TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

[_LCD2YOU]

The issue is there are many who can write a book, Mohammed did just that, that claim to be from "god". A way to note if it is from god or from a man is how accurate the book is. The Book of Mormon fails in every test. Ergo, it is of men, not any god.

While the above sentence is true, it doesn't mean that I don't find the subject of historicity and geography interesting. It just isn't important.

The Book of Mormon doesn't "fail every test." It passes many textual tests.

Uh, no. The one you are most likely reffering to is the Book of Abraham. That is a funeral book and what it says is not what Joseph Smith wrote now is it? Do you have any other examples you'd like to use?

YOu say it "fails" when you mean there has been no overwhelming archeological or anthropological proof.

There has been NO archeological nor anthropological evidence for any of the Book of Mormon. None what so ever. That you would even say there is evidence is a fallicy.

The textual proofs are quite impressive if you would look at them.

Oh I have and the rebuttals of people more learned in such things than I. As another denzien of this board pointed out that Joseph Smith "reading" of the Book of Abraham is very different than those of real Egyptologists. Joseph Smith and his translation fail. Please provide your evindence that the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon passes any test in textual or contextual issues.

Just how do you think I am projecting "feelings" as "historical truth?"

Because if you "know" something is true without evidence you are using your feelings not logic. One does not know anything using feelings. One only knows soemthing is factual when the phyiscal evidence backs it up.

Here again, you are focusing on only one small area of "facts." There are many textual proofs, as I said. But the main standard of truth for me is the witness of the Holy Spirit. And that isn't a "feeling."

So if I tell you my invisible friend "Harvey" told me to worship something would you believe me? No you wouldn't.

Sorry, but your belief in the Holy Spirit is just that, a belief. At worst it is a delusion. Do you have any other imaginary friends you talk to? What do you think about others who talk to "spirits". What about Holy Rollers who flop on the ground speaking in tongues? Do you take them seriously?

[_ozemc]

Easy answer: NOTHING.

Historians could unearth a verfied affidavit written and signed by Joseph Smith himself saying he made the whole thing up and Charity (and her ilk) whould still claim there was no killer blow and that the evidence was with them.

If you've ever seen "Life of Brian," it's a bit like that--"how would you like us to f*** off Master?"

Oh boy, here we go with the Monty Python stuff! Great, I love "Life Of Brian"!

Especially when the people follow him into the desert, and everything he tells them ... "It's a miracle!"

Or when they are singing "Always look on the bright side of life".

Wonderful movie!

I like "The Meaning of Life", too.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity addressing the witness of the Holy Spirit

Yes it is a different "event." I don't know what it would be classified as. The senses are all different modalities of sensation. The idea that it could be a "6th sense" is new to me. I will have to think about it for a while. If it is , then it would be something we all (humans) would have. Everyone has the light of Christ and is given inspiration as to basic right and wrong. If this is all part of a specific sensing modality then as it is developed, the person could receive stronger and stronger "sensations." Speaking technically, of course

Are you saying that you think it's a kind of intuition?

[_charity]

While the above sentence is true, it doesn't mean that I don't find the subject of historicity and geography interesting. It just isn't important.

The Book of Mormon doesn't "fail every test." It passes many textual tests.

Uh, no. The one you are most likely reffering to is the Book of Abraham.

the difference between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. I am referring to the Book of Mormon.

That is a funeral book and what it says is not what Joseph Smith wrote now is it?

The 13% of the papyri once had by Joseph Smith which has been identified as a Book of Breathing is not what the Book of Abraham came from. There are contemporaneous accounts of another scroll, long enough that ie ran across most of the floor of a large room, with rubrics. But we aren't talking about the Book of Abraham.

[
Do you have any other examples you'd like to use? /quote]

Yes, I do. Just one. It will tak eyou a while to digest it. I can't give you a link because it a subscription cite, but I will briefly summarize an article there. It is by BYU professors Dana Pike and David R. Seely.

Many people criticize the Book of Mormon because of the passages of scripture which come from Isaiah. The Book of Mormon presents these chapters are appearing on the Brass Plates which the Lehites took with them the New World.

There is an interesting verse (2 Nephi 12:16, Isaiah 2:16, and the LXX (Greek Septuagint.) The comparison of all three is thus:

Book of Mormon And upon all the ships of the sea
KJV -----------
LXX And upon every ship of the sea

Book of Mormon and upon all the ships of Tarshish
KJV and upon all the ships of Tarshsish
LXX ---------

Book of Mormon and upon all pleasant pictures
KJV and upon all pleasant pictures
LXX and upon every displayof fine ships.

So, what do we make of this? That the Isaiah passage was not just copied from the KJV. Joseph could not read Greek in 1830 and had no way of knowing that a phrase he said was in Isaiah would be confirmed in the Septuagint. And you cannot really call it coincidence.

So what does the logical reasonable mind conclude from this? I would appreciate you giving me a sound, logical reasonable explanation if you don't want to admit that Joseph was translating an ancient document.

That's one.

YOu say it "fails" when you mean there has been no overwhelming archeological or anthropological proof.

There has been NO archeological nor anthropological evidence for any of the Book of Mormon. None what so ever.

Again not correct. The description of the "swords" used describes machuatls. The directions given in the Book of Mormon match Mes-American systems, which are not the system Joseph Smith was familiar with. You can check kout this website for some good information there. http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

The textual proofs are quite impressive if you would look at them.

Oh I have and the rebuttals of people more learned in such things than I. As another denzien of this board pointed out that Joseph Smith "reading" of the Book of Abraham is very different than those of real Egyptologists. Joseph Smith and his translation fail. Please provide your evindence that the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon passes any test in textual or contextual issues.

This thread is about the Book of Mormon. Your attempt to deflect attention over to the Book of Abraham is beginning to look like a diversary tactic. It isn't working.

Just how do you think I am projecting "feelings" as "historical truth?"

Because if you "know" something is true without evidence you are using your feelings not logic. One does not know anything using feelings. One only knows soemthing is factual when the phyiscal evidence backs it up

Testimony is NOT feelings. You don't understand the difference. Proof and evidence aren't the same thing either, and you seem to confuse those, also.

Here again, you are focusing on only one small area of "facts." There are many textual proofs, as I said. But the main standard of truth for me is the witness of the Holy Spirit. And that isn't a "feeling."

So if I tell you my invisible friend "Harvey" told me to worship something would you believe me? No you wouldn't. [q/uote]

Your delusions have nothing to do with this topic. Do you think you are Jimmy Stewart? Thinking your him is a delusion. Seeing Harvey is an hallucination. :)

Sorry, but your belief in the Holy Spirit is just that, a belief. At worst it is a delusion. Do you have any other imaginary friends you talk to? What do you think about others who talk to "spirits". What about Holy Rollers who flop on the ground speaking in tongues? Do you take them seriously?

I am not going to describe my sacred religious experiences to you. Pearls before swine, you know. Your insults and mocking put you in the animal kingdom.

[_cacheman]

There is an interesting verse (2 Nephi 12:16, Isaiah 2:16, and the LXX (Greek Septuagint.) The comparison of all three is thus:

Book of Mormon And upon all the ships of the sea
KJV -----------
LXX And upon every ship of the sea

Book of Mormon and upon all the ships of Tarshish
KJV and upon all the ships of Tarshsish
LXX ---------

Book of Mormon and upon all pleasant pictures
KJV and upon all pleasant pictures
LXX and upon every displayof fine ships.

So, what do we make of this? That the Isaiah passage was not just copied from the KJV. Joseph could not read Greek in 1830 and had no way of knowing that a phrase he said was in Isaiah would be confirmed in the Septuagint. And you cannot really call it coincidence.

So what does the logical reasonable mind conclude from this? I would appreciate you giving me a sound, logical reasonable explanation if you don't want to admit that Joseph was translating an ancient document.

Have you read David Wright's thoughts on this subject?
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/dpw/2ne1216.asp

Ronald Huggins also wrote about it, providing a little more history on this particular argument.
http://dialoguejournal.metapress.com/me ... hqv2vp.pdf

I think that the "logical reasonable mind" doesn't necessarily need to come to the same conclusion that you have.

cacheman

[_JAK]

There is nothing more "flimsy" than that offered by Mormons that a feeling proves historical truth.

I don't know of any Mormon that offers a "feeling" to prove a historical truth.

Charity,

It certainly appears that you wish to be linked to “historical truth.”

You project feelings as if you were projecting historical truth. If not, just how would you characterize your feelings as contrary to historical truth?

JAK

I believe that in time there will be definite proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although there are some pretty convincing evidences right now, there isn't anything which I would call DEFINITE proof. That doesn't really matter in my day to day life. I study the Book of Mormon for what it teaches me of God's will and doctrine, not for geography and historty.

While the above sentence is true, it doesn't mean that I don't find the subject of historicity and geography interesting. It just isn't important.

Just how do you think I am projecting "feelings" as "historical truth?"

--------------------

JAK:
With the passage of time and the research which has been done on Mormonism, the likelihood that your belief has validity is greatly diminished.

There is extensive research on various websites which demonstrates your belief to be contrary to fact.

Again, you fail to recognize that the Mormon version of Christianity is but one of more than a thousand versions of Christianity.

Those in other denominations, sects, or cults ALSO read their sacred scripts in the Bible and have vastly different conclusions than you and different from one another. Your religious scope appears far more narrow than the religion of Christianity.

If you regard evidence and facts as unimportant, you can “believe” anything you like.

By making assumptions absent evidence for them, one is engaged in self-deception. Your writing clearly demonstrates that you have been well indoctrinated in religious myth. Hence, you would not think “geography” or “historicity” to be “important.”

And why wouldn’t you? It’s because historical accuracy regarding the time frames for the evolution of religious myths within human cultures does not support your dogma.

A university course in comparative religions (not at a religiously supported school) could be enlightening for you. But, from your posts, you would not be interested in such a level of education about the evolution and emergence of religions.
------------------
Charity asked:
“Just how do you think I am projecting ‘feelings’ as ‘historical truth?’”
------------------

JAK:
In virtually all your statements, you load them with assertions and assumptions which demonstrate that you believe that your feelings are valid, accurate, or true. With nearly 1200 posts on this forum, your position is exposed.

For perspective, you might see the following:

Biblical Contradictions 1

Bible inerrancy doctrine

Biblical Problems

Fatal Bible Flaws

Arguments from Scripture

Analysis on Book of Mormon

Flaws in Book of Mormon

Flawed Claims

Bible in Book of Mormon

Influences of the King James II Bible 1611 A.D.

This is likely more than enough Internet reading for you, Charity.

JAK

[_charity]

Have you read David Wright's thoughts on this subject?

I think that the "logical reasonable mind" doesn't necessarily need to come to the same conclusion that you have.

cacheman

I read it. How does it explain the inclusion/exclusion between the 3 sources? Wright didn't address that at all. Which is the point.

[_charity]

JAK:
With the passage of time and the research which has been done on Mormonism, the likelihood that your belief has validity is greatly diminished. There is extensive research on various websites which demonstrates your belief to be contrary to fact. Again, you fail to recognize that the Mormon version of Christianity is but one of more than a thousand versions of Christianity. Those in other denominations, sects, or cults ALSO read their sacred scripts in the Bible and have vastly different conclusions than you and different from one another. Your religious scope appears far more narrow than the religion of Christianity.

You have it wrong here. On several counts. First, the crticisms of the Book of Mormon are getting more and more limited. There have been no new criticisms in the past 100 years. The old objections are being exploded and th4ere are no new ones to replace them.

One example: the so-called Spaulding claim. Supposedly Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon and the original manuscript was lost so they couldn't prove it. Then the manuscript was found. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't really the Book of Mormon. So they had to fall back and punt. Well, um, uh, it must have been a different one. They are looking really silly on that one.

The various denominations of Christianity have nothing to say about the truth of Mormonims., Red herring.

If you regard evidence and facts as unimportant, you can “believe” anything you like.

Evidence and facts of what? That is the question. There are no "facts" that support the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection.

[
By making assumptions absent evidence for them, one is engaged in self-deception. Your writing clearly demonstrates that you have been well indoctrinated in religious myth. Hence, you would not think “geography” or “historicity” to be “important.”

Again, what fact would make a difference in the dotrine of the resurrection?

[
And why wouldn’t you? It’s because historical accuracy regarding the time frames for the evolution of religious myths within human cultures does not support your dogma.

A university course in comparative religions (not at a religiously supported school) could be enlightening for you. But, from your posts, you would not be interested in such a level of education about the evolution and emergence of religions.

You are wrong again. I actually took several courses in comparative religions.
------------------
Charity asked:
“Just how do you think I am projecting ‘feelings’ as ‘historical truth?’”
------------------

JAK:
In virtually all your statements, you load them with assertions and assumptions which demonstrate that you believe that your feelings are valid, accurate, or true. With nearly 1200 posts on this forum, your position is exposed.

[/quote]

Until you can learn the difference between feelings and testimony there is no sense trying to talk to you. You don't have an adequate vocabulary.

[_cacheman]

I read it. How does it explain the inclusion/exclusion between the 3 sources? Wright didn't address that at all. Which is the point.

I guess that I don't see what you're asking. I thought that Wright gave a plausible explanation for the wording in the Book of Mormon passage. Am I missing something?

[_Runtu]

Until you can learn the difference between feelings and testimony there is no sense trying to talk to you. You don't have an adequate vocabulary.

And until you can tell the difference between me and JAK, there is no sense trying to talk to you. ;)

I didn't make any of the statements you attributed to me.