Questions about Book of Mormon Archaeology v.s biblical archaeology?

Question

Questions about Book of Mormon Archaeology v.s biblical archaeology?

Answer 1

To say that archeology has proven the Bible to be real is a fallacy. In fact, archeology has proven many spiritual aspects of the Bible to not have happened, or to have happened out of chronological order.



If I tell you one thing about the Bible that is false, will that cause you to lose your faith in God? Probably not. So why are you trying to steal away the faith of Mormons with your accusations? Many ex-mormons have an axe to grind with the church, and you plainly can't trust those who maliciously spread lies about the church. You mentioned that not one non-mormon archaeologist has ever validated the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon based on archaeological evidence. Well, can you find one mormon archaeologist that doesn't think the Book of Mormon didn't happen?



With your kind of logic, you're just going to go round and round in circles, never learning anything. Why don't you just go on your way, content with your preconceived notions, and leave us alone.

Answer 2

The obvious answer of why they don't excavate Camorrah is that the lack of evidence would be devastating.



So far, most of the archeological evidence I see for the Mormon claims are general things and not specific to the people in the Book of Mormon. The popular ones I hear about are a stream leading into the Dead Sea, the possibility of Barley, mention of a white god in some tribe, similar pottery, and writing on metal. I'm not entirely convinced that these are all accurate, but that's what I hear.



Pretty sparse compared to what we see backing up the Bible. My wife owns a mite. Luke 15:59 That's really fun for me to actually see stuff that the Bible has mentioned.



Societies the size of Rome like talked about in the Book of Mormon would have left some evidence. Quite a bit of evidence.



It's important that our faith be based on reality.

Answer 3

Archeology in the Americas is very new when compared to the Mid-East. And much is found there because that area of the world has been inhabited for centuries and the people there still use the same place names. Compare that to the Americas. People have not lived in most of the areas the Book of Mormon speaks of for centuries. Ruins were discovered in the early 20th century and only a very, very small part of them have been revealed. There has been no Rosetta Stone found which would allow for the proper translation of the writings found, the archaeologists are basically guessing at what these writings say. There is always a chance that archaeologist have found BoM cities but do not know it because they do not know the language. The 'reformed Egyptian' which Nephi stated that he was writing in the language of his father (Hebrew) using the Egyptian script. Recent finds show, that during the same time frame that Lehi and Nephi lived, many Hebrews kept their written records in Egyptian but using the form of Hebrew. This shows that the claim that the BoM could easily have been written in a style of reformed Egyptian. An internal proof of this is something that many critics have used to refute the book, the sentence structure of most of the BoM. An English teacher would give the Book of Mormon a poor grade because of the structure of the sentences. However, a mid-eastern teacher would not because the sentence structure is proper in Hebrew. This is something that nobody in America at the time of Joseph Smith would have known. The steel sword in the BoM occurs while the family is still in Jerusalem and archaeologists have found that steel work, while not the same as today, did indeed exists for a few hundred years prior to the date of the BoM stories. As for swords in the Americas, the Book of Mormon does not say that they were steel swords. The maquahuitl sword has been found in MesoAmerica. It has been found to have been used by the Aztecs, and quite possibly by even earlier people. It is made of wood, which would also explain why the BoM references the swords being stained with blood as wood readily absorbs blood. These swords had pieces of chipped obsidian embedded in them and when wielded could severe a man’s leg with a single blow. Another interesting internal evidence is that the methods of ancient warfare listed in the BoM match the style which were found, in the late 20th century, to be the same style used in MesoAmerica, but nowhere else in the world. Pre-Columbian figurines of chariots have been found in MesoAmerica, but they are not like the ones which were used in the mid-east. Even today you will find that the natives in the villages do not use the wheel because to them it is a sacred item and not to be used for mundane work. Metal coins were not mentions in the BoM, the ‘coinage’ refers to weights, something which was also used extensively in the mid-east. It is the critics who have interpreted this to mean metal-coins. Evidence of Pre-Columbian horses have been found in Mesoamerica, As for the other animals, it is not uncommon to give a name to an animal, or plant, the same name as a person is familiar with from his/her former homeland. And several of the things mentioned in the BoM have recently been found to have existed on this continent prior to the coming of the Spaniards. As for the bodies and weapons of the great battle, archaeologists are focusing on the cities. This battle took place in an open area. In all likelihood in MesoAmerica where nature has reclaimed the area. The moisture, trees and other organisms would have destroyed much. About the only thing that would remain would be massive quantities of obsidian. The Hill Cumorah in New York is thought to be named for the Cumorah which exists in the land of Moroni’s birth, not the Cumorah that the battle took place in. There are a lot of internal evidences within the BoM, and a lot of external evidences, if you just take the time to look with an open mind. But, remember, while it may be stated that the BoM is a history, it’s main purpose is to bear witness to Christ.

Answer 4

You can thank the Catholics for that. They destroyed Mayan history when they burned their libraries.



Never-the-less, there are good candidates for all of the Book of Mormon cities, places, mountains, seas, rivers and lakes. Towers, temples, thrones and highways have all been found. The Aztec empire came after Book of Mormon times, but the Olmecs and Mayan empires coincided with Book of Mormon times.



The Hill Cumorah in upstate New York was named after the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, but I don't know of any actual evidence linking the two. Moroni never told us where he was going to bury the plates. All we know is that he left his own country, where the battles took place, and fled for his life.



I can point you to books that show examples of "reformed Egyptian" writing that were on stella in Mesoamerica. They match the characters copied from the Book of Mormon, and appear very similar to the Egyptian Demotic. There are some photographs in "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" by Ainsworth.



Examples of almost all of the fruits, vegetables, grains, and animals listed in the Book of Mormon have been found in America. Horse bones have been found that date from Book of Mormon times. Elephants haven't been found, but carvings of elephants are fairly plentiful. Barley was discovered in an ancient burial site. Bison or buffalo certainly qualify as cattle, and big horned sheep still grace the North American mountains.



The Mayans had swords that could sever a man's arm in one swing. The were made of wood, and edged with volcanic glass. Wasn't the sword of Laban the only "steel" sword? It came from Jerusalem.



The Mayans certainly had steel, although it wasn't our modern steel. Our modern iron alloys weren't invented until after the Book of Mormon was published. Obviously, this isn't what the Bible and the Book of Mormon refer to when they talk about "steel". Traditionally steel refered to hardened copper alloys like brass or bronze.



You aren't really taking a course at the Institute of Religion, are you? Tell the truth. It will do your conscience good.

Answer 5

For the answerer above: no, atheists don't dismiss the archeology you mentioned, but it's important to make a distinction between archeology based on "biblical" time periods versus "biblical archeology." For example, finding the ruins of a city where the bible says Jericho was is archeology based on biblical time periods -- but that's not proof that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the walls came tumbling down.



It is, of course, MUCH more problematic for the book of mormon. We don't find anything mentioned in the book of mormon, not even things we can put into a "book of mormon time period" archeology. We find *nothing.* That's not my opinion, it's fact backed up even by mormon scholars:



"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee F. Green, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)



"With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." (Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers, p. 4, 1975)



The Cumorah site, owned by the church, isn't allowed to be excavated because it would put the nail in the coffin of mormonism, when no bodies, no swords, no relics of any battle (nor the place where Joseph supposedly got the plates) were found.



Peace.

Answer 6

So your premis is that "Because Jews were great record keepers then the Book of Mormon is false because we don't find records in "Book of Mormon lands", right?



Here's the problem. Those that kept records were the righteous prophets. They were all destroyed and they hid the records, presumably in southern Mexico. The Book of Mormon is in fact one of those records that you are complaining about "not existing".



Additionally the Spanish smelted gold and silver, burned books, destroyed language, culture, and religion.



Additionally, the cities that they occupied were found 100% abandoned and the jungle had overgrown them. Ask a mesoamerican archeologist to explain a detailed history of "El Mirador" (the largest city in Central America) to you. By the way.....less than 2% of it has been excavated.



So do you require the same "burden of proof" on the Gospel of Matthew as you do on the book of Genesis? Why is it that "knowing where Jerusalem" is important to you, but knowing where the garden of eden was is not? Do you require this proof or not, please make up your mind.



There is actually a genentic link. Do some reading about the different haplogroups including haplogroup X.



Many of the things that you require evidence for has in fact been found.........you're just not interested in acknowledging it.



Actually the Olmecs line up perfectly with the Jaredite civilization. Both the Book of Mormon and Archeologists put them from 2000 BC to 300 AD. Both agree that they were the first great civilization in the Americas. Both also agree that the Maya began around 600 BC.



The Book of Mormon doesn't detail how many people died in that Battle. It does indicate that there were 230,000 from one side (if I remember right). You're number of 2 Million is not something that's included in the Book of Mormon regarding the fall of the Nephites. As far as the Jaredites, there were several million killed. Both final battles probably occured in southern Mexico, possibly near modern Veracruz. How much organic evidence do you expect to survive in a hot, humid, wet, jungle environment. The stone temples that have been found have 25 feet of soil covering them. What do you expect it to do to bodies? Preseve them for 1600 years and 2300 years respectivly?



Are you shaken that they haven't found a scrap of evidence of the children of Israel wandering around a very dry, desert environment for 40+ years? That area is perfect for preservation. There were millions of them in a relativly small, known, geographic area, yet we've found 0 evidence of that? Do you realize how much of a hypocricy this is???



Additionally it's like saying: They found a coin in china. They haven't found a coin in Russia, therefore Russians couldn't have used coins. You can't demand that the same archeological evidences that are found in one part of the world to be found in another part of the world. It doesn't really work that way.



You claim that you are trying to discover truth.............you're not. You're hell bent on proving to yourself and the world that the Book of Mormon isn't true.......whether it is or not.



Keep in mind, there were Jews that rejected their own Messiah after having spoken to him face to face. It's possibly you're rejecting holy Scripture from that same Messiah.



Someone who lived in the Americas in 400 AD described his own language as "reformed egyptian". That doesn't mean that modern scholars would give it the same name. Additionally it's very possible that that was the language of the record keepers and not of the masses.



So, why is it that you completly ignore the many supporting evidences of the Book of Mormon that do exist and demand that your evidences be produced?

Answer 7

there is no doubt that BoM archeology is young but there is definitely a little out there /



someone sent me 2 emails last year, he couldnt send me one page or 2 pages, because it couldnt all "fit" into the amount of space which yahoo allows.



i posted his emails at my group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calling_All_witness_of_Jesus/?yguid=300812187



i havent gone through it because i have so much to do and so many things and just when i have time to do it all, i get called to work and distracted and with my short term memory loss i get sidetracked easily.

Answer 8

Methinks you are a TROLL. You've asked this question like twice.



But here is a website with a few things that lists evidence. Nothing definitive but it's there.



http://www.deseretstudies.com/index.html

Answer 9

You are at a mormon institute, I'm surprised you are being honest. Of course, the book of mormon archaeology is not accurate, the book of mormon and the rest of mormon doctrine contradicts the Bible many times. Mormons are just living contradictions. Its sad, but its true.







Also, I have a question for you.- If you died right now, are you 100% SURE that you are going to Heaven? If you don't know for SURE or if you have any questions about God, please feel free to email me.:)

Answer 10

isn't it interesting that ALL of the evidence you site for the bible is dismissed by atheists, and others as not providing ANY proof for the bible @all.



"proof" is always open to interpretation.

there is plenty of evidence for the BoM as well.



you have been provided links to this evidence in many of your previous questions - look one up - or continue on your path back to your bridge.......



edit: @ well travel..... "finding the ruins of a city where the bible says Jericho was is archeology based on biblical time periods -- but that's not proof that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the walls came tumbling down." exactly my point - as proof of the bible this archeological evidence only has bible bearing to believers......just as with the BoM. for those who believe, there is plenty of evidence out there, and more being discovered all the time.



some might find the existence of horses or chariots would constitute proof for the BoM. doubtful. finding such would only demonstrate that such things existed, and while consistent they hardly amount to “proof.”

for instance, the BoM mentions barley which, until recently, was thought not to exist in ancient americas. and now that pre-columbian barley has been verified --- do you consider that proof of the BoM? again, doubtful. the BoM mentions trade, war, cities, towers, and the use of armor --- and all of this exists in ancient americas --- but that has not convinced anyone of the authenticity of the BoM.

Answer 11

Thanks that was interesting. They don't call them a "cult" for nothing.