Thank you for your admission Buffman. Now, if you will go back and actually read my original post, you will see that I do not expect evidenciary support for the supernatural claims, only the natural ones.

Please try not to be so confused in the future.

No.

See above.

What is it about sceptics that think that merely posting links without bothering to demonstrate that they have even READ the link (let alone understood its arguments or counter arguments)? This is both lazy and quite pathetic.

Since Buffman has failed to offer a single argument from that site, I think that the most appropriate response is to answer in kind.

Refuted Contradictions

Now, if you want to be taken seriously in the future, offer some of your own thoughts Buffman. Also, read what I write before responding: That is, assuming that you plan to return and grace us with your presense.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 12, 2001).]

The last one.

Nomad

Of course there is positive evidence Michael. You just don't like it. And just as Homer records the Trojan war (and therefore is treated as evidence for that event), the Hebrew Bible records the history of ancient Israel, and serves as evidence for those events.

Now, do you have any evidence that refutes their claims?

Please try not to treat your a priori prejudices as sound reasons to reject evidence Michael. Try to be more open minded.

This may well be true, and since I would not even pretend to have an expertise in archaeology, I would have to accept the above claim on faith. At the same time, it is my understanding that this claim is disputed by some archaeologists. If this is, indeed the case, then would you consider the matter settled in any event? And if so, on what basis would you make this judgement?

As I said above, this may very well be the case. Since I am not qualified to dispute it, I leave it to others to examine the archaealogical record and to tell us what it says.

I will say, however, that I am prepared to accept that the story is legendary. Are you willing to accept that it may be historical?

Nomad

Since this thread is supposed to deal with the BoM but has instead turned into a debate on biblical contradictions and errors, I think it's interesting to note that Mormon apologists have a ready list of explanations for every "apparent" contradiction, error, inconsistency, and alleged historical or scientific inaccuracy in the BoM. It's amusing to run down the list because they use the exact same techniques used to defend the bible against similiar claims.

I wonder how many non-Mormons have ever bothered to visit a mormon apologetics website and review these refutations of errors and contradictions?

So many feathers get ruffled when someone mentions contradictions and errors in the Bible, but the BoM can be waved aside for "lack of archaeological support."

Hello Echo

Yes, I am familiar with the very small, but very vocal minority of Christians that appear to dominate parts of the United States. This anti-intellectualism and demand for blind faith is not the norm within the Church. Therefore, all that I would ask is that you take a broader view of what Christians as a whole believe regarding the Bible as the Word of God.

For the record, acceptance of the Bible is not required of Christians the way acceptance of the Book of Mormon is required and demanded of Mormons. Christians are allowed to question the Bible, and to examine it against other sources. In fact, we are encouraged to do so. This is why I have asked that sceptics try not to equate the two belief systems (Christianity and Mormonism). They are quite different.

Nomad

What? When there's 10% of the take at stake? Are you mad?

I'll have a go.

1) It's the word of God, and we know this because it says so in the book, and he wouldn't lie to us, so it must be true.
2) Loads of people believe it too, so it must be true.
3) You can't prove it's not, so it must be true.
4) Many mormons have had their prayers answered, so it must be true.
5) This includes healings, so it must be true.
4) Hey!! I've heard all this somewhere before, so it must be true.
5) It has coloured pictures, so it must be true.

LP earlier: There is no record of the Exodus in Egyptian records, even one twisted to seem like some great triumph.

Nomad: This is quaint. Yet another argument from silence, and worse yet, the Egyptians DIDN'T record a resounding defeat at the hands of their own slaves. How odd.

LP: Only they would not have recorded it as a defeat, but as a great triumph. Something like "These slaves had gotten some nasty disease and we drove them out into the desert, thank Ra." Nomad, I suggest that you show some imagination. A comparable situation can be found when comparing the Moabite Stone with the Book of Kings; each side claims to have won a big victory.

Nomad: Yes, I am familiar with the very small, but very vocal minority of Christians that appear to dominate parts of the United States. This anti-intellectualism and demand for blind faith is not the norm within the Church. Therefore, all that I would ask is that you take a broader view of what Christians as a whole believe regarding the Bible as the Word of God.

LP: If you non-Fundies don't challenge the Fundies directly, I won't feel sorry for you guys.

I'll have a go too!

6) Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, and he's a really intelligent person, so it must be true.

When you are dealing with a culture that does record everyting about the silliest and stupidiest things, including their own defeats, then yes, it is a reasonable 'arguement from silence'.

For the list:
add #7:
People died for it--- people don't die for a lie--- it must be true.