Guest guest Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, csparania@... writes: I really don't think it was in the beginning, though. There is one partin the scripts where it is said "the house of my father has manyrooms" - not sure about the English translation of this, which wasalways understood by me that it matters not with faith you follow, aslong as you do strive to grow spiritually. I know that saying, but not where it is in the Bible. It means that there is a lot of room in Heavan for the believers, that space won't run out. I'd have to find it again though to double check that. Our pastor explained to us at school that the contradictiosn between theold and the new testament are because Jesus fixed the errors in the oldscripts but they still kept the old stuff around for reference. By nowthere are enough errors again and it seems like time for a 3rd edition:o) Actually he didn't correct anything. Jesus said that he did not come to relieve the people of the law and they were still in effect. What Jesus did was to show the next part of God's plan. One part of this was when God revealed his law to Moses. This was the law and its punishments. Jesus was the next part: the offer of Salvation to those who would transgress, which was everyone. All that was asked was faith and a rejection of sin. The rules, as they had been, were guidelines for how to live a righteous life. To follow them or not was still free choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:50:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, handwritingrepair@... writes: You know, about 1400 years ago someone else also got this idea about"time for a 3rd edition." He called it the Koran. Good point, though it is debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " No, that started long before I came into the picture. I don't know how they fixated on my cousin, but she had been suffering from those people for a while before I had my encounter with them. " Really sounds like a bunch of kids not getting enough kicks out of drugs anymore, so they tried something new. Those folks often use random targets. Or steal black cats for made up rituals on Halloween. " Christianity is by definition is an absolutist religion " I really don't think it was in the beginning, though. There is one part in the scripts where it is said " the house of my father has many rooms " - not sure about the English translation of this, which was always understood by me that it matters not with faith you follow, as long as you do strive to grow spiritually. I'm not counting the old testament here btw, as this was before Jesus and was likely already translated wrong and interpreted wrong before Jesus was born. Our pastor explained to us at school that the contradictiosn between the old and the new testament are because Jesus fixed the errors in the old scripts but they still kept the old stuff around for reference. By now there are enough errors again and it seems like time for a 3rd edition ) " Just because it believes in absolutes does not make it harmful. " It makes it harmful though if pastors are claiming everything non-Christian is " devil stuff " or preach against homosexuality and " witches " and books and try to impose their views so forcefully on others. It is harmful when at school you are forced to live with their symbol, yet aren't allowed to wear your own. It's an organized Christian oppression. Missionaries are another example. I think it very harmful to go somewhere and try to push out the native religions. So much got destroyed by that, here in Europe, too, that I could cry at times. I'm not even counting any holy wars, as they are only instruments of power nothing to do with true religions. And then the " exorcisms " on kids, including autistics... " That is an idiom, sayings that are specific to a given language that don't translate directly. The original intent was not to be weak, but rather if someone struck you for your belief in God, then to turn the other cheek and let them strike that one too as a show of your faith. Meaning that you be willing to take a beating to stay true to the faith. " Ah, that makes more sense. Lwaxy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " You know, about 1400 years ago someone else also got this idea about " time for a 3rd edition. " He called it the Koran. " Oh, of course! Well, make it the 4th then ) Of course it would cause another completely new religion, while plenty of Christians would likely denounce the returned Jesus and keep doing their own thing ) Lwaxy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Re: > " You know, about 1400 years ago someone else also got this idea about > " time for a 3rd edition. " He called it the Koran. " > > Oh, of course! Well, make it the 4th then ) The 5th, I think: at least, the latest thing that " Strict NonConformist " linked to - from his own religion's scripture - looked like the Bible with a lot of stuff added before/after/in-between, which would presumably make his book the 4th and yours (when you write it) the 5th. ;-) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 It'd be a higher number than that, depending on definitions " The Book of Mormon " existed long before the Koran, and is not a Bible replacement, but a parallel to it, that takes place originating before Christ in Jerusalem about 600 B.C. to about 400 A.D. in the Americas; parts of what I quoted are translations of the Bible and other ancient writings done by ph ; and there has also been added modern material that is not a translation of anything, that was recorded between the early 1800's and now, that doesn't replace the Bible but is in addition to it, that is no less valid for it being modern in origin than anything that was recorded anciently: is something that is new invalid because it wasn't from ancient origins? If that sort of reasoning were considered valid, the Bible at many times would have had portions not accepted at all as being valid, because it was from current times. What logic is there to say that no more scripture should have ever come that deals with the progress of humanity and the current conditions? The Bible relates things that were current conditions of their times, and how that was dealt with by both man and God, so that argument falls flat. If something is a popularity contest for being considered scripture, then that doesn't seem valid, either: it is either scripture, or it isn't, and popularity or the timeframe has no relevance whatsoever. > > Re: > > > " You know, about 1400 years ago someone else also got this idea about > > " time for a 3rd edition. " He called it the Koran. " > > > > Oh, of course! Well, make it the 4th then ) > > The 5th, I think: at least, the latest thing that " Strict > NonConformist " linked to - from his own religion's scripture - looked > like the Bible with a lot of stuff added before/after/in-between, > which would presumably make his book the 4th and yours (when you write > it) the 5th. > > ;-) > > > Yours for better letters, > Kate Gladstone > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest > handwritingrepair@... > http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair > 325 South Manning Boulevard > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA > telephone 518/482-6763 > AND REMEMBER ... > you can order books through my site! > (Amazon.com link - > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 According to Mormons, indeed, > " The Book of Mormon " existed long before the Koran ... According to non-Mormons who have studied the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon did not exist before a New York State resident named ph , Jr. wrote it sometime in the 19th century. (According to Mormons, did not write the book - but he found the book and translated it into English with help from God.) I do not speak for or against the correctness of either opinion, but I do have some questions that I hope " Strict " can answer for me. /1/ " Strict, " do you (as a member of your church) know of anything that can convince a non-Mormon (who has read the Book of Mormon and who has sincerely prayed and asked for guidance and knowledge about it) of the ancientness of this book? /2/ " Strict, " do you (as a member of your church) know of any reason that God had translate the Book of Mormon into 16th-century English instead of 19th-century English? (evidently 16th- rather than 19th-century English when you read the book). Non-Mormons claim that chose 16th-century English in order to make the book look old, so that people would believe it. Presumably Mormons believe that God, not , chose what era of English to use for the book. If so, then does the church have any reason that God made this choice of (then) three-hundred-year-old English for the translation? /3/ The Book of Mormon claims that the original people of the Western Hemisphere (what we, today, call Native Americans) actually came into these continents from the Middle East. The book describes these people as bringing with them (and it mentions them having with them in their new lands) cows, donkeys, elephants, horses, pigs and other European/Middle-Eastern/Asian domestic animals. However, as far as I know, no historical/archeological evidence shows any of these animals existing in the times and places that the Book of Mormon writes about (the Americas of a few thousand of years ago). Also, the animals which really did live in the Americas a few thousand of years ago - such as llamas and turkeys and raccoons and opossums - never appear at all in the Book of Mormon. Similarly, the food-plants we read about people growing/eating in the Book of Mormon (such as barley and wheat) did not exist in the Western Hemisphere before 1492 - the food-plants that people really did grow and eat in the Americas from ancient times (such as chocolate and tomatoes and corn and chili-peppers) never appear in the Book of Mormon at all. ?!?!?! Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 > > According to Mormons, indeed, > > > " The Book of Mormon " existed long before the Koran ... > > According to non-Mormons who have studied the Book of Mormon, the Book > of Mormon did not exist before a New York State resident named ph > , Jr. wrote it sometime in the 19th century. (According to > Mormons, did not write the book - but he found the book and > translated it into English with help from God.) I do not speak for or > against the correctness of either opinion, but I do have some > questions that I hope " Strict " can answer for me. > > /1/ " Strict, " do you (as a member of your church) know of anything > that can convince a non-Mormon (who has read the Book of Mormon and > who has sincerely prayed and asked for guidance and knowledge about > it) of the ancientness of this book? > The short answer is there is no such thing that can convince anyone about anything they sincerely prayed and asked for guidance for if deep down, they refuse to correctly interpret any feelings/thoughts they get as an answer, because no matter what, we all still have our free agency, and even those that know the truth of something have been known to go out of their way to act against what they know. The most infamous in the new testament for that is Judas: he had as much evidence as anyone could possibly have, and yet he sold Jesus out for 30 pieces of (silver, I think it was, though the type and amount isn't vital to this discussion) currency. Look at the popes at the time various people tried to inform them about the reality of " the world is round " and " the earth revolves around the sun, instead of everything revolving around the earth " regardless of what solid evidence was presented. IIRC, many people bringing up empirically provable truths ended up dead. Some more evidence that contributes to the question " What may provide a non-mormon something that will convince them of the ancientness of the book " should read what is on this website about the ancient form of poetry called chiasmus as it is used in the B of M and when it was recognized in the modern western world by scholars: http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml ph Jr. quite simply was no scholar outside of perhaps the Bible before that time, if he would even qualify as that. He had a very minimal education, due to the poverty of his family, being farmers, etc. leading to the need to take care of such minor details as eating before paying for schooling beyond their means. > /2/ " Strict, " do you (as a member of your church) know of any reason > that God had translate the Book of Mormon into 16th-century > English instead of 19th-century English? (evidently 16th- rather than > 19th-century English when you read the book). Non-Mormons claim that > chose 16th-century English in order to make the book look old, > so that people would believe it. Presumably Mormons believe that God, > not , chose what era of English to use for the book. If so, then > does the church have any reason that God made this choice of (then) > three-hundred-year-old English for the translation? > I have not heard this discussed, frankly, about the debate about what period the B of M was translated into for language, and why, other than to say it was translated. Consider this: his main form of higher education came from reading the Bible, for things beyond the elementary education he would have had available at that time. If that's the period of language he was most comfortable reading and writing in, and was what was considered formal/respectable language where and when he was at, who are we to say? We weren't there. Far more important than the exact time period the language appears to take is that it communicates what is required in a way most likely to be correctly interpreted. I can theorize as to a logical reason God would have it translate in such a fashion: for exactly the same reason that in the 21st century, we are still using Latin for naming new discoveries: the meaning of a language dialect no longer in use doesn't change as fluidly as contemporary language of any particular time, while still being understood well enough by the people of a more contemporary time, precisely because they've become accustomed to that. Why are we still programming computers using ASCII characters? Same reason! > /3/ The Book of Mormon claims that the original people of the Western > Hemisphere (what we, today, call Native Americans) actually came into > these continents from the Middle East. The book describes these people > as bringing with them (and it mentions them having with them in their > new lands) cows, donkeys, elephants, horses, pigs and other > European/Middle-Eastern/Asian domestic animals. However, as far as I > know, no historical/archeological evidence shows any of these animals > existing in the times and places that the Book of Mormon writes about > (the Americas of a few thousand of years ago). Also, the animals which > really did live in the Americas a few thousand of years ago - such as > llamas and turkeys and raccoons and opossums - never appear at all in > the Book of Mormon. > Similarly, the food-plants we read about people growing/eating > in the Book of Mormon (such as barley and wheat) did not exist in the > Western Hemisphere before 1492 - the food-plants that people really > did grow and eat in the Americas from ancient times (such as chocolate > and tomatoes and corn and chili-peppers) never appear in the Book of > Mormon at all. > > ?!?!?! That's a very detailed question that requires a lot of typing, and to fully answer it, details that I don't have at hand, simply because there are more important things to worry about. There are two main groups mentioned in the B of M: the first group (the ites) moved over at the time of the Tower of Babel. By the time the second group arrived, they had managed to degrade into merely leaving ruins behind, with a small amount of records. The second group that left from Jerusalem that included Lehi the prophet and his family of 4 sons leaving at the time, where Nephi and Laman ended up becoming the heads of large groups of people, referred to as the Nephites and Lamanites, respectively, with the other two brothers having lesser roles. The Nephites were what would be described as caucasian, and part of the story of the Lamanites is that they fell away, and their skin became the color it is associated with now: they are the ancestors of the native americans we know now. The B of M documents how that all came to be: the great wars that had the Lamanites wipe out the Nephites in the end, and the last Nephite being the one that buried the golden plates of the abridged records in the hill Cumorah, the last thing he did before his death. Note I stated " abridged " as that is very important to keep in mind: what is now known as the B of M is what was considered most sacred or important to keep for records to pass through time, without considering all the smaller matters of what was recorded. I forget the ratio mentioned somewhere, but the percentage that was kept recorded in the plates that were abridged is a fraction of a percent, and carefully culled out for brevity. Do we go to the effort to record in permanent form how we brushed our teeth, including the make and model of the toothbrush, the toothpaste, etc. or do we record only the things we feel are significant? Similarly, there's no practical value when your resources are limited in terms of time and materials to waste it on such non-essentials. Probably at the time things were recorded, no thought at all was given to mentioning Fluffy as a contributing character, or even what sort of animal Fluffy was: Fluffy might have been a curelom or a cumoms, whatever they are, which might have been so common as to defy logic to mention them. Would you suppose a modern prophet would mention a Chevrolet Camaro in his writings with any prominence? While typing this, I found a very interesting website I've not completely digested (rather large and detailed, as you'll find when you check it out), but gives more fodder to answer such questions about animals, etc. which is here: http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/Ether/Ether9.htm As you can see, that refers to a small section: go to http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm for the main table of contents there. Personally, having the understanding that the peoples mentioned in the B of M came across on fairly small ships/boats/barges, and not in huge numbers, many animals that may have been imported (such as elephants) may have ended up dying off due to not having a large enough genetic base for breeding, and/or have become food for the humans or the other animals of the time and place where they were at. What are the chances of the animals we use for food being fossilized in any great numbers several thousand years from now? A skeleton that's left to rot is wasted matter, and wasted space: we'll use it somehow. I've heard it said that the only thing of a pig not used by a farmer is the oink, but my counterclaim to that is " What about the Speak'n'Say toys? Do they perhaps have those harvesting that as the pigs go on their final trip??? " > > > Yours for better letters, > Kate Gladstone > Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest > handwritingrepair@... > http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair > 325 South Manning Boulevard > Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA > telephone 518/482-6763 > AND REMEMBER ... > you can order books through my site! > (Amazon.com link - > I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 What concerns me is that I believe that somewhere in the Bible it says not to add or take away from the bible? > > It'd be a higher number than that, depending on definitions > > " The Book of Mormon " existed long before the Koran, and is not a Bible > replacement, but a parallel to it, that takes place originating before > Christ in Jerusalem about 600 B.C. to about 400 A.D. in the Americas; > parts of what I quoted are translations of the Bible and other ancient > writings done by ph ; and there has also been added modern > material that is not a translation of anything, that was recorded > between the early 1800's and now, that doesn't replace the Bible but > is in addition to it, that is no less valid for it being modern in > origin than anything that was recorded anciently: is something that is > new invalid because it wasn't from ancient origins? If that sort of > reasoning were considered valid, the Bible at many times would have > had portions not accepted at all as being valid, because it was from > current times. What logic is there to say that no more scripture > should have ever come that deals with the progress of humanity and the > current conditions? The Bible relates things that were current > conditions of their times, and how that was dealt with by both man and > God, so that argument falls flat. If something is a popularity > contest for being considered scripture, then that doesn't seem valid, > either: it is either scripture, or it isn't, and popularity or the > timeframe has no relevance whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 That's a common misunderstanding taken out of context, . There are several books that have such things stated, but it is important to remember this: the Bible is a book of books: those statements apply to the books within the books, not the entirety of what we know of as the Bible. If this were an absolute thing in the scriptures that the Bible not be added/removed from, then most of the Bible would be an abomination, accordingly, because there is at least one book in the Old Testament that has this in it: Heaven forbid! It is also important to note that there are mentions of other books within the Bible that are not currently contained within the King version: how do you rectify that with the thought of it being complete? Also, why should there only be one record for all the world that only references a relatively small section of it, when there are people outside of their knowledge and reach in terms of location? It is arrogance to think that the only place and people that mattered to God is centered around Israel within a certain timespan, especially when you consider that there are 10 tribes that were scattered or lost. Why wouldn't they have their own records, unless they have been completely destroyed before any such records could be produced? What is also important to consider that the Bible throughout history by whatever name is not a static book: like a secular history book, it , too, was added to, to cover the events of the people and the interaction between people and God at the times written about, and possibly (as is quite evident in the New Testament) from more than one view at the same time that have overlapping accounts. The scriptures show a pattern that God communicates with people throughout time and space, and at least a certain amount of that was considered important enough to have been replicated. I ask you to give proof by scriptural reference that God has told us that the end of the New Testament as we know it is the last scriptural communication we will ever have before the awaited second coming, as the communications in the scriptures to the peoples clearly show changing conditions, with changing commandments that are relevant to the time and conditions they lived in, indicating a very long pattern of guidance as things change. For example, consider a controversial subject: polygamy. That has scriptural support going both ways, depending on the time and conditions. So, too, you could look at circumcision: why was it suddenly required at one point, but not before then, and then, after Christ arrived, it is not required? > > > > It'd be a higher number than that, depending on definitions > > > > " The Book of Mormon " existed long before the Koran, and is not a > Bible > > replacement, but a parallel to it, that takes place originating > before > > Christ in Jerusalem about 600 B.C. to about 400 A.D. in the > Americas; > > parts of what I quoted are translations of the Bible and other > ancient > > writings done by ph ; and there has also been added modern > > material that is not a translation of anything, that was recorded > > between the early 1800's and now, that doesn't replace the Bible but > > is in addition to it, that is no less valid for it being modern in > > origin than anything that was recorded anciently: is something that > is > > new invalid because it wasn't from ancient origins? If that sort of > > reasoning were considered valid, the Bible at many times would have > > had portions not accepted at all as being valid, because it was from > > current times. What logic is there to say that no more scripture > > should have ever come that deals with the progress of humanity and > the > > current conditions? The Bible relates things that were current > > conditions of their times, and how that was dealt with by both man > and > > God, so that argument falls flat. If something is a popularity > > contest for being considered scripture, then that doesn't seem > valid, > > either: it is either scripture, or it isn't, and popularity or the > > timeframe has no relevance whatsoever. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " It is arrogance to think that the only place and people that mattered to God is centered around Israel within a certain timespan, especially when you consider that there are 10 tribes that were scattered or lost. Why wouldn't they have their own records, unless they have been completely destroyed before any such records could be produced? " I did not say I thought that. I asked a question - I do not know whether it is wrong or right - I do not know where in the Bible it says it - people have said it to me and said that it's in the Bible (this was many years ago as a child mind you). I do not have all the answers and neither do I profess to. Maybe it was said to me out of context - no one explained it to me and also maybe I took it a bit too literally. > > > > What concerns me is that I believe that somewhere in the Bible it > > says not to add or take away from the bible? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " It is arrogance to think that the only place and people that mattered to God is centered around Israel within a certain timespan, especially when you consider that there are 10 tribes that were scattered or lost. Why wouldn't they have their own records, unless they have been completely destroyed before any such records could be produced? " I did not say I thought that. I asked a question - I do not know whether it is wrong or right - I do not know where in the Bible it says it - people have said it to me and said that it's in the Bible (this was many years ago as a child mind you). I do not have all the answers and neither do I profess to. Maybe it was said to me out of context - no one explained it to me and also maybe I took it a bit too literally. > > > > What concerns me is that I believe that somewhere in the Bible it > > says not to add or take away from the bible? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " It is arrogance to think that the only place and people that mattered to God is centered around Israel within a certain timespan, especially when you consider that there are 10 tribes that were scattered or lost. Why wouldn't they have their own records, unless they have been completely destroyed before any such records could be produced? " I did not say I thought that. I asked a question - I do not know whether it is wrong or right - I do not know where in the Bible it says it - people have said it to me and said that it's in the Bible (this was many years ago as a child mind you). I do not have all the answers and neither do I profess to. Maybe it was said to me out of context - no one explained it to me and also maybe I took it a bit too literally. > > > > What concerns me is that I believe that somewhere in the Bible it > > says not to add or take away from the bible? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 In a message dated 3/20/2006 11:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes: "It is arrogance to think that the only place and people that mattered to God is centered around Israel within a certain timespan, especially when you consider that there are 10 tribes that were scattered or lost. Why wouldn't they have their own records, unless they have been completely destroyed before any such records could be produced?" This is also taken out of context and is a very human view. The Israelites were part of the grander plan. You might think of it as them being the ones chosen for a time to recieve and keep the Word of God. Eventually Christ would would come as the fullfillment of the next part of the plan. So why was that area chosen? In Biblical times it was a major trade crossroads. Later it became a part of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire controlled much of Europe, which allowed Christianity to spread more easily was the Empire itself became Christian. Europe later rose to a be the first global power and thus the Word could spread throughout the world. This, I believe, is why Israel was chosen. Other places did have inklings of God, but they were not chosen to be the bearers of the Word. Why? Because they would not be able to spread the Word. The Chinese used to believe in only one God, but they were too inward looking as a people. They saw themselves as the Middle Kingdom, and came to believe that nothing outside of China mattered because it was inferior to China. Had they been outward focussed, they could have been a world power well before Europe. Other cultures had other things holding them back. The problem is that we humans have what geologists call a mosquito frame of reference. That is to say, out frame of reference and planning is equal to that of a mosquito compared to that of man, in terms of life span. We can't really comprehend the plans of God because God has been around since the Beginning 15 billion years ago and will be around another 15 billion year and beyond. In spite of thise, He knows how things are going to play out over all this time. To us the Old Testament writers and Jesus seem to have little or nothing in common, but really they are just steps in the overall plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I guess I was answering a question pre-emptively, or post-emptively, as the case may be: many regard the B of M as a replacement to the Bible, and there's also the option of considering it an extension of the Bible: in that case, it might be classified as " adding to " the Bible, depending on point of view. There are many that believe that anything outside of the Bible is non-viable as a scriptural source in Christianity due to not seeing things from a larger point of view. > > > > > > What concerns me is that I believe that somewhere in the Bible it > > > says not to add or take away from the bible? > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 " There are many that believe that anything outside of the Bible is non-viable as a scriptural source in Christianity due to not seeing things from a larger point of view. " This depends on the rigidity of the denomination. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church used the Bible at its foundation for all teaching and worship, which is why we are quick to say " The Bible says... " or else cite a quote. However, subsequent texts are accepted provided their authenticity can be proven. For instance, my church now recognizes that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic and that the half-written books and account talleys and rendering of legal decisions are all descriptive of Biblical times. The fact that teachings and worship has not been modified yet is only due to the fact that the scrolls are still being examined and translated. Until the examination is complete, the Lutheran Church takes this position on them: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2208 " Dead Sea Scrolls Q. What are the church's thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls? A. The author of a Christianity Today (October 6, 1997) article titled " The War of the Scrolls " concludes his analysis of current debates about the role of the scrolls by saying: " What they do is tend to corroborate and support what many would regard as responsible exegesis that interprets Scripture in the Jewish context . . . . " (45). " Most scholars in our church would share this perspective, while at the same time emphasizing that since the Holy Scriptures are without qualification the very Word of God, they are without error in all their parts and alone possess divine authority for what is to be believed and taught in the church. As is the case with all historical documents contemporary with the Biblical writings, such documents are useful in understanding the context of the Scriptural texts and therefore interpreting what these texts say. " If the Book of Mormon were able to be examined by the Lutheran Church, and if it was rendered by the appointed examiners to be authentic, and if these texts in no way deviated from Biblical doctrine, then they would surely be integrated into church teachings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Thanks to " Strict " for explaining how his faith regards these matters. Re chiasmus (which appears both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon) - what I've seen of things written by ph (letters, etc., that he wrote) makes me certain that he knew the Bible pretty well: probably better than most people today would know it. So ph (and not necessarily an ancient author or authors) could have written chiasmus into the Book of Mormon. Nothing I see in the Book of Mormon makes it look (to me) otherwise than a book written in imitation of the Bible by a man who knew the Bible - I provide the above *only* as a statement of how the matter appears to me. " Strict, " you obviously know the scriptures of your church pretty well. As I recall (correct me if I err) those scriptures comprise the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and two other books called Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. So I hope I may ask you for your view (your personal view and/or the view of your church) about the following: What evidence, if it actually existed and if you had it, would have led an intelligent and sincere Mormon (such as yourself) to conclude that someone had made a mistake andthe Book of Mormon did *not* really have the ancient origin which this book claims itself to have? Thanks, in any case, for your interesting and thought-provoking possible explanation about why God and/or a 19th-century New Yorker would choose 16th-century English to translate a book written some thousands of years ago. As you note, any language still in spoken use will constantly change (just as Latin in the different parts of the Roman Empire changed in different ways which eventually turned it into French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc. - and just as 16th-century English changed eventually, bit by bit over centuries, into 21st-century English. We, today, can read 15th/16th-century English, and if we know only present-day English we can even still " sort of " read 12th/13th/14th-century English - but a page of 8th/9th/10th/11th-century English looks to us like a foreign language, with only a very occasional few words recognizable here and there. The English language, since it continues in use, continues to change, so we have to suppose that, sooner or later, 16th-century or even 21st-century English will also have become (to people in some future time) as incomprehensible (to everyone but dead-language scholars) as 20th-century English. Do you think the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, or whatever else) will need re-translation at that time? Thanks also, " Strict, " for detailing what the Book of Mormon says about where the Native Americans came from. I have to wonder what the Native Americans themselvs say to such an account of their own origins. Outside of the Book of Mormon, does any evidence actually support the Book of Mormon's account of where the Native Americans came from, how they came to look like the Native Americans we know today, etc.? I know of no external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon's account, but then again I know far, far too little about Native Americans. Re the abridgment of records and: > Do we go to the effort to > record in permanent form how we brushed our teeth, including the make > and model of the toothbrush, the toothpaste, etc. or do we record only > the things we feel are significant? A good point - but the fact remains that the book of Mormon records in detail all sorts of small things (like what people ate, what animals they raised, etc.) that don't fit with what we know of the actual Americas of that time. To use your " toothbrush " analogy - suppose that, in the year 3456, a remote descendant of mine (Kate Gladstone XXIII) presents the world with a book claiming to contain important (but abridged) records of life in the USA from 1776 to 2006. These records include statements like " in 1929, the Queen of North America earned the hatred of the populace because she doubled the tax on toothlasers. " Someone else reads this book and says: " Wait a minute - 'way back in 1929, people didn't *have* toothlasers! Toothlasers didn't exist until the year 2030! According to the remains that our archeologists dig up, people of previous times cleaned their teeth with crude bundles of short fibers, fastened into holes drilled into wooden or plastic sticks! We dig up thousands and thousands of old, discarded toothbrushes from the period, but never a toothlaser, not even one! Why does this book talk about toothlasers instead of toothbrushes? " Would it make sense for Kate Gladstone XXIII to say " The book doesn't talk about toothbrushes because toothbrushes are not as important as the other things it talks about, so the fact that this book mentions twentieth-century toothlasers does not speak against the accuracy of the book. " ? If the Book of Mormon had simply not happened to mention chili or turkeys or whatever, your argument could apply. Unfortunately (like my " toothlaser/Queen of North America " example), the Book of Mormon *does* mentions (such as wheat and donkeys) which just don't apply to the times and places that the book claims to tell us about. >Would you > suppose a modern prophet would mention a Chevrolet Camaro in his > writings with any prominence? Well, the ancient prophet Isaiah gave prominent mention to such things as women's clothing and jewelry styles - if you like, I can go find the relevant verses. I will read the web-site you mentioned. The parts I've (so far) read, though, do not convince me that the book had to come from ancient times in America or anywhere else. Re: > > Personally, having the understanding that the peoples mentioned in the > B of M came across on fairly small ships/boats/barges, and not in huge > numbers, many animals that may have been imported (such as elephants) > may have ended up dying off due to not having a large enough genetic > base for breeding, and/or have become food for the humans or the other > animals of the time and place where they were at. What are the > chances of the animals we use for food being fossilized in any great > numbers several thousand years from now? Food animals, or parts of them, turn up abundantly in archeological remains of every land. Even animals that people ate for only a few decades turn up in abundance: for instance, when archeologists dig up sites where people had survived a famine, they routinely find fossilized garbage-heap bones of cooked rats, cooked snakes, whatever people cooked and ate only for the few months or years of the famine (and not before or after). Simiarly, when archeologists dig up the living-sites of people who have migrated from one region to another region, they usually find (in just the first layer or two of the settlement) numerous remains of various animals and plants that the settlers had brought from their old home but that did not thrive and continue to reproduce in the new home for more than one or two or a few generations So if the first settlers in the Americas had brought donkeys and elephants and cows and whatever, the first level of human habitation (right above the level of no human habitation) should have abundant remains of donkeys and elephants and cows - but those animals have not turned up in the layers, even when archeologists dig right down to the bedrock. Many other animals (such as turkeys and opossums) turn up in the layers, but the ones we'd expect from the Book of Mormon just don't turn up. > A skeleton that's left to > rot is wasted matter, and wasted space: we'll use it somehow. Nevertheless, skeletons turn up - and even plant " skeletons " such as the shells of pecans and other nuts. I have a hard time believing that people who dig and find thousands-of-years-old pecan-shells couldn't find thousands-of-years-old domesticated-elephant bones in the same region. (And, yes, the skeletons of domesticated pecans differ from the skeletons of wild elephants and mammoths.) It occurs to me that teachers of human prehistory might have a hard time teaching the subject in schools with a heavily Mormon population - and _vice_versa_: the students might have a hard time believing both their teachers and their scriptures. But " Strict, " not I, would know that. > I've > heard it said that the only thing of a pig not used by a farmer is the > oink, but my counterclaim to that is " What about the Speak'n'Say toys? > Do they perhaps have those harvesting that as the pigs go on their > final trip??? " > > Well, I'd love to see it! Perhaps Temple Grandin has designed the machine which does that? ;-) Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest handwritingrepair@... http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair 325 South Manning Boulevard Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA telephone 518/482-6763 AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.