Flood of Noah and the BoM

[zeontes]

I have been doing some work trying to piece together the history/prehistory of the world and the events of the Bible. I remember that the BoM was supposed to cover a time of ancient America, what time frame does it supposedly cover? Of course my aim is to just gather information not to flame Mormons or to give credence to their belief. I have learned a tremendous amount about prehistory reading Time Life books and books about the Black Sea flood. The earliest writings being pictographs then proceeding onto symbols that represented words and finally onto alphabet representations of sounds used to represent words. The golden plates were they supposedly written on with pictographs, cuniform, alphabetic writing, or what?

 

[Bond Slave]

I have been doing some work trying to piece together the history/prehistory of the world and the events of the Bible. I remember that the BoM was supposed to cover a time of ancient America, what time frame does it supposedly cover? Of course my aim is to just gather information not to flame Mormons or to give credence to their belief. I have learned a tremendous amount about prehistory reading Time Life books and books about the Black Sea flood. The earliest writings being pictographs then proceeding onto symbols that represented words and finally onto alphabet representations of sounds used to represent words. The golden plates were they supposedly written on with pictographs, cuniform, alphabetic writing, or what?

They were written in "reformed egyptian" which does not exist and nobody can explain to me why the Jewish people would write in egyptian of any kind as the egyptians were the ones who heaped so much persecution on them. Hmmmm.

The bom claims to begin it's story at around 600 b.c. and goes to after the Christ ascended into Heaven. It also tells another story about some jaredites that were around before then but really begins it's story at 600 b.c. in Jerusalem, the very town it claims Jesus was born in.

 

[Swart]

They were written in "reformed egyptian" which does not exist and nobody can explain to me why the Jewish people would write in egyptian of any kind as the egyptians were the ones who heaped so much persecution on them. Hmmmm.

The bom claims to begin it's story at around 600 b.c. and goes to after the Christ ascended into Heaven. It also tells another story about some jaredites that were around before then but really begins it's story at 600 b.c. in Jerusalem, the very town it claims Jesus was born in.

Despite BS/BG's colouration, her material here is basically correct. You won't find much correlation between the BoM and the flood. Rather, I direct you to the Book of Jasher, which you might find interesting.

There is very little archaeologically to demonstrate the existence of the flood. In fact, on bare evidence without the Biblical account you would be forced to reject it. This is pretty much true for any Biblical event before about 1300BC; rejecting pseudo-science, of course. I suppose, in the end these things are matters of faith.

 

[Blackmarch]

I have been doing some work trying to piece together the history/prehistory of the world and the events of the Bible. I remember that the BoM was supposed to cover a time of ancient America, what time frame does it supposedly cover? Of course my aim is to just gather information not to flame Mormons or to give credence to their belief. I have learned a tremendous amount about prehistory reading Time Life books and books about the Black Sea flood. The earliest writings being pictographs then proceeding onto symbols that represented words and finally onto alphabet representations of sounds used to represent words. The golden plates were they supposedly written on with pictographs, cuniform, alphabetic writing, or what?

It has two accounts- an a ccount from a people that came to the americas at the time of the tower of babel, and way later, an account of people that came to americas from jerusalem, 600 years before Christ's birth, shortly before Jerusalem was raided. The account from the people that came from jerusalem covers from 600 B.C. to somewhere around between 300 to 400 A.D.

 

[zeontes]

It has two accounts- an a ccount from a people that came to the americas at the time of the tower of babel, and way later, an account of people that came to americas from jerusalem, 600 years before Christ's birth, shortly before Jerusalem was raided. The account from the people that came from jerusalem covers from 600 B.C. to somewhere around between 300 to 400 A.D.

In either account does it indicate mode of travel? Difficulties along the way, the time the journey took etc? Any indication of the culture/lifeways of the people? The Native Americans were primarily Hunter Gatherers in the west while those in the east were agriculturalists to a certain point. Those south of the US border were primarily agriculturalists.

In the Near East at the time of the Tower of Babel, the people were crop growers and herdsmen which enabled others to develop trades. Was there any of this cultural advancement brought to America?

 

[Blackmarch]

In either account does it indicate mode of travel? Difficulties along the way, the time the journey took etc? Any indication of the culture/lifeways of the people? The Native Americans were primarily Hunter Gatherers in the west while those in the east were agriculturalists to a certain point. Those south of the US border were primarily agriculturalists.

In the Near East at the time of the Tower of Babel, the people were crop growers and herdsmen which enabled others to develop trades. Was there any of this cultural advancement brought to America?

A little bit, more so of the second group which split into to basic groups called nephites and lamanites. There is less detail generally on the first group known as Jaredites. From the accounts both groups got to the americas by boats of some form. When the second group was journying they would hunt mostly, probably also look for berries that were edible and etc.. but didn't do any planting and that sort.

For the first group as to whether they were hunter gatherer or agriculture dominant, there isn't much to draw on.

For the second group there is a little more info the lifestyles. Sometime after the group got to the Americas it broke up into 2 main groups which grew into the 2 main civilizations.
one split were called Nephites, and it's from this group that most the records come from, as well as the one that usually had the Gospel throughout the history. Whenever it talks about the nephitesand food there's usually some comment or another about the fields. They are commented on as being more industrious and builders of cities.

the other split were called Lamanites and the boM describes them as what would be Hunter Gatherer; they would hunt their food rather than stay and build and till the ground, they wore animal skins (usually loincloths) they became more warlike. It also says their skin darkened, and that they would put markings on their skin.

Eventually when both civilizations fell into great wickedness, the Lamanites destroyed the Nephite nation.


hope that helps.

 

[zeontes]

A little bit, more so of the second group which split into to basic groups called nephites and lamanites. There is less detail generally on the first group known as Jaredites. From the accounts both groups got to the americas by boats of some form. When the second group was journying they would hunt mostly, probably also look for berries that were edible and etc.. but didn't do any planting and that sort.

For the first group as to whether they were hunter gatherer or agriculture dominant, there isn't much to draw on.

For the second group there is a little more info the lifestyles. Sometime after the group got to the Americas it broke up into 2 main groups which grew into the 2 main civilizations.
one split were called Nephites, and it's from this group that most the records come from, as well as the one that usually had the Gospel throughout the history. Whenever it talks about the nephitesand food there's usually some comment or another about the fields. They are commented on as being more industrious and builders of cities.

the other split were called Lamanites and the boM describes them as what would be Hunter Gatherer; they would hunt their food rather than stay and build and till the ground, they wore animal skins (usually loincloths) they became more warlike. It also says their skin darkened, and that they would put markings on their skin.

Eventually when both civilizations fell into great wickedness, the Lamanites destroyed the Nephite nation.


hope that helps.

Is there any indication about where they settled? Any interaction between them and the indigenous population? Is there any evidence of cultural assimulation of the surviving group, the Lamanites, among the indigenous peoples? Interesting that the Nephites would have been destroyed I would have thought that they would be better suited to survive. Surely with Near Eastern roots they would have built walled cities for protection. With agrarian ways they should have multiplied quickly compared to the hunter gatherers.

 

[Breetai]

There is very little archaeologically to demonstrate the existence of the flood. In fact, on bare evidence without the Biblical account you would be forced to reject it

I've found quite the opposite.

 

[Bond Slave]

Is there any indication about where they settled? Any interaction between them and the indigenous population? Is there any evidence of cultural assimulation of the surviving group, the Lamanites, among the indigenous peoples? Interesting that the Nephites would have been destroyed I would have thought that they would be better suited to survive. Surely with Near Eastern roots they would have built walled cities for protection. With agrarian ways they should have multiplied quickly compared to the hunter gatherers.

The bom claims that the lamanites are the ancestors of the modern day Native Americans. Of course, this has been shown to be false through DNA testing. The lamanites and nephites supposedly did engage in tremendous wars where thousands upon thousands were killed. Amazingly, there is not one shred of evidence that proves the existence of these peoples. Not any of the many coins that were described. Not any of the cities that were described. And not any proof of the massive wars or the many weapons cited as being used.

 

[zeontes]

The bom claims that the lamanites are the ancestors of the modern day Native Americans. Of course, this has been shown to be false through DNA testing. The lamanites and nephites supposedly did engage in tremendous wars where thousands upon thousands were killed. Amazingly, there is not one shred of evidence that proves the existence of these peoples. Not any of the many coins that were described. Not any of the cities that were described. And not any proof of the massive wars or the many weapons cited as being used.

Ok, so then for those who follow the BoM this is just something that they believe without any basis on evidence whatsoever? Surely some these 12 million folks would question the validity of the story if there were no cities. A city leaves remains, even villages leave remains.

The story about thousands upon thousands, I think I read somewhere about a million involved in warfare, does not make sense based upon the hunter-gatherer premise.

Hunter gatherer societies by their very nature are generally small. This has been shown over and over again through out history. I believe the Mandan indian "city" that Lewis and Clark went through only had a population of 10,000. This was a large community for the times, making it very hard to imagine a war with thousands upon thousands.

As a point of reference the Zulu population in Africa today is only 5 million.

 

[Swart]

I've found quite the opposite.

I'm not a geologist, but I defer to those who are on this matter. The number of geologists who point to evidence of a global flood is slim. Those that do, do so on religious and not scientific grounds.

This is not to say that the flood did not occur, but in the absence of biblical support, the scientific evidence is extremely slim.

 

[Bond Slave]

I'm not a geologist, but I defer to those who are on this matter. The number of geologists who point to evidence of a global flood is slim. Those that do, do so on religious and not scientific grounds.

This is not to say that the flood did not occur, but in the absence of biblical support, the scientific evidence is extremely slim.

Actually you are mistaken. The church I attend even has several videos that chronicle the evidence for the flood. There is much scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. The Creation Research Institute was there recently and they were able to show some amazing evidence for this happening.

 

[Bond Slave]

Ok, so then for those who follow the BoM this is just something that they believe without any basis on evidence whatsoever? Surely some these 12 million folks would question the validity of the story if there were no cities. A city leaves remains, even villages leave remains.

The story about thousands upon thousands, I think I read somewhere about a million involved in warfare, does not make sense based upon the hunter-gatherer premise.

Hunter gatherer societies by their very nature are generally small. This has been shown over and over again through out history. I believe the Mandan indian "city" that Lewis and Clark went through only had a population of 10,000. This was a large community for the times, making it very hard to imagine a war with thousands upon thousands.

As a point of reference the Zulu population in Africa today is only 5 million.

mormonism is a religion based on faith alone. They do not have the means to back up the claims that are made in the bom and have been struggling lately to defend the stories within. No, there is absolutely no physical evidence that proves any of the stories in the bom and it has been researched by many very qualified archeaoligists. With the increase of knowlege the stories keep falling further apart. Like the DNA studies that have conclusively shown that the Native Americans have absolutely no link to the Hebrew people and the study done on the papyri that joe smith said he translated the pearl of great price from. It has been conclusively shown to be nothing more then a common book of breathings, or funeral text showing the steps of embalming a body.

 

[Blackmarch]

Is there any indication about where they settled? Any interaction between them and the indigenous population? Is there any evidence of cultural assimulation of the surviving group, the Lamanites, among the indigenous peoples? Interesting that the Nephites would have been destroyed I would have thought that they would be better suited to survive. Surely with Near Eastern roots they would have built walled cities for protection. With agrarian ways they should have multiplied quickly compared to the hunter gatherers.

Other than that they basically traveled south then west from jerusalem, there isn't any geographical reference as to a location where they landed. It's generaly thought that they landed somewhere in south americ, on the side neares to the Andes mountains. This is an assumptions made by scholars.

 

[Blackmarch]

Ok, so then for those who follow the BoM this is just something that they believe without any basis on evidence whatsoever? Surely some these 12 million folks would question the validity of the story if there were no cities. A city leaves remains, even villages leave remains.

The story about thousands upon thousands, I think I read somewhere about a million involved in warfare, does not make sense based upon the hunter-gatherer premise.

Hunter gatherer societies by their very nature are generally small. This has been shown over and over again through out history. I believe the Mandan indian "city" that Lewis and Clark went through only had a population of 10,000. This was a large community for the times, making it very hard to imagine a war with thousands upon thousands.

As a point of reference the Zulu population in Africa today is only 5 million.

The BoM only mentions 3 groups. who is to say there weren't other groups before, after, or during it's recorded history?...
The numbers don't ever reach a million or more, it's either countless (usually describing the Lamanites as the Nephites usually don't get the time to count them..) and on the nephite side somewhere up in the 240,000s (for the highest counted) not counting women and children.


As for Flood evidence the best evidence one has seen about a flood is that almost every ancient civilization has some form of flood myth/story.

mormonism is a religion based on faith alone. They do not have the means to back up the claims that are made in the bom and have been struggling lately to defend the stories within. No, there is absolutely no physical evidence that proves any of the stories in the bom and it has been researched by many very qualified archeaoligists. With the increase of knowlege the stories keep falling further apart. Like the DNA studies that have conclusively shown that the Native Americans have absolutely no link to the Hebrew people and the study done on the papyri that joe smith said he translated the pearl of great price from. It has been conclusively shown to be nothing more then a common book of breathings, or funeral text showing the steps of embalming a body.

UM, how do you find the right dna markers to compare the native Americans DNA to?

THe first few lines; where did Joseph learn that there were great cities in south america, and some with great walls. How did he know that the time period from about 90 AD to around 200 some odd AD was the greatest time for the civilizations in the americas? Who tought him, or did he make an extremely good guess?

 

[A New Dawn]

The bom claims that the lamanites are the ancestors of the modern day Native Americans.

The BoM claims that the Lamanites were the ancestors of some of the modern day native Americans.

Of course, this has been shown to be false through DNA testing.

Unfortunately, they are unable to do accurate DNA testing, so there is no way to determine if it is true or not.

The lamanites and nephites supposedly did engage in tremendous wars where thousands upon thousands were killed. Amazingly, there is not one shred of evidence that proves the existence of these peoples. Not any of the many coins that were described. Not any of the cities that were described. And not any proof of the massive wars or the many weapons cited as being used.

Well, if you look in the right places, you just might find the evidence that is sitting right there on the ground for all to see.

 

[skylark1]

The BoM claims that the Lamanites were the ancestors of some of the modern day native Americans.

Actually, I believe that the BoM claims that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Introduction to the Book of Mormon

​

 

[A New Dawn]

Actually, I believe that the BoM claims that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Introduction to the Book of Mormon

​

I believe that the introduction (of the LDS BoM) was written by someone of our day and age, and that the BoM really doesn't make any sort of claim like that.

 

[skylark1]

I believe that the introduction (of the LDS BoM) was written by someone of our day and age, and that the BoM really doesn't make any sort of claim like that.

I wasn't aware of that. Do you (or anyone else) have any idea when the introduction was added?

Does the BoM claim that the Lamanites "were the ancestors of some of the modern day native Americans?"

 

[Doc T]

Actually, I believe that the BoM claims that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Introduction to the Book of Mormon

​

In going to dictionary.com I find the first definition of "principal" as:

1. First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief.

I would say that, at least according the the peoples of the BofM, they would feel that they were the "foremost in importance" of the ancestory of the American Indians as being part of the children of Israel.

In other words, I see no conflict with what Jenda wrote and the word principal in the Introduction of the BofM.

Doc

~