The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology

The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 5 of an indepth study

With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book of Mormon?

Tags: church false mormon christian bible book of mormon joseph smith cult LDS latter day saints

___________________________________________

From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, wheels and chariots did not exist in North America when they said they did.

Goats are mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon^[54] placing them among the Nephites and the Jaredites (i.e. between 2500 BC and 400 AD). In two of the verses, “goats” are distinguished from “wild goats” indicating that there were at least two varieties, one of them possibly domesticated or tamed.

Domestic goats are known to have been introduced on the American continent by Europeans in the 15th century,^{[citation needed]} 1000 years after the conclusion of the Book of Mormon, and nearly 2000 years after goats are last mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The aggressive mountain goat is indigenous to North America. There is no evidence that it was ever domesticated.

________________________________________

Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

• The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
• The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

How does archaeology conclusively demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions? Answer

For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research