Book of Mormon Internal Consistency

Kerry Shirts said:
circumstances? Have a look at the evidence.

"The internal framework of the Book of Mormon is indeed complex. The events identified in the book cover a time span of approximately 2,600 years and occur in both the Old and New Worlds."

Here again, is something most critics will not realize. They think the BofM is only a New World document, but it clearly states it begins in the Old World in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. They originating culture is their Hebraic, Egyptian background. Interestingly enough, via archaeology and scholarship, it is now well understood that Egyptian culture definitely had a strong influence on the Hebraic culture at just this time, and in this place, Israel from 700-550 B.C. The BofM opens on a correct cultural note, contra WildBlue Yonders mere assertions that it doesn't reflect true ancient cultures.
Click to expand...
can you show us some BoM examples? like "Moses", or sailing or something
 
WildBlueYonder said:
I think he gave several clues, such as "Moroni", & if my understanding of the diff between how 'lies' & 'truth' work, the truth is always the same, lies change, depending on what the liar remembers he said previously, poor Joe Smith, he lived in the age of the recorded word, so his "First Vision" becomes "First Versions" since they are all diff
Click to expand...

Actually, the Book of Mormon displays remarkable consistency throughout the entire text. Remember, Joseph Smith was dictating, not writing, and there were not (to my knowledge) any discrepancies in the text which would indicate that JS was "making it up as he went along." You try writing a 500+ page religious book, full of references to Christ and His gospel, and have it be entirely self-consistent. I think you'll find how hard that is to do if you're an uneducated 19th century farm boy who is dictating the whole thing to a scribe.
 
Kerry Shirts said:
Yes, but you miss the whole point. We insipidly stupid and dumb Mormons don't have the wherewith all or the brains to recognize the con. We're so mentally weak, and spiritually dolts, that God cannot even redeem us! We are lost, have the wrong Gospel, have the wrong Jesus, read the wrong books, are such unenlightened pagan heathens that we will never be able to intelligently, nor discriminately decipher truth from falsehood because we are so deceived even God has foresaken us. Our brains are mush, the scholarship sucks, the conclusions all apologetic pablum............... there just ain't no chance fer us idiots in the church............... :p
Click to expand...
Finally, some truth.
 
Kerry Shirts said:
"The internal framework of the Book of Mormon is indeed complex. The events identified in the book cover a time span of approximately 2,600 years and occur in both the Old and New Worlds."
Click to expand...


Hell yea it is complex. Touches so many aspects of humanity.... i mean feel free.

How many stories of war have you heard where there is a fight between to huge nations and both are destroyed in brutal battle and the final showdown is between the two final leaders, the survivors

Shiz and Coriantumr.

Shiz gets pwnd at then end. Coriantumr barely lives. Both nations utterly wasted, bones heaped upon all the land.

Then Jesus comes to visit after the whole american continent is wracked and shaken in tempest earthquakes and turmoil.

The book is crowned by Jesus' guest appearance!!!
 
Kerry Shirts said:
Yes, but you miss the whole point. We insipidly stupid and dumb Mormons don't have the wherewith all or the brains to recognize the con. We're so mentally weak, and spiritually dolts, that God cannot even redeem us! We are lost, have the wrong Gospel, have the wrong Jesus, read the wrong books, are such unenlightened pagan heathens that we will never be able to intelligently, nor discriminately decipher truth from falsehood because we are so deceived even God has foresaken us. Our brains are mush, the scholarship sucks, the conclusions all apologetic pablum............... there just ain't no chance fer us idiots in the church............... :p
Click to expand...
actually, so many of you mormons are too smart, that you out "rationalize" yourselves, you'll catch the weakest link in someone else's reasoning, then totally discount it, but holding on to any slim thread if its a weak link to support LDS, you want to believe this so badly, that you brain wash yourselves & each other


P.S.
God can redeem anyone, read the Bible
 
WildBlueYonder said:
actually, so many of you mormons are too smart, that you out "rationalize" yourselves, you'll catch the weakest link in someone else's reasoning, then totally discount it, but holding on to any slim thread if its a weak link to support LDS, you want to believe this so badly, that you brain wash yourselves & each other


P.S.
God can redeem anyone, read the Bible
Click to expand...

WBY, PHD, His expert diagnosis of "mormonism", hahaha *snort* lol.

Sounds like something you stole from one of the athiests in here...

Wish you could become a little more original; but that's just your selfsame psuedo-intellectual refuse. Provoking nausea whenever I read your posts.

It's like we've already proven you wrong 1000 times... why do it 1001? The cankering black hole of your doubt seems infinitly deep, I guess it's safe to say the extent of your responses will be proportionate with that of your endless gulf of disbelief.

But since you wanna keep going, go on, raise your sword.
 
Aw, don't be mean to WBY. He's definitely the best publicist the LDS could ever wish for! :D
 
Marlin said:
I find it interesting that in the above link, a Hebrew word that means exactly the same thing as "adieu" did in Joseph Smith's time has been found. Both words mean, "I commend you to God."
Click to expand...
this is a big-time mormon site:
www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/adieu.htm"]Why Is the French Word "Adieu" Used in the Book of Mormon?
there is no doubt, that the word "adieu" had been used in the english language, see below:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=adieu
adieu
c.1374, from O.Fr. adieu, from phrase a dieu (vous) commant "I commend (you) to God," from a "to" (from L. ad) + dieu "God," from L. deum, acc. of deus "god," from PIE *deiwos (see Zeus). Originally said to the party left; farewell was to the party setting forth.
Click to expand...
or this:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558048_2/English_Literature.html
Extending from 1066 to 1485, this period is noted for the extensive influence of French literature on native English forms and themes. From the Norman-French conquest of England in 1066 until the 14th century, French largely replaced English in ordinary literary composition, and Latin maintained its role as the language of learned works. By the 14th century, when English again became the chosen language of the ruling classes, it had lost much of the Old English inflectional system, had undergone certain sound changes, and had acquired the characteristic it still possesses of freely taking into the native stock numbers of foreign words, in this case French and Latin ones.
Click to expand...
the prob, is that out of nowhere ol' Jo Smith throws this french affectation, when if he was translating "Lehitra'ot" into english, why not say "goodbye" or "Godspeed"?
instead, Jo goes into Shakespearian prose? its like if I translate some sentence from Spanish & write it into English, but use the German word "auf Wiedersehen" at the end. did I really finish translating, did I just show off or did I give you a clue to my phoniness?

to translate, use this site:
http://translation2.paralink.com/
 
And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning -- Nephi

... adieu. . .
 
Randolfo:

Joseph Smith translated the word or phrase as "adieu" because IN HIS LANGUAGE, IN HIS TIME that was the common, NON-SHAKESPEARIAN way to say "Farewell." Period.

If you can't see this, you perhaps have comprehension problems.
 
Last edited:
WildBlueYonder said:
its like if I translate some sentence from Spanish & write it into English, but use the German word "auf Wiedersehen" at the end. did I really finish translating, did I just show off or did I give you a clue to my phoniness?
Click to expand...

So if I say au revoir, I'm being a phony for not saying it in English? What if Joseph Smith had translated a character saying the equivalent of bon voyage? Should he then have translated that as "happy voyage"? Or was the foreign term a legitimate part of the English language already?
 
Kerry Shirts said:
Hi Cris.......in other words, I can't refute the BofM, so I shall simply toss it off......... yes that is rather typical of those who realize it is beyond them.......I have seen this myriads of times. And saying apologists are simply perpetuating a con, *without* showing us *why* and *how* all this is a con. A simpleton enough trick to perform without actually engaging in any real work for yourself. My how easy to say.......
Click to expand...

Kerry--

And how might one "refute" BoM? How might one demonstrate that BoM is not a legitimately ancient document?

Those with a spiritual witness of its authenticity seem quite satisfied with minimal, or, in some cases, no evidence thereof. Those interested parties, without the LDS worldview, are generally convinced that the evidence against BoM's authenticity is varied, manifest, and compelling.

Given the LDS apologetic tendency to put forward unfalsifiable reinterpretations of LDS claims anent any number of things (in this case re: BoM), how would you suggest that one refute it?

Given that no one can prove a negative proposition, what can you possibly mean by [refuting BoM]?

What is the falsifiable claim (or claims) that you hold as demonstrative of BoM's authenticity and antiquity?

I can't refute the claim that the earth is flat. I can show evidence demonstrative of that proposition's contrary, but I can't counter claims that the counter-flat-earth evidence is misinterpreted, misapplied, or misunderstood, while the claims of the flat-earthers are compelling and definitive.

Again, what is the specific claim (or claims) you challenge others to refute (bearing in mind that you cannot expect anyone to prove a negative claim: e.g., the BoM is not true)?

Chris
 
I bought a Book of Mormon at a used bookstore for a $1, after I took it home I noticed it had colored bookmarks, that someone had put passages, that had verses to look up, like:
Helaman 3:25-28
Alma 34:8-17
3 Nephi 11:7-17

I think its funny if they really have to wear secret "holy" long underwear, specially women. it seems that women always have more strict rules in these different religions

say like that Texas cult, 400 married girls for old men????
isn't there a yuck factor there? thats got to be gross for those young girls
 
Kerry,

The Book of Mormon is certainly not consistent with the Bible…

The Bible says, Jesus was born in Bethlehem" Mt 2:1 + Mt 21:17
The Book of Mormon claims, "He shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem" Alma 7:10

So, where was Jesus born then?

Thanks
 
Kerry,

I always found it curious that at least some of the writings in the Book of Mormon appear to be exact word for exact word copies of the, much older at the time, King James Version of the Bible. In other words it looks as though someone just copied some of it word for word right out of the King James Bible. The original ancient plates could not have been either written in King James English or directly translated into King James English because King James English was not Joseph Smith’s or anyone else’s current tongue at the time the plates were supposedly translated.

So far, this makes no sense to me. Please check into this and let me know what you think.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top