DiscussMormonism.com

just me wrote:Aren't there some New Testament passages, too...yes there are.

Anyway, God revealed the same exact thing to the Nephites. The End.

Ms. just me,

Perhaps God has been consistent through the first six dispensations and only become wishy-washy with what is truth in this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

Regards,

Spider.

If you can live with the idea that God speaks the stilted 17th Century English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that God is consistent in the verbiage with which He inspired those that prepared the King James Version of the Bible and those Book of Mormon prophets, then why is the Deutero-Isaiah matter troubling in the least?

Even more plausible is that the translator put the ancient text into the words he knew.

just me wrote:Aren't there some New Testament passages, too...yes there are.

Anyway, God revealed the same exact thing to the Nephites. The End.

The New Testament passages, while highly suspicious, could possibly be explained away as being direct quotes from God, given to two sets of people. Deutero-Isaiah, however, doesn't have that escape hatch, being a direct quote, supposedly, from the brass plates of Laban.

bcspace wrote:

If you can live with the idea that God speaks the stilted 17th Century English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that God is consistent in the verbiage with which He inspired those that prepared the King James Version of the Bible and those Book of Mormon prophets, then why is the Deutero-Isaiah matter troubling in the least?

Even more plausible is that the translator put the ancient text into the words he knew.

The words appeared before Joseph's eyes in the hat as a miracle from God. Try again.

Fence Sitter wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Yes, it authentically exists. It's a book. But it's not a historical document. It was written in the 19th century, and the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, which could not have been on the brass plates, confirms it.

Since it is well known that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates when he was translating, what evidence do we have to prove or disprove that the portions of duetero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were even on the plates? Do we know that everything contained within the Book of Mormon was on the plates? If, as part of the 'translation' process more information was added to the Book of Mormon than is contained within the plates, does that invalidate the Book of Mormon?


By the wayI think it is a 19th century document.

Mr. Fence Sitter,

If more information was added to the Book of Mormon than what is contained within the plates, how can anyone know that anything contained in the plates found its way into the Book of Mormon? Perhaps nothing in the Book of Mormon has a linguistic corollary in Reformed Egyptian (or any other language) that might be scratched into the plates.

Perhaps there were no plates, or only plates Joseph Smith Jr fashioned up himself to show the 'witnesses'.

Perhaps the plates were just a catalyst so that Joseph Smith Jr would think that God knew what He was telling Joseph Smith Jr to say out the hat, to his scribes.

I wonder why Joseph Smith Jr believed anything God and Jesus said to him during the First Vision, or anything that the angel with the flaming sword said, or the numerous 'revelations' in the Doctrine and Covenants? Where was the physical world prop that Joseph Smith Jr apparently needed as a catalyst so that he would be prepared to receive the words of God, and which he apparently needed in order to take the Book of Mormon dictation from God and the Book of Abraham dictation from God.

What a tangled web one weaves, when at first he sets out to deceive.

Regards,

Spider.

Fence Sitter wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Yes, it authentically exists. It's a book. But it's not a historical document. It was written in the 19th century, and the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, which could not have been on the brass plates, confirms it.

Since it is well known that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates when he was translating, what evidence do we have to prove or disprove that the portions of duetero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were even on the plates? Do we know that everything contained within the Book of Mormon was on the plates? If, as part of the 'translation' process more information was added to the Book of Mormon than is contained within the plates, does that invalidate the Book of Mormon?


By the wayI think it is a 19th century document.

How about the Book of Moses? What ancient record did he translate that from?

Polygamy-Porter wrote:How about the Book of Moses? What ancient record did he translate that from?

From this authentic Hebrew book of prophecy, discovered in Moses' tomb!

Simon Belmont wrote:The very existence of the Book of Mormon confirms its authenticity.

And the Library of Congress holds some 32,000,000 million books, also confirming their authenticity.

What the Book of Mormon and the 32,000,00 books held at the Library of Congress hold in common is that none ever came from golden plates, and ALL were written by human beings...the same method every book ever written has been composed.

That makes all 32,000,001 books authenticly authentic.

Copyright© 1915 Simon Belmont, Esq. thinks that because it exists it is authentic.

Authentic what?

**************************************

mr space thinks : Even more plausible is that the translator put the ancient text into the words he knew.

Like Curelom and Cummom? I am sure he knew a lot about scimitars, silk and urim & thummims, right?
If he translated it as has been said, reading off words from the magic peepstone in a hat, having them repeated and only getting the next set of words if those were correct I don't think 'words he knew' really entered into it. He would have read off words that were given to him. Either that or someone is way off in this stuff.

bcspace wrote:

Even more plausible is that the translator put the ancient text into the words he knew.

So Joseph when confronted with a word he was perhaps unfamiliar with like "ttfn" he was able to substitute a word he was more familiar with such as "adieu." Or perhaps the translating device also had a thesaurus.