Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[tomspug]

Whether the events actually happened or not is irrelevant to this purpose.

I am trying to keep from laughing here. Whether or not events actually happened is TOTALLY relevant. Christianity would be a false religion if Christ's death and resurrection had not occurred. In the same way, Mormonism would be a false religion if Moroni and the Lamaanites never existed.

 

[nutshell]

I am trying to keep from laughing here. Whether or not events actually happened is TOTALLY relevant. Christianity would be a false religion if Christ's death and resurrection had not occurred. In the same way, Mormonism would be a false religion if Moroni and the Lamaanites never existed.

Christ's death and resurrection actually happened.

What does that have to do with whether the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened or not? Whether the events actually happened or not have nothing to do with whether Mormonism is a false religion or not. What's important is the truth the stories teach - not whether they actually happened.

 

[tomspug]

Well, there are a few million Christian who would disagree with you.

Touche. What I meant was that the Bible is a compilation of historical documents. While these documents were chosen and collected for the purpose of religion, their original documentation was for historical purposes.

For example, the Israelites did not document the history of their kingdom SO THAT Christianity could be established. None of the OT prophets anticipated anything like the Bible. They merely wrote prophecy that was relevant to their own time period.

We put the New Testament under more scrutiny because it was developed in a relatively short timeframe, similar to the Book of Mormon. However, there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that most of the people in the Gospel accounts DID exist and that they can be considered historically accurate to a reasonable degree.

Contrast this with the Book of Mormon, that has yet to find a SINGLE thread of evidence for any of its historical accounts. And the counter-argument is that history is not important to religion? Horse-hockey! In the same way that Mormons use their daily life experiences to affirm their faith, they should use history as well, which is an equally reliable tool for affirming faith, if not MORESO than personal experience!

 

[Katzpur]

I am trying to keep from laughing here. Whether or not events actually happened is TOTALLY relevant. Christianity would be a false religion if Christ's death and resurrection had not occurred. In the same way, Mormonism would be a false religion if Moroni and the Lamaanites never existed.

While most Mormons believe that the events in the Book of Mormon did really happen, Nutshell has a good point. Unless you are a Bible literalist, there are parts of it that you believe are important because of the lesson that is to be learned from them. It doesn't matter so much whether they're allegorical or fact. So stop laughing and play nice.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't really have time, Dre, can you summarize? Thanks.

Book of Abraham

The BoA (scrolls) were said to have been purchased by J. Smith from a guy who was traveling with 4 mummies...who was originally supposed to be selling them for guys.

It was said that no one in the americas at the time could read egyptian....but his followers presented the scrolls to Smith who later translated them....telling the story of Abraham....

Fast forward - Egyptologist/lingust translated them and what they are were Egyptian burial procedures/rights......That's probably why they were accompanied with the mummies......

If you have the time...it's worth the look...you can even scan through it.....It's done very well (IMO)...and you'll get more info that what I can summarize....

 

[DeepShadow]

Okay, let's take stock. A claim was made in the OP that DNA evidence has proven the BoM to be false. I've posted data from peer-reviewed sources that states that there is still room for a BoM group. While this evidence does not corroborate BoM claims per se, it DOES demolish the claim made in the OP. So far the only rebuttals have been off-topic, begging the question, and/or claims to not understand the data.

Does anyone have anything to add to the topic being discussed?

 

[mudge991]

Mmm. I don't agree. It's not science vs. the Book of Mormon. Science hasn't come up with anything that directly opposes the Book of Mormon.

umm oh really? Then explain how science agrees with these whoppers;

The Nephites built a temple, like Solomon's but with not quite as many precious things. According to the bible (2 Chr.2:2), it took 150,000 men seven years to build the temple, but Nephites crew of a dozen or so men managed just fine. 5:16

"Adieu" is a French word which did not exist at the time the book of Jacob was supposedly written (ca. 500 BCE). 7:27

"From the west sea [Pacific], even unto the east [Atlantic]; it being a day's journey for a Nephite." (Nephites could walk 5000 kilometers in one day.) 4:7

 

[DeepShadow]

The Nephites built a temple, like Solomon's but with not quite as many precious things. According to the bible (2 Chr.2:2), it took 150,000 men seven years to build the temple, but Nephites crew of a dozen or so men managed just fine. 5:16

Another indicator that there were others in the land.

"Adieu" is a French word which did not exist at the time the book of Jacob was supposedly written (ca. 500 BCE). 7:27

Yeah, and how'd all those English words get in there?!?

You're kidding, right? "Adieu" was in the English dictionary at the time of Joseph Smith, as anyone can discover if use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary on CD - Winner First Place Practical Homeschooling award.

I suppose now the Bible is a forgery, because it uses a French word "bruit" (meaning noise or rumor) in Jeremiah 10:22. The word was in the translators' dictionaries, why shouldn't it be fair game?

"From the west sea [Pacific], even unto the east [Atlantic]; it being a day's journey for a Nephite." (Nephites could walk 5000 kilometers in one day.) 4:7

That's referring to the "narrow neck of land" between the two seas. The obvious choice is the Ithsmus of Panama, at 80 km wide. Choosing a wider area arbitrarily is a silly straw man fallacy.

 

[mudge991]

Another indicator that there were others in the land.



Yeah, and how'd all those English words get in there?!?

You're kidding, right? "Adieu" was in the English dictionary at the time of Joseph Smith, as anyone can discover if use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary on CD - Winner First Place Practical Homeschooling award.

I suppose now the Bible is a forgery, because it uses a French word "bruit" (meaning noise or rumor) in Jeremiah 10:22. The word was in the translators' dictionaries, why shouldn't it be fair game?



That's referring to the "narrow neck of land" between the two seas. The obvious choice is the Ithsmus of Panama, at 80 km wide. Choosing a wider area arbitrarily is a silly straw man fallacy.

Actually you need to get straight when all of this was supposed to be taking place. However I can see your confusion, as the book of mormon admits there may be errors in it.
Mormon 9:31,33 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him ... if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

 

[mudge991]

That's referring to the "narrow neck of land" between the two seas. The obvious choice is the Ithsmus of Panama, at 80 km wide. Choosing a wider area arbitrarily is a silly straw man fallacy.

Where in the book of mormon did it say that? I must have missed that line. Isnt Panama quite far from New York?

 

[DeepShadow]

Actually you need to get straight when all of this was supposed to be taking place. However I can see your confusion, as the book of mormon admits there may be errors in it.

So, your entire rebuttal is going to be the debater's equivalent of "n'uh"? I posted facts; try getting some of your own. Witty repartee can only carry you so far.

Mormon 9:31,33 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him ... if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

And your point is what? Yes, we believe there are translation errors in the Book of Mormon, like any other book, including the Bible. What of it?

Are you not even going to respond to the topic at hand?

 

[Katzpur]

Where in the book of mormon did it say that? I must have missed that line. Isnt Panama quite far from New York?

Where does the Book of Mormon reference New York? I must have missed that line.

 

[Katzpur]

Witty repartee can only carry you so far.

Witty? Where? Did I miss something?

 

[mudge991]

I did, however you neglected to explain how you came about your differing accounts of the mormon book. I merely stated that the word didnt exist in in the time frame he was supposedly translating from. Not to mention that if you agree with the errors, what stones will you use to figure out where all the misteaks are?

 

[DeepShadow]

Where in the book of mormon did it say that? I must have missed that line. Isnt Panama quite far from New York?

In the verses you cite, it says there's a narrow neck of land between the land northward and the land southward, and that the distance across this narrow neck was such that one man could run it in a day. Most LDS scholars claim that this refers to somewhere around Panama.

Which, BTW, IS a long way from New York. While I'm handing out geography lessons.

 

[DeepShadow]

I did, however you neglected to explain how you came about your differing accounts of the mormon book. I merely stated that the word didnt exist in in the time frame he was supposedly translating from.

Of course it didn't. Neither did any of the English words! What's your point?

Not to mention that if you agree with the errors, what stones will you use to figure out where all the misteaks are?

Well, with words like "misteak," I won't be borrowing yours....

If you want to debate, let's debate. When I debate, I provide data from peer-reviewed scientific sources whenever possible. I watch for logical fallacies in my own arguments as well as my opponents, and I stick to the topic at hand.

I've done all of that in this thread. Please try to keep up.

 

[mudge991]

In the verses you cite, it says there's a narrow neck of land between the land northward and the land southward, and that the distance across this narrow neck was such that one man could run it in a day. Most LDS scholars claim that this refers to somewhere around Panama.

Which, BTW, IS a long way from New York. While I'm handing out geography lessons.

Nice that you admit it's a claim. Actually the text makes no refence to a narrow neck of land. It does use the word north however.

4:7 And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.

 

[nutshell]

1. <LI class=searchitem>Alma 63: 5
   5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.
   
2. Ether 10: 20
   20 And they built a great city by the anarrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.
   

 

[Katzpur]

Nice that you admit it's a claim. Actually the text makes no refence to a narrow neck of land. It does use the word north however.

Alma 63:5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

Ether 10:20 And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

Nice of you to admit you don't know jack about the Book of Mormon.

 

[mudge991]

I know that the verse quoted was from Helman, which apprently doest matter if you are compairing apples to oranges. However the verses may apply to whatever other event was taking place, it dosent change whats in Helman, where the verse we were discussing takes place.