Видео

If the book of Mormon is historical then the gold plates would never have been found in upstate New York. Lol The land of Nephi has to be in New York. Stop this nonsense.

There cannot be book a book of Mormon geography.

When will you understand that the Book of Mormon cannot be historical?

Why does practically every Book of Mormon Geography Model have the land of Bountiful directly north of Zarahemla when Alma 22 specifically mentions the North Wilderness north of Zarahemla? Why don't people mark the various wildernesses on their maps? They were significant and important enough to be specifically mentioned in the scriptures, place them on your map please.

I wonder if these two are aware of Jerry Grover's proposition that Sihyaj K'ahk' is king Aaron from the Book of Mormon. I'd like to hear their thoughts on it. From page 211 of his book Calendars and Chronology of the Book of Mormon: "In the Book of Mormon, Mormon, at the age of 20, indicates that he battled a Lamanite king named Aaron3 just prior to the completion of year 330 (January 10, 325 AD) after the coming of Christ (Mormon 2:9), which given the base date of the Coming of Christ calendar in 6 BC would place this battle at approximately 324 AD. No other Lamanite king is named for the balance of the Nephite/Lamanite war that led to the final destruction of the Nephites. Mormon indicates that before the final battle that he wrote an epistle to the “king of the Lamanites” (Mormon 6:2-3). Is it possible chronologically that Fire is Born is the Lamanite King Aaron3? If the Lamanite king was young as was Mormon when he became head of one Lamanite army, say fifteen, then his birth would have been around 309 AD. With that birth date he would have been around 67 years old when he came to El Peru and Tikal, and 70 years old when he is identified with installing the lord at Bejucan. "Perhaps the best evidence that Sihyaj Kʼahkʼ is in fact Aaron3 is the Hebrew etymology of the name Aaron3. Two of the possibilities involving the formative etymology of the Biblical name Aaron3 is from the verb הרה (hera) which means to conceive a child or to be or become pregnant (Genesis 16:4, Exodus 2:2, Isaiah 26:18) with the related masculine noun ןוירה (herayon), meaning conception of pregnancy (Hosea 9:11, Ruth 4:13) and also the masculine noun רוא ('ur), meaning flame (Isaiah 50:11, Ezekiel 5:2) (Abarim Publications 2021). The Lamanite King Aaron3 and King Sihyaj Kʼahkʼ are one and the same."

Overtime the evidence grows in greater favor of the BOM not worse. Keep up the great guests Murph!

2:06:04 How about getting the opinion of non-LDS historians and archaeologists? 2:06:51 Too many coincidences is a tell that strong evidence is not available.

You all are so desperate for this to be true, you all would make up anything. It already has been investigated by BYU Archeologist and found no evidence of Nephites and Laminates. Indians in north and south America are from Asia not Israel. You all are following a false prophet and a false church.

Great presentation.

Murph is a future Christian ❤ 🙏

Why do people keep saying Abbas is father. Ab or Abba with alif is father. There is no s. However, Abbas, with ein (which would be impossible to know in the Greek), is an extremely common name in the Semitic world. I have known many people with the name Abbas. Bar Abbas would actually be a real name. Son of the father would not be a real name, makes no sense in the real world, and no one would in reality be called son of the father. Abbas, by the way means lion. So there in front of everyone is the lamb and the lion. The people could choose. The people were looking for the lion. They chose the lion. They wanted the lion. They rejected the Lamb. By rejecting the Lamb, prophecy was fulfilled. By choosing the lion, war and violence, they lost their country. Most people have been choosing the lion ever since. Of course, the true Lion will yet be revealed. The true Lion is not a violent overthrower, but One who sets things aright and reigns justly. He is not coming to destroy (that is someone else's job title), but there will be those will not be able to abide His presence. -with much love-

When I read the scriptures it is clear that the Creator and Old Testament YHWH (Jehovah) is NOT Jesus, but the Father of Jesus. Jesus speaks and is spoken of by divine investiture as his Father, the OT Jehovah; and the resurrected Jesus is also a Jehovah, and speaks as Jehovah. And this confuses people into thinking Jesus was the creation and OT Jehovah. But this cannot overrule the multitude of scriptures that clearly verify that Jesus was the Son of the OT Jehovah. The very term “Son of God” is equal to “Son of Jehovah” because a Father of Jehovah is never clearly spoken of in any scripture, but only in the endowment.

one of three Nephite's was from Texas he said as much i think limiting border's mistake in size because it happened in both most tribes's we now know were forced out mexico by the spainish they did want become slave's like the aztec if you look there temples and city which were once above water which i think was a great port remembering what book mormon says in nephi 3 which seen to where confussion starts mulekites in north america nephites in the south america join up after christ came spiro mounds in oklahoma have been link to those in Missouri a new site has been found in texas

Atum = Adam.

Thanks for another good episode, Murph. I’m not a believer anymore and disagree with much of what he said but I appreciate your good questions and for making me think.

1:55:04 honest question. Why should we be flexible with all things except what he considers core (Jesus, etc)? Why are these non- negotiable? If you’re looking for truth everything is up for investigation and honest questioning. I don’t get his selectivity.

1:41:14 I love Terryl as a man, but how the crap does he know what lies underneath that question for people?? He’s just projecting a lazy motive. There are other reasons people struggle with this very question Murph posed.

27:25 but is the gospel as taught by Joseph true? That’s what I care about. Not if it’s more beautiful than the competing ideas of God. I’m not looking for just something I find appealing. Or something that makes me feel more loved. But something that’s true. That’s where JS and Mormonism falls down for me. I’m not convinced it’s true. I’m not convinced it reflects reality. That being said Terryl probably kept me in the church almost a decade longer than I would have stayed because he made it more beautiful and appealing. I appreciate him, but I just wish more appealing was enough. Thanks for the great conversation.

1:35:13 If you put all the lawyers “down” half the apostles would be 😵

The selling of Mormonism starts with a book

The trouble is the book of Mormon is not historical. Early American are from Asia, not Israel. Thats a hard truth but the truth non the less.

Not expecting to have a lot to say on this one. If the scholarship discussed is good, we'll probably just have some agreement and move on. That said, I do expect to hear some argumentum ad Margaret, and that will probably get a bit obnoxious. This is just a reminder at the start that Dr. Barker's ideas are rather fringe, and she's often accused of doing the same things that apologists get accused of doing. That said, when she represents consensus scholarship, she is generally quite good at faithfully representing the consensus viewpoint. 7:30 For this argument to cohere, you would have to demonstrate that the ideas that appear in the temple endowment, which are also found in the endowment, are not just a product of Joseph's evolving ideas. This with the BoM version representing early, fledgling forms of ideas that would later be expanded upon. I don't know how you would demonstrate that, but that's also not my epistemic burden to bear. Otherwise, you're just saying stuff without any meaningful backing to substantiate the claim. 19:15 Scholarly consensus would not agree that the Deuteronomists were monotheistic. Though the exact point where monotheism really emerges isn't 100% clear, the evidence points to the post-Exilic, Second Temple period at the earliest. The absolute sovereignty of YHWH over Israel is more of a concern of the Deuteronomistic literature, which is more into monolatry or henotheism than monotheism. 26:10 Laman and Lemuel have nothing to say about the building of an altar outside of Jerusalem. Their issue is with Lehi's visionary claims. 28:00 There is still some dispute about when Leviticus was written, but many scholars argue that it was written in the post-Exilic period. If that's the case, is it not perfectly explicable that the reason why the Day of Atonement (and the Feast of Trumpets) does not appear in Deuteronomy is because those festivals had not been invented yet? 56:00 Alma also means, and is most often translated as, "young maiden". Will you wrestle with that in this argument, or are you just going to throw the ideas you like out for folks to see and hide the others? And please don't justify the masculine use of Alma on the basis of a single letter from the Hellenistic period, centuries after the Lehite exodus. 56:40 Wait. Is every tree in the BoM now a symbol of "the virgin", or just the ones that we like? How are you making the distinctions? How are you demonstrating that this is what the author intended? So much of apologetics these days seems to be saying that the text claims something that isn't actually in the text at all, building a narrative off of that, and then refusing to understand why the critic sees it as nonsensical BS. 59:15 The text explicitly states that the reason why Lehi was driven out was because he was calling the people out for their wickedness. He is calling out the wickedness of a people that the Deuteronomistic history agrees were wicked. So... yeah... Are these guys going to accurately represent what the BoM says at all, or just represent what they want the BoM to say? 1:02:00 These guys absolutely fell apart here. Pretty basic criticism from the Murph, and then this laughably bad word salad. Anyway, let's address the silliness. If someone presents a document as a historical record of true events, and that record contains anachronisms, then it cannot be any older than the latest most recent anachronism. The example of if there's a document that claims to be about Abraham Lincoln, and it describes his iPhone 8, we know that document cannot be any older than the creation of the iPhone. Since Lincoln died before the creation of the iPhone, we know that document is historically unreliable. Now apply that to the Book of Mormon. It quotes Deutero-Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah was written during and after the Exile. Therefore, those sections could not have been written before the Exile. The problem is that the Lehites left the Holy Land before the Exile. This means that the BoM, which contains that anachronistic material, is not historically reliable. The reverse situation, no anachronisms in the text, means that the document may be historically reliable. It is not disqualified from the status of historical reliability. 1:03:30 The only people for whom it isn't an obvious fraud are those who assert its veracity. So, this point really shouldn't carry much epistemic weight. If it were true, we would expect to find Hebrew DNA in the New World. We don't. If it were true, we would expect to find evidence of pre-Columbian steel production. We don't. If it were true, we would expect it to accurately mention flora and fauna unique to the New World that do not appear in the Old World. It doesn't. 1:05:00 Joseph didn't need to "guess" any of that. All he needs is some people who are super committed to making it work no matter what to come along and twist and strain and wrench out just the smallest crumb of plausibility to keep those who want to believe able to do it. And I get it. I've been there. But to say that Joseph got it to align with scholars over a hundred years later while the book includes a story of a migration of people from the tower of Babel is not a fully intellectually honest approach to this. I think it's neat that Lehi is at least a plausible figure. But all this is just overstating the case. 1:06:30 No, it does not take more faith to reject the claim that a resurrected white Hebrew American appeared to Joseph Smith and led him to golden codex of plates with engraved reformed Egyptian characters which he translated into King James style English using a rock in his hat. It absolutely does not take more faith to reject that claim. This argument is bad when Frank Turek makes it. And it's bad here. Just a reminder that this all started when Murph presented just some light criticism, not even close to the stuff I've argued here. 1:08:00 And all that was fringe scholarship from Dr. Barker. This doesn't mean she's wrong, but it does mean that what she's claiming should be understood with a heavy grain of salt. 1:10:45 Typology is notorious for parallelomania. 1:24:00 Or the author of John used Levitical imagery to make his christological argument of Jesus' role as the lamb of God. Which is generally in line with the scholarly consensus on what is going on in John. 1:30:00 This is some corkboard, thumbtacks, and red string level stuff right here. Well, sadly, I ended up commenting a lot more than I expected. I hoped that it would be mostly good scholarship with a bit of silliness, but those scales were not as balanced as they should have been.

The Field is Beautiful as a Whole

If God truly spoke to you, you would know that the Church is NOT true and Joseph Smith was a false Prophet.

The book of Mormon is fiction.

Well done, Murph. Can't ever get enough of Butler and Day!

A boron mineral deficiency in the womb.

Lets gooo!!! Cant get enough of Dave Butler and Mile Day. Very excited for this one 🙌😊

Talking donkeys. Give us more talking donkeys. And if there's time, a story about milk strippings. The approach of the come follow me scribes. 😅

If the impetus of the Deuteronomists is due to foreign influence, what is the source of that influence? Is the argument it is Assyrian? Is there historical or archeological evidence for a scribal or legal/political Assyrian version of an Ashur-ism, contra a weakened Assyrian priest class, that would serve as a mirror for the centralized YHWH cult that developed?

MIKE MUHFUGGIN DAY AND D.JOHN BUTLER!!!!

Murph will be a future Christian ❤

Love this conversation. Very important for these things to be discussed and explained.

Jeffrey Bradshaw's research and writing is excellent, and inspiring.

In Guatemala, My people, the kakchiquel have a word for any metal "ch'ich" and not metal as in spanish, and natives do not Say North and south, they say "go up or go down"

Only Satan cares about a “ring of authenticity”. God cares about the Truth!

What you assume are connecting points with real history is nothing more than plagiarism, some word for word, and some with creative additions to give it a sense of legitimacy.

God would not have been made anything with an alloy. Your poor understanding of God makes you unable to see how it would not be possible. Only a pure metal would have been used.

It’s even quite easy today to forge signatures, how much easier it would have been in 1830.

@26:08 you should’ve mentioned the interesting hand signs that were being made in the picture.

Great review Murph. These videos need a couple million more views.

The “witnesses” were either all from JS’s family of had financial interests that invalidates their claims.

All the extra “information” is flourishing that was made up after people started to notice holes in JS’s theories.

Having faith in the BoM is the same as having lack of Faith in Christ and His True Church of God, the original Church which He founded. Stubbornly following after your own imaginings and refusing the Truth will be the demise you will suffer by your own making.