Questions about Book of Mormon Archaeology v.s biblical archaeology?

Question

Okay, I'm taking an old testament course at the Mormon institute, and how it relates to the Book of Mormon. We cannot imperically prove that everything in the bible is correct. We can prove, though that the Jews were great record keepers. We've found the empires, places, and technology found in various places the bible support. There are different things that are difficult to distinguish between the Dead Sea scrolls and the biblical canon...and even the NT canon which acknowledges places, people and events that exist...and some still exist today. There have been errors in text over the years. We cannot prove that the bible is the unfallible word of God, but we can admit that biblical archaelogy is legitimite study. In fact we've learned a lot from ancient Middle Eastern history, referencing things in the bible. Now, when you look at the book of mormon...Where is the genetic link between the native Americans and Israelite? Where are the names of the Jewish tribes mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Where are the swords, chariots, metal coins, and steel recorded in the Book of Mormon. Archaelolgy has found nothing. How about the cities mentioned in the book of Mormon? It's been theorized that the Aztecs, Incans, Myans etc. are those empires and civilizations....but the empires existed at different times than the Book of Mormon claims. Why is there no excavation at the Hill Comorrah, where the Book of Mormon claims there was a battle that 2 MILLION people died? I asked an Egyptian scholar about where "reformed Egyptian" writing was in Pre-Columbian America, written anywhere or on gold plates...He asked what I was talking about, and to know if it's true, we have to pray about it. Is there really any common sence explanation for this?...Especially if 2 million people fought at the Hill Comorrah, as the Book of Mormon claims, wouldn't it be logical to do the excavation to prove that it's true? Even the oxen, horses...and various other fruits and vegetables mentioned in the Book of Mormon aren't known to have existed until the Europeans arrived.

Answer 1

Joseph Smith received the golden tablets and translated them. He never showed the tablets to any one. One of his followers wives who felt her husband was being victimized by Joseph,stole the translation. She then told Joseph to make another copy so she could check and see if he could make another translation,so she could compare them. He simply could not. He said he now had another set to translate. I believe it was all a work of the mind of Joseph Smith. The original translated tablets stolen by the women seem to be lost. The book the Mormons use is Joseph's second translation,it takes a lot of blind faith to believe in any of this. Some label the Mormons a cult. They have some very strange beliefs,and to comply with the law have made a great deal of changes towards marriage and African Americans. Originally the had polygamy and African Americans had a very bad position or no position at all. I won't mention the belief in the shedding of blood to right wrongs,not fully understanding what it was all about,it may be under the rug now. Most religions have abandoned their beliefs because of laws and common sense, we don't burn women alive as witches any more,It was what Christianity did at one time. So with most Mormons being good citizens,strange or not They make good citizens.

Answer 2

EDIT: I would greatly like to know where there have been steel swords found in the New World. Please provide the link. I'd love to read that. Not sarcasm, just intellectual curiosity.



And Yemen is quite far away from MesoAmerica. There could very well have been a city called Nahom. Or it easily could have been Naham or Nehum or Nahum which are all actual names listed in the bible. Because as you said Hebrew often doesn't use vowels. But I do appreciate your response.





It is sad that even among the archaeological community there are still people who won't let go of certain ideals.



Basically yes you hit the nail on the head. Most scientists view the bible as a record of people and places in the middle east minus all of the spirituality.



And I'm sorry to my friend (phrog) who implied that there was plenty of evidence for the BoM in the New World when many of the most prominent archaeologists who are still Mormon (LDS) will openly admit that they can not find a single piece of evidence that any of it existed. The site sadly ended this month (I say sadly because even though I didn't agree, I enjoyed their attempt) but SunSpring Properties LLC (Mormonsites.org) was arguably the largest source for BoM archaeology. They attempted to find things all over the New World, but couldn't find anything past speculations and hearsay. There is no proof as of yet, that anything in the Book of Mormon is true. I'm not saying it isn't, but as of now, there is no proof.



The story changed a few years back about all of the Lamanites being descendants of Israelites, but after genetic testing really threw that out the window once and for all. The new hypothesis (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it was only the Mayans...possibly the Olmecs that were the Israelites and the rest died off or melded into society. I'm not really sure what it is because they have no way to test this and rely on faith. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is just their religious views are forced to change in the face of undeniable facts and I think it is sad.



But yeah, sorry no proof and anyone who says otherwise is lying or misinformed.

Answer 3

Archeology in the Americas is very new when compared to the Mid-East. And much is found there because that area of the world has been inhabited for centuries and the people there still use the same place names. Compare that to the Americas. People have not lived in most of the areas the Book of Mormon speaks of for centuries. Ruins were discovered in the early 20th century and only a very, very small part of them have been revealed. There has been no Rosetta Stone found which would allow for the proper translation of the writings found, the archaeologists are basically guessing at what these writings say. There is always a chance that archaeologist have found BoM cities but do not know it because they do not know the language.



The 'reformed Egyptian' which Nephi stated that he was writing in the language of his father (Hebrew) using the Egyptian script. Recent finds show, that during the same time frame that Lehi and Nephi lived, many Hebrews kept their written records in Egyptian but using the form of Hebrew. This shows that the claim that the BoM could easily have been written in a style of reformed Egyptian. An internal proof of this is something that many critics have used to refute the book, the sentence structure of most of the BoM. An English teacher would give the Book of Mormon a poor grade because of the structure of the sentences. However, a mid-eastern teacher would not because the sentence structure is proper in Hebrew. This is something that nobody in America at the time of Joseph Smith would have known.



The steel sword in the BoM occurs while the family is still in Jerusalem and archaeologists have found that steel work, while not the same as today, did indeed exists for a few hundred years prior to the date of the BoM stories. As for swords in the Americas, the Book of Mormon does not say that they were steel swords. The maquahuitl sword has been found in MesoAmerica. It has been found to have been used by the Aztecs, and quite possibly by even earlier people. It is made of wood, which would also explain why the BoM references the swords being stained with blood as wood readily absorbs blood. These swords had pieces of chipped obsidian embedded in them and when wielded could severe a man’s leg with a single blow. Another interesting internal evidence is that the methods of ancient warfare listed in the BoM match the style which were found, in the late 20th century, to be the same style used in MesoAmerica, but nowhere else in the world.



Pre-Columbian figurines of chariots have been found in MesoAmerica, but they are not like the ones which were used in the mid-east. Even today you will find that the natives in the villages do not use the wheel because to them it is a sacred item and not to be used for mundane work.



Metal coins were not mentions in the BoM, the ‘coinage’ refers to weights, something which was also used extensively in the mid-east. It is the critics who have interpreted this to mean metal-coins.



Evidence of Pre-Columbian horses have been found in Mesoamerica, As for the other animals, it is not uncommon to give a name to an animal, or plant, the same name as a person is familiar with from his/her former homeland. And several of the things mentioned in the BoM have recently been found to have existed on this continent prior to the coming of the Spaniards.



As for the bodies and weapons of the great battle, archaeologists are focusing on the cities. This battle took place in an open area. In all likelihood in MesoAmerica where nature has reclaimed the area. The moisture, trees and other organisms would have destroyed much. About the only thing that would remain would be massive quantities of obsidian. The Hill Cumorah in New York is thought to be named for the Cumorah which exists in the land of Moroni’s birth, not the Cumorah that the battle took place in.



There are a lot of internal evidences within the BoM, and a lot of external evidences, if you just take the time to look with an open mind. But, remember, while it may be stated that the BoM is a history, it’s main purpose is to bear witness to Christ.

Answer 4

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most complete, historically accurate record of the people, culture, and events of ancient America. IF that were true, then non-Mormon scholars who study ancient American from the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, and linguistcs (among others) would use the Book of Mormon in their research. They would do this regardless of their personal religious beliefs because it would be useful to them



But there is not a single non-Mormon scholar who considers the book to be what it claims. The book is irrelevant to them.



The Mormons point to the great Mayan ruins to establish that there was at one time a great civilization in southern Mexico and Guatemala. However, the claim is false on all counts. Wrong culture, wrong time frame, wrong religion, wrong language, etc. The Maya had their own pagan religion and history that has no connection to the supposed Book of Mormon people.



“Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, ...nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.” (Michael Coe, Yale University, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 42, 46.



“The job, according to a lot of Mormon archaeologists, their job is to find that this is a true story: that all these things actually existed in this place that is described in the Book of Mormon, which in this case would have to be in Guatemala and the neighboring Mexican state of Chiapas. This is what they have been after for 50 years, and unfortunately they've never found anything that would back it up. They have excavated all kinds of sites and, unfortunately, they have never found anything that would back it up. ...” Michael Coe, Interview from the PBS Frontline program The Mormons

Answer 5

To say that archeology has proven the Bible to be real is a fallacy. In fact, archeology has proven many spiritual aspects of the Bible to not have happened, or to have happened out of chronological order. If I tell you one thing about the Bible that is false, will that cause you to lose your faith in God? Probably not. So why are you trying to steal away the faith of Mormons with your accusations? Many ex-mormons have an axe to grind with the church, and you plainly can't trust those who maliciously spread lies about the church. You mentioned that not one non-mormon archaeologist has ever validated the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon based on archaeological evidence. Well, can you find one mormon archaeologist that doesn't think the Book of Mormon didn't happen? With your kind of logic, you're just going to go round and round in circles, never learning anything. Why don't you just go on your way, content with your preconceived notions, and leave us alone.

Answer 6

So if specific evidence that I demand can't be produced, then something can't possibly be true, right? Lets try this:



I demand to see evidence that Noah loaded up 2 of every animal into a boat the size of a football field.



Since this evidence can be produced by you, on demand, then clearly the Bible is false.



So your premis is that "Because Jews were great record keepers then the Book of Mormon is false because we don't find records in "Book of Mormon lands", right?



Here's the problem. Those that kept records were the righteous prophets. They were all destroyed and they hid the records, presumably in southern Mexico. The Book of Mormon is in fact one of those records that you are complaining about "not existing".



Additionally the Spanish smelted gold and silver, burned books, destroyed language, culture, and religion.



Additionally, the cities that they occupied were found 100% abandoned and the jungle had overgrown them. Ask a mesoamerican archeologist to explain a detailed history of "El Mirador" (the largest city in Central America) to you. By the way.....less than 2% of it has been excavated.



So do you require the same "burden of proof" on the Gospel of Matthew as you do on the book of Genesis? Why is it that "knowing where Jerusalem" is important to you, but knowing where the garden of eden was is not? Do you require this proof or not, please make up your mind.



There is actually a genentic link. Do some reading about the different haplogroups including haplogroup X.



Many of the things that you require evidence for has in fact been found.........you're just not interested in acknowledging it.



Actually the Olmecs line up perfectly with the Jaredite civilization. Both the Book of Mormon and Archeologists put them from 2000 BC to 300 AD. Both agree that they were the first great civilization in the Americas. Both also agree that the Maya began around 600 BC.



The Book of Mormon doesn't detail how many people died in that Battle. It does indicate that there were 230,000 from one side (if I remember right). You're number of 2 Million is not something that's included in the Book of Mormon regarding the fall of the Nephites. As far as the Jaredites, there were several million killed. Both final battles probably occured in southern Mexico, possibly near modern Veracruz. How much organic evidence do you expect to survive in a hot, humid, wet, jungle environment. The stone temples that have been found have 25 feet of soil covering them. What do you expect it to do to bodies? Preseve them for 1600 years and 2300 years respectivly?



Are you shaken that they haven't found a scrap of evidence of the children of Israel wandering around a very dry, desert environment for 40+ years? That area is perfect for preservation. There were millions of them in a relativly small, known, geographic area, yet we've found 0 evidence of that? Do you realize how much of a hypocricy this is???



Additionally it's like saying: They found a coin in china. They haven't found a coin in Russia, therefore Russians couldn't have used coins. You can't demand that the same archeological evidences that are found in one part of the world to be found in another part of the world. It doesn't really work that way.



You claim that you are trying to discover truth.............you're not. You're hell bent on proving to yourself and the world that the Book of Mormon isn't true.......whether it is or not.



Keep in mind, there were Jews that rejected their own Messiah after having spoken to him face to face. It's possibly you're rejecting holy Scripture from that same Messiah.



Someone who lived in the Americas in 400 AD described his own language as "reformed egyptian". That doesn't mean that modern scholars would give it the same name. Additionally it's very possible that that was the language of the record keepers and not of the masses.



So, why is it that you completly ignore the many supporting evidences of the Book of Mormon that do exist and demand that your evidences be produced?

Answer 7

Bingo.



There are so many problems in the whole scenario that you can't begin to address them here.



To start with, no one calls their own language 'reformed' anything, and never has. Language changes, but imperceptibly to the users. And you are right, there has never ever been any other trace of reformed Egyptian. The characters that Smith scrawled out don't have any connection to any sort of Egyptian.



Languages never just die out, not when millions supposedly used them. Yet there isn't a trace of Hebrew or Egyptian in the early Americas - only Asian roots that match the DNA.

Answer 8

The founder of the Mormon church was an illiterate opportunist. If you read about him sitting in a room behind a curtain reading some golden tablets that nobody else ever saw, doesn't it make u wonder?



There is no evidence to back up such claims about Jesus being in the US or any of that other stuff.

Answer 9

plenty of evidence for the BoM - do some research.



edit: sam - there is evidence - evidence is arrows shot @ a given target - proof is when one of those arrows hits the target. but the fact is that there is scant evidence for the area/time period anyway, and when dealing with a people that dwindled away, how would we know what their cities were called. there have been thing found exactly where they are proposed to be (evidence) (like jericho in the bible) but there is nothing that will be able to indicate that the specific stories are correct (like the walls falling down due to sound).



the claim that (unlike the bible) there is no archaeological evidence supporting the BoM is based on naive and erroneous assumptions. with evidence currently extremely limited, we are unable to know the contemporary names of ancient mesoamerican cities and kingdoms.

and to dismiss the BoM based on archaeological grounds is short-sighted. more recent archaeological finds are generally consistent with the BoM record even if we are unable yet to pinpoint exact locations.



for instance, a recently discovered altar in yemen that is consistent with a BOM story. the altar (discovered by non-LDS archaeologists) has the tribal name of NHM carved into it, and is located in the same vicinity describing the Lehites stopping in Nahom to bury Ishmael, AND dates from the same time period. considering that hebrew doesn't use vowels, NHM could very likely be "Nahom."



Dr. John Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation - compiled a list of 60 things mentioned in the BoM such as "steel swords," "barley," "cement," "thrones," and literacy. in 1842, 13.3% were confirmed by archaeological evidence.

in 2005 fully 58% have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence



edit2: steel swords, to my knowledge have not been found in the americas (perhaps that is in the other 42% =D) --- but I do not claim to be up on the field nor it's findings. however - "a type of steel" (nickle-iron alloy) and its presence in mesoamerica is known (Handbook of Iron Meteorites (2 vols.) by Dr. Vagn F. Buchwald, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1975). and quite common in meteorites. and there are other meteoric metals that the author compared to man-made steel listed in Volume 2, like haxonite from Canyon Diablo in Arizona (p. 393), a carbide related to tool steels and stainless steels; and kamacite from Tucson, with similarities to hypo-eutectoid steels (p. 1243); and there is the distinct plausibility that the swords of the BoM are macuahuitl (wooden sword with obsidian blades). personally, I find this more agreeable for the use of swords. obsidian cuts cleaner and the substance is readily available.

......and yemen - they had to get here somehow.....

I am sorry such a thing would cause you to 'lose your faith', but evidence is always open to interpretation and I choose to interpret it in favor of the BoM. I don't have a problem if you choose otherwise. good luck on your journey.

Answer 10

Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God?



Now, prove it.

Answer 11

you should ask this in Society & culture > Religion



Religion is not about fact, it's about emotions and feelings.



If none of Biblical places did exist, it would not affect faith of Christians.

Answer 12

have mormons ever been to www.creationscience.com....thought not!!!!



or how about...



http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch.php



or how about:

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html



THOUGHT NOT!!!!!MORMONS HAVE NEVER HEARD OF PREFLOOD TECHNOLOGY!!!!