Runaway Planet is a project of

Video

Apologetics Resources

Blog powered by Typepad

« NEWSWEEK ON MORMONISM | Main | EVIDENCES FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST »

Comments

Both the Bible and Book of Mormon are two books providing a source of spiritual strength to millions of individuals worldwide whose authors/editors tell very interesting stories equally unverifiable.

"equally unverifiable."
I disagree, the Bible lays out a Philosopical Worldview the lines up with how the world actually is. The Book of Mormon says things happened in History that we can prove did not. (ie. a Revial in New York in the year J.S. said his first revolation occured)

Parts of the Book of Mormon are absolutly falseafiable, and Have been proven false. If you still believe the book of mormon to be true, its not becuase of Evidence, its because of some warm&fuzzy feeling you get while reading it.

I am nuetral to either book but I see you are very passionate with you opinions.

Don states above that the Bible presents claims that were verifiable at the time of writing worthy of more examination. If these claims or events actually happened, then sure they would have been verifiable at that time. That doesn't do much for me today. What hard physical evidence can you share with me to prove the events of the bible and its many figures such as Jesus were real? Assuming you embrace the entire Bible, what proof exists that Moses actually parted the Red Sea or for that matter that there was a Moses? Though it did make for a great movie.

Don also stated that it is not a blind leap of irrational faith to believe in the resurrection. Don presumes it is not an irrational belief under the assumption that the Biblical account of the resurrection is indeed fact. What hard physical evidence exists to validate this fact or prove it to me today?

Greg, you stated 'Parts of the Book of Mormon are absolutly falseafiable, and Have been proven false.' Please share with me the who, what, where, when and why of this proof as I would be interested to see it for myself as well.

Something Falseifiable, How about the Connection between American Indians and the People of Isreal? They have done DNA tests that Prove conclusivly that there is no relation between these two cultures.

Or How about Joesph Smiths claims that American Indians would turn white when they converted? (See Origianal 1800's Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 30:6 3 Nephi 2:15)

How about the lack of an 1820 Revival as J.S. Claims in the Peral of Great Price, It in fact took place in 1824, and screws up his whole timeline of events.
http://www.irr.org/mit/inventbk.html

Shoot me an Email if you want a few more. Lots of the other ones would be presupposing the Bible to be true. But these are obvious factual problems for mormonism.

Could you direct me to where I can find the text of the DNA research? I'll have to read your references on the turning white issue before I can comment on that. I did go to the site where the timing of religious revival was researched. I found it interesting but not exactly proof given the following statement by the authors:

"It could be that the revival really had nothing to do with Joseph's first vision story, or that the events leading to the writing of the Book of Mormon are different than what Joseph claimed."

I'm not sure I understand your statement -'Lots of the other ones would be presupposing the Bible to be true. But these are obvious factual problems for mormonism.' Do you presuppose the Bible to be accurate? If so, this is inconsistent with the standard of proof you're applying to the Book of Mormon. What proof can you offer supporting the Bible as anything more than a great novel? If definitive concrete proof exists, why then do Muslims continue to embrace the Coran? Please share with me the evidence you've examined that convinced you the Bible is a record of factual events.

Heres a book on one of the studies
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560851813/104-3162411-4107129?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

"It could be that the revival really had nothing to do with Joseph's first vision story, or that the events leading to the writing of the Book of Mormon are different than what Joseph claimed."

Well, if anything is different then what he claimed, then it isnt scripture, and Joesph Smith Lied.

My Statement About the Bible would be proofs offered from Contradictions with the Bible, presupposing the Bible accuracy.

I dont presuppose the Bible to be accurite, i have tested its accuracy by looking at the claims it makes and the philosophy it lays out and observed weather or not it lines up with the world. It does.

"It could be that the revival really had nothing to do with Joseph's first vision story, or that the events leading to the writing of the Book of Mormon are different than what Joseph claimed."

Or in other words, we can't disprove Joseph's first vision story, however, his claims of religious revival at the time of his first vision may be inaccurate and his description of events preceding the the book of mormon may be inaccurate but we can't disprove the book of mormon.

I dont presuppose the Bible to be accurite, i have tested its accuracy by looking at the claims it makes and the philosophy it lays out and observed weather or not it lines up with the world. It does.

I understand and respect the fact that you have put the Bible to a personal test concluding its philosophy is worthy of your embrace. That is obviously a wonderful personal experience for you and has made you a strong believer in the Bible. Great personal conviction for you, however, I don't equate this with proof.

You seem to view the mormons and their beliefs as some kind of great enemy that you must fight. I seem to recall one of the teachings of Jesus in the Bible was love your enemies. Are your actions in conflict with the very philosophy you claim to embrace?

Are your actions in conflict with the very philosophy you claim to embrace?

Not at all, Loving someone does not mean being nice to them. Loving someone is guiding them towards their best interests. I love People enough to not want to see them go to Hell. And I love them enough to proclaim boldly that hell is percisely where they are going. Love =! being touchy feely and nice.

As for Proof of the Bibles validity, I dont consider my philosophical testing of it a personal experence. The Bible best explains the questions of the World. Why we are here? Why is there evil in the world? Why is there Pain? etc. All the major questions, that every person desires an answer to inantly, are answered cogently by the claims of the Bible. Its not about personal experence, its about truth.

As far as J.S.'s first vision story, the fact that the revival wasnt happening at the time he said it was is proof. He assets that all his words are without error and are insipired words of god. Actual Revalation from God would be Prefect. So then any error would prove it was not from God.

PS Sorry about the sentience structure, trying very hard not to write in syllogisms.

Greg

'Loving someone does not mean being nice to them. Loving someone is guiding them towards their best interests.'

I don't recall Jesus qualifying love like this. I thought he taught unconditional love of everyone which is much broader than simply guiding someone towards their best interest.

'I love People enough to not want to see them go to Hell. And I love them enough to proclaim boldly that hell is percisely where they are going.'

I respect the passion you have for your cause, however, your approach is undermining your ultimate goal. Forcing your beliefs on others with the threat of damnation and hell for noncompliance is the one sure way to give people a reason not to embrace religion. Instead, wouldn't it be more productive to invite others to join with you in your form of worship and let them decide for themselves if your religion is right for them? Jesus as I recall said come follow me, not, come follow me or else. It seems to me forcible preaching inherently conflicts with the very beliefs it professes to embrace.

As for Proof of the Bibles validity, I dont consider my philosophical testing of it a personal experence. The Bible best explains the questions of the World. Why we are here? Why is there evil in the world? Why is there Pain? etc. All the major questions, that every person desires an answer to inantly, are answered cogently by the claims of the Bible. Its not about personal experence, its about truth.

I think its great that you have found answers to life questions important to you and that you believe the Bible to speak only truth. However, you personal belief does not constitute proof for me now nor will it ever.


Read my reply to the last few comments in the above posts "Does Jesus Love You Enough To Tell You About Hell?" and "Evidences For The Resurrection."

Of course he'll tell people about Hell. I don't even know if you can have evidence for the resurrection. I still agree with the blog before Dons.

The comments to this entry are closed.