How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[NewSeeker]

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.

So neither Christ is real and neither were the Nephites. That’s a great selling point for Mormonism. You should send that one in to Church HQ on South Temple, Religion Quest.

NS

 

[Jerusha]

See, this is Mormon logic.
All non-Mormons are atheists.
If a person doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon,
then that person doesn’t believe in the Bible.
So, because we don’t believe in the Book of Mormon,
we are atheists.
And they HATE atheists,
therefore they hate us because they believe we are atheists.
Actually, it is very simple.:hypno:

 

[ReligiousQuest]

See, this is Mormon logic.
All non-Mormons are atheists.
If a person doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon,
then that person doesn’t believe in the Bible.
So, because we don’t believe in the Book of Mormon,
we are atheists.
And they HATE atheists,
therefore they hate us because they believe we are atheists.
Actually, it is very simple.:hypno:

That’s not what I said. I’m saying that I look at the arguments used against Christianity, and many of them are used against LDS, so I’d feel like something isn’t right by rejecting LDS but not Christ. I don’t want to feel inconsistent. I haven’t been convinced to become an atheist, so you have to come up with an argument that’s not also used against Christians to convince me and most other LDS.

 

[Jerusha]

You don’t recognize satire when you see it. And then your refutation of my little piece of satire proves that there is some accuracy to it.

 

[ricko]

by ReligiousQuest

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?

 

[Al_Masetti]

There is an interesting television program produced in Canada with a cheekily provocative title: “The Naked Archeologist”

The host, who is Jewish by the way, presents a biblical question and then spends a LOT of time pursuing the answer by travelling and digging all around the Holy Land.

Sometimes the items and places he comes up with are astonishing.

In one program, he tracked down the house that Jesus lived in. And in the wall there was a handprint, in the wall plaster, made by the person who built the house. He speculated, respectfully, that the handprint might belong to Jesus. Kind of interesting.

Fascinating insights.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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.

Stephen told me that I’m anti-Catholic for saying “Roman Christian Church”. How do I please everyone? The Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches claim that the Catholic Church separated from them instead, so I’ll just say the Roman Church for now on.

Okay, sounds fair, you want some sources. First, the New Testament wasn’t a big book passed around during New Testament times… It was instead a bunch of books and letters floating around, not canonized into a “New Testament” hundreds of years later. The Roman Christian Church decided which books to include in canon, and which ones not to. The canon also didn’t stay the same the whole time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Sources for left out books that contradict? Well we have the canonical Gospel books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, on the life of Jesus Christ. However, there were many gospel books left out when the Roman Christian Church put them together. Many Jesus Myth Hypothesis fanatics love the Gospel of Thomas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#The_Gospel_of_Thomas_and_the_historical_Jesus National Geographic also showed something on the Gospels that the Roman Christian Church never included: channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/2597/Overview There’s the Gospel of Judas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas I could keep on going. Do we have anything to publicly verify that the events in the four Gospels actually happened? If there were many other Gospels written and they say stories that contradict each other, how do we verify it outside of the Spirit? Do we have any archaeological evidence that stops us from believing that the Roman Christian Church didn’t just pick and choose the books when they had their meetings when deciding canon? How do we know they made the correct decision? Did God come on national television saying, “They picked the correct canon”? Since others claimed to be “the Church”, how do we know that the Roman Christian Church was the correct one, aside from their military force to attack all the other ones? If being publicly verifiable outside of the Spirit is not a good enough reason to reject the Gospels, why should LDS believe that disproves the Book of Mormon?

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

The title of this thread is “How come archeologists cannot find a trace of”. It’s reasonable for a person to think that if someone comes to a post named that cares about archaeology. If I was wrong in thinking that, it’s not because I lied, it’s because I didn’t know that was your intention. Lying means intentionally saying when you know better. It seemed reasonable to believe that someone who came to a thread named this and keeps on bringing up archaeology actually puts a big deal into archaeology.

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?

You need to read those earlier posts of mine . Those posts never said the Bible is false. I said Bible Minimalists believe that the Bible is not very historically accurate until after 600 B.C., Bible Maximalists believe the Bible is mostly historical accurate after the time of David, and the “archaeologists” who believe in the Bible’s history before the time of King David are the religious conservatives, and that the secular and liberal Christian/Jewish archaeologists do not.

That is pure bunk.

Keep in mind, whether something is archaeology has nothing to do with whether it’s true, but rather if it uses the archaeology method. Secular and liberal Christian/Jewish archaeologists believe that the history of the Bible before King David’s time are myth, and that the Israelites were actually Canaanites who flocked together to create a kingdom:

(Differences between secular and liberal Christian/Jewish archaeologists vs. religious conservative archaeologists with the Bible)
religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm (with references)

“The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests” (New York Times)
nytimes.com/library/arts/072900david-bible.html

National Geographic on their website says that to this day, little evidence has been found for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon, which were supposed to be kingdoms which easily left an imprint, but did not. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081028-king-solomon-copper-mine-missions_2.html (under the “Historical Extremes” section)

“The Bible Unearthed” (by a very famous Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein - he says there is no convincing evidence for the United Monarchy in the Bible or anything before it)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
bibleandscience.com/bible/reviews/unearthed.htm

The Book of Joshua says that many cities were destroyed at the same time. Carbon dating says that they were destroyed centuries, even a millenium apart. Check out NOVA: pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html (click on chapter 4 for one of the best NOVA videos I’ve ever watched)

Just like Christians feel awkward rejecting the Bible because the secular archaeologists don’t agree with the Bible’s history before King David’s time, that’s how Latter-day Saints feel about the Book of Mormon.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

Let’s be fair here, if you’re going to accuse me of misunderstanding you, then don’t do it to me. I pointed out that it seems like many on this thread say archaeology is what really matters, and not the Holy Spirit and Faith. How do we know there’s a life after death after all those experiments I pointed out and neurology says no thinking happens outside of the brain? How do we know that most of the miracles of Jesus Christ weren’t plagiarized from Greek/Egyptian/Persian Mythology (because there are very similar parallels and critics keep bringing it up)? How do we not know that the Nativity Story is a fabrication after the historical record says King Herod died ten years before all the world was taxed? etc, etc?

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.

And I’m not trying to convince anyone of whose religion is true or false. I’m only trying to put things into perspective with what’s going on with the rest of Christianity. I’m only saying that I don’t feel people are playing fair.

Just like Christians feel awkward rejecting the Bible because the secular archaeologists don’t agree with the Bible’s history before King David’s time, that’s how Latter-day Saints feel about the Book of Mormon.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Because you have to investigate this.
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.

Just like you feel that way about the gnostics, that’s how most LDS feel about LDS critics and people who say they proved there was something wrong with Joseph Smith. LDS believe LDS critics are just looking to make something look a certain way. You say they can verify, and I can verify the gnostic gospels existed and some fragments were dated to about the same time as the oldest other New Testament fragments. Just like you feel awkward rejecting the New Testament because of that, LDS feel the same way about rejecting Joseph Smith.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

I called the church during the time of Constantine the Catholic Church, and others got after me. Then there are the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches who believe that the Catholic Church broke away from them instead. So, I’ll just call it the “Roman Christian Church” to offend the least amount of people. Think about it this way, since you’re not referring to the New Testament Church as the Mormon Church and some Mormons might get upset, then we’ll just be neutral and say “New Testament Church” for Christ’s time and “Roman Christian Church” for Constantine’s time.

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.

Refer to my posts on the Gospels that were canonized, and the ones which weren’t, and how many of them have contradictory stories, and how the dating of the oldest papyri fragments of the New Testament were hundreds of years after the New Testament times. Also look at my posts about the secular criticisms of many of the Jesus stories being plagiarized by the Greek Dionysus, Egyptian Horus, and Persian Mithras. Look at my posts where I pointed out that the New Testament quotes Old Testament scriptures as prophecies of Jesus, and that the Dead Sea Scrolls actually say some of those Old Testament scriptures should be saying something else, and that Jews say if the New Testament is really the Word of God it wouldn’t be quoting mistranslated scriptures as prophecies.

Just like you would feel weird rejecting Christianity because of that, LDS would feel weird rejecting their religion because of the LDS criticisms.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

So just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, because cities in the Bible have been found to exist doesn’t prove the Bible but allows the possibility of faith?

From my perspective, I know too much about Bible Minimalism and mainstream secular Palestinian archaeology to believe the Biblical cities are consistent with the actual evidence. Likewise, the Book of Mormon also mentions horses and elephants. For many years, people mocked the Book of Mormon because they said those didn’t exist before Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Then they started digging up bones that were left before Columbus, and many LDS see that as allowing the possibility of the Book of Mormon being true. Then critics say that they haven’t dated any to the right time yet, thousands of years before Book of Mormon times. Since they haven’t found all of the bones yet, keep on finding more, and keep pushing the extinction date of mammoths and pre-Columbian horses to a later date, do we actually have any evidence that tomorrow they won’t find some that date to the time period of the Book of Mormon? Then I hear about the carbon dating of the cities in the Book of Joshua and how messed up it is, and that many of the cities were dated to almost a thousand years apart. I notice that the non-Christian critics of the LDS Church won’t give up their belief in Jesus Christ, so then “I feel” like I have no less right to believe in mine then they do for theirs. It doesn’t prove that anyone’s religion is true or false, only about the right to have faith in one’s religion.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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.

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.

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.

Okay, I think you’re bringing up the same point for the post I have just right above.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

There is an interesting television program produced in Canada with a cheekily provocative title: “The Naked Archeologist”

The host, who is Jewish by the way, presents a biblical question and then spends a LOT of time pursuing the answer by travelling and digging all around the Holy Land.

Sometimes the items and places he comes up with are astonishing.

In one program, he tracked down the house that Jesus lived in. And in the wall there was a handprint, in the wall plaster, made by the person who built the house. He speculated, respectfully, that the handprint might belong to Jesus. Kind of interesting.

Fascinating insights.

Likewise, the Book of Mormon talks about the Waters of Mormon. Many Mormon scholars have pointed to some waterfalls down in Central America that they feel strongly might be the Waters of Mormon.

Although I believe in Jesus Christ, how do we know which house was his, outside of some Christian hundreds of years later saying, “I was inspired to think this is his house”? The secular critics also dispute it.

Why can’t a Mormon believe in the Waters of Mormon?

 

[Stephen168]

I called the church during the time of Constantine the Catholic Church, and others got after me. Then there are the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches who believe that the Catholic Church broke away from them instead. So, I’ll just call it the “Roman Christian Church” to offend the least amount of people. Think about it this way, since you’re not referring to the New Testament Church as the Mormon Church and some Mormons might get upset, then we’ll just be neutral and say “New Testament Church” for Christ’s time and “Roman Christian Church” for Constantine’s time.

The Church from the time of Christ until 451 AD was the Catholic Church. The oldest known list of the canon of the New Testament was in a letter by the Bishop of Alexandria (367AD) He was a Bishop in the Catholic Church not the Roman Church. There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon during this time.

Refer to my posts on the Gospels that were canonized, and the ones which weren’t, and how many of them have contradictory stories, and how the dating of the oldest papyri fragments of the New Testament were hundreds of years after the New Testament times. Also look at my posts about the secular criticisms of many of the Jesus stories being plagiarized by the Greek Dionysus, Egyptian Horus, and Persian Mithras. Look at my posts where I pointed out that the New Testament quotes Old Testament scriptures as prophecies of Jesus, and that the Dead Sea Scrolls actually say some of those Old Testament scriptures should be saying something else, and that Jews say if the New Testament is really the Word of God it wouldn’t be quoting mistranslated scriptures as prophecies.

Just like you would feel weird rejecting Christianity because of that, LDS would feel weird rejecting their religion because of the LDS criticisms.

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]

The Church from the time of Christ until 451 AD was the Catholic Church. The oldest known list of the canon of the New Testament was in a letter by the Bishop of Alexandria (367AD) He was a Bishop in the Catholic Church not the Roman Church. There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon during this time.

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.

And until I see any evidence to support that, I’m going to believe that the people in the New Testament are based on faith, not on actual archaeological or publicly verifiable evidence. I know too much about bible minimalism/non-religious evidence to believe it’s publicly verifiable, but rather verifiable through faith. Just having a city called Jerusalem isn’t good enough. The Book of Mormon has elephants and horses, and they’ve dug up some pre-Columbian mammoths and horses. LDS believe that counts. The dating for many of the events in the New Testament don’t match what historians say, King Herod of Matt being around at the time of all the World being taxed in Luke for the Nativity, etc, etc. If I shouldn’t accept LDS beliefs and ignore spiritual based on anachronisms alone, then why would I accept the New Testament despite physical anachronisms???

It doesn’t prove that anyone’s religion is true or false, only about the right to have faith in one’s religion. Just like Christianity feels awkward rejecting the Bible because the secular archaeologists don’t agree with the Bible’s history before King David’s time and many anachronisms of the New Testament and conflicts between parts of the Gospels, that’s how Latter-day Saints feel about the Book of Mormon.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

And until I see any evidence to support that, I’m going to believe that the people in the New Testament are based on faith, not on actual archaeological or publicly verifiable evidence. I know too much about bible minimalism/non-religious evidence to believe it’s publicly verifiable, but rather verifiable through faith.

Oldest New Testament Manuscripts dated to 2nd Century:
scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Latest dated to 4th Century:
religionfacts.com/christianity/features/new_testament_manuscripts.htm

We have pictures of such manuscripts:
biblical-data.org/coptic/ms_114.jpg
britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/image6.jpg
lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/writing/images/codex.jpg

I think the folks in this thread are asking for physical evidence of the Book of Mormon’s setting and its evidence of being of ancient source. Though we cannot demonstrate that the stories in the New Testament actually happened, we can show that the story itself is of ancient origin and that the story’s setting actually exists. You can’t do the same with the Book of Mormon not only due to complete lack of geographical evidence, but also because these pre-Columbian Christians (whom the Nephites and Lamanites are alleged to be) apparently didn’t bother making more than one copy of the Golden Plates; the copy which according to LDS theology was taken back to heaven right after translation. There’s absolutely no text for archaeologists and linguists to study except for a 19th century “translation” guaranteed by nobody but the LDS Church. Doesn’t that strike you as a little… convenient?

Just having a city called Jerusalem isn’t good enough. The Book of Mormon has elephants and horses, and they’ve dug up some pre-Columbian mammoths and horses. LDS believe that counts.

Of course there were pre-Columbian mammoths… but they went extinct in North America in 8,000 BC. If I remember my BoM chronology well, the Jaredites came to the Americas around 600 BC correct?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I think the folks in this thread are asking for physical evidence of the Book of Mormon’s setting and its evidence of being of ancient source. Though we cannot demonstrate that the stories in the New Testament actually happened, we can show that the story itself is of ancient origin and that the story’s setting actually exists. You can’t do the same with the Book of Mormon because apparently these pre-Columbian Christians didn’t bother making more than one copy of the Golden Plates; the copy which according to LDS theology was taken back to heaven right after translation. There’s absolutely no text for archaeologists and linguists to study except for a 19th century “translation” guaranteed by nobody but the LDS Church. Doesn’t that strike you as a little… convenient?

That’s just my point with those dated New Testament manuscripts you talk about. We don’t have any from the time when the original was supposed to be around, just like we don’t have the original Book of Mormon Gold Plates. Many Christian critics take get very excited when they find we don’t have N.T. manuscripts dating to the correct time, and that there are criticisms of early Christians deliberately fabricating stories of miracles for political purposes and to get more followers.

As far as the New Testament’s settings actually existing, if the Nativity is real, secular scholars say that it would be reasonable the King Herod and “all the world to be taxed” or registered would have happened at the same time. Since all the historical record says King Herod died 10 years before all the Roman World was registered, then secular scholars say it’s falsified. They often suggest that others trying to fabricate the stories hundreds of years later messed up in their details, exposing them to those who are skeptics.

More importantly with setting, if the carbon dating says many of the cities in the Book of Joshua didn’t even exist at the right time and were either peacefully abandoned/attacked over many centuries and even a thousand years or more, then what does that say about the setting for the Book of Joshua? If archaeology says many cities, peoples, and items are anachronisms for the history of the Bible before King David’s time, and that the non-religious conservative archaeologists don’t believe in those events, what does that say about the setting of the Bible before King David?

Of course there were pre-Columbian mammoths… but they went extinct in North America in 8,000 BC. If I remember my BoM chronology well, the Jaredites came to the Americas around 600 BC correct?

The Jaredites were supposed to come over right after the Tower of Babel’s time, so many think 2200 B.C., but it could be other times as well. The elephants talked about in the Book of Mormon were supposed to be during the time of the Jaredites. Many LDS scholars also think “elephants” could have been a name for something else. When the Greeks first saw the Hippos in Africa, they called them River Horses. Throughout history when people have moved to a new area and saw animals that they weren’t familiar with, it’s been common to name them after an animal from their old area.

Until recently, they said that the last mammoths went extinct 10,000 B.C. Then new evidence found they were still around 8,000 B.C. Then they found some on St. Paul Island, Alaska 3,750 B.C. Since we are still continuing to find more bones, then how can we be guaranteed that the extinction date won’t be pushed until later? Is that the basis of faith in following God/religion? The Book of Joshua says they conquered Jericho, then the City of Ai, then Hazor. Carbon dating says Ai was abandoned 2200 B.C. and left that way for a thousand years, Jericho dates destruction 1500 B.C., Hazor by fire 1250 B.C. (see that NOVA link I posted not far up on the posts). See how carbon dating doesn’t support? And the Book of Exodus was supposed to happen before the Book of Joshua. Exodus mentions the city of Rameses. Archaeologists say the earliest a city could have been named after Ramases was 1300-1200’s B.C., after (not before) the destruction of Jericho and way after the time Ai was abandoned.

So honestly, although you’re not going to become LDS, why would a Mormon after knowing about this give up his religion based on anachronism “details” but not reject the God of the Bible? This is why I keep on bringing Biblical Archaeology up. Why? Why? Why would a Mormon after knowing about this reject the LDS Church based on archaeology alone, but not all of Christianity? Saying, “I’m going to reject a book because they haven’t found any elephants carbon dated ‘yet’” and “I’m going to reject a book because the carbon dating for all the cities of an event are off by as much as a thousand years” is the same ‘structure of logic’. LDS feel like you’re trying to convert them to atheism. It just doesn’t make ANY SENSE why LDS would accept one argument but reject the other? Like I said, if you’re trying to convert all Mormons into atheists, it’s not working!!!

 

[Jerusha]

Like I said, if you’re trying to convert all Mormons into atheists, it’s not working!!!

We are not. We are praying that you do not have to trudge through the vast wasteland of atheism for years on end before coming into the Promised Land of Catholicism. A direct journey would be much safer.

What you do when you challenge the historicity of the Bible is argue against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Go ahead, that does not bother us. Both contain SOME accurate history. Both contain spiritual truths. But the spiritual truths of the Bible, including the stories, are a thousand times stronger. And one of the spiritual truths of the Bible is that as man evolves, his perception of the Creator changes. (English is such a sexist language!! )

 

[Jerusha]

Glad you are getting more real about the motivations for your monologue.

 

[ricko]

You have to remember that the bible was not written to be a book of history containing exact dates, times and places. Even though, it does give a fair history of the time. There WAS a King Herod and there WAS a Roman census (not tax) at or near the times stated. These things actually happened in the early days of Jesus. The year of the birth of Jesus is placed at about 7BC which WAS during the reign of Herod. The census date is in doubt as to the exact year but the time period is within about 7 years or so. So although the exact year of any event may be off, the margin of error is very small.

Please check out this link for a complete explanation.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Biblical_Chronology

Now, what equatable evidence can you show for the Book of Mormon?