can we trust the book of Mormon?

quote:

---

Do you know of any contradictions in the BoM? If there weren't any, would you accept it as the word of God ?

---

I will research contradictions in the BoM, I have researched contradictions between the BoM and the Bible. Here are two I have found: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.However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."andThe Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.Acts 2:1-4 "1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.The BoM claims that people received the Holy Ghost around 545 B.C.2 Nephi 31:12-13 "...the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me... Wherefore, my beloved brethren,... by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost;..."From these and others one can beleive the BoM is correct, the Bible is correct or neither is correct, but not that both are correct.

how it was written, the Bible, that is.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.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.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.(Edit typo)This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 11-10-2004 01:04 PM

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.

Thank you, you are very kind.

My point, Robb, is that it is more than translations. The actual content of the Bible, what books are included or excluded also varies between the various Christian Churches. For example, the Samaraitan Christian Church has the smallest canon and includes only the Pentateuch. The Ethiopian Christian Church, perhaps the oldest of the Christian Churches remaining, has two canon, a short one and a long one with 8 more books and a Bible that includes 80+ different books instead of the more common 27. The Syrian Christian Church excludes 2^nd. Peter, 2^nd. and 3^rd. John, Revelations and Jude.So even among Christian Chrurches, there is no one Bible. Different sects have decidded to include or exclude different books. In addition, the KJV includes the Apocrypha while other versions exclude it.So there is no way that we can compare the Book of Morman to THE Christian Bible since there really isn't one Christian Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

quote:

---

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

---

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.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.If people claim that they are convinced of the divine nature of a book, because it meets a certain set of standards (prophecy, consistency, etc), then I expect them to apply the same standards to ALL other books that claim the same, otherwise they are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

I see your point, but, hey, I'm not the one claiming the Bible to be the infallible word of God, people like Robb are.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.

quote:

---

maalox works pretty well. or holy water, if you believe in demons.

---

I've tried holy water but it burns!

---

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

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