NOM

Christians get really annoyed when LDS apologists try to poke holes in Bible historicity in the attempt to drag it down to the level of the Book of Mormon. A particularly favored angle of attack is to point out that many places and events in the Bible cannot be definitively identified today.

Next time you hear that claim you might want to mention the Siege of Lachish, an event that is well corroborated by scripture, extra-biblical texts, archaeological evidence, and Assyrian iconography.

Lachish was a Judean fortress south of Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah. It was sacked in an impressive battle by the Assyrian King Sennacherib. Not only is this event mentioned multiple times in the Bible (II Kings. II Chronicles. Micah), it is also chronicled in contemporary Assyrian tablets. AND it is illustrated in extreme detail on the still-existing walls panels of Sennacerib's palace. PLUS, the site can be recognized today, complete with the earthen siege ramp that is also mentioned by Isaiah and illustrated in the palace relief carvings. BUT wait, there's more: the site is strewn with thousands of arrowheads and carved sling stones that also match the relief carvings and written descriptions of the event.

Now lets compare that with the best existing example of one of the great Book of Mormon battles:

(this space left intentionally blank)

Yeah, there's a big problem with false equivalency there. Sure, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was, as mentioned in the bible (i.e., nowhere - it's a myth). But there has yet to be a single identifiable place found that is mentioned in the BofM in the New World. Zero.

fh451

fh451 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:44 pm Yeah, there's a big problem with false equivalency there. Sure, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was, as mentioned in the bible (i.e., nowhere - it's a myth).

But it sure as hell wasn't in Missouri! If anything it was likely mythologized memories of the lost wetlands of Eridu or the gardens of Babylon.

fh451 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:44 pm Yeah, there's a big problem with false equivalency there. Sure, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was, as mentioned in the bible (i.e., nowhere - it's a myth). But there has yet to be a single identifiable place found that is mentioned in the BofM in the New World. Zero.

My uber-faithful in-laws were in town this past weekend and would firmly disagree with you. They spent some of their time watching videos from Wayne May and Rod Meldrum and are becoming strong proponents of the "Heartland" theory of Book of Mormon geography. Besides, the location of Nahom is a huge rallying point for apologists as thin as it is.

I remember on the ol' mish, a protestant gentleman arguing with me about our viewpoint of "translated correctly" and pointing out how the Isaiah verses found on the dead sea scrolls were accurate.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:28 pm

fh451 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:44 pm Yeah, there's a big problem with false equivalency there. Sure, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was, as mentioned in the bible (i.e., nowhere - it's a myth). But there has yet to be a single identifiable place found that is mentioned in the BofM in the New World. Zero.

My uber-faithful in-laws were in town this past weekend and would firmly disagree with you. They spent some of their time watching videos from Wayne May and Rod Meldrum and are becoming strong proponents of the "Heartland" theory of Book of Mormon geography. Besides, the location of Nahom is a huge rallying point for apologists as thin as it is.

My sister and her husband took a trip to Meso-America and came back with accounts of probable sites of Zarahemla and the Waters of Mormon. We ought to get them together with your in-laws.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:28 pm

fh451 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:44 pm Yeah, there's a big problem with false equivalency there. Sure, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was, as mentioned in the bible (i.e., nowhere - it's a myth). But there has yet to be a single identifiable place found that is mentioned in the BofM in the New World. Zero.

My uber-faithful in-laws were in town this past weekend and would firmly disagree with you. They spent some of their time watching videos from Wayne May and Rod Meldrum and are becoming strong proponents of the "Heartland" theory of Book of Mormon geography. Besides, the location of Nahom is a huge rallying point for apologists as thin as it is.

Wayne May seems like a con artist from the few videos I have seen.

This whole thing of degrading the Bible in order to save the BOM is like shooting one's self in the good foot to make it match the bad foot.
I'm willing to admit the Bible has some issues (many of which can be sorted out with serious study) but to do damage to the best candidate for true scripture simply doesn't help the apologist's cause. The Bible may not be perfect but it does have empirical adequacy for it's very existence.
Something the BOM miserably fails to achieve.

I would think some inspired GA would figure out how much harm they are doing and put a stop to it.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:28 pmMy uber-faithful in-laws were in town this past weekend and would firmly disagree with you. They spent some of their time watching videos from Wayne May and Rod Meldrum and are becoming strong proponents of the "Heartland" theory of Book of Mormon geography. Besides, the location of Nahom is a huge rallying point for apologists as thin as it is.

That's why I said "new world" because it also mentions Jerusalem - so hey, it got one hit!

Of course NHM = Nahom is grasping at a real thin straw.

fh451

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:03 pmThey spent some of their time watching videos from Wayne May and Rod Meldrum and are becoming strong proponents of the "Heartland" theory of Book of Mormon geography.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire!

Besides, the location of Nahom is a huge rallying point for apologists as thin as it is.

It is amazing how thin they stretch that thing. If I came up with a story with a place named Anuhemi on the Arabian peninsula would NHM also be proof of that, considering that it would have the same Semitic spelling as Nahom?

News flash! Kermit the Frog lives on Mars!



and he's not alone.



OK, the Mickey Mouse head is actually on Mercury, but my point is that coincidences happen. The only reason they cling so dearly to the NHM thing is that it's the closest thing they have to actual physical evidence. Too bad you have to go all the way to Saudi Arabia to find evidence of people who lived in the Americas and numbered in the millions.

I got myself into trouble when I was still a member by pointing out that there were false prophecies in the bible. I thought I was going to get disfellowshipped.

First post...This is a topic I've thought a lot about but from maybe a little different perspective. When I first discovered all of the issues with the BOM I quickly transferred that thought process to "are there problems like this in the Bible? " Which I think is a natural thought and why apologists go there. I read a book called zealot that tries to paint a historical, non biblical perspective on Jesus and I discovered some issues with the biblical narrative that made sense to me. I feel like it's natural to make accommodations for personal belief and ignore issues that go against the grain.Christians do this with the Bible and Mormons with the quad, But we tend to not allow others to make accommodations for their own system of belief.

I Will say that the problems with Book of Mormon are plentiful, and in my opinion indicate it is not a historical narrative. But I think we have to be willing to take that same logic and apply it to other books and belief systems as well. Not to try and make the BOM look better but to be authentic and maintain integrity of the process of finding truth.

What they expected wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:22 pm I Will say that the problems with Book of Mormon are plentiful, and in my opinion indicate it is not a historical narrative. But I think we have to be willing to take that same logic and apply it to other books and belief systems as well. Not to try and make the BOM look better but to be authentic and maintain integrity of the process of finding truth.

I like your ideas, but religious books have the backing of true believers. Their logical conclusion to the book being "true" is that the you must now dedicate your time, talents, and everything which the Lord has blessed you to the church that holds that book sacred. I can appreciate the book "Zealot" by Reza Aslan and evaluate it from lots of points of view. But Reza Aslan is not trying to convert you to Christianity (especially since he is Muslim). Richard Bushman wrote "Rough Stone Rolling" and it's entirely possible to appreciate this book about Joseph Smith as both a strong, LDS believer and as a skeptical apostate. You are not being compelled to make profound changes in your life or hold allegiance to any church after reading the vast majority of books.

But the Book of Mormon and Bible are both presented as this artifact of divinity. If you evaluate these books as "true" then various groups of believers will assure you of the obligation to change your entire life and devote yourself to their doctrinal version of God.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:03 am

What they expected wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:22 pm I Will say that the problems with Book of Mormon are plentiful, and in my opinion indicate it is not a historical narrative. But I think we have to be willing to take that same logic and apply it to other books and belief systems as well. Not to try and make the BOM look better but to be authentic and maintain integrity of the process of finding truth.

I like your ideas, but religious books have the backing of true believers. Their logical conclusion to the book being "true" is that the you must now dedicate your time, talents, and everything which the Lord has blessed you to the church that holds that book sacred. I can appreciate the book "Zealot" by Reza Aslan and evaluate it from lots of points of view. But Reza Aslan is not trying to convert you to Christianity (especially since he is Muslim). Richard Bushman wrote "Rough Stone Rolling" and it's entirely possible to appreciate this book about Joseph Smith as both a strong, LDS believer and as a skeptical apostate. You are not being compelled to make profound changes in your life or hold allegiance to any church after reading the vast majority of books.

But the Book of Mormon and Bible are both presented as this artifact of divinity. If you evaluate these books as "true" then various groups of believers will assure you of the obligation to change your entire life and devote yourself to their doctrinal version of God.

I totally agree, I've found I want to utilize books and ideas from wherever they come from to find truths that help me be a better person, husband, father. But I think the idea of ascribing Divinity or truth to a book or religion because some facet of it is true is out the window for me. I wish the church or religion in general could be more open to dissent about certain facets and just admit that a former teaching or passage is wrong when common sense suggests it. But alas, that is not going to happen.

What they expected wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:22 pm I Will say that the problems with Book of Mormon are plentiful, and in my opinion indicate it is not a historical narrative. But I think we have to be willing to take that same logic and apply it to other books and belief systems as well. Not to try and make the BOM look better but to be authentic and maintain integrity of the process of finding truth.

Great points, What they expect. And welcome to NOM!

One thing Bible literalists (and this includes many Mormons - except where they need to apply the"as translated correctly" caveat) seem to overlook is the fact that the gospels were written decades after Jesus by people who never met him, came from different countries, didn't speak his language, don't claim any special source of divine insight, and frequently don't agree on basic aspects of the story. The authors were writing down rumors and adding their own enhancements/agendas, which were later edited and augmented by people with additional agendas. The fact that the Bible is generally received by believers as if God himself had written it himself in King James English as it happed is pretty wacky when you think about it. I'm always entertained when a Sunday school teacher breaks down a verse word-by-word and pins the meaning entirely on the English sentence construction. It's also fascinating to me to hear speakers and teachers, including the GAs in conference, tell stories from the New Testament that are a mishmash of the versions from different gospels, as if it's all one contiguous source. But the same story told by someone of a different denomination might be significantly different because they're straining it through a different cultural filter.

The fact that the Bible is generally received by believers as if God himself had written it himself in King James English as it happed is pretty wacky when you think about it.

To be completely honest, I am more open to the idea of a deistic interpretation of all alleged scriptures than I come across as being. I'm just a bit "stuck" in the literalist mindset of both the church and my father's religious inclinations, because they both firmly reject the deistic approach and I'm accustomed to that. I still identify as a non-believer and a naturalist but I'm willing to entertain that perspective. And I have to admit that non-fundamental Christians, Muslims, Jews, and yes, Latterday Saints, do tend to be the most serene of all stripes of believers. At least in my experience.

I don't think there ever was a Christ or a Buddha. But I tend to get along with those believers who appear to believe that it really doesn't matter if they did exist or not.

My post should be understood that I don't take the bible literally.

This makes me laugh when apologists equate the bible and the book of Mormon.

The Old Testament is a collection of ancient texts written by ancient Hebrews.
The New Testament is a collection of ancient texts written by ancient Christians (still very Jewish in some cases).
The Old and New Testaments were written in Hebrew and Greek, these languages can be studied and learned.
Translations of these documents have been completed by scholars multiple times.
The texts can be found in the original language, and with study people can translate or read them directly.

This is the beginning. This _does not_ make the New Testament "true". It just means that these are real documents. It doesn't make the Tao Te Ching "true" because it can be traced to ancient China or the Analects "true" just because it is genuine. But, it does show that this was a religious text of a real people who existed.

The book of Mormon claims to be a collection of ancient texts written by ancient Americans.
The book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian, this language cannot be studied and learned.
Translations of these documents have never been completed by scholars, ever. They have never been seen by scholars.
The texts cannot be found in the original language, so one can only rely on the information written by Joseph Smith.

But it goes further than this: the bible contains real people and real civilizations from the Hebrews to the Canaanites to the Egyptians to the Romans. There are cities that exist, there are many biblical characters that are real people, heck, 7 of the Epistles are genuinely written by Paul. Again, that doesn't make it "true" or even "from God", but it places it above the book of Mormon in this sense.

The book of Mormon does not have real people and real civilizations. The Jaredites, the Mulekites, the Nephites, the Lamanites....don't exist. At least we don't have a shred of evidence that they are real. We have never uncovered Bountiful or Zarahemla. We have no evidence for Alma, Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, or Moroni.

The bible doesn't smack of a document written by a 19th century New England man, it was _clearly_ written by hundreds of authors over many centuries in ancient times. The book of Mormon is not an ancient document, it is not an ancient religious text.

It IS a religious text, it just isn't an ancient religious text.

Again, none of this makes the bible "true" anymore that the fact that the Analects are indeed ancient Chinese documents makes them "true". But the book of Mormon isn't an ancient American document.

Hogarth I just noticed your post.l am glad to see your use of Lachish for your example. I have always liked Lachish and think it is a fascinating site. I have been there on multiple occasions and have examined the Lachish Letters at both the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem and at the British Museum. I concur with your historical summary . However I believe that this particular example serves you poorly and if anything militates strongly against your fundamental argument that if archeologist discovered Lachish the fact they haven't found Zarahemla shows the B of M is a myth at best. As you pointed out Lachish appears prominently in the Bible . It is unusual because many who did not believe in the fundamental historicity of the biblical text in the late 19th century had to eat crow when Ninevah was excavated and references to Lachish were discovered. That was the first extra biblical verification of the existence of Lachish. It only occurred almost 2600 years after the events referenced in the Bible . As you may know there was much dispute about the fundamental historicity of the Bible in early 20th century archeology. W F Albright ( a hero of mine) was heavily criticized because he argued in favor of the use of the text in ANE archeology . It was he who in 1929 utilized the geography of the biblical text to correctly suggest its location. When excavations began in circa 1932 evidenced mounted that the Tel being studied was Lachish. So it is about 2700 or so years after it is last mentioned in the Bible before the site is actually found and this for one of the best known biblical sites and one whose general location ( i.e. south of Jerusalem within a few days journey )had been known for all those 2700 years. Thus a place the existence of and general location of was well attested to for two and one half millennia was only located one hundred or so years ago . Lachish proves the difficult and serendipitous nature of archeology. The Bible has been here 2000 years . The Book of Mormon 180. The Bible covers a geographical area that can be covered in a car in a single day and has been intensively studied by thousands of archeologists for 150 years. The Book of Mormon covers arguably an entire continent which area has been the subject of serious archeological study by a relatively small number of people for a period equal to my life time.Your comparison is truly apples and oranges. At most it reminds us that absence of proof is not proof of absence. I understand you skepticism but this particular example is a good argument why even if you believe in the books historicity as I do you should not be surprised by the present lack of archeological proof

Mad Jax . You need to get out more . A majority of NT scholars agree there was a historical person named Jesus. In fact as a very prominent NT scholar , Bart Erhman at the Univ of NC argues in a whole series of related books that Jesus is one of the best attested figures we have from the ancient near east. I have also heard Dale Martin at Yale say the overwhelming consensus among modern scholars is that there was a historical Jesus i.e. he really existed at the time mentioned in the gospels.Neither of them believe in his divinity,nor do most experts in the field But if you argue there never was any such person you are swimming against the tide of modern scholarship and taking a position discredited decades ago.

I never said there was no historical Siddhartha or Jesus of Nazareth. I said no Christ or Buddha.