The Book of Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
truthseeker32 said:
If archaeologists find a spider-man comic book in 1000 years, would they be right to conclude that spider-man was real because New York City was real?
Click to expand...
Closer to reality than the BoM.

We know the location of New York. We can find archeological evidence in the way of artifacts for New York.

We know the language used in New York existed at the time.

Just those few examples debunks your premise.
 
twopekinguys said:
Closer to reality than the BoM.

We know the location of New York. We can find archeological evidence in the way of artifacts for New York.

We know the language used in New York existed at the time.

Just those few examples debunks your premise.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Science would know they had a book that was 1000 years old, it is fiction, and there is/was a place called New York. They would also now that exact location of New York.

Science knows the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction.
Click to expand...
TexanKnight said:
Seriously? You are trying to compare finding a comic book to finding remnants of a city and bones from a people?

seriously?
Click to expand...
My point, people, is to illustrate that the argument that a story is true because the place it supposedly happened exists is a fallacious argument. It is perfectly possible that there could be an ancient fictitious story set in a historical location. For example, it is not enough to say Moses existed because we know where Mount Sainai is. We need to demonstrate that it is the same Mount Saini, first of all, and then provide evidence for the man Moses himself. Note: Since people often put words in my mouth I suppose I should just come on out and say it again. I AM NOT ARGUING IN DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. FURTHER, I DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE MOSES IS A FICTITIOUS CHARACTER! I merely try to point out the fallacies on both sides.
 
truthseeker32 said:
My point, people, is to illustrate that the argument that a story is true because the place it supposedly happened exists is a fallacious argument.

And your point failed miserably, as demonstrated.

It is perfectly possible that there could be an ancient fictitious story set in a historical location. For example, it is not enough to say Moses existed because we know where Mount Sainai is.

No one has ever said that. All we have said is that the fact there is historical, geographical, and archaeological evidence of the Bible does not make the Bible true, but it DOES lend it credibility. We know people mentioned in Bible existed.

Note: Since people often put words in my mouth I suppose I should just come on out and say it again. I AM NOT ARGUING IN DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. FURTHER, I DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE MOSES IS A FICTITIOUS CHARACTER! I merely try to point out the fallacies on both sides.

And again, you failed miserably.
Click to expand...
 
truthseeker32 said:
My point, people, is to illustrate that the argument that a story is true because the place it supposedly happened exists is a fallacious argument. It is perfectly possible that there could be an ancient fictitious story set in a historical location.
Click to expand...
But is it possible for a true story to take place in a fictitious time and place?
truthseeker32 said:
I merely try to point out the fallacies on both sides.
Click to expand...
Therefore, I don’t see the fallacy of those claiming the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction.
 
Stephen168 said:
But is it possible for a true story to take place in a fictitious time and place?
Click to expand...
Yes. Suppose I wrote a story about real events but changed names and places to protect the innocent/guilty, or to avoid censorship? Like Roman a clef?
 
TexanKnight said:
Please, explain my failure, TexanKnight. Substantiate your claims.
40.png
Stephen168:
But is it possible for a true story to take place in a fictitious time and place?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. A story is false if the character and/ or the location are fictitious. Therefore a story is only true if both the location and character(s) is real. Pretty basic stuff. Once again, not defending the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
 
truthseeker32 said:
Absolutely not. A story is false if the character and/ or the location are fictitious. Therefore a story is only true if both the location and character(s) is real. Pretty basic stuff. Once again, not defending the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
Exactly and that is all we are claiming. Fake locations equal a fake story. Real places equal the possibility of a real story.
 
JHow said:
Yes. Suppose I wrote a story about real events but changed names and places to protect the innocent/guilty, or to avoid censorship? Like Roman a clef?
Click to expand...
It would still be a true story with different names and places in history; yet real places and real people.

It would be a story known to the people in the time and area it took place. You would not be the only one who knew the story. If someone asked you to prove your story, you would be able to do it. If you died, science would still be able to judge the veracity of your story.
 
Unless you’re taking the position that the Book of Mormon is something like a nursery rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty?
Ring around the rosy"

I don’t think even Mormons would claim anything like this.
 
RebeccaJ said:
…a true story in a fictitious language?

:rotfl:
Click to expand...
That admittedly adds a degree of difficulty. If you write your story in a fictitious language no one will understand it. Translated from a fictitious language is another story. I once read an article about a confidence man in WW II who talked his way out if prison by claiming to know Japanese. He apparently was sent to teach phrases to combat soldiers which he did, making up an entirely fictitious “Japanese” language.
 
truthseeker32 said:
Please, explain my failure, TexanKnight. Substantiate your claims.

Absolutely not. A story is false if the character and/ or the location are fictitious. Therefore a story is only true if both the location and character(s) is real. Pretty basic stuff. Once again, not defending the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
Your theory, as pointed out, is simply wrong. You do not need me to point out what others have proven to you
 
JHow said:
That admittedly adds a degree of difficulty. If you write your story in a fictitious language no one will understand it. Translated from a fictitious language is another story. I once read an article about a confidence man in WW II who talked his way out if prison by claiming to know Japanese. He apparently was sent to teach phrases to combat soldiers which he did, making up an entirely fictitious “Japanese” language.
Click to expand...
Was it Reformed Japanese?
 
This sentence is taken from mormon.org.

This vision of Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ was the beginning of Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet of God. He was told that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth.

So ive seen mormons post “the primitave church” which refers to the Catholic Church. Now wouldnt it make sense that if joe smith had these “visions” and God & Jesus are telling smith “none of the churches on earth had the fullness of truth” that whats being said is Christ, you lead hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of souls to hell because your church (the church Christ started) does not have the fullness of truth and Jesus has no truth but yet you claim to follow Him? If Christ cant get it right what makes you think He got it right now with the lds? He could just pick up and go couldnt He?
 
kimg901 said:
This sentence is taken from mormon.org.

This vision of Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ was the beginning of Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet of God. He was told that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth.

So ive seen mormons post “the primitave church” which refers to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
In the LDS view, the “primitive church” would not be the Catholic Church, but something before that.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
In the LDS view, the “primitive church” would not be the Catholic Church, but something before that.
Click to expand...
But there isn’t anything before that.

Christ left the Church in Peter’s hands. The Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, they can’t say what that “something” is.
 
twopekinguys said:
I don’t see where that thread says the original church was not Catholic.
Click to expand...
That thread looks like it’s attempting to see how LDS and LDS apologists view the ancient Church that is apparently “restored”, and whether there is a Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, which would have to be before the Catholic Church, in the LDS view, since LDS view the Catholic Church (among others) as the result of changes in doctrines and ordinances, and the LDS Church is purported to be a restoration of the “primitive Church”, i.e. the Church before it became “corrupted” into the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church if you want).

One can only wonder who would start such a thread…:coffeeread::whistle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top