Archaeological facts to support Book of Mormon

[Jim108]

Change that "hundreds" to zero and then you'd be about right.

Snow you are wrong. Go to The Exodus Decoded and see what science has on the exodus. Here is just a sample,

In the Exodus Decoded we analyze the latest archaeological findings and scientific papers; we explore the dusty back rooms of out-of-the-way libraries and museums around the world; and we track down dozens of forgotten relics and ancient documents. Individually, these findings are historical curiosities. Together they tell the true story of the Exodus

Google exodus decoded and look for the 93 minute show. It will open your eyes as to just how much real evidence science has found. Way too much to print here. Make an effort and take a look.

Lets be true to ourselves.

[the Ogre]

And.........?

Are you actually going to offer anything up of simply make a blanket claim without substantiation?

Which specific historical events correspond, specifically, to specific Book of Mormon accounts?

How about if any of it has anything to do the gospel? Scriptural-hobbies are nice, but does it really matter.

Proving every aspect of the BoM scientifically will one day happen, but that alone will not bring more people to the church. Archeology is an imprecise science with more to do with the political whims of the academy then actual facts (which are subject to interpretation in the first place and as such should just be ignored).

Do you remember all the DNA research back and forth on the peoples of Central-America? While there is enough evidence to write many very good papers in favor of the church, there is more-than-enough, however, to write convincing articles to counter any of these claims conclusively by an agnostic/atheistic academy which at best is suspicious, but most likely dismissive, of any possible religious theory or conclusion.

[Islander]

The bible has thousands of thousands of real science to back it up. Known places, names, geography that can fill volumes. The book of mormon does not. YET and I repeat Yet. Lets keep looking. Lets be real and true to ourselves.

True. But even in Israel which a very tiny country, there is controversy today about where certain cities were located. It takes time, a long time to assemble a more or less coherent picture of a place or event that transpired thousands of years ago.

For a hundred years archeologist and historians said there was no such things as writing in metal plates. Now we know that in fact the Hebrews did write in copper plates. Other gold and silver plates have appeared since.

Compare 20 million miles of landmass in the American continent to a bit over 20,000 square miles in Israel and 2000 years of documented history by Christianity. The BoM is a record of a very small group of people that became extinct. We have no reference points or extant sources as of yet. It will take time but not that it matters. For 2000 years Christianity survived without archaeological evidence.

[Islander]

The bible has thousands of thousands of real science to back it up. Known places, names, geography that can fill volumes. The book of mormon does not. YET and I repeat Yet. Lets keep looking. Lets be real and true to ourselves.

Jim, show me a scientific journal entry, a research paper. There are some references here and there but not thousands.

But again, I guess you made up your mind so we should agree to have a difference on this one.

[Jim108]

Jim, show me a scientific journal entry, a research paper. There are some references here and there but not thousands.

But again, I guess you made up your mind so we should agree to have a difference on this one.

I can show you a map with hundreds of real places mentioned in the bible. I can point you to museums with thousands of real articfacts that will back up many things mentioned in the bible. One question......the mormons believe in the bible just as I do, so why are you questioning the scientific evidence that support the bible? Are you trying to poopoo the bible to bring its real archeology to the same place as the book of mormon. Thats not even a rational thought. Look, all I am saying is that the bible has a spectrum of evidence that the book of mormon does not. This is not to say that one day the book of mormon might claim the same. The science is just not there yet. Thats all.

[the Ogre]

. . . One question......the mormons believe in the bible just as I do, so why are you questioning the scientific evidence that support the bible?

Because it is only Faith in G-d and Hope in H-s son's sacrifice that matters. Nothing else does. Knowing that, there are individuals who entertain distractions and speculations instead of focusing on what is really important: the Word of G-d.

[Dravin]

so why are you questioning the scientific evidence that support the bible?

Because our belief in the Bible is independent of scientific evidence. No evidence or overwhelming evidence my testimony comes through revelation. Just because I agree with a conclusion doesn't mean I need to agree with how its reached.

Take this obviously exagerated example:

I drop a hammer, it falls.

Now somebody comes along and says when you drop a hammer it falls because Satan is trapped in the center of the earth and he's greedy so his minions are trying to drag everything they can closer to him.

We both agree when a hammer is dropped it falls but we disagree that there is evidence that its devils trying to bring it closer to Satan.

Also, I repeat there is no evidence of the spiritual components of the Bible (nor will any ever show up for, nor for the BoM) being true, the only evidence you would be able to find is that people at the time such things where supposed to be happening believed it to be true. This is not proof that it is true any more than the existence of Athens and a temple to Zeus is proof that Greek mythology is true.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Dravin
Formating for readablity.

[Jim108]

Because our belief in the Bible is independent of scientific evidence. No evidence or overwhelming evidence my testimony comes through revelation. Just because I agree with a conclusion doesn't mean I need to agree with how its reached.

Take this obviously exagerated example:

I drop a hammer, it falls.

Now somebody comes along and says when you drop a hammer it falls because Satan is trapped in the center of the earth and he's greedy so his minions are trying to drag everything they can closer to him.

We both agree when a hammer is dropped it falls but we disagree that there is evidence that its devils trying to bring it closer to Satan.

Also, I repeat there is no evidence of the spiritual components of the Bible (nor will any ever show up for, nor for the BoM) being true, the only evidence you would be able to find is that people at the time such things where supposed to be happening believed it to be true. This is not proof that it is true any more than the existence of Athens and a temple to Zeus is proof that Greek mythology is true.

Do you not think that the creator of all things can also protect His word? ...and is it not dangerous to start picking apart the bible or for that matter the book of mormon to disregard scripture that does not fit you life style and agree with scripture that does fit. We enter into a fuzzy belief system when we start to pick an choose instead of changing ourselves to comply to God's word. I believe the bible is true and correct. God has given me a testimony of this very fact.

[the Ogre]

...and is it not dangerous to start picking apart the bible or for that matter the book of mormon to disregard scripture that does not fit you life style and agree with scripture that does fit . . . I believe the bible is true and correct. God has given me a testimony of this very fact.

Man I do, too.

Going into the Bilble with the express purpose of finding error is very dangerous. I am not a prophet and nor is anyone else on this site (sorry Presdents Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdorf, and the rest of the Twelve, if any of you are reading this).

If you have doubt about something that does not make sense, or something that takes a Ph.D. to understand, then get on you hands and knees and pray about it. The guys who translated the Old and New Testaments were just people subject to very political political systems and as such mistakes and reinterpretations crept in.

Fasting, prayer, and faith helps figure out the hard and confusing parts.

[Dravin]

Do you not think that the creator of all things can also protect His word? ...and is it not dangerous to start picking apart the bible or for that matter the book of mormon to disregard scripture that does not fit you life style and agree with scripture that does fit. We enter into a fuzzy belief system when we start to pick an choose instead of changing ourselves to comply to God's word.

What does any of this have to do as to whether archeology can prove that Jesus was the Son of God? Or that one can agree with a conclusion but disagree with why it was reached?

I believe the bible is true and correct. God has given me a testimony of this very fact.

I do to and for the same reason.

[Snow]

Snow you are wrong. Go to The Exodus Decoded and see what science has on the exodus. Here is just a sample,

In the Exodus Decoded we analyze the latest archaeological findings and scientific papers; we explore the dusty back rooms of out-of-the-way libraries and museums around the world; and we track down dozens of forgotten relics and ancient documents. Individually, these findings are historical curiosities. Together they tell the true story of the Exodus

Google exodus decoded and look for the 93 minute show. It will open your eyes as to just how much real evidence science has found. Way too much to print here. Make an effort and take a look.

Lets be true to ourselves.

Jim, Jim, Jim,

So now you are a comedian. Let's remind everyone of your standard/request: you wanted "mainstream academia in archeology [to] support the findings." So what do you offer us instead? A fluff entertainment piece from The History Channel. The fluff piece itself tells us that mainstream historians consider the Exodus a fairy tale and that the "sciencetific" views of the Exodus are rejected. So - you can see why, when you request mainstream academia and then offer us controversial and apologetic fluff, there is more than an appearance of hypocrisy.

For those not familiar with this sort of silliness - the TV video Jim references is made by the Jewish polemicist Simcha Jacobovici - a kind of new version of Erich Von Daniken (Chariot of the Gods) who claims that space aliens built Stonehenge (and probably repaired his faulty dental work).

Among Jacobovici's claims:

-"Trojan" gold and graves in Turkey are not really Trojan (Greek) but are of Hebrew slaves.

-Hebrew slaves invented the alphabet.

-Egypt wouldn't grant him permission to dig at the Gaza boarder because they were afraid to expose the truth

-Hebrews built the pyramids.

... you get the idea.

Jacobovici is accused by numerous scientists and religious scholars alike for his nutty and dishonest claims that "could not be further from the truth."

Let's get real - shall we?

[Snow]

The bible has thousands of thousands of real science to back it up. Known places, names, geography that can fill volumes. The book of mormon does not. YET and I repeat Yet. Lets keep looking. Lets be real and true to ourselves.

Oh Jim,

What is your point? Is there a point?

Do you have any proof for any of the core points of the Bible - that God exists, that He is the author of creation, that Moses spoke with God, that God reveals His will to prophets, that Christ is the Son of God, that salvation comes to those that follow God? Anything?

Let's be real - as you say - that the authors of Bible stories used real name places has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the core claims of the Bible - that God exists and redeems sinners - are true or not.

It is not a question that historical records, verified archeological facts, place names, geography, etc around Joseph Smith and early LDS history dwarfs, by a Biblical mile, the historical records, verified archeological facts, place names, geography, etc around Bible stories. Are we to believe that the core claims of the LDS Church (God's existence, salvation, etc) are in someway substantiated?

[Snow]

Do you not think that the creator of all things can also protect His word? ...and is it not dangerous to start picking apart the bible or for that matter the book of mormon to disregard scripture that does not fit you life style and agree with scripture that does fit. We enter into a fuzzy belief system when we start to pick an choose instead of changing ourselves to comply to God's word. I believe the bible is true and correct. God has given me a testimony of this very fact.

Certainly God can protect His Word - I have never seen anyone here even remotely suggest that he cannot, so why do you bring it up?

The real question is since we all stipulate that He "can," why hasn't he. To start, let's use the long ending of Mark, the Johannine Comma, and the Pericope Adulterae, the incorrect Gospel lineages of Jesus and the fraudulent NT epistles, as well as the many, many, many differing manuscripts and translations/version as evidence that He has not.

[Maya]

IMHO

Neither the Bible nor the BoM are proved by archeology.

The problem is that Hebrews in Middle-East kept their language, culture and the names of the places and their writting, as for Lehis people in America did not. Lehis language and culture was only inhereted by those keeping the religion and books alive (= Nephities). The names of the cities, even the names of the people were translated in to other laguages.

Like Sasquach is also known as Big foot and possibly other names too. Stil it does not mean that if we one day would find a Bigfoot... it would not prove that Sascquach was true! But our problem is to make people understand that the Bigfoot we have found out about is actually the Sasquach!

It is true that names found in the BoM dont match names of today (except for the names from Middle-eastern palces which match! Also names of people in the BoM are now found). We have not found anythign that bears a lable: This was from Nephities or this was from Lamanities or this is the grave of Jacob the Nephite or this is a the city of Zarahemla. We do have a LOT of proof from things that BoM talks about, but not with the BoM names.

From the old testamet we have found old places named in the OT, but not the right people not the happenings with lables. Names of old cities does not prove Bible is true. Of NT we even have Jesus grave... or do we... were you there?

And on the topp of it all... Nephites were killed almost 2000 years ago to the last man! So how much of the Nephite culture you think would have survived the hate!? Lamanities never even tried to save the inheritence of the religion and culture they tought was wrong!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I think the saddest I ever heard is that a LDS arceolog said once taht IF he should find a book written on gold plates he would quickly BERRY it back in to the earth and hide the palce as wella s possible so no-one ever would find it. Why? Why would an arceologist hide evidence? Because you can think WHAT would happen if an LDS arceoloog would find ANYTHING that would prove anything from the BoM. That is why LDS Archeologs dont do much fieldwork, more reading others fieldwork... those that are NOT LDS so no one can accuse us for trying to find things that prove our religion true!

Funny thing is that if a non LDS arceolog finds a place called Nahom, that occasionally is also a graveplace on the Arabic peninsula, and right to the east from that there is the ONLY green palce in the whole Arabic peninsula, it dont prove that BoM was right, when it says that Ismael was burried in Nahom and from there they travelled rigth to east as long as they came to a place where there was a lot of honey, trees... even a stream running through the deseret! This is the way the Bible is proved, but not the BoM?!

[Bluejay]

Has anybody here done much reading on the Hopewell interpretation of the Book of Mormon? Basically, it's the idea that the BoM happened in the Great Lakes region, and that the Hopewell civilization of the Eastern United States matches the profile of the Nephite civilization. I think it fits the BoM scenario much better than the Central American interpretations.

Although there is currently no conclusive support for the BoM from genetics, the closest that can be found is a weak genetic link between peoples of the Great Lakes region and the Druze people from the Middle East. This link is more consistent with the Beringian Strait model than the BoM model for the peopling of North America, but it's certainly a whole lot better than any genetic evidence that can be gleaned from Central America.

[Moksha]

Among Jacobovici's claims:

-"Trojan" gold and graves in Turkey are not really Trojan (Greek) but are of Hebrew slaves.

-Hebrew slaves invented the alphabet.

-Egypt wouldn't grant him permission to dig at the Gaza boarder because they were afraid to expose the truth

-Hebrews built the pyramids.

... you get the idea.

Hey, didn't we see Hebrew slaves building the pyramids in the movie, The Ten Commandments, with Yule Brynner as the beleaguered Pharaoh and that Gun Association guy as Moses?

[Snow]

Hey, didn't we see Hebrew slaves building the pyramids in the movie, The Ten Commandments, with Yule Brynner as the beleaguered Pharaoh and that Gun Association guy as Moses?

No - they were, led by Charlton Heston (the gun guy), building a treasure city. That's when the stonecutter, John Derek, at times married to Bo Derek, Ursula Andress, and Linda Evans) told him about the God of Abraham.

[ReubenDunn]

Many archaeologist devote their lives to proving events in the bible actualyl happened.

Facts have emereged, proving the exodus, jesus' travels, and biblical cities.

Faith should be your ultimate decision making tool when believing in the scriptures.

However, I find archaeological proof of scriptural events very exciting!

Until recent times, we did not have an archaeological record of ancient times in the americas. Now we have the Maya civilizations records and dates available since we have cracked the graphical writing system.

In my amazement, I was astounded how the mayan and mormon timelines lined up.

Source Wikipedia

1 Jaredites 1.1 I. Pioneering Phase (3100-2920 B.C.) Years 1.2 II. Formation Phase (2920-2320 B.C.) 1.2.1 A. Early Formation 1.2.2 B. Late Formation 1.3 III. Disruption Phase (2320-1720 B.C.) 1.3.1 A. Early Disruption 1.3.2 B. Late Disruption 1.4 IV. Elaboration Phase (1720-1120 B.C.) 1.4.1 A. Early Elaboration 1.4.2 B. Late Elaboration 1.5 V. Decline Phase (1120-570 B.C.) 1.5.1 A. Early Decline 1.5.2 B. Late Decline 2 Jerusalem and environs 2.1 600 BC, Jerusalem 2.2 Between 600 and 592 BC, In the wilderness 2.3 592 BC, Bountiful 2.4 About 591 BC, Bountiful 2.5 About 590 BC, on the sea 3 The land of Nephi 3.1 About 589 BC, in the promised land 3.2 Between 588 and 570 BC, the land of their first inheritance 3.3 Between 588 and 570 BC, the land of Nephi 3.4 569 BC, the land of Nephi 3.5 559 BC, the land of Nephi 3.6 Between 559 and 545 BC, the land of Nephi 3.7 544 BC, the land of Nephi 3.8 Between 544 and 421 BC, the land of Nephi 3.9 420 BC, the land of Nephi 3.10 Between 420 and 400 BC, the land of Nephi 3.11 Between 399 and 361 BC, the land of Nephi 3.12 361 BC, the land of Nephi 3.13 323 BC, the land of Nephi 3.14 317 BC, the land of Nephi 3.15 279 BC, the land of Nephi 3.16 Between 279 and 130 BC, the land of Nephi 4 Zarahemla 4.1 Between 279 and 130 BC, Zarahemla 4.2 About 200 BC, Zarahemla 4.3 About 200 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.4 About 188 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.5 About 187 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.6 About 177 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.7 Probably about 160 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.8 About 150 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.9 About 148 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.10 About 147 BC, the place of Mormon 4.11 About 145 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.12 Between 145 and 122 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.13 Between 130 and 121 BC, Zarahemla 4.14 About 121 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.15 About 120 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi 4.16 About 120 BC, Zarahemla 4.17 Between 120 and 92 BC, Zarahemla 4.18 About 92 BC, Zarahemla 4.19 91 BC, Zarahemla 5 The reign of the judges 5.1 91 BC, Zarahemla 5.2 About 90 BC, Zarahemla 5.3 About 90 BC, among the Lamanites 5.4 Between 90 and 81 BC, among the Lamanites 5.5 87 BC, Zarahemla 5.6 Between 86 and 84 BC, Zarahemla 5.7 Between 83 and 81 BC, Zarahemla and environs 5.8 Between 81 and 77 BC, among the Lamanites 5.9 Between 76 and 69 BC, Zarahemla 5.10 Between 68 and 67 BC, Zarahemla 5.11 Between 66 and 63 BC, Zarahemla 5.12 Between 62 and 60 BC, Zarahemla 5.13 Between 60 and 53 BC, Zarahemla 5.14 Between 52 and 39 BC, Zarahemla 5.15 Between 38 and 30 BC, Zarahemla 5.16 Between 29 and 24 BC, the lands of Mulek and Lehi 5.17 Between 23 and 14 BC, Zarahemla 5.18 Between 13 and 7 BC, throughout the land 5.19 Between 6 and 5 BC, Zarahemla 5.20 Between 2 and 1 BC, Zarahemla 5.21 1 BC, Zarahemla 6 From the birth of Christ to His death 6.1 AD 1, Zarahemla 6.2 Between AD 3 and 15, throughout the land 6.3 Between AD 15 and 21, Zarahemla 6.4 Between AD 21 and 33, throughout the land 7 The coming of Christ 7.1 At the commencement of AD 34, throughout the land 7.2 At the ending of AD 34, near Bountiful 7.3 Between AD 34 and 35 7.4 Between AD 36 and 321 8 Mormon and Moroni 8.1 Between AD 321 and 328 (Mormon's Youth) 8.2 Between AD 328 and 350 8.3 Between AD 350 and 360 8.4 Between AD 360 and 385 8.5 Between AD 385 and 421

MAYAN TIMELINE

Source MexConnect

B.C.1000-1000 Olmec 1800-900 Early Preclassic Maya 900-300 Middle Preclassic Maya 300 B.C. - A.D. 250 Late Preclassic Maya A.D.250-600 Early Classic Maya 600-900 Late Classic Maya 900-1500 Post Classic Maya 1521-1821 Colonial period 1821- today Independent Mexico

Closer examinations of the historical changes in cultural and social events in the lives of the mayan people coincide with events in the Book of Mormon. Changes like the decline and increase of war, city abandonment, and power changes.

I challenge those of academic prowless in this area to investigate further. It is impossible for Joseph smith to know anything about the mayans, quite remarkable.

I would strongly suggest that if you are going to be supporting this line of thought, that you consider using something a tad more accurate and acceptable than Wikipedia.

Given the ease of which one can add, subtract, and modify things on that site, there might be, and are, better resourses for you to use and cite.

KBYU for example has produced a rather excellent DVD on the Meso-American relationship to BoM events that you might find interesting.

[Snow]

I would strongly suggest that if you are going to be supporting this line of thought, that you consider using something a tad more accurate and acceptable than Wikipedia.

Given the ease of which one can add, subtract, and modify things on that site, there might be, and are, better resourses for you to use and cite.

KBYU for example has produced a rather excellent DVD on the Meso-American relationship to BoM events that you might find interesting.

If you think there is an error in what he posted, then go ahead and demonstrate what the error is, but to simply say you don't like it because of where the data is printed means nothing.

The problem is not the source of the information. The problem is that the information is irrelevant.

[the Ogre]

. . . [ignore] the fraudulent NT epistles . . .

Yay, I vote with Snow.

[the Ogre]

Has anybody here done much reading on the Hopewell interpretation of the Book of Mormon? Basically, it's the idea that the BoM happened in the Great Lakes region, and that the Hopewell civilization of the Eastern United States matches the profile of the Nephite civilization. I think it fits the BoM scenario much better than the Central American interpretations.

I have read it, though I have not studied it close enough to advocate it. It is a nice counter-point to all the maya-junk. We don't know where they lived and honestly it does not matter.

For me, the topic is only passingly interesting.

Trusting in genetics (a brand-new science) is dangerous. I think often the interpretive-methodologies are flawed and tend to be propagandistic. I think we ought to wait thirty to fifty or so years while the dust settles down to look for real conclusions.

[ReubenDunn]

If you think there is an error in what he posted, then go ahead and demonstrate what the error is, but to simply say you don't like it because of where the data is printed means nothing.

The problem is not the source of the information. The problem is that the information is irrelevant.

The"problem" as I see it is that if anyone is going to present information in support of the Restoration, and if they want to be taken seriously, then something other than Wikipedia needs to be used, given that it is rather well known for having material that is, to be charitable, not always reliable.

It does mean something.

Try getting into a discussion with FARMS/FAIR, or any other heavy duty LDS apoligitics forum, with information from Wikiopedia, and see how seriously your taken.

The error, is in relying on a source that is hardly creditable.

How many high school teachers mark down an essay based on Wikipedia?

[Moksha]

No - they were, led by Charlton Heston (the gun guy), building a treasure city. That's when the stonecutter, John Derek, at times married to Bo Derek, Ursula Andress, and Linda Evans) told him about the God of Abraham.

I forgot about those treasure cities in ancient Egypt. Think they were from the Reformed Egyptian period. Wasn't this touched upon in the documentary, The Mummy Returns, starring Brendan Frasier?

[Snow]

The"problem" as I see it is that if anyone is going to present information in support of the Restoration, and if they want to be taken seriously, then something other than Wikipedia needs to be used, given that it is rather well known for having material that is, to be charitable, not always reliable.

It does mean something.

Try getting into a discussion with FARMS/FAIR, or any other heavy duty LDS apoligitics forum, with information from Wikiopedia, and see how seriously your taken.

The error, is in relying on a source that is hardly creditable.

How many high school teachers mark down an essay based on Wikipedia?

Again - if you think the information is in error - demonstrate it, otherwise your carping is meaningless.

[Snow]

I forgot about those treasure cities in ancient Egypt. Think they were from the Reformed Egyptian period. Wasn't this touched upon in the documentary, The Mummy Returns, starring Brendan Frasier?

Brendan Fraiser? I thought it starred Billy Mummy from Lost in Space and Bless the Beasts and the Children.