Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 61 of 80 (158633)
11-12-2004 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
11-12-2004 12:46 AM


Re: How do you know?
quote:
be prepared to apply the same standard of credulity to the book you believe in.
absolutely! I should have emphasized that!
quote:
I've tried holy water but it burns!
Arachnophilia writes:
that means it's working.

and sunlight causes my skin to dissolve. It all started when that bat bit me...

"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 60 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 12:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 62 of 80 (165874)
12-07-2004 10:28 AM


bump for all resident Mormons
The BoM and the Bible both are fraught with problems that can not be waved away. That is unless you are indoctrinated to the point of being a zealot. Some are willing at any cost in the hopes of perserving they're faith to digest every word without question.
The problem is, IMO, if one faith is THE ONE TRUE FAITH. Then everybody else is swinging in the wind. One can not have it both ways. I have an idea, lets form a religion that picks up where the New Testament leaves off that way we can have our ready made religion and have the ability to alter the text as we see fit. Oh,, it's been done. Darn.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Legend, posted 12-07-2004 11:10 AM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 12-07-2004 12:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 63 of 80 (165886)
12-07-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by 1.61803
12-07-2004 10:28 AM


Re: bump for all resident Mormons
quote:
I have an idea, lets form a religion that picks up where the New Testament leaves off that way we can have our ready made religion and have the ability to alter the text as we see fit. Oh,, it's been done. Darn.
ouch...claws in please, they're nice people you know!

"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 62 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2004 10:28 AM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 64 of 80 (165897)
12-07-2004 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by 1.61803
12-07-2004 10:28 AM


Re: bump for all resident Mormons
I have an idea, lets form a religion that picks up where the New Testament leaves off that way we can have our ready made religion and have the ability to alter the text as we see fit. Oh,, it's been done. Darn.
actually, the book of mormon picks up just slightly before the OLD TESTAMENT ends.
of course, i'm pretty sure it was all written after the new testament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2004 10:28 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 80 (180938)
01-26-2005 6:58 PM


just a tiny tiny bit off
You all are close in what LDS is. Let me just make some corrections having first hand experience.
The Golden Plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon are no longer on the earth. They were taken back up to heaven not long after the translation by the angel Moroni.
Moroni was indeed a prophet of ancient America, and witnessed the end of the Nephites first hand.
John The Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood to the earth through Joseph Smith. I don't believe he participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon.
There is no "HARD CORE" proof of certain locations in the Book of Mormon. But it does describe in the Book of Mormon a "narrow stretch of land". This stretch is referred to often in the war parts of the BOM, and many Mormon scholars of today believe it is the present day Panama. Also, many uncovered cities such as Tulum are believed to have some corrolation with the BOM
The BOM does quote passages from the Bible, especially Isaiah. But it not plagarism, in fact many times in the book the prophets give credit to the sources of information.
Mormonism does deviate from traditional Christianity. But if there was one code of united Christianism, there wouldn't be so many different sects.
Jesus is Lucifer's spiritual brother. We too are Lucifer's spiritual brothers and sisters. We are also Christ's spiritual brothers and sisters. We are all children of the same Father, only Lucifer has been cast out of Heaven and now resides in Hell. We are going through an earth life to obtain a physical body and gain mortal experiences. If we live worthily, we can become just as God now is at judgement.
Mormon's believe sin is sin. But we also believe that Children are not accountable for their sins until the age of eight when they are then baptized.
The atonement served a few main purposes. God lives by the Laws of Justice and Mercy. Otherwise he would cease to be God. It is hard to explain, and being of sacred nature, you should probably call the Missionaries if you're really curious. Anyway, Because of all the sin in the world, somebody had to be punished (law of Justice). Either we would have no choice but to die and never live again, or someone else would have to suffer (Law of Mercy). Christ took upon him the sins of the world when he suffered in Gethsemane and Died on Calvary. Thus Justice has been fullfilled. Now we can be ressurected at judgement day. However, we can still suffer a "spiritual" death, by being cast away from God down to Satan. This depends on how we strive to live our lives. If we try to be righteous, and repent of our sins, God can have us in his Kingdom, and we can soon become Gods ourselves.
The Doctrine and Covenants is not part of the BOM. It is modern day revealation given to Joseph Smith and others regarding standards that his people were not ready for in the olden days. An example is the Word of Wisdom. This is what makes Mormons famous. We don't drink alcohol, we don't use drugs, and basically, we don't use products that can severly hurt your body. Funny how Joseph Smith, a unschooled young man, was somehow able to tell people what was bad for you at least 50 years before modern science even thought about it. But it was just coincidence, right? (;
The Pearl of Great Price is a translation of papyrus that was discovered in ancient Egypt and brought to Joseph Smith who translated it.
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is the Bible retranslated to what we believe to be a more correct and full translation. It actually is not printed right into our copies of the Bible, just in the footnotes so that we can use them when talking to other members, but if talking to a non-member, we can be more creditable to them.
About Members having to reconfirm their testimony of Joseph Smith every week at church, some of the older people do that. But I bet they were trying to make a good impression on you. Please don't hate them for that.
i truly believe what I'm saying. So do most members. I read the BOM and I get good wisdom and advice from it.
One more question for the person who started this discussion. Have you been reading the Book of Mormon itself or just the writings of apostates? Personally, I sugest you read both, and decide for yourself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2005 10:28 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 69 by purpledawn, posted 01-27-2005 10:35 AM LDSdude has replied

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


Message 66 of 80 (180972)
01-26-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by LDSdude
01-26-2005 6:58 PM


Re: just a tiny tiny bit off
The Golden Plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon are no longer on the earth. They were taken back up to heaven not long after the translation by the angel Moroni.
so the oldest document of the book of mormon is in english, by joseph smith? kind of casts some doubt, especially since his "inspired translation" of the bible seems to be mostly plaigarized from the kjv, with additions not found in any other manuscript. ie: he seems to have just made stuff up.
The BOM does quote passages from the Bible, especially Isaiah.
i don't think the dates line up. the mormons left in 600 bc or so, just before the babylonian exhile. since isaiah wrote of the babylonian captivity, it would not be possible for the mormons to have this text. the fact that it is a separate "translation" and yet is worded exactly like the kvj cast SERIOUS doubt on the story. look at what happens when matthew quotes ot texts.
We are all children of the same Father, only Lucifer has been cast out of Heaven and now resides in Hell.
then why does he have influence on earth? lucifer, at the time of the writing of isaiah, refered to the king of babylon, not the devil. joseph smith's story post-dates paradise lost, which was actually common church-reading before his pilgrimage west. wonder where he got the idea, since it's not in the christian bible.
God lives by the Laws of Justice and Mercy
i've argued it here before: god's standards of morals are for man, not himself. god often operates outside of them. is not god ultimately responsible for evil?
Otherwise he would cease to be God.
says who?
you should probably call the Missionaries if you're really curious
talked to a few actually. like i said, i mostly like your faith, but not your book.
Anyway, Because of all the sin in the world, somebody had to be punished (law of Justice).
says who? is not god capable of forgiving us?
The Doctrine and Covenants is not part of the BOM. It is modern day revealation given to Joseph Smith and others regarding standards that his people were not ready for in the olden days.
the "by-laws" portion. hey, at least you guys put that stuff in writing.
We don't drink alcohol, we don't use drugs, and basically, we don't use products that can severly hurt your body.
i've known mormons that would drink occasionally. now, chassidic jews on the other hand...
Funny how Joseph Smith, a unschooled young man, was somehow able to tell people what was bad for you at least 50 years before modern science even thought about it. But it was just coincidence, right? (;
no, people have known for a long time that alcohol is bad for morality. hell, look at genesis 9 and 19, and what happens when noah and lot get drunk. it's not a startling revelation from god that fermented grains, grapes, or potatoes can make people do stupid things.
The Pearl of Great Price is a translation of papyrus that was discovered in ancient Egypt and brought to Joseph Smith who translated it.
was that the one that was shown to be standard egyptian funerary rites?
Personally, I sugest you read both, and decide for yourself.
i've read a fair portion of the bible, and understand that a lot of it is very far from christian dogmatic innerrancy. some books i totally disregard because i can't find them credible at all. and that's the bible, as a christian. we have older manuscripts, different translations, etc, back to about 200 bc.
now, compared with the book of mormon, of which i've read a small portion, which has no original documents, no other translations, and shows multiple signs of just having been totally made up... well.. i can't put any faith in it. and that is, btw, answering the standard mormon "ask god in your heart if it's true" verse. the portion that i did read sounded contrived to mimic the kjv version of the old testament. names and places seemed to lack hebrew roots, and just generally showed little knowledge of the historical and cultural context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LDSdude, posted 01-26-2005 6:58 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2005 2:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 67 of 80 (181009)
01-27-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by arachnophilia
01-26-2005 10:28 PM


Re: just a tiny tiny bit off
Hi,Arach, from one of your previous posts
2 Timothy 3:16
ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness.(emphasis yours)
I feel the emphasis should be on profitable, not inspiration. After debating with various Christian denominations, there comes a time where they trot out good old Tim 3:16 as justification for their beliefs. I find profitable to mean useful,of benefit to. Not as zealots insist as--compulsory,infallible, not to be challenged or debated, inerrant.
Once you come to reading Scriptures with a mindset, it`s easy to gloss over what is actually written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2005 10:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 01-27-2005 3:09 AM Nighttrain has not replied

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


Message 68 of 80 (181014)
01-27-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nighttrain
01-27-2005 2:38 AM


Re: just a tiny tiny bit off
i'm gonna start at the end on this one.
Once you come to reading Scriptures with a mindset, it`s easy to gloss over what is actually written.
this is absolutely true. the use of that verse is especially subject. what did paul mean? what did paul's set of scriptures look like? did he include his own writings? what did jesus consider scripture? however, you misunderstood my point.
feel the emphasis should be on profitable, not inspiration.
the emphasis was put on the word "inspiration" for a very specific purpose: to single it out. that debate revolved around what inspiration means, and i was saying that it only means, you know, inspiration as opposed to fundamentalist's reading of "dicatated and controlled by god in every step." i was saying that the text only says inspired, which is a much fuzzier term.
it's almost and obvious statement. the bible is essentially about the relationships between man and god, so of course god is the inspiration behind everything (except maybe song of songs and esther and ruth).
I find profitable to mean useful,of benefit to. Not as zealots insist as--compulsory,infallible, not to be challenged or debated, inerrant.
this point is completely valid as well, and it is probably what paul meant. he doesn't seem to caught up in the details, and on several occasions advises against even arguing them. but i was just talking about the reading of that one word in the verse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2005 2:38 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 69 of 80 (181085)
01-27-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LDSdude
01-26-2005 6:58 PM


Lucifer
quote:
Jesus is Lucifer's spiritual brother. We too are Lucifer's spiritual brothers and sisters.
Yes I have read the Book of Mormon.
Nephi supposedly made the record in the language of his father, which consisted of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
2 Nephi 24:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
This is the only verse I saw using the word "lucifer" in the BOM. It is the exact same verse as used in the KJV and the only time the word "lucifer" is used in the KJV.
The word "lucifer" is latin for morning star and wasn't used until the Bible was written in Latin which was completed about 400AD.
The Greek version of the Bible wasn't written until about 250BC. The Greek for "morning star" is phosporos.
According to the BOM those people left about 600BC. Greek and Latin weren't the languages of the area.
Connecting the word "lucifer" with Satan or the devil was done in the time of Origen in AD.
The original writers of the "gold plates" realistically wouldn't have connected the morning star with the devil and therefore would not have had Smith translate it as such, since Isaiah was refering to the planet Venus and the poem referred to the King of Babylon.
2 Nephi Chapters 12-24 are equal to Isaiah 2-14
2 Nephi 11:8
And now I write some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men.
The words of Isaiah in the BOM are the same chapter and verse breaks as the KJV.
The original Hebrew and Greek did not have chapters or verse divisions. Chapter divisions were started in 1214 and verse divisions appeared in 1551. The Jews did adopt these divisions, but not necessarily the same as the Christian Bible.
Example: Isaiah 8, the last two verses
Tanakh
22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations.
Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 18:22
And they shall look unto the earth and behold trouble, and darkness, dimness of anguish, and shall be driven to darkness.
2 Nephi 19:1
Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.
KJV Isaiah
8:22
And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.
9:1
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
A little too convenient that Smith's translation matches the KJV words, chapters, and breaks and not the Tanakh.
Did Nephi take a copy of the Torah and Isaiah to the wilderness with him?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LDSdude, posted 01-26-2005 6:58 PM LDSdude has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LDSdude, posted 02-01-2005 11:19 PM purpledawn has replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 80 (182456)
02-01-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by purpledawn
01-27-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Lucifer
(quote)This is the only verse I saw using the word "lucifer" in the BOM. It is the exact same verse as used in the KJV and the only time the word "lucifer" is used in the KJV.
The word "lucifer" is latin for morning star and wasn't used until the Bible was written in Latin which was completed about 400AD.
The Greek version of the Bible wasn't written until about 250BC. The Greek for "morning star" is phosporos.
According to the BOM those people left about 600BC. Greek and Latin weren't the languages of the area.
Connecting the word "lucifer" with Satan or the devil was done in the time of Origen in AD.
The original writers of the "gold plates" realistically wouldn't have connected the morning star with the devil and therefore would not have had Smith translate it as such, since Isaiah was refering to the planet Venus and the poem referred to the King of Babylon.(/quote)
What is your source of information? I have researched this and have never found it before.
(qs)A little too convenient that Smith's translation matches the KJV words, chapters, and breaks and not the Tanakh.
Did Nephi take a copy of the Torah and Isaiah to the wilderness with him?(/qs)
Yes. As it says in the first book of Nephi, Nephi and his brethren were exhorted to retrieve the Original Plates of brass from Laban in Jerusalem. The reason Nephi's family needed the scriptures is the same reason we need our own. To gain wisdom and understanding. Only the plates they brought were a record of Nephi's ancestors and the writings of the ancient prophets. Since this is almost the very first story in the entire BOM, Your lack of knowledge makes me doubt you read it. And if you did, you skimmed over it with a mindset to PROVE it's falseness, rather than open-mindedly absorb it.

A Day unto God is thousands of years to man. 6 Godly Days of creation does not undermine the fossil record.
The fossil record, however, clearly undermines evolution. (Any questions should be asked, and every answer will be given)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by purpledawn, posted 01-27-2005 10:35 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by purpledawn, posted 02-02-2005 9:15 AM LDSdude has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 71 of 80 (182527)
02-02-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LDSdude
02-01-2005 11:19 PM


Re: Lucifer
quote:
Your lack of knowledge makes me doubt you read it. And if you did, you skimmed over it with a mindset to PROVE it's falseness, rather than open-mindedly absorb it.
I read the BOM about a year ago, I didn't commit it to memory. Do not presume to know my frame of mind when reading the book just because I don't agree. I didn't read it with any agenda in mind. I just read the book.
quote:
What is your source of information? I have researched this and have never found it before.
I'm assuming you mean "Lucifer."
The first step is understanding the Jewish view of Satan.
Who is Lucifer?
Then compare the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
quote:
As it says in the first book of Nephi, Nephi and his brethren were exhorted to retrieve the Original Plates of brass from Laban in Jerusalem.
1 Nephi 5:11
And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam...
I haven't seen evidence that the Jews of 600BC or before referred to the Torah as the "five books of Moses."
Even in the NT there is only one reference made to the book of Moses, singular.
"But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob'?
BTW, I'd appreciate it if you would address my comments concerning the fact that the wording, chapter breaks, and verses of the Isaiah quotes match the KJV and not the Hebrew Bible.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LDSdude, posted 02-01-2005 11:19 PM LDSdude has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by LDSdude, posted 02-02-2005 6:52 PM purpledawn has replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 80 (182673)
02-02-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by purpledawn
02-02-2005 9:15 AM


Re: Lucifer
Stupid of me for not realizing your error before. It clears some things up. As already quoted by you, Nephi quotes Isahiahs words to bring rejoicing to his fellow men. You asume that becuase Nephi quotes Isahiahs controversial "Lucifer" statement that Nephi makes a connection between the Devil and the word Lucifer. Nope, "lucifer" is only used in that one quote written by Isahiah. Nephi himself may have recognized that the scripture referred to the king of Babylon. But only you have assumed that Nephi used it in context to the devil in the first place. I actually learned in depth about this a while ago and I apolagize for not thinking to point it out.
(quote)I read the BOM about a year ago, I didn't commit it to memory. Do not presume to know my frame of mind when reading the book just because I don't agree. I didn't read it with any agenda in mind. I just read the book.(/quote)
Well, I haven't memorized the Book of Mormon either, but at least to me the story I was referring to is one that stands out as hard to forget. But if you didn't read it with an agenda behind your actions, then I apologize for assuming such.
(quote)I haven't seen evidence that the Jews of 600BC or before referred to the Torah as the "five books of Moses."(quote)
Well there's not a truckload of evidence to go from really, but Genises, Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are five books containing the teachings and history of Moses. Perhaps some archeaologist of the future will someday question our present day terms, saying, "I'm not aware of any references to the ancient people's Postal System as, 'snail-mail'." All of this is the most likely solution to this 'trouble of terms'.

A Day unto God is thousands of years to man. 6 Godly Days of creation does not undermine the fossil record.
The fossil record, however, clearly undermines evolution. (Any questions should be asked, and every answer will be given)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by purpledawn, posted 02-02-2005 9:15 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by purpledawn, posted 02-02-2005 9:33 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2005 3:44 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 73 of 80 (182689)
02-02-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by LDSdude
02-02-2005 6:52 PM


Re: Lucifer
quote:
You asume that becuase Nephi quotes Isahiahs controversial "Lucifer" statement that Nephi makes a connection between the Devil and the word Lucifer.
No, my contention is that Nephi would not have used the word "lucifer" at all because it is a Latin word, which was not the language in Egypt, Israel, or Judah in 600BC.
Where did the LDS get the impression that "Lucifer" was cast out of heaven and resides in hell, which you mentioned in Message 65?
quote:
Well there's not a truckload of evidence to go from really, but Genises, Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are five books containing the teachings and history of Moses. Perhaps some archeaologist of the future will someday question our present day terms, saying, "I'm not aware of any references to the ancient people's Postal System as, 'snail-mail'." All of this is the most likely solution to this 'trouble of terms'.
Just as World War I was not called World War I until after World War II started, it would be hard for the Jews to refer to the Torah as the five books of Moses if they weren't split into five books.
The following are the ways that the Torah has been referred by the Jews.
Hat Torah (the law)
Torah (law)
Sepher Hat Torah (book of the law)
Torath Mosheh (law of Moses)
Sepher Mosheh (book of Moses)
Sepher Torath Mosheh (book of the law of Moses)
Very clearly they viewed it as one book.
The Pentateuch is Greek, which was done after the exile.
Excerpt concerning Torah.
The books composing the Pentateuch are properly but one book, the "Law of Moses," the "Book of the Law of Moses," the "Book of Moses," or, as the Jews designate it, the "Torah" or "Law." That in its present form it...
The BOM makes it plural.
1 Nephi 19
And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses...
This follows along with the chapter and verse breaks that you have yet to address.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LDSdude, posted 02-02-2005 6:52 PM LDSdude has not replied

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


Message 74 of 80 (183219)
02-05-2005 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by LDSdude
02-02-2005 6:52 PM


Re: Lucifer
but Genises, Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are five books containing the teachings and history of Moses.
genesis does not appear to be written by moses. whatever gave you the idea that it was? it certainly never says that it was. deuteronomy could not have been written by moses either, as it records his death.
but i have another grievous timeline error. here's the embarassing quote:
quote:
2 Nephi 24:1-2:
1. For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land; and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
2. And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
nephi is of course quoting isaiah 14. but there's a problem here. isaiah isn't what i would call chronological. ignore where it's placed and when the bible says isaiah lived and look at WHAT this verse actually says. it's talking about the return from the babylonian exhile. this is a prophesy regarding the end of the exhile, followed by a taunt against the defeated king of babylon.
not a huge problem with the bible -- maybe isaiah lived a long time. and later parts of the text are clearly written by two other people. but this presents a HUGE problem with the book of nephi.
this text was CLEARLY written after the exhile. nephi would not have had the book of isaiah containing this passage to quote.
also, it looks suspicious that it's the same wording as the kjv.
let's look at a quote from isaiah that goes through an intermediate language (greek).
quote:
Luk 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
quote:
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
compared to:
quote:
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
notice how the wording changes? notice how the name isaiah changes? yet when nephi quotes isaiah in egyptian (coptic?) and joseph smith translates it into english, it miraculously keeps the exact same wording and spacing and verse numbers as the kjv? heck, even my jps and niv and rsv have different wordings.
when a literary scholar of any worth looks at things that are exactly the same wording, they can conclude with a very high degree of certainty that either one was copied from the other, or both were copied directly from the same source (without revision such as translation). look at isaiah 38 and 2 kings 20. do you really think that isaiah wrote the same exact words concerning his life as another author did? or do you think the person who compiled isaiah's words had a copy of kings sitting around, and pasted a bit in here and there to give it some background?
now go find the same passage in chronicles (2 chron 32 somewhere). different wording. but look at verse 32 -- it cites isaiah and kings as a source! so we know the author of chronicles had a copy of kings and a copy of isaiah on his shelf. chronicles is knows to copy samuel and kings in many places, often changing the wording very little. we know all of these books were original written in hebrew, from hebrew sources.
so why when this quote is not exact, is another quote, translated from hebrew into a different language, and then into english, still the same wording as king james' commisioned masoretic (hebrew) translation?
looks like plaigarism. if i did it, they'd expell me from school.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LDSdude, posted 02-02-2005 6:52 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 80 (183592)
02-06-2005 8:42 PM


(quote)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asume that becuase Nephi quotes Isahiahs controversial "Lucifer" statement that Nephi makes a connection between the Devil and the word Lucifer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my contention is that Nephi would not have used the word "lucifer" at all because it is a Latin word, which was not the language in Egypt, Israel, or Judah in 600BC.(/quote)
Then where did Isaiah get it from?
(quote)Where did the LDS get the impression that "Lucifer" was cast out of heaven and resides in hell, which you mentioned in Message 65?(/quote)
Pure and simply, modern revealation from God. You don't have to beleive it, but in religion, somethings you have to beleive happened. Like the burning bush. There are many ways it scientifically could have happened, but the question is, did God do it or was it all simply made up? If you want a 'scinetific' view of what happened, go ahead and assume that Prophets did not get it directly from God and that they're all liars and crazy people. But I don't.
(quote)The BOM makes it plural.(/quote)
Once again, the book's' of Moses is probably a simple 'slang' or disfunctioning adjective. The World War 1 is a bad comparison because before it was called World War 1, it was called the great war. It's a much bigger difference than 1 letter.
About the verse breaks, when the BOM was first published it didn't contain verse separations. Those have since been added for organizational purposes. I don't believe Nephi had them.
(quote)not a huge problem with the bible -- maybe isaiah lived a long time. and later parts of the text are clearly written by two other people. but this presents a HUGE problem with the book of nephi.
this text was CLEARLY written after the exhile.(/quote)
Unless it was prophesy from God. Wait, oh yeah, you guys don't believe in God. Duh! Stupid Me! I should be careful before I start making such politically incorrect assertions that have been defined by modern society as 'inapropriate'.
(quote)let's look at a quote from isaiah that goes through an intermediate language (greek).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luk 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
compared to:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
notice how the wording changes? notice how the name isaiah changes? yet when nephi quotes isaiah in egyptian (coptic?) and joseph smith translates it into english, it miraculously keeps the exact same wording and spacing and verse numbers as the kjv? heck, even my jps and niv and rsv have different wordings.(/quote)
First I DON'T know what you mean by Isaiah's name changing. Please explain thoroughly. Secondly, your whole example is plawed because you are displaying the hebrew and greek versions in english while Isaiahs is supposed to be the proper translation. Are you the better translator, or what? Your display either means you made it up or (the one I'm sure you'll try to justify yourself with), modern translators compared with translators of the past are much more acurate and therefore your point is that the BOM was translated inaccurately (which also makes little sense, but is better than being caught lying).
(quote)looks like plaigarism. if i did it, they'd expell me from school.(/quote)
Colledge, right? Please don't tell me you're still in elementary. (Maybe you're one of those kid genius's?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2005 3:36 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 77 by purpledawn, posted 02-07-2005 11:05 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2005 1:46 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024