How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[Jerusha]

There is NO evidence that the BOM can be placed in the 600 BC to 600AD time-frame. There is PLENTY of evidence that it can be placed in the 985 AD to 1472 AD time-frame. Until you can acknowledge that possibility, there is a complete disjuncture of communication.

Ricko, pm me if you are interested. Might be very enlightening.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I see you completely glossed over my point:

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.

I don’t think anyone here is claiming that every single piece of evidence places the NT in the exact time and place that it claims it is from, but claiming that the BoM’s lack of evidence is tantamount to that of the NT is just foolish.

How many manuscripts of the NT to date do we have? Thousands. The oldest miss the mark by only a century or two! And this doesn’t negate our finding future, older manuscripts.

How many manuscripts of the Book of Mormon do we have? Zero. None at all. Zilch, Nada. All we have is a copyrighted, English “translation” with no other pieces of evidence to back it up except Joseph Smith’s word.

Are there some historical inconsistencies by a magnitude of a couple decades? Yes.
Do all the stories share this inconsistency? No.

But notice that there is at least some kind of physical cue given to us in the Bible for historians to compare!!! Details about Herod’s census wrong? Seems that way BUT WE ONLY KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW HEROD WAS A REAL PERSON!

Are there some historical inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon? We won’t know the answer to that until we can actually prove that at least even ONE city named was real, that ONE group of people named was real, or that even ONE person named was real.

Are there some towns mentioned in the Bible that have yet to be unearthed? Yes, of course, but there are even more that HAVE been.

Are there some towns mentioned in the Book of Mormon that have yet to be unearthed? Not only some, BUT ALL OF THEM.

This thread is one about balance of evidence. There is a plethora of physical evidence that places the New Testament in the place and time it claims to be, and there is also evidence that casts some doubt (namely about specific details). To the contrary, the Book of Mormon carries with it NO EVIDENCE. There is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon that can currently hold out as a standard to test any of the claims of the Book of Mormon.

In all probability, that makes it the product of Joseph Smith’s mind.

 

[abucs]

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.

You have to realise that minimalism also involves people who have a faith. They have a faith that reality springs from a non intelligent being. Anything that contradicts this, be it God acting in our world or the science suggesting a non physical underpinning of reality (see recent attemps at string theory, multiverses, parallel worlds, 13 dimension etc) will be viewed through their own rosy glasses. I think they are wrong in much of what they assume. If you are going to hold them up as some sort of neutral standard, i’m sorry but they most certainly are not. No matter how many times they tell eachother they are.

You mentioned Occams Razor before. This is not science, this is a philosophical tool. It can be used in different ways to suggest different things. How you see the world in the first place, and what you assume as a given, you are obviously not going to ‘cut out’.
That can work both ways depending on where you start from.

 

[Jerusha]

Here is proof that there is such a thing as BOM geography

mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

And the place-names are very similar to those in the BOM!!

 

[ReligiousQuest]

You have to realise that minimalism also involves people who have a faith. They have a faith that reality springs from a non intelligent being. Anything that contradicts this, be it God acting in our world or the science suggesting a non physical underpinning of reality (see recent attemps at string theory, multiverses, parallel worlds, 13 dimension etc) will be viewed through their own rosy glasses. I think they are wrong in much of what they assume. If you are going to hold them up as some sort of neutral standard, i’m sorry but they most certainly are not. No matter how many times they tell eachother they are.

You mentioned Occams Razor before. This is not science, this is a philosophical tool. It can be used in different ways to suggest different things. How you see the world in the first place, and what you assume as a given, you are obviously not going to ‘cut out’.
That can work both ways depending on where you start from.

Is it true that people who don’t believe in the Bible don’t believe in an intelligent being? There are a lot of religions who don’t believe in the God of the Bible. There are Hindus, Wiccans, etc. Christians accuse people who don’t believe in the Bible of not wanting to believe in God, or not wanting to accept anything supernatural, which is so not true! Then you guys think that I’m saying anyone who doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon is an atheist, which is also untrue. I said if the God of the Bible can still be true despite all the anachronisms before King David’s time and nothing in that time period being consistent with non conservative religious archaeology, then I don’t understand why the BoM would be disprove on “archaeology alone”. It’s not proof that the BoM is true, I’m just saying that the only way the evidence makes sense to me is if I believe that the God of the Bible is false because of archaeology, or that archaeology doesn’t disprove the LDS Church.

The standards I’m applying to archaeology of the Bible is what mainstream non conservative religious archaeologists say. They say that archaeology has to be falsifiable, verifiable by the public, and based on observation that is structured. The non conservative religious archaeologists say the evidence says the Israelites were really Canaanites who flocked together to create a kingdom, rather than a group coming from Egypt. Their position is falsifiable, even if not proved. As far as Egypt goes, the Bible gives specific dates that date to the 1400’s B.C. The Bible says that they wandered in the wilderness for so many years, and that 600,000 mature men were in the group, which would make it reasonable that more than a million Israelites were in the group. Archaeological evidence says the Egyptians were in the land of Palestine ruling it until 1200 B.C. and that they kept good records of what went on, with no record of Israel until 1200 B.C. The Egyptians had military posts all over the Sinai Peninsula and kept detailed records of those who passed through, with no records of the over 1 million Israelites wandering through the wilderness for that many years. Archaeologists say that’s evidence that should be there, but isn’t, and that those who say the Exodus is real by trying to make random artifacts work are pseudo archaeologists. I don’t understand how that’s real archaeological evidence, anymore than what LDS BoM archaeologists do? Then the Bible says they left the city/area of Ramesees, and Jericho was destroyed later on. Archaeology says no pharaohs by that name existed until 1300-1200 B.C., and the only carbon dating for Jericho destruction was 1500 B.C., hundreds of years earlier. I don’t understand how archaeology consistent with the Bible in that regard?

The Book of Joshua says they conquered Jericho, Ai, and Hazor during the same time and leader Joshua. Carbon dating says Jericho was destroyed 1500 B.C., Ai was carbon dated to be abandoned 2200 B.C. and still abandoned the time of Jericho. Hazor was carbon dated to being destroyed by fire 1250 B.C. Some of the cities didn’t even exist until 600’s B.C. Basically most things before King David’s time follow this type of pattern of anachronisms, which I’ve already talked about the anachronisms of what Genesis says about Abraham vs. archaeology. Secular archaeologists accuse the non conservative religious as being desperate and making it not falsifiable, or pseudo archaeology.

How does archaeology support the Bible before King David? I don’t understand? (I’m not saying it’s wrong, obviously I believe in the God of the Bible, I just know what archaeology says and that it can change with new evidence, even for the BoM) If discrediting the “archaeological setting” to everything before King David doesn’t disprove the God of the Bible, then I feel confused when these other Christians tell me that I can’t believe in the LDS Church because of archaeology?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

There is NO evidence that the BOM can be placed in the 600 BC to 600AD time-frame. There is PLENTY of evidence that it can be placed in the 985 AD to 1472 AD time-frame. Until you can acknowledge that possibility, there is a complete disjuncture of communication.

Ricko, pm me if you are interested. Might be very enlightening.

Jerusha, looking at post 538, why would the anachronisms for the time frame you mention for the BoM be any more convincing in disproving the BoM?

The Bible specifically says that Abraham came before Moses, with Moses coming before the Book of Joshua, with all of them definitely coming before 600’s B.C. Although the Bible doesn’t give specific dates, it gives “specific years between times”, rather than “many moons”. It specifically says Abraham saw the Philistines, Ur of the Chaldeans, etc. Archaeology says Philistines weren’t around until 1100’s B.C. and Ur of Chaldeans even later. The Bible specifically says part of the Book of Exodus was in the land of Ramesees, and that they built Pi-Ramsees, with Jericho being conquered later on (which post 538 talks about archaeology disagreeing). The Book of Joshua specifically says they conquered Jericho, then Ai, and Hazor, and then also some cities that were not supposed to exist until the 600’s B.C. We know what carbon dating says about those cities being conquered during a human lifetime. Etc, Etc, for the events before King David’s time. Then God of the Bible critics point a finger and laugh at us, because of archaeology.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Are there some historical inconsistencies by a magnitude of a couple decades? Yes.
Do all the stories share this inconsistency? No.

But notice that there is at least some kind of physical cue given to us in the Bible for historians to compare!!! Details about Herod’s census wrong? Seems that way BUT WE ONLY KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW HEROD WAS A REAL PERSON!

Are there some historical inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon? We won’t know the answer to that until we can actually prove that at least even ONE city named was real, that ONE group of people named was real, or that even ONE person named was real.

So if we don’t know what the names to a lot of the ancient cities of America before Columbus were actually called or even where we should look, then how do we know they’ve been disproved? Yes we can’t put it in an Archaeology book yet, anymore than an afterlife in a Neurology book, or Noah in a Geology book, or any of Genesis in a Biology book, or the miracles performed by Jesus in a World History book. That doesn’t mean it’s been disproved. There’s also the spiritual aspects of a relationship with God/religion.

Also, please respond to what I just wrote on post 538 about archaeology vs. pseudo archaeology, and if that means it’s true or not.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

What do you mean by that?

 

[abucs]

I am not saying those who believe don’t believe the bible are atheists. What i am saying is that there are a lot of atheists posing as neutral secular (and christian) scholars whose writing are coloured by their own set of beliefs. They have agendas and that should be understood when you read their ‘conclusions’.

We have to agree what believing the bible means. Yes, we should definitely look at archeology and all other forms of knowledge when assessing any ancient writings. The Old Testament is a collection of different Jewish books with different authors. The basis for the different accounts within those pages should definitely be judged against other sources. There are a multitude of scholars and they say a multitude of things. For example, there are scholars who read the pages and say that the total number of Israelites leaving Egypt was not the huge number you mentioned. They claim the numbers mentioned were much smaller which then lays to waste your whole arguement about finding archeological evidence for over a million people who then would have created there own huge imprint on the land of Palestine. (Read the Hebrew professors comment in the EXODUS listing of Wikipedia under ‘Logistics’). and the Egyptian outposts were mostly along the mediterranean with not many in the harsh desert regions. What would be the point ? You’d have to constantly take supplies to them and if a large army approached, they’d be overun before they could warn anyone.

I’m not defending to the death every aspect of every book from every author in the bible. What i am trying to say is that different people have different agendas when they are writing their ‘neutral scholarly accounts’.

What we can say about that particular account is that there is no evidence in the sands of the Sinai of the departing Israelites. There is evidence of Jewish presence in Egypt of the time and of Jewish figures appearing prominantly in the Egyptian ruling class. There is evidence of Ramses the second undergoing a huge building program using slaves to build structures in the cities and towns mentioned in ‘Exodus’. There is also an ancient Egyptian poem stating the destruction through plagues of their land, although there is no connection mentioned to any Israelites. So in total there is not sufficient evidence through archeology to verify the Exodus accounts at this time and perhaps there never will be and perhaps large parts of Exodus didn’t happen the way it is written today. Then again, maybe it largely did. But that is one section of one book of the bible, which as i said at the start is an ancient collection of different books. The fact we don’t have enough evidence to say it happened as stated does not then render the whole bible false.

It is not an all or nothing account.

I have not really an interest in the book of Mormon, but i think what people are asking here is that it be shown that there is some connection between what is writtien there and archeological history. I don’t think they are asking for proof, as that is very hard to have. I think they are asking for some kind of evidence as i have provided above for the bible story you have concentrated on. Evidence does not mean proof, but it is a necessary start for acceptance.

 

[Finrock]

I have not really an interest in the book of Mormon, but i think what people are asking here is that it be shown that there is some connection between what is writtien there and archeological history. I don’t think they are asking for proof, as that is very hard to have. I think they are asking for some kind of evidence as i have provided above for the bible story you have concentrated on. Evidence does not mean proof, but it is a necessary start for acceptance.

Good day to you abucs! I’m glad to meet you and hope you are doing well today. Thanks for your good points in your post.

I’m not particularly interested in debating this subject matter with anyone, although I appreciate ReligiousQuest’s efforts and even some of the very well thought out points of the opposing side. However, if you are interested in learning about the abundance of non-spiritual evidence for the Book of Mormon, I wanted to point you in the right direction. Also, I want to kinda of dispel the apparent misunderstanding that there is absolutely no secular evidence for the Book of Mormon.

The trend of Book of Mormon evidence, overtime, has been that it is increasing. You would think the opposite to be true if the book were false. As an example, during Joseph Smith’s time, many parts of the Book of Mormon were thought to be anachronistic, just as many parts are thought to be anachronistic today. One supposed anachronism during Joseph Smith’s time was the idea that a great civilization existed here in the Americas with cities, and roads, an large metropolitan areas. Of course, we now know that places like this did exist in the Americas, within the time frame of the Book of Mormon events. Another supposed anachronism was the idea that the ancient inhabitants of the Americas used cement. Although it is a relevantly recent archeological discover, it is now widely known that ancient Mesoamericans widely used cement in building structures, art, etc. There is much more, but in short there are many things mentioned and discussed in the Book of Mormon that were thought to be “silly” some years ago, but have now been proven to have existed in a time period and place that fits in with the Book of Mormon account, giving plausibility to the Book of Mormon.

So, there is evidence. No proof, nothing that absolutely settles the question, but to say there is no evidence, simply isn’t true. Much of the same type of evidence that exist for the Bible, exist for the Book of Mormon. See here for some more information, if you are interested: Evidences.

I think this conversation is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary. God and His gospel is a matter of faith, and just as Jesus taught to Peter, flesh and blood doesn’t reveal the things of God to people, but God reveals Himself to people through His Spirit, who testifies of truth. It is a matter of faith, as you mentioned, and the best evidence, or rather proof, we can get, is the proof that God provides us through the Holy Ghost.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Jerusha]

Jerusha, looking at post 538, why would the parallels for the time frame you mention for the BoM be any more convincing in disproving the BoM?

They change one’s understanding of the BOM. I see it as badly written religious fiction. If you want to remain Mormon and believe that it was God-inspired fiction, written within the Viking time-frame, that is your choice, and I leave it to you. If you want to believe that someone discovered copper plates with part of the story written in Old Norse, and remain Mormon, that is your choice. I still believe that Solomon Spalding wrote the core text, whether or not if he had an Old Norse text to work from.

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!!!

So, you are trying to tell us that if we don’t accept the BOM as sacred scripture, we should be atheists? Nice try.

Like I said, the Nag Hammadi writings are not scripture, they are religious writings, they are ancient. Their content tells us why they are not sacred scripture. Most of what is good in the BOM was copied from the Bible. The story, when one looks at ethical behavior, glorifies killing “in the name of the lord.” That is not my Lord. For example, much of what Korihor said was good. Much of what Hitler said was bad. The BOM, according to modern thinking, equates them. In effect, the BOM, as many Mormons believe in it, glorifies genocide. The BOM, in the hands of sociopaths, reads like the PLEZ. Sociopaths even tend to read the Bible like that. See my next post.

 

[Jerusha]

Ether 8:9-14. Compare to Matthew 14:6-12. OMG, the stories are so similar. And-- “daughter of Jared” got her idea from old writings. But those “old writings” had not yet been written. How can this be?

 

[Jerusha]

Just in case:

Now the daughter of Jared being exceeding expert, and seeing the sorrows of her father, thought to devise a plan whereby she could redeem the kingdom unto her father. Now the daughter of Jared was exceeding fair. And it came to pass that she did talk with her father, and saith unto him, Whereby hath my father so much sorrow? Hath he not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep? Behold, is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory? And now therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimmer; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say, I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king.1 And now Omer was a friend to Akish, wherefore when Jared had sent for Akish, the daughter of Jared danced before him, that she pleased him, insomuch that he desired her to wife. And it came to pass that he said unto Jared, Give her unto me to wife. And Jared said unto him, I will give her unto you, if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king. And it came to pass that Akish gathered in unto the house of Jared all his kinsfolks, and saith unto them, Will ye swear unto me that ye will be faithful unto me in the thing which I shall desire of you? And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of Heaven, and also by the Heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired, should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life. (Ether 8:8-14)

Although he wanted to kill him, he feared the people, for they regarded him as a prophet. But at a birthday celebration for Herod, the daughter of Herodias performed a dance before the guests and delighted Herod so much that he swore to give her whatever she might ask for. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and the guests who were present, he ordered that it be given, and he had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who took it to her mother. His disciples came and took away the corpse and buried him; and they went and told Jesus. (Matt. 14:5-12)

 

[mfbukowski]

Evidences.

I think this conversation is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary. God and His gospel is a matter of faith, and just as Jesus taught to Peter, flesh and blood doesn’t reveal the things of God to people, but God reveals Himself to people through His Spirit, who testifies of truth. It is a matter of faith, as you mentioned, and the best evidence, or rather proof, we can get, is the proof that God provides us through the Holy Ghost.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hey Finrock
Thanks for the great article, but I think most here are not interested in the truth.

All the points here have been discussed ad nauseum but no one ever changes or even discusses anything sincerely from what I have seen. I suppose I will continue to check back occasionally

 

[mfbukowski]

Ether 8:9-14. Compare to Matthew 14:6-12. OMG, the stories are so similar. And-- “daughter of Jared” got her idea from old writings. But those “old writings” had not yet been written. How can this be?

How’s your Book of Mormon for Catholics coming?

 

[Jerusha]

How’s your Book of Mormon for Catholics coming?

Having fun with it. You should enjoy it, once you get over the irritation. Welcome back.

 

[ricko]

I think this conversation is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary. God and His gospel is a matter of faith, and just as Jesus taught to Peter, flesh and blood doesn’t reveal the things of God to people, but God reveals Himself to people through His Spirit, who testifies of truth. It is a matter of faith, as you mentioned, and the best evidence, or rather proof, we can get, is the proof that God provides us through the Holy Ghost.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

All major archeologists including several Mormon archeologists agree that there is no evidence of any major civilization in the Americas.

The Holy Spirit who has been guiding the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, sent by Jesus Himself, disagrees with the false spirit that has been leading the Mormon church for 200 years.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Ether 8:9-14. Compare to Matthew 14:6-12. OMG, the stories are so similar. And-- “daughter of Jared” got her idea from old writings. But those “old writings” had not yet been written. How can this be?

AND

So, you are trying to tell us that if we don’t accept the BOM as sacred scripture, we should be atheists? Nice try.

You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about! Are there no similarities between the Old Testament and New Testament? As a criticism of supposed fraud, I hear Jews and others who don’t believe in the New Testament talk about how there are similarities between parts of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The OT talks about Pharaoh killing the firstborn at the time of Moses, then the NT does the same thing with King Herod (then they also point out how King Herod died 10 years before all the Roman world was taxed or registered). They say that it’s obvious early Christians were involved in fraud because there are parallels, and the New Testament quotes, and even rewords certain sayings from the Old Testament. Christians respond that this isn’t fair and if the NT is true, there are going to be parallels, and even quoting of scripture. The same argument in turn is used against the Book of Mormon by non-LDS Christians, who believe in the NT. Then they look confused when LDS don’t fall for the same criticisms. It doesn’t even make sense?

I’m not saying this is evidence for the Book of Mormon in any way. I’m only saying that if the New Testament is true after all this, it doesn’t make sense how this criticism then would apply to the Book of Mormon? (separate from whether the BoM is true). Do you understand why LDS don’t accept this criticism?

Posts #455 & 556 lists many of the main parts that are seen as hypocritical. It makes LDS members and investigators not trust the criticisms when they see non-LDS Christians not giving into similar ones.

In effect, the BOM, as many Mormons believe in it, glorifies genocide.

You’re not saying genocide is never a major criticism of the Bible by critics, are you? I’m not saying that’s evidence or an excuse for anything. I just don’t understand why I’d have to reject the BoM, but not the Bible, based on that alone?

They change one’s understanding of the BOM. I see it as badly written religious fiction. If you want to remain Mormon and believe that it was God-inspired fiction, written within the Viking time-frame, that is your choice, and I leave it to you. If you want to believe that someone discovered copper plates with part of the story written in Old Norse, and remain Mormon, that is your choice. I still believe that Solomon Spalding wrote the core text, whether or not if he had an Old Norse text to work from.

And you never hear critics of the God of the Bible say the Bible is a historical fiction mixed with some real events? How many times have I heard critics bring up all the archaeology before King David’s time, some anachronisms saying parts would have to be a thousand years in a different time frame, carbon dating showing some of the settings for Abraham would have had to happen after the Book of Joshua and Moses after the Book of of Joshua and much more, and all? I’m not saying this is evidence for the BoM. I’m saying if the God of the Bible is true despite archaeology, then it wouldn’t make sense how archaeology would then condemn the LDS Church?

 

[jblake]

ricko;:

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.

Something else to consider. A Census didn’t happen on one day back then. At least one census took forty years to complete.

IOW, it is theoretically possible that the census in question started when Herod was alive, but ended a couple of years after the death of Herod.

Before somebody brings up Quirenius, there is some archeological evidence to suggest he briefly ruled in some capacity, during the reign of Herod.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

xixxvmcm85;:

How many manuscripts of the Book of Mormon do we have? Zero. None at all. Zilch,

One little issue:
Virtually all manuscripts written in South and Central America prior to 1500 were destroyed by the Catholic Church. It is theoretically possible that the BOM was one of the manuscripts that were destroyed.

To the contrary, the Book of Mormon carries with it NO EVIDENCE. There is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon that can currently hold out as a standard to test any of the claims of the Book of Mormon.

A second little issue:
The anglicization of names in BOM could be such, that even where the place is known, we won’t recognize it, because of the vastly different pronunciation.

To take a real world example: Peking: The typical American English pronunciation does not resemble the Mandarin pronunciation of the pinyin “bejing”.

jonathon