Biblical Archaeological Discoveries

Biblical Archaeology News ^ | 2010

[restornu]

A reply to what I was talking about the bulk of Bible discoveries was in the 1800's yes some in the 1700's but some of the scriptures have been around for thousands of years.

To: SZonian; bone52; Saundra Duffy; urroner; JDW11235; Burkean; Normandy; killermedic; ... The difference is that the Bible has supporting documentation, archaeology and witnesses, both Testaments.

The BoM on the other hand...MT.

***

May I remind you SZonian, the OT has been around for almost 6000 years and the NT for over 2000 years and the restorted Book of Mormon almost 200 years

Lets put things into perspective in the scheme of things the evidence and proof for some the the OT and NT has started to surface in the late 1800’s about the time the Book of Mormon was coming forth!

59 posted on 05/27/2010 12:52:19 PM PDT by restornu [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu No, you may not “remind me”.

It should be MUCH EASIER to offer proof for the claims in the BoM. But it’s not.

In fact, the BoM took an approach that obfuscates it’s proof so as to protect itself from scrutiny during that time period. JS HID the purported proof from the “saints” that supposedly came in the form of the golden plates. All he had to do was present them for the people to see. What would have been so hard about that?

Don’t you think that for one minute, if God had it in His mind that people needed to know the truth that He would have revealed those plates?

Don’t worry, you don’t need to answer. I’m well versed in the standard LdS reply regarding “worthiness” and “not yet ready to receive...”.

So much for perspective.

63 posted on 05/27/2010 12:59:33 PM PDT by SZonian (We began as a REPUBLIC, a nation of laws. We became a DEMOCRACY, majority rules. Next step is?) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu I agree that the evidence for the Bible is just as “flimsy” as that for the Book of Mormon—it just seems to have been around longer so it seems stronger.

I have no doubt that if record keeping had been better in Jerusalem during Jesus’s time we would be reading accounts of neighbors in Nazareth who thought he was crazy, folks in Bethlehem who swore Mary and Joseph never took that flight into Egypt, guests at that wedding in Cana who disputed the water into wine story, etc. Based on what little we do know, historians can already mount credible arguments against such things as Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, not to mention the significant variations that appear in the four Gospels that are supposed to be telling the same story.

To me it’s all a matter of faith—whether you believe Acts 17:11, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” or whether you believe as Mark Twain, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so,” there has to be a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

Glass houses, ya’ll.

84 posted on 05/27/2010 1:47:06 PM PDT by Burkean (.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu “Lets put things into perspective in the scheme of things the evidence and proof for some the the OT and NT has started to surface in the late 1800’s about the time the Book of Mormon was coming forth!”

You could not be more wrong about archeological history!

The simple FACT is that there isn’t any archeological proof of all the book of mormonite claims about an advanced civilization her in America! Zero.

91 posted on 05/27/2010 1:59:15 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu Wow... You mean we only found the Pyramids, Roman Colosseum, the locations of Jerusalem, Bethlehem the dead sea and other such places a couple of hundred years ago?

103 posted on 05/27/2010 3:19:12 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (Christians: Stand for Christ or stand aside...) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu; bone52; Saundra Duffy; urroner; JDW11235; Burkean; Normandy; killermedic bone52; Saundra Duffy; urroner; JDW11235; Burkean; Normandy; killermedic; Come ON, guys!

Get with the PROGRAM!!!

Sandy is on board: why not the REST of you?

126 posted on 05/27/2010 5:47:53 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: restornu; Elsie proof for some the the OT and NT has started to surface in the late 1800’s about the time the Book of Mormon was coming forth! Resty, this may be THE MOST ASTOUNDINGLY IGNORANT statement I have ever heard you make, girl, and I've been around for a little while now.

Are you actually going to try to claim that until the 1800's, we were unaware of the following concerning the OT?:

Geography. We had no idea whre the OT mountains, rivers, seas, cities, deserts, lakes, wells, etc were located (just like the BOM?)

Culture: The people groups mentioned in the OT were unknown. No history of them, no evidence they ever lived, no artifacts, coins, ruins, graves, etc. (kinda like the BOM people)

Written records: No non-scriptural supporting documents were ever found that indicated that any people or events from OT days existed? Their temples, wells, weapons, taxation, battles, mass graves? (Just like the BOM?)

You have really put your foot in it this time.

397 posted on 06/02/2010 8:24:55 AM PDT by T Minus Four (Abortion: one dead, one wounded.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[restornu]

Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of the Twentieth Century Relating to the Biblical World (Started in 1947)

Keith N. Schoville Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semitic Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison
http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

[ejonesie22]

I really can't tell if you are the best, most creative so called “anti” or the most confused LDSer on the board...

Posts like this almost make me think the latter...

[restornu]

I’am not a mind reader what are you talking about?

[Captain Beyond]

Archaeological ping

[Elsie]

Chimm chang Jimmy Jam!!

[Elsie]

bone52; Saundra Duffy; urroner; JDW11235; Burkean;

Come ON guys!!

Help me out with this MORMON archeology thread I started!!

It'll be FUN to confuse these ANTI's!!

--RustyWannaBee(Maybe I can get an expert from This Old House to chime in!!)

[Elsie]

Let the Games BEGIN!

[Elsie]

I’am not a mind reader what are you talking about?

Are you now MOCKING us?

[Elsie]

"Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists... Contemporary records of biblical events emphasized by contrast and comparison... Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history."

-John Elder "Prophets, idols and Diggers" (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1960) p. 16

[Elsie]

Nowhere has archaeological discovery found ANYTHING that has been mentioned in the Book Of MORMON (that was not already in the BIBLE).

[Elsie]

 

1822 - Egyptian Hieroglyphics Are Finally Deciphered by Jean Francois Champollion

 

 

Damn!

 

I wish I'd have known THIS before I foolishly 'translated' the Book of ABRAHAM!

 

--News_From_The_Grave(Joseph Smith)

[Elsie]

Yo!!

Restornu!

I see NOTHING about REFORMED EGYPTIAN in this list of discoveries!

[bmwcyle]

Some day it will be the 200 year old 1967 VW Beetle that still starts.

[Elsie]

 

Historical Information...

 

 

 

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Joseph Smith's story.

 

 No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

---

 

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

---

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

---

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

     .
 

     .
 

      .

 

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

[Elsie]

(Have you given up trying to post a VALID caucus thread?)

[ejonesie22]

I am quite clear. I think you are the most creative so called “anti-Mormonism” on FreeRepublic.

You have done much to lead people away from the clutches of the LDS cult.

[ejonesie22]

LOL...

[SunkenCiv]

I’ll check this thread out, thanks CB.

[Godzilla]

Guess what is missing from the list that you’ve posted resty - the total absence of Book of Mormon Archaeological Discoveries - where real science proves the bom to be an 1800s work of fiction.