Moroni quotes a scribal forgery

[_Buffalo]

Again, how does "loose translation" become "exactly copy of a spurious passage from Mark"?

Hey Buffalo, I"m not sure what else you're looking for. You think since the passage in question was something that was "forged" it couldn't have been written by Moroni. I say, "cool. There is possibility that it wasn't written as represented in English, per se." You then repeat your claim implying "it seems that there is no way God would have used a common scripture in Joseph Smith' time as a replacement for the words of Moroni". I say, "I think God would use commonly known scripture, particularly if that scripture represented the exact thought He had in mind". You seem to dislike my reply and wish for me to repeat my argument, time and time again. I don't see the point.

The reason, which is a legitimate one in my mind, that the passage from Mark is found in the Book of Mormon is that God Himself used the KJV rendition of a common passage of scripture which taught a true principle. I know you don't like that explanation. It seems your questions will repeat and repeat because you don't like the explanation. I see the explanation as completely reasonable.

Okay, so we agree it must have been intentional. God, for whatever reason, decided to copy something from one of those unauthorized scribes that were demonized earlier in the Book of Mormon for making changes to the Bible.

What purpose is served by copying the forgery, other than undermining the credibility of the Book of Mormon? Is God actively trying to get people not to believe in it? I guess that would explain a lot.

[_Buffalo]

In the end, it seems to me, if you are under the impression that God ought to technically be concerned about every little thing we think we can dig up, I find that silly. God doesn't care, or shouldn't care, if we think we can uncover a mistake He has made regarding the quoting of scripture. He just wants the true principles to be recorded and sent out to the world. Could He have used different wording in Mormon? Sure. Does it matter? Only to critics, methinks.

What are you basing that on? Has God expressed that opinion for himself, or are you speaking for him?

[_Buffalo]

What alternative possibility would account for the fact that Nephi quoted passages from Isaiah that weren't even written until after Nephi himself had died?

I've been through this with Buffalo in the past. Its much the same. And the jury is still out regarding Isaiah. It really is. Surely there is evidence that it was written after Nephi. I'm cool with that anyway. Its just as easy to assume that with the Book of Mormon we can also think, if the Book of Mormon is true, that that from Isaiah which was written after Nephi, is based off of already written stuff, like from the brass plates.

No, it's not at all Stem. The jury is in, and Deutero-Isaiah was NOT written by Isaiah, and was written after the fall of Jerusalem, during the exile. There is no doubt about it from any credible scholar. Even punters like you and me can confirm it by simply reading it. It contains messages to a living person - Cyrus the great, who was at war with Babylon. Parts of it boil down to basically, "Go Cyrus! You can do it! Yaaaaah!" Cyrus not at war with Babylon when Nephi left Jerusalem. Cyrus was either an infant or not born yet. This is a post-exilic document, and Lehi & Co left before the exile. There is no wiggle room on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

[_Yahoo Bot]

No, it's not at all Stem. The jury is in, and Deutero-Isaiah was NOT written by Isaiah, and was written after the fall of Jerusalem, during the exile. There is no doubt about it from any credible scholar. Even punters like you and me can confirm it by simply reading it. It contains messages to a living person - Cyrus the great, who was at war with Babylon. Parts of it boil down to basically, "Go Cyrus! You can do it! Yaaaaah!" Cyrus not at war with Babylon when Nephi left Jerusalem. Cyrus was either an infant or not born yet. This is a post-exilic document, and Lehi & Co left before the exile. There is no wiggle room on this one.

Whereas I agree with you, you are plainly do not know there is another argument with much longer legs. Historically, the reference to Cyrus has been cited as proof that prophets can see in the future.

[_Buffalo]

No, it's not at all Stem. The jury is in, and Deutero-Isaiah was NOT written by Isaiah, and was written after the fall of Jerusalem, during the exile. There is no doubt about it from any credible scholar. Even punters like you and me can confirm it by simply reading it. It contains messages to a living person - Cyrus the great, who was at war with Babylon. Parts of it boil down to basically, "Go Cyrus! You can do it! Yaaaaah!" Cyrus not at war with Babylon when Nephi left Jerusalem. Cyrus was either an infant or not born yet. This is a post-exilic document, and Lehi & Co left before the exile. There is no wiggle room on this one.

Whereas I agree with you, you are plainly do not know there is another argument with much longer legs. Historically, the reference to Cyrus has been cited as proof that prophets can see in the future.

Except the text doesn't treat it as a prophesy, but as a message to a contemporary, living person. Obviously faithful readers will try to read their expectations into it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Once again, it is my observation that you are very thinly read. This Cyrus reference has been the subject of discussion and debate for centuries and the jury is "not in" for Biblical scholars although, as I have said, I agree with you.

[_Buffalo]

Once again, it is my observation that you are very thinly read. This Cyrus reference has been the subject of discussion and debate for centuries and the jury is "not in" for Biblical scholars although, as I have said, I agree with you.

The jury is most definitely in for Biblical scholars on this one. The only people anymore who really think that Isaiah wrote all of Isaiah are divinity school apologists. The scholarly consensus is that Isaiah did not write Deutero-Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah.

I don't deny that it has been debated for a long time. The debate is now over among serious scholars.

(note: I make no claim at scholarship of any sort. I'm merely stating the facts)

[_Chap]

Once again, it is my observation that you are very thinly read. This Cyrus reference has been the subject of discussion and debate for centuries and the jury is "not in" for Biblical scholars although, as I have said, I agree with you.

No case. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney.

And since you say you agree with him, what on earth is the point of all this apart from the possible wish to stop a critic looking as if he has made a good point (which he undoubtedly has)?

[_stemelbow]

I'm not sure what issue you guys think you've discovered. Let me put it this way.

The scriptures are scripture to me, not necessarily because they are verbatim, each word, that God wants me to have, but because they represent teachings, spirit of teachings that will be good for me. I think I've demonstrated many times I do not hang on every word written within the LDS canon. I do not get why it is such a problem for a non-believer. I'm quite cool with the notion that the Book of Mormon contains writings that, while found in the biblical canon, were not original to it. Why? Because I find the Book of Mormon message, the message's spirit, useful to me. NOw, if its from God, as a believer maintains, then its up to God to include biblical passages, from the KJV, in the Book of Mormon.

So While I get why you guys don't want to believe and in your minds can''t believe, I see no reason to be forced to accept the notion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud based on this reason. It makes no sense, if God is involved. I suppose you can conclude God was never involved, or there is no God. Fine by me. Conclude whatever you wish. I see the reason in that. Just don't expect me to accept your guys' position and feel forced to accept something that is not all that reasonable to me.

[_Buffalo]

I'm not sure what issue you guys think you've discovered. Let me put it this way.

The scriptures are scripture to me, not necessarily because they are verbatim, each word, that God wants me to have, but because they represent teachings, spirit of teachings that will be good for me. I think I've demonstrated many times I do not hang on every word written within the LDS canon. I do not get why it is such a problem for a non-believer. I'm quite cool with the notion that the Book of Mormon contains writings that, while found in the biblical canon, were not original to it. Why? Because I find the Book of Mormon message, the message's spirit, useful to me. NOw, if its from God, as a believer maintains, then its up to God to include biblical passages, from the KJV, in the Book of Mormon.

So While I get why you guys don't want to believe and in your minds can''t believe, I see no reason to be forced to accept the notion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud based on this reason. It makes no sense, if God is involved. I suppose you can conclude God was never involved, or there is no God. Fine by me. Conclude whatever you wish. I see the reason in that. Just don't expect me to accept your guys' position and feel forced to accept something that is not all that reasonable to me.

I suppose you could make that work in the case of Moroni quoting fraudulent Mark. But it doesn't work for Deutero Isaiah, which was supposed to have been on the brass plates but could not have been. It's not a matter of loose or tight translation there. It's a matter of "that scripture couldn't have been on the brass plates because it didn't exist yet."

And why would God include passages from the KJV in the first place? It's one of the most inaccurate translations around. Modern translations use much more accurate source material and are better overall translations.

In any case, where do you get the idea that it's acceptable to be a cafeteria Mormon? The modern LDS leadership have certainly spoken out against that. Do you consider your position based on personal revelation?

Also, please note that the Book of Mormon can be just as inspirational and helpful even if it's not historically true.