Olishem

[_Tobin]

However, when that discussion starts to ask questions like, would the Book of Abraham cause us to shift the periodization of the Patriarchs? Then I'll call phooey. If you want to talk about Abraham's epoch, let's start with the historicity of Abraham.

What historical documents do you use to support your view of the current estimates of the Patriarchal Age? If it is mere speculation (which in reality is all it is as far as I can tell), then there is no problem with speculating as to a shift that would make more sense given the document in discussion. That is the justification for the shift. And as I said, if evidence comes to light that the Middle Kingdom had influence as far as Mesopotamia, then I'd be happy to stick with the current estimates.

[_Buffalo]

Does not follow. The claims of the Book of Abraham and the LDS Church are worth examining independently of the historicity of the Book of Genesis.

Oh phooey. IF God, Jesus Christ, Abraham, and other things the LDS Church and Book of Abraham are based on are not true and based in reality, there is no reason to examine them.

For example, if there was no Abraham historically, the Book of Abraham and Old Testament is obviously a work of fiction. There is nothing more that we need to state about it.
Let's look at another example: If there was no actual Jesus Christ, Christianity and the New Testament is a work of fiction and obviously that would make Mormonism and the Book of Mormon a fiction as well. Again, nothing more to state about it at that point.

Clearly this is the game you wish to play Buffalo. As I've said before though, there is nothing useful for us to discuss. You will always fall back to nuclear arguments such as there is no evidence of a god, the claims of the Bible being a work of fiction and non-historical, or some other derivative of this kind to attack Mormonism.

You're leaping to conclusions. If there was no historical Abraham (which is likely but not my argument), then that invalidates the Book of Abraham and certain portions of the Bible has factual history. It does not invalidate, say, Alma, or 1 Peter. Nor does it invalidate the entire Old Testament. In fact, much of the Old Testament is almost certainly based in real history (not Genesis or Exodus, certainly).

[_lulu]

Tobin: "current estimates of the Patriarchal Age?"

Before I'm going to spend time discussing the dating of the Patriarchal Age, you're going to need to show me a patriarch.

[_Tobin]

You're leaping to conclusions. If there was no historical Abraham (which is likely but not my argument), then that invalidates the Book of Abraham and certain portions of the Bible has factual history. It does not invalidate, say, Alma, or 1 Peter. Nor does it invalidate the entire Old Testament. In fact, much of the Old Testament is almost certainly based in real history (not Genesis or Exodus, certainly).

Which parts are based on real history? I find this very interesting since many of the claims of a special relationship with God are derived from being descendants from the Patriarchs. Can you name one prophet in the Old Testament that you consider a real historical person and that the claims around them have been substantiated with historical evidence? Was Jesus real (or is he fictional as well)? How about his disciples? And if you do believe they existed, can their claims be historically proven?

[_Buffalo]

Which parts are based on real history? I find this very interesting since many of the claims of a special relationship with God are derived from being descendants from the Patriarchs. Can you name one prophet in the Old Testament that you consider a real historical person and that the claims around them have been substantiated with historical evidence? Was Jesus real (or is he fictional as well)? How about his disciples? And if you do believe they existed, can their claims be historically proven?

A good example is Deutero Isaiah. There's real history in there, describing life under the rule of Babylonians.

Isaiah was a real person. So was Paul and so was Jesus. Moses and Abraham? Probably not. Adam? Definitely not.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Can you name one prophet in the Old Testament that you consider a real historical person and that the claims around them have been substantiated with historical evidence?

Jeremiah.

[_Tobin]

Can you name one prophet in the Old Testament that you consider a real historical person and that the claims around them have been substantiated with historical evidence?

Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Ah, you must believe in a pre-mortal life then since this has been historically proven.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Ah, you must believe in a pre-mortal life then since this has been historically proven.

Now you're just trolling.

[_Darth J]

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Ah, you must believe in a pre-mortal life then since this has been historically proven.

In the Bible, to "know" someone is idiomatic for sexual intercourse. So this passage is saying that God had sex with Jeremiah before he was born.

Source: reading too much Mormon apologetics. It gets to you after a while.