karl61 wrote:Hi Marg: the one question I would like explained is about the pre earth Jesus and the Book of Mormon's writing about him.
These people were suppose to be Jews but they did not write like Jews as they wrote like Christians. They did not act or write like other Jews at the same time who were in Jerusalem.
Alexander Campbell said the thoughts were from the Calvinist and the Methodist.
I'm not sure what Joseph Smith was seeing in his hat - how he was seeing characters in Reformed Egyptian that meant Jesus Christ - or mercy cannot rob justice etc.
Of course any one slightly acquainted with Mormonism knows what Mormons believe about this. These people were separated from the other Jews. God revealed to them knowledge about Christ that others of their day did not have. The idea that God has given what LDS call the fullness of the gospel from Adam down to today, at various times, to various peoples, that included clear knowledge about Jesus Christ and his atonement is fairly standard LDS doctrine.
The theory is that it is not a word for word translation. Rather Smith was able to use the best English words that he could come up with, based on his own ability in English.
Didn't some of the witnesses say he had a stone and each word would appear and only disappear when what he wrote was correct?
Didn't some of the witnesses say he had a stone and each word would appear and only disappear when what he wrote was correct?
I believe so. However, nothing in this view prohibits the idea that the word came up in such a way that Smith understood or expressed it. Also, I believe it was Whitmer who said this and he was not part of the translation.
Jason Bourne wrote: I believe so. However, nothing in this view prohibits the idea that the word came up in such a way that Smith understood or expressed it. Also, I believe it was Whitmer who said this and he was not part of the translation.
I went to that page and it's still not clear. So was a stone used or not? If it was used then what showed up on the stone.. only the english or both the hieroglyphics as well as the english?
I went to that page and it's still not clear. So was a stone used or not? If it was used then what showed up on the stone.. only the english or both the hieroglyphics as well as the english?
All we have is comments by various people and none directly from Smith. But from what I have read only English words showed up. Sometimes the stone or Urim and Thummim were uses at times others say it was not. At times the plates were there and some say at other times they were not. It is not really clear
marg wrote:Also I'd like to get this straight. Is the Book of Mormon supposed to be a word for word translation from ancient text which had been scratched onto metal plates?
I can think of one example that shows strong evidence that the writer was stuck with the mistake he scratched on the plates.
Alma 10: 5 Nevertheless, after all this, I never have known much of the ways of the Lord, and his mysteries and marvelous power. I said I never had known much of these things; but behold, I mistake, for I have seen much of his mysteries and his marvelous power; yea, even in the preservation of the lives of this people.
I hope you don't mind Jason but I am looking at what I'm reading from a critical perspective and I shall try to refrain from being too negative. But the book is annoying with the superfluous stuff, not to mention that it's ridiculous even conceptually, because the idea is that "reformed egyptian was used to cut down of writing characters. What's up with these paragraphs which explain what someone says and then it's followed with a line or two of "after this manner of language" and a one line summary repeat of what was already said? And I looked in the KJV and "after this manner of language" is not a Hebraism.
by the way..so Nephi is supposed to have gotten hold of the plates from Laban, which essentially is the O.T. So are those plates supposed to be written in Egyptian heiroglyphics or Hebrew? And does that mean that the book the angel brought to Lehi was supposed to be on metal plates as well? This is confusing... what happened to the book brought to Lehi by the angel?
The repetitiveness of the Book of Mormon is ridiculous when one considers the amount of work and expense that must have went into making and marking and transporting those brass plates.
Earlier New Testament codices were written in Greek with no margins, no spacing and no punctuation. Making those books was an expensive endeavor. Wasting parchment doesn't seem to have been a viable option.