JoetheClerk wrote:We know some scholars agree the Bible has many locations that have proven to be archaelogical sites. It is basically a record of a region.
A handful of sites that were possibly documented within a lacerated text so badly spread across cultures does not an archaeologically provable document make. Sure they find places that are similar to sites mentioned in the Bible, some carrying names similar to the Bible. But is it the tail wagging the dog? I think so.
A shared delusion is harder to kill than one held by only a single individual.
Has even one Book of Mormon archaelogical site been found?
No...but it depends who you ask. Strangely it seems that if you are Mormon you answer yes though, so there are those shared delusions again!
Ask the douchebags who operate tours south of the border. I'm sure they will give an atypical response.
Were any of the bones of the few hundred thousand killed in New York around the Hill Cumorah ever found? The armament, breastplates, metal swords and the like? Anything?
can't have bones if there were no Israelites coming here in a boat, now could you? See my last bit for the ever present mentioning of a shared delusion.
Has anything written in Hebrew, Egyptian or any closely allied language ever been found in the Book of Mormon lands from Canada to Chile? Anything at all? I know some Norse writings have been found in Greenland but know of no 'nephite or lamanite' writings that would give even a clue as to Hebrew origins.
No. that's just silly!
BYU teaches 'Book of Mormon archaelogy'. How do you teach as a scientific discipline a myth?
The same way you teach end times gobbldeygook at Bob Jones University (I made that up).
