Good answer.

shonuff

ttfn Junky hope you stay on the site though...we love yuh

What NE20 said.

oh I'll be back

Joel, I don't know someone named Ed Decker and have never been to a site called saintsalive, but thanks, I'll look it up

Headed to the apostacy place I like to call my church , I'll be back later tonight

reminder to self: speak to references regarding calvin, luther, and protestant churches

Hey Joel, looks like you have had a rousing good time today I don't have time to cover all tonight but I want to put a couple of issues to bed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel said: The way you've interpreted it gives some sort of wierd cosmic preference to those who were contemporaries of Noah. Doesn't jive with the God that I know - </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't interpret it though, I pulled it verbatim from scripture.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. (emphasis mine) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Joel said: Peter says they get preached to so they can be judged and...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">4:6 For this is the reason the gospel preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (emphasis mine) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bit of a snag in your train of thought. Peter says it WAS (past tense), not is still, or should be or will be. It was a one time shot for those who God judged in the flood. It says so. I believe also that Paul was essentially referring to people who died prior to Christ's sacrifice. Now, where we do agree is that everyone will get there "moment in the Son" so to speak and I do believe that at the time of judgement they will be in front of God and they will bow, or not...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Salvation posthumoulsy by proxy for the dead (in our time) is tough to swallow after reading such passages as:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Luke 13:22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" 24He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' 26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' 27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last." (emphasis mine)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus is teaching about people in HIS TIME and on into the future, as he is speaking in the present tense (which Peter did not)


Hope that helps ya!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speakina which - this is a whole other tangent, but the book of mormon contains a lot of scripture lifted from the KJV Bible - it's a simple thing to make your own beliefs sound pretty good if you plagiarize the text from the Bible and call it 'another testament'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

um, why would Jesus come to the people in the Ancient Americas and teach something different? That would truly be weird. In fact, I would expect the Book of Mormon and its teachings to be similar to the Bible and I would expect that Jesus would teach the same things in Jerusalem that he taught in Book of Mormon lands – so he came here and taught essentially the same thing as the sermon on the mount. I don’t get why that would be a problem. What’s the big deal?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The big deal is that it isn't simply Jesus teaching the same topics or the same parables, but large portions of text (including the translation errors from the KJV of the Bible) were copied verbatim from the Bible and pasted into the book of mormon. It gets pretty complicated, but there's a nice breakdown of the topic by Ronald V. Huggins, you can find some excerpts here:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/3nephi.shtml

Basically, joseph smith included verbatim text from KJV Matthew into the book of mormon. Not so big a deal until you consider Matthew was written decades later and a continent away from where Jesus was supposed to have taught the nephites.

Comparing Romans to text in the book of mormon produces similar questions. Paul wrote Romans thousands of miles away from the nephites. "As the seminal work on New Testament theology, we can expect the book of Romans to provide some ideas for the Book of Mormon. Indeed, this is so. We will see that Smith borrowed not only quotes from the book, but also fairly sophisticated concepts which he worked into the theology of the Book of Mormon."

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/romans.shtml

Explanations? There's lots more than Romans with similar comparisons.... even if we did spot you that Jesus' teachings are supposed to be similar, how could the text from the other New Testament books be scattered throughout the book of mormon without smith plagiarizing the parts he liked? Paul, Peter, James and John had nada to do with the mormon church, they're in the middle east, greece and Italy, no where near the Americas.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/intro.shtml

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The Book of Mormon and the Bible

Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.

Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written. In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

For those who want to see for themselves and prove the above, just search for the scriptures on the mormon's website that houses their searchable database of the book of mormon:

http://scriptures.lds.org

Compare that to the online searchable database for the Bible:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

In reply to the KJV version of the Bible, and it's similarities in the Book of Mormon, I have found an article that will hopefully help this issue. I might also add that Robert J. Matthews is my great uncle, affectionately known as Uncle Bob. Just a little family pride on my part.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Robert J. Matthews, chairman, Department of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University First, we should remember that the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon come from the brass plates of Laban, which were compiled at least as early as 600 B.C., some four hundred years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. The Isaiah source for the King James Version was written much later.

With that in mind, let me suggest two reasons why the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon are more like those in the King James Version than those in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The first reason is that part of the Dead Sea Scrolls are of questionable authenticity. Some scholars have thought the scrolls would be more reliable than the King James Version because the scrolls’ text is older—recorded more closely in time to the events depicted.

But this is not unfailingly the case. For example, the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll of the Dead Sea collection dates from about 200 B.C., but differs considerably from parallel accounts in the Greek Septuagint, also of second century B.C. vintage.

We learn from the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 13-14) and the eighth Article of Faith that the Bible has been deliberately altered by men. The variant texts of both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that fact and tell us that the alteration was in process at least by 200 B.C. The St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll, particularly, is regarded by some scholars as a text written by amateur scribes, and containing many errors. The quality of the penmanship and the number of on-page corrections also tend to put this scroll in a less than reliable position.

Thus, textual preferences cannot be determined simply by dating. Even though the Dead Sea Scrolls may be older than the King James sources, they are not necessarily more accurate.

A second reason why the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages differ from similar passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the translation of the Book of Mormon may not always reflect a minute and highly detailed analysis of every word on the gold plates. It is evident that Joseph Smith was closely allied to the text of the King James Version, and it is possible that he used it in the translation of passages that parallel the Book of Mormon, particularly when Isaiah is concerned. That doesn’t mean that he copied it from the Bible, but that he might have relied upon the language of the King James Version as a vehicle to express the general sense of what was on the gold plates.

Basically then, I would emphasize that the Book of Mormon, as an independent witness, tells us that the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Isaiah is not as good as some scholars think it is, and also that the text of the King James Version is not as bad as some of them think it is—remembering that we are dealing with details and matters of tense, punctuation, and the like.

In 1961 a master’s thesis at BYU compared the St. Mark’s Scroll of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon portions of Isaiah, the King James Version, and Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation. The author, a member of the RLDS Church, concluded that the differences were too slight and of not sufficient frequency and regularity to form an interpretive pattern. (See Wayne Ham, A Textual Comparison of the Isaiah Passages in the Book of Mormon with the Same Passages in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Community.)

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Hi Eric!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">remembering that we are dealing with details and matters of tense, punctuation, and the like.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Big problem with Greek and Hebrew. There was no punctuation.

I would venture that a Judaic Scholar would be insensed about the comments regarding Josephs plates being more accurate. The Bible was copied meticulusly from a master copy. Preserving even number of characters on a page. Each character (letter) had a specific number. When a transcriber finished a page of text it was authenticated by the Rabbi that oversaw the process. If the numbering did not match or the character count did not match the page was destroyed so it could not be used.

I would have a hard time believing (and do) that a set of BRASS plates survived from 600 bc. (presumedly so, because they aren't around anymore to authenticate) Got buried in the dirt in latin america for 1400 or so years and were in pristine condition when they were delivered to Mr. Smith. Most especially considering that brass wasn't even used until 500 b.c.

And it still doesn't explain why the Gospels, Pauline Epistles and those of Peter, James and John were plagiarized when there would be no reason for the author of the book of mormon to even know of their existence since they were written after the text for the book of mormon was copied... er, I mean... handed down

Hey Allen in regards to </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel, I don't know someone named Ed Decker and have never been to a site called saintsalive, but thanks, I'll look it up </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Way way way upthread you posted the following.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Allen:
Here's a little (lot) more information regarding this:

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/templetour.htm

I have more, but am looking for a better way to present it </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You also mentioned the saintsalive site over in the "men's room" as well, but that's beside the point. You've also brought Utah Lighthouse ministries on here and now the guy who runs the lds-mormon site (Ed Decker-lite). Essentially it would be the equivalent of me using Al Qaida run websites as a means of de-bunking Christianity. All of the people you have cited have an axe to grind. If you had thrown in something (anything) from Jan Shipps , the foremost non-Mormon scholar on the church, it would be easier to swallow.

Eric answered the points about similarities in the Bible and Book of Mormon quite well. However, I still don't really understand why you think God couldn't inspire Paul, Peter, James, Matthew or anyone to write something in Israel and then inspire Moroni, Alma, Nephi, Helaman or anyone in the Americas to write something similar. He is, after all, the same God. Personally, I view God to be the author of the Bible and his words are filtered essentially through a man and then several translations down to us. The Book of Mormon is the same - Joseph Smith didn't use modern tranlation techniques to translate the Book of Mormon - God inspired him with what to write and he put it on paper as best he could in his own words. I don't get why it should bother anyone that the Book of Mormon is a decidedly Christian book.

That link about similarities between Romans and certain writings in the Book of Mormon is a real stretch. I'm surprised the author didn't say something to the effect of "The word Christ is used in the Bible and also in the Book of Mormon, therefore it has to be false." what a joke

Steve - as for past tense, present tense - you know I don't buy the argument you put forth about biblical infallability and the meticulous translation of Jewish scribes - and apparently neither does Allen </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">large portions of text (including the translation errors from the KJV of the Bible) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Having translated a few documents in my time, I can tell you that it is absolutely not an exact science and transcribing by hand is perhaps even less exact as spelling errors can creep in and personal biases could manifest themselves if just a few of those ancient scribes you refer to, had an agenda.

At any rate, here's 1 Peter 4:6 from the Lutheran Bible (the best translation I know - unfortunately for purposes here, it's in German) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Denn dazu ist auch den Toten das Evangelium verkündigt, daß sie zwar nach Menschenweise gerichtet werden im Fleisch, aber nach Gottes Weise das Leben haben im Geist. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And here it is from the Lutheran Bible in Norwegian </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For derfor blev evangeliet forkynt også for døde at de visstnok skulde dømmes som mennesker i kjødet, men leve således som Gud i ånden. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">KJV </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whatever version you are using </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For this is the reason the gospel preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not really that great at grammar, but as I understand it, the version you quoted states the gospel "is...preached" which would be present tense, the KJV states "was...preached" which would be past tense. Both the German and Norwegian are Lutheran and the Norwegian was based on the German and yet they are different as well: "ist...verkündigt" (present tense in German) and "blev...forkynt" (past tense in Norwegian). If the interpretation depends on which version a person is reading - I'll take my interpretation that comes from a living prophet of God any day over that.

All that stuff in Luke you quoted as well referred to people who </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ate and drank with [Jesus], and [He] taught in [their] streets</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this is clearly referring to those who did recieve a chance in this life to recieve the gospel and for some reason or another (presumably they weren't worthy) were not allowed to enter into heaven. Show me the verse that says "I'm sorry I wasn't aware that I was supposed to worship Jesus, I've never heard of the guy, I've been living in India praying to Vishnu the whole time" and I'll agree with you. Those are the folks I'm talking about. The one's, whose opportunity to hear the Gospel was as limited as the people at the time of the flood of Noah, are the ones who'll get the chance. Or others who were innocently ignorant of the truth. The people in Luke - because they ate and drank with him and heard him preach in the streets - should have known better and deserved to be left out.

Steve - your concerns about "brass" are answered in this article Here's a highlight </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In antiquity the words bronze and brass did not exist. Brass is an English word derived from braes (Old English) and bres or bras (Middle English) about 1200 A.D. In the language of Tudor England, brass stood for any copper alloy, and the King James Bible uses the word in that context. Joseph Smith, favoring the King James Bible, translated the Book of Mormon using brass in the same manner. In a few verses of the Old Testament the Hebrew word for copper is even translated “steel” (2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34; Jeremiah 15:12) and “amber” (Ezekiel 1:4, 27; 8:12).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At any rate, we're really beyond the mark here. I can understand why you'd disagree with many of these things (although I note that you've neglected refute Jesus' statement regarding baptism) prior to establishing the occurence of an Apostacy and need for a Restoration and modern day prophets.

Allen, how was the "apostacy place"?

I am looking forward to what you have to say about </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">references regarding calvin, luther, and protestant churches</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Here's an article about a civilization whose existence coincides with the Book of Mormon timeline. Additionally, no one (read no archeologists) has determined who (what ethnicity) built the city. Article Clearly not definitive evidence for the Book of Mormon - but does describe a fairly large, ethnically unidentified city that could be explained by the Book of Mormon.

ack, I haven't been to the saintsalive site since I posted it I guess, it's been so long I forgot about the link.

My points regarding the plagiarism of large parts of the text is dead-on - especially of the New Testament, in which whoever was given the words for the supposed brass plates would not have had access to written words of Paul, Peter, James, and John - who wrote their text well after Jesus was supposed to have visited the americas. Even the 4 gospels have many variations in their text of the same events, having different angles to interpret, but joe smith's writings copy text verbatim in many places from romans, corinthians, etc...

We can discuss daily for years differences in doctrine between even baptist and southern baptist, but this right here is where the significance of Christianity and mormonism boils down to. We believe smith made his stuff up, without any 'divine inspiration' and certainly without any brass or copper or gold or platinum plates. You haven't shown us nearly the concrete evidence to refute this as you've requested to see in doctrinal differences.

I'll come back later tonight if I can, but one other point that terribly disqualifies Mormonism is its non-belief in the infalibility of scripture.

The old testament we have is I beleive and what you call the apsotate church believes, verbatim as that, that Moses (et al) got. The New Testament is not verbatim as the care was not ascribed to its preservation as the Old Testament.

I won't open this can of worms here but I truly beleive that the King James version of the Bible is less accurate than some newer versions. THe KJV was translated into latin from greek and into Olde English from latin. All using texts that were far newer than ones we have available today. There are over 24000 pieces of scriptural text available in the archeologic record, almost all of them have been discovered in the last 200 years long after the KJV was printed. Many of the texts are believed only second or third generation copies of the original manuscripts. the same cannot be said for the KJV manuscripts which date around 500ad (+,-)

I use the NIV which currently holds as using the oldest manuscripts AND putting it into language that is actually used today. Don't get me wrong, God said "my word will not return to me void" so I believe you can come to a saving faith with just about any version of the Bible, but if hair splitting is to be done then accuracy like verb tense counts big time.

***Edit to the above.

After thinking on what I posted I feel I need to clarify it a bit. (1. The comment about accuracy of the Bible and 2. The commment about coming to a saving knowlege of Christ using any available text)

Interesting thought I just had. Mormons do not believe the scripture is pure, yet use very finite points of it readily to justify an unfound civilization in South America, and the establishment of a restored chuch in a new land having exclusionary practices.

1. About the Bible. Jesus himself declares that "Heaven and earth shall pass away but His word will endure forever."
As proof of that The Jewish scribes knew even 5000ish years ago that Genesis is composed of 78,064 characters. There was no mistake making or agenda pushing by a devout group of believers, for whom, many sins could lead to death in one form or another. They treated the scrolls as holy and their duty to translate them was a high calling. Lets take the two copies of the Torah that are in existence today, the Masoretic and Yemenite translations. The Yemenites were seperated from their middle eastern (Masoretic) brothers for almost 1000 years. Despite that and through several transcriptions in each group, only nine letters out of 304,805 in the Masoretic transcript were different in the Yemenite manuscript None of these characters that differs in the Yemenite transcription changes the meaning of a significant word!!!!!. If that is our model then in the 5000 years we can expect to have lost 45 letters approximately. Barring a misque that might have set one right again...

Those are facts, they are very real. The Bible we have is not a reasonable facsimile it is inerrant!

2. About being able to be saved even if you might be using a less than the best translation. The Holy Spirit who calls people to repent and to believe can overcome small discrepancies. Heck God has even had people come to salvation by sinning, corrupt televangelists.

Now teaching doctrine is another matter, if one of us professes to be a teacher of others then they will be held accountable for what they teach. (Example. David Koresh just might have led someone to accept their salvation, yet his corrupted teaching and subsequent murder of the church brings him under Judgement the outcome of which I wouldn't want to ponder. ie a millstone would be better Matt 18:6)


(I am not ignoring the apostacy, baptism and the other issues that you have on the thread Joel. I just like to keep them down to just a couple at a time.)

Let me hit on a couple of points really quickly and then move on to the meat of this debate:

Biblical infallibility and inconsistency. I’m glad you use the NIV and consider it most correct, because that’s the one that puts the preaching discussed in 1 Peter 4:6 in the present tense

I don’t want to overstate our belief that the Bible may have some errors in it. I’m not talking about throwing the thing out after all. I believe in the Bible and I love the Bible. The doctrines we disagree on I don’t believe solely because they stand in the Bible. Rather, I believe them because they are taught or were taught by men I consider to modern day prophets and apostles. I refer to the Bible only to illustrate that the principles they teach are consistent with the written record.

Let me illustrate my point about inconsistencies across translations of the Bible a little differently. I have a Norwegian translation of the Book of Mormon that was just released in 2003. They started to working on this one in 1992, just before I went to Norway on my mission (the first translation into Norwegian was in 1950 and the first translation into Danish was in 1850). I’ve read the new translation twice now and while it is an improvement over the first – it’s still pretty bad. Now if I wanted to translate it back into English from the Norwegian it would probably deteriorate even more. There’s a common scriptural phrase “all ye ends of the earth” which is written “alle jordens ender” in Norwegian – taken out of context that can be translated in two different ways: 1. “all the earth’s ends.” Or 2. “all the earth’s ducks”. Does anyone really think that Jesus wanted to take the Gospel to all the “ducks” of the earth? No, but it would really be a simple mistake to make. This example illustrates that even one translation away from the original– conducted by academic means- can be insufficient (and these are two languages that both have Latin based alphabets). I don’t use the Norwegian Book of Mormon for my personal study – I do read from it daily to keep up my language skills, but when I really am getting into something (preparing a lesson or something) I go to the English version – because it was translated by the gift and power of God and therefore I can have more confidence in it. Which is why I prefer the German Lutheran Bible actually – because I do believe that Martin Luther was an inspired man of God and that he was probably divinely inspired as he translated. What matters to me isn’t the veracity of the source documents – but rather the inspiration of the translator. (By the way, Martin Luther was also inspired when he said that he had no “authority” to start his own church – it was followers of Luther that founded the Lutheran church and not necessarily with his blessing)

I would say the Bible is probably about 97% - 98% accurate – with most of the problematic stuff coming way – way after the Books of Moses (which is essentially the one spot you continually point to in your arguments about Biblical consistency).

Also with regard to the Bible – who’s to say that the Catholics who put it together originally didn’t reject sacred texts that should have been included. I really have a hard time buying that Peter – the senior Apostle and clear leader of the Church after the Ascension – wrote so little. What about the other members of the original quorum of the twelve who don’t have books in the Bible – didn’t they write anything? How can you or anyone be sure that the Catholic church didn’t destroy documents from the early Apostles that would have undercut their position of authority, yet rightly should have been included in the New Testament?

Book of Mormon copied from the Bible.

The site Allen pointed to makes some pretty broad claims about Joseph having “copied” substantial portions of Romans into the Book of Mormon. In fact he only has one citation that could in any way be considered a direct quote and it’s only six words consecutively. Sure there are a lot of similar ideas conveyed and even similar words used – that comes far short of equaling plagarism; if it did then the Tolkein estate would have sued JK Rowling long ago. The only parts of the Book of Mormon that are the same as the Bible are extensive quotations from Isaiah in 2 Nephi (Isaiah was written and canonized prior to Lehi departing Jerusalem – and they took a copy of the available scriptures with them and it was known as the “Brass Plates” not to be confused with the “Gold Plates” that Nephi and others recorded the Book of Mormon record on) and an account during Jesus’ visit to the Book of Mormon peoples wherein he relates to them essentially the same sermon as the Sermon on the Mount. Those are the only parts of the Book of Mormon which can truly and reasonably be considered as potential lifts directly from the Bible – yet their appearance within the text is consistent with the History provided in the Book of Mormon. Eric posted a very good article explaining why some phrases in the Book of Mormon may be similar to Biblical phrases due to Joseph Smith’s upbringing and familiarity with the Bible. Prior to translating the Book of Mormon – it is quite possible that the only book he had ever extensively read it was the Bible, making the language used in it comfortable and familiar to him.

Evidence for the Book of Mormon:

Allen you were right when you said </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this right here is where the significance of Christianity and mormonism boils down to. We believe smith made his stuff up, without any 'divine inspiration' and certainly without any brass or copper or gold or platinum plates. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So that's what I'll try to focus on from here on out. No more baptism or preaching for the dead, validity of temples, Biblical inaccuracy or anything - Just whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether or not he made up the Book of Mormon or translated it. Also, how we might best go about seeking answers to those questions.

I think I’ve demonstrated that there are many (Mormon and Non-Mormon alike) archeologists and other scientists that believe contact between ancient mid-eastern cultures and ancient American cultures was not only possible but probable. This opens the door for the Book of Mormon to possibly be true.

Yesterday, I posted a link to an article about an ancient city in Mexico, the identity of the builders of that city has been lost to history – again opens the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true

I’ve posted information about metallurgy in ancient times – showing that the Book of Mormon is at least consistent with what would have been technologically possible during the time period it covers.

I’ve posted a fairly lengthy discussion about animals in the Book of Mormon. Showing that it is possible the animals described in the Book of Mormon are not inconsistent with what may have been in the New World.

I don’t think I’ve talked enough about the uniqueness of the Book however, and whether or not it would have even been possible for someone like Joseph Smith to have written it.

Please (seriously) read this article (I've posted the link previously) it is full of evidences of the Book of Mormon. Let me highlight a few in case you don’t have time to read it.
1. The testimonies of the three witnesses and the eight witnesses of the Golden Plates. . Eons ago in this topic I think I provided a citation including their testimonies. What I didn’t include was that each of the “three witnesses” were excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints within eight years after the publication of their testimony. All three went their separate ways, with no common interest to support a collusive effort and little to no contact. Yet to the end of their lives—periods ranging from 12 to 50 years after their excommunications—not one of these witnesses deviated from his published testimony or said anything that cast any shadow on its truthfulness. They endured personal hardships and professional embarrassment because of their insistence that they had been shown the Golden Plates by an Angel of God – all this without any loyalty to the church or it’s founder.

2. there is no evidence at all that Joseph Smith did any scholarly research, or even that he read very much, before the Book of Mormon appeared, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In fact, he may not even have owned a Bible at the time of translation. Joseph Smith had spent the bulk of his time as a youth cutting trees, burning brush, clearing rocks, and plowing. He had received at most a few months of formal schooling. His mother later recalled that, even into his late teens, “he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children.”</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Other research has shown that the actual translation of the Book of Mormon was completed in 63 days. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In addition, the evidence indicates that the translation and dictation of the book were accomplished in roughly 63 working days—a torrid pace that, with neither rewrites nor corrections, produced nearly 8.5 pages (of our current English edition) daily. …
His wife Emma reports that, in the late 1820s, Joseph “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. … The larger part of this labor [of translation] was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. … During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had. If,” she said, “he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” And, she added, writing to her son: “I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.”</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It’s interesting to note that Emma also left the LDS church and did not follow the main body of the church on the exodus to the west. Yet her confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and her account of its translation never varied. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In recent years, rigorous statistical analysis strongly indicates that neither Joseph Smith nor any of his known associates composed the English text of the Book of Mormon. In fact, research suggests that the book was written by numerous distinct authors. And research shows that the book does not seem to fit the culture of early 19th-century America. There is little of the military romanticism of Joseph Smith’s America. Instead, we see grimly realistic portrayals of war’s devastation and suffering. And in the story of the Gadianton robbers we have a detailed, realistic portrayal of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of fife and drum, uniforms, or parades—published well over a century before the guerrilla theorists of the 20th century put pens to paper.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Recent studies by several scholars indicate that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon. It is simply too complex and rooted in the ancient world for an unlearned farm boy to get all the details right. Such details include chiasmus – a literary technique of inverted parallelism in ancient texts that was discover long after Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon. The recent (by recent I mean after Joseph translated it) discovery of a language fitting the description of “reformed Egyptian.” The fact that the Book of Mormon contains multiple distinct writing styles. If you accept that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon from his own mind, then that mind must have been the most inherently creative mind of the last 200 years not to mention the natural born brilliance it would take for an unschooled farm boy to go from reading no books to writing one that contains multiple different styles of writing within its covers. I think Joseph is a Prophet – you must think he’s is one of the most creative geniuses ever to have lived. I suppose both are equally plausible. However, if he was really a genious why did he stick with it? What did he possible hope to gain by publishing the Book of Mormon and starting a church? If he had simply made it up why didn't he walk away when the cards were down? Do you think he wanted to be forced from half-a-dozen homes by angry mobs and lose several children due to exposure incurred under those circumstances? Or do you think he liked being held in prison for nearly six months on trumped up charges while knowing his wife and children were ill-fed, ill-clothed, and without shelter? Or do you think he enjoyed the occasional exfoliation provided by scraping tar and feathers from his skin? Or do you think he enjoyed marching nearly 1,000 miles from Kirtland, Ohio to Far West, Missouri to face angry mobs and endure a cholera outbreak and nearly starve to death? Do you think he enjoyed, at the end, being betrayed by his closest friends into the hand of an angry mob? Do you think he wanted to be the indirect cause of death for himself and three of his brothers leaving countless children fatherless and their mothers widows? Even if he could have concocted the Book of Mormon out of thin air, why would he?

What it really comes down to is this Proverbs 3:5-6 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Scientific evidence will never be sufficient to prove a decision we should be making through study and prayer. So as I said eons ago. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
Personally, while I do believe there is overwhelming evidence of a culture that has links to what is described in the Book of Mormon in Latin America and South America, it’s never been something that my belief has been based upon. Rather, the promise contained in the very last chapter of the Book of Mormon is where my belief that the LDS Church was established by Christ himself and that the Book of Mormon was inspired by Christ stems from. The promise reads as follows: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think we can all agree with what is says here. The pattern this promise lays out is as follows.

1. Before passing judgment on the book, [b]READ IT!
2. Ponder over the message that it contains in your heart.
3. Ask God – with a sincere heart, real intent and with faith in Christ – if it isn’t true.
4. God will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I think we can all agree that, even biblically speaking, this pattern is a sound method for determining what is true and what is false. [/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can’t honestly reject it without testing it by reading it, pondering it’s message, and then asking God if it isn’t true. Anything less would be leaning on thine own understanding.

The Bible does not close the canon of Holy Scripture as I’ve already pointed out, Revelations 22:18 is does not refer to anything other than the Book of Revelations itself. If it meant anything more or less you would have to reject the Gospel of John which was written by the same author but chronologically later than the Book of Revelations and by the standard applied to the Book of Mormon would have to be rejected by Revelations 22:18. Also if you apply this standard to a similar verse in Deuteronomy 4:2 then we would have to reject every part of the Bible following the Books of Moses.

So the Bible doesn’t reject the possibility of other Books of Scripture existing. Your scientific evidence against it is inconclusive at best. My scientific evidence in favor of it is inconclusive at best. Why not read it and then take it before He who is Judge over all things in prayer to get the definitive answer. You can get a free copy right here

Don't be afraid, it's just a book. At worst it's an interesting read of fiction about a Christian culture in ancient America. At best it's more truth about God and his Gospel. What will it hurt?

That stretched the limits of "long post" so allow me to sum up.

I really don't find the Bible all that inaccurate, and I actually really like the Bible.

I know y'all are incapable of providing conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fake - written by a madman-genius/creative writer.

I know I'm incapable of providing conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon is a true history - translated by Joseph Smith - by the gift and power of God.

The Bible doesn't reject the Book of Mormon - or other holy scripture that could possibly come to light.

So how is one to decide what is true? I propose we "Trust in the Lord" and "lean not unto our own understanding" (Prov 3:5). Since we "Lack Wisdom" we should "ask of God" (James 1:5).

1 Corinthians 2:7-10 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paul says that we have no idea (inferring that we are in no position to judge) what things God may have in store for us. He reminds us that because the things of God are concealed from the world, the princes of the world, unable to discern the truth through worldly means, did not know any better and crucified Jesus. He concludes that the way he and any of us can learn about truth is from the Spirit of God, because it "searcheth all things."

The only way you can know - beyond any shadow of doubt - about the Book of Mormon, is to honestly, and without bias, read the Book of Mormon, ponder it's message, and then pray to God and ask if it isn't true. He will reveal the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Also, I won't be around this weekend - so please let's not go too crazy.