Mormons? Archaeologists? Christians?

Question

Which has more Validity? The Book of Mormon of The Holy Bible?

Answer 1

So far the Bible wins, because people have been trying to use archaeology to prove or disprove accounts from the Old Testament for over 200 years.  All the peoples in the Bible are known to have existed.  Did everything happen *exactly* as it says?  Probably not, because the earliest written copies of these documents are from many centuries after the events.  However, the "-ites" from the BOM have more in common with the Atlanteans, or the people of Mu, than with the civilizations in the OT.  There's a literary source but no solid scientific proof that they ever existed.  "Chariots of the Gods" should be added to that bibliography.

Not knocking Mormons personally, I've known many and they are lovely people, just saying so far there's no arch. proof

Answer 2

I believe that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are equally valid.  I believe that both are historically correct documents.  If you are asking which book is best supported by archaeological evidence I would say it is the Bible.

Answer 3

seeing that the book of morman is suposed to be just an extention of the orginal bible than i vote the bible has more facts backing it up but also in any story handed down the story does always get twisted a lil more each time its told believe what u want in anything u read...

Answer 4

The Bible will have more evidence because it was written over a much larger period of time. Although if you go to South America you could probably find evidences of the Lamanites after they had destroyed the Nephites. The Book of Mormon evidences itself. It was a lost artifact itself. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Christ. They are equally valid and many things in one help support the other.

Answer 5

You can't analyze religious texts based on real facts, they always come off fake.

Answer 6

Both fiction

Answer 7

both are sorts of historical fiction... tough call... probably a tie.

cheers!

Answer 8

The Bible contains a good deal of historical reference and information.  It can also be read as a sort of historical novel.  It is based on some known facts and extrapolates these to create a story that probably follows closely the spirit if not the letter of the past.  It can also be seen on a third level as a religious text which is how it is most often judged and either believed or discarded.  The Book of Mormon is a strange text but can similarly be read on all three levels.  It speaks as a historical novel which I personally see as less factually based than the Bible but it is also a good story.  The historical or archaeological evidence for this book is less than that for the Bible but this can be chalked up to preservation and environment if you are a believer.  As for its religious implications everyone should watch the SouthPark episode.  It is comedic but gives a faithful representation of the Mormons' beliefs

Answer 9

No one has ever seen the Golden Plates (source material for the Book of Mormon) except Joseph Smith, Jr. himself. Visit the two links below for further reading.

Answer 10

Bible

Answer 11

The Bible. Certain geographic areas mentioned in the Bible are able to be located and remnants have been found that give proof to the actions in the Bible. The Book of Mormon dosen't have any of this proof.

Answer 12

From a purely archaeological standpoint, I would say the Bible is probably more likely to contain more historical accuracy.

I have not read the Book of Mormon, but by an odd coincidence, my daughter and I both date former Mormons.

My boyfriend/fiance no longer follows that - or any - religion, but he still thinks it may have some archaelogical significance.

Columbus was certainly NOT the first from the Eastern Hemisphere to land in America, though.  There is archaeological evidence of the presence of Celts, Romans, Egyptians, Carthagenians, Iberians and even Libyans - going back as far as 800BC in some cases - but no early evidence of Jewish or Hebrew activity in the Western hemisphere.

Yet, I will not say that there is none - if it DOES exist, it has not been found or properly identified yet.  The fact is most of the evidence I mentioned in the above paragraph has been ignored, denied, misidentified or just plain warehoused and forgotten by orthodox archaeology.  There is no guarantee that evidence of early Hebrew activity has not been similarly obscured and hidden in the back storerooms of museums that never bother to take it out and examine it.  

However, the fact that the researchers who have discovered the rest of these lost, forgotten and mis-identified artifacts have not reported finding anything of Jewish origin makes me tend to doubt that they did come over here.

I would not put any major bets on the historical accuracy of either book, though.  For the most part, the Old Testament is a series of personal stories from another era that may or may not be true.  It DOES give us a good look at general activities and lifestyles in that part of the world during that era, though.  And for that it is quite a valuable piece of work.

Answer 13

I think the Harry Potter books have more historical validity than either of the books you mentioned.....good luck!

Answer 14

There are no relics! Joseph Smith found "gold tablets" that he deciphered then lost them again!

Answer 15

They have equal validity.....zero.