Posted by Trixie on July 08, 1998 at 13:03:53:
In Reply to: Your point being? posted by SWN on July 08, 1998 at 12:54:11:
: As with most, your statements are made up of conjecture with nothing of substance to invalidate the Evidance presented in these papers. Do more than simply say the Book of Mormom is not valid, show me some evidence that is not founded in guess work.
My point is that you (or rather, Kerry) spent quite a bit of time trying to prove that it was not uncommon for ancient civilizations to use metal plates for their inscriptions. My point is that, even if this is true, that has no bearing on the validity of the Book of Mormon. To help understand my point (which I'm sorry that I didn't clarify sufficiently), imagine that we are the ancient civilization in question. A thousand years hence, someone claims to have found a document inscribed on paper (unheard of in the future). He/she translates said document, which is a story of the history of our civilization. This person is never able to produce the document in question, however. In attempts to "prove" that the supposed history is valid, his/her supporters find evidence that it was common to inscribe upon paper during our time period. This has no bearing on the accuracy of what the "translator" claims was written UPON that paper, does it? While this is certainly an interesting archeological tidbit, in no way does it validate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The only way to scientifically validate the claims of the Book of Mormon would be to produce the plates, and have them translated by scholars, and find that the translation matches, in essence, the Book of Mormon.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]