So why the hyperbole about the Book of Mormon

[_Mittens]

Eph 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets" while Mormonism is built on a new foundation of shifting sand that is false teachings, false Apostles, false prophets and a false Jesus father and holy spirit . Something makelan has bought hook line and sinker

What about all the failed prophecies, falsehoods, and contradictions in your Bible? I can acknowledge and engage any concerns you have with the Book of Mormon. You can't acknowledge or engage any of the concerns I have with the Bible.

Now were going back to Satan's first lie, question God's Word and attack it's credibility.

I Nephi 20:1 originally read exactly like Is. 48:1 in the King James Bible. Now it reads, "...out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism." Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, "A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1" (As Translated Correctly, p. 14). Petersen was attempting to show how the B. of M. helped correct errors in the Bible, but he picked a very poor example because it is the B. of M. that has been changed! Neither the Hebrew text of Is. 48:1 nor the original B. of M. support the present reading of I Nephi 20:1. Even as late as the 1888 edition of the B. of M., that phrase was not in the text. Neither does the JST

[_Bazooka]

What about all the failed prophecies, falsehoods, and contradictions in your Bible?

Mak, do you see failed prophecies, falsehoods and contradictions as an indicator of the lack of divine involvement?

[_maklelan]

Mak, do you see failed prophecies, falsehoods and contradictions as an indicator of the lack of divine involvement?

I don't believe there's a rubric for determining divine involvement or degrees of divine involvement. In my opinion, that's a faith claim, not something that is evidenced. Nobody reads the Bible and says, "This book has no errors! It must needs be divinely inspired!" They start with the faith claim and then find ways to prop it up. I prefer to let faith claims remain faith claims.

[_maklelan]

Now were going back to Satan's first lie, question God's Word and attack it's credibility.

And this is not a defense of the Bible, this is just saying I'm wrong because you say so.

I Nephi 20:1 originally read exactly like Is. 48:1 in the King James Bible. Now it reads, "...out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism." Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, "A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1" (As Translated Correctly, p. 14). Petersen was attempting to show how the B. of M. helped correct errors in the Bible, but he picked a very poor example because it is the B. of M. that has been changed! Neither the Hebrew text of Is. 48:1 nor the original B. of M. support the present reading of I Nephi 20:1. Even as late as the 1888 edition of the B. of M., that phrase was not in the text. Neither does the JST

Relevance?

Mittens, I keep directly addressing you and your claims, and you continue to just talk past me without addressing anything I say directly. I'm getting kind of tired of this. I stuck with it because I thought you might engage my concerns. I'm beginning to think you no intention of ever doing so.

[_Mittens]

Now were going back to Satan's first lie, question God's Word and attack it's credibility.

And this is not a defense of the Bible, this is just saying I'm wrong because you say so.

I Nephi 20:1 originally read exactly like Is. 48:1 in the King James Bible. Now it reads, "...out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism." Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, "A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1" (As Translated Correctly, p. 14). Petersen was attempting to show how the B. of M. helped correct errors in the Bible, but he picked a very poor example because it is the B. of M. that has been changed! Neither the Hebrew text of Is. 48:1 nor the original B. of M. support the present reading of I Nephi 20:1. Even as late as the 1888 edition of the B. of M., that phrase was not in the text. Neither does the JST

Relevance?

Mittens, I keep directly addressing you and your claims, and you continue to just talk past me without addressing anything I say directly. I'm getting kind of tired of this. I stuck with it because I thought you might engage my concerns. I'm beginning to think you no intention of ever doing so.

The Relevance was your attack on the Bible when it's the Book of Mormon that can't be trusted I gave an example you just made an attack .

[_maklelan]

The Relevance was your attack on the Bible when it's the Book of Mormon that can't be trusted I gave an example you just made an attack .

So when you say the Book of Mormon can't be trusted it's an "example," but when I say the Bible can't be trusted either, it's an "attack." Would you like an example of how the Bible can't be trusted? Will that make us even? Fine. The entire tradition of the exodus directly conflicts with all available material and textual evidence. There is no possible way that anywhere near a million people, much less multiple millions, crossed the Sinai at one time, much less traipsed around for 40 years. It doesn't fit the settlement patterns in the area or in Canaan, and it doesn't fit any of the Egyptian history we have recorded in a variety of ways from either the early or the late chronological models. It just doesn't work. Then there's the fact that the ethnic names and the toponyms from the Pentateuch date to no earlier than the ninth century BCE, but most commonly from the eighth/seventh centuries BCE. There is no evidence any of the Pentateuch dates earlier than the ninth century CE. Mentioning Philistines in connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for instance, is entirely wrong. The Philistines demonstrably did not arrive in Syria-Palestine until the the 12th century BCE, which is centuries after any possible dates for the patriarchs.

But let's keep going. The account of Sennacherib's invasion obviously conflates three different contradictory versions of the events. In the first, Hezekiah just pays Sennacherib by stripping his resources of all their valuables and he leaves, but suddenly he's there again demanding the same payment over again, which Hezekiah refuses to give. This is not how vassalage worked, and besieging a city from which you've already received payment is asinine. No one ever did that. But you have two different versions of the story where Hezekiah refuses to pay, to. In one, Isaiah comes to him and explains a revelation about the situation, and in the other Hezekiah himself has almost the exact same revelation himself, each with their own resolution to the problem. There's simply no plausible way to reconcile these accounts. The best part is that one of the accounts spells Hezekiah's name completely differently from the other two.

Similarly, the story of Joseph's sale into Egypt entirely contradicts itself by alternating between having the Ishmaelites and the Midianites take Joseph down to Egypt. If you split the two versions apart you have two entirely independent stories with entirely different beginnings, middles, and ends. The same is true of the flood and of the genealogies at the beginning of Genesis.

There are some examples. I am perfectly happy acknowledging the Book of Mormon has historical and consistency problems. Are you perfectly happy acknowledging the same about the Bible, or are you just going to explicitly appeal to a double standard and insist the Bible gets special treatment and concessions?

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm hoping that last question was rhetorical, Mak, as I doubt you're getting a straight answer.

[_Mittens]

The Relevance was your attack on the Bible when it's the Book of Mormon that can't be trusted I gave an example you just made an attack .

So when you say the Book of Mormon can't be trusted it's an "example," but when I say the Bible can't be trusted either, it's an "attack." Would you like an example of how the Bible can't be trusted? Will that make us even? Fine. The entire tradition of the exodus directly conflicts with all available material and textual evidence. There is no possible way that anywhere near a million people, much less multiple millions, crossed the Sinai at one time, much less traipsed around for 40 years. It doesn't fit the settlement patterns in the area or in Canaan, and it doesn't fit any of the Egyptian history we have recorded in a variety of ways from either the early or the late chronological models. It just doesn't work. Then there's the fact that the ethnic names and the toponyms from the Pentateuch date to no earlier than the ninth century BCE, but most commonly from the eighth/seventh centuries BCE. There is no evidence any of the Pentateuch dates earlier than the ninth century CE. Mentioning Philistines in connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for instance, is entirely wrong. The Philistines demonstrably did not arrive in Syria-Palestine until the the 12th century BCE, which is centuries after any possible dates for the patriarchs.

But let's keep going. The account of Sennacherib's invasion obviously conflates three different contradictory versions of the events. In the first, Hezekiah just pays Sennacherib by stripping his resources of all their valuables and he leaves, but suddenly he's there again demanding the same payment over again, which Hezekiah refuses to give. This is not how vassalage worked, and besieging a city from which you've already received payment is asinine. No one ever did that. But you have two different versions of the story where Hezekiah refuses to pay, to. In one, Isaiah comes to him and explains a revelation about the situation, and in the other Hezekiah himself has almost the exact same revelation himself, each with their own resolution to the problem. There's simply no plausible way to reconcile these accounts. The best part is that one of the accounts spells Hezekiah's name completely differently from the other two.

Similarly, the story of Joseph's sale into Egypt entirely contradicts itself by alternating between having the Ishmaelites and the Midianites take Joseph down to Egypt. If you split the two versions apart you have two entirely independent stories with entirely different beginnings, middles, and ends. The same is true of the flood and of the genealogies at the beginning of Genesis.

There are some examples. I am perfectly happy acknowledging the Book of Mormon has historical and consistency problems. Are you perfectly happy acknowledging the same about the Bible, or are you just going to explicitly appeal to a double standard and insist the Bible gets special treatment and concessions?

Like I said the Book of Mormon has no historic book to prove it's existence, you can only attack the Bible's actual books written in them same time periods

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/

[_maklelan]

Like I said the Book of Mormon has no historic book to prove it's existence, you can only attack the Bible's actual books written in them same time periods

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/

Wow, this is becoming grotesque. Now your sentences aren't even making any sense.

[Guest]

Like I said the Book of Mormon has no historic book to prove it's existence, you can only attack the Bible's actual books written in them same time periods

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/

Wow, this is becoming grotesque. Now your sentences aren't even making any sense.

Already know you have bought Mormons attack on the Bible "hook line and sinker "

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims3.htm#incomplete

INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT TRANSLATION

The mistranslation of the Bible is suggested in the eighth Article of Faith. Talmage explains, "There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost... Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men" (A. of F., p. 237).

Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth Prophet of Mormonism also said: "There is not one principle pertaining to the salvation of men that is so clearly stated in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that men do not stumble over — not one thing. There is not one principle they can be united on that has been so clearly stated that they do not find their interpretations of it conflicting" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 278).

Joseph Smith also declared, "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (T. of P.J.S., p. 327). And LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson said, "Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt also wrote:

If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote.... Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, IN HIS RIGHT MIND could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original? (Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47; read all of this pamphlet for a detailed attack upon the Bible).