by peacefulpete 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
For anyone interested in pursuing the subject, I would highly recommend the book by Ernest H Taves entitled: TROUBLE ENOUGH Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. (Prometheus Books) The author's mother was a devote Mormon. And he had early exposure to the church and its teachings.
He also wrote another book about Brigham Young: THIS IS THE PLACE Brigham Young and the New Zion. (Same publishing house)
hooberus...we will likely never see eye to eye on this matter. But as a rhetorical question, What if the book of Mormon refered to Pontius Pilate or Cyrus also? (I believe it does) Would you see this as evidence of overall historical accuracy? Probably not. It is the implausable or historically impossible elements of the stories that betray the book as a work of fiction, is it not?
Maybe right now they need the Book to cling to while they learn the important things of love, mercy, and duty.
Pretty much no.
I see pete and jim as agreeing in principle, just seeing it from different angles. A witness I knew growing up was a distant relative of Orson Pratt; this witness said that the Book of mormon was about 1/16 direct copy of the KJ version, errors and all. That it might mention Pilate is not surprise.
pistoff....You are of course right about Mr Smith utilizing other works (KJ Bible and Solomon Spaulding's unpublished historical novel)and inserting recognized names into his story to give his tale added credibility and persuasiveness. My point is that this is a standard method of good storytelling and not evidence of historicity.
The antiquity of a story likewise has no bearing upon it's truthfulness. If anything to my mind, a story that comes from the less skeptical, less scientific times of the ancient past has less to recommend it as historical.
Just to mention that my brief seach on line for the use of Pilate or Cyrus in the BoM came up empty. But the example could have been Hezekiah or other charactor names for the sake of arguement.
I see pete and jim as agreeing in principle, just seeing it from different angles.
Exactly, Pistoff.
Sorry SF Jim if I was combative. I could offer excuses but won't. I do wonder tho if the ability to consult the Greek form of the NT has not actually added to the confusion and merely offered a new avenue to corrupt the meaning for those of us who don't understand the language and the historical context.
I do wonder tho if the ability to consult the Greek form of the NT has not actually added to the confusion and merely offered a new avenue to corrupt the meaning for those of us who don't understand the language and the historical context.
Quite possibly. There is so much slang in the original Greek scriptures that the actual meaning of the words/phrases have been lost in antiquity.
If I involve myself in a discussion with someone regarding the Bible in the original languages, I will not do so without a copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance in hand.
Instead of some of you spreading more misinformation about other religions, why not go to the 'horses mouth' so to speak. Below is a link I found from some Morman apologists (defenders): At least it's from a Morman....
