21–30 of 121 posts
It seems as though, in some online communities, the discussion about faith and purpose has begun to evolve beyond some variation of "OMG you believe XYZ? That is proven completely false by ABC - Lolz". I won't hold my breath but increased meaningful discussion can only be a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
Any scholars who aren't directly affiliated with the Mormon church who would corroborate these claims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon was written in 1830. Am I missing something here?
It certainly was published in 1830. The account within it originates ~600 BC.
It seems as though, in some online communities, the discussion about faith and purpose has begun to evolve beyond some variation of "OMG you believe XYZ? That is proven completely false by ABC - Lolz". I won't hold my breath but increased meaningful discussion can only be a good thing.
So the large takeaway is that people in further back ancient Israel were more literate than originally thought, opening up the prospect that the Bible could easily have been written earlier than what some scholars speculated. Correct?
Theology Student Here - MY TAKE This is pretty Bogus Study in terms of these are Statisticians' work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery. Someone had to publish something to make use of the research money. This is also out of their domain. Seems like trying to try a new approach and this is all we get?
It is MUCH more complicated and the Oral Tradition of ANE (Ancient Near East) is pretty amazing. This also is not taking up the fact that the majority of the text have very different vocabs, writing styles and different mediums for delivering ideas (Think Epics like Noah and personal stuff like Job and politics like the kings) All very different writings.
I would say that Theology and Archeologist and other disciplines are more and more agreeing that the scriptures have more evidence for a much later date then 300 - 50 year ago "liberal" scholarship believed. Heck I remember old Priest saying the Gospels were written in 250 AD and nothing was written in the first century (To bad we have a bunch of manuscripts from the first century now) Heck Pontius Pilot (The Roman leader who sent Jesus to the cross was believe to be made up until 25 years ago when they found his name inscribed in an unearthed building. This is interesting times.
TL:DR Bad statistical work and very little meat. Nothing to see here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me if you're a joking or not but the book of mormon was published in March 1830 AD.
I'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly was published in 1830. The account within it originates ~600 BC.
"The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility." https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/arti... page 37
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up.
> Please provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up. Backing up that it was published in 1830? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#/media/File:The... . And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.
Of course not, that isn't even remotely controversial.
>And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.
Page 1 of what text? Surely you're not suggesting people take the Book of Mormon's own text as evidence, that would be ludicrous. Page 1 of the wikipedia article wouldn't be credible either, so I don't know what text you're referring to. Although Wikipedia does point to a lot of pages questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity as having an ancient origin, I haven't found any which actually validate it. Of course I'm not going to look very hard, since I already know that evidence doesn't exist and I strongly suspect you're trolling.
No, I'm asking that you point to actual manuscripts which were incorporated into the the Book of Mormon which originated from ~600 BC, tell us where they were excavated from and by whom, and in what museum or university those documents currently reside. Independently verified evidence as to its antiquity. And don't cite any sources actually connected to the Mormon church.
It seems as though, in some online communities, the discussion about faith and purpose has begun to evolve beyond some variation of "OMG you believe XYZ? That is proven completely false by ABC - Lolz". I won't hold my breath but increased meaningful discussion can only be a good thing.
I'm ready to receive the down-votes here, but I've been reading through those posts along with scientific articles for years and I'm still not convinced that the Bible was made up. So it's refreshing to have actual open discussion rather than atheist and bible bashing fights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
Any scholars who aren't directly affiliated with the Mormon church who would corroborate these claims?