Why Just the Bible

[ApologiaPhoenix]

== If there is any new revelation given, I will have to check it against that which has already been given knowing that God will never contradict himself.

You mean like "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek"? Good thing these are in perfect harmony. And I suppose it is also a good thing Deuteronomy doesn't say no other books should be added to it, huh?

The reasons Evangelicals play the "Bible only" game is because that is all they have to go on. They haven't a leg to stand on by way of a historic priesthood authority, so they come up with a "priesthood of believers" nonsense, and ridicule anyone who doesn't abide by their interpretations of the Bible.

It's a shame that this still counts as a response in some circles.

First off, yes, the statements eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are in perfect harmony. One has to look at the context each was written in and see who was addressed.

Secondly, Deuteronomy has not been added to. Other books were added to a canon. There is no indication that the Torah was to be the entire canon.

Lastly, you speak of the way evangelicals treat people when you're using the same kind of tactic. This "priesthood of believers" thing is in the Bible after all and I'd point out that your own faith added in a "Priesthood of Melchizedek" with an authority that has never been heard of before.

Overall though, you speak about the evangelical position, but you haven't answered one question. "Is it true?" I don't care if every evangelical on the planet is a jerk in their approach of treating people. I don't care if every Mormon practically lives like a saint. I only have one question. "What is true?"

[Sparko]

I have been chatting with non-LDS christians for many years on the internet and they always complain that us mormons don't just use the Bible. That claim the Bible is all we need, complete and all that. I ask them for good justificiation for it and all they ever do is perhaps cite some ambigious passage that says "thy word" or something and think that means the Bible or they come up with some comment like "if God wanted us to know more, he would have put in in the Bible". Anyway can anyone give any good, rational justification of why Mormons just just use the Bible and not anything else. Especially since Christianity from its origins and for hundreds of years never advocated such a position.

Because the book of Mormon contradicts the bible. The bible came first and is the revealed word of God, his inspired word. Therefore anything that contradicts it is not scripture and is false. Therefore the book of Mormon is false and should not be used in conjunction with the bible.

Might as well ask why you can't use the Koran as your holy book in addition to the bible.

[commonman]

Perhaps but then if LDS went solely to the Bible for its doctrine, we would be just as confused as the everyone else. You might disagree with this but in my analysis, all I have to do is go to Christian chat for 1 hour and listen to all the people who go by only the Bible for their doctrines and theology and see them argue. I have been going to Christian Chat rooms for about 9 years now and its painfully obvious to me at least how the Bible only view just does not work in practice. I am of the opinion that its always to have more information than less. One can never have too much information.

The difference of opinion is a result of sin. We are born into confusion. As a result we commit the original sin all over again when we espouse our opinion.

Unfortunately, Christian chat rooms (an oxymoron IMO) are perfect examples of the pride of the individual trumping the will of God. I could try to justify my participation, but I would only being lying too. As long as you are looking to man to explain or be an example of God, you are looking in the wrong place. "Christians" are not always the best place to learn about being Christian. Jesus taught us that the poor, hungry, sick and imprisoned teach us about following Him, not the Pharisees.

Pride prevents proper understanding of scripture! Pride created the Book of Mormon. Pride is the root of the riots in the Islamic world. Pride keeps some religious people from dancing. Pride is the underpinning of gnosticism. It goes on and on.

Get rid of every aspect of pride in your life and there is only one truth remaining. And that truth is described in the Bible over and over again. That truth is Jesus, God's messiah! And He is all you need.

[K.Graham]

== First off, yes, the statements eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are in perfect harmony.



That pretty much says it all folks.



== One has to look at the context each was written in and see who was addressed.



It's a shame that this still counts as a response, but only in Evangelical apologetic circles.



== Secondly, Deuteronomy has not been added to. Other books were added to a canon.



Bwahahahahaha!!!!!! Your so-called “reasoning” is amusing, if not down right pathetic. The irony is that we Mormons are supposed to be the ones who refuse to be reasonable, and rationalize away reality to suit our fantasy.



== This "priesthood of believers" thing is in the Bible after all



No it isn’t. You have a verse in the NT that merely cites the OT referring to a priestly nation. Add a dose of Evangelical necessity for survival and Whallah, you have a new doctrine called the “priesthood of believers.”



== and I'd point out that your own faith added in a "Priesthood of Melchizedek" with an authority that has never been heard of before.



Never heard of before huh? My my, you really don’t have a clue do you. Try reading Margaret Barker’s latest work that reveals the importance of the Melchizedek priesthood in early Christianity. But then, that would require reading outside your theological safety zone, so I’m not too optimistic.

[Bill the Cat]

1. The Book of Mormon does not quote Shakespeare.

From Shadow or Reality...

The Mormon apologist Sidney B. Sperry made this statement:

"Joseph Smith has been charged by many of his critics as being an impostor...some of them,...claim that he quotes words of Shakespeare in a passage of the Book of Mormon... And, indeed, it would seem a bit strange to learn that Lehi could quote Will Shakespeare about 2140 years before the Bard of Avon was born!... The Mormon people have no objection to sholars finding parallels to Shakespeare... We hold that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite text of the Book of Mormon and that he used the best vocabulary at his command. If such a vocabulary demonstrated a knowledge of works of Shakespeare, so much the better. But we suggest that it would be very difficult to prove that Joseph Smith was familiar with the works of Shakespeare;...

2. There is circumstantial evidence that the plates existed. From eyewitness testimony,

All relatives.

the text itself,

This only shows that Oliver and Joseph copied SOMETHING

and the fact that in Joseph day there where no known examples of people writing on metal plates from ancient times.

Rubbish!!

1 Maccabees 8:22 And this is the copy of the writing that they wrote back again, graven in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that it might be with them there for a memorial of the peace, and alliance.

From: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian1.htm

• Johann Jahn’s 1823 Biblical Archaeology, published in Andover, Massachusetts (seven years before the Book of Mormon): "those [ancient] books, which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead, brass, or ivory, were connected by rings at the back, through which a rod was passed to carry them."

• Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography, 2 vols. (London, 1814), 1:33-35, discusses the ancient use of lead books and brass and copper plates;

• Claudius Buchanan, The Star in the East, 10th Amer. ed. (Boston, 1811), 48-49, says that the Jews of Cochin, India, who Buchanan believed were remnants of the lost ten tribes, kept a history of their journey to those parts on "plates of brass";

• Bernard de Montfaucon, Antiquity Explained, and Represented in Sculptures, 2 vols. (London, 1721), 2:241-42, contains a description and drawing of an Egyptian gnostic book of lead.

• See also H. Curtis Wright, "Metallic Documents of Antiquity," Brigham Young University Studies 10 (Summer 1970): 469, who points out that curses and black magic are usually found on lead or tin whereas beneficial texts are inscribed on gold or silver

Where is their empirical evidence for the tablets that the 10 commandments where written on,

Ok, that's 1 possible against the Bible... shall I name those FOR the Bible or would you rather a one to one scenario?

The Moabite (Mesha Stele) Stone:

The ancient Moabites were relatives of the Israelites according to Genesis 19:37. On this stone King Mesha brags of having driven the Israelites out of his land. 2 Kings 3 tells that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel after the death of King Ahab of Israel.

The Moabite stone is one of the earliest finds that mention biblical people. The stone says that King Omri and his son Ahab "humbled" Moab for many years. After Ahab's death, King Mesha said he had "triumphed" over Ahab's family and that Israel had "perished forever." Some scholars say that the stone also contains a reference to the "house of David."

or the Ark of the Covenant and a lot of other things.

OK, that's 2 possible... so one more positive evidence from me...

The Cyrus Cylinder:

A 9-inch long clay cylinder found at ancient Babylon, dating to 539 B.C., tells of King Cyrus of Persia's conquest of Babylon and of his decree to let the captives hed by Babylon return to their lands and restore their temples.

Cyrus sent the Jews back to their homeland after many years of exile in Babylon as Isaiah prophesied (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1; Is. 44:28) This "return home" decree was one of the many issued by Cyrus. Though not mentioning Judah, It confirms that this was Cyrus's policy and gives credibility to the biblical record.

One thing that always amazes me is the same arguements that non-lds christians claim as proof against Book of Mormon, Atheists use against the Bible.

Wrong you are. The arguments used against the BOM are to prove that it was a fabrication, the ones used against the Bible are to prove it errant. That is a HUGE difference.

3. What is the big deal with bible manuscripts. What does that prove. There are hundreds of manuscripts for the Illiad.

It proves that these works existed before 1830. It proves these documents are ancient. Got it?

Give the fact that the Bible manuscripts often show editing and other things,

John Wenham , in his book Christ and the Bible explains that the vast majority of the variants are insignificant, e.g., the spelling of a name, use of different pronouns, different word order or transposing words. He says

The interesting and important thing about the late-second-century text is this: at that early date there was already a wide diversity of variants. These variants were of course mostly quite minor in character, but they show that there had been no recent systematic editing of the documents to make them conform to some standard version.

I don't know where you are going with that. Hate to go to the atheist route again but its seems to be always true. An atheist would say that all the bible manuscripts prove is that some people believed the manuscripts and decided to make a copy of them.

And by default, the stories were ancient. There is no comparison of the two, so your use of this fallacy is noted...

Oh and there are no original manuscripts of the Bible.

Course not. They were mostly oral transmissions before they were written down. The testimony of Joseph Smith and the BOM claims that the events were written down by the people in the story.

However we do have a portion of the Book of Mormon original translation manuscript

dated no earlier than 1829, also not evidence that it was translated from anything older than it.

IN fact the Book of Mormon manuscripts are closer to the original (the plates) than the Bible manuscripts are even the earliest complete copies are several hundred years removed.

Still proof that they are ancient. There is no proof that there were any plates. There is no avoiding that. All your "proof" shows is that Joseph copied "something".

4. If the Book of Mormon is a myth, then on the same grounds the Bible is a myth. I don't see the differences in the arguments

Hopefully now, you finally see the difference...

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=K.Graham.

You mean like "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek"?

The reasons Evangelicals play the "Bible only" game is because that is all they have to go on. They haven't a leg to stand on by way of a historic priesthood authority, so they come up with a "priesthood of believers" nonsense, and ridicule anyone who doesn't abide by their interpretations of the Bible.[/QUOTE]


Crusader's Response:
No. Maybe like Mormonism's revelation that there are many gods and that you guys get to become gods and have many wives in the Celestial Kingdom who will bear little spirit babies who will one day inhabit an earth over which you and your wife or wives will be god and goddesses. Wouldn't you say that those teachings contradict the ENTIRE body of received revelation that Christians have.

Jesus was God - He not only changed "an eye for an eye," but also Jewish laws regarding marriage. However, He never taught that men would become gods and goddesses, rule over earths in a Celestial Kingdom, or that there were sins for which His blood would not atone. All this stuff sounds like it comes from Star Wars, not the Bible or God.

And, as far as historic "priesthood authority" goes - this was an invention of Smith's mad mind! He had to bolster his "revelations" with some kind of authority - so he borrowed from Rome the concept of "priesthood" and became Pope to the Mormon people. Smith was the man who would be god, and as I've said before, his pride was his undoing.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

font=Verdana]== First off, yes, the statements eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are in perfect harmony.



That pretty much says it all folks.

Actually, it does. One is written to refer to how things were to be handled in a legal court of law. The other is addressed to persons oppressed by a foreign rule telling them to not take matters into their own hands and end the cycle of retaliation.

One has to look at the context each was written in and see who was addressed. It's a shame that this still counts as a response, but only in Evangelical apologetic circles

Actually, looking at the context is always a good idea, but it requires that you actually study. Do you want me to reject this rule though so I can start looking at any text I want in the BOM and interpreting it however I want devoid of the context?

Secondly, Deuteronomy has not been added to. Other books were added to a canon.

Your so-called “reasoning” is amusing, if not down right pathetic. The irony is that we Mormons are supposed to be the ones who refuse to be reasonable, and rationalize away reality to suit our fantasy.

I'm sorry. Does this count as a refutation in some circles?

This "priesthood of believers" thing is in the Bible after all

No it isn’t. You have a verse in the NT that merely cites the OT referring to a priestly nation. Add a dose of Evangelical necessity for survival and Whallah, you have a new doctrine called the “priesthood of believers.”

Nothing new about it. All the passage is stating is the role of the church. Does this mean every individual believer has the title of a priest? I doubt it. This was written in a worldview community focused and not individually focused.

and I'd point out that your own faith added in a "Priesthood of Melchizedek" with an authority that has never been heard of before.



Never heard of before huh? My my, you really don’t have a clue do you. Try reading Margaret Barker’s latest work that reveals the importance of the Melchizedek priesthood in early Christianity. But then, that would require reading outside your theological safety zone, so I’m not too optimistic.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I do read outside of my safety zone. I find it amusing.

Anyhow, Barker from what I know still holds to JEPD and all that I've read on the DSS doesn't seem to include her work as real scholarship. Get a copy of a work such as Vanderkam's "The Dead Sea Scrolls Today" or "Israel's Messiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls."

You see, you'd have to really give me a reason to accept Barker as an authority. I have no more reason at this point than to accept her than I do John Allegro.

[master_mormon]

From Shadow or Reality...

The Mormon apologist Sidney B. Sperry made this statement:

"Joseph Smith has been charged by many of his critics as being an impostor...some of them,...claim that he quotes words of Shakespeare in a passage of the Book of Mormon... And, indeed, it would seem a bit strange to learn that Lehi could quote Will Shakespeare about 2140 years before the Bard of Avon was born!... The Mormon people have no objection to sholars finding parallels to Shakespeare... We hold that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite text of the Book of Mormon and that he used the best vocabulary at his command. If such a vocabulary demonstrated a knowledge of works of Shakespeare, so much the better. But we suggest that it would be very difficult to prove that Joseph Smith was familiar with the works of Shakespeare;...

This is a response to "1. The Book of Mormon does not quote Shakespeare."

Did Sperry claim that the Book of Mormon quoted shakespeare or did he simply refer to others who claimed it does. The fact is nowhere in the Book of Mormon does make reference to Shakespeare let alone any Nephite prophet claiming they are quoting him. The genesis of this claim comes from 2 Nephi 1:14 that says

"Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth."

2 Nephi 1:14 refers to death as "the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return" while Shakespeare speaks of death as "The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns" (Hamlet 3.1.78-79).

However this is an example of people finding parellels and claiming that the parallels mean copying from that source. This is the Historical parallelism fallacy: similarities in the structure or wording of ideas from two different sources is proof that the one source borrowed (or plagiarized) the idea from the other source.

Some questions need to be answered seriously

1. Why would Joseph Smith read Shakespeare for the purpose of finding material to use for the Book of Mormon? Why waste so much time for just one sentence in the Book of Mormon? If Joseph was making up the Book of Mormon, why invest so much energy for something so small.

2. Does not Job or Samuel have a close relationship to 2 Nephi 1:14? Compare Nephi "the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return" to:

Job 10:21 "...I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death."

Job 16:22 "When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return."

2 Samuel 12:23 "he shall not return to me"

Perhaps we should say that Job was influenced by Shakespeare? In the case of Lehi we could say that Lehi may have been influenced by Job? Its a possiblity. The possibility that Lehi's words might have been inspired by
these passages is strengthened by the fact the the word translated as "way" in Job 16:22 is "orach," which also means "traveler". Comparing these all together:

Shakespeare: "That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns."

Job: "Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death." (Job 10:20-21.) "When a few years are come, then I shall go the way [traveler] whence I shall not return." (Job 16:22.)

Lehi: "Hear the words of a parent whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave from whence no traveler can return."


Robert F. Smith ("Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1980) notes that all of 2 Nephi 1:13-15 closely follows ancient Near Eastern texts (Jewish, Egyptian, and Sumerian). Some examples are as follows.

Descent of Inanna "Why, pray, have you come to the 'Land of no return,' on the road whose traveller returns never?"

Pyramid Texts "May you go on the roads of the western ones [the dead]; They who go on them [travellers] do not return."

Harris Papyrus "There is nobody who returns from there." and "Behold there is nobody who has gone, who has returned."

Perhaps people should consider other possible sources first rather than just jumping on the Shakespeare bandwagon claim.

[master_mormon]

All relatives.

This is response to 2. There is circumstantial evidence that the plates existed. From eyewitness testimony,"

1) First there is nothing wrong with the testimony of multiple people who are related. Should one discount the testimonies of people in the Bible simply because they have some relationship?

2. I am not a lawyer but I don't think there is anything wrong with the testimony of relatives in a case. If 3 people witness a murder and those people are related, does the law say that those testimonies are suspect or should be discounted because the witnesses are related? Absolutely not.

3. Only some of the witnesses are related. Here are the witnesses:
OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS, CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH, ZERAH PULSIPHER, OLIVER GRANGER, BENJAMIN BROWN, LUCY HARRIS SMITH, HARRISON
BURGESS, and MARY MUSSELMAN WHITMER.

Ok so what do we have. We have 17 witnesses coming from different families. Here is a fact. If a person is charged with murder and 17 witnesses testify against him saying they saw him commit the crime, you better believe that the accused "goose is cooked". The fact that of the 17 witnesses listed above with 6 coming from the Whitmer family and 4 from the Smith family would not help the accused at all.

Dismissing the witnesses because they are "all relatives" is simply a despirate move because you have nothing else to bring to the table.

This only shows that Oliver and Joseph copied SOMETHING

In response to "the text itself," and my response "Or translated something"

Rubbish!!
1 Maccabees 8:22 And this is the copy of the writing that they wrote back again, graven in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that it might be with them there for a memorial of the
peace, and alliance.

From: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian1.htm
• Johann Jahn’s 1823 Biblical Archaeology, published in Andover, Massachusetts (seven years before the Book of Mormon): "those [ancient] books, which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead, brass, or ivory, were connected by rings at the back, through which a rod was passed to carry them."

• Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography, 2 vols. (London, 1814), 1:33-35, discusses the ancient use of lead books and brass and copper plates;

• Claudius Buchanan, The Star in the East, 10th Amer. ed. (Boston, 1811), 48-49, says that the Jews of Cochin, India, who Buchanan believed were remnants of the lost ten tribes, kept
a history of their journey to those parts on "plates of brass";

• Bernard de Montfaucon, Antiquity Explained, and Represented in Sculptures, 2 vols. (London, 1721), 2:241-42, contains a description and drawing of an Egyptian gnostic book of
lead.

• See also H. Curtis Wright, "Metallic Documents of Antiquity," Brigham Young University Studies 10 (Summer 1970): 469, who points out that curses and black magic are usually found on lead or tin whereas beneficial texts are inscribed on gold or silver

This from "and the fact that in Joseph day there where no known examples of people writing on metal plates from ancient times."

Apparently this was lost on the 19th century anti-mormon movement.

"No such records were ever engraved upon golden plates, or any other plates, in the early ages" (M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, the Book of Mormon: Is It from God?" (New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), p. 11)

"The book of Mormon purports to have been originally engraved on brass plates.... How could brass be written on?" (LaRoy Sunderland, Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (Piercy & Reed Printers, New York, 1838) p. 44.)

The fact is there have been dozens and dozens of examples of ancient writings from all over the world including the middle east that date back to Book of Mormon times that where written on metal plates.

The facts are these:
1. Ancient people did write on metal plates.

2. A number of witnesses testified that they saw the plates other than Joseph Smith.

3. The practice of "SUBSCRIPTIO" What is that. Joseph Smith claimed that the title page of the Book of Mormon as at the end of the plates and not the beginning.

"I wish to mention here that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left-hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general..." (Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1932-1951), 1:71)

Now why is this important. As William Hamblin has stated on this issue:

“Burkert also maintains that "the practice of the subscriptio in particular connects the layout of later Greek books with cuneiform practice, the indication of the name of the writer/author and the title of the book right at the end, after the last line of the text; this is a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia. It is necessary to postulate that Aramaic leather scrolls formed the connecting link."( Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, 32.)...

Why, then, did Joseph claim the Book of Mormon practiced subscriptio -- writing the name of the author and title at the end of the book? If the existence of the practice of subscriptio among the Greeks represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia [via Syria]," as Burkert claims, cannot the same thing be said of the Book of Mormon--that the practice of subscriptio represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence" which offers proof that the Book of Mormon is "ultimately dependent" on the ancient Near East?”

The plates existed. Once again, there are people on death row in the US who where convicted on less amount of evidence than that for the existence of the plates.

[Bill the Cat]

Ok, first, we have rules against back to back posts. If you wish to make 2 posts to the same person replying to the same post, then do so in a single post or PM the area Admin or AA (see on the LDS forum home page at the bottom).

1. Why would Joseph Smith read Shakespeare for the purpose of finding material to use for the Book of Mormon? Why waste so much time for just one sentence in the Book of Mormon? If Joseph was making up the Book of Mormon, why invest so much energy for something so small.

It was not so much as a quoting of Shakespeare, but another common expression of the era which prove that the text is contemporary.

From the ballad “The Gipsie's Warning” circa 1835
Soon she perished, now she's sleeping
In the cold and silent grave.
Soon she perished, now she's sleeping
In the cold and silent grave.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts...its/CITS22.HTM
Robert Richardson
Communings in the Sanctuary (1872)
The tokens of affection unrequited, the consciousness of duties unfulfilled, the remembrance of the dear ones who rest in the cold and silent grave,

CHRONICLES OF THE GREAT REBELLION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SAME UNTIL THE FALL OF VICKSBURG BY REV. ALLEN M. SCOTT, D. D. EIGHTEENTH EDITION 1864

CHAPTER XLIX Peggy and Little Jimmy
20. And they put linen white and clean upon the child, and laid him in a little coffin, and then it was placed in the cold and silent grave

As you can see, there was use in books, sermons, and songs of this phrase, again showing the BOM to be a product of 19th century English, not a “word for word translation” like Joseph claimed.

2. Does not Job or Samuel have a close relationship to 2 Nephi 1:14? Compare Nephi "the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return" to:

Job 10:21 "...I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death."

Job 16:22 "When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return."

2 Samuel 12:23 "he shall not return to me"

Close relationship? I doubt it.

Perhaps we should say that Job was influenced by Shakespeare?

We have manuscripts of Job older than Shakespeare.

In the case of Lehi we could say that Lehi may have been influenced by Job? It is a possibility. The possibility that Lehi's words might have been inspired by these passages is strengthened by the fact the word translated as "way" in Job 16:22 is "orach," which also means "traveler". Comparing these all together:

Shakespeare: "That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns."

Job: "Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death." (Job 10:20-21.) "When a few years are come, then I shall go the way [traveler] whence I shall not return." (Job 16:22.)

Lehi: "Hear the words of a parent whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave from whence no traveler can return."

I have never found a version of Job that translates this as “traveler”. The word traveler makes no sense in the context of what Job is saying. These are common 19th century expressions

Robert F. Smith ("Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1980) notes that all of 2 Nephi 1:13-15 closely follows ancient Near Eastern texts (Jewish, Egyptian, and Sumerian). Some examples are as follows.

Descent of Inanna "Why, pray, have you come to the 'Land of no return,' on the road whose traveller returns never?"

Pyramid Texts "May you go on the roads of the western ones [the dead]; They who go on them [travellers] do not return."

Harris Papyrus "There is nobody who returns from there." and "Behold there is nobody who has gone, who has returned."

Perhaps people should consider other possible sources first rather than just jumping on the Shakespeare bandwagon claim.

What in the world is that nonsense? How desperate to say that a few 2 line texts out of a few ancient documents parallel a few lines out of the BOM. The simplicity of these statements are telling how little the BOM has going for it.

Oh, I know… let’s play the parallel game… Maybe the Lamanites moved to Mali…

http://www.umfa.utah.edu/index.php?id=NDE3
Comparatively recent in the history of this region, the urn in the Utah Museum of Fine Arts collection, dating from the 17th-18th centuries A.D., was uncovered in the Bankoni region near the current-day capital of Bamako. Here, memorial mounds of stone-covered earth have been excavated. Studies have revealed that clay jars such as this example and various other kinds of ceramics were often buried with the dead or placed in memorial mounds to honor an ancestor or group of ancestors.

Things buried with the dead body – Book of Abraham
Burial mounds – Cumorah

I’m convinced!! Hey, maybe now FARMS can give me a job, now that I can scour the net for useless almost parallels…

This is response to 2. There is circumstantial evidence that the plates existed. From eyewitness testimony,"

1) First there is nothing wrong with the testimony of multiple people who are related. Should one discount the testimonies of people in the Bible simply because they have some relationship?

Red herring. None of the biblical authors were related.

2. I am not a lawyer but I don't think there is anything wrong with the testimony of relatives in a case. If 3 people witness a murder and those people are related, does the law say that those testimonies are suspect or should be discounted because the witnesses are related? Absolutely not.

C’mon man. You can’t really be that silly, now can you? You ever watch the Sopranos?

3. Only some of the witnesses are related. Here are the witnesses:

I already did most of those, but here is again with some corrections…

OLIVER COWDERY – Joseph Smith’s third cousin
DAVID WHITMER – Didn’t see the plates until after hearing the prophecy that there would be 3 special witnesses (in the company of Joseph and the other 2…convenient, huh?)

MARTIN HARRIS – "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raise his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' John H. Gilbert, one who participated in the printing of the Book of Mormon

CHRISTIAN WHITMER – David Whitmer’s brother

JACOB WHITMER – David Whitmer’s brother

PETER WHITMER JUN.- David Whitmer’s brother

JOHN WHITMER – David Whitmer’s brother

HIRAM PAGE – husband of David Whitmer’s sister

JOSEPH SMITH, SEN. - Joseph Smith’s father

HYRUM SMITH - Joseph’s Smith’s brother

SAMUEL H. SMITH, - Joseph’s Smith’s brother

ZERAH PULSIPHER – Never saw the plates “"I think about the seventh day as I was thrashing in my barn with the doors shut, all at once there seemed to be a ray of light from heaven ... which caused me to look up. I thought I saw the angels with the Book of Mormon in their hands in the attitude of showing it to me and saying `this is the great revelation of the last days in which all things spoken of by the prophets must be fulfilled.' Pulsipher Family History Book

OLIVER GRANGER – Never saw the plates “My father, Oliver Granger, had an interesting experience in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. He obtained the book a few months after its publication, and while in the city of New York, at Prof. Mott's Eye Infirmary he had a 'heavenly vision' My father was told of a personage who said his name was Moroni, that the Book of Mormon, about which his mind was exercised, was a true record of great worth, and Moroni instructed him (my father) to testily of its truth and that he should hereafter be ordained to preach the everlasting Gospel to the children of men.” BIOGRAPHY: Sarah M. (Granger) Kimball; state of Utah

BENJAMIN BROWN – Never saw the plates “whereupon I took the book and laid it before the Lord, and pleaded with Him in prayer for a testimony whether or not it was true or false, and, as I found it stated that the three Nephites had power to show themselves to any persons they might wish, Jews or Gentiles, I asked the Lord to allow me to see them for a witness and testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and I covenanted with Him, if He complied with my request, that I would preach it even at the expense of my life, should it be necessary . The Lord heard my prayer, and, about five days after, two of the three visited me in my bedroom. I did not see them come, but I found them there.” Benjamin Brown's Experiences and Testimony
LUCY HARRIS SMITH – Martin Harris’ wife?? (Can’t find any info on her experience)

HARRISON BURGESS – Never actually saw the plates “Finally, I resolved to know whether I had proclaimed the truth or not, and commenced praying to the God of Heaven, for a testimony of these things, when all at once the vision of my mind was opened, and a glorious personage clothed in white stood before me and exhibited to my view the plates, from which the Book of Mormon was taken.” Autobiography of Harrison Burgess

MARY MUSSELMAN WHITMER. - David Whitmer’s mother. Claimed to meet a man behind the barn who showed her the plates. Strange that they should have been inside on the table being translated at that time. “This strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them; after which he told her to be patient and faithful in bearing her burden a little longer, promising that if she would do so, she should be blessed; and her reward would be sure, if she proved faithful to the end. The personage then suddenly vanished with the plates, and where he went, she could not tell.”

Ok so what do we have.

Not much. If I were the prosecutor, I’d tear their “testimonies” up.

We have 17 witnesses coming from different families. Here is a fact. If a person is charged with murder and 17 witnesses testify against him saying they saw him commit the crime,

But the evidence was lacking. The actual plates (murder weapon in the analogy) was “reported to be seen but taken away by an angel” or “seen in a vision” would be laughed out of court.

you better believe that the accused "goose is cooked". The fact that of the 17 witnesses listed above with 6 coming from the Whitmer family and 4 from the Smith family would not help the accused at all.

Tell the Gotti’s that.

Dismissing the witnesses because they are "all relatives" is simply a desperate move because you have nothing else to bring to the table.

Oh, I have plenty to bring to the table as seen above.

This from "and the fact that in Joseph day there where no known examples of people writing on metal plates from ancient times."

Apparently this was lost on the 19th century anti-mormon movement.

"No such records were ever engraved upon golden plates, or any other plates, in the early ages" (M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, the Book of Mormon: Is It from God?" (New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), p. 11)

"The book of Mormon purports to have been originally engraved on brass plates.... How could brass be written on?" (LaRoy Sunderland, Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (Piercy & Reed Printers, New York, 1838) p. 44.)

Last I checked my birth certificate, I wasn’t born in the 19th century. Also, Joseph wasn’t the first of his time to say they had found metal plates with writing…

[url

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian1.htm][/url]
Joseph Smith was certainly not the first to claim the discovery of a stone box, metal plates, or an Indian book. It was known that the Indians sometimes buried their dead in stone boxes similar to the one described by Joseph Smith. In 1820, for example, the Archaeologia Americana reported that human bones had been discovered in some mounds "enclosed in rude stone coffins."A similar stone box, described by John Haywood of Tennessee, was made by placing "four stones standing upright, and so placed in relation to each other, as to form a square or box, which enclosed a skeleton." Stone boxes of various sizes and shapes had reportedly been found in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, New York, and other places.
According to various accounts, some of the North American mounds also contained metal plates. Plates constructed by the Indians were usually made of hammered copper or silver and were sometimes etched. Plates made of other metals were most likely of European manufacture. In 1775 Indian trader James Adair described two brass plates and five copper plates found with the Tuccabatches Indians of North America. According to Adair, an Indian informant said "he was told by his forefathers that those plates were given to them by the man we call God; that there had been many more of other shapes, . . . some had writing upon them which were buried with particular men." The Reverend Thaddeus Mason Harris stated in 1805 that "plates of copper have been found in some of the mounds, but they appear to be parts of armour." Orsamus Turner reported that in 1809 a New York farmer ploughed up an "Ancient Record, or Tablet." This plate, according to Turner, was made of copper and "had engraved upon one side of it . . . what would appear to have been some record, or as we may well imagine some brief code of laws." The Philadelphia Port Folio reported in 1816 that "thin plates of copper rolled up" were discovered in one mound. In 1823 John Haywood described "human bones of large size" and "two or three plates of brass, with characters inscribed resembling letters" found in one West Virginia mound. In 1883 John Rogan of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated a mound near Peoria, Illinois, and discovered ten stone boxes, several containing a single skeleton and "a thin copper plate ornamented with stamped figures." Thus the connection of metal plates with stone boxes may have been a natural one.

© source where applicable

The fact is there have been dozens and dozens of examples of ancient writings from all over the world including the middle east that date back to Book of Mormon times that where written on metal plates.

The facts are these:
1. Ancient people did write on metal plates.

A fact Joseph would have been familiar with from his 1611 KJV with the Apocrypha, as would Oliver Cowdery, the teacher.

2. A number of witnesses testified that they saw the plates other than Joseph Smith.

Handled above

3. The practice of "SUBSCRIPTIO" What is that. Joseph Smith claimed that the title page of the Book of Mormon as at the end of the plates and not the beginning.

"I wish to mention here that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left-hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general..." (Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1932-1951), 1:71)

Now why is this important. As William Hamblin has stated on this issue:

“Burkert also maintains that "the practice of the subscriptio in particular connects the layout of later Greek books with cuneiform practice, the indication of the name of the writer/author and the title of the book right at the end, after the last line of the text; this is a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia. It is necessary to postulate that Aramaic leather scrolls formed the connecting link."( Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, 32.)...

Why, then, did Joseph claim the Book of Mormon practiced subscriptio -- writing the name of the author and title at the end of the book? If the existence of the practice of subscriptio among the Greeks represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia [via Syria]," as Burkert claims, cannot the same thing be said of the Book of Mormon--that the practice of subscriptio represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence" which offers proof that the Book of Mormon is "ultimately dependent" on the ancient Near East?”

The two are only similar in location. This is what a real subscriptio looks like:

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa...heol/PT37v.jpg

Notice there is no elaborate description of who wrote it, what was in the book, what it was written on, etc.

The plates existed.

So show ‘em to me then.

Once again, there are people on death row in the US who where convicted on less amount of evidence than that for the existence of the plates.

Name one. All I researched either had DNA evidence (whoops… can’t find any Semitic DNA here?) or a murder weapon (whoops… that got taken to “heaven” right?) or forensic evidence (whoops…can’t help there either)

[master_mormon]

It was not so much as a quoting of Shakespeare, but another common expression of the era which prove that the text is contemporary.

From the ballad “The Gipsie's Warning” circa 1835
Soon she perished, now she's sleeping
In the cold and silent grave.
Soon she perished, now she's sleeping
In the cold and silent grave.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts...its/CITS22.HTM
Robert Richardson
Communings in the Sanctuary (1872)
The tokens of affection unrequited, the consciousness of duties unfulfilled, the remembrance of the dear ones who rest in the cold and silent grave,

CHRONICLES OF THE GREAT REBELLION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SAME UNTIL THE FALL OF VICKSBURG BY REV. ALLEN M. SCOTT, D. D. EIGHTEENTH EDITION 1864

CHAPTER XLIX Peggy and Little Jimmy
20. And they put linen white and clean upon the child, and laid him in a little coffin, and then it was placed in the cold and silent grave

As you can see, there was use in books, sermons, and songs of this phrase, again showing the BOM to be a product of 19th century English, not a “word for word translation” like Joseph claimed.

Close relationship? I doubt it.




We have manuscripts of Job older than Shakespeare.



I have never found a version of Job that translates this as “traveler”. The word traveler makes no sense in the context of what Job is saying. These are common 19th century expressions



What in the world is that nonsense? How desperate to say that a few 2 line texts out of a few ancient documents parallel a few lines out of the BOM. The simplicity of these statements are telling how little the BOM has going for it.

1. Given the fact that there are similar expressions the exist prior to Shakespeare does not prove that the Book of Mormon is contemporay to the 19th century. One again you are simply engaging in the fallacy of historical parallelism. The fact that there are some similarities between Lehi statement and shakespeare statement does not mean that the BOok of Mormon text is relying on shakespeare. Given the fact there are statements that are far older than Shakespeare that show close resemblence to Lehi. The fact there are are contemporary statements in the 1800's is also irrelevant.

Moderated By: RumTumTugger

As Bill said back to back posts is against Campus Decorum, all other posts have been delete.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bill the Cat]

Given the fact that there are similar expressions the exist prior to Shakespeare does not prove that the Book of Mormon is contemporay to the 19th century. One again you are simply engaging in the fallacy of historical parallelism.

It’s called textual criticism. When scholars date written documents, they use the language that is employed and anachronisms that the locals of the time used in contemporary works.

The fact that there are some similarities between Lehi statement and shakespeare statement does not mean that the BOok of Mormon text is relying on shakespeare.

I never said they did. I said they rely on the same language time period.

Given the fact there are statements that are far older than Shakespeare that show close resemblence to Lehi.

Close? That’s a stretch!! You provided a single sentence and the usual "combed through history" FARMS junk to "prove" that the sentence was ancient. I simply followed their lead to show that the phrase was contemporary.

The fact there are contemporary statements in the 1800's is also irrelevant.

Tell that to a literary textual critic and they will laugh you out of their presence.

[master_mormon]

The difference of opinion is a result of sin. We are born into confusion. As a result we commit the original sin all over again when we espouse our opinion.

Unfortunately, Christian chat rooms (an oxymoron IMO) are perfect examples of the pride of the individual trumping the will of God. I could try to justify my participation, but I would only being lying too. As long as you are looking to man to explain or be an example of God, you are looking in the wrong place. "Christians" are not always the best place to learn about being Christian. Jesus taught us that the poor, hungry, sick and imprisoned teach us about following Him, not the Pharisees.

Pride prevents proper understanding of scripture! Pride created the Book of Mormon. Pride is the root of the riots in the Islamic world. Pride keeps some religious people from dancing. Pride is the underpinning of gnosticism. It goes on and on.

Get rid of every aspect of pride in your life and there is only one truth remaining. And that truth is described in the Bible over and over again. That truth is Jesus, God's messiah! And He is all you need.

I generally agree. The truth is in Jesus. I however don't prescribe to the Bible only view. I hold to the view that Jesus said that we are to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. He did not limit those words to just a certain collection of texts. My belief is that when Jesus said those words it means all the words that God has and will reveal past, present and future. I believe that one can never have too much of the "Word of God". Hence I believe in the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price and I look forward to receiving more revelations from the Lord. I look forward to the day when we will get so much scripture that we will need a wagon to carry them all

[master_mormon]

You provided a single sentence and the usual "combed through history" FARMS junk to "prove" that the sentence was ancient.


.

I always here people complain about Farms. All I have to say is if one wants to prove them wrong then prove them wrong the right way. Refute their writings point by point using the best scholars out there. Simply saying things like "Farms Sucks" or "Farms Junk" does not rebute their positions. Given the fact that many non-LDS scholarly institutions have partnerships with FARMS does at least suggest that they do at least don't dismiss them as just a Junk organization.

[PaulT]

Hello Master_Mormon,

I always here people complain about Farms. All I have to say is if one wants to prove them wrong then prove them wrong the right way. Refute their writings point by point using the best scholars out there. Simply saying things like "Farms Sucks" or "Farms Junk" does not rebute their positions. Given the fact that many non-LDS scholarly institutions have partnerships with FARMS does at least suggest that they do at least don't dismiss them as just a Junk organization.

It would be “nice” if you practiced what you preach. How bout explaining if you believe the practice of “divination” is specifically prohibited by God and providing the views of “the best scholars out there” to support your position. Also, it would be great if you would back up your slanderous position that Biblical prophets practiced “occult” activities by “using the best scholars out there.” Until you answer these questions, any critique by you of BTC, CRU or for that matter anyone out there is like the pot calling the kettle black.



Paul