Posted on 05/17/2008 11:28:18 AM PDT by donmeaker
Mormons, note the simularity of portions of the Book of Mormon to the King James Version of the Bible, assert that it proves the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Of course that convicted fraud Joseph Smith Jr. would need to plagerize, but the G-d of Israel, of Jacob, and of Abraham would not need to plagerize, seems to have excaped them.
Ping, in case the thread stands.
So is this an open thread or a caucus thread?
:)
It’s probably “open” till moderators pull it when Mormons get upset. That’s how it works with threads on Catholicism.
This is an open thread.
of course it may end up proving the authenticity of Isaiah because Isaiah quotes Joseph Smith Jr.
I’m not upset. It is interesting however that the poster of this thread posted John A. Tvedtnes as the author when there is nothing written by John A. Tvedtnes on this thread.
I guess you missed this:Link
And try running a search on the religion forum on "activities"...the "hose" is working doubletime with LDS closed threads today.
You just THINK you've seen mormon propaganda...hang on to your hat, ROTFL!
Because they want to proselytize unchallenged. It's that simple.
Thank you, for some reason, that dinged my funny bone.
No, I didn’t miss it. In fact, I signed it. But thanks for pointing it out to me.
How about that other religious cult, global warming?
Yeah, I saw your signature.
Forgot that one! LOL!
Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon
Of the 478 verses in the Book of Mormon quoted from the book of Isaiah, 201 agree with the King James reading while 207 show variations. Some 58 are paraphrased and 11 others are variants and/or paraphrases. it is to the variants that we will give our attention here.Two factors led to my study of the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. The first was a paper written by a friend of mine and now widely circulated as "evidence" against the Book of Mormon. It is essentially a statistical analysis of the frequency of changes made in the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon, and it concludes that because there are more such changes earlier on than later, this indicates that Joseph Smith wearied of making alterations as time went by. My objections to the study are basically twofold: First, some of the changes made by the Prophet fit the reading found in some ancient versions of Isaiah. Secondly, the study did not take into account that some of the changes were not in the first edition of the Book of Mormon but were added later. I contend that these changes have no bearing on Joseph Smith's translation—Moreover, many of them were stylistic or grammatical, such as the change from "which" to "who" or "whom" when the referent is human. To my way of thinking, it makes more sense to examine substantive differences between the texts of the King James and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah.
The second impetus for my study came from an assignment given me to serve on the Book of Mormon Hebrew translation committee. One of my specific tasks was to examine all of the biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon to determine what changes, if any, would need to be made to the Hebrew translations of those books when the passages were incorporated into the translation. It was my feeling that we should try to render the translated Book of Mormon passages into the form in which Nephi and other Book of Mormon writers would have known them from the brass plates of Laban, which they took with them.
It was first necessary to identify all of the variants and paraphrases from Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon.1 To do this I read and reread each of the texts several times, checked out the cross-references, and looked up the key words in exhaustive concordances of the Bible and of the Book of Mormon. My wife and I then proceeded to compare the King James (KJV) and Book of Mormon (BM) texts of Isaiah, looking for differences. I read aloud from the BM while she followed in the KJV, and we marked the differences in green ink in a special copy of the Book of Mormon. Next. we did the same thing with the BM and the original 1830 edition, noting any differences in red ink. We used blue ink to mark differences between it and the RLDS version and some few items I was able to obtain from the handwritten BM manuscripts.
The next step was to look up all of the variant verses in different versions of the book of Isaiah: the Hebrew Massoretic text (MT), the Hebrew scrolls found at Qumran (notably IQIsa, which contains all sixty-six chapters), the Aramaic Targumim (T), the Peshitta (P), the Septuagint (LXX) or Greek translation, the Old Latin (OL) and Vulgate (V), and the Isaiah passages quoted in the New Testament. I also read dozens of articles and books written by the top experts on Isaiah and gleaned from them leads to other manuscript variants, such as those found in quotations by the early Church Fathers and other little-known documents.
To be frank, I did not expect to find the volume of support for the BM version of Isaiah that I did in fact discover. I knew enough about ancient manuscripts to realize that there were oftentimes several different versions, no two of which agreed completely with one another. In such cases it is impossible to know which version, if any, is the "original." It was therefore necessary to allow for errors on the brass plates of Laban from which the BM Isaiah passages were taken.
I have classified the variants according to seventeen different types. Some of these classifications are favorable to the BM versions, while others favor the KJV. Still others favor neither. In the listing below, those favorable to BM are marked +, those neutral =, and those unfavorable -.
Isn't the fact that they are both written in King James era English proof enough?
I wonder the same.
When ever anyone asserts miraculous divine authorship for any text written by an 1830s fraud, it desecrates my religion.
On the other hand, I feel the same way about those who push the book of Daniel from 172BC to 700 BC.
Your mileage may vary.
All anyone can do is to pray that Mormons reject false prophets...and return to the arms of the Lord Jesus.
>Why do Mormons, or for that matter, any religions need to waste the bandwidth of FR? Particularly in a *caucus* that’s not open to the general forum. There’s an entire WWW out there for such a purpose.
I really have no clue. I guess in the hopes of evangelizing those that wander into the post? I dunno.
Personally I feel that an idea, whether religious or otherwise, is as good as the arguments for it. When people decide not to present a defense for their beliefs, it tends to mean one of three things. They do not feel comfortable arguing; They really have never thought about it and might be afraid to; They really don’t believe or care much for their beliefs. Only the first has any merit, and only that I would never want to force someone into anything, but anything worth giving your life for, as a Christian is called to do, is worth debating.
Although I agree that you don’t reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, I was not perturbed so much by the views of the Mormons, as I was by the Caucus rules.
Is there an evolution caucus? A lower taxes caucus? A control the borders caucus? A rape is bad caucus? Why not? because real issues with real logic and real evidence are willing to host honest debate. Mind control cults, with falsified evidence, not so much.
Good question...I am unsure why they are so sensitive to assertive Christian questioning and need special protection.
Not once has any Orthodox Christian asked to be “protected” from attacks by Freepers who may criticize our Christian faith...Again, dunno why Mormons are treated so special.
But that’s the prerogative of the bosses here. Whom I respect.
I am guessing you didn’t click the link.
That would take you to John A. Tvedtnes’s work.
Congratulations on the depth of your research.
I also respect the bosses. Which is why I, instead of posting in violation of the caucus rules, created a new post were I and others could conform with their rules.
But Utah girl posted. Is she non-Mormon? I wouldn’t throw her out. Would you?
I always thought it interesting that God spoke to ole Joe Smith like King James...not like anyone else..just like King James. I wonder if in several years from now God will speak to the Mormons in Ebonics or slang...??
I think we should try the new “open” thread rule out...disruptors or the “thin-skinned” will be booted from an open thread...let’s see how it is moderated.
Or maybe he was wearing a disguise or something....
That, other "boo boos" in language, and theological bombs like "we're saved by grace after all we can do" make Smith a proud bearer of the "False Prophet Club" button for me.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
Click here for more on guidelines to the Religion Forum.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy visiting some of these threads and do not mind them being posted. However, I don’t believe is right to allow *closed caucuses* on a site that takes contributions from it’s members. That can be done freely elsewhere.
Hope you and others see my point. Thank you.
What link. The only thing in the head of the thread is your ramblings with no link to the supposed author. Notice the “author” has also been removed from the header.
Seems to me whenever the Morms make a thread a caucus thread it doesn’t get over 7-8 posts, if that. They are like PETA, they’ll take any attention they can get.
“Non-Mormon caucus” was my lame attempt at irony. Don’t take it as anything else as I think EVERYONE should be allowed to comment/post on any forum. Not my site so I don’t set the rules.
I also examine pages that support Mormon teaching as I feel it necessary to look at both sides. Most are not Official sites but at least reflect Mormon belief and often offer a defense.
I feel that if I say a person is in error I should say why just as they can say why not.
“I’m not upset. It is interesting however that the poster of this thread posted John A. Tvedtnes as the author when there is nothing written by John A. Tvedtnes on this thread.”
What brings you to this thread? I thought you would be satisfied with the special “ecumenical affirmative action” you have been given elsewhere.
Of course, affirmative action always does put an onus on the protected class as people whose beliefe system is too weak to stand on its own, but you guys were the ones who wanted that status - perpetual victimhood - and now you have it.
The Ecumenical Affirmative Action Cabal is now official!
Sounds like a plan. Maybe the rule would be, “If you can’t say something nice, then say anything at all.”
[Although I agree that you don’t reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, I was not perturbed so much by the views of the Mormons, as I was by the Caucus rules.
Is there an evolution caucus? A lower taxes caucus? A control the borders caucus? A rape is bad caucus? Why not? because real issues with real logic and real evidence are willing to host honest debate. Mind control cults, with falsified evidence, not so much.]
Well said. And as I have begun to point out, it is structurally equivalent to affirmative action. Who’d a thunk Free Republic of all places would need a special affirmative action section?
Works for me. Open threads are supposed to be for folks who can handle opposition to their beliefs without being crybabies.
STOP SPAMMING FR WITH THIS CULTIST CRAP!
Nakie momos. I could have gone all day without that visual.
Even funnier: Abraham was a born again Christian or proper Christian or a true Christian - can’t remember which one right now.
donmeaker is on "your side" He's spamming this as a general rebut to LDS FReepers.
**Mormons, note the simularity of portions of the Book of Mormon to the King James Version of the Bible, assert that it proves the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. **
Pro 30:5 ¶ Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Now who was found to be a liar?
I didn’t see a link and still don’t. Where is it? And I’m not trying to be coy, I just didn’t see a link in the normal spot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.