@oragamiYou state: And by the way I say this as a scientist and
agnostic. I respect people of faith much more than I do people who seem intent
on "proving" anything religious with "facts".Interesting. Through the centuries of time fact has changed religion. Can
you think of a time when religion has changed facts. Thx.
I don't have any problem with this article with one important exception the
word "prove". Nothing can be proved when it comes to archeology and even
more so when it comes to religion. Even scientists avoid using the word. Fact is also a troubling word when it comes to things that may or may
not have happened thousands of years ago. Faith is about faith.
Proof and fact have almost nothing to do with it. If anything, this kind of
focus diminishes the value of faith. And by the way I say this as a scientist
and agnostic. I respect people of faith much more than I do people who seem
intent on "proving" anything religious with "facts".
"The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because
..."And the Mormon church does not recognize Catholic baptism
either. I don't think that Mormons recognize any other baptisms. Please
correct me if I am wrong.
RE: Husker1 What is your point?? The Christian faith that is
founded on fact is both reasonable and logical and as such has many outside
evidences to support it and strengthen it. Understanding the rational and
logical foundations of our faith in Christ . While we cannot prove God’s
existence scientifically, we certainly have ample evidence of His existence in
creation alone (Psalm 19:1-3; Romans 1:18-32).RE: The Catholic
Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and
Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for
each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different
from that of ‘Christians’. They also believe that Jesus
came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not
one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase "the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit," in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is
actually polytheistic and pagan rather than Trinitarian. Catholic Answers.
@CMTMWhat is your point?? My point was that I believe
in Jesus Christ. I'm Catholic and the Catholic Church has a documented
history that goes back to the time of Jesus. If it were proven tomorrow that
Adam and Eve never existed and were just a fable, it would not effect my faith
in Jesus at all.
Scripture has a difficult time with history as practiced by historians.
Scripture has an even bigger problem with natural history. When I was in
college I took "Advanced Physical Geology." The TA was a Great Salt
Lake fanatic, so we got GSL and Lake Bonneville lore galore. Everyday I look at
what he talked about. I can see the Bonneville sedimentary features and algal
reef features. But they do not correlate with scripture. What should we do?
RE: Husker1. “The actual existence of Adam and Eve ,or Hebrew kings,
doesn't effect my belief in Jesus Christ one way or another.”“ he(Jesus).. he who made them at the beginning made them
male(Adam) and female, (Mt 19:4)The serpent and Genesis 3 in John
8:44: “You belong to your father, the devil, He was a murderer from the
beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.”Jesus was Called the Son of David God had promised David, the first
rightful ‘king of Israel’, that his throne would be established
forever. (2 Saml 7:12-13).RE: The Apostles creed puts Jesus in
.suffered under Pontius Pilate
”Pontius Pilate's Wife(Mt 27:19)became a Christian after the death of
,Saint Claudia in 2 Tim 4:21 where it says,
‘Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and Claudia(Latin name) send their greetings, and
so all the other Christian,VS, Mormon 9:29 see that ye partake not
of the sacrament of Christ unworthily.JS uses Sacrament, 600 years before
it’s use. From the Latin sacramentum by Tertullian around 200 AD .
I think that Mr Peterson is subtly trying to make this point. Not
everything in the Bible is proven by archaeology. Just like the BOM. So, why
the different standard?In reality, There is much from the Bible that
is provable (and much that is not).The Bible mentions cities and places
that still exist today. The writings in the Bible mention people who can be
proved to have existed.It is wishful thinking to try an equate BOM
archaeology and Biblical archaeology.
NoNamesAccepted said "Those who accept Biblical history, but reject Book of
Mormon for lack of proof are being intellectual dishonest. Reject because of
doctrine is fair game. But don't apply different standards to history from
the Bible and the Book of Mormon."Bible writings are supported
with centuries old documents. I can accept that the Bible comes from ancient
stories and sources without believing that those stories are true. But the claim
that the Book of Mormon comes from ancient sources does not have any credible
backing from archaeology, DNA studies, etc. My rejection of it is not from
applying a different standard to history. Quite the opposite, it is from
applying the same standards of evidence. Intellectual honesty led me to my
conclusion that the Jaradites, Lehi and Mulekites were a 19th century
@skeptic: "there never was a great Hebrew nation here in the Americas. . . .
The search in Israel has never turned up evidence of brass plates. . . there is
absolutely no evidence of a great Hebrew nation here in the Americas. . . The
Native Americans disclaim that there are Hebrews among their Indian tribes.
etc."No evidence proves it's not true? Hilarious
NoNamesAccepted"Reject because of doctrine is fair game. But
don't apply different standards to history from the Bible and the Book of
Mormon."______________________________I believe in universal
standards. The books of the Bible should be evaluated for historical value in
the same manner in which we consider any ancient document that might potentially
yield historical information. The Book of Mormon, however, is a unique case in
that its claim of ancient authorship is rejected by non-LDS academia.
Not all books in the Bible are meant to be historical and the Bible, as a whole,
shouldn't be treated as a history or science text. For example, I believe
God created everything but I don't take the creation process ("On the
first day...") in Genesis literally. The actual existence of Adam and Eve ,
or Hebrew kings, doesn't effect my belief in Jesus Christ one way or
RE:. NoNamesAccepted - The classical approach to the defense of Scripture.Premise A — The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy
document. Premise B — On the basis of this reliable document we have
sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Premise C — Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible
authority. Premise D — Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more
than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God. Premise E —
That the word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is
utterly trustworthy. Conclusion — On the basis of the infallible
authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly
trustworthy..VS, "It is true that many of the Christian churches
worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons .. (LDS
Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).
@NoNamesAccepted – “the job of the apologist is not to prove
anything, but simply to provide rational support for the faith”Rational?Best I can tell, all of Dr. Peterson’s defenses of
the faith amount to little more than “you can’t prove it isn’t
true” which of course is the same (only) defense for any superstition or
belief in mythology, not to mention Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.By the way, I wish more people would understand that “proof”
resides in the domain of math and logic. Science is about evidence and telling
us what is most likely. By that standard, none of the faith-based religious
dogmas (as well as a fair amount of their history) survive scrutiny.But that’s why they call it faith, right?
I appreciate these columns by Dr. Peterson. I am reminded that the job of the
apologist is not to prove anything, but simply to provide rational support for
the faith and rational alternatives to the criticism levied by those who attack
the faith.strom thurmond and others who perpetually attack all
things LDS or Book of Mormon relies on various strawmen and half truths. The
geographic location of the events of the Book of Mormon have never been
definitively set. Joseph Smith pointed to the Great Lakes area. Others in his
day presumed Central America. strom also ignores the massive amounts of ancient
burial mounds destroyed in the Eastern US as European settlers arrived.While the Jewish people still exist, where is the modern proof of the other
tribes of Israel? Where is the modern proof of the Exodus? Those
who reject all scripture history are consistent. Foolish, but consistent.
Those who accept Biblical history, but reject Book of Mormon for lack of proof
are being intellectual dishonest.Reject because of doctrine is fair
game. But don't apply different standards to history from the Bible and
the Book of Mormon.
There never was a great Hebrew nation here in the Americas. The Book of Mormon
story is a fable from beginning to end. The search in Israel has never turned
up evidence of brass plates like Nephi supposedly stole from his uncle Laban.
And there is absolutely no evidence of a great Hebrew nation here in the
Americas less than two thousand years ago. The Native Americans disclaim that
there are Hebrews among their Indian tribes. There is some excuse for
people's superstitions and fairy tales during Joseph Smiths times; but not
today. It is way past time to wake up to reality, and honesty.
“However, although it’s not typically their goal, sometimes they do
prove things.”I wonder if Dr. Peterson takes the same attitude
towards “proof” when it goes the other way. When reason
and science disprove biblical passages does he acknowledge that as well? If so (i.e., if he is intellectually honest) then I applaud his
affirmation of the long tradition of Biblical criticism going back at least to
Spinoza, and to the last 400 years of science that has shown the Bible to be
filled with myths (like all the other “sacred” books from the
bronze/iron age) starting with Genesis 1 (which says water was created before
a scientific impossibility).
To use the Bible or any other document as historical information, you first have
to recognize its limitations. The Bible may not be wholly reliable history but
it is the chief primary source on the history of ancient Israel, in many
instances, the only primary source. That’s the reference point from which
a scholar works. I find it more probable that David and Solomon did
exist than did not. The details given in the text must be scrutinized for clues
to who may have written the texts and why but even the improbable or unlikely
reported events doesn’t necessarily make the actual characters myths.
I glanced at the referenced article by Mr Hamblin.It is incredulous
to compare the Nephites to the exodus. Hamblin says we don't
know the exact route of the exodus, and therefore since we can't find the
Nephites, the Book of Mormon is not disproven.Sorry, the Jews still
exist, they and their writings exist in antiquity and this is not disputed. This is bad apologetics at its worst.
The statement that 95% of the new world has not been excavated, ergo the Book of
Mormon hasn't been proven wrong, is misleading, at best.The
Book of Mormon places millions of people living, warring, etc, durring a
specific time period. Joseph Smith put this group in the eastern United States.
Not 1 fragment of evidence has been found of them.Further, you
don't need to excavate 100% of the continent to know that there were no
horses, steel, wheels, and more inportantly silk, in the Americas before