Posted on 05/03/2009 9:24:54 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Goodness, this must be an example of Protestant ideas of playing by the rules.
Here is another, physical record of the Hebrews entering the land of Canaan - along the same timeline as the other links
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/el-amarna-letters.html
Also interesting
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/moses.htm
Big difference in between ‘proving’ a single individual versus an entire civilization.
Uh, uh, uh ... Bwahahahahaha
ROFLOL 2x.
There IS no evidence for the BoM. It is a fable just like the PGP.
Then PROVE IT.
Thank you ‘zilla for posting that link.
Big difference in between ‘proving’ a single individual versus an entire civilization.
- - - — - - -
Exactly. There is no proof of any of the civilizations in the BoM. Sadly, too many people have too much invested to open their eyes.
You and I clearly won’t agree on the nature and origin of the JST, but before you go casting stones our direction over that perhaps some research into how the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) was mysteriously added to the Biblical text. Would you think it reasonable to argue against any trinitarian Christian being involved because of that?
Like I said before, the guy got the job on his merits. If he lacked the ability to be objective, he wouldn’t have gotten the job. And there would be Hebrew scholars disagreeing with the end result for one reason or another no matter who was the editor, that is what scholars do.
ROTFLAICGU, really grig that is a pretty lame defense of the Jst if I have ever heard one. You want to hear something even more funny - your exalted prophet left the "comma" in the JST. Wow, imagine that - God told smith to leave the trinitarian part in.
Fables are things like tannerites and sermons from baptist preachers.
I didn’t try defending the JST in my post, I didn’t want to get off topic like that so I only acknowledged the fact that we disagree about it and pointed out that the standard you want to apply to us doesn’t exactly work in your favour when applied to traditional Christianity. A point you neglected to address in your reply I noticed.
It also seems from your reply that you are unaware that the JST was still a work in progress when Joseph died, which is why it is not part of our cannon of scripture. There are likely several things in there that should still be corrected. Rather different than sneaking something into the text of an existing translation and hoping nobody catches on.
#1...Joseph Smith was repeatedly COMMANDED by the Mormon god to translate AND PUBLISH the JST...See D&C 35:20; 42:56-57; 45:57-62. These Mormon god commandments were all supposedly given 1830-1831. Smith died in 1844. He had 14 years to fulfill this commandment. So are telling us with a frank face that your founding "prophet" directly disobeyed the Mormon god?
#2...Is the D&C still a "work in progress" (yes or no?)
Since you & other lds usually refrain from consistently responding to me, I'll go ahead & comment -- depending upon which you answer:
If you answer "yes" -- then what's the difference between the D&C & Jst? If both are a "work in progress" -- then how can the D&C be deemed "canon" but the Jst is just reduced to mere footnote status?
If you answer "no" -- that the D&C is a "finished work" -- then you're guilty of what LDS accuse Christians of all the time -- having a closed revelational canon.
I guess you're stuck, Grig. You've boxed yourself in re: your own catch-22...you're philosophical, theologically, and worldview-wise inconsistent no matter how you try to dialogue your way out of this.
What amazes me is that many here can mind read and state things not as opinions but as a fact or a truth which is done often on RF.
When that is done it shows that they break the 9th commandments with out blinking many times a day.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (Lie)
There is no way that Smith could be held to the same standard - since he is unable to translate Greek or Hebrew texts from which the KJV was translated from. His JST is a spurious translation. Fact is we have the Greek MS in greater numbers and qualities now. The Johnnine Comma has been known about for a very long time now and in most translations appears as a foot note.
It also seems from your reply that you are unaware that the JST was still a work in progress when Joseph died, which is why it is not part of our cannon of scripture.
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. On the second day of February, 1833, they finished the work of correcting the New Testament record. Six months to a day, on July 2, 1833, the Old Testament was finished according to a letter which was written by Joseph Smith from Far West back to Kirtland to the saints there. So much for the history and record of the production of the Inspired Version! The NT, in which the Johnnane comma is located was finished 6 months before the OT. Perhaps you need study up on your own history before insunating that it was inserted deviously into the scripture.
Not part of your canon - lol - yep, that other mormon group - RLDS has it. But lds inc. does have an authorized copy that uses it abundantly for footnotes. More lame excuses.
How sad. I expect you already know that the existence of the JST shows that Joseph did obey God to the extent he was able to. I expect you know you are going to die before you become perfect as Christ commanded and that you too will leave many good things unfinished. I expect you know that the parts Joseph said were ready for publication have been canonized as the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith - Matthew 24. I expect you also know what the difference is between an open cannon and an unfinished work.
Your loaded questions and useless mind reading were in vain.
What he said was "I completed the translation and receiving of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.
It wasn't that IT was finished, it was that HE was finished working on it for the time being.
Likewise, the quote from the letter is:
"We are exceedingly fatigued owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father, and sat immediately down to answer your letters."
Now when you sit down for supper and finish eating, does that mean you will never eat again? No. The context here indicates that they (Joseph and Sidney) were tired, did some work of translating, then stopped and wrote the letter. It wasn't that there was nothing more to be done, they had just finished for the day with working on it.
There were times after these dates where he talked about things that still needed to be fixed addressed, or about his desire to get back to working on it. Your comments also indicate that you think he went through it page by page when in fact he jumped around all over the place because he was going by topics. Just the fact that he didn't send it for publication is enough by itself to justify our assertion.
And there just seems something kind of strange about attacking us for having the JST and then attacking us again for not making it cannon. Make up your mind for crying out loud!
Also, I'm sorry you think I was only insinuating that the Johnnane comma was inserted deviously, I meant to declare outright that such was the case. And even so, I wouldn't be the least bit bent out of shape if it was a Catholic or Protestant that was picked for the job. Anybody who likes the idea of religious profiling to keep Mormons out of some jobs, shouldn't get to surprised if the government decides it likes the concept of religous profiling too to keep traditional Christians 'in their place'.
Complete means complete Grig, there is no part of it or finished for the time being from the words.
We this day finished the translating of the scriptures,
Finished means finished, if they had meant for the 'day' they could easily have said do. All the weasel wording in the world doesn't get around the facts of the matter.
Also, I'm sorry you think I was only insinuating that the Johnnane comma was inserted deviously, I meant to declare outright that such was the case. And even so, I wouldn't be the least bit bent out of shape if it was a Catholic or Protestant that was picked for the job.
Then I'm sure you are able to cite a specific manuscript, letter document that identifies the this fact (crickets)
Your comments also indicate that you think he went through it page by page when in fact he jumped around all over the place because he was going by topics. Just the fact that he didn't send it for publication is enough by itself to justify our assertion.
I don't care if he said he did it on his head - cite for me where it is documented in mormon historical papers that he went topic by topic. . . . . .
Kinda hard to get it published when you have yourself shot. . . . .
Blew off 'God' for 14 years - plenty of time to 'finish' the translation as he said he did.
Anybody who likes the idea of religious profiling to keep Mormons out of some jobs, shouldn't get to surprised if the government decides it likes the concept of religous profiling too to keep traditional Christians 'in their place'.
Need a klenex? Does harkening back to the days of the Danites do it to you
How leaky of a lamentable & lame response, Grig. Surely, if you would have taken the time to read at least two of the three D&C passages I mentioned, would you have even bothered to respond as you did? Please note especially the highlighted words!
Let's start with D&C 42:56-57: Thou shalt ask, and my scriptures shall be given as I have appointed, and they shall be preserved in safety; And it is expedient that thou shouldst HOLD THY PEACE CONCERNING THEM, AND NOT TEACH THEM UNTIL UNTIL YE HAVE RECEIVED THEM IN FULL.
Grig, what does "in full" mean?
Does it mean "partial?" "Piecemeal?" "Fragments?" "One chapter?" Only a token NT presentation -- Matthew 24? [And, pray tell, do you only "teach" by speaking? Or do people actually learn by reading -- whether it be a Bible chapter or school curricula?]
D&C 45:60-61: And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, UNTIL THE NEW TESTAMENT BE TRANSLATED, and in it all these things shall be made known; Wherefore I give unto you that ye may NOW TRANSLATE IT, that ye may be prepared for the things to come...
Grig, tell us, what does "NOW" mean if a god told you "NOW" in 1831? Does "NOW" mean "almost?" Gave it the old college try? It was on Smith's "to do" list for 13 years straight?
Grig, the Mormon god is telling Joseph Smith in 1831 that he may "NOW" "re-translate" the ENTIRE New Testament. Not fragments. Not a solo chapter. He gave him 13 years to do it. The Mormon god's purpose? "...the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things may be known." Why apparently, the Mormon god wanted all of the "re-translated" NT to be made known. (If you say that's still all a "work in progress," why, I guess...)
(a) ...we've got a frustrated Mormon god then; and
(b) ...we have a disobedient Joseph Smith who also then wasn't further qualified to even say a single word about the end times from that point on.
Why is that? Because, apparently, the Mormon god told Smith ...it shall not be given unto you to KNOW ANY FURTHER concerning this chapter, UNTIL THE NEW TESTAMENT BE TRANSLATED (D&C 45:60) -- and the context was end-times content.
(You're not going to tell us that Smith never tried to elaborate about the end times -- beyond what was already shared in D&C 45 -- from that point on -- or didn't rewrite the book of Revelation after 1831, are you? If Smith didn't re-"translate" the entire NT, how could he even comment on end-times stuff again? He had already been told it shall not be given unto you to know any further..." -- unless he finished the NT. So if that was the case, why was he pontificating about end-times stuff post 1831? I guess he must then have been speaking strictly as a human -- a false prophet, then, if he represented it as from god any time beyond 1831 that addressed end-times stuff -- anything not already covered in D&C 45...if indeed, he didn't finish the NT.)
I expect you also know what the difference is between an open cannon and an unfinished work.
Well, thou priestholder, why shouldst more recent lds "prophets" hold thy peace and fail to finish thou "re-translated" NT -- if thy work is only a "work in progress?" (IOW, why you do you automatically assume this "re-translated" NT couldn't qualify as an "open canon?" What pre-emptive strike of your priestholder authority designates it as a non-open canon? If "prophets" can re-visit published revelation, and change it, like Smith did, what then earmarks it as a "closed" canon? It's "closed" just because you say so? What? Your Mormon god can't go back & order your current "prophet" to "finish" the re-translation? Has simple logic left you?)
Oh, and BTW, why does Joseph Smith import the Mormon god speaking in King James language in the D&C in 1831?.."shouldst"..."thou" -- you do know, don't you, that it couldn't be just for accommodation purposes since people spoke closer to us today in 1831, 178 years later -- than they spoke across the waters in 1611 -- 220 years prior to Smith writing this stuff. They didn't speak to one another in thees and thous and thys beyond Bible-reading or Bible-reading quotations. If these KJ language stuff was showing up as supposed "fresh" revelation in 1831, doesn't it ever make you wonder if it was in the original gold plates as well?
And if it was, what was 1611 language doing in B.C. times?
And if it wasn't, why did Smith put it there?
Why was Smith continually stuffing King James language into the mouth of the Mormon god, whether it was supposedly 600 B.C., or 1831?
Is the Mormon god of pre-ancient history addicted to 17th-century language? (Maybe he only wears 17th-century clothes as well?)
Or could it just possibly be that Smith knew that if he didn't sound Bible authentic, he might be treated like a L. Ron Hubbard novel?
The way you interrogate, you seem to play the role of devil’s advocate very well!
In reality Joseph Smith and all the rest of the Lord servants wait on the Lord before moving forward not when some antagonist thinks or how it should be.
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.