2

Thus far, answers to this question, indicate that traditional Christian faith would suffer greatly if people, locations, and events recorded in the Bible could not be historically verified while answers to this question indicate (thus far) that Mormon faith would not suffer at all if people, locations, and events recorded in the Book of Mormon could not be historically verified.

Has anyone ever published a survey of people, locations, and events from these two religious texts detailing what percentage of "historical context" in each has been verified?

7
  • 2
    This is looking for a comparison of the scholarly output related to A) a ~1200 page text in circulation ~2000 years, revered by a third of the world population, describing the most studied region of the planet vs. B) a ~500 page text in circulation ~200 years, revered by .002 of the world population, describing one of the least studied regions on the planet. Maybe a few more centuries are needed for something closer to an apples to apples comparison? Apr 3 at 14:02
  • 1
    Don't get me wrong, the Bible has fared very well against most of the naturalistic scrutiny it has faced, but it has had a lot more time, people, and energy defending it as well. Apr 3 at 14:09
  • 2
    @Mr.Bond the OP and comments are about verified history, which coincidentally involves location, which is why I brought it up. Maybe OP needs clarity about the type of historical events that need verification. I glanced at the "The Changing World of Mormonism" and stopped when they started extensively quoting JoD and Mormon Doctrine (neither of which are official LDS doctrine). As the authors point out the LDS church is either true or not. If not, a great deal of effort has gone into discrediting it and its doctrine
    – depperm
    Apr 3 at 23:38
  • 1
    @MikeBorden the type of historical arguments that show credible eyewitness testimony in the NT (such as Ramsay or Hemer's work on Acts) are relatively recent scholarship. That the text mentions well-known places isn't a compelling case for truth. The miracles of emperors/commanders/etc reported by Herodotus or Suetonius in real places, or the mention of Jerusalem in Gnostic Gospels, doesn't make those claims compelling or true. Since we don't (yet) know where Zarahemla was, we can't (yet) pair known ruins with written accounts of them, like we can with much of the Old World. Apr 4 at 14:40
  • 1
    have you read any of the books documenting/verifying route Lehi and his family took from Jerusalem to the point the left on a ship? Even regarding the Bible exact locations of events hasn't been historically verified beyond it happened in this city, which isn't much of a verification
    – depperm
    Apr 4 at 15:38

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .