 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
moinmoin
Posts:394
 | | 07/15/2008 3:58 PM |
 Alert | Posted By qwerty on 07/15/2008 3:42 PM
Read it and ask God if it's true. Same and only way you could know that the Bible is true as well. Both are true! | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:228
| | 07/15/2008 4:42 PM |
Alert | | I'm not being sarcastic Qwerty...I am being truthful. It is my belief that the BOM is unbiblical and I would caution ANYONE (and yes, scream from the rooftops) against reading it and getting sucked in. What I would suggest is that this person read the Bible; maybe an NIV version (for ease of understanding) and start reading the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John). And, I think from other posts that I have made, you will see that I am rarely sarcastic. | | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:135
| | 07/15/2008 4:50 PM |
Alert | I'm not being sarcastic Qwerty...I am being truthful. It is my belief that the BOM is unbiblical and I would caution ANYONE (and yes, scream from the rooftops) against reading it and getting sucked in. What I would suggest is that this person read the Bible; maybe an NIV version (for ease of understanding) and start reading the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John). And, I think from other posts that I have made, you will see that I am rarely sarcastic.
I never said or implied that you were being sarcastic. I know you were being completely honest. I made a sarcastic comment and then followed it with how I truly feel. Reading and praying about it is the only way you will know if it is true or not. This is also the only way you can know whether the Bible is true, so the same test will work for both. I believe they are both true. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:228
| | 07/15/2008 7:51 PM |
Alert | You forget, qwerty, that second only to the "never, ever read the Book of Mormon" rule among certain people is "never, ever, ever read and pray about it."
No moinmoin, I would say just don't read the BOM if you want to find the Truth. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 07/17/2008 6:40 PM |
Alert | Posted By RichTig on 07/15/2008 1:11 PM (moinmoin asked RichTig how he accounted for the existence of accurate and at-the-time unknown geographical locations, their names, and correct usage of the Egyptian word "deseret"  Hoax. There have been religious hoaxes throughout the ages. The Shroud of Turin is just one example of intricate and well done hoaxes. A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone. Finally an indigent jeweler pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one. (Lehi in the Desert, pp. 121-122) | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:475
| | 07/17/2008 9:22 PM |
Alert | I think it was all a conspiracy and Joe knew about all the stuff before hand, but secretly had it hidden till now. Sounds like a good movie theme though. | | | |
|
|  | qwerty
Posts:135
| | 07/18/2008 7:31 AM |
Alert | I think it was all a conspiracy and Joe knew about all the stuff before hand, but secretly had it hidden till now. Sounds like a good movie theme though.
LOL...sorry, I had to laugh. He knew about a hidden temple in the sand on a continent he had never been to that was uncovered YEARS later by German archaeologists and happened to have ancient characters that translated into the name of a location that matched a name in English translation in the Book of Mormon that he made up. How on earth would you plan something like that especially back then? And with a 3rd grade education? That actually gives a lot of credit to Joseph Smith in assuming he was some great master mind. ;-). | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:1926
| | 07/18/2008 8:24 AM |
Alert | Ummm, the "translation" was wrong.......it was a list of names for a funeral not the Book of Abraham.........oops
Joseph Smith's Translation Graded
Joseph Smith's translation has been checked by world renown Egyptologists and it has been proven to be bogus. As early as 1861, claims were published declaring that Smith's translation was "entirely incorrect," (A Journey to Great Salt Lake City Vol.2, p.539, cited in Joseph Smith, Jr. As A Translator, p.19, [Modern Microfilm Reprint]).
Then in 1912 the Episcopal Bishop of Utah, Rev. F.S. Spalding, sent copies of the Book of Abraham facsimiles to, "a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars, eight in all," including professors from German, British and US universities (B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2. p. 138).
Spalding's work culminated in a powerful book, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, and spawned banner headlines in the Dec. 29th 1912 New York Times denouncing the Book of Abraham as a hoax.
| |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:228
| | 07/18/2008 8:46 AM |
Alert | | Using the "example" of mistaking a quartz for a diamond, I would say that this is exactly what the Mormon church has done. Presented a quartz, that looks like a diamond, and that the community has accepted it as such. The "diamond" in this case would be the Bible and Word of God...the quartz? Well, I think you get my meaning. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 07/18/2008 9:04 AM |
Alert | Posted By JasonY on 07/18/2008 8:24 AM
Ummm, the "translation" was wrong.......it was a list of names for a funeral not the Book of Abraham.........oops
Joseph Smith's Translation Graded
Joseph Smith's translation has been checked by world renown Egyptologists and it has been proven to be bogus. As early as 1861, claims were published declaring that Smith's translation was "entirely incorrect," (A Journey to Great Salt Lake City Vol.2, p.539, cited in Joseph Smith, Jr. As A Translator, p.19, [Modern Microfilm Reprint]).
Then in 1912 the Episcopal Bishop of Utah, Rev. F.S. Spalding, sent copies of the Book of Abraham facsimiles to, "a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars, eight in all," including professors from German, British and US universities (B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2. p. 138).
Spalding's work culminated in a powerful book, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, and spawned banner headlines in the Dec. 29th 1912 New York Times denouncing the Book of Abraham as a hoax. Actually, the connection of Abraham with the Egyptian Book of the Dead is actually another dead-on bulls-eye hit for Joseph Smith, completely unknown in his time, but that's a topic for another MegaThread!  | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 07/18/2008 9:05 AM |
Alert | Posted By itsadryheat on 07/18/2008 8:46 AM
Using the "example" of mistaking a quartz for a diamond, I would say that this is exactly what the Mormon church has done. Presented a quartz, that looks like a diamond, and that the community has accepted it as such. The "diamond" in this case would be the Bible and Word of God...the quartz? Well, I think you get my meaning. But it passes tests for "diamonds," not tests for quartz. That's the point. | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:1926
| | 07/18/2008 11:54 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 07/18/2008 9:04 AM Posted By JasonY on 07/18/2008 8:24 AM
Ummm, the "translation" was wrong.......it was a list of names for a funeral not the Book of Abraham.........oops
Joseph Smith's Translation Graded
Joseph Smith's translation has been checked by world renown Egyptologists and it has been proven to be bogus. As early as 1861, claims were published declaring that Smith's translation was "entirely incorrect," (A Journey to Great Salt Lake City Vol.2, p.539, cited in Joseph Smith, Jr. As A Translator, p.19, [Modern Microfilm Reprint]).
Then in 1912 the Episcopal Bishop of Utah, Rev. F.S. Spalding, sent copies of the Book of Abraham facsimiles to, "a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars, eight in all," including professors from German, British and US universities (B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2. p. 138).
Spalding's work culminated in a powerful book, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, and spawned banner headlines in the Dec. 29th 1912 New York Times denouncing the Book of Abraham as a hoax. Wrong book, Jason. You're thinking of the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon. The info you've gotten from anti-Mormon sources is outdated as well (the stuff you have from the Tanners is 40 years old, and Spaulding's 1912 thing is nearly 100 years old). Actually, the connection of Abraham with the Egyptian Book of the Dead is actually another dead-on bulls-eye hit for Joseph Smith, completely unknown in his time, but that's a topic for another MegaThread!  I wasn't referring to the Book of Mormon, I was referring to the claim that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian script into the Book of Abraham. Which has been proven false by leading professors who actually translate Egyptian text. You are deflecting my comment. As for the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it is NOT the Book of Abraham. Unless you think Osiris is Abraham? I know Egyptian history so we can have a nice long discussion about that. The Book of the Dead is songs, hymns, and instructions for the deceased in the afterlife. It talks of the afterlife, and is not divinely inspired. Ancient Egypt had multiple Gods, so please don't even try to claim they are Christian. | |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:135
| | 07/18/2008 12:13 PM |
Alert | Ummm, the "translation" was wrong.......it was a list of names for a funeral not the Book of Abraham.........oops
I wasn't referring to the Book of Mormon, I was referring to the claim that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian script into the Book of Abraham.
I was referring to the Book of Mormon with respect to the location name of Nahom found on a temple by German archaeologists, so your rebutle of my comment saying it was mistranslated but referring to the Book of Abraham doesn't make sense. That is what moinmion was pointing out. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:228
| | 07/18/2008 1:27 PM |
Alert | {sorry a repeat] | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:228
| | 07/18/2008 1:30 PM |
Alert | But it passes tests for "diamonds," not tests for quartz. That's the point.
Only if you don't read the Bible and know and understand what it says. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are very different books. Christianity and LDS are very different in terms of definitions, understanding, and practice. They just are. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 07/18/2008 4:51 PM |
Alert | Posted By JasonY on 07/18/2008 11:54 AM I wasn't referring to the Book of Mormon, I was referring to the claim that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian script into the Book of Abraham. Which has been proven false by leading professors who actually translate Egyptian text. You are deflecting my comment. I'm not deflecting anything, Jason. There have been a lot of developments since 1912, or the 1960s, in Egyptology, and the Book of Abraham text, pound for pound, rivals the Book of Mormon as far as "bulls-eye" hits. It would be a major thread derailment to get into them, but you've given me an idea for another thread. As for the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it is NOT the Book of Abraham. Unless you think Osiris is Abraham? It is precisely the figures identified as "Osiris" that are really intriguing. I know Egyptian history so we can have a nice long discussion about that. Great! You'll be a welcome participant. The Book of the Dead is songs, hymns, and instructions for the deceased in the afterlife. It talks of the afterlife, and is not divinely inspired. All very true, but there are specific and unique connections between the Abraham literature (biblical, apocryphal, and cultural) and the Book of the Dead, none of which were known to anyone in Joseph Smith's time. E.A. Wallis Budge, one of the scholars in Spaulding's 1912 book, accused Joseph Smith of plagiarizing apocryphal sources that were only accesible in the museum in London Budge worked at at the turn of the century. How do we explain the presence of authentic Abrahamic lore in Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham in the 1840s? | | | |
|
| | JCarp
Posts:39
| | 07/18/2008 5:56 PM |
Alert | Itsadryheat: ...The Book of Mormon and the Bible are very different books....
If you don't read The Book of Mormon and know and understand what it says, how can you say it is different from the Bible??? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never read (more then a few verses) and tried to understand what the Book of Mormon contains. How can you even pretend to know what you are talking about if you don't have adaquate knowledge on half of what you are trying to compare?!?! Yet I have, as have many others read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon and find them both to be "diamonds" of comparable value.
| | | |
|
| | RichTig
Posts:0
| | 07/18/2008 6:23 PM |
Alert | The Book of Mormon is the Bible Part 3. Old Testament - book of stories New Testament - the sequel Book of Mormon - part 3 | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:475
| | 07/18/2008 9:58 PM |
Alert | Posted By qwerty on 07/18/2008 7:31 AM I think it was all a conspiracy and Joe knew about all the stuff before hand, but secretly had it hidden till now. Sounds like a good movie theme though.
LOL...sorry, I had to laugh. He knew about a hidden temple in the sand on a continent he had never been to that was uncovered YEARS later by German archaeologists and happened to have ancient characters that translated into the name of a location that matched a name in English translation in the Book of Mormon that he made up. How on earth would you plan something like that especially back then? And with a 3rd grade education? That actually gives a lot of credit to Joseph Smith in assuming he was some great master mind. ;-). I was being tongue in cheek, but I am glad you laguhed as it was my intent. | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:475
| | 07/19/2008 11:39 PM |
Alert | This thread has been quite for 24hrs now, need to spice it up a little. I say we should have open season on seagulls and breed trillions of wood and bricking eating locusts and drop them on Salt Lake City! | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|