The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Matthew Bell
My response will be forthcoming in due course when I have concluded the BoM
thread, which I
anticipate will be quite shortly.

POOBAH
Matt, I don't see how you can conclude this thread shortly without admitting
that you, as an inerrantist, cannot criticize the BoM without resorting to
special pleading when those same arguments are used against you. Let me
summarize my understanding of the state of the debate.

Matt claims that eyewitness testimony is not compelling; in particular,
originally he claimed that the BoM must be judged on more than the testimony
of the eyewitnesses. When asked what that additional criteria would be, he
claimed that a *primary factor* in accepting or rejecting the claims of the
Bible or BoM would be how accurate each was in dealing with ordinary
matters. To demonstrate this, he invoked the "testimony of archeology,"
using as an example the fact that the Bible seems to get its numismatics
right, whereas no coins described in the BoM have ever been found. He then
claimed that because the Bible has been shown to be correct in some details,
it is reasonable to withhold judgment in those areas where archeology is
silent, but that the BoM should not be accorded this respect because so few
of its details have been shown to be archeologically correct.

In passing, Matt has made some comments that, at least on the surface, seem
to contradict some of the above. He claims that the Church Fathers give
ample testimony to the claims of the Bible, but I haven't yet understood
what that testimony is, and why the early Mormon Church doesn't give the
same ample testimony.

Also, last night Matt seemed to back down from the claim that accuracy in
small matters was a *primary factor*, saying that the fact that the
numismatics of the Bible are correct has no bearing on any other claims
found therein.

Is that a fair summary, Matt?

In response, I have argued that the only way Matt can claim archeology as a
defense of the Bible is if he disputes a great many conclusions made by the
archeological community. While Matt claims that archeology has shown many
claims of the Bible to be true, and I agree with that, he seems to be
ignoring the archeology which shows other very important claims of the Bible
to be false. To dispute the basis for this latter archeological evidence
calls into question any archeological claims that might support his
position. While many examples were given, in particular consensus holds that
the "testimony of archeology" tells us, and importantly *with
contra-evidence* - not just absence of evidence, that neither the Flood nor
Exodus occurred. If true, this eliminates the basis for giving the Bible
benefit of the doubt with regard to unproven matters, leaving Matt in the
position of special pleading.

For contra-evidence for the flood, we have the archeological record of Egypt
& the near east, of China, etc. that show that these civilizations existed
without disruption during the period that the flood must have occurred if
Genesis is to be taken literally. The only way out for Matt here is to claim
that Genesis isn't to be taken literally, but he must then demonstrate that
this is a reasonable position, which he has yet to do.

As for the Exodus, the simplest example of contra-evidence is the
combination of the Merneptah Stele, which speaks of devastating the nation
of Israel, which would have been before or during the Exodus, and more
damning, the archeological evidence which shows that the Philistines didn't
arrive until the reign of Ramses III, which would put it about fifty years
after the Merneptah Stele. Even if we assume that the general timing of the
Exodus is off, and that the nation of Israel had existed by the time of the
Stele, the fact that the Philistines had not yet arrived means that the
Exodus account must be wrong, since we are told the Israelites stayed away
from the coast to avoid the Philistines. If either conclusion is true, the
Exodus must be wrong. Further, we have the testimony of archeology which
says that Jericho, Ai, et. al. were not conquered by Joshua in the manner
described at the time necessary to preserve inerrancy.

This doesn't even begin to deal with the total absence of evidence for the
Exodus - where evidence might be reasonably expected (Sinai, Egyptian
records, etc.) as has been pointed out by Till & others in different posts.

Now I am not claiming that archeology must be correct in these matters, or
that new evidence may not come to light, but the point still is that if Matt
can reject these claims for some reason or another, why is it unreasonable
for the Mormon apologist to reject the denarii that Matt claims he has? And
without the denarii and the "testimony of archeology," how can Matt claim
that the Bible deserves the benefit of the doubt in matters of silence, but
the BoM does not?

Further, there is the question of whether accuracy in ordinary matters is in
fact proof of miraculous claims. I've asked Matt to tell us which miraculous
claims he accepts from other accounts that are generally held to be accurate
in ordinary matters, but so far he has offered only ad hominems in that
regard.

So I don't think that Matt has proven either of his premises, namely that
archeology gives better support to the Bible than the BoM, nor that even if
archeology proved such accuracy, that it would be evidence of the miraculous
claims contained therein.

I don't think you're close to done yet, Matt, not unless you want to simply
ignore me or call me names, which in any case seems the inevitable
conclusion of our debate. If my summary is incorrect, I'd like to know why,
and if you think you've proven your case, I'd like to know how.

If you ignore this post, it's simply because you've lost, and we'll add that
to the list of failures you've compiled when it comes to demonstrating the
evidence for your faith.

B.

• Previous message: More dodging the issues by Bell
• Next message: The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]