Biblical historical accuracy
In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.William J. Hamblin (1993), “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies v2:1 (Provo: FARMS).
...while archaeology has been able to document in general the pastoral nomadic lifestyle depicted in Genesis throughout the second millennium B.C. (and other periods), it has not brought to light any direct evidence to substantiate the story that Abraham lived, that he migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan, or that there was a Joseph who found his way to Egypt and rose top power there. ...The tradition is made up of legends that still may be regarded as containing moral truths, but until now they have been of uncertain historical provenance. ...Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the exodus and wander in the wilderness-- events so crucial in the Biblical recitation of the “mighty acts of God"-- we have no evidence whatsoever; nor are we likely to have any, since slaves, serfs, and nomads leave few traces in the archaeological record. (Dever, 1990, 24.)William G. Dever (1990), Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990).
And on the subject of American Indians being of Jewish decent.
“We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.”Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency,
speaking at the April 1929 General Conference
(Ivins, 1929, p. 15)
and in response to:
Originally posted by docb77
Hey guys, I found that book by Bickmore. It's called "Restoring the Ancient Church". Great book, it has tons of references to the earliest known Christians - from just after the time of the apostles. It shows how many of the doctrines that other churches reject now where actually around back then.
I did some research on this text. While there are probably accuracies in Bickmore's work, his work has been credibly criticized in a number of areas. I would not appeal to his work in this book as support in a debate with a non-LDS person. While there are undoubtedly accuracies, there are definitely some inaccuracies.