David Miller wrote: >> Dave, I think the Book of Mormon speaks >> deceptively about the Bible.
DAVEH: > You can think what you want, but IMO the > BofM does not denigrate the Bible. It clearly leads both you and Blaine not to consider the Bible as "God's Word." You cannot give me a categorical, "yes, the Bible is God's Word." Instead, you always say something like, "I believe the Bible is God's Word as far as it is translated correctly." Such as statement gives you a huge amount of lee way. It obviously comes from the mindset that God has not preserved for us his Word in the form of the Bible. DAVEH: > I came to that conclusion from the way the Bible has > been treated by Christians in the past. It has changed > with time, and it happened before JS's time. Interestingly, the Apocrypha was dropped from Protestant Bibles just 3 years before Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon. DaveH wrote: > To me it seems somewhat arbitrary, depending on how > people perceive what the Lord wants them to believe. > Even today, the RCC recognizes the Apocrypha, while > most Protestants don't. If that isn't an arbitrary decision, > how do you see it? I see it as a difference in viewpoint. The RCC also recognizes edicts by the Pope as infallible, and recognizes numerous writings outside the Bible as infallible. It is no surprise to me that they would seek to include some of the Apocrypha as canon. The point is that there are reasons why the RRC accepts some of the Apocryphal books, and there are reasons why the Protestants reject them as part of the Canon. The decision is NOT arbitrary. There is so much debate and discussion on this subject in the literature that I do not feel qualified to speak about it myself because there are just so many books and so many arguments and so much to consider. I have not completely read all the literature on this subject because there is so much on it. Yet the way you talk, there is no rhyme or reason why some include the Apocryhpa and others don't. DAVEH: > I have pointed out a few translation errors that you didn't > dispute, so it seems obvious that errors of translation have > occurred. I'm certainly no scholar, but I'd bet that you know > of transmission errors that have occurred as well, though they > may not seem particularly severe to you. Am I wrong in this? I know plenty of mistakes, errors in transmission, translation problems, etc. Just because there are some problems does not mean that the Word of God failed to get preserved. I know of transmissions that eliminated the last part of Mark 16, but I still have Mark 16 because it still got preserved. I know that Joseph Smith attempted to add his writings to the canon too, but that doesn't mean that it worked to dilute the Bible. Despite Joseph Smith and all the others who have had their hand in altering God's Word, God still preserved his Word. DAVEH: > That is correct, the 1830 edition states such. > It is somewhat like the OT starts with....... > "The First Book of Moses --- called --- > GENESIS LOL. No, Dave, it is not the same. Why did he then change the title page of the next edition to identify him as the translator instead of the author and proprietor? Can't you see that Joe Smith's ego and ambition was coming out in that first edition? He wanted to make sure he was "Author and Proprietor" for monetary and celebrity gain. David Miller wrote: >> I find it very difficult to understand how anyone reading >> the above passage accepts that it was written around >> 550 B.C. To believe such a notion, a person absolutely >> must believe that the Book of Mormon had much greater >> prophets than those who wrote the Bible. DAVEH: > I don't know why you would say that. The Bible prophets > like Moses, Abraham & Isaiah were no slouches! <VBG> Come on, now. Where did they ever talk about 12 apostles, or where did they mention "A Bible! A Bible"? Where do they talk so forthrightly about the "travail, labor, and pain of the Jews" and spoke of the Gentiles as having anti-semitic attitudes toward the Jews? Show me a quote from someone pre-Isaiah who ever spoke this way. I've never seen such "prophetic foresight" at this level. DAVEH: > I would disagree. IMO, Isaiah was such a prophet..... > but perhaps you would disagree. Do you have a particular reference in mind? Where did Isaiah speak with such a 19th century mindset? DAVEH: > I don't recall Blaine ever suggesting the BofM prophets > were superior to Bible prophets. If you specifically remember > a comment from his to that effect, I'd sure like to read it to > get the context. What I remember is that he said that the BOM was much more clear and simple, easy to understand, because it was not missing the plain and precious parts. He compared it to the Bible and then gave us that quote to try and encourage us to read the BOM. He clearly expressed preference for the BOM over the Bible. I'll let Blaine comment, because I would rather deal with what he believes and thinks rather than what it sounded like he said. DaveH wrote: > ........DavidM, if you feel that JS's claim of authorship on > the title page is a problem, I have to disagree with you. > JS obviously gave credit to the original source of the BofM. There is no doubt that Joseph Smith gave credit to the original source. The thing I find interesting is how he first put himself there as the author and proprietor (legal owner). I think that is very revealing about his character and motives. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to recognize this. Apparently Smith himself recognized his blunder because he changed it in the next edition to show himself only as the translator. If Smith can recognize his blunder, how come you can't? An interesting thing along these lines is that I noticed that after Joseph Smith's father died, he started having people call him Joseph Smith, senior. I don't know why he didn't change the title page to start reading Joseph Smith senior, but there is interesting court documents of testimony whereby various Mormon followers have to explain all this. They try and make it very clear that Joseph Smith's father had indeed died and that Joseph Smith did not start going by that name until after his father had died. I find the whole matter of him dropping his junior status very curious. The man must have had an enormous ego. It is difficult for me to comprehend it. On the other hand, perhaps he was trying to avoid legal problems from his money scams by changing his name in this subtle way. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
