Why is there lots of archaeological evidence for the Bible but little for the Book of Mormon?
(The inquirer said that if the Book of Mormon were true, there should be detailed confirmation of numerous place names and historical events, just as there is for the Bible.) A. First, let me recommend a brief but excellent essay on this issue: “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” by Michael Ash at the FAIRLDS.org Website. In general, I feel that the yardstick you use to compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon is unfair. The Middle East (including the Mediterranean area + Fertile Crescent) has an extensive tradition of written documents and preserved history for thousands of years, and has been the site of intense scholarly work for many, many years. Ancient places and their names and histories are known better in that area than anywhere else in the world (even ancient China, with a strong written tradition, is only poorly known in comparison). In spite of that, it is premature to say that the Bible has been proven by archaeological findings. For example, there is not a trace of evid
