Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   can we trust the book of Mormon?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 80 (183634)
02-07-2005 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by LDSdude
02-06-2005 8:42 PM


Unless it was prophesy from God.
yes. yes it was prophesy from god.
read the passage. the prophesy is that they will leave exile, and will make slaves of their taskmasters, and that the king of babylon who oppresses him will himself be oppressed.
it's not worded like a prophesy abotu the exile written before the exile. it doesn't "you'll get taken away, but don't worry you'll come back!" it says "god is rejecting us NOT, but it won't last"
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'.
actually, i do. roughly the same one you believe in too. i just don't think that god makes miracles specifically designed to discredit his true prophets, like this one would be.
First I DON'T know what you mean by Isaiah's name changing. Please explain thoroughly.
kjv-nt (greek): hsaiou (hesaias) Esaias
hebrew: יְשַׁעְיָה (yasha'yah): Isaiah
notice how the different languages render the same name different ways? notice how when matthew quotes isaiah, isaiah gets transliterated different because we're translating from greek? we'd have the same issue transliterating from egyptian (coptic?). isaiah would NOT be spelled the same way as in the kjv-ot.
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.
flawed? no, actually, it's not. that's exactly my point. isaiah is an accepted modern english rendering (although not the most accurate). but it's an accepted english rendering of the HEBREW.
if nephi was written in egyptian, it would by subject to same error matthew is, and spell isaiah wrong.
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),
i'm making it up? grab a copy of the kjv bible. look at the error yourself. there it is. actually, even better. grab a book i know you have. grab joseph smith's "translation" of the bible, and quote to me how it renders the name "isaiah" in matthew 3:3. because my copy says "esaias" and not "isaiah."
tell my, why does joseph smith's bible contain this permutation, but the passage in nephi is exactly the same as the hebrew translation in the kjv/smith's ot, if it went through another intermediate language, such as stated in 1 nephi 1:2?
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)
trying to make sense of your statement. how am i lying? heck, i even quoted the very edition you probably have on your bedside table.
i'm all for modern translations, i'm very partial to my JPS tanakh which was translated from the masoretic text in modern english idioms within the last 50 years. it's a beautiful text, and makes the most plain english sense of any edition i've read.
the joseph smith edition, however, is 99% the same as the kjv, with additions not present in any other text or manuscript. the passages in the book of mormon that quote the bible quote it in exact shakespearean english -- an anachronism for smith who lived 200 years or more later -- and it exactly duplicates the kjv text, even though the supposed source must have been much different (and indeed in an entirely different language).
so uh, tell me then. who's lying?
Colledge, right? Please don't tell me you're still in elementary.
college. not colledge.
if i gave the nephi passage and the kjv isaiah passage to any english teacher anywhere, and told them that two different people wrote them, in two different languages, translated independently, they'd tell me i was full of it. they'd say one copied the other, directly, in the same language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LDSdude, posted 02-06-2005 8:42 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 77 of 80 (183693)
02-07-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by LDSdude
02-06-2005 8:42 PM


Lucifer
Just a note so that your quotes actually show up as such. Use the [brackets] and not the (parentheses). Then your quotes will show up correctly and make it easier to read.
quote:
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)
LDSdude writes:
Then where did Isaiah get it from?

Isaiah did not use the word "lucifer." He used the word "heylel," which is Hebrew for "morning star." See Message 69 about when the word "lucifer" was first used.
In the Latin Vulgate the word "lucifer" was used in Job 11:17, 38:32; Isaiah 14:12; and 2 Peter 1:19. The word "lucifer" was only retained and capitalized by the translators of the KJV in the Isaiah verse.
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?
LDSdude writes:
Pure and simply, modern revealation from God.

Revelation to who?
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.
You can do better than that. I already showed you that the Torah was not referred to as the "five books of Moses" by the Jews of 600 BC. Even the NT Jews didn't use it.
Same as, if someone claims a letter is written prior to WWII but the Great War was referred to as WWI within the letter, then the letter wasn't written prior to WWII.
quote:
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.
I did notice that. I guess Smith was fortunate that his translation so closely followed the KJV.
Chapter breaks and verse numbers were added as well as changing some of the original wording. Which is interesting since no one has the original plates to check for accuracy.
Original 1830
2 Nephi 12:9
and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not.
Current BOM
2 Nephi 12:9
And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
This is one verse that Smith's translation changed the meaning from the Bible itself.
Tanakh
Isaiah 2:8-9
Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. 8 Their land also is full of idols; every one worshippeth the work of his own hands, that which his own fingers have made. 9 And man boweth down, and man lowereth himself; and Thou canst not bear with them.
KJV
Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:
And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LDSdude, posted 02-06-2005 8:42 PM LDSdude has not replied

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


Message 78 of 80 (184042)
02-09-2005 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by LDSdude
02-06-2005 8:42 PM


eh, because i missed it before, and it needs discussing.
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?
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.
there's believing and not believing, sure. now, i can't speak for purpledawn, but i am a believer myself. it's good to keep this mind when you're debating with us. and you can't just say "well, you don't believe, so i don't expect you to agree!" because i DO believe.
it is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of textual inconsistency, and a HUGE anachronism.
the passage which nephi so accurately quotes is isaiah 14, which is a taunt against the king of babylon, probably nebuchadnezzar. in this, it uses a lowercase title for him, "heylel," which means "brilliant one" or "bearer of light" and figuratively the planet venus (son of the morning, etc).
as purpledawn pointed out, this word is used throughout the bible. it's not a proper noun at all. "lucifer" simply is not the devil, it's a mocking title of nebuchadnezzar. look at the whole passage, and ask if each line talks about a king, or a demon. i've broken it down part by part on this board before.
that said, there's a connection made between this "lucifer" name and ha-satan, and the serpent in the garden of eden. this is a connection completely absent in the bible. the serpent is not punished to hell, he's punished to the ground. lucifer is nebuchadnezzar, and ha-satan... we'll he's one of the sons of god, who roams about the earth. that's what the bible SAYS.
this mumbo jumbo about lucifer and the war in heaven and banishment to hell is not biblical in the slightest. the closest we get to it in ancient text is a story in enoch. but even then, it's azazel ("the scapegoat" in kjv) who is punished for teaching man to make weapons to combat the nephilim. the story of the devil as an opponent to god does not appear in it earliest form until revelation. and there it's a metaphor built on other ancient legends: the leviathan slain by el, and other stories hinted at in the bible.
the incarnation of the god versus the devil story does not appear in the form found in the book of mormon (moses, i think. been a while) until milton's paradise lost. every christian and mormon today believes this story, and i suspect it has something to do with paradise lost being taught in churches for a long time.
it was published, btw, about 20 years before the book of mormon. which looks even more suspicious. if it's modern revelation, it's milton's, not smith's. more plaigarism, i think.
abe:
christians and mormons alike, think about this honestly for a second. if the devil was banished to hell, why do we worry about his influence every sunday in church? why do bad things happen? you can't believe in this story *and* use him as an excuse for humanity. preachers can't use fear of him to control congregations if he's already been beaten.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-09-2005 01:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LDSdude, posted 02-06-2005 8:42 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 02-09-2005 6:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 79 of 80 (184054)
02-09-2005 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by arachnophilia
02-09-2005 1:46 AM


Paradise Lost
Hey Arach,
Would you believe that in over 40 years of Church life I had never heard of Paradise Lost until this forum?
None of the churches I've been a part of promoted the tales of Satan/Devil.
So I don't agree with the Christian view of Satan as a fallen angel; but I do understand the Hebrew use of the word in the OT.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2005 1:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2005 9:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 80 of 80 (184268)
02-09-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by purpledawn
02-09-2005 6:25 AM


Re: Paradise Lost
Would you believe that in over 40 years of Church life I had never heard of Paradise Lost until this forum?
i would expect so. it's classic fictional literature, not the bible. but from my understanding, it was used in churches in new england around the time of joseph smith, and was literally the number two best seller next to the bible. if a home in the 1860's had one book, it was the bible. if it had two, the second was paradise lost.
it's lost a lot of popularity since then. even though it's not directly talked about in church, i bet you've heard the story a few times.
None of the churches I've been a part of promoted the tales of Satan/Devil.
maybe you could recommend me a few then.
So I don't agree with the Christian view of Satan as a fallen angel; but I do understand the Hebrew use of the word in the OT.
and this is part of my point. the book of mormon puts forth the classic late 1800's christian view, NOT the 600 bc (or 1200 bc in the case of moses) jewish view. it's a huge anachronism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 02-09-2005 6:25 AM purpledawn 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