can we trust the book of Mormon?

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. 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). nor much of the foundation of judaism. we can't show the exodus happened, for instance.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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 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. 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", like "mistake", comes from the word "miss." that is actually the proper definition of sin. 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.

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.

---

then why did we need jesus? couldn't god just have grace enough to forgive us? 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

similar verses are to be had throughout the bible. which one do you trust? 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.

this is true. the claimed date for the book is 600 bc, which is still during the old testament period.

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

well, reading skills help.

quote:

---

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

---

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

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. 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:

---

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:

---

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

---

quote:

---

Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

---

quote:

---

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

etc.the law = torah
the 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. 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

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:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-10-2004 02:09 PM

no, it doesn't. but reading comprehension is a start. then we can start to look at the context it was written in. 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.

pst, we just re-leveled babylon again last year.

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.

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. no, i think personal experience is the ONLY relevant point. how else do we tell? it's ALL opinion, all faith. 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.

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.

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. maalox works pretty well. or holy water, if you believe in demons. ah yes. that was it. i wasn't sure because the place i read it WAS christian propaganda -- which i rarely trust.

agreed. but i think the corollary is more important: be prepared to apply the same standard of credulity to the book you believe in. that means it's working.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-12-2004 12:46 AM

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.