Jump to content

snowflake

Members
  • Content Count

    918
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by snowflake

  1. There are literally tens of thousands of Biblical manuscripts that support the biblical narrative and story. In both the Old and New Testaments, the biblical record tells of “scribes” whose job was to accurately reproduce the text of scripture. In searching the BOM the term “scribe” does not appear. Were the BOM prophets the only ones to record the BOM narrative, or were there scribes who made multiple copies of the record similar to the biblical scribes? If there was only a single copy of the BOM narrative (gold plates), how would the Lamanites and Nephites read, study or comprehend their history and their history with God?
  2. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Yes, although I thought that was implied since I mentioned writings not destroyed. <grin> So far as I know no paper writings were found in the recent buildings that have been found. Although I do believe there are writings on the walls. It'd be wonderful if we found some writings since our knowledge of Mayan is so limited due to the lack of records. We have some of course but not many. There's no surviving Nephite ones. There are surviving Maya codices though. The Dresden Codex is the most famous example. It's possible that there still are writings that will be found one day. We don't know. It's also possible that all but the gold plates were destroyed when the Nephites were destroyed as an independent polity. Do you find it odd/troubling that there are tens of thousands of OT and NT manuscripts that have been found all over the old world and none for the BOM? It seems to me that something would have survided.
  3. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Do any of these relics refer to the BOM narrative?
  4. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Diego de Landa didn't come along until over a thousand years later.....do you think he was able to collect all the BOM writings and destroy them?
  5. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Is there any surviving scrolls, plates, or manuscripts today or have they all been lost?
  6. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    "the plates weren't big enough and we changed the Hebrew...that's why the record we made isn't perfect"......sounds good enough for me! I'm glad the Hebrew scribes in the Old World had a little higher standard!
  7. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Are the Mayans the Nephites or Lamanites? I thought that was a different culture and time period all together?
  8. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Do you think there was a scribal class creating the many different records or was it mainly the prophets? The records that existed the Old World were typically papyri or animal skins...referred to as scrolls....why switch to the gold plates?
  9. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    This has to be one of the most bizaare verses in the BOM!! This makes no sense whatsoever!
  10. snowflake

    No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

    Thank you for your answer...I definitely think you are on the right track that there must have been some kind of scribal class as in the biblical narrative. Having come from the old world, any idea why these scribes started recording on plates as opposed to the tradition animal skin or papyri? Possibly a newer technology?
  11. snowflake

    Dr. Peterson and Biblical Archetypes

    Thanks Robert!
  12. snowflake

    Dr. Peterson and Biblical Archetypes

    I have not heard his Bible lectures but many of his debates and commentaries are on youtube. He interviews with Joe Rogan quite frequently and has discussed some of his views on the "person of Christ"....and I agree that his take is fascinating!
  13. snowflake

    JS Translation

    There is zero textual evidence that support the JST.
  14. snowflake

    Evolution

    Where am I wrong? Or where is Dr.Meyer wrong?
  15. snowflake

    Evolution

    If you want to build a new form of life (a new animal), the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information (new code). How does it do that? How could it do that? Random mutation cannot create new code! Natural selection cannot create new code! You need new information. We know from experience (in computer code) that if you start randomly changing code in information systems like DNA and computer code you are going to fundamentally degrade that code before you get anything that is new and useful. If you are a computer programmer and randomly start changing 0's and 1's, are you going to create a new program or operating system?, or are you going to introduce glitches and bugs into the program you already have? (credit do Dr. Stephen Meyer). Information sciences have shown that these typse of random mutations are incapable of generating something fundamentally new.
  16. snowflake

    Evolution

    I think those creatures would probably fall into the "creeping things" category? [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  17. snowflake

    Evolution

    The only thing the fossil record can truly tell us is that a bunch of animals got buried.....the bible tells us it was by a huge flood (Genesis 7). The fossil record makes perfect sense, but only if there was a global flood. Genesis 7: [17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Remember the global flood lasted a year. I'm not sure why such an intelligent man as yourself would struggle reading Genesis 1. Try reading it as literal days like it says, morning, and evening......throw all of your pre-conceived ideas out. Just read it for what it say and don't force your erroneous "scientific" ideas into the text. I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.
  18. snowflake

    Evolution

    There is zero textual support for the JST, not a single manuscript of the tens of thousands that exist, support the JST. So God gave us his creation story, and you find it irrelevant....
  19. snowflake

    Evolution

    I would disagree with you on no death before the fall...you are correct that Genesis does not say anything died prior to the fall. However, the first death in the bible is after then fall when in Genesis 3:21 God skins animals to clothe Adam and Eve (and their sin). But lets look at genesis 1 and compare that with Darwinian evolution. God creates all the plants on day 3, birds and fish day 5, beasts of the earth, creeping things and man on day 6. All created differently and distinct, male and female. Morning and evening clearly mentioned each day. This simply does not jive with Darwinian evolution.
  20. snowflake

    Evolution

    Evolution is incompatible with the scriptures, no death before the fall would be one specific.
  21. snowflake

    Evolution

    Ok, i was a believer in your religion as well for quite some time. What's your take on the abiogenesis problem?
  22. snowflake

    Evolution

    This is the classic "escape hatch" answer you get from most biologists. Well....we don't really know how that happened but we know that it DID Happen....since we are here and exist it has to have happened. Pure religious fantasy..... and if you believe that it happened that is fine.....but don't call it science. Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race?
  23. snowflake

    Evolution

    ? please explain....and thank you for you answers.. you seem very honest with me and i appreciate that!
  24. snowflake

    Evolution

    For a genetic mutation to be passed on to the next generation and introduced into a population, the individual with that specific genetic mutation would have to reproduce with another individual who has that specific mutation as well correct? Then the offspring would have to survive, grow to maturity and find another individual whose parents had developed the same mutation and that mutation would need to be beneficial to the individual to influence the gene pool in a population. Am I understanding this correctly? It seems to me that natural selection actually leads to the elimination of these types of genetic mutations and not encourage them.
  25. snowflake

    Evolution

    Wow....quite a rant there. Hovind's biggest rejection of evolution is based on his rigid belief in the bible as an accurate God breathed text. And I will admit that much of my rejection of evolution is based on this as well, I see the theory of evolution as a direct attack on the book of Genesis. And in Genesis we have many events that nobody saw......it is a religous belief that the text and events are correct, true and accurate. That being said, much of what is being discussed in this thread is about events that took place in the past, that nobody has been able to see. If genetic mutation as the only way to introduce new genetic material into a population, it's a pretty weak explination for the amazing diversity we see. I find this explination on par with my religous faith. How can a genetic mutation explain the development of a circulatory system? Oh yes.....I forgot......billions of years......it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. How did the genetic code get started? The scientific explination for this is completely based on faith as well.
×