Sargon wrote:Religious texts such as the bible and the koran have absolutely no archaeological evidence supporting the truth of their message. Sure, you can dig up Jerusalem, and you can locate Mt. Sinai (which hasn't been done), but you can't prove with any of that data that Moses was a real prophet, or that Jesus was really the Messiah.
Saying that you cannot prove the supernatural claims of the Bible through archaeological evidence is not the same as saying it has 'absolutely no archaeological evidence supporting the truth of its message'.
The fact is, as we both know, the Bible has far more archaeological support than the Book of Mormon.
However, as more and more archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon comes forth it does count as truth of the books message.
Could you provide a list of this evidence, as recognised by non-LDS professionals?
Because of the unique and miraculous way in which it was produced, any type of physical proof for the cultures described in it proves not only that the cultures were real, but that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the one and only true church of God on the face of the planet.
Why doesn't that apply equally to the Bible?
Most LDS scholars will admit that we do not yet have that undeniable proof, and most believe that we never will, for it is not in the interest of God that men walk by sight. But the list of evidences is mounting, and for those who seriously study the issue the answer is clear.
Sargon I'm afraid this is double talk. You can't have it both ways. Either the Book of Mormon is to be supported by archaeological evidence, or God wants men to walk by faith and not by sight.
This is the same doubletalk I always hear from Mormons on this issue. On the one hand they want to tell me we can trust the Book of Mormon because of its amazing accuracy, as proved by archaeology, but on the other hand they want to tell me (when the archaeology is found wanting), that God doesn't want the Book of Mormon to be proved by evidence such as this.
But it's a farce. From the very start of the Book of Mormon it has relied on hard, physical, 'in your face' and 'in your hands' evidence:
* The eyewitness testimony of the 4 and 8 witnesses
* The alleged handling of the golden plates
* The witnesses to the 'translation' process
* The witnesses to the Urim and Thummim and/or seerstone/s
* The Book of Abraham
* The remains of Zelph
* About 40 years worth of archaeological digs in North America, Meso-America, and the Middle East
Just look at Mormon pages such as
this.
Let's face it, the LDS church and its members have
always appealed to visible and tangible evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.
