Yes, it's called being a Good teacher, Jesus did the same thing, I do the same thing, but there are some techniques that work and some that don't.
U Said: It is not an uncommon teaching method, if you bother to study Paul’s teaching methodology and rabbinical background.
Actually, I have spent plenty of time studying Paul, and his background, his travels his teachings...
However, Paul does not ever give an example of Sin as a reason for Righteousness. that includes here. The fact of the matter is that Baptism for he dead was practiced by the saints and was not condemned but accepted. Some Examples:
Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity
Questions about baptism for the dead answered here: LEts talk about Context here, the Jews are still very much a part of the culture, and there had been a long standing disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about Resurrection of the dead. Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection, (as I was taught in primary that's why they are "sad you see" Stupid, but word association works...) and the pharaisees who did believe in Resurrection. Arguments could be like a thread on FR, (endless). Sadducees in spite of their lack of belief in the resurrection, practiced baptism for the Dead. When I went to Jerusalem in 2000, I spent a lot of time in <Qumran Fascinating place near where the Dead sea scrolls were hidden. There have been several sects who lived there in the vicinity, one was a fairly extreme sects which practiced baptism Daily, and Baptisms for the dead daily. They were Sadducees. Paul was a Pharasee who was teaching a true principle (resurrection) to Sadducees who kept a true principle (Baptism, and Baptism for the dead) and Paul used that to teach them the truth of the resurrection without angering them by saying Sadducees, he said they. Kind of like obfuscation commonly used here to avoid temper tantrums by posters.
Now, we'll go forward with your interpretation of first corrinthians:
U Said: Rather lets look at the scripture in question within its proper CONTEXT as it is CONTEXT that provides meaning to any conversation. I’ll summarize so DU doesn’t get indigestion over long posts. For those who would read the section off line, the words from verses
1 – 28 Paul is talking inclusively -us, we, you, brothers, sisters, etc
Memebers of the church...
1 Cor 15: 1&2 – Introduction to the next section of the letter with Paul reminding them of the Gospel he preached to them. Within verse two is a rebuke to those who may not have truly believe the gospel.
15:3-4 Paul reaffirms the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus
15:5-9 Paul recites the appearances of Christ to His followers after the resurrection, placing himself at the last, identifying that he once persecuted the Christians.
15:10 For it was God’s grace to Paul that he was forgiven of those sins.
15:11 Paul restates in a slightly different fashion verses 1&2, including others who preached the same gospel
15:12 Paul moves into the next phase of his argument. With the preceding verses as a foundation, he addresses the issue (immediate context of the passage) that some Christians were being swayed by someone’s teachings that there was no resurrection. Within the cultural context, the Greek culture and cult system had nothing resembling resurrection, which is why they reacted so strongly at times to Paul’s teaching. The remainder of Paul’s argument focuses upon answering this through multiple lines of attack.
Don't forget the Sadducees who Paul as a Pharisee would be diametrically opposed to, they were joining too, and trying to keep their belief in no resurrection, while still believing in Baptism for the dead...
15:13 Christ’s resurrection and the future resurrection of all the dead cannot be separated; you cannot deny one without denying the other.
15:14-19 Paul points out that if there is no resurrection, then Christ Himself wasn’t resurrected either and that he is preaching a lie and the faith of the Corinthian church was in vain. This obviously is a strawman rhetorical argument since in verses 5-9 he already gave eyewitness proof of Christ’s resurrection. So he is just following to the logical conclusion of those who taught that no one else would eventually be resurrected.
15:20-24 Paul triumphantly reinstates that Christ has indeed risen, breaking the curse of sin
15:24-28 Paul makes clear that because of the resurrection, even death will have to yield.
15:29 Paul continues with a rhetorical argument. The original makes clear that Paul did not include himself among the “people” being baptized for the dead. This is the importance of understanding the passage in context of what Paul was saying. The 28 preceding verses use inclusive terms. Only the 29th verse uses an exclusive reference.
That's in interesting opinion, the facts of the matter, however lead to a different conclusion. If as you have stated, you have studied Paul's upbringing as a Pharasee and you realize that he is speaking not to the Greeks in Corinth (who had not yet started to join the church in large numbers, but the Jews, including many Sadducees had arrived there in large numbers as many were refugees from Rome), but to the Sadducees of the area, thus his use of "What shall they do which are baptized for he Dead" was using a truth that these Sadducees that he was teaching accepted to teach a truth that they did not accept. Now that's rabbinical teaching at it's finest.
15:30-58 Paul goes into description of the resurrection and that our bodies will become like that of Christ’s. Paul closes with an encouragement that their faith and labor is not in vain, they will be resurrected if they believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
Many people have a problem that can be illustrated with the stated interpretation of this scripture this problem is the same problem some have with the LDS church. They decide that Baptism for the Dead is not a true principle, and then try to make the evidence fit their preconceived conclusion. Similarly, With the LDS, every doctrine is wrong because the church is wrong therefore whatever we say, whatever evidence we show you must be contrived, a lie or misinterpreted.
You see, I spoke of third party people, I used true principles, but who was I really speaking to? This is what Paul was doing, and I understand it perfectly.
U Said: One can quickly see that
1) Paul is not teaching or even endorsing baptism for the dead in the context of the passage.
As a pharasee talking to Sadducees, he is using a true principle they believe to teach another truth.
2) Those practicing it were outside the Christian community
Were they? Maybe he was speaking as I was earlier. (Someone here just might be wrong, and I might not be me. Who am I talking to?)
3) Every teaching Paul wrote referencing baptism was that it was for the living, not the dead.
Except here.
4) Of the 58 verses that cover the immediate context of the verse, the only exclusive wording is found in verse 29.
Because he didn't want to star the Pharasee VS. Seducee argument all over again, he wanted to talk about Jesus.
5) Paul’s teaching is in perfect agreement with Heb 9:27 “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; “ There is no opportunity for ‘baptism’ after death as the time of judgment has come and gone.
How long after Death does judgment come? Immediately? 10 seconds, a week?
Let's see what John has to say about judgment: Revelation 20:12 (Read the whole chapter, the context is cool)
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.Now, if you read Revelation 20, you can plainly see that the Judgment of men by Jesus will not come until the end of the millennium, thus we baptize for the Dead. Many there are that pray for their dead relatives, why? If you pray for your relatives, who are dead, and the judgment has already passed upon them them why are you praying? Why give last rites. I could even say:
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
What shall they do which pray over their dead if their dead be already judged and condemned, why then do they pray over the dead? Apparently, I would be excluding myself from praying over the dead, and disavowing the practice...
U Said: The cutie little interpretive method DU proposed takes the verse further out of context.
If you call me cute again, I'll have to complain about sexual harassment (just kidding)
I think I have shown that it is not out of contest at all.
I Said: Yet, even after falling away from the church, none of the witnesses ever recanted their witness of the Book of Mormon.
U Said: More stuff Mormonism has swept under the rug. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).
While Brigham did indeed say that, there is not one recorded instance of a witness repudiating his testimony.
indeed, many had hard times as a result of both their disfection with the church, and their unwillingness to withdraw support from that document which bore their testimonies. U Said: In Cowdrey’s case G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:
... Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city.... he was unanimously admitted a member thereof. At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism. (Affidavit of C. J. Keen, as quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pp.58-59)
Yet, he refused to say the visitation with the angel did not happen, and later, he rejoined the LDS.
U Said: David Whitmer never returned to the Mormon church. Toward the end of his life he was a member of the "Church of Christ"—another small group which believed in the Book of Mormon. Just before his death, Whitmer published An Address To All Believers In Christ in which he stated: If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by His own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).
He never recanted his testimony, thank you for pointing that out.
U Said: In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844, "Phineas H. Young [Brigham Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" ("Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to the Book of Mormon," 1955, p.52).
So a third party is able to recant his testimony for him? Very well, I recant your belief in Jesus, LOL!
U Said: Thus according to Young, and the three witnesses, they recanted their experience. Sorry the lds church has lied to you on this DU.
No you are lying to me about this.
A testimony is even more powerful when it is made by someone with everything to lose, and nothing to gain. The three all fell away at some point because even while away, they may have regretted Momronisem, but they knew the Book of Mormon was true, and that testimony echoes through the ages, I add my meager voice to echo theirs, I know it is true, for God told me it is his word.
I Said: LOL! "Sorry, my browser won't let me read HTML form a website that actually supports what you have said, but let me refute it anyway"
U Said: Statement of simple fact.
If you say so... Go to a library, or get Firefox.
I Said: You (again) think that prophets are infallible, God told Joseph what to say, the scribes wrote it, and the spelling, punctuation and grammar was up to them. The doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon is perfect, even if the spelling is not.
U Said: I won’t go further, your premise was destroyed in another post. It is your written church history.
LOL! fine, you may retire from the field, sir. I will hold my position.
U Said: Some are to paid to come on this forum and bash. I believe you stated earlier that you are a professional theologian, I am not, I have a day job.
U Said: I never said I was a professional theologian, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then be my guest. BTW, where’s my paycheck then.
All your talk of Four years of Seminary led me to assume... No matter, you get paid exactly the way I do, by God or not at all.
I Said: When your posts exceed reasonable sizes most here will not read....
U Said: DU, you yourself are as guiltier of this than I. Note, this is a part 2 posting for a reply that you found no difficulty burning up bandwidth with your replies and allegations. Once again, quit your crying, it is unbecoming.
Um, you are the one here assaulting my religion, you are causing these posts. I do not know and do k=not care what your religion is, I am not trying to "disprove" it and say you are not a Christian.
Pot, meet kettle.
At least I am trying to trim down.
I Said: There are have been many attacks on the Book of Mormon from an "Archeological perspective"...
U Said: As I put forth earlier, FARMS related articles are generally worthless as they are not peered reviewed.
Actually, they are, before they even get up their, just not by people you consider your peers.
U Said: Secondly, they are designed to be obfuscation to cloud matters.
Funny, and I thought they were trying to clear up the smokescreen cause by people who try to tell others what we belive without knowing it (like when someone "Refutes" an article they can't read...
U Said: Finally, I can and have said I’ve accessed FARMS website before.
Then you should spend more time there, also On http:\\www.jefflindsay.com, great sites Better yet, actually Put our religion to "The Test" instead of just talking about it, read the Book of Momrons, and pray about it, you'll learn far more that way than from some stuffy argument on a political web site.
I Said: travels of Nephi and his family through the different camp sites that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
U Said: More FARMS non-peered reviewed propaganda.
So were your posts here peer reviewed before posting? (Waah he answered my questions, Whaaah! Dere not weviewd, dere, I don't have to wisten, maby if stick my fingews in my eaws and sing...) U Said: The locations could be derived by multiple means such as using a map. That aside, the account is not geographically accurate.
That is the point, using maps available in the 1830, you'd be right, now we find if you actually go where they say they went, there is exactly what they say was there in the Book of Mormon, including the "Land bountiful, the river, all of it.
I guess it's easier to deny evidence if you refuse to look at it.
U Said: 1. There are no rivers running into the Red Sea along their route, the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, at this or any other point. There are not even any traceable ancient river systems in this part of Arabia. This part of the world was well known and well traveled in 600 BC. Had there been a river as Nephi describes, the area would have been one of the best known in the world of its day. It would have supported a sizably populated civilization, as always happened where fresh water was scarce. The mouth of such a river would have been a world-renowned port, if not a capital city, in 600 BC.
Actually, there still is a small stream now that runs year round, and a lush green area as described. But it was too "Out of the way to become a huge center, and even now is only on a few maps that were made by satellite. Such a discovery, right where Joseph says it would be is a testament to the Book of Mormon actually being what it claims, a record made by a an ancient people who were led by the hand of God to travel where they said they were led to travel.
U Said: 2. It would have been impossible for an old man (Lehi), women and children to travel the 175 mile journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in 3 days. Traveling 3 miles per hour, you would need to travel for 20 hours each day non-stop for 3 days. This would have been quite impossible.
And if they traveled at .5 miles even more impossible, LOL! You really need to read the book, and not just commentaries by anti's...
U Said: 3. They find a bountiful, fruitful land on the Persian Gulf. Alexander's troops in 330 BC avoided this as desert area.
U Said: 4. They then built a ship sufficiently seaworthy to carry them 2/3 around the world in rough seas to the west coast of America, now known as Peru. This in a area largely void of timber.
Yeah, It took a lot of wood... </Humor>
Actually, if you went to the site I listed, you would find that they found trees growing there...
U Said: Once again, when it comes to the nitty-gritty detail, the bom fall on its face and proves internally it is a fable.
ROTFLOL! When you ignore all evidence and refuse to follow links, you can declare that things fall up. Hey, bagdad bob lost his job, want to replace him? You'd be perfect.
I Said: When it comes to the America's, many artifacts and matching city-scapes have been found, although most bear Spanish names now.
U Said: Jeff Lindsey is hand in hand with FARMS and relies on them heavily, his writings are not peer reviewed. However, beyond the similarities, no indisputable links of these structures to Book of Mormon civilizations have been found. It is not as if there was warfare between tribes is was something new either – it had been going on for the whole period of man’s existence. Furthermore, nothing at these locations bear any resemblance to Hebrew or even Egyptian origin. So as far as showing me where bom cities are in the Americas (which was the original challenge), you struck out.
So, Egyptian hyroglyphs, don't count, DNA evidence doesn't count, Languages that descend don't count, what do you want pyramids? Oh wait, they have those too...
U Said: 2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
I Said: Not to my knowledge, but the inscriptions are usually scriptures, so that is not surprising, what were you expecting, Nephi was here?
U Said: More lack of evidence. No ‘Positive’ support here.
Um, I pointed out that this was an unreasonable question, I did say it was "supported", I was saying it was a dumb question, why not ask if they have found any inscriptions that say "Read the Book of Mormon" that would be just as silly as your question was.
I Said: The Lakish letters...
U Said: More non-peer review propaganda. Nibley’s original forms Lindsey’s basis for his little internet post. Nibley’s theory is decimated here: http://www.irr.org/mit/nibley.html
In short, "All of the parallels given [by Nibley] are invalid either because of a lack of a proper understanding of the Lakish Letters or because they can be explained more easily through parallels with the KJV.". Mormon obfuscation parading as proof.
I quickly read your article, on "Mormons in transition" (LOL! Peer Review, LOL!) Was exactly more of the same, Nibley takes into account specifically Accidental parallels and enumerates what and why these cannot be accidents. This guy then reads Nibleys list and says he he didn't take those things in to account.
An example, From his list of Points and refutations:
Nibley Says: "In both reports, prophets of gloom operating in and around Jerusalem are sought by the government as criminals for spreading defeatism."
Finley Says: "This is based on Torczyner’s questionable reconstruction, and a similar thing is found in the book of Jeremiah anyway."
So Finley says Nibley is Right, but not for the reasons eh thingks he is?.?.?
Hardly the hard hittign scathing rebuke, the rest is more of the same.
I Said: The Dead sea scrolls contain the name ...
I Said: References to the DSS (as well as most other archaeological ‘claims’) by mormons utilize a faulty syllogism along the lines of: "Nobody is perfect; I am a nobody; therefore I am perfect."
That's a good one, I never heard that before...
The names being in the DSS is important because one of the claims made by Anti's for years is that Lehi, and Nephi couldn't possibly be the names Hebrews living in Jerusalem because they didn't follow the Common names in the Bible, now we find other records, with those very names in them, not evidence of, but it definitely destroys "evidence against" arguments that our critic's have used in the past.
I Said: In a similar fashion the Mormons claim: "The scrolls validate the Bible; the Book of Mormon contains parts of the Bible; therefore the scrolls vindicate the Book of Mormon."
Nice try, but the scrolls cannot help but validate the Book of Mormon in some very important ways.
1) We were ridiculed for the idea that Scriptures would be buried for preservation. 2) Inclusion of books of "Scripture" not in the current Bible means we don't have all of God's word in it. (thus what we have been saying about the Bible all along is accurate.) Case in point, the DSS contain a copy of the Book of Enoch The Book of Enoch is very specific in a description of God and destroys the Trinity if it is scripture (oops Momrons were right again...). U Said: Once again, no evidence beyond speculation and faulty logic.
Yep, faulty logic </sarc>
U Said: 3. Have any any Hebrew inscriptions been found in America? The Uto-Aztecan...
I Said: Mormon linguist Stubbs he admits “While no UA [Uto-Aztecan] language shows the same level of derivation from Hebrew as Spanish does from Latin, there are still many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or derivation. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml).
U Said: Notice the wording – he compares Spanish to latin, who’s development period would be similar to the time frame associated with his theory. Secondly, though listed as about a thousand common features, this is only a trace. Stubbs’ publications have not been in peer reviewed journals.
Again with the Peer reviewed? I said pleny of evidence for Both sides, you claimed there was none on my side, now you chirp "peer reviewed" at everything I link to, then again, you didn't like what I linked from the Cahtolic encyclopedia, I guess it wasn't "peer reviewed" enough for you...
I Said: South of Albuquerque, and west of Los Lunas, New Mexico, an ancient inscription was carved into the face of a boulder centuries ago. It is the text of the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew!
U Said: Here it is straight off the pages of the Weekly World News equivalent of the internet – the best of plenty apologists – right next to the space alien shaking hands with Joseph Smith.
When the information you asked for does not confirm your precollusion (a conclusion comes after tha facts, a precollusion comes before them) A true believer dismisses any and all evidence as a hoax. what if I could show a web site, run By Jews researching ancient Hebrew that says this inscription is legitimate. Would you listen then? Well, maybe some of the lurkers will...
Here is a Quote From ancient-Hebrew.org
TheBat Creek stone unearth in Tennessee by the Smitsonians Mound survey project has been certified by the Smisonian as Hebrew (is that peer reviewed enough for you?) Admittedly, they thought it was Cherokee at first, but then proto Hebrew was not a specialty of American artifacts collectors at the time.
The above inscription is very unique for several reasons. First, it is written in an ancient Hebrew script. Second it is located near the small town of Los Lunas in the State of New Mexico, USA. Third, the inscription is of the "Ten Commandments".
Is this inscription an original or a fake. If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrew, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.
The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore indecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (pealed-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".
When we compare the script on the Los Lunas inscription with the above inscription found in 1993 at Tell Dan in the land of Israel, we find that the scripts are almost identical. Below is a comparison of the scripts from both inscriptions.
The Tel Dan inscription was written around 1000 BCE. Since the Los Lunas inscription uses the same script, it is safe to conclude that the Los Lunas inscription was written by a Hebrew people about 3,000 years ago. Other ancient Hebrew inscriptions have been found around the country including Tennessee and the Mississippi Valley. The "Archeological Outliers Homepage" includes other ancient Hebrew artifacts found in the United States. The article "Who Really Discovered America?" also includes some very interesting information on the Los Lunas inscriptions as well as other finds and includes a possible link between the Gold of Solomon and the Gold of Brazil.
How about the The Newark, Ohio Decalogue Stone and Keystone A stone found in an indean burial mound 10 miles south of Newark, which contains the Ten commandments in Hebrew letters, it was buried in a stone box (sound familiar?) The "Key stone found at the same site also has Hebrew letters on it.
I have more "UFO sightings" and they are peer rebviewed, the stones are (for the most part) available for revie2w and prove that people who spoke Hebrew were here before Columbus.
You attempt to impugn the Los luna inscription by posting the following:
The Decalogue is one of the best-known passages of the Bible and for anyone whose native tongue was Hebrew, it ought to have been all but impossible for the inscriber to make elementary errors.U Said: So why such silence from the true archaeological community, based upon the internal evidence of the writing alone and the questionable dating, Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaria scribe. The evidence for its origin is poor, but a comparison with the Bat Creek Stone suggests that it was a Mormon forgery. The ‘Mormon Battalion’, which was part of the US Army during the Mexican War, is known to have marched from Santa Fe down the Rio Grande Valley, passing close by, and it is possible that this is the date of the inscription.
The authenticity of the writing is further condemned by the inscriber’s use of what is known as a ‘caret’. This is the upside-down V placed under a piece of text where something has been missed out. Sometimes found in ancient Latin and Greek texts, it is not known in Hebrew until the Middle Ages. To make matters worse, it is above a dot that seems to be a full stop (or period); full stops did not exist in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, there are Greek letters of a slightly later date mixed in with Hebrew forms and some eccentric uses. For instance, Hebrew ? (’aleph) is treated as a vowel – the letter shape became our letter A – but in Hebrew it was a consonant; the writer muddles ? (kaph) and ? (qoph), sounds that are distinct in Hebrew but both of which are approximately rendered by English K. The inscription uses Greek d (delta), ? (zeta), ? (kappa (reversed)) and t (tau) in place of their Hebrew counterparts ? (daleth), ? (zayin), ? (kaph) and ? (taw). The greatest problem is that the inscription uses an archaic form of ? ’aleph. Also, the letters ? (yodh), ? (qoph) and ? (the flat-bottomed shin) are said to be Samaritan in form.
Tests conducted by in the 1980s George E Morehouse are said to have confirmed that it is between 500 and 2000 years old. These tests consist of measuring the polish produced on the surface of rock by wind-blown sand, the so-called ‘desert varnish’. However, the technique is highly suspect and the wide range of dates suggested by it gives rise to considerable disquiet about its accuracy. First off, it was admitted that the rock face had been altered with ‘wire brushes’. Secondly, far less was known about the process and rates of creation of desert varnish in 1980 than today, and even today there are no concise models for varnish development.
So, even though Hebrew experts say this is genuine, you say that some Mormons who were marching by (like a few hundred miles away) planted this to be found later and bolster their claims of Hebrew descended peoples in America. ROTFLOL!
If I dares to presnt such a preposterous theory with out the barest threds of support you would rightly declare me to be insane. Enjoy your precollusion, it does not even give lip service to the facts.
I Said: A modified or reformed style of Egyptian writing has been in use for many centuries by the Micmac [Mi-kmaw] Indians, of Northeastern America, a division of the Algonquin people.
U Said: Ah, so well founded was it? Truth is found here:
http://www.native-languages.org/mikmaq.htm
I said there was evidence for Both sides, you said there was not and gave me a list of things to "Prove" some items on that list were ludicrous on face of it, others you are now trying to debate with me. Maybe I did not make myself clear. I have performed a test, one prescribed in the Bible, I have an awer from God and even if some of theis stuff that i unearthed specifically just for you is inaccurate, my point is proved by you waisting time to argue it. My point was that the points made in the Book of Mormons were arguable form an archeological standpoint. and since we are arguing our respective sides based on evidence, I have won whether on not a specific point is correct. I really have no interest in rubbing your intellectual face in the dirt. just stop treating Mormons like intellectual "poor boys", many of us can beat you at your own game without even really caring, this thread is such an example. Earlier you spoke of me proving my superior intellect. The fact of the matter is that I could care less if you think my intellect superior, or not. That typo think I am proving that, is well funny. U Said: Language: The Mi'kmaq language, Mkmawsimk, is an Algonquin language spoken by 8000 Indians in the Canadian Maritimes (particularly Nova Scotia) and a few US communities. The Mi'kmaq dialect spoken in Quebec is called Restigouche (or Listuguj) and can be hard for other native speakers to understand. Mi'kmaq is written alphabetically today, but in the past it was written in pictographs. Though these pictographs were modified by Jesuit missionaries, who used them to teach Christian prayers to Micmac people, they probably predated European contact. Micmac hieroglyphic do not resemble Ancient Egyptian or Mayan hieroglyphs; see here (http://www.native-languages.org/iaq3.htm#5) for an explanation of these different writing systems. Mi'kmaq is not linguistically related to Ancient Egyptian or any other semitic languages. The Mi'kmaq language is entirely native to the New Worl d and is related to other major North American Indian languages like Lenape, Ojibwe, and Cree.
U Said: Another swing and a miss DU. Isn’t it a bummer when your sources lie to you DU? Are these the BEST that Mormonism can offer?
LOL! Google was my source, and I was supportign my assertion that evidence can be found and argued on both sides, you prove my point admirabley, and I will not try to prove yoou wrong further (I proabaly could, but to be honest, you are beginning to bore me.) since ther are authentic Hebrew inscriptions lying around, and authentic Egyptian derivatives lying around, why bother with the spoken word as proof of anything?
I Said: Why would there be? The Sacred records were handed down from one keeper to the next, they were not printed in duplicate and passed around.
I Said: Not only that, nothing that even RESEMBLES the bom has been found, in a culture that the bom states was in the millions that spread from sea to sea, with cities, and chariots, and lots of other stuff archaeologist normally find huh.
I am not aware of Millions, nor is the Sea to Shining sea an accurate depiction, but accuracy does not seem to be your strong suit.
I Said: Columbus? When he arrived, the Indians worshiped him as the Great white God who was to return someday...
u Said: Ah yes, the ‘ol Quetzequatal mythos, again. Students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim for several reasons: Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent deity, is depicted in Mesoamerican art dated several centuries before Jesus. The King Quetzalcoatl who promised to return to Mexico dated almost 1,000 years after the life of Jesus.
The Book of Mormon tells us that they had prophecies of his coming for a long time before he came... and that they had a long period of Righteousness after he did. Then his spirit withdrew as the people became wicked.
I Said: Here is a section from a web site about the ancient Americas In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilization http://www.webb.com/Starfire/native.html
U Said: Right next to the other paranormal links. You should be embarrassed to post this kind of nonsense as fact in this kind of forum. Again, nothing from an authentic peered reviewed document, journal or the like? This kind of stuff is laughable and damages you presentation rather than advance it.
Peer revied1 Peer Reviewed, he whines, you said there was no evidence. Sucks to be wrong, but you should be getting used to it. Hey, your post was not peer reviewed, therefore it does not exist... LOL!
I Said: See my earlier post on In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilization
U Said: And destroyed earlier.
I'm sorry that "Destruction" was not peer reviewed and so it does not count, LOL! Also note that I refuted the points made against my post, much like I am doing with your post here.
U Said: 9. Is there proof that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock?
U edited: American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery FARMS report not peered reviewed. That pottery may have been started earlier is not proof that native Americans are of Semitic stock, nor from a Jewish migration.
What I really said:
In the Americas, too, data have come to light about unexpected human achievements. In a critical reexamination of past research on the pottery of the Amazon basin, North American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery in that area dates much earlier than has been acknowledged before. To support her case, she has published 22 radiocarbon dates that were done at the Smithsonian laboratory between 1972 and 1986 but were never published. It seems that Amazonian pottery began between 5000 and 6000 BC (some have suggested that it came from Africa) and is now the most securely dated New World ceramic tradition, existing at least 1,000 years before the next earliest, from Colombia.U Said: Your report cited --->Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.
Furthermore, a dried-up human corpse, radiocarbon dated to around 5200 BC, has been found in northeastern Brazil, not far from the early pottery center. There was evidence that the intestinal tract of this person had been infested with hookworms. The nature of the reproductive cycle of the hookworm rules out their having reached the New World via a cold country (the Bering Strait, as is usually supposed). Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.
U Said: Your assumption: So, they found an ancient body that had a parasite that couldn't have been there unless it came by boat from the middle east...
It's called a summation, or a summary, it's something you do when you want people to read your stuff.
U Said: The following report makes it clear that the solution is fishermen from Japan or SE Asia as the hookworm originates from tropical and subtropical climates. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X1988000200006
Bwahahaha!, So it was a japanese guy instead of a Medeteranian guy so that the Book of Momrons is not true. LOL! Did you not read the word Smithsonian in my link? I guess that's not peer reviewed enough for you, is it. Besides, my point was that there was data on both sides and this could be argued, it is so I am right. (sucks to be you, again).
U Said: 10. If the BOM is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)
I Said: Um, it was recorded then as sign from God, do you expect God to always give the same signs? Are you seeking after a sign?
U Said: Bom promises this would happen – it doesn’t happen as promised. Bom is a lie.
The Book of Mormon does not promise an "immediate" whitening of the indians skin. Prove that it does, post the link.
I Said: In Joseph's day, "Archaeologists" laughed at the idea that Gold plates might be buried as a way to preserve a record...How about, another set of Gold plates having been buried as a way to preserve records? Unique book goes on display
U Said: So what. Found copper scrolls at the DSS site. Doesn’t prove bom authenticity one bit. See the faulty syllogism above FARMS debunks the idea that they were gold, did you know that. We know that gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Given the dimensions by Smith, some have concluded that the plates could have weighed as much as 234 pounds to as little as 100 pounds. Try to run like Smith did carrying 100lbs, hah. The heavier weight is based on what would probably be the total weight of a solid block of gold measuring the size of Smith's plates. The FARMS' article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph's brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.
So what? So time after time, point after point those who ridicule the story as told by Joseph are proved wrong, other Gold plates unearth, proto Hebrew, that was not translatable found in america, and later when it can be read found to be the Ten commandments. People with Egyptian descended language, hookworms that had to come by Boat (people said it couldn't be done back then, but science proves that it was done by somebody) at some point you have to say. Huh, if the Book of Mormon was a fake then why is archeology helping it out, either Joseph Smith was the luckiest faker there ever was with the ability to predict the discovery of Chiasmus, and the strip of land called bountiful, Naholm, and other unknown places in the middle east, a great guesser as to non Hebraic sounding names that would later be found in the DSS, and proved to be authentic names, actual Hebrew sentence structures in the Book of Mormon, or he was a prophet of God.
Occam's razor says that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", or basically the simpleist solution is probably the best one. Joseph bing a prophet is the simpleist solution to all this.
U Said: Despite the effort from FARMS to change LDS history, it appears that the tumbaga theory is not being taken too seriously. As recently as May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled "Hands-on opportunity." Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, "He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit."
What ever, I have run carrying 400 Pounds of feed on my shoulders while in high school and when I was working on a farm. Joseph was a farm boy... I wish I was still in that good of shape now.
I Said: The Book of Mormon speaks of the use of Cement by the ancient Americans Helaman 3:9-11
U Said: Non-Mormon Mayan scholar Michael Coe wrote:
"Moreover, the Maya of the lowlands had discovered as far back as Mamom times that if limestone fragments were burnt, and the resulting powder mixed with w ater, a white plaster of great durability was obtained. And finally, they quickly realized the structural value of a concrete-like fill made from limestone rubble and marl." (The Maya, Michael D. Coe, 1980 ed., Thames and Hudson Inc., p.57)
Yep, That's the people from the Book of Mormon...
U Said: But this hardly sounds like Helaman 3:7—"...the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell."
Actually, many of the structures in South america are so well done that we cannot reproduce them to this day.
I Said: How about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?
U Said: I deflated the Chiasmus argument in an earlier post. It is found in multiple cultures and languages and not solely Hebrew. Therefore it is not a proof to bom in the slightest.
Deflated, chuckle, Chiasmus as a structure in Hebrew was unknown in Joseph's day, so how did he know to include something that would be discovered later?
Simple, he was actually translating a work written by a Hebrew speaking people. (Occam's razor)
I Said: Like I said before, you will be able to trot out some beleagered "expert" to refute my experts, so no one can know form "Expert testimony" who to believe here. If you really think about it, what's at stake, possibly your soul...
U Said: It would seem that your ‘experts’ are the beleaguered ones LOL.
"You'd like to think that wouldn't you!" - Princess bride.
Look Vincini, just by entering into this argument, you have lost, I poisoned both glasses, and I am immune. Enjoy! your moment of perceived victory, but I can only spare a moment, so hurry it up.
Remember my postulate is that there is enough evidence on both sides to argue with, so I have already won because we are indeed "arguing" it.
U Said: The Bible, a book that has been substantiated archaeologically dozens upon dozens of times, has shown to be trustworthy. The bom calls itself a superior testimony. We have explored that testimony from many angles.
Funny, I have read many times that Archologists do not go by the Bible, but ignore it as inaccurate for their purposes. Oh well, having already won, I'll not start a new argument.
U Said: 1. The author is a convicted man of shady character, who cannot give the story of his revelation (first vision) the same way, but gives multiple accounts and contradictions.
The Shady Character and Convictions things were said Of Jesus, the story the same way can also be said of the Bible. A List of Biblical Contradictions These don't bother me in the Bible, so Joseph telling the same story a bit differently to different audiences does not bother me either.
U Said: 2. The theology of Mormonism is polytheistic – worshiping multiple gods.
So you say, but we've been here before, I guess you think if you repeat a failed argument often enough, it'll suddenly succeed. Good luck with that.
U Said: 3. The prophet Smith taught a wide range of doctrines that are uncomfortable to modern Mormons because it exposes the flaws of their belief system. However, the supreme council of Mormonism – the general authorities – continue to endorse and promulgate these teachings.
So, I suppose you are "Cool" with the inquisition, and the sale of indulgences? (since the catholic church cannot be wrong, they still technically believe in these once held doctrines...) (My apologies to any Catholics who read this, it was just too good an example to pass up.)
U Said: 4. The bom was dictated on almost a letter-by-letter basis with the translation stopping if the scribe copied it down incorrectly (plenty history). The plenty church documents that there were only minor typeset errors. With those accounted for, thousands of changes have been made, with significant changes as recent as 1964.
Already Debunked and refuted.
Why then does there exist the manuscript marked up by Joseph after the translation was done? Obviously the Cannonized version is the correct one word for word, not letter by letter. It's an understandable mistake for someone to make later.
U Said: 5. The changes in the bom were made without the ability to consult the ‘gold’ plates. No justification for the changes in light of the original plate MS is given.
Joseph marked up the manuscript himself and corrected things that he could not "correct" while the translation was ongoing.
U Said: 6. The bom claims that millions of Jews occupied America for a substantial number of years and built large cities. Such activity should have left considerable amounts of relics for evaluation. As seen in this post, these so called ‘relics’ are frauds and poor scholarship that is grasping at straws.
The relics exist, and have been "peer reviewed" and authenticated in some cases by the "Smithsonian" Jewish groups study them. Desperation is a poor cologne, and you can smell it for a half a mile...
U Said: 7. The inspired writings of Smith (Book of Abraham) do have one extant MS – the Smith papyri. His notes and hand written ‘translation’ leave very little room to say that he used some other papyrus. The true translation of the papyri is completely different from Smith’s ‘translation. It is a pagan prayer for the dead.
We covered this, the Book of the dead you say the Book of Abraham was indeed purchased at the same time, but it does not match the description of the scroll actually translated into the Book of Abraham.
I Said: Is it worth the risk?
U Said: Yes, is it worth the risk? Internally and externally, the bom is a fraudulent fairy tale. Since the book itself is a lie, one must consider the validity of the spiritual message contained therein. Should such a flawed, fraudulent book, be the basis to place one’s salvation in? Should such a contorted maze that is Mormonism, with its polythiesm, bizarre secret hidden rituals and Gnostic-like knowledge quest be a part of a ChristianÂ’s life? These teaching of Mormonism are not compatible with what Jesus and the apostles taught. You want to bet your (eternal) life, bet your life on the Jesus of Christianity, not the Jesus of Mormonism.
Even this simple question becomes convoluted in your retelling. Lurkers, I encourage you to "put it to the test"
Follow the command of the Scriptures ask god that you may obtain a testimony of Jesus' life and mission as I have. Pray for a testimony of the Book of Mormon as well to gain a knowledge that no archeologist can equal. Yes, ask God for both of us can't be right, and it's possible that Both of us are wrong, God knows what is right, and after he has told you, of what use are words?