“Ok please explain to all of us how the Bible which is 2000 years old has any kind of a tie in to the book of Mormon, from the 1800’s, thereby validating the book as a legitimate addition to the original Bible.”
What happened to ‘keep it to yourself’? :)
First, I think you misunderstand what the Book of Mormon is. We do not see it as an addition to the Bible, it is a separate book of scripture that also testifies of Christ.
Second, you seem to think along the lines that if the Bible doesn’t mention it, it doesn’t exist. Well the Bible doesn’t talk about I-pods, hair gel, ball point pens, and many other things we know exist. The validity of the Book of Mormon is not determined by whether or not the Bible talks of it, it is determined by witness of the Spirit of God that comes to those who read it and earnestly strive to find out from God through prayer if it is true or not. God doesn’t lie.
Be that as it may, there are parts of the Bible that speak of the Book or Mormon or of the peoples in it. In Ezek 37 you will read of a prophecy about the stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah. We take the reference to stick to indicate a record (a scroll wrapped around a stick, or a stick used to write in a wax tablet). The stick of Judah then is the Bible, scripture that comes to us from the the descendants of Judah. The stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon, scriptures that came to us from people descended from Joseph.
Christ also spoke of having ‘other sheep’ besides the Jews who would also hear his voice. The Book of Mormon records Christ telling the those people that they are those other sheep:
John 10
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
3 Nephi 15
21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.
23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.
24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.
Lastly, the Book of Mormon is not from the 1800’s, that is just when it was translated and published. It is a record of people who lived in the Americas mainly from 600BC to 400AD.
“Looking into this from the outside you Mormons need to realize how the whole issue seems to be a lot of mumbo-jumbo to normal Christians.”
There is a lot of disinformation out there that often misleads people into seeing us as being different than what we are.
You conman false prophet was concerned enough about a lack of him in the Bible, he rewrote the Bible to include fabricated prophecies of his coming ‘in these latter days.’ And that’s information from your LDS site, BTW. But rewriting the Bible to include thousands of words not in the Hebrew is okay to a cult such as Mormonism. Scoff and ridicule and condescend at the opposition to your cult, your own source materials expose the truth about your cult and thus expose the flaw in Mittster’s spiritual capacity.
It no longer surprises me when a Mormonism follower posts a scripture verse out of Bible context claiming it authorizes the idiocies and heresies at the heart of Mormonism. The passage from John was spoken to Jews, Jesus’s disciples at the time, not yet of the Church, and Jesus was speaking of the Church age when gentiles would be brought into the Grace of God. But keep up the cultish dissembling and twisting, you make good education for those unaware of the demonic nature in Mormonism’s foundations.
You killed off any credibility you had labored to find with the Bible passages that ever so vaguely address Mormonism. The party line was that it was translated from golden plates that John Smith just happened to dig up in his back yard with the aid of a seer stone and a toad and a Moronic angel. These plates were engraved in something called Reformed Egyptian. (That out to give you pause since Egyptians were Idol worshiping Pagans!)
Natives of the Americas had no written language that could in any way be tied to the writings in the B of M. So the story gets more fanciful that Egyptians came over the Atlantic and imbued the primitives with their language and writing. And out of that the Indians were to derived Reformed Egyptian, no less, and the rustic well digger John Smith was able to translate a language he had no acquittance of and put it all into a book.
How can anyone with an iota of intelligence take all this as anything but a very tall fairy tale ?