DNA vs. The Book of Mormon

Living Hope Ministries ^ | Mar 1, 2003 | Director / Producer: Joel Kramer

[johnk]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8594203721530427132

"DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" presents the evidence from DNA researchers, including Mormon scientists, who are wrestling with the DNA dilemma that now faces Mormonism.

Participants: Thomas W. Murphy; Dr. Simon Southerton; Dr. Randall Shortridge, and others. Director / Producer: Joel Kramer Director / Producer: Jeremy Reyes Editor: Scott Johnson Narrator: Ken MacHarg

[Logophile]

The Linguists have found no evidence of Hebrew in the Central or South American lands either.

Well, not yet anyway.

Come back when every language in the Americas (including the dead ones) has been thoroughly studied for words borrowed or derived from Semitic roots. Then we can talk.

[colorcountry]

Dear sister restornu,

I do believe that was a personal attack.

I was responding to a post by Adam-ondi-Ahman. I asked what was his interpretation of a scripture that HE quoted.

I'm sorry if the Bible offended you.

I never realized that posting a link from an athiest was off limits.

You know nothing about my family. I believe you owe me an apology.

[colorcountry]

Has Dell or Charles had their DNA tested for evidence of their Hebrew descent? I'm sure their patriarchal blessing tells them they are of the house of Ephraim.

[AnalogReigns]

American evangelicals tend to use the word "cult" for any religion (but especially for ones that call themselves Christian) that have so deviated from basic orthodox Christian doctrines (things Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox have always agreed on....) like the trinity, the person of Christ (fully human, fully God), the resurrection, etc. that the word "Christian" no longer accurately defines them. Though some cults are really strange and wacky (especially California based ones...) other older ones, like Mormonism and say JW's are externally not that wacky, just very un-biblical--in the judgement of Christians. The differences between denominations pale (Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) compared to the differences between all Christian groups and claimed "Christian" cults.

Groups that cease to claim the name Christian (like Unitarians, for example) generally aren't called cults....as there is no false advertising. However some small newer groups...even if they don't claim the name "Christian" are called cults...generally if they are strange and controlling. A strong leader, and strong control over members usually marks a cult, in this secondary sense.

The same anger is focussed on theologically liberal "Christians" (though usually not called cults...just apostate or heretical) who have rejected those same kind of basic orthodox doctrines all Christians have believed---yet still want to claim the name "Christian."

I would have far less trouble with (and more respect for...though I'd disagree as strongly) if folks like the gay Episcopal Bishop Robinson would face up to the fact that they are simply no longer Christians....and while they have every right to believe whatever they want, they shouldn't purger themselves pretending what they simply are not.

The word "Christian" dates back to Antioch and the 1st Century persecuted Church. Naturally we followers of Jesus guard that word jealously.

[maui_hawaii]

Lets sum up this whole argument...

Group A says their DNA evidence is going to 'disprove' the Book of Mormon...

Ain't gonna happen...why?

Because of several key things people with extreme views seem to leave out...

Those conducting most of the 'research' say that Mormons believe that all Native Americans are PRIMARILY from Israel, meaning via blood line. Somehow or another that "belief" was assigned to Mormons. Thats how they are interpreting the word 'civilization'.

Do we believe that people from the Holy Land came to the Americas? Yes. By all means. Do we believe that there was no one else here when those people got here? Nope.

In fact there were great civilizations of people here in the Americas beforehand. In other words people came from the Holy Lands and discovered other populations of people.

With that being the case, if there is or isn't DNA evidence whoopee too doo! Why? Because there is NO CLAIM THAT THEY WERE THE FIRST PEOPLE HERE, nor in fact that they were some pure blooded people. The word 'civilization' can be defined in more than one way.

From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

You have right there an explaination that there was thousands of years of civilization in the Americas where the Book of Mormon only covers a relatively small portion of that. 1000 years in approximately 531 pages. There is at least 2000 other years left unaccounted for.

In my view it wasn't some pure blood bunch of Jews that came over and became some master race... but rather a rag tag group who landed seasick and ultimately ended up mixing with the locals. Adopting people in, marrying, so on a so forth over long periods of time.

Whats more is the term civilization does not refer to race alone. IE Our modern civilization started when Christopher Columbus found America and reported back. Does that say everyone in America is a decendent of Columbus? NOOO. Yet, he helped create a great civilization.

I guess it depends on how you define the word 'civilization' though....

[restornu]

My dear Sister CC

It is true I do not know anything about your personal life, but your hoping all over the place and than say oh well, and merrily bob on like nothing, makes one wonder if it is not a habit in your life!

After I bring to you attention about the NKJV you nonchalant never look back at your hit and runs... you just causally moszee on your way and say "Okay then from the KJV!"

You accuse with Satan in one breath, an in other beath you are using quotes from question able sites to defend your position, to me this is going over the top, one can disagree with out getting ugly!

That's when I say hold it! Stop kiddo!:)

Let's play nice friend!

[maui_hawaii]

see my post #165

[colorcountry]

Many Christians use Bibles other than the KJV. I should have known better...the LDS only hold the King James.

My personal favorite is the NIV (New International Version.) It makes the scriptures come alive! I certainly did not mean offense.

I was just pointing out that the interpretation of either version is very similar. I wish Adam-ondi-Ahman would clarify his position on II Thessalonians 2.

You should also be careful not to offend. It is you who posted a site questioning the Satanic influence of the NKJV. Many, Many people hold the Bible - no matter which translation - in very high and sacred esteem.

[colorcountry]

Yeah riiiight.......

Apologists sometimes claim that the Nephites and Lamanites shared their land with other inhabitants not from Jerusalem. However, this does not appear to be the case:


"8. And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of the land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever." (2 Nephi 1:8-9)

You must be a member of the "new improved" LDS Church because this is what they taught me.

[colorcountry]

Or this one: "...The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians..." Introduction to the Book of Mormon

If you have one handy you might want to read it.

[restornu]

There are a lot of interesting Bibles but there is also a few that have diluted the word!

http://www.internetdynamics.com/pub/vc/bibles.html

I enjoy the Catholic Bible it has so many interesting things I just love history!

One of my favorit sites it the New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/

[colorcountry]

I meant to ping you to post 169 and 170.

[maui_hawaii]

You forgot a couple of parts...

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath ccovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

2 Nephi 1:5-7, which are the three proceeding verses to what you ignorantly posted.

[colorcountry]

Thanks for the link. It looks like a valuable resource.

[maui_hawaii]

Have one what handy? An introduction to the Book of Mormon? I don't get your post.

[colorcountry]

So where is the story of the Lord leading the Asiatics into the land of promise....if they were led there by the hand of the Lord. (per verse 5)

[colorcountry]

Yes, a Book of Mormon with an introduction.

[maui_hawaii]

Its not in the Book of Mormon, but no one is ruling it out. The Book of Mormon isn't meant to spell out every jot and tittle of every last bit of ancestry or history of every person or group that lived on the Americas.

Try writing 1000 years of history into 531 pages. Lets see if you leave a few things out.

As for where is it? No one has that, yet the Book of Mormon right there says its possible.

[restornu]

I was listening to this talk last night it was given in 1967 and it is just as current today nothing has changed...it reminds me of the Left play Book they don't change their mo!

Critical Opinion of the Pearl of Great Price (Hugh W. Nibley)http://www.ldsvoices.com/index.php?id=448

[maui_hawaii]

I have a Book of Mormon and I read the introduction. I read it on occassion.

I don't get your point with this.

Post #165 quotes the Introduction page.