Archaeology and the Bible v Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Archeaological discoveries are often able to go some way to confirm or contradict truth claims. There has been some fascinating discoveries over the years that at least point to the historicity of Jesus and inform our thinking on the accuracy of the Gospels. The picture here is that of an inscription to Pontious Pilate. The inscription not only confirms the historicity of Pilate, it clarifies the
title that he bore as governor. It is now on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
If a piece of ancient writing is historically accurate you would of course expect that archaeology would support what has been written.
By means of contrast, it is worth thinking about the claims of the Book of Mormon. There has never been any archaeology discoveries that confirm:
title that he bore as governor. It is now on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
If a piece of ancient writing is historically accurate you would of course expect that archaeology would support what has been written.
By means of contrast, it is worth thinking about the claims of the Book of Mormon. There has never been any archaeology discoveries that confirm:
- Book of Mormon cities, places, nation or name
- Book of Mormon people
- Book of Mormon artifacts
- Book of Mormon inscriptions
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the Mormon claim that Jesus made a physical appearance to walk the streets of America.
John McCray a Professor of New Testament and Archaeology states that 'Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible. On the contrary, ... there have been many opinions of skeptical scholoars that have become codified into 'fact' over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong.' (The Case for Christ: Strobel)
Comments