Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[SeattleUte]

This whole discussion is 100% fanciful since there's no there there. On what basis could one make an empirical case for historicity of the Book of Mormon? I mean, FARMS' whole defense of its historicity now turns on DISTINGUISHING Nephites and Lamanites from American aborigines, except to argue that they were assimilated leaving no trace whatsoever of their prior incarnation as a distinct people. FARMS essentially relies upon the impossiblity of proving a negative in defending the Book of Mormon.

Before anyone can even with a straight face talk about "historicity" of the Book of Mormon, they have to produce archeological digs evidencing Nephites in some way, ancient scrolls with their writings, that sort of thing. In contrast, with the Bible, we don't just have a document first generated in the Nineteenth Century with no other physical corroborating evidence. So somebody tell me, what is the evidence? I know there are Egyptians and Jews, and I know Iranians were once Persians; I know about Tutenkommon's tomb. Where in the hades is Nephi's tomb; Moroni's writings? Moroni didn't even live that long ago. Give me a shred. Give me a mustard seed of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Absent this, you're making stuff up pure and simple. There's nothing. Nada.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Before anyone can even with a straight face talk about "historicity" of the Book of Mormon, they have to produce archeological digs evidencing Nephites in some way, ancient scrolls with their writings, that sort of thing. In contrast, with the Bible, we don't just have a document first generated in the Nineteenth Century with no other physical corroborating evidence. So somebody tell me, what is the evidence? I know there are Egyptians and Jews, and I know Iranians were once Persians; I know about Tutenkommon's tomb. Where in the hades is Nephi's tomb; Moroni's writings? Moroni didn't even live that long ago. Give me a shred. Give me a mustard seed of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Absent this, you're making stuff up pure and simple. There's nothing. Nada.

No, absent archeological evidence, you're either relying upon faith that somebody has received an authentic revelation, or somebody is fabricating stuff.

Given the numbers of persons searching for stuff and the manner in which materials have miraculously come to us in the Old World, the New Wolrd has relatively few seekers and fewer mechanisims for miraculous deliveries. The New World lacked the benefit of the Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, Graeco-Roman and Islamic overlapping to preserve our knowledge of their antiquities.

The New World has no such commonality of benefactors. So we are unlikely to confirm or repudiate the existence of the impossibility of the existence of the Nephites or their culture. And in reality, it is irrelevant if the religious aspects are of value to you.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And in reality, it is irrelevant if the religious aspects are of value to you.

You asked the question. As I said, the whole discussion is fanciful and pointless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This whole discussion is 100% fanciful since there's no there there. On what basis could one make an empirical case for historicity of the Book of Mormon? I mean, FARMS' whole defense of its historicity now turns on DISTINGUISHING Nephites and Lamanites from American aborigines, except to argue that they were assimilated leaving no trace whatsoever of their prior incarnation as a distinct people. FARMS essentially relies upon the impossiblity of proving a negative in defending the Book of Mormon.

Before anyone can even with a straight face talk about "historicity" of the Book of Mormon, they have to produce archeological digs evidencing Nephites in some way, ancient scrolls with their writings, that sort of thing. In contrast, with the Bible, we don't just have a document first generated in the Nineteenth Century with no other physical corroborating evidence. So somebody tell me, what is the evidence? I know there are Egyptians and Jews, and I know Iranians were once Persians; I know about Tutenkommon's tomb. Where in the hades is Nephi's tomb; Moroni's writings? Moroni didn't even live that long ago. Give me a shred. Give me a mustard seed of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Absent this, you're making stuff up pure and simple. There's nothing. Nada.

Come on, SU. You are anything but an objective critic of FAIR or FARMS.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You asked the question. As I said, the whole discussion is fanciful and pointless.

I asked what question?

I'm one who doesn't rely upon something which hasn't been established. I accept it for what it is, allegations requiring faith or belief, but not our critical faculties. Others disagree and believe it has been established beyond all doubt.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on, SU. You are anything but an objective critic of FAIR or FARMS.

Give me a mustard seed.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Given the numbers of persons searching for stuff and the manner in which materials have miraculously come to us in the Old World, the New Wolrd has relatively few seekers and fewer mechanisims for miraculous deliveries. The New World lacked the benefit of the Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, Graeco-Roman and Islamic overlapping to preserve our knowledge of their antiquities.

The New World has no such commonality of benefactors. So we are unlikely to confirm or repudiate the existence of the impossibility of the existence of the Nephites or their culture. And in reality, it is irrelevant if the religious aspects are of value to you.

This makes me think of an article I read by Dr. Mike Adams that disparaged Mormonism. One of his central arguments was the lack of archealogical evidence for the BOM, while conversely, the evidence found that supports the Bible. He implied that that, in a nutshell, is why christianity is true, but not mormonism. So using his logic, I guess christianity wasn't true 200 years ago, when most of the archealogical evidence for the Bible hadn't been discovered?

Oh, and with the Bible, you have the additional advantage that you have references to places that still exist with the same name, which makes it much easier to start trying to locate and confirm biblical information. We don't even know where to begin with the BOM - Delaware? Guatemala? Peru? It sure is easier to go to Jericho and look for buried layers of the city when you know where there is a current village of the same name.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Without expressing an inclination one way or the other regarding the BOM, my question is: do you use a similar approach to the old testament? Is it all or nothing there as well?

Well, there are serious problems with the integrity of the texts and the repeated translations their non-prophetic handlers. So there are a lot more issues there than with the Book of Mormon. How my view on that is a suprising or controversial one is beyond me.

As for the history, I think my statement regarding the Book of Mormon applies just as well to the Bible.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This whole discussion is 100% fanciful since there's no there there. On what basis could one make an empirical case for historicity of the Book of Mormon? I mean, FARMS' whole defense of its historicity now turns on DISTINGUISHING Nephites and Lamanites from American aborigines, except to argue that they were assimilated leaving no trace whatsoever of their prior incarnation as a distinct people. FARMS essentially relies upon the impossiblity of proving a negative in defending the Book of Mormon.

Before anyone can even with a straight face talk about "historicity" of the Book of Mormon, they have to produce archeological digs evidencing Nephites in some way, ancient scrolls with their writings, that sort of thing. In contrast, with the Bible, we don't just have a document first generated in the Nineteenth Century with no other physical corroborating evidence. So somebody tell me, what is the evidence? I know there are Egyptians and Jews, and I know Iranians were once Persians; I know about Tutenkommon's tomb. Where in the hades is Nephi's tomb; Moroni's writings? Moroni didn't even live that long ago. Give me a shred. Give me a mustard seed of evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Absent this, you're making stuff up pure and simple. There's nothing. Nada.

If you think the oral traditions and archaeological evidences of a Middle Eastern influence don't exist, you haven't been paying attention.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you think the oral traditions and archaeological evidences of a Middle Eastern influence don't exist, you haven't been paying attention.

Cite?