The horse, domesticated animals and tilling the ground

[_MCB]

I have found plenty of evidence that the Book of Mormon was cobbled together from multiple sources available in 1829. I have found that Mormonism is in apostasy from the best of the Book of Mormon.

Camels are just a sneeze.

It is the gestalt that counts. Not sneezes. Gezundheit!!!!!

[Guest]

...

[_MCB]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=377

How come they wont excavate the hill cumorah?

They won't because local farmers have never found any exceptional number of artifacts in the area. Therefore, nothing is there. And that is a Maxwell Institute article. Somehow, that doesn't shake the faith of people who believe that the Book of Mormon is literal truth.

[_Themis]

You are just asserting the opposite. Your statements confirm what I've said and that is ironic, but does not disprove what I've stated in the least. The simple fact is you have arrived at a foregone conclusion - all evidence to the contrary be damned.

I am at least trying to be honest and explain the issue here. You and subby for some reason seem incapable of understanding the issue here. I would ask the same of you that I did subby and ask how horses being found would be evidence for the Book of Mormon. Maybe then you might start to grasp what I am saying.

[_Tobin]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=377

How come they wont excavate the hill cumorah?

They won't because local farmers have never found any exceptional number of artifacts in the area. Therefore, nothing is there. And that is a Maxwell Institute article. Somehow, that doesn't shake the faith of people who believe that the Book of Mormon is literal truth.

And the real reason is that we don't know where the Hill Cumorah is. Mormon Hill, which is called the Hill Cumorah by the misinformed, is not the location of the rest of the Nephite records. It is only the place that Moroni buried the Book of Mormon for Joseph Smith to find.

[_subgenius]

I am at least trying to be honest and explain the issue here.

yes, you believe you are being honest and "explaining"...but you are simply moving goalposts.
people who move goalposts often feel the need to claim they were simply "clarifying" or "explaining"....no confusion on our part...goalpost being moved!

You and subby for some reason seem incapable of understanding the issue here. I would ask the same of you that I did subby and ask how horses being found would be evidence for the Book of Mormon. Maybe then you might start to grasp what I am saying.

i explained how the horses are evidence for....your inability to understand that simple concept is surely my failing, but i can not dumb it down any further.

but let us try

If some reputable archaeologist found Noah's Ark, that would be evidence FOR the flood story...as opposed to be evidence AGAINST the flood story....does not "prove" the flood story...but it is evidence FOR it.
You see, when historical references found in an ancient text are confirmed they are evidence for the integrity of that text...not against. Is it conclusive? like i said before, certainly not...but the degree of certainty is increased rather than decreased. It is basic "science" really...so no wonder you are disoriented.

[_Themis]

yes, you believe you are being honest and "explaining"...but you are simply moving goalposts.
people who move goalposts often feel the need to claim they were simply "clarifying" or "explaining"....no confusion on our part...goalpost being moved!

Try learning what the term means first before using it. I never made the incorrect assertion finding horses would be evidence for the Book of Mormon. I have always maintained that it would get rid of one of the evidences against the Book of Mormon. I was only correcting tobin on the subject. It seems that a few believers do not understand how evidence works.

If some reputable archaeologist found Noah's Ark, that would be evidence FOR the flood story...as opposed to be evidence AGAINST the flood story....does not "prove" the flood story...but it is evidence FOR it.

And this has nothing to do with the issue.

You see, when historical references found in an ancient text are confirmed they are evidence for the integrity of that text...not against.

The Book of Mormon is contested as being an ancient text, but just because a text mentions something that does exist does not mean it is evidence for the text being ancient. The Book of Mormon mentions other things like gold, but I would hope you would be smart enough to recognize it is not evidence for the Book of Mormon being an ancient text. How many fictional texts mention things that actually exist or actually happened. In order to be considered evidence you need more, and I stated what you would need in regards to horses being evidence for the Book of Mormon. To bad we still haven't provided any good evidence of horses existing during Book of Mormon times.

An interesting thought is if we found ancient plants of wheat and barley from the old world were found to have been introduced 2-4 thousand years ago that would be evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[_son of Ishmael]

but let us try

If some reputable archaeologist found Noah's Ark, that would be evidence FOR the flood story...as opposed to be evidence AGAINST the flood story....does not "prove" the flood story...but it is evidence FOR it.
You see, when historical references found in an ancient text are confirmed they are evidence for the integrity of that text...not against. Is it conclusive? like i said before, certainly not...but the degree of certainty is increased rather than decreased. It is basic "science" really...so no wonder you are disoriented.

Using that logic...The Book of Mormon talks about rivers and in fact there are rivers in the Americas, therfore rivers are evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

[_subgenius]

Using that logic...The Book of Mormon talks about rivers and in fact there are rivers in the Americas, therfore rivers are evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

you say "using that logic" and then you do not.
But fundamentally, yes, the fact that there are rivers is actually evidence "for"...not against. Not particularly overwhelming evidence, but still a check in the "for" box.

[_Themis]

you say "using that logic" and then you do not.
But fundamentally, yes, the fact that there are rivers is actually evidence "for"...not against. Not particularly overwhelming evidence, but still a check in the "for" box.

Are you really this ignorant and biased. Mentioning rivers in a text is not evidence for or against. The Lord of the Rings mentions rivers and horses. Now if one gets descriptions of a river that are specific enough and can match them up, then it can be evidence for say the Book of Mormon being historical if you can show Joesph did not really know this area before hand. Otherwise it would have to be evidence for the Book of Mormon being made up just as much as being for the Book of Mormon being historical.