Friday, June 06, 2008

The Bible Vs. The Book of Mormon



Here is a thought provoking documentary on the similarities and differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It is a long program, but well worth the watch.

It brings out these important points:

  • There is no archaeological evidence to support the location of any city named in the Americas listed in the BoM.
  • There are no pottery or pottery shards to show evidence of any of the tribes named in the BoM.
  • There are no independent historical evidences by surrounding civilizations that any of the tribes listed in the BoM ever existed.
  • There have been no coins found from any civilization listed in the BoM.
  • There are no evidences of any of the great battles fought in BoM.
  • There are a few historical mistakes listed: horses did not exist in the Americas until westerners brought them from Europe; metallurgy did not exist in the Americas until Europeans brought it; machinery did not exist in the Americas until Europeans brought it; wheat and barley did not exist in the Americas until Europeans brought them; elephants did not exist in the Americas a the time of the civilizations in the BoM.
  • The BoM says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.
  • The BoM says that Lehi and his sons, being Jewish, built a new Jewish Temple in the Americas. This could not be so, as they, being Jewish, knew that the only true temple could be in Jerusalem. There is no evidence that this temple ever existed in the Americas.
There are many other things for consideration as well.

2 comments:

Zelph said...

I have seen this video and feel that there are many things that it lacks.

What is problematic is that it tries to paint a picture that the Bible can be trusted as the word of God because there is archaeological evidence to support the Bible, whereas there is no evidence to support any of the locations of the Book of Mormon.

However, the problem is that archeology doesn't prove any of the stories from the Bible, it just give evidence for the SETTING of the Bible.

There is no archaeological evidence to support the stories in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. For example, why aren't there any chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea? There is no evidence that a global flood ever occurred. Archeology proves that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, not 6,000 as the Bible says.

Just because a setting for a book is based on a real place in time does not make the story a true story.

London is a real place, but that doesn't mean that the Harry Potter stories are true.

Although, I agree with the video that there is no archaeological evidence to support any of the locations from the Book of Mormon. The stories in the Book of Mormon are completely made up and aren't even based on real places. At least all the made up stories in the Bible are based on real places.

Final point is that even if a history can be backed up by archeology, it still doesn't mean it is from God. There is archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was a real person that existed.

Rick said...

Zelph,
You make some very good points! I think the whole point was to show that AT THE VERY LEAST, there is evidence to support the locations in the Bible, but none whatsoever to support the Book of Mormon. I think it is to point out that the Book of Mormon is not reliable simply based on that fact.

I have visited your blog and can only imagine the journey you are on. May God bless you as you seek Him.