Related Information to A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation - Page 4

You didn't really go there? You do realize the meaning of adding to scripture.

The only way Joseph Smith could have added, was if it was from God!

What evidence is there that Jesus is the Son of God?

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments:

Please read the BOM. It clearly says that hundreds of thousands of people were slain in the area of the hill Cumorah, in New York, where Moroni hid the plates. Again, if two million people dressed in armor, and having weapons, etc all died there there would for sure be remnants to be found. As I mentioned before, take a city like San Diego----even after 1500 years if you dug around the area you would find remnants from the people who used to live there-----it wouldn't all simply "vanish".

Many Morman archaeologists themselves have admitted there is no "proof" the Book is historical----see the link below and follow the bookmarks---they are quotes from actual archaeologists from BYU. It's just common logic-----if a book reports "millions" of people existed, there simply has to be proof that they existed in huge numbers----they, and all of their ruins would not "disappear". The area surrounding the hill Cumorah shows no evidence of battle, bodies, armor or ruins. [..] Please read "What Mormon archaeologists say" --and check out the bookmark links--this is not "made up" stuff, but real quotes from BYU archaeologists.

Do we put our faith in a book of fables which cannot be proven, or trust our souls alone to a book that is backed up with complete historical and archaeological evidence, the Bible? I'll put my faith in the latter.

What are you talking about? Joseph Smith and others can easily "add" to the Bible or take away from it if they want. Thomas Jefferson "created" his own Bible, simply by removing things he didn't like. It didn't take God's hand to do that. Joseph Smith "added" to the Bible in the sense that he created "another Testament of Jesus Christ" (Which the book itself is titled) which God expressly forbids. Christian Science, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and other groups have done the same--they all have "extra-biblical" writings, and in many cases say that these writings are "more correct" than the Bible itself! No, Joseph Smith added alright----but it wasn't God who was behind it.

Jesus being the Son of God must be taken on faith alone. But, as I mentioned, historically we know that Jesus lived in and visited the places the Bible says he did---and the people who were in power actually were in power back in those days. This can be proven historically and archaeologically. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon----there is no proof that people themselves even existed, let alone there dwellings, palaces and towers, etc., and the Kings it mentions who were supposedly in power--no record at all.

By the way EAG, this thread is titled "a question from a Non-Mormon" so those coming into the thread should expect to face a bit of criticism, or real questioning of their religion. I do not mean to be insulting----I am simply sharing what I find to be obvious----and I have read much of the book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and Discourses.

Apostle Orson Pratt stated:

Not even one verse has escaped pollution? Wait a minute----please open the Book of Mormon to 1 Nephi 20. It says at start of this chapter "compare Isaiah 48". Now open your King James Bible to Isaiah 48 and put alongside 1 Nephi 20 and read simultaneously (Scan back and forth and compare). Now, 1 Nephi is "translated" from plates that are a couple of thousand years old, right? Yet, it matches almost word for word Isaiah 48 from the 1611 King James version of the Bible. If not one verse exists that hasn't been "corrupted" according to Pratt, why are 1 Nephi 20 and Isaiah 48 so extremely close in translation, though one supposedly came from plates 2000 years old or so, and the King James from old "manuscripts" translated in 1611? That means those "manuscripts" survived for thousands of years in almost pristine form doesn't it? If we believe the plates are accurate, how can they match scripture, almost exactly, from a translation made in 1611 (From old manuscripts, not golden plates) which supposedly was "polluted" according to Pratt? Pratt makes absolutely no sense----and this very thing PROVES that the Bible has not been polluted---if it was the 1611 King James and 1 Nephi (From plates 2000 years old) would be at complete variance with one another, and Joseph Smith would not have relied on the King James Bible of 1611 when placing Isaiah 48 in 1 Nephi 20.

Just in case my post below this one is not clear, let me lay it out a bit more clearly: 1 Nephi
20 is almost an exact copy of Isaiah 48 from King James 1611. Open them both at once and compare.
Then follow what is said below---if one can, try to consider this logically, and really think about it:

1 Nephi 20 Isaiah 48 King James 1611

Translated from plates 2000 years (Appx) Translated from manuscripts
old, untouched and hidden in Hill Cumorah and fragments written and rewritten
by scribes for thousands of years and
put in King James Bible in 1611 in English
of that time.

Now, supposedly, the Bible, Isaiah included, is so far from it's original meaning and content
it is impossible to trust as the ultimate authority (This according to Orson Pratt).
Yet, when we read 1 Nephi 20 side by side with Isaiah 48 from the 1611 King James, they read almost word for word. Now, how could the 1611 King James have been "preserved" so as to match "plates" buried, and untouched in a hill for a couple of thousand years, almost perfectly? If the Bible is so "tainted" (According to Pratt and others) due to years of re-translation, etc.----why would it match plates preserved in a hill for two thousand years almost to a tee? (This of course if one believes the plates really were found and are authoritative).

If the Bible is so "tainted", including Isaiah 48 (If one follows Pratt's statement that the whole Bible is tainted), how could this same chapter of the Bible, after thousands of years of translation, and re-translation, through the hands of scribes, match plates "supposedly" buried for 2000 years or so almost exactly? The very fact that it does makes Pratt's statement patently ludicrous---along with statements made by Joseph Smith, Jr. And others. One wonders that they wouldn't have thought of this before making such illogical statements which are contradicted by the translation of Isaiah (Chapter 48 and others) found in the Book of Mormon itself!

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation Studies Doctrine Mormon

Whoa! Brick you spun apostle prats words so fast my heads spinning, he did not say the no word had escaped pollution, he said who knows if even one verse escaped pollution. You took what he said out of context that's why it doesn't make sense.

Page 4 Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: EAG---

Pratt said (From below):

Pratt is saying that no one in there right mind would consider the Bible a perfect guide, and then asks

I understand that he is not definitively stating that every verse IS polluted---but he is inferring that a huge part of the Bible is tainted, and that through translation and re-translation it has lost much of it's original meaning.

What I am showing below is that that VERY BIBLE is copied almost word for word in many places of the Book of Mormon. I gave the example of 1 Nephi 20 vs. Isaiah 48-----they are almost exact! If much of the Bible has "not escaped pollution" as Pratt states, then why is so much of it used in sections of the Book of Mormon? These sections of "scripture" can be compared to the King James almost exactly, and which did not come from "plates" buried and preserved for 2000 years, but were translated from manuscripts copied and re-copied by scribes over the same period of time.

Do you not see the lack of logic in Pratt's statement? He is stating that we cannot trust the Bible---the same Bible that is being used in 1 Nephi 20, 21 and many other places! And if you compare the King James to 1 Nephi 20 and 21 you will see it is almost an exact rendering.

If you cannot grasp the illogical nature of Pratt's and Smith's statement concerning the Bible, and how it is completely contradicted by the very Book of Mormon itself, then I don't know what else to say. You just don't want to look at this closely enough--because it is actually completely obvious to anyone who thinks this argument through rationally.

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

I understand exactly what your saying, however the whole book of Isaiah is only 81 pages of the 1565 pages in the bible that is only about 5%, if you also consider that only a small portion if Isaiah is directly quoted that is about 1 to 2% of the entire bible, you must also consider the fact that the old testament was translated from Hebrew to English whereas the new testament was in many cases translated from Greek and Aramaic to Latin and then to Greek again and then to English, I also believe that apostle Pratt is making more of a general statement, also he never says that every portion is corrupted, he's says we have no way of knowing.

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: EAG, understood. But Matthew (From the NT) is also directly quoted from, and reads almost word for word also when you compare the chapters in the Book of Mormon with the coinciding chapters in the King James version 1611. I believe the whole chapter 7 of Matthew (And much of the Sermon on the Mount) reads word for word in the Book of Mormon almost exactly with the King James version. So, we have chapters from both an Old Testament Book, and a New Testament book that apparently suffered no "pollution" whatsoever, despite thousands of years of translating and re-translating. (If not why would they read almost exactly with the translation that "supposedly" came from plates untouched and buried for 2000 years?).

Also, interestingly enough, many of the italics sections of Matthew, which were added by the translators in 1611 as "helps" to understanding, and not part of the manuscripts, also appear in the same places in the Book of Mormon. They put them in italics so the reader would know it is not part of the original manuscript. Now, how could these italics from 1611 be "translated" from plates that were buried 2000 years ago? Were the 1611 translators miraculously transported back in time to meet with Moroni so he could engrave the plates with these same "helps"?

I've also always found it very curious that 2000 year old plates carved in "reformed Egyptian" would translate into 1611 English, even though it was 1820 America when Joseph Smith translated the plates. Very curious indeed.

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation - Page 4

Name: Prolamar
Country:

Comments: Brick, I've spent the time to read most of this thread. There are many things I would like to comment on directly, but I've seen a lot of people try to do that so I've decided to skip that step

What I would like to address however is the topic of faith and being a humble servant. I get the impression that you are Christian seeing as you have faith in the Bible; correct me if I'm wrong. That being said I'm sure you've been told at least once or twice that we cannot question the workings of God. He is all knowing and we are nothing compared to him. Furthermore we cannot begin to comprehend EVERYTHING he has planned. Trying to take apart the workings of the Lord without the spirit of him is contrary to what he teaches (In any Christian faith) Do you feel the good spirit of the Lord when you are (What I feel to be) "ranting" on this forum?

We could go round and round about the physical evidence of the Bible the BOM etc. I'll tell you this much. EVERY time a pray for guidance I receive an answer, usually through scripture. When I recently received my Patriarchal Blessing [..] a man who had never met me before was able to tell me things about myself that even my mother wouldn't be able to know. This faith has made me a better person, a stronger person. I have a personal witness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

What are you trying to accomplish on this forum? This church is not going anywhere. Your main accomplishment so far has been to irritate a lot of faithful people trying to find a place to share common interests. Is that really what you want to do? Because that's what you are doing. Is that what Jesus would have done? Did he teach us to judge? No. He taught us to love. If you want to discuss these do it in the spirit of the Lord and know that you can't argue with someone about their personal witness in this faith because it's a personal, between them and the Lord. It doesn't concern you.

God Bless you

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 4

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: Prolamar, it is a very dangerous thing to put your "faith" in something because someone was able to tell you things about yourself. Supposed "Physics" can do the same. Your "personal witness" is most likely a "warm feeling" you have that you have received the truth.

As far as "irratating" people, Jesus actually irritated people quite a bit! ;D I'm sure if some people today saw Jesus whipping people in the Temple (As he did when he threw the money-changers out), and calling the Pharisees "Vipers!" they would be led to say "THAT'S NOT VERY CHRIST-LIKE OF YOU JESUS!"

The Book of Jude says to "Earnestly contend for the faith"----and that can mean "contesting" teachings that are contrary to the Word of God. I am on a thread for "Non-Mormons" so if I am irritating people it's because they are visiting, and don't like to hear what I am posting. But I am actually asking many valid questions, that MANY people have-----Non-Mormon and Mormon (They may not reveal it to other Mormons, but many do have questions they cannot seem to find answers for----many of these finally become Christians when they realize that much of what they have been taught cannot be proven archaeologically or historically).

In a sense I'm glad if it irritates you and others----maybe it will cause you to think more----and put your faith not in people, or in feelings--and not even in a "church"-----but in the Lord Jesus Christ himself who is the ONLY REAL WAY TO SALVATION as the Bible teaches.

I made a couple of posts on the "Mormon Doctrine"
thread. I guess the mistake I made was saying "I am not a Mormon". I asked about the Adam-God
doctrine Brigham Young espoused, and also asked a question about what the "second comforter" was. That was all. I was told NOT to post on ANY of the Mormon threads and to only ask questions on the Non-Mormon board by the Administrator. OK--- I won't rock the boat ;D but find it very peculiar that you can't deal with valid questions concerning Mormonism and Mormon doctrine.

I have to ask----what is everyone afraid of? By asking a question about Adam-God, I was asking a very valid question----in fact, a question some Mormons themselves might want an answer to. The "second comforter" was an honest question and I saw the response and accepted it.

I guess if I WERE a Mormon and STATED SO I would be "allowed" to question some of the doctrine the church teaches. But because I am not I am "ranting". I really don't get that at all----I have been on Christian boards where atheists came in and asked questions---we didn't say "go to the atheist thread"----we were firm enough in our faith to accept the questions and attempt to answer them. If I were RIDICULING your faith I could understand---but the basis of most of my posts is an attempt to get REAL answers regarding the lack of archaeological and historical evidence for the book of Mormon. If someone claims a Kingdom once existed on earth the way to verify it is to "dig" for it and see if there are any artifacts, etc. That "prove" it once existed. We can do this on many, many kingdoms that existed on earth. But the Lamanites and Nephite "kingdoms" have no verifiable historial or archaeological evidence to prove their existence. So far, I have received no truly logical explanation for this.

I have been told that the bodies and remnants of two million people who "supposedly" died in a battle near the Hill Cumorah "disintegrated" through time. I can only say "GIVE ME A BREAK!"----if that many people existed at one time in that area there would be SOME verifiable evidence of their existence. But look in ANY HISTORY BOOK and they will not say A THING about Lamanites or Nephites----because SO FAR there have been no archaeological or Historical "proofs" of their existence. If this is "ranting" that is your opinion. We are to put our faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel------but with the Book of Mormon one needs to put their faith in non-existent Kingdoms and Kings also----not so with the Bible, which can be verified both historically and archaeologically. I have to ask---why would you be so afraid to confront this and really take a look at it? Logically, you know it has to be true that 2 million people would leave some of their "remnants" (Armor, animals, buildings, dwelling-places, etc.) near the Hill Cumorah. Yet even though the Book of Mormon says two million people died there, archaeologists have found NOTHING to verify those battles. And they really weren't that long ago in geological time. We are not talking 3 thousand years. We are talking 1400-1600 years ago (Appx.--before Moroni hid the plates in that very hill). Many, many artifacts from 400 AD can easily be found throughout the world-----but in the case of lamanites and nephites--------zip. That, I find to be unacceptable when attempting to believe a book that says they did exist.