Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as the city of the great King???
::: good news runner :::
city of the great King???
Matthew 5: 34-36a - But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by
heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his
footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head ...
3 Nephi 12:34-36a - But verily, verily I say unto you, Swear not at
all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth for it
[is] his footstool; neither shalt thou swear by the head ...
--
http://www.lhvm.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08
http://www.liontracks.org/roarlion/christns.htm
http://76.162.173.93/guest/ar-mp3/ar-how-to-spot-a-counterfeit.mp3
NickYoungh
wrote:
Are you sure the verses are wright, because both are 34-36a
John Miles
" ::: good news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6cqlj7F...@mid.individual.net...
> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as the
> city of the great King???
>
>
>
> Matthew 5: 34-36a - But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by
> heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his
> footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
> Neither shalt thou swear by thy head ...
> 3 Nephi 12:34-36a - But verily, verily I say unto you, Swear not at all;
> neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth for it [is]
> his footstool; neither shalt thou swear by the head ...
It wasn't Joseph Smith, it was Jesus Christ,
visiting his "other sheep, which [were] not of
[the] fold" at Jerusalem (John 10:16).
Christ, in Matthew 5, was speaking to an
audience in the Old World living with Jerusalem
at the center of its worship (Passover, the temple,
etc., required all to pilgrimage to Jerusalem).
Christ, in 3 Nephi, was speaking to a people in
the New World who would not have been
making oaths "by Jerusalem," but by their own
grand and important cities, if they did so at all.
Jerusalem would have been completely foreign
to them, except as an unknown place their
forefathers came from 600 years earlier.
When you read the Book of Mormon for
understanding of its doctrines, history, culture,
etc., you'll avoid getting the obvious facts mixed
up.
--John Miles
--
"[T]herefore...with all thy getting
get understanding." --Prov. 4:7
::: good news runner :::
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as
>> the city of the great King???
>>
>
> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
> in JERUSALEM?
Dear me! It is worse with them than I have thought.
> Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>
> It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
But the Book of Matthew clearly says he was born in Bethlehem.... so
Joseph Smith had to changed it all to his liking...
Just look there:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the
king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where
is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and
have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard it, he was
troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief
priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would
be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is
written through the prophet, 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no
way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a
governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'" Then Herod secretly
called the wise men, and learned from them exactly what time the star
appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and search diligently
for the young child. When you have found him, bring me word, so that I
also may come and worship him." (Matthew 2:1-8 WEB)
> It said that for DECADES. They finally changed it (corrected it).
Really? If this is not funny... I wonder why the members cannot see the
idiocy in that.
> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
ROTFL!!!
> My qusetion is this: If "Jerusalem" was "ok", why'd they change it?
It was not okay, and if you ask me, Joseph Smith did not even really
know the Gospel when he falsified God's Word. lol
Stormin Mormon
news:jmll64tfpk2u5udep...@4ax.com...
And-- I see we are getting nowhere. I try to save my energy and
efforts for people who are actually interested.
You don't impress me as interested.
john w
SNIP
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:dhjl64ht2ll168gv4...@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:22:30 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
<vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as
>>> the city of the great King???
>>>
>> Don't know about THAT. (I haven't read your post.)
>>
>> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
>> in JERUSALEM?
>
>Dear me! It is worse with them than I have thought.
>
>
>> Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>>
>> It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
>
>But the Book of Matthew clearly says he was born in Bethlehem.... so
>Joseph Smith had to changed it all to his liking...
"I know!" sweety! I know. But Joe Smith DIDN'T know.
Alma 7:10, one of the most controversial verses of "scripture" there
is.
I quote Alma 7:10 from a 1986 copy of the BOM:
(extra letters copied from the text as footnote marks / I've added
space to distinguish the footnote notations from TYPOS)
" And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the
cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen
vessel, who shalll be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the
Holy Ghost......."
(more that I didn't include)
I've heard any number of discussions on this passage.
I'll share one or two, and the Mormons are gonna "rip me a new one."
As I've told you in the past, "Do not be afraid; there are more of us
than there are of them!" ;-)
1. Joe Smith-- for all the bluster-- actually was not a Bible student,
much less a scholar. It's likely he had read very little of the
Bible, likely he didn't go to church much, if at all.
He literally did NOT KNOW that the Bible (and the whole population
of the world that could READ, knew that Jesus had been born in
Bethlehem (which is probably the most well-known story / "tale" in the
civilized world)
2. This was VERY likely a "copyist's error". He actually wasn't paying
much attention to the CONTENT as he sat there for MONTHs (years?)
hand-copying passage after passage after passage after passage
directly (plagiarizing) the KJV Bible.
I know, as a writer, with a computer, it's been my task many times
where I was respondible for copying (cut/n/pasting) maybe 25 chapters
of a manual that was going to Company A, then changing paragraph 3 on
page 26 to say "Machine 17X" instead of "Machine C." Because the rest
of the "manual" was the same, but THIS manual was going to a new
client who had asked for a "mod" to the other (Machine C) machine.)
^ ^ ^ That's how it's done. Every time you modify a computer /
machine for a new client / product line, you don't start from scratch
on the "How To" manual.
So Joe Smith has SOME excuse for "copying without reading." Not
much, but a skotch of "wiggle room." He wasn't paying attention.
3. This is quite possibly a "sign" God slipped in to let "the rest of
us know", "This jerk is not to be taken seriously."
God could not / would not STOP Joe from his "dastardly deed", but
God saw to it that there was this HUGE fly in the baked pie.
"Take your pick."
There is no indication I've seen from any dependable, reliable
HISTORY, that Joe Smith was any sort of "scholar."
He was a fraud.
PLEASE tell me you know that there is evidence that The Book Of
Mormon was intended (by its actual author/ someone ELSE) as a novel?
"The story goes" that someone wrote a novel, based on the Bible.
(obviously) Joe asked if he could READ it, then proceeded to take it
to "his sources" (who had MONEY) and had it published under Joe
Smith's name.
Making him not just a plagiarist of the Worst Kind, but a THIEF.
There are reports that someone (I don't recall the name, you could
look it up on the web) shrieked for YEARS (decades?) "That SOB stole
my G-d NOVEL!!!!!"
By then, of course, Joe had started a new branch of the church (
;-) ) finally -- FINALLY -- giving us "the correct version", so the
new converts weren't interested in hearing that the "New Bible" was
actually ---- a complete work of FICTION!!
Come on now! A saint dies, goes to heaven, and RATHER than
receiving his "Heavenly reward", he is DE-moted and made an angel, and
then sent back to Earth to "fine ONE WORTHY man!"
(shades of Noah!)
Guy just couldn't wrap his mind around, "Um..... Guy, were you aware
that angels are LOWER on the food chain than humans? A guy serving
faithfully and going to Heaven, then "coming BACK to Earth as an
angel" would NOT be a promotion!"
According to my Muslim friends, when we die, we're given 70
virgins, and --- yes --- we actually get to "bump and grind" with all
70 for the next 10 Billion years.
That's ^ ^ ^ ^MY kind of Heaven!
But not Joe Smith's! If you are REALLY good, you go to Heaven, and
--- INSTEAD of rewarding you -- God DEMOTES you to Angel status!
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
PLEASE tell me, you know we're "above the angels." (they serve US
at God's direction; there's no information I've ever seen that any
person served an angel!)
>
>Just look there:
>
>Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the
>king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where
>is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and
>have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard it, he was
>troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief
>priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would
>be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is
>written through the prophet, 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no
>way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a
>governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'" Then Herod secretly
>called the wise men, and learned from them exactly what time the star
>appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and search diligently
>for the young child. When you have found him, bring me word, so that I
>also may come and worship him." (Matthew 2:1-8 WEB)
(sweety, I know! You're preaching to the choir)
>
>
>> It said that for DECADES. They finally changed it (corrected it).
>
>Really? If this is not funny... I wonder why the members cannot see the
>idiocy in that.
Have you heard of "being spiritually blinded?"
The Mormons can't see that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that the
Mormon religion is FALSE
Any more than a Roman Catholic can't see that Rosaries and
crucifixes are forbidden.
Confront a Mormon, you get 10 EXCUSES; confront a Roman Catholic,
you get 10 EXCUSES.
Same problem. Spiritual blindness. They've been taught to believe
what they've been taught to believe.
"" No thinking necessary. ""
>
>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>
>ROTFL!!!
Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year) say
"Bethlehem," and they now DENY that it ever said "Jerusalem."
?????????
>
>> My qusetion is this: If "Jerusalem" was "ok", why'd they change it?
>
>It was not okay, and if you ask me, Joseph Smith did not even really
>know the Gospel when he falsified God's Word. lol
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I think you're onto something, darlin'!!
And, no, I didn't "ask", but I hope you know by now, you and I don't
have any need for formality.
You've covered my buttocks more times than I can count.
;-)
John Miles
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>city of the great King???
>>
>
> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
> in JERUSALEM?
The Book of Mormon does not state that Christ would
be born in Jerusalem. If you're going to quote it, quote
it accurately.
This is an old, anti-Mormon false canard. If you
want to claim the Book of Mormon false because it
states Christ would be born in the land of Jerusalem,
you'll have to condemn the Bible for the same flaw.
Moreover, the way the Book of Mormon puts it is
actually evidence in its favor--it is a perfectly accurate
Semiticism used at the very time frame the Book of
Mormon claims to represent. More could be said,
but I'm glad to let you bury yourself first.
> Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>
> It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
False.
> It said that for DECADES. They finally changed it (corrected it).
Completely false.
> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
> My qusetion is this: If "Jerusalem" was "ok", why'd they change it?
Completely false premise leading to a completely
false conclusion and question.
When the anti-Mormons actually ready the
Book of Mormon for what it says, rather than
depending on the indoctrination of anti-Mormon
literature, they might be worth giving a modicum
of credence to.
--John Miles
--
"One could drive a prairie schooner through
any part of [the] argument and never scrape
against a fact." --David Houston
NickYoungh
> > But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
> > in JERUSALEM?>
> > Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>
> > It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
You should read the BoM as history records of exiled jews in the
diaspora
related to the date under the pages and how they would talk about
their great city at that time
I found that the BoM talks about the land of Jerusalem, meaning Judea
and the city of Judea, meaning Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was erased by the troops of Nebukadnesar and there was not a
single stone spared.
So for centuries it was correct to speak about the land of Jerusalem
meaning the city.
In the Hasmonean times when it became a city again, it was not the
capital, the
Hasmoneans built their capital far more north, so the name for
Jerusalem at their time was the city of Judea
The Herodians, who took over the Hasmonean kingdom, who were Moabites
also did not call it Jerusalem.
Moreover when Christ was born in 0 bC, the BoM in 3 Nephi descibes the
signs, which were seen in Zarahemlah, seemingly Russian Jew Khazaria,
which was called the Bosporean kingdom on the Crimea at that time.
Please note the russian and persian names of the disciples
So please give the correct name of the BoM book, verses and time,
where Jesus is said to be born in Jerusalem
You should be aware as well that the language teacher of Smith ,
Alexander Niebaur, who possibly was in charge of the textual changes
was a Karaite rabbi, well aware of the names in the Bible and Jewish
history. Hugh Nibly, the founder of sworlds biggest smokescreen ever,
called Mormon Archeology, was his grandson.
::: good news runner :::
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
> <toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>> news:03hk6457aikfjgepm...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem
>>>> as the city of the great King???
>>>>
>>> Don't know about THAT. (I haven't read your post.)
>>>
>>> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was
>>> born in JERUSALEM?
>>
>> The Book of Mormon does not state that Christ would
>> be born in Jerusalem. If you're going to quote it, quote
>> it accurately.
>>
> in the BOM for YEARS was that GLARING ERROR.
>
> Kindly don't falsely accuse me, Mormon, until you have the common
> decency to CHECK.
>
> If you are looking at a modern copy, probably printed like after 1995
> or so, this HUGE error has been "corrected."
>
> However, one of the copies I have (I have SEVERAL copies) is the 1986
> edition.
>
> The quote I typed for Vera is "WORD FOR WORD." I simply didn't and
> type and type the entire LONG quote. I typed the key words.
>
> Alma 7:10
> " And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land
> of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen
> vessel..."
>
> That's a word-for-word, DIRECT QUOTE.
> AGAIN, that's the 1986 version. The 1982 version says PRECISELY the
> same. "born of Mary at JERUSALEM."
Correct!
The verse is still in the internet on an lds website!
---> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10e
> My 1981 copy says the exact same thing. So that's approximately a
> decade during the 20th century, where they had it DEAD WRONG.
>
> Neither Joe Smith, nor the "angel Moroni" (< under direct
> inspiration of the Holy Spirit) knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem,
> or which Bethlehem the Prince of Peace was born in!
If that is not funny - what is?
ROTFL!!!
>> This is an old, anti-Mormon false canard.
-----> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10e
Methinks the mormons are their own anti-mormon false carnard writers
themselves. lol
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ that comment is an old, Mormon, false canard.
>
>
> If you
>> want to claim the Book of Mormon false because it
>> states Christ would be born in the land of Jerusalem,
>
> I'm not "claiming it." I'm stating a FACT.
>
> Your modern copy may have been fixed. But my 3 copies have not.
>
>> you'll have to condemn the Bible for the same flaw.
>
> ??? I can't find a single passage in my Bible that says Jesus was
> born in Jerusalem!
>
> You DO make it up as you go, don't you?
>
> frown.
>
>> Moreover, the way the Book of Mormon puts it is
>> actually evidence in its favor--it is a perfectly accurate
>> Semiticism used at the very time frame the Book of
>> Mormon claims to represent.
>
> Absolutely NOT! Jerusalem isn't a "province", it's not "a land",
> it's not a "territory."
>
> Jerusalem-- like New York City, like Washington, DC, like Los
> Angeles, is a CITY with distinct CITY LIMITS.
>
> "Not even a "" nice try. "'
>
> You are trying to defend the BOM, when it is BEYOND being defended.
>
>
> More could be said,
>> but I'm glad to let you bury yourself first.
>
> smirk.
> What I have buried is the BOM (actually, other researches found
> that LONG ago), and the Mormon religion.
... which was a good choice!
>>> Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>>>
>>> It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
>>
>> False.
>
> Would you like to send me a valid e-mail account (you can get a free
> one from gmail, or from yahoo,
>
> And I'll send you half-a-dozen SCANS. I can scan a page or two BEFORE
> that page and after.
>
> SURELY, by now, you know what "the REAL Book of Mormon" looks like.
>
>>
>>> It said that for DECADES. They finally changed it (corrected it).
>>
>> Completely false.
>
> Absolutely TRUE. For awhile, I had a BOM that said "Jerusalem", and
> I had one that said "Bethlehem."
>
> Put it this way:
>
> Let's say-- no arguing-- that I'm correct.
>
> What then?
>
> What do YOU do if I'm telling the truth?
>
>>
>>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>>> My qusetion is this: If "Jerusalem" was "ok", why'd they change it?
>>
>> Completely false premise leading to a completely
>> false conclusion and question.
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ Completely TRUE, and I can prove it.
>
> #1 You TRULY need to get to your local public library, and find an
> old copy (from the 1980s) of the Book of Mormon. That way, you can see
> with your own eyes, that it's the "real deal."
>
> Then look up the passage for yourself.
Correct!
Or he could read it himself on their own website:
----> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10e
>> When the anti-Mormons actually ready the
>> Book of Mormon for what it says, rather than
>> depending on the indoctrination of anti-Mormon
>> literature, they might be worth giving a modicum
>> of credence to.
>>
>> --John Miles
>
> I have 3 copies. I am a writer, and I know enough about the Bible
> to understand Bible / scripture SCHOLARSHIP.
>
> There's nothing about the Book of Mormon that's legitimate.
Correct!
> It actually reads like a BAD NOVEL.
So true!
Sisterly love,
::: vera :::
John Miles
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
> <toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>news:03hk6457aikfjgepm...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as
>>>> the
>>>>city of the great King???
>>>>
>>> Don't know about THAT. (I haven't read your post.)
>>>
>>> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
>>> in JERUSALEM?
>>
>>The Book of Mormon does not state that Christ would
>>be born in Jerusalem. If you're going to quote it, quote
>>it accurately.
>>
> in the BOM for YEARS was that GLARING ERROR.
>
> Kindly don't falsely accuse me, Mormon, until you have the common
> decency to CHECK.
I simply stated if you're going to claim the Book
of Mormon states that Christ would be born "in
Jerusalem", at least quote it accurately. Even
after going to the scriptures as quoted at the
*current* LDS official site, you would find that
quoting it as stating Christ would be born "in
Jerusalem" is absolutely false. I simply asked
you to quote it correctly. And then you blew up.
The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
difference.
The word "at" signifies near, while "in" signifies,
well, "inside." Look up the definition yourself.
Merriam-Webster defines the word "at" as
"a function word to indicate presence or
occurrence in, on, or **near**." [emphasis mine]
Furthermore (and I'm going to change the name
of the city I l actually live in for another), I have
always, when asked "So where do you live?",
responded that I live in Denver, even though
I've never technically lived in Denver--I've lived
in its suburbs (surrounding incorporated areas).
Why? Because if I say I live in Glendale, no one
knows what the heck I'm talking about. The
same would be true of a people who had no
clue of a "Bethlehem," but who would have
recognized Jerusalem as the city from which
their forefathers had come several centuries
earlier, as recorded in their own history (the
Book of Mormon).
> If you are looking at a modern copy, probably printed like after 1995
> or so, this HUGE error has been "corrected."
This is a false accusation, as I've already
indicated. The Book of Mormon was NEVER
corrected to remove this "HUGE error." It's still
in my latest copy of the Book of Mormon and
you can even look it up at the official LDS
website at:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10#10
If you're going to spread lies, do it when a member
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(who has been extensively reading anti-Mormon
literature for over 40 years and is thoroughly
acquainted with his own religion) isn't around. This
little anti-Mormon tidbit has been discredited for
decades.
> However, one of the copies I have (I have SEVERAL copies) is the 1986
> edition.
>
> The quote I typed for Vera is "WORD FOR WORD." I simply didn't and
> type and type the entire LONG quote. I typed the key words.
Here's your "WORD FOR WORD" quote to Vera:
<BEGIN QUOTE>
But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
in JERUSALEM?
Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
<END QUOTE>
Note that it was specifically NOT word for word,
which is why I asked you to quote it accurately.
Hubris has its disadvantages.
> Alma 7:10
> " And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land
> of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen
> vessel..."
Finally, you quote it accurately, and still have
the lack of ability of observation to note the
difference in wording and continue to falsely
characterize the quote as stating "in
Jerusalem" below.
And that's where you start to get in trouble. Had
you bothered to read the Book of Mormon, instead
of your false anti-Mormon propaganda, you would
have realized that when the Book of Mormon
peoples referred to their cities, it included both the
city itself AND THE LANDS surrounding the city (as
the above quote indicates--note that it refers to
Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," not the
"city of our forefathers."
Were you to read the Book of Mormon before
ignorantly impugning it, you would also understand
that the forefathers of the Book of Mormon peoples
actually lived outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was
part of the land of Jerusalem (and they so identified
it as such), but it was not IN Jerusalem--exactly the
same usage as in Alma 7:10 that is cited above.
Prof. Hugh Nibley, one of the foremost experts
in the field of ancient scripture and languages notes
the following:
"When we speak of Jerusalem, it is
important to notice Nephi's
preference for a non-Biblical
expression, "the land of Jerusalem"
(1 Nephi 3:10), in designating his
homeland. While he and his brothers
always regard "the land of
Jerusalem" as their home it is
perfectly clear from a number of
passages that "the land of our
father's inheritance" (1 Nephi
3:16) cannot possibly be within, or
even very near, the city, even
though Lehi had "dwelt at Jerusalem
in all his days" (1 Nephi 1:4). The
terms seem confused, but they
correctly reflect actual
conditions, for in the Amarna
letters we read of "the land of
Jerusalem" as an area larger than
the city itself, and even learn in
one instance that "a city of the
land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib, has
been captured." It was the rule in
Palestine and Syria, as the same
letters show, for a large area
around a city and all the
inhabitants of that area to bear
the name of the city. This was a
holdover from the times when the
city and the land were a single
political unit, comprising a city-
state; when this was absorbed into
a larger empire, the original
identity was preserved, though it
had lost its original political
significance. The same conservatism
made it possible for Socrates to be
an Athenian, and nothing else, even
though he came from the village of
Alopeke, at some distance from the
city. This arrangement deserves
mention because many have pointed
to the statement of Alma 7:10 that
the Savior would be born "at
Jerusalem which is the land of our
forefathers," as sure proof of
fraud. It is rather the opposite,
faithfully preserving the ancient
terminology to describe a system
which has only been recently
rediscovered." [Collected Works of
Hugh Nibley, Vol.5, Part.1, Ch.1]
So it turns out that the "HUGE error" of stating
Christ was born at the land of Jerusalem is
perfect Semitic form. Even children know that
Christ was born at Bethlehem. If Joseph
Smith were a forger, he would have simply
stated what the long told Christmas stories
make clear. Instead, he accurately preserves
the form in which the Semitic peoples of
600 B.C. actually spoke--something he nor
anyone else of his time could have anticipated.
It is important to remember that the tel El
Amarna tablets are the correspondence of
a military leader of Judah (a vassal state of
the Egyptians at the time) to the Egyptian
pharoah regarding the tenuous situation
there:
El Amarna letter #287, an ancient
Near Eastern text, mentions the
"land of Jerusalem" several times.
[1] And--like Alma--the ancient
writer of El Amarna letter #290
even refers to Bethlehem as part of
the land of Jerusalem: In this
letter is recorded the complaint of
Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh
Akhenaton that "the land of the
king went over to the Apiru people.
But now even a town of the **land of
Jerusalem**, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by
name, a town belonging to the king,
has gone over to the side of the
people of Keilah." [2] Hebron,
almost twenty miles south of
Bethlehem, was also considered part
of the "land of Jerusalem." [3]
Notes
[1] See James B. Pritchard, ed.
/Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament/, 3d ed.
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1969), p. 488.
[2] Ibid., p. 489, emphasis added.
Translation by W. F. Albright and
George E. Mendenhall. See also
Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-
Yonah, /The Macmillan Bible Atlas/
(New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co., 1974), map #39.
[3] See Yohanan Aharoni, /The Land
of the Bible-A Historical Geography/
(London: Burns and Oates, 1974), p.
195.
[**emphasis mine]
> That's a word-for-word, DIRECT QUOTE.
> AGAIN, that's the 1986 version. The 1982 version says PRECISELY the
> same. "born of Mary at JERUSALEM."
My point exactly. You misquoted it in your
previous posts and also left out the rest of
the verse, indicating that what was being
referred to was the *land* of Jerusalem, not
the city of Jerusalem.
[snip more errors]
>>This is an old, anti-Mormon false canard.
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ that comment is an old, Mormon, false canard.
No, it really is an old, and false, canard. I was
reading it as a teenager decades ago.
>>If you
>>want to claim the Book of Mormon false because it
>>states Christ would be born in the land of Jerusalem,
>
> I'm not "claiming it." I'm stating a FACT.
>
> Your modern copy may have been fixed. But my 3 copies have not.
The false accusation repeated. You don't want
to start throwing around false information when
your audience is knowledgeable about their own
religion. Look at ANY copy of the Book of Mormon,
printed at ANY time in its history. Repeating
falsehoods doesn't make them more true. If your
going to be an insulting, hypocritical "Christian,"
at least be a competent one.
[snip]
>>Moreover, the way the Book of Mormon puts it is
>>actually evidence in its favor--it is a perfectly accurate
>>Semiticism used at the very time frame the Book of
>>Mormon claims to represent.
>
> Absolutely NOT! Jerusalem isn't a "province", it's not "a land",
> it's not a "territory."
>
> Jerusalem-- like New York City, like Washington, DC, like Los
> Angeles, is a CITY with distinct CITY LIMITS.
>
> "Not even a "" nice try. "'
The archaeological evidence of the Old
World specifically contradicts you. Regardless,
even that isn't the issue--the issue is how the
peoples described *in the Book of Mormon*
used the terminology. Christ was born "at"
Jerusalem, in the *land* of their forefathers
who also lived *at* Jerusalem, but not *in*
Jerusalem. They referred to their own cities
in the same way--it included the city itself as
well as the surrounding land.
[snip false insistence that
the Book of Mormon changed
"at Jerusalem" to "at Bethlehem"]
Since you are absolutely certain, and continue
to propagate the falsehood that the Book of
Mormon was changed to correct the "HUGE
error" made by both the Semitic peoples of the
Old World /and/ the peoples of the New World
where the Book of Mormon takes place, then
why does the *current* translation of the Book
of Mormon continue to state "at Jerusalem?"
As an alternative, produce a reference to ANY
edition of the Book of Mormon that had to be
"corrected" from "Jerusalem" to "Bethlehem"
(hint: you'll find none, since no correction is
necessary--the Semiticism "land of Jerusalem,"
which included the city of Bethlehem, turns out
to be a confirmation of the antiquity of the Book
of Mormon).
--John Miles
--
"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the
scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity
are cut off: That make a man an offender for a
word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the
gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."
--Isa 29:20-21
John Miles
to another post that should inform you. You can
read it at
news:APOdnU0uc7K4F_HV...@comcast.com
--John Miles
--
"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the
scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity
are cut off: That make a man an offender for a
word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the
gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."
--Isa 29:20-21
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:dhjl64ht2ll168gv4...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:22:30 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> Hey, did you know that the mormon Joseph Smith erased Jerusalem as
>>>> the city of the great King???
>>>>
>>> Don't know about THAT. (I haven't read your post.)
>>>
>>> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was born
>>> in JERUSALEM?
>>
>>Dear me! It is worse with them than I have thought.
>>
>>
>>> Not "Judea", not "Palestine", not "Israel", not "On the West Bank."
>>>
>>> It says, "he was born in Jerusalem."
>>
>>But the Book of Matthew clearly says he was born in Bethlehem.... so
>>Joseph Smith had to changed it all to his liking...
>
>>Just look there:
>>
>>Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the
>>king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where
>>is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and
>>have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard it, he was
>>troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief
>>priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would
>>be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is
>>written through the prophet, 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no
>>way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a
>>governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'" Then Herod secretly
>>called the wise men, and learned from them exactly what time the star
>>appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and search diligently
>>for the young child. When you have found him, bring me word, so that I
>>also may come and worship him." (Matthew 2:1-8 WEB)
>
> (sweety, I know! You're preaching to the choir)
>
>>
>>
>>> It said that for DECADES. They finally changed it (corrected it).
>>
>>Really? If this is not funny... I wonder why the members cannot see the
>>idiocy in that.
>
> Have you heard of "being spiritually blinded?"
>
> The Mormons can't see that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that the
> Mormon religion is FALSE
>
> Any more than a Roman Catholic can't see that Rosaries and
> crucifixes are forbidden.
>
> Confront a Mormon, you get 10 EXCUSES; confront a Roman Catholic,
> you get 10 EXCUSES.
>
> Same problem. Spiritual blindness. They've been taught to believe
> what they've been taught to believe.
>
> "" No thinking necessary. ""
>
>
>>
>>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>>
>>ROTFL!!!
>
> Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year) say
> "Bethlehem," and they now DENY that it ever said "Jerusalem."
>
> ?????????
>>
>>> My qusetion is this: If "Jerusalem" was "ok", why'd they change it?
>>
>>It was not okay, and if you ask me, Joseph Smith did not even really
>>know the Gospel when he falsified God's Word. lol
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I think you're onto something, darlin'!!
> And, no, I didn't "ask", but I hope you know by now, you and I don't
> have any need for formality.
>
> You've covered my buttocks more times than I can count.
>
>
> ;-)
>
>>
NOSPAM
>
> The quote I typed for Vera is "WORD FOR WORD." I simply didn't and
>type and type the entire LONG quote. I typed the key words.
>
> Alma 7:10
>" And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land
>of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen
>vessel..."
>
> That's a word-for-word, DIRECT QUOTE.
> AGAIN, that's the 1986 version. The 1982 version says PRECISELY the
>same. "born of Mary at JERUSALEM."
When you are right about something, John, I will certainly step up and
say so. You ARE CORRECT in this argument. I have a copy of the BoM,
which I keep for cult reference. It's a 1987 copy.
In 'Alma 7:10', it CLEARLY DOES state:
QUOTE
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land
of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel,
who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost,
and bring forth a son; yea, even the Son of God.
EOQ
NOSPAM
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
><toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
>>The Book of Mormon does not state that Christ would
>>be born in Jerusalem. If you're going to quote it, quote
>>it accurately.
Oh yes it DOES<> sonny.
CLEARLY, it does.
I have a copy of the BoM of my own, which I retain for cult reference.
And this, I took directly from the BoM site:
10 And behold, he shall be a-born of Mary, at b-Jerusalem which is
the c-land of our forefathers, she being a d-virgin, a precious and
chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and e-conceive by the power
of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
NOSPAM
<REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
>born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
>difference.
It does, huh? Fine-- SHOW THE VERSE.
You've already been shown the PROOF that the silly thing claims Jesus
would be 'born in Jerusalem'. now kindly provide YOUR proof, or
retract the lie.
Jani
"NOSPAM" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
news:2h0q64lloi88p3vuq...@4ax.com...
John W said that his earlier copies of the BoM state "at Jerusalem". The
current BoM also says "at Jerusalem". There has been no change.
The only change, in fact, is John's misquoting of the BoM .. which doesn't
have "in Jerusalem" anywhere, except for his paraphrase. If you want to
debate about the difference between "in" and "at", that's fine, but please
don't take John's assertions about expedient 'changes' in later editions at
face value.
Jani
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined.........
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Robibnikoff
::: good news runner :::
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:02:42 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
>>> <toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>
>>>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>> news:03hk6457aikfjgepm...@4ax.com...
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> So they CORRECT the printed version! But they then POST the
> INCORRECT version!
Maybe they cannot make up their minds where Jesus was born. lol
> Someone in Salt Lake City suffers from terminal HUA disease. (head up
> his ass)
>
> ??? Doesn't he ever notice how bad his tiny little world smells?
>
> [ reminds me of a FAMOUS "one-liner" from the TV show, "MASH."
>
> "I'm getting whiff of bowel!"
>
> ;-)
They are really funny! I wonder how they can deceive their members over
such a long time. They must be stupid enough to believe in any science
fiction they are presented. Why do they not try it with the truth for a
while? They should wake up when they have to deceive others...
> john w
::: vera :::
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
ujb
> I'll also point out to you, however, the MANY times you have said,
> "John NEVER tells the truth. John ALWAYS LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING." *
>
> I told the truth.
you are a liar, also known as liar johnnie...
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:14:29 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> could simply look in a current copy of the BoM and see for
> themselves.
> Where it used to say "Jerusalem", it now says "Bethlehem."
>
> If it's not wrong, why change it?
>
> I've put all this information in an e-mail account. Anyone who
> wishes can access it.
>
> If someone wishes to create a web page with the information, by all
> means, "be my guest."
>
> I simply don't know how to create a web page, which I've said before
> (for you old-timers)
>
> Perhaps I could tell Elaine where to find the information, (it's
> already scanned) and Elaine would like to build a web page.
now this is how to wheedle her! she might like ironing your slacks and
dusting your flat too? lol
suny
>
>> Jani
>
John Miles
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:02:42 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
>>> <toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>
>>>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>> news:03hk6457aikfjgepm...@4ax.com...
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> So they CORRECT the printed version! But they then POST the
> INCORRECT version!
>
> his ass)
>
> ??? Doesn't he ever notice how bad his tiny little world smells?
>
> [ reminds me of a FAMOUS "one-liner" from the TV show, "MASH."
>
> "I'm getting whiff of bowel!"
>
> ;-)
>
John, if you're going to start claiming
people have their heads up their asses,
I suggest you remove yours first to check
and make sure.
You state that the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints has somewhere
"corrected" the Book of Mormon to read
what you insist it must have been corrected
to read. The scripture posted above IS the
latest dated printing of the Book of Mormon.
There is an 1830 (the first) edition, an 1837
edition, an 1840 edition, an 1841 edition,
an 1879 edition, a 1920 edition, and, finally,
the 1981 edition. THEY ALL READ
IDENTICALLY with regards to the verse in
question. NONE were "corrected nor
needed correction to read "Bethlehem."
If you're going to continue pulling facts out
of thin air, at least have the decency of the
rest of us Christians to verify them before
making the false allegation. If you don't
believe the quote referenced below is from
the latest printed edition, THEN TURN OFF
YOUR COMPUTER AND GO BUY ONE.
You're simply making a fool of yourself.
You make all Christians look bad when you
not only make false allegations, but revel
(along with Vera, evidently) in those very
falsehoods.
Here's the *latest edition* narrative (I have
the latest edition printed version in my
possession):
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10#10
If you want to claim there's a different version
running around somewhere out there, then
produce it.
--John Miles
--
"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything.
He taught that the brain exists merely to cool
the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."
--Will Cuppy
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wined:
>>
> I believe any competent person
What would you know about that, johnnie?
John Miles
news:2h0q64lloi88p3vuq...@4ax.com...
> <REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
>>born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
>>difference.
>
>
> It does, huh? Fine-- SHOW THE VERSE.
It was already posted in my previous reply, with
a link to the official LDS web page for
independent confirmation.
And please read it for comprehension, as I don't
plan on re-engaging endless and meaningless
restatements of previous false statements and
assertions while at the same time having the
false accusers ignoring the entire content of my
posted response.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10#10
Now compare that with your quote immediately
below which states (with quotation marks--I
assume they mean something to you) "born in
Jerusalem."
> You've already been shown the PROOF that the silly thing claims Jesus
> would be 'born in Jerusalem'. now kindly provide YOUR proof, or
> retract the lie.
Been there, done that.
I make a simple request for an accurate quote,
and look what shows up in quotation marks
again !! "born IN Jerusalem." The Book of
Mormon states "born AT Jerusalem which is
the LAND of our forefathers."
Now, reread my post, read it for comprehension,
and deal with what is written there rather than
simply restating your position and non-sequiturs
as if, like the Pharisees, you "think that [you] shall
be heard for [your] much speaking" (Matthew 6:7)
or, on your and Mr. Weatherly's part, for your much
repetition.
Are non-Mormon Christians always this
sloppy? Should I call you a liar for *again*
misquoting it. It's a simple request. If you're
going to quote it, quote it *accurately* (and
quote the whole verse) as it impinges *directly*
on what is being discussed.
If you have the capacity to do anything other
than restate your position (i.e., take new
information into account when it is presented to
you, digest it, and then give a reason or lack
thereof for its validity), please feel free to do so.
Here's the post that you and Mr. Weatherly were
free to reply to but didn't:
news:APOdnU0uc7K4F_HV...@comcast.com
The fact the Jews of Judah place Bethlehem
(5 miles from Jerusalem) and Hebron (20 miles
from Jerusalem) in the "land of Jerusalem"
seems to be entirely lost on you -- I quoted
extensively from sourced material from what are
known in archaeological circles as the tel El
Amarna tablets which are correspondences
between a military commander of Judea (a
vassal state of Egypt at the time) and the
Egyptian pharaoh using the identical terminology
as used in the Book of Mormon.
You've got two choices: Complain about the
Book of Mormon and Judean use of the
terminology as uncovered in archaeological
digs, or ignore the archaeology because it
contradicts your sacred anti-Mormon
screeds and look at how *the Book of Mormon
peoples* themselves used the terminology when
referring to cities. They included the *lands*
surrounding the cities when they used the name
of the city. That they would then refer to
Jerusalem in the same way should come as no
surprise, especially when they refer to it as the
land of their forefathers who, while living AT
Jerusalem, did not live IN it.
And that's after ignoring the fact that "at"
means "near"--something "in" does not. And
then you call me a liar for stating the Book of
Mormon does NOT state that Christ was born
"in" Jerusalem. Just read the text--it doesn't
say "in." How much more clear can a text
be. Either the word "in" IS there or it isn't. In
the case of the Book of Mormon, it isn't and
never has been there.
And Mr. Weatherly has the gall to claim it
was such a "HUGE error" (emphasis in the
original) that it had to be "corrected." It was
NOT an error and was NEVER corrected. I
pointed this out explicitly in my previous
post and he continues to make the same
false allegation and you continue to falsely
insist that the Book of Mormon states
that Christ was (and please notice the
quotation marks--they have real meaning
in English punctuation) "born IN Jerusalem."
FALSE.
And I take it that John D Weatherly has
difficulty admitting error when it runs him
over like a Mack truck. And, somehow,
I'm the liar. Sorry, but I'll stick with the
Christians I currently associate with.
Jani
[]
>>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>>
>>ROTFL!!!
>
> Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year) say
> "Bethlehem," and they now DENY that it ever said "Jerusalem."
Well, at least this should be an easy one for you to "prove". All you need
to do is get a copy of the BoM edition which has 'Bethelem' replacing
'Jerusalem', state which edition it is, and scan the relevant pages. No
chance of it being down to your error, your imagination, or your lies *this*
time, eh!
Jani
Jani
"John Miles" <REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote in message
news:kPadneGvUffNa_DV...@comcast.com...
[]
> If you want to claim there's a different version
> running around somewhere out there, then
> produce it.
I know where it'll be - in the 6th century English church which no-one
except John has ever seen (but it does exist, it does, because John says so!
:)
Jani
John Miles
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
> could simply look in a current copy of the BoM and see for
> themselves.
> Where it used to say "Jerusalem", it now says "Bethlehem."
NO, IT DOES NOT.
If you don't believe me (nor the latest
edition as printed on the official LDS
web site, to which you have been
directed several times), then PLEEEAAASE
produce ANY reference of ANY kind in ANY
edition of the Book of Mormon.
You're boilerplate anti-Mormon talking
points are wearing extremely thin. It's why
I suggest people wanting to know what
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") really believe,
they should ask those who believe it (and
who have read from its scriptures for many
decades), not those who wish to distort it.
I'd also suggest those who wish to know
what the Baptists (or Calvinists, etc.) believe
and what their scriptures actually state to ask
a Baptist, not a Mormon--especially an
anti-Baptist Mormon.
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:20:09 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>news:dhjl64ht2ll168gv4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[]
>>
>>>>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>>>>
>>>>ROTFL!!!
>>>
>>> Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year) say
>>> "Bethlehem," and they now DENY that it ever said "Jerusalem."
>>
>>Well, at least this should be an easy one for you to "prove". All you need
>>to do is get a copy of the BoM edition which has 'Bethelem' replacing
>>'Jerusalem', state which edition it is, and scan the relevant pages.
>
>
> And since I don't know how to build a web page, I've uploaded the
> images onto an e-mail account I set up for whoever wishes to look.
>
> I believe I'll uninvite you, based on previous experience. Since in
> half-a-d0zen years, you have never found a SINGLE opportunity to say
> one nice word to me/ or about me,
> I have no reason to trust that you would not go in and delete the
> information.
>
> I am now waiting for a person I can trust to volunteer to build a
> web page that includes these images.
In the meantime, please state which edition or editions of the BoM they're
from (publisher and date of publication) so that people who own those
editions can compare.
Although - wait a moment - you say above that you don't know the publication
date of the editions which have 'Bethlehem' instead of 'Jerusalem' in Alma
7:10 - how can you not know the date, if you have those books and have
scanned pages from them?
> No
>>chance of it being down to your error,
>
> None. I have 3 copies of the BoM, all different dates, and the same
> mistake is in each.
Are we talking about the same thing here? Everyone is agreed that the BoM
has the word 'Jerusalem' in Alma 7:10. YOU are saying there are later
editions where 'Jerusalem' is replaced by 'Bethlehem'. That's what you need
to show - the supposed correction, in these later editions.
>
> your imagination,
>
> Imagination? About what?
>
> or your lies *this*
>>time, eh!
>
>
> ^ ^ What lies? Unlike you, I am not in the habit of embellishing,
> exaggerating, or lying.
Come off it, John. I've posted YOUR OWN WORDS showing that you do all three.
>
> Unfortunately, you can't say the same.
>
> " The British authorities would NEVER......"
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ You don't know that.
Y'know, there isn't a single post of mine which says "the British
authorities would never . . ." So, not only are you lying about me, you're
not even quoting anything I've ever said.
Jani
::: good news runner :::
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 02:16:00 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> brain-washing. They are taught, "no matter what! THE lds is ALWAYS
> right."
> No matter what turns up, no matter what is said, if the LDS is
> involved, lie to defend it.
> Those who wake up to it, leave.
I think there have been many who left there in the past. There are so
many reports in the internet by them. But I guess that mormons are not
even allowed to talk with those people who left.
John Miles
"Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g4l164$10fu$1...@energise.enta.net...
Chortle. Actually, I think it's part of the
da Vinci code secret society & documents.
--John
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:20:09 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>>
>>Well, at least this should be an easy one for you to "prove". All you need
>>to do is get a copy of the BoM edition which has 'Bethelem' replacing
>>'Jerusalem', state which edition it is, and scan the relevant pages.
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^Done, done, done, and done.
Yeah, sure, johnnie.
>
> And since I don't know how to build a web page, I've uploaded the
> images onto an e-mail account I set up for whoever wishes to look.
Yeah, sure you did, johnnie.
Why don't you just post information about this supposed BoM edition?
Oh wait, I know why. It's because, as usual, you're lying, right?
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> pissed and moaned:>
> Well, at LEAST, if you don't believe me about one
thing, you're> classy enough to not lower yourself to putdowns about other
things!
Oh, boo fucking hoo. Grow up, you big baby.
Here's a fact - The world doesn't revolve around john weatherly.
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
snip
>
> My 1981, my 1986, and my 1987 ALL say "Jerusalem." I have had a
> copyu that was from the 1990s that said "Bethlehem."
"copyu"?
>
> I don't have it NOW. I lost my whole library some 7 years ago.
LOL - How convenient.
John Manning
> x-no-archive: yes
> while yours is so high up, you can see yourself digest!
>
> I just went to Amazon. (they're hardly biased). I don't recall the
> exact copy date I BOUGHT, but it's post-Millennium.
>
> There was a 1995 copy, ("copy" meaning copyright), there was a 2002
> copy, a 2003, copy, and a 2004.
>
> All you need to do to prove that to yourself, knucklehead, is to go
> to Amazon.com
>
>
> There were dozens of BOMs listed, with various copys, as well as a
> host of "supplements".
>
> You truly don't bother to do even a preliminary investigation before
> you shut your mind and open your MOUTH!
>
> I even got the All-knowing Jani on this one!
>
> If she didn't have HER head so far up, she could have looked on
> Amazon!
>
> No! She'd rather poke her finger and fart.
You're wrong, john w - and you're being dishonest about it. In other
words, you're lying.
Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to 'Bethlehem'
*ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
You've lost your credibility, john w.
>
> john w
ujb
>
> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
> news:5s3s645dpreleh72t...@4ax.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:20:09 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>> wrote:
we must remember johnnie is a known liar...
> Jani
>
Jani
>>Are we talking about the same thing here? Everyone is agreed that the BoM
>>has the word 'Jerusalem' in Alma 7:10. YOU are saying there are later
>>editions where 'Jerusalem' is replaced by 'Bethlehem'. That's what you
>>need
>>to show - the supposed correction, in these later editions.
>
> Already discussed.
>
> My 1981, my 1986, and my 1987 ALL say "Jerusalem."
Right, so the pages you've already scanned all say 'Jerusalem'.
I have had a
> copyu that was from the 1990s that said "Bethlehem."
>
> I don't have it NOW. I lost my whole library some 7 years ago.
>
> I have just ORDERED a new copy.
And you're going to scan *that* one to show it says 'Bethlehem'. That's
fine: you will then have evidence to support your assertion. I have no
problem with that.
Jani
NOSPAM
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to 'Bethlehem'
>*ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>
>You've lost your credibility, john w.
WRONG. The BoM DOES claim Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Page 220 of the
version I have, and I posted the lying verse just yesterday.
NOSPAM
>x-no-archive: NO.
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:16 -0400, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:13:20 -0600, "John Miles"
>><REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
>>>born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
>>>difference.
>>
>>
>>It does, huh? Fine-- SHOW THE VERSE.
>>
>>
>>You've already been shown the PROOF that the silly thing claims Jesus
>>would be 'born in Jerusalem'. now kindly provide YOUR proof, or
>>retract the lie.
>
>
> ???? I've typed the exact words TWICE now.
>
> I suggest you BACK-track.
>
> I have NO intention of retyping it AGAIN,
>
> just for you.
>
> If you want the precise words from the BOM, I suggest you acquire a
>1980s copy of the BOM.
>
> And I don't thank you for calling me a liar and defending Mormons,
>you loon!
>
I didn't, you retard.
I stood up for you in this case.
Learn to READ.
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>> news:5s3s645dpreleh72t...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:20:09 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>> news:dhjl64ht2ll168gv4...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you pick up an old book of mormon, it says "Jerusalem."
>>>>>> ROTFL!!!
>>>>> Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year) say
>>>>> "Bethlehem," and they now DENY that it ever said "Jerusalem."
>>>> Well, at least this should be an easy one for you to "prove". All you need
>>>> to do is get a copy of the BoM edition which has 'Bethelem' replacing
>>>> 'Jerusalem', state which edition it is, and scan the relevant pages.
>>> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^Done, done, done, and done.
>>>
>>> And since I don't know how to build a web page, I've uploaded the
>>> images onto an e-mail account I set up for whoever wishes to look.
>>>
>>> I believe I'll uninvite you, based on previous experience. Since in
>>> half-a-d0zen years, you have never found a SINGLE opportunity to say
>>> one nice word to me/ or about me,
>>> I have no reason to trust that you would not go in and delete the
>>> information.
>>>
>>> I am now waiting for a person I can trust to volunteer to build a
>>> web page that includes these images.
>> In the meantime, please state which edition or editions of the BoM they're
>>from (publisher and date of publication) so that people who own those
>> editions can compare.
>
>
>
> 1981, 1986, and 1987. According to SM and JM, the 1981 copy is the
> most recent.
>
> I can find the 2007 copy on Amazon, for cryin' out loud!
>
> If you're all that concerned about who published, or if any Mormon
> is, they can go look on Amazon (public website) like I did.
>
> You have demanded I "do some homework."
>
> Fine. Now you can do some homework.
>
>
>> Although - wait a moment - you say above that you don't know the publication
>> date of the editions which have 'Bethlehem' instead of 'Jerusalem' in Alma
>> 7:10 - how can you not know the date, if you have those books and have
>> scanned pages from them?
>
and you are not a teller of the truth papa porn!
ujb
papa porn is a retard u no! haha
NOSPAM
wrote:
>
>"NOSPAM" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
>news:2h0q64lloi88p3vuq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:13:20 -0600, "John Miles"
>> <REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
>>>born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
>>>difference.
>>
>>
>> It does, huh? Fine-- SHOW THE VERSE.
>>
>>
>> You've already been shown the PROOF that the silly thing claims Jesus
>> would be 'born in Jerusalem'. now kindly provide YOUR proof, or
>> retract the lie.
>
>John W said that his earlier copies of the BoM state "at Jerusalem". The
>current BoM also says "at Jerusalem". There has been no change.
>
>The only change, in fact, is John's misquoting of the BoM .. which doesn't
>have "in Jerusalem" anywhere, except for his paraphrase. If you want to
>debate about the difference between "in" and "at", that's fine, but please
>don't take John's assertions about expedient 'changes' in later editions at
>face value.
>
>
>Jani
No, the 'in' or 'at' means nothing to me. My argument was that John
Miles insisted the BoM 'didn't say Jesus was born in or at Jerusalem,
when indeed, it DOES state that.
NOSPAM
>
> Perhaps I could tell Elaine where to find the information, (it's
>already scanned) and Elaine would like to build a web page.
I have my own web page. Why would I want another one?
NOSPAM
>
>now this is how to wheedle her! she might like ironing your slacks and
>dusting your flat too? lol
>suny
Liar-johnnie doesn't wheedle me, Sweet-Sweet.
He only vainly imagines he does.
John Manning
The claim that the Book of Mormon was "corrected" from 'Jerusalem' to
'Bethlehem' is a lie. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
'Bethlehem' in *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
John Manning
Jani
"NOSPAM" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
Elaine, that's not what John's claiming. He's saying that the BoM has been
changed, in later editions, to replace 'Jerusalem' with 'Bethlehem'. That's
why he's bought a 2004 copy of the BoM on Amazon, and he's going to scan and
post the relevant page.
But in any case, the BoM doesn't say "in", it says "at". And without getting
into it too much, I do have to point out that William Blake's 'Jerusalem'
says that it will be built in England, so I don't have too much problem with
it being a kind of 'fatherland' to the LDS. It's both a spiritual concept
*and* a geographical area :)
Jani
Jani
"NOSPAM" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
Honestly, you've misread the thread. The BoM does say "at Jerusalem", and
John M isn't denying that, at all. Quite the opposite - he's pointing out
that it says that in every edition. John W, otoh, is saying that it was
changed in later editions to read 'Bethlehem' instead of 'Jerusalem'.
Jani
::: good news runner :::
John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> typed:
> You're wrong, john w - and you're being dishonest about it. In other
> words, you're lying.
>
> Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
> 'Bethlehem' *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
What are you going to say? They did not even change this flop and still
claim that Jesus was born in Jerusalem? Dear me!
That is even worse than I thought ....
--
http://www.lhvm.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08
http://www.liontracks.org/roarlion/christns.htm
http://76.162.173.93/guest/ar-mp3/ar-how-to-spot-a-counterfeit.mp3
John Manning
The claim that the Book of Mormon was "corrected" from 'Jerusalem' to
'Bethlehem' is a lie. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
'Bethlehem' in *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:26:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
> and you exaggerate.
Well, we'll see, won't we? You have the book ordered, you will able to scan
the page and show that you're correct. This'll be in the next few days,
presumably?
Jani
John Manning
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:21:37 -0300, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
> Saddest, I am willing to BET you didn't even BOTHER to CHECK.
>
> You are all bluster, no BRAIN.
>
> (you're lying)
You're the liar, john w.
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith
Jr. (Hardcover - Nov 16, 2004 Edition)
You can search *inside the book itself* at the Amazon page.
Click here to see the Edition date of 2004 on this page:
http://tinyurl.com/5p48j5
Click here to read verse 10: http://tinyurl.com/5mwyoe
紐. L. Measures
<nospam@nospam> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:37:54 -0300, John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to 'Bethlehem'
> >*ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
> >
> >You've lost your credibility, john w.
>
> WRONG. The BoM DOES claim Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Page 220 of the
> version I have, and I posted the lying verse just yesterday.
** chortle. What goes around comes around.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>> Perhaps I could tell Elaine where to find the information, (it's
>>> already scanned) and Elaine would like to build a web page.
>>
>> I have my own web page. Why would I want another one?
>
>
> I've been looking for someone with the knowledge to build a web
> page for these BOM scans.
>
> I can't do it (build a page), for several reasons.
>
> I thought-- due to the subject matter-- you MIGHT wish to help.
>
> I see I was mistaken.
>
> AGAIN, "How Christian of you."
papa porn, you say johnnie jr. is a computer engineer, if he can't help,
or do it for you he must be as retarded as you! Or how about this, why
not ask Cassey for help, i know he can do it?
suny sweet sweet
::: good news runner :::
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:50:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
> copies of both versions.
>
> I recently lost BOTH, and I am now attempting to acquire a new copy
> of the changed text.
>
> But I still need someone to build a page for it.
>
> For several reasons, I can't do it. Vera refused;
And where was that, John? I cannot remember that I refused something -
maybe you can help me out? Bu I really do not have the time to build up
webpages at the moment, if that was your question. Sorry, John. And no
way would I put something of the mormons or about them on Growing
Deeper - because this page is holy. So better leave the discussion and
the evil ones here where they belong.
> now Elaine has
> refused.
>
> They're both "fighting Mormons" but neither one will help.
>
> ???
>
>>
>> Jani
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:50:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> copies of both versions.
>
> I recently lost BOTH, and I am now attempting to acquire a new copy
> of the changed text.
>
> But I still need someone to build a page for it.
>
> refused.
>
> They're both "fighting Mormons" but neither one will help.
>
> ???
could it be your history as a retard? lol
sweet sweet
>> Jani
>>
>>
>>
>
"john p"
> john w <j wrote:
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:21:37 -0300, John Manning
> > © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> > may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> >>NOSPAM wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:37:54 -0300, John Manning
> >>><jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >>>>Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to 'Bethlehem'
> >>>>*ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>
> >>>>You've lost your credibility, john w.
>
> >>>WRONG. The BoM DOES claim Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Page 220 of the
> >>>version I have, and I posted the lying verse just yesterday.
>
> >>The claim that the Book of Mormon was "corrected" from 'Jerusalem' to
> >>'Bethlehem' is a lie. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
> >>'Bethlehem' in *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>
> > You are totally mistaken.
>
> > Saddest, I am willing to BET you didn't even BOTHER to CHECK.
>
> > You are all bluster, no BRAIN.
>
> > (you're lying)
>
> You're the liar, john w.
>
He is full of shit.
There should be no reason to make up stuff about mormonism when there
is plenty of legitimate criticism available.
> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith
> Jr. (Hardcover - Nov 16, 2004 Edition)
>
> You can search *inside the book itself* at the Amazon page.
>
> Click here to see the Edition date of 2004 on this page:http://tinyurl.com/5p48j5
>
> Click here to read verse 10:http://tinyurl.com/5mwyoe
Or read it here:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BoM/alma/7.html
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
retard, you made the assertion, not him!
>
>>
>>
>
John Manning
> x-no-archive: yes
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>>
>>>NOSPAM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:01:25 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>x-no-archive: NO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:16 -0400, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>>>>Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Book of Mormon states Christ would be
>>>>>>>born "at" Jerusalem. It's a distinction with a
>>>>>>>difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does, huh? Fine-- SHOW THE VERSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've already been shown the PROOF that the silly thing claims Jesus
>>>>>>would be 'born in Jerusalem'. now kindly provide YOUR proof, or
>>>>>>retract the lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I suggest you BACK-track.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have NO intention of retyping it AGAIN,
>>>>> just for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want the precise words from the BOM, I suggest you acquire a
>>>>>1980s copy of the BOM.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I don't thank you for calling me a liar and defending Mormons,
>>>>>you loon!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't, you retard.
>>>> I stood up for you in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Learn to READ.
>>>
>>>
>>>papa porn is a retard u no! haha
>>
>>
>>The claim that the Book of Mormon was "corrected" from 'Jerusalem' to
>>'Bethlehem' is a lie. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
>>'Bethlehem' in *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>
>
> seen the later editions.
>
> You're blustering, and you're LYING.
>
> If you go to Amazon, you can see half-a-dozen modern translations.
> Buy one.
You're the liar, john w.
John Manning
> x-no-archive: yes
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> yourself any deeper.
>
> You also need to be checking on EXCUSES for when it comes back that
> it was changed.
>
> It WAS changed from "Jerusalem" to "Bethlehem." If Jerusalem was
> CORRECT, why'd they change it?
ujb
check it out stupid!
ujb
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:47:01 -0400, ujb <u...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> now this is how to wheedle her! she might like ironing your slacks and
>> dusting your flat too? lol
>> suny
>
>
> Liar-johnnie doesn't wheedle me, Sweet-Sweet.
> He only vainly imagines he does.
I can just see you down at the brook pounding his nappies against the
rocks trying to get the racing strips out of them. plus Doc, ya wanna
take care when ya change them dirty things cause if he mistakes you for
moma I'll bet he's a groper! ;-)
ujie
Mike Painter
> On Jul 4, 1:31 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> john w <j wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:21:37 -0300, John Manning
>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>>> NOSPAM wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:37:54 -0300, John Manning
>>>>> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Mr Miles is right. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
>>>>>> 'Bethlehem' *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>>
>>>>>> You've lost your credibility, john w.
>>
>>>>> WRONG. The BoM DOES claim Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Page 220
>>>>> of the version I have, and I posted the lying verse just
>>>>> yesterday.
>>
>>>> The claim that the Book of Mormon was "corrected" from 'Jerusalem'
>>>> to 'Bethlehem' is a lie. There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to
>>>> 'Bethlehem' in *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>>
>>> You are totally mistaken.
>>
>>> Saddest, I am willing to BET you didn't even BOTHER to CHECK.
>>
>>> You are all bluster, no BRAIN.
>>
>>> (you're lying)
>>
>
>> You're the liar, john w.
>>
posted something and never take the few seconds needed to post a link to the
actual message or to a link that supports his allegations
My copy, copyright 1948 and published in 1950 by the LDS Church, says "at
Jerusalem". (Alma 7:10)
It took me two or three minutes to go dig it out. All John has to do is take
two or three minutes and give the date and publisher of the book he
allegedly has.
Or he could make fun of wrds that are mspelled.
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> <REMOVE...@coCAPSmcast.net> wrote:
>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:02:42 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:37:15 -0600, "John Miles"
>>>>>>> <toREMOV...@neStworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:11 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
>>>>>>>>> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as the city of the great King???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know about THAT. (I haven't read your post.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But were YOU aware that the BOM says very clearly that Jesus was
>>>>>>>>> born in JERUSALEM?
>>>>>>>> The Book of Mormon does not state that Christ would
>>>>>>>> be born in Jerusalem. If you're going to quote it, quote
>>>>>>>> it accurately.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um.... actually, yes, it does. One of the eye-brow raising MISTAKES
>>>>>>> in the BOM for YEARS was that GLARING ERROR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindly don't falsely accuse me, Mormon, until you have the common
>>>>>>> decency to CHECK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are looking at a modern copy, probably printed like after 1995
>>>>>>> or so, this HUGE error has been "corrected."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, one of the copies I have (I have SEVERAL copies) is the 1986
>>>>>>> edition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quote I typed for Vera is "WORD FOR WORD." I simply didn't and
>>>>>>> type and type the entire LONG quote. I typed the key words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alma 7:10
>>>>>>> " And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land
>>>>>>> of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen
>>>>>>> vessel..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a word-for-word, DIRECT QUOTE.
>>>>>>> AGAIN, that's the 1986 version. The 1982 version says PRECISELY the
>>>>>>> same. "born of Mary at JERUSALEM."
>>>>>> Correct!
>>>>>> The verse is still in the internet on an lds website!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10e
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Oh! Good ! GRIEF!
>>>>>
>>>>> So they CORRECT the printed version! But they then POST the
>>>>> INCORRECT version!
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone in Salt Lake City suffers from terminal HUA disease. (head up
>>>>> his ass)
>>>>>
>>>>> ??? Doesn't he ever notice how bad his tiny little world smells?
>>>>>
>>>>> [ reminds me of a FAMOUS "one-liner" from the TV show, "MASH."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm getting whiff of bowel!"
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> john w
>>>> John, if you're going to start claiming
>>>> people have their heads up their asses,
>>>> I suggest you remove yours first to check
>>>> and make sure.
>>>>
>>>> You state that the Church of Jesus Christ
>>>> of Latter-day Saints has somewhere
>>>> "corrected" the Book of Mormon to read
>>>> what you insist it must have been corrected
>>>> to read. The scripture posted above IS the
>>>> latest dated printing of the Book of Mormon.
>>>> There is an 1830 (the first) edition, an 1837
>>>> edition, an 1840 edition, an 1841 edition,
>>>> an 1879 edition, a 1920 edition, and, finally,
>>>> the 1981 edition. THEY ALL READ
>>>
>>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ ^^ That's actually funny. You tell me to pull my head out,
>>> while yours is so high up, you can see yourself digest!
>>>
>>> I just went to Amazon. (they're hardly biased). I don't recall the
>>> exact copy date I BOUGHT, but it's post-Millennium.
>>>
>>> There was a 1995 copy, ("copy" meaning copyright), there was a 2002
>>> copy, a 2003, copy, and a 2004.
>>>
>>> All you need to do to prove that to yourself, knucklehead, is to go
>>> to Amazon.com
>>>
>>>
>>> There were dozens of BOMs listed, with various copys, as well as a
>>> host of "supplements".
>>>
>>> You truly don't bother to do even a preliminary investigation before
>>> you shut your mind and open your MOUTH!
>>>
>>> I even got the All-knowing Jani on this one!
>>>
>>> If she didn't have HER head so far up, she could have looked on
>>> Amazon!
>>>
>>> No! She'd rather poke her finger and fart.
>>
>> You're wrong, john w -
>
> nope! I'm not wrong.
>
> YOu could do more than just point your finger and SHRIEK.
>
> If you don't have a 1995 or 2003 copyrighted copy of the BOM, you can
> go on Amazon or you can go on EBAy and pick one up.
>
> I'm betting you $1 (what I can afford) that anything after about
> 1993 is going to say "Bethlehem."
>
>
> I KNOW that because I have acquired multiple copies of the BOM over
> the last 30 years, for my anti-Mormon apologetics, and to get them OUT
> of the hands of the innocent.
>
> Dr Martin (Walter Martin) a former pastor, pointed this out YEARs
> ago, "the Jerusalem text."
>
> I noticed about 10 years ago that I had two copies, and one said
> Jerusalem, and one said Bethlehem.
>
> I had both until the Millennium.
>
> I now have 3 copies, all pre- 1990. I just purchased a
> post-Millennium copy (like 2003).
>
> I'll scan the copy notice and post it.
>
> :-)
papa porn, you have it scrambled again, you don't know what Martin said!
This has all the earmarks of yet another lost church! be smart and just
go away, you are looking the fool over things you don't remember right...
sunny
> and you're being dishonest about it. In other
>> words, you're lying.
>
> You haven't even BOTHERED to check, so you are now LIBELING me
> (calling me ugly names with ZERO proof)
>
>> Mr Miles is right.
>
> No, he's not.
>
> There is no correction of 'Jerusalem' to 'Bethlehem'
>> *ANY* edition of the Book of Mormon.
>
> Yes, there is.
>
>> You've lost your credibility, john w.
>
> How many different copies did you check?
>
>>
>>
>>> john w
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> IDENTICALLY with regards to the verse in
>>>> question. NONE were "corrected nor
>>>> needed correction to read "Bethlehem."
>>>>
>>>> If you're going to continue pulling facts out
>>>> of thin air, at least have the decency of the
>>>> rest of us Christians to verify them before
>>>> making the false allegation. If you don't
>>>> believe the quote referenced below is from
>>>> the latest printed edition, THEN TURN OFF
>>>> YOUR COMPUTER AND GO BUY ONE.
>>>> You're simply making a fool of yourself.
>>>> You make all Christians look bad when you
>>>> not only make false allegations, but revel
>>>> (along with Vera, evidently) in those very
>>>> falsehoods.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the *latest edition* narrative (I have
>>>> the latest edition printed version in my
>>>> possession):
>>>>
>>>> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/10#10
>>>>
>>>> If you want to claim there's a different version
>>>> running around somewhere out there, then
>>>> produce it.
>>>>
>>>> --John Miles
>>>
>
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no>projeced;
>
> You are all bluster, no BRAIN.
Oh, the irony.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
> I've been looking for someone with the knowledge to build a web
> page for these BOM scans.
>
> I can't do it (build a page), for several reasons.
Mental illness, brain damage, stupidity.
>
> I thought-- due to the subject matter-- you MIGHT wish to help.
>
> I see I was mistaken.
Why would she want to help you, afte the way you've treated her? Didn't you
once try to get her fired from her job?
> AGAIN, "How Christian of you."
Again, how HYPOCRITICAL of you, retard.