I'm a programmer, remember? Garbage in Garbage out! Words to live by my FRiend, words to live by. Yep, I can see that by all the UFO sites you go to in order to support your theories.
You are the one who brought up Nibley as if he was infallible and I just "Had to accept anything he said as Authoritative", I searched for Godzilla in the Bible and didn't find you there... So?
The Nibster and FARM/Maxwell are the closest things to an official pronouncement from lds central. The fact that nether one accept(ed)s the los lunas stone as authentic speaks volumes to the lack of credability as an ‘artifact’.
Paleo Hebrew and Phonetician are very close, but there are differences, call it what ever you want, they couldn't read it when the stone was discovered, or when the Indians say they first discovered it
Close is only good in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Well, then there goes your whole paleo-hebrew argument doesn’t it DU. The fact that your sources seem to prefer Phoenician says volumes against the authenticity of this artifact. If it is from some other source, it cannot be only from bom peoples.
then you can get an accurate result from a DNA sample that is corrupted. (Hey, I actually brought us back on topic!)
Hold that thought. The one argument invalidates the other, and that is why I went with the Los Lunas stone, I knew you'd go there.
Apples to oranges DUh, you just invalidated it your self above.
Boy you can say that again. The DNA evidence by a guy who's a plant Biologist which started this whole thing is certainly not equal to the evidence of a Population Geneticist who pioneered the science, who finds the plant biologist's work to be in error.
Poisioning the well again, he is a molecular biologist. If he were the only one involved, then your argument might hold water. Unfortuantely for you, the science keeps coming in to disprove your theories and assertions. That I have already shown that this vaunted population geneticist greatly erred regarding the real scientific evidence surrounding the hap X occurances in central america. Mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, (as well as other mormons associated with the foundation) along with other researchers reported - in an article published in 13 January 2009 issue of Current Biology (volume 19 issue 1) stated Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. This was published with the full force and weight of the mormon Sorensen lab behind it.
Additionally, Wang showed that in a larger study, Crandall’s statenement that hebrew dna was present and represented in Rosenberg’s data was further incorrect. Additionally, Wang showed that in a larger study, Crandall’s statenement that hebrew dna was present and represented in Rosenberg’s data was further incorrect. As much as you hate to face it DU, these reports are not from anti sites, but established science journal outlets who could care less the religious aspects of the results.
Um, don't you have that backwards? I have already invoked Mark Hoffmann, the forger, who's documents have not all been tracked down.
Go ask your buddies at the UFO convention, unless you are claiming that Hoffman forged the los lunas stone too.
If this were a court trial your DNA evidence would be bounced for the same reason (which was my point!)
Your argument for a ‘pure’ sample has only to do with the actual laboratory work itself, and not the genetics of the individual. While you might accept (in fact cling to ) that obfuscation and misdirection, in a court room, as well as scientific research, proper laboratory procedures are documented throughly and if the DNA bearing material could not be properly extracted, the scientists would not use that data as a proof. And we are talking about people like the Sorenson Institute DU, who do this daily. Sorenson Inst. has one of the largest Central and South American DNA databases in the country. Are you willing to accuse them of not having pure samples? Stick to ufo sites.
So do all legitimate DNA Experts...
Then you are accepting the that the report linked above is legitimate as Woodward held the seat Crandall currently has.
Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.
Kind of like a wonderful self proclaimed expert on DNA... and as for the Sources, Lurkers note, Godzilla has not yet quoted any source... (Point set match, would you care to play again? LOL!)
What DUh would have you not to know that I’ve cited those objections on several occasions in previous posts.
DU Quoted It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.
GZ I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.
I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!
I did not edit your quote above in the slightest – If you want to argue about your quotes that I cut and pasted intact, go find a mirror.
The Lachish Letters agree with the Book of Mormon about so many things that used to be places where anti's would attack us for being outrageously wrong (Godzilla kept trying to say Nephi and his brothers would have been dragged to Babylon before Lehi left Jerusalem in this thread), the Lachish letters set the time and the period perfectly, in that the deportation had not happened yet!
Now who is editing my comments? I said specifically within the context of the Lachish Letters is that the time frame is before the exile. DU wants to say that the prophet who disappears into the wilderness is Lehi. So lets look at the timing.
The first conquest of Jerusalem too place in 597 BC. Another deportation took place upon the downfall of the kingdom of Judah (586 B.C.).
Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne at about 597 BC.
Then a few years later three inscribed potsherds were also found at the site, and like the others, they contained names and lists from the period just before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC.
It is this second deportation that the Lackish letters are associated with. Now what does the bible have to say about this period?
From the first conquest (597 BC), Nebuchadnezzar ordered Jehoiakim, together with the most distinguished men of the land, and the most valuable treasures of the Temple and the palace, to be sent to Babylonia.
2 Kings 24: 11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.
12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.
13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said.
14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.
15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.
If Lehi/Nephi were present in Jerusalem, the way the bom ascribes to them as being wealthy and definitily Nephi and Laban would have been considered mighty of the land and hauled off. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of those people left behind under Zedekiah’s reign (which would have theoretically included Lehi/Nephi)
Jer 24: 8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt:
9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.
10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.
If one bothers to read the whole chapter, Jeremiah is saying those taken to Babylon were the “good” figs – those upon whom His blessing rested. Therefore, for Nephi and Lehi to be left behind (if they existed at all) would represent those who God cursed. Jer 24:14 states clearly , save the poorest sort of the people of the land. Is this how the bom portrays Lehi, et al during this period?
And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, . . .” 1 Nephi 2:4
“ . . . for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, . . .” 1 Nephi 2:11
“ . . . for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches.” 1 Nephi 3:16
“ . . . we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.”
“ . . . we went up again unto the house of Laban.”
“ . . . we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.”
“ . . . when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, . . .” 1 Nephi 3:22-25
Does this describe the poorest sort of the poor? Then either Nephi or 2 Kings is lying about the setting.
Jeremiah make it very clear, he was the only prophet for the Lord during the entire period. Lehi is completely absent from the scene. Lehi’s so called call to Jerusalem to repent and it would be spared. There was no space to repent ‘or the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed’. Jeremiah chapter 4 shows that God’s anger and fury were already erupting in punishment, and God refused to change his mind:
Jer. 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
Jer. 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
Jer. 4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
Thus for Lehi / Nephi to be in Jerusalem at the time of Zedekiah’s reign indicates that they were the very unbelieving and unrepentatant idolators that God condemned through Jeremiah. Those who stayed enjoyed their sin. The words of Jeremiah condemn them.
Which is when the Book of Mormon exodus was taking place... (people kept telling us we had the time wrong, this moved that time archeologists used to use to match our time line...)
If DU bothers to read the bible and the above links, he will find his timeline sorely lacking and false.
They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.
Once again, from the bible, those of Lehi/Nephi’s wealth and stature would be category 1 to be removed, as demonstrated above – regardless of the Lachish letters – that is what the bible says about them.
LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).
Jer 6: 24 We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble: anguish hath taken hold of us, and pain, as of a woman in travail.
Jer 38: 4 Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.
Is 13: 7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man’s heart shall melt:
Ez 7: 17 All hands shall be feeble, and all knees shall be weak as water.
What do DU’s cited verses have to do with 1 Nephi 4? Absolutely nothing. The book of Jeremiah stands in condemnation of 1 Nephi, as he and he alone was called to preach to those in Jerusalem. For Lehi and Nephi et al, to have remained behind in Jerusalem was an indication of God’s condemnation of them and they were specifically cursed by God through Jeremiah.
So, the Time frame of the destruction was wrong and is corrected by the Lachish Letters to now agree with the Book of Mormon, which had the date right first and was criticized for it.
Biblical archaeology and the Bible clearly indicated that there were two seiges, nothing new from the Lachish letters that wasn’t already known.
Actually, that's the old Archeological information, See the Lachish Letters, they talk about Prophets still prophesying this in the last year of the reign of Zedikiah (the sixth year)...
Actually, Jeremiah preached about 11 years into the reign of Zedikiah, until the final destruction of Jerusalem.
In summary
The first conquest of Jerusalem too place in 597 BC
All of the men of valor, skilled craftsmen, leaders, valuables taken out of the city. Only the poorest of the poor remained, those cursed by God through Jeremiah (bad figs)
Zedikiah placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar
During the 1st year of Zedikiah’s reign, the rich Lehi and family remain in Jerusalem. Jeremiah is the only prophet of God left in the land.
589 BC Lachish letters as Nebuchadnezzar attacks Jerusalem again and is destroyed.
BZZT! Wrong! Yes you are, there are two sieges and exiles from Jerusalem, see time line and links above.
GZ Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).
LOL! Clearly for you, Experts make the evidence "real" except for when those experts are now Mormons, or agree with Mormons, or...
What DU wants you to miss is his challenge that the pyramids were ‘contaminated’ too. My point was that many associated archaeological findings are also present that confirm and provide information about the pyramids. Los Lunas – nada, zero, zilch. So how many real archeologists have studied los lunas DU?
Do you know how many Frauds have been perpetrated in Archeology on the "experts", LOL! Google Archeology Fraud, for some fun.
Yep, and listed within the very first site on the list are the Los Lunas and Bat Creek stones. Thanks for finding additional support for those items being frauds :)
A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enought to invalidate it by any means, you can.
Evidence to be valid must be able to withstand investigation to prove or disprove it. DU’s evidence – the Los Lunas stone. Why – just because it has proto hebrew writing of an abridgement of the ten commandments with a discovery in the early 1800’s. What he doesn’t say or want you to know so you can fully evaluate it as a mormon artifact or not -
1. It has been rejected as a fraud by mormon investigators
2. DU’s own sources counter the proto Hebrew by saying it is Phonecian.
3. The writer inserted Greek Letters into the words – a highly unlikely practice
4. Use of caret , not known to be used in Hebrew until the middle ages
5. The author is extremely clumsy. The reading of the writings goes line 1 – line 3 – line 2 – line 4. . . . If the writer was fluent in the language and writing, he would not have made the mistake of forgetting line 2 and have to squeeze it between 1 and 3. Common mistake if some one is copying something down from paper.
Now, DU would like to you ignore this equally valid evidence. If true it will pass examination. Viewed dispassionately, the Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe.
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you. you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.
Remarkably, DU is a one note Johnny on this. He is unable to disprove the other DNA studies. Rather he would have you examine laboratory procedures. Well these laboratory procedures are those used world wide both in forensics as well as genetic studies. Mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation actually conducts these studies and has probably the largest data bank of DNA data around. DU’s mythical corrupted DNA sample is dealt with by labs like Sorenson. If corrupted DNA completely invalidate genetic studies, then all of the studies like conducted at Sorenson and the hundreds of other DNA / Genetic research facilities around the world are invalid too. That is a mighty big claim by DU on Crandall’s behalf. However, DU is completely vague as to which studies are plagued with corrupted DNA - come on DU, the world is waiting. No, even Crandall relies upon these genetic studies to do his work. The presence of proper extraction requirements for laboratories – yes. Controls and procedures in place to validate the extraction (normally extracting many DNA strings from the same donor), commonly called quality control – yes. DNA data used by scientists world wide based upon laboratory work – yes. Stick to programming DU, you are drowning in your half inch deep apologetic on this one as the very ones you claim reject DNA data because it is corrupted are the same ones who use that same data on a daily basis.
I will address your comment that I am Dissing the Bible by pointing out that the Smithsonian does not consider it a Historical guide. This note was offered as a direct comparison to the Book of Mormon not being recognized by the Smithsonian that way either. The point was not to "diss" the Bible, but to point out that Archeology is not Religion and Vice Versa.
> What DU has snipped out were his comments-
As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes: ‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions: . . . . They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document
So he tries to make the comparison that the Smithsonian looks at the bible in the same way as it does the bom. It also states On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testiment, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek Histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. Take the time to scroll down at the same link above, and you can compare the Smithsonian’s statement on the bom to their statement on the Bible.
This is the normal mormon tactic of dissing the bible – try to go to atheist/agnostic sites and drag up what ever they can find. Well in this case DU has blatantly quote mined the document – which says the opposite what he was trying to prove – that the Smithsonian views the bible as not a source for archaeological studies. In DU’s case he hoisted himself by his own petards by trying to attack the credability of the Bible to enhance the credability of the bom.
I submit that anyone who believes in the Bible only because of archeological evidence has a weak testimony and needs to spend more time in prayer and with the Bible and less time with the Smithsonian.
I will go one further, my faith in the testimony of Jesus, the Apostles and the writers of the books of the Bible are enhanced through the suupport of archaeological finds. It links REAL persons to REAL events at REAL locations. One of the first witnesses related to the empty tomb – a verificable location, for a verifiable event.
Similarly, anyone who disbelieves the Book of Mormon because they have not seen a peer reviewed paper saying it is true needs to spend more time on their knees and with the Book of Mormon and less time with the Smithsonian.
“After many years of careful study, the real importance of Book of Mormon archaeology has dawned on me. It will take but a moment to explain. The Book of Mormon is the only revelation from God in the history of the world that can possibly be tested by scientific physical evidence.... To find the city of Jericho is merely to confirm a point in history. To find the city of Zarahemla is to confirm a point in history but it is also to confirm, through tangible physical evidence, divine revelation to the modern world through Joseph Smith, Moroni, and the Urim and Thummim. Thus, Book of Mormon history is revelation that can be tested by archaeology.” - Thomas Ferguson to the First Presidency, April 10, 1953, Ferguson Collection, BYU
“One cannot fake over 3000 years ... of history and have the fake hold water under the scrutiny given the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is either fake or fact. If fake, the cities described in it are non-existent. If fact – as we know it to be – the cities will be there. If the cities exist, and they do, they constitute tangible, physical, enduring, unimpeachable evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that Jesus Christ lives.” - Thomas Ferguson to the First Presidency, March 15, 1958, Ferguson Collection, BYU
Fergunson, a mormon, makes the argument very plainly for the science of mormonism. If the cities do not exist – the bom is a fake. If the tomb was found to have Jesus’ body in it – Christianity would be fake.
Archeology will never teach you eternal truth because it comes from man. The Gospel teaches eternal truths because it comes from God. I promote people putting the trust in God, not man.
The question one must evaluate is the man who brought forth the bom – joseph smith. He was known to be a treasure seeker, bilking people of their money for his services. Was he a prophet? What verified his visions - no one but his word. Who saw the plates, no one but him. He used the same seer stone he used for treasure seeking to translate the bom. With the absence of the plates his only other verifiable translation was the papyrus that in the 20th century was shown to be a fraudulant translation. Same with the kinderhook plates – fraudulant. Does the bible support his revelations (do even the other books of the mormon canon ?) support his numerous and changing theology – no. Does the Bible warn of false prophets in the latter days – yes. Christians are called to use both spiritual discernment as well as practical discernment to identify these false prophets. Line upon line smith has been shown to be a false prophet, biblically, internally (within mormon canon) and externally (no archaeological, DNA, anthropological, linguistic) or other piece of evidence that would show the bom to be true. These items are not speculation, but what we are required from DU’s favorite misquoted verse – 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
The word try here is dokimazo, meaning to: 1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy.
See, DU would have you pray to get a warm and fuzzy feeling as proof of the bom. John says otherwise – to put it to the test, scrutinise to see whether a thing is genuine or not. That is not accomplished by warm fuzzies, but comparing line by line Christianity from the bible with mormonism from smith, to compare the factual support of the bible (which DU tries to diss), with any factual support for the bom. To the spiritually immature – it makes like the song of the Sirens to lure people to their deaths. To the mature, mormonism is found to be that condemned by Jesus Depart for I never knew you.
Jesus of the Bible is far larger than anything joseph smith could even imagine. Why accept a substitute dreamed up by a man, when you can have the Real Jesus. Mormonism would place you under the impossible task of being perfect with the pie-in-the-sky hope of godhood. Jesus’ way is far better and far more reasonable. And He has paid for it all.
DU
I'm a programmer, remember? Garbage in Garbage out! Words to live by my FRiend, words to live by.
GZ
Yep, I can see that by all the UFO sites you go to in order to support your theories.
This from the Guy who posted, on a thread about DNA no less that a man claiming to be a "pure descendant of Lehi" means his ancestors never intermarried with Lehi's other sons, Yup, real brains over there...
I really hate to bring a Geologist down to earth (Grin) but
Geologists are associated with Ufo's al the time, at least according to Google.
DU
You are the one who brought up Nibley as if he was infallible and I just "Had to accept anything he said as Authoritative", I searched for Godzilla in the Bible and didn't find you there... So?
GZ
The Nibster and FARM/Maxwell are the closest things to an official pronouncement from lds central. The fact that nether one accept(ed)s the los lunas stone as authentic speaks volumes to the lack of credibility as an ‘artifact’.
Actually, there is a source for official pronouncement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it's in Salt lake City Utah.
FAIR cannot state the Doctrine of the church, neither can
FARMS (now the Neal A Maxwell Institute), Only the Church headquarters can pronounce official church doctrine.
DU
Paleo Hebrew and Phonetician are very close, but there are differences, call it what ever you want, they couldn't read it when the stone was discovered, or when the Indians say they first discovered it
GZ
Close is only good in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Well, then there goes your whole paleo-hebrew argument doesn’t it DU. The fact that your sources seem to prefer Phoenician says volumes against the authenticity of this artifact. If it is from some other source, it cannot be only from bom peoples.
You forgot atom Bombs, if you almost hit the city...
And no, Paleo Hebrew, Phonecian, either would support the Book of Mormon if the ten commandments were written in ancient times with them.
It is no secret here that you seek to set the standard required for any evidence supporting the Book of Mormon so high that it can never be reached. I do not accept your standard, and your over reaching in crowing about any perceived "death blow" is so comical as to help rather than hurt us.
I do find it funny that your fanaticism in opposition to my religion is only matched by what you claim is my fanaticism for it, well I guess you say Potatoe, I say spud...
DU
then you can get an accurate result from a DNA sample that is corrupted. (Hey, I actually brought us back on topic!) (nice editing of my response...)
GZ
Hold that thought.
I'll try, but I'm sure you;ll drag us off topic again since the DNA issue is killing you (the Book of Mormon does not claim that Lehi was the only source fore DNA in the Americas...)
DU
The one argument invalidates the other, and that is why I went with the Los Lunas stone, I knew you'd go there.
GZ
Apples to oranges DUh, you just invalidated it your self above.
Really? Where? Who said Hebrew was the only language the Nephites would know how to write? The Book of Mormon sure doesn't. The Ten commandments written in any language in the Americas before the coming of say Columbus wold be support for the Book of Mormon, let alone some thing that predates the Indians of the area, and may go back before the time of Christ. Then again, your agenda is showing, Surprise!
DU
Boy you can say that again. The DNA evidence by a guy who's a plant Biologist which started this whole thing is certainly not equal to the evidence of a Population Geneticist who pioneered the science, who finds the plant biologist's work to be in error.
GZ
Poisioning the well again, he is a molecular biologist. If he were the only one involved, then your argument might hold water.
Hey, you are the one who keeps wanting "peer reviews" and "expert opinions", then you cry fowl when your chicken gets hit with the ball. Is it
Poisoning the well to actually look at a man's qualifications? If so, it is most certainly
Guilt By association try to associate me with UFO's when all I did was quote from a site that had been used by them.
If you continue to associate me with them, I will have no recourse other than to associate you with
Fred Phelps, you use some of the same material... See how this Quickly becomes a
Slippery Slope for you?
GZ
Unfortuantely for you, the science keeps coming in to disprove your theories and assertions.
There is currently no science that can extrapolate a valid DNA result from a corrupted sample. Your assertions to the Contrary not with standing, THE population Geneticist in this debate has already spoken and the "experts" just are not on your side in this one.
GZ
That I have already shown that this vaunted population geneticist greatly erred regarding the real scientific evidence surrounding the hap X occurances in central america.
You have most definitely asserted that, you have not ever shown it by actual evidence. That evidence must come from the Book of Mormon, and it is just not there. In order to claim that the majority of females in the Americas came from the Jerusalem Area you have to assume a lot of things, and the Book of Mormon just does not say those things.
The Last Bug "But you're out of your mind,"
They said with a shrug.
"The customer's happy;
What's one little bug?"
But he was determined.
The others went home.
He spread out the program,
Deserted, alone.
The cleaning men came,
The whole room was cluttered
With memory-dumps, punch cards.
"I'm close," he muttered.
The mumbling got louder,
Simple deduction,
"I've got it, it's right,
Just change one instruction."
It still wasn't perfect,
As year followed year,
And strangers would comment,
"Is that guy still here?"
He died at the console,
Of hunger and thirst.
Next day he was buried,
Face down, nine-edge first.
And the last bug in sight,
An ant passing by,
Saluted his tombstone,
And whispered, "Nice try."
Nice try.
Again, I'm cutting out your quotes because the results don't matter until the input is right, stop trying to avoid the issue that is killing you on this.
<--Snip-->
GZ
As much as you hate to face it DU, these reports are not from anti sites, but established science journal outlets who could care less the religious aspects of the results.
Yup, but you want to interpret those results based on a belief, "faith" if you will, that the Book of Mormon says that they should only find or even be able to identify Hebrew DNA, and until you address that Belief and verify it you are jumping to a conclusion that just does not bear the weight of scrutiny.
"Look before you leap." applies to conclusions too.
Interpreting "Science" with "Faith" does not yield good science, but it does make for a good flat earth argument. This is why I keep calling those who believe DNA can disprove a religion "Flat Earthers"
DU
Um, don't you have that backwards? I have already invoked Mark Hoffmann, the forger, who's documents have not all been tracked down.
GZ
Go ask your buddies at the UFO convention, unless you are claiming that Hoffman forged the los lunas stone too.
I have never been to a UFO convention, but it does sound fun. As for the Los Lunas Stone, you have yet to posit a theory by which it could have been forged by anyone. Here are the inconvenient (for you) facts you have to work around.
- The Los Lunas Stone was known of by Indians before the 1850's They say it was there when they moved into the area.
- The Los Lunas Stone was observed and remarked on by the rancher who bought the land as part of his purchase in the 1870's.
- Rafacing the stone and re carving characters in it would have taken about a year without power tools according to experts.
- Higgen was supposedly there for a few weeks, during which time the idiot used solvents and Wire brushes to clean the stone removing much that would have been of interest to modern Archeologists.
- In the 1900's a professor of Ancient languages, Jewish, Saw a photograph of the stone and went to new mexico to translate it into the Ten Commandments.
- Similar stones have been found scattered over the USA and in South America, usually smaller, portable stones at burial sites.
Now, have fun with your conspiracy theories, I'll go buy you some Aluminum foil.
DU
If this were a court trial your DNA evidence would be bounced for the same reason (which was my point!)
GZ
Your argument for a ‘pure’ sample has only to do with the actual laboratory work itself, and not the genetics of the individual.
And the Genetics work is done where? LOL! If you go look at the Africans who were proved to be Jewish, they claimed to have started with a pure sample, Kept the male line pure, and claimed to be Jewish in origin.
Oh wait, real scientists did that, like Keith Crandall. You have
Simon Southerton, the guy who was excommunicated for not keeping his marital vows who now makes his living selling his book about DNA disproving the Book of Mormon, Oh, and He has spoken at Events about UFO's and Sasquatch, just in case that matters to you, it does not to me.
GZ
While you might accept (in fact cling to ) that obfuscation and misdirection, in a court room, as well as scientific research, proper laboratory procedures are documented thoroughly and if the DNA bearing material could not be properly extracted, the scientists would not use that data as a proof.
I Might be clinging to something, I might be Barock Obama, posting here for grins, I'm not, but I might just be. There is also the possibility that every rational mind must face at some time that the universe is a hoax, and none of this really exists. I personally have tired of such theoretical arguments about whether or not I really exist. I have decided that I do exist and put the matter to rest.
In a court room, demanding to know the claims of the plaintiff would be upheld, The results of a DNA test would only be allowed after the attorney who wishes to use that evidence has explained the relevance of that evidence.
My objection is simple, Since the Book of Mormon does not claim a pure genetic sample from the middle east, indeed I have presented proof that the Book of Mormon claims the exact opposite, and you want to ignore the ruling of the judge on relevance to jump to the conclusion, the results of DNA testing. You would be cited for contempt.
I am quite sure that Laboratory procedures have been followed in these irrelevant meaningless tests on DNA that are not relevant to the case at hand, happy? I thought not, but then you are in denial of reality and that seldom makes for happy light-hearted people. Anti Mormons just never strike me as happy, why is that?
GZ
And we are talking about people like the Sorenson Institute DU, who do this daily. Sorenson Inst. has one of the largest Central and South American DNA databases in the country.
That's nice. Relevance your honor? Why thank you, for adding additional time to plaintiff's council's sentence to be served at the end of the trial.
GZ
Are you willing to accuse them of not having pure samples? Stick to ufo sites.
Yes, I am. Te Samples they are getting from American Indians are not claimed to be pure or even mostly Jewish in origin, thus they are not obtaining samples of pure Jewish DNA, so their comparisons while interesting are not relevant to the case at hand.
(WOW, Joseph was a smart guy to have predicted DNA studies and planned accordingly huh? Either that, or it's true, pray to know for sure!)
DU
So do all legitimate DNA Experts...
GZ
Then you are accepting the that the report linked above is legitimate as Woodward held the seat Crandall currently has
Since their results have no bearing on the Book of Mormon's truth, I really don't care and have not tried to argue that they have flaws in their scientific processes, this is a
Straw man Argument you have built and burned regularly in this discussion. Please show where I have ever discussed their internal processes. (you can't because I never have.) I have said that whatever the tests show is not going to be relevant because in order to say the DNA is going to disprove the Book of Mormon you have to have the mistaken opinion that the Book of Mormon says you have Jewish DNA as a majority, or excusivity in the Americas. It does not, so your results are irrelevant.
GZ
Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.
DU
Kind of like a wonderful self proclaimed expert on DNA... and as for the Sources, Lurkers note, Godzilla has not yet quoted any source... (Point set match, would you care to play again? LOL!)
GZ
What DUh would have you not to know that I’ve cited those objections on several occasions in previous posts.
You cite objections all the time, what you don't do with any regularity is link. A review of our two posts will confirm that to anyone who cares.
DU Quoted
It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.
GZ
I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.
DU
I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!
GZ
I did not edit your quote above in the slightest – If you want to argue about your quotes that I cut and pasted intact, go find a mirror.
I don't have to find a mirror, FR keeps all out prior posts,
Here is the post where I complained that you edited my posts, and I add back in
the link that was important to any who want to actually see the document we are discussion here.
You are technically correct, you did not "edit" my post, you just did not include it in it's entirety, you respond to parts of it without notation that you have not included all of it. The line that follows this exchange between us in the
Post you are responding to was also cut from this response with no notation by you leaving an casual reader with the impression that you had included it in it's entirety.
Thus, you edit history, by editing my responses and not including, or noting your exclusion of some of my points.
Here is the Line:
Lurkers note that Godzilla cut the link to the quote and I added it back in, and I'll include it here: The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bulls eye for the Book of Mormon.
To the lurkers, right click on the
Link to the post, and then hit Control + F and cut and paste the preceding italicized line into the search box. Your browser will take you to the dropped line and you can see for yourselves that even while protesting that he doesn't do it, he's doing it.
DU
The Lachish Letters agree with the Book of Mormon about so many things that used to be places where anti's would attack us for being outrageously wrong (Godzilla kept trying to say Nephi and his brothers would have been dragged to Babylon before Lehi left Jerusalem in this thread), the Lachish letters set the time and the period perfectly, in that the deportation had not happened yet!
GZ
Now who is editing my comments?
Words mean things,
Editing, is changing the source.
Editorializing is to state your opinion about something.
I Editorialized, about your post, the difference is in who's moth the words are. Clearly I am speaking in my own voice and not attempting to present this as your words.
GZ
I said specifically within the context of the Lachish Letters is that the time frame is before the exile. DU wants to say that the prophet who disappears into the wilderness is Lehi. So lets look at the timing.
By all means, And I'm Editorializing here you earlier said that Nephi and Laman and Lemuel would not have been there because they would have been taken with the deportation of young men. I took that to mean the second deportation, but it does not really matter. The Book of Mormon places it's timeliness about 600BC "
Nephi begins the record of his people—Lehi sees in vision a pillar of fire and reads from a book of prophecy—He praises God, foretells the coming of the Messiah, and prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem—He is persecuted by the Jews. About 600 B.C." The
Lachish Letters are indeed an Archeological Bulls Eye for the Book of Mormon, being in that precise window of history (597 B.C - 588 B.C.) they verify many of the Details of 1 Nephi, that "scholars" used to make fun of the Book of Mormon for. They claimed that the method of Writing explained by Nephi was wrong, that names such as Joshua (Yaush is the name of a high commander at Lachish) the many prophets prophesying Israels destruction were met with "Where, we have no record..." Well, now you do, which is why "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." in fact the Names in the letters are a separate and perfect bulls eye for the Book of Mormon. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a group of people who "fled into the Wilderness" at God's direction, The Book of Mormon likewise, and now the Lachish Letters document that this was so common they were complaining about prophets who disappear and take people with them!
How about this Quote from this document you keep "accidentally" dropping the link to:
Torczyner suggests that the prophet's warning letter would have been delivered through a little boy, most suited as an unsuspected messenger. Little boys performed such offices in the time of King David (2 Sam. 15:36, 17:17-21). They are also used today even (Torczyner, p. 68).
This idea was suggested by the mention of one Nedabyahu the NKD of the king, who delivered one letter from the prophet to one SHLM warning him of the danger he was in. (Letter 3:19-21). This NKD was the nephew of king Zedekiah himself (Torc. p. 61) He was not a direct descendant, but he was the offspring or descendant, the meaning of NKD. In the Septuagint, NKD simply means *seed*. The BofM calls this *the seed of Zedekiah*.
After the child delivered the letter, the safest thing for the child to do was go with those he warned of the danger, since the family was killed. Torczyner suggests the date 590-588 B.C. for this episode and the BofM says eleven years after Lehi left Jerusalem - in 589 B.C. - a company escaped from the land of Jerusalem bearing with them the youngest family member of Zedekiah (Notice the PERFECT fit in the dates!), the only member of the family who would not have been put to death, and it is from these people that the Nephites later learn that Jerusalem really was destroyed.
"Will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the *seed* of Zedekiah are with us, and that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem?" (Hela. 8:21)
We aren't told that Mulek was the leader, but as the sole survivor of the royal family, he was certainly the most important person in the company, a source of legitimate pride to the group. The name TELLS EVERYTHING. *Mulek* is NOT found in the Bible, but it is a diminutive, a term of affection and endearment in Semitic languages, meaning *little king*. What could the group call the uncrowned child, last of the line, but their little king? And what could they call themselves but Mulekiyah, or *Mulekites*? (Nibley - "Lachish Letters", p. 54) THIS IS PERFECT CORRELATION IN EVERY WAY.
Now lets put to bed the "
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy you like to claim.
First one shoots at the barn, then paints the bulls eyes around the holes. Joseph is Dead, The Book of Mormon has been published for over a hundred years, now letters come to light discovered by valid Archeologists in a valid dig authenticated, accepted, approved of. And these letters are a perfect fit with the Book of Mormon as published indeed, the points of Agreement were points that were used to ridicule the book by it's detractors. This is not a case of shoot first, paint targets later, but an unimaginably accurate support for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Does this prove the Book of Mormon true? No. It does not, only an answer from God can do that. At this point however, any detractors of the Book of Mormon should realize that they are on a continually shrinking platform so it is no wonder that some will strike out into such shaky forays as the mythical DNA evidence that "proves the Book of Mormon wrong."
Good luck with that, you'll need it.
I'm going to snip all the amateurish objections you raise, since people have the
Link, they can go look for themselves, I'll save you the further embarrassment of airing your objections yet again.
<--Snip-->
Oh, I have to comment on this one:
GZ
What do DU’s cited verses have to do with 1 Nephi 4? Absolutely nothing. The book of Jeremiah stands in condemnation of 1 Nephi, as he and he alone was called to preach to those in Jerusalem.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jeremiah is the only prophet called to preach to Jerusalem? The Lachish Letters say other wise, aren't you the one who wants the standard to be if a religious text contradicts with Archeology the religious text gets thrown out as invalid? As for me, Whew! I have no such "stand" to run afoul of with the Bible...
<--Snip-->
DU
BZZT! Wrong!
GZ
Yes you are, there are two sieges and exiles from Jerusalem, see time line and links above.
LOL! What a wit! What a wit! a little dim... but still a wit!
(Humor is funnier if it can be delivered in more than third grade parlance.
<--Snip-->
Since you edited out some of my comments, and left in only some, I am taking it down to just your points which I will respond to:
GZ
What DU wants you to miss is his challenge that the pyramids were ‘contaminated’ too.
Actually, I asked you
If the pyramids had been compromised by a bugling Archeologist, would you dismiss them as completely as you are doing with the Los Lunas stone?
You don't have an Elephant in the living room, you have an 80 ton stone...
GZ
My point was that many associated archaeological findings are also present that confirm and provide information about the pyramids.
Yes, there are, but the Pyramids are difficult to deny, at least for me, they are "there". The Los Lunas stone is difficult to deny because it's "there" as well, the fact that Indians say it was there when they moved into the area, and that it has the Ten Commandments on it in Early Hebrew, and all that was known about before the writing could be read, well you have a pretty big elephant shaped Decalogue stone in your living room if you ignore it.
GZ
Los Lunas – nada, zero, zilch.
If there is a history of someone studiously throwing every piece of evidence laid before them out the window, you can reliably predict, without the gift of Prophecy, that they will claim there is no evidence, in spite of all that has been laid before them. Well, I picked the Los Lunas Stone on purpose because you can't just pick up an 80 ton stone and it won't fit through your window.
GZ
So how many real archeologists have studied los lunas DU?
So how many Archeologists had been to the Pyramids in the first say hundred years we knew of their existence? Not many, it took a while for the importance to be understood. I am confident that history will vindicate me and make anti Mormons who tried to use Archeology for religious assassination look like the proverbial "Flat Earthers".
I am content to wait, I have time. You seem to want to rush to judgment...
DU
Do you know how many Frauds have been perpetrated in Archeology on the "experts", LOL! Google Archeology Fraud, for some fun.
GZ
Yep, and listed within the very first site on the list are the Los Lunas and Bat Creek stones. Thanks for finding additional support for those items being frauds :)
That's interesting, when I Google it,
Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation is the first Site in the list, when searched via their search Box for "Los Lunas" it returns no results... When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
I also note that most who "invalidate" the stone do so because the Hebrew is not "pure. According to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew would be a corrupted version of Hebrew, Which is precisely what one would expect if this was written by the peoples of the Book of Mormon, so no, I don't put a lot of stock in their denials, they are just not wanting to be "that Guy", eventually it will be accepted as other "frauds" that have later been accepted. Again, I can wait, time and truth are on my side, what's your hurry?
DU
A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enough to invalidate it by any means, you can.
GZ
Evidence to be valid must be able to withstand investigation to prove or disprove it.
Says who? Why does each piece of evidence for the Book of Mormon have to surmount this unreasonably high bar of standing alone? Much of the evidence for the Bible would fall if subjected to the "it must stand alone, unquestionably" test you propose here.
GZ
DU’s evidence – the Los Lunas stone. Why – just because it has proto Hebrew writing of an abridgment of the ten commandments with a discovery in the early 1800’s.
When Proto Hebrew was neither Known nor believed to exist. So explaining how it was forged way back then becomes a problem.
GZ
What he doesn’t say or want you to know so you can fully evaluate it as a Mormon artifact or not -
Mind reading again?
GZ
1. It has been rejected as a fraud by mormon investigators
It has been rejected as a fraud by some accepted as genuine by others, some on both sides are Mormon, some are not, so? Does having a Mormon say it's a fraud magically make it one? It's an opinion, that's all.
GZ
2. DU’s own sources counter the proto Hebrew by saying it is Phonecian.
Phonecian and Proto Hebrew being almost identical... Early investigators like Hibben tried to tell people it was an early form of Cherokee. They didn't know what Early Hebrew looked like, yet they are supposed to have forged it... LOL!
GZ
3. The writer inserted Greek Letters into the words – a highly unlikely practice
Unless as the Book of Mormon records that the Inhabitants had altered the language according to their use to make it easier to write and to fit the corruptions that were creeping in from others who were joining their group.
GZ
4. Use of caret , not known to be used in Hebrew until the middle ages
But used in other languages which they knew and corrupted their Hebrew script with...
GZ
5. The author is extremely clumsy. The reading of the writings goes line 1 – line 3 – line 2 – line 4. . . . If the writer was fluent in the language and writing, he would not have made the mistake of forgetting line 2 and have to squeeze it between 1 and 3. Common mistake if some one is copying something down from paper.
Or plates of Brass that one can barely read because it is in an ancient form of your language.
Every objection you raise is easily answered by the Book of Mormon, but I agree, no Non Mormon is going to see the truth represented by this artifact, it will remain an unexplainable mystery to most until more evidence comes out. That's OK, I can wait...
GZ
Now, DU would like to you ignore this equally valid evidence. If true it will pass examination. Viewed dispassionately, the Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe.
Dis passionately? On a board called "Bad Archeology"? LOL! Next you will tell us you are "dispassionate" in your analysis of the Book of Mormon...
Please note the page has an image of an "alien" in front of a Pyramid with the caption "Leave your Common sense behind" which is apparently what Godzilla has done by posting a link to a site that talks of UFO's as his evidence (which he has been pointing out one of the sites I quoted did)
DU
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you. you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.
GZ
Remarkably, DU is a one note Johnny on this.
It's called staying on topic, you should try it sometime!
GZ
He is unable to disprove the other DNA studies.
Actually, I can disprove all of them at once by pointing out the faulty assumptions that make them seem relevant when they are not.
GZ
Rather he would have you examine laboratory procedures. Well these laboratory procedures are those used world wide both in forensics as well as genetic studies.
I have never questioned the laboratory procedures, the mechanics are not the problem it's the assumptions. Keep waving the ?
red herring around maybe someone will still follow the scent instead of logic.
GZ
Mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation actually conducts these studies and has probably the largest data bank of DNA data around.
And he's still a Mormon because he knows what I have been saying; "The Book of Mormon does not say you will find Jewish DNA in American Indians it was diluted from the Beginning and dilution continued as they went.
GZ
DU’s mythical corrupted DNA sample is dealt with by labs like Sorenson.
How? Let's use an analogy:
I send you a Picture, it's really cool, but it's too big for you to receive since it's an entire book page by page sewn together and it's about 20 GB in size, and it's a Jpeg. So I cut the Size by Half, hmm Still to big to send, so I cut the Size down to 1 MB, and I send you the picture. You get this thing in your email and say so what do I do with it, and I say "Blow it back up! you open it with paint, and increase the size from it's current size to the original size and all you can see on the pages is smudges that kind of look like the might have been lines (and that's the best case scenario)
you see, data has been lost. Recombination throws away 50% of the genetic makeup of each parent combining the remaining "data" into a single image to pass on to the child. as you add unknown data to the mix by marrying in peoples from undocumented sources the data that was a clear picture of Israel get's obscured to the point where it is unreadable that is why the Sorenson institute proudly talks about getting Genealogy with DNA back to the 1700's you see with each generation, the picture get's blurrier and blurrier. The lost data cannot be recovered without "Guessing" do you want Keith Crandall on that team? I didn't think so.
Once the data is lost, it's Gone. This is not a hard drive where I can take it into a clean room and read adjacent cylinders for latent magnetic traces, we just don't have the ability to go back to 600 BC from 2000+ AD and prove squat, unless the genetic data was preserved, it if got corrupted you are done, and you are done. Keep trying, it's fun to rub your face in this and the nastier you get the better I look, please keep it up!
GZ
If corrupted DNA completely invalidate genetic studies, then all of the studies like conducted at Sorenson and the hundreds of other DNA / Genetic research facilities around the world are invalid too.
The only successful DNA study that even comes close to this is the one done by Keith Crandall when he proved that those Africans were descended from Jews and that was because they had preserved their DNA with very strict marriage rules. Besides, after looking at the evidence he joined our church so you don't trust him anymore.
GZ
That is a mighty big claim by DU on Crandall’s behalf. However, DU is completely vague as to which studies are plagued with corrupted DNA - come on DU, the world is waiting.
I thought you'd never ask, all of them. The Indians don't have pure DNA, they don't all come from one place, some came from here, some from there, some from Asia, and Some from Iceland, and yes, some from Jerusalem, etc. Where you get your sources will determine where you trace them back to, that is why you have groups of geneticists arguing over where they came from. Aren't you glad you asked?
Thus DNA studies will never disprove the Book of Mormon, they can't not with the mass die off's that happened when the white men came to the new world, the DNA we are looking for may have died with them and we can never prove that negative. That leaves us with proving a positive (which I don't believe will happen either) and that is why Keith Crandall is smiling when he say "if that's what you are looking for, the Mayans are your best place to start, I don't think he thinks it can be proven true either. (supposition on my part, but hey it's my opinion)
GZ
No, even Crandall relies upon these genetic studies to do his work. The presence of proper extraction requirements for laboratories – yes. Controls and procedures in place to validate the extraction (normally extracting many DNA strings from the same donor), commonly called quality control – yes. DNA data used by scientists world wide based upon laboratory work – yes.
They can and probably are doing all that "stuff" right, but without the claim of a pure Jewish strain of DNA to compare (Which the Book of Momron does not claim), it's not going to prove the Book of Mormon wrong.
GZ
Stick to programming DU, you are drowning in your half inch deep apologetic on this one as the very ones you claim reject DNA data because it is corrupted are the same ones who use that same data on a daily basis.
Um, I did not claim the DNA became corrupted in the lab, that
red herring is getting pretty dry, why don't you try another one...
<--Snip-->
GZ
What DU has snipped out were his comments-
Hey, I notify people, these posts get pretty big, no thanks to you. (I'm cutting out my posts again, since they were already botchered...)
<--Snip-->
GZ
So he tries to make the comparison that the Smithsonian looks at the bible in the same way as it does the bom. It also states On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek Histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. Take the time to scroll down at the same link above, and you can compare the Smithsonian’s statement on the bom to their statement on the Bible.
The Smithsonian, like a scientific institution should is not interested in joining in religious debate, as such they will be polite to those who would try to drag them into a debate, and that is all. No matter how much you want them to, they will not "take sides".
The Smithsonian issues similar form letters about the Bible, Book of Mormon, Torah and Koran. They don't support any religious book but will mention any archeological backup to such a book if it is politically expedient for them to do so.
As for Archeology and the Bible, have you ever been to Israel? The whole of the Area the Gospels took place in is withing a single days drive from Jerusalem. Egypt and other biblical lands are not much farther, a few days travel by car at most. We know most of the "Places" things had to have happened in because their has been a continuous population of people.
The America's are much larger. We do not have an exact knowledge of the locations of the lands of the peoples of the Book of Mormon, and there are many like professor Hibben who destroy archeological evidence without knowing what it is. The position that this proves the Book of Mormon false is an illogical position for anyone who claims to revere science to take. It is also an illogical osition for anyone who believes in God to take.
GZ
This is the normal mormon tactic of dissing the bible – try to go to atheist/agnostic sites and drag up what ever they can find.
What a pants load! The presupposition there is that I am "dissing" the Bible, I am not, I love the Bible, but the Fallacy of the
Loaded Question, combined with an equally invalid "see the Smithsonian says your a fraud" technique GZ
Well in this case DU has blatantly quote mined the document – which says the opposite what he was trying to prove – that the Smithsonian views the bible as not a source for archaeological studies.
Quote mining by definition does not work if you include a link, which I did. My point was and is the Smithsonain is not trying to be a forum for religious truth. They want to do Science, and as such they will say the politically correct thing to stay out of trouble. Bringing them into a religious discussion is just bad form, and you did it.
GZ
In DU’s case he hoisted himself by his own petards by trying to attack the credibility of the Bible to enhance the credibility of the bom.
I have not and would not attack the Credibility of the Bible, and The Book of Mormon as a "Second Witness" cannot be "enhanced" by denigrating the "First Witness" your Logic here is as flawed as it is in the DNA analysis, denigrating the Bible would harm the Book of Mormon, not help it.
DU
I submit that anyone who believes in the Bible only because of archeological evidence has a weak testimony and needs to spend more time in prayer and with the Bible and less time with the Smithsonian.
This statement immediately following the other pretty mucgh puts nails in the coffin for your assertion that i intended to denigrate the Bible, for I suggested people with a weak testimony of the Bible should spend time with their Bible and in prayer, not with the Book of Mormon.
GZ
I will go one further, my faith in the testimony of Jesus, the Apostles and the writers of the books of the Bible are enhanced through the support of archaeological finds. It links REAL persons to REAL events at REAL locations. One of the first witnesses related to the empty tomb – a verificable location, for a verifiable event.
So, preay tell, have you been to the tomb? Which one, the Garden tomb outside the gates that is supported in part by donations from the LDS church, or the one inside the gates run by the Catholic Church? (I have been to both)
I have walked where Jesus walked in the old city, sat by the sea of Gallalee and visited his birthplace in person, it was that important to me.
While that was a very spiritual experience for me, I cannot say it increased my testimony, for that came from God, in answer to prayer, fasting and study. That ou say some rocks identified by some "scholar" as "The Rocks" or some such would increase your personal testimony just tells me you don't have a testimony borne of the spirit, but of reason and logic in your mind. I wish you had a testimony from God, I will pray for you to receive a true testimony of the Bible, one borne of the Spirit and not from thaearm of the flesh.
DU
Similarly, anyone who disbelieves the Book of Mormon because they have not seen a peer reviewed paper saying it is true needs to spend more time on their knees and with the Book of Mormon and less time with the Smithsonian.
You then quote men who say the Book of Mormon will be proved by Archeology, and it could happen, but I don't think it will, that does not seem to be God's plan
<--Snip-->
GZ
Fergunson, a mormon, makes the argument very plainly for the science of mormonism. If the cities do not exist – the bom is a fake. If the tomb was found to have Jesus’ body in it – Christianity would be fake.
Is this Doctrine of the Church? No. Fred Phelps said... (I could put innumerable offensive things here) Does that make it the Doctrine of the Baptist church (My apologies to Baptists everywhere, I know there is no connection, and am using that as an example)
DU
Archeology will never teach you eternal truth because it comes from man. The Gospel teaches eternal truths because it comes from God. I promote people putting the trust in God, not man.
GZ
The question one must evaluate is the man who brought forth the bom – joseph smith. He was known to be a treasure seeker, bilking people of their money for his services.
Yawn, This Screed again, DNA, do you remember DNA this thread was supposed to be about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. Now (Facing defeat on ever other topic) you seek to bring in yet more topics, LOL. This is pathetic, and I am really sorry to see you reduced to this.
<--Snip a bunch of new charges which are not true and are not relevant-->
GZ
See, DU would have you pray to get a warm and fuzzy feeling as proof of the bom.
Godzilla, I rarely use absolutes in anything but jokes. I have NEVER said that, or anything approaching that. Please cite your source or apologize for putting words that I have never spoken in my mouth as if they were a quotation.
GZ
John says otherwise – to put it to the test, scrutinise to see whether a thing is genuine or not.
I have always Encourages people to put our religion
To the Test. This page of mine contains the following text:
The test is contained in First John 4:1-3 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
We are supposed to look for Gods messages by trying the spirits, and we will know which is of God because it will testify of Jesus. I have tried the Spirits to know if they would testify of Jesus and the Book of Mormon, and I have received an answer, yes the Book of Mormon is of God and Jesus is the Christ, my Savior, my Lord, my God. I wish that everyone could have this experience, thus, I offer to all a Free Book of Mormon and if you don't already have one, a Free Bible Too. I invite you to cut through all the yea and nay arguments with a simple prayer, I invite you to come unto Jesus Christ my master. The formula is simple, Get a Book of Mormon, Get a Bible. Read both, pray about both, ask God to testify of Jesus and ask God to reveal errors for what they are, and truth for what it is and listen for God's response. The response should contain a testimony of Jesus, or it may not be from God.
My testimony, also on My page here, contains the response I got from taking
the Test in the Bible. GZ
That is not accomplished by warm fuzzies, but comparing line by line Christianity from the bible with Mormonism from smith, to compare the factual support of the bible (which DU tries to diss), with any factual support for the bom.
You have a casual relationship with the truth my FRiend, I have not advocated "warm Fuzzies", I have not denigrated or dissed the Bible. What is the point of a restoration is nothing is restored? How about Comparing the Bible to the Nicene Creed? (It's not only Not in there, the Bible teaches a Godhead like we believe.) Again, the only way a seeker will know the truth is not by your words (for you are but a man) or by my words (for I am also a man), but by asking God and gettgin an answer from God that is a sure and secure source for information. Going to God to learn his truth, that is what I advocate, not this touchy feely stuff
GZ
To the spiritually immature – it makes like the song of the Sirens to lure people to their deaths.
By telling them to ask God? This is funny, LOL!
GZ
To the mature, mormonism is found to be that condemned by Jesus Depart for I never knew you.
Actually, When is hte last time Jesus answered your prayer?
GZ
Jesus of the Bible is far larger than anything joseph smith could even imagine.
Or that you can imagine... Yup or that I can imagine. We poor mortals just can't picture eternity or infinity...
GZ
Why accept a substitute dreamed up by a man, when you can have the Real Jesus.
I could not agree more, why settle for a definition of God cooked up by a pagan GZ
Mormonism would place you under the impossible task of being perfect with the pie-in-the-sky hope of godhood.
The Bible says
Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. It is apparent that you know neither the Bible, nor our doctrine. Mormonism is the only religion with God's plan for the Billions of people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel in this life. Only God's plan saves, and offers salvation to all, not just hose who happened to be in the right place at the right time to actually hear the Gospel in this life and be "saved". For
God is no respecter of persons.
GZ
Jesus’ way is far better and far more reasonable. And He has paid for it all.
Yes, His way will offer salvation to all men living and dead, for that was his plan from the Beginning, but just because you offer it does not mean the men will take what is offered. Many men will reject God's offer of salvation Through Jesus Christ, some will love Sin more than righteousness, some will follow the traditions of Men, thinking they are saved and reject the word of God when it is preached to them, and some will love Satan more than Jesus. There is only one sure fire way to know if you are on the right path, and that is to ask God to lead you with his Holy Spirit, and he will lead you to life and righteousness. This is what I wish all men would do. This is what I preach, i would that all men would pray to their maker for Guidence in all things including whether or not to read the Book of Momorn, and once God tells them it's his will, and they pray abou t it and recieve a witness as I have done they will naturally want to warn their neighbor as I try to do.
Godzilla, you can try to paint my motives with the old darkrush some here will mock and scorn, twist and Pry. Some will listen and pray. It is for them that I post, I hope and pray you are one who will listen and pray to God about the witness I bear of Jesus and of the Book of Mormon.
I will be praying for you this evening for your posts strike me as a man in need, may God bless you and give you what you need not what I can think of, Amen.; rsc