The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

POOBAH (past)
Matt, I'm trying to make sense out of the following two statements. Help me
out.
Matthew Bell (past)
That their is firsthand testimony to an event does not make it true.
Matthew Bell (past)
The early church gives ample testimony to the Scriptures.

POOBAH (past)
So first hand testimony doesn't make an event true, but believers decades &
centuries after the alleged fact do? And you still find LDS Church lacking?
Could you give me a rational harmonization for this please?

Matthew Bell
That the church fathers give ample testimony to the Scriptures says nothing
about whether that testimony is true or false. The BoM testimony falls down
completely under examination of the claims of the BoM therefore it is
useless. The claims of the Bible have not been shown to be false or
fraudulent, hence the testimony of the church fathers remains.

POOBAH
Matt, you didn't address the question at all. I'm not asking you about the
BoM, I'm asking you about eyewitness testimony versus the existence of a
tradition decades later. Your statements imply that the testimony of the
eleven Mormon witnesses is invalid, yet the testimony of the Church a
hundred fifty years later is valid, and presumably the testimony of the
Mormon Church a hundred fifty years later isn't. Why is that?

And what exactly is the testimony to the Scriptures that the early Church
gives that may be true or false?

As for the claims of the Bible having not been shown to be false or useless,
you seem to be trying to slip an assertion in that isn't true, but you don't
seem to be willing to come out & say it. So, Matt, for the record: is it
your opinion that archeology has made no discoveries which demonstrate
various Biblical accounts to be false? Yes or No? If yes, explain your
statement above. If no, do you believe that to be the consensus of the
archeological community? How do you explain the discrepancy? We're back to
the question of: why do you engage in pick & choose archeology? How do you
know that the archeology you pick is valid, and the archeology you reject is
invalid, without once again begging the question of Biblical accuracy?

To repeat, I for one would appreciate an answer to this question: Is it your
opinion that archeology has made no discoveries which demonstrate various
Biblical accounts to be false?

B.

P.S. I note that Matt hasn't responded to my longer post on this subject,
but attacked side issues related to it. It's rather obvious to me what Matt
is doing here; in poker, there's an old psychological technique used when
you are in the pot with two players, you make your betting motions towards
the player whose position you consider weakest, in hopes that the other
player will feel excluded & that perhaps his hand is not worthy of playing.
In this way you get the stronger hand to fold and play against the weaker
one. Won't work, Matt. Tell us why the contra-evidence for the Exodus
doesn't disqualify the Bible in the same manner as the BoM. Tell us how
Genesis & the Flood can be interpreted as supporting anything other than a
young-earth position (or at least a late flood position), and how that can
be reconciled with archeology. Tell us why the "historical accuracy" of the
Bible supports its miraculous claims, but why the historical accuracy of
other books does not lead you to accept their miraculous claims.

• Previous message: The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM
• Next message: The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]