LDS More Information:

[Peter1000]

• No the question is---Why does JS have so many passages that are exactly the same as KJV.

[/QUOTE]
Have you ever done your meticulous analysis on the hundreds of translations of the bible vs the KJV?
Have you analyzed how many of them seem to copy the same words exactly as the KJV has? Have you analyzed how many of them seem to have other words that the KJV does not have? Have you ever wondered which translation is the correct translation?

 

[mmksparbud]

• No the question is---Why does JS have so many passages that are exactly the same as KJV.

Have you ever done your meticulous analysis on the hundreds of translations of the bible vs the KJV?
Have you analyzed how many of them seem to copy the same words exactly as the KJV has? Have you analyzed how many of them seem to have other words that the KJV does not have? Have you ever wondered which translation is the correct translation?[/QUOTE]

That is what they're supposed to resemble as they are translating the same thing! If they were radically different, somethi8ng is wrong! They are nit translating The Hebrew scrolls and Dickens. Of course a translation of the same book is going to be extremely similar! Point is---0therte was no need to translate what was already accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven the accuracy of the bible.
What can't be checked are the "golden tablets"----and why would they have been taken away? It's for sure heaven doesn't need them.

 

[Peter1000]

Have you ever done your meticulous analysis on the hundreds of translations of the bible vs the KJV?
Have you analyzed how many of them seem to copy the same words exactly as the KJV has? Have you analyzed how many of them seem to have other words that the KJV does not have? Have you ever wondered which translation is the correct translation?

Now that is a good question. I believe the Lord took back the golden plates because he did not want the entire scholarly profession to argue endlessly about whether or not JS translated it correctly, like we do about the bible. Therefore He took it back.

The second thought is that JS only translated approximately 1/3 of the record. It has been prophesied that when we understand and are living the words of the 1/3, then the Lord will bring back the golden plates and the other 2/3 will be translated and given to the world.

So my thoughts are the Lord took the plates back for 2 reasons:
1) maintain the integrity of the only translation
2) secure the plates for future translation

Besides you can ask a similar question about the bible. Why has the Lord allowed the originals to be lost. Lost or taken back it still amounts to the same problem, we don't have them to examine.

 

[mmksparbud]

Now that is a good question. I believe the Lord took back the golden plates because he did not want the entire scholarly profession to argue endlessly about whether or not JS translated it correctly, like we do about the bible. Therefore He took it back.

The second thought is that JS only translated approximately 1/3 of the record. It has been prophesied that when we understand and are living the words of the 1/3, then the Lord will bring back the golden plates and the other 2/3 will be translated and given to the world.

So my thoughts are the Lord took the plates back for 2 reasons:
1) maintain the integrity of the only translation
2) secure the plates for future translation

Besides you can ask a similar question about the bible. Why has the Lord allowed the originals to be lost. Lost or taken back it still amounts to the same problem, we don't have them to examine.

Of course---ever so much better to think they were entirely made up by JS than to argue over translating it. But the authenticity of the bible was never questioned as they were around and had extremely, extremely high and minute rules on how to copy them. And Jesus read from the same one we have as the Dead Sea scrolls prove that it is the same as the last recorded ones after the Babylonian exile. He also provided we find the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no reason for doubting them and archeology has verified what so many used to think did not exist. There has been absolutely no verification of anything that JS wrote as being authentic. Even when discussing what was being grown on this continent. He described wheat, and barely which have never been grown here and there is absolutely no evidence that they ever did. Horses, elephants and other animals that had died out, or never existed here to begin with. Animals and food that were not brought until Columbus and other explorers who came here. Earth core samples have shown that.

 

[Peter1000]

Of course---ever so much better to think they were entirely made up by JS than to argue over translating it. But the authenticity of the bible was never questioned as they were around and had extremely, extremely high and minute rules on how to copy them. And Jesus read from the same one we have as the Dead Sea scrolls prove that it is the same as the last recorded ones after the Babylonian exile. He also provided we find the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no reason for doubting them and archeology has verified what so many used to think did not exist. There has been absolutely no verification of anything that JS wrote as being authentic. Even when discussing what was being grown on this continent. He described wheat, and barely which have never been grown here and there is absolutely no evidence that they ever did. Horses, elephants and other animals that had died out, or never existed here to begin with. Animals and food that were not brought until Columbus and other explorers who came here. Earth core samples have shown that.

Seriously, earth core samples have shown that certain animals and food were hot brought to the Americas until Columbus and other explorers who came here. So JS has been proved wrong by earth core samples????? I have never heard this before.

Hear this youtube site about barley and wheat:

If the bible was such a perfect document, why did people retranslate it hundreds of times. They did it to make it more correct. To make it easier to read. To make it read more the way they think. What other reasons can you think of for retranslating the bible?

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes, I've heard the arguments before. Problem with them is they never cite anything other than Mormon sources and do not have dates or any way of corroborating. They are heavy on it could be--maybe, possibly----something a bit more concrete would be nice.
Yes, the bible was written by many writers, has several translations, by many scholars, and heavily researched. With much archeological evidence with a language that still exists and a people that still exist with very ancient manuscripts that still exist. BOM has 1 author, with same translator, that can in no way be checked that such a tablet ever existed, such a language or any of the people in it.
The difference between a lie and the truth can be very slight. Lies are always mixed with truth to make it more believable. I do not claim that every word of BOM is a lie, for it quotes a lot of the KJV verbatim and almost verbatim---which was never needed in that book since it was accurate in the KJV. Would have been more believable if (as in the bible) it had been mentioned that in this or that book was written the story.
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
1Ki 14:29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Ch 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, I've heard the arguments before. Problem with them is they never cite anything other than Mormon sources and do not have dates or any way of corroborating. They are heavy on it could be--maybe, possibly----something a bit more concrete would be nice.
Yes, the bible was written by many writers, has several translations, by many scholars, and heavily researched. With much archeological evidence with a language that still exists and a people that still exist with very ancient manuscripts that still exist. BOM has 1 author, with same translator, that can in no way be checked that such a tablet ever existed, such a language or any of the people in it.
The difference between a lie and the truth can be very slight. Lies are always mixed with truth to make it more believable. I do not claim that every word of BOM is a lie, for it quotes a lot of the KJV verbatim and almost verbatim---which was never needed in that book since it was accurate in the KJV. Would have been more believable if (as in the bible) it had been mentioned that in this or that book was written the story.
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
1Ki 14:29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Ch 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

It would be nice if we had more concrete information, time will tell as we move into the future. For instance the barley question was a zero evidence question 30 years ago, but in the last 20 years they have found domesticated barley in the southwest US, from ancient Indians that lived there, see the video for the names and dates. We continue, however, to still get told that barley has not been found in the Americas. This is now not true, so at least update your critisism to not criticise about barley. Lots of other things to criticise but now not barley, which was included in a list of probaby 40 real funny, stupid things JS was laughed at when he included them in his BOM. Now that 30 of them have been discovered, I would think someone who is criticising this would take note that 75% of the laughable items have now been proven to exist. (I have not got a list, but I saw a list 20 years ago that had about 40 items of which 30 had been found to be true).

The point is that as the years go by, JS seems to be the luckiest person on the earth to have said such stupid things in a book, but they are proving to be true. So stay tuned when the rest will be proven to be true also. We may not be able to prove every statement, but that leaves space for a little faith. I am willing to accept that.

Now from the bible:
1) tell me where the garden of Eden was?
2) tell me where the land of Nod is where Cain went to dwell and built a city and named it Enoch.
3) Where is the land of Enoch, and the of Enoch built by a prophet that walked with God?
4) where is any evidence of the arc that Noah built. Where did he build it?
5) who are the people of Shem, Japeth, and Ham, the 3 sons of Noah?
6) where is the land of Shinar and the city of Babel, where Nimrod built the tower of Babel?
7) where is the evidence for the life of Abraham? Very sketchy.
8) where is the evidence for the life of Issac and Jacob? Very sketchy.
9) there is no evidence for the life of Moses, the most read person in the bible next to Jesus. No evidence that he ever lived, let alone moved millions of people from Egypt to Israel? No evidence.

Yes, you have Jerusalem, and a lot of biblical things, but you lack almost the entire beginning of our bible, evidence is very sketchy if 100% missing still. But as time goes on, we will know more and more, like the BOM evidence. It still takes faith to believe in the Bible and the BOM.

 

[mmksparbud]

It would be nice if we had more concrete information, time will tell as we move into the future. For instance the barley question was a zero evidence question 30 years ago, but in the last 20 years they have found domesticated barley in the southwest US, from ancient Indians that lived there, see the video for the names and dates. We continue, however, to still get told that barley has not been found in the Americas. This is now not true, so at least update your critisism to not criticise about barley. Lots of other things to criticise but now not barley, which was included in a list of probaby 40 real funny, stupid things JS was laughed at when he included them in his BOM. Now that 30 of them have been discovered, I would think someone who is criticising this would take note that 75% of the laughable items have now been proven to exist. (I have not got a list, but I saw a list 20 years ago that had about 40 items of which 30 had been found to be true).

The point is that as the years go by, JS seems to be the luckiest person on the earth to have said such stupid things in a book, but they are proving to be true. So stay tuned when the rest will be proven to be true also. We may not be able to prove every statement, but that leaves space for a little faith. I am willing to accept that.

Now from the bible:
1) tell me where the garden of Eden was?
2) tell me where the land of Nod is where Cain went to dwell and built a city and named it Enoch.
3) Where is the land of Enoch, and the of Enoch built by a prophet that walked with God?
4) where is any evidence of the arc that Noah built. Where did he build it?
5) who are the people of Shem, Japeth, and Ham, the 3 sons of Noah?
6) where is the land of Shinar and the city of Babel, where Nimrod built the tower of Babel?
7) where is the evidence for the life of Abraham? Very sketchy.
8) where is the evidence for the life of Issac and Jacob? Very sketchy.
9) there is no evidence for the life of Moses, the most read person in the bible next to Jesus. No evidence that he ever lived, let alone moved millions of people from Egypt to Israel? No evidence.

Yes, you have Jerusalem, and a lot of biblical things, but you lack almost the entire beginning of our bible, evidence is very sketchy if 100% missing still. But as time goes on, we will know more and more, like the BOM evidence. It still takes faith to believe in the Bible and the BOM.

Yes it does----a lot ,more to believe in BOM than the bible. Kind of hard to get evidence from pre flood days--isn't it? Post flood, however, there is a lot more--a lot, a lot. The BOM takes place long after the flood and nothing of it's people has been found. No evidence.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes it does----a lot ,more to believe in BOM than the bible. Kind of hard to get evidence from pre flood days--isn't it? Post flood, however, there is a lot more--a lot, a lot. The BOM takes place long after the flood and nothing of it's people has been found. No evidence.

Again, there is evidence, but you are not willing to recieve it. There is approximately 2400 years of history after the flood. Much is still missing about the bible, (the most glaring is there is no proof that the Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt, or that God ever brought them out of Egypt) but we have faith that it is the word of God because we feel of the HS when we read it. It is nice though to have some evidences behind the book.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Mark 12:26-27Good News Translation (GNT)
26 Now, as for the dead being raised: haven't you ever read in the Book of Moses the passage about the burning bush? There it is written that God said to Moses, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 27 He is the God of the living, not of the dead. You are completely wrong!”

 

[Peter1000]

Mark 12:26-27Good News Translation (GNT)
26 Now, as for the dead being raised: haven't you ever read in the Book of Moses the passage about the burning bush? There it is written that God said to Moses, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 27 He is the God of the living, not of the dead. You are completely wrong!”

Then Paul is also completely wrong.

And the bible is also completely wrong.

Because the bible also says this:
Romans 14:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

If LDS is wrong we are in good company (hint: The Bible and Paul)

Actually, you are taking a scripture in Mark that is trying to make a point and you are using it to make a different point. Doesn't work, as you can see.