Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[bcuzbcuz]

You assume that the Greek Bible text contains the original writings. For example, the evidence indicates that the book of Matthew in Aramaic is an older text tradition than the greek version, and it contains this phrase. You cannot assume that an older manuscript is superior to a later one.

Please inform me. Your idea that Matthew in Aramaic is an older text "tradition" than the Greek version, do you have any references to back this up? I believe the Assyrian Church of the East agrees with you. But do you have any other sources that show that the Peshitta text is not a translation from the Greek?

No, older doesn't make a text superior...unless the newer text is merely translated from the older. Please show me where I'm wrong.

[CV75]

Yes we have common sense. 'The BoM has many passages that are identical to the KJV NT despite all the different imperfect humans involved in producing the latter.' Common sense tells me... They are a direct copy from the source (perhaps inspired to do so).

I am not arguing that at all; I pointed this out earlier.

It the problem is that if we know we have imperfect accounts of the translation process, then what purpose is served by limiting ourselves to those accounts and the apologetic and critical commentary thereof, when so much else (including common sense) is required for proper perspective?

[cdowis]

An interesting turn of phrase. And I mean exactly that, a turn of phrase. You take a horse and cart and turn it into a cart and horse and think you have provided a reasonable argument.

Please help me.

Go back to the original statement. Magic stones to find hidden treasure becomes magic stones that translate the word of God. Same tools, different outcomes but you "draw no conclusions".

Yep, it would be very simple for some people to draw a conclusion with only those facts. It reminds me of a very bright friend who was talking abt electrical shock, and used the phrase "divide by zero." I went crazy -- that's impossible. I later realized that in the real world, and with the tools of calculus, it was not so crazy after all.

Anyways, you appear very intelligent and let's see if you can figure it out yourself.

If I receive a letter in my e-mail, from some unknown person, claiming I have a long lost relative who has left me millions of dollars, these millions I can be sent IF I merely submit to this unknown person, a bank statement, or a credit card number or send a small sum of money to prove my good faith, do I close down my e-mail service, stop going on the internet or simply consign such mail from unknown persons to Junk Mail? Is the message or the messenger that I should suspect? Or both? Or should I conclude that since he/she used the internet, the same internet I use daily, that it must mean that I am to take the e-mail at face value? Draw your own conclusions.

You can prove anything with an analogy. I have learned analogies prove nothing and often are an excuse for shallow, lazy thinking.

FWIW, my use of Moroni is useful for me to understand what's going on here, but clearly you lost its significance. Anyway, give this more thought, and get rid of the idea that there is only one conclusion.

[ERayR]

I am not arguing that at all; I pointed this out earlier.

It the problem is that if we know we have imperfect accounts of the translation process, then what purpose is served by limiting ourselves to those accounts and the apologetic and critical commentary thereof, when so much else (including common sense) is required for proper perspective?

It seems that common sense is not so common.

[Johnnie Cake]

We already know you disagree and are skeptical. I will note your mockery and disrespect whenever it appears in something I am reading. Please don't expect less.

Cut me some slack ERayE, its not personal...don't take it so seriously...aren't we just killing time after all from our other wise boring lives...does any of this really matter in the long run? Don't kid yourself...no one here is making converts...we're all just living out our own modern day Flanders Field

[Nevo]

Interesting...please expound.

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary. On this view, while the historical Jesus probably did say a number of the things that appear in the sermon (or something roughly similar), he never spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount as a single, unified discourse. The Sermon on the Mount didn't exist in history until Matthew created it.

If you're interested, I'll start a separate thread on this topic. This one is going downhill fast.

[cdowis]

Please inform me. Your idea that Matthew in Aramaic is an older text "tradition" than the Greek version, do you have any references to back this up? I believe the Assyrian Church of the East agrees with you. But do you have any other sources that show that the Peshitta text is not a translation from the Greek?

No, older doesn't make a text superior...unless the newer text is merely translated from the older. Please show me where I'm wrong.

I have no interest in proving anything. It is merely a thought experiment demonstrating that simple or obvious conclusions are often built on faulty assumptions.

Textual analysis is often built on the false premise to go after the older text (which can be proved), rather than on the superior textual tradition (which is not so easy to prove). This is one particular example.

[cdowis]

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary.

Now comes whether we judge the BOM on such theories, or do we use the BOM text as the standard by which to test these theories.

Which is the dog, and which is the tail? "I can prove the BOM false by quoting texts which as obviously superior because they are older."

Edited May 29, 2013 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

I think it happened differently. First consider that God is helping Joseph learn to become a prophet/seer/translator and that instead of God wanting Joseph to open a book and copy from it what he would instead want to do is help Joseph to develop and perfect his thought processes. .....................................

Imagine that, and imagine how that would help Joseph learn to receive communications from God through the Holy Spirit. At some point the training wheels came off as Joseph became better and better at receiving communications through the Holy Spirit.

I'll buy your explanation if you can find similar "training wheels" in the life of Jesus, President McKay or President Monson. Where did any of these three (and I could name many more) practice to become the persons they turned out to be, by testing their skills with mystic or magical or suspicious or simply, hard to believe, methodologies? I know Jesus was put on trial, but no one called into question his healing of the sick or lame. I can't recall President Monson being on trial for anything, do you? I cannot recall President McKay ever doing anything that was considered below his title, at least not something that he talked about in conference, do you?

[bcuzbcuz]

superior textual tradition (which is not so easy to prove).

You said it all.

[ERayR]

Cut me some slack ERayE, its not personal...don't take it so seriously...aren't we just killing time after all from our other wise boring lives...does any of this really matter in the long run? Don't kid yourself...no one here is making converts...we're all just living out our own modern day Flanders Field

You want me to cut you slack so you can continue with your mockery and derision. Serious or not it is somebodies sacred beliefs. I long ago gave up trying to make converts on message boards. What I did not give up is the right to challenge mockery of my beliefs. You will find I have no problem with humor but I do with mockery.

[Ahab]

You want me to cut you slack so you can continue with your mockery and derision. Serious or not it is somebodies sacred beliefs. I long ago gave up trying to make converts on message boards. What I did not give up is the right to challenge mockery of my beliefs. You will find I have no problem with humor but I do with mockery.

There it is right there. You have a problem. It's always easier to fix your own problems than somebody else's, ya know.

Try a smile. That usually helps me. When you're feeling upset, just smile by thinking of something to smile about.

Kinda like the poor, we will also always have jerks to be with us. The key is to not let the jerks bother you even if you can't help them to get over being a jerk.

p.s. And No, I wasn't calling Johnny Cake a jerk. Just saying the same principle applies even to jerks.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ahab

[Johnnie Cake]

You want me to cut you slack so you can continue with your mockery and derision. Serious or not it is somebodies sacred beliefs. I long ago gave up trying to make converts on message boards. What I did not give up is the right to challenge mockery of my beliefs. You will find I have no problem with humor but I do with mockery.

With all due respect....you have a very low mockery threshold...if placing an "Ah Hum" before the word translation is mockery...then I guess we just define mockery differently...I've tried to extend an olive branch...but I guess you're not interested...so be it...I tried.

I think it best we just don't engage each other in the future ErayE :-( ...cuz I'm just bound to offend and mock you....seeing your low tolerance to be mocked

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

p.s. And No, I wasn't calling Johnny Cake a jerk. Just saying the same principle applies even to jerks.

Grrrrr...duely noted

[canard78]

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary. On this view, while the historical Jesus probably did say a number of the things that appear in the sermon (or something roughly similar), he never spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount as a single, unified discourse. The Sermon on the Mount didn't exist in history until Matthew created it.

If you're interested, I'll start a separate thread on this topic. This one is going downhill fast.

I might be imaging it, but there's often a tactic of taking a thread out by insulting people. That way the thread gets locked and the fact that non of the actual issues have been adequately answered can just be let go.

I'd ask those still on the thread again:

Why is Joseph being inspired to use the wording of Mark 16 when that passage of scripture has no origin in the original. What is essentially a made up summary of what happens later in Acts finds its way into the 'fullness of the gospel' with promises of snakes and poison.

[ERayR]

There it is right there. You have a problem. It's always easier to fix your own problems than somebody else's, ya know.

Try a smile. That usually helps me. When you're feeling upset, just smile by thinking of something to smile about.

Kinda like the poor, we will also always have jerks to be with us. The key is to not let the jerks bother you even if you can't help them to get over being a jerk.

I do smile all while I am writing a biting retort to their rudeness. When I'm in the sandbox and somebody throws sand at me I tend to throw it back. When they have finished throwing sand then we can go have an ice cream cone together.

[Johnnie Cake]

I might be imaging it, but there's often a tactic of taking a thread out by insulting people. That way the thread gets locked and the fact that non of the actual issues have been adequately answered can just be let go.

I'd ask those still on the thread again:

Why is Joseph being inspired to use the wording of Mark 16 when that passage of scripture has no origin in the original. What is essentially a made up summary of what happens later in Acts finds its way into the 'fullness of the gospel' with promises of snakes and poison.

Ok refocus on the OP...

[Ahab]

I do smile all while I am writing a biting retort to their rudeness. When I'm in the sandbox and somebody throws sand at me I tend to throw it back. When they have finished throwing sand then we can go have an ice cream cone together.

When they have finished... why wait for them to finish? Go get the guy some ice cream and you may help him to cheer up.

[Ahab]

Ok refocus on the OP...

That's part of what the OP is about... how to deal with people who say things we don't like to hear.

Ever had someone really mad at you while you tried your best to be nice to him? It will work wonders at least for you if not him.

Edit: Oh, wait. I had my threads mixed up. I thought this was that one Ellen started. Nevermind.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

I'll buy your explanation if you can find similar "training wheels" in the life of Jesus, President McKay or President Monson. Where did any of these three (and I could name many more) practice to become the persons they turned out to be, by testing their skills with mystic or magical or suspicious or simply, hard to believe, methodologies?

You're throwing out the terms "mystic" and "magical", but try thinking of those "methodologies" without labelling them that way. Each person develops into the person they become by making small steps which lead to larger ones. Our Lord grew from grace to grace in favor with God and man, or at least some men. He wasn't able to do all that he did later in life while he was a wee baby, don't cha know. President McKay and Monson also developed their skills and abilities and methodologies and powers of spiritual discernment later in life, too, as they also grew from grace to grace in favor with God and men. Nobody starts out perfectly developed in all of their skills and faculties. Even you will develop to become more than you are now while also developing all of your methodologies.

I know Jesus was put on trial, but no one called into question his healing of the sick or lame.

Think again. Not everyone believed he really healed the sick. A lot of people thought it was all a big scam.

I can't recall President Monson being on trial for anything, do you? I cannot recall President McKay ever doing anything that was considered below his title, at least not something that he talked about in conference, do you?

People have made accusations against them and their true powers and abilities, not considering them to be what they truly are. How is that different than putting them on trial? Are you convinced that all that they say is true? If so others aren't and the jury is still out as far as they are concerned.

[Nevo]

Why is Joseph being inspired to use the wording of Mark 16 when that passage of scripture has no origin in the original. What is essentially a made up summary of what happens later in Acts finds its way into the 'fullness of the gospel' with promises of snakes and poison.

The scriptures are full of inaccuracies, but I suspect even erroneous, compromised scripture can still serve God's purposes. Brigham Young seemed to think so:

"Revelations, when they have passed from God to man, and from man into his written and printed language, cannot be said to be entirely perfect, though they may be as perfect as possible under the circumstances; they are perfect enough to answer the purposes of Heaven at this time. . . . When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. . . . Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation." (

JD

9:310-311)

[CV75]

Ok refocus on the OP...

OK: If the problem is that if we know we have imperfect accounts of the translation process, then what purpose is served by limiting our conclusions to those accounts and the apologetic and critical commentary thereof, when so much else is required for proper perspective?

And, what difference does it make that the accounts, apologists and critics do not agree? What difference does it make if one throws out exactly how the Book of Mormon translation process(es) transpired as an Article of Faith (wait: it isn't one!)?

[omni]

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary. On this view, while the historical Jesus probably did say a number of the things that appear in the sermon (or something roughly similar), he never spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount as a single, unified discourse. The Sermon on the Mount didn't exist in history until Matthew created it.

If you're interested, I'll start a separate thread on this topic. This one is going downhill fast.

I don't want to derail the thread, but thanks for the great info!

[bcuzbcuz]

You're throwing out the terms "mystic" and "magical", but try thinking of those "methodologies" without labelling them that way. Each person develops into the person they become by making small steps which lead to larger ones. Our Lord grew from grace to grace in favor with God and man, or at least some men. He wasn't able to do all that he did later in life while he was a wee baby, don't cha know. President McKay and Monson also developed their skills and abilities and methodologies and powers of spiritual discernment later in life, too, as they also grew from grace to grace in favor with God and men. Nobody starts out perfectly developed in all of their skills and faculties. Even you will develop to become more than you are now while also developing all of your methodologies.

Think again. Not everyone believed he really healed the sick. A lot of people thought it was all a big scam.

People have made accusations against them and their true powers and abilities, not considering them to be what they truly are. How is that different than putting them on trial? Are you convinced that all that they say is true? If so others aren't and the jury is still out as far as they are concerned.

Ok, I will throw out the terms of mystical, magical or any similar terms. In my life experiences, since leaving the church, I take the skeptics position. Anyone who claims to see through a crystal ball or through tarot cards or seances or divination or astrology or any of the following:

• Alectromancy: by observation of a rooster pecking at grain
  
• Astrology: by the movements of celestial bodies.
  
• Astromancy: by the stars.
  
• Augury: by the flight of birds.
  
• Bazi or four pillars: by hour, day, month, and year of birth.
  
• Bibliomancy: by books; frequently, but not always, religious texts.
  
• Cartomancy: by playing cards, tarot cards, or oracle cards.
  
• Ceromancy: by patterns in melting or dripping wax.
  
• Cheiromancy: by the shape of the hands and lines in the palms.
  
• Chronomancy: by determination of lucky and unlucky days.
  
• Clairvoyance: by spiritual vision or inner sight.
  
• Cleromancy: by casting of lots, or casting bones or stones.
  
• Cold reading: by using visual and aural clues.
  
• Crystallomancy: by crystal ball also called scrying.
  
• Extispicy: by the entrails of animals.
  
• Face Reading: by means of variations in face and head shape.
  
• Feng shui: by earthen harmony.
  
• Gastromancy: by stomach-based ventriloquism (historically).
  
• Geomancy: by markings in the ground, sand, earth, or soil.
  
• Haruspicy: by the livers of sacrificed animals.
  
• Horary astrology: the astrology of the time the question was asked.
  
• Hydromancy: by water.
  
• I Ching divination: by yarrow stalks or coins and the I Ching.
  
• Kau cim by means of numbered bamboo sticks shaken from a tube.
  
• Lithomancy: by stones or gems.
  
• Necromancy: by the dead, or by spirits or souls of the dead.
  
• Numerology: by numbers.
  
• Oneiromancy: by dreams.
  
• Onomancy: by names.
  
• Palmistry: by lines and mounds on the hand.
  
• Paper fortune teller: origami used in fortune-telling games
  
• Pendulum reading: by the movements of a suspended object.
  
• Pyromancy: by gazing into fire.
  
• Rhabdomancy: divination by rods.
  
• Runecasting or Runic divination: by runes.
  
• Scrying: by looking at or into reflective objects.
  
• Spirit board: by planchette or talking board.
  
• Taromancy: by a form of cartomancy using tarot cards.
  
• Tasseography or tasseomancy: by tea leaves or coffee grounds
  

or ouija boards (and I probably missed an equal number of similar practices) or as in Joseph Smith's case "seer stones" or "Urim and Thummin"

I view with deep distrust.

I spent a number of years translating business documents from English into Swedish and back again. I have taught in two different languages for more than 30 years. I am fluent enough in a number of languages to stumble through written work in those languages and am currently learning Egyptian hieroglyphs and Spanish.

Translation of any document is not easy. It is time consuming and full of pitfalls. Try putting a phrase or paragraph or whole document into Google Translate, translate it into another language then take the same phrase and put it into reverse, going from the newly translated document back into English (or whatever language you are most fluent with). You will find the outcome hilarious (if you have a somewhat twisted and boring sense of humour)

Merely having a thought does not necessarily put that thought into languages known or unknown. So in other words, I don't believe in speaking in tongues. Joseph Smith wrote a document now known as "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Not a single symbol or word matches any known work of actual Egyptian translation. These documents can now be found on church sites listed as "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers".

No matter which method used, or tool used, for that matter, a translation must coincide with the document being translated. Anything else is not a translation, but merely a work of independent imagination.

[Calm]

Jesus gave the same instructions to his disciples in the Americas and Mormon quoted them.

Excellent point in my opinion.