Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but Bible is (Part 33)

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 7 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology

The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 7 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 written in the Book of Mormon?

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


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.

The Book of Mormon mentions the use of silk six times.[65] “Silk” is commonly understood to mean the material that is created from the cocoon of the Asian moth Bombyx mori. It is a foregone conclusion that this material was unknown to the Americas before their discovery.


SENNACHERIB ASSASSINATED:The Bible account of Sennacherib concludes with these words –

“So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.”. [2 Kings 19. 36,37]

The same event was recorded for the library at Nineveh and the clay tablet of the record is now in the British Museum.

‘On the twentieth day of the month Tebet Sennacherib king of Assyria his son slew him in rebellion… Esarhaddon his son sat on the throne of Assyria.’

This is one of the many independent confirmations of details in the Biblical records.


The Assyrian period of history can provide many similar examples of confirmation. The British Museum publication, ‘Illustrations of Old Testament History’ by Barnett gives many examples. The soldier-prince Pul (11 Kings 15.19) or Tiglath-pileser, his general Rabshakeh (11 Kings 18.17) or Rab-shaqu, have left their names in monuments and inscriptions. A limestone relief from Nimrud portrays the surrender of Ashtoreth in Gilead with the name clearly labelled in cuneiform script.

Shalmaneser, too, left a wealth of monuments and inscriptions, a number of which mention the monarchs of other nations.

A study of the period gives us a very great confidence in the accuracy of the Biblical records. We can look at carvings and statues of monarchs mentioned in the Bible. Scholars have translated accounts of the campaigns and treaties and details of the private lives of the great men of the period – and these confirm the Bible narrative.

Because archaeology has shown that the Bible records are accurate in some of the smallest details, we can have confidence in the reliability of the writers. We should be prepared to consider carefully the writings of the Bible as a whole.

The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 8 conclusion

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: