The Book of Mormon

[Katzpur]

*** MOD POST ***​

The subject of this thread is the Book of Mormon -- specifically, its similarities to the Bible. If you have anything meaningful to contribute on this subject, feel free to do so. Otherwise, please control your urge to malign the religious beliefs of other forum members.

 

[Apex]

To say that Joeseph Smith didn't gain anything is equally rediculous . . . he did gain rank and presitige among his followers, not to mention a lot of sex with different partners (this is undeniable and without dispute). He is held in the eyes of many as a prophet and a great martyr . . . thus he gained a legacy . . . people throughout history have given their life for lesser gain the Smith's.

Never mind. edited.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

This is in response to an edited Apex post regardless of the edit made here is my response:



Because he was to busy loading his pistol . . . I never heard of a Martyr going out with all guns blazing . . . does he even qualify for Martrydom if he didn't die of his own volition?

 

[mormonman]

To say that Joeseph Smith didn't gain anything is equally rediculous . . . he did gain rank and presitige among his followers, not to mention a lot of sex with different partners (this is undeniable and without dispute). He is held in the eyes of many as a prophet and a great martyr . . . thus he gained a legacy . . . people throughout history have given their life for lesser gain the Smith's.

I want to be a prophet, so I can have a lot of sex.

 

[mormonman]

*** MOD POST ***​

The subject of this thread is the Book of Mormon -- specifically, its similarities to the Bible. If you have anything meaningful to contribute on this subject, feel free to do so. Otherwise, please control your urge to malign the religious beliefs of other forum members.

I'm sorry. I didn't see your post before I posted.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I want to be a prophet, so I can have a lot of sex.

Its a fringe benefit

 

[mormonman]

This is in response to an edited Apex post regardless of the edit made here is my response:



Because he was to busy loading his pistol . . . I never heard of a Martyr going out with all guns blazing . . . does he even qualify for Martrydom if he didn't die of his own volition?

This is the last post that I'll post off subject.

WHAT!!! Joseph Smith definately was in jail w/ 3 or 4 other people when a mob attacked the jail. Joseph saw that the mob only wanted him, so he went to the window of the jail, got shot, and fell out the window. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS. Please cite where you got this antimormon rhetorict.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

This is the last post that I'll post off subject.

WHAT!!! Joseph Smith definately was in jail w/ 3 or 4 other people when a mob attacked the jail. Joseph saw that the mob only wanted him, so he went to the window of the jail, got shot, and fell out the window. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS. Please cite where you got this antimormon rhetorict.

You have no knowledge of your own history, so I will teach you.

Joseph Smith did indeed kill two other men . . . this is deffinitive history, I confirmed it at a pro-mormon website.

http://mormonfortress.com/gun1.html

 

[SoyLeche]

This is the last post that I'll post off subject.

WHAT!!! Joseph Smith definately was in jail w/ 3 or 4 other people when a mob attacked the jail. Joseph saw that the mob only wanted him, so he went to the window of the jail, got shot, and fell out the window. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS. Please cite where you got this antimormon rhetorict.

Umm, yes he did.

 

[mormonman]

sorry

 

[TheGreaterGame]

sorry

accepted . . . don't worry about it.

 

[mormonman]

thanks, i hate when i make myself look stupid.

 

[Todd]

*** Admin Post to All***​

Please keep this on topic. This is a debate on The Book of Mormon. Feel free to debate the topic, but try to stay in the boundries of the debate. Also, you can disagree and debate a faith or belief, but please refrain from insulting posts and way off topic posts. This is not regarding anyone in particular. This is just a general reminder.

 

[FFH]

You have no knowledge of your own history, so I will teach you.

Joseph Smith did indeed kill two other men . . . this is deffinitive history, I confirmed it at a pro-mormon website.

This is actually very true, I commend you GG for doing your research. I will start a thread on this as soon as I find the link to the report. This is something that is always left out when reinacting the events of that day. I am related to Hyrum Smith and have studied the events leading up to that day. I have some unique books about Hyrum Smith and Joseph Smith, and their mother Lucy Mack Smith, written by my own relatives. They led me to the only eye witness account of the events, surrounding, and leading up to, Joseph Smith's Martyr, in Carthage Jail.

An interesting fact: crucifixions were invented in a place called Carthage, in North Africa.

 

[Fade]

An interesting fact: crucifixions were invented in a place called Carthage. in northeast Africa.

Mmm, I think the Persia might have been a bit ahead of carthage

 

[linwood]

... If one or more of the italicized passages in the KJV verse has been changed in the corresponding Book of Mormon verse, then the verse number is in red; otherwise, it is black. As you will see, most of the verses with italics in the Bible are numbered in read because the Book of Mormon versions show subtle changes.

Continues... http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml

I`ve got to tell you Jonny, I`m not reading that entire page.
If the author is making a point you want to put forth here please do so in your own words and point me to where he documents it on that page please.

The text you pasted is meaningless when put against the charge I`m making.
It seems from what you pasted that his defense is that J.Smith changed the italicized words around, yet they are still there and shouldn`t be since they didn`t exist before the KJV.
I`ve found verses that have been copied word for word with the KJV italics intact which makes his point moot and disingenuous to begin with.

 

[FFH]

Mmm, I think the Persia might have been a bit ahead of carthage

Looks like you may be right. Wikipedia says that it probably originated with the Persians.

The "Romans adopted the custom from Carthage", according to Wikipedia. I thought I had read somewhere that this is where crucifixions originated.

I guess nobody really knows for sure.

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

 

[jonny]

I`ve got to tell you Jonny, I`m not reading that entire page.
If the author is making a point you want to put forth here please do so in your own words and point me to where he documents it on that page please.

The text you pasted is meaningless when put against the charge I`m making.
It seems from what you pasted that his defense is that J.Smith changed the italicized words around, yet they are still there and shouldn`t be since they didn`t exist before the KJV.
I`ve found verses that have been copied word for word with the KJV italics intact which makes his point moot and disingenuous to begin with.

I didn't expect you to read the entire thing. I wouldn't either. I just thought that you might find his section on the inclusion of italicized words being included interesting. It's towards the middle.

This link has a bookmark to the section: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml#ital

I'm not saying that this will satisfy you, just interesting information related to the topic you brought up.

 

[linwood]

Thanks.

One problem with the latter argument is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used a Bible with italicized words or that he was aware of the significance of italics in some printings of the Bible.

The very fact that the italicized words are in the BoM is evidence that Joseph Smith used a KJV Bible to write the BoM.
The very fact that he left the italicized words in his transcription is evidence to support this authors assumption that Joseph Smith didn`t understand the significance the italicized words were for.
This is not a defense.
No critic is stating that Smith knew the significance of the italics as it`s obvious he didn`t or he would have omitted them.
Thats the very point of the argument.
Joseph Smith may have been ignorant of many things but he obviously wasn`t stupid.

This is strawman argument of confusion/obfuscation and it makes not a shred of sense.

Oliver Cowdery may have been aware of the significance of italics, but there is nothing to support the idea that Joseph deliberately did anything with the italicized words of the King James Bible or that he even used a Bible in any way during the translation and any preparation of the text for printing.

Again, the very presence of the italics is support for the assertion that Joseph Smith used the KJV.
If he didn`t the italics would not be in the BoM.
No critic of the BoM is saying that Joseph Smith "deliberately" did anything with the italics.
His leaving them in the BoM is evidence that he didn`t make any note of them at all. They may not even have been italicized in the version of the KJV that he was using and he couldn`t have known.

This is a strawman argument, the author is defending against an argument that isn`t being made by any critic.He`s building a different argument to defend against because the real argument is indefensible.

The use of King James language in the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, may have been guided by inspiration, following the existing "standard" translation as long as it was adequate.

Now all of a sudden the italics in the KJV which were trasnlated into the BoM are themselves "Inspired" and thats why they appear in both books.

Weak, very weak.

 

[jonny]

If you look at those arguments in context, he was trying to demonstrate that there are sections of the Book of Mormon where the variations only apply to the italicized words. If Joseph Smith did not have a Bible with the italics and did not know their meaning if he did, it wouldn't make sense that when directly copying from the KJV to the BOM that he would know to only change these words.

You also ignored the complete argument and just picked out stuff and took it out of context.

There is much to be gained from a study of the details in these variants of Isaiah, whether the words are italicized or not. For example, consider Is. 2:20, where the KJV has "they made each one" and the Book of Mormon in 2 Ne. 12:20 offers "he hath made." Though the italicized words in the KJV are open for debate, the Hebrew text used for the KJV definitely has "they made." If Joseph deliberately made changes of italicized words in an attempt to gain credibility, one might understand the deletion of the italicized "each one" in Is. 2:20, but why risk changing "they made" to "he hath made"? Interestingly, this subtle change actually strengthens the credibility of the Book of Mormon as a translation, for the change to "he hath made" finds support in another ancient Bible manuscript, the Codex Alexandrinus, which offers "he made." The Codex Alexandrinus (now in the British Museum) arrived in England in 1628 A.D., 17 years after the King James Version was published. Joseph Smith did not have access to it. So how could he manage to fabricate variants in the Isaiah text that make sense, such as variants in many italicized words (when there is no evidence that he understood the significance of the italics or even had a Bible with italicized words) or variants of other passages that are attested in other manuscripts?

You are dismissing the argument because they do not prove something that the author is not trying to prove. Look at the example and the context. Weak, very weak.

The Jeff Lindsay's comments do not destroy your argument, but it weakens it considerably.