Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker
|
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Wren wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Russel Ballard clearly indicated that the Bible is directly responsible for motivating young Joseph Smith to walk out to an isolated grove of trees one morning.
Yes, sure it did, but that doesn't say anywhere that any scripture is more important than another, I'm still waiting for this claim.
This indicates to me that the Bible is of utmost importance to the LDS Church.
Utmost as much as the BofM, equal, here's proof from the BofM itself...
The Bible and the Book of Mormon "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Nephi 3:12).
If something grows together, they become equal.
It contains the first witness to salvation through Jesus Christ. And the Book of Mormon is simply another witness to salvation through Jesus Christ.
Simply another witness, to some it's the only witness, and their converstion tool, you downplay it's importance, without it, the LDS faith wouldn't exist.
If both are equal...than the Church's belief that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS Church is false, and misleading.
It is the keystone because without it, we would be just another church, with it, we have proof of continued revelation, Prophets, etc etc etc, our church would fall without it.
Please notice that Dubbs left out the statement that the Bible is the foundation of Mormonism. Is the word foundation used in that post? Then how did I leave it out? Kitkat correctly said that Christ is the Foundation and Cornerstone, The scriptures are all equal in importance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
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 bigNo Dubbs it all depends on in what contexts you use the word at, what Joseph wrote could be either way, and in the end 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 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2008/07/23 19:37 By Just Reading.
|
|
|
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. |
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:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2008/07/23 19:39 By Dubbs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Wren (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 13003
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: 7
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Wren (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 13003
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: 7
|
Dubbs wrote:Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
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.
Nope, Gino, everything (cornerstone, keystone, your boots with you in them) rests on the foundation, the Bible. As Jaye has proven conclusively and without any refutation from you, you are out of step with the LDS leadership.
Get in step, podjo.
Wrong profesor dumby,
Keystone...
the wedge-shaped piece at the summit of an arch, regarded as holding the other pieces in place. Typically a doorway.Being stubborn doesn't change the truth. Your apostles are quoted as saying the [b]foundation of Mormonism rests on the Bible. Your denial of that fact shows that you are out of step with your priesthood leadership. You are expressing it publicly. You are a LDS heretic. I counsel you to get in step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
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.The last dispensation of course has most of it's doctrine pulled from the Modern day PRophets which is the D&C, but our doctrine is spread throughout the scriptures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
| |
