|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: can we trust the book of Mormon? | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: quote: quote: quote: yet mormons believe humans should work towards godhood and godhead. quote: Mormons cite many other new-age theories that contradict the gospel, quote: quote: paul spends much of galations arguing that christ did in fact destroy the law.
for example preexistence, mormons believe humans preexisted as spirits quote: 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: 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: 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: quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Revelation 22 Verse 18 and 19, may help to establish the fact that nothing is to be added or taken away from scripture. similar verses are to be had throughout the bible. which one do you trust?
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. yes, they should. in fact, it should make you question the authenticity of anything written after that verse. question EVERYTHING. there's much more to be had in the bible if you think about it and ask questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
as Mormons claim that the BoM is part of the scriptures, that was lost and re-discovered. It's not an addition to God's word, it is God's word. this is true. the claimed date for the book is 600 bc, which is still during the old testament period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I am assuming that all the books of the Bible are written by God. this is a bad assumption. if you really want me to go into, i will, but this is not the place. suffice to say that there is no reason at all to think god wrote ANY of the bible let alone all of it. the bible is a collection of books. the books are often collections of works by separate authors (see the books of psalms: there's five of them). more over, they were all written and collected and canonized at different times. parts of the tanakh (ot) are still not considered holy (such as the book of psalms) i have another thread here talking about the date of the writing of deuteronomy, and how it MAY be during the time the book of kings is set. there is also no reason to assume those verse are refering to the bible has a whole. much of the bible as we know it today didn't exist when those words were written. some of it existed, but was collected together or canonized by then. the verses are most likely refering JUST TO THE BOOKS THAT CONTAIN THEM. i actually have a separate thread here debating
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Tell me, how can you trust that, say, Luke's Gospel is God's word ? What are your criteria for determining what is God's word ? well, reading skills help.
quote: luke 1:1 says that there are MANY gospels at the time of his writing. luke admits that he wasn't there in verse 2. verse 3 seems to claim some kind of divine understanding. what luke is doing is looking at these gospels, and copying bits he agrees with or can verify in other gospels, and fitting them all into one story. it's attempt to make one solid gospel out of a mess of gospels that were floating around. luke-acts is the first real attempt at a christian canon. sound like the work of god to you? sounds like the work of an editor to me. but, you know, that's just what luke says of himself. you have to actually look at and read the books. paul's letters -- did god write them? no, paul did. each book has a different form, intended audience, context, and author(s). you can't look at psalms and say with any reasonable intelligence that it was the work of god. it credits david as writing half of them TO god. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-10-2004 02:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. paul is speaking of the biblical prophets: isaiah, jeremiah, amos, hosea, etc. he's not even speaking of the collections of writings attributed to the prophets (nevi'im) but the words they actually spoke.
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scriptures is given by INSPIRATION of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reprove, for instruction in righteousness. (Emphasis mine) Influenced by the Holy Spirit, God and Spirit are one and the same, therefore, yes --- God did write the bible using the instruments he has always used --- men. inspiration and actually writing the books are very different. paul says inspiration, not that god wrote. and, for another matter, what's scripture? does paul count? he's the dear abby of the early christian church. let's see what jesus thinks is scripture.
quote: quote: quote: quote: etc. the law = torahthe prophets = nevi'im. that's two thirds of a book called the tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) or what we call the old testament. what's this third section he's left out, the ketuvim? it's various writings. some prominent works in this section include psalms and proverbs, chronicles, job, etc. this is the last section in the hebrew bible and the least holy. although it is considered holy NOW, the new testament gives evidence that it was not considered holy in the time of jesus. jesus did not think these books to be close to the word of god, and did not consider them holy scripture. you have to look at when the books were written, by whom, for what purpose, and in what context. you can't just assume that because it's in the book, it's the word of god. people wrote these books. it is insulting to both the authors, editors AND god to say god did it. god could write a much better, more consistent, and timeless book.
Tell me, please, have you ever been motivated to do/say something you cannot really explain? A 'feeling' you had - it just came over you. This may be to do good or to do bad. yes and no. i firmly believe in freedom of choice. it is the cornerstone of faith. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-10-2004 02:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times have you no reading comprehension? "clans" modifies the proper name, bethlehem. bethlehem is a CLAN not a city. and to be perfectly honest, i can find better contradiction just in the bible itself. this is my favorite:
quote: This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-10-2004 02:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I've got a leaflet from the local nutter preching down the road, claiming that it's the word of God. Its unambiguous and I've got the reading skills to understand it clearly. Does that mean it is the word of God ?! no, it doesn't. but reading comprehension is a start. then we can start to look at the context it was written in.
You seem to be implying that the Bible doesn't claim to be the word of God. If that's the case then we're debating a moot point. i do not believe either to be the word of god. the point is rather moot, becausem no the bible does not ever once claim that it was written by god. at the most, LATER AUTHORS like paul claim it was inspired by god. but that's not the same as writing it. the only thing the bible ever claims that god physically wrote and gave to man were the two tablets with the covenant on them. aside from that, the bible is far too discontinuous, spotty, innacurate, inconsistent etc to be the work of a single author. sometimes, it's very apparent that even single books are collections of works by different authors. the torah shows signs of being written by AT LEAST 5 distinct people, or groups. it is also not a revolutionary thought to think that the bible was written over several thousand years by more than one person, and that it is a collection of many separate books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The first reason that I know the Bible is the word of God is the hundreds of prophecies that have come true. One example is in Isaiah 13:19-20, he predicts the destruction of Babylon and that it will never be built upon again pst, we just re-leveled babylon again last year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
No, Christians use different books it's a little beyond different books, actually. the catholic bible has about dozen extra books. depending on the "translation" you have, there are two completely different versions of jeremiah, as well. two jeremiahs? which one is the word of god? and for that matter, why do we have three gospels that say the same thing? especially when one of them starts by saying its goal to consolidate the gospels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
let's go through your points one by one: * Historical accuracy he was saying that these points DON'T prove a book to be the word of god. but yes, i would say that bible is more historically accurate than the book of mormon. we can at least verify SOME of the events that happened in the bible. with the bom, we have, well, none.
So, overall, Personal Experience and Historical Accuracy are irrelevant. no, i think personal experience is the ONLY relevant point. how else do we tell? it's ALL opinion, all faith.
Consistency of message doesn't even apply in the BoM case (it's only one book by one author). that point is debatable. mormons will disagree. personally, i think the case is far more likely that joseph smith just made stuff up and wrote it all himself. i've heard stuff about the documents he called "the book of moses" turning out to be egyptian funerary pages (from the book of the dead). but that was just christian propaganda, so i dunno how accurate it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
and depending on whether you have a masoretic or a septuigant translation, jeremiah is in a completely different order. it's like someone took a pair of scissors, cut it up, and rearranged it.
the dead sea scrolls are no help -- it has copies of both versions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
that's * exactly * my point! If opinion and faith is all that matters when it comes to determining divinity, then, heck, the aforemenioned nutter's leaflet is of divine nature, as there's at least one opinion (his) that says so. Opinions are like a**eholes: everybody's got one. basically, but that doesn't mean it's the word of god. it means that you think it's the word of god. some opinions, however, are invalid because they don't hold up to any form of scrutiny. saying the bible is the infallible word of god is one such opinion. which bible, which translation, which version? what of the contradictions, blatant innacuracies and dating errors, the fact that it's composed in many many books which are all attributed to different authors at different dates, and the fact that shows signs of heavy editting, and that individual books show signs of being compilations? is proverbs the word of god regarding how to live our lives, or a collection of proverbial sayings? psalms is a collection of songs often written about god, not BY god. saying it's holy scripture is like saying god wrote the hymnal in the pew in front of you. the bible does not claim to be the word of god, and christians ignore this simple fact. these books have functions, purposes, authors (plural) and editors.
If people claim that they are convinced of the divine nature of a book, because of a 'burning in their bosom', that's fine by me and I can't argue with this, other than recommend some indigestion medicine. maalox works pretty well. or holy water, if you believe in demons.
I think you're referring to the Abraham Papyri fiasco. That wasn't propaganda but genuine egg on the face of LDS church. You can read the whole sad story here. ah yes. that was it. i wasn't sure because the place i read it WAS christian propaganda -- which i rarely trust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
All I'm saying is this: if you believe so, because it meets certain criteria, you should be prepared to apply the same criteria to any other book that is claimed to be divine, or you're a hypocrite. agreed. but i think the corollary is more important: be prepared to apply the same standard of credulity to the book you believe in.
I've tried holy water but it burns! that means it's working. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-12-2004 12:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024