[tymekpavel]

> Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem.

The Book of Mormon was written in 1830. Am I missing something here?

[yroc92]

It was translated then. The text began in 600 BC.

[gnaritas]

According to whom? You can't use the book to prove itself, just because it claims to have been from 600 BC doesn't make it so.

[mholt]

I think people are confusing the publication date and setting of the story/account within it.

Star Wars took place a "long time ago" but we don't try to prove it either way -- it's just the setting of the story, whether or not it really happened.

[sofal]

Are you saying it would further the discussion on a thread about actual ancient artifacts if I came in and described how interesting it was that it correlated with some stories from, say, Battlestar Galactica?

[gnaritas]

Star Wars, like the holy books, are works of fiction and the story contained within bears no resemblance to reality nor do the dates claimed bear any resemblance to the truth.

[zepto]

It seems that you're implying that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction just like Star Wars.

[mholt]

It certainly was published in 1830. The account within it originates ~600 BC.

[jeena]

"The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility." https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/arti... page 37

[mholt]

Hmm, we're not talking about American history here.

[krapp]

Please provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up.

[mholt]

> Please provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up.

Backing up that it was published in 1830? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#/media/File:The....

And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.

[krapp]

>Backing up that it was published in 1830?

Of course not, that isn't even remotely controversial.

>And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.

Page 1 of what text? Surely you're not suggesting people take the Book of Mormon's own text as evidence, that would be ludicrous. Page 1 of the wikipedia article wouldn't be credible either, so I don't know what text you're referring to. Although Wikipedia does point to a lot of pages questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity as having an ancient origin, I haven't found any which actually validate it. Of course I'm not going to look very hard, since I already know that evidence doesn't exist and I strongly suspect you're trolling.

No, I'm asking that you point to actual manuscripts which were incorporated into the the Book of Mormon which originated from ~600 BC, tell us where they were excavated from and by whom, and in what museum or university those documents currently reside. Independently verified evidence as to its antiquity. And don't cite any sources actually connected to the Mormon church.

[gnaritas]

> And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.

The Book of Mormon is not evidence for itself; without other accounts from non Mormon sources, there's little reason to believe anything stated by the book of Mormon is anything but fiction. The same applies to all holy books; they cannot be evidence of their own truth.

[zepto]

It sounds as though you are asserting that the Book of Mormon is credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars.