Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Clark ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 09:54PM

My comments:

<<< Quoting myself >>>
First of all... I will quote the two sets of scriptures that I already quoted up above.

""1Corinthians 13:

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.""


""Moroni chapter 7:

45 And Charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.""

This would be considered a anachronism because Moroni could not have had access to the writings of the apostle Paul. It also would not have been possible for Moroni to have known Paul because Paul died in about 56 A.D. and Moroni would have lived on the earth at about 400 A.D. according to the Book of Mormon.


"" 2Nephi chapter 9:

39 ....Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life-eternal"

Though not an exact verbatim quote... it is close enough to be considered a plagiarism from the Book of Romans in the New Testament. The Book of Mormon dates these words as being written between 559 and 545 B.C. Here we have Nephi quoting the apostle Paul almost verbatim when it would have been impossible for Nephi to have known Paul or have access to his writings..... also this unacknowledged plagiarism from Paul's writings in the New Testament took place hundreds of years before Paul was born and wrote his New Testament Epistles.

"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace"(Romans 8:6).""


""Moroni 10:8-17...

10:8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

10:9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom; 10 And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

10:11 And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10:12 And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles; 13 And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;

10: 14 And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;

10: 15 And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;

10: 16 And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.

10: 17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will. ""

""I Corinthians 12:4-11....

12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.""

Note that Moroni follows I Corinthians very closely. The spiritual gifts and their attributes are given in the same order as that in I Corinthians. Note also the use of language unique to the King James Version. The word 'severally' appears only once in the Book of Mormon, in this passage. Again it should be noted that Moroni could not have known the apostle Paul or had access to the writings of Paul. This would be considered another anachronism. The longer the New Testament quote that is found in the Book of Mormon the lower the probability that this is just concidence or random similarity in wording. Moroni closely follows the wording of Paul in "1Corinthians" and certainly this indicates a heavy reliance that the Book of Mormon has on the King James Version of the Bible. <<<< End Quote >>>>


TBM who likes to be called Brigham and his questions...

<<< Quote >>>

Quick questions, since I have the time:

1) Why could Moroni not have know Paul?
2) Why would we have to assume that any of those quotes were "just concidence or random similarity in wording"?

<<< End Quote >>>

Just curious what your responses would be.

Thanks, Clark

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Clark ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 10:05PM

<<<< Quoting Brigham >>>>

I understand that the root of the problem is the question over whether or not Joseph was really being *inspired* as he translated, or whether he was just ripping things off. But given the sheer volume of original material in the Book of Mormon, even if he had completely plagiarised large sections of the New Testament and some of the old, we still need to find out where the rest of it came from (though I’ve heard the various theories, including that he stole his ideas from a contemporary historical fiction novel).

<<<< End Quote >>>>

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jon ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 10:47AM

Clark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<<< Quoting Brigham >>>>
>
> I understand that the root of the problem is the
> question over whether or not Joseph was really
> being *inspired* as he translated, or whether he
> was just ripping things off. But given the sheer
> volume of original material in the Book of Mormon,
> even if he had completely plagiarised large
> sections of the New Testament and some of the old,
> we still need to find out where the rest of it
> came from (though I’ve heard the various
> theories, including that he stole his ideas from a
> contemporary historical fiction novel).
>
> <<<< End Quote >>>>


My reply to Brigham would be " Either he is a liar and a plagarist, or he is not. You don't get to play both sides of the isle. If he needed to plagerize ANY of the BOM, then he was not translating anything, and it all becomes a lie. The BOM was so important that God himself had to apear to JS to bring it back. Scripture that important shouldn't need "Filler" imported from another book. God doesn't need to cheat."

As to why couldn't Paul have know Moroni? I would reply "did you really ask me that? Are you stoned?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scarecrowfromoz ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 10:30PM

That God gave the exact same words to both Moroni and Paul to write.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Misfit ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 10:43PM

Yes, That's the standard response. God gives the same words to all his prophets. Its interesting to note that no one in the OT or the NT parrotted any of Alma's sermons word for word.

Ether 4:16 is a better one to use. "Then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all my people."

Ask your friend how Moroni managed to get a copy of the Revelations of John. If Moroni didn't have a copy of the revelations of John, this sentence would have been meaningless to him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Res Ipsa Loquitur ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 10:46PM

This is even funnier when you consider that the "Revelation" of John isn't so much a revelation as a centuries-later forgery.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Clark ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 10:57PM

Res Ipsa Loquitur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is even funnier when you consider that the
> "Revelation" of John isn't so much a revelation as
> a centuries-later forgery.

Please elaborate. I have never heard this before.

Thanks, Clark

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Res Ipsa Loquitur ( )
Date: October 27, 2010 11:02PM

Read just about anything by Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities, Jesus Interrupted). It is now universally agreed by non-sectarian scholars that most books of the New Testament are forgeries written by people centuries after the time of the apostles. That's why the New Testament is so self-contradictory and scatterbrained. It's really just a collection of polemics by people trying to establish their own version of Christianity, and using the name of an apostle to lend their viewpoint authority.

The Revelation of John is a very ordinary, unoriginal apocalypse, solidly in a long tradition of forged apocalypses.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Joseph ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 11:48AM

This is true. For the record, I went to BYU, where in the process of trying to become a Mormon apologist I learned that most Christians (including most Mormons) naively equate folklore with historical fact.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Badger John ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 03:16PM

Res Ipsa Loquitur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read just about anything by Bart Ehrman (Lost
> Christianities, Jesus Interrupted). It is now
> universally agreed by non-sectarian scholars that
> most books of the New Testament are forgeries
> written by people centuries after the time of the
> apostles. That's why the New Testament is so
> self-contradictory and scatterbrained. It's
> really just a collection of polemics by people
> trying to establish their own version of
> Christianity, and using the name of an apostle to
> lend their viewpoint authority.
>
> The Revelation of John is a very ordinary,
> unoriginal apocalypse, solidly in a long tradition
> of forged apocalypses.


Quite absurd.

You need to read more books on the subject before you conclude that "all scholars..." And what is the deal about Non-sectarian scholars, as if research from others (i.e., Christians) cannot possibly be valid? That is a logical fallacy. What about those that started as non sectarian and then became believers as a result of their research? Are they now sectarian? Finally, Bart E. has an ax to grind and he becomes the authority on the matter? Any Christian apologist with a modicum of knowledge could debate the man under the table.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: honestone ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 09:03PM

Way to go Badger John....agree completely.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Valhalla ( )
Date: October 29, 2010 04:09AM

Be careful of books written by Jews who try to tear down Christianity. They all hate Christianity. They cannot be trusted to be truly objective on the subject because their eternal hate blinds them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Master C ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 10:02AM

in the BOM it is in the language of the KJV. I didn't know they spoke in that language out in the desert.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: badseed ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 10:34AM

But throughout the BoM it is clear JS is looking at the KJV.
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

And there are a number of KJV translation errors that are found in the BoM. This means that at least a portion of the Bible verses that are in the BoM came from the KJV because they carry the errors that were produced centuries after they were originally written. These could only have been included in the BoM text after 1611 (actually they think it's an even later version based on the errors included).

Would God purposely gave the errors of men to ancient American prophets to be on the plates unless? If so then is the BoM still the most correct book or is the Bible not as messed up as JS claimed?

Add to this all of the 19th century stuff that is apparent in the BoM and it becomes clear that it is not and ancient document.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jesus Smith ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 11:14AM

When I was a defensive TBM, my answer to the plagiarize question was to say that when JS saw a passage that was expressing a doctrine that was the same to what another biblical author had expressed, JS used the language that was familiar to him in order to translate it into something that modern people would understand. After all, the doctrine is the same in all ages.

Yeah, I was lame.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Misfit ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 11:22AM

As Res Ipsa pointed out, once you dig into the history of the New Testament, and even the history of the OT, the BofM falls apart very quickly. I have read 2 of Bart Ehrman's books. It is very interesting reading, and I recommend his books. He went into Bible school wanting to be a theologian, but he lost his faith very quickly once he found out what the NT was comprised of. The argument about God giving all prophets the same words falls apart very quickly when one realizes that god didn't write the bible, men did. Christ didn't write anything himself. We have no idea what Christ actually said or taught, We have 4 stories that are each tainted with its author's own agenda. Paul was a man, and whoever wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew was a man writing down from hearsay decades after the fact. So, when a 19th century author quotes word for word from a book, without giving its original authors credit, that's not revelation and god giving all his prophets the same words. That's plagiarism. its a good thing Matthew and Paul were long dead and gone in JS' day. He would have faced a copyright lawsuit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: JoD3:360 ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 11:33AM

Even if you don't read those books, all you need to do is to compare those verses with a newer and more up to date translation like an NIV, or an NRSV, and even go to the web abd look at the comparisons between biblical texts.

The Book of Mormon passages only make sense when the KJV is used to compare them.

Not only that, but compare the changes that Joseph did when he produced the JST! He goes through the Sermon on the Mount and makes several changes, and he said he did this because the Bible was in error. But by doing so, he negates the scriptural authority of the BoM, as well as wrecking the assumption that Jesus must've said the same thing to the Nephites.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: JoD3:360 ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 11:40AM

3 Nephi 13:25-27:
25. ...Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26. Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? “

Matthew 6:25-27: (from the KJV of the Bible – not the JST)
25. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?”


The passages are identical which is understandable as Jesus may have said the same thing to both groups of people in the Old and the New World.

The Joseph Smith Translation of those same passages in the LDS Bible for Matthew 6:25-27
25. And, again, I say unto you, go ye into the world, and care not for the world: for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.
26. Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.
27. And your heavenly Father will provide for you whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.”


Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so he also corrected the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The BOM was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the JST?

Another Example:

3 Nephi 14:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Matthew 7:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

JST Matthew 7:10-11
10 And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet.
11 For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: php ( )
Date: October 29, 2010 02:51AM

Saved to notepad. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Clark ( )
Date: October 29, 2010 05:17PM

Thanks for those great examples of Mormon scripture problems comparing B.O.M. to Joseph Smith inspired translation of the Bible... much appreciated JoD3:360

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Paul Davidson ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 02:11PM

Just the fact that there are KJV translation errors in the B.O.M. is proof enough for me...

How about the "doxology" part of the Lord's prayer that is found in the Gospel of Matthew?

A good description of a doxology is found in Wikipedia: "A doxology (from the Greek doxa, glory + logos, word or speaking) is a short hymn of praises to God in various Christian worship services, often added to the end of canticles, psalms, and hymns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxology

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen"

This Doxology is first found in the Didache 8.2. The Didache being early teachings of first century Christians. The Didache was written in about 140 AD.

Didache 8:2
Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray ye:
Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy name;
Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done,
as in heaven, so also on earth;
give us this day our daily bread;
and forgive us our debt,
as we forgive our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one;
for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/didache.ht


There is documentation of at least ten different versions of "the Lord's Prayer" doxology in the early manuscripts of Matthew before it seems to have standardised. The doxology probably was originally added or injected into the Lord's Prayer for use during congregational worship. Most Biblical scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew. Also it is interesting to note that... the modern translations of the Bible do not include it, mentioning it only in footnotes. The doxology of "the Lord's Prayer" as found in the King James Bible is considered a translation error... added by the translators because of its popular use in liturgical Christian worship.

This would have been a great moment for the Book of Mormon not to have the doxology of the Lord's Prayer in "the Lord's prayer" that is found in the Book of Mormon.

""3Nephi chapter 13:

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father aknoweth what things ye have need of before ye bask him.
9 After this amanner therefore bpray ye: Our cFather who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
12 And alead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
13 FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOREVER. Amen.""(some words capitalized for emphasis).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Paul Davidson ( )
Date: October 28, 2010 02:15PM

The lame excuse that God told the Mormoni the exact same thing as Paul and that Moroni had the exact same writing style as Paul is utterly stupid... for example.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: libby ( )
Date: October 29, 2010 07:18PM

God is eternal so he gave the same instructions to many people.

Duh!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Frederick ( )
Date: October 30, 2010 12:53PM

I think the Jaredite story of travelling across the ocean with eith barges that are tight like a dish and only the length of a tree... that carries cattle, swarms of bees and all the people. These barges have hatches or perhaps corks that are unstopped to get air and if water starts to come in you have to hurry and plug the hole.

That is such a lame ass story that even as a TBM it was something I simply could not believe!

The retarded internal stories of the Book of Mormon is actually what convinced me to leave the LDS Church.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **     **  **     **  ********  **     ** 
 ***   ***  **     **  **     **     **      **   **  
 **** ****  **     **  **     **     **       ** **   
 ** *** **  *********  **     **     **        ***    
 **     **  **     **  **     **     **       ** **   
 **     **  **     **  **     **     **      **   **  
 **     **  **     **   *******      **     **     **