Theme of the Bible

[Sonic247]

Then maybe you should read it

But you could show me where it is and it doesn't take as long.

 

[joeboonda]

Would you care to provide evidence that there was only one author and that the author copied passages of the bible?[/QUOTE

]I ALREADY DID:

Moroni 7
45 And acharity suffereth long, and is bkind, and cenvieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily dprovoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
I Cor. 13
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Here we have almost word for word verses from Corinthians, written by Paul, from the King James Translation, attributed to Moroni translated from the Golden Plates. How in the world can one believe anything but that these were taken straight from the particular, english, King James Bible, from Paul's letter? How were these verses translated from from some form of ancient egyptian almost word for word like the King James when the plates were some 1500 years old and the King James had not even been written? They weren't, they were plagiarized by Joseph Smith, simple as that. (I had a chart of many verses like these, but I cannot find it)

A similar problem affects Mormon chapter 9. Verses 22 through 24 read

For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe--in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover...​

Similarly, Ether 4:18 reads

Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.​

Both these passages are quotations from Mark 16, verses 15 through 18:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Here we have EXACT phrases from Mark attributed to Mormon and Ether. If this is a translation from the 1500 year old Golden Plates, how is it EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD from the King James Translation? It is because it was copied exactly from that particular english translation and not from anywhere else. It is clear to most scholars that much of the Book of Mormon was taken directly from the King James. This was a particular english version which was not translated until 1611, so how can the BoM be an ancient work translated by Joseph Smith? Its not. Does that make sense?

No, Joseph Smith is quoting the King James Bible, simple as that. If it was translated from the Golden Plates, it would read differently. And everywhere else the BoM quotes Mathew and other places, it is EXACTLY, verse by verse, word for word THE KING JAMES BIBLE! Friend, Joseph Smith copied from the King James, he did NOT translate some 1500 year old plates and they happened to come out exactly as the King James! Think! IT would not be word for word the KJV, don't you get that?

Its the same as if I came and said I found these ancient manuscripts and they came out word for word copies of the New International Version, or the Revised Standard Version. These are PARTICULAR versions. The KJV is a particular version. How can his plates translate exactly into the particular version of the day? They can't, just as if I said I translated these ancient manuscripts and they just happened to read exactly like the NIV. You would know I was crazy if I said that, and such is the case here. Do you get that? Think about it.

 

[SoyLeche]

But you could show me where it is and it doesn't take as long.

It's only a few chapters. It won't take long. Then, if you still have questions we can go over them.

 

[SoyLeche]

Would you care to provide evidence that there was only one author and that the author copied passages of the bible?[/QUOTE

]I ALREADY DID:

Moroni 7
45 And acharity suffereth long, and is bkind, and cenvieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily dprovoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
I Cor. 13
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Here we have almost word for word verses from Corinthians, written by Paul, from the King James Translation, attributed to Moroni translated from the Golden Plates. How in the world can one believe anything but that these were taken straight from the particular, english, King James Bible, from Paul's letter? How were these verses translated from from some form of ancient egyptian almost word for word like the King James when the plates were some 1500 years old and the King James had not even been written? They weren't, they were plagiarized by Joseph Smith, simple as that. (I had a chart of many verses like these, but I cannot find it)

A similar problem affects Mormon chapter 9. Verses 22 through 24 read

For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe--in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover...​

Similarly, Ether 4:18 reads

Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.​

Both these passages are quotations from Mark 16, verses 15 through 18:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

Here we have EXACT phrases from Mark attributed to Mormon and Ether. If this is a translation from the 1500 year old Golden Plates, how is it EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD from the King James Translation? It is because it was copied exactly from that particular english translation and not from anywhere else. It is clear to most scholars that much of the Book of Mormon was taken directly from the King James. This was a particular english version which was not translated until 1611, so how can the BoM be an ancient work translated by Joseph Smith? Its not. Does that make sense?

No, Joseph Smith is quoting the King James Bible, simple as that. If it was translated from the Golden Plates, it would read differently. And everywhere else the BoM quotes Mathew and other places, it is EXACTLY, verse by verse, word for word THE KING JAMES BIBLE! Friend, Joseph Smith copied from the King James, he did NOT translate some 1500 year old plates and they happened to come out exactly as the King James! Think! IT would not be word for word the KJV, don't you get that?

Its the same as if I came and said I found these ancient manuscripts and they came out word for word copies of the New International Version, or the Revised Standard Version. These are PARTICULAR versions. The KJV is a particular version. How can his plates translate exactly into the particular version of the day? They can't, just as if I said I translated these ancient manuscripts and they just happened to read exactly like the NIV. You would know I was crazy if I said that, and such is the case here. Do you get that? Think about it.

Have you read the link I provided yet?

 

[joeboonda]

What you don't get is that if someone translated something from a plate buried for 1500 years it would not come out EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD verses from the King James Bible, just as it would not come out exactly word for word the NIV or NASB or any other recent english translation. Full verses of Mathew are word for word in the BoM in III Nephi. They would not be word for word KJV language if they were from an ancient source written in an ancient language. See?

 

[Sonic247]

and how does "one translator" help your argument? You claimed it was authored by one man. Are you giving up on that silly claim already or are you ready to provide some evidence?

Where did I say it was written by one man, but since you bring it up I do think that. When a guy claims to be writing from golden plates that noone else can translate but him and then has a group of followers it is kind of suspicious. Especially without the golden plates, who has ever even seen them?

 

[SoyLeche]

Where did I say it was written by one man, but since you bring it up I do think that. When a guy claims to be writing from golden plates that noone else can translate but him and then has a group of followers it is kind of suspicious. Especially without the golden plates, who has ever even seen them?

These guys:

Three Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eight Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SoyLeche]

What you don't get is that if someone translated something from a plate buried for 1500 years it would not come out EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD verses from the King James Bible, just as it would not come out exactly word for word the NIV or NASB or any other recent english translation. Full verses of Mathew are word for word in the BoM in III Nephi. They would not be word for word KJV language if they were from an ancient source written in an ancient language. See?

In the link I provided there is a link to another article you may find interesting as well.

 

[Sonic247]

What you don't get is that if someone translated something from a plate buried for 1500 years it would not come out EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD verses from the King James Bible, just as it would not come out exactly word for word the NIV or NASB or any other recent english translation. Full verses of Mathew are word for word in the BoM in III Nephi. They would not be word for word KJV language if they were from an ancient source written in an ancient language. See?

Yeah I don't think Joseph Smith talked in Jacobian english. It was written in a diffrent time, but translated the same anyway.

 

[Comprehend]

Where did I say it was written by one man, but since you bring it up I do think that. When a guy claims to be writing from golden plates that noone else can translate but him and then has a group of followers it is kind of suspicious. Especially without the golden plates, who has ever even seen them?

you didn't say it, you joined in the discussion I had with Joeboonda who said it.

Joseph Smith didn't claim he was the only one who could translate it. Other people tried and couldn't.

Your arguments are all over the place, it is like you are throwing mud against the wall and seeing what might stick.

Lets stick with topics until the have been resolved...

ps. you think it is suspicious that Joseph Smith had followers? When have prophets not had people follow them?

 

[Sonic247]

These guys:

Three Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eight Witnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting articles for sure-

The Eight Witnesses were all members of the Whitmer or Smith families: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith. Joseph Smith Sr. was Joseph's father, and Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith were his brothers. Christian, Jacob, Peter Jr. and John were David Whitmer's brothers, and Hiram Page was his brother-in-law.[2]
In 1838, the Whitmer family became estranged from Joseph Smith Jr. during a leadership struggle in Far West, Missouri and all were excommunicated, along with other dissenters,

 

[Comprehend]

What you don't get is that if someone translated something from a plate buried for 1500 years it would not come out EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD verses from the King James Bible, just as it would not come out exactly word for word the NIV or NASB or any other recent english translation. Full verses of Mathew are word for word in the BoM in III Nephi. They would not be word for word KJV language if they were from an ancient source written in an ancient language. See?

What you don't get is you haven't provided any evidence yet that the Book of Mormon was written by one man and that "much" of it was simply taken from the Bible. Instead you give your opinion that you find it hard to believe Jesus could be consistent in giving his message.

 

[SoyLeche]

Interesting articles for sure-

The Eight Witnesses were all members of the Whitmer or Smith families: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith. Joseph Smith Sr. was Joseph's father, and Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith were his brothers. Christian, Jacob, Peter Jr. and John were David Whitmer's brothers, and Hiram Page was his brother-in-law.[2]
In 1838, the Whitmer family became estranged from Joseph Smith Jr. during a leadership struggle in Far West, Missouri and all were excommunicated, along with other dissenters,

You forgot the last part: yet none of them recanted their testimony about seeing the plates.

 

[cityms]

Some of the Bible may have been inspired, but the selection of what parts to put in and what parts to leave out was also decided historically in later times by churches, and politics had some bearing on selectivity too. For instance the King James Bible version had a lot to do with the King's policies of those times.

 

[joeboonda]

What you don't get is you haven't provided any evidence yet that the Book of Mormon was written by one man and that "much" of it was simply taken from the Bible. Instead you give your opinion that you find it hard to believe Jesus could be consistent in giving his message.

Well, look at III Nephi, chapters 12, 13, and 14. They correspond, in King James English, FROM the King James Bible, to Mathew 5, 6, and 7. Its almost word for word all the way through. If this was translated from 1500 year old plates it would read much different. It is impossible that it would just happen to translate exactly as the King James. There are many other phrases unique to the King James Bible that are found all throughout the BoM. It is quite evident to me that J.S. got much of his BoM straight from the KJV, not from 1500 year old "reformed Egyptian" on gold plates.

 

[SoyLeche]

Well, look at III Nephi, chapters 12, 13, and 14. They correspond, in King James English, FROM the King James Bible, to Mathew 5, 6, and 7. Its almost word for word all the way through. If this was translated from 1500 year old plates by some scholar who actually trying to translate the exact words that were written it would read much different. It is impossible that it would just happen to translate exactly as the King James. There are many other phrases unique to the King James Bible that are found all throughout the BoM. It is quite evident to me that J.S. got much of his BoM straight from the KJV, not from 1500 year old "reformed Egyptian" on gold plates.

I fixed your post.

There are a couple of options.

Obviously, Joseph Smith didn't actually know how to read reformed egyptian. How did he translate it then? I have no idea what the process was like for him. Did he see translated text and just read it off? Did the main concepts come to him and he worded it the best he could?

Either way, it isn't all that surprising that, in translating a repeat of a sermon that is in the Bible he used the wording that the Bible he was familiar with used (the KJV). It is actually quite interesting to look at where it differs from the KJV text.

You really should look at that link I posted a while back. You might learn something.

 

[joeboonda]

He took the stuff straight from the KJV and changed what he wished. If it were translated DIRECTLY from 1500 year old plates with "reformed Egyptian'', a language btw no secular scholars have ever found or heard of, it would read completely different. the truth is he uses KJV phrases all over the place, its a shame, really. And it was not "translated" "by some scholar who actually trying to translate the exact words that were written", but by a young man using "Urim and Thummim",a large pair of spectacles he called "interpreters", with lenses consisting of two "seer stones". Nothing scholarly there, so you may want to quit tampering with my words, friend. Or consult your seer stones, eh?

 

[Bishka]

Funny isn't it?

This isn't a debate section of the forum. :no:

 

[joeboonda]

Oh, its Comparitive Religion, my bad. I am done then, heck we been debating this for a few pages now! It started with me answering a question posed by Comprehend and took off from there. Thanks for the info, Becky. No more from me here!!!

 

[SoyLeche]

He took the stuff straight from the KJV and changed what he wished. If it were translated DIRECTLY from 1500 year old plates with "reformed Egyptian'', a language btw no secular scholars have ever found or heard of, it would read completely different. the truth is he uses KJV phrases all over the place, its a shame, really. And it was not "translated" "by some scholar who actually trying to translate the exact words that were written", but by a young man using "Urim and Thummim",a large pair of spectacles he called "interpreters", with lenses consisting of two "seer stones". Nothing scholarly there, so you may want to quit tampering with my words, friend. Or consult your seer stones, eh?

You missed the point entirely. I was saying that it "wasn't translated by a scholar". If it were, I would expect the text to read differently than the KJV. We really have little knowledge about how the process worked. It's pretty much a certainty that he wasn't looking at the text and saying "this word means 'rock' so that's what I'll put there". Either, by some miraculous process, he was seeing English text, in which case God was doing the translating and was giving the people what they already were comfortable with, or he was getting the basic ideas and was phrasing them in the same way that he was familiar with. Either way it doesn't prove that he plagerized the KJV. (Actually, I just set up a false-dichotomy. There are other options, I just can't think of them at the moment).

Again - you should try reading the link I posted a while back.