Posted on 11/11/2009 11:41:08 AM PST by GonzoII
Really? What proof do you have of that?
(yikes)
You have me at a loss Kosta, for you seem to be playing the atheist game yet you keep an Orthodox Ping list and seem to respond in Orthodox/Catholic threads as a follower of the good faith.
Of course it maybe that you have not presented counter arguments just refutation of others points.
Perhaps some clarity on your perspective could be helpful.
Can't we ever just get a straight answer minus the deceptive spin from you lds apologist types?
I guess I'll use this opportunity to show lurkers & others exactly how an lds apologist likes to twist things ever so slightly:
Note Alan2's use of the word "today" re: the "many DIFFERENT versions of the Bible" & hence, the supposed need for Mormonism's qualification about the trustworthiness of the Bible.
What Alan2 doesn't mention is that this qualification/caveat of Mormonism was developed in 1842 -- not "today" as he says -- 1842 when the KJV was "THE standard." Sorry, Alan2, there weren't a whole lot of English Bible versions in wide-open circulation in 1842.
And the Bible it self says that it is not complete.
If so, so what? The Book of Mormon isn't "complete."
Does then the Mormon Articles of Faith add that same qualifier to the Book of Mormon?
The Doctrines & Covenants supposedly aren't "complete".
Same qualifier added there?
And tell us, what does completeness or lack of it have to do w/what's been translated already, anyway?
Are you capable of straight answers? Or are you just going to continue rambling re: 21st & 20th century versions of the Bible or "incompleteness" of the Scriptures -- all of which had absolutely NOTHING to do w/my original comment?
The reason why the Book of Mormon does not have a qualifier is that it was written and abridged by prophets and then translated into English by the power of God by a Prophet. Where as the KJV of the Bible in 1842, although written by Prophets and Apostles, it was compiled and translated by those who were not Apostles/Prophets. Even if the translator is competent and unbiased, mistakes can be made. Thus the need for the qualifier.
Given the number of edits in the BOM over the years, either the “prophets” have a short circuit in the connection to god or god can’t make up his mind about what he is trying to say...
Your protestations aside, the boa (and smith) say otherwise. Facsimile 1 was, by their account, attached to the scroll from which smith translated the boa. The rest of the papyri (the 'sensen' pieces), by papyrologists (specialists in the reconstruction of papyrus scrolls), were shown to both mormon and non-mormon egyptologists, to be all one. Facsimiles 1 and 3 are copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri. The CORRECTLY translated text of the boa papyri (sensen parts) are right between the two figures - as they are in hundreds of other breathing prayer scrolls. I have already pointed out that it is apparent Smith used the sensen papyri portions for his translation as well as his 'reconstruction' of facsimile 2. Furthermore- you First Presidency has yet to support your claim that this is NOT the scroll smith used - only non-authorized apologists.
But that still doesn't let you off the hook. The three facsimiles are not even translated anywhere near correctly. This was evident even in 1912 -
For example, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York explained: "The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes' study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture." (F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 27)
As at the very least, smiths spurious translations of the facsimilies prove, only a bogus prophet produces such bogus translations.
And you are assuming that (1) Peter didn't write it (2) it is not inspired and infallable and (3) it is false.
And you are assuming that (1) Peter didn't write it (2) it is not inspired and infallable and (3) it is false.
Well, for one who told me that you don't believe Jesus even existed or even died and was resurrected, you've essentially told me you aren't interested to begin with.
Yet we can go back to the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts to evaluate WHAT was being translated. There is no mystical, magical gobbly gook as with mormonism when it comes to translation. Yet smith had the 'power of God' to make his translation and yet there are over 4000 changes that have been made to it over the years - all without being able to go back to the gold plates for clarification.
The Greek/Hebrew manuscripts are still copies of copies of copies. They are not the originals written by the Apostles.
Then why doesn't the Lds church distribute all those supposed "corrected" mistakes via commercials? Why has the Lds church advertised & given away free copies of the KJV Bible -- a Bible Mormons think is mistake-prone -- instead of Smith's supposedly corrected JST version? [Doesn't it make sense that if you have the mistake-prone version of something; and then you get a so-called "corrected" version by your founding "prophet," that you'll go w/the "latter" if you're a "latter-day saint?"]
The reason why the Book of Mormon does not have a qualifier is that it was written and abridged by prophets and then translated into English by the power of God by a Prophet.
So that's why there's been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon since 1830? ('Cause it was "translated into English by the power of God"???) Ya wanna tell us why the "power of God" failed to be evident in so many 1830 Book of Mormon ways?
1 Nephi 11:21, 32: Words "even the Son" and "the Son of God" were missing, changing the plain meaning of those verses.
2 Nephi 30:6: The Mormon "god's power" put down "white" in the "gold plates" -- later Book of Mormon editors thought that both the gold plates and god's power was wrong -- and changed it to "pure".
Mosiah 21:28: The gold plates, Smith's translation, & the "power of the mormon god" all agreed that "Benjamin" was to be here. The problem? Book of Mormon post-published editors realized, uh, Benjamin died in the narrative according to Mosiah 6:5. So is this a resurrected Benjamin? (Doesn't God have the power to resurrect who he wants?) Why did Lds editors diss God's power, bring into question Smith's "translation" power & ability -- not to mention common proofreading, etc?
Alma 41:8: This verse says the "decrees of God are unalterable" [well then why have BoM editors made the Book of Mormon "alterable" 4,000 plus times?]
An example of a BoM mistake NOT YET changed by later BoM editors:
1 Nephi 22:20: Says he is quoting Moses but in reality is quoting Peter -- before the book of Acts was even written...before these events even took place!
Shall I go on? Bottom line, Nephi (1 Nephi 13:39) seemed to think that the Bible is translated correctly (And then, behold, other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate.) So why do Lds question it today?
Copying is not the same as translating my friend. Smith translated facsimiles 1, 2 & 3, and real Egyptologists have, ever since the Rosetta stone was worked out, proven that his translation was bogus. 4000 plus changes to the bom - where is the documentation to support the changes in the translation.
See, smith (you know - the prophet) claimed claimed that all three "facsimiles" were related to the BoA---but in fact, they all deal with ancient Egyptian funerary rites.
Why haven't your past and current living prophet and seer solved this mystery for us once and for all? Why haven't they not asked the Lord why the translation of the BOA by Egyptologists does not match what Joseph said they did? Has revelation ceased?
Or perhaps it is that Min is the mormon 'god'
I am not making any claims. You are. The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you are going to present something as "evidence," I have every right to expect some proof that the evidence you present is credible. So far all I see are presumptions. In that case, we can earnestly discuss pink unicorns on Jupiter, shall we?
I wouldn't be asking you if I were not interested. I always give others the benefit of the doubt. So, what proof do you have?
Of which you are not exempt from as well. So talk away.
Was Jesus a real person in history.
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.