Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Just Reading wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b * Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lordâs birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: âAnd behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalemâ (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.
Another silly arguement by the anti's.
In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.
On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.
Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Joshua 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Exodus 21:25, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Nehemiah 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).
Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).
But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.
We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.
John Tvedtnes
Interesting to know, thanks for that post.
what's even more interesting is that it is all conjecture, "LOL"
Boy some people are good they can make an excuse for anything "LOL"
Actually those are all facts from ancient writings, and the Bible, The Bible even uses the term "At Jeruselem" to refer to another city also.
Didn't know that did you bigdummy? Well of course you don't. Why would you, you were never a gospel scholar of any stretch of the imagination, you probally read the cartoon versions of the Bible stories, that's about it. 
"LOL" NO Dubbs the key word is "AT" look it up, it means near or about stupid "LOL"
I find it funny you didn't know that,
I use to tell that to all the new missionaries when they would come over as a test...I was a stake missionary then
but it is still just an excuse..!!! "LOL"
 First you say "AT" means near or about,(surprisingly you are correct) but then say the usage of it in the Book of Mormon is an excuse?
Your about as dumb as they come bro, seriously.
I guess the Bible is also wrong, because it uses the same "at" to describe and area also, so is that also an excuse? shakes head at the idiotic logic of big
No Dubbs it all depends on in what contexts you use the word at,
what Joseph wrote could be either way,
and in the end the you are just using it as an excuse....
you see the historical facts show that Joseph Smith was a con man a liar and a thief,
so there is more leaning towards that he just made a mistake, that can have a good excuse 
How could it be a mistake if the same phrasing is used to describe city's in the Bible in the same fashion? Are they also a mistake?
Think dumby think.
were not talking about the bible Dubbs,
were talking about how the liar and con-man Joseph Smith used the word "at"....
Listen dumby, your simply not bright enough to argue this stuff, just stop.
Fact is, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon use Old World terminology in a similar fashion, to me that shows uniformity and shows Joseph didn't make it up, but Nephi was using language that was common in those days.
Funny thing you also won't get bigdummy, the church has changed 4000 spelling errors in the BofM, and a few other errors, you don't think they would have noticed this one and changed it if it was wrong? Fact is, it is lingistically accurate for the time, and they knew it. It points to Joseph translating, and makes it more authentic.
"LOL" now Dubbs admits the book of mormon had spelling errors, Dubbs not all of those 4000 errors were just spelling errors, what about the other errors Dubbs??
when are you goin to admit them???
Remember this Dubbs:
In 1841, Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct of any book on earth,
and the keystone of our religion," and suggested that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (History of the Church, 4:461).
This certainly is an astounding claim.
Surely, a book that is the "most correct" on Earth would contain no mistakes
but as you just admitted this is not the case.
If the Book of Mormon was translated by the "power of God," it is reasonable to assume that it would be completely free from error.
but the original edition is filled with many
mistakes.
and again acording to the LDS Church history Joseph Smith could not have made any mistakes in the book of mormon:
Martin Harris, another of the three witnesses, wrote:
"The translation was just as it was engraven on
the plates precisely in the language then used" (The Myth of Manuscript Found, p. 71,).
He went on to state:
"The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly translated the next appeared" (p. 91,).
Joseph F.Smith, sixth president of the Mormon church, said:
"Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so.
The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself-the very words" (The Territorial Inquirer, March 2, 1881,).
Again, he explained:
Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe,
but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God....
The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences
or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there (Journal of Oliver Huntington,
Utah State Historical Society, p. 168,).
Now this is just too funny Dubbs that you would admit that there are mistakes in the book of mormon I like you you lose one argument, have nothing else to say, so you move on to another topic, throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Fact is, the Bible has more than 156,000 errors in it, it is still the word of God, (when translated correctly) When men are involved, mistakes happen, espeically when a guy with a 6th grade education is involved. Small and simple things will great things be accomplished. And it was. A miracle really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Uncle_Bud wrote:Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.
And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.
But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.
It says more when your apostles call the Bible the foundation of the latter day gospel. A keystone rests on the foundation. Capiche, Guiuseppe?
No, a Keystone rests in a doorway archway, a Cornerstone rests on the foundation dar dar.
A keystone can also mean "something on which associated things depend". We are talking philosophy here, not a building.
So the Book of Mormon is something we depend on for our doctrine, same diff, big whoop.
Not really, Dubbs.
Mormon doctrine is formulated most on the Bible and the D&C.
Joseph Smith Didn't Believe in the Book of Mormon
So Why Should Anyone Else?
Utah Missions Inc.
www.umi.org
Dennis A. Wright
In 1844 Joseph Smith declared that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct book of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 194, and History of the Church, 4:461). One would think that the Prophet would found his church upon the teachings of this "keystone" book. Let's see if he did.
Ask yourself the following twenty questions and try to "chapter-and-verse" them using the Book of Mormon.
Where does the Book of Mormon teach...
1. that Elohim (God the Father in Mormonism) was once a mortal man and that he was not always God?
2. that God has a body of flesh and bones?
3. that God is married in heaven?
4. that men can become Gods?
5. that temple participation is necessary to become exalted?
6. that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
7. that the blood of Christ does not cleanse us from certain sins?
8. that a person can lose his salvation if he is not baptized on behalf of dead relatives?
9. that there is more than one God?
10. that males must hold either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood?
11. that you can't drink coffee or tea?
12. that there are "three degrees of glory"?
13. that the Holy Ghost is a son of God just as Jesus is a son of God?
14. that polygamy was approved by God?
15. that if a man wishes to be saved he must have a woman by his side?
16. that faithful members of the Church must wear sacred undergarments that have the power to protect them?
17. that official church doctrine must be voted on by the general membership?
18. that the Black race (seed of Cain) survived the Flood because the devil needed a representation on earth?
19. that God is the offspring of another God who, in turn, is the offspring of still another God, etc.?
20. that the highest level within the celestial kingdom is the "Church of the Firstborn"?
Frustrated and confused? Joseph Smith apparently did not believe the teachings of the very book that he proclaimed in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon as "the most correct of any book on earth!" This presumable fact can be demonstrated by a careful examination of these 20 distinctive teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you had difficulty locating these teachings, then read on, for, in fact, they cannot be found in the "most correct" book.
The Book of Mormon does not teach:
1. God was once a mortal man.
The Book of Mormon never says God was once mortal. In fact, it teaches that God was always God. Take for instance Moroni 8.18. It says that God is unchangeable from eternity to all eternity. Joseph Smith, however, taught, "We have managed and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and take away the veil that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Jospeh Smith, p 345)
2. God has a body of flesh.
The Book of Mormon never says God has a body of flesh and bones. On more than one occasion it clearly teaches that God is a God of spirit (see Alma 18.2-5, 24-28; Alma 22.9-11). This is taught in Doctrine and Covenants 130:28. See also Parley Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 1978 ed., p 23.
3. God is married.
The Book of Mormon never teaches that God is married. This was taught by LDS Apostle Orson Pratt (The Seer, pp 37, 158).
4. Men can become Gods.
The Book of Mormon never says that men can become Gods. This was publicly proclaimed by the Prophet Joseph Smith on April 7, 1844 at the general conference of the LDS Church in Nauvoo. Known as the "King Follett Discourse," it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses 8:1-11. See also The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp 342-362, and the teachings of Prophet Lorenzo Snow quoted by Milton R. Hunter in The Gospel Through the Ages, pp 105-106.
5. Temple participation in necessary.
The Book of Mormon never mentions that a men must participate in temple ordinances in order to become exalted. This is found in Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4. See also Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p 779.
6. Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.
The Book of Mormon never teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. This is found in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p 15.
7. The cleansing power of Christ's blood is not always sufficient.
Never does the Book of Mormon hint that there are sins beyond the cleansing power of Christ's blood. However, 2nd LDS Prophet Brigham Young taught, "There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants (Discourses of Brigham Young, p385). Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, "But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men have their own blood shed to atone for their sins" (Mormon Doctrine p92.).
8. Baptism for the dead.
The Book of Mormon never teaches that baptism for the dead is a necessary ordinance. In fact, the Book of Mormon teaches that if a person dies in his sins, the devil has sealed him his and this is the final state of the wicked (see Alma 34:34, 35). However, LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "If we willfully neglect the salvation of our dead, then also we shall stand rejected of the Lord, because we have neglected our dead; and just so sure their blood will be required at our hands... we cannot be saved without them" (Doctrines of Salvation 2: 145, 149)
9. The Plurality of Gods
The Book of Mormon never teaches there is a plurality of Gods. In fact, it strongly teaches there is only one true God (see Alma 11:26-29). This was proclaimed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:474.
10. The Priesthood
The Book of Mormon never mentions either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. You will find this in Gospel Principles, p 73.
11. Can't drink coffee or tea
This is taken from Doctrine and Covenants 89. Still, this health law never mentions coffee or tea specifically, only "hot drinks." Mormon General Authority George Q. Cannon included soup in this prohibition when he said, "We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious" (Journal of Discourses 12:223).
12. Three degrees of glory
The terrestrial, telestial, and celestial kingdoms are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon. See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine pp 777-778).
13. The Holy Ghost is a son of God.
Only Jesus and those who embrace Christ as their Savior are given that title in the Book of Mormon. Under the heading of "Holy Ghost," The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father."
14. Polygamy was approved by God.
Polygamy is never mentioned in a positive way in the Book of Mormon, it is always described as an abominable practice. However, LDS Prophet Joseph F. Smith taught that polygamy was essential to exaltation (Journal of Discourses, 20:28).
15. A man must have a woman to be saved.
The Book of Mormon never teaches that. However, Brigham Young taught, "No man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her. I tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity. If he wishes to be saved, he cannot be saved without a woman by his side" (as quoted by Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p 245). See also Improvement Era, Vol 21, Dec 1917, pp 105-106, as well as Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p 272.
16. Protective Garments
The Book of Mormon never mentions "garments of the Holy Priesthood" yet Temple Mormons are told that as long as they do not defile them, the garment will "be a shield and a protection" to them against the power of the Destroyer. This is found in Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 2:295. See also Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p 357.
17. Doctrine to be voted on.
Never were the words of the Book of Mormon prophets sustained by the believers in the Book of Mormon in order to be considered official teaching. The LDS vote in order "to sustain" official teachings as well as church officials. However, see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp 149-150.
18. The Seed of Cain
This abominable concept is not to be found in the Book of Mormon. However, third LDS Prophet John Taylor said, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a woman of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses, 22:304).
19. God having a father and a grandfather.
The Book of Mormon never mentions it. However, Joseph Smith claimed, "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. p 373).
20. The Church of the Firstborn.
Such an expression is never used in the Book of Mormon. The Church of the Firstborn is found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:94 and The History of the Church 1:283.
Therefore, if Joseph Smith did not really believe the Book of Mormon, then why should anyone else? Now that's a very good question! I know how I would answer it! How about you?Dennis Wright LOLLLLLOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLL 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -145
|
Dubbs wrote:Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b * Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lordâs birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: âAnd behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalemâ (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.
Another silly arguement by the anti's.
In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.
On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.
Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Joshua 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Exodus 21:25, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Nehemiah 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).
Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).
But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.
We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.
John Tvedtnes
John Tvedtnes LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Uncle Bud, BWHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa
You admitted you are not the brightest bulb in the lamp.
Uhhhhh, I'll take a guy with a PHD over your redneck self."LOL" I know John Tvedtnes and Uncle_Bud is right HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....and his Ph.D. in Egyptian and Semitic languages from the Hebrew University...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... the man is still a paid lying ass for the LDS church..."LOL"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Order of Thistle Knighthood
we are gallant warriors and gentlemen to fair ladies by way of noble chivalry.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -145
|
Dubbs wrote:Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b * Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lordâs birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: âAnd behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalemâ (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.
Another silly arguement by the anti's.
In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.
On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.
Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Joshua 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Exodus 21:25, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Nehemiah 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).
Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).
But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.
We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.
John Tvedtnes
Interesting to know, thanks for that post.
what's even more interesting is that it is all conjecture, "LOL"
Boy some people are good they can make an excuse for anything "LOL"
Actually those are all facts from ancient writings, and the Bible, The Bible even uses the term "At Jeruselem" to refer to another city also.
Didn't know that did you bigdummy? Well of course you don't. Why would you, you were never a gospel scholar of any stretch of the imagination, you probally read the cartoon versions of the Bible stories, that's about it.
"LOL" NO Dubbs the key word is "AT" look it up, it means near or about stupid "LOL"
I find it funny you didn't know that,
I use to tell that to all the new missionaries when they would come over as a test...I was a stake missionary then
but it is still just an excuse..!!! "LOL"
First you say "AT" means near or about,(surprisingly you are correct) but then say the usage of it in the Book of Mormon is an excuse?
Your about as dumb as they come bro, seriously.
I guess the Bible is also wrong, because it uses the same "at" to describe and area also, so is that also an excuse? shakes head at the idiotic logic of big
No Dubbs it all depends on in what contexts you use the word at,
what Joseph wrote could be either way,
and in the end the you are just using it as an excuse....
you see the historical facts show that Joseph Smith was a con man a liar and a thief,
so there is more leaning towards that he just made a mistake, that can have a good excuse
How could it be a mistake if the same phrasing is used to describe city's in the Bible in the same fashion? Are they also a mistake?
Think dumby think. | | |
