[002]
71.195.233.66
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Frankly, I don\'t think there are any dis-interested groups who directly address the claims made in the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of the Native Americans - it\'s all either pro- or anti-Mormon, but I think the link I posted above, despite being pro- is worth a look. If there are obvious scientific errors in what it says then I don\'t see them. It boils down to \
to:
Frankly, I don\\\'t think there are any dis-interested groups who directly address the claims made in the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of the Native Americans - it\\\'s all either pro- or anti-Mormon, but I think the link I posted above, despite being pro- is worth a look. If there are obvious scientific errors in what it says then I don\\\'t see them. It boils down to \\\"here are some reasons why genetic studies probably won\\\'t be able to either confirm or deny the Book of Mormon,\\\" and it is written largely by real geneticists (with footnotes).
I added a bit on the \\\"Discussion\\\" page of the \\\"Analysis\\\" page about the phrase \\\"and it came to pass\\\" and how that is in fact evidence for the book being a translation of an ancient Hebrew text, not evidence against it. I wondered if I had put it in too obscure a spot to be noticed.
Other problems with the list:
There definitely is archaeological evidence of \\\"great agricultural civilisation(s)\\\" in Meso-America in the time period described by the Book of Mormon - the Mayan pre-classical period.
The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were, indeed, \\\"believers\\\" when they saw the golden plates (displayed to them by an angel, in fact), but all three left the LDS Church afterwards, and several of them were highly critical of Joseph Smith. Despite having become non-believers they never recanted their testamony of having seen the plates.
Mormons do not believe the book was \\\"perfectly translated\\\". They believe it was translated with divine aid, yes, but the introduction to the book is perfectly willing to admit that there may be errors found in the text, and it is widely known (among Mormons, at least) that Joseph Smith made corrections to the first edition text in subsequent editions.
You are correct that there is little archaeological evidence for some old-world animals or plants in the Americas pre-Columbus, such as wheat, goats, sheep, horses, elephants, and cattle.
A counter point might be that there is very little archaeolgical evidence for Norse colonies in America pre-Columbus (amounting to one discovered site at present), and there is no evidence of european animals like chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats that they almost certainly brought with them, and that would be almost 600 years after the Book of Mormon\\\'s last mention of horses (2,000+ years after the last mention of elephants).
I added a bit on the \\\"Discussion\\\" page of the \\\"Analysis\\\" page about the phrase \\\"and it came to pass\\\" and how that is in fact evidence for the book being a translation of an ancient Hebrew text, not evidence against it. I wondered if I had put it in too obscure a spot to be noticed.
Other problems with the list:
There definitely is archaeological evidence of \\\"great agricultural civilisation(s)\\\" in Meso-America in the time period described by the Book of Mormon - the Mayan pre-classical period.
The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were, indeed, \\\"believers\\\" when they saw the golden plates (displayed to them by an angel, in fact), but all three left the LDS Church afterwards, and several of them were highly critical of Joseph Smith. Despite having become non-believers they never recanted their testamony of having seen the plates.
Mormons do not believe the book was \\\"perfectly translated\\\". They believe it was translated with divine aid, yes, but the introduction to the book is perfectly willing to admit that there may be errors found in the text, and it is widely known (among Mormons, at least) that Joseph Smith made corrections to the first edition text in subsequent editions.
You are correct that there is little archaeological evidence for some old-world animals or plants in the Americas pre-Columbus, such as wheat, goats, sheep, horses, elephants, and cattle.
A counter point might be that there is very little archaeolgical evidence for Norse colonies in America pre-Columbus (amounting to one discovered site at present), and there is no evidence of european animals like chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats that they almost certainly brought with them, and that would be almost 600 years after the Book of Mormon\\\'s last mention of horses (2,000+ years after the last mention of elephants).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Frankly, I don\'t think there are any dis-interested groups who directly address the claims made in the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of the Native Americans - it\'s all either pro- or anti-Mormon, but I think the link I posted above, despite being pro- is worth a look. If there are obvious scientific errors in what it says then I don\'t see them. It boils down to \
to:
Frankly, I don\\\'t think there are any dis-interested groups who directly address the claims made in the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of the Native Americans - it\\\'s all either pro- or anti-Mormon, but I think the link I posted above, despite being pro- is worth a look. If there are obvious scientific errors in what it says then I don\\\'t see them. It boils down to \\\"here are some reasons why genetic studies probably won\\\'t be able to either confirm or deny the Book of Mormon,\\\" and it is written largely by real geneticists (with footnotes).
I added a bit on the \\\"Discussion\\\" page of the \\\"Analysis\\\" page about the phrase \\\"and it came to pass\\\" and how that is in fact evidence for the book being a translation of an ancient Hebrew text, not evidence against it. I wondered if I had put it in too obscure a spot to be noticed.
Other problems with the list:
There definitely is archaeological evidence of \\\"great agricultural civilisation(s)\\\" in Meso-America in the time period described by the Book of Mormon - the Mayan pre-classical period.
The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were, indeed, \\\"believers\\\" when they saw the golden plates (displayed to them by an angel, in fact), but all three left the LDS Church afterwards, and several of them were highly critical of Joseph Smith. Despite having become non-believers they never recanted their testamony of having seen the plates.
Mormons do not believe the book was \\\"perfectly translated\\\". They believe it was translated with divine aid, yes, but the introduction to the book is perfectly willing to admit that there may be errors found in the text, and it is widely known (among Mormons, at least) that Joseph Smith made corrections to the first edition text in subsequent editions.
You are correct that there is little archaeological evidence for some old-world animals or plants in the Americas pre-Columbus, but wheat, goats, and sheep are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Horses, elephants, and cattle are.
A counter point might be that there is very little archaeolgical evidence for Norse colonies in America pre-Columbus (amounting to one discovered site at present), and there is no evidence of european animals like chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats that they almost certainly brought with them, and that would be almost 600 years after the Book of Mormon\\\'s last mention of horses (2,000+ years after the last mention of elephants).
I added a bit on the \\\"Discussion\\\" page of the \\\"Analysis\\\" page about the phrase \\\"and it came to pass\\\" and how that is in fact evidence for the book being a translation of an ancient Hebrew text, not evidence against it. I wondered if I had put it in too obscure a spot to be noticed.
Other problems with the list:
There definitely is archaeological evidence of \\\"great agricultural civilisation(s)\\\" in Meso-America in the time period described by the Book of Mormon - the Mayan pre-classical period.
The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were, indeed, \\\"believers\\\" when they saw the golden plates (displayed to them by an angel, in fact), but all three left the LDS Church afterwards, and several of them were highly critical of Joseph Smith. Despite having become non-believers they never recanted their testamony of having seen the plates.
Mormons do not believe the book was \\\"perfectly translated\\\". They believe it was translated with divine aid, yes, but the introduction to the book is perfectly willing to admit that there may be errors found in the text, and it is widely known (among Mormons, at least) that Joseph Smith made corrections to the first edition text in subsequent editions.
You are correct that there is little archaeological evidence for some old-world animals or plants in the Americas pre-Columbus, but wheat, goats, and sheep are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Horses, elephants, and cattle are.
A counter point might be that there is very little archaeolgical evidence for Norse colonies in America pre-Columbus (amounting to one discovered site at present), and there is no evidence of european animals like chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats that they almost certainly brought with them, and that would be almost 600 years after the Book of Mormon\\\'s last mention of horses (2,000+ years after the last mention of elephants).
