why me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Luckily for the Finns, "Uncle Joe" did not yet have the A-bomb .....Be careful where you step -- the seeming solid ground beneath your feet may give way one day.UDDo you remember Uncle that many moons ago, I said to you on this forum that if you ever prove the book wrong or if someone proves the book wrong, I would welcome it with open arms. My premise being: Why should people live a lie?, perhaps one generation will suffer from the deceit but eventually the book would be forgotten and placed in some dark religious history shelf. Forgotten. Better to cleanse it from the earth and have one generation suffer, then to have generations live the lie. That is my take on it. But until that day comes...the line will hold. I got my skis on and I am ready for action ....although I would rather be eating some tropical fruit right now...
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Do you remember Uncle that many moons ago, I said to you on this forum that if you ever prove the book wrong or if someone proves the book wrong, I would welcome it with open arms. My premise being: Why should people live a lie?, perhaps one generation will suffer from the deceit but eventually the book would be forgotten and placed in some dark religious history shelf. Forgotten. Better to cleanse it from the earth and have one generation suffer, then to have generations live the lie. That is my take on it. But until that day comes...the line will hold. I got my skis on and I am ready for action ....although I would rather be eating some tropical fruit right now... It will never happen. All we have are probabilities based on evidence.
Sentinus Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 The Dead Sea Scrolls, for the most part, predate Christianity, and have nothing specifically to do with Christianity (no matter what Dan Brown likes to say). There are no Christian or pseudo-Christian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are from a strictly Jewish milieu. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts? That is reading a bit into the passage, I think. Where does it say that Lehi was waiting for the three day mark to sacrifice, or that he was following some kind of rule? A coincidence, yes, but only a notable one if you add a bit to the story. Take care, everyone I was reffering to Nag Hammadi, I apologize for the misimformation. Please excuse my previous post's as my premis was @ fault. I will take my stripes now.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 How so? Evidence is evidence.Do we beleive Paul that Mt Siani is in Saudia Arabia or do we beleive Genesis?Woah... I missed something. Where does Genesis put Mt. Sinai?
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 According to the Catholic Church it puts it at the tip of the Sanai peninsula. Thats where it got its name. But Paul says its in Arabaia. (Gal 4)Gal. 1: 17 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Gal. 4: 25 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
rhinomelon Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I was reffering to Nag Hammadi, I apologize for the misimformation. Please excuse my previous post's as my premis was @ fault. I will take my stripes now. I blame the Da Vinci Code. Let's send Dan Brown some stripes!! Don't worry, those two get mixed up all the time
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 According to the Catholic Church it puts it at the tip of the Sanai peninsula. Thats where it got its name. But Paul says its in Arabaia. (Gal 4)OK... So, "Catholic Church" == "Genesis"??? I'm not following this. What does Genesis say about where Mt. Sinai is located?
Uncle Dale Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Do you remember Uncle that many moons ago, I said to you on this forum that if you ever prove the book wrong or if someone proves the book wrong, I would welcome it with open arms. My premise being: Why should people live a lie?, perhaps one generation will suffer from the deceit but eventually the book would be forgotten and placed in some dark religious history shelf. Forgotten. Better to cleanse it from the earth and have one generation suffer, then to have generations live the lie....It will never happen. All we have are probabilities based on evidence.Quite right. No matter how much evidence might be stacked up against the BoM, showing it to have been a 19th century compilation made by break-away Campbellites, etc., that stack of knowledge will never add up to undeniable "proof."So, why me is perfectly safe in making his statement.Even if a signed, witnessed, notorized and legally recorded statement from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself were to be located, and published to the world, testifying that Nephites did NOT write the book, that alone would not be "Proof" against the LDS-accepted origin of the book.Any Mormon with an ounce of brains could argue that JS merely made up such a document as a "test of faith," to see which Saints would not hold fast to the rod of iron and endure unto the end.Just as JS's misperceived "seduction attempt" upon the virginity of Miss Nancy Rigdon at Nauvoo was "not meant to be taken seriously," so a confession from JS would be explained in the same way.After all -- a man who tells you that the Forest of Mormon and the Waters of Mormon were so termed, in a joining of the modern English "More" and the Egyptian "Good" and applied to ancient Nephite geography, cannot be held accountable for having meant ANYTHING he said, to be taken seriously, eh wot?Uncle "of course the English 'More' must be shortened to 'Mor' before being joined to the Egyptian 'Mon'" Dale.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 OK... So, "Catholic Church" == "Genesis"??? I'm not following this. What does Genesis say about where Mt. Sinai is located?Im not sure if Genesis gives us much as far as location goes. It gives some clues. But thats about it. Of course the bible map in the dictionary puts it in Sanai Peninsula with a big old ?
Uncle Dale Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Im not sure if Genesis gives us much as far as location goes. It gives some clues. But thats about it. Of course the bible map in the dictionary puts it in Sanai Peninsula with a big old ?Doesn't the Mormon Church claim that Horeb and Sinai are two different mountains?Uncle "or was that just another of Bro. Heber's uninformed ramblings?" Dale
TrashcanMan79 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 You stand on dangerous ground using forged documents to verify the authenticity of anything.Amen! Yet so many Jews and Christians continue to 'authenticate' their mythical beliefs by appealing to forgeries contained in the Bible!TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLEErrors and Forgeries in the BibleHow Firm A Foundationâ?¦ of Forgeries? Bogus Letters of Paul
Lehi Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I think a rather obvious question has been overlooked.Why was Lehi traveling?Did he travel 3 days into the wilderness specifically to avoid sacrificing in the temple in Jerusalem? or was he traveling elsewhere when the time came to to sacrifice, and since he was beyond the 3 day inclusion zone he built an alter and made his offering right there on the road to somewhere else?Lehi
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 Are you kidding me? You are going to prove the BOM is true based on a Gnostic text written by "Christian intellectuals" who were writing their own "prequels/interpretations" of what the writers would have written if they were alive during their time. The ancient christians broke into many "splinter groups" after Christ was no longer with them. One of which was a fringe group who taught Christ wasn't even crucified. That he switched bodies with the man who aided him in carrying the cross.(Gnostics/ writer's of the dead sea scrolls) Have you even read the dead sea scrolls? The scrolls themselves are ancient but not written by the purpoted apostle whose names the scrolls carry. It is the equivalant of me writing the Book of Joseph Smith as if he did it himself, then Bury it, 1000 years later a kid finds it and then turns it in to authorities. The more that is translated the more "cultish" and "obscure" the teachings become. You stand on dangerous ground using forged documents to verify the authenticity of anything. The ancient christians weren't united until Augustine (I believe) held his councils requiring christianianity as a whole to conform to one set of ideals and principles. Hence we get the Roman Catholic church and the creeds that Joseph claimed were an abomination in the sight of God. At best the Dead sea scrolls can be used to understand how the early christians struggled to form a church with fluid doctrine and theology. This same group also taught that women should hold the Priesthood, and that John the Baptist was the real savior. Maybee we are wrong maybe we should all convert to Gnosticism?The Jews who lived at Qumran were not Gnostics.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 If it is a major point with you, I suggest you write up an article on the subject and submit it for publication in a reputable scholarly journal.That is, if you are prepared to receive critical responses from rabbis telling you that the Talmud and Mishna divulged such information in print, long before the BoM ever saw press.Or, failing that, somebody is sure to trot out a relevant quote from "Clarke's Commentary," or the Edinburgh "Royal Arch Craftsman," or some such pre-1830 English language source.Then you will have to return to the fall-back line of defense, in asking how JS could have ever read the Talmud ----- and why Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon's possible readings of such source material could not have influenced the BoM text.Methinks it best to avoid submisison of your thesis to the Journal of Biblical Literature; but ol' Doc Peterson would perhaps insert it into the back pages of a FARMS Review for you.UDDear Uncle Dale,I just can't wait until I write it up and submit it.Maybe you could share the references available to Joseph Smith that talk about it being okay to offer sacrifice away from the temple; and specifically three days' journey?All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 I was reffering to Nag Hammadi, I apologize for the misimformation. Please excuse my previous post's as my premis was @ fault. I will take my stripes now. Do the stripes include acknowledging the irony of your comment that "you cannot verify truth with fabrication"?All the Best!--Consiglieri
sailgirl7 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Maybe you could share the references available to Joseph Smith that talk about it being okay to offer sacrifice away from the temple; and specifically three days' journey?Exodus 8:27 We will go three daysâ?? journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. Exodus 5:3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three daysâ?? journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword. Exodus 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three daysâ?? journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
Chris Smith Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Explain to me again why Lehi would have acted according to an intertestamental commentary penned by an exclusionary sect that didn't exist when he lived, rather than following the injunctions of the Deuteronomic school, of which his favorite prophet Jeremiah was apparently a part?Just curious.
Severian Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Um, I'm not seeing that there's a connection. The Temple scroll passage says that if you are within a three day walk of Jerusalem, you should sacrifice at the temple there and not elsewhere. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi walked three days away from Jerusalem to sacrifice (meaning he disobeyed what the Temple Scroll lays out). At best, they are two different issues; at worst, they contradict, meaning Smith got it exactly wrong. Take care This would be more understandable if you considered that there are more than three different symbols on the LDS Temple and that there are at least three types of Pepsi. Now does this proof become clear?
rhinomelon Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 This would be more understandable if you considered that there are more than three different symbols on the LDS Temple and that there are at least three types of Pepsi. Now does this proof become clear?Like three kinds of crystal! Thanks
Uncle Dale Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Exodus 8:27 We will go three daysâ?? journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. Hey there, Sister -- whose side are you on here anyway?We're supposed to be proving that none of this was known until 1947, right?Uncle "I get confused myself, as to which side I'm arguing" Dale
sailgirl7 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Hey there, Sister -- whose side are you on here anyway?We're supposed to be proving that none of this was known until 1947, right?Uncle "I get confused myself, as to which side I'm arguing" DaleI'm on the side of "Truth" whatever that may be.Sailgirl "I'm only confused half of the time" 7
Chris Smith Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Exodus 8:27 We will go three daysâ?? journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. Exodus 5:3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three daysâ?? journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword. Exodus 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three daysâ?? journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.Well, that ends that discussion. Thanks for pooping on the party, sailgirl.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 Well, that ends that discussion. Thanks for pooping on the party, sailgirl. I'm not sure that three references to the same event, namely Moses leaving an Egyptian city to go out into the wilderness three days' journey to offer sacrifice, completely poops my party; inasmuch as there was no Israelite temple they were leaving behind. In other words, Moses could not be expected to restrict his sacrifices to a temple that had not yet been constructed.This seems a different situation than that of Lehi, though I might admit there is a parallel there the author of 1st Nephi expected his audience to "get."All the Best!--ConsiglieriOoo... Consigleri she got ya there. And who died and made you boss?Geez, a guy finally gets a dictionary and he thinks he's in charge of everything.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.