DiscussMormonism.com

Themis wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:[MODERATOR NOTE: Themis and passenger, please review the rules for the Celestial Forum, specifically rules #3 and #4:

What personal attack? I was just stating facts. In this case about what has been established about subby.

I would have no problem with him if he treated people well and actually tried to discuss the issues here. I and others dealt with him to long enough to know his trolling game.

Thou better readest 3 Nephi 14:3, unreasonable God.

passenger wrote:
But you should respectfully grant that he's quite good at it. He's obviously your superior, dear second-degree forums god.

No, hes not good at trolling, but he does it a lot.

I'm afraid this thread has become a wrecked train. Maybe Chap (God # 3) is right and I should leave Celestia and better find my luck in Terrestria...

It is much more active then the celestial, but you will need to be apart of the discussion if you want to create good discussion.

Themis wrote:
It is much more active then the celestial, but you will need to be apart of the discussion if you want to create good discussion.

Maybe you are speaking words of truth and wisdom... if I only knew what exactly "apart of the discussion" means (to create good discussion) ...

passenger wrote:
Thou better readest 3 Nephi 14:3, unreasonable God.

I'm more then willing to discuss things with subby if he ever would be willing. You haven't been around long enough to know much about him or me.

Themis wrote:

passenger wrote:Thou better readest 3 Nephi 14:3, unreasonable God.

I'm more then willing to discuss things with subby if he ever would be willing. You haven't been around long enough to know much about him or me.

At first: subgenius has an avatar / a forum photo, and (secondly) he's holding a Colt in his hand - you have neither the one nor the other. There is no need to be around here for long just to see who is who.

passenger wrote:

AmyJo wrote:Yeay, this passage was borrowed directly from the Sermon on the Mount, of Matthew Chapter 7.

If you believe that the Sermon on the Mount is authentic, and the words were Jesus own words, I can't see why the passage in the Book of Mormon should not be identical with Matthew Chapter 7.

Anyway, at the beginning of the chapter you can read "compare Matthew 7". The events in Nephi 3 date from approx. the year 34 A. D. I wouldn't be concerned about the fact that there are certain similarities between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Interesting. So the KJV version of Matthew 7 is authentic and the words were Jesus's own words, which is why 3rd Nephi 14 matches Matthew 7 so closely.

But wait: why then, when Joseph Smith was engaged in the inspired translation of the KJV Bible, was he was inspired to change Jesus's own words in Matthew Chapter 7 so that they say something other than that what you just claimed the Book of Mormon was tailored to match so precisely because it was "Jesus's own words"?

That's a head scratcher...

Flaming Meaux wrote: ... But wait: why then, when Joseph Smith was engaged in the inspired translation of the KJV Bible, was he was inspired to change Jesus's own words in Matthew Chapter 7 so that they say something other than that what you just claimed the Book of Mormon was tailored to match so precisely because it was "Jesus's own words"?

That's a head scratcher...

No, not a head scratcher, as Jesus' own words have always been paraphrased. Jesus' "own" words doesn't mean they were his own words in a direct speech. Remember, Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, and certainly not in Latin, Greek, or in English, that didn't even exist at that time. The literal account of Jesus' own words will nowhere be found - only in a translated form or an inspired or general sense, anyway.

passenger wrote:

Flaming Meaux wrote: ... But wait: why then, when Joseph Smith was engaged in the inspired translation of the KJV Bible, was he was inspired to change Jesus's own words in Matthew Chapter 7 so that they say something other than that what you just claimed the Book of Mormon was tailored to match so precisely because it was "Jesus's own words"?

That's a head scratcher...

No, not a head scratcher, as Jesus' own words have always been paraphrased. Jesus' "own" words doesn't mean they were his own words in a direct speech. Remember, Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, and certainly not in Latin, Greek, or in English, that didn't even exist at that time. The literal account of Jesus' own words will nowhere be found - only in a translated form or an inspired or general sense, anyway.

The problem is why Joseph would receive divine translation that matches the KJV then later get divine translations correcting the KJV. Why was does the Book of Mormon translation not match Joseph's later corrections? The other problem is how the KJV could get anywhere near accurate record of what supposedly Jesus said considering it was not written until well after. Are they also supposed to have gotten divine revelations.

subgenius wrote:
when considering the notion of another person "thinking it through", perhaps it is best that you first do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALIS

Excellent point, although the third tortoise from the bottom never could agree on his stacking order.

moksha wrote:

subgenius wrote:when considering the notion of another person "thinking it through", perhaps it is best that you first do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALIS

Excellent point, although the third tortoise from the bottom never could agree on his stacking order.

Do You think about this?

viewtopic.php?p=607504#p607504 -

(at that time I had pictures...)