Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Archaeology"

Like numerous critics before them, the makers of this video claim that archaeological support for the Book of Mormon is non-existent compared to the supposed voluminous archaeological support for the Bible. There are major differences, however, between Old and New World archaeology as well as the assumptions which many people bring to their approach of Book of Mormon archaeology.

To read more:

• Book of Mormon and Biblical archaelogy

Archaeology can not "prove" that a document is the "word of God." Does archaeology confirm that Jesus is the Christ, that he rose from the dead, or that he atoned for our sins? Archaeology supports the existence of Homer's Troy, does that make the Illiad the word of God? Are Hera and Zeus therefore to be worshipped?

There is no archaeological evidence for Moses, Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Noah, or virtually any ancient biblical prophet, but this is never mentioned in the video. Many biblical archaeologists are not Christians. Why not, if the Bible has been proven to be the word of God by archaeological data?

All that archaelogy has proven is that those who wrote the Bible lived in the ancient Near East, and knew its culture and geography—a not terribly revolutionary claim.

To read more:

• Book of Mormon and Biblical archaelogy

Old World archaeology has the advantage of continuity of toponyms (place names). In many instances (and in direct contrast to what we find in Mesoamerica), Bible cities are still known by the same names as they were known anciently. It is impossible to know if the Book of Mormon names are "right," because no one knows the pronounciation of any city in the Americas for the period 600 B.C.–A.D. 420!

Even with the advantages of a constant language and habitation enjoyed by Biblical archaelogy, however, only about 7-8% of Bible locations are known with any degree of certainty, and another 7-8% are suspected with some degree of accuracy because they are in proximity to known Bible sites. If there had not been a continuity of toponyms, many more biblical sites would not be known.

Many readers are surprised to learn that the location of numerous biblical sites are unknown. The location of Mt. Sinai, for example, has over twenty possible candidates. Some scholars reject the claim that the city of Jericho existed at the time of Joshua. The exact route taken by the Israelites on their Exodus is unknown, and some scholars dispute the biblical claim that there ever was an Israelite conquest of Canaan. Many other examples could be given.

Non-LDS biblical archaeologist, William Dever, claims that archaeology should never be supposed to prove the Bible in any sense, and that

“neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era”

—William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 5, 26.

To read more:

• Book of Mormon and Biblical archaelogy

Such a charge is based on naive and faulty assumptions. Ancient Mesoamerica was virtually unknown to the people of Joseph Smith’s day and locale. When the Book of Mormon was translated, there was almost no archaeological support for the record. Today, however, most things mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been confirmed to have existed in—what most LDS scholars believe—are Book of Mormon lands. This would include fortifications, armor, thrones, cement, towers, trade, and more. None of these evidences, however, translate into “proof.”

How would we recognize uniquely Nephite/Lamanite artifacts? How would we recognize a Nephite potsherd from a non-Nephite potsherd? Writings or markings associated with an artifact would be necessary to tell us if such potsherds were Nephite. Writings and markings are generally either

• iconographic: using pictures or symbols, such as a cross, or
• epigraphic: written language, such as the word, "cross."

Surviving epigraphic evidence from ancient America, however, is very rare.

If we knew the place names by which all ancient American cities were known during Book of Mormon times, critics might have a stronger case. The fact is, however, that extremely few ancient inscriptions give us these place names. The few which are known are generally phonetic in nature (which means that we don’t know for certain how these city names were pronounced). Because we don’t know the original names of most ancient American cities, we use those designations assigned by the Spanish—such as La Venta, San Lorenz, etc. If we don’t know the ancient names, how can critics claim that—according to archaeologists—there were no Book of Mormon cities such as Lib, or Bountiful?

Critics almost never mention the discovery of “NHM”—an ancient site in Arabia with inscriptions which date to Lehi's era—that corresponds precisely with the Nahom of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 16:34) in timeframe, location, and in relation to an eastward turn in the trail which the Lehites followed in their exodus from the Old World. While NHM does not constitute “proof” for the Book of Mormon, it does provide strong archaeological evidence for the book’s narrative.

The precise identification of a viable route from Jerusalem across Arabia via a route totally unknown in Joseph Smith's day is also compelling evidence for 1 Nephi's ancient origins.

The video misleads its viewers about what is possible given current archaelogic knowledge, and hides areas that give support to the Book of Mormon account.

To read more:

• Book of Mormon "hits" in Old World archaelogy and geography
• [connection]

From iconographic evidence we know that ancient Americans used weapons that function in the same way as described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an assumption, however, is unwarranted. Mesoamericans used wooden clubs, laced with volcanic obsidian (extremely sharp), or bits of sharp rock. When the Spanish encountered these clubs, they dubbed them "swords" and one Spaniard claimed that these swords were so sharp that he saw a Native American cut the head off a horse with one blow.

To read more

• [armor, forts and tactics]

While twentieth-century editors (possibly James Talmage) mistakenly added the term “coins” to the chapter heading of Alma 11, the Book of Mormon text never mentions coins (let alone mentions them as "being common"). Interestingly enough, however, the Book of Mormon does mention a monetary system that has remarkable Old World parallels.

To read more:

• No coins in Book of Mormon
• "The Numerical Elegance of the Nephite System": Table 1 and Table 2, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999)
• John W. Welch, "Did the ancient peoples of Mesoamerica use a system of weights and scales in measuring goods & their values?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999). link
• John W. Welch, "Weighing & Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999). [36–46] link

The Book of Mormon doesn't tell us that Cumorah was in New York. And, contrary to what many people have believed, the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us where Moroni buried the plates. We do know, however, that all the plates except the Book of Mormon plates were buried in Cumorah. The term "Cumorah" was given to the hill in N.Y. by early Latter-day Saints.

Why is there no official map? The location of Book of Mormon events hasn't been revealed. Why is there no offical map designating the exact location of Jesus' birth (which is debated among biblical scholars)? Why is there no official map designating the precise location of Mt. Sinai? It doesn't seem necessary for God to reveal all geographical information in order for a text to qualify as the Word of God.

The video's double standards are again on display.

To read more:

• Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah
• No official position on Nephite Cumorah location
• Textual evidence about Cumorah's location