100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NO Contradictions in the Bible ..... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The Bible is the Inspired Word of God....but man must also have the Holy Spirit in him, to rightly interpret the Word of God.  Everything I write is inspired by source. Everything I paint is inspired by source. I have the breath of life (holy spirit) in me at all times. In my soul I am free. Source lives and breathes and has its life in me. Some people of some religions think they are the only ones.     |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
look the only book said to be written by god is the qur'an/koran. Allah didnt write the Qu'ran! Where did you get that from? There are two schools of thought about who actually wrote the Qu'ran and how it was assembled because it is a known fact that Muhammad was so illiterate that he could not read or write. First, the Muslim leaders tell the people that Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran and it was a miracle because Muhammad was illiterate in spite of the fact that Muhammad himself spoke against miracles and said he could not and did not do any miracles, therefore, calling Muhammad a liar. The other school of thought comes from today's theological scholars or experts who claim that the Qu'ran was put together later by a Caliph who simply organized notes left by Muhammad. Amazingly, this belief defies common sense because, first, a man who cannot write cannot leave notes and, second, the size of the Koran would have required to write a huge amount of notes. It is only common sense that an illiterate person who cannot read or write cannot leave any notes much less enough notes to write a book six hundred pages long. Use some common sense. If Muhammad could write enough notes to write a six hundred page book, why didn't he just write the book? The only thing this proves is that many scholars and experts don't have any common sense. So, if you were Muhammad, wanted to write a very important religious document, and you had enslaved a large number of both Jewish and non-Jewish scribes, who would you use to write your religious document? There is only one answer and that would be a Jewish scribe. As a matter of fact, after I realized this, I found out that a group of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Middle East who were fluent in Aramaic, studied the Qu'ran and came to the same conclusion for the same and different reasons. Based on their observations and my guess-work, I believe that what almost certainly happened was that Muhammad used a Jewish rabbi slave to write the Qu'ran, knowing he would be killed after the Qu'ran was finished, the slave wrote in secret messages to other Jews by writing in errors in referring to the Bible, and Muhammad's fellow leaders killed the Jewish rabbi after the Qu'ran was completed and they had disposed of Muhammad claiming he had been taken up to heaven by Allah. Thank you for the knowledge. Very interesting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you're partially right and you're wrong yes he did . Muhammed physically wrote it but the angel Gabriel came to him and dictated the word of god the Koran is not muhammeds words. the Koran is the only book written by God not inspired!. look it up. they did however see it as a miracle because Muhammed could not read or write. look the only book said to be written by god is the qur'an/koran. Allah didnt write the Qu'ran! Where did you get that from? There are two schools of thought about who actually wrote the Qu'ran and how it was assembled because it is a known fact that Muhammad was so illiterate that he could not read or write. First, the Muslim leaders tell the people that Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran and it was a miracle because Muhammad was illiterate in spite of the fact that Muhammad himself spoke against miracles and said he could not and did not do any miracles, therefore, calling Muhammad a liar. The other school of thought comes from today's theological scholars or experts who claim that the Qu'ran was put together later by a Caliph who simply organized notes left by Muhammad. Amazingly, this belief defies common sense because, first, a man who cannot write cannot leave notes and, second, the size of the Koran would have required to write a huge amount of notes. It is only common sense that an illiterate person who cannot read or write cannot leave any notes much less enough notes to write a book six hundred pages long. Use some common sense. If Muhammad could write enough notes to write a six hundred page book, why didn't he just write the book? The only thing this proves is that many scholars and experts don't have any common sense. So, if you were Muhammad, wanted to write a very important religious document, and you had enslaved a large number of both Jewish and non-Jewish scribes, who would you use to write your religious document? There is only one answer and that would be a Jewish scribe. As a matter of fact, after I realized this, I found out that a group of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Middle East who were fluent in Aramaic, studied the Qu'ran and came to the same conclusion for the same and different reasons. Based on their observations and my guess-work, I believe that what almost certainly happened was that Muhammad used a Jewish rabbi slave to write the Qu'ran, knowing he would be killed after the Qu'ran was finished, the slave wrote in secret messages to other Jews by writing in errors in referring to the Bible, and Muhammad's fellow leaders killed the Jewish rabbi after the Qu'ran was completed and they had disposed of Muhammad claiming he had been taken up to heaven by Allah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the angel Gabriel repeatedly told him " write it write it"
you're partially right and you're wrong yes he did . Muhammed physically wrote it but the angel Gabriel came to him and dictated the word of god the Koran is not muhammeds words. the Koran is the only book written by God not inspired!. look it up. they did however see it as a miracle because Muhammed could not read or write. look the only book said to be written by god is the qur'an/koran. Allah didnt write the Qu'ran! Where did you get that from? There are two schools of thought about who actually wrote the Qu'ran and how it was assembled because it is a known fact that Muhammad was so illiterate that he could not read or write. First, the Muslim leaders tell the people that Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran and it was a miracle because Muhammad was illiterate in spite of the fact that Muhammad himself spoke against miracles and said he could not and did not do any miracles, therefore, calling Muhammad a liar. The other school of thought comes from today's theological scholars or experts who claim that the Qu'ran was put together later by a Caliph who simply organized notes left by Muhammad. Amazingly, this belief defies common sense because, first, a man who cannot write cannot leave notes and, second, the size of the Koran would have required to write a huge amount of notes. It is only common sense that an illiterate person who cannot read or write cannot leave any notes much less enough notes to write a book six hundred pages long. Use some common sense. If Muhammad could write enough notes to write a six hundred page book, why didn't he just write the book? The only thing this proves is that many scholars and experts don't have any common sense. So, if you were Muhammad, wanted to write a very important religious document, and you had enslaved a large number of both Jewish and non-Jewish scribes, who would you use to write your religious document? There is only one answer and that would be a Jewish scribe. As a matter of fact, after I realized this, I found out that a group of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Middle East who were fluent in Aramaic, studied the Qu'ran and came to the same conclusion for the same and different reasons. Based on their observations and my guess-work, I believe that what almost certainly happened was that Muhammad used a Jewish rabbi slave to write the Qu'ran, knowing he would be killed after the Qu'ran was finished, the slave wrote in secret messages to other Jews by writing in errors in referring to the Bible, and Muhammad's fellow leaders killed the Jewish rabbi after the Qu'ran was completed and they had disposed of Muhammad claiming he had been taken up to heaven by Allah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/26/08 08:26 AM
|
|
The Book of Mormon:
I am quite sure that Joseph Smith was probably abducted by aliens, or the victim of mind control experiments. Either that, or he was just a con man. It seems like all religions are either frauds or results of channeled or "inspired" works or the result of someone being abducted or approached by visions of non-human life forms with their so-called truths. The Urantia Book appeared out of nowhere according to them. No body even remembered channeling it. The Raelian Movement was the result of a guy who met a space alien who called himself an Elohim from the planet Elohim. The Bible was supposed to have been "inspired" but then, the question remains, what does that actually mean? A reasonable person looking for the truth is going to have to ask the question... what is the agenda of most of these so-called religious truths? Which ones make sense? Which ones seem reasonable? I look for agenda, and stay uninvolved with any of them. Anymore, they all have an agenda and they all reek of the control system and are cults. I wish people would break free of them all and stop letting others control their minds. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also as part of my major i took a classes in Islam, and I've never heard the second school of thought that a Caliph put it together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh but God doesnt have to follow his own laws .. but he asked the angels to kill and ask Moses to kill ...when he clearly stated that "thou shalt not kill" .... a total contradiction Very true. Buuuuuut <with loads of British sarcasm intended> "The Bible doesnt have contradictions" Only misinterpretations!  what a load of crap! the Bible is suppose to be the word of God "absolute" thats why believers will say that there are no contradictions or misinterpetations in the bible therefore if God laws says that "thou shalt not kill" and God ask someone to kill then it can only be viewed as God being a hypocrite |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"John 1:18, 6:46: I John 4:12 No one has ever seen God. Exodus 33:11 God says no man will ever see His face and live. But ... the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen 18:1#. Jacob saw God face-to-face (Gen 32:30). Moses and the Elders gazed upon God (Exodus 24:9-11). God spoke to Moses face-to-face (Exodus 33:11: Deut 34:10). God allowed Moses to see his "back parts" (Exodus 33:22-23). Isaiah saw God in a vision (Isaiah 6:1,5). Ezekiel also saw God in a vision and described Him in some detail (Ezekiel 1:27-28). Amos saw God (Amos 7:7). " He contradicts himself and the bible right here. Jacob saw god face to face, moses and the elders gazed upon god. Yet no one has seen god. The guy is just trying to find loop holes around the contradictions. None of these are supported by any fact. There theory's of why it may not be a contradiction. The difficulty you are having with what you percieve are contradictions has more to do with your misunderstanding of the Triune God than it does the error of the authors. The God that Jacob saw was the Son. Soon to be the incarnate Jesus - who is the one who tells us that no man has seen the "Father". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the Urantia book it tells how Lucifer denied that "the father" existed and that no one (even angels) had ever seen him, to include Michael who was in charge of heaven.
Lucifer charged that Michael had never seen the "father" either and was just pretending to have in order to maintain his heavenly power. So apparently even in heaven there are power struggles and non-believers. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible has NO contradictions. The Word cannot be taken out of context, and must be rightly divided. Read this also.... http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf The Bible is full of contradictions. God inspired me to write this post. Therefore THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD. that's a bald face lie - goddess - i did no such thing!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible has NO contradictions. The Word cannot be taken out of context, and must be rightly divided. Read this also.... http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf The Bible is full of contradictions. God inspired me to write this post. Therefore THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD. that's a bald face lie - goddess - i did no such thing!!!!!!!! That wasn't you? Hummmmmmm..  Perhaps it was the devil then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people who support the bible are supporting terrible things. Absolutely terrible bigoted and jugemental ideas that can't possible be from our creator.
The bible supports slavery, it supports selling daughters for wives as a business transaction. Commercialism at its worst. The biblical God represents bigotry hate and judgments. In fact, people who support the bible are doing nothing more than being bigoted and judgmental toward those who refuse to worship a book. It's disgusting.  Clearly the book is a lie. It contains endless contradictions. Not the least of which is the following. It claims that God is unchanging,... Then it says,... For God so hated the world that he drown all of humanity including little tiny innocent babies. Then in says,... For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for the sins of man. The bible is the most blatant contradiction ever invented by men. I can't possibly be true. To worship this book is to turn you back on both God and your fellow man in favor of worshiping ancient mythological lies. Just one look at how much hatred and division it creates in this world should be enough to tell you that it can't possibly be from any divine all-wise creator. Morever, who stupid to people think God is? Do these people who believe in the bible honestly think that God is so stupid that he would actually be angry with people who don't believe in these crude and rude stories? The people who claim that this book is the only way to God are suggesting that God is rejecting all decent people who don't buy into the biblical stories. But that too would be a contradiction about what the biblical God is supposed to be like. The biblical God is supposed to be all-wise thus he couldn't possible be this stupid. The biblical God would have to reject nonbelievers in the bible. Even if those believers actually beliving in God. I seriously don't expect people who believe in the bible to understand this, because this is truly beyond their comprehension. But the bottom line is simple. Rejecting utterly stupid medival stories is not the same as rejecting the creator of this universe. Therefore it cannot possibly be important to believe in the bible in order to love and acccept your creator. The mere fact that the bible itself claims that it is important to believe in it is proof positive that it has to be a lie. You can't find any better proof that this. I can't possibly be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS:
"And that word ,""grace"", was given in the vernacular as a word describing a contemporary definition for it and not in the correct context of the original word which means "confidence", ""and confidence alone."" tribo: ??? - There are only 2 word's used for grace in the bible - first in hebrew language is - "KHANE" which mean's gracious, kindness favor!! second is greek, the word "CHARIS" (ka-rees') which translates - graciousness, divine influence upon the heart; acceptable benefit; favour; gift; joy; liberality; pleasure. ""NOWHERE"" does it state it's meaning to be taken as ""confidence""!! Strong's concordence and hebrew/greek dictionary's inclusive. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Thu 06/26/08 12:04 PM
|
|
"John 1:18, 6:46: I John 4:12 No one has ever seen God. Exodus 33:11 God says no man will ever see His face and live. But ... the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen 18:1#. Jacob saw God face-to-face (Gen 32:30). Moses and the Elders gazed upon God (Exodus 24:9-11). God spoke to Moses face-to-face (Exodus 33:11: Deut 34:10). God allowed Moses to see his "back parts" (Exodus 33:22-23). Isaiah saw God in a vision (Isaiah 6:1,5). Ezekiel also saw God in a vision and described Him in some detail (Ezekiel 1:27-28). Amos saw God (Amos 7:7). " He contradicts himself and the bible right here. Jacob saw god face to face, moses and the elders gazed upon god. Yet no one has seen god. The guy is just trying to find loop holes around the contradictions. None of these are supported by any fact. There theory's of why it may not be a contradiction. "Jesus carried the cross got exhausted, then simon did, that explains why it was said they both carried it. " It didn't say jesus was exhausted and stoped carrying the cross. Further more, in "The reign of Jehoiachim" he states that the men who recorded the info on him and wrote it in the bible got confused. The bible is the word of god, so that still is a contradiction. He claims they where not in the original manuscripts, but no one has a copy of it to check. From this arguement you can basicly find a loop hole, then say it wasn't that way in the original, here is the real way. Then he says another reason might be because it might of been joint rulership, yet offers no explination who the other joint ruler was. On the 'who took the census' part, the entire thing is a blanket assumption of how david was and was acting and thinking. No where do any of the bible passages support this. Nowhere do they say 'god told david to do it anyways'. In goliath and giants he now says it was originally a contradiction, and is now corrected. He also said the story was 'altered' to correct it in the king james version. ummm, word of god people, not suppose to be altered or changed. "The bible records the words of men, even when they are wrong. In this instance Job is refuted by God. " thats a direct quote from him. Again, bible is suppose to be gods word. god isn't suppose to make mistakes, else ALL things said by ANYONE except god, are subject to. Nothing in the bible was actually writen by god, it was always through someone else. Thus to accept this is to disprove god completely, instead of just the book. Has anyone been to heaven, he fails to explain the contradiction away. Elijah Ascended to heaven, and jesus said no one ever has ascended to heaven, cept himself. him and Enoch went before jesus did. Just visiting is still ascending I have no problem with christianity, and faith. This guy though, he's full of crap. He basicly said that the current bible is inacurate. So yes, it is full of contradictions. Just remember sweets.....every single thing said above I can contradict and show you scripture and why it is false....I also can copy and paste as you did....with the answers to all that you speak. Also just as a side note for me......there is no way on "Gods" green earth that God would let a book of myths be around for as long as it has.....just wouldn't. Man makes mistakes God does not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO Contradictions in the Bible ..... contradictions can be better identified through hypocrisy ... that way it can not be disputed as being a contradiction ..and one of those contradictions in the bible is "thou shalt not kill" ..that is truely a contradiction since it apparent that God himself doesn't follow his own laws And there is also an eye for an eye....and no matter what God did what God had to do....not only for his people but for the world as a whole.....And I think you need to understand all 613 of the laws before you claim contradiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about this you're all wrong and right.. religion is interpretation especially the bible.
NO Contradictions in the Bible ..... contradictions can be better identified through hypocrisy ... that way it can not be disputed as being a contradiction ..and one of those contradictions in the bible is "thou shalt not kill" ..that is truely a contradiction since it apparent that God himself doesn't follow his own laws And there is also an eye for an eye....and no matter what God did what God had to do....not only for his people but for the world as a whole.....And I think you need to understand all 613 of the laws before you claim contradiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was interested in understanding how poeple come to beleive in Judeo-Christian beliefs. So I found a religion that has amazingly been extrememly well documented from it beginning. It began at a time when mass media actually existed, when personal transactions and actions were a matter of public record. The Morman religion. We can study every fascet of it from the beginning of the life of it's founder through every president of the organization. We can see EVERY SINGLE change in dogma with every single 're-write' the was wholly and totally an inspiration from god. Christains scoff at the rediculous nature of the Book of Morman. Call it a lie, call it offensive, call it the work of evil. Yet where did Jesus go in the three days after death before he rose. Obviously Christians don't believe it was to America to speak to the Native Indians. How rediculous. But Joseph Smith was given this information by the Holy Spirit, an angel of god. But Christians seem to know who the Holy Spirit speaks to and who it doesn't. My, my, such a dilemma Christians have, such a web they have woven with their mystacism, and their dogma. How to lure others in, without giving credit to those who also claim to know and have the inspired word of god. Joseph Smith did a ONE UP on Christians, he provided a way in which the head of the Mormans, the President will always be the sanctioned prophet of god. While Christians, on the other hand, no longer have prophets. In "profits" have switched hands, for the Mormans, the last I looked surprassed any religion in property and wealth. So who's more up to date, who has a better connection with the heavenly, and who actually holds an "inspired word of god?". I find this facinating redy....because as with you....he re-wrote to fit his selfish needs....But it doesn't work that way.....God's laws are God's laws and rewrite to fit what you think it should be just is not the case. Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs. Laban, mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:9), makes use of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also had steel swords (Ether 7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote to 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of the Scriptures indicate that the word translated steel in the Old Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly rendered bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the Hebrew word , probably meaning iron. William Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the Book of Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as a possible justification for the rendering of steel in the Book of Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite steel with the ‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew word for bronze.” The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon is that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries of Joseph Smith have claimed that Smith could not continue “translating” the gold plates unless the scribe read each word back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should really have been bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book was translated by the gift and power of God, since it shows that errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation. Mormons sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet invented compass (known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from thence we fetched a compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute this subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there we made a circle.” Added to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not only contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations purporting to come from the same God who inspired the Book of Mormon. The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1) records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9, 10) states: “the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.” The Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was Bethlehem described as a separate town in the Bible. The contradiction is irreconcilable. Another area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon concerns sin and Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8 states the doctrine that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today’s schools. The Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which places sin at the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to the sin and guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made (Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it clearly states that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12). There are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself, if indeed it is supposed that He had anything to do with the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism: “Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sin. Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.” But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“All those who humble themselves and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”
Mormon theologians conspicuously omit any serious discussion of the contradiction. Joseph Smith did not limit his contradictions to baptism; indeed, polygamy is a classic example of some of his maneuvering. “Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 132:34, 32). The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states: “Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of woman” (Jacob 2:26–28). It appears that Smith could manufacture revelations at will, depending upon his desires. In the last instance, his reputation and subsequent actions indicate that sex was the motivating factor. A final example of the confusion generated between the Book of Mormon and other “inspired” revelations is found in this conflict between two works in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest” (Moses 2:1). The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view and states: “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1). Just how it is possible to reconcile these two allegedly equal pronouncements from Mormon revelation escapes this author, and the Mormons themselves appear reluctant to furnish any concrete explanation. The question of false prophecies in Mormonism has been handled adequately in a number of excellent volumes, but it should be pointed out that Joseph Smith drew heavily upon published articles both in newspapers and magazines. In fact, one of his famous prophecies concerning the Civil War is drawn chiefly from material already published at the time. In the History of the Church, Volume 1, page 301, Joseph Smith states, “Appearances of troubles among the nations became more visible this season than they had previously been since the Church began her journey out of the wilderness. The people of South Carolina, in convention assembled (in November), passed ordinances, declaring their state a free and independent nation.” From this we know that Smith could have been aware of South Carolina’s succession as early as November 1832. If not in November, he could have known about this from an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser & Patriot, December 10, 1832. This was a full fifteen days before Smith’s prophecy, and the Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde was in Boston that day. Smith declared in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 87: “At the rebellion of South Carolina the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain and then war shall be poured out upon all nations . And slaves shall rise up against their masters and that the remnants shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.” Though the Civil War did break out some years after Smith’s death in 1844, England did not become involved in any war against the United States. “All nations” were not involved in war as was prophesied. The slaves did not rise up against “their masters,” and the “remnants” who were Native Americans were themselves vexed by the Gentiles, being defeated in war and confined to reservations. Prophet Smith was an extremely ineffective prophet here, as well as in Doctrine and Covenants 124:22-23, 59, when he prophesied that he would possess the house he built at Nauvoo “for ever and ever.” The fact of the matter is that neither Joseph nor his seed “after him” lived from “generation to generation” in the Nauvoo house. According to The Comprehensive History of the Church 1:160, “The Nauvoo House was never completed; and after its unfinished walls had stood unprotected for a number of years and were crumbling to decay, they were taken down; the foundations were torn up and the excellent building stone of which they were constructed sold for use in other buildings in and about Nauvoo.” However, the LDS church has rebuilt the house in “Nauvoo” and offers it as a tourist attraction. These and other instances indicate that Smith was not only a poor scribe but a false prophet, and his prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel to Palestine clearly reveals that he anticipated the millennium in his own lifetime, whereas in reality the prophecy of Ezekiel 37 began to be fulfilled in 1948, more than a hundred years after Smith’s death. The question quite naturally arises in summing up the background of the Book of Mormon: Where did the book come from, since it obviously did not come from God? The answer to this has been propounded at great length by numerous students of Mormonism, particularly E. D. Howe, Pomeroy Tucker, and William A. Linn. All the aforementioned concur that the Book of Mormon is probably an expansion upon the writings of Solomon Spaulding, a retired minister who was known to have written a number of “romances” with biblical backgrounds similar to those of the Book of Mormon. The Mormons delight to point out that one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, entitled “Manuscript Story,” was discovered in Hawaii more than 100 years ago, and it differed in many respects from the Book of Mormon. But in his excellent volume The Book of Mormon, Dr. James D. Bales makes the following observation, which is of great importance and agrees in every detail with my research: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually there is no laws... jesus came back in the gospels to have a reformed judaism where he says all the old rules are to be forgotten the only rule is to love thy neighbor. I was interested in understanding how poeple come to beleive in Judeo-Christian beliefs. So I found a religion that has amazingly been extrememly well documented from it beginning. It began at a time when mass media actually existed, when personal transactions and actions were a matter of public record. The Morman religion. We can study every fascet of it from the beginning of the life of it's founder through every president of the organization. We can see EVERY SINGLE change in dogma with every single 're-write' the was wholly and totally an inspiration from god. Christains scoff at the rediculous nature of the Book of Morman. Call it a lie, call it offensive, call it the work of evil. Yet where did Jesus go in the three days after death before he rose. Obviously Christians don't believe it was to America to speak to the Native Indians. How rediculous. But Joseph Smith was given this information by the Holy Spirit, an angel of god. But Christians seem to know who the Holy Spirit speaks to and who it doesn't. My, my, such a dilemma Christians have, such a web they have woven with their mystacism, and their dogma. How to lure others in, without giving credit to those who also claim to know and have the inspired word of god. Joseph Smith did a ONE UP on Christians, he provided a way in which the head of the Mormans, the President will always be the sanctioned prophet of god. While Christians, on the other hand, no longer have prophets. In "profits" have switched hands, for the Mormans, the last I looked surprassed any religion in property and wealth. So who's more up to date, who has a better connection with the heavenly, and who actually holds an "inspired word of god?". I find this facinating redy....because as with you....he re-wrote to fit his selfish needs....But it doesn't work that way.....God's laws are God's laws and rewrite to fit what you think it should be just is not the case. Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs. Laban, mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:9), makes use of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also had steel swords (Ether 7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote to 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of the Scriptures indicate that the word translated steel in the Old Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly rendered bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the Hebrew word , probably meaning iron. William Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the Book of Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as a possible justification for the rendering of steel in the Book of Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite steel with the ‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew word for bronze.” The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon is that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries of Joseph Smith have claimed that Smith could not continue “translating” the gold plates unless the scribe read each word back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should really have been bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book was translated by the gift and power of God, since it shows that errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation. Mormons sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet invented compass (known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from thence we fetched a compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute this subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there we made a circle.” Added to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not only contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations purporting to come from the same God who inspired the Book of Mormon. The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1) records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9, 10) states: “the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.” The Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was Bethlehem described as a separate town in the Bible. The contradiction is irreconcilable. Another area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon concerns sin and Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8 states the doctrine that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today’s schools. The Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which places sin at the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to the sin and guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made (Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it clearly states that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12). There are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself, if indeed it is supposed that He had anything to do with the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism: “Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sin. Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.” But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated: |
|
|
|
|
