How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[PaulDupre]

What do they think that God took an 1800 year vacation to one of the other planets, and visited the other gods,…

Perhaps Elohim went to hobnob with his brother wizards.

http://www.noplacelikeoz.com/Wizard_WEB.jpg
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
or… Elohim at the veil.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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.

So why even believe in the Bible then, if that’s your standard to accept something from God? If we don’t have the original New Testament scrolls until hundreds of years after the N.T. times, and quite a few accuse the Catholic Church and Emperor Constantine of strengthening their empire, why should it then even matter about similar stuff with the Bible? My argument isn’t that “it’s proof”, but rather “no less plausible” on that one aspect alone (meaning you can find another aspect other than archaeology to attack the LDS Church, however I happen to know similar Christian criticisms for most everything people can attack with, and have the sources for them backed up, part of my quest for critical thinking here).

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.

I don’t talk to these atheist ex-LDS much, but I do know that they apply the same criticisms, since similar criticisms are there and can be backed up. Atheists often say that they reject Christianity for the same reasons you reject LDS beliefs, and people like me accept the LDS Church and President Monson as a prophet for the same reasons you accept Christianity despite its backed up criticisms.

I’ve never understood this logic

Because in my experience, discussing it on the merits of Book of Mormon archaeology alone is like trying to convince a strong militant atheist that Christianity and the Bible and the miracles of Jesus in the New Testament are true. I’ve even had some ask for national science organizations and peer-review that say Christianity has been proven.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Perhaps Elohim went to hobnob with his brother wizards.

http://www.noplacelikeoz.com/Wizard_WEB.jpg
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
or… Elohim at the veil.

Oh yes Paul, some say that Mormons are false because they use symbolism in temples to represent Jesus Christ of Nazareth undoing the Fall of Adam and making it so we can return home because of the great love he shows by being our savior and redeemer.

Yet, there is a very similar criticism of Christianity. When Christianity first started, the Romans thought it was “beyond bizarre” that they drank grape juice to represent blood and ate bread to represent his body. The Romans thought it was very barbaric, and because it was often done in secret they even spread some mean rumors about them having cannibalism. However, the Christians saw it as something very special and represented God’s love (they didn’t think of themselves as cannibals ). Likewise, the symbolism in the temple is considered special and sacred.

I get the impression that you take joy in bashing others? And no, I’m not bashing the Bible, I’m just pointing out that there are similar criticisms, and can back up any of it that you want (although I think I’ve had links to most of it). I’ve looked at many webpages called “Roman Catholics Criticisms”, but don’t bring them up here because I feel it would be inappropriate to bash like that. Why do you feel the need to tear others down?

 

[Stephen168]

Because in my experience, discussing it on the merits of Book of Mormon archaeology alone is like trying to convince a strong militant atheist that Christianity and the Bible and the miracles of Jesus in the New Testament are true. I’ve even had some ask for national science organizations and peer-review that say Christianity has been proven.

I’ve never asked you to prove the story of the Book of Mormon, but after 60 posts you have not provided one piece of peer reviewed evidence for any place or people in the Book of Mormon, so we can conclude it IS fiction. I never asked you to prove the story of the New Testament but, most of the places and people of the New Testament can be seen by getting on a plane and going to see them. We have covered this several times before. Fictional places mean fictional events. Real places mean real events are possible.

 

[Stephen168]

Yet, there is a very similar criticism of Christianity. When Christianity first started, the Romans thought it was “beyond bizarre” that they drank -]grape juice /-] wine -]to represent/-] which they believed was the blood and ate bread -]to represent /-] which they belived was his body. The Romans thought it was very barbaric, and because it was often done in secret they even spread some mean rumors about them having cannibalism. However, the Christians saw it as something -]very special and represented God’s love/-]** taught by Christ.**

 

[mfbukowski]

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:

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

I don’t know which article you are talking about. What is the subject? How am I supposed to see if you are quoting accurately if I don’t know what article you are talking about?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I’ve never asked you to prove the story of the Book of Mormon, but after 60 posts you have not provided one piece of peer reviewed evidence for any place or people in the Book of Mormon, so we can conclude it IS fiction. I never asked you to prove the story of the New Testament but, most of the places and people of the New Testament can be seen by getting on a plane and going to see them. We have covered this several times before. Fictional places mean fictional events. Real places mean real events are possible.

So would you agree with this statement, yes/no? Tell me why you would say yes or no?:

“If the God of the Bible is false, then the LDS religion is false. If the Bible does not pass archaeological tests and the God of the Bible happens to be true, then the area of archaeology alone shouldn’t disprove the LDS religion?”

 

[Jerusha]

As others have told you, there is plenty of archaeological and historical evidence for the Bible. Our arguments fall on deaf ears.

That is why I think the best way of analyzing the BOM is by getting past the special language in which it was written, and most of the preaching, and taking a good look at the story. Once one does that, and realizes that the only historically and archaeologically documented similarities with reality are the Vikings on Greenland (and their visitations to the continent), and the American frontier, complete with pirates on the Ohio river, the BOM is very understandable.

 

[Stephen168]

So would you agree with this statement, yes/no? Tell me why you would say yes or no?:

"If the God of the Bible is false, then the LDS religion is false.

No, the God of the Bible has nothing to do with Mormonism.

If the Bible does not pass archaeological tests

The Bible does pass archaeological tests
Sea of Galilee
Hebrew Language
Maccabee

If the Bible does -]not/-] pass archaeological ** and scientific **tests and the God of the Bible happens to be true, then the area of archaeology alone shouldn’t disprove the LDS religion?"

Science may not prove an ancient story but it can disprove it.
63 posts and no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

 

[sambos671]

I don’t know which article you are talking about. What is the subject? How am I supposed to see if you are quoting accurately if I don’t know what article you are talking about?

It’s the first article on the site. I think I did mention I would do the first one which I said had to do with witchcraft. I don’t concure with the question but a reveiw of the answers was full of information I wanted to speak on

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Oh yes Paul, some say that Mormons are false because they use symbolism in temples to represent Jesus Christ of Nazareth undoing the Fall of Adam and making it so we can return home because of the great love he shows by being our savior and redeemer.

Yet, there is a very similar criticism of Christianity. When Christianity first started, the Romans thought it was “beyond bizarre” that they drank grape juice to represent blood and ate bread to represent his body. The Romans thought it was very barbaric, and because it was often done in secret they even spread some mean rumors about them having cannibalism. However, the Christians saw it as something very special and represented God’s love (they didn’t think of themselves as cannibals ). Likewise, the symbolism in the temple is considered special and sacred.

I get the impression that you take joy in bashing others? And no, I’m not bashing the Bible, I’m just pointing out that there are similar criticisms, and can back up any of it that you want (although I think I’ve had links to most of it). I’ve looked at many webpages called “Roman Catholics Criticisms”, but don’t bring them up here because I feel it would be inappropriate to bash like that. Why do you feel the need to tear others down?

Do you believe the BOM is right, and not false? Simple question.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, the God of the Bible has nothing to do with Mormonism.

The Bible does pass archaeological tests
Sea of Galilee
Hebrew Language
Maccabee

Science may not prove an ancient story but it can disprove it.
63 posts and no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

More posts than that and no evidence of a brain on the other side that even understands the argument. You keep repeating the same things over and over without any response whatsoever or any comprehension of what we are saying.

Repeating “There is evidence for the bible and none for the Book of Mormon” doesn’t make it so. I know you all like litanies, but they become tiresome after a while

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

This paragraph summarizes your argument which is not a strong one. It simply asserts that your interpretation of the bible is correct while ours and “many protestants” are wrong.

There is no argument here about why Protestants and Mormons are wrong, and besides this line of argument has nothing to do with this thread. I suggest we discuss one of the archeological arguments if you want to stay on topic.

You are obviously a very bright guy, but I will tell you right now that our styles of debate may be out of synch. I think you are a scholarly type who is into textual analysis, while I come from a philosophical background. I think that typically scholarly tyes are into “arguments from authority” (“Noted scholar Abc said that xyz is true”) whereas philosophical types will question what is meant by “truth” in that sentence. Historians tend to be scholarly types whereas I believe that history is no more than “HIS STORY” meaning somebody’s perhaps correct perhaps incorrect assertions about what actually occurred. So the whole mindset is different. Frankly I don’t hold much hope for fruitful discourse

Also stated in your argument is the point that the Apocalypse has little value as a scripture for discussing the second coming, which is an odd position for a catholic-- or aren’t you one?

 

[PaulDupre]

Oh yes Paul, some say that Mormons are false because they use symbolism in temples to represent Jesus Christ of Nazareth undoing the Fall of Adam and making it so we can return home because of the great love he shows by being our savior and redeemer.

No, we say Mormons are false because (among other things) they teach in their temples that you need secret handshakes and passwords to get into heaven.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, we say Mormons are false because (among other things) they teach in their temples that you need secret handshakes and passwords to get into heaven.

This totally proves my point that you have no understanding of the temple whatsoever. None. Zilch. Nada. This is your argument: “The bible is not true, because it requires us to learn to read.” The bible is written in symbols called letters. The temple text is written in other symbols.

No understanding whatsoever. You don’t even know what you are saying. This is like saying “Catholics are cannibals because they are required to eat and drink flesh and blood to get to heaven.” Just plain dumb.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

No, we say Mormons are false because (among other things) they teach in their temples that you need secret handshakes and passwords to get into heaven.

That makes me wonder if Jesus ever need anyone to do a secret handshake before letting anyone in His presence? Come to think of it, I don’t think He did. I think He pretty much had an open door policy, but I could be wrong!

 

[mfbukowski]

That makes me wonder if Jesus ever need anyone to do a secret handshake before letting anyone in His presence? Come to think of it, I don’t think He did. I think He pretty much had an open door policy, but I could be wrong!

I an sure you are a very nice person, and I am sure you love your husband very much. But learning about Mormonism here is like learning about Catholicism from Jack Chick. Do you think that is a good idea? Honestly, that is what it is like.

 

[Jerusha]

No, we say Mormons are false because (among other things) they teach in their temples that you need secret handshakes and passwords to get into heaven.

Bukowski, don’t you have a sense of humor? There are many other reasons.

 

[sambos671]

This paragraph summarizes your argument which is not a strong one. It simply asserts that your interpretation of the bible is correct while ours and “many protestants” are wrong.

There is no argument here about why Protestants and Mormons are wrong, and besides this line of argument has nothing to do with this thread. I suggest we discuss one of the archeological arguments if you want to stay on topic.

You are obviously a very bright guy, but I will tell you right now that our styles of debate may be out of synch. I think you are a scholarly type who is into textual analysis, while I come from a philosophical background. I think that typically scholarly tyes are into “arguments from authority” (“Noted scholar Abc said that xyz is true”) whereas philosophical types will question what is meant by “truth” in that sentence. Historians tend to be scholarly types whereas I believe that history is no more than “HIS STORY” meaning somebody’s perhaps correct perhaps incorrect assertions about what actually occurred. So the whole mindset is different. Frankly I don’t hold much hope for fruitful discourse

Also stated in your argument is the point that the Apocalypse has little value as a scripture for discussing the second coming, which is an odd position for a catholic-- or aren’t you one?

Note I didn’t say the Apocalypse had no value in discussing the 2nd coming of Christ but that a minority of the Apocalypse is referrencing the future rather than the majority. My point about Apocalyptic literature is what is was and that it often is misunderstood. To better understand that type of literature you might want to read the same literature type of the period. I believe in Jesus 2nd coming.

Our debates may differ but in order to debate something you must agree to something as authoritative. I suggested the bible since Mormons claim that it is true. But if you want to argue from a perspective of “what is truth”. We can go in circles. Which is not productive. Ultimately this thread is about acheology and the missing record of Civilizations that the BoM relates. The Olmecs, the Incans, the Aztecs, even the Anastazi, are not comparable to the descriptions of the civilizations in the BoM with regard to the Americas. I was giving you a chance to debate but it seems you’re angry and don’t wish to do so. However, thank you for the link so I can review and go straight to the source for verification of Mormon beliefs.

 

[mfbukowski]

Look, if you guys really want to see a scholarly discussion of this topic from a Mormon perspective, I suggest you go here:

mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41246

This is not the site I repeatedly referred to earlier, but is a discussion between scholarly Mormons and critics about Book of Mormon archaeology and evidences. Frankly, it is quite above the level of this thread, but if you really want to know what is happening now in BOM archaeology, I would suggest you check it out.

And it shows what a lie the OP of this thread is.