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

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation - Page 2

Just to interject a bit. If you use the quote tags then it might be easier to read what is your words and what you are actually quoting. Additionally, since you seem to be not so much asking anything but just ranting you may want to try a blog instead, since you are not waiting for replies really.

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: Dear Administrator---

I wasn't quoting anything actually. I was giving an example of how easy it is to actually write something that "sounds" like scripture. The 1 BRICK reference is to a "book" I was writing similar to 1 NEPHI----much of 1 NEPHI is simply him saying "and it came to pass" and saying "I, Nephi, etc.. .. " I was simply showing that I, in 5 minutes, can write something that sounds very similar to the narratives Joseph Smith gives as Nephi. He is fond of saying such things as "and many other things also were said of which I cannot write at this time"... Etc.

As I read 1 Nephi last night I noted how different his "narrative" is than Isaiah's chapters which he inserts in 1 Nephi 20 and 21. The difference is astounding. It is obvious to me that a man wrote the book of 1 Nephi, (And not the Holy Spirit) and many others could do the same, and have. L. Ron Hubbard actually started a whole religion based on some science fiction he wrote when he started "The Church of Scientology". I believe Joseph Smith did the same. And I think he was most likely amazed that people actually "bought it" and started believing the book was real. All he had to do was get some witnesses to step forward and say that it all really happened. That was fairly easy as most of the witnesses are his own family members, and he and his father were known for digging for treasure with peep stones.

I will however refrain for now as you are correct, I am more stating a position than asking questions. I just feel a huge sadness for all that have accepted the Book of Mormon as the Word of God---as it is far from it. Mormons, and many others will be completely astounded when they see Joseph Smith Jr. In eternity and see he was by no means a "prophet", and will be severely shocked to see him actually banished from the New Jerusalem. He is guilty of the very thing that Revelation warns of----DO NOT add or subtract from God's finished word. Joseph Smith has declared that the book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible! That is actually blasphemy----and he will pay for saying that one day, and for the fraud he had perpetrated upon innocent people.

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

Brick, I am surprised that someone who claims the Book of Mormon is an invention does not know the answer for basic questions and has a misunderstanding of the Bible itself:

I fail to follow your reasoning. So we cannot believe in Joseph Smith and his witnesses but we can believe in what Harris told Professor Anthon? Why? The statement of Professor Anthon should not even be trusted. In two separate letters he wrote to Rev. Dr. T. W. Coit on April 3, 1841, and another letter to Howe, he contradicts himself. To Howe he states " He requested an opinion from me in writing, w h I c h, of course, I declined to give, and he then took his leave, taking
his paper with him

But to his letter to Coit he said he requested me to give him my
opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation

He also has other contradictions if you are interested in reading. So sorry, what Anthon had to say has not weight in the least.

Your statement is misleading. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that quote, the Book of Mormon IS the most correct book on the Earth because it has been translated DIRECTLY into the English language. We cannot say the same thing of the Bible that has been translated over and over to different languages before reaching the English language. Or is your belief that the Bible is a PERFECT book?

But they NEVER denied they have seen the plates, isn't that interesting?

Oh yeah, because that's so simple (Sarcasm)

It seems to me you're kind of angry than sad (But that's just my perception). Do not be, people have the wonderful gift of free agency. Let them choose as they please. I am surprised you're so bold as to state what will happen in Eternity. Watch out, words have a way to go around that can haunt us later on.

I am really, really surprised you're saying this. Any Bible student (Beginner) knows that that statement in Revelation does NOT refer to the whole Bible but its speaking about the Book of Revelation in itself.

Page 2 Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: HappyLDS, Actually, your statement is misleading----you said this (In italics):

"Your statement is misleading. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that quote, the Book of Mormon IS the most correct book on the Earth because it has been translated DIRECTLY into the English language. We cannot say the same thing of the Bible that has been translated over and over to different languages before reaching the English language. Or is your belief that the Bible is a PERFECT book?"

Think of what you are saying. You are inferring that God, the Almighty cannot preserve and protect His own Holy word, and that man through many translations can alter it? Yet, the Book of Mormon, supposedly translated form plates which God did preserve, IS more correct than the BIBLE? Think about it----God speaks for thousands of years, and parchments and fragments exist showing that the Bible has been around for a very, very, LONG time. Yet you are saying man has been able to alter and water down something God HIMSELF IS THE AUTHOR OF? The Bible itself says the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible.

Now, why would God ALLOW his Holy word to be compromised for thousands of years, and then, only in 1820 "reveal" a place where some plates are buried which have not been altered? And where in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter does it say that men wrote things down on plates of brass or gold? Nowhere. God cannot preserve and protect his Holy Word?----OF COURSE HE CAN! And there is no need of any other revelation from God. He says in Jude to "earnestly contend for the faith once handed down to the saints". Jude interestingly enough is about false teachers and false prophets. The complete Bible is God's FINAL word and Jude states that the faith at his time was complete----"once handed down, or 'once and for all' as the Greek states.


God says in Isaiah 55:11:

Let me ask you----do you believe man can block or prevent God's own Word from continuing on and completing what He has sent it to do? Do you really believe that God would ALLOW man to alter, change, or water down His original intent in HIS OWN holy and reverent Word? No----God is sovereign, and He has preserved and protected his Word for hundreds of years------and the DEAD SEA SCROLLS prove this! The copy of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea Scrolls is so close to our modern translation of Isaiah that the translators were flabberghasted! And it is 2000 years old! God has indeed preserved his ONLY WORD, the Bible.

The Book of Mormon, unfortunately, is the invention of man. Archaeology, history, and it's very message confirm this. It's a very inventive book, authored by a very clever person, but it is not the Word of God. One day Joseph will answer for having said the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible----that is a truly blasphemous statement to make, to say the least.

it's interesting to note that there are several Christian "religions" that were all founded about the same time----and each of them has "extra revelation" involved, in an attempt to upstage the true word of God. Christian Science has "Key to the Scriptures", Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible and "Studies in the Scriptures"----and they say that these books are more correct than the Bible. It's no wonder that the Book of Mormon would make the same claim. The Bible itself says that many false prophets will arise in the last days. And the 1800's were rampant with them!

(Gal. 1-8)---the Apostle Paul in book of Galatians

Translation the Non-Mormon From Question A

That's your opinion Brick and that's okay. We do not have to agree on this, we will not agree. I have been a member of the LDS Church for over 20 years and if you read my posts you will see I like to question and research. Having said, the validity of the Book of Mormon and the truthfulness of the Church are out of the question. I believe they're true regardless of what you or anyone else say. I have received personal confirmation of these things.

A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: Happy----

I appreciate, and will honor what you have said, but I have one last thing that
you may want to ponder a moment. Last night I read part of 2 Nephi (I have been reading
through the Book of Mormon a little at a time) and hit another section where the whole chapter
is from Isaiah. In this case it was Isaiah 50. The title above the chapter says "compare Isaiah
50". Actually, there is no need to "compare" because it is an exact, word for word copy from the
King James 1611 version of Isaiah 50.

That is something to seriously think about. Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was more correct than the Bible. And you, Happy, have made the argument that the Bible has been translated many times and may have lost much of it's true meaning and may not be "perfect". But wait a minute! Much of the Book of Mormon is EXACT, WORD FOR WORD chapters from Isaiah from the Old Testament, and Matthew from the New Testament. Now, these "renderings" were supposedly taken from "plates" that are at least a couple of thousand years old. So if the plates have the EXACT rendering of Isaiah 50 or Matthew 7 that we have today, how can you say that the Bible in any way has suffered mistranslation or "watering down"? The plates have the EXACT rendering of these Bible chapters that are in ANY King James Bible today, as they were in 1820. This shows that those chapters suffered ABSOLUTELY no loss of meaning or translation over ALL OF THE YEARS they have been on earth---because the "plates" have the EXACT same translation though supposedly carved two thousand years ago! Have you ever thought of that?

And also think----why would God need to REPEAT these same chapters that are in his Bible (And the Book of Mormon repeats MANY chapters from the King James Bible in there entirety with the sub-title
"compare Isaiah 47, or compare Matthew 7") if the Bible is supposedly so far from it's original meaning?

This makes absolutely no sense. I understand though what you are saying about being a Mormon for 20 years and you are happy with it. I can respect that. But one should be sure when talking about their own eternal destiny. God plainly states that no one should either add or subtract from his Word. Joseph Smith definitely has added to the Word of God-----as have others who started religions during the same time-frame of the 1800's. I believe these "religions" started because we ARE in the last days for sure---it is a fulfillment of the Bible itself when it says that many shall come out of the church themselves, and draw followers after them with their pernicious doctrines. The Book of Mormon is "another Gospel"---not just because it is "another testament", but because of what it teaches also-----it is contrary to the TRUE GOSPEL which was handed "once for all to the saints".

I will not address you any more with these issues Happy_LDS but wanted to make one last appeal and statement to really check out what you are following-----many have sincerely checked out the "questions" and things that don't seem to make sense about Mormonism (Where are the ruins? Where is the archaeological evidence? Where is the historicity of the people mentioned? Why didn't God leave the plates as a witness that this testament is true? Etc. Etc. ) and have come to Jesus Christ himself and been saved------BIBLICAL SALVATION---the gift of Grace. It is not through a church we are saved, but by a person alone---Jesus Christ. All the best Happy-----may God open your eyes.

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation - Page 2

I guess Joseph Smith learned how to duplicate chiasmus from the bible too. And I guess he knew about the proper care of olive vineyards from his first three years of school especially since some of the care described wasn't even know to his part of the world until many years after the Book of Mormon was published. You have the agency to believe what you will but to me it sounds like you are just repeating standard anti-Mormon criticisms which sound valid when taken at face value but soon fall apart upon further examination.

A Question From Non-Mormon the Translation Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

Name: Brick
Country:

Comments: EAG---

Fall apart after further examination? Actually, it's the opposite. I was reading last night in Mosiah and some other areas of the Book of Mormon about "Palaces" and "Tall towers" constructed so that one could observe all the land round about. It also spoke of thousands upon thousands of Nephite and Lamanite deaths, and deaths of many others by robbers. It spoke of chariots, and breastplates, and even had a section which described denominations of "coinage" used by the "Government". According to the book there were at least two vast empires comprising thousands and thousands of people in cities, and great buildings, and towers, etc. Etc.

After "further examination" archaeologists have found none of this------zip. There are Aztec, Inca and Mayan ruins in South America, and some Indian mounds and artwork in North America----but so far ;D no buildings, or towers, or civilizations, or huge amounts of graves have ever been found. Supposedly, Nephi and many other Jews "sailed" to North America. No respectable historian or archaeologist would ever say that that is the case. The Jews never sailed to North America--there is absolutely no proof, or evidence that ancient Jews, or their progeny were ever in North or South America.

Besides, that would go against the Bible. Jesus said to preach the Gospel to every creature----beginning at Jerusalem, and then to every part of the earth. That is God's plan---he never states that he will send Jews to another land to foretell Jesus' crucifixion, and a completely separate "church" appearing on earth. His "other fold" was the Gentiles (Jesus said he was first sent to the Jews---he says this to the lady who mentions the dogs eating the crumbs that fall from the table). Jesus "main" fold was the Jews--his "other fold" was the Gentiles. It was not a separate group of people in the Americas. Archaeology proves that no such civilizations ever existed----whereas archaeology definitely proves that where the Bible says a city once was---it was there----and when it mentions a king or sovereign---they truly existed historically. That cannot be said of the Book of Mormon----none of it has ever been proven archaeologically or historically. None of the Kings mentioned in Mormon can be proven to have existed in the Americas. I'm sorry, but the book is obviously a "story" Joseph cleverly wrote (He was definitely intelligent and very crafty), but God would never leave a witness which speaks of cities and people that no one can prove ever really existed at all.

For example, when the Bible says Jesus appeared in front of King Herod and Pilate, we know through historical records and archaeology that all three men existed. Jesus is mentioned by Josephus, and both Pilate and Herod are mentioned in several records, along with ruins of a temple Herod once constructed.

But, when we hear of King Mosiah, or King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, and the palaces and towers they or other Kings mentioned constructed, there are no written historical records, or any ruins to prove they were ever really here. This truly shows the Book of Mormon to be a nicely written product of the imagination, but not a book that can be proven with one iota of evidence------except some plates which are no longer here, and the "witness" of some individuals, most of whom were related. That is not something I want to trust with my eternal destiny. I will stick with the Bible, which is proven historically accurate in reference to the people mentioned, and cities and ruins it mentions in many, many cases. Not only can I put my full trust in it's words by faith, I can also be assured that what it says happened historically really happened.