How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[NewSeeker]

Before a century ago, they didn’t find archaeological evidence for the Bible and so many were not believers. Why are you any different than one of those non-believers earlier? Remember Doubting Thomas? Is that the only reason you believe, because a few places were found, while many were contradicted (everything before King David’s time)? Should I believe in Greek Mythology because they found the city of Troy?

Again, you miss the point. It’s not whether you believe the Bible is true and contains a record of actual events. The issue is whether you believe the Bible is ancient. I assert that the Bible is ancient and the Book of Mormon is not. I have physical evidence (artifacts, manuscripts) I can point to to back up my claim. Can you back up your claim with physical evidence? You can’t. There isn’t a shred of archeological evidence to support the idea that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book. We know the Bible is ancient based on the evidence, which has nothing to do whether it is true.

Where are the ancient artifacts that support your claim that the Book of Mormon is ancient, rather than a product of the 19th Century?

 

[NewSeeker]

Mostly, just ignorant people that don’t know any better. Of course there are some anti-catholic folks who know better and just like to bring up the subject to distract from the real conversation. Which one are you?

The New Testament is a first century document. It tells a story about real people and real places. By my faith I believe the story. All you have is a story; no people and no places. All you have is hope that maybe; just maybe, somebody will find something contrary to the mountain of evidence which proves the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work of fiction.

The New Testament is a first century document. Exactly. We know this because we have evidence that it is. The Book of Mormon is a 19th Century document. We know this because we have evidence that it is and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Religion Quest, what’s your evidence that the Book of Mormon is from the 4th Century and earlier?

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

Seems like a fair question to me. Is there any archaeological evidence in support of the fable concerning the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years?

The issue is not whether the account of Israel’s wanderings is true. The issue is whether the account of the fable (as you put it) found in our Bible’s was written in ancient times. Do you believe that account is ancient? I’m sure you do. The point I’m trying to make to Religion Quest is that the Book of Exodus itself dates to the pre-Christian era and we know this based on evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mormons keep asserting that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, when it is not, and when challenged they cannot produce a shred of archeological or manuscript evidence to support their claim. We know the Bible is ancient. Whether individual stories found within are true is a matter of faith, but that faith is supported by the fact that the account is ancient. The same can not be said for the Book of Mormon, a point Religion Quest apparently keeps missing.

NS

 

[atheist1]

The point I’m trying to make to Religion Quest is that the Book of Exodus itself dates to the pre-Christian era and we know this based on evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mormons keep asserting that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, when it is not, and when challenged they cannot produce a shred of archeological or manuscript evidence to support their claim.
NS

Okay, I clearly misunderstood what you were attempting to do.

 

[ricko]

The National Geographic Society states:
But archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible (note: more than thirty articles are listed).

The Smithsonian Institute acknowledges:
…much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological works.

As the Smithsonian Institute states:
Even Biblical history is edited history; events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible . . . It is therefore not possible to try to “prove” the Bible by means of its historical or scientific accuracy. The only “proof” to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship

Have frauds been found as our expert states. Yes! of course there have been false artifacts. There’s a lot of money to be had. But our “expert” mentions only frauds while ignoring the fact that there are many true biblical artifacts that have been found. Isn’t it funny that Mormons speak only half truth? Or as the Indian would say, “white man speak with forked tongue”

 

[ApocalypseNow]

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?? Who needs evidence when all you need is that burning sensation in the bosom?

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.

 

[ParkerD]

Who needs evidence when all you need is that burning sensation in the bosom?
Why, all that is needed for proof is the Book of Mormon itself;it is it’s own proof! No need for such pesky things like archaeological evidence.

How would an archeologist know that they had found a “Nephite” piece of pottery? Are you saying there is no evidence that any person lived in Central America or Mexico anciently, or that no one engraved “made by a Nephite” or “made by a Jaredite” or “made in Zarahemla” on a piece of pottery?

 

[ricko]

How would an archeologist know that they had found a “Nephite” piece of pottery? Are you saying there is no evidence that any person lived in Central America or Mexico anciently, or that no one engraved “made by a Nephite” or “made by a Jaredite” or “made in Zarahemla” on a piece of pottery?

Oh Parker, come on now. Give the archeologists a little credit. You know and everybody else here knows that everytime a piece of pottery or anything for that matter is found, the LDS start jumping up and down shouting “See, there is the proof!!” Claiming the ruins in Central America as your own proof of the cities of the BOM is way out in left field and is dishonest. We’ve had some Archeologists on this forum before that have said there is no evidence of any of the cities described in the BOM.

Parker, consider these few facts,

1. The seer stone in the hat
2. The entire story of the golden plates, no evidence again. Eyewitness testimony is about as good as nothing when you consider how unreliable such testimony is.
3. The life of Joseph Smith, considered from an objective viewpoint.
4. The "most correct book ever written’ needing 4,000 corrections
5. Teachings of the LDS that conflict with the BOM and with the Bible
   and on and on.

Frankly, I cannot see how intelligent human beings can believe in the many problems that are within the LDS church. Don’t tell me it’s about belief. God never intended us to be blind to common sense and reasoning. Maybe it will hit you one day that a religion that has so many strange teachings and insists that if you don’t believe them it is because you don’t have faith, is not a restored church but the invention of one misled soul.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The National Geographic Society states:
But archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible (note: more than thirty articles are listed).

The Smithsonian Institute acknowledges:
…much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological works.wh

As the Smithsonian Institute states:
Even Biblical history is edited history; events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible . . . It is therefore not possible to try to “prove” the Bible by means of its historical or scientific accuracy. The only “proof” to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship

Have frauds been found as our expert states. Yes! of course there have been false artifacts. There’s a lot of money to be had. But our “expert” mentions only frauds while ignoring the fact that there are many true biblical artifacts that have been found. Isn’t it funny that Mormons speak only half truth? Or as the Indian would say, “white man speak with forked tongue”

And to put what you said into perspective, yes the Smithsonian in their statement they sent to me said did say, “much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.” Then they also said that many historical parts of the Bible have major problems and says, “In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book; not an historical document.” We’ve found the ancient city of Troy, but at the same time archaeological evidence contradicting parts of the Greek Trojan story, and parts of Greek Mythology. Does that mean that’s evidence for Greek Mythology? It seems a little fishy that you aren’t rejecting the God of the Bible, but then insist LDS give up their religion? The New Testament’s trial of Jesus contradicts customs and rules that Jewish and Roman documents say that they need to follow, which makes it inconsistant with the evidence. Christians say that at least Pilate existed. That’s just making it unfalsifiable, or what atheists will call pseudoarchaeology. The same for the cities of the Book of Joshua that don’t go with carbon dating.

 

[djconklin]

The New Testament’s trial of Jesus contradicts customs and rules that Jewish and Roman documents say that they need to follow, which makes it inconsistant with the evidence.

Which Roman documents? And we do know that the Jews did violate the rules on other occasions and suffered accordingly–why should we expect them to observe all the rules with respect to Jesus?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Mostly, just ignorant people that don’t know any better. Of course there are some anti-catholic folks who know better and just like to bring up the subject to distract from the real conversation. Which one are you?

From what I can tell, Catholics don’t worship the Pope or Marry, and most Catholics don’t believe they do either. However, everyone keeps on saying so, so then I start to wonder (don’t get upset, I’m not saying that’s how it is, just those thoughts come up). I also notice things being spread about LDS, so I make the comparisons with these type of things.

The New Testament is a first century document. It tells a story about real people and real places. By my faith I believe the story. All you have is a story; no people and no places. All you have is hope that maybe; just maybe, somebody will find something contrary to the mountain of evidence which proves the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work of fiction.

So how do you explain why I keep on finding that there are no carbon dated scrolls that early for the New Testament? How do you explain why the History Channel says that the Books in the New Testament are a canonized version, and that many other ancient New Testament scrolls exist (and carbon dated) that contradict the stories in the standard modern New Testament? Different books from apostles say different things about how Jesus lived, and some even say he wasn’t crucified. The Catholic Church kept these ones from making it to canon, because they thought they were heresy? How do I not know that it was all invented, that Christian followers who wrote the New Testament couldn’t agree on what happened, and that it’s not all a fabrication? The book of Matt said that Jesus was born at the time of King Herod. The book of Luke says all the world was taxed, or registered, at the time of birth. All historical evidence says that King Herod died ten years before the first time all the Roman Empire did that. It just feels to me a little fishy that non-LDS Christians aren’t throwing out Christianity, but then get impatient when we don’t drop believing Joseph Smith was a prophet? The other day this guy was accusing me of being a brainwashed swallow paying 10% to tithing. That doesn’t make sense why he was saying that, because he said he’s Christian.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Which Roman documents? And we do know that the Jews did violate the rules on other occasions and suffered accordingly–why should we expect them to observe all the rules with respect to Jesus?

Inference to the best explanation, what uses the least assumptions to explain the most amount of facts, Occam’s Razor. Since most of the evidence says that Jews are very strict on the rules (today, hundreds of years ago, Old Testament times), it would require less assumptions to explain more facts, even if it can’t be proven. Obviously, I believe in Christ, or else I wouldn’t be LDS. I’m just saying that I notice some of the popular arguments used against Christianity are used against LDS, and LDS use similar responses that non-LDS apologists use against Christian critics. So I’m using critical thinking here, inference to the best explanation: the only way the evidence makes sense is when I believe Christianity isn’t true, or when I believe the same criticisms don’t apply to LDS. I find it fishy when non-LDS Christians don’t give up their beliefs, but then expect LDS to.

 

[djconklin]

So how do you explain why I keep on finding that there are no carbon dated scrolls that early for the New Testament?

I have never heard of any scrolls from that time frame being carbon dated. Secondly, during the persecutions (esp. under Diocletian) one thing they sought out were the Christian Scriptures so they could burn them.

 

[djconklin]

Inference to the best explanation, what uses the least assumptions to explain the most amount of facts, Occam’s Razor.

The least assumption would be that there are no such Roman documents.

Since most of the evidence says that Jews are very strict on the rules (today, hundreds of years ago, Old Testament times), it would require less assumptions to explain more facts, even if it can’t be proven.

On religious rites some Jews were sticklers. The testimony of history and Scripture, however, tell us that in persecuting the Christians and Christ they were willing to “bend” some rules.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Okay, I clearly misunderstood what you were attempting to do.

Atheist1, go to posts #431, 16, 4, and 455. I’m saying that it’s very fishy that non-LDS Christians still believe in the God of the Bible after that, but then use the same criticisms against LDS and insist that they have to leave their religion. The only way the evidence makes any sense is when I believe that either Christianity and all Abrahamic religions are a fraud, or that the same criticisms can’t be used against LDS (not meaning it’s the true religion, just that if it’s false it’s not because of those same criticisms).

If you do look at those posts, let me know what you think.

 

[ricko]

ReligiousQuest

I’m just saying that I notice some of the popular arguments used against Christianity are used against LDS, and LDS use similar responses that non-LDS apologists use against Christian critics. So I’m using critical thinking here, inference to the best explanation: the only way the evidence makes sense is when I believe Christianity isn’t true, or when I believe the same criticisms don’t apply to LDS. I find it fishy when non-LDS Christians don’t give up their beliefs, but then expect LDS to.

But you don’t find it fishy the other way around? Me thinks you are using too much critical thinking and Occam’s Razor. Why don’t you just try and look at the facts. You are so confused you don’t know whether you’re coming or going. You keep trying to prove LDS is correct by trying to prove Christianity wrong. When will you learn to address the problem at hand and remove your blinders? Find another fancy term instead of “critical thinking” and “Occam’s Razor” that will allow you to use your common sense. Let’s call it the “Rational Programing”. What that does is make you answer a question directly without making a judgment on what you think is the validity of a question. In the world of common sense it is called “A straight answer for a straight question” But alas, I do not think you are capable of such action, are you?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The least assumption would be that there are no such Roman documents.

On religious rites some Jews were sticklers. The testimony of history and Scripture, however, tell us that in persecuting the Christians and Christ they were willing to “bend” some rules.

What I meant was the least amount of assumptions for the “actual evidence that they have”, not the least amount of assumptions. We’ve never seen electrons in a microscope before, so that’s an assumption, but given the evidence it’s the least amount of assumptions. Using the same thing, there would be no life after death. All scientific experiments where they make testable hypotheses for a life after death, “if life after death is true this prediction will happen and if not true this will happen”, has told scientists that there is no life after death. If you want more details and references, you can always ask me later. You guys are using the same type of reasoning with evidence against the LDS Church. I feel suspicious that you aren’t rejecting a life after death, but then tell me that I’m brainwashed. Also, keep in mind that history shows us that science/archaeology can easily change with new evidence (thinking as far as the Book of Mormon end goes).

On religious rites some Jews were sticklers. The testimony of history and Scripture, however, tell us that in persecuting the Christians and Christ they were willing to “bend” some rules.

That’s using the New Testament to prove itself. Joseph Smith said that people spread lies that he wasn’t telling the truth. Why can’t I use that evidence? Most Non-Christian evidence says that Jews are/were very strict to their rules. Mohammad said that they weren’t open minded to change.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
The least assumption would be that there are no such Roman documents.

On religious rites some Jews were sticklers. The testimony of history and Scripture, however, tell us that in persecuting the Christians and Christ they were willing to “bend” some rules.

What I meant was the least amount of assumptions for the “actual evidence that they have”, not the least amount of assumptions.

I didn’t say anything about the least “number” of assumptions–that was an assumption.

You guys are using the same type of reasoning with evidence against the LDS Church.

I haven’t said diddly one way or another about the LDS church–till now: if this is the way “you guys” analyze things, well then, its bunk!

Originally Posted by djconklin
On religious rites some Jews were sticklers. The testimony of history and Scripture, however, tell us that in persecuting the Christians and Christ they were willing to “bend” some rules.

That’s using the New Testament to prove itself.

Hmm, what part of “testimony of history” was too hard to understand? Do you have a “Book of Josephus” in your Bible?!?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I have never heard of any scrolls from that time frame being carbon dated. Secondly, during the persecutions (esp. under Diocletian) one thing they sought out were the Christian Scriptures so they could burn them.

Earlier somewhere in this thread I posted some links to many of them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri Although this particular one is Wikipedia, it has references for what it says which are not Wikipedia. How can I know that archaeological evidence says it’s real, and not a social control with religion program? (If you say the Holy Spirit, then why can’t people use that for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith?)

More importantly than those New Testament papyri, there are many non-canonized books claiming to be from apostles that contradict many stories in the modern canonized New Testament. If you want me to track down the history channel references, I’ll do that?

How do I not know that the early Christians fought each other, and that the Catholic Church may have been wrong in their canonizing of which books were the historically correct ones? (I have to use the Holy Spirit. Why can’t I do that for the Book of Mormon?)

 

[Holly3278]

This is absurd. Ever heard of the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs?

Are you just stupid or something? I am not going to participate-- this is pure ignorance and participation is a waste of time. All those cultures are the cities and cultures mentioned in the BOM. And in regard to DNA- we are talking about the DNA of a dozen or so people in the midst of thousands and thousands of people.

1- The BOM says NOWHERE that all native americans are descendents of the family of Lehi. Probably almost none are, since genealogical lines die out. We are talking about a dozen people here.
2- The BOM says no where that the family of Lehi were the ONLY people on two continents. This is absurd. It says that the land was saved as an inheritance for that family.

Expecting Native Americans to have all been descendents of Lehi is precisely the same as expecting all Jews to be literal descendents of the person Judah in the bible and to have that show in the DNA.

This is my first last and only post on this stupid thread. Question asked, question answered.

Ummm, the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, and Olmecs are not the civilizations listed in the Book of Mormon. If they were, they’d bare the same name.