Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Themis]

Are you kidding? I've been reading and rereading this thread since the day it started.

You have claimed an "academic" position this entire time and now you are claiming t5hat you never did?

You might as well be a troll.

This is so silly.

Joseph Smith said he could translate, he couldn't.

End of story.

He didn't say, or write, or indicate that he made an "inspired" translation.

He insisted that it was literal.

Dear Kittens the blasphemer (you dare to use His name in vain),
I realize now that you have not read this thread and don't intend to. As a pseudonymous sock-puppet, you are clearly not among the honest in heart.
Making false claims about me indicates this very well.

Apparently others do not have the same view as you. It's unfortunate that you now feel you have to now call this person dishonest as well. I have to remind myself sometimes that misunderstandings naturally abound in online discussions. I consider myself partly to blame, in that we don't spend enough time seeking to understand what the other person is trying to say, and usually get the wrong interpretation.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Are you kidding? I've been reading and rereading this thread since the day it started.

Dear Kittens the blasphemer (you dare to use His name in vain),
I realize now that you have not read this thread and don't intend to. As a pseudonymous sock-puppet, you are clearly not among the honest in heart.
Making false claims about me indicates this very well.

I'm a blasphemer? How do you know my name isn't Jesus, Chuy for short?

I have read this thread. Have you?

Sock puppet? This is the most amusing bit. This is my first and only account here. Moksha can vouch for that, I think. We have both been posting on another Mormon debate site for years and I have made many of the same arguments there as I do here. Whose sock puppet do you think I am?

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Apparently others do not have the same view as you. It's unfortunate that you now feel you have to now call this person dishonest as well. I have to remind myself sometimes that misunderstandings naturally abound in online discussions. I consider myself partly to blame, in that we don't spend enough time seeking to understand what the other person is trying to say, and usually get the wrong interpretation.

I like this.

A rare moment of clarity in these forums. We could use more.

[_SteelHead]

Look what I found!

Proof positive:

[_SteelHead]

Robert,
I also liked how you took this:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

And try to make it the yearly flooding of the Nile delta. Out of context much?

[_nc47]

Good job, Bob Smith, you've got a lot of endurance.

I have no patience with this flood stuff. Like Dinesh D'Souza said, a literal reading of the Bible is held by 3% of Christians and 100% of atheists.

Strong faith reflects the great moral character of America!

[_Quasimodo]

Good job, Bob Smith, you've got a lot of endurance.

I have no patience with this flood stuff. Like Dinesh D'Souza said, a literal reading of the Bible is held by 3% of Christians and 100% of atheists.

Strong faith reflects the great moral character of America!

Strong faith reflects the great desire to believe in spite of reliable facts. Strong faith doesn't indicate moral character. It indicates personal insecurity.

[_Themis]

Good job, Bob Smith, you've got a lot of endurance.

You are welcome to try an answer why we should consider Egyptology interpretations of fac 3 wrong. Unfortunately Bob ignored the question to the extent of not even admitting anyone was asking.

I have no patience with this flood stuff. Like Dinesh D'Souza said, a literal reading of the Bible is held by 3% of Christians and 100% of atheists.

I would agree with 100% of atheists, but I have no idea how he gets 3% of Christians. I know many LDS, if not most, still consider it worldwide. The church's official doctrine is that it was literal, and for good reason. All the scriptures only support a literal view. I know as a believer I did discard this one early on, but I realize now I had to do some major mental gymnastics to do so. Once you move away from a literal view the story falls apart. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham also support a worldwide view.

Strong faith reflects the great moral character of America!

I can appreciate a subjective opinion, even if I may not see it that way. I also don't know how you define faith.

[_nc47]

Good job, Bob Smith, you've got a lot of endurance.

You are welcome to try an answer why we should consider Egyptology interpretations of fac 3 wrong. Unfortunately Bob ignored the question to the extent of not even admitting anyone was asking.

This thread is originally about proper names in the Book of Mormon (and Grant Palmer is dead wrong on some of them). Apparently Bob had too many things fired at him at once. Somehow we're at facsimile 3. Anyway, I don't think the Egyptology interpretations are wrong. Prior to 1871 the heading to the Book of Abraham said that the book was "purportedly written by Abraham." It's a pseudepigraphic text just like the Apocryphon of Abraham. I pretty much adopt David Bokovoy's position. Enthronement in ancient Israel is connected to Deification, so Abraham sitting on the throne means he is becoming divine, like Osiris.[/quote]

The church's official doctrine is that it was literal, and for good reason.

It is not the Church's official position that the flood must be literal. Steelhead has some quotes from early leaders, an Ensign article by Donald Parry, Mormon Doctrine, JoD, manuals, blah blah blah. I don't have the patience to keep responding to those people who keep quotemining.

All the scriptures only support a literal view. I know as a believer I did discard this one early on, but I realize now I had to do some major mental gymnastics to do so. Once you move away from a literal view the story falls apart. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham also support a worldwide view.

You have to make circular assumptions about all scriptures being literal in order to conclude that the flood myth is literal. Even if portions of the scriptures are indeed literal, that does not mean myth cannot be joined with history. I believe George Washington existed even though I don't believe the cherry tree story.

Strong faith reflects the great moral character of America!

I can appreciate a subjective opinion, even if I may not see it that way. I also don't know how you define faith.

I use CS Lewis's definition.

[_nc47]

Good job, Bob Smith, you've got a lot of endurance.

I have no patience with this flood stuff. Like Dinesh D'Souza said, a literal reading of the Bible is held by 3% of Christians and 100% of atheists.

Strong faith reflects the great moral character of America!

Strong faith reflects the great desire to believe in spite of reliable facts. Strong faith doesn't indicate moral character. It indicates personal insecurity.

You have no idea what faith is.