pt 12 Archaeology and the Bible (full-length)

[omiolo]

His promise is:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Matthew 11:28–29).

[biguceduce]

Lets see some facts, some archeological evidence from Mormon side, are you all talk and no proof? why do Mormons claim to be Christians when the movie totally prove this. but so far I see the defense i all talk no proof.

[omiolo]

Digitized records from the Church of the Latter-Day Saints will back-up documents in the civil registry of Manila archived during the period covering 1886 to 1996.

Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim received on Feb. 10 the first 500-gigabytes hard disk of a three-part storage of a centurys file involving up to 100 million individual entries.

[omiolo]

Mormons digitizing Manilas records

[johnyjamie]

No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict).

The Bible can be trusted. If people say it can't be trusted, they can just add any book such as the Book of Mormon or the Apocrypha or Quran to canon of scripture calling it God's Word. Very dangerous.

The Bible tells us when God used prophets to reveal new info about Himself. Luke 16:16, Matt 11:13, Heb 1:1

[omiolo]

maybe you have NEVER heard of the flood!

Archeology has refuted a world wide flood.

[habfan24]

@omiolo LOL, really. So do you think that their was no flood at all, or just a minor one. Did you look into that? or are you just repeating what you heard without researching it, because that is more believable than your statement.

[omiolo]

@habfan24 my point is that the Bible says there was a flood, archeology says something different. Which one is correct?

[TrueChurchLDS]

LHVM is reaching. It will never truly know the nature of God, nor will God recognize their baptism.

[omiolo1]

Jericho of the Bible ---> yeah, find that!

[erimmd]

Can anyone here say Archeology Envy.

[Jon84663]

So it's saying that since there is little archeological evidence for the bible, we should give it the same weight as we do the Book of Mormon?

As a non-believer of both, I have no problem with this.

I think it becomes a little dishonest at the end however. While there is a bit of guessing in archeology, the great majority of archeological evidence is very scientific, and theories of archeology can be just as strong as theories in biology, physics, etc. He's definitely not an archeologist.

[omiolo1]

"the great majority of archeological evidence is very scientific, "

I think that is HIGHLY debatable!

[osmiolos]

I read that information about the House of David. there is NO proof that David even existed. The only written evidence of David is from the Bible and maybe someone years after his death.

Interesting!