Lehi.. 81 Evidences


serapha
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi there!

I just purchased the book, Lehi in the Wilderness, 81 New Evidences.... I just received it yesterday, and I have started reading it.

Has anyone read the book, and, if so, what are your specific comments.

Also, the videos on Lehi in the Wilderness... they cost $80. Before I buy them, could someone tell me if they contain any information that is not in the book, Lehi in the Wilderness? I was told that all the information on the videos is in the book?

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spencer@Mar 22 2004, 10:02 PM

Question, whay are you reading all these books before reading The Book Of Mormon? Seems like that would be the place for someone to start for someone who was truly investigating.

You'll have to excuse me for addressing you instead of the issue.

Spencer

Well,

It's pretty simple... people send me all these sites that pertain to the book of mormon and archaeological or historical supports, and then they ask for my comments pertaining to the significance of the evidence.

It started out that I would be answering questions on Christian forums, and someone would ask me to read some "evidence" on a Mormon forum. So, I would research the information and then I would post the "facts" of the findings.

I haven't found any real "evidences" that support the book of mormon.... that ought to bring on an onslaught of insults. ...

thus... Lehi's 81 evidences are the strongest argument as a documented "evidence" for the book of mormon that is "current'. No one (in archaeology) has addressed the information in the book concerning the credibility of the "evidences".

Most of the information I receive is the type of references that usually require some type of knowledge or understanding of archaeology or historical supports. The types of things that aren't found on any of the "anti-" sites.... because I don't frequent the "anti-sites". BYW.... I don't need to go to "anti-" sites. If I have an "anti-" question, I just email one of the "anti-" persons and they reply ... else I email the LDS's specialist.... or ask on the mormon forums.

Currently, I am reading Brant Gardner's web page because I was given an outline from one of his presentations as a "proof" of the book of mormon. The outline is so "vague" that it is difficult to determine what is being said, let alone what the evidences are.

For example, "food stuffs" was given as a "proof".

Well? Okay. So he (Brant Gardner) has been so kind to allow me to use his information as long as I tell him where I am posting. He has a pretty good commentary going on the book of mormon with archaeological and historical supports...

I have at least 15 books backed up on archaeology that are a "must read", and a ton of research to work on... and now, I have even more books to read on mesoamerican cultures and videos to view... etc. plus I need to be reading some critical works in archaeology before I work in archaeology this year.

I just haven't had the time to read the book of mormon. I read the book of Ether not too long ago... and I have read large segments of other books in doing research. Basically, if I have a question on the book of mormon, I just ask.

More questions? I have about 40 files on different "evidences" or proofs, articles, etc.... many still "works in progress"... like looking for barley reports in New Mexico or an iron sword found in Jericho in 1986, reading mayan glyphs, all that "boring" kind of stuff.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes,

I have spent time this last year, reading the history of the CoJCoLDS's, first a mormon perspective, then an anti-perspective, alternating studies.... goddess worship within the mormon church, the strong "right arm" of mormonism flexed in the FBI and CIA... finances... satellite and media purchases of the CoJCoLDS, the state of affairs in Utah, divorce and spousal abuse, child abuse.

It's not just a religion... it's a whole different world from what everyone else in Christianity knows.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well then forgive me for saying, but you seem to be searching for physical proof, and not attempting to gain a personal testimony.

I dont mean to offend you, but I know for myself, without my faith and testimony as gained through reading the scriptures, i would be lost.

Here is a question. How do you prove faith?

Spencer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well then forgive me for saying, but you seem to be searching for physical proof, and not attempting to gain a personal testimony.

I dont mean to offend you, but I know for myself, without my faith and testimony as gained through reading the scriptures, i would be lost.

Here is a question. How do you prove faith?

Spencer

Hello Spencer,

:)

I will answer your question, but will you answer mine? What if the "scriptures" that you are reading, aren't true?

Now...

Ok, well then forgive me for saying, but you seem to be searching for physical proof, and not attempting to gain a personal testimony.

My interest in Bible archaeology is to know that there are archaeological and historical supports for the Bible. I have encouraged many people who were ready to "give up" on their faith because they didn't believe the Bible to be "truth" any more. I have a new brother in Christ since last week who had given up on the Word of God as being truth...

1Th 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

If archaeology "proves" the people, places or actions of the Bible actually exist, then I intend to "hold fast" to that which is good.

I dont mean to offend you, but I know for myself, without my faith and testimony as gained through reading the scriptures, i would be lost.

We would all be lost if we didn't believe the Word of God was truth. Christians are saved by our faith that Jesus Christ has redeemed our sins. And, I believe that the Word of God is absolute truth... every word.

Here is a question. How do you prove faith?

Heb 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That word "substance" is only used five times in the Bible. In other early writings, that word is relative to business documents, the foundation, the guarantee of the transaction., an intangible that is understood to be so certain that a transaction can be made.

The "evidence" can be either a "proof" or a "conviction"... a certainty that there is proof of things not seen.

How is faith proven in agreement with that text? Through an understanding of "good will" as applied to business. "Good will" is so certain that a monetary value may be assigned to it. An intangible that is understood to be so certqin that a transaction can be made based upon the reputation that the business has acquired.

Faith is "the substances of things hoped for" on the basis of of the reputation of God.

That reputation is reinforced by fact, not fiction.

BTW, there doesn't seem to be any tendency to keep threads on subject, is there? So, if someone chooses not to answer a question, they just divert the subject of the thread ... aka ~red herring~ ??

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest in Bible archaeology is to know that there are archaeological and historical supports for the Bible. I have encouraged many people who were ready to "give up" on their faith because they didn't believe the Bible to be "truth" any more. I have a new brother in Christ since last week who had given up on the Word of God as being truth...

You say this here, but in another thread you ask us to convert us? Please what is your intention, to prove/dis-prove the Book of Mormon, or investigate the church?

It is my opinion that it is unfair to try and prove something false without reading its contents first. It is my belief that if you were to read the Book of Mormon, then pray for the answers you seek on the subject of its validity, your heart and heavely father would answer all your questions.

Not that it is not good what youre doing, if that interests you, great. But I question your intentions.

I think this scripture sums up my point pretty well

2 Corinthians 5:7

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

Gen. 15: 14 shall they come out with great substance.

1 Chr. 28: 1 stewards over all the substance.

Prov. 3: 9 Honour the Lord with thy substance.

Prov. 10: 3 Lord . . . casteth away the substance of the wicked.

Prov. 12: 27 substance of a diligent man is precious.

Jer. 15: 13 Thy substance and thy treasures will I give.

Micah 4: 13 consecrate . . . their substance unto the Lord.

Luke 15: 13 son . . . wasted his substance with riotous living.

Heb. 10: 34 ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Heb. 11: 1 faith is the substance of things hoped for.

Jacob 2: 17 be . . . free with your substance.

Mosiah 4: 16 administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need.

Mosiah 4: 26 (Mosiah 18: 28; Alma 34: 28; D&C 42: 31; D&C 105: 3) impart of your substance to the poor.

That word "substance" is only used five times in the Bible.

I see more than 5? it is my opinion by reading the above that the word "substance" was often used as a synonym for Faith.

We would all be lost if we didn't believe the Word of God was truth. Christians are saved by our faith that Jesus Christ has redeemed our sins. And, I believe that the Word of God is absolute truth... every word.

I most deffinately agree, but furthermore it does not stop there. It is an everyday struggle to become more like our Father in Heaven. Repentance is a beautiful thing. A word I see repeated over 54 times in the Bible.

I will answer your question, but will you answer mine? What if the "scriptures" that you are reading, aren't true?

For our further discussions, this question does not need to be asked, for that is how discussions work =)

Spencer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gen. 15: 14 shall they come out with great substance.

1 Chr. 28: 1 stewards over all the substance.

Prov. 3: 9 Honour the Lord with thy substance.

Prov. 10: 3 Lord . . . casteth away the substance of the wicked.

Prov. 12: 27 substance of a diligent man is precious.

Jer. 15: 13 Thy substance and thy treasures will I give.

Micah 4: 13 consecrate . . . their substance unto the Lord.

Luke 15: 13 son . . . wasted his substance with riotous living.

Heb. 10: 34 ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Heb. 11: 1 faith is the substance of things hoped for.

Jacob 2: 17 be . . . free with your substance.

Mosiah 4: 16 administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need.

Mosiah 4: 26 (Mosiah 18: 28; Alma 34: 28; D&C 42: 31; D&C 105: 3) impart of your substance to the poor.

That word "substance" is only used five times in the Bible.

I see more than 5? it is my opinion by reading the above that the word "substance" was often used as a synonym for Faith.

The Hebrew word for substance, y@quwm means... "living substance". I high-lighted on purpose "THAT" word, meaning the Greek word, which has a totally differenct context.

Do you understand my statement now?

You say this here, but in another thread you ask us to convert us? Please what is your intention, to prove/dis-prove the Book of Mormon, or investigate the church?

I also said I am trying to learn... If an argument is presented that is able to "convert" one to the CoJCoLDS's, then that is an argument that I want to hear.

I'm sorry that you have put me in a little box and indicated that I can't have a diversifed interest. I have a diversified interest in the Old Testament, the New Testament, family living, my secular job....

I have a diversified mind. Please, don't put in a "fenced-in" yard that restricts learning.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then it is my challenge to you, to read the Book of Mormon, and pray to Heavenly Father with a sincere heart, reguarding the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Free yourself from the box, the reson you have been placed there is because the way you chose to go about things, if you are truly interested in learning, then this is a necessity in my opinion. And only then will I fully believe your intentions on this site.

Take it for what its worth, I appologize for hijacking your thread.

Spencer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 23 2004, 06:17 AM

If archaeology "proves" the people, places or actions of the Bible actually exist, then I intend to "hold fast" to that which is good. 

Seriously Serapha,

What does archeology have to do with the central claims of the Bible, that the God of Abraham stands above all other gods, that Jesus was the Christ and that through the atonement man might be saved.

The fact that this Bible town or that wall of Jericho may have been real does nothing to support the truths of the Gospel - or do you know something we don't? Relating stories of the supernatural in non-supernatural locations no more makes the Bible true than does the real location of the early LDS Church make the Doctrine and Covenants true.

Besides which, if you are hanging your hat on Bible archeology, your hat is likely to hang pretty precariously. Are you familiar with the article: Bible Tales are Wilting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 23 2004, 06:17 AM

If archaeology "proves" the people, places or actions of the Bible actually exist, then I intend to "hold fast" to that which is good. 

Seriously Serapha,

What does archeology have to do with the central claims of the Bible, that the God of Abraham stands above all other gods, that Jesus was the Christ and that through the atonement man might be saved.

I would identify that the land of Israel is identified as the "fifth gospel" because the land holds the truth as well as the gospels do. I would identify tht historical references from archaeology corelate the Bible as do archaeological evidences. For example, the Bible uses the term "basket" in the same manner for the feeding of the 4,000 and also for the feeding of the 5,000. but they are different words in Greek, and different types of baskets historically. It makes a difference when you know the type of "basket", and also the type of "fish" that is prevalent in the Sea of Galilee. I feel that you accept the generalities and dismiss the entire text. I look at the specifics, and stand in awe at what the Word of God holds. I'm going to attach one of my short articles to this posting for your reading pleasure.

The fact that this Bible town or that wall of Jericho may have been real does nothing to support the truths of the Gospel - or do you know something we don't? Relating stories of the supernatural in non-supernatural locations no more makes the Bible true than does the real location of the early LDS Church make the Doctrine and Covenants true.

I think I must know something that you don't.

Besides which, if you are hanging your hat on Bible archeology, your hat is likely to hang pretty precariously. Are you familiar with the article: Bible Tales are Wilting?

If I were a Jew, I would be sitting precariously. I am a Christian, and "Bible Tales are Wilting"... doesn't hold water. Notice the first line of the text says... "probably"... shall I continue???

http://senrs.com/as_rabbis_face_facts,_bib...are_wilting.htm

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gathering Stones at Tabgha

When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

(Mark 8:19-20)

Isn't it amazing how accurate the Word of God is? When one reads the two verses above in the English language, one gets the impression that Christ is comparing the two miracles of multiplication. But somehow, the effectiveness of the passage has been lost in the translation from Greek to English.

And here's why.

Mar 8:19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many ** baskets** full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

Mar 8:20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many **baskets** full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

In verse 19, the word for baskets is "kophinos", and in verse 20, the word for baskets is "spuris." And what is the difference? That's the significant point that is lost in the translation.

"Kophinos" is a small type of basket that was used by Jews when they traveled, something of a knapsack that could be carried on their back and which held a specific amount of measurement. In the 1871 commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, the authors note: “The 'kophinos' was part of the luggage taken by Jews on a journey--to carry, it is said, both their provisions and hay to sleep on, that they might not have to depend on Gentiles, and so run the risk of ceremonial pollution.” It was a wicker basket made of twigs or branches particularly used by the Jews for carrying kosher food, and the capacity was equivalent to about two gallons or two-thirds bushel of food. (Vine's Expository Dictionary)

And the significance to the reference of "kophinos"? The passage in verse 19 took place on the Jewish side of the Sea of Galilee.

Now, in looking at verse 20, the word for basket is "spuris" which is a reed basket, which could be a lunch basket, but which can be much larger such as a hamper. In Gentile Damascus, Paul was lowered from the city wall in a "spuris" (Acts 9:25)

Figure 1

http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/baskets.htm

A "spuris" was the type basket that was favored by the Gentiles. A "spuris" signifies "something round, twisted or folded together" (connected with speira, "anything rolled into a circle;" Eng., "sphere"); hence a reed basket, plaited, a capacious kind of hamper, sometimes large enough to hold a man. Matt. 15:37; 16:10; Mark 8:8, 20 (Vine's Expository Dictionary)

A "spuris" was measurable to six and one-fourth bushels, significantly larger than the measurement of a "kophinos". And the significance of the "spuris"? The feeding of the four thousand was on the "other side" of the Galilee, the Gentile side of the Sea where the use of "spuris" was the preferred basket over the Jewish "kophinos".

When Jesus spoke the words in Mark, He identified the difference in the miracles of the multiplications, but man's simplification of the text took away the location (Jewish or Gentile side of the Galilee) and the difference of the abundance. For considering the size of the baskets, the abundance was greater in the Gentile miracle of multiplication (7 baskets x 6..25 = 43.75 bushels) than in the Jewish miracle of multiplication (12 baskets x .66 = 8 bushels).

God's Word is so accurate if we allow it to stand alone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, snow, to you the type of basket is insignificant. To me, the type of basket is very significant, as is the location of the miracles of multiplication (Gentile side of the Galilee or Jewish side) , the mosaic floor of the Church of the Multiplication (archaeological artifact) , the sea life of the Sea of Galilee including the different types of fish for each of the different miracles of multiplication (thank you, Mendel Nun) .... Each small, seemingly insignificant fact supports the biblical passage. If all the facts are undisputable, I have no reason not to believe the Word of God is truth, and that the miracles did occur.

In other words, nothing disproves the Bible, if you look at the Greek, the Hebrew, the history, the archaeology, the literary works, etc... they all support the Bible.

BTW... members of the CoJCoLDS's in archaeological research, cite this concept as...

"complex correlations"

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 24 2004, 07:47 PM

What does archeology have to do with the central claims of the Bible, that the God of Abraham stands above all other gods, that Jesus was the Christ and that through the atonement man might be saved.

I would identify that the land of Israel is identified as the "fifth gospel" because the land holds the truth as well as the gospels do. I would identify tht historical references from archaeology corelate the Bible as do archaeological evidences.

Serapha,

That's nice. It doesn't address the question but that's nice. Do you have something to add that speaks to the question I asked?

I think I must know something that you don't. 

That's neither an answer nor a rebuttal. It is supercillious if that is what you were aiming for. Could you please address the point.

If I were a Jew, I would be sitting precariously.  I am a Christian, and "Bible Tales are Wilting"... doesn't hold water.    Notice the first line of the text says... "probably"... shall I continue???

Only if you want to be taken seriously as someone with something intelligent to say. The point is that it is a pretty well known and accepted issue, outside Orthodox Judaism and certain segments of Christianity that the Bible cannot be true in the a literal and inerrant way and that archeology (outside those circles with an agenda) substantiates it. You represent yourself as someone who has has some measure of intelligence and knowledge in this area. Well, pony up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 24 2004, 08:02 PM

Now, snow, to you the type of basket is insignificant. To me, the type of basket is very significant,

I dunno, maybe it is significant. But you have some pretty tough obstacles to negotiate first.

No one knows who wrote Mark. Was he an eyewitness to what Christ actually said? That's unknown but it seems as if whoever wrote Mark got most of it second hand.

The words you are speaking of are Greek. Christ wasn't speaking Greek do you think? Who knows what words he actually used so many decades before whoever eventually wrote Mark composed this gospel. If the author was an eyewitness, it is likely that he didn't write in Greek himself and so whatever he wrote would have to been translated into Greek. Can you speak to the accuracy with which the translation occurred? If the author could write in Greek, it was doubtful he was an eyewitness and so his information would be second or third or fouth or fifth hand. Can you speak to the accuracy with which the oral traditions were conveyed through the decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serapha,

That's nice. It doesn't address the question but that's nice. Do you have something to add that speaks to the question I asked?

Well, it wasn't me that posted that Abraham and Moses didn't exist. I believe they did exist, and I believe the exodus did occur.

What does archeology have to do with the central claims of the Bible, that the God of Abraham stands above all other gods, that Jesus was the Christ and that through the atonement man might be saved.

1. If Abraham doesn't exist, then don't reference the God of Abraham. That's a simple enough logic. It was you who indicated that Abraham never existed, nor Moses, and that the Exodus never occurred. I believe they did.

2. Actually, archaeology does affect the teaching of the greatest commandment. If you want to hear that lecture, then ask politely. Faith moving mountains... is that a "central claim"... that's based upon archaeology. That Jesus was born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, sojourned to Capernaum, and was crucified in Jerusalem. There are evidences, though I admit, not strong evidences, and they are "complex correlations". That Jesus is God... oh yeah, there's archaeological evidences for that statement.

3. There is a continuous flow of manuscripts from the first century that support the teachings of the Bible concerning the atonement through Christ. That would prove an interesting discussion.

I love to talk about archaeology and the Bible... but I only discuss items with attentive students.

BTW... when we are done talking about archaeology and the Bible, can we apply the same principles to the book of mormon?

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated,

The fact that this Bible town or that wall of Jericho may have been real does nothing to support the truths of the Gospel - or do you know something we don't? Relating stories of the supernatural in non-supernatural locations no more makes the Bible true than does the real location of the early LDS Church make the Doctrine and Covenants true.

I think I must know something that you don't.

Relating stories of the supernatural in non-supernatural locations no more makes the Bible true than does the real location of the early LDS Church make the Doctrine and Covenants true. 

And on the same basis, then, the book of mormon isn't true?

I realize the conversation isn't about the book of mormon... and that isn't a fair statement, but concerning the accountability you want from the Bible, you don't mind that I start a new thread with the same accountablity concerning the book of mormon, do you?

It is rare to see a professing Christian question the credibility of the Bible as you have.... really rare. Obviously, not everyone's faith is in the Word of God.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a Jew, I would be sitting precariously.  I am a Christian, and "Bible Tales are Wilting"... doesn't hold water.    Notice the first line of the text says... "probably"... shall I continue???

Only if you want to be taken seriously as someone with something intelligent to say. The point is that it is a pretty well known and accepted issue, outside Orthodox Judaism and certain segments of Christianity that the Bible cannot be true in the a literal and inerrant way and that archeology (outside those circles with an agenda) substantiates it. You represent yourself as someone who has has some measure of intelligence and knowledge in this area. Well, pony up.

I don't intend to take on the world... if you want the article which you cited addressed ... then just say so. If you want the entire world taken on... itemize your questions, so I may itemize my answers. That's fair enough.

Now... just tell me what you want... but be specific... because, as I said, I'm not taking on the entire archaeological world as well as every artifact ever recorded, every manuscript, every historical event....

I do have a specific question I would like answered.... is there any part of the Bible that you accept as true? If so, which part. I just want to know what part I can skip over.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, snow, to you the type of basket is insignificant. To me, the type of basket is very significant, 

I dunno, maybe it is significant. But you have some pretty tough obstacles to negotiate first.

No one knows who wrote Mark. Was he an eyewitness to what Christ actually said? That's unknown but it seems as if whoever wrote Mark got most of it second hand.

We don't have to use the Mark passage, we can use the Matthew... or for the five thousand, we can use Luke.

The words you are speaking of are Greek. Christ wasn't speaking Greek do you think? Who knows what words he actually used so many decades before whoever eventually wrote Mark composed this gospel. If the author was an eyewitness, it is likely that he didn't write in Greek himself and so whatever he wrote would have to been translated into Greek. Can you speak to the accuracy with which the translation occurred? If the author could write in Greek, it was doubtful he was an eyewitness and so his information would be second or third or fouth or fifth hand. Can you speak to the accuracy with which the oral traditions were conveyed through the decades?

Did I claim to be the eyewitness to the writing of the Gospels?

You don't know that Mark or Luke were not eyewitnesses. We can continue to talk about what we don't know, or we can talk about what we do know.

I do know this. The aramaic translation uses different terms in Matthew for the word "basket". In Chapter 14, it is translated "basket" for the feeding of the five thousand, and in chapter 15, it is translated "panniers" for the feeding of the four thousand.

Now... you have sincerely convinced me that you don't accept the Bible as having any sort of credibiltiy, either in archaeological or historical evidences. Usually it is only athiests or agnostics, sometimes muslims who argue so hard against the Bible. I am amazed to see a "professing Christian" press so hard to discredit God's Word.

amazed.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow,

I'm praying that you will come to know the Word of God as truth... for if there is one lie in the book, then one cannot accept any of it as truth.

I probably will not be able to be back online here until early Friday morning.

Please, go ahead and post your questions. I only ask that you be fairly specific with them.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 25 2004, 12:45 AM

1. If Abraham doesn't exist, then don't reference the God of Abraham. That's a simple enough logic. It was you who indicated that Abraham never existed, nor Moses, and that the Exodus never occurred. I believe they did.

You have missed the point. I never said that Abraham did not exist. I pointed out that there is no archeological evidence for his existence. Additionally, there is plenty of archeological evidence that much of the Bible is not literally true. And the point of that is that you are going to have a tough road to hoe if you want to disprove the BoM archeologically and remain unhypocritical.

2.  Actually, archaeology does affect the teaching of the greatest commandment.  If you want to hear that lecture, then ask politely.    Faith moving mountains... is that a "central claim"... that's based upon archaeology.  That Jesus was born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, sojourned to Capernaum, and was crucified in Jerusalem.  There are evidences, though I admit, not strong evidences, and they are "complex correlations".    That Jesus is God... oh yeah, there's archaeological evidences for that statement.

Is this going to be another basket discussion. How about some REAL archeological evidence that Jesus lived and was the Christ. Is is necessary to define REAL evidence.

I love to talk about archaeology and the Bible... but I only discuss items with attentive students. 

So far you are mostly avoiding issues. Why don't you address some issues before you appoint yourself teacher.

BTW... when we are done talking about archaeology and the Bible, can we apply the same principles to the book of mormon? 

I can carry on more than one conversation. Go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 25 2004, 12:51 AM

I think I must know something that you don't.

Yeah, and I am the queen of sheba. Stop playing games.

Relating stories of the supernatural in non-supernatural locations no more makes the Bible true than does the real location of the early LDS Church make the Doctrine and Covenants true. 

And on the same basis, then, the book of mormon isn't true?

Do you want to explain the logic in that thinking? I said that physical reality of locations mentioned in books does not make supernatural stories in those books true and somehow you think that is an argument that the Book of Mormon is not true. I don't see the connection. Enlighten me.

It is rare to see a professing Christian question the credibility of the Bible as you have.... really rare.  Obviously, not everyone's faith is in the Word of God.

Maybe if you have your head stuck in the sand. My belief is that the Bible in errant. Do you think that is an unusual view?

A poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

95% of Episcopalians,

87% of Methodists,

82% of Presbyterians,

77% of American Lutherans, and

67% of American Baptists said "No."

Even MOST American Baptist clergy agree with me. Do you mean to say that you don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 25 2004, 01:30 AM

I probably will not be able to be back online here until early Friday morning.

Please, go ahead and post your questions. I only ask that you be fairly specific with them.

~serapha~

Okay, please see above.

Specifically, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and literal? (I don't need the lecture about certian Bible metaphors being metaphorical)

Since much archeological science cast doubt on the Bible's truthfulness, how do you intend to avoid hypocrisy in using such an argument with the Book of Mormon?

Do you believe that silence is an argument against?

Can Donkeys talk?

How did kangaroos get to Australia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 25 2004, 01:25 AM

We don't have to use the Mark passage, we can use the Matthew... or for the five thousand, we can use Luke.

Why not, since they both drew on Mark...

You don't know that Mark or Luke were not eyewitnesses. We can continue to talk about what we don't know, or we can talk about what we do know.

I do know this. The aramaic translation uses different terms in Matthew for the word "basket". In Chapter 14, it is translated "basket" for the feeding of the five thousand, and in chapter 15, it is translated "panniers" for the feeding of the four thousand.

That's the point. No one knows who wrote the gospel. No one knows what the original manuscripts said or didn't say. No one knows if the gospels are accurate as to what really happened. Since all that is true, you are reading an awful lot into what are probably just words for big and small baskets.

Now... you have sincerely convinced me that you don't accept the Bible as having any sort of credibiltiy, either in archaeological or historical evidences.    Usually it is only athiests or agnostics, sometimes muslims  who argue so hard against the Bible.  I am amazed to see a "professing Christian" press so hard to discredit God's Word.

amazed.

~serapha~

You can save that insincere indignation for the school kiddies and blue haired ladies. I probably have as deep and sincere belief in the Bible as do you. Maybe more. I don't ignore science and history though in my understanding of the Bible's content and I am certainly aware of the illogic of certain Bible arguments. If the Bible has errors in it, is my faith in it any less because I acknowledge the truth?

Your last bit about being amazed is a bit over the top do you think. You want to argue from an agreed upon contruct that everything the Bible says is naturally so, but outside of dogmatic assertion, there is no such contruct in reality. You can't just wave a magic wand and say that donkeys talk because the Bible said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the queen of sheba,

The discussion is over until you grow up enough to have a conversation without your dependence upon deroggatory comments to get your point across.

I can defend my points, can you defend your hateful comments?

It just isn't sinking in to you that I am not gonig to play the game the way you want it. I will not participate in a contest to see who can post the most demeaning comments.

I've said it before, what you do isn't apologetics.

When you are ready to "discuss" rather than just "cuss'... send me a private, otherwise, we are back to the "ignore" status.

Now.. have your temper tandrum... throw yourself in the floor and scream all across the forum that I'm not playing fair.. when you get done with your tandrum, take a breath, and then decide if you want to be treated like a three-year-old or a grown up.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share