Perry wrote: > "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM > that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about > it's fictional nature stands." > > That is interesting about the barley, but it > hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage > between the barley the BoM other than in name only.
I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
