DNA & The Book of Mormon | Book of Mormon Evidence 

Thanks for reading the book! I'm glad it helped.

Where can people get that book?

I know… It’s amazing isn’t it?!. I saw a video a few years ago done by a Jewish rabbi, who had gotten some information together, and I think it was himself and a handful of other Hebrew students that were able to correlate the genetic coding pattern to an alphabet in Hebrew. I believe if I am not mistaken, they were able to count the number of pairs of proteins in human DNA, and the end result was that it spelled out the name of heavenly father, in original ancient Hebrew. so it was like he was literally putting his name upon us and encoding it in our DNA pattern. I don’t know if this is 100% true but I was just awe struck by that potential revelation. What a beautiful mystery. Our father in heaven is.

@@csluau5913 I've definitely got to see if I can track that information down

@@csluau5913 Yes. It was easy to find. Hebrew letters correspond with number, as in A is 1, B is 2, etc. the connection sequence of our DNA as our body makes it is 5-6-10, which letters match up with the name of God in Hebrew

Are you aware the name of God is forming in vines on the East Temple mount Wall in Hebrew?

@@GarySaint-xm6tr yes, I am aware of that. It came out in Haaretz a few weeks ago. I also know about the preparations being made for the sacrifice of the red heifers, and a few other things. I am trying to keep up with some of the news from Israel as well as other places, but there is absolutely so much going on in the world right now it’s almost impossible to keep up with everything.we are truly living in the last days

I can tell you based upon my research that they absolutely traded and interacted for many years. There were some cases where it was not wise to do so, but there are stories amongst some of the western tribes about how they had both good and bad interactions with the people they said lived down in the land south. It is my opinion that the Jeredy were the ones who started up the trade routes, and explored many rivers and mountain passes and left marker stones behind to show they had been there. Many of those marker stones subsequently had more rock art, and cliffs added over the centuries. I’m still working on the rest. The people have Nephi and Mulek simply picked up the threads left over from theJaredite empire, and took up trading on the old routes by land and river, and coastal waters again.

The experts spent tens of thousands of dollars to go to universities, and gave up 2 to 6 years of their life, so that now their identity is so invested in their field of research how dare anyone interpret their work, even if the interpretation is exactly what they found to be true, and is how they meant the interpretation. If you do not find DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon, it's not true. If you find DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon, it can't be accurate, because the expert didn't read it

Would you let your plumber perform a heart surgery? Ron manipulates “evidence” that conforms to his preferred narrative.

@@dr33776 Please. You are so full of yourself. Archeologist are not highly specialized people. Come on, really. I'm laughing like crazy over your response.

@@GarySaint-xm6tr go to your landscaper next time you feel bad, I’m sure he’ll cure you instead of a fancy doctor with his fancy “titles behind his name” 😂😂😂

You don't get it. An archeologist is the landscaper

Oh brother

I read (maybe it was the apocryphal Book of Joseph or Joseph and Asenath) that she was Hebrew & not of Ham's line. Maybe she had been a Hebrew slave & had been adopted. I don't think that Joseph would have married her if she was not Hebrew or of his own people.

@@nancylowe2692 the ruling Egyptians in Joseph’s day were probably Semitic like the Israelites. They were known as the Hyksos that conquered and ruled Egypt for some time until the real Egyptians regained their power and ousted the Hyksos. Anyway, there’s no proof but it’s plausible. Even if Joseph’s wife was of the line of Ham, that would be generations and generations prior to Lehi and his colony settling in ancient America.

An additional video or two is coming with more discussion

Rude!

@@nancylowe2692I agree

Well that depends on what you call evidence. To the keen eye... good evidence is almost becoming overwhelming. List one error in the KJV that bothers you.

Where did you get that from the CES letter. What version is it on now

@@godsoffspring4195 Verses that seem to contain significant errors Isaiah 2:16 pictures - BYU scholars Pike and Seely examine this verse in great depth and conclude “We are thus not presently aware of any solution that satisfactorily accounts for all the questions regarding 2 Nephi 12:16 in its relation to the preserved text of Isaiah 2:16”.8 Joosten rates it a 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “the word means ‘ships’ (the word was borrowed from Egyptian, which the KJV translators had no access to)[ESV] against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft.” fizzix_is_fun calls this a U. Alter says “It’s all guesswork by context”. Isaiah 3:3 eloquent orator - Joosten rates this a 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “ESV is better”. fizzix_is_fun rates this a 1 (“somewhat inaccurate”). Alter implies this is incorrect (“expert in charms” [the ESV translation] is correct). Isaiah 9:1 grievously afflict - Joosten 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “but I sympathize, the verse is really difficult”. SF2K01 writes “כבד can refer to heavy as in weight or honor. Best to think of it as “dealt with seriously” or harshly”. Alter thought I gave incorrect verse and chapter so didn’t comment. Isaiah 11:3 of quick understanding - Joosten 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “the text means ‘his smelling will be in the fear of the Lord’”. SF2K01 writes “Literally given breath, meaning animated, lively or “enspirited” in discussing a moral quality. Neither translation works well here.” Alter says KJV and ESV “are entirely wrong” (Hebrew means something like “his spirit” or “his breath.”) Isaiah 13:22 wild beasts and dragons - Joosten 2, 0 “ESV is much closer to the mark”. SF2K01 writes “אי as indicated is some kind of howling animal, תנין are mysterious sea serpents (sometimes crocodiles). Dragon carries too much European mythological weight so not a great translation for us.” So, “wild beasts” seems okay-ish, but dragon is “completely inaccurate”. Alter implies this is incorrect (“ESV is correct.”) Isaiah 49:5 though Israel be not gathered - Joosten - “the Hebrew here has two alternate reading lo[w] ‘to him’/lo[’] ‘not’; according to the context ‘to him’ is correct” (I assume he would call that a 0). SF2K01 writes “The text is written utilizing the word לא meaning not, but results in the problematic reading of “Israel will never be gathered” when combined with יאסף. This is traditionally corrected to לו meaning “to Him” which makes more sense grammatically (there are lots of problematic texts which mistake the ו O for an א O and vice versa, so it is a common scribal error).” Alter implies this is incorrect (“ESV is correct.”) Conclusion At least 6 verses seem-based on scholarly consensus-to contain significant translation errors, as judged by at least two eminent scholars and additional biblical scholars who appear competent. Two additional verses may contain significant errors, but these seem more debatable. Based mostly on more archaic meanings of words used in King James translations, a few verses that appear to be translation errors to many scholars may not, in fact, be errors. What does this mean for modern and ancient origin theories of the Book of Mormon? We might expect Joseph Smith to have pulled from an available Bible in trying to convey the essence of the plates in language that would be familiar to his audience. We do not expect Joseph to rely on his Bible when the meaning on the plates would be incorrectly and inadequately expressed. The repeated one-for-one reliance on a faulty translation for particular words and phrases suggests either that no ancient text was being referred to, or-more generously-no ancient text was being closely referred to during that portion of the translation.

@@godsoffspring4195 Verses that may contain a significant error Isaiah 10:18 standardbearer - Joosten says U - “this word is attested only here, its meaning is unvertain [sic]”. Alter says “ESV a better guess”. But SF2K01 writes “KJV complete nonsense here (assuming נס = נסס). It is clear that נסס is a weakening of some sort and the meaning holds across local semitic languages.” Isaiah 3:2 / 2 Ne 13:2 prudent - Joosten rates this a 0 (“completely inaccurate”); Alter implies KJV is incorrect (“The diviner is correct, and the last term should be ‘expert in incantations.’”). fizzix_is_fun rates this a 0 (“completely innacurate”), but acranger notes that “prudent” had a somewhat different meaning in 1769 which makes this less inaccurate to my mind. So, a possible error. Verses that seem to contain significant errors Isaiah 2:16 pictures - BYU scholars Pike and Seely examine this verse in great depth and conclude “We are thus not presently aware of any solution that satisfactorily accounts for all the questions regarding 2 Nephi 12:16 in its relation to the preserved text of Isaiah 2:16”.8 Joosten rates it a 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “the word means ‘ships’ (the word was borrowed from Egyptian, which the KJV translators had no access to)[ESV] against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft.” fizzix_is_fun calls this a U. Alter says “It’s all guesswork by context”. Isaiah 3:3 eloquent orator - Joosten rates this a 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “ESV is better”. fizzix_is_fun rates this a 1 (“somewhat inaccurate”). Alter implies this is incorrect (“expert in charms” [the ESV translation] is correct). Isaiah 9:1 grievously afflict - Joosten 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “but I sympathize, the verse is really difficult”. SF2K01 writes “כבד can refer to heavy as in weight or honor. Best to think of it as “dealt with seriously” or harshly”. Alter thought I gave incorrect verse and chapter so didn’t comment. Isaiah 11:3 of quick understanding - Joosten 0 (“completely inaccurate”) - “the text means ‘his smelling will be in the fear of the Lord’”. SF2K01 writes “Literally given breath, meaning animated, lively or “enspirited” in discussing a moral quality. Neither translation works well here.” Alter says KJV and ESV “are entirely wrong” (Hebrew means something like “his spirit” or “his breath.”) Isaiah 13:22 wild beasts and dragons - Joosten 2, 0 “ESV is much closer to the mark”. SF2K01 writes “אי as indicated is some kind of howling animal, תנין are mysterious sea serpents (sometimes crocodiles). Dragon carries too much European mythological weight so not a great translation for us.” So, “wild beasts” seems okay-ish, but dragon is “completely inaccurate”. Alter implies this is incorrect (“ESV is correct.”) Isaiah 49:5 though Israel be not gathered - Joosten - “the Hebrew here has two alternate reading lo[w] ‘to him’/lo[’] ‘not’; according to the context ‘to him’ is correct” (I assume he would call that a 0). SF2K01 writes “The text is written utilizing the word לא meaning not, but results in the problematic reading of “Israel will never be gathered” when combined with יאסף. This is traditionally corrected to לו meaning “to Him” which makes more sense grammatically (there are lots of problematic texts which mistake the ו O for an א O and vice versa, so it is a common scribal error).” Alter implies this is incorrect (“ESV is correct.”) Conclusion At least 6 verses seem-based on scholarly consensus-to contain significant translation errors, as judged by at least two eminent scholars and additional biblical scholars who appear competent. Two additional verses may contain significant errors, but these seem more debatable. Based mostly on more archaic meanings of words used in King James translations, a few verses that appear to be translation errors to many scholars may not, in fact, be errors. What does this mean for modern and ancient origin theories of the Book of Mormon? We might expect Joseph Smith to have pulled from an available Bible in trying to convey the essence of the plates in language that would be familiar to his audience. We do not expect Joseph to rely on his Bible when the meaning on the plates would be incorrectly and inadequately expressed. The repeated one-for-one reliance on a faulty translation for particular words and phrases suggests either that no ancient text was being referred to, or-more generously-no ancient text was being closely referred to during that portion of the translation.

@@godsoffspring4195 Verses that may contain a significant error Isaiah 10:18 standardbearer - Joosten says U - “this word is attested only here, its meaning is unvertain [sic]”. Alter says “ESV a better guess”. But SF2K01 writes “KJV complete nonsense here (assuming נס = נסס). It is clear that נסס is a weakening of some sort and the meaning holds across local semitic languages.” Isaiah 3:2 / 2 Ne 13:2 prudent - Joosten rates this a 0 (“completely inaccurate”); Alter implies KJV is incorrect (“The diviner is correct, and the last term should be ‘expert in incantations.’”). fizzix_is_fun rates this a 0 (“completely innacurate”), but acranger notes that “prudent” had a somewhat different meaning in 1769 which makes this less inaccurate to my mind. So, a possible error.

haplogroup x DNA doesn't prove any dates, rather it proves the ancestral connection of some American Indians to the Middle East.

@@webweaver3015 “The most parsimonious explanation for these results is that Native Americans have mixed origins, resulting from admixture between peoples related to modern-day east Asians and western Eurasians…Human dispersals in northeast asia immediately before and after the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) are most likely to have led to the settlement of Beringia, and ultimately the Americas…Our study has four important implications. First, we find evidence that contemporary Native Americans and western Eurasians share ancestry through gene flow from a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population into First Americans. Second, our findings may provide an explanation for the presence of mtDNA haplogroup X in Native Americans, which is related to western Eurasians but not found in east Asian populations. Third, such an easterly presence in Asia of a population related to contemporary western Eurasians provides a possibility that non-east Asian cranial characteristics of the First Americans derived from the Old World via migration through Beringia, rather than by a trans-Atlantic voyage from Iberia as proposed by the Solutrean hypothesis. Fourth, the presence of an ancient western Eurasian genomic signature in the Baikal area before and after the LGM suggests that parts of south-central Siberia were occupied by humans throughout the coldest stages of the last ice age.” (Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans, Published online 2013 Nov 20, Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2014 Jan 2; 505(7481): 87-91) “the presence of X2a in North America has been cited as evidence for two different trans-Atlantic migrations before European contact. First, Meldrum (2009) and Smoot et al. (2010) suggested that X2a is the result of an ancient Hebrew migration from the Middle East to North America approximately 2500 cal yr BP. This hypothesis is undermined, though, by four key findings: X2a is not found in the Middle East, none of the X2 lineages present in the Middle East are immediately ancestral to X2a, the date of coalescence for X2a (14,200-17,000 cal yr BP) significantly precedes the hypothesized migration from the Middle East (Perego et al. 2009), and haplogroup X2a was present in North America far earlier than the hypothesized Hebrew migration, having been found in the 8690-8400 cal yr BP Kennewick Man remains from Washington state (Rasmussen et al. 2015). Thus, X2a does not provide any evidence for an ancient Hebrew migration from the Middle East to North America...Thus, at this time, there is simply no evidence that X2a evolved in the Near East, Europe, or anywhere in West Eurasia...We remain unconvinced by the arguments advanced thus far in favor of a trans-Atlantic migration prior to 1500 cal yr BP or so. As we have discussed, X2a has not been found anywhere in Eurasia, and phylogeography gives us no compelling reason to think it is more likely to come from Europe than from Siberia. Furthermore, analysis of the complete genome of Kennewick Man, who belongs to the most basal lineage of X2a yet identified, gives no indication of recent European ancestry and moves the location of the deepest branch of X2a to the West Coast, consistent with X2a belonging to the same ancestral population as the other founder mitochondrial haplogroups. Nor have any high-resolution studies of genome-wide data from Native American populations yielded any evidence of Pleistocene European ancestry or trans-Atlantic gene flow. It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle Eastern) population be found within ancient Native American genomes, it would require the field to reassess the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric Native American migration. However, no such evidence has been found, and the Beringian migration model remains the best interpretation of the genetic, archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date.” (Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation, Jennifer A. Raff & Deborah A. Bolnick, 06 November 2015)

We wouldn’t have a channel with THOUSANDS of hours of content if that were true. I suggest you do so and open your eyes to the content and maybe you might see the evidence you are refusing to see.

Name the prophet who said that and I bet he said there's no proof, and never said there's no evidence. None of your other theories are accurate either. :>)

Actually, that is incorrect. Abinadi made it clear that Christ was the Father of the faithful, not the same as our Heavenly Father. Christ himself also made that clear later when he visited the Nephites and prayed to his father. Kinda hard to refute Christ himself, wouldn't you agree? Also, there is nowhere in the Book of Mormon where it says we will be punished for Adam's transgression. In fact, it hints at the opposite in 2nd Nephi 2: "Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy." In other words, there is "opposition in all things" so we experience both joy and sorrow in this life as a result of Adam's fall, but we can be redeemed from the fall through Christ's atonement. I challenge you to reread that chapter and afterwards reread the account of Christ's ministry in 3rd Nephi, and do so prayerfully. The doctrine is clear if you have "eyes to see and ears to hear." If not, or of you trust only in your own wisdom, you will stumble. Best wishes!

​@@godsoffspring4195 If the Prophet has to tell you not to look, it means there is no evidence. furthermore, look who has not read their BOM. You know full well that I was not speaking theory there. The BOM states both of those things. I even told you about what parts to find it to show I am not lying there.

​@@FalconFastest123No, Abinadi said verbatum that Jesus was the very Eternal Father, and then Abinadi explains how that is the case. nice try though. You missed the 2nd Nephi 2 verse, and brought an even worse one into the mix. That scripture directly states that disobedience to God was a good thing. It also means that God is a liar, and that He wants us to sin. good try though.

​@@FalconFastest123as far as the verse reread 2nd Nephi 2. it states we were lost because of the transgression of our parents (Adam and Eve.) i.e removed from God's presence (which supposedly is the same punishment as hell.)

hey freind Truth is Truth just lik they said

They don't have to be researchers in order to read the research and what experts have written. Anyone who refuses to believe that the ancestors of the overall indigenous North American population are from all over the globe are close-minded and ignorant of not only DNA research, but also archeological and anthropological research, as well as the oral histories of the North American indigenous people. The finding of the DNA link they are talking about should not surprise anyone.

So @kid_kaoz what white papers about genetics have *_you_* read and studied?

it's easy to wag your finger from the great and spacious building

Did you even watch the video? They cited professional sources and scientific research. Maybe you are the one who refuses to let go of a presupposition.