point of view).
That doesn’t make any sense? By the standards you’re setting for the Old and New Testaments, why can’t that quote from the Pearl of Great Price be a metaphor?
By the way, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences says that by definition a Theory can never become a Law.
Still, the point is the more substantiation the more reliability. The bible has more substantial evidence in support of it than the book of mormon therefore more reliable. Until there is evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon we must assume that it is false. However, the first evidence we obtain of these “lost peoples” we can then say it is substantiated. but until then we assume its false and fantasy.
There is problem with that theory.
Hmmm, looks more like the Jaredites might be descendents of the Olmecs. Another Mormon myth busted!
Baloney. Answer these or forget about it. I have answered these a million times.
CJ.Dear friends ( Catholic and LDS )
Just a reminder to all as to rule 45 B section D of the " Catholic Answers Forum " rule book.
Rule 45 B Section D clearly states :
CAF members will not be able to kick the shins of another member. This rule is for members of ALL faiths and should be followed without exception. If anyone is caught in said kicking, they will be kicked in their shins by the moderating staff.
Just a friendly reminder
Peace,
CJ
Baloney.
So you are saying the Mayan, the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Olmecs are the Nephite and Lamanite? If that is the case what are their connections? You know these were different peoples with different cultures. The Aztec stole a lot from the Mayans but they were different peoples and their is no connection of them to the description found in the BOM. None. There is no evidence that these people migrated at some point from the middle east (most likely eastern Asia). There are no connections. Compare the description no evidence. Also look at where Joseph Smith told us these “cities” were located. Not in the places where the Aztecs or the Inca’s lived. Particularily the Incas. Unless you’re talking about the planet Cobal.
So let me try this one more time. There is no archeological evidence that the BOM is correct. I don’t know how I’m going to get it into your head.
