Evidence
A person on a web site I frequent claimed, yesterday, that the Book of Mormon cannot be deemed accurate from external sources. His argument is that the Bible is evidenced by external documents confirming, for example, the existence of Joseph Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. I’m rather pleased with my response, which thus far remains unchallenged, despite this individual’s continued participation in the thread. As such, I share it here.
For the record, there is as much extra-scriptural evidence for Kish as there is for Pilate or Caiaphas. Monument 47 displays a named engraving of U-Kish Kan, an Olmec king who lived in the same time and place as the Jaredite ruler.
Now, is it possible that U-Kish Kan is not the same Kish mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Of course. Is it even possible that the Book of Mormon Kish is a fictional character? From a strictly logical standpoint, of course. But is it not equally possible, equally logical, that the scriptural Caiaphas and Pilate are not the same individuals identified in other documents? All three seem to be evidenced by external sources, but outside of God Himself telling us, there’s no way we can know with 100% certainty. We just evaluate the evidence to the best of our ability and go from there.
Now, all this being said, let’s look at the issue from a different angle. I assume we all agree that the Bible was written by people who lived in roughly the same time and place as the events they recorded, right? So, logically speaking, it would have been extremely easy for them to come up with fictional characters with setting-appropriate names. Taking it one step further, it would even be easy for them to have written a complex work of historical fiction, using real characters who really did live in the right time and place. I don‘t believe that, and I assume you don’t either, but is it logically possible? Of course it is.
Contrast this to the Book of Mormon. If this work is of modern origin (which I assume is your claim), its author(s) would have had to make up hundreds upon hundreds of setting-appropriate names, despite a near-complete lack of evidence in their time. Yet, as we look through the Book of Mormon, hundreds and hundreds of setting-appropriate names are exactly what we find. Volumes have been written about the linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon. Non-LdS (particularly Rabbinical) scholars have commented on the accuracy of the naming patterns. In short, it would be nearly impossible for someone unfamiliar with the culture to have made them up, somewhat at random—and yet, there they are, exactly as they should be.
Of course, all this evidence means nothing, if you don’t accept it. Obviously, I do, but it’s secondary to the spiritual witness I’ve received. Perhaps I could explain this better via analogy: there are plenty of atheists who have read the Bible. Some of them even understand its teachings, but for whatever reason, they find it unconvincing and continue to disbelieve God. Is that the Bible’s fault? Of course not, but that detail—who or what is to blame—is irrelevant to the atheist’s decision. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, stands or falls on faith. Either you have faith in its veracity or you believe in its inaccuracy. Either way, we humans tend to mold the evidence to fit our conceptions.
 |
| U-Kish Kan |
Now, is it possible that U-Kish Kan is not the same Kish mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Of course. Is it even possible that the Book of Mormon Kish is a fictional character? From a strictly logical standpoint, of course. But is it not equally possible, equally logical, that the scriptural Caiaphas and Pilate are not the same individuals identified in other documents? All three seem to be evidenced by external sources, but outside of God Himself telling us, there’s no way we can know with 100% certainty. We just evaluate the evidence to the best of our ability and go from there.
Now, all this being said, let’s look at the issue from a different angle. I assume we all agree that the Bible was written by people who lived in roughly the same time and place as the events they recorded, right? So, logically speaking, it would have been extremely easy for them to come up with fictional characters with setting-appropriate names. Taking it one step further, it would even be easy for them to have written a complex work of historical fiction, using real characters who really did live in the right time and place. I don‘t believe that, and I assume you don’t either, but is it logically possible? Of course it is.
Contrast this to the Book of Mormon. If this work is of modern origin (which I assume is your claim), its author(s) would have had to make up hundreds upon hundreds of setting-appropriate names, despite a near-complete lack of evidence in their time. Yet, as we look through the Book of Mormon, hundreds and hundreds of setting-appropriate names are exactly what we find. Volumes have been written about the linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon. Non-LdS (particularly Rabbinical) scholars have commented on the accuracy of the naming patterns. In short, it would be nearly impossible for someone unfamiliar with the culture to have made them up, somewhat at random—and yet, there they are, exactly as they should be.
Of course, all this evidence means nothing, if you don’t accept it. Obviously, I do, but it’s secondary to the spiritual witness I’ve received. Perhaps I could explain this better via analogy: there are plenty of atheists who have read the Bible. Some of them even understand its teachings, but for whatever reason, they find it unconvincing and continue to disbelieve God. Is that the Bible’s fault? Of course not, but that detail—who or what is to blame—is irrelevant to the atheist’s decision. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, stands or falls on faith. Either you have faith in its veracity or you believe in its inaccuracy. Either way, we humans tend to mold the evidence to fit our conceptions.
Comments
Post a Comment