Originally Posted: September 2005
First of all, despite claims to the contrary, the Book of Mormon is the work of man and is not inspired by God. Since its original publication there have been over 4,000 alterations made to this supposedly inspired writing. These changes include deletions of entire sections, the changing of characters named in the book, changes of the names of locations, and much more. Yet despite all these alterations, this book still contains numerous errors and contradictions.
The Book of Mormon discusses metals being used in weapons, coins, and buildings. It mentions things such as chariots, swords, scimitars, and breastplates. It talks about crops of wheat and barley. It mentions the donkey, cattle, oxen, horse, pig, and elephants. It also talks about the use of linen and silk. There is absolutely NO archaeological evidence to support any of this. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pieces of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible, so why is there not even one piece of archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?
As already noted, the Book of Mormon mentions crops of wheat and barley, which we know were not grown in ancient America, but fails to mention crops like cocoa bean, squash, potatoes, and lima beans, to name a few. These were grown in great abundance, but no mention of them can be found in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon describes great cities and describes battles where millions perished. Where are the remains of the cities and where are the remains of those killed in the battles? Where is the armor they wore and the weapons they used? Again, ALL of the archaeological evidence available shows this claim to be inaccurate.
The Book of Mormon claims that those who lived here used a calendar consisting of a seven-day week. Yet none of the archaeological evidence has ever produced any such calendar. The calendars that have been found mostly used a 20-day period, repeating over and over.
In Alma 7:10 we find: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."
Now we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Jerusalem, so obviously this is a major error in the book. However, those who defend the Book of Mormon will often tell you that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town. Another thing to ponder on this is, where in the Bible or in the Book of Mormon is another such example referring to a general area for a town instead of naming the town?
No matter how many things in the Book of Mormon compliment and agree with the Bible, we must also take into consideration the things that are not in agreement with the Bible and contradict all known facts, Biblically, historically, and scientifically. Taking the entire Book of Mormon into consideration, it clearly fails to be a book that is inspired by God. And since God did not inspire it, that means just one thing. It is the work of man.