The most damaging evidences of the fraud of the Book of Mormon (redux)

[proveallthings]

Yes it is possible and even probable that Joseph could see what none other could see and was hidden from them, just as Elisha.

Why?

Why Not?

I read in Colossians 1:25, "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God." This word "Fulfil" in Strong's Concordance is: fill, be full, complete, and end.

I’m trying to understand your inference here. Is it that you interpret this verse as saying that Paul, in fulfilling the word of God, put an end to the coming forth of the word of God from any other prophet or apostle. Is that what you are saying?

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." I see nothing here prophesying further scripture.

This is an interesting statement. Paul, in explaining the value of scripture to Timothy, was, of course, referring to the scripture they had at that time -- that which would have been considered by Timothy to be scripture. None of which would have included any of what we now call the New Testament. The only writings considered to be scripture by Christians at the time of the writing of this letter would have been those we know of now as the Old Testament. So I’m confused as to what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the Old Testament is the only set of writings we should consider to be scripture? Please help me understand.

 

[proveallthings]

Yes it is possible and even probable that Joseph.....

These are code-words for "There is no evidence, so I am using that as a life preserver..."

I was only trying to be subtle here in order to avoid the appearance of promoting Mormonism.

 

[proveallthings]

And there is no evidence from the text that these people forgot Hebrew. Rather, it says their language gradually evolved over several hundred years to be different than anything we would recognize today. There is still, however, much evidence from the translated text of the Book of Mormon of Hebrew influence.

Well, it seems to me that Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Bible, and along with it, plagiarized some of the mistakes of the King James Bible.

“pla·gia·rized
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.â€

Since Joseph Smith never claimed the Book of Mormon to be a work of his own, how can any of it qualify as plagiarizing? If it is okay for New Testament writers to quote the Old Testament, why is it not okay for the Book of Mormon writers to quote from it? That is where most of this is from. The parts that mirror the New Testament are where Jesus is teaching the same lessons to the people in the Americas that He taught in Jerusalem. Where it applied, some of the same wording was used from the Bible most familiar to the people in Joseph Smith’s time. Why couldn’t God have used this method to bring familiarity and connection to the two accounts?
Using the word plagiarizing is an exaggeration of the worst kind. But if you believe it to be a fraud, the idea of claiming the Book of Mormon to be actual scripture from God is so much more scandalous than merely plagiarizing, I don’t know why one would go to the effort of this obvious false accusation.

When you create a new religion by plagiarizing the King James Bible, the Hebrew gets further lost in the mix.

Anyone who studies the claims by LDS scholars of hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, will know that they have no connection to the quotes from the Old Testament. For a good introduction to Book of Mormon linguistics, check out this short video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7920HLmknNQ

 

[By Grace]

I was only trying to be subtle here in order to avoid the appearance of promoting Mormonism.

I did not accuse you of promoting Mormonism; instead, I accused you of stating that you did not know about something in a deceptive manner. There is a huge difference in the two.

No matter how thinly anyone slices the loaf, there is pure bologna in the Book of Mormon, and there is nothing that corresponds to reality in it. THAT is my point, and will be my point forever until someone produces things I can see and feel that exactly correspond to what is in the BoM, and validates that convoluted, and highly improbable stuff in it.

 

[By Grace]

“pla·gia·rized to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.” Since Joseph Smith never claimed the Book of Mormon to be a work of his own, how can any of it qualify as plagiarizing?

The title page of the BoM should suffice as the proof of plagiarism:
"An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi"

The inference is clear: Whatever is in the book comes from the "Plates of Nephi" Therefore Nephi wrote some parts of the King James Bible, especially some chapters of Isaiah. What do you think Jesus would say about that? Would that not be an endorsement of the BoM if it were a true statement?

If it is okay for New Testament writers to quote the Old Testament, why is it not okay for the Book of Mormon writers to quote from it?

Quoting something is far different from plagiarizing; however one of the reasons for that NT quoting the OT is to demonstrate how the prophetic events of the OT are exactly fulfilled in the NT, which was written several centuries later. Nothing like that can be said of anything in the BoM.

You are also making a logical error, and that is the comparison of unequals. To refer back to a passage in the ON by refering to the author, or using a phrase or two is entirely different than the whole quoting of chapters in the book of Isaiah. Being generous, there is no quote in the NT where it quotes the OT where it exceeds 15 words in a single shot. To quote whole chapters of Isaiah, means the lifting of thousands upon thousands of words, and claiming them to be "taken from the "plates of nephi" is either an outright lie, or a blatant plagiarism.

That is where most of this is from. The parts that mirror the New Testament are where Jesus is teaching the same lessons to the people in the Americas that He taught in Jerusalem.

That is utter fabrication, and since there is zero references to it in the OT it is adding things to Scripture that are not there.

Using the word plagiarizing is an exaggeration of the worst kind.

Not if it is the ACCURATE description of something, then is the truth, which many LDS people find inconvenient.

But if you believe it to be a fraud, the idea of claiming the Book of Mormon to be actual scripture from God is so much more scandalous than merely plagiarizing, I don’t know why one would go to the effort of this obvious false accusation

Let's not get overly sensitive here; instead make the case from empirical facts. You should notice that you have supplied us with nothing excepting mere rhetoric to support your case. The case for Bible Christianity is easilly supported through fulfilled prophecy, and unearthed artifacts that leave empirical records of what God did in the past. Heck, there is no record of where Cumorah is exactly, so your guys at Maxwell had to come up with the "Second Cumorah theory" in order to obfuscate the fact that there is no evidence in my back yard, or any place around Palmayra to substantiate the BoM.

Anyone who studies the claims by LDS scholars of hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

a what??? The OT is written in Hebrew, not in so-called "hebraisms". All that nonsense is a preposterous grasp at straws in order to give a non-existent set of circumstances a sense of legitimacy. What you are neglecting here is IF the Jews went to the Arabian Penninsula,and crossed 8000 miles of open ocean, how do you get around the fact that they were highly literate, and the fathers were directed to teach the sons the Hebrew Scripture from an early age?

By now, you must see that it is quite impossible to defend anything in the BoM. It is not that you have any facts, and that Christians are blind. Rather it is that you have NO FACTS,and that when you are shown the facts supporting the NT, and the utter absence of any fact to support the BoM, you guys are blind. I wish it were not so, but that is an accurate statement

 

[VirginShallConceive]

The title page of the BoM should suffice as the proof of plagiarism:
"An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi"

The inference is clear: Whatever is in the book comes from the "Plates of Nephi" Therefore Nephi wrote some parts of the King James Bible, especially some chapters of Isaiah. What do you think Jesus would say about that? Would that not be an endorsement of the BoM if it were a true statement?



Quoting something is far different from plagiarizing; however one of the reasons for that NT quoting the OT is to demonstrate how the prophetic events of the OT are exactly fulfilled in the NT, which was written several centuries later. Nothing like that can be said of anything in the BoM.

You are also making a logical error, and that is the comparison of unequals. To refer back to a passage in the ON by refering to the author, or using a phrase or two is entirely different than the whole quoting of chapters in the book of Isaiah. Being generous, there is no quote in the NT where it quotes the OT where it exceeds 15 words in a single shot. To quote whole chapters of Isaiah, means the lifting of thousands upon thousands of words, and claiming them to be "taken from the "plates of nephi" is either an outright lie, or a blatant plagiarism.



That is utter fabrication, and since there is zero references to it in the OT it is adding things to Scripture that are not there.

Using the word plagiarizing is an exaggeration of the worst kind.

Not if it is the ACCURATE description of something, then is the truth, which many LDS people find inconvenient.

But if you believe it to be a fraud, the idea of claiming the Book of Mormon to be actual scripture from God is so much more scandalous than merely plagiarizing, I don’t know why one would go to the effort of this obvious false accusation

Let's not get overly sensitive here; instead make the case from empirical facts. You should notice that you have supplied us with nothing excepting mere rhetoric to support your case. The case for Bible Christianity is easilly supported through fulfilled prophecy, and unearthed artifacts that leave empirical records of what God did in the past. Heck, there is no record of where Cumorah is exactly, so your guys at Maxwell had to come up with the "Second Cumorah theory" in order to obfuscate the fact that there is no evidence in my back yard, or any place around Palmayra to substantiate the BoM.

Anyone who studies the claims by LDS scholars of hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

a what??? The OT is written in Hebrew, not in so-called "hebraisms". All that nonsense is a preposterous grasp at straws in order to give a non-existent set of circumstances a sense of legitimacy. What you are neglecting here is IF the Jews went to the Arabian Penninsula,and crossed 8000 miles of open ocean, how do you get around the fact that they were highly literate, and the fathers were directed to teach the sons the Hebrew Scripture from an early age?

By now, you must see that it is quite impossible to defend anything in the BoM. It is not that you have any facts, and that Christians are blind. Rather it is that you have NO FACTS,and that when you are shown the facts supporting the NT, and the utter absence of any fact to support the BoM, you guys are blind. I wish it were not so, but that is an accurate statement

Thank you, By Grace.



Thank you.

 

[By Grace]

Thank you, By Grace. Thank you.

Thank you for your compliment, VSC.
The glory all goes to Jesus

Comment deleted

 

[proveallthings]

The title page of the BoM should suffice as the proof of plagiarism:
"An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi"

The inference is clear: Whatever is in the book comes from the "Plates of Nephi" Therefore Nephi wrote some parts of the King James Bible, especially some chapters of Isaiah. What do you think Jesus would say about that? Would that not be an endorsement of the BoM if it were a true statement?

I must apologise for forgetting how little you know of the Book of Mormon. I should have given a more indepth explanation. I hope you can forgive me. I should know better by now. The quotes in the Book of Mormon from Isaiah are indeed on the plates of Nephi. What you don’t realize, because you have never read the book, is that Lehi and his family secured some brass plates, which were the scriptures of the few descendents of the tribes of Joseph who were now a part of the Jews living in Jerusalem. Such scriptures, around 600 BC would obviously contain the writings of Isaiah. They took these plates of scriptures with them to their promised land, in the Americas. The teachings of Isaiah are found in the plates of Nephi because they were used in the sermons of the early prophets of these people. These prophets make it very clear they are quoting from Isaiah, so there is no way it can be construed as plagiarizing. Isaiah is given full credit. I hope that clears this up.

Quoting something is far different from plagiarizing;

Exactly. So since all the Book of Mormon is doing is quoting, it cannot be accurately accused of plagiarizing.

Anyone who studies the claims by LDS scholars of hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

a what??? The OT is written in Hebrew, not in so-called "hebraisms". All that nonsense is a preposterous grasp at straws in order to give a non-existent set of circumstances a sense of legitimacy. What you are neglecting here is IF the Jews went to the Arabian Penninsula,and crossed 8000 miles of open ocean, how do you get around the fact that they were highly literate, and the fathers were directed to teach the sons the Hebrew Scripture from an early age?

So because you are unfamiliar with the scholarly term, “hebraismâ€, you call it nonsense and grasping at straws. Okay, whatever.

And why do you think I want to get around the fact that Jews were highly educated, especially in Hebrew scripture? The Book of Mormon story emphasizes that very fact.

 

[By Grace]

EDIT BY BY GRACE.

YAWN

First you insult me, then you try to teach me. That's rich. It is also reported to the moderators

The quotes in the Book of Mormon from Isaiah are indeed on the plates of Nephi

Where are those plates? They existed only in the mind of Smith, and in the later reacnted "spiritual visions" of your three witnesses.

Such scriptures, around 600 BC would obviously contain the writings of Isaiah

You have ZERO evidence, so you say "probibally" to create an illusion of fact when all you have is fantasy. This is also called "smoke and mirrors"

hey took these plates of scriptures with them to their promised land, in the Americas.

Have you considered what the mass of brass or gold with a 6 X 6 x 8 size weighs, and then wonder how they would take that across 8000 miles of open ocean in rickety boats? Yet these things were so valuable that educated Hebrews "forgot how to read" on that long voyage? OH yes! we don't know that, do we? perhaps they boarded a Concorde and flew into JFK.

The teachings of Isaiah are found in the plates of Nephi because they were used in the sermons of the early prophets of these people

You are making up things as you go along because there is no evidence for that.

These prophets make it very clear they are quoting from Isaiah, so there is no way it can be construed as plagiarizing. Isaiah is given full credit. I hope that clears this up

The Book of Mormon contains 19 chapters of Isaiah in their entirety, along with parts of a few other chapters. Specifically, chapters 2-14, 48-51, 53, and 54 of Isaiah are contained in the Book of Mormon. Most of Isaiah 52 is contained in the Book of Mormon as well. Approximately 30% of Isaiah is found in the Book of Mormon. It is my recollection that the ORIGINAL 1830 edition of the BoM did not have that identified, therefore, it is indeed plagiarism, by definition. Check out the Tanner's encyclopedic work of 3900 divverent changes in the BoM for more data.

So because you are unfamiliar with the scholarly term, “hebraism”, you call it nonsense and grasping at straws.

SECOND insult noted.
Having studied Hebrew ona grad level, I am very familiar with that term However, that is NOT the same as the Hebrew language, and it is a concocted term that purportedly creates an illusion of authenticity (more smoke and mirrors) to justify the preposterous stuff you are putting forth to give a bogus legitimacy to the fiction of the BoM.

Why nake your mind into a pretzel when the Christian religion is both true, and simple?

 

[Free]

Locked for moderator review.