LBPCentral Archive

Home

General Stuff

General Chat

Which Is More Reliable: Bible vs. Book of Mormon

Archive: 22 posts

http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/bible-bm.htm

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

By Gary F. Zeolla

What do the Bible and the Book of Mormon have in common? They both claim to be the Word of God. Also, major portions of both describe supposedly historical events.
The Histories

The historical portions of the Old Testament in the Bible primarily focus on the history of the Israelite nation and God's dealings with them. The time period covered is from creation to the last writing prophet in about 400 BC.
The New Testament describes the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the growth of the early Christian church. The time period covered is from about 4 BC to 95 AD.
"The Book of Mormon claims that a people called the Jaredites, refugees from the Tower of Babel, migrated to America about 2247 BC. They occupied Central America until they were wiped out by internal strife" (McElveen, p. 58).
It also tells the story of an exodus of Jews from Judah around 600 BC in order to escape the Babylonian captivity. They travel by boat to the Americas. While there, two great civilizations develop, the Lamanites and the Nephites. Constant fighting occurs between these two nations. Jesus is said to appear to them after His resurrection and brings the Christian faith to them. In 421 AD, the Lamanites eliminate the Nephites. The Lamanites are said to be the ancestors of the modern-day American Indian (McElveen, pp. 58, 59).
Where Are the Maps?

Both books present their stories as being actual history. But is it? How can we know? A place to begin would be to turn to the end of each book. Virtually any edition of the Bible has maps back there. Why? So when mention is made of a particular place or city, the reader can turn to the back of the Bible and see where the city was located.
Maps for the Bible are possible since the locations of the majority of the cities mentioned are known. The remains of such cities as Ninevah (Nahum 1:1) and "Ur of the Chaldeans" (Gen 11:28) have been discovered (Keller, pp. 6-30). Other cities, such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem, still exist to this day.
But what about the book of Mormon? There has never been an edition published with maps. Why? Because no one knows where any of the cities mentioned were located and none of them still exists. In fact, Mormons are not even sure in what general geographic area in the Americas the cities were supposed to have been located. Some Mormons believe the cities were in what is now Central America. Others think the people lived in the southern part of Mexico. Others postulate the northern part of South America to be the place (Tanner, pp. 118-124).
The reason for all this confusion is that NO remains of the supposed Jaredite, Lamanite, or Nephite civilizations have ever been uncovered. In fact, archeology of the possible regions demonstrates that the types of cultures described simply did not exist at that time (Tanner, pp. 101-118).
Of course, Mormons claim otherwise (Talmage, pp. 283-293). I once even heard a Mormon proclaim there are "tons" of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. So who should be believed?
What About the Archeological Evidence?

How can these claims be verified? Why not consult a non-partisan source with the qualifications to speak on archeological discoveries? Two such organizations can be easily contacted. Write to the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC 20560) or the National Geographic Society (Washington, DC 20036) and ask for their statements on the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

The statement from the National Geographic Society states:
I referred your inquiry to Dr. George Stuart, the Society's staff archaeologist. He told me he knows of no archeological evidence that verifies the history of the early people of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archeological findings, THIS CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY (emphasis added).

The Smithsonian Institute writes, "The Smithsonian Institute has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
The document then has seven paragraphs explaining why this is so. But what about the Bible?
The National Geographic Society states:
But archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible (note: more than thirty articles are listed).

The Smithsonian Institute acknowledges:
...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 are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological works.

Qualifiers and Conclusion

Neither the National Geographic Society nor the Smithsonian Institute believe the Bible is inerrant (without error). Other portions of their statements make this clear. Furthermore, a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is an article of faith. It could never be proved empirically as sufficient archeological evidence could never be discovered to verify every event in the Bible. However, the above quoted portions of their statements do show that these two secular institutions do see a major difference between the reliability of the Bible versus the Book of Mormon.
They both clearly teach there is NO historical validity to the Book of Mormon. As such, the Book of Mormon's claim to be the Word of God is disqualified. Since the stories it tells are not genuine, then why would anyone trust what it has to say about God, salvation, and other spiritual topics?
On the other hand, the Bible can be demonstrated to be a generally reliable historical document. But this does not then necessarily mean its spiritual claims are true. It does, however, leave its claim to be the Word of God a possibility.
As the Smithsonian Institute states:
Even Biblical history is edited history; events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible . . . It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship?

Well does it? This question is addressed in the articles listed under the subject The Nature of God (http://www.lbpcentral.com/subject/god.htm).

CLARIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONAL POINTS
To respond to comments I have received, I want to clarify a few points in the above article and add a couple of additional thoughts.

Clarifications
I am using the illustration of maps to indicate that Mormons simply do not know where the purported events of the Book of Mormon occurred, as stated in the article.
The issue is, the areas of the New World where the book of Mormon events supposedly occurred have now been extensively studied by archeologist. In their research NO remains of the supposed Lamanite and Nephite cultures have been discovered. See the following page for more on this point: Correspondence on the Book of Mormon.
Furthermore, what is known of the ancient Americas contradict the Book of Mormon. For instance, the "Statement on the Book of Mormon" from the Smithsonian Institute states: "American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492." Also, "Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric Iron)."
All of these items are mentioned in various places in the book of Mormon. So if the Book of Mormon is true, then when the supposed Lamanite and Nephite civilizations destroyed themselves, somehow all of these animals and plants must have also somehow become extinct and left no trace of ever existing. And all traces of the Lamanites? and Nephites? ability to make the items mentioned must have disappear and been unknown to others in the New World.
By way of comparison, the Inca and Mayan empires were destroyed long before Columbus came to America. But we know where their empires were located and the basics of their cultures. Civilizations as vast as these will inevitably leave behind some traces even after their downfalls. Also, many peoples and cities mentioned in the Bible were unknown of outside of the Bible until modern-day archeologists began to uncover their remains.
But, despite being described as vast populations, the Lamanites and Nephites seem to have left without leaving a trace. So our only "knowledge" of their cultures still come from the Book of Mormon, despite extensive archeological investigations of the possible sites. So unless a "miraculous" disappearance of all traces of their cultures occurred, the above means the background cultures to the peoples of the Book of Mormon simply did not exist.
On the other hand, the cultural conditions that backdrop Biblical events have been shown to have existed. Of course, not every event in the Bible has or could have archeological support; but many do. Now, there are difficulties at times in reconciling the Biblical record with archeological finds. But many such difficulties have been resolved with further investigations. So overall, it would be accurate to say that the Bible is a generally reliable, historical document.
So my overall point can be summarized as follows: If a book contains what is purportedly historical records, and those records can be demonstrated to be generally unreliable, then the book?s claim to be "God-breathed" are called into question. God would not speak through a novel that is trying to pass itself off as being a historical narrative, as I believe is the case in regards to the book of Mormon.
On the other hand, just because a book is historically reliable this does not therefore mean that it is God-breathed. There are many historically reliable books that are not inspired.
So my belief that the Bible is the Word of God is not actually based on archeological evidence. I simply believe that sufficient evidence for its generally reliability exists. And since supposed historical difficulties have been reconciled in the past, I have reason to believe that current claimed difficulties will eventually find a solution.
The reasons why I believe the Bible?s inspiration rests on many grounds, as discussed in various places on my site. But in a nutshell, the overall worldview presented in the Bible I find to be the only truly logically consistent and livable belief system. For more on my views in this regard, see the articles listed at: General Theology and Apologetics (http://www.lbpcentral.com/subject/general.htm).

Additional Points
Two additional points are worth mentioning. First, given the lack of archeological support, what "proof" do Mormons generally offer for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?
I can remember very clearly an encounter I had with a Mormon missionary a few years back. After confronting him with the information in the above article, he shrugged it off by declaring, "The only way to know if something is true is by praying about it. God will then bear witness with your spirit that it is true." He then cited James 1:5 in the Bible and Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon to support this notion.
I pointed out to him, however, that the context of James 1:5 is one of praying for God to give us "wisdom" to endure persecution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with praying about a book to find if it is from God.
I then showed him Acts 17:11. It does give us direction in how to determine if a new, supposed revelation is really from God: "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." So consistency with prior revelation is the test cited. No mention is made of praying about it.
As for the Moroni passage, all I had to say was, one would have to first believe what the Book of Mormon says in order to believe this passage and find out if the Book of Mormon is true. That would be circular reasoning.
I also asked him if you used this same method in determining the truth of other matters. "Does two plus two equal four? - I?ll pray about it and get back to you." It was about this time that he politely excused himself.
Lastly, what if someone were to somehow become convinced that the Book of Mormon were true? The person most likely would want to join a group that also believed in the Book of Mormon. But what group would the person then join?
When most people think of the Book Mormon, they associate it with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints based in Salt Lake City, Utah.
However, there are other groups that also profess a belief in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon: the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ based in Independence, MO; the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) also based in Independence, MI; the Stangites, founded by James J. Strang; the New Organization; the Bickerites, along with many other such groups. It was this proliferation of such groups that first caused James R. Spencer to question his involvement with the Utah based-group.
He writes:
Gradually it began to dawn on my that all four points of a typical Mormon testimony could be recited by any one of these groups. All believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God, that they belonged to the Restored Church, and that a prophet was the head of the Church today (Beyond Mormonism. Chosen Books, pp. 85-87).

These groups can be distinguished by looking at their teachings that come from outside the Book of Mormon. Now on this site, I have only addressed the Utah based group. And it is mainly due to the contradictions between the teaching?s of this group?s "prophets and apostles" and the Bible that I personally would not consider joining this group. See Mormonism vs. the Bible (http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/mormonism.htm).

POSTSCRIPT
The October 13, 1997 issue of US News and World Report contains an article titled, "No new hoax under the sun" (p.9). The article discusses literally hoaxes; specifically, claims to find and translate ancient manuscripts that never actually existed.
The article states:
The first known literary hoaxes were perpetrated upon the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, who created a huge market for fakes by offering hefty sums for ancient Greek manuscripts. In the centuries since, the craft has settled into well-established conventions. The story of a rare manuscript discovered in unusual circumstances and translated under terms of strict secrecy is a particularly clever angle, for it avoids the hard work of ginning up an actual forgery of the original document that can stand up to direct scrutiny.

This "story" should sound familiar to anyone familiar with the background to the "coming forth" of Book of Mormon.
The links below are direct links to where the book can be purchased from Books-A-Million (http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-32499)http://www.qksrv.net/image-710296-32499.
Bibliography:Keller, Werner. The Bible as History (http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-42121?isbn=0553279432)http://www.qksrv.net/image-710296-42121. New York: Bantam Books, 1980.
McElveen, Floyd. The Mormon Illusion (http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-42121?isbn=0825431921)http://www.qksrv.net/image-710296-42121. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1985.
Talmage, James. The Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1968.
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra. Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?. Salt Lake City: Lighthouse Ministry, 1987.
All Scripture references from: New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.
Another good book on the history, beliefs, and practices of Mormonism is Behind the Mask of Mormonism (http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-42121?isbn=1565074432)http://www.qksrv.net/image-710296-42121 by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.
The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon. Copyright ? 1999 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org (http://www.lbpcentral.com/index.html)).

The Bible has more historical evidence than the book of Mormon...

2012-10-23 23:15:00

Author:
unc92sax

Posts: 928

Can we not have threads like this? I'm not trying to be rude, but it may lead to an opinion war.

2012-10-24 01:23:00

Author:
Apple2012

Posts: 1408

I enjoy having civilized debates. That is why I create these threads. I like to see other peoples' opinions on important subjects.

2012-10-24 01:29:00

Author:
unc92sax

Posts: 928

Depends on how wonkey the table that needs propping up is.

2012-10-24 01:30:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

I enjoy having civilized debates. That is why I create these threads. I like to see other peoples' opinions on important subjects.

I do too, but I chose to stop. They don't want me to talk about "serious stuff" anymore, including what I see from LBP2.

2012-10-24 01:30:00

Author:
Apple2012

Posts: 1408

Let's see, the writings of a 19th century con man against those of superstitious Iron Age sheep herders.

The Bible's more reliable than the Book of Mormon but that isn't saying much. Some bits in the Bible probably have some truth to it, while other bits are just as insane as Joseph Smith's lies.

2012-10-24 05:26:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Can we not have threads like this? I'm not trying to be rude, but it may lead to an opinion war.
I enjoy having civilized debates. That is why I create these threads. I like to see other peoples' opinions on important subjects.Threads like this are fine, as long as they don't turn ugly. And yes, I'm keeping a very close eye on this one.

2012-10-24 05:44:00

Author:
Taffey

Posts: 3187

neither are really true or false as no one has ever known if either are complete lies. It really depends on the source of the religion.

2012-10-24 08:02:00

Author:
butter-kicker

Posts: 1061

Why are we comparing two religious works based on historical accuracy? Isn't that counterintuitive?

2012-10-24 22:32:00

Author:
Kalawishis

Posts: 928

The Bible was before the Book of Mormon. Therefore, since the Bible dates more closely to the actual occurrence of Jesus Christ (though the Bible still dates more than four centuries after Jesus' life), whereas the Church of Christ (Mormon sect) was established in 1829 (a bigger gap in time leaves more possibility for inaccuracy), I tend to believe the book that has been around longer; if it was a bad book, it'd be gone by now.

But that's all I'll say on the subject. If anyone wants to argue or challenge the fact with me, send a PM. I WILL get ugly.

2012-10-25 07:32:00

Author:
Outlaw-Jack

Posts: 5757

2012-10-26 00:39:00

Author:
unc92sax

Posts: 928

Religious texts can be interesting study since they say a lot about the culture that follows them. Since the Judeo-Christian religions in particular are a much more history-based religion, the truth of that history is an inevitable conversation. Since Mormonism falls under that group, it makes it especially interesting to me that it follows a version of history that makes historians and archeologists go: "wat?".

HOWEVER, the question that I would be interested in having answered is this: How much of that does the mainstream modern Mormon actually believe? Sure there are no doubt pockets of more extreme believers who believe it whole-heartedly, but what about the average Mormon, and beyond that the modern churches official stances?

Also, unc92sax: If the last topic you started here is a good indicator, perhaps the problem is that you don't seem to be very skilled at asking a discussion question in a neutral, non-offensive way?

Take this topic: You open with "Which one of these two religious books that millions of people follow and believe is the more reliable?" Sure, we've narrowed it down to purely historical accuracy, but can you see how that's maybe not the best way to form the question? And yes I'm aware I paraphrased, but I did so for a reason that I hope is clear.

2012-10-26 00:47:00

Author:
Patronus21

Posts: 266

A professor named Matheny had been working in the area of Mesoamerican archeology for 25 and came to the conclusion that the scientific evidence simply does not support the existence of the peoples and events chronicled in the Book of Mormon, be it in Central America or anywhere else in the western hemisphere. He described the Book of Mormon as filled with things that are out of place historically and culturally. It introduces Old World cultural achievements into the pre-Columbian Americas, though the archaeological evidence shows no such levels of culture were attained during this period.

Even though I believe in word of God is entirely man-made, I'd say the Bible is more reliable in terms of the archeological aspect.

2012-11-01 23:57:00

Author:
VenemoX

Posts: 197

I agree with Coot. Just how wobbley is this table?

2012-11-02 00:49:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends.

Religion was created to prevent people from doing evil, by giving them commandments and teaching them how to live. That's the main reason why religions exist. People don't have to believe in all these stories like the Banishment from Paradise as long as they are living in peace.

2012-11-02 11:14:00

Author:
Schark94

Posts: 3378

2012-11-02 11:19:00

Author:
ARD

Posts: 4291

Religion was created to prevent people from doing evil, by giving them commandments and teaching them how to live. That's the main reason why religions exist. People don't have to believe in all these stories like the Banishment form Paradise as long as they are living in peace.
Indeed. My only problem with religion isn't religion itself, but fanaticism. People who can't accept that there are other beliefs in the world and think theirs is the only true one and should reign supreme over the entire Earth.

If a religion preaches that something is wrong, you have the right to stop yourself from doing it, but that doesn't give you the right to interfere with other people's decisions. Everyone should be allowed to follow and leave a religion at any time.

2012-11-02 12:35:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

I've already posted my views about religion in your other thread, and personally, I don't think "reliable" is a word that could be used to describe religious texts to any degree.
If I recall correctly about the mormons, Joseph Smith dictated the writing of the book of mormon from behind a curtain, reading from alleged golden plates no one else was ever allowed to see. That doesn't scream reliability to me.

Though I've already posted my views on the subject here, it's clear to point out that the Bible is also not entirely reliable. There were over 400 different religious texts written for the Bible and only 73 were included in the finalized form (at least the Catholic one). Every day, historians and archaeologists discover new, lost texts that give contrasting views to what's been established in the main book, and some are quite shocking (like the Book of Judas and the Gospel of Truth). Texts rejected by a select group of priests and scribes who existed more than 400 years after the events of Jesus Christ.

2012-11-03 18:08:00

Author:
Outlaw-Jack

Posts: 5757

Though I've already posted my views on the subject here, it's clear to point out that the Bible is also not entirely reliable. There were over 400 different religious texts written for the Bible and only 73 were included in the finalized form (at least the Catholic one). Every day, historians and archaeologists discover new, lost texts that give contrasting views to what's been established in the main book, and some are quite shocking (like the Book of Judas and the Gospel of Truth). Texts rejected by a select group of priests and scribes who existed more than 400 years after the events of Jesus Christ.

....well yeah. The whole point of the filtering was to finally unify the faith rather than having a bunch of books floating around that may or may not actually have any authority behind them or flat out contradict what the core of the Way believed. A good example is the Gnostic texts which saw earthly matter as inherently evil and Jesus as completely divine, while Christianity was trying to say that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. That's why the discovery of new books doesn't exactly tend to rock the foundation of the faith these days. They're just alternate viewpoints that were decided to have not adhered to church doctrine. These days that just creates a new denomination.

2012-11-03 18:43:00

Author:
Patronus21

Posts: 266

What if I'm atheist? Lol!!!

2012-11-21 02:38:00

Author:
Mdoodle22

Posts: 95

What if I'm atheist? Lol!!!

Revival of a dead thread... Oh joy...

2012-11-21 03:35:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

What if I'm atheist? Lol!!!

Well you could view the two in an open mind and see which one is more reliable.

I personally can't say either are more reliable than the other, their claims are just too wild, too many flaws poison the entire credibility of the books. Are both of them reliable at all? I'd say they have no reliability of which to judge it.

2012-11-21 08:51:00

Author:
PPp_Killer

Posts: 449

LBPCentral Archive Statistics

Posts: 1077139 Threads: 69970 Members: 9661 Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.