LDS Evidences

[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?ta...1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

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]

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]

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.

 

[Quiddity]

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/chemical/Proof/default.htm

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[royol]

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]

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?

 

[Quiddity]

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?

 

[royol]

There is a tribe in Africa who have known for thousands of years about a star that cannot be seen with the naked eye, they have drawn pictures of three stars, of which only two can be seen, in fact a telescope is needed to see the third one,
does this prove an ET told them about the third star?

 

[Fluffy]

Actually I disagree with the premise "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)"

It might be possible to prove parts of the Book of Mormon without proving the part that indicates that it is translated by the power of God. This is because many of the claims in the Book of Mormon are not verifiable and the one's that are incredibly relavent are to do with God's nature. It is perfectly possible that Joseph was told the example you gave by an evil and manipulative god so that future people would be tricked into his fellowship. In other words, it was a genuine prophecy but it does not actually determine the veracity of the entire book.

What you can prove (best case scenario) is that Joseph Smith did not lie in his account of what was told to him. You cannot prove that God himself did not lie and manipulate Joseph Smith. Of course this may not be the case but the proof that you are reaching for does seem a little more hollow.

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!!

You have not coherently indicated why this demonstrates immaturity. In fact, a willingness to debate a dearly held belief is an indication of immense maturity, especially emotionally.

Please try and contribute something productive to this thread. You have started many threads to vent your anti-theist views and we have tolerated them. Please do not hijack another person's thread to continue such a diatribe.

 

[royol]

You have not coherently indicated why this demonstrates immaturity. In fact, a willingness to debate a dearly held belief is an indication of immense maturity, especially emotionally.

Please try and contribute something productive to this thread. You have started many threads to vent your anti-theist views and we have tolerated them. Please do not hijack another person's thread to continue such a diatribe.

Along with 'Logic', Maturity is the last thing required when discussing fairy tales.
But you are 100% right, I cannot contribute anything to these ????
so I will leave you all to your long winded chats about nothing.
Good luck to all of you, and as they say, May your God go with you.
Goodbye.

 

[Ody]

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

Sarcasm is a dying art, cherish it


I think sarcasm is needed to answer a foolish idea, validating religion with facts... heh..

:run:

 

[dan]

Did you read the link?

Yes I did, thank you.

 

[Mister_T]

You are 100% right, I cannot contribute anything to these ????
so I will leave you all to your long winded chats about nothing.
Good luck to all of you, and as they say, May your God go with you.
Goodbye.

Funny......
I always thought 65 year olds had a decent level of maturity and self composure.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

[dan]

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.

And yet we find one today out in the middle of nowhere. Wilderness means wild and savage. When the Book of Mormon was written this is exactly the denotation it carried. In ancient Arabia many people were nomadic and they were often very savage. Plundering, murdering and stranding were everyday occurances. Read "Lehi in the wilderness" by Hugh Nibley to get a better idea about exactly how the Bedouins lived. They traveled almost year round and often stuck close to trails that had been established for years. This was the best way to be sure you had water. Many trade routes passed through the Arabian wilderness and there is good reason to believe Lehi was traveling along one of them. Finding a burial ground along one of these trails is such a given it goes without saying.

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?

The Book of Mormon says the place was called Nahom. It does not say they named it Nahom. It mentions specifically all the other occasions in which they gave a name to a place, but this is different. From this we can safely conclude that the name existed prior to Lehi's having arrived.

You would have to go talk to the Bedouins about other records. They tend to keep to themselves and not carry around a lot of books.

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?

It seems vague, but you'd be surprised what some in depth research can uncover. It says at one point that Nephi broke his bow and was directed to make another out of wood and hike to the mountaintops to secure food for the expedition. Seems harmless until you go out to Arabia and find that there's only one kind of wood in Arabia that was ever used for making bows (nab wood), and it is found in one small mountain range. The people also go there to hunt because game is rarely found elsewhere. The most fascinating part is that this mountain range is found to lie along the route already established as the possible trail Lehi took, and corresponds perfectly with the other elements of the trip used to map out the route.

Read these articles for a good treatise on the route taken:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTk5MTE1MjExLTE3LTIucGRm&type=cmV2aWV3

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=303

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme15.shtml

 

[dan]

Actually I disagree with the premise "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)"

It might be possible to prove parts of the Book of Mormon without proving the part that indicates that it is translated by the power of God. This is because many of the claims in the Book of Mormon are not verifiable and the one's that are incredibly relavent are to do with God's nature. It is perfectly possible that Joseph was told the example you gave by an evil and manipulative god so that future people would be tricked into his fellowship. In other words, it was a genuine prophecy but it does not actually determine the veracity of the entire book.

What you can prove (best case scenario) is that Joseph Smith did not lie in his account of what was told to him. You cannot prove that God himself did not lie and manipulate Joseph Smith. Of course this may not be the case but the proof that you are reaching for does seem a little more hollow.

This is one of the most common responses to my inference, but I should qualify my argument before I rebut. I'm not trying to prove that all logic and science combines to tell us the Book of Mormon is unequivically true. I'm trying to show that the doctrines and beliefs held by the members of this forum will not allow (in light of the evidence) a conclusion other than the one I propose. I think most of the people who are going to argue against me in a thread like this are going to be Christians. The ones who aren't probably don't believe in God at all, so your theory probably won't apply to them. For the Christians I think it is safe to say they don't believe Satan (or another "god") can at all succeed by promoting Christ as the one and only savior of mankind (which is what the Book of Mormon does). Christ himself said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Christians and atheists I think are pretty much tied up, but I'd have to hear the manipulative God theory from someone who actually believes it to really think it's valid. You can probably come up with a dozen different ideas that would make my statement void, but do you really buy them?

 

[nutshell]

But lets not fool ourselves....the evidence really comes down to what the spirit tells us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But lets not fool ourselves....the evidence really comes down to what the spirit tells us.

Please define evidence.