Noah, Joseph Smith, and where does one draw the line in archaeology

[technomage]

I'm just wondering, does the historical inaccuracy of the BOM refute Mormonism?in my opinion it does if the civilizations it described and the people it describeds never existed why should we believe the religion based on those assertions?


theres criticism against every viewpoint ever established in the history of humanity doesnt mean its actually good criticism or relevant. The criticism against mormonism is sufficient to prove within 99%+ probability that mormonism is false and joseph smith was a false prophet. It only takes one failed prophecy to prove you are a false prophet and joseph smith has given more then one failed prophecy

The two quotes above represent a claim that I have heard many Christians claim--it is a claim that I happen to agree with, in the case of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. However:


I dunno Justin, with all of the related flood stories from other civilizations, it lends a bit more plausibility to the story of at least a regional flood, wouldn't you say?

This comment by Bill, and Mortis's second comment above, seems to indicate that they feel the same conditions do not apply to certain portions of the Bible.

I would like to establish this thread, not as a debate, but as a discussion of Biblical archaeology as a discipline, and to discuss the current state of the discipline. However, I request the following conditions of anyone wishing to engage in the discussion:

1: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE. I am willing to listen, to re-evaluate my position, and to keep an open mind about information that others present here. All participants are requested to do the same.
2: THIS IS NOT A FLAME WAR. I will maintain respect and courtesy to all participants in this thread, and require that all participants do so as well.

I am requesting the first condition as a courtesy to all involved, but the second condition is a requirement. Posts violating standards of courtesy and respect will be reported to the moderation staff for evaluation and possible removal.

All are welcome. Shall we begin?

[technomage]

No takers? ApPhoenix? Bill? Mortis? It seems I remember some very assured claims coming on this issue: is no one willing to defend those claims?

[oxmixmudd]

The two quotes above represent a claim that I have heard many Christians claim--it is a claim that I happen to agree with, in the case of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. However:



This comment by Bill, and Mortis's second comment above, seems to indicate that they feel the same conditions do not apply to certain portions of the Bible.

I would like to establish this thread, not as a debate, but as a discussion of Biblical archaeology as a discipline, and to discuss the current state of the discipline. However, I request the following conditions of anyone wishing to engage in the discussion:

1: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE. I am willing to listen, to re-evaluate my position, and to keep an open mind about information that others present here. All participants are requested to do the same.
2: THIS IS NOT A FLAME WAR. I will maintain respect and courtesy to all participants in this thread, and require that all participants do so as well.

I am requesting the first condition as a courtesy to all involved, but the second condition is a requirement. Posts violating standards of courtesy and respect will be reported to the moderation staff for evaluation and possible removal.

All are welcome. Shall we begin?

I would say that the flood story is first of all not a prophecy. It contains a prophetic warning of a coming flood, but in the story it comes true. So we don't judge it according to the standard of prohecy. So once again, it is more 'what is this text telling us' and 'what genre of literature is it' and then evaluating its accuracy based on that. If it is a parable or myth, it need have no physical reality, it is the message which is the 'truth' of the text (as in a Parable like Jesus told). If it is history told phenominally, that is, from the perspective and knowledge of the writer (all that he knew was wiped out), then it IS accurate within that context. Only if we can reasonably expect that it is supposed to be literal history where the staements within regarding the scope of the flood are divine revelation (the writer would have no way of naturally knowing the true extent of the flood) does it fail the Biblical test of truth and inerrancy - unless someone can do what has not yet been done, find actual evidence for a global flood that can stand examination and explain the librariesof evidence against the same.



Jim

[technomage]

I would say that the flood story is first of all not a prophecy. It contains a prophetic warning of a coming flood, but in the story it comes true.

It certainly is not a prediction of coming events (except within the narrative), I will agree. One could quibble about the broader meaning of prophecy ("Speaking for God," not necessarily about future events), but such quibbles will probably not be fruitful.


So once again, it is more 'what is this text telling us' and 'what genre of literature is it' and then evaluating its accuracy based on that. If it is a parable or myth, it need have no physical reality, it is the message which is the 'truth' of the text (as in a Parable like Jesus told). If it is history told phenominally, that is, from the perspective and knowledge of the writer (all that he knew was wiped out), then it IS accurate within that context.

On this we are agreed, but my argument is not with those who hold the narrative as literal history as provided by an omniscient narrator. Such a situation is contrary to the evidence.