As I have discussed in several of my past devotions on archaeology and the Bible, this field of scientific study has validated the historical reliability of the Bible literally in hundreds of instances. There can be little doubt, to the honest observer, that the Bible is historically accurate. Whether it’s the names of ancient kings, the existence and geographical location of biblical cities, or dates when important events took place, the Bible has always proven spot-on in its descriptions of these people, places, and times.
You would expect no less from a book that claims to be of divine origin. But what about the Mormon sacred Book, the Book of Mormon? How does it stack up archaeologically? Can archaeology also validate its claims, when this so-called holy book, mentions people, places, and dates?
Archaeologically speaking the answer can be summed up quite simply with a resounding – no! According to David Hunt: “Not one piece of evidence has ever been found to support the Book of Mormon – not a trace of large cities it names, no ruins, no coins, no letters or documents or monuments, nothing in writing. Not even one of the rivers or mountains or any of the topography it mentions has ever been identified.”1 Even the prestigious National Geographic Society commented: “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”2
And according to the website – Biblereasons.com – “The Book of Mormon, though it mentions a lot of historical things, lacks the archeological evidence to back it up. None of the cities or people mentioned specifically in regard to the Book of Mormon have been discovered. Lee Strobel says ‘Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see ‘no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.’”3
When it comes to the Bible, this amazing book names cities and their location and names people and shares the dates they existed. Archaeologists have discovered over and over again that in every case, that they have unearthed an archaeological find, the descriptions the Bible gives are accurate. In the case of the Book of Mormon the only archaeological evidence supporting its descriptions is sheer speculation. The Bible, however, bases its archaeological claims on hard, observable, and verifiable evidence.
My friends, when we embrace the Bible, we are reading history just as it happened. With the Book of Mormon no such claim can be made or substantiated.
1 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 57.
2 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 99.
3 The Bible Vs The Book Of Mormon: 10 Major Differences To Know (biblereasons.com)