DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

[mfbukowski]

If you are not even listening to the answers, why bother with the thread?

Plug your ears and yell "It's not AT Jerusalem" over and over.

Oh wait that is what you are doing already

[volgadon]

9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Yes, and a society without motor transport would distinguish between the two locations.

See page 90. https://books.google.com/books?id=RNUWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=Bethlehem+tudela&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjznq2y2YDLAhUU6mMKHeYkANEQ6AEIFzAC#v=onepage&q=Bethlehem%20tudela&f=false

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

You have changed the goal posts, Jim, and are too proud to admit you are wrong -- pride goeth before a fall:

Quote

Jim Stiles said:

Samuel was a prophet.  He was not a priest.  He was not a high priest.  He was categorically unqualified to serve in either capacity.  Even Jesus could not serve as either a priest or a high priest.

Jethro was not a priest in the temple.  He died before the temple was constructed.  Same is true of Melchizedek and Joseph's father-in-law in Egypt.

Jeremiah and John the Baptist were not priests in the temple.

Jesus did not hold the Aaronic priesthood and could not serve as priest or high priest in the temple.  Jesus is the high priest of the order of Melchizedek, but that priestly order replaced the temple.

Again, you need to read the Bible, Jim:  Jethro was a kohen, and performed sacrifices to God in the presence of Aaron and Moses (Ex 18:12), shortly after which the Tabernacle-temple in the Desert was constructed by the Israelites.  Potiphar was a kohen in the temple at On (Heliopolis) in Egypt.  Melchizedek was both king and priest of Salem/Jerusalem (Gen 14:18, Ps 110:4, Heb 5:6 - 7:21).  Who told you that there was not a temple there?  Every city had its own temple.  By what authority do you declare that Jeremiah and John the Baptizer did not work in the temple at Jerusalem?  Both were qualified priests who belonged to particular courses of temple service each year.  They may have served until called as prophets.  As for Jesus, he may serve in any capacity he so desires or finds necessary.  Who are you to tell him or his Father what the priestly rules are?  Moreover, the book of Revelation is filled with the Temple of God, which is not replaced by Jesus (why do you spout false doctrine?).

Edited February 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Joseph Smith goofed.  Alma did not say the Jerusalem district, he said "at Jerusalem."  No knowledgeable person would say Jerusalem to indicate Bethlehem.

Again, I see that you are afraid to read my summary, which shows that ancient documents referred to the Land of Jerusalem as including Bethlehem.  You also take the "at Jerusalem" out of context in Alma 7:10. "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers."  The phrase "land of Jerusalem" occurs dozens of times in the Book of Mormon, clearly being used to refer to it as a district, which is what non-Mormon biblical scholars consider it to have been, and which they include in their Bible atlases.  Not even a 5-year-old child would mistake the city of Jerusalem for Bethlehem, so that by your own words you prove my point -- Joseph followed an authentic ancient text, since only in ancient times would one refer to the Land of Jerusalem as the place of Jesus' birth.

Thanks for the correction.  Lehi was of the half-tribe of Manasseh and his ancestral lands were not in Jerusalem but in Samaria.  For Americans, a hundred years is a long time.  Non-americans think differently.  My ancestral lands are in England, but my family has been in North America at least three hundred years.

The BofM speaks of the lands of his inheritance, which refers to lands owned by the family and inherited by him, and not necessarily in North Israel in general, nor Samaria in particular.  That is pure speculation by you.  It is far more likely that his wealthy clan bought lands in the hills of Judah or Benjamin while the Assyrians ruled in the north, and that it was there that he cached his valuables.

 

[Jim Stiles]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, you need to read the Bible, Jim:  Jethro was a kohen, and performed sacrifices to God in the presence of Aaron and Moses (Ex 18:12), shortly after which the Tabernacle-temple in the Desert was constructed by the Israelites.  Potiphar was a kohen in the temple at On (Heliopolis) in Egypt.  Melchizedek was both king and priest of Salem/Jerusalem (Gen 14:18, Ps 110:4, Heb 5:6 - 7:21).  Who told you that there was not a temple there?  Every city had its own temple.  By what authority do you declare that Jeremiah and John the Baptizer did not work in the temple at Jerusalem?  Both were qualified priests who belonged to particular courses of temple service each year.  They may have served until called as prophets.  As for Jesus, he may serve in any capacity he so desires or finds necessary.  Who are you to tell him or his Father what the priestly rules are?  Moreover, the book of Revelation is filled with the Temple of God, which is not replaced by Jesus (why do you spout false doctrine?).

Jethro's sacrifices to the Triune God were made before the Aaronic Priesthood was founded.  Potiphar was a priest in an Egyptian temple and worshipped the Egyptian gods.  Melchizedek lived and died long before the Aaronic priesthood was founded.  Every city had its own temple.  Only two temples were places of worship of the God Who Is Really There, and one of those temples was heretical and schismatic.  If there were scripture indicating that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were priests (they were not), then you would be quoting them.

There is no shadow of turning in God the Son just as there is no shadow of turning in either God the Father or God the Spirit.  Once the Triune God sets down a rule, he would never have even the desire to violate the rule.

Concerning the temple in Revelation:

Quote

Revelation 21:1-8 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It is the Holy City where the Triune God and the elect will live together forever and ever.  The bolded portion aforementioned scripture is a warning to those who repeat the spurious lies of men.

[Rajah Manchou]

36 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

Only two temples were places of worship of the God Who Is Really There, and one of those temples was heretical and schismatic.

Maybe this one is heretical & schismatic too, but its awfully close to Jerusalem and an interesting discovery, regardless of what your opinion of it might be.

"An Israel Antiquities Authority statement described the walls of the Jewish Temple structure found at Tel Motza as massive and claimed that it confirmed to the tradition of temple construction in the ancient Middle East. A square structure which experts believe to be an altar was found in the temple courtyard and the collection of sacred vessels was found nearby." (source)

There are tribes in Zimbabwe (Lemba) and Burma (Beni Manashe) who claim to have left Jerusalem 2700 years ago, around the same time as Lehi. DNA tests confirm, at least in the case of the Lemba, that they are of kohen descent. Both tribes continued their practice and at times even erected altars for sacrifice. Yeah, yeah, I know, schismatic and heretical, but whatever, they were doing what they could to maintain their traditions tens of thousands of miles from home, in exile. I'd guess the Lehites would have been no different.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

Also interesting that even though the Tel Motza Temple was not in (or at) Jerusalem, most of the articles refer to it being near, not far, or in the region of Jerusalem. 

"The finds recently discovered at Tel Motza provide rare archaeological evidence for the existence of temples and ritual enclosures in the Kingdom of Judah in general, and in the Jerusalem region in particular"

Motza is almost the same distance from Jerusalem as Bethlehem, both being in the region of Jerusalem. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Jethro's sacrifices to the Triune God were made before the Aaronic Priesthood was founded.  Potiphar was a priest in an Egyptian temple and worshipped the Egyptian gods.  Melchizedek lived and died long before the Aaronic priesthood was founded.

You said there were no other priests, outside Israel, and of course there were.  The operative Hebrew word is kohen "priest" applied to each of the above, and God recognized the offerings by the priests Jethro and Melchizedek.

 Every city had its own temple.  Only two temples were places of worship of the God Who Is Really There, and one of those temples was heretical and schismatic.

Once again, you haven't read your Bible.  There were Israelite temples at various locations from Dan to Beersheba, aside from all the high places and sanctuaries throughout Israel (which Hezekiah and Josiah sought to close down).  Many of them have been recovered archeologically, but you appear to be unaware of them.  Anyhow, after the death of Solomon, the Israelites split into two kingdoms, each with their own temples and share of the tribe of Levi to perform priestly functions.

 If there were scripture indicating that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were priests (they were not), then you would be quoting them.

Again, it might help if you would read your Bible:  Jer 1:1 says that Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah the priest, from Anathoth (priesthood is patrilineal).  Jeremiah was served by two fellow priests, Baruch and Seraiah (Jer 36:4,26,32, 43:6, 51:59), both professional scribes -- whose seal impressions have been found archeologically.  Luke 1 contains the story of the birth of John the Baptizer to the priest Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (cousin of Mary) -- priesthood is patrilineal.  Do you even bother to read the Gospels, Jim?

..............................................................

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Jim Stiles]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jethro's sacrifices to the Triune God were made before the Aaronic Priesthood was founded.  Potiphar was a priest in an Egyptian temple and worshipped the Egyptian gods.  Melchizedek lived and died long before the Aaronic priesthood was founded.

You said there were no other priests, outside Israel, and of course there were.  The operative Hebrew word is kohen "priest" applied to each of the above, and God recognized the offerings by the priests Jethro and Melchizedek.

 Every city had its own temple.  Only two temples were places of worship of the God Who Is Really There, and one of those temples was heretical and schismatic.

Once again, you haven't read your Bible.  There were Israelite temples at various locations from Dan to Beersheba, aside from all the high places and sanctuaries throughout Israel (which Hezekiah and Josiah sought to close down).  Many of them have been recovered archeologically, but you appear to be unaware of them.  Anyhow, after the death of Solomon, the Israelites split into two kingdoms, each with their own temples and share of the tribe of Levi to perform priestly functions.

 If there were scripture indicating that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were priests (they were not), then you would be quoting them.

Again, it might help if you would read your Bible:  Jer 1:1 says that Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah the priest, from Anathoth (priesthood is patrilineal).  Jeremiah was served by two fellow priests, Baruch and Seraiah (Jer 36:4,26,32, 43:6, 51:59), both professional scribes -- whose seal impressions have been found archeologically.  Luke 1 contains the story of the birth of John the Baptizer to the priest Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (cousin of Mary) -- priesthood is patrilineal.  Do you even bother to read the Gospels, Jim?

Nothing in Jeremiah says that he was not of the tribe of Levi.  Do you want me to quote the entire book?  Just because the KJV is public domain does not mean that it would be a good idea to quote entire books in posts.

Quote

Jeremiah 1:1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:

Zacharias was a priest.  His son was not.  Both were of the tribe of Levi.

Quote

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

The high places were sanctuaries for the worship of the Canaanite gods.  That is why Hezekiah and Josiah wanted them destroyed.

The important fact is that the Book of Mormon says that no one from the tribe of Levi (priests) or a direct patrilineal descendant of Aaron (high priests) went to the New World.  Therefore, the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon, if it ever existed, was an abomination in the sight of God.

Quote

2 Nephi 5:16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

This passage of Daniel refers to the sacrifices made in the temple after the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE by the Romans, but in one sense it refers to all spurious and impious sacrifices that do not point towards the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the entire elect.

Quote

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

BTW, I also saw this:

Quote

2 Nephi 5:15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

So much for the Heartland model of Book of Mormon geography.

 

[Jim Stiles]

As to changing temple practices:

Quote

Leviticus 10:1-2 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.

If He punishes minor changes in temple protocol with death, how would he punish major changes in temple protocol like a non-Levitical priesthood?

 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Jethro's sacrifices to the Triune God were made before the Aaronic Priesthood was founded.  Potiphar was a priest in an Egyptian temple and worshipped the Egyptian gods.  Melchizedek lived and died long before the Aaronic priesthood was founded.  Every city had its own temple.  Only two temples were places of worship of the God Who Is Really There, and one of those temples was heretical and schismatic.  If there were scripture indicating that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were priests (they were not), then you would be quoting them.

There is no shadow of turning in God the Son just as there is no shadow of turning in either God the Father or God the Spirit.  Once the Triune God sets down a rule, he would never have even the desire to violate the rule.

Concerning the temple in Revelation:

It is the Holy City where the Triune God and the elect will live together forever and ever.  The bolded portion aforementioned scripture is a warning to those who repeat the spurious lies of men.

How do you know any of this is true?   Where does it talk about the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament?  What is the rational basis for your interpretation over any other??

You never answered that.  You will point to history.  But all the history in the world will not prove that Jesus died for your sins.

There is no good reason to believe in the bible at all other than testimony, same as the Book of Mormon.

You just assert your interpretation without any backing or any reason to even listen to you.  Ridiculous.  This could be total fiction

Edited February 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Nothing in Jeremiah says that he was not of the tribe of Levi.  .................................

You said he was not a priest, which is absolutely false.  He was a priest, the son of a priest, and he was clearly of the tribe of Levi.  I did not say that he was not a member of the tribe of Levi.  You are completely wrong on all counts, Jim.

Zacharias was a priest.  His son was not.  Both were of the tribe of Levi.

If his father is a priest, that automatically makes John a priest.  Priesthood is patrilineal (father-son), or do you not understand the concept?

The high places were sanctuaries for the worship of the Canaanite gods.  That is why Hezekiah and Josiah wanted them destroyed.

Throughout the Bible, which you apparently do not bother to read, pious Israelites (and their Levites) regularly conduct ordinances and sacrifices at bamot "high places" throughout the land of Israel.  The closure of temples, sanctuaries, and high places by Hezekiah and Josiah went directly against this archaic, even Patriarchal tradition (still practiced by Father Lehi).  Canaanites have nothing to do with it.

The important fact is that the Book of Mormon says that no one from the tribe of Levi (priests) or a direct patrilineal descendant of Aaron (high priests) went to the New World.  Therefore, the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon, if it ever existed, was an abomination in the sight of God.

The BofM does not say that no Levites came to the New World, although most scholars assume that to be the case.  Most people understand that God can call anyone to his priesthood, and that Levites are not absolutely required.  What God decides to do is His business, and certainly not an abomination.

.................................................

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Jim Stiles]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Throughout the Bible, which you apparently do not bother to read, pious Israelites (and their Levites) regularly conduct ordinances and sacrifices at bamot "high places" throughout the land of Israel.  The closure of temples, sanctuaries, and high places by Hezekiah and Josiah went directly against this archaic, even Patriarchal tradition (still practiced by Father Lehi).  Canaanites have nothing to do with it.

The important fact is that the Book of Mormon says that no one from the tribe of Levi (priests) or a direct patrilineal descendant of Aaron (high priests) went to the New World.  Therefore, the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon, if it ever existed, was an abomination in the sight of God.

The BofM does not say that no Levites came to the New World, although most scholars assume that to be the case.  Most people understand that God can call anyone to his priesthood, and that Levites are not absolutely required.  What God decides to do is His business, and certainly not an abomination.

2 Kings praises Hezekiah because removed the high places, destroyed images, cut down sacred groves, and destroyed all forms of worship outside of The Temple, which were unacceptable to God.

Quote

2 Kings 18:1-6 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/18/2016 at 0:51 PM, Jim Stiles said:

As to changing temple practices:

If He punishes minor changes in temple protocol with death, how would he punish major changes in temple protocol like a non-Levitical priesthood?

 

Your credibility is dropping through the floor.  You do not answer questions, you do not listen to answers.

I guess you gave up on the "at Jerusalem" issue.

This has already been answered- two priesthoods- the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek before Aaron and Levi were even born.  Jesus is a "priest forever" after the order of Melchizedek.  This priesthood is forever.  The Aaronic is a subdivision of the Melchizedek

And this is also the priesthood of the Nephites.  The Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic- so Melchizedek Priests can perform the ordinances of the Aaronic, but not the other way around.

There is a basic misunderstanding here- you keep quoting the bible.  That argument falls on deaf ears.  Yes we accept the bible, but as modified by Joseph AND our testimonies.

Yes, he modified the bible, and we agree with that.  Your telling us this again and again is a "duh" issue!  Your mention of what you think of as "The Occult" is also irrelevant. 

You can quote your misunderstanding of the bible all year but it is not going to change anything.  We have heard ALL of these arguments 100 times.  This is an apologetics board and there are answers for everything you can even dream up.  You will not accept any of them, because of your tunnel vision

So why don't we get to the basic issues instead of all these details?  Why do you believe the bible in the first place??  Why should we??

How do you know that your interpretation of the bible is the "correct" one??  Why should we be impressed by your arguments?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

2 Kings praises Hezekiah because removed the high places, destroyed images, cut down sacred groves, and destroyed all forms of worship outside of The Temple, which were unacceptable to God.

  Quote

2 Kings 18:1-6 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.

Does it seem at all strange that a holy image used by Moses, the Nehushtan (brazen serpent), is disowned by Hezekiah?  After all, it is a type of the Messiah (Christ) which is to come.  How can one part of Scripture be thus opposed to another part? How do you reconcile those differing parts of Scripture?  And why is it that Jews in Egypt have no qualms about building and worshiping at Jewish temples there?  Are they all (including Moses) a bunch of heretics?  Or is there a more nuanced explanation?

[JAHS]

On 2/17/2016 at 1:17 PM, Jim Stiles said:

Joseph Smith goofed.  Alma did not say the Jerusalem district, he said "at Jerusalem."  No knowledgeable person would say Jerusalem to indicate Bethlehem.

 

Alma did not give a more precise location for the birth of Jesus, probably because he was talking to people some five centuries removed from any direct knowledge of the geography of Judea. Bethlehem is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and its exact location would almost certainly have been unknown to the average non-scholarly Nephite. A prophetic reference to a small unfamiliar village near Jerusalem would, therefore, likely have been meaningless to Alma's audience. Jerusalem, by contrast, was well known and frequently mentioned.
This would also have been consistant with how locations of cities were identified in the Book of Mormon. Many times smaller cities were identified as being within the land of another major city:
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah marched with his armies to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city."(Alma 47:20)
Here the armies marched to the city of Nephi which was the chief city within the Land of Nephi.

"And it came to pass that Moroni had thus gained a victory over one of the greatest of the armies of the Lamanites, and had obtained possession of the city of Mulek, which was one of the strongest holds of the Lamanites in the land of Nephi; and thus he had also built a stronghold to retain his prisoners.(Alma 53:6)
Here it talks about the city of Mulek being in the Land of Nephi.

This also happens within the Bible where it says, for example, that "king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee." (1 Kings 9:11,26, See also Gen 33:18, 2 Kings 23:33, 1 Chron. 2:22, 6:55)

The phrase "land of Jerusalem" was not known at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. But lately the phrase has been discovered in newly translated portions of the Dead Sea scrolls(The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 1993. Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1992, 57-58). 

Some time ago the so-called Amarna letters were found and in them is a reference to a place that W. F. Albright, probably the greatest American archaeologist of the twentieth century has identified as Bethlehem. And in those letters it's referred to as being in the land of Jerusalem. So here's a reference to Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem, just as the Book of Mormon describes it. (Walter Harrelson, "Shechem in Extra- Biblical References," The Biblical Archaeologist 20 (1957): 4, 6-7)

[Jim Stiles]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your credibility is dropping through the floor.  You do not answer questions, you do not listen to answers.

I guess you gave up on the "at Jerusalem" issue.

This has already been answered- two priesthoods- the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek before Aaron and Levi were even born.  Jesus is a "priest forever" after the order of Melchizedek.  This priesthood is forever.  The Aaronic is a subdivision of the Melchizedek

And this is also the priesthood of the Nephites.  The Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic- so Melchizedek Priests can perform the ordinances of the Aaronic, but not the other way around.

There is a basic misunderstanding here- you keep quoting the bible.  That argument falls on deaf ears.  Yes we accept the bible, but as modified by Joseph AND our testimonies.

Yes, he modified the bible, and we agree with that.  Your telling us this again and again is a "duh" issue!  Your mention of what you think of as "The Occult" is also irrelevant. 

You can quote your misunderstanding of the bible all year but it is not going to change anything.  We have heard ALL of these arguments 100 times.  This is an apologetics board and there are answers for everything you can even dream up.  You will not accept any of them, because of your tunnel vision

So why don't we get to the basic issues instead of all these details?  Why do you believe the bible in the first place??  Why should we??

How do you know that your interpretation of the bible is the "correct" one??  Why should we be impressed by your arguments?

There is a whole body of believers behind me.  For example, Alexander Campbell, Lutherans, and I may disagree with how regeneration works, but on the topics we have been discussing we agree.  All traditional Christians, as defined by the ecumenical creeds, are with Alexander Campbell and I with respect to the Book of Mormon text and the Levitical priesthood.  Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and I may differ from each other with regard to justification and sanctification (this is a heaven or hell difference), but we both agree with the traditional understanding of the ontological Trinity (Orthodox have a slightly different take on the economic Trinity).

According to this, Samuel was a Levite as well as a prophet.  If I have stated otherwise earlier, then I was mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levite

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

There is a whole body of believers behind me.  For example, Alexander Campbell, Lutherans, and I may disagree with how regeneration works, but on the topics we have been discussing we agree.  All traditional Christians, as defined by the ecumenical creeds, are with Alexander Campbell and I with respect to the Book of Mormon text and the Levitical priesthood.  Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and I may differ from each other with regard to justification and sanctification (this is a heaven or hell difference), but we both agree with the traditional understanding of the ontological Trinity (Orthodox have a slightly different take on the economic Trinity).

According to this, Samuel was a Levite as well as a prophet.  If I have stated otherwise earlier, then I was mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levite

So religion by majority rule.

No thanks, I have to know for myself.

Christ talked about sheep, but didn't act like one. For me the question is how many of those could put together a rational argument for themselves, about what they believe.

Edited February 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

According to this, Samuel was a Levite as well as a prophet.  If I have stated otherwise earlier, then I was mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levite

You get your scripture knowledge from wikipedia?

[amo]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

You get your scripture knowledge from wikipedia?

& not only that, it wouldn't surprise me if he also got his "testimony" from that same place... 

 

amo

[Jim Stiles]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

You get your scripture knowledge from wikipedia?

Very little actually, but some of their articles are good.  The aforementioned article was written completely from a Jewish perspective.  This is a perspective that I do not always see.

For what it is worth, the linage of Samuel is given in 1 Chronicles 6.  The Book of Samuel says that he was an Ephraimite, but that is a geographical designation, not a genealogical designation.  Because the Levites were not given land to farm in Canaan, they were assigned to cities within each tribe's land.  Samuel was assigned to Ephraim's land.  This type of designation is also given in Judges 17:7.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

.............................................

According to this, Samuel was a Levite as well as a prophet.  If I have stated otherwise earlier, then I was mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levite

Very nice article.  Thank you for that.  However, I am mystified as to why they would list Samuel the Prophet as a Levite, since I Sam 1:1 plainly declares him an Ephraimite, whose mother dedicates him to God, and he is raised at Shiloh by the HP Eli.  He does function as a priest, but is not a Levite, because he is owned by God.

[Jim Stiles]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So religion by majority rule.

No thanks, I have to know for myself.

Christ talked about sheep, but didn't act like one. For me the question is how many of those could put together a rational argument for themselves, about what they believe.

I have yet to see a rational argument for following the religion of a single 19th century man over the 1800 years of church history prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.  The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Pentecostals do not agree on much, but they all basically use the same Bible.

[Jim Stiles]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does it seem at all strange that a holy image used by Moses, the Nehushtan (brazen serpent), is disowned by Hezekiah?  After all, it is a type of the Messiah (Christ) which is to come.  How can one part of Scripture be thus opposed to another part? How do you reconcile those differing parts of Scripture?  And why is it that Jews in Egypt have no qualms about building and worshiping at Jewish temples there?  Are they all (including Moses) a bunch of heretics?  Or is there a more nuanced explanation?

The Ten Commandments forbade the use of images in worship.  Hezekiah was just following the law that they were always supposed to follow.

The houses of worship in Egypt were probably synagogues or something similar.  Synagogues did not replace the Temple in Jerusalem, but were local places of worship for when a trip to Jerusalem was not practical, or possible after 70 CE.  They did not replace the temple, like the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon.

[Jim Stiles]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very nice article.  Thank you for that.  However, I am mystified as to why they would list Samuel the Prophet as a Levite, since I Sam 1:1 plainly declares him an Ephraimite, whose mother dedicates him to God, and he is raised at Shiloh by the HP Eli.  He does function as a priest, but is not a Levite, because he is owned by God.

1 Chronicle 6.  I suggest using the New International Version for this text.  He was a Levite assigned to the cities in Ephraim.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%206&version=KJV;NIV;RSV

Edited February 20, 2016 by Jim Stiles