Addressing LDS scriptural problems

I just happened to be home today with the flu and noticed two messages from “Bygrace.” Several days ago, I suggested that Bygrace commit to using his intellect rather than just posting someone else’s thoughts. He now apparently proposes posting a couple of messages every day like the ones below. So, he’s just doing the same thing as before - - only in smaller doses. It remains to be seen whether he can or will stand behind what he posts - - beyond simply claiming that he’s found an insurmountable problem. I wonder if he’ll stick with any of the problems long enough to do anything more than mention them.

First alleged problem: Bygrace claims that 1 Nephi 22:15 from the Book of Mormon is a quote of Malachi 4:1. Without doing too much of his work, (I have to read some of his mind here) I have to assume that he believes that if Joseph Smith produces a work that pre-dated Malachi, and if it uses some of the same words as the KJV of Malachi that it therefore cannot be what it claims to be - - namely, an authentic book of scripture. Let’s look at the passages he referenced:

Malachi 4:1
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

1 Nephi 22:15
For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.

Bygrace said, “I want to address the words ‘stubble’ and ‘the day cometh that they must be burned.’" This is quoting Malachi 4:1.

Note that Nephi claims to be quoting someone because he prefaces the passage with “saith the prophet.” Is he really quoting Malachi here or has Bygrace overstated the case? I see some very similar wording, but I also see some significant differences. In fact, the parts that Bygrace points to specifically actually are closer to Isaiah 47:14 than Malachi: “Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them.” (Isaiah 47:14) Malachi says they will be stubble, Nephi and Isaiah say they will be as stubble. Malachi says the day will burn them while Isaiah and Nephi don’t.

But let’s assume that the two passages are identical. What would that prove? Is it proof that “Joe” Smith (as Bygrace calls him) is a fraud? If it does, why doesn’t it make either Micah or Isaiah frauds because they clearly quote each other. (see Micah 4:1-2 and Isaiah 2:2-3)

I can see that one possible explanation for Micah and Isaiah could be that God inspired both men independently to write the same passage. But if that could be the case with Micah and Isaiah, why can it not be the case for Nephi and Malachi (or Isaiah)?

Now, this is one of my favorites. I asked Bygrace to give some studied thought to what he thinks is the biggest problem with Mormonism. Apparently, this is it:

1 nephi 22:20 This is probably one of the worst problems in the book and clearly shows that joe smith was in posession of a Bible when writing the book of mormon but was not very well versed at what it was saying.

Click to expand...

That’s one of the worst problems? I hate to break it to you, but pretty much everyone in America was in possession of a Bible in the 1820’s. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Joseph Smith had one too.

That’s all I have time for now. I’ll try to address his next problem as I have time.

Alma

ByGrace said:

Actually you have addressed nothing.

Click to expand...

How typical and predictable. I asked you to present criticism that you would be willing to stand behind, rather than abandon for an additional criticism. I addressed your first criticism where you claimed that Nephi quoted Malachi. I showed that the passage was much more similar to a passage from Isaiah. In reply, you say that I have addressed nothing. Well, if you’re content to ignore what I wrote, I guess I can assume that you have no answer. So let’s consider your next one:

Why did joe claim to be quoting Moses but instead quote Peter? Do you have an answer???

Click to expand...

In your first message, your criticism was worded a little differently. You wrote, “The author in 1 nephi says he is quoting Moses and then goes on to quote Peter's paraphrase of what Moses said.”

I believe you claimed that you had checked this stuff out and found out the truth? What exactly did you check? The idea that this is a “paraphrase” of Peter illustrates that you’re relying on someone else’s pseudo-scholarship or you really haven’t checked this stuff out.

Peter wasn’t paraphrasing anything. He quoted Deuteronomy 18, but his version is different than the Hebrew version that most people use today. That’s because he was using the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament that quotes Moses rather than God. In the Hebrew manuscripts the passage appears in the first person - God says, “I will raise up a prophet from among thy brethren like unto thee.” However, the Greek manuscripts quote Moses instead, saying, “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet from among thy brethren like unto me...” Look at the Book of Mormon passage. You’ll see that Nephi was claiming to quote Moses rather than God. Had he then cited the Masoretic version, he wouldn’t have been directly quoting Moses. The Septuagint, however, quotes Moses as do Peter and Nephi.

Even so, Nephi’s quote doesn’t follow Peter’s citation because it leaves out an important phrase “from among thy brethren” and instead of saying that those who didn’t follow the prophet would be “destroyed” Nephi says they would be “cut off from among the people.” Interestingly, that is precisely how the translators of the NIV rendered Peter’s comment 150 years after Joseph Smith’s translation. When you investigate the criticism, it becomes clear that there’s much more involved than appears on the surface.

Why does the book of mormon use the word "adieu?" This is a french word and was not developed from the greek language for many hundred years after it uses it in the book of mormon.

Click to expand...

My first reaction is to say, “You’ve got to be kidding,” but I’ve seen this so many times it is apparently only funny to Mormons.

Bygrace, look at the several thousand other words in the Book of Mormon. They’re in English. The Anglo-Saxon, and Latin derived words weren’t on the plates either. That’s the point of translation after all - to take something from a foreign language and place it in a format that is understandable in another language. I think that the fact that the word “adieu” appeared in Webster’s 1827 dictionary of the English language is beside the point that I’m trying to make here. Perhaps I can illustrate it with an example from another translation.

Plato wrote a work called the “Phaedrus” sometime before 347 B.C. -- long before French existed. From page 81 of the Penguin Classic, translated by Walter Hamilton (1908-1988), I noticed this comment which Plato attributes to Socrates: “My view is that, though the rest of the speech was really no more than a jeu d'esprit, yet in its random utterances two methods of reasoning can be discerned, and that it would be no bad thing if one could get a clear scientific idea of their function.”

Does the fact that Hamilton included this French phrase in his translation of an ancient text cause you to question the authenticity of this work of Plato? If it does not, could you explain to me why it does not and the same situation in the Book of Mormon does?

Also, the book of mormon was supposed to not have had any greek in it. It was supposedly written in reformed egyptian which is quite funny also since the Jews absolutely hated the egyptians and would never have used their language.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons Jerusalem was destroyed in 589 B.C. was because of their alliance with Egypt against the Babylonians. There are historical examples of Jewish settlements in Egypt (remember that’s also where Joseph took the young child Jesus) along with examples of Hebrew scriptures written in many languages, including several Egyptian scripts. How have you concluded that Jews would never have used Egyptian scripts?

Oh, and alma, you dont have to attack and be rude. I am not doing that to you.

Click to expand...

I haven’t attacked you, I’ve simply demonstrated that what you have proposed is faulty. I would, though, very much appreciate it if you would be a little more communicative. Anyone with a copy of "Mormonism Shoadow or Reality" can list the complaints found there and in countless other books. I'm here because I think those criticisms aren't valid. I think you should actually discuss them if you're going to post them.

Alma

edited for tone

ByGrace said:

Alma-

I am going to continue to be a part of this thread and introduce the problems that I know of with the lds church and joe smith but I am from here on out not going to respond directly to you.

Click to expand...

I see. I thought that when you wrote in your initial message that you were inviting comment from LDS people that you meant any LDS people. “Please feel free to address them especially if you are lds.” Now that I see you’re only targeting the ignorant and gullible, I will also defer from trying to get you to stand behind the bogus material you have posted. But the progression is interesting. You started with some innocuous misunderstandings and then when I stand up to you, you post ridiculous and palpably false claims such as the allegation that I “say that God had sexual relations with Mary” (not on the worst day of my life) or the vicious: “brigham and joe were both child sex predators evidenced by their having married and had children with girls that were 13 years old.” [size=+1]*Edited by a moderator*[/size]

Even though you may protest that you have a hurting heart for LDS people, it won’t get better if you misrepresent their teachings to them.

Alma

[size=+1]*Mod Hat On.*
I think everyone in this thread needs to step back, take a deep breath and cool off a little.

Vigorous discussion is welcomed and encouraged BUT name calling and insults are not permitted. The use of words such as "idiot, stupid, lie, liar," etc will NOT be used.

It is permissible to say, for example, "I believe the teaching of X church on baptism is wrong because [scriptures and other evidence]" But it is NOT permissible to say, for example, "Pastor X is a liar." or "Denomination X is a cult."[/size]

[size=+1]Further breaches of the rules may result in this thread being closed and/or warnings being issued.[/size]

[noflame]

[notroll]

This is a fun forum here.
I've enjoyed reading both sides of the arguement.
Some accusations I've haven't heard before and some I have.
By the way, I'm LDS. I appreciate both points of view, but it seems to me that I haven't seen any real arguements from ByGrace.

I'm not sure why Alma and ByGrace are taking this personal.

The idea of a debate is to bring up a topic and stick to it, not jump all over the place so no one can give a real answer to anything.

Can't we all just get along?

TW

Let me start out by saying that I was brought up in a back ground that believed in different religions and everyone seemed to have their own, my step father catholic, my adopted father baptist, my mother methodist and my grand parents church of christ, yet, I married a mormon. Sometimes my ex-Husband would come home and tell me things about the Book of Mormon, I was brought up that adding to the bible was wrong, yet, one day I thought is it adding to the bible or is it a totally different book, well, I feel it is a totally different book. I have heard several times from my ex husband that it is missing verses from the Bible, If this is so then we all need to claim down when it comes to mormons, but, then again if this is not so, I can see why people get so upset. I have read about and know that in the past there were men that had many wives and the re-organized l.d.s. church still believes in that practice, I believe. Yet, Mormons have changed a lot. What I could not put out of my mind was why Mormons focused more on the Book of mormon if it was suppose to a missing part of the Bible, I have heard the responce from my ex now I want the responce from you all please... enlight me please

Jennifer
Http://givenright.com

givenright said:

What I could not put out of my mind was why Mormons focused more on the Book of mormon if it was suppose to a missing part of the Bible, I have heard the responce from my ex now I want the responce from you all please... enlight me please

Jennifer
Http://givenright.com

Click to expand...

I have never heard of the book of mormon being part of the lost books of the bible.

The story of the book of mormon is Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem and traveling to the Americas. It is a collection of God's dealings with this people, seperate from the old world (jerusulem).

I believe though, that the B of M goes hand in hand with the Bible. And in many parts of the B of M passages of the Bible are explained further.

Most of the LDS that I know revere, study from, and apply principles of the bible. In fact for the past 2 years in sunday school we have been studying the bible.

Did I make any sense?
TW

The LDS I knew and was taught Sunday School by as a faithful Mormon, treated the bible as an incidental tool and a companion to the Book of Mormon. And all teachings of the Old and New Testament were done using the Book of Mormon and other "revealed" works as backup. And the temple ceremony (from experience) was a whole other kettle of fish.

twhite982 said:

I have never heard of the book of mormon being part of the lost books of the bible.

The story of the book of mormon is Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem and traveling to the Americas. It is a collection of God's dealings with this people, seperate from the old world (jerusulem).

I believe though, that the B of M goes hand in hand with the Bible. And in many parts of the B of M passages of the Bible are explained further.

Most of the LDS that I know revere, study from, and apply principles of the bible. In fact for the past 2 years in sunday school we have been studying the bible.

Did I make any sense?
TW

Click to expand...

calgal said:

The LDS I knew and was taught Sunday School by as a faithful Mormon, treated the bible as an incidental tool and a companion to the Book of Mormon. And all teachings of the Old and New Testament were done using the Book of Mormon and other "revealed" works as backup. And the temple ceremony (from experience) was a whole other kettle of fish.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, but it was there loss in doing so.
I use all the LDS standard works together, but don't think that the bible is inferior. Again I re-state my opinion that the B of M helps clarify many difficult passages. But I need all these scriptures!

TW

ByGrace said:

Okay, here are the new issues for today.


alma 7:10 This verse says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. My Bible says it was in Bethlehem. Also, there is no "land of Jerusalem" as it is the land of Judea.



2 nephi 10:3 This says that 'Christ' will be his name. This is incorrect as Christ was His title, not name. He is THE CHRIST.

Click to expand...

To me that seems a little obvious. I live in Battleground, WA and its a very small city. When I tell other people where I live I always say north of Vancouver, WA and sometimes have to say its north of Portland, OR which is a small ways across the Columbia river. Technically its not Vancouver or Portland, but so my audience will understand what I'm talking about I describe it by those cities.

If Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible as you claim, then obviously he would've used Betthlehem instead of "Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers".
Also here is a link that goes further into depth on that paricular false claim: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml

Its the 1st link on the page.

Here is the entire verse of 2Ne 10:3
3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

Here is the NT

Matt 1:16
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

And another just in Matthew alone.

Matt 24:5
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Jesus had many names, wonderful, counsellor, prince of peace, christ, the christ, messiah, the lamb of God. None of those names detracts from his mission. He came to deliver all from the chains of sin and death.

Isa 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

TW

ByGrace said:

Sorry, the book of mormon does not at all explain anything about the Bible. What it does is plagiarize it. The book of mormon contradicts itself and mormon teachings. The book of mormon can not even keep itself straight. In many of its passages it will steal verses from the Bible that clearly explain the true path to redemption and then in another verse call it false doctrine. I was watching a mormon talk the other day and the person speaking was stating that "there are certain eternal truths that cannot be diluted or changed, such as the temple ceremony."

Hmmm, this is a problem since it has been changed and drastically.

There is NOTHING about mormonism that has not been changed. All of their scriptures, ceremonies, preisthood requirements, and on and on and on.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you gave some specific examples to some of the problems you find with the Book of Mormon. Its easier for me to go to that verse read it and then figure the intent out myself, rather than me listening to you speak generalities and stating nothing, but your personal opinion. I'm not doubting that you disbelieve in this faith, after all isn't that why you left the church?

Anyways, thanks.
TW