I would like to note here that the articles on the site you listed are mostly written by James Patrick Holding. Holding is actually a pseudonym for an individual who is supposedly named Robert Turkel. Turkel will write his criticisms of articles by Jeff Lowder, Farrell Till, and others, but he never provides links to the articles that he criticizes. On the other hand, Farrell Till and Jeff Lowder do post Christian rebuttals to their articles, so that one may read both sides and decide for themselves. IMO, this lends much more credibility to individuals such as Till and Lowder because they do not hide behind pseudonyms and they are not afraid to post rebuttals to their arguments because they are confident in the strength of their positions.

Since Turkel did not provide any rebuttals to this article, does anyone on this forum know of rebuttals on the net to Turkel's assertions?

I can see your point that it can be lazy for someone to post links to someone else's argument. However, at the same time, why rewrite an argument when someone else has already done an adequate job of formulating one? For example, I might post links to Till's articles not because I am lazy, but because I lack the time and/or the background to go into the depth that Till can.

I think Belshazzar was Nebuchanezzar's grandson. "Son" in the Bible doesn't always necessarily mean son as we use it in English. It could also be used for grandson, greatgranson, descendant, or a nation from a certain ancestor. i.e. Jesus is known as the "son of David", but there were several generations between David and Him. That's why Archbishop Ussher made a grave mistake in using the chronologies to arrive at a date for creation- the Bible does not speak of the age of the Earth (it's not important for the message it's getting across). Even the Jewish scholars of his day disagreed with that method because they knew "son" was applied in different ways.

On rabbits chewing the cud- Leviticus 11 is not even speaking of rabbits. Certain animals have been substituted for unknown ones- rabbits being one of the substitutes. These are just problems with the language barrier when translating. It could also have been referring to a type of animal that may have gone extinct.

The flat earth- the Bible does not say this either. The four corners it speaks of are specific nations, it's in no way saying anything about the shape. If I were to say "I am from this or that corner of the world" would you think I was speaking of the shape of the earth? The Bible says God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. Circles have no corners. I am sure some of you would say circle is 2-dimensional so that still means it's flat. But ancient Hebrew had no word for a 3-d round object. Circle was probably used to denote round objects. If they really wanted to get across that they really believe the shape of the earth has corners why didn't they say "square", "rectangle", "trapezoid", or "rhombus"? Gimme a break, guys.

If anybody wrote about everything that happened during the lifetime of Christ, it would fill a lot of books. There are things in Luke not mentioned in the other Gospels, and in Mark and John too. If the accounts were too similar you would conclude they had one author. The record of history is not complete otherwise archaeologists would quit their jobs. Because there are no extrabiblical writings that historians have found does not mean the account mentioned is false.

Oh come on! You want the Bible to speak of everything? I can't believe a grown man like yourself (probably a lot older than myself) would make such an argument. That's getting too childish.

I know you wanted to give it a go BN, but it might have been better if you had not.

From the part of my post you copied into your own (and therefore, I am assuming that you read it):

Nomad: Now, in follow up, what evidence is there, independent of the Book of Mormon, that ANY of the things reported in its pages is true? Can you offer a single example?

This means I am looking for something that is INDEPENDENT of the Book of Mormon.



Feel free to try again BN.

Nomad

I think the people who say there is no archaeological evidence (or at least say that Mormon's don't CLAIM to have archaeological evidence) for the Book of Mormon should visit some Mormon apologetic websites. As a matter of fact, BYU has an entire department on Mormon archaeology called FARMS http://farms.byu.edu

Also, why does the Book of Mormon need archaeological evidence to support what is in the text? Let's focus just on the deliverance of the plates themselves. 11 people (eyewitnesses) say that they saw the golden plates. Let's forget about the Tanakh for a second. We have only TWO witness to Paul's conversion experience--himself and the writer of Luke-Acts. Christianity, despite what anyone says, bases most of its theology around Paul and the belief that Paul's Damascus Road experience was legit. Shouldn't the 11 witnesses' accounts be enough?

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

The basic problem I have with "link posting" is that when someone does this, AND they refuse to cite even a single specific example from the site given, they have failed to offer even the simplest basics of a coherent thought on the issue.

Quite simply, anyone can post links. Anyone can say "read the site/book/article/whatever, and consider the argument to have been made. But such is not the case. By all means quote your sources. Offer samples of what they say. Then tell us in your own words what you find so convincing in their arguments.

In other words, if you wish to post here, offer your own thoughts on the questions and threads that interest you. That is, after all, why we are here.

Nomad

P.S. J.P.'s story is not news here. The SecWeb long ago violated Holding's privacy, so rehashing that issue is to beat a very dead horse.

Hello le pede

By this are you saying that Paul's conversion started Christianity? If this is the case, then I think this will need a separate thread.

If this is not your point, then what was it?

Thanks,

Nomad

My point is actually that eyewitnesses should be enough to confirm a story. But in reference to your question, Christianity does, in fact, base most of its theology around Paul (plus Augustine and Luther's interpretation of Paul--but let's assume their reading of Paul is correct). Furthermore, without Paul, Christianity would be unrecognizable. His contribution to modern Christianity is central, and I think that his role is above even Jesus, who plays only a theological role in his gospel. Without Paul there would be no articulation of the central dogmas that Christians hold dear.

First of all, the Bible doesn't agree on everything, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were disparaging accounts of the nature of the world.

Secondly, the word "circle" that you cited, by no stretch of the imagination necessarily means circle. In fact, scholarly translators recognize it as the solid firmament described in Genesis 1:6-8. I agree with that interpretation (cf. Prov. 8:27, Job 22:14).



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

Could you demonstrate how Pauline theology influenced Papias? Or affected his Exegis on the Sayings of the Lord?

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Could you explain. And I think Papias is a bad choice because we don't have much to analyze.