God Exists

Deviant.genie, the reason I don"t believe in Islam and Mormonism is not because miracles can"t happen, they can and do happen. But the evidence is strongly against these religions being true, while the evidence demonstrates clearly that the resurrection of Jesus is true. So it"s not a matter of me being biased, it"s a matter of going where the evidence points me. You said: These "eyewitnesses" mean nothing. Joseph Smith had "eyewitnesses". If witnesses mean nothing, then why is eyewitness testimony so important in court? Let"s compare these witnesses of Joseph Smith to the witnesses of Jesus Christ: The testimony of the three witnesses, which appear at the front of the Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) declares that "An angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engraving thereon. " Martin Harris denied that he had actually seen the plates with his "naked eyes." In fact, when pressed, he stated, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye" (Recollections of John H. Gilbert, 1892, Typescript, BYU, 5"6). The Mormon Church admitted that all three of these witnesses later apostatized from the Mormon faith and were described in most unflattering terms ("counterfeiters, thieves, [and] liars") by their Mormon contemporaries (cf. Senate Document 189, February 15, 1841, 6"9)." Joseph Smith wrote prophecies and articles against the character of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. (Doctrine and Covenants, 3:12; 10:7; History of the Church; 3:228, 3:232). The Times and Seasons (2:482) published that Oliver Cowdery denied his Book of Mormon testimony. He spent several years as a baptized Methodist before his rebaptism into Mormonism. Martin Harris denied the teachings of their president Brigham Young after rebaptism and was banned from preaching. David Whitmer changed the details of his testimony concerning the angel with the golden plates to say that it was a vision and not an actual visitation by an angelic person (An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 32). So three of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon recanted their testimony, not one of the witnesses to the risen Christ ever recanted their testimony. Jesus was seen alive from the dead by the women at the tomb, the eleven apostles, the apostle Paul, and the 500 brethren, and not a single one of these ever recanted their testimony. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never denied the resurrection. For these reasons I stand by the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, and reject those for Mormonism. As for Islam, I"m not aware of any witnesses who ever claimed to see an angel talk to Muhammad or see him on a flying horse, so there"s no reason for me to believe this. Miracles aren"t the problem, the problem is lack of evidence for such miracles; unlike the resurrection which has good evidence " multiple independent witnesses, an empty tomb, etc. If the resurrection was a lie, the Jews would have produced the corpse and nipped this feared superstition in the bud. All they had to do was go to the tomb and get it. The disciples could not have gotten away with proclaiming the resurrection in Jerusalem - same time, same place, full of eyewitnesses - if it had been a lie. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection (and been believed) under such circumstances had it not occurred. If there had been a conspiracy, it would certainly have been unearthed by the disciples' adversaries, who had both the interest and the power to expose any fraud. You mention that archaeology doesn"t find the cities and people mentioned in the book of Mormon, but it does vindicate the Bible: At Karnak (ancient Thebes), on the Nile River, a vast Egyptian temple contains an inscription on its South wall confirming the campaign of Egyptian King Shishak (Sheshonk I) in Palestine, described at 1"Kings 14:25,"26 and 2"Chronicles 12:1-9. The giant relief depicting his victories shows 156 manacled Palestinian prisoners, each representing a city or village, the name of which is given in hieroglyphics. Among the names identifiable are those of Rabbith (Jos 19:20), Taanach, Beth-shean and Megiddo (where a portion of a stele or inscribed pillar of Shishak has been excavated) (Jos 17:11), Shunem (Jos 19:18), Rehob (Jos 19:28), Hapharaim (Jos 19:19), Gibeon (Jos 18:25), Beth-horon (Jos 21:22), Aijalon (Jos 21:24), Socoh (Jos 15:35), and Arad (Jos 12:14). He even lists the "Field of Abram" as one of his captures, the earliest reference to Abraham in Egyptian records. Also found in this area was a monument of Merneptah, son of Ramses II, containing a hymn in which the only occurrence of the name Israel in ancient Egyptian texts is to be found. So the Bible is in pretty trustworthy form from an archaeological standpoint, one reason why I trust it, one of many. According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period. Historians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period. To compare this to the Book of Mormon is compare apples and oranges. When I check the evidence, the Bible is well supported as historical documents, the Book of Mormon isn"t, neither the Quar"an. Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13. Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians. Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru. Nuzi tablets: (from Iraq) speaks about a number of customs which we find in the Pentateuch, such as: ￼￼￼a) a barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar) ￼￼￼b) a bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah) ￼￼￼c) a dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob) ￼￼￼d) work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob) ￼￼￼e) the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac) ￼￼￼f) a father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel) ￼￼￼g) the sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob). Archaeology has served to confirm many historical features of the Biblical account and to substantiate points once held in question by modern critics. Skepticism as regards the Tower of Babel, denials of the existence of a Babylonian king named Belshazzar and of an Assyrian king named Sargon (whose names, up until the nineteenth century"C.E., were not found in sources independent of the Bible record), and other adverse criticisms as to Bible data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation. Contrariwise, a wealth of evidence has been unearthed that harmonizes fully with the Scriptural account.