LDS Evidences (church, LDS, Mormon, Book of Mormon, easter)

[dan]

I'd like to start up a debate thread where we introduce and debate, one at a time, our favorite evidences for the validity of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is a true account then the LDS church is inescapably true (it claims to be translated by the power of God. That pretty much clinshes it), so the only thing that must be shown is that the Book of Mormon is true.

I'll start.

My favorite evidence up to this point is the city Nahom. Early in the Book of Mormon we are told that Ishmael died and was buried in a place called Nahom. It happened right at the time the group started heading due east. If we analyze their traveling situation and the time they traveled, as well as their ultimate destination on the eastern Arabina peninsula we can arrive at a probable location of Nahom. The cool thing is that a tel was discovered around that area that was used as a burial ground and bears the name NHM. Everyone knows vowels weren't used back then, but some have settled on Nehem. Other writings have used the name Nihm, and artifacts corresponding with that name date back to the 6th and 7th centuries BC. There is no way that Joseph Smith could have possibly known about this place, yet the book he is supposed to have made up contains an accurate description of an ancient Arabian city, it's name, location and use. I am willing to wager (were I a betting man) that a satisfactory explanation of how this is possible barring acceptance of the veracity of the Book of Mormon will not be forthcoming.

Here are some websites to look over:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=187
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=303
http://nephiproject.com/on__nahom.htm
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?tab...52aWV3LnBocA==

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

[royol]

Well that's it, the Book of Mormon has got to be true, that's all the evidence we need.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by royol

Well that's it, the Book of Mormon has got to be true, that's all the evidence we need.

Or you could debate with a higher level of maturity. Just an idea.

[dan]

Originally Posted by royol

Well that's it, the Book of Mormon has got to be true, that's all the evidence we need.

I said produce evidence one at a time to debate. I have introduced one piece of evidence and it is open for debate. Show it to be fallacious or admit that it is valid. After we've discussed several different ones we can discuss whether or not the package qualifies as compelling.

[Victor]

Dan, I exhort you to consider the non-thesit/scientific understanding/definition of evidence. I've given this to you before. I hope it has some impacting understanding on you.

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemic...of/default.htm

Peace be with you,
~Victor

[royol]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

Or you could debate with a higher level of maturity. Just an idea.

Maturity??
What are we talking about here? we are talking about something someone believes to be true, we are not talking about something that IS true, he believes it, so to him it's true, he will believe it even if it's not true, and you are asking for maturity!!

[dan]

How's this: I have complete confidence that the evidence supports the Book of Mormon as to its historical accuracy. If one puts aside their biases and considers the facts instead of their assumptions and inferences, I feel they will arrive at the same conclusion. I have provided one fact: the Book of Mormon accurately describes an ancient city's name, function and location despite having an author with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of its existence. I feel the only logical theory that explains this observation is that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be: a truthful account of the travelings and dealings of a family of believers from the Holy Land to the New World.

If anyone feels the facts support a different conclusion please share. If anyone feels my conclusion is illogical please share. If anyone has any evidence that contradicts mine then please share.

[dan]

Originally Posted by royol

Maturity??
What are we talking about here? we are talking about something someone believes to be true, we are not talking about something that IS true, he believes it, so to him it's true, he will believe it even if it's not true, and you are asking for maturity!!

That doesn't make any sense. I believe something is true, therefore I'm immature?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by dan

How's this: I have complete confidence that the evidence supports the Book of Mormon as to its historical accuracy. If one puts aside their biases and considers the facts instead of their assumptions and inferences, I feel they will arrive at the same conclusion. I have provided one fact: the Book of Mormon accurately describes an ancient city's name, function and location despite having an author with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of its existence. I feel the only logical theory that explains this observation is that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be: a truthful account of the travelings and dealings of a family of believers from the Holy Land to the New World.

If anyone feels the facts support a different conclusion please share. If anyone feels my conclusion is illogical please share. If anyone has any evidence that contradicts mine then please share.

Did you read the link?

[Halcyon]

I have couple of points about Nahom i'd like to debate dan.

In the BoM it specifies that the group is travelling in the wilderness. A wilderness by definition is a natural area, like a forest, where noone lives. The chances of a group just happening upon a Jewish buriel ground literally out in the middle of nowhere are remote.
I'd be happy to accept that the group were the first people there and were the ones to create Nahom, but if this were the case there would be no record of a Nahom, just the grave of a man in the wilderness. Afterall, there is no record of repeat journeys by subsequent travellers following Lehi's route, are there?

Also, you mention that people have traced the route of the group and that is how they located NHM. When following directions as vague as "And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction"
and
"And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth."
and my favourite
"And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days."

How can anyone possibly track them with any degree of certainty?