New Evidence on When Bible Was Written • Hacker News Board

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#31

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #20

krapp wrote: post #17

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.

> And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.

The Book of Mormon is not evidence for itself; without other accounts from non Mormon sources, there's little reason to believe anything stated by the book of Mormon is anything but fiction. The same applies to all holy books; they cannot be evidence of their own truth.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#32

Post by zepto » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #20

krapp wrote: post #17

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.

It sounds as though you are asserting that the Book of Mormon is credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#33

Post by mholt » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #26

mholt wrote: post #8

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.

Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.

We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#34

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

brink wrote: post #11

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?

Which is kind of a silly theory, since writing was invented in that part of the world circa 3500 BCE.

It's more likely that their religious practices were limited to the priesthood, and it wasn't until the exile that they were written and compiled into a standardized format.

In fact, this theory isn't foreign to Jewish tradition, nor to how other religions have operated throughout the years.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#35

Post by menssen » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:47 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #2

> literacy may have been far more widespread than previously known in the Holy Land around 600 B.C., toward the end of the First Temple period. Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says: > 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And further discusses how…

Upvoting this. It's at least as well reasoned as the original article.

BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right?

Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM?

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#36

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:48 AM UTC

yroc92 wrote: post #13

tymekpavel wrote: post #6

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 was translated then. The text began in 600 BC.

According to whom? You can't use the book to prove itself, just because it claims to have been from 600 BC doesn't make it so.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#37

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:48 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #2

> literacy may have been far more widespread than previously known in the Holy Land around 600 B.C., toward the end of the First Temple period. Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says: > 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And further discusses how…

I don't think HN is the place to discuss religion except in a completely dispassionate intellectual way, which this article suggests isn't possible with the current HN community.

But if we're going to accept religious discussions on HN we have to accept all of them. It is entirely unfair to give credence to one sect while demeaning another.

---

Edit: Okay, lots of down votes. How does this comment not contribute to the discussion?

Like many other comments in religious discussions, you are assuming facts not in evidence. But it is unfair to single you out. However, it would also be inappropriate for you to interpret the opposition you are seeing as confirmation of your position.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#38

Post by nZac » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #29

brink wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course the Bible was made up, it didn't write itself; it's a work of fiction by men, nothing more. Nor is there a lick of evidence to the contrary.

Do you mean that because a book doesn't write itself, which is an impossible task, it can't be true? That seems to remove the possibility to know anything from a written text including science, history, autobiographies, and other forms of non-fiction.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#39

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #33

gnaritas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.

We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?

> You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/

When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.

Re: New Evidence on When Bible Was Written

#40

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

mholt wrote: post #33

gnaritas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.

We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?

This claim seems very strongly to suggest a system of belief that is not shared by all: "...the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says..."