LDS More Information:

[Peter1000]

In Genesis 44:15, did Joseph really use divination to know Benjamin had the cup? No! He had his servant put it there. No divination necessary. Instead, it was a ruse to trick his brothers to come back to his house. In Chapter 45 is the big reveal.

Are you saying Joseph Smith tricked his friends and family by using some peep stones to claiming divinating powers?

So the whole divining thing is a joke. I see.

 

[Peter1000]

LOL: Joseph had the cup put into his brothers bag! Not exactly divining! He was obviously messing with his brothers and testing them. As usual---you are not putting together the right scriptures and reading them wrong. Again--He had no silver divining cup in prison. Nor with Potiphar. This incident is the only time it is mentioned. He did nothing even remotely similar to JS.

How do you know? You don't.

 

[mmksparbud]

How do you know? You don't.

Sorry, but yes I do know. If he had done something like that, it would have been mentioned=---like the cup incident. God does not hide anything that we should know. When He wants a message given, He tells the person directly, He tells a prophet to tell the person. What He Doesn't do is force someone to translate His message through stones in a hat. Urim and Thummim were not for translating long passages from one language to another----they were used for yes and no answers as has been pointed out. God was opposed to divination.
Deu_18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

2Ki_17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Jer_14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Eze_12:24 For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.
Eze_13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.
Eze_13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken?
Eze_21:21 For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver.

No---Joseph did not divine anything--he didn't need to. Anything God wanted him to know--God told him, as He did with all His prophets.

 

[withwonderingawe]

In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 19:1 reads:
Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.

This verse is a quotation of Isaiah 9:1, which reads in the latest KJV as follows:

Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

Why would Joseph Smith insert the 'Red Sea' instead of just 'the sea'?
Because there was an error in the 1769 KJV version that he was copying from which included the words 'Red Sea'.

How do we know that 'Red Sea' is an error?

During the Kingdom Age (about 1000 BC and onwards), the land of Naphtali bordered the Sea of Galilee to the West. The land of Zabulun bordered Naphtali to the West and South. It is within this region that we find many names from Jesus' ministry - Capernaum, Cana, Genneserat, Bethsaida and, of couse, Galilee. The quotation from Isaiah thus neatly pinpoints the area of the Messiah's future ministry.

The Red Sea, however, is over 250 miles to the South of Galilee, near the Egyptian border. There is no way that Isaiah could at any stage have contained the geographical qualifier "Red".
There is further proof of this assertion. Firstly, the quotation also mentions that "the sea" is beyond Jordan, in Galilee. The Jordan River, of course, empties into the Dead Sea, and never reaches the Red Sea at all. Further, the Red Sea is definitely nowhere near Galilee.
Secondly, this verse from Isaiah was quoted by Matthew in Matthew 4:12-16, specifically with reference to Galilee and Capernaum. The quotation in Matthew is also missing the reference to the Red Sea.

First off ya have to know there is no evidence that Joseph had an 1769 copy of the Bible in his possession, that puts a big kink in the argument.

Okay there is a flimsy answer to this; we don't have this original part of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. It could be Oliver as he prepared the printers copy goofed and added in the word Red.

However that does not explain the other change the Book of Mormon makes.

KJV 1769 "....and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations."

BoM "and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations."

The word 'her' is missing while the word Red is added??

Now this is what the antis don't tell you, the Masoretic Hebrew text from which the KJV came from does not contain the word 'her'.

"...and in the latter time he will cause the way of the sea to be honored, the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." (neither is it in the Septuagint)

So this small seemingly unimportant change by Joseph matches the original more precisely than the KJV does. And I just bet he didn't have a Masoretic Hebrew text sitting in front of him.

Reading through this it really makes one wonder what the original intent was.

*In theory what you find in the Book of Mormon is the closest to the original writings of Isaiah.

Let's but this in context;

1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
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.

So it is about the coming of Christ. The words 'by the way of the sea' is referring to what was an old high way.

The following is written by D. Charles Pyle and I found it at FairMormon;

"....On the other hand, it also is possible that it is not an error at all.
The King's Highway also was part of what was known in ancient times as the Way of the Red Sea, which led out of Egypt along the shores of the Red Sea, passed through Edom and changed direction after meeting with the Way of the Sea, in Galilee, to go into Mesopotamia. It is possible that Joseph journeyed this way, or at least part of this way, to avoid going through Judaea when he took Jesus into Nazareth as a young child. If so, it would be quite correct in that the light would pass into the region of Naphtali via the Way of the Red Sea. Joseph sought to avoid contact with Archelaus and a back route would be one of the best ways to avoid contact."

So it is possible and even likely the Book of Mormon is the most correct!

See a map here;
King's Highway (ancient) - Wikipedia

 

[Rescued One]

Sorry, but yes I do know. If he had done something like that, it would have been mentioned=---like the cup incident. God does not hide anything that we should know...

 

[withwonderingawe]

Sorry, but yes I do know. If he had done something like that, it would have been mentioned=---like the cup incident. God does not hide anything that we should know. When He wants a message given, He tells the person directly, He tells a prophet to tell the person. What He Doesn't do is force someone to translate His message through stones in a hat. Urim and Thummim were not for translating long passages from one language to another----they were used for yes and no answers as has been pointed out. God was opposed to divination.
Deu_18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

2Ki_17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Jer_14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Eze_12:24 For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.
Eze_13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.
Eze_13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken?
Eze_21:21 For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver.

No---Joseph did not divine anyth9ing--he didn't need to. Anything God wanted him to know--God told him, as He did with all His prophets.

Here's some examples of "Divination" used by God's prophets;

Lev 16: 7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

Judges 6
36 Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, z“Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew.” 40 And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.

Num 27
21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.”

The thing is divination means by witchcraft, you shall not go to a witch to hear the words of God. Satan always tries to trick man kind by copycatting what God does. If God sends a true prophet Satan will send a dozen false ones. If God has a Urim then Satan has a crystal ball.

It's not the object but the manner in which it is being used.

Act 19
11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

Really, some would call that divination ???? Where's the oil James calls for? Could we call the laying on of hands a from of divination?

It really manners in whose name you are preforming the miracle.

 

[mmksparbud]

Here's some examples of "Divination" used by God's prophets;

Lev 16: 7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

Judges 6
36 Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, z“Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew.” 40 And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.

Num 27
21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.”

The thing is divination means by witchcraft, you shall not go to a witch to hear the words of God. Satan always tries to trick man kind by copycatting what God does. If God sends a true prophet Satan will send a dozen false ones. If God has a Urim then Satan has a crystal ball.

It's not the object but the manner in which it is being used.

Act 19
11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

Really, some would call that divination ???? Where's the oil James calls for? Could we call the laying on of hands a from of divination?

It really manners in whose name you are preforming the miracle.

These are not examples of divination. These are examples of direct contact with God for answers. The Urim and Thummim are not tools of divination, but answers from God in a yes or no setting--which was also called the casting of lots. That was explained in another post. Healing of the sick is not divination.

Divination. Divination is a "foretelling future events, or discovering things secret by the aid of superior beings, or other than human means". It is used, in Scripture, of false systems of ascertaining the divine will. It has been universal in all ages, and all nations alike, both civilized and savage.
Moses forbade every species of divination, because, a prying into the future, clouds the mind with superstition, and because, it would have been an incentive to idolatry. But God supplied his people with substitutes for divination which would have rended it superfluous, and left them in no doubt as to his will in circumstances of danger, had they continued faithful.
It was only when they were unfaithful that the revelation was withdrawn. 1Sa_28:6; 2Sa_2:1; 2Sa_5:23, etc. Superstition, not unfrequently, goes hand in hand with skepticism, and hence, amid the general infidelity prevalent throughout the Roman empire at our Lord's coming, imposture was rampant.
Hence, the lucrative trade of such men as Simon Magus, Act_8:9,
Bar-jesus, Act_13:6,
the slave with the spirit of Python, Act_16:16,
the vagabond Jews,
exorcists, Luk_11:19; Act_19:13 and
others, 2Ti_3:13; Rev_19:20, etc.,
as well as the notorious dealers in magical books at Ephesus. Act_19:19.
Smiths Dictionary

Definition of divination
1 :the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers
Miriam Webster Dictionary

 

[mmksparbud]

View attachment 213332

Thanks--I kept forgetting.

 

[Rescued One]

Thanks--I kept forgetting.

 

[mmksparbud]

First off ya have to know there is no evidence that Joseph had an 1769 copy of the Bible in his possession, that puts a big kink in the argument.

Okay there is a flimsy answer to this; we don't have this original part of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. It could be Oliver as he prepared the printers copy goofed and added in the word Red.

However that does not explain the other change the Book of Mormon makes.

KJV 1769 "....and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations."

BoM "and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations."

The word 'her' is missing while the word Red is added??

Now this is what the antis don't tell you, the Masoretic Hebrew text from which the KJV came from does not contain the word 'her'.

"...and in the latter time he will cause the way of the sea to be honored, the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." (neither is it in the Septuagint)

So this small seemingly unimportant change by Joseph matches the original more precisely than the KJV does. And I just bet he didn't have a Masoretic Hebrew text sitting in front of him.

Reading through this it really makes one wonder what the original intent was.

*In theory what you find in the Book of Mormon is the closest to the original writings of Isaiah.

Let's but this in context;

1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
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.

So it is about the coming of Christ. The words 'by the way of the sea' is referring to what was an old high way.

The following is written by D. Charles Pyle and I found it at FairMormon;

"....On the other hand, it also is possible that it is not an error at all.
The King's Highway also was part of what was known in ancient times as the Way of the Red Sea, which led out of Egypt along the shores of the Red Sea, passed through Edom and changed direction after meeting with the Way of the Sea, in Galilee, to go into Mesopotamia. It is possible that Joseph journeyed this way, or at least part of this way, to avoid going through Judaea when he took Jesus into Nazareth as a young child. If so, it would be quite correct in that the light would pass into the region of Naphtali via the Way of the Red Sea. Joseph sought to avoid contact with Archelaus and a back route would be one of the best ways to avoid contact."

So it is possible and even likely the Book of Mormon is the most correct!

See a map here;
King's Highway (ancient) - Wikipedia

There have been many printings of the King James Version (KJV). The first printing was in 1611. Early printings contained many typographical errors due to printing errors. Major attempts to standardize the text were conducted in 1629 (Cambridge), 1638 (Cambridge), 1762 (by Dr. F. S. Parris, published by Cambridge), and 1769 (by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, published by Oxford). The 1769 Oxford edition has updated spelling and grammar and is a trustworthy edition that is widely used today. Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener conducted a meticulous standardization of the KJV from 1866 to 1873, resulting in the 1873 Cambridge edition. The differences between the 1611 edition and the later editions are due to corrections of obvious printing errors (including words that were accidentally omitted), the standardization and updating of spelling, and the updating of punctuation and paragraph marks.[1]
Editions of the KJV and the Apocrypha - King James Version Today

 

[withwonderingawe]

There have been many printings of the King James Version (KJV). The first printing was in 1611. Early printings contained many typographical errors due to printing errors. Major attempts to standardize the text were conducted in 1629 (Cambridge), 1638 (Cambridge), 1762 (by Dr. F. S. Parris, published by Cambridge), and 1769 (by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, published by Oxford). The 1769 Oxford edition has updated spelling and grammar and is a trustworthy edition that is widely used today. Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener conducted a meticulous standardization of the KJV from 1866 to 1873, resulting in the 1873 Cambridge edition. The differences between the 1611 edition and the later editions are due to corrections of obvious printing errors (including words that were accidentally omitted), the standardization and updating of spelling, and the updating of punctuation and paragraph marks.[1]
Editions of the KJV and the Apocrypha - King James Version Today

Happy birthday

 

[mmksparbud]

Happy birthday

It was. Thanks. Seems like I just had one the other day---they seem to be ganging up on me. I swear I was just 30 a few days ago. How'd I get to 67 so fast?

 

[withwonderingawe]

It was. Thanks. Seems like I just had one the other day---they seem to be ganging up on me. I swear I was just 30 a few days ago. How'd I get to 67 so fast?

I start Medicare on the 1st :-(

 

[withwonderingawe]

There have been many printings of the King James Version (KJV). The first printing was in 1611. Early printings contained many typographical errors due to printing errors. Major attempts to standardize the text were conducted in 1629 (Cambridge), 1638 (Cambridge), 1762 (by Dr. F. S. Parris, published by Cambridge), and 1769 (by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, published by Oxford). The 1769 Oxford edition has updated spelling and grammar and is a trustworthy edition that is widely used today. Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener conducted a meticulous standardization of the KJV from 1866 to 1873, resulting in the 1873 Cambridge edition. The differences between the 1611 edition and the later editions are due to corrections of obvious printing errors (including words that were accidentally omitted), the standardization and updating of spelling, and the updating of punctuation and paragraph marks.[1]
Editions of the KJV and the Apocrypha - King James Version Today

So is it the 1611 translation which came from the Masoretic Hebrew or were they using something else.

 

[mmksparbud]

1611--the rest have been revisions, fixing printing errors, and spelling.
apparell”“apparel”
“weepe”“weep”

“owne”“own”
diddest”“didst”

That kind of stuff.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I don't expect to clear up anything for you, but for reasonable people they can look at John 1:1 and know that it is not clear, how can you be with God and be God? Being with God means that you are separate from God, just like in any other use of the word 'with' implies.

You know the minds of reasonable people? Did you take a poll to find out? Just because you can't understand the concept of the Trinity doesn't mean you can project your religions' teachings and make your statement true.

I sure you will interpret that scripture to mean he saw the glory but not the figure of God. Well for our purposes I would disagree and since he said he saw God twice, I have better numbers for being right than you do.

This isn't a numbers game. Let Scripture interpret Scripture and leave your religion's erronous interpretations alone.

And also, if Jesus is standing next to the glory of God or Jesus is standing next to God, it still says Stephen saw 2 distinct entities. In your case he saw 1)Jesus, and 2)the glory of God. Distinct and separate as in 'standing next to' rather than being blending into.

The glory of God is not an entity.

Here is a picture of Stephen seeing Jesus standing next to God. If you saw a picture of JS seeing the Father and the Son, it looks just like this picture.

You are using an artist's rendering as evidence to support your argument?? And one that violates the 2nd Commandment in the process? Having to resort to that just shows the weakness of your argument.

 

[Peter1000]

You know the minds of reasonable people? Did you take a poll to find out? Just because you can't understand the concept of the Trinity doesn't mean you can project your religions' teachings and make your statement true.

Sorry, but nobody understands the concept of the Trinity. It is too complicated and so the basic fall back position is that it is a mystery, not to be understood fully by man. Good luck unravelling the mystery.

This isn't a numbers game. Let Scripture interpret Scripture and leave your religion's erronous interpretations alone.

That is what I am trying to do, I am letting scripture interpret scripture. The scripture says Stephen saw the glory of God once, but it says that Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God twice. So the scripture is clear that Jesus was at least standing on the right side of something, separate and distinct of what he was standing on the right side of.

You are the one that has to twist and turn to make the scripture say what you need it to say. Which is that if Jesus and God were really one, Stephen would have declared, I see Jesus, period. Because as you think, no man has seen God, so if Jesus and God were one, Stephen would have only seen one person, Jesus. This the 2 scriptures in Acts denies.

The glory of God is not an entity.

What is it?

You are using an artist's rendering as evidence to support your argument?? And one that violates the 2nd Commandment in the process? Having to resort to that just shows the weakness of your argument.

I use the artists rendering as evidence that Mormons aren't the only Christians that believe God the Father and God the Son are 2 separate Persons.
If you were to tell the story of Stephen to any child under the age of 15, and then ask them to draw a picture of it. That is what they would draw, every one of them.

The 2nd commandment says that there are no other God before me. Since God the Father is a God and Jesus is a God, that certainly does not violate that commandment. It was Jesus that gave the commandment, so Jesus standing next to God the Father certainly would not violate that commandment.

My position is solid. Your position is weak. Stephen saw 2 (my position),
not 1 (your position).

 

[Peter1000]

mmksparbud says,

God does not hide anything that we should know. When He wants a message given, He tells the person directly, He tells a prophet to tell the person.

God tells people what they need to know, but sometimes the people are not ready for what God wants them to know or do. Perfect example is:
1 Corinthians 3:2King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Obviously Paul wanted to give them the meat of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but he knew they would not receive it, so he withheld the knowledge of that portion of the gospel that he knew they would not be able to believe.

What He Doesn't do is force someone to translate His message through stones in a hat.

God certainly does not force anyone to do anything.

If God did work with JS and this is the way that God had the BOM come forth, are you not going to believe it just because you think God would not ever do it this way?

This again is like Jesus appearing in a bush to speak with Moses. You should not believe this because never had Jesus been seen in a bush speaking to a man before the Moses experience or since.

So following your logic since Jesus has never done this before, I don't believe that Moses actually saw Jesus and the whole Israelite thing is questionable.

Yes later his angel was spotted in a burning furnace, but was that Jesus or his angel. Probably an angel because in the KJV it says 'like' the Son of God, and he was not standing in a bush in the fiery furnace.
Look what the ASV says:
Daniel 3:25American Standard Version (ASV)
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

Do you see this translation actually says 'like a son of the gods'??? Is this interesting.

Urim and Thummim were not for translating long passages from one language to another----they were used for yes and no answers as has been pointed out.

You and all of us know about 1/100 of what the Urim and Thumim was capable of doing. They guess that it gave a yes or no answer, but nobody knows for sure. So your authoritative statement of what the Urim and Thumim does or doesn't do, holds very little weight.

 

[mmksparbud]

mmksparbud says,


God tells people what they need to know, but sometimes the people are not ready for what God wants them to know or do. Perfect example is:
1 Corinthians 3:2King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Obviously Paul wanted to give them the meat of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but he knew they would not receive it, so he withheld the knowledge of that portion of the gospel that he knew they would not be able to believe.



God certainly does not force anyone to do anything.

If God did work with JS and this is the way that God had the BOM come forth, are you not going to believe it just because you think God would not ever do it this way?

This again is like Jesus appearing in a bush to speak with Moses. You should not believe this because never had Jesus been seen in a bush speaking to a man before the Moses experience or since.

So following your logic since Jesus has never done this before, I don't believe that Moses actually saw Jesus and the whole Israelite thing is questionable.

Yes later his angel was spotted in a burning furnace, but was that Jesus or his angel. Probably an angel because in the KJV it says 'like' the Son of God, and he was not standing in a bush in the fiery furnace.
Look what the ASV says:
Daniel 3:25American Standard Version (ASV)
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

Do you see this translation actually says 'like a son of the gods'??? Is this interesting.



You and all of us know about 1/100 of what the Urim and Thumim was capable of doing. They guess that it gave a yes or no answer, but nobody knows for sure. So your authoritative statement of what the Urim and Thumim does or doesn't do, holds very little weight.

There is a huge difference between doing something different from anything else---as in the burning bush---and doing the same in a different manner. So, let's say, God appeared in a burning bush 500 times every single time He told something to a prophet, and He tells the prophet what He wants him to know. The prophet then writes it down and tells the people about it. All of a sudden, He appears in a block of ice and doesn't tell the prophet what He wants him to know, but gives him a strange book with strange writing never seen before and gives him 3 bird feathers that decipher the strange writing, and he has to place them in an apron to see the letters. Then He removes the strange writing, never to be seen again. Now, God can certainly appear in a block of ice, and He can give 3 feathers to anyone. If I were the person that this happened to---I would be, at the very least, extremely skeptical that this was actually God doing this. And, as the bible says, I would have tested that spirit. Even Gideon, tested the message he received, and he did not receive that message in any new and startlingly different way


Yes--many translations read Dan. 3:25 as "a son of the gods" or a "son of God"---Seeing that good old king Nebuchadnezzar was a total pagan (obviously, since they were being burned for not acknowledging him as a god) with only a slight acquaintance with the one God--(that would get far more intimate knowledge later) it comes as no surprise that he would say a son of a god or the Son of God. Either way, he knew this was the son of some god and not THE God Himself. This was obviously no mere mortal man in that furnace. Is there something else in this to you?

 

[Peter1000]

mmksparbud,

You might be on the right path if God had been seen in a bush setting 500 times. But alas, he wasn't so you story falls apart at the beginning. So just stop.

You could say this: If the burning bush incident had not happened, but God spoke to Moses like he talked to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then JS comes along and said God spoke to me from standing in a bush that was on fire, and the bush was not burned up, you would tar and feather him, and run him out of town.

Why are you so hung up on how JS, a 3rd grader, translated an ancient document of an unkown tongue. The BOM is the words of prophets that lived in the Americas and received the word of God in the way that you recognize, through the HS or face to face.
So now, these words need to be translated for the world. There was not a scholar that could have done it, like Tyndal translated the bible from a known tongue into English.
Why didn't God just tell Tyndal what to write. Why did God not tell Jerome what to write. He allowed them to use whatever aids they had to translate and they did it.
Now God comes to the BOM. No scholars can do it. So he chooses an innocent child with no previous biased scholarship and biased religious history, gives him some help + the HS to translate reformed Egyptian into English.
This is certainly not a great big leap of credulity. It certainly is not that out of line for how translators brought the bible into English.

Old king Nebuchadnezzar was a total pagan (obviously, since they were being burned for not acknowledging him as a god) with only a slight acquaintance with the one God--(that would get far more intimate knowledge later) it comes as no surprise that he would say a son of a god or the Son of God. Either way, he knew this was the son of some god and not THE God Himself. This was obviously no mere mortal man in that furnace. Is there something else in this to you?

This was just to show you how the translations can change the meaning of a verse. Interesting. Did Nebby say 'the Son of God' or 'the son of the gods'. Does that even make a difference to you? Besides, was Daniel even there to here Nebby. Who heard him and told Daniel? Why are there so many different translations of that verse? Does not say much for the translating efforts. JS was right, we believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.