How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[sambos671]

Re-read the post. I was refering to myself as a lamebrain. I have posted many links to FAIR on this thread. It is a Mormon apologetics group that answers all these and includes professional scholars. I would never name call like that. I hope. Well I guess I have in the past, but there’s no excuse for it.

I will re-write it to make it clearer: “Sorry, I don’t watch TV much. If you are interested in answers to your questions, read FAIR. If you are not interested in answers to your questions, why are you arguing and wasting time on an ignorant lamebrain such as myself? Either you want answers, or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with a stupid person (me). I have given you answers, including links to FAIR, but you don’t even read the posts.”

That is what I meant.

And the fact that you don’t know about the links indicates that I am right that you don’t read the posts. I cited that link about 5 or 6 times earlier in the thread, over and over.

You’re right I haven’t read all the post you made on this thread primarily because I’m a new comer to it but I have read the ones with our discussion. You did make a post but it lead to a Catholic website speaking about each specific issue of Mormonism which isn’t helpful with what mormons say about themselves. To be honest, I’m lazy looking through all your threads to find links to FAIR. So if you don’t mind posting it here again; I’ll look.

 

[mfbukowski]

You’re right I haven’t read all the post you made on this thread primarily because I’m a new comer to it but I have read the ones with our discussion. You did make a post but it lead to a Catholic website speaking about each specific issue of Mormonism which isn’t helpful with what mormons say about themselves. To be honest, I’m lazy looking through all your threads to find links to FAIR. So if you don’t mind posting it here again; I’ll look.

Ok but if you are not going to read them don’t waste my time.

If you want a reply your next post should reference one of these articles

fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

 

[mfbukowski]

Irrelevant. Answer these – plenty about DNA here. I have answered it and so have the others.
fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

 

[mfbukowski]

Read this fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

 

[mfbukowski]

baloney. Answer these or forget about it. I have answered these a million times.
fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

et cetera et cetera

 

[Stephen168]

This is all a waste.

If some one was hoping to come to this thread and get a list of evidence for the truth of the book of Mormon, so far, you are right.

 

[ricko]

So far we have discovered there is no archeological evidence because:

1. The BOM is a work of fiction with plagiarisms from the King James bible of JS time period and not later.
2. Even though the BOM makes mention of “great cities” populated with millions of people spread across the continent in North and South America, there is a total lack of any artifacts of any organized civilization.
3. The North American continent was populated only by a few million native Americans when the country was first settled and explored by Europe. Any evidence of great cities would have been virtually undisturbed and easily found.
4. Joseph Smith said that he only had to brush a little dirt from the stone that covered the golden plates and the edges of the stone was visible. Any object laid on top of or just under the soil would have been covered with several feet of Earth after more than a thousand years. About 40,000 tons of extraterrestrial matter hit the Earth every year and is one reason that objects are buried over a period of time.
5. In the public school system in the U.S. there is no teaching of any great civilizations that existed in North America prior to being settled by people from Europe.
6. It has been posted that many Mormon archeologists have admitted that there is NO archeological evidence for the BOM. Further more, modern archeological society admits to no civilizations other than the native Americans in North America.

There are many more facts that can be listed but the above list is sufficient to account for no archeological evidence.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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?

LAMBOFGODGIRLY, if we had the original writings, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Everything I can find says the oldest fragments of the books in the New Testament date to hundreds of years after the New Testament times. (verifiable right here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament ) I hear non-Christians all the time say this is one of the big reasons why they can’t accept the New Testament, and because many critics say that since there are contradictions in some details in the accounts between the Four Gospels, maybe something screwy was going on. Others claim that the Catholic Church and Constantine had a good chance of messing with the books in the New Testament to strengthen “their vast empire”. Explain that to us?

Everything I can find says that the oldest scrolls for most of the Old Testament don’t date until not long before Christ’s time, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible Since archaeologists say many of the cities in the books of Moses have no evidence of existing until the 600’s B.C., typically the secular scholars believe most of the Bible was written about the time of the Babylonian Conquest. They also point out parallels between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, Law of Moses and Hammarabi’s Code. Explain that to us?

I also hear Jews saying that the New Testament plagiarizes from the Hebrew Bible, which they claim shows us that it’s false (King Herod killing babies compared to Pharaoh of Exodus doing the same, many other parallels with the Old Testament, and quoting from the Old Testament). So the Book of Mormon can’t be similar to what the New Testament does, in having parallels with other scriptures? If the Book of Mormon had no parallels with the Bible, would you then think it’s true? If the Book of Mormon did not quote any similar scriptural sayings found in the Bible, like the New Testament does with the Old Testament, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true, for the same reasons you don’t let these Biblical criticisms get in your way, Latter-day Saints don’t let similar criticisms get in their way.

 

[ricko]

Here we have a man who can only defend the BOM by trying to tear down the bible.

P.S. Your questions relating to the bible can all be answered if you would like to start a thread about it. They cannot be answered in this thread because of the topic. I suggest that if you want to defend the BOM then by all means do so but do so without attempting to prove the bible wrong as an excuse for the BOM to be wrong. Either you can address the issue at hand or you can’t.

 

[zaffiroborant]

LAMBOFGODGIRLY, if we had the original writings, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Everything I can find says the oldest fragments of the books in the New Testament date to hundreds of years after the New Testament times. (verifiable right here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament ) I hear non-Christians all the time say this is one of the big reasons why they can’t accept the New Testament, and because many critics say that since there are contradictions in some details in the accounts between the Four Gospels, maybe something screwy was going on. Others claim that the Catholic Church and Constantine had a good chance of messing with the books in the New Testament to strengthen “their vast empire”. Explain that to us?

Everything I can find says that the oldest scrolls for most of the Old Testament don’t date until not long before Christ’s time, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible Since archaeologists say many of the cities in the books of Moses have no evidence of existing until the 600’s B.C., typically the secular scholars believe most of the Bible was written about the time of the Babylonian Conquest. They also point out parallels between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, Law of Moses and Hammarabi’s Code. Explain that to us?

I also hear Jews saying that the New Testament plagiarizes from the Hebrew Bible, which they claim shows us that it’s false (King Herod killing babies compared to Pharaoh of Exodus doing the same, many other parallels with the Old Testament, and quoting from the Old Testament). So the Book of Mormon can’t be similar to what the New Testament does, in having parallels with other scriptures? If the Book of Mormon had no parallels with the Bible, would you then think it’s true? If the Book of Mormon did not quote any similar scriptural sayings found in the Bible, like the New Testament does with the Old Testament, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true, for the same reasons you don’t let these Biblical criticisms get in your way, Latter-day Saints don’t let similar criticisms get in their way.

But for the BOM there is absolutely NOTHING other than what JS said the rock showed him. No fragments dating to 150 years after the BOM times or 200 or 300. No fragments of “reformed Egyptian” any where to be found. Everything that supposedly recorded the events just vanished the gold plates, the papyrus, how convenient is that.

 

[sambos671]

Ok but if you are not going to read them don’t waste my time.

If you want a reply your next post should reference one of these articles

fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

wow. You’re going to kill me with reading. But I’m looking at the first Article which is related to the question of the Familiar Spirit (How can the Book of Mormon contain the “fulness of the gospel”? And isn’t the comparison of the Book of Mormon to Isaiah’s “familiar spirit” (29:1-4) a comparison to witchcraft?). And the Article is entiled Nephi’s "great and abominable church. Just for your point of referrence I have not agreed that the BOM is correct. I will read what it says with regard to the question. However, it seems you want me playing by your rules. Since I believe the BoM to be false and you and I agree that the bible is not I will respond with sacred scripture and what it means with regard to the text as it is quoted in the article. If I see an inconsistency with the BoM and scripture I will point it out but since I don’t want to spend time reading it I will only note whats quoted in the article. Fair?

 

[Stephen168]

LAMBOFGODGIRLY, if we had the original writings, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Everything I can find says the oldest fragments of the books in the New Testament date to hundreds of years after the New Testament times. (verifiable right here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament ) I hear non-Christians all the time say this is one of the big reasons why they can’t accept the New Testament, and because many critics say that since there are contradictions in some details in the accounts between the Four Gospels, maybe something screwy was going on. Others claim that the Catholic Church and Constantine had a good chance of messing with the books in the New Testament to strengthen “their vast empire”. Explain that to us?

Everything I can find says that the oldest scrolls for most of the Old Testament don’t date until not long before Christ’s time, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible Since archaeologists say many of the cities in the books of Moses have no evidence of existing until the 600’s B.C., typically the secular scholars believe most of the Bible was written about the time of the Babylonian Conquest. They also point out parallels between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, Law of Moses and Hammarabi’s Code. Explain that to us?

I also hear Jews saying that the New Testament plagiarizes from the Hebrew Bible, which they claim shows us that it’s false (King Herod killing babies compared to Pharaoh of Exodus doing the same, many other parallels with the Old Testament, and quoting from the Old Testament). So the Book of Mormon can’t be similar to what the New Testament does, in having parallels with other scriptures? If the Book of Mormon had no parallels with the Bible, would you then think it’s true? If the Book of Mormon did not quote any similar scriptural sayings found in the Bible, like the New Testament does with the Old Testament, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

Regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true, for the same reasons you don’t let these Biblical criticisms get in your way, Latter-day Saints don’t let similar criticisms get in their way.

None of this is evidence for the Book of Mormon. There is no peer reviewed evidence at all. Which is the point of this thread. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction which claims to be history.

 

[Stephen168]

Here we have a man who can only defend the BOM by trying to tear down the bible.

I’ve never understood this logic, but it does give me some insight into why is seems that a lot of ex-mormons are atheists. Once they realize the Book of Mormon is fiction they assume the Old and New Testament are too.

 

[sambos671]

Ok but if you are not going to read them don’t waste my time.

If you want a reply your next post should reference one of these articles

fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

Here is my view of the first article:

It automatically compares the book of Nephi from the BOM as being Apocolyptic literature and compared it to John’s book of Revelation. The problem with this comparison is its a comparison of a comparison. John’s book of Revelation is a type of popular literature called apocalyptic literature. This type of literature is better known from the book of 1 Enoch the apocalypse of Moses, book of Jubalees, etc… A popular liturature that was symbolic in just about every respect. Revelation models itself after this type of literature that can be found in the LXX (septuigent) and also at the Qumran find. What people miss out on this type of literature is it often describes what is currently going on at the time of the writing. If you study the book of Revelation its a three fold look at unfolding history up to the time of Johns writing with the promise of the future of Christ’s return. It seems then that Nephi is an attempted rip off from Revelation which itself is writen in a style copied from Jewish apocalyptic literature. Which doesn’t really diminished the inspiration of the book of Revelation but I just wanted to clarify what apocalyptic literature was.

Next the author of the article wants to say that mutiny conveys what Paul is trying to say in the verse relayed in 2 Thessalonians. Here is the context of the quote:

1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Stand Firm
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you** to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. **
rebellion is the NIV translation of the falling away but not so much conveyed as mutiny as much as rebellion or turning against the truth of what was passed on from the apostles. Two different sentiments. In other words there were people who believed that Christ second coming had already occured but Paul is indicating that hadn’t occured. Paul was indicating that first the “man of sin” had to establish himself and call himself God. This book was writen between 50-53 AD. Caligula errected a statue of himself in the Holy of Holies and forced emperor worship which caused rebellion from the Jews leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The article wants to discuss the term abomination which Jesus mentions to his disciples: “when you see the abomination of desolation” as writen in Daniel this event with Caligula could very well be what he was refering too because he tell them to gather their coats and flee to the hills. Which if you read about the destruction of Jerusalem the christian church could very well have been destroyed. Yet by 70 AD Christianities center was in Antioch and established in Rome.

Then the Article wants to talk about ekklesia which means “those called out” with the specific greek meaning of assembly primarily political such as the Roman senate. Or people called out for a specific purpose. Not as general as the article implies.

The author of the article admits

We must, however, remember that we don’t know the original word on the gold plates that Joseph Smith Translated

In otherwords other than JS witness there is no verification. A bad combination.

 

[sambos671]

continued.

Finally, it confuses Bablyon word use in Revelation as meaning the established church in Rome when in fact Christians were being perscuted by the Roman civil government and it is clear from corrisponding early Church Fathers that Babylon meant the Roman Civil Authority. The Christian church was in its infancy and was definately not the dominant religion of the time. Which is why the accusations levied against christians were that these people were athiest. This is the accusation levied against Polycarp and why he was killed.

In light of misunderstanding of the selected scriptures used with regard to the book of Nephi we see that they are not speaking of the same things. JS like many Protestants misunderstands how properly to view apocalyptic literature. A good way to begin is to look and read the book of 1 Enoch and the associated Jewish books. Then you can see clearly to better understand the book of Revelation. The majority of Revelation had already occured by the time of its writing with a minority amount of information is for future prophesy.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Sorry, I don’t watch TV much. If you are interested in answers to your questions, read FAIR. If you are not, why argue with such a lame brain? I have given you answers and you don’t even read the posts.

Ski, I know people are reading the post you are posting, but the thing is it doesn’t make logical sense to us. To you, it does because your inside the box. If you were to step outside of the box you would see. I know you used to be Catholic (I think) and your thinking you have been outside of the Mormon box before, but that doesn’t count because you weren’t engulfed in the Mormon faith at that time. You ever think that we think the same thing when we have posted responses to your questions? When the Bible backs us up 100%, you still disagree. There isn’t one single thing we do that isn’t backed by scriptures! We are the ones who gave you, and all the other religions, the Bible. It was ours until then.
Our Bishops and Popes are the ones who chose what books would go into the bible because the Catholic Church was the only one who had the apostolic authority to do so. Martin Luther didn’t agree with the 7 books we have in our Bible compared to your Bible, so he didn’t include them in the Bible you use. You ever ask yourself why he did that?

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true, for the same reasons you don’t let these Biblical criticisms get in your way, Latter-day Saints don’t let similar criticisms get in their way.

That’s just it, they did. They accepted this BOM did they not? Do you think there was an apostasy? Do you think God would leave us completely without guidance for 1800 years? God has never left anyone of his people for that long! What do they think that God took an 1800 year vacation to one of the other planets, and visited the other gods, and then came back and sent Joseph Smith? The God I listen to would NEVER EVER do that!

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true, for the same reasons you don’t let these Biblical criticisms get in your way, Latter-day Saints don’t let similar criticisms get in their way.

That’s just it, they did. They accepted this BOM, did they not? Do you think there was an apostasy? Do you think God would leave us completely without guidance for 1800 years? God has never left anyone of his people for that long! What do they think that God took an 1800 year vacation to one of the other planets, and visited the other gods, and then came back and sent Joseph Smith? The God I listen to would NEVER EVER do that!

 

[mfbukowski]

wow. You’re going to kill me with reading. But I’m looking at the first Article which is related to the question of the Familiar Spirit (How can the Book of Mormon contain the “fulness of the gospel”? And isn’t the comparison of the Book of Mormon to Isaiah’s “familiar spirit” (29:1-4) a comparison to witchcraft?). And the Article is entiled Nephi’s "great and abominable church. Just for your point of referrence I have not agreed that the BOM is correct. I will read what it says with regard to the question. However, it seems you want me playing by your rules. Since I believe the BoM to be false and you and I agree that the bible is not I will respond with sacred scripture and what it means with regard to the text as it is quoted in the article. If I see an inconsistency with the BoM and scripture I will point it out but since I don’t want to spend time reading it I will only note whats quoted in the article. Fair?

Just pick the article you are interested in- archaeology or whatever. And you don’t have to respond-- it won’t kill me to not respond to you-- I don’t care if you read them or respond or don’t. And of course I don’t suspect you to agree with the article, or the BOM. I am not giving you a grade you know! Do what you want or don’t! I honestly don’t care. Start a new thread if you like about the argument-- I am busy anyway, but if I don’t respond then others will. Start a new thread about how stupid all these arguments are for all I care. At least you will be looking at the real Mormon position so you will be ready for those evil missionaries at your door.

Don’t you think it would be useful for all you brilliant apologists to take on the REAL Mormon position instead of these stupid strawmen you put up? That is how to do it!

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Here we have a man who can only defend the BOM by trying to tear down the bible.

P.S. Your questions relating to the bible can all be answered if you would like to start a thread about it. They cannot be answered in this thread because of the topic. I suggest that if you want to defend the BOM then by all means do so but do so without attempting to prove the bible wrong as an excuse for the BOM to be wrong. Either you can address the issue at hand or you can’t.

Because the same exact criticisms are being used. Anti-Mormons point out that Joseph Smith said a temple would be built within a generation. Then Anti-Christians point out that many times throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ says that the Second Coming will come within a generation (it’s now 2000 years later). C.S. Lewis said that “generation” probably meant something else, but many non-LDS Christians won’t let LDS say the same about what Joseph Smith said. The Bible says “the four corners of the Earth” and talks about feeling with your heart (rather than your brain). Critics say that disproves the Bible, while Christians say it may not have been literal. Then they don’t allow Mormons to think the same about that Pearl of Great Price verse you guys keep on saying about the Book of Mormon. That just sounds like bullying. As a way to learn and think about this, why would we apply criticisms of one, but ignore the same exact criticisms for the Bible? That doesn’t make any sense, other than, “The Book of Mormon is false and the Bible is true because I say so!” Also, my point is not to prove anything is true or false, but to make a point that the same criticisms are used, and that Mormons believe for the same reasons you reject the criticisms against your beliefs.

I’m not starting another thread about the Bible because discussing the accuracy of the Bible is not my objective. My objective is to discuss whether these criticisms should be used against the Book of Mormon. If I wanted to discuss the Bible, I’d go to an atheist forum; although I believe in the Bible so that’s not the point. It doesn’t sound fair to ignore criticisms about the Bible and then use those same criticisms against the Book of Mormon.