Smith Translation
Agkistrodon
a witch to live." (Maybe for Patentworm's sake, that should be "bitch" but
I'll let that go.... where is he anyway now that DejaNews is dead?)
Joseph Smith, Jr. seems to have translated it as "Thou shalt not suffer a
*murderer* to live". The Church site
http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/22/18a#18a says so.
It would seem that to be consistent (if he really knew how to translate
anything) he would have used similar concepts (like "murder"or "killing")
whenever there was a similar association of words. Consider the above and
then compare:
2 Chr. 33: 6 And he caused his children to pass through the afire in the
valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments,
and used *witchcraft,* and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards:
he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Here the word "witchcraft" is distinctly used and seems to be comparable to
that in Exodus and yet Smith failed to translate or modify this reference to
witchcraft.
Why, oh, why would he change it in one place and leave it in another?
Because he lost himself in all those lies? Oh, what a tangled web we
weave..... etc.
Agkistrodon
James Archer
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:976dpk$9a8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Most of our Babbles translate Exodus 22:18 as "Thou shalt not suffer
(allow)
> a witch to live." (Maybe for Patentworm's sake, that should be "bitch"
but
> I'll let that go.... where is he anyway now that DejaNews is dead?)
>
> Joseph Smith, Jr. seems to have translated it as "Thou shalt not suffer a
> *murderer* to live". The Church site
> http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/22/18a#18a says so.
>
> It would seem that to be consistent (if he really knew how to translate
> anything) he would have used similar concepts (like "murder"or "killing")
> whenever there was a similar association of words. Consider the above and
> then compare:
Consistency and accuracy are two very different things. Smith's purpose in
retranslating was not only to clarify semantic issues, but also to correct
transcription errors, etc. For all we know, some scribe way back when could
read what someone else had written, so he took a guess and came up with
"witch".
James
C&C
There's no end to speculation in order to justify a pre-conceived
conclusion.
Chuck
Agkistrodon
"James Archer" <jar...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:GIAl6.47$I52....@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
keep this sham going. Instead, why don't you try to think "why do I have to
do make so many excuses for this guy?" One or two doesn't destroy too much
credibility but when you add all these problems up, the pile of excuses made
is large indeed.
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
"C&C" <camn...@nospam.qwest.net> wrote in message
news:XqEl6.2204$At2.4...@news.uswest.net...
A couple of times... well, maybe... three... I get suspicious... this
pile... NEVER!!!
Agkistrodon
James Archer
> There's no end to speculation in order to justify a pre-conceived
> conclusion.
I agree. Just keep in mind that this applies to the antis as much as it
does the members. :o)
James
Agkistrodon
inconsistencies, the errors and the lies and that it is you people who then
have to defend them by coming up with the evasions, the rationalizations,
and the outright absurdities (like this one) in order to give Smith some
"credibility". When you have to set up an institution to do that, it sure
seems that you know the man was a liar but are so wedded to him that you
can't escape and have to validate him in order to validate yourselves.
There's some psychological principle of self-preservation at work here. No,
it's the antis who find the problems. It's not the same at all.
You certainly would not accept this of Bill Clinton so why do you accept it
of yourselves? See above.
Agkistrodon
>
Agkistrodon
>
> "Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:976dpk$9a8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Most of our Babbles translate Exodus 22:18 as "Thou shalt not suffer
> (allow)
> > a witch to live." (Maybe for Patentworm's sake, that should be "bitch"
> but
> > I'll let that go.... where is he anyway now that DejaNews is dead?)
> >
> > Joseph Smith, Jr. seems to have translated it as "Thou shalt not suffer
a
> > *murderer* to live". The Church site
> > http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/22/18a#18a says so.
> >
> > It would seem that to be consistent (if he really knew how to
translate
> > anything) he would have used similar concepts (like "murder"or
"killing")
> > whenever there was a similar association of words. Consider the above
and
> > then compare:
>
> Consistency and accuracy are two very different things. Smith's purpose
in
> retranslating was not only to clarify semantic issues, but also to correct
> transcription errors, etc.
How would he know where a transciption error occurred? The site says
"Jospeh Smith Translation" not "Jospeh Smith Correction".
> For all we know, some scribe way back when could
> read what someone else had written, so he took a guess and came up with
> "witch".
A guess???? A guess??? Come on, James. He took a guess? Then it may just
as well have been "Thou shalt not suffer a guy who can remember things well
to live." That is one of the excuses used by the Inquisition to kill
Giordano Bruno; he knew how to use memory devices and that meant he was
using witchcraft.
Now, why is it that if he changed this, why didn't he change it in the other
places where the same word was used? Oh, I see, he guessed... You can do
better than this lameness, can't you? Well, maybe not. Maybe what you
should do is think about why you are defending this pile of rubble over and
over and over again.
Agkistrodon
Clovis Lark
I love the internet:
"The second often overlooked fact of Bruno's life concerns his period of
exile between 1576 and 1591. Most brief popular accounts state the bare
facts of his peregrinations around Europe, but what is left unsaid is that
his wanderings appear to have had less to do with his being hounded by the
Inquisition as it did with his own rather difficult personality. While
Bruno was fairly successful for a time at finding powerful and sympathetic
patrons to shelter him, he invariably did something to alienate and
outrage them, usually fairly quickly after entering their service. The
Inquisition had little to do with it, as once he left Italy, he was
effectively out of their reach. This was especially true of his time spent
under the protection of the French Ambassador to protestant England
(1583-85) during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and his wandering around
protestant Germany.
"An examination of his actions during this period of exile makes clear
that almost all of his misfortunes were brought down upon himself without
the Inquisition's help. He outraged the faculty at Oxford with his
lectures, he became embroiled in violent quarrels over trivial matters,
and generally succeeded in alienating those people best able to protect
him. His actions during this period reveal the very hallmark of folly,
namely repeated failure to act in his own best interests even when
reasonable alternatives were available. His final return to Italy (which
resulted in his arrest in Venice a year later) can be seen as being
motivated in part by the fact that by 1591 he had effectively burned most
of his bridges behind him and thus he had little choice. In many ways,
Bruno thrust himself into the flames that rose into the winter skies of
the Campo di Fiore on the 17th day of February in 1600.
"Bruno was brilliant, contentious, and ultimately self-destructive. There
is nothing in his writings that contributed to our knowledge of astronomy
in any substantial way, indeed his astronomical writings reveal a poor
grasp of the subject on several important points. I think we pay attention
to him today in large measure because among other things he vocally
espoused (but apparently did not really understand) Copernicanism, an idea
which was to become the key insight that led to our view of the world. In
addition, his On the Infinite Universe and Worlds appeals to many today
because of its apparent resonance with the deeply held conviction that
life exists elsewhere in the Universe, despite the fact that proponents of
extraterrestrial life would find little of interest within its difficult
pages. It also does not hurt his mystique that he came to a rather
spectacular and violent ending, ostensibly in punishment for these beliefs
by the reigning authorities of his day. In the end, Bruno bet on the right
horse (if perhaps for questionable reasons), and thus has become a kind of
culture hero instead of a footnote in books on Renaissance philosophy.
"History is funny that way."
from (get this Adrian): http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm
Tyler Waite
growing up and you wonder why he would change a scripture about killing witches?
So if JS's tanslation is correct then Nephi should have been killed, as well as the guy GBH supposedly forgave for gunning down the
rapist in court. And Moses should have been killed etc.
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:976dpk$9a8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Tyler Waite
In Josh 13:22 it talks of the children of Israel slaying "Balaam also the son of
Beor, the soothsayer," So slaughtering witches or even the children of witches appears to have been acceptable behavior in Israel.
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:976dpk$9a8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Agkistrodon
time, ain't we? Oh, sorry.. bitchy. that's for Patent worm's benefit.
Agkistrodon
"Tyler Waite" <twa...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9799li$a9d$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
C&C
> Tyler, maybe we should all be killed... we're all a bit witchy from time
to
> time, ain't we? Oh, sorry.. bitchy. that's for Patent worm's benefit.
I missed that particular exchange, but I bet it was a doozy. Any idea where
the illustrious Mr. Guynn has slinked off to this time? Taking a science
course, no doubt?
Chuck
C&C
snip
> > There's no end to speculation in order to justify a pre-conceived
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
>
> A couple of times... well, maybe... three... I get suspicious... this
> pile... NEVER!!!
The "witch" = "murderer" backpedal is particularly illustrative. When
cornered, simply change definitions. This allows for infinite future
apologetics.
Chuck
J. R. Meyer
reading the scriptures, fervently pondering what you have read, praying for
guidance, and then listening intently until the answers come. It is a life
changing experience.
Jim Meyer
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9775ue$r72$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
John G. Miles
I'd gladly have Bill Clinton correct any errors in transcription
or translation of the Bible by inspiration. Tell me, why aren't
ALL identical Hebrew and Greek words translated identically into
English by ANY of the translations as they now stand?
Logic can be explained only to the logical.
--John
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
John G. Miles
by some reports was heavily into other witchcraft type activities
> growing up and you wonder why he would change a scripture about
killing witches?
>
> So if JS's tanslation is correct then Nephi should have been
killed, as well as the guy GBH supposedly forgave for gunning
down the
> rapist in court. And Moses should have been killed etc.
And Jesus was well known as a "wine-bibber," etc., according to
the Bible. Do you believe everything you read?
Agkistrodon
"John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote in message
news:3a98...@nntp.networld.com...
Because of the variability in meaning and intent. "Je porte des lunettes"
is translated "I wear glasses" but it could be "I wear spectacles". "Je
porte des livres" means "I am carrying some books." There is no way to
confuse "witch" with murderer. It's a real laugher.
> Logic can be explained only to the logical.
>
> --John
Yes.. and to those who know enough to apply it.
Agkistrodon
.
Agkistrodon
No, but you seem to believe whatever you read as long as it's church
approved.
Agkistrodon
Jeff Shirton
> And Jesus was well known as a "wine-bibber,"
> etc., according to the Bible. Do you believe
> everything you read?
I believe everything I read in the *Bible*.
Jesus was *thought* to be, and *accused* of being, a "winebibber", a
drunkard. So what?
Jesus *did* drink wine. It was the available drink of the day. And it
was part of the Passover meal. He even *created* wine at the wedding at
Cana!
And isn't it interesting that we are discovering that a moderate amount
of wine every day is actually good for our health?
> --John
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
J. R. Meyer <jrm...@jrmeyer.com> wrote in message
news:4n3m6.1884$Ye3.5...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> Take all the time you spend criticizing the
> LDS Church and instead, spend it reading the
> scriptures, fervently pondering what you have
> read, praying for guidance, and then listening
> intently until the answers come. It is a life
> changing experience.
That's a great idea!
And Mormon missionaries should "take all the time [they] spend", trying
to change the minds of others, "and instead, spend it reading the
scriptures, fervently pondering what [they] have read".
I can't wait until the missionaries are all recalled!
Thanks again for the sage wisdom, Jim!
> Jim Meyer
Jeff Shirton
Clovis Lark
> Take all the time you spend criticizing the LDS Church and instead, spend it
> reading the scriptures, fervently pondering what you have read, praying for
> guidance, and then listening intently until the answers come. It is a life
> changing experience.
Nope, gotta job. Gotta spend the time workin' fer the Man.
Clovis Lark
I believe he is under deep sedation musing over the impending appearance
of Tom in military combat fatigues lazily approaching his wife, AK47
swinging in slo-mo by the 7 grenades dangling at his side.
> Chuck
Agkistrodon
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3W9m6.4040$7V.9...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
TBMs say that was really grape juice. More like "Splash" than Sauvignon
Blanc.
Agkistrodon
>
Fastleaf
news:3a98...@nntp.networld.com...
> Logic can be explained only to the logical.
All truth is logical. If we think logically can we learn all truth, bit by
bit. That is, if we have enough space in our brains to hold all the
information.
Fastleaf
news:3W9m6.4040$7V.9...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
> I believe everything I read in the *Bible*.
That's dangerous.
> Jesus was *thought* to be, and *accused* of being, a "winebibber", a
> drunkard. So what?
> Jesus *did* drink wine. It was the available drink of the day. And it
> was part of the Passover meal. He even *created* wine at the wedding at
> Cana!
> And isn't it interesting that we are discovering that a moderate amount
> of wine every day is actually good for our health?
Kills that bad cells. Like the ones in your brain.
Jeff Shirton
Fastleaf <Fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k9km6.66518$d4.4...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> > I believe everything I read in the *Bible*.
>
> That's dangerous.
How do you figure?
> > And isn't it interesting that we are
> > discovering that a moderate amount of wine
> > every day is actually good for our health?
>
> Kills that bad cells. Like the ones in your brain.
Tell that to Jesus.
He's the one who not only drank wine, but made wine at the wedding in
Cana, and *commanded* us to drink wine when remembering Him.
Jeff Shirton
C&C
That exchange I was present for. Wasn't the local sheriff called in?
Chuck
Clovis Lark
And the Danites. I was in SLC at zero hour and the most turbulence I
encountered was a prepubescent tornado that I literally drove through.
> Chuck
John G. Miles
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3W9m6.4040$7V.9...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
>
> news:3a98...@nntp.networld.com...
>
> > And Jesus was well known as a "wine-bibber,"
> > etc., according to the Bible. Do you believe
> > everything you read?
>
> I believe everything I read in the *Bible*.
>
> Jesus was *thought* to be, and *accused* of being, a
"winebibber", a
> drunkard. So what?
Your logic: Joseph Smith is accused of a lot of things. So
what?
My point exactly.
> Jesus *did* drink wine. It was the available drink of the day.
And it
> was part of the Passover meal. He even *created* wine at the
wedding at
> Cana!
"Pure wine of the grape" or alcoholic wine? And what was the
alcoholic content? Grape juice was considered "wine," in
whatever form, in Christ's time. "Strong drink" (KJV) was
specifically reserved for wines with significant alcoholic
content and was condemned in the Bible.
Not that I am disagreeing with you, per se, as to *small* amounts
of alcohol in very specific circumstances, just that your logic
doesn't wash as a whole.
> And isn't it interesting that we are discovering that a
moderate amount
> of wine every day is actually good for our health?
The statement was that it was good for reducing certain kinds of
heart disease and only in certain very specific ways. Health is
a broader category. When you aggregate ALL the studies on ALL
aspects of alcohol consumption, the picture is very different.
And the result of other studies *after* the initial studies went
further and found that it was a substance in red (not white)
grapes themselves. The alcohol wasn't what was beneficial.
Drinking red grape juice would provide the same and greater
benefit, without any of the severe and deleterious effects of
alcohol in our society.
A moderate amount of gambling might be beneficial or bring
happiness to some people. It's the aggregate societal result as
a whole when you include *all* people who might gamble that
recommends its being illegal. The same would apply, even
accepting your arguments that alcohol is beneficial (I would
hasten to add *at very specific levels*--vitamins at a certain
level are good for you, but toxic at others).
Use of *prescribed* alcohol for specific colesterol benefits (the
only thing that the very latest [preliminary] studies even
suggest) would be completely appropriate by LDS standards. The
same is true of other drugs that are otherwise enjoined by the
"Word of Wisdom." The same would be true of any substance
enjoined in the Word of Wisdom.
The "Word of Wisdom" (including the use of alcoholic beverages)
was revealed and specifically tailored for our modern day. It
specifically prefaces the revelation with the statement that it
was given as the "will of God in the temporal salvation of all
saints in the _last days_" (emphasis mine)--interesting in light
of the verses that immediately followed: that it was "in
consequence of the evils and designs which do and _will_ exist in
the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" that "I [the Lord]
forwarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by
revelation...." -- especially interesting in the light of the
fulfillment of this prophecy in the recent secular revelations
concerning the "conspiring men" of the tobacco companies that
have recently been brought to light.
My own view is that had a "word of wisdom" been revealed in a
similar way in Christ's time, it may very well have included
fermented wine *as part of* such a word of wisdom. Why? Because
the idea of chlorine to kill bacteria never occurred to them (and
would have been obviously impractical) and alcohol as an
antibiotic would have been an obvious and very beneficial
substitute. We use chlorine in water for its very specific
benefits. However, it comes with substantial health risks. It's
just that the benefits far outweigh the risks. It's the water
that is beneficial, the chlorine simply making sure it arrives in
good condition. The same would seem to be a very substantial and
likely benefit of small amounts of alcohol in ancient times.
Today, however, there are much better ways than the general
consumption of alcohol, given its deleterious *aggregate* harms
to both the individual and society, to deal with cholesterol (if
it turns out that the preliminary studies are indeed
substantiated). The Lord revealed the Word of Wisdom knowing
those aggregate circumstances before there were ANY known
problems with alcohol and tobacco. Science has substantiated the
Word of Wisdom in every way since its being revealed, man's best
understanding to the contrary.
The Word of Wisdom and the recommended diet by the scientific
community and government agencies, and they comport almost
identically. Very few non-LDS are aware of the expansive nature
of the Word of Wisdom in recommending the eating of fruits,
grains, etc., and the recommendation that meat be eaten sparingly
(I assume we are all aware of the heart disease related to
excessive consumption). It is notable that fish are not included
in this recommendation (if you read it closely) and that fish
have also been found tremendously beneficial to health. Much
more could be said. Suffice it for me to say that Joseph Smith
was a true prophet of God. And as for me, I will trust the Lord.
>
> Jeff Shirton
>
--John Miles
hblack
Jesus to have given the wedding guests at Cana 120 gallons of something
they would not have appreciated, i.e., non-alchoholic grape juice. The
text in fact asserts otherwise.
The text of John states clearly that the wine Jesus made at the Cana
wedding was choice wine (Greek ton kalon oinon; Latin bonum vinum). Its
alcoholic content would therefore be about 10%, or more than beer.
John 2:9-10 ( NRSV)
When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not
know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water
knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, Everyone
serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests
have become drunk, but you have kept the good wine until now.
The verb used here (Greek /methusthosin/, 'they have become drunk'),
is the passive of /methuo/, 'get drunk'), and is used to describe
alcoholic intoxication in Matthew 24:49, Acts 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:21,
and 1 Thessalonians 5:7. In Revelation 17:2 it is used metaphorically of
the effect upon men of partaking of the abominations of Babylon, and in
Revelation 17:6 of being in a state of mental intoxication, through the
shedding of men's blood profusely.
Further, Jesus himself freely admitted that unlike John the Baptist,
and his followers, he would not be advocating an ascetic lifestyle.
The idea of forbidding God's children from partaking of the bounties
of the vine is thus so much sanctimonious folly, so far as the Bible is
concerned.
Now, the relevant question here is, Does the Mormon Word of Wisdom
permit partaking of either wine or beer? And the answer is, Of course
not!
Harry Black
"John G. Miles" wrote:
<snip>
Jeff Shirton
> > Jesus was *thought* to be, and *accused* of
> > being, a "winebibber", a drunkard. So what?
>
> Your logic: Joseph Smith is accused of a lot
> of things. So what?
I could care less about Joseph Smith.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've never criticized the man himself.
Only doctrinal beliefs.
> > Jesus *did* drink wine. It was the available
> > drink of the day. And it was part of the
> > Passover meal. He even *created* wine at
> > the wedding at Cana!
>
> "Pure wine of the grape" or alcoholic wine?
Alcoholic wine.
> And what was the alcoholic content?
I don't remember any reference to hydrometers in the Bible.
> Grape juice was considered "wine," in whatever
What did they use to prevent the fermentation?
And there are many passages referring to getting "drunk" on such wine.
> form, in Christ's time. "Strong drink" (KJV) was
> specifically reserved for wines with significant
Specific references, please? Where is "strong drink" equated with
"wine"?
It's interesting to note that there is a similar reference to "strong
drink" in the D&C, and I've heard LDS claim that this refers to only to
hard liquor (ie. distilled), rather than beer or wine.
> --John Miles
Jeff Shirton
John G. Miles
>
> "John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote in message
> news:3a98...@nntp.networld.com...
> >
> > "Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:9788un$v6t$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "James Archer" <jar...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > > news:KxLl6.58$Ye3.1...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > > >
> > > > "C&C" <camn...@nospam.qwest.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:XqEl6.2204$At2.4...@news.uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > Does it not occur to you that the antis
> > > are the ones who find the inconsistencies,
> > > the errors and the lies and that it is you
> > > people who then have to defend them by
> > > coming up with the evasions, the rationalizations,
> > > and the outright absurdities (like this one) in
> > > order to give Smith some "credibility". When
> > > you have to set up an institution to do that, it
> > > sure seems that you know the man was a liar
> > > but are so wedded to him that you can't escape
> > > and have to validate him in order to validate
> > > yourselves.
> > >
> > > You certainly would not accept this of Bill Clinton
> > > so why do you accept it of yourselves? See above.
> > >
> > > Agkistrodon
> >
> > I'd gladly have Bill Clinton correct any errors in
transcription
> > or translation of the Bible by inspiration. Tell me, why
aren't
> > ALL identical Hebrew and Greek words translated identically
into
> > English by ANY of the translations as they now stand?
> >
>
> Because of the variability in meaning and intent. "Je porte
des lunettes"
> is translated "I wear glasses" but it could be "I wear
spectacles". "Je
> porte des livres" means "I am carrying some books." There is
no way to
> confuse "witch" with murderer. It's a real laugher.
Actually, translation is not that simple.
There are words in Hebrew which simply
cannot be translated into the same word
in English. Hebrew had a very limited
vocabulary compared to modern
languages. But your logic seemed to
require it, given that you said that if ONE
word were incorrectly transcribed or
translated through the ages since the
1st century and Joseph Smith corrected,
by inspiration, that word, he would then
be required to change (to an *incorrect*
translation) ALL identical words in the
same chapter or book of the Bible.
Such an argument is not only illogical,
it is incoherent. Translators have
corrected single words as new manuscripts
became available for centuries. It never
required they change ALL identical words
that appeared in the same manuscript.
> > Logic can be explained only to the logical.
> >
> Yes.. and to those who know enough to apply it.
>
> Agkistrodon
Couldn't agree more.
--John Miles
--
Opinions are a dime a dozen....
I'm just tired of the guy handing
out all the dimes.
Agkistrodon
And in German, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian and Swahili...
>Hebrew had a very limited
> vocabulary compared to modern
> languages. But your logic seemed to
> require it, given that you said that if ONE
> word were incorrectly transcribed or
> translated through the ages since the
> 1st century and Joseph Smith corrected,
> by inspiration, that word, he would then
> be required to change (to an *incorrect*
> translation) ALL identical words in the
> same chapter or book of the Bible.
He would be required to produce the reason why he translated certain words
differently. I am aware of the translational dificulties but upon what
basis was "witch" turned to "murderer"? He did not have the originals
before him.
>
> Such an argument is not only illogical,
> it is incoherent. Translators have
> corrected single words as new manuscripts
> became available for centuries. It never
> required they change ALL identical words
> that appeared in the same manuscript.
No, they don't have to but they do not willy-nilly initiate profound
changes. There must be a reason and "inspriation" doesn't cut it. What is
the original Hebrew in this citation? What is the original Hebrew word for
"murderer"? Does that word appear there (or a word that can be used in that
context?). If the word cannot be used outside of the "witch" context, it
stands. I think I trust the real bible scholars who spent years studying
Biblical Hebrew and who independently all translate it as "witch" and none
translate it as "murderer". It also defies logic that, given the quality
control that goes into the production of copy of the Torah, someone screwed
it up thousadns of years ago. Where are Smith's plates on the Bible?
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9BF91A...@earthlink.net...
> CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> > hblack wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no basis for the claim, nor would there be any reason,
for
> > > Jesus to have given the wedding guests at Cana 120 gallons of
something
> > > they would not have appreciated, i.e., non-alchoholic grape juice. The
> > > text in fact asserts otherwise.
> > > The text of John states clearly that the wine Jesus made at the
Cana
> > > wedding was choice wine (Greek ton kalon oinon; Latin bonum vinum).
Its
> > > alcoholic content would therefore be about 10%, or more than beer.
> >
> > The purpose of the created text was to prove that Jesus was a greater
> > Dionysis than Dionysis.
>
> Fine observation, Charles.
> Dionysus was the god of vintage. During his annual feast (6 Jan), the
> fountains of the pagan Temples on Andros were said to spout wine instead
of
> water.
> Yes indeed, Jesus provided far better vintage than the usual cheap
wine.
> He who came in the character of his Father, is standing there at the
party,
> holding a glass of wine in his hand with a big relaxed grin on his face,
and
> some self righteous hypocrites of this world just won't believe it.
> Too bad for them.
>
> Harry
>
hblack
Mormons, and I'm too young to quit.
Harry
CharlesSWaters
hblack wrote:
>
> CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> > hblack wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no basis for the claim, nor would there be any reason, for
> > > Jesus to have given the wedding guests at Cana 120 gallons of something
> > > they would not have appreciated, i.e., non-alchoholic grape juice. The
> > > text in fact asserts otherwise.
> > > The text of John states clearly that the wine Jesus made at the Cana
> > > wedding was choice wine (Greek ton kalon oinon; Latin bonum vinum). Its
> > > alcoholic content would therefore be about 10%, or more than beer.
> >
> > The purpose of the created text was to prove that Jesus was a greater
> > Dionysis than Dionysis.
>
> Fine observation, Charles.
> Dionysus was the god of vintage. During his annual feast (6 Jan), the
> fountains of the pagan Temples on Andros were said to spout wine instead of
> water.
> Yes indeed, Jesus provided far better vintage than the usual cheap wine.
> He who came in the character of his Father, is standing there at the party,
> holding a glass of wine in his hand with a big relaxed grin on his face, and
> some self righteous hypocrites of this world just won't believe it.
> Too bad for them.
While I have never had wine, my belief is that it was never meant to be
forbidden. It was one of those things where Mormons were importing
goods from the "gentiles" outside of Utah and Brigham Young thought they
were being too dependent thereon. Since he was trying to build a
"kingdom" he didn't want to be dependent on the gentiles, so he forbade
wine, along with other things were being imported into Utah -- using the
Word of __WISDOM__ to do it. We suffer under that legacy. Current
prophets would never reverse that legacy because it would place into
question both the present and past inspiration of the LDS prophets.
--
Charles
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
- Mahatma Gandhi
hblack
22:18 [Hebrew 22:17]) in question, in the standard critical text of the
Hebrew Bible (BHS), and found that there are no variant readings, even in
the Targums, Syrian, Samaritan, or in any other ancient versions. The
Hebrew word for witch is mkshp, plural kshpym, which is cognate to
Akkadian kishpu, 'witchcraft, sorceries/ magic.'
The passage in Exodus briefly restates the Law, "There shall not be
found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass
through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or
an enchanter, or _a witch mkshp_, Or a charmer, or a consulter with
familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
But this didn't deter the mother of Joram, queen Jezebel, who is said
to have committed "many harlotries and _sorceries kshpyh_" (2 Kings
9:22). And around 600 BC Jeremiah was warning the people, "hearken not ye
to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your
enchanters, nor to _your sorcerers kshpykm _" (Jeremiah 27:9). Nothing in
the passage refers to murderers.
As a check, we examined the the ancient Greek versions of Exodus
22:18, but find they did not use any Greek equivalent for any Hebrew word
for killing (hrg), or murder (rtzch), or murderer (rwtzch). Indeed, for
Joseph Smith's "translation" to be correct, we would have expected to
find some form of Greek foneutes or foneuein (e.g., Exodus 20:13 [LXX
20:15], Ps 94:6 [LXX 93:6], Isaiah 1:21, 2 Kings 6:32 [LXX 4 Kings]), but
instead we find farmakos, 'sorcerer/ magician'. And when we examine the
Greek use of farmakos for consistency, we find it always translates some
form of Hebrew mkshp 'witch,' (Exodus 22:18 Dt 18:10 Malachi 3:5) or
chrtmym, 'magician' (e.g., Pharaoh's magicians: Exodus 9:11).
In later Jewish writings and the NT we find farmakos replaced with
the newer term farmakon and farmakeia, 'the use of medicine, drugs or
spells' Once again, it cannot be read as murderer, which is in fact found
as a separate entry in various lists of sins, e.g, "Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, _witchcraft
farmakeia_, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies, Envyings, _murders fonoi_, drunkenness, revellings, and such
like:.(Galatians 5:19-21) "Neither repented they of their _murders
fonon_, nor of their _sorceries farmakon_, nor of their fornication, nor
of their thefts." (Revelation 19:21; cf 18:23 21:8 22:15.)
Harry
Clovis Lark wrote:
> Please provide examples in hebrew, particulerly the words "witch" and
> "murderer".
C&C
Chuck
hblack
<snip>
> While I have never had wine, my belief is that it was never meant to be
> forbidden. It was one of those things where Mormons were importing
> goods from the "gentiles" outside of Utah and Brigham Young thought they
> were being too dependent thereon. Since he was trying to build a
> "kingdom" he didn't want to be dependent on the gentiles, so he forbade
> wine, along with other things were being imported into Utah -- using the
> Word of __WISDOM__ to do it. We suffer under that legacy. Current
> prophets would never reverse that legacy because it would place into
> question both the present and past inspiration of the LDS prophets.
Yes, Joseph Smith sometimes tried to use the WoW to punish or get rid of
dissidents, such as Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery, but it
didn't become a systematic threat to all Mormons until Brigham Young.
The LDS have long since turned the message on its head, it is no longer "To be
sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint" (D&C 89:1.) But alas, it didn't
stop some bright Mormons like B.H Roberts from becoming alcoholics.
Hand it to the Mormon hierarchy to screw up a good thing for some ready dough.
Cheers!
Harry
hblack
few examples like the one I last posted for Mormons to understand how
perfectly laughable is their scam artist Joseph Smith, and his ambitious
sidekick Sidney R.
Cheers!
Harry
Agkistrodon
victory lap for Harry Black!
Agkistrodon
hblack
Mormons are not likely to be impressed with the fact that their founder
altered, completely without justification, just one word in Exodus 22:18.
After all, Joseph Smith added 4,500 words into Genesis 5:21 alone, and
Mormons have been known to brag about it (e.g., Nibley). In 1876 they canonized
this crude forgery as Moses 6:26-7:68.
Harry
John G. Miles
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:97ijan$kjd$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Don't run it yet. I had/have every intention of responding.
However, time has not permitted me to post at length the last few
days.
--John Miles
--------------------
"On both sides they felt convinced that they had the final
answer.... They could both speak with perfect confidence
because of what I call the gas law of learning; namely,
that any amount of information no matter how small will fill
any intellectual void no matter how large." --Hugh Nibley
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 1, pp. 3-4)
--------------------
Agkistrodon
>
>
> "Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:97ijan$kjd$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > So, is anyone coming back to defend Mr. Smith? I didn't think
> so. Another
> > victory lap for Harry Black!
> >
> > Agkistrodon
>
> Don't run it yet. I had/have every intention of responding.
> However, time has not permitted me to post at length the last few
> days.
>
> --John Miles
>
Okay, Harry, I can't wait.
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
John G. Miles
I will follow up to this post under the new thread titled "Word
of Wisdom..."
--
John G. Miles
I will follow up to this post under the new thread title "Word of
Wisdom..."
--
John G. Miles
(No need to answer, Agkistrodon, as your general rambling
accusations and other illogic tend to self destruct in and of
themselves). Besides the fact that everyone seemed to ignore the
primary focus of my original reply (i.e., that the drinking of
alcoholic wine was a probable fact for Biblical Christianity,
etc.), I'll just note that I have found in my own life that those
who get their jollies in life trying to prove other people wrong,
or undermine their beliefs, generally exhibit the very
insecurities about their own beliefs or the testimony they see in
the beliefs of others that they seek to plant in others. The
fact that they never succeed just seems to make them more
strident and determined in their frustrated efforts.
Besides, some people actually have real jobs and lead real
lives.... And posting to newsgroups is near the bottom of my
"what's important for me to accomplish in this life" category. I
find you neither irritating or frustrating personally; rather,
there's just a bit of pity for your state in life.
--John Miles
--------------------
"On both sides they felt convinced that they had the final
answer.... They could both speak with perfect confidence
because of what I call the gas law of learning; namely,
that any amount of information no matter how small will fill
any intellectual void no matter how large." --Hugh Nibley
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 1, pp. 3-4)
--------------------
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:981eb9$nl2$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Agkistrodon
> If I never found the time to follow up, what would that prove?
> (No need to answer, Agkistrodon, as your general rambling
> accusations and other illogic tend to self destruct in and of
> themselves).
I made no rambling accusations. The accusations are clearly and specifically
focused.
>Besides the fact that everyone seemed to ignore the
> primary focus of my original reply (i.e., that the drinking of
> alcoholic wine was a probable fact for Biblical Christianity,
> etc.),
That is NOT the focus. Why don't you return to the original issue that you
said that you could deal with. Review the thread and tell us how "witch"
became "murderer" as you claimed you could do.
> I'll just note that I have found in my own life that those
> who get their jollies in life trying to prove other people wrong,
> or undermine their beliefs, generally exhibit the very
> insecurities about their own beliefs or the testimony they see in
> the beliefs of others that they seek to plant in others.
I am not interested in proving anyone except Smith wrong. <My interest in
doing that isto expose his motivations for the lie. Namely, that he was a
charlatan of the same stripe as Jim Jones and most other modern preachers.
>The
> fact that they never succeed just seems to make them more
> strident and determined in their frustrated efforts.
I am not frustrated.
>
> Besides, some people actually have real jobs and lead real
> lives....
Who would be so dumb?
>And posting to newsgroups is near the bottom of my
> "what's important for me to accomplish in this life" category. I
> find you neither irritating or frustrating personally; rather,
> there's just a bit of pity for your state in life.
You don't seem to have much of an idea about my state in life. Now, get
back to the thread and prove your claim or admit that you have no idea how
Smith came up with "murderer" for "witch". Admit that he may just have
faked it as he faked everything else he did.
Agkistrodon
C&C
> If I never found the time to follow up, what would that prove?
> (No need to answer, Agkistrodon, as your general rambling
> accusations and other illogic tend to self destruct in and of
> themselves).
Nice job, Mr. Miles. You've followed in the hallowed footsteps of other
apologists on this group -- when you can't address the issues, you kick up
some dust and start insulting your opponent.
How about answering the witch/murderer question?
> Besides the fact that everyone seemed to ignore the
> primary focus of my original reply (i.e., that the drinking of
> alcoholic wine was a probable fact for Biblical Christianity,
> etc.), I'll just note that I have found in my own life that those
> who get their jollies in life trying to prove other people wrong,
> or undermine their beliefs, generally exhibit the very
> insecurities about their own beliefs or the testimony they see in
> the beliefs of others that they seek to plant in others. The
> fact that they never succeed just seems to make them more
> strident and determined in their frustrated efforts.
>
> Besides, some people actually have real jobs and lead real
> lives.... And posting to newsgroups is near the bottom of my
> "what's important for me to accomplish in this life" category. I
> find you neither irritating or frustrating personally; rather,
> there's just a bit of pity for your state in life.
More dodging and weaving, and more rambling. How does "witch" become
"murderer?"
And if you can't defend your beliefs, why bother having them in the first
place?
Chuck
John G. Miles
> "John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote:
> > If I never found the time to follow up, what would that
prove?
> > (No need to answer, Agkistrodon, as your general rambling
> > accusations and other illogic tend to self destruct in and of
> > themselves).
>
> Nice job, Mr. Miles. You've followed in the hallowed footsteps
of other
> apologists on this group -- when you can't address the issues,
you kick up
> some dust and start insulting your opponent.
Actually, I didn't insult my "opponent," but merely made
observations about his posts. As far as I know he may be a very
personable individual. At best, you might claim I insulted his
logic or his method of posting--a perfectly acceptable point in
this forum. Agkistrodon's posts have a certain affinity with
fawnscribe's posts in that logic has little to do with the
"ramblings." Of course, you are free to disagree.
Furthermore, I posted my response to hblack at around 3am in the
morning and went to bed. I had flagged other posts in this
thread that I had every intention of replying to when time
permitted, including hblack's lengthy post on the subject you
speak of below. As I said, some people really do lead normal
lives and dealing with obsessed anti-LDS folk isn't one of them.
To be more clear, my "be patient" post related to the discussion
under this thread regarding the LDS Word of Wisdom and alcoholic
wine vs. that Word of Wisdom. The so-called logic that God needs
the permission of anyone to correct the text of the Bible (thru
the prophet Joseph Smith) should be so clearly illogical that the
fact that you, hblack, and Agkistrodon can't see its absurdity
was exactly my point.
Perhaps the problem lies in what you assume as the means by which
Joseph Smith corrected the King James Version of the Bible.
> How about answering the witch/murderer question?
Variant readings, etc., are completely off point. What should be
obvious is that we are thousands of years removed from the
original manuscripts. That all extant manuscripts continued an
error that at an earlier time may very well have had variant
readings does not seem to dawn on anyone as a possibility. The
fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced just such (previously
unknown) variants is a good example.
Regardless, the question boils down to one of whether Joseph
Smith corrected the Bible (KJV) under the inspiration of God, not
whether you or anyone else agrees with his corrections. I
suggest you go to the only source that can answer that for you
personally.
By the way, it is clear from historical documents that Joseph
Smith did not use the word "translation" as I am supposing
everyone here seems to want to impose upon him. His own
descriptions of how he "translated" make it clear he used the
word to designate an inspired revision or new "translation" of
any work he dealt with. The manuscripts and bible from which
Joseph Smith worked in his "Joseph Smith Translation" (formerly
known as the "Inspired Version" of the Bible [KJV]) show clearly
the process was not one of translation from some original source.
He depended on inspiration, not ancient Biblical manuscripts, to
revise the KJV. This particular word was but one of them.
So do you understand why I have a real difficulty following
hblack's and Agkistrodon's line of reasoning? Their assumption
upon which all their later reasoning depends is itself false,
making their later arguments irrelevant.
>
> > Besides the fact that everyone seemed to ignore the
> > primary focus of my original reply (i.e., that the drinking
of
> > alcoholic wine was a probable fact for Biblical Christianity,
> > etc.), I'll just note that I have found in my own life that
those
> > who get their jollies in life trying to prove other people
wrong,
> > or undermine their beliefs, generally exhibit the very
> > insecurities about their own beliefs or the testimony they
see in
> > the beliefs of others that they seek to plant in others. The
> > fact that they never succeed just seems to make them more
> > strident and determined in their frustrated efforts.
> >
> > Besides, some people actually have real jobs and lead real
> > lives.... And posting to newsgroups is near the bottom of my
> > "what's important for me to accomplish in this life"
category. I
> > find you neither irritating or frustrating personally;
rather,
> > there's just a bit of pity for your state in life.
>
> More dodging and weaving, and more rambling. How does "witch"
become
> "murderer?"
I did reply. The fact that logic does not penetrate some minds
is not a problem I can cure. Nor can I guarantee to meet your
self-imposed deadlines (unless, of course, you want to hire me
full time).
> And if you can't defend your beliefs, why bother having them in
the first
> place?
Patience, my son. Just because I can't reply on your time table
has nothing to do with my ability to do so. It is now almost 3am
and again I have better things to do than ruin my health by
staying up longer. I'll have to get back to other posts later.
I am not obsessed with answering any particular post simply
because I have no insecurities about my own beliefs and
understand that sooner or later the truth will be known,
regardless of the mutual admiration society you, hblack,
Agkistrodon, etc., have set up. Chest beating and boasting prove
nothing except a lack of propriety given that it is done in
public rather than among yourselves. I've never felt the need to
tell everyone how superior I am because someone does not or is
unable to respond. I understand that some things are simply not
worth persuing (not the case here, as I fully intended to
respond).
Given your vastly superior intelligence, you might consider
responding to the other points in this thread regarding the Word
of Wisdom which I continued under a separate thread to more
accurately reflect that particular branch of the present thread.
I'd like to hear what you have to say (or should I assume a lack
of response means "I win"--I'll begin beating my chest as soon as
you let me know).
My purpose is not to debate for the sake of debate, but to have a
discussion with those interested in exchanging ideas, or in
clarifying points that I feel are misleading or ill-reasoned in
other posts and to which I don't necessarily plan on following up
endlessly.
> Chuck
--
John Miles
--------------------
"On both sides they felt convinced that they had the final
answer.... They could both speak with perfect confidence
because of what I call the gas law of learning; namely,
that any amount of information no matter how small will fill
any intellectual void no matter how large." --Hugh Nibley
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 1, pp. 3-4)
--------------------
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
hblack
<snip>
> Variant readings, etc., are completely off point. What should be
> obvious is that we are thousands of years removed from the
> original manuscripts. That all extant manuscripts continued an
> error that at an earlier time may very well have had variant
> readings does not seem to dawn on anyone as a possibility. The
> fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced just such (previously
> unknown) variants is a good example.
Problem is, the older and more reliable a Biblical manuscript, the
more it disagrees with Joseph Smith's readings, but one would expect
just the opposite to hold, if Smith had been actually restoring the
original meanings or readings of the Holy Writ.
> Regardless, the question boils down to one of whether Joseph
> Smith corrected the Bible (KJV) under the inspiration of God, not
> whether you or anyone else agrees with his corrections. I
> suggest you go to the only source that can answer that for you
> personally.
>
> By the way, it is clear from historical documents that Joseph
> Smith did not use the word "translation" as I am supposing
> everyone here seems to want to impose upon him.
Wrong.
Joseph Smith certainly knew what a translation was from 1827 to
1829, when he pretended to translate a certain Egyptian text engraved on
imaginary gold plates in a ring binder. But you would have us believe
that in 1830, when he began his "translation" of the Bible, he had
forgotten the meaning of the term.
In point of fact, throughout the period he was "translating" the
Bible (1830-1833), Joseph Smith continued to speak of his "translation"
of the Book of Mormon from the hidden Nephite plates.
Now, by repeatedly calling his production of the Book of Mormon a
"translation" from the engravings on his imaginary gold plates, Joseph
Smith demonstrated for us that he knew exactly what the meaning of the
term was:
TRANSLA'TION n. [Fr. from L. translatio,] ś 1. The art of removing
or conveying from one place to another; removal; as the 'translation' if
a disease from the foot to the breast. ś 2. The removal of a bishop from
one see to another. ś 3. The removal of a person to heaven without
subjecting him to death. ś 4. The act of turning into another language;
interpretation; as the 'translation' of Virgil or Homer. ś 5. That which
is produced by turning into another language; a version. We have a good
'translation' of the Scriptures.
-- Re: Webster, Noah. A Dictionary Of the English Language. (1828).
Smith was pretending to miraculously produce a new translation of
the Bible from its original text. Else why was that text ever written in
the first place? The fact Smith pretended to do so without a Hebrew,
Aramaic, or Greek codex didn't seem to matter to him. If you recall some
of the faith promoting myths about his translation of the Book of
Mormon, you will note that he became less and less dependent on theGold
Plates as time went on. The Bible "translation" episode reveals that by
1830 Smith had quit pretending to need any source manuscript at all.
<snip>
> His own
> descriptions of how he "translated" make it clear he used the
> word to designate an inspired revision or new "translation" of
> any work he dealt with. The manuscripts and bible from which
> Joseph Smith worked in his "Joseph Smith Translation" (formerly
> known as the "Inspired Version" of the Bible [KJV]) show clearly
> the process was not one of translation from some original source.
> He depended on inspiration, not ancient Biblical manuscripts, to
> revise the KJV. This particular word was but one of them.
No. "Translation" is the only word Smith ever used to describe his
Bible work. He even gave "revelations," in which his god repeatedly used
exactly the same term to commission him and guide him in his production
of "the new translation of my holy word" (D&C 124:89).
The fact that you and I know Smith never produced any such thing,
rather speaks loudly that this whole exercise was a transparent fraud.
Harry Black
> So do you understand why I have a real difficulty following
> hblack's and Agkistrodon's line of reasoning? Their assumption
> upon which all their later reasoning depends is itself false,
> making their later arguments irrelevant.
<snip>
FAWNSCRIBE
From: "John G. Miles" jmi...@networld.com
Date: 3/7/2001 1:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3aa6...@nntp.networld.com>
"C&C" <camn...@nospam.qwest.net> wrote in message
news:FGkp6.3073$PA5.7...@news.uswest.net...
> "John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote:
> > If I never found the time to follow up, what would that
prove?
> > (No need to answer, Agkistrodon, as your general rambling
> > accusations and other illogic tend to self destruct in and of
> > themselves).
>
> Nice job, Mr. Miles. You've followed in the hallowed footsteps
of other
> apologists on this group -- when you can't address the issues,
you kick up
> some dust and start insulting your opponent.
Actually, I didn't insult my "opponent," but merely made
observations about his posts. As far as I know he may be a very
personable individual. At best, you might claim I insulted his
logic or his method of posting--a perfectly acceptable point in
this forum. Agkistrodon's posts have a certain affinity with
fawnscribe's posts in that logic has little to do with the
"ramblings." Of course, you are free to disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hold up Jack!
If you think logic has little to do with *ramblings* you should be reading more
of what passes as doctrine out there buddy.
Maybe you are a more linear presenter of whatever it is you feel is truth..but
don't assume something presented in a different way that CONTAINS truth is a
*rambling*
I have hit the nail on the head far more than you may think sir.
You aim at the nail and miss.
Some others here aim at the nail three or four times but they HIT it
fawn
C&C
> Actually, I didn't insult my "opponent," but merely made
> observations about his posts.
If you want to call an insult an "observation," I suppose you wouldn't have
any difficulty with the whole "witch" = "murderer" thang after all.
snip
> > How about answering the witch/murderer question?
>
> Variant readings, etc., are completely off point. What should be
> obvious is that we are thousands of years removed from the
> original manuscripts. That all extant manuscripts continued an
> error that at an earlier time may very well have had variant
> readings does not seem to dawn on anyone as a possibility. The
> fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced just such (previously
> unknown) variants is a good example.
Oh? The Dead Sea Scrolls has witch as "murderer?"
snip
> So do you understand why I have a real difficulty following
> hblack's and Agkistrodon's line of reasoning? Their assumption
> upon which all their later reasoning depends is itself false,
> making their later arguments irrelevant.
Why does a false premise make it difficult for you to follow a line of
reasoning?
For future reference, the truth or falsity of premises has nothing to do
with logic or illogic.
snip
> Given your vastly superior intelligence, you might consider
> responding to the other points in this thread regarding the Word
> of Wisdom which I continued under a separate thread to more
> accurately reflect that particular branch of the present thread.
> I'd like to hear what you have to say (or should I assume a lack
> of response means "I win"--I'll begin beating my chest as soon as
> you let me know).
The subject doesn't interest me. What does is your willingness to accept
absurd claims such as "witch" equating to "murderer," or just setting it
down to a "variant reading." Any port in a storm, I suppose.
Chuck
John G. Miles
> "John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I didn't insult my "opponent," but merely made
> > observations about his posts.
>
> If you want to call an insult an "observation,"
I certainly "insulted" the method of reasoning and logic and came
to the conclusions from observation. I have no problem with that
(and you, even less, if you'll allow me to suggest such from
"observing" your posts).
> snip
> > > How about answering the witch/murderer question?
> >
> > Variant readings, etc., are completely off point. What
should be
> > obvious is that we are thousands of years removed from the
> > original manuscripts. That all extant manuscripts continued
an
> > error that at an earlier time may very well have had variant
> > readings does not seem to dawn on anyone as a possibility.
The
> > fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced just such
(previously
> > unknown) variants is a good example.
>
> Oh? The Dead Sea Scrolls has witch as "murderer?"
No. Again, I have a hard time driving home logic beyond the
capacity of any reader to understand it. If you will reread the
paragraph, I stated that variant readings are irrelevant since
earlier manuscript finds bring to light variant readings that
were unavailable previously. Hence (note: this is the important
part), just because a "variant" reading does not exist supporting
Joseph Smith's inspired revision is proof of nothing. Just as a
lack of archeological evidence doesn't mean it won't turn up at a
later time. Until you have the original manuscripts, you can
never claim that a particular inspired correction is untrue,
especially since what manuscripts we do have are thousands of
years removed from the originals themselves.
However (note: another important point), variants are not the
issue since the prophet Joseph Smith did not pretend, especially
in this instance, to translate from any other source except
inspiration. Furthermore, Joseph Smith did not "translate" in
any sense of the traditional use of the word when revising the
Bible. He did not work from ANY manuscript except a King James
Version of the Bible that he had. All authorities agree on that
(hblack to contrary notwithstanding). He also did more than
merely "correct." He also clarified (e.g., added clarifying
words or sentences), emended, deleted, etc., as he was inspired
in returning the KJV he had to its most original meaning.
That you want to insist he translated from actual ancient
manuscripts (something he never claimed and never had, and that
all experts, LDS & nonLDS agree) is beyond honest discussion. If
you would like to present any evidence that he claimed to
translate from ancient manuscripts then extant, fell free to post
it. If you want to argue from facts not in evidence, please do
so, but I don't plan on continually correcting you.
> snip
> > So do you understand why I have a real difficulty following
> > hblack's and Agkistrodon's line of reasoning? Their
assumption
> > upon which all their later reasoning depends is itself false,
> > making their later arguments irrelevant.
>
> Why does a false premise make it difficult for you to follow a
line of
> reasoning?
It's not difficult. It is irrelevant. Let me make it plain
since you seem to be having difficulty with it: If I claim that
Joseph Smith thought the world was flat and then develop a line
of reasoning based on that false assumption, any reasoning based
on the initial false assumption falls of its own weight. I'd
gladly argue the fact that Joseph Smith was a time traveler
except for the fact that it is a false premise not supported by
any facts whatsoever.
>
> For future reference, the truth or falsity of premises has
nothing to do
> with logic or illogic.
If you want to develop you logic based on false premises, feel
free. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.
> snip
> > Given your vastly superior intelligence, you might consider
> > responding to the other points in this thread regarding the
Word
> > of Wisdom which I continued under a separate thread to more
> > accurately reflect that particular branch of the present
thread.
> > I'd like to hear what you have to say (or should I assume a
lack
> > of response means "I win"--I'll begin beating my chest as
soon as
> > you let me know).
>
> The subject doesn't interest me. What does is your willingness
to accept
> absurd claims such as "witch" equating to "murderer," or just
setting it
> down to a "variant reading." Any port in a storm, I suppose.
I don't set it down to ANY variant reading. That is exactly the
point. They are a useless reference for determining whether
Joseph Smith restored, from inspiration, the original meaning of
the ORIGINAL revelation.
> Chuck
--
John Miles
--------------------
Opinions are a dime a dozen.... I'm just
tired of the guy handing out all the dimes.
John G. Miles
> "John G. Miles" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Variant readings, etc., are completely off point. What
should be
> > obvious is that we are thousands of years removed from the
> > original manuscripts. That all extant manuscripts continued
an
> > error that at an earlier time may very well have had variant
> > readings does not seem to dawn on anyone as a possibility.
The
> > fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls introduced just such
(previously
> > unknown) variants is a good example.
>
> Problem is, the older and more reliable a Biblical
manuscript, the
> more it disagrees with Joseph Smith's readings,
bzzt. Wrong answer. There are numerous studies regarding
changes the prophet Joseph Smith made in the Biblical text,
whether found in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or
the Inspired Version (Joseph Smith Translation) of the Bible that
indicate how the changed readings are supported by variant
readings from other manuscript sources not available to Joseph
Smith, and not even extant, when he was alive. Fell free to drop
by Deseret Book or even mail FARMS for such studies.
Universities with departments of Mormon studies are also a good
place to go.
Let me give you a few examples. There was no support for Joseph
Smith's story regarding Abraham's migration to Egypt where he had
to lie to Pharoah about his wife being his sister. The story as
recounted in the Pearl of Great Price indicated that it was the
Lord, Himself, who commanded Abraham to make such a statement.
Nothing existed to support that "reading" until the discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls where one of the manuscripts told the story
in exactly that way--i.e., that it was a command from the Lord
(I'd find the exact manuscript name for you, but as I said, my
library hasn't yet followed me to my new home).
Likewise, for example, the Joseph Smith Translation ("Inspired
Version") of the Bible removes the phrase "without a cause" from
Matt. 5:22. The same phrase is not present in Christ's "Sermon
on the Mount" equivalent in the Book of Mormon. It happens that
a papyrus fragment recently discovered (the book by a prominent
non-LDS scholar on suggested revisions to present Biblical
translations based on recent discoveries of sundry ancient
manuscripts or fragments is in my library, and when I eventually
get everything, I'd be glad to quote it if you really want to
make me work) show the identical deletion.
Your assertion is simply not supported by the facts.
[snip]
> > Regardless, the question boils down to one of whether Joseph
> > Smith corrected the Bible (KJV) under the inspiration of God,
not
> > whether you or anyone else agrees with his corrections. I
> > suggest you go to the only source that can answer that for
you
> > personally.
And all the present discussion notwithstanding, it is still the
only way to receive a knowledge of what actually transpired.
> > By the way, it is clear from historical documents that Joseph
> > Smith did not use the word "translation" as I am supposing
> > everyone here seems to want to impose upon him.
>
> Wrong.
I'll find the exact statements and historical evidence of how he
"translated" (even the Book of Mormon) if you like, but your
statement to the contrary despite widespread agreement by
scholars on the subject is wholly specious.
> Joseph Smith certainly knew what a translation was from
1827 to
> 1829, when he pretended to translate a certain Egyptian text
engraved on
> imaginary gold plates in a ring binder.
In THAT case, he did have an original manuscript that he
translated from. That you seek to give the impression that the
same was true in his inspired revision of the Bible is without
merit. To avoid retyping, I'll just quote what I wrote in
response to C&C:
"[V]ariants are not the
issue since the prophet Joseph Smith did not pretend, especially
in this instance, to translate from any other source except
inspiration. Furthermore, Joseph Smith did not "translate" in
any sense of the traditional use of the word when revising the
Bible. He did not work from ANY manuscript except a King James
Version of the Bible that he had. All authorities agree on that
(hblack to contrary notwithstanding). He also did more than
merely "correct." He also clarified (e.g., added clarifying
words or sentences [that were never in the original]), emended,
deleted, etc., as he was inspired in returning the KJV he had to
its most correct meaning.
"That you want to insist he translated from actual ancient
manuscripts (something he never claimed and never had, and that
all experts, LDS & nonLDS, agree) is beyond honest discussion.
If
you would like to present any evidence that he claimed to
translate from ancient manuscripts then extant, feel free to post
it. If you want to argue from facts not in evidence, please do
so, but I don't plan on continually correcting you."
[snip]
> Now, by repeatedly calling his production of the Book of
Mormon a
> "translation" from the engravings on his imaginary gold plates,
It's amazing how so many (even more than those listed in the Book
of Mormon itself) were first hand witnesses of these "imaginary"
plates. Regardless, it still doesn't address the fact that
"variant readings" you keep bringing up have no bearing on his
inspired revision of the Bible. Until you can show me the
original transcribed manuscripts, it's a moot point given that
the claim is that God inspired Joseph Smith to return the
original sense or meaning of His original revelation to the
ancient prophets.
[snip]
> The fact Smith pretended to do so without a Hebrew,
> Aramaic, or Greek codex didn't seem to matter to him.
Nor should it if the original author is there to correct the
*English* translation to reflect the original revelation.
Despite the fact that errors gather with each new transcription,
and especially with translations from other languages that can't
capture the original language's meaning (e.g., Greek has about a
half dozen words for our one word "love"), you seem to insist
that God must stick with the faulty translations and their
variants rather than just inspiring Joseph Smith with the truth.
> If you recall some
> of the faith promoting myths about his translation of the Book
of
> Mormon, you will note that he became less and less dependent on
theGold
> Plates as time went on.
Bzzt. Wrong again. He didn't become less and less dependent on
the plates, but less and less dependent on the Urim and Thummim
as instruments of translation. He always translated from the
plates themselves. The more familiar he became with the
particular characters and/or words in the original Book of
Mormon, AND the better acquainted he became with the process of
inspiration and revelation (believe it or not, it takes practice
to learn--the longer one listens to the voice of inspiration and
"experiments" with it, the more adept one becomes at hearing the
"still small voice" and in understanding what it means in the
first place), the less he needed to depend on the "tools" the
Lord had provided to assist the uninitiated.
By the way, the "myths" aren't faith promoting per se, just
historical fact from those who study the history of the
translation. The University of Illinois has a great department
of Mormon studies--you're free to go to them directly as well to
verify the facts.
[snip]
> > His own
> > descriptions of how he "translated" make it clear he used the
> > word to designate an inspired revision or new "translation"
of
> > any work he dealt with. The manuscripts and bible from which
> > Joseph Smith worked in his "Joseph Smith Translation"
(formerly
> > known as the "Inspired Version" of the Bible [KJV]) show
clearly
> > the process was not one of translation from some original
source.
> > He depended on inspiration, not ancient Biblical manuscripts,
to
> > revise the KJV. This particular word was but one of them.
> No. "Translation" is the only word Smith ever used to
describe his
> Bible work.
You misunderstood my point. He did not use the word
"translation" in the way WE generally understand it--i.e., from
some original manuscript along with an uninspired understanding
of the original language and the language into which it was to be
translated. The fact that he translated using inspiration is the
point (even using your definition--rendering the meaning in
modern English of the original revelation). The fact that he
*did* use the word "translate" to describe a much different
process than generally ascribed to the word (i.e., *by
inspiration* to emend, delete, clarify obscure passages, etc.) is
something no serious scholar would argue. Many scholarly papers
have noted it.
Again, ALL this boils down to a single necessity: to ask God if
Joseph Smith was a true prophet, or whether the Book of Mormon is
true, or whether he was inspired to revise the Bible. We can
debate till God himself settles it, but it will never change the
truth of the matter.
[snip]
> The fact that you and I know Smith never produced any such
thing,
I have studied anti-Mormonism since my youth. I had an absolute
assurance long before then of the restored gospel and of Joseph
Smith's role in it; and the more I study anti-Mormonism, the more
evidence I gather that makes me marvel at the inspiration and
true character of Joseph Smith and his mission. I personally
don't need to depend on "winning" the argument to know that it is
true nonetheless and neither does anyone else. That you claim
omniscience in stating what *I* know is just further evidence of
intellectual arrogance. Try assuming for one moment that you
*don't* have to appear intellectually superior and come down here
with the rest of us folks. We'd enjoy your company.
The fact that the various long-held theories (or supporting
theses) of science are continually turned on their head by new
discoveries should give those who *don't* believe God worked
through Joseph Smith at least a small bit of humility when it
comes to the capacity of *man* to declare anything as final
truth. I'm more than happy to abide the time when we will all
know, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the
truth of Joseph Smith's inspired work and calling. That you do
not has no bearing on my own testimony and knowledge.
[snip]
> Harry Black
hblack
In particular, show where "hblack" has ever claimed that Joseph
Smith used an ancient manuscript to produce his Book of Mormon fraud.
In point of fact, however, Joseph Smith pretended to his flock that
he was actually creating a New Translation of the Bible. Mr Black
cogently argues that since Joseph Smith certainly didn't use any ancient
manuscripts, Smith's avowed "New Translation" really amounted to nothing
more than a fraud.
This whole episode calls into grave question all of Smith's alleged
"translations" -- including his Books of Abraham and Mormon, which he
pretended to translate from ancient Egyptian autographs, but which oddly
read just like editor Benjamin Blayney's 1769 edition of the King James
English Bible.
Yes, please explain by what craft a man can pretend to use a 1769
edition of the King James English version of the Bible to restore the
"most original meaning" of an ancient text written in Greek, Hebrew and
Aramaic, and honestly call this a "translation." As one might expect, we
do find Joseph Smith adding extravagant prophecies about himself in his
"New Translation," while he leaves the Biblical references to mythical
satyrs, dragons and unicorns curiously intact. This is not much of a
credit to Smith, nor does it contribute to our faith in the veracity of
the "most original meaning" of Holy Writ.
Finally, the oldest manuscripts we have of portions of the New
Testament are only a few decades later than the originals. Why do they
not agree with any of the readings Joseph Smith tendentiously created as
the "most original meaning," in his New Translation of the Bible? Why do
the myriad of citations of the NT text by various early Christians, from
all over the world, fail to support any of Smith's "New Translation"
readings?
Joseph Smith was being "most original" indeed, when he created his
tendentious "New Translation" of the Bible.
Harry Black
"John G. Miles" wrote:
<snip>
> Joseph Smith did not "translate" in
Bill Williams
"John G. Miles" <jmi...@networld.com> wrote in message
news:3aa7...@nntp.networld.com...
> "hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AA62788...@earthlink.net...
> > "John G. Miles" wrote:
>>>>>>snip
> > If you recall some
> > of the faith promoting myths about his translation of the Book
> of
> > Mormon, you will note that he became less and less dependent on
> theGold
> > Plates as time went on.
>
> Bzzt. Wrong again. He didn't become less and less dependent on
> the plates, but less and less dependent on the Urim and Thummim
> as instruments of translation. He always translated from the
> plates themselves. The more familiar he became with the
> particular characters and/or words in the original Book of
> Mormon, AND the better acquainted he became with the process of
> inspiration and revelation (believe it or not, it takes practice
> to learn--the longer one listens to the voice of inspiration and
> "experiments" with it, the more adept one becomes at hearing the
> "still small voice" and in understanding what it means in the
> first place), the less he needed to depend on the "tools" the
> Lord had provided to assist the uninitiated.
Your buzzer is wearing thin. It appears that Joseph Smith didn't need the
plates at all, since he "translated" the BoM by looking at a seer stone in a
hat. At least, that's what we learn from Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin
Harris, and David Whitmer, those who actually worked with him.
Actually, JS never really translated anything.
Bill Williams
J Stryker
>There are numerous studies regarding
>changes the prophet Joseph Smith made in the Biblical text,
>whether found in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or
>the Inspired Version (Joseph Smith Translation) of the Bible that
>indicate how the changed readings are supported by variant
>reading
John,
these sources are tainted aren't they? I mean they are all LDS derivative,
that would tend to slant their findings. And before I cause major shock waves,
I am NOT saying they are wrong.. But you can see they wouldn't sway too many
votes.
>Nothing existed to support that "reading" until the discovery of
>the Dead Sea Scrolls where one of the manuscripts told the story
>in exactly that way--i.e., that it was a command from the Lord
>(I'd find the exact manuscript name for you,
Please do, I don't remember (it's been a long while since i read anything on
the scrolls) them mentioning the story o Abraham in Egypt.
>Likewise, for example, the Joseph Smith Translation ("Inspired
>Version") of the Bible removes the phrase "without a cause" from
>Matt. 5:22. The same phrase is not present in Christ's "Sermon
>on the Mount" equivalent in the Book of Mormon. It happens that
>a papyrus fragment recently discovered (the book by a prominent
>non-LDS scholar
What is the name of the book, I'd like to read it.
>Smith did not "translate" in
>any sense of the traditional use of the word when revising the
>Bible. He did not work from ANY manuscript except a King James
>Version of the Bible that he had.
<snip>
> He also did more than
>merely "correct." He also clarified (e.g., added clarifying
>words or sentences [that were never in the original]), emended,
>deleted, etc., as he was inspired in returning the KJV he had to
>its most correct meaning.
>
According to what I have read in posts here, all this for a book that the LDS
doesn't even use?
>> If you recall some
>> of the faith promoting myths about his translation of the Book
>of
>> Mormon, you will note that he became less and less dependent on
>theGold
>> Plates as time went on.
>
>Bzzt. Wrong again. He didn't become less and less dependent on
>the plates, but less and less dependent on the Urim and Thummim
>as instruments of translation.
So the further he got along in his "translation of the plates" the less he
relied on the power of God to do the job aand more on his own skill? Please
explain this or me.>he better acquainted he became with the process of
>inspiration and revelation (believe it or not, it takes practice
>to learn--the longer one listens to the voice of inspiration and
>"experiments" with it, the more adept one becomes at hearing the
>"still small voice" and in understanding what it means in the
>first place), the less he needed to depend on the "tools" the
>Lord had provided to assist the uninitiated.
I see, God didn't want to do the job Himself through JS, so He slowly turned
the job over to (and this according to LDS faithful) an uneducated, and
illiterate young man?
> from some original manuscript along with an uninspired understanding
>of the original language and the language into which it was to be
>translated. The fact that he translated using inspiration is the
>point (even using your definition--rendering the meaning in
>modern English of the original revelation).
OK, so why, when he did the BoM did he use some whole passages from the KJV, a
book you say had many errors and needed to be revised. AND he used the same
idioms o language, rom 200 years before, though people didn't talk like that
any more. The whole point to redoing a trans is to make it more understandable
to the target population. IMHO
Jan
John G. Miles
news:20010308115419...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> >changes the prophet Joseph Smith made in the Biblical text,
> >whether found in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price,
or
> >the Inspired Version (Joseph Smith Translation) of the Bible
that
> >indicate how the changed readings are supported by variant
> >reading
>
> John,
> these sources are tainted aren't they? I mean they are all LDS
derivative,
> that would tend to slant their findings. And before I cause
major shock
> waves, I am NOT saying they are wrong.. But you can see they
wouldn't
> sway too many votes.
I would not call them "tainted" in that they are not done for
apologetic purposes, per se, but are becoming the subject
of legitimate and serious scholars with publication in peer-
reviewed journals more common. Besides, it is hard to
"taint" them with an LDS slant as you suggest since it's
more a matter of pointing out Joseph Smith's revisions
and how they compare to known variants available to
everyone. A lot of it is merely for the purposes of scholarly
research, meant to be peer reviewed and challenged.
> >Nothing existed to support that "reading" until the discovery
of
> >the Dead Sea Scrolls where one of the manuscripts told the
story
> >in exactly that way--i.e., that it was a command from the Lord
> >(I'd find the exact manuscript name for you,
>
> Please do, I don't remember (it's been a long while since i
read anything on
> the scrolls) them mentioning the story o Abraham in Egypt.
I'll refer you to my copy of the English translation of the Dead
Sea Scrolls: _The Dead Sea Scriptures: With Introduction
and Notes by Theodor H. Gaster_," 3rd Edition, 1976. The
reference to God's instruction to Abraham to tell Sarai to lie
was the result of a dream and is found in the translation called
"Memoirs of the Patriarchs" on p. 364.
For a couple of other interesting studies regarding similar
*unique* references to events surrounding the patriarchal
figures Enoch and Abraham, I quote the following (there are
numerous books and studies regarding such evidentiary
support for Joseph Smith's claims regarding the fact that
he indeed translated real works by inspiration):
[From _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp.484-485,1994]
"Furthermore, the critics have never explained why we
find close linguistic and literary parallels between the
figure Mahujah in Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic fragments
of the Book of Enoch and Mahijah questioning Enoch in
the book of Moses (Moses 6:40).[109] Why did Joseph
Smith place Abraham near Olishem (Abraham 1:10), a
place whose name has now been identified in ancient
sources?[110]
[Footnotes:]
-----------------
109. Hugh W. Nibley, 'A Strange Thing in the Land,' in
Enoch the Prophet, vol. 2 in The Collected Works of
Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S.,
1986), 276–81.
110. John M. Lundquist, ' Was Abraham at Ebla? A
Cultural Background of the Book of Abraham,' in Robert
L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture,
Vol 2: The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Randall
Books, 1985), 233–35."
Just fun food for fodder.
> >Likewise, for example, the Joseph Smith Translation ("Inspired
> >Version") of the Bible removes the phrase "without a cause"
from
> >Matt. 5:22. The same phrase is not present in Christ's
"Sermon
> >on the Mount" equivalent in the Book of Mormon. It happens
that
> >a papyrus fragment recently discovered (the book by a
prominent
> >non-LDS scholar
>
> What is the name of the book, I'd like to read it.
I had to fish it out of storage, so I apologize for making you
wait. I also had the family over for the weekend to help
rearrange
furniture, organize the general mess, assemble an entertainment
center, book cases, etc. Anyway, I've just not had time to post.
The name of the book is _Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations
of the New Testament_ by Philip W. Comfort (1990). Mr. Comfort
is one of the foremost authorities in the field. The text states
that "Only readings with 'significant' variations are to be
analyzed,
and those readings must contain evidence from at least one of the
early papyri. A 'significant' variant is one that substantially
changes the meaning of the text;...." Let me just quote the
relevant portion (I'll try to duplicate the format as close as
possible
in newspost-speak: all "p"s stand for "papyrus," generally a
fragment, and the fragment number follows. The Hebrew letter
aleph is used in the text but is shorthand for the "codex
Sinaiticus" which I will shorten to "S". "B" is the "codex
Vaticanus," etc. Bold is in caps. "^" designates that the
letter
following was superscripted. Many of the replacement letters
are from stylized equivalents. The variant reading is followed
by
the supporting codices, papyri, etc, then a colon followed by
which translations have adopted which particular variant. A
small "mg" following a particular version means it is a marginal
note in that version.
"Matthew 5:22
ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER p67, S*, B : all the translations
ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER WITHOUT CAUSE S^2 D L
W 33 M : ASVmg RSVmg NASBmg NIVmg NEBmg TEVmg"
It is important to note that none of these papyri, uncials, and
other manuscripts were available to Joseph Smith. Specifically,
p67 was published in 1953 and is dated to circa 200 A.D.
Excepting less than half a dozen (earliest publication date of
1892), the vast majority of the early papyri and uncials were
published in the 1900's (the latest publication date being1985).
It is important to note that it is not that a particular variant
was adopted by modern translations, but that the variant
exists in the first place--precisely as Joseph Smith's inspired
revision envisions. It is also important to understand, however,
that all of Joseph Smith's revisions were not meant to return to
the original manuscripts. Some words, as stated before, are
parenthetical statements, rewordings, and other emendations
and changes meant to clarify the original text and consequently
would depart from the originals.
> >Smith did not "translate" in
> >any sense of the traditional use of the word when revising the
> >Bible. He did not work from ANY manuscript except a King
James
> >Version of the Bible that he had.
[snip]
> According to what I have read in posts here, all this for a
book that the LDS
> doesn't even use?
Actually, it is used extensively as a study help. Besides many
separate publications, it is used extensively in footnotes of the
latest official LDS version of the Bible (the official "version"
has extensive footnotes and topical guide, dictionary, maps,
etc.).
The problem has been that the LDS church does not own, nor
have the right to publish without permission, the Joseph Smith
Translation (JST). The original manuscript fell into the hands
of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
an early offshoot of the LDS church, but which now has few
similarities in doctrine and organization--it has adopted a more
liberal tradition, protestant orientation, especially in the past
several decades. The LDS version of the Bible would likely
have quoted even more significant except those requesting
permission began feeling they might be pushing their luck.
Similarly, it cannot be canonized since there is no way to verify
and control publication without the original and, with one
exception I am aware of, the Reorganized LDS church will not
allow the original out of its hands or allow it even to be
examined--and certainly not if the purpose is for publication.
The KJV, moreover, is the most widely accepted version of the
non-LDS world and I assume the Church wants its members
to teach from a common and widely accepted source
(especially as it regards people of other faiths).
> >> If you recall some
> >> of the faith promoting myths about his translation of the
Book
> >of
> >> Mormon, you will note that he became less and less dependent
on
> >theGold
> >> Plates as time went on.
> >
> >Bzzt. Wrong again. He didn't become less and less dependent
on
> >the plates, but less and less dependent on the Urim and
Thummim
> >as instruments of translation.
>
> So the further he got along in his "translation of the plates"
the less he
> relied on the power of God to do the job aand more on his own
skill?
> Please explain this or me.
He still depended on the power of God entirely. He just didn't
need the use of the "Urim and Thummim" as much (except
possibly when he needed letter-by-letter spellings of proper
names) as he became more spiritually attuned in and of
himself. As he grew spiritually he was less dependent on
instruments (the way they worked is unclear, though one
can speculate) that were meant to work with mental and
spiritual concentration, a process requiring much forethought
(according to a revelation given through Joseph Smith to
Oliver Cowdery who was the only one to try [very briefly] his
hand at the translation process).
But as Joseph Smith *also* became more familiar with the
characters themselves and what ideas or words they
signified [the characters/reformed Egyptian on the plates
did not necessarily relate alphabetic characters, but may
have expressed ideas, etc., as is the case with Egyptian
hieroglyphics--it is just not known since Joseph Smith
never revealed the exact method of translation. We can
only depend on hearsay and conflicting accounts of
those who assisted him as scribes]. In either case, as
Joseph's spiritual capabilities increased he became less
dependent on instruments that were really "substitutes,"
in some sense, for assisting persons who may not yet
have developed the necessary spiritual sensitivities.
> >he better acquainted he became with the process of
> >inspiration and revelation (believe it or not, it takes
practice
> >to learn--the longer one listens to the voice of inspiration
and
> >"experiments" with it, the more adept one becomes at hearing
the
> >"still small voice" and in understanding what it means in the
> >first place), the less he needed to depend on the "tools" the
> >Lord had provided to assist the uninitiated.
>
> I see, God didn't want to do the job Himself through JS, so He
> slowly turned the job over to (and this according to LDS
faithful)
> an uneducated, and illiterate young man?
I'm not sure what you mean by God "do[ing] the job Himself
through JS" since that is exactly what he did. God has always,
it seems, used mortal man in their weaknesses to accomplish
his acts (things that he could always have done much more
easily without their aid) and to be his mouthpiece in the
weakness of their language as a way of tutoring and mentoring
these chosen people.
God could certainly have freed the Israelites from Egypt without
all the back and forth by Moses and Aaron. Why not just put the
Egyptians into a deep sleep and let Israel leave. Why not give
Moses the gift of speech so he wouldn't need a spokesman
(Aaron). I suspect it is because there is much to be learned by
the process itself that the mere end result cannot provide. He
certainly allowed his own apostles to make many mistakes on
their way to becoming powerful witnesses, full of the Spirit, in
their own right. God takes ordinary men and through the
challenges he gives them makes them into pillars of his work.
More importantly, it seems, from a reading of the Bible He
specifically avoids the "learned" and intellectual or governing
elite as a general rule.
It is clear from the history of the LDS Church that the Lord
seeks that individuals do as much as is in their own personal
capacity before intervening. This was certainly true of most
of the revelations given through Joseph Smith in the Doctrine
and Covenants--i.e., as questions or problems were confronted
by Joseph or others close to him that they could not resolve
themselves, they would then go to the Lord in prayer and the
revelations would follow.
As an example (the Oliver Cowdery translation example),
D&C 9:8-9: "7. Behold, you have not understood; you have
supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought
save it was to ask me. 8. But, behold, I say unto you, that you
must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be
right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn
within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."
God works through men for the benefit of man, not for the ease
with which God could have done it in the first place. Certainly,
he could have destroyed the enemies of Israel without commanding
them to go to war with its subsequent bloodshed and, often,
disobedience. Like a father, he lets them try things for
themselves, fail, and then helps them up so that they might grow
and develop personally (including spritually). In this case, he
had
the prophet of the final dispensation "of the fulness of times"
to
tutor.
> > from some original manuscript along with an uninspired
understanding
> >of the original language and the language into which it was to
be
> >translated. The fact that he translated using inspiration is
the
> >point (even using your definition--rendering the meaning in
> >modern English of the original revelation).
>
> OK, so why, when he did the BoM did he use some whole passages
from the KJV, a
> book you say had many errors and needed to be revised. AND he
used the same
> idioms o language, rom 200 years before, though people didn't
talk like that
> any more. The whole point to redoing a trans is to make it
more understandable
> to the target population. IMHO
It is commonly accepted that where the translation he was making
was in agreement with the then universally accepted translation
of the protestant world, of which the U.S. was a part, he would
use that translation so as to deliver a text already familiar
with
the general public and hence more easily understood and studied.
It is important to note that he made many and substantial changes
in the sections of the Bible that are also found in the Book of
Mormon. It is just such variant readings that have found support
in current scholarship.
I personally have found that in my studies of scripture that the
similar phraseology and "idioms" for identical concepts makes
the study of those concepts much more consistent and
understandable (e.g., "born of God," "sealing," "dispensation
of the fulness of times," "sanctification," "justification,"
"second
death," "hope," "charity," "abomination of desolation," "bishop,"
"deacon," "only begotten," "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,"
and thousands of other phrases and words have very specific
doctrinal contexts).
Having read and compared many other translations, such
consistency is entirely lost and a consistent comparison
and cross-referencing of identical doctrinal questions becomes
completely hopeless when identical doctrinal concepts are
translated differently in the different modern translations
and even within the same translation. As far as my own
experience tells me, it was certainly by inspiration that
he maintained consistency with the King James Version
(which is still the officially accepted translation of the LDS
church).
The King James Version also preserves the lofty language of
respect and reverence whereas more modern translations
lose much of that. Despite the fact that the non-literary
Koine was the original Greek of the Bible, part of the
translation process (called "dynamic" translation, though
current versions IMHO take it beyond what the original
manuscripts will support) is to maintain the "feeling" and
sense of the words as they would have instilled in the
people of the time who read them (Christians, of course).
Were Joseph Smith to have translated it into his "own"
language (which is in fact much of what he did, including
grammatical errors, etc.) you would have had the language
of an "illiterate and uneducated young man" as you
described him. Corrections and changes have in fact
been made to correct anachronisms of the time or grammatical
errors in Joseph's dictation. And if you read the Book of
Mormon, it is much more direct and readable than is the KJV
of the Bible. While the concepts still need to be pondered,
there is little or no "wading" through anachronistic language
necessary when studying the KJV.
By the way, the scribes wrote as he dictated--without
any punctuation, capitalization, and with their own spelling
errors. Further mistakes were made by when the original
manuscript was copied onto the "printer's manuscript." And
mistakes beyond that were made by the (non-LDS) printer
as he added the punctuation, skipped certain lines or words
(as with any such work), incorrectly deciphered the cursive
writing of the manuscript itself, etc.
In summary, for the simple need for consistency in doctrinally
important terminology between the Bible, Book of Mormon,
and Doctrine and Covenants, as well as to preserve the lofty
and reverential language of the biblical version in universal
use at the time, the Lord in his wisdom inspired Joseph
to use the only biblical language he and the general populace
were familiar with.
> Jan
--
John Miles
----------------------
"[T]herefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get
understanding."
--Prov. 4:7
hblack
Sarah to join in his lie.
In the future, please at least read Gaster's book, before making
false claims about it's contents.
For our amusement, John, please quote what it actually says, and let
readers decide.
Harry Black
"John G. Miles" wrote:
<snip>
> I'll refer you to my copy of the English translation of the Dead
John G. Miles
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:n5Np6.648$mI.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
I only used it twice in an extensive post. However, facts do
tend to get on anti-Mormon nerves, I've noticed. Besides, I
like Jeopardy.
> It appears that Joseph Smith didn't need the
> plates at all, since he "translated" the BoM by looking at a
seer stone in a
> hat. At least, that's what we learn from Emma Smith, Oliver
Cowdery, Martin
> Harris, and David Whitmer, those who actually worked with him.
No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.
Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
Church, suggested that was the method and while it would
not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
translation, Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
exclusively for Joseph Smith during the translation suggests
just the opposite (and the one supported by Joseph Smith's own
account in Church history)--that it was the Urim and Thummim
that Joseph Smith used almost exclusively in the translation
process.
Regarding Oliver Cowdery, B. H. Roberts relates the following:
""Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of
Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of
translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the
entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the
lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift
and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it
is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.' " This is all he has
left on record on the manner of translating the book."" [Defense
of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.256]
Note that the means of translation was not by the method
described by David Whitmer. Even today, among LDS scholars,
there is still a lively debate as to how the process of
translation actually worked given the often contradictory heresay
accounts.
That a seer stone existed is certainly true and is, in fact,
still in the
possession of the LDS church. And that it saw "limited action"
in
the translation of the Book of Mormon is also likely. However,
the
means of translation as described by David and Martin is pure
heresay
and directly contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith stated (in
the
_History of the Church_) that though he was directly asked as to
how the translation process took place, he never divulged it to
anyone and felt it improper to do so. The relevant quote
follows:
"Little is known about the translation process itself. Few
details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and
close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and
he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in
1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how
the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that 'it
was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the
coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for
him to relate these things' (HC 1:220)." [Encyclopedia of
Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH]
Again:
"Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon
the prophet himself has said but little. 'Through the medium of
the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
power of God,' is the most extended published statement made by
him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: 'With the
record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a
"Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set
in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' " [B. H. Roberts,
Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.255]
Bruce R. McConkie in _Mormon Doctrine_, pp.818-819, likewise
makes the point that the Urim and Thummim were provided for the
*specific* purpose of translating the Book of Mormon:
""Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the
Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the
translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1;
17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one
had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The
Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct
from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been
called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.
3, pp. 222-226.)
""President Joseph Fielding Smith, with reference to the
seer stone and the Urim and Thummim, has written: "We have been
taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim
were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of
the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of
the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim
after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made
that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple
when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken
of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of
the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in
the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3,
p. 225.)
""When Moroni first revealed to the Prophet the existence of
the gold plates, he also said "that there were two stones in
silver bows -- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate
constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim -- deposited with
the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
constituted `seers' in ancient or former times; and that God had
prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (Jos.
Smith 2:35, 59, 62.) Ammon said of these same stones: "The things
are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be
commanded lest he should look for that he ought not and he should
perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is
called seer." (Mosiah 8:13; 28:13-16.)""
From Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3,
pp.225-226, we get the following account:
""While the statement has been made by some writers that the
Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his
translating of the record, and information points to the fact
that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no
authentic statement in the history of the Church which states
that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The
information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that
this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this
conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother
of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.
""These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the
Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of
translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that
these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were given for that very
purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet
would substitute something evidently inferior under these
circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story
of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet
did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other
purposes.""
David Whitmer, who describes a quite detailed account of exactly
how the translation process took place despite the fact that it
was never divulged, states in the same place where he says a hat
was used that there were *two* seerstones, when in fact there was
only one. It was the Urim & Thummim that had the two stones and
was, from all described accounts (including D. Whitmer's), much
too large to fit in any hat whatsoever. It should also be
remembered that the account is taken decades after David
Whitmer's association with the Church, and the likely source for
the description were bogus rumors rampant among early
anti-Mormons.
From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
Vol.1, pp.469-70:
"The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to
exclude the light, seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in
Mormonism Unveiled, 1834. It appears that the affidavits of the
citizens of Palmyra follow a consistent pattern about money
digging and the use of a seer stone. One would be led to believe
that one person directed their form if he did not write each one
personally....Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected,
possibly written by Philastrus Hurlburt, the man who was
excommunicated from the Church for immoral conduct, and published
in 1834 in /Mormonism Unveiled/, are reprinted here...."
The motives of the excommunicated Hurlurt should be clear.
He then lists a number of "affidavits" that scholars, even
non-LDS ones, have concluded were likely coached by Hurlburt.
Certain of those now debunked "affidavits" describe Joseph
Smith's *father* using a stone in the identical manner attributed
by David Whitmer to Joseph Smith. The fact that David Whitmer
never participated in acting as a scribe for Joseph Smith and
that Oliver Cowdery, who wrote almost the entire Book of Mormon
as Joseph Smith dictated it, specifically contradicts the notion
as quoted above should suggest David Whitmer was repeating
descriptions he had actually heard from others.
[snip]
>
> Bill Williams
>
--John Miles
John G. Miles
[snip]
> In particular, show where "hblack" has ever claimed that
Joseph
> Smith used an ancient manuscript to produce his Book of Mormon
fraud.
It was your insistence on holding the prophet Joseph
Smith to correcting the Bible by adherence to a specific
Hebrew word from extant manuscripts and suggesting
that his translation of that word was incorrect that
confused me since the argument makes no sense to
me otherwise. However, I'm more than happy to quit
debating a moot point if we've come to a common
understanding.
> Yes, please explain by what craft a man can pretend to use
a 1769
> edition of the King James English version of the Bible to
restore the
> "most original meaning" of an ancient text written in Greek,
Hebrew and
> Aramaic, and honestly call this a "translation."
Everyone around him understood at the time the method
he was using and we all know the same information today.
That you insist on finding something sinister speaks only
to your own paranoia (or at least the need to denigrate
other's faith).
Just curious, do you come at this from a particular
denominational or secular point of view?
> As one might expect, we
> do find Joseph Smith adding extravagant prophecies about
himself in his
> "New Translation,"
And Jewish tradition is replete with references to *two*
"messiahs" (please remember that it simply means "anointed
one" and need not refer to someone of divine origin but
simply anointed for a particular mission--I'd hate to have you
accuse us of comparing the divine mission of Joseph Smith
with the worship we give to the Savior).
The one was known as the "messiah ben David" who we all
know refers to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. However,
historians have been quite confounded by the tradition of a
"messiah ben Joseph." The fact that this tradition, so well
established in Jewish expository sources, should find its
origin in lost ancient texts (though they were evidently
included among the brass plates of Laban--a descendant
of Joseph who would have been more likely to preserve the
original source material than those of Jewish descent who
would naturally emphasize prophecies relating to their own
mission among the 12 tribes) should not surprise anyone.
We need to remember that we have the record of only one
of the twelve tribes of Israel (the Jews). It needs to be
noted that the "brass plates" were the source of the
lengthy Biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon.
That Joseph was to play an equally prominent role, if not
more so, is evident in the blessings given by Jacob (Israel)
to his sons as recorded in the Gen. 49. The Bible,
furthermore, still looks to the mission of Joseph Smith
with equal expectation (feel free to disagree, of course)--
cf. Isa 29, for example.
> while he leaves the Biblical references to mythical
> satyrs, dragons and unicorns curiously intact.
He worked by subject matter, not sentence-by-sentence
and book-by-book, and I'm sure "unicorns" was not among
the subjects that came to mind when considering what
was important for our salvation in his effort to restore lost
truths.
You also assume that he completed his work, though it
is not at all clear that such was the case and a strong
argument can be and has been made (and one to which
I personally subscribe) that he never completed the work
before his martyrdom. But that's another dissertation.
[snip]
> Finally, the oldest manuscripts we have of portions of the
New
> Testament are only a few decades later than the originals.
You're really stretching your credibility here. Virtually all
the
"oldest manuscripts" are in reality fragments and only one
fragment
has been estimated with a date anywhere close to what you claim.
Papyrus fragment p52 is generally dated 100-110 A.D. and some
date it as late as the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). The
earliest date for *any* other *fragment* is around 200 A.D. (late
2nd century) with the vast majority being 3rd & 4th century
estimates with some extending to the 6th century. And remember,
we're speaking of *fragments* almost completely limited to
discovery in Egypt where the climate allows preservation (i.e.,
we really have no texts from the *Western* church tradition.
Lengthy and majority or near complete manuscripts don't
show till much later.
In fact, p52, the only fragment matching your generalization is a
whopping 5 verse fragment of John with nothing to add to current
translations according to P. Comfort (see below).
It is also important to note that the vast majority of changes in
text occurred in the earliest stages of Christianity since
"canon"
and the importance in maintaining strict conformity to the
originals did not develop until much later. The transition from
free interpolation, deletion and expansion of text to strict
adherence to "exemplar" texts from which other copies were
carefully made occurred "from the end of the first century to
the end of the fourth century" (Philip W. Comfort, _Early
Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament_,
pp.6-7). That means that the period when "most of the scribes
felt free to express their individuality" (ibid.,p.6) in the
transcription process occurred mid to late 1st century (50-
100 A.D.) and didn't come to an end until the late 400's A.D.).
[Note: Philip Comfort along with Metzger (sp?) are among the
most published and accepted authorities in this field.]
This means that the greatest period of freeform transcription
of the scriptural texts occurred before *any* fragment we have
now.
In the earliest letters of the Apostolic Fathers (1st century),
the
complaint is made that those who were bringing heresies into
the Church had already corrupted the scriptures to the point
that doctrinal disputes could not be resolved by appealing to
them (I believe it was Clement, bishop of Rome whose tenure
began during the time of the Apostles--it's been awhile since
I read it).
Likewise, Paul himself states in 2 Cor 2:17 that "we are
not as many, which corrupt the word of God...."
The conclusion (ignoring the fact that I have already indicated
that Joseph Smith often added clarifying words and phrases,
and even more extended accounts, through revelation, than
would even be found in the original manuscripts) is that it is
hopeless to use the manuscripts, even the earliest ones, that
we might find to resolve the matter. Hence the need for a
prophet to restore what God first revealed.
[snip]
> Harry Black
--
John Miles
----------------------
"[T]herefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get
understanding."
--Prov. 4:7
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
hblack
apologetic quotes (in reply to whom?) on a subject that doesn't matter
to him.
The problem is that Joseph Smith never translated any ancient
document, either with, or without God's help.
Harry Black
"John G. Miles" wrote:
<snip>
> it would
> not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
> Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
> translation,
<snip>
John G. Miles
> The Qumran document in question never says God told
Abraham tell
> Sarah to join in his lie.
> In the future, please at least read Gaster's book, before
making
> false claims about it's contents.
I read the book. I had it in front of me as I referenced it.
The claims are not false, your sarcasm to the contrary
notwithstanding. I will hold your hand as we try to understand
the text and the fact that Abraham does indeed credit God for the
events that saved his life, including the dream forewarning him
of what was in store for him in Egypt. It's one thing to
disagree. It's another to accuse someone of deliberate
deception. In the future, I would prefer you reply with the
entire text of my post included so as to leave the nature of the
discussion clear and in its original context (i.e., Do new
manuscript discoveries support the translations supplied by the
prophet Joseph Smith?). Making an objection to a single point
among many, without any commentary of your own, is not an honest
way to pursue truth.
If the single page I referenced in Gaster's book was not adequate
for your tastes, you could have at least made the effort to read
the entire text (at least to the end of the Abraham in Egypt
story--its only a few extra pages) and to analyze it critically
*and* objectively. As you say, we'll let the readers decide
(next time I'll let you type in the text and I'll simply point
out the obvious).
> For our amusement, John, please quote what it actually
says, and let
> readers decide.
>
> Harry Black
My my, how your antipathy knows no end. Not only do you wear
your hostility on your sleeve, your condescending attitude and
your need to be right says much more about your own insecurity
regarding your beliefs than it does of those you seek to condemn.
I will gladly expand on the point for your sake--no need to get
nasty. It is quite evident you find Joseph Smith and Mormons in
general disagreeable and deliberately deceptive by definition,
but might I suggest a simple request for clarification is
preferable to open hostility.
Regardless, the only source that really counts when it comes to
learning the truth is God, so you certainly don't have to take my
word for it. The rest is just interesting window dressing.
We were discussing the fact that the account in _The Book of
Abraham_ of his (Abraham's) being forewarned of God to portray
Sarah as his "sister" in order to save his life had no comparable
"variant reading" in any manuscript then extant, but that
discoveries of just such a divine forewarning were found in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. The fact that God is not mentioned by name in
the dream itself (though clearly implied in the text) does not
change the fact that the Dead Sea Scroll account comports
completely with that of _The Book of Abraham_, and is completely
unaccounted for in the Biblical account in Genesis.
BTW, you were also free to respond to the other discoveries cited
that were clearly beyond the scope of coincidence and that also
provided confirming evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling in
restoring ancient scripture regarding Abraham, but as has become
a consistent habit, you simply delete what you can't respond to
and try to pretend that the discussion was entirely based on a
decontextualized single phrase or comment I may have made.
In this case, for want of a single word everywhere implied in the
text you object to the obvious, it seems to me. Gaster himself
calls the dream given to Abraham a "forewarning" and the text
makes it clear that Abraham attributed it to God. In Dr.
Gaster's words:
"Abram is forewarned of the danger which awaits him and
Sarai at the hands of Pharoah by dreaming of a threatened cedar
and palm, which symbolize their lives." [p.352]
The text itself describes that dream which Abraham then relates
to Sarah. The result is that they agree to present him as her
"kinsman." Speaking of their journey to Egypt, the Abraham tells
his story in the first person (also unique to _The Book of
Abraham_ account):
"In the night when I entered Egypt I dreamed a dream."
[The dream is then described by Abraham--refer to Dr.
Gaster's description or feel free to type it in yourself]....
"Awakening at night from my sleep, I said to my wife Sarai:
'I have had a terrifying dream'.
"'Tell it me', said she, 'that I may know what it was.'
"So I proceeded to tell it to her. 'That dream', { I added,
' was a portent. The men I saw in it are men } who are seeking
to kill me but spare you. Do me then this favor { When these men
enquire of you, Who is this fellow? Tell them simply: } 'He is
my kinsman'. In that way I shall live on account of you, and my
life will be spared for your sake. { Abduct you they may, but
they will } not kill me."
[The text then goes on to describe their interactions with
Pharoah similarly to the Genesis account, their departure from
the land, and Abraham's building of an alter to bless God for his
watching over them in Egypt and their safe departure from that
land. I quote the relevant text regarding who *Abraham* credits
with having saved his life:]
"....[I] gave thanks...for all the benevolence He ['God Most
High'] had shown towards me and for having brought me back safely
to th[is] land [where he had built an alter previous to entering
into Egypt with Sarah]."
[_The Dead Sea Scriptures_, With Introduction and Notes by
Theodor H. Gaster, "Memoirs of the Patriarchs," pp.364-368.
Braces "{ }" denote fragmentary text that was reconstructed by
the translators.]
The fact that Abraham calls the dream "a portent" makes it all
the more clear that he considered it of divine inspiration, else
who was trying to warn him in his dream!? Or are you suggesting
that his dream was just a coincidence to what later occurred?
The answer is obvious.
In the text, Abraham clearly credits God with keeping them safe
in Egypt. The dream was the only revelation to Abraham that he
was in danger, and by heeding its warning he was saved from being
killed. He blessed God for thus saving him. I think the text is
clear
For the sake of completeness, I'll just add the following
observation by Dr. Thomas W. MacKay:
"The Revelation and commandment to Abraham to claim that
Sarah was his sister is related in varying--though not
contradictory--terms by the PGP [Pearl of Great Price]
(commandment by the Lord's voice) and Genesis Apocryphon (a dream
interpreted by Abraham). __Dreams were a regular means of divine
communication in the Old Testament, and so Genesis Apocryphon
does not need to specify that this one came from God__." [BYU
Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, p.434, emphasis mine]
You might want to comment on the *many* manuscript discoveries
that Joseph Smith was never privy to that have been found to
comport closely with Abraham's story as recounted in his
translation of _The Book of Abraham_. I quote:
"Few biblical characters figure so prominently in LDS faith
as does Abraham. Belief that he was a real person is shared by
others, but the LDS approach is unique: Revelations received by
the Prophet Joseph Smith confirm the basic historicity of Genesis
and add information echoed in ancient sources, many of which have
emerged since his day.
"The book of Abraham as restored by Joseph Smith
autobiographically recounts Abraham's early life, explaining why
he was singled out as the pivotal recipient of divine promises
for the blessing of mankind. Not only had he been foreordained in
premortal life (Abr. 3:23; cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 22:1-5), but
as a young man in Ur he opposed idolatry and human sacrifice,
ironically turning him into an intended victim (Abr. 1:5-20; cf.
Genesis Rabbah 38:13). The irony increases when God's last-minute
rescue of Abraham foreshadowed what would transpire at Abraham's
offering of Isaac.
"After marrying Sarah and learning of his lineal right to
the patriarchal order of the priesthood as disclosed in the
"records of the fathers" (Abr. 1:2-4, 26, 31; 2:2; Jubilees
12:27; cf. D&C 107:40-57), Abraham traveled to Haran, where he
apparently received his ordination (Abr. 2:9-11; WJS, pp. 245,
303). He also saw the Lord, who gave him remarkable promises:
Abraham would be blessed above measure; his posterity would carry
the gospel to all nations; and all who received it would bear his
name, be accounted his posterity, and bless him as their father
(Abr. 2:6-11; cf. Gen. 12:1-3).
"Accompanied by their converts, Abraham and Sarah proceeded
to Canaan (Abr. 2:15; Genesis Rabbah 39:14). Famine soon forced
them to Egypt, but not before God commanded Abraham to ask Sarah
to pose as his sister (Abr. 2:22-25; Genesis Apocryphon
19:14-21), and then showed him a vision of the cosmos and
creation so that he could teach these things to the Egyptians
(Abr. 3- 5; cf. Sefer Yetsirah).
"The book of Abraham narrative ends here, but the book's
last facsimile (no. 3) depicts Pharaoh-who traditionally claimed
exclusive possession of priesthood and kingship (Abr.
1:25-27)-honoring Abraham's priesthood by allowing him to occupy
the throne and instruct the court in astronomy (cf.
Pseudo-Eupolemus; Josephus, Antiquities 1.viii.2). Pharaoh's
recognition of Abraham's priesthood was unknown in any other
ancient source until the 1947 discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon
[my note: 1QGenApoc, Dead Sea Scrolls], purporting, like the book
of Abraham, to contain an autobiographical account of Abraham but
continuing the narrative into Egypt (Genesis Apocryphon 20:8-34):
When Pharaoh took Sarah to the palace, Abraham tearfully appealed
to God, who immediately protected her by afflicting Pharaoh. The
affliction worsened, but Pharaoh finally had a dream of Abraham
healing him; the patriarch was then summoned and, laying hands on
Pharaoh's head, restored him to health. This is the only known
instance in the Old Testament or related pseudepigrapha of a
healing by laying on of hands, and it sets the stage for the book
of Abraham scene. Together these two sources explain why the
ancients considered Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh 'a crucial
event in the history of mankind' (Nibley, 1981 [citing
Wacholder], p.63)."
[_Encyclopedia of Mormonism_, Vol.1, ABRAHAM]
Comment (or accuse) to your soul's delight. And next time, type
in your own text and tell me where I went wrong. Hurling
invectives may get you ovations from the anti-Mormon crowd, but
they hardly speak to the veracity of your remarks.
--
John Miles
--------------------
"On both sides they felt convinced that they had the final
answer.... They could both speak with perfect confidence
because of what I call the gas law of learning; namely,
that any amount of information no matter how small will fill
any intellectual void no matter how large." --Hugh Nibley
(Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 1, pp. 3-4)
--------------------
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
John G. Miles
> Interesting that John blindly pasted a number of second
hand
> apologetic quotes (in reply to whom?)
Which part didn't you get? I'll be glad to help you out. You
posited a specific mode of translation. I would quote myself,
but I'm not the authority on how the translation process worked.
Oliver Cowder, et. al. were much closer to actual events. If you
don't want your false statements corrected, you might as well not
post them in the first place. The hit-and-run approach doesn't
improve your credibility. And by all means, ignore me if you
think I'm blindly pasting quotes. The fact that you can't resist
suggests otherwise.
Don't be too disappointed, but I don't necessarily respond for
your sake but for those who might accept your opinions as having
something to do with the facts
> on a subject that doesn't matter to him.
I was just trying to clarify things for you since, from your
previous post, it *did* matter to you. That's the only time I
ever post anything. Regardless, my point was that the method of
translation was unknown and that whatever method God chose was
fine with me. From your post, you were quite concerned with the
method. I choose to let God work as He pleases.
> The problem is that Joseph Smith never translated any
ancient
> document, either with, or without God's help.
Repetition won't make it more true. No more than the "heathens"
would be heard of God "for their much speaking." Try engaging in
honest discussion. You might actually learn something and gain
some respect.
>
> Harry Black
>
--
John Miles
--------------------
Opinions are a dime a dozen.... I'm just
tired of the guy handing out all the dimes.
--------------------
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Bill Williams
So Emma, Oliver, Martin and David were lying later rather than earlier? The
"Urim and Thummim" theory is a ploy devised by church historians to try to
disassociate Joseph Smith from the use of magic "stones" used by scam
artists back then.
> Regarding Oliver Cowdery, B. H. Roberts relates the following:
>
> ""Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of
> Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of
> translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the
> entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the
> lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift
> and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it
> is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.' " This is all he has
> left on record on the manner of translating the book."" [Defense
> of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.256]
B. H. Roberts, who himself had serious doubts about the BoM toward the end
of his life, is incorrect here. Cowdery did indeed leave a record that
Joseph Smith translated from a stone with his face buried in a hat. He may
have said the Urim and Thummim as well, but that only shows inconsistency,
which would reflect on integrity as a witness.
> Note that the means of translation was not by the method
> described by David Whitmer. Even today, among LDS scholars,
> there is still a lively debate as to how the process of
> translation actually worked given the often contradictory heresay
> accounts.
Same problem for Whitmer. And the Whitmer testimony was hardly "hearsay".
> That a seer stone existed is certainly true and is, in fact,
> still in the
> possession of the LDS church. And that it saw "limited action"
> in
> the translation of the Book of Mormon is also likely.
Call for documentation.
> However,
> the
> means of translation as described by David and Martin is pure
> heresay
> and directly contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith stated (in
> the
> _History of the Church_) that though he was directly asked as to
> how the translation process took place, he never divulged it to
> anyone and felt it improper to do so. The relevant quote
> follows:
>
> "Little is known about the translation process itself. Few
> details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and
> close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and
> he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in
> 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how
> the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that 'it
> was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the
> coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and.it was not expedient for
> him to relate these things' (HC 1:220)." [Encyclopedia of
> Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH]
Okay, but Emma, et al., DID state how the translation was done. It's not
hard to surmise why JS wouldn't want to elaborate too much on the method of
his "translation".
> Again:
>
> "Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon
> the prophet himself has said but little. 'Through the medium of
> the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
> power of God,' is the most extended published statement made by
> him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: 'With the
> record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a
> "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set
> in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' " [B. H. Roberts,
> Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.255]
As I pointed out, the "Urim and Thummim" idea was pushed much later.
> Bruce R. McConkie in _Mormon Doctrine_, pp.818-819, likewise
> makes the point that the Urim and Thummim were provided for the
> *specific* purpose of translating the Book of Mormon:
>
> ""Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the
> Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the
> translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1;
> 17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one
> had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The
> Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct
> from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been
> called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.
> 3, pp. 222-226.)
D&C 10:1 is one of many changes in the revelations. No mention was made
of the "Urim and Thummim" in Section 9:1 of the Book of Commandments, which
was later changed into D&C 10:1. Also, the word URIM doesn't appear in the
Book of Mormon at all. The word INTERPRETERS appears 4 times, but is
described in a general way to reveal the mysteries of God., etc.
Again, the "stones in silver bows" stuff was written much later.
> From Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3,
> pp.225-226, we get the following account:
>
> ""While the statement has been made by some writers that the
> Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his
> translating of the record, and information points to the fact
> that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no
> authentic statement in the history of the Church which states
> that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The
> information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that
> this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this
> conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother
> of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.
The key word here is "authentic". I suppose that could lead to a very long
discussion. Emma and the others certainly said that Joseph Smith used a
"stone" while looking in a hat to do the translation.
> ""These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the
> Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of
> translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
> Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that
> these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were given for that very
> purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet
> would substitute something evidently inferior under these
> circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story
> of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet
> did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other
> purposes.""
>
> David Whitmer, who describes a quite detailed account of exactly
> how the translation process took place despite the fact that it
> was never divulged, states in the same place where he says a hat
> was used that there were *two* seerstones, when in fact there was
> only one. It was the Urim & Thummim that had the two stones and
> was, from all described accounts (including D. Whitmer's), much
> too large to fit in any hat whatsoever. It should also be
> remembered that the account is taken decades after David
> Whitmer's association with the Church, and the likely source for
> the description were bogus rumors rampant among early
> anti-Mormons.
The process of how the translation process took place did not need to be
"divulged" to Whitmer, since he was there during part of the process
himself. A total red herring.
> From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
> Vol.1, pp.469-70:
>
> "The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to
> exclude the light, seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in
> Mormonism Unveiled, 1834. It appears that the affidavits of the
> citizens of Palmyra follow a consistent pattern about money
> digging and the use of a seer stone. One would be led to believe
> that one person directed their form if he did not write each one
> personally....Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected,
> possibly written by Philastrus Hurlburt, the man who was
> excommunicated from the Church for immoral conduct, and published
> in 1834 in /Mormonism Unveiled/, are reprinted here...."
Baloney. Notice the fudge words "seemed to have its origin". Emma and the
others were there. Why did they need anything from Hurlburt? Another red
herring.
> The motives of the excommunicated Hurlurt should be clear.
>
> He then lists a number of "affidavits" that scholars, even
> non-LDS ones, have concluded were likely coached by Hurlburt.
> Certain of those now debunked "affidavits" describe Joseph
> Smith's *father* using a stone in the identical manner attributed
> by David Whitmer to Joseph Smith. The fact that David Whitmer
> never participated in acting as a scribe for Joseph Smith and
> that Oliver Cowdery, who wrote almost the entire Book of Mormon
> as Joseph Smith dictated it, specifically contradicts the notion
> as quoted above should suggest David Whitmer was repeating
> descriptions he had actually heard from others.
More red herrings.
Bill Williams
J Stryker
>Message-id: <3aad...@nntp.networld.com>
>And Jewish tradition is replete with references to *two*
>"messiahs"
Quite true there are two. The Messiah of service, who was Jesus in His
ministry.
And the Messiah of Power, who is Jesus come to lead the chosen Home. Same guy,
two views of Him.
> Jewish descent who
>would naturally emphasize prophecies relating to their own
>mission among the 12 tribes) should not surprise anyone.
>We need to remember that we have the record of only one
>of the twelve tribes of Israel (the Jews)
Actually, the tribes of Judah and Ephraim were together in the southern
kingdom. It is of these to remaining tribes of which we have a record. And
Ephraim was a son of Joseph so that would qualify as a record of the rod of
Joseph.
No Mo
are in the Old Testament?
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:anrr6.583$sF.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Bill Williams
"No Mo" <rpfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fjsr6.28845$zV3.2...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> Is there a mormon out there that can even tell me what the Urim and
Thummim
> are in the Old Testament?
There isn't even a hint in the Old Testament that the "Urim and Thummim"
were used for translating anything. Here's the section from "Easton's Bible
Dictionary", which is at www.concordance.com/bible.htm:
* Thummim *
perfection (LXX., "truth;" Vulg., "veritas"), Ex. 28:30; Deut.
33:8; Judg. 1:1; 20:18; 1 Sam. 14:3,18; 23:9; 2 Sam. 21:1. What
the "Urim and Thummim" were cannot be determined with any
certainty. All we certainly know is that they were a certain
divinely-given means by which God imparted, through the high
priest, direction and counsel to Israel when these were needed.
The method by which this was done can be only a matter of mere
conjecture. They were apparently material objects, quite
distinct from the breastplate, but something added to it after
all the stones had been set in it, something in addition to the
breastplate and its jewels. They may have been, as some suppose,
two small images, like the teraphim (comp. Judg. 17:5; 18:14,
17, 20; Hos. 3:4), which were kept in the bag of the
breastplate, by which, in some unknown way, the high priest
could give forth his divinely imparted decision when consulted.
They were probably lost at the destruction of the temple by
Nebuchadnezzar. They were never seen after the return from
captivity.
Bill Williams
hblack
To save his life, Joseph Smith never could have translated an
ancient text.
The examples in which Smith pretended to "translate" are examples of
fraud, including his tendentious "New Translation" of the Bible..
Harry Black
hblack
God instructed Abraham to have Sarah join him in his lie to the
Egyptians.
Now, Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham does have God directly
instructing Abraham, "see that ye do on this wise: Let her say unto the
Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live." (Abraham
2:23-24) But this language is completely unparalleled in the Dead Sea
Scrolls fragment John cites, which in fact does not have God telling
Abraham to have Sarah join him in his lie. The actual differences are
significant in the immediate passage: in the DSS the couple are
correctly named Sarai and Abram, not Smith's erroneous "Sarah and
Abraham"; in the DSS Abram has a portentous dream about trees from which
he surmises a course of action, but Smith's Book of Abraham contains not
the barest hint of a dream; in the DSS Abram instructs Sarai to say he
is merely her "kinsman," but not, as Smith's BoA fiction insists, that
she is his "sister."
Hugh Nibley's careless tendentious method, followed by LDS
apologists here, is properly described as "parallelomania." It is not
scholarly, and does not prove anything. For exactly for what purpose
does the LDS apologist offer us a Dead Sea Scrolls fantasy fragment?
Does he seek to find in the forgeries of the distant past an echo of the
forgeries of the recent past? The DSS solution to Abraham's act of
cowardice is obviously motivated by the same wish that Joseph Smith
directly expresses in his Book of Abraham fantasy, but nothing more than
this wish relates these two fictional versions of Abraham's memoirs.
Harry Black
"John G. Miles" wrote:
> "hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote
<snip>
> > The Qumran document in question never says God told
> Abraham tell
> > Sarah to join in his lie.
> > In the future, please at least read Gaster's book, before
> making
> > false claims about it's contents.
>
> I read the book. I had it in front of me as I referenced it.
<snip>
> the only source that really counts when it comes to
> learning the truth is God, so you certainly don't have to take my
> word for it. The rest is just interesting window dressing.
<snip more Niblyana>
CharlesSWaters
No Mo wrote:
>
> Is there a mormon out there that can even tell me what the Urim and Thummim
> are in the Old Testament?
The question is, Is there an Old Testament scholar that can precisely
define what a Urim and Thummin is in the Old Testament?
Try the only book I could find on the subject and read:
The Urim and Thummin : A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel
by Cornelis Van Dam
It's written by a non-Mormon who doesn't know anything about the Mormon
tradition of Urim and Thummin use. It's not clear in the Bible itself,
and varies in many places as to what it was and how it was used.
--
Charles
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
- Mahatma Gandhi
TheJordan6
>> It appears that Joseph Smith didn't need the
>> plates at all, since he "translated" the BoM by looking at a
>seer stone in a
>> hat. At least, that's what we learn from Emma Smith, Oliver
>Cowdery, Martin
>> Harris, and David Whitmer, those who actually worked with him.
John G. Miles wrote:
>No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.
This statement is false. Emma, Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight very clearly
related the "face in the hat" version of the "translation." For example,
Knight stated:
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and
Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite
Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that
would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt
rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus
was the hol [whole] translated.Now when he Began to translate he was poor and
was put to it for provisions and had no one to write a little for him through
the winter. The Next Spring Oliver Cowdry a young man from palmyra Came to see
old Mr Smith, Josephs father, about this work and he sent him Down to
pensylveny to see Joseph and satisfy him self. So he Came Down and was soon
Convinced of the truth of the work. The next Spring Came Martin Harris Down to
pennsylvany to write for him and he wrote 116 pages of the first part of the
Book of Mormon."
LDS scholar Stephen Ricks also disagrees with you:
"According to most accounts, the seer stone was used during all stages of the
translation of the Book of Mormon, both before and after the loss of the first
116 manuscript pages. Edward Stevenson reported that Martin Harris (who served
as Joseph's scribe between April and June of 1828) testified to him that "the
Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as
from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he used the seer stone."
(The Translation and Publication of the BOM, on FARMS website)
>Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
>Church, suggested that was the method
You're employing the knee-jerk Mormon apologetic tactic of trying to discredit
Whitmer's testimony because he "fell away" from the church. I don't suppose
you realize that Whitmer abandoned the Mormons in Missouri because Joseph
Smith's "Danites" ran him off and threatened to kill him.
And, if you disbelieve Whitmer's testimony of the "translation" process because
he "left the chhrch," surely you'll want to be fair and dismiss his testimony
of the gold plates, angel, etc. After all, you wouldn't want to "cherrypick",
would You? Agreeing with a witness when he helps your case, but dismissing him
when he doesn't?
> and while it would
>not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
>Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
>translation,
What should matter very much is whether the people involved in the production
of the BOM told a consistent, believable story. From that we can ascertain
whether or not "the Lord" had anything to do with it, or whether the whole
thing was a hoax.
> Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
>exclusively for Joseph Smith
You're wrong again. Several people did the writing before Cowdery, including
Emma, Harris, and apparently Christian Whitmer. Cowdery was brought in because
he could write better than the others (but not much). If you want to find out
more about Cowdery's background than has ever been heretofore published, I
suggest you read the 1128-page "The Spalding Enigma."
>during the translation suggests
>just the opposite (and the one supported by Joseph Smith's own
>account in Church history)--
Smith omitted the "seer stone" use from his 1838 "official history" because
after he had been arrested thrice on fraud charges associated with his
"peep-stoning" malarkey in New York and Pennsylvania, he moved to Ohio and
began re-inventing himself into a Biblical-style "prophet." His "peep-stoning"
had been widely reported on and discussed by 1831, so he simply dropped that
aspect of his con game after he moved to Ohio, to avoid having his arrests
thrown back in his face forever.
As Ricks relates:
"Joseph's hesitation to speak in detail about the translation process is
reflected in his response to his brother Hyrum's request at a conference held
in Orange, Ohio in October 1831, that he provide a first-hand account
concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The Prophet replied that "it
was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of
the book of Mormon and . . . it was not expedient for him to relate these
things." His reticence was probably well justified and may have been due to
the inordinate interest which some of the early Saints had shown in the seer
stone or to the negative and sometimes bitter reactions he encountered when he
had reported some of his sacred experiences to others."
Of course, Ricks being an LDS apologist, cannot admit to the real reason why
Smith was "reticent" to reveal the details: It was because Smith had worked
his "peep-stoning" con between Palmyra and southeastern Pennsylvania from 1822
to 1826, and numerous people in those locales knew that it was a fraud. By
1831, some of Smith's close associates had already told of the "face in the
hat" version of "translation." Smith couldn't very well contradict what they
had seen with their own eyes; so the wisest thing he could do was keep his
mouth shut on the details, to avoid further contradictions.
>that it was the Urim and Thummim
>that Joseph Smith used almost exclusively in the translation
>process.
Wrong again. As I quoted from Ricks above, according to multiple eyewitnesses,
Smith continued to use the "seer stone---face in the hat" method throughout the
"translation process."
There was no "Urim and Thummim." If anything, Smith merely called two of his
"peep-stones" the "Urim and Thummim," in an attempt to stamp a Biblical
imprimatur on his occult practice.
>Regarding Oliver Cowdery, B. H. Roberts relates the following:
>
> ""Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of
>Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of
>translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the
>entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the
>lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift
>and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it
>is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.' " This is all he has
>left on record on the manner of translating the book."" [Defense
>of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.256]
>
>Note that the means of translation was not by the method
>described by David Whitmer.
Not did your above Cowdery quote deny the "seer stone" method. His vague
description merely served to answer a question without saying anything, becuase
Cowdery, like Smith, knew that the less details given, the better.
After Cowdery arrived on the scene, he became Smith's chief accomplice. It was
he, along with (probably) William W. Phelps, who came up with the "Urim and
Thummim" idea. Again from Stephen Ricks:
"the term Urim and Thummim (first used by W. W. Phelps in 1833, which is
generally associated with the Nephite interpreters, is frequently used in a
rather undifferentiated manner to indicate either the seer stone or the
interpreters."
Note that Ricks acknowledges that the term "Urim and Thummim" was not used by
any Mormon until about 1833. As Bill Williams wrote, the term "Urim and
Thummim" did not appear in the original 1833 "Book of Commandments." When
Joseph Smith revised the BOC into the 1835 "Doctrine and Covenants," he
interpolated the term "Urim and Thummim" into an alleged pre-1830 "revelation"
to make it appear that the term had been used at that time.
That fact alone should tell non-brainwashed people that Smith took that action
to cover up the "peep-stone" business, and replace it with something that
sounded Biblical, rather than occultic.
Note also that Ricks admits that the terms "Urim and Thummim" (interpreters)
and "seer stone" were used interchangeably by Smith's early associates. That
indicates that the two allegedly different items were actually one and the
same. Smith never had any gold plates, no breastplate, no silver bows, no
"power of God." All he had was a couple of ordinary quartz geodes that he
found while digging a well. In that era of superstition and belief in
folk-magic, such stones were thought by credulous rubes to have magical powers.
Smith merely put two of them together and claimed that they were "giant
spectacles." So far, he's fooled about 15 million people with them, and more
are born every minute.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>there is still a lively debate as to how the process of
>accounts.
The accounts weren't "hearsay," but rather first-hand testimony from Smith's
closest associates. I'll grant that they were indeed contradictory, but that's
the problem with frauds; those involved can't keep the story straight.
>That a seer stone existed is certainly true and is, in fact,
>still in the
>possession of the LDS church. And that it saw "limited action"
>in
>the translation of the Book of Mormon is also likely. However,
>the
>means of translation as described by David and Martin is pure
>hearsay
If one person tells a story different from the rest, you can theorize that he's
wrong, or that his account is "hearsay." But when half a dozen people tell the
same story, there has to be something to it.
Something that seems to evade the thought processes of Mopologists is that the
BOM "translation" took place in the Whitmer's tiny log cabin, with little or no
privacy. Emma, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, and the Whitmer family were
closely involved in the events, even several months before Cowdery arrived on
the scene. When you question their combined testimony on the "face in the hat"
version, you're questioning the basic credibility of the very people who were
intimately involved in the earliest beginnings of the Mormon religions.
>and directly contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith stated (in
>the
>_History of the Church_) that though he was directly asked as to
>how the translation process took place, he never divulged it to
>anyone and felt it improper to do so. The relevant quote
>follows:
>
> "Little is known about the translation process itself. Few
>details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and
>close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and
>he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in
>1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how
>the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that 'it
>was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the
>coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for
>him to relate these things' (HC 1:220)." [Encyclopedia of
>Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH]
I've already explained why Smith refused to provide details.
>Again:
>
> "Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon
>the prophet himself has said but little. 'Through the medium of
>the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and
>power of God,' is the most extended published statement made by
>him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: 'With the
>record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a
>"Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set
>in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' " [B. H. Roberts,
>Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.255]
>
>Bruce R. McConkie in _Mormon Doctrine_, pp.818-819, likewise
>makes the point that the Urim and Thummim were provided for the
>*specific* purpose of translating the Book of Mormon:
>
> ""Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the
>Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the
>translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1;
>17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one
>had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The
>Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct
>from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been
>called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.
>3, pp. 222-226.)
As I previously wrote, the terms "Urim and Thumim" and "seer stone" were used
interchangeably by Smith's early associates, proving that they were one and the
same item.
> ""President Joseph Fielding Smith, with reference to the
>seer stone and the Urim and Thummim, has written: "We have been
>taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim
>were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of
>the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of
>the Church.
But there are plenty of references to the "seer stones" throughout Smith's life
and after his death.
>Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim
>after that date are evidently errors.
Not at all; those statements merely indicate the obvious: the "seer stone" and
"Urim and Thummim" were one and the same.
>The statement has been made
>that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple
>when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken
>of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of
>the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in
>the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3,
>p. 225.)
Another example of how the terms "seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" were used
to describe the same items.
> ""When Moroni first revealed to the Prophet the existence of
>the gold plates, he also said "that there were two stones in
>silver bows -- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate
>constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim -- deposited with
>the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
>constituted `seers' in ancient or former times; and that God had
>prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (Jos.
>Smith 2:35, 59, 62.)
Smith wrote this in 1838, years after the alleged events, in an effort to tell
a more Biblical-sounding story. There was no mention of any "Urim and Thummim"
until after the BOM had been published, so Smith's 1838 claim that "Moroni" had
used that term is an interpolation on his part.
>Ammon said of these same stones: "The things
>are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be
>commanded lest he should look for that he ought not and he should
>perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is
>called seer." (Mosiah 8:13; 28:13-16.)""
>
>
>From Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3,
>pp.225-226, we get the following account:
>
> ""While the statement has been made by some writers that the
>Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his
>translating of the record, and information points to the fact
>that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no
>authentic statement in the history of the Church which states
>that the use of such a stone was made in that translation.
Note apologist JF Smith's very clever qualifier "in the history of the Church."
The HoC only contains Smith's 1838 "official story"---the one he wrote to put
down reports of his "peep-stoning". JF Smith knew very well that Emma,
Harris, Whitmer, Joseph Knight, etc., told of the "seer stone in the hat"
version of "translation"; so JF Smith cleverly dismissed those accounts because
they weren't in the HoC.
>The
>information is all hearsay,
A bald-faced lie on the part of JF Smith.
> and personally, I do not believe that
>this stone was used for this purpose.
As JF Smith wasn't around during the events, his opinions is worthless.
>The reason I give for this
>conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother
>of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.
> ""These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the
>Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of
>translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites."
>Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that
>these stones [the Urim and Thummim] were given for that very
>purpose.
The BOM quote above says "these stones." JF Smith's [the Urim and Thummim] is
an interpolation on his part. The term "Urim and Thummin" does not appear in
the BOM, nor in any Mormon literature until 1832 or 1833.
> It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet
>would substitute something evidently inferior under these
>circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story
>of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet
>did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other
>purposes.""
The "other purposes" was to defraud people.
>David Whitmer, who describes a quite detailed account of exactly
>how the translation process took place despite the fact that it
>was never divulged,
If the process was "never divulged," then pray tell, how could Whitmer provide
a "quite detailed account?" One which just happend to match those from Emma,
Harris, Joseph Knight, etc.? Did Joseph Smith's wife and closest acquaintances
conspire together to tell a completely false story of the "translation
process?"
Or were the liars really Smith and Cowdery?
>states in the same place where he says a hat
>was used that there were *two* seerstones, when in fact there was
>only one.
Smith had at least two, and possibly three, stones throughout his life. One
was described as brown with streaks, and the other a grayish-white.
> It was the Urim & Thummim that had the two stones and
>was, from all described accounts (including D. Whitmer's), much
>too large to fit in any hat whatsoever. It should also be
>remembered that the account is taken decades after David
>Whitmer's association with the Church, and the likely source for
>the description were bogus rumors rampant among early
>anti-Mormons.
>
>From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_,
>Vol.1, pp.469-70:
But Whitmer's account incredibly managed to match several other friendly ones.
They certainly were NOT "rumors started by anti-Mormons."
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/13/2001 8:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <98mh3...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>
>
>No Mo wrote:
>>
>> Is there a mormon out there that can even tell me what the Urim and Thummim
>> are in the Old Testament?
>
>The question is, Is there an Old Testament scholar that can precisely
>define what a Urim and Thummin is in the Old Testament?
>
>Try the only book I could find on the subject and read:
>
>The Urim and Thummin : A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel
>by Cornelis Van Dam
>
>It's written by a non-Mormon who doesn't know anything about the Mormon
>tradition of Urim and Thummin use. It's not clear in the Bible itself,
>and varies in many places as to what it was and how it was used.
>
>--
>
>Charles
The descriptions I've read is that they were two small stones, one black and
one white, that were used like dice or lots. Whenever they needed to make a
decision on something, they put the stones in a bag. Whichever one they pulled
out determined which decision they made, usually a "yes" or "no."
Ay any rate, they had nothing to do with "translating languages."
Randy J.
Alien Ward
>
> No. It's not what we learn from Emma, Oliver, Martin & David.
> Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
> Church, suggested that was the method and while it would
> not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
> Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
> translation, Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
> exclusively for Joseph Smith during the translation suggests
> just the opposite (and the one supported by Joseph Smith's own
> account in Church history)--that it was the Urim and Thummim
> that Joseph Smith used almost exclusively in the translation
> process.
>
the fact that JS used his money-digging seer stone in his hat to dictate the
BoM. And you should at least read your fellow apologists' spins before
spouting off dishonest nonsense to cover up an obvious fraud.
"prisoner look into hat through stone" - Horace Stowel
"prisoner can divine things by means of said stone and hat" - Jonathan
Thompson
"the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat,
and his hat over his face" - Issac Hale
"he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it" - Emma
Smith
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the
hat" - David Whitmer
"for convenience he then used the seer stone" - Martin Harris
"Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his
face into the hat" - Michael Morse
"the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat" -
Joseph Knight Sr.
"as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim" - Oliver Cowdery
"Also, that there were two stones in silver bows-and these stones, fastened
to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim-deposited
with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them
for the purpose of translating the book." - Joseph Smith
Here's JS sometime after 1833 trying to claim BoM characters imported Urims
and Thummims along with swords, chariots and horses to cover up his rock in
a hat trick. So... just how was JS able to use that Urim and Thummim for
money-digging before God let him dig it out of that hill?
Alien
John G. Miles
> Nonsense, I have never posited any such claim.
My mistake. It was Bill Williams who posited the claim. You
posited that no such posit was made. My position was that
your posit was positively incorrect.
Seriously, I just assumed, without being very careful, that
you had made the original post. Your claim was that my
post was made out of the blue and your question was
"in reply to whom?" Exchange my references to you with
Bill William and it will become clear. Am I to assume
you have a news reader that does not indicate which posts were
in reply to other specific posts? Or were you just being a
pest (I mean that in only the best of ways, of course :)?
I'll let you have the last word as other reader's can follow the
thread for themselves.
[snip sundry Harryisms]
> Harry Black
>
>
> "John G. Miles" wrote:
>
> > You posited a specific mode of translation.
--John Miles
John G. Miles
>
> "No Mo" <rpfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Fjsr6.28845$zV3.2...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> > Is there a mormon out there that can even tell me what the
Urim and
> > Thummim are in the Old Testament?
Actually, your source is quite good and exactly parallels
other research (and the implications from the Biblical
references themselves, for that matter) indicating that the
Urim and Thummim were stones (functioning equivalently
to "seer stones" if you please) that, when in the right hands,
revealed the will of God.
From the combined definition of the terms Urim and
Thummim (Urim being Hebrew for "light" and Thummim being,
as Easton's concordance suggests, Hebrew for "perfection")
we get something suggesting "perfect light" or "light of
perfection." Either way, "light" has consistently been used
in inspired writ as representing the will of God and that was
clearly their use in revealing such light, or inspiration, to
the priests who used them.
The book _The Urim and Thummin: A Means of Revelation in
Ancient Israel_, by Van Dam Cornelis (ISBN: 0931464838) might
be a good place to start: "After surveying the history of
interpretation
and the treatment of the terms in the various versions and
translations, Van Dam examines the implications of similar
oracular devices and priestly dress within the larger cultural
context of the ancient Near East. He places the use of the
Urim and Thummim within the context of divine revelation and
human inquiry...."
A perfect description of their divine role as an aid to Joseph
Smith in the process of the study of the text of the Book of
Mormon, and then "inquiry" by him as the correctness of the
resulting translation is attested to by numerous sources.
That "divine revelation" would then confirm or suggest
additional work needed to be done in the translation process
is made clear in its description in Doctrine & Covenants 9.
That the Bible does not speak of them as being used for
translation
is irrelevant. The Bible, as you fully support in your pose,
indicates
very little at all as to *how* they functioned. Nevertheless,
they f
unctioned despite our lack of specific Biblical knowledge.
And the fact that the Bible no where describes their being
manufactured by man or created by God does not mean that
such did not take place (obviously, it did). The point being
that
what the Bible might or might not have revealed regarding the
Urim and Thummim has nothing to do with their actual purpose
or range of uses to which they could be applied.
Excluding God from revealing "perfect light" and inspiration
through the Urim and Thummim for the purposes of revealing
his will in the translation process is not tenable from any
reading
or interpretation of the Biblical text. Were they never
mentioned
at all would not change the fact that they indeed existed. And
that is exactly the point. God can reveal new truths without
being limited to what happened to get recorded in the Bible,
so we need not resort to it in understanding their (the Urim and
Thummim's) place in His purposes today. Likewise, if Joseph
Smith was a true prophet of God, we need not resort to the
Bible to justify the use of a seer stone in a similar manner as
the Urim and Thummim.
The only question that remains to be answered is whether
Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to a latter-day work.
That's a matter I can't resolve for anyone. One must go to the
only source capable of answering that questions and, as
James 1:5 says, lacking wisdom we must "ask of God."
I can't do that for anyone, and neither can the anti-Mormons.
--
John Miles
----------------------
"[T]herefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get
understanding."
--Prov. 4:7
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Alien Ward
>
> From the combined definition of the terms Urim and
> Thummim (Urim being Hebrew for "light" and Thummim being,
> as Easton's concordance suggests, Hebrew for "perfection")
> we get something suggesting "perfect light" or "light of
> perfection." Either way, "light" has consistently been used
> in inspired writ as representing the will of God and that was
> clearly their use in revealing such light, or inspiration, to
> the priests who used them.
>
and no need for thousands of corrections, plagiarizing from the KJV,
descriptions of civilizations that did not exist and failure to describe
civilizations that did exist.
>
> A perfect description of their divine role as an aid to Joseph
> Smith in the process of the study of the text of the Book of
> Mormon, and then "inquiry" by him as the correctness of the
> resulting translation is attested to by numerous sources.
> That "divine revelation" would then confirm or suggest
> additional work needed to be done in the translation process
> is made clear in its description in Doctrine & Covenants 9.
>
rock in a hat method. And you're referring us to one of many revelations
that was changed to support JS's evolving schemes. This one had the term
Urim and Thummim added in another lame attempt to cover up the rock in a hat
trick.
>
> The only question that remains to be answered is whether
> Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to a latter-day work.
> That's a matter I can't resolve for anyone. One must go to the
> only source capable of answering that questions and, as
> James 1:5 says, lacking wisdom we must "ask of God."
>
"perfect light" for JS to translate. JS had no reason to use anything other
than this perfect light but used his money-digging seer stone, the KJV and
other 19th century sources. The result was a clumsy fiction by a conniving
con-artist.
> I can't do that for anyone, and neither can the anti-Mormons.
>
Shouldn't you be calling us anti-Church of Christers now - you dishonest LDS
apologetic geek.
Alien
CharlesSWaters
That's only one of several possibilities and descriptions.
TheJordan6
>From Francis W. Kirkham, _A New Witness for Christ in America_, Vol.1,
pp.469-70:
>"The use of a seer stone by Joseph Smith buried in a hat to exclude the light,
seemed to have had its origin and emphasis in Mormonism Unveiled, 1834.
This statement is patently false. Accounts of Joseph Smith's 1822-26
money-digging/peep-stoning activities, as well as the "face in the hat" method
of "translation", were related in numerous publications as early as June,
1830----four years before the publication of "Mormonism Unvailed."
A few examples: First, from the "Cincinnati Advertiser" of June 2, 1830:
"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had
been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the
world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and
pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."
Next, from Abner Cole's "Palmyra Reflector" of July 1830:
"And it came to pass, that when the mantle of Walters the Magician had fallen
upon Joseph, surnamed the prophet, who was the son of Joseph; that the 'idle
and slothful' gathered themselves together, in the presence of Joseph, and said
unto him, 'Lo! we will be thy servants forever, do with us, our wives, and our
little ones as it may seem good in thine eyes.' And the prophet answered and
said---'Behold: hath not the mantle of Walters the magician fallen upon me, and
am I not able to do before you my people great wonders, and shew you, at a more
proper season, where the Nephites hid their treasure?---for lo! yes tonight
stood before me in the wilderness of Manchester, the 'spirit', who, from the
beginnings had had in keeping all the treasures, hidden in the bowels of the
earth."
Again from Cole's "Palmyra Reflector" of February 28, 1831:
"It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any comunion with
angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book, and that
the juggling [folk-magic] of himself or father went no further than the
pretended faculty of seeing wonders in a 'peep stone,' and the occasional
interview with the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures:
and it is also equally well-known that a vagabond fortune-teller by the name of
Walters, who then resided in the town of Sodus, and was once committed to the
jail of this county for juggling, was the constant companion and bosom friend
of these money-digging impostors."
Abram W. Benton was a doctor and Presbyterian church elder who had attended
Joseph Smith's "peep-stoning" trial of March 20, 1826, and also his subsequent
trial on "disorderly conduct" charges of July 4, 1830. Benton wrote a
summation of Smith's fraudulent activities, which was published in the
"Evangelical Messenger and Advocate" on April 9, 1831. To quote Benton:
"Messrs. Editors: In the sixth number of your paper I
saw a notice of a sect of people called Mormonites; and
thinking that a fuller history of their founder, Joseph
Smith, jr., might be interesting to your community, and
particularly to your correspondent in Ohio, where,
perhaps, the truth concerning him may be hard to come
at, I will take the trouble to make a few remarks on the
character of that infamous imposter. For several years
preceding the appearance of his book, he was about the
country in the character of a glass-looker: pretending, by
means of a certain stone, or glass, which he put in a hat,
to be able to discover lost goods, hidden treasures, mines
of gold and silver, &c. Although he constantly failed in
his pretensions, still he had his dupes who put implicit
confidence in all his words. In this town, a wealthy
farmer, named Josiah Stowell, together with others,
spent large sums of money in digging for hidden
money, which this Smith pretended he could see, and
told them where to dig; but they never found their
treasure. At length the public, becoming wearied with
the base imposition which he was palming upon the
credulity of the ignorant, for the purpose of sponging his
living from their earnings, had him arrested as a
disorderly person, tried and condemned before a court of
Justice. But considering his youth, (he being then a
minor,) and thinking he might reform his conduct, he
was designedly allowed to escape. This was four or five
years ago. From this time he absented himself from this
place, returning only privately, and holding clandestine
intercourse with his credulous dupes, for two or three
years."
Next, from the New York Inquirer of August 31, 1831:
"A few years ago the Smith's and others who were influenced by their notions,
caught an idea that money was hid in several of the hills which give variety
to the country between the Canandaigua Lake and Palmyra on the Erie Canal. Old
Smith had in his pedling excursions picked up many stories of men getting rich
in New England by digging in certain places and stumbling upon chests of
money. The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors, and made them
all
anxious to lay hold of the bilk axe and the shovel. As yet no fanatical or
religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple
and ordinary desire of getting rich by some short cut if possible. With this
view the Smith's and their associates commenced digging, in the numerous hills
which diversify the face of the country in the town of Manchester. The
sensible country people paid slight attention to them at first. They knew them
to be a
thriftless set, more addicted to exerting their wits than their industry,
readier at inventing stories and tales than attending church or engaging in
any industrious trade. On the sides & in the slopes of several of these hills,
these excavations are still to be seen. They Would occasionally conceal their
purposes, and at other times reveal them by such snatches as might excite
curiosity. They dug these holes by day, and at night talked and dreamed over
the counties' riches they should enjoy, if they could only hit upon an iron
chest full of dollars. In excavating the grounds, they began by taking up the
green sod in the form of a circle of six feet diameter--then would continue to
dig to the depth of ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty feet."
In addition to the above accounts, which were all published years before Howe's
"Mormonism Unvailed," Joseph Smith's own closest associates testified of the
"face in the hat" version of the "translation process," including Smith's wife
Emma, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph Knight. The numerous accounts
of the "face in the hat" version, published years before the 1834 "Mormonism
Unvailed," and repeated by Smith's closest followers, invalidate the assertion
that "Mormonism Unvailed" invented those allegations.
>It appears that the affidavits of the citizens of Palmyra follow a consistent
pattern about money digging and the use of a seer stone.
How interesting, that multiple eyewitnesses' testimonies should be
"consistent." Would Kirkham think they were more believable if they were
INconsistent?
>One would be led to believe that one person directed their form if he did not
write each one personally
Or, if one actually researched the facts about the collection of the
affidavits, one would realize that that assertion is ludicrous.
>....Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected, possibly written by
Philastrus Hurlburt,
There isn't a shred of evidence to support Kirkham's theory that the affidavits
were "possibly written" by Hurlbut. The testimonies were legal affidavits,
sworn before justices of the peace, and duly dated and notarized. Many of the
testators lived until near the turn of the 20th century, and not a single one
of them ever recanted their testimony. In fact, in his 1867 "Origins, Rise,
and Progress of Mormonism", "Wayne Sentinel" editor Pomeroy Tucker related:
"For corroboratory references, the author is permitted to name Messrs.
Joseph Capron, Russell Stoddard, Barton Stafford, and Russell M. Rush, of
Manchester, N.Y.; and Messrs. George Beckwith, George W. Cuyler, Richard
S. Williams, Willard Chase, John H. Gilbert, and Joseph C. Lovett, of
Palmyra; who, with himself (except the last two named), were
contemporaries and neighbors of Smith and his family for the whole period
of their residence in this locality, and all of whom were familiar with
their money-digging reputation and fabulous "Golden Bible" discovery.
The data for the later chapters of this Mormon history, have been obtained
from private correspondence, personal communications, official records,
and various published works.
POMEROY TUCKER. PALMYRA"
The fact that many of Hurlburt's testators were still alive, and willing to
confirm their 1833 affidavits decades later, should put an end to Mormon
assertions that "Hurlbut invented the affidavits."
That dog won't hunt.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Excerpts from some of the affidavits collected,
possibly written by Philastrus Hurlburt, the man who was
excommunicated from the Church for immoral conduct, and published
in 1834 in /Mormonism Unveiled/, are reprinted here...."
>The motives of the excommunicated Hurlurt should be clear.
Mormon apologists typically bring up the "moral conduct" of opponents of
Mormonism, in an attempt to "destroy the message by discrediting the
messenger." However, the allegation that Hurlbut falsified his affidavits out
of "revenge" for being excommunicated is simply ridiculous. As I've already
documented, Hurlbut's testators swore legal their affidavits before judges, and
they maintained those testimonies throughout their lives. And detailed reports
of Smith's "peep-stoning" were published years before Hurlbut even joined the
Mormon church, let alone began his investigation into Smith's past, further
making the allegation silly.
Hurlbut joined the church on March 3, 1833, and went to NY the following
November. And Hurlbut didn't even go to NY to interview Smith's 1820's
neighbors, but to look up Solomon Spaulding's widow Matilda, near Syracuse.
The affidavits Hurlbut obtained from Palmyra acquaintances were merely a bonus
for him.
>He then lists a number of "affidavits" that scholars, even non-LDS ones, have
concluded were likely coached by Hurlburt.
The "non-LDS scholar" Kirkham refers to is likely Fawn Brodie. However, when
she wrote "No Man Knows My History," Brodie was a Mormon. She was
excommunicated for writing her book. And Brodie's opinion that Hurlbut may
have "coached" his witnesses is simply wrong, for reasons I've heretofore
documented. Brodie likely merely agreed with her Mormon predecessors that
Hurlbut's affidavits were suspect simply because that's what she had been
taught her entire life. But she was wrong.
>Certain of those now debunked "affidavits"
Note how Kirkham dcelares that Hurlbut's affidavits are "debunked," without
proving the allegation. Mormon apologists typically propose a theory, repeat
it a few times, and then declare it to be fact---whether it is or not. A very
subtle and dishonest habit.
>describe Joseph Smith's *father* using a stone in the identical manner
attributed
by David Whitmer to Joseph Smith.
In his "Tiffany's Monthly" interview, Martin Harris related that Smith Sr. was
a member of his son's money-digging/peep-stoning gang, so the idea that Smith
Sr. also engaged in the "peep-stoning" is no big revelation.
>The fact that David Whitmer never participated in acting as a scribe for
Joseph Smith
It's interesting how Mormon apologists try to deny Whitmer's testimony on the
"peep-stoning," but accept his "gold plates" testimony without reservation.
The alleged "translation" of the "gold plates" took place in the Whitmer family
cabin. Every member of the household was privy to the operation, and several
of them recounted the details. Emma Smith, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and
Christian Whitmer all wrote portions of the BOM manuscript, so there's no
reason to believe that David was out of the loop of first-hand eyewitnesses.
>and that Oliver Cowdery, who wrote almost the entire Book of Mormon as Joseph
Smith dictated it, specifically contradicts the notion as quoted above
As I've already written, Cowdery was a latecomer to the events. Emma, Harris,
Whitmer, and Joseph Knight all preceded him, and they all told of the "face in
the hat" method. That makes it obvious that Smith and Cowdery invented the
"two stones in silver bows, fastened to a breastplate" story at some point near
the end of, or after, the production, in order to distance themselves from
Smith's 1820's "peep-stoning" fraud.
>should suggest David Whitmer was repeating descriptions he had actually heard
from others.
Nonsense. Whitmer was an eyewitness, as were Emma, Harris, and Joseph Knight.
And they all repeated the "peep-stone in the hat" version. Mormon apologists
have a nasty habit of simply dismissing testimony, even from friendly sources,
that contradicts their chosen position.
Randy J.
No Mo
> > > >
> > > > "Glenn Thigpen" <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3AB144D6...@beaufortco.com...
> > > > > No Mo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > okay. Try this. A Baptist preacher friend of mine
> once
> > > preached that
> > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > has any idea what Urim and Thummin are. Now. Just
> > > because we don't
> > > > know
> > > > > > > what they were used for doesn't mean they weren't
> used
> > > for
> > > > translation.
> > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > an interesting parallel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How'd I do?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is EXACTLY our point, just because a man said it
> > > doesn't make it
> > > > true.
> > > > > > I don't believe what my pastor says unless he can back
> it
> > > up with
> > > > scripture.
> > > > > > If he's stating an idea for which he has no scriptural
> > > reference, it's
> > > > > > worthless.
> > > > >
> > > > > I take it that you believe (pick your version of) the
> > > Bible is the
> > > > only
> > > > > scripture.
> > > > >
> > > > > Glenn
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely.
> > >
> > > My question is whether you speak for God? (Remember, the
> "all
> > > scripture is given by inspiration" applies equally well to
> ANY
> > > writings, including Joseph Smith's. In the end, it all boils
> > > down to asking the only Source who knows as to whether Joseph
> > > Smith was called to restore original Christianity in the
> latter
> > > days.
> >
> > I absolutely do not speak for God. I'll never be able to.
> Only God speaks
> > for God.
>
> I know you don't and would not claim so. It was primarily a
> rhetorical question as to who told you the "Bible is the only
> scripture."
Please read below.
>
> > And Joseph Smith's teachings would only be true *IF* they
> agreed
> > with what the bible says. But, they don't.
>
> If the Christian world could agree that the Bible even agrees
> with itself, there would never have been and should not be
> multiple denominations in the world. Who told you *your*
> interpretation was the correct one?
Why are there multiple denominations that have spun off of the teachings of
Joseph Smith?
>
> I find the Bible in complete concordance with the writings of
> Joseph Smith. But I don't accept the Bible simply because "it is
> there." Nor do I accept scripture revealed through Joseph Smith
> simply because I am LDS. Why do you accept the Bible?
Please see below.
>
> > My God is strong enough to keep
> > his word on the earth.
>
> He is certainly strong enough. The question is did he intend the
> Bible to escape unscathed. Manuscript evidence is clear that it
> did not.
Prove it.
>
> > I hold Joseph Smith to no different standard than I
> > hold any other man. Either his teachings agree with what the
> Bible says or
> > they are wrong.
>
> Which Bible. Translations continually change, add, and delete
> "scripture" with the discovery of new manuscripts and with better
> understanding of the Greek. Many "fundamentalists" dislike
> certain translations and many "liberals" dislike fundamentalist
> tranlsations. Who decides which translation is the correct one?
Though English and other translations differ slightly in language, they do
NOT differ in the message that is being presented.
>
> --John Miles
>
>
>
> Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Here's why I beleive the Bible is THE word of God. It is based somewhat on
faith, but not *BLIND* faith.
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New
Testament.
There are more New Testament manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and
earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or
early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives
on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is
over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its
original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of
the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than
200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of
its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than
for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough
manuscripts that make comparison possible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.
In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old
Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.)
than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated
to A.D. 900).
The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of
manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few
changes.
The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially
the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript
transmission.
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.
Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near
the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated
manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word
identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text
.
The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen
and variations in spelling.
There is also historical evidence, and the Bible's uniqueness in the
fact that though written by fourty different authors, in three languages, on
three continents over the span of 1500 years and covers hundreds of
controversial subjects, the authors all spoke in agreement.
How many ancient manuscripts do you have that support the BoM?
TheJordan6
>My question is whether you speak for God? (Remember, the "all
>scripture is given by inspiration" applies equally well to ANY
>writings, including Joseph Smith's.
If that's the case, then why did LDS leaders chop a four-page "revelation" of
Joseph Smith's down to a paltry ten verses, and "canonize" the edited snippet
as D&C 137?
Randy J.
lrpa...@xxearthlink.net
okay. Try this. A Baptist preacher friend of mine once preached that nobody
has any idea what Urim and Thummin are. Now. Just because we don't know
what they were used for doesn't mean they weren't used for translation. It's
an interesting parallel.
How'd I do?
Regards,
Lee Paulson
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
R. L. Measures
> No Mo wrote:
> >
> > Is there a mormon out there that can even tell me what the Urim and Thummim
> > are in the Old Testament?
>
> The question is, Is there an Old Testament scholar that can precisely
> define what a Urim and Thummin is in the Old Testament?
>
€ Tummin in Urim is mainly due to careless aim.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Markg91359
>Only David Whitmer, who had long before fallen away from the
>Church, suggested that was the method and while it would
>not matter to me in the least as to the manner in which the
>Lord provided for the working of the instruments of
>translation, Oliver Cowdery, who acted as scribe almost
>exclusively for Joseph Smith during the translation suggests
>just the opposite
Cowdery doesn't suggest the opposite. If it is now being suggested that the
seer stone was not being used in the hat to translate at least a portion of the
golden plates, than this is simply dishonest revisionism. Both LDS and non-LDS
scholars who have reviewed the contemporary accounts of Cowdery, Whitmer, and
Harris all agree that at least a portion of the golden plates were translated
by the "stone in the hat" approach.
Mark
No Mo
<lrpa...@xxearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:98qdcd$e9t$1...@news.netmar.com...
This is EXACTLY our point, just because a man said it doesn't make it true.
I don't believe what my pastor says unless he can back it up with scripture.
If he's stating an idea for which he has no scriptural reference, it's
worthless.
> Regards,
> Lee Paulson
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/14/2001 12:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <hGNr6.413422$ge4.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>
>
>
>John G. Miles <jmi...@networld.com> wrote in message
>news:3aaf...@nntp.networld.com...
>>
>> From the combined definition of the terms Urim and
>> Thummim (Urim being Hebrew for "light" and Thummim being,
>> as Easton's concordance suggests, Hebrew for "perfection")
>> we get something suggesting "perfect light" or "light of
>> perfection." Either way, "light" has consistently been used
>> in inspired writ as representing the will of God and that was
>> clearly their use in revealing such light, or inspiration, to
>> the priests who used them.
>>
>Well then, with this "perfect light" we should have a perfect translation
>and no need for thousands of corrections, plagiarizing from the KJV,
>descriptions of civilizations that did not exist and failure to describe
>civilizations that did exist.
And you shouldn't have Mormon ahem, "scholars" theorizing that maybe horses
were really deer, or steel swords were actually stone clubs.
"A horse is a horse is a horse, of course,
Unless it's a Nephite horse, of course,
'Cause then it's a deer or tapir, of course,
Of course, of course, of course!"
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>has any idea what Urim and Thummin are. Now. Just because we don't know
>what they were used for doesn't mean they weren't used for translation. It's
>an interesting parallel.
>
>How'd I do?
>
>Regards,
>Lee Paulson
You have learned your Dowisean well, Grasshopper.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/14/2001 6:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <98ovo...@enews2.newsguy.com>
None of which mention "two stones in silver bows," "giant spectacles," or
"translating ancient languages."
Randy J.
Fastleaf
news:20010315160049...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> And you shouldn't have Mormon ahem, "scholars" theorizing that maybe horses
> were really deer, or steel swords were actually stone clubs.
> "A horse is a horse is a horse, of course,
> Unless it's a Nephite horse, of course,
> 'Cause then it's a deer or tapir, of course,
> Of course, of course, of course!"
ROFL!!
No Mo
"Glenn Thigpen" <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote in message
news:3AB144D6...@beaufortco.com...
> No Mo wrote:
>
> >
> > nobody
> > > has any idea what Urim and Thummin are. Now. Just because we don't
know
> > > what they were used for doesn't mean they weren't used for
translation.
> > It's
> > > an interesting parallel.
> > >
> > > How'd I do?
> > >
> >
> > This is EXACTLY our point, just because a man said it doesn't make it
true.
> > I don't believe what my pastor says unless he can back it up with
scripture.
> > If he's stating an idea for which he has no scriptural reference, it's
> > worthless.
>
Glenn Thigpen
>
> > okay. Try this. A Baptist preacher friend of mine once preached that
> nobody
> > has any idea what Urim and Thummin are. Now. Just because we don't know
> > what they were used for doesn't mean they weren't used for translation.
> It's
> > an interesting parallel.
> >
> > How'd I do?
> >
>
> This is EXACTLY our point, just because a man said it doesn't make it true.
> I don't believe what my pastor says unless he can back it up with scripture.
> If he's stating an idea for which he has no scriptural reference, it's
> worthless.
I take it that you believe (pick your version of) the Bible is the only
scripture.
Glenn
John G. Miles
"No Mo" <rpfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kRbs6.38493$zV3.2...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
My question is whether you speak for God? (Remember, the "all
scripture is given by inspiration" applies equally well to ANY
writings, including Joseph Smith's. In the end, it all boils
down to asking the only Source who knows as to whether Joseph
Smith was called to restore original Christianity in the latter
days.
--
John Miles
--------------------
Opinions are a dime a dozen.... I'm just
tired of the guy handing out all the dimes.
--------------------
No Mo
I absolutely do not speak for God. I'll never be able to. Only God speaks
for God. And Joseph Smith's teachings would only be true *IF* they agreed
with what the bible says. But, they don't. My God is strong enough to keep
his word on the earth. I hold Joseph Smith to no different standard than I
hold any other man. Either his teachings agree with what the Bible says or
they are wrong.
>
John G. Miles
I know you don't and would not claim so. It was primarily a
rhetorical question as to who told you the "Bible is the only
scripture."
> And Joseph Smith's teachings would only be true *IF* they
agreed
> with what the bible says. But, they don't.
If the Christian world could agree that the Bible even agrees
with itself, there would never have been and should not be
multiple denominations in the world. Who told you *your*
interpretation was the correct one?
I find the Bible in complete concordance with the writings of
Joseph Smith. But I don't accept the Bible simply because "it is
there." Nor do I accept scripture revealed through Joseph Smith
simply because I am LDS. Why do you accept the Bible?
> My God is strong enough to keep
> his word on the earth.
He is certainly strong enough. The question is did he intend the
Bible to escape unscathed. Manuscript evidence is clear that it
did not.
> I hold Joseph Smith to no different standard than I
> hold any other man. Either his teachings agree with what the
Bible says or
> they are wrong.
Which Bible. Translations continually change, add, and delete
"scripture" with the discovery of new manuscripts and with better
understanding of the Greek. Many "fundamentalists" dislike
certain translations and many "liberals" dislike fundamentalist
tranlsations. Who decides which translation is the correct one?
--John Miles
lrpa...@xxearthlink.net
That doesn't mean I have to go to church, does it? Motorcycle weather is just
around the corner.