LDS... just for fun....

[Serapha]

Some things have been supported in the Bible through archiology, but yet, contrary to popular belief, things in the Book of Mormon have also been supported by archiology. Also a lot of things in the Bible are considered to be stories that have been made up, just like how you thing everything in the Book of Mormon has been made up. What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically. Know I know there are some things in the Bible that are true, like the existence of Jerusulam and stuff like that, but a lot of the stories and places in it have yet to be proven. Take Sodom and Gomorrah, places that could be them have been found, but not proven. Notice the "could", a lot of people here critizie us because of the "coulds" in our archiology, yet they dont realize that the "coulds" are found in just about all archiology, especially ancient.

Hi there!




First of all, you seem to forget that the Old Testament was the beginning of your religion just as it applied to Judaism and mainstream Christianity... therefore, it would not be a good thing for one to criticize the Old Testament accounts... for example there are 25+ layers of stata at Megiddo, all of them fit in the Bible somewhere.

What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically.

I would recommend that you pick up any copy of "Archaeology and the Bible"... Free, Vos, Owens, Thompson, Unger's, McRay, or works by Kenyon, Albright, or any of the Mazar's. Pick up any book on Archaeology and the Bible... I won't even recommend one over the other... but any one...

Actually, sit down and read the book from cover to cover, and then tell me what book that is published on the Book of Mormon does the equivalent.

That's fair enough, isn't it?


~serapha~

 

[Apex]

Bible critics once said there were no Hittites, now there are Hittite grammars and lexicons readily available.

(ex. E.H. Sturtevant, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language: Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, 1933).

Can you cite any Reformed Egyptian grammars or lexicons???

~ NEHI (Curious as a Curelom)

Do you not realize what you wrote? So people once said things in the Bible didnt exist, and now they do. People say things in the Book of Mormon dont exist... I think you know the rest. Now, unless everything has been discovered, more still lays waiting.

 

[unbound]

Do you not realize what you wrote? So people once said things in the Bible didnt exist, and now they do. People say things in the Book of Mormon dont exist... I think you know the rest. Now, unless everything has been discovered, more still lays waiting.

But one thing you dont take into consideration- our world is not the same as 200 years ago. People live in a lot more places than even just 50 years ago, and there are really not that many places which havent been explored in some way....like Hill Camorah.

 

[Wrigley]

But one thing you dont take into consideration- our world is not the same as 200 years ago. People live in a lot more places than even just 50 years ago, and there are really not that many places which havent been explored in some way....like Hill Camorah.

I see new developments going up in locations I haven't seen in the past. Just think, in just a few years we're going to get that all ellusive proof of the bom.

 

[CrownCaster]

Do you not realize what you wrote? So people once said things in the Bible didnt exist, and now they do. People say things in the Book of Mormon dont exist... I think you know the rest. Now, unless everything has been discovered, more still lays waiting.

I do not expect everything that the bom says exists to have been discovered. Some would be nice though. And this should be conclusive and not just a few maybes. Some coins. A city. The site of one of the wars. Anything really. The bom has absolutely no archealogical proof for it's existence that is conclusive. There are many things that an lds historian has said "could be" part of it. There are things in the Bible that have not yet been discovered but such vast amounts have been that it seems very unlikely that the rest will not.

God bless <J><

 

[Apex]

But one thing you dont take into consideration- our world is not the same as 200 years ago. People live in a lot more places than even just 50 years ago, and there are really not that many places which havent been explored in some way....like Hill Camorah.

So you belive that virtually everything has been discovered? How much, exactly, do we know of ancient america before the the Aztecs?

 

[Nehi]

Do you not realize what you wrote? So people once said things in the Bible didnt exist, and now they do. People say things in the Book of Mormon dont exist... I think you know the rest. Now, unless everything has been discovered, more still lays waiting.

Did you miss this part?

Can you cite any Reformed Egyptian grammars or lexicons???

~ NEHI

 

[Apex]

Did you miss this part?


~ NEHI

That was not the point of my post.

 

[Nehi]

That was not the point of my post.

But it was the point of my post, which you responded to.

Let me guess the answer.... "No, I haven't?"

My response: Wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmm

~ NEHI

 

[unbound]

So you belive that virtually everything has been discovered? How much, exactly, do we know of ancient america before the the Aztecs?

I believe we would have found some evidence of the vast amount of BoM people , yet real evidence , something we can definately place in the BoM , has yet to be found, there are really no "wilderness" ( outside of federal or state land)areas in the US any more. This is why your "scholors" are now trying to find a more "remote" location to do thier magic. That is why you now have to grapple with the two hill cumorrah concept.

You talk as if central america is an unexplored region.

 

[Serapha]

Some things have been supported in the Bible through archiology, but yet, contrary to popular belief, things in the Book of Mormon have also been supported by archiology. Also a lot of things in the Bible are considered to be stories that have been made up, just like how you thing everything in the Book of Mormon has been made up. What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically. Know I know there are some things in the Bible that are true, like the existence of Jerusulam and stuff like that, but a lot of the stories and places in it have yet to be proven. Take Sodom and Gomorrah, places that could be them have been found, but not proven. Notice the "could", a lot of people here critizie us because of the "coulds" in our archiology, yet they dont realize that the "coulds" are found in just about all archiology, especially ancient.

Hi Apex,

Also a lot of things in the Bible are considered to be stories that have been made up,

I don't think any of the Bible has been "made up". The Words of the book say that it is inspired. God said He would preserve His word, Paul claimed his writings were "inspired". I have no reason not to believe every word...

just like how you thing everything in the Book of Mormon has been made up.

Well, I don't say it was "made up"... I say that it isn't supported by archaeological or historical references. I would be particularly interested in the historical references. For clarity so you understand, historical referenes are the written sources, manuscripts, ostraca (writing on pottery), inscriptions, etc. Archaeological evidences are the artifacts or the relics of man. Like that "seerstone" in the other thread, that is some type of artifact that has been dug up somewhere. The physical evidences of a prior civilization.

So, back to my statement so you understand. I would love to see historical evidences for the book of mormon.

What I see is that mainstreams dont really see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are almost on the exact same level archiologically.

"no" they aren't.

Take Sodom and Gomorrah, places that could be them have been found, but not proven.

well, to put it in perspective from "the land of Sodom and Gomorrah"....


the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah....

PLAIN OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.--In the picture we are looking toward the east. Our chief muleteer is seen sitting upon a rock to the left. The Mountains of Moab rise in the distance from beyond the River Jordan. The picture was taken from ancient Jericho, just underneath the Mount of Temptation. We see in the distance to the left the village of modern Jericho. From the point where we now stand to the top of the Moab Mountains is about twenty miles. The real Nebo can not be distinguished in the picture, but our dragoman points out the "traditional Nebo." From the place where we stand we are looking upon the plain that Mark Antony gave to Cleopatra and that she rented to Herod. The whole country was once irrigated by waters from the Judean Mountains and was the most fertile tract in Judea. Josephus called it "a divine region." Here Cleopatra had her gardens; here were vast plantations of balsam trees and palm; it is now but a desert. It is to the extreme left of the picture that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are supposed to have stood. This is the region over which Lot looked and was tempted by its luxuriance and wealth to settle in it. This is the region over which Moses looked when he viewed the promised land from the heights of Nebo. This is the region that Jesus saw when tempted to accept the gift of the world on condition that he would simply bow before Satan, the god of this world, and worship him.
(Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee, 1893, Bain and Lee)

 

[A New Dawn]

Did you miss this part?

Can you cite any Reformed Egyptian grammars or lexicons???

~ NEHI

Does the glyph for "And it came to pass" count?

 

[Nehi]

Does the glyph for "And it came to pass" count?

I think that is more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal! A glyph doth not a grammar make.

BTW, I think that glyph is really translated...

"And he passed away"


(another pesky obituary )

~ NEHI

 

[Serapha]

Does the glyph for "And it came to pass" count?

HI there!



Actually glyphs would be historical and archaeological evidences, so which ones are related to the book of mormon?


~serapha~

 

[jasonjoh]

Yep

 

[happyinhisgrace]

HI there!



Actually glyphs would be historical and archaeological evidences, so which ones are related to the book of mormon?


~serapha~

I would be really interested in hearing about this also.

 

[Ran77]

I thought this was supposed to be a "just for fun" thread?

Hey, finding fault with the LDS is fun for them. You don't really think that their efforts on this board are intended to reach out to us in a kind and loving manner - do you? Its all just for fun. For them anyway.

 

[Ran77]

I thought this was supposed to be a "just for fun" thread?


The dichotomy of thought is amazing isn't it? I would stack up the plausibility of Lehi's journey with that of Moses' anyday.

No, it was the REED Sea, not the RED Sea.
No, it was more like 40,000 people rather than the 800,000.
Perhaps it wasn't really 40 years?
No, they weren't really chariots.
There could have been a Tsunami, you know.
It wasn't REALLY blood.
Not all the firstborn children died.
The Egyptians must have been embarassed by what happened which is why they didn't record the events.

Of course, the most logical explanation is that these things didn't really occur. Or did they? I mean, we only have the Bible's word for it. Don't we? How can we trust the record of one book in the face of such overwhelming archaealogical evidence?

Excellent post - by the way. Too bad it went over a couple of their heads. It is extremely disengenuous to find fault with Lehi's journey, but not be able to see how it would equally apply to Moses' situation. Perhaps even more amazing is that they expect that someone should be swayed by this logic.

 

[Serapha]

Hey, finding fault with the LDS is fun for them. You don't really think that their efforts on this board are intended to reach out to us in a kind and loving manner - do you? Its all just for fun. For them anyway.

 

[Swart]

Excellent post - by the way. Too bad it went over a couple of their heads. It is extremely disengenuous to find fault with Lehi's journey, but not be able to see how it would equally apply to Moses' situation. Perhaps even more amazing is that they expect that someone should be swayed by this logic.

Yes. I'm surprised it was meant with a 'huh?'. If some of the COTMC threw their objections to a MOTC and received a "huh?" they would say "Gee. You are SO uninformed about the problems with your history!"

I imagine even some of those reading this would no get the irony in the above statement. Still, it is not my place to educate OCs.

It reminds me of an episode of the Young Ones where Adrian (the Anarchist) steals Rick's (the Communist) record player. Rick says to Adrian "You have no respect for personal property!"