• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeremiah

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
LittleNipper said:
You can be more objective than that...

For starters, read the first few verses of the first book in Mormon and then read the first few lines of any book in the Bible.

What strikes you?
Click to expand...

"What strikes you?"

The Book of Mormon is a more enjoyable read. It is much more modern and this makes it easier on the reader's eyes.
 
zomg

zomg

I aim to misbehave!
The only other Holy Scripture I have to compare it to is the Bible. So.....nope! :)
 
Rogue Cardinal

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
One of the things that always tickles me about most religious writings is that the generally start with some for of "I wrote this and God appointed me to do so" or something similar. they try to establish their authority to write something of that magnitude and of course there is no way to witness any of the events where by God had such discussion with person which is wildly convenient.
 
Rogue Cardinal

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
Jeremiah said:
Could you point it out please.
Click to expand...
It is undeniable. here is a short form of it.....the plates are supposedly written in 400AD and an abridged version of older metal plates that have never been seen. The most damaging thing is that it quotes directly from the KJV 1611 bible. Now when the plates were originally written the Bible wasn't even canonized yet. We all know the issues with translating from one language to the next. The interesting thing about the KJV 1611 is that it includes italicized words which are inserted by the translator to help ease the passage along. The words are italisized simply because the words do not appear in the original document. Yet we find the words that are italisized IN the BOM verbatum. We know, and LDS members freely admit, that Smith had a KJV 1611 book handy.

When you compare a BOM book like Nephi to a Biblical book of Isaiah you find word for word texts. So whom wrote it Nephi or Isaiah? We know the Bible writers did borrow from older texts that we haven't found. Like the Q document from which we believe the Gospels borrowed heavily from. Yet when we look at the BOM we find that the onyl thing it borrowed from was the KJV 1611.

Whats worse than this are the times when we look at original manuscripts and compare them to English translations and there is no other way to translate as it turns out to be a literal translation but we find Smith adding stuff that is not there at all. Such as but not limited to tryign to tie Jesus to the Gospel.

At any rate a classic example of plagerism can be found in the following links

From Matthew in the Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat005.html#18

From Nephi in the BOM:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/libra...hi/chap13.html

Do you see what I see?
 
DavyCrocket2003

DavyCrocket2003

Well-Known Member
I find the tones to be different. The Book of Mormon seems to be generally more personal and familiar. The Bible, in many ways seems more distant and harder to relate to (mostly in the OT). For instance, you rarely get to get a good feel for who the people in the Bible are. There are exceptions of course. I think it's cool how in the Book of Mormon you get to know some of the characters really well. You can feel much more of a personal connection. Not that anyone cares, but my favorite Old Testament exception to this generalization is when Joshua speaks powerfully and personally in Joshua 24. It's like a breath of fresh air.
 
DavyCrocket2003

DavyCrocket2003

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, sorry I didn't really address the OP. I think one odd thing about the Book of Mormon is the language. It uses strange words like "stiffneckedness" and "heardheartedness." It has an intriguing linguistic quirkiness to it.
 
Rogue Cardinal

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
DavyCrocket2003 said:
I find the tones to be different. The Book of Mormon seems to be generally more personal and familiar. The Bible, in many ways seems more distant and harder to relate to (mostly in the OT). For instance, you rarely get to get a good feel for who the people in the Bible are. There are exceptions of course. I think it's cool how in the Book of Mormon you get to know some of the characters really well. You can feel much more of a personal connection. Not that anyone cares, but my favorite Old Testament exception to this generalization is when Joshua speaks powerfully and personally in Joshua 24. It's like a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...
You may find this very interesting. It is COMMON in biblical text for Story A to be written. Then people had questions about Story A and thus Version B of Story A would be written. Not all of these things made it into the bible.

An example would be Adam's "real" first wife. Lilith is used as a scapegoat to be the mother of all evil things in the world. The "issue" originally was that if God created the world and it was perfect, how could there be evil things? Thus the back story of Lilith was made. She of course was a bit sultry and had a sexual appetite that was ridiculous. She left Adam and started fornicating with the beast of the earth which led to all sorts of abominations. The lilith story was also used to explain the Nephilim, which are a race of giants in the Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also over a wonderful insight to this phenomenon also.
 
L

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Jeremiah said:
"What strikes you?"

The Book of Mormon is a more enjoyable read. It is much more modern and this makes it easier on the reader's eyes.
Click to expand...

Nephi has such a high opinion of himself...

I Nephi 1:1
I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.


It sounds like it's all about him.
 
Rogue Cardinal

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
DavyCrocket2003 said:
Oh yeah, sorry I didn't really address the OP. I think one odd thing about the Book of Mormon is the language. It uses strange words like "stiffneckedness" and "heardheartedness." It has an intriguing linguistic quirkiness to it.
Click to expand...
You get stuff like that based on dialect of the writer or in this case orator of the stories to a scribe. Both of which had arguable educations, thus it would be no small surprise if they botched up the language having no formal education.
 
Rogue Cardinal

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
LittleNipper said:
Nephi has such a high opinion of himself...

I Nephi 1:1
I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.


It sounds like it's all about him.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the very humble Moses that freely admits he's a worthless idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top