Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth)

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

Well, if it is true then you should accept it because your understanding of the world is off and needs to be updated

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I've read the Bible, Book of Mormon, P of GP and D&C. That is more than most Mormons have done. The BoM, while interesting, does not afford much insight. I got more out of The Impersonal Life.

That's still irrelevant. My point still stands.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I've read the Bible, Book of Mormon, P of GP and D&C. That is more than most Mormons have done. The BoM, while interesting, does not afford much insight. I got more out of The Impersonal Life.

Ummm...Reread Soy's original comment. It's an If-Then statement. You are trying to assault the second part (the "then") by refuting the first part, the "if." But that's protected by the fact that it must be assumed for the rest to follow. IF the BoM is true, anyone who wants to accept truth must accept it. That's logic. You can attack either part, but attack them for what they really are. Otherwise your statements will tend to be irrelevant.

[Melissa G]

I read the comments with interest re Ancient Shipping. Taking the Egyptians as a example, the Egyptians did not sail out of sight of land, hugging the coast in all of their voyages, There was trade between Crete and Cyprus with Egypt, but it was the Islanders who sailed to Egypt and not the other way around. Rather than put the emphasis on me, tell me of one instance where a reputable source has provided tangible evidence that the people of Isreal were sailors of some repute , and Noah is not acceptable

Melissa G

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I read the comments with interest re Ancient Shipping. Taking the Egyptians as a example, the Egyptians did not sail out of sight of land, hugging the coast in all of their voyages, There was trade between Crete and Cyprus with Egypt, but it was the Islanders who sailed to Egypt and not the other way around. Rather than put the emphasis on me, tell me of one instance where a reputable source has provided tangible evidence that the people of Isreal were sailors of some repute , and Noah is not acceptable

Melissa G

I already said - the book itself tells us that they didn't "work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men." 1 Nephi 18

Why would we expect to see other examples of something the book says there weren't other examples of?

[Melissa G]

A book, which is questionable doesn't consitute evidence in the factual sense. It would require evidence in the form of cross-referencing from other sources. And a shipwreck wouldn't go amiss. Physical and tangible evidence. I mean, does it not occur to you that they ' didn't work timbers in the way which was learned by men', this is an understatement of I haven't a clue ? Very non-specific.

Melissa G

Melissa G

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

A book, which is questionable doesn't consitute evidence in the factual sense. It would require evidence in the form of cross-referencing from other sources. And a shipwreck wouldn't go amiss. Physical and tangible evidence. I mean, does it not occur to you that they ' didn't work timbers in the way which was learned by men', this is an understatement of I haven't a clue ? Very non-specific.

Melissa G

Melissa G

Well, there isn't much to give you. The book claims that there weren't other ships like this one, so there's no reason to believe that we would find other ships like this if the book were true: therefore, the fact that we havnen't found other ships like this is not evidence that the book is not true. This approach is really a non-starter.

I've got to admit, I don't understand the last half of your post. Would you mind re-wording it?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

Ummm...Reread Soy's original comment. It's an If-Then statement. You are trying to assault the second part (the "then") by refuting the first part, the "if." But that's protected by the fact that it must be assumed for the rest to follow. IF the BoM is true, anyone who wants to accept truth must accept it. That's logic. You can attack either part, but attack them for what they really are. Otherwise your statements will tend to be irrelevant.

I was saying the the BoM is irrelevant.

[Melissa G]

Sorry, If I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that non-specific statements aren't valid, because it indicates the writer really doesn't know the details to which he is referring too.

Melissa G

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

Sorry, If I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that non-specific statements aren't valid, because it indicates the writer really doesn't know the details to which he is referring too.

Melissa G

It doesn't change the fact that not finding other examples of ships able to cross the ocean is not evidence against the BoM though.

Like I said - this one's a dead end. You should move on.