What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[madhatter85]

More like a Blu Ray edition of a previously released movie, packed with extra features

bloody brilliant, frubals

 

[Katzpur]

It is undeniable.

Yeah, says the master RF plagiarizer himself. For your information, RC, plagiarism involves the taking of someone else's ideas (and particularly someone else's exact words) and attempting to pass off those ideas as your own. Kind of like you do on a regular basis on this forum. Quoting from another source does not constitute plagiarism. As early as page 32 of the Book of Mormon, the writer mentions the words of Isaiah. And on page 67 he states, "And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah." That is undeniably NOT plagiarism. The words of Isaiah, as quoted by the writer of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon constitute less than 2.5% of the total Book of Mormon and are quoted not plagiarized.

the plates are supposedly written in 400AD and an abridged version of older metal plates that have never been seen.

Wrong. The plates were written over a period of 1000 A.D. and were, in fact, been seen by twelve individuals.

Now when the plates were originally written the Bible wasn't even canonized yet.

How the hell is that even relevant?

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.

You're absolutely right, except that neither you nor I have a clue as to what words appear in the original document.

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?

Yeah, Einstein. That's what you find, all right. Isaiah wrote it and Nephi quoted it. He also said he was quoting it. So what's the big deal?

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.

I see. It's okay to "borrow" but not to plagiarize. Only thing is, you don't seem to be able to make a distinction between the two unless it's you doing the plagiarizing. You start by criticizing the Book of Mormon for plagiarism but then flip flop and continue by criticizing it for not "borrowing" extensively enough. Make up your mind.

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?

No, but in looking into those hollow yellow eyes of yours, it's clear there's not a whole lot behind them. If Jesus Christ had visited the people in ancient America and taught them His gospel, can you think of one good reason why He would not have given them essentially the same sermons He gave in the Holy Land? That's all 3 Nephi is: a sermon by Jesus Christ.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe that "Christianity" was popular in America at that time and Mr. Smith believed there was money and power to be had.

Yeah, and he also thought that spending the last 23 years of his life being ridiculed, hated, beaten almost to death, tarred and feathered, and eventually murdered by a mob of 200 men (among other things) would be a ton of fun.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

This is just about as silly as it gets.

Let's look at a modern translation of the first verse in the Book of Mormon:

"I, Nephi, was born to good parents and taught by my father. While I have seen a great deal of hardship in my life, I have also been very blessed by God and have learned much of His goodness. I am going to write the story of my life."

How desperate does a person have to get before he can read one verse out of a 531-page book and make such an exaggerated assessment of its author?

 

[Katzpur]

It will make those that really love the LORD wonder a bit if they consider the book of Mormon equal with the Bible. Perhaps?

So we should value God's word when He speaks to His servants in the Eastern Hemisphere more than when He speaks to His servants in the Western Hemisphere? Could you tell me why? I'd also like to know why, when you say that God never spoke to His servants in the Western Hemisphere, you don't believe He would have done so. Why, if both the Book of Mormon and the Bible both testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the only means by which we can be reconciled to our Father in Heaven, we should not consider them to be equally valid.

If you would try to conceal your hatred for my Church in your response, LittleNipper, it would be much appreciated.

 

[Autodidact]

I find that the Book of Mormon is very odd when stacked against the Holy Scripture. Do others see issues also?

What holy scripture are you referring to? Cuz you know that the Book of Mormon is holy scripture to Mormons, right? And your Bible is an eclectic collection of myths, poetry and history to most of the world.

 

[gnomon]

I find that the Book of Mormon is very odd when stacked against the Holy Scripture. Do others see issues also?

When I stack the Book of Mormon against The Holy Bible I don't see anything odd. It's when I stack the Principle Upanishads on top then build another level with the Koran, the Tao Te Ching and the Analects of Confucius that it begins to look odd. Then trying to balance a copy of some of Hume's treatises on top the whole thing collapses.

Usually on my foot.

Maybe there's a saying about trying to build a house out of a deck of Scriptures.




This mild attempt at humor brought to you be me.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

The BoM reads like a bad imitation of the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Not to mention the made-up words.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe becuae it's about GOD and HIS plan (the Bible) and not about men and their plans (BoM).

Well, it's got pages and pages about men and their plans, and an occasional phrase about women and their plans as well. Face it, LN, the Bible has some weird stuff in it. Like the bit about what to do if two men are wrestling and one of their wives grabs the other one's balls. THAT was an important sporting note to include. Or the emissions of donkeys, say what? And all that adultery and scheming, like Greek Gods. Then suddenly you get this beautiful love poem,

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

It's just beautiful. Very weird book.

 

[Autodidact]

It will make those that really love the LORD wonder a bit if they consider the book of Mormon equal with the Bible. Perhaps?

You're joking, right? Let me take a wild guess, LN, were you perhaps raised Christian?

 

[McBell]

You're joking, right? Let me take a wild guess, LN, were you perhaps raised Christian?

pssst.
Careful Auto.
If you keep referring to littlenipper as a Christian you are likely going to **** off all the Christians.

 

[DadBurnett]

I find that the Book of Mormon is very odd when stacked against the Holy Scripture. Do others see issues also?

I don't see "very odd" as a definable characteristic. I think it could be said that compared with the KJV (for example) many modern translations could be considered odd. So, what is it that you see as odd about the BoM?

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Quoting from another source does not constitute plagiarism. As early as page 32 of the Book of Mormon, the writer mentions the words of Isaiah. And on page 67 he states, "And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah." That is undeniably NOT plagiarism. The words of Isaiah, as quoted by the writer of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon constitute less than 2.5% of the total Book of Mormon and are quoted not plagiarized.

The problem is that Nephi doesn't quote Isaiah.... he quotes the KJV 1611 version of Isaiah. That means that Smith didn't COPY the plates.....he copied the 1611 KJV. SO that means that your BOM is not the golden plates but a rehashed and quoted KJV 1611. The problem with that is that your Mormons have been quoted as saying the Bible in general is so messed up as to not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. IF that is the case and is is stone cold obvious to anyone with a brain that your BOM is also flawed sicne it is copied heavily from the KJv 1611.

Wrong. The plates were written over a period of 1000 A.D. and were, in fact, been seen by twelve individuals.

Support or retract. name the 12 people and site resources that are not written by J Smith. He is highly suspect when it comes to credentials.

How the hell is that even relevant?

Here is how it's relevant. Follow the bouncing ball if you can. The claim is that the Plates predate the Bible. Thus the content in the plates are older than the bible. Though the plates were written before the bible was "supposedly" it quotes from books that were not yet in the bible. given the political nature of the the way the Bible was assembled....it is questionable as to how certain writing made it into not only the bible but also the BOM. the onyl reason it made it into the BOM was not that it was on plates of any kind but because they were copied straight from the KJV 1611.

You're absolutely right, except that neither you nor I have a clue as to what words appear in the original document.

But the fact of the matter is that we have unearthed older documents that are thus more correct. As such it cause great problems with the KJV 1611....which in turn cuases problems for the BOM as the translation has issues. If in fact Smith had translatingn the REAL story there would be no error but there in fact is error and that because he copied from documents with errors ignorant of the fact that there were older Hebrew documents that would correct his errors having copied from the KJV 1611.

Yeah, Einstein. That's what you find, all right. Isaiah wrote it and Nephi quoted it. He also said he was quoting it. So what's the big deal?

Sometimes in Nephi he quotes Isaiah. But how do you explain the tons of quotes....that have no credit given. He takes stuff from all over the bible and attaches it to a particular book. That's not "quoting" that "creative borrowing" at best.

You start by criticizing the Book of Mormon for plagiarism but then flip flop and continue by criticizing it for not "borrowing" extensively enough. Make up your mind.

I haven't flip flopped a bit. Your boy Smith stole lines from all over the bible and reassembled them into his books. So call it whatever you need to to justify it to yourself that YOUR book is the real deal. The facts scream out that your boy Smith is not honest in his writing abilities. he doesn't quote every line he stole.

If Jesus Christ had visited the people in ancient America and taught them His gospel, can you think of one good reason why He would not have given them essentially the same sermons He gave in the Holy Land? That's all 3 Nephi is: a sermon by Jesus Christ.

To bad your boy SMith can't keep a story straight. Like telling one person that it was Moroni that visited him, no wait it was two personages, I' mean no it was Jesus and God, I mean it was......insert whatever he said given the evolution of his religion.
OOh BTW Jesus doens't make a habit in the bible of making the same sermon twice.....just like modern day preachers.

 

[zomg]

OOh BTW Jesus doens't make a habit in the bible of making the same sermon twice.....just like modern day preachers.

How do you know? Jesus preached for 3 years. I wasn't aware the Bible contained every single sermon he every taught.

Man, the Bible you read must be HUGE!

 

[madhatter85]

How do you know? Jesus preached for 3 years. I wasn't aware the Bible contained every single sermon he every taught.

Man, the Bible you read must be HUGE!

:clap

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

How do you know? Jesus preached for 3 years. I wasn't aware the Bible contained every single sermon he every taught.

Man, the Bible you read must be HUGE!

Better yet....we don't have a record of him rehashign sermons. So it would be in error to ASSUME he does....when there is nothing to suggest he did.

Gee....your faith is epic since you are willing to believe anything that has no evidence.

 

[zomg]

Better yet....we don't have a record of him rehashign sermons. So it would be in error to ASSUME he does....when there is nothing to suggest he did.

Touche. My point is just as absurd as your point. However, I'd assume he rehashed a lot of sermons because the Bible contains all we need to know about salvation. Remember?

Gee....your faith is epic since you are willing to believe anything that has no evidence.

...pssst...that's what faith IS.

And I don't believe everything that is lacking in evidence. Nice try

 

[Autodidact]

Touche. My point is just as absurd as your point. However, I'd assume he rehashed a lot of sermons because the Bible contains all we need to know about salvation. Remember?

...pssst...that's what faith IS.

And I don't believe ANYTHING that has no evidence. Nice try

You have faith, which means believing with no evidence, but you don't believe anything with no evidence? Sounds like you contradicted yourself to me.

 

[zomg]

You have faith, which means believing with no evidence, but you don't believe anything with no evidence? Sounds like you contradicted yourself to me.

Whoops! I meant, "everything". Thanks for pointing that out.