john 3:16 question for mormons

[lostnfound]

You cannot prove that just as I cannot prove the Bible was inspired of God. I contend and testify that the Book of Mormon was written by prophets called of God on another continent apart from Israel. Both books were written by men called of God and both are inspired of God.

just for arguement sake lets ask this question what about archelogical evidence? The smithosian will not recognize it as a historically accurate book Why?? but they will with the bible? Past manuscripts..do you realize that we have on file more original manuscripts of the bible then we do with any other book?? Nothing in it has ever been misproven arhcelogically. He closed his books with if anybody adds to this book, I wil add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anybody takes away from it I will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book"

Would God not have the power to seal His word? My God does and has proven to. If you have to think then what a horriable God to not give all those people before Josepth Smith the other "correct" book then. What about those people?

[skalenfehl]

Your initial statement is that the Bible is inspired of God. You cannot prove that God talked to Moses or that a bush on Mt. Sianai burned or that the Red Sea was ever parted, etc. I grant you that there are archaeological ruins to prove that ancient Israelites existed and even wrote of marvelous things, but these marvelous things you cannot prove, just as I cannot either. I'm speaking here objectively. You and I both know that there is a God.

As far as adding or taking away from this book, I've been over this before with others. That only refers to Revelation, which John wrote on the isle of Patmos, before other books or epistles were ever written and does not refer to the Bible as it did not even exist at the time as a canon of scripture. A similar scripture is found in Deuternomy that no more should be added to it. Does that mean the rest of the OT and the entire NT should be void? This is an old argument.

Reference: Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Holy Bible: Frequently Asked Questions (LDS FAQ)

[Misshalfway]

just for arguement sake lets ask this question what about archelogical evidence? The smithosian will not recognize it as a historically accurate book Why?? but they will with the bible? Past manuscripts..do you realize that we have on file more original manuscripts of the bible then we do with any other book?? Nothing in it has ever been misproven arhcelogically. He closed his books with if anybody adds to this book, I wil add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anybody takes away from it I will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book"

I don't use the Smithsonian to determine spiritual truth. God has the power to transmit and confirm truth to man. He doesn't need all the varied evidences of the earth to prove himself to man. The Spirit of the Lord is His proven means of communication. Something more reliable than any earthy proof. And just for the sake of argument, we are very lucky to live in a time when archeological and other technologies have allowed us to understand things better. But we are a very select and lucky group compared with all of God children who have lived on the earth. How did God teach the earliest of us? With archeological evidence and endless commentary from scholars? It certainly wasn't how the Lord himself taught the people and convinced them of truth.

Would God not have the power to seal His word? My God does and has proven to. If you have to think then what a horriable God to not give all those people before Josepth Smith the other "correct" book then. What about those people?

I find this a humorous argument. Like the Bible has been available for all mankind thruout all time.

And to answer your question, the BofM wasn't even available for the people who wrote it. It was a compilation of writings authored by different prophets over a span of many years. Many writings were copied from larger, more extensive records by a prophet named Mormon.....thus the name of the book. It was hidden and kept sacred by commandment of God to be revealed only by commandment. It was God who determined that the Book needed to come in this time. It was part of the restoration of the gospel in its fulness to the earth today ( a topic for another day.). It is meant to confirm the bible and to testify that Jesus is indeed the Christ and to give a detailed account of more of the Lord's interactions with the people of this earth. It is meant to test the faith of the people today. Have you ever actually read the book....or even just the preface pages? They are very informative and descriptive concerning the origins and purpose for its existence.

[Snow]

just for arguement sake lets ask this question what about archelogical evidence? The smithosian will not recognize it as a historically accurate book Why?? but they will with the bible? Past manuscripts..do you realize that we have on file more original manuscripts of the bible then we do with any other book?? Nothing in it has ever been misproven arhcelogically. He closed his books with if anybody adds to this book, I wil add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anybody takes away from it I will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book"

Your posts are so factually wrong... and given you apparently unfamiliarity with grammar and punctuation, I have to wonder if you are a real, serious poster, or just some spoofer trolling for reactions - either that or you are 1. Dishonest, or 2. poorly educated about religion.

1. Contrary to your false (which is completely false), there are NO original manuscripts of the bible - not a single one.

2. Archeology does in fact contradict the bible in numerous places.

For example:

"The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The

rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the

tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

AS RABBIS FACE FACTS (originally an article for the NY Times)

3. He closed his books? Who closed his books? Your paraphrase is from the author of the Book of Revelations. What other books by that author are you referring to.

Obviously the author wasn't referring to today's bible as there was no such thing in that era. There was an OT and a Torah but no New Testament. The Book of Revelations was only added to the canon later. Ergo, the author could not have been referring to anything other than the Book of Revelations itself and hence you implied complaint that someone was adding to it is pointless, since nobody (that you know of) added to it.

[lostnfound]

Your posts are so factually wrong... and given you apparently unfamiliarity with grammar and punctuation, I have to wonder if you are a real, serious poster, or just some spoofer trolling for reactions - either that or you are 1. Dishonest, or 2. poorly educated about religion.

1. Contrary to your false (which is completely false), there are NO original manuscripts of the bible - not a single one.

2. Archeology does in fact contradict the bible in numerous places.

For example:

"The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The

rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the

tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

AS RABBIS FACE FACTS (originally an article for the NY Times)

3. He closed his books? Who closed his books? Your paraphrase is from the author of the Book of Revelations. What other books by that author are you referring to.

Obviously the author wasn't referring to today's bible as there was no such thing in that era. There was an OT and a Torah but no New Testament. The Book of Revelations was only added to the canon later. Ergo, the author could not have been referring to anything other than the Book of Revelations itself and hence you implied complaint that someone was adding to it is pointless, since nobody (that you know of) added to it.

I'm not sure why you are being rude. I type really fast. I will slow down and make sure that my grammer and punctuation fit your expectations.

[Teancum18]

I'm not sure why you are being rude. I type really fast. I will slow down and make sure that my grammer and punctuation fit your expectations.

Take your time, man. Or go as fast as you want. Don't let those guys pressure you into how to type. Especially when you and I know the truth.

Don't worry, it's our secret.

As for the Book of Mormon, I could almost care less if it's true or not. The teachings in it are priceless. If I found out the book never did come from God, I wouldn't care and would still read it. It would be the same as any other self-help book to me. I'm a better person because of it.

[lostnfound]

Just for the record as I reviewed my own post. I should not have written original. You are correct. I should have said thousands of fragments or something like that or even given exact numbers. But anybody can do a google search and get that information.

as far as your other argument. I have never heard that argument before and I will look into its validity.

[skalenfehl]

Just for the record as I reviewed my own post. I should not have written original. You are correct. I should have said thousands of fragments or something like that or even given exact numbers. But anybody can do a google search and get that information.

as far as your other argument. I have never heard that argument before and I will look into its validity.

Are you replying to me?

[Snow]

I'm not sure why you are being rude. I type really fast. I will slow down and make sure that my grammer and punctuation fit your expectations.

It was so bad I thought you were probably playing a spoof trying to get someone to respond to a 'backwoods yokel.' I guess not... though I notice you completely avoid how you got caught misrepresenting original bible manuscripts, the reality of bible archeology and your misrepresentation of Revelations.

Tell me, did you deliberately try to mislead or did you just not know?

[lostnfound]

Are you replying to me?

no I was replying to snow.

[Teancum18]

Especially when you and I know the truth.

Don't worry, it's our secret.

Tell me, did you deliberately try to mislead or did you just not know?

So much for it being a secret hehe

[lostnfound]

It was so bad I thought you were probably playing a spoof trying to get someone to respond to a 'backwoods yokel.' I guess not... though I notice you completely avoid how you got caught misrepresenting original bible manuscripts, the reality of bible archeology and your misrepresentation of Revelations.

Tell me, did you deliberately try to mislead or did you just not know?

Snow, I do not know why you are insisting on putting me in a corner. I responded above to the original comment saying that I should not have written original. I am aware of all the fragements we have in possession. Scroll up.

The revelations misrepresentation thing is a matter of your interpertation of the verses in revelations but I can see how you can see it that way. And bible archeology I am looking into your arguments for validity of them.

Snow, all of my questions help me better understand lds faith and teachings. They are not a personal attack on you or anybody else. They are arguments that I have heard on lds or they are things I am personally confused about.

[Teancum18]

There was a reason I wanted to keep that a secret. Oh well....

Don't worry. I knew what you meant, lostnfound.

[skalenfehl]

The thing about what you mention in the book of Revelation is that John was referring to it only and not the entire bible as the entire canon did not yet exist and other epistles from the New Testament hadn't even yet been written. If you review my last post, you'll find some relevant information and references.

[Guest TheLutheran]

What holes?

From LDS.org:

. . . Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth . . .

Is this something revealed in the Book of Mormon or another LDS scripture? It's a new one for me.

Also, given that Joseph Smith was merely the "translator" of the Book of Mormon and other works, are all of the original "authors" who received God's inspiration to write those books known?

Thank you, in advance, for your responses. This thread has been very interesting. Just for the record, since I am not a regular poster and before anyone jumps to a conclusion about my intentions, I am a Lutheran (obviously) and found this site to gain more information about the LDS faith. Just curious . . . not confrontational! :)

[Snow]

Snow, I do not know why you are insisting on putting me in a corner.

I don't know what that means.

I responded above to the original comment saying that I should not have written original. I am aware of all the fragements we have in possession. Scroll up.

Correction noted.

The revelations misrepresentation thing is a matter of your interpertation of the verses in revelations but I can see how you can see it that way.

How can it be looked at any other way? There was no New Testament. The New Testament we have today took hundreds of years to come into use and along the way had all sorts of books in it's canon. Even today there are bibles that have many more books that the standard 66 in the Protestant canon.

The book of Revelations was probably not even the last book or the standard New Testament written. Moreover, the author may have not even known about other books that we now consider part of the NT.

Beyond which there is a similar admonition in the Old Testament. Holding to your argument we'd have to throw out most the OT and all the NT.

[lostnfound]

I don't know what that means.

Correction noted.

okay I found it..Jericho's wall - Has archaeology confirmed the biblical record of its destruction? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Another take on your excerpt that you tried to show errors in the bible. Christiananswers.net also addresses all the other arguments you listed as well. :)

[kona0197]

As for the Book of Mormon, I could almost care less if it's true or not. The teachings in it are priceless. If I found out the book never did come from God, I wouldn't care and would still read it. It would be the same as any other self-help book to me. I'm a better person because of it.

WELL SAID!!

[Snow]

I don't know what that means.

Correction noted.

okay I found it..Jericho's wall - Has archaeology confirmed the biblical record of its destruction? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Another take on your excerpt that you tried to show errors in the bible. Christiananswers.net also addresses all the other arguments you listed as well. :)

Oh boy.

The discoveries at don't confirm the biblical account, in fact, they tend to DISPROVE the biblical account.

The Exodus happened in the 13th century BCE (according or the Ussherian accounting) or the alternative 15th century. Archeology dates the destruction of the walls at Jericho to about 1550 BCE - THE SIXTEENTH century, (not the 13th or the 15th) at the close of the middle bronze age by earthquake or possibly siege in the context of a burn layer.

"I agree completely with William G. Dever, emeritus professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, who recently wrote: "But what about the conquest and settlement of Canaan as depicted in the books of Joshua and Judges? As we have seen, there is little that we can salvage from Joshua's stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero named Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there was simply no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan."

Dever is not alone in this assessment; he is simply giving voice to what the vast majority of archaeologists now believe. And a majority of biblical scholars and ancient historians concur. Esteemed scholar Nadav Na'aman, professor of Jewish history at Tel Aviv University, wrote: "It is commonly accepted today that the majority of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality."

So there is no evidence that Joshua ever "fit the battle of Jericho" or that "the walls came a tumblin' down" from a blast from his men's trumpets, to quote the traditional African-American gospel song. In short, it would seem that the only mystery still remaining about the story of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho is how it came to be written in the first place." From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible, Eric H. Cline, National Geographic, p. 120

Deever is the preëminent archaeologist of this generation. Cline is a noted scholar in his own right and not extreme in his views. The vast majority of archaeologists and ancient historians agree with these men.

You can't rely on light weight apologetic websites that pick and choose (often less than honestly) only those things that appear to support their pre-conceived ideas and ignore all that doesn't support their beliefs.

Stick to legitimate scholars and researchers.

[japacific]

Is this like the chariot wheels that they found in the Red Sea that prove he parted the sea?

[Brother Dorsey]

I don't use the Smithsonian to determine spiritual truth. God has the power to transmit and confirm truth to man. He doesn't need all the varied evidences of the earth to prove himself to man. The Spirit of the Lord is His proven means of communication. Something more reliable than any earthy proof. And just for the sake of argument, we are very lucky to live in a time when archeological and other technologies have allowed us to understand things better. But we are a very select and lucky group compared with all of God children who have lived on the earth. How did God teach the earliest of us? With archeological evidence and endless commentary from scholars? It certainly wasn't how the Lord himself taught the people and convinced them of truth.

I absolutely agree.....man relies way too much on so called "scientific proof" and natural man reasoning and always has....heck, 700 years ago the scientists of the time could "prove" the earth was flat!

[Misshalfway]

These conversations have and do go on and on.........

We can go back and forth, who is right or who is wrong, or what this guy said vs. the other guy with lots of letters after his name. In the end, all these questions can be settled with the simplest of pleasures......a prayer.

[lostnfound]

Oh boy.

The discoveries at don't confirm the biblical account, in fact, they tend to DISPROVE the biblical account.

The Exodus happened in the 13th century BCE (according or the Ussherian accounting) or the alternative 15th century. Archeology dates the destruction of the walls at Jericho to about 1550 BCE - THE SIXTEENTH century, (not the 13th or the 15th) at the close of the middle bronze age by earthquake or possibly siege in the context of a burn layer.

"I agree completely with William G. Dever, emeritus professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, who recently wrote: "But what about the conquest and settlement of Canaan as depicted in the books of Joshua and Judges? As we have seen, there is little that we can salvage from Joshua's stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archaeological evidence is indisputable. It is conceivable that there was a military chieftain and folk hero named Joshua, who won a few skirmishes here and there. But there was simply no Israelite conquest of most of Canaan."

Dever is not alone in this assessment; he is simply giving voice to what the vast majority of archaeologists now believe. And a majority of biblical scholars and ancient historians concur. Esteemed scholar Nadav Na'aman, professor of Jewish history at Tel Aviv University, wrote: "It is commonly accepted today that the majority of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality."

So there is no evidence that Joshua ever "fit the battle of Jericho" or that "the walls came a tumblin' down" from a blast from his men's trumpets, to quote the traditional African-American gospel song. In short, it would seem that the only mystery still remaining about the story of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho is how it came to be written in the first place." From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible, Eric H. Cline, National Geographic, p. 120

Deever is the preëminent archaeologist of this generation. Cline is a noted scholar in his own right and not extreme in his views. The vast majority of archaeologists and ancient historians agree with these men.

You can't rely on light weight apologetic websites that pick and choose (often less than honestly) only those things that appear to support their pre-conceived ideas and ignore all that doesn't support their beliefs.

Stick to legitimate scholars and researchers.

You have made your point snow. If anybody else wants to look into they can. The site rebuttels your article. I think you are right people do write up articles to support their pre-concieved ideas and ignore all that doesn't support their belief. This goes for scientists as well. This would go also to those who try to discredit the bible. Thanks for your input though.

[Snow]

You have made your point snow. If anybody else wants to look into they can. The site rebuttels your article. I think you are right people do write up articles to support their pre-concieved ideas and ignore all that doesn't support their belief. This goes for scientists as well. This would go also to those who try to discredit the bible. Thanks for your input though.

The site you reference does not rebut the article. It doesn't even address the article. It barely even mentions the issues raised by the article, Mostly it just ignores the problem.

Here's a better explanation of the problems associated with the archeology of Jericho:

1. In the early twentieth century an archeologist (Garstang) dated the wall ruins of Jericho at about 1400 BCE which kind of matched up with the biblical account.

2. In Kathleen Kenyon, an archeologist, showed conclusively that the ruins were to be dated at about 1550 BCE. That's a problem because, according to the bible, there wasn't a walled city in Jericho at that time. Morevover, Kenyon found zero evidence to support occupation of Jericho at all about about 1400 BCE.

3. The consensus of modern archeologists agree with Kenyon.

4. An archeologist, Woods, argues that Garstangs original dating of about 1400 was correct.

5, Woods gets lots of publicity from popular conservative Christians who want the findings to match the Bible but the archeology world dismisses Woods saying that none of his four lines or reasoning can stand up to scrutiny.

6. The website you reference mentions in passing that in 1997 two Italian archeologist had findings that contradicted the Woods' version and the Bible reckoning. However, your website, without a single shred of evidence, implies that the Italians might be dishonest or biased. It then ignores them.

7. What you website fails to mention is that in 1995 twp scientists put to rest Woods incorrect opinions by using the most precise and modern dating methods and found that Kenyons discoveries are correct, that Woods was wrong and the the facts of science DO NOT support the bible account and tend to disprove it.

8 The website you referenced has a number of easily spottable errors and is even dishonest in its claims. For example, your website claims:

"Houses were built against a portion of the city wall that did not collapse, verifying that Rahab's house was built against the city wall (Hebrew, betah be qir hahomah, Joshua 2:15), and that her house was spared (Joshua 2:14-21; 6:22-23)."

That is simply untrue. Rahab's house has not be verified to be built against the city wall. There is no evidence whatsoever that Rahab even existed, let alone her house. For that matter there is no evidence either that Moses or the Exodus or his successor Joshua existed.

9. Even if the claims of Woods were accurate (which everyone understands they are not), the biblical story of Jericho does not match the findings and the archeology does not verify the bible. At best, the findings would simply not contradict the bible account but it wouldn't say anything about Joshua or the walls falling down because of trumpet blasts - but of course the archeological contradicts the biblical account.

10. I should note that one Ph.D. has proposed a solution to reconcile the archeology with the bible account and that solution is to date the Exodus about 1000 years earlier than what everyone else thinks. And David Rohl has proposed a new chronology for Egyptian history. The problem with such new ideas about chronology is that they cause other problems for the Bible. For example identifying the biblical Shishak as Ramses II, rather than the far more obviously named Shoshenq.

11. Even if your website is correct - which it clearly isn't, it does not speak to your original claim nothing from archeology has ever disputed the bible.

[Hemidakota]

TIDBIT: what was interesting to note about Astro Physics, something I use to talked about in the early 80s, Blackholes are nothing more than conduits, linking to other universes [exchanging matter]. It seems yesterday or perhaps on Saturday, Yahoo Science page again, talked about another Radio Telescope, noticed matter spewing forth from a Blackhole.