Posted on 12/29/2007 8:34:35 AM PST by greyfoxx39
~”So wasn’t Smith given the Book of Mormon, one letter at a time?”~
No, it was given one word or phrase at a time, corresponding to the original symbols. Spelling had to be decided on by the transcriber; punctuation wasn’t given at all.
Tant...are you actually saying that the BOM hasn't been changed?
Nobody is saying it hasn't been changed in any way.
It hasn't been changed in any material way.
The message hasn't changed.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s inconsequential.
You need to read post #915. and refute it if you can. Harris and Martin were there during the translation. Were you or any of your FAIR or FARMS apologists?
You seem to rely on the testimonies of Martin and Harris regarding the Golden Plates. But you don’t rely on their testimony regarding the transmission of words and sentences. Quite amazing, in an odd sort of way.
That should read Harris and Whitmer, not Harris and Martin.
...Martin Harris and David Whitmer...
~”You need to read post #915. and refute it if you can.”~
Sure. First, I suggest you re-read it a little more carefully. You might focus on the following portion:
“One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.”
In Egyptian - of which a revised form was used to write on the plates - a given character or symbol represents a concept, much like many Eastern languages today. This made the language called by Moroni “Reformed Egyptian” a most compact and efficient language to use in the limited space available on the plates. Indeed, he even lamented that he couldn’t use their form of Hebrew, the language in which he was most fluent, due to the lack of space. (See Mormon 9:32)
And, so, as Joseph was translating, he would be shown a single character in Reformed Egyptian and be given its English significance via either the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim. He would dictate that to the scribe, who would write it down and verify it.
Frankly, I thought the explanation was obvious, so I didn’t see the need to mention it above.
***If it’s holy, why has the Bible been changed thousands of times? I’m OK with it.***
Simply retranslated into the vernacular of the times. Not changed, retranslated.
As the translators of the KJV said..
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
I understand enough to believe the doctrine taught in the church.
I realize that you are putting on an image of being the know it all.
Yet you don't seem to know where the doctrine of the trinity came from. It sure didn't come from the Bible. The word doesn't appear there.
A change of doctrine like that is called apostasy.
No, I really mean changed.
Here’s an interesting, though by no means exhaustive, chart:
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Do you know of any English words which are found in the New Testament letters and Gospels? I can’t think of any! But the Greek texts teach God in three persons as ONE. I think it is more established than the peepstone prophet claims of a language called ‘reformed Egyptian’ and it’s sure more credible than an Egyptian book of the dead excerpt translated into the fictional book of Abraham. And by the way, what was Smith ‘translating’ when he rewrote the Bible, the King James Bible, adding thousands of words to the text? Where did the astonishing script of Joseph in Egypt come from which Smith claimed foretold of ‘his coming in these latter days’ now in the Joseph Smith ‘Translation’ of the King James Bible at the end of the Book of Genesis?
No, I really mean changed.
Here’s an interesting, though by no means exhaustive, chart:
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Merely using different texts, namely Alexandrian/Sinai (RSV type)instead of Byzantine Majority texts (KJV type).
Personally I prefer the Majority texts.
No changes in doctrines in either.
He would dictate that to the scribe, who would write it down and verify it.
And God let all those mistakes go by even after verification. Amazing!
Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
There you have it in 3 out of 4 Christian gospels!
I have no information on whether the the latter day saint's jesus thinks that any good can come from other false gods or whether the bishops of false gods make good Presidents.
I’m happy to acknowledge your acceptance of my refutation.
I think God is more concerned with preaching the Gospel than with perfect punctuation.
I don’t know about bishops of false gods, but it appears likely that we won’t be finding out about Romney this time.
We can thank God for that.
Google the name ELSIE and prove what you claimed is true.
Otherwise you'll be considered a liar.
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.