Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   can we trust the book of Mormon?
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 80 (154387)
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Is the book of Mormon simply a 'copy-cat' of the King James bible? He claims he translated it from ancient writings. But his book even contains words and sentences from the King James that were written in italics. Meaning, that the translators added them to scripture, for english clarity. The implication here is that Joseph Smith worked with a King James Bible. For example, the book of Mormon contains some 27,000 words directly from the King James Bible. There are whole chapters that have been lifted from Isaiah. If the book of Mormon was first penned between 600B.C and 421AD, as claimed. How could it contain extensive quotations from the AD.1611 KJV, using archaic King James english, which was not written more than 1000yrs later?
The four gospels of Jesus in the NT were all written by disciples. All 4 gospels build upon genuine historical tradition and preserve different aspects of it. The gospels present 4 portraits of Jesus, each in its own characteristic manner. Matthew writes for the Hebrew mind, Mark writes for the Roman mind, Luke writes with the Greek mentality in view, & Johns gospel is more of an interpretation of the facts of Jesus, rather than a a historical timeline of events. Moreover, we have 24,000 ancient MSS of the NT all attesting historically and traditionally to the books adhered to in the NT.
The book of Mormon has also never been supported by archaeology. Even though the book of Mormon speaks about the ancient inhabitants of America. According to Mormon scripture, Nephite and Lamanite nations had huge populations that lived in large cities, waging large scale wars for hundreds of yrs, culminating in conflicts in which hundreds of thousands were killed, in what is now present day New York state (Mormon 6:9-15).
The National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute have affirmed "Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book of Mormon". The Bureau of American Ethnology asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Colombian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity and the Bible". In a february 4, 1982 letter, the National Geographic Society stated "Although many Mormon sources claim that the book of Mormon has been substantiated by archeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically". In an article published in Dialogue: A journal of Mormon thought, Dee Green (assistent professor of anthropology at Weber state college said "The first myth we need to eliminate is that book of Mormon archeology exists... If one is to study the book of Mormon archeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not... No book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archeology can be studied because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla & Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are". Mormon scholars continue to try hard to find book of Mormon lands somewhere in Central America. The fact remains there is virtually no solid archeology support for book of Mormon history.
There is also the perversion (christian perspective) of the holy scriptures. In that Jesus Christ is reduced to a spirit brother of Lucifer. Among many many many other differs and changes to christian doctrine. For example about sin, Christ, salvation, God etc. Although claiming to be christians, mormons depart from historical christianity on a number of essential doctrines.
GOD: The Bible is emphatic that human beings are mere creatures and are not Gods, yet mormons believe humans should work towards godhood and godhead. Yet the Bible teaches that humans are now and forever will be creatures in submission to a one true God. Mormons cite many other new-age theories that contradict the gospel, for example preexistence, mormons believe humans preexisted as spirits. Mormons also believe in more than one God. They believe that there are thousands of Gods besides the tri-unity of God (Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit).
JESUS CHRIST: Mormons believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. According to mormon theology, Jesus Christs cruxifiction dealt only with Adams transgressions, and salvation is gained only by good works. But the Bible makes it clear that salvation is by faith, not by works (working hard, loving your kids, and giving, does not mean salvation).
SIN: Mormons define 'sin' as a wrong judgement, a mistake. Thus removing the moral sting. With this weak view of sin, it is not suprizing that Jesus Christs role in salvation is dramatically reduced. They believe that because of his resurection, we will all be resurected. They thank Jesus, because of his atonement, mankind can become gods, and become spirit children. Mormon requirements for salvation include, regular church attendance, good works, attaining 'worthiness', engaging in temple work (rituals), among others. The Bible however teaches that sin is an enslaving death-producing condition involving moral rebellion, sin has affected the entire race, Jesus atonement builds a forgiving relationship between man and God. Salvation is based entirely on Gods grace, not by how many old ladies you helped across the street. (Ephesians 2:8,9/ Titus 3:5/ Romans 3:20/ Galatians 2:16)
Im not attempting to explain Mormon theology or history. But rather give a brief description of Mormon theo, to hopefully continue debating once proposed. Mormons gladly call themselves christians. But is this justified???
The reason i want to study the world-religions, is to see if we can somehow investigate each doctrine and belief, and analyze its credentials and answer the question... does this have the evidence that would have to apply to Holy scripture, or for a revelation from a true living God? But the question i ask to you now is, can we trust the book of Mormon to be a revelation from God, or rather a 'better' revelation from God? Can we dismiss Joseph Smith as a fraud/hack/not from God, and move on to the next world-religions belief system?
This message has been edited by almeyda, 10-27-2004 07:09 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 10-30-2004 10:01 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 3 by Legend, posted 10-30-2004 9:24 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 5 by PecosGeorge, posted 11-09-2004 1:05 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 8 by nator, posted 11-09-2004 2:53 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2004 3:42 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 11-09-2004 4:35 PM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2 of 80 (154388)
10-30-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Topic moved here by AdminJar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 3 of 80 (154497)
10-30-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Hi almeyda,
Excellent topic, if I may say so. I've been waiting for ages for something like this to come up.
I've been to the LDS church a few times and also to their Bible study classes. They are a very interesting 'religion', they have to reaffirm evey Sunday their belief in Joseph Smith and have an interesting interpretation of the Godhead, among other things.
But, you have to realize, they only take advantage of the ambiguity of the Bible, interpreting it to fit their worldview.
It's true that there is no archaelogical evidence supporting the BoM, but that, in itself, doesn't discredit it. There is no archaelogical evidence for many events & places in the Bible, let's not forget.
quote:
If the book of Mormon was first penned between 600B.C and 421AD, as claimed. How could it contain extensive quotations from the AD.1611 KJV, using archaic King James english, which was not written more than 1000yrs later?
It's my understanding that the BoM is alleged to be the translation of an ancient gospel. Joseph Smith translated it with the help of the angel Moroni and John the Baptist. If that's the case, then you shouldn't be surprised if it contains extensive quotations from KJV, as that was the Bible that Smith knew almost by heart and would have mentally used it as a translation model.
quote:
Mormons gladly call themselves christians. But is this justified???
Yup, they have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour. It may not be the same Jesus as the one you believe in, but that's God's fault not the Mormons'.
quote:
does this have the evidence that would have to apply to Holy scripture, or for a revelation from a true living God?
maybe if you told us what this evidence should be, we could take it from there....
quote:
But the question i ask to you now is, can we trust the book of Mormon to be a revelation from God, or rather a 'better' revelation from God?
Why not ? You can't accept the Bible and reject the BoM, using the same standards on both !

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 2:09 PM Legend has replied
 Message 15 by PecosGeorge, posted 11-09-2004 4:51 PM Legend has replied

  
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 80 (157525)
11-09-2004 1:18 AM


No LDS here huh!?
I suppose this on died from lack of interest...

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 5 of 80 (157641)
11-09-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


To the law
and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word (meaning the Bible), it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20
I suppose that is plain enough. The Jehovah's Witnesses have also re-written the Bible to suit their needs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Robb
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 80 (157663)
11-09-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Legend
10-30-2004 9:24 PM


quote:
Why not ? You can't accept the Bible and reject the BoM, using the same standards on both !
I think if you accept the Bible as the word of God, you must reject the Book of Mormon based on these scriptures.
Deut. 4:2: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)
Prov. 30:6: Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. (NIV)
Does anybody know how Mormons respond to these passages? or does anybody think that I am interpreting what these mean wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Legend, posted 10-30-2004 9:24 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2004 2:49 PM Robb has replied
 Message 17 by Legend, posted 11-09-2004 6:13 PM Robb has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 80 (157676)
11-09-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Robb
11-09-2004 2:09 PM


I think that you must be interpreting them wrongly. If Deuteronomy 4:2 meant that there would be no more scriptures written, then nothing written after Deuteronomy could be considered scripture. And nobody who considers the entire Bible the "Word of God" is going to accept that reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 2:09 PM Robb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 80 (157678)
11-09-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Almeyda, where did you cut n paste this from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Robb
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 80 (157685)
11-09-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
11-09-2004 2:49 PM


I can see where Deut 4:2 can be taken as only meaning the law of that book, I don't think it is exclusive but I agree it can be taken that way.
If you look in Deut 12:32: Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
This seems to indicate that "whatever" God cammands, do not add to it.
Also to clarify Prov. 30:6 I posted before to add verse 5 it reads: Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
"Every word" would indicate that it is not talkig about proverbs alone but the sum of Gods word.
Paul even wrote in 1Cor 4:6: that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
He clearly states do not read beyond what scripture says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2004 2:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2004 3:28 PM Robb has replied
 Message 13 by PecosGeorge, posted 11-09-2004 4:46 PM Robb has not replied
 Message 14 by PecosGeorge, posted 11-09-2004 4:47 PM Robb has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 80 (157690)
11-09-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Robb
11-09-2004 3:17 PM


No, you are missing the real problem. Deuteronomy doesn't give an explicit cut-off between "scripture" and "non-scripture". The only sensible way to read it as supplying an implict cut-off is to use the date of writing Deuteronomy. So how do you read Deuteronomy as excluding the Book of Mormon ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 PM Robb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 6:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 80 (157699)
11-09-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Is the book of Mormon simply a 'copy-cat' of the King James bible?
let's clarify. the mormons have several books, only one of which is actually called "the book of mormon." the name has been applied to a collection of works, including the actual book of mormon, as well as doctrines and covenants, the book of moses (etc), and the pearl of great price.
the ALSO have an old and new testament. from what i understand, this is smith's divine translation/interpretation of the text. and yes, a lot of it does seem to plaigarize the kjv translation, including its errors. however, it adds bits here and there too.
Moreover, we have 24,000 ancient MSS of the NT all attesting historically and traditionally to the books adhered to in the NT.
the major problem with the books by joseph smith is that there aren't any manuscripts to be had. the only extant copies are ones in english, by smith. the tradition says that he was directed by moroni to dig up these brass (gold?) plates, large and small, that contained the writtings of an off-shoot tribe of jews who escaped jerusalem just before the babylonian captivity and made their way to the new world. these plates apparently still exist, but you can only see them if you're a high priest.
that sounds a little fishy to me. i can find the dead sea scrolls on the internet. but i can't see even a PICTURE of these things?
people apparently attest to the veracity of these. but there are problems. the drawings of the plates i've seen do not contain enough characters for this post, let alone several books. they mention horses, which were brought to the new world by spaniards in the 1500's. (to be fair, they talk about camels in genesis which were not domesticated until well after the book is set).
The fact remains there is virtually no solid archeology support for book of Mormon history.
nor much of the foundation of judaism. we can't show the exodus happened, for instance.
GOD: The Bible is emphatic that human beings are mere creatures and are not Gods
quote:
Exd 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
quote:
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
quote:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
quote:
Isa 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye [are] gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold [it] together.
yet mormons believe humans should work towards godhood and godhead.
quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Mormons cite many other new-age theories that contradict the gospel,
quote:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
quote:
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
paul spends much of galations arguing that christ did in fact destroy the law.
for example preexistence, mormons believe humans preexisted as spirits
quote:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Mormons also believe in more than one God. They believe that there are thousands of Gods besides the tri-unity of God (Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit).
the bible names a few: ba'al, azazel, asherah, etc.
there's also this phrase used in the bible: "ben'eloyhim." literally, it means "sons of gods." but in hebrew, ben is used to denote a member of a group, as in ben'yisrael for israelites. literally, that means sons of the guy name israel, but that's not how it's used. ben'eloyhim is used to mean "other gods" and god often appears in early texts as yhwh-eloyhim, or just yhwh, and in later texts as just eloyhim.
now, your bible probably doesn't read this passage this way, but it shows evidence of tampering. the oldest texts we have for deuteronomy 32:7-9 reads:
quote:
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the Sons of God. For the LORD'S portion [is] his people; Jacob [is] the lot of his inheritance.
look at the structure for a second: the most high (as in among the gods) set boundaries for nations according to the number of the sons of god. one for each. each nation had their own member of the group of gods, but israel belongs to yhwh.
your version reads "children of israel" because it supports polytheism a lot less. but think about it for a second more and that makes NO sense whatsoever. when god divided nations (genesis 11) israel hadn't even been born, let alone have children. and read literally, there's a lot more than 12 nations. and even read properly, why would god number the other nations according to the population of israel?
the passage clearly supports that other nations have their own gods who are in fact recognized by god, and that israel and ONLY israel belongs of yhwh, the highest member of the group of gods.
quote:
Psa 82:1 [[A Psalm of Asaph.] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
the ancient hebrews were not monotheistic, nor polytheistic. they were henotheistic. they had their own god, and didn't care whether or not the other peoples' god were real or not.
JESUS CHRIST: Mormons believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer
jesus christ is called the son of god. hasatan is called a son of god. why is this a problem??
also, lucifer is a mangling of the hebrew title for the king of babylon: heylel or "morning star"/venus. so, if jesus is the king of babylon, he's lucifer.
According to mormon theology, Jesus Christs cruxifiction dealt only with Adams transgressions, and salvation is gained only by good works.
there is no biblical evidence before christ for original sin. and christ does not fit the levitical standards for a sacrifice. on top of that, you can't make the sacrifice before commiting the deed, and it has to be something you own to make it meaningful. also, many people (such as david) are described as perfect, and according the old testament EVERYONE is going to sheol ("hell") when they die.
SIN: Mormons define 'sin' as a wrong judgement, a mistake.
"sin", like "mistake", comes from the word "miss." that is actually the proper definition of sin.
With this weak view of sin, it is not suprizing that Jesus Christs role in salvation is dramatically reduced.
well, i explained above. this is actually a SERIOUS question of my faith right now, and i am looking for the answers. it doesn't make sense. but don't shoot the messanger, i didn't write these books.
Mormon requirements for salvation include, regular church attendance, good works, attaining 'worthiness', engaging in temple work (rituals), among others.
quote:
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
quote:
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Salvation is based entirely on Gods grace
then why did we need jesus? couldn't god just have grace enough to forgive us?
Im not attempting to explain Mormon theology or history. But rather give a brief description of Mormon theo, to hopefully continue debating once proposed. Mormons gladly call themselves christians. But is this justified???
yes, they believe in salvation by the death jesus christ.
i actually thought about being a mormon for a while. i dated one for six months, and she showed me a lot of stuff. i agree with a lot of their theology (it's more strongly rooted in the bible than modern christianity, as i have shown above). but i have serious grievances with the accuracy, credibility, and "fishiness" of their books. i have enough problems with the bible, without having something that i can't verify in any way whatsoever.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-09-2004 03:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 80 (157722)
11-09-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by almeyda
10-30-2004 10:00 AM


Should the question be "Can the Mormons trust the Book of Mormon?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by almeyda, posted 10-30-2004 10:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 13 of 80 (157724)
11-09-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Robb
11-09-2004 3:17 PM


Revelation 22
Verse 18 and 19, may help to establish the fact that nothing is to be added or taken away from scripture. If you believe that God knew that scripture would be subject to tampering, then the warnings throughout the written word, should not fall victim to questioning.
And God knew that his word would be maligned in every shape and form possible.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of
the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 PM Robb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 11-10-2004 2:31 AM PecosGeorge has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 14 of 80 (157725)
11-09-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Robb
11-09-2004 3:17 PM


Revelation 22
Verse 18 and 19, may help to establish the fact that nothing is to be added or taken away from scripture. If you believe that God knew that scripture would be subject to tampering, then the warnings throughout the written word, should not fall victim to questioning.
And God knew that his word would be maligned in every shape and form possible.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of
the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 PM Robb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Robb, posted 11-09-2004 6:30 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 15 of 80 (157726)
11-09-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Legend
10-30-2004 9:24 PM


I don't know who Moroni is, but John the Baptist is dead. There is absolutely no way he could help write BoM, and really, why would he want to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Legend, posted 10-30-2004 9:24 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Legend, posted 11-09-2004 6:05 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024