How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
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…stament_papyri

Lots of papyri–I’ve never heard of any of them being carbon dated. Still don’t see any evidence supporting the claim.​

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.

The key word is that they “claim” to be from the apostles. There is no evidence that they actually were.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

So you say it when you know better, that would make you anti-catholic. At least I know where you stand.

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.
ReligiousQuest;5128131:

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

Scholars can tell the New Testament is a first century document even if we do not have the very original pieces written by Paul. We do have pieces that are older than the Book of Mormon claims to be. The places and people in it are also real. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction.

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?

Other people were writing when the New Testament was written. I hope that did not shock you.

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?

Being anti-catholic, you worded the question in such a way that you believe some other non-Catholics were trying to put together a canon and the Catholic Church was stopping them. Who was this group? Why don’t Mormons us their canon? Why don’t Mormons gather up some old writings and make their own canon? It would make more sense than believing in a 19th century work of fiction.

So as far as evidence for the Book of Mormon being true: You got nothing. One more reason I know Joseph Smith was not a prophet

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.

 

[mormonpro]

Perhaps the best evidence that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon from Gold plates, is to test the other scriptures and books he claims to have translated, the originals of which still exist. I’m talking about the Papyrus of the Pearl of Great Price and the Kinderhook plates.
LDS Egyptologists and others now can read the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the book of Abraham written on by Abraham himself. They all agree that it is not the book of Abraham and doesn’t even mention Abraham. It is a common Egyptian funeral text call the book of breathings etc. The LDS church admitted this in their magazine, The Ensign, July 1988, pp. 51-53, Michael Rhodes (an LDS Egyptologist)tried to answer the following question: "Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri, match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? In this article Michael Rhodes clearly laid out the problem which faced the church: "First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60 - much too late for Abraham to have written it… when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same… let me say that Joseph Smith did not have the actual text of the Book of Abraham before him… There is no doubt that the original Papyrus of Facsimile Number1 (in the Pearl of Great Price) belongs to the Book of Breathings text. The name of the owner of the Papyrus, Hor son of Userwer, is found both on this papyrus and in the text of the Book of Breathings… although we do not have the original of Facsimile Number 3, the name Hor can clearly be read in the hieroglyphs on this facsimile, and it seems very probable that this illustration was originally located at the end of the Book of Breathings papyrus now in the Church’s possession. I am not ruling it out completely, but I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith ever had the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his possession… " The RLDS church took the Book of Abraham out of their cannon of scripture because it was an obvious fraud.
2. Joseph Smith made a book called “Egyptian alphabet and Grammar” This book was a key he used in translating the papyrus. IN this book he had a column of Egyptian characters on the left and to the right he gave a translation. Egyptologists have looked at this book and all agree Joseph Smiths translation is completely inaccurate.
Sometimes Joseph translated one symbol into a half chapters of words when in reality one symbol was never more than one word or a short phrase. Now Egyptologists can read this and all agree that Joseph Smith’s translation was completely false. Not even one word matched. 3. LDS apologists came up with the argument that Joseph Smith didn’t have the book of Abraham and didn’t translate the papyrus but God gave him a revelation instead. The problems with these arguments is Joseph Smith repeatedly said he translated the book in official LDS history and even made up a key for translation, called Egyptian alphabet and grammar.
As for the kinderhook plates, The account of the Kinderhook plates is printed in the official ‘History of the Church’, (the Mormon church’s officially accepted history). vol. 5, p. 372. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:
“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook,… I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.”
After the plates were found, nine “citizens of Kinderhook” certified that R. Wiley took the “six brass plates” from “a large mound, in this vicinity.” Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1855, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: “…I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook, and helped to dig at the time the plates were found… I… made an honest affidavit to the same…since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he… and R. Wiley engraved them themselves… Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten.” (The Book of Mormon?, by James D. Bales, p. 95-96)

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

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!

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

Look at an encyclopedia (not your Catholic one) on Josephus. He lived AD 37 – c. 100. Typically, most believe Jesus was crucified 33-35 C.E. Josephus wasn’t even born yet.

There were dozens of Jewish scholars who wrote about events in Judah at that time. Critics say that they would have talked about Jesus if he happened. There were only a couple, seen by many scholars as being later forgeries based on evidence.

Many scholars say that the passages in Josephus are forgeries, inserted at a later date. Josephus himself wasn’t a fraud; his books are real and very insightful on the events of his time.

Tacitus isn’t a reliable source either; he wasn’t even born yet.

Although I believe Jesus is real, I wouldn’t be LDS if I didn’t, how do I not know that Josephus’ passages weren’t forgeries added in by desperate apostate Christians later on?

No Roman records (despite claims that there are, they’re never produced).
No Jewish records.

Why aren’t LDS allowed to use the Holy Spirit, just like they are allowed for Christ?

 

[ricko]

Why aren’t LDS allowed to use the Holy Spirit, just like they are allowed for Christ?

Because the LDS is such an OBVIOUS fraud invented by Joseph Smith.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Lots of papyri–I’ve never heard of any of them being carbon dated. Still don’t see any evidence supporting the claim.

If they weren’t carbon dated, then how do we know that they are actually dated to the time period that they claim? Why would one reasonably believe that it’s verifiable to the public that the New Testament was written at the time of the apostles?

The key word is that they “claim” to be from the apostles. There is no evidence that they actually were.

So then again, how do we know that the New Testament isn’t a fraud? If there were so many writers, and many who said different things, and the Catholic Church picked and chose which ones to include in their New Testament, how do we know we can trust the stories? Since there are actual physical papyri from others claiming to be apostles and they had contradictory stories, then that sounds more like evidence against, not neutral evidence. This thread has made the same criticism against Joseph Smith. Makes LDS suspicious when you don’t use the same stuff against LDS, but won’t against yourself.

I say all this because I get the impression you claim it’s all archaeology?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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?

You say to address the issue directly? I prefer to look at a broader perspective and not the here and now. Big picture instead of details thinking. The big picture you’re asking for is the just of it, with nothing else. The big picture I’m asking for is the broader perspective, and not only looking at the trees. Galileo and Newton were the second type of big picture. When you see an apple fall from the tree, the just of it big picture is that “the apple fell”. The broader perspective person, like Newton, thinks with the broader perspective, gravity.

Looking at the bigger picture, why should I use the same criticisms against my own religion, when I notice you won’t against yourself and Christians use “faith and the Spirit” instead of “reason”? I have to take a good look at the situation and “think for myself”. All those points from posts 455-456, you won’t even allow against yourself??? Then Christians say that Christian critics are mean spirited for using those criticisms, and that they won’t leave Christianity because there’s more than just reason, and then apologists “invent” responses for the critics. Then they use the same criticisms against LDS? If I address the issues directly, that’s looking at the concrete here and now specifics, and the responses are going to be the exact same that Christian apologists use against Christian critics. I just don’t see a need to address them directly when the responses are the same. I ask myself why the non-LDS Christians aren’t changing their beliefs with the same concerns. I prefer the bigger picture. Forget details thinking.

If you don’t like “critical thinking”, I’ll just say that I’d prefer to use “evaluating my own and everyone else’s thinking, and evaluating if the evidence is really that important in the broader scheme of things.” I don’t want to miss the broader perspective, the big picture, because someone is trying to convince me that details thinking is the big picture.

 

[djconklin]

Look at an encyclopedia (not your Catholic one) on Josephus. He lived AD 37 – c. 100. Typically, most believe Jesus was crucified 33-35 C.E. Josephus wasn’t even born yet.

1. I am not a Catholic.
2. I haven’t seen any proof that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong on Josephus.
3. The fact that Josephus was born after Jesus was crucified is irrelevant.

Critics say that they would have talked about Jesus if he happened. There were only a couple, seen by many scholars as being later forgeries based on evidence.

Who are these critics? Where is the evidence? Read Bruce Metzger’s “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration.” It’s only over 30 years old now and it is still the standard reference book on the issue.

So then again, how do we know that the New Testament isn’t a fraud? If there were so many writers, and many who said different things, and the Catholic Church picked and chose which ones to include in their New Testament, how do we know we can trust the stories?

The Catholic didn’t pick and chose–the church knew what books were part of the canon even during NT times; note the use of the word “scripture” in the NT.

I say all this because I get the impression you claim it’s all archaeology?

I didn’t say anything of the sort; you are making things up as you go along.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

1. I am not a Catholic.
2. I haven’t seen any proof that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong on Josephus.
3. The fact that Josephus was born after Jesus was crucified is irrelevant.

Who are these critics? Where is the evidence? Read Bruce Metzger’s “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration.” It’s only over 30 years old now and it is still the standard reference book on the issue.

You didn’t answer about the forgeries criticism? Since you won’t use that against the Bible, plus the many criticisms on there being alternative Christian books with alternative stories and no hard in stone dating, why should I give into what you said about the Book of Mormon not being from the right time?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

So you say it when you know better, that would make you anti-catholic. At least I know where you stand.

I apologize if you think I’m bashing the Catholic religion. Although Catholics say that they are asking Marry to intervene for them and that they aren’t praying to her, it just doesn’t make any sense how that’s right. But I’m not saying your religion is bad. I’m just saying that I don’t see why I have any less right to be in my religion, than you in yours.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

By your faith you only hope that the New Testament is true. Having cities isn’t the same as evidence (ex. Greek Mythology and the city of Troy). When many specifics of the time contradict outside records, Christian critics become suspicious. Why should I abandon my religion, when you refuse to give up yours?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[mormonpro]

Stephen168;5128826:

So you say it when you know better, that would make you anti-catholic. At least I know where you stand.

I apologize if you think I’m bashing the Catholic religion. Although Catholics say that they are asking Marry to intervene for them and that they aren’t praying to her, it just doesn’t make any sense how that’s right. But I’m not saying your religion is bad. I’m just saying that I don’t see why I have any less right to be in my religion, than you in yours.

[/quote]

[/quote]

Joseph Smith himself proved the Book of Mormon was a fraud and he did not have the power of translation. His further translations proved he was a con artist with a big imagination as per the explanation given above on the Papyrus and Kinderhook plates.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I’m talking about the Papyrus of the Pearl of Great Price and the Kinderhook plates.
LDS Egyptologists and others now can read the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the book of Abraham written on by Abraham himself. They all agree that it is not the book of Abraham and doesn’t even mention Abraham. It is a common Egyptian funeral text call the book of breathings etc. The LDS church admitted this in their magazine, The Ensign, July 1988, pp. 51-53, Michael Rhodes (an LDS Egyptologist)tried to answer the following question: "Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri, match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? In this article Michael Rhodes clearly laid out the problem which faced the church: "First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60 - much too late for Abraham to have written it… when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same… let me say that Joseph Smith did not have the actual text of the Book of Abraham before him… There is no doubt that the original Papyrus of Facsimile Number1 (in the Pearl of Great Price) belongs to the Book of Breathings text. The name of the owner of the Papyrus, Hor son of Userwer, is found both on this papyrus and in the text of the Book of Breathings… although we do not have the original of Facsimile Number 3, the name Hor can clearly be read in the hieroglyphs on this facsimile, and it seems very probable that this illustration was originally located at the end of the Book of Breathings papyrus now in the Church’s possession. I am not ruling it out completely, but I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith ever had the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his possession… " The RLDS church took the Book of Abraham out of their cannon of scripture because it was an obvious fraud.

I went to FAIR’s and Jeff Lindsay’s website, and like their responses for Facsimile 1, criticism of it being filled in, Book of Abraham, etc, etc, on all of that.

Secular scholars keep on saying that the Book of Daniel from the Old Testament is a fraud. What would you say if someone told you that you shouldn’t believe in your religion because of that? Then why should you believe that any of the rest of your Bible is actually inspired? Why is my religion any less valid? Do you understand why LDS don’t just give in when you give these arguments?

Why do you claim that there’s a life after death when the Scientific Method claims it’s directly contradicted by testable hypotheses? Scientists say that if it’s true there’s a life after death, then it’s reasonable to believe that at least one near death experience out there is real, and not fake. In some hospitals, they put up a neon sign with a message, that only someone truly floating out of the body can see. So far to this day, no one who has floated up above their bodies looking down on themselves has seen the message on these signs. “Alper, Matthew (2001). The ‘God’ Part of the Brain - a Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God. Rogue Press”. Obviously I’m not an atheist, I’m LDS who believes in Christ, but there’s your reference. They also say that if there is a life after death, then it would be reasonable to believe that thinking can occur outside of our biological brains. So far to this day, there’s no evidence for that, and people who receive brain damage loose that particular area of their mind. What would you say to someone if they told you to become atheist because the scientific evidence appears to directly contradict a life after death? I don’t see you becoming a hard core atheist??? Do you understand why LDS don’t trust these types of arguments? So why on earth should I shun my relationship with God just because you want to tear down peoples’ religions and disrespect everyone?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Because the LDS is such an OBVIOUS fraud invented by Joseph Smith.

Why, because you said so? Since your same criticisms apply to Christianity and you say that there’s something higher than everyday man’s logic, then LDS take the same stance. If the LDS Church is not true, it’s not because of the arguments that you use that apply to Christianity.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The Catholic didn’t pick and chose–the church knew what books were part of the canon even during NT times; note the use of the word “scripture” in the NT.

Do you believe that Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States? Every scholarly source out there says that the books in the New Testament are not the only books used by Christian sects before Constantine, and that the Roman Church canonized it. How can we know that what they picked were the correct books? You say because they knew? So why can’t LDS just know our truths, like your “automatically knowing”? Critics of Christianity keep on saying they could have gotten it wrong and that the New Testament is easily seen as a fraud. Why would any reasonable and thinking LDS give the New Testament any more credit? Just because you say “they knew”.

I didn’t say anything of the sort; you are making things up as you go along.

So why are you even on this thread if you honestly don’t think archaeology is everything? I find it hard to believe that you don’t think archaeology is a big deal. We’ve even established that Bible Minimalism doesn’t support the Bible before 600 B.C., and that mainstream archaeology believes the Bible before King David’s time is contracted by archaeological evidence. We’ve established that probably with 20 posts so far with links to National Geographic, NOVA, etc. Let me guess, you haven’t even looked at any of them? Those who say that archaeology supports the Bible before King David’s time are called pseudo archaeologists. There’s more to God than just archaeology. It’s obvious that you have nothing else to do with you life because you’re bored and want to bash religions for entertainment purposes. Then many Catholics get mad at atheists when they attack, by telling the atheists that they must be bored.

 

[abucs]

If they weren’t carbon dated, then how do we know that they are actually dated to the time period that they claim? Why would one reasonably believe that it’s verifiable to the public that the New Testament was written at the time of the apostles?

So then again, how do we know that the New Testament isn’t a fraud? If there were so many writers, and many who said different things, and the Catholic Church picked and chose which ones to include in their New Testament, how do we know we can trust the stories? Since there are actual physical papyri from others claiming to be apostles and they had contradictory stories, then that sounds more like evidence against, not neutral evidence.

Because you have to investigate this.

You have to see when the different writings were first referrred to and by whom. You have to look at the original languages they were written in and match it and the writing styles to other contemporary writings. You have to look at the writings themselves. Do they give detailed credible information of 1st century Palestine or are they obviously written with no historical references to times and place and events that match with a known history. Look at the claims of who they were or who they were in contact with, who refutes them. Look at the issues that come up, gentiles, finances, clash with Romans and Jews, circumcision, state of the churches, plans of missions, inter church arguements, similarity/differences with other testimony, Jewish law, look at the inside knowledge of Judaism and Palistinian geography. Read in between the lines to see what the issues the authors are concerned about and where they place themselves in the body of the church. Look at who they were writing to, who they agree with and who they quote from.

When you do this then a lot of those “so many writers, and many who said different things” dissappears into the obvious later additions from those outside Christianity.

i.e they came from the gnostics who were around before Christianity, later adopted it, and who don’t look to have a credible connection with the first century Jewish Apostles.

They are the same people who came up with ‘The gospel of Eve’ and the ‘Apocalypse of Adam’. The earliest of their ‘Apostolic’ writings does not seem to have been written until well into the 2nd century (at least).

Those ‘secular’ scholars seem only too happy to not mention any of that.

 

[Jerusha]

LDS, you would really be on firmer ground if you would give up the BOM and pick and choose among these writings gnosis.org/library.html Some are downright wacky. Others are like the BOM, a mixture of good and bad. But, all in all, I think that for some strange reason, the Church made good choices. The best are the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas.

 

[djconklin]

Every scholarly source out there says that the books in the New Testament are not the only books used by Christian sects before Constantine, and that the Roman Church canonized it.

Then you shouldn’t have any problem naming them and the works in which these scholrs said that the Catholic church picked and chose which books would be in the canon.

How can we know that what they picked were the correct books? You say because they knew?

The church (not the Catholic church) knew which books were in the canon–as I previously noted, look at the NT and look at the use of the word “Scripture.” In one verse Peter calls Paul’s writing “Scripture.”

So why are you even on this thread if you honestly don’t think archaeology is everything?

I guess that is as good as i’m going to get as an admission that you lied about what I didn’t say.

I find it hard to believe that you don’t think archaeology is a big deal.

I didn’t say that either–would you please stop lying about me?!? Is your case that weak that you ahve to repeatedly do this? Or, is this symptomatic as to what your religion has done to you?

We’ve even established that Bible Minimalism doesn’t support the Bible before 600 B.C.,

Actually, nothing of the sort has been “established.” The minimalists simply keep claiming it. Why did you listen to them? Did it suit your fancy?

Those who say that archaeology supports the Bible before King David’s time are called pseudo archaeologists.

That is pure bunk.

There’s more to God than just archaeology.

Hmmm, just above you said archaeology was “everything.” Which one is the lie?

It’s obvious that you have nothing else to do with you life because you’re bored and want to bash religions for entertainment purposes.

1. I am not bored; I love exposing liars. They’re easy; just tell the truth and their whole cause falls to the ground because it is based on lies.
2. I have “bashed” any religion, much less more than one.
3. I wouldn’t find such an activity entertaining.
4. That’s several more lies in one post that you have told about me.

 

[Stephen168]

So you say it when you know better, that would make you anti-catholic. At least I know where you stand.

Every scholar says that the Roman Christian Church canonized the New Testament, and that many books were not included. They decided which ones to include and which ones not to. That is a given.

You are so anti-Catholic you can’t even call it the Catholic Church. Yep, we know where you stand.

[If the New Testament can’t be verified as a real historical document, then why is the Book of Mormon less plausible?

The New Testament has been proven to be a first century document. The Book of Mormon has been proven to be a 19th century document.
.

By your faith you only hope that the New Testament is true. Having cities isn’t the same as evidence (ex. Greek Mythology and the city of Troy).

Was there ever any evidence that proved the city of Troy did not exist? Remember scientist have now proved the Book of Mormon is NOT what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. It is a 19th century document that is not true. AND you there is no evidence to support it.
[/QUOTE]

 

[NewSeeker]

ReligionQuest,

It’s really quite simple; you keep making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is not whether the events in the Bible or Book of Mormon can be proven to be true - which you keep asserting is the issue. It’s impossible that those events can be proven to be true (or false, for that matter). Those are matters of faith. But for faith to be valid, it must grounded in something. Faith in the Bible is grounded in the fact that it names places that actually exist (and existed thousands of years ago). The Bible has places within it that can actually be proven to have existed at the time the Bible says they existed. This lends credence to those who choose to put their faith in it. There is actually some basis for my faith that a man named Jesus visited Jerusalem 2000 years ago since I know Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago. I can’t prove to you that Jesus actually did visit Jerusalem, let alone that he was crucified there, but I can prove to you that Jerusalem existed. That gives me something I can hang on to as I decide whether I want to put my faith in what the Bible says about Jesus. By contrast, the Book of Mormon has nothing at all whatsoever that supports the claim that the BoM is an ancient record. You keep deflecting the real issue here by saying “you Catholics can’t prove the Bible true, so why do you assault my faith in the Book of Mormon?”. No, we can’t prove the events in the Bible to be true. But that’s not the issue regarding the problem with the Book of Mormon, a point that you keep missing. We can prove that some of the places mentioned in the Bible actually existed. This gives us something solid to hang on to if we want to have faith in biblical accounts. The same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. There is absolutely nothing at all whatsoever from the archeological record that indicates Book of Mormon cities existed. Faith in the Book of Mormon has zero empirical evidence on which to ground your faith. It’s true that the existence of Jerusalem 2000 years ago proves nothing. But it does mean that the Bible at least refers to real places. It doesn’t matter if the oldest surviving NT manuscripts date to the 3rd century. That’s irrelevant to the main issue here, which is that we know Jerusalem existed and that those manuscripts refer to a real place. The surviving manuscripts have some credence, as a result. By contrast, there is nothing beyond the word of Joseph Smith that shows that any Book of Mormon cities ever existed, even though Nephite civilization was supposedly highly organized, large, and complex. That means that the Book of Mormon does not refer to real places. There is no evidence that supports the belief that the Book of Mormon was anything other than the invention of a highly creative, 19th century imagination.

Why do you keep deflecting the real issue here? Where’s your evidence that Book of Mormon cities actually existed? We have some to show you regarding the existence of Bible cities. Our faith in the Bible at least has that in its favor.

NS

 

[ricko]

I apologize if you think I’m bashing the Catholic religion. Although Catholics say that they are asking Marry to intervene for them and that they aren’t praying to her, it just doesn’t make any sense how that’s right. But I’m not saying your religion is bad. I’m just saying that I don’t see why I have any less right to be in my religion, than you in yours.

We ask people who are alive to intervene for us all the time. Nothing wrong with doing the same with Mary. You have a right to be in your religion, you also have a right to take a long walk off a short pier.

How does fragments before the Book of Mormon translation mean that the Bible is is real, especially when the oldest fragments are hundreds of years later than what it was claimed?

Last part of your sentence does not give enough information to reply to, in other words, I don’t know what you are talking about. The Dead Sea Scrolls complement the bible. Are they old enough for you? Don’t dodge this question. Show us some ancient document that backs up the BOM. Straight question, I want a straight answer from you.

Every scholar says that the Roman Christian Church canonized the New Testament, and that many books were not included. They decided which ones to include and which ones not to. That is a given. And also a given is some of the books left out give completely different stories for the same stories. If the New Testament can’t be verified as a real historical document, then why is the Book of Mormon less plausible?

Son, we have told you many times that the bible is not a History school book. Even so we have told you many times that many of the cities in the bible actually existed. Why can’t you understand that simple fact? Now show us the cities described in the BOM. Don’t come up with your two-stepping dance that it’s not fair and so forth. The question is on equal grounds for both religions. We got actual cities in the bible that you can visit today and proven by archeology. Pray tell, can you do the same with the “Most Correct Book Ever Written”??

The Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit and by the authority given it by Jesus to determine which books were inspired and which were not.

By your faith you only hope that the New Testament is true. Having cities isn’t the same as evidence (ex. Greek Mythology and the city of Troy). When many specifics of the time contradict outside records, Christian critics become suspicious. Why should I abandon my religion, when you refuse to give up yours?

Your the only person I know who would shoot himself in the foot time after time. My goodness, you are actually trying to prove that the bible is a fake and that Christ did not exist to prove that the Mormon Church is true!?? When you run out out shells, I’ll gladly loan you some.