Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christ in Ancient Americas - A Compelling Evidence of the BOM's Authenticity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    He's been on several times since the response went up, and has posted in defense of his honor elsewhere. Apparently he's still working on a response here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Thanks for saving me a bit of work Dante.
    That was an epic "drop the mic" moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    The Natural and Moral History of the Indies, the classic work of New World history originally published by José de Acosta in 1590

    The published story of Viracocha long pre-dates the BOM.
    and it makes quite an interesting read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think he tried to cover that by claiming that this 'white man' then "walked North": "They say that this man went on towards the north, working these marvels along the way of the mountains; and that he never more returned so as to be seen".



    I always get confused as to which ones were white and which ones were, as Brigham Young* put it, "black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind". It's encouraging to know, however, that they have the potential to become "a white and delightsome people".

    I can certainly understand why TRB is trying so strenuously to confine us to his talking points.




    *Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110. / Journal of Discourses 7:290-91 (October 9, 1859). source
    Well he was claiming that the event was the same as in the BoM. And that was to the Nephites, the good, white and delightsome folk. So somehow he is claiming the Incas were the Nephites, but the Incas weren't white. And if they used to be white before they fell and became dark skinned then why would they bother mentioning that the man who appeared to them was white? It would have been totally normal and nothing to mention. And I think the Nephites were supposed to be in North and Central America, the Promised Land. So that means that the Incas could not have been the Nephites and it could not have been the same event as in the BoM.

    Book_of_Mormon_Lands_and_Sites2.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    ... Not to mention, the Book of Mormon was supposed to have happened in north and central America, not south.
    I think he tried to cover that by claiming that this 'white man' then "walked North": "They say that this man went on towards the north, working these marvels along the way of the mountains; and that he never more returned so as to be seen".

    Plus, the Nephites were white so why would they even notice a white man among them like you mention above as special enough to call out the color of his skin?
    I always get confused as to which ones were white and which ones were, as Brigham Young* put it, "black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind". It's encouraging to know, however, that they have the potential to become "a white and delightsome people".

    I can certainly understand why TRB is trying so strenuously to confine us to his talking points.




    *Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110. / Journal of Discourses 7:290-91 (October 9, 1859). source

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Thanks for saving me a bit of work Dante.
    He dun good!!!! I was in the process of running some of that stuff down, but Dante pretty much shucked the corn all by his own little self!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Thanks for saving me a bit of work Dante.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dante
    replied
    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    The Book of Mormon has always been a stumbling block for many evangelical Christians. Many attempts have given over to some interesting theories of how this text came about. One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.
    False. One of the main criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the extensive amount of egregious errors found in the Book of Mormon.
    https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/...-of-Mormon.pdf

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    However, what if there existed an actual historical recording of the most singular and significant event that brings forth a close to the criticism? Not only a recording that lends credibility to this magnificent event, it correlates geographically to a specific place.
    No such historical record exists.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Account in The Second part of the Chronicle of Peru

    Account recorded in 3 Nephi 8 - 11
    A solar eclipse followed by repentance isn't a unique event at all. It has happened during the Eclipse of Thales, where a battle was stopped because the soldiers perceived it to be the wrath of the gods against them, and so they made peace. Furthermore, the duration of the darkness wasn't even specified by the Peruvians; it could be less than a day for all it matters, since an eclipse lasting more than 7 minutes is already highly unusual even for modern times.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Account in The Second part of the Chronicle of Peru

    Book of Mormon - 3 Nephi 9 - 11 (contextually), focus on 3 Nephi 11:8-15
    The parts that you bolded are not reflected in the Chronicle of Peru. One would think that if Christ had indeed appeared to them, they would not have had human sacrifices.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Image result for Lake Titicaca. This lake is the largest fresh water lake that borders on Peru and Bolivia.

    And, Isla del Sol is said, by Inca legends and mythology, to be the birthplace of the Sun. What we notice in Pedro de Ceza de Leon's historical account is that the Indians describe the coming of a man with great power. His brightness caused the darkness to disappear - as in how the Sun rises.
    The Peruvian account has them saying that the white man came after the sun had appeared, not that the white man caused the eclipse to go away.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Now, we know that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the west. The account here signifies that this man came from a Southern direction, from the Island of Titicaca.
    Per the Peruvian account, the white man has nothing to do with the rising of the sun. Plus, the account in the Book of Mormon has "Christ" descending from heaven, and not the south.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account is not as in depth as what the account in 3 Nephi describes.
    Because his account has absolutely nothing to do with the fictional account in the Book of Mormon.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    What is worthy to note here, as well, is the description in 3 Nephi 11 that those who remained were gathered in the "land bountiful".
    I don't see what's of worth to note about this description, since it has nothing to do with the Peruvians.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    These inhabitants witnessed the coming of Christ.
    Far from it. Here's what Pedro de Cieza de Leon said with regards to them:
    Source: The second part of the Chronicle of Peru, Chapter V

    When I passed through this province, I went to see the idol, for the Spaniards affirm that it may have been some apostle. I heard many declare that it had legends written{8} on its hands. But this is nonsense, unless my eyes were blinded, for although I looked closely I could not see anything of the kind. The hands were placed over the haunches, the arms twisted, and on the girdle were indications that the vestments were fastened with buttons. Whether this or any other was intended for one of the glorious apostles who, in the days of his preaching, had passed this way, God Almighty knows. I know not, and can only believe that if he was an apostle, he would work with the power of God in his preaching to these people, who are simple and with little guile; and there would be some vestige of his visit. Yet what we see and understand is that the Devil had very great power over these people, God permitting it, and that in these places very heathenish and vain sacrifices were offered up. Hence I believe that, until our times, the word of the Holy Gospel was not heard. Now we see all the temples profaned, and the glorious Cross planted in all directions.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Parallel this event with the recording of Pedro de Ceza de Leon, we notice there is striking similarities between the two accounts. These similarities are not contradictory. If anything, Pedro de Ceza de Leon's account is more of what we may consider a summation of what 3 Nephi 11 describes.
    The similarities are only very superficial and they do not possess the same details at all.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    However, comparing these two accounts, we see that Pedro de Cieza de Leon is being told of a significant event that happened long before the Inca's came into power in that region of Peru.
    The first line of Chapter V of the Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru literally begins with the line "BEFORE the Incas reigned in these kingdoms, or had ever been heard of, the Indians relate another thing much more notable than all things else that they say." We don't need to compare the two accounts to know this since it's stated explicitly in the source material.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Here is the parallel to both accounts:
    • Both accounts describe darkness being over the land for a significant period of time
    • Both accounts describe the inhabitants of the land in mourning, distress, and groaning, praying, and seeking God
    • Both accounts describe that the darkness is gone and the inhabitants witness a bright light and a man coming toward them
    • Both accounts describe this man having power and authority to cause mountains to flatten and other creative powers
    • Both accounts describe that this man taught them certain teachings and healed as well as other miracles
    Here is where the two accounts differ:
    • No amount of time specified in the Peruvian account with regards to how long the darkness lasted, in contrast to the account in the Book of Mormon that specified it to be three days, accompanied by many other fantastic events that, if true, would have been noted by the Peruvians as well.
    • The Peruvians weren't seeking God; the account says "great prayers and vows were offered up to their gods" meaning that they were still pagan, as can be understood if only you read the rest of the account.
    • The Peruvian account does not mention anything about a bright light, and in fact mentions that the man appeared from the south, in contrast to the Mormon account that "Christ" descended from heaven.
    • The Mormon account does not contain any such description of having power and authority to cause mountains to flatten. In fact, the accounts are contradictory in that the Peruvians said that the white man who appeared performed those great feats after he appeared to them, in contrast to all the death and destruction that supposedly transpired in the three hours during the three days of darkness in the Mormon account.
    • Both accounts differ on what has been taught them by the man who appeared to them.


    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    The evidence is beyond mere circumstances and does not appear to be sharing two different events.
    The evidence proves that the two accounts are irreconciliable.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    In fact, when you read Pedro de Cieza de Leon's, the story the Inca's told of another great "apostle" like man coming to the inhabitants. There does not seem to be a time line in, the Chronicler's account. However, we read further beyond Third Nephi that about 200 years passed when men came to the people and were taken captive by them.
    And what similarities are there between the account of the Peruvians and the account in Third Nephi with regards to those who came later? I would wager, absolutely none.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Image result for Lake Titicaca

    This information is important because if the Book of Mormon truly is a fraud, how does it come to describe, in perfect detail, a historical event that is also recorded in another source?
    It doesn't. Hence, it truly is a fraud.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Furthermore, how would Joseph Smith, or any other person (if he borrowed this from the Spaulding or View of the Hebrews manuscript) know about this single most important event when the Second part of the Chronicle of Peru was not translated and published until 1883 by the Haklyut Society? This is 53 years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
    Just because it was yet to be fully translated during his time doesn't mean he couldn't have heard of the parts that were translated from someone who is familiar with the source. Furthermore, as we have seen, the two accounts contain significant differences, such that the similarities are insignificant.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    The Book of Mormon is claimed to be another testament of Jesus Christ. It substantiates the notion that this text is more sacred and authentic than modern Evangelical Critics claim. Whatever their claims against this set of scripture, many are unable to provide an adequate rebuttal to the evidence presented here.
    Except I just did.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    I have asked many Christian Pastors, Evangelical Christians, and Critics of Mormonism, and others, who lay claim that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon - as to how such a momentous event not only shows proof that Jesus Christ did visit the inhabitants of the ancient America's - has a recorded historic account that mirrors and summarizes the actual event itself in 3 Nephi.
    Reading the full text of the Chronicle of Peru, you would know that this is absolutely not the case.

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    This challenge has been given to many people in the past 15 years since I have initially discovered the account written by Pedro de Cieza de Leon.
    Did you even read the whole account by Pedro de Cieza de Leon? Quite obviously not. Here you go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    From what I can tell of the Chronicles of Peru, they were written by a conquistador in the 1500's. Assuming your translation above it correct (you give no link to the translated materials or reference to the book, chapter, etc) why should we believe anything it says about the Incas or about their history? Not to mention, the Book of Mormon was supposed to have happened in north and central America, not south. Plus, the Nephites were white so why would they even notice a white man among them like you mention above as special enough to call out the color of his skin?

    Joseph Smiith liked to take events in the bible and exaggerate them. When Jesus died on the cross the bible says there was 3 hours of darkness, so Smith writes of an event with 3 DAYS of darkness. Gotta impress the yokels right?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Actually, you'd need to back up and start with the author. The fact that he was a man of incredibly questionable character is the first problem. The "gold plates"? Who else saw them? How they were supposedly transcribed? Where are they now?



    Many attempts have been made to try to explain how Joseph Smith came up with it in the first place.



    Naw, I disagree. None of that matters if Joseph Smith was a fraud.
    Then there is the matter of the complete lack of DNA evidence that the indigenous people of the Americas came from the Middle East. The recent excuse that they have been diluted by mixing with other Native Americans doesn't hold water not just because the Book of Mormon doesn't have any clear reference to other groups of people existing in the Americas that would account for this dilution but because we can still pick up genetic markers from Neanderthals in certain populations which were most definitely "diluted."

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    I never said that lacking archaeological evidences is the main objection against the Book of Mormon. I stated clearly that one of the objections to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the lacking of archaeological evidence.
    You're getting kinda slippery here, Timothy. That is NOT what you said. What you said was....

    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.
    You're kinda trying to backtrack on what you claimed. You went from claiming it's "one of the main criticism" to "one of the objections".

    That's disappointing.

    Hey, if you want to set up a formal debate, as I said, we have a venue for that called "The Arena".

    Maybe you can find somebody to play your games there!
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-18-2019, 11:26 PM. Reason: The Arena link wasn't working

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Then you are not willing to engage in a rational discussion on this because of biased and presumptious opinion.
    Calm yourself, TRB, this is a discussion board, not a court of law, and you're not Clarence Seward Darrow.

    We DO have a formal debate area where can lay out the terms of discussion, but that's not how it works here. You seem to want to blog, and you actually do a better job of laying out your case - such as it is - on your blog.

    This tells me any additional discussions you attempt to engage me with will not be answered as I will not be obligated to engage in any further discussion with you on this or any other topic.
    I'm not going to accept a false premise, then get dragged into the weeds, no.

    This is based on the evidence you are not willing to produce any evidence contrary to what I presented and are unwilling to abide by proper rules of rational discussion.
    Just remember - this is not your blog. You're free to express your opinions within the rules of the forum, and I'm free to reject your false prophet and his false testimony.

    Have a good day.
    365 days a year! It's all about Jesus!

    Leave a comment:


  • TimothyRB
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I am under no obligation to accept your premise, knowing what I know of Joseph Smith and his life of deception and fraud. You seem to believe that a main objection to the Book of Mormon is "that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text".

    I have never heard a single person use that as the reason they reject the Book of Mormon. So all your "evidence" is useless. You're trying to answer a question that's not being asked.
    There are many objections to the Book of Mormon and it's authenticity. I never said that lacking archaeological evidences is the main objection against the Book of Mormon. I stated clearly that one of the objections to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the lacking of archaeological evidence. So, that is where I am starting to establish my argument as to whether or not there is sufficient archaeological evidence to show forth that lends credibility to the authenticity to the claims of the Book of Mormon being of an ancient record.

    Now, since you are not willing to engage in a rational discussion on this because of biased and presumptious opinion. This tells me any additional discussions you attempt to engage me with will not be answered as I will not be obligated to engage in any further discussion with you on this or any other topic.

    This is based on the evidence you are not willing to produce any evidence contrary to what I presented and are unwilling to abide by proper rules of rational discussion. Have a good day.
    Last edited by TimothyRB; 02-18-2019, 10:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
    Your first mistake is not dealing with the original argument, and evidence, I am presenting.
    I am under no obligation to accept your premise, knowing what I know of Joseph Smith and his life of deception and fraud. You seem to believe that a main objection to the Book of Mormon is "that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text".

    I have never heard a single person use that as the reason they reject the Book of Mormon. So all your "evidence" is useless. You're trying to answer a question that's not being asked.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X