26 Apr '05 13:06>4 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio1. I put the word 'discovered' in quotes for a reason. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were WRITTEN in the 1st century but were not found in the caves until many centuries later, is not a problem. The 'discovery' of the Book of Mormon involved the miraculous appearance of plates of gold which subsequently disappeared. The only historical basis for dating the book is its appearance in the 1800s. You can't examine the manuscript and date it.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 20th century but describe 1st-century life (and
earlier). Do you disbelieve their historical claims?
Please keep in mind that Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be 'Scripture' and conse ...[text shortened]... by the Koran and maintained as factual by the Islamic community)?
2. What exactly does 'concocted' mean? It's a value-laden word. Do I think the book was actually written by Joseph Smith? No, not necessarily. It could have been written by a supernatural force.
3. I don't have a problem with the notion of a supernatural being visiting Mohammed, or all sorts of weird supernatural things happening to him.
This is why I emphasised that I thought we were talking about 'historical' truth, not 'theological'. It's a distinction I think you of all people will understand well. The reason I regard the Bible as 'theologically' true has much more to do with my own experiences and the fact that the theology of the Bible makes sense to me on a personal level than picking over historical details. I am a Christian primarily because I believe God recognised our need for salvation and sent Jesus to atone for our sins. I'm not aware of any other religion offering salvation as a gift, rather than somehow being earned.
I'm quite prepared to accept a supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon appearing to Joseph Smith (historically true in THAT sense), so long as I can point out that Galatians talks about the idea of a false gospel being presented by an angel (theologically false).
I can't remember the exact verse in Galatians, sorry, but it's there. It never seems to have occurred to Joseph Smith to question the theological content of what he miraculously received, and check that it actually accorded with the Bible it was supposed to supplement. From what I know of it, it doesn't.
For much the same reason I am content with the idea of Mohammed being visited by a spirit of some kind that told him something. Whether what the spirit told him was TRUE, well that's a matter of theology not history.
PS Most of the edits are attempts to correct typos. I shouldn't try doing this late at night!