- The Bible in the Book of Mormon (1999) by Curt van den Heuvel
“The Book of Mormon was written by someone who either had a KJV Bible in front of him, or was intimately familiar with its contents. When we add to this phenomenon other Book of Mormon problems, such as the lack of any historical, archaeological or linguistic confirmation, the large number of anachronistic terms and items referenced in the book, and its mirroring of the issues and problems of the nineteenth century Protestant Church, and we come to the inescapable conclusion that the Book of Mormon originated in the early nineteenth century.”
- The Book of Mormon and the King James Version (1999) by Curt van den Heuvel
“It is very evident that the Book of Mormon owes much to the King James Version. Since this particular version of the Bible was not translated until 1611, it means that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work as Joseph Smith claimed.”
- Unanswerable Book of Mormon Questions (Off Site)
- Book of Mormon Error (Off Site)
II Nephi 19:1 “qualifies the reference to ‘way of the sea’ in Isaiah, and makes it the Red Sea. This is, however, quite impossible.”
- Book of Mormon Evidences (Off Site)
“The Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, and that there is nothing about it that cannot be explained in terms of a purely human origin.”
- Book of Mormon used as a geographical guidebook? (Off Site)
A response to the claim that the Book of Mormon accurately portrays the journey of a desert traveler in Arabia.
- Do Chiasmus make the Book of Mormon authentic? (Off Site)
Some of the examples of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon “may seem to be compelling, but when closely examined, they turn out to be little more than wishful thinking.” They are no more compelling than subsequent supposed chiasms created by Joseph Smith in his other sermons, journals, and prayers.
- Evidence for the Book of Mormon? (Off Site)
Mormon critics frequently point out the lack of historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. Mormon apologists respond by stating that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “What would be necessary to show that the Book of Mormon stories do not accurately portray ancient New World history and events?”
- Is “View of the Hebrews” a Source for the Book of Mormon? by rpcman (Off Site)
A Mormon apologist challenged Mormon critics to show that the “View of the Hebrews” is a source for the Book of Mormon. This critic responded, but the apologist refuses to acknowledge the response. See also More on the View of the Hebrews.
- More Questions on the Book of Mormon and the LDS faith? (Off Site)
“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere.”
- Why Was Hebrew Not Chosen for the Book of Mormon? (Off Site)
Some Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon was supposedly written in “reformed Egyptian” instead of Hebrew because Hebrew was not as compact as “reformed Egyptian.” As the author shows, this may be false.