The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[Izdaari]

I have a copy of it, and I’ve read some of it, mainly browsing. I find the style tedious and difficult, but that’s how I feel about the KJV too.

 

[Jerusha]

I have studies the BoM intensively, and also find most of it to be exceedingly tedious and repetitive. My favorite passage is from Alma 63:

And it came to pass that in the thirty and seventh year of the reign of the judges, there was a large company of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land which was northward. And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year. And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward. And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not. And it came to pass that in this year there were many people who went forth into the land northward. And thus ended the thirty and eighth year.

I see it as a prophecy of the end of Mormonism. Many are leaving “Zarahemla” because the fruits of the spirit are not seen there. Many see it necessary to even leave Mormon-dominated areas of the country.

 

[AtticusFinch]

I have studies the BoM intensively, and also find most of it to be exceedingly tedious and repetitive. My favorite passage is from Alma 63:

I see it as a prophecy of the end of Mormonism. Many are leaving “Zarahemla” because the fruits of the spirit are not seen there. Many see it necessary to even leave Mormon-dominated areas of the country.

If you took “and it came to pass” out of the book of mormon, it would only be about 10 pages long. That was Joseph trying to sound Biblical.

 

[lax16]

This arguement of how did the ancient Nephites know French or Greek makes me laugh. HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY ENGLISH also? Duh…

The Lord’s translation of what words He felt we needed best were used. How many different translations are there of the Bible? Languages don’t always directly translate. There is no need to apologize for the Book of Mormon. It can hold it’s own weight against the critics.

chris - What language did God use when speaking to JS?

Who did the translating - God or Joseph Smith???

 

[Jerusha]

That is an exaggeration. The condensed version I wrote is about 150 pages.

 

[Zundrah]

I have a copy of it, and I’ve read some of it, mainly browsing. I find the style tedious and difficult, but that’s how I feel about the KJV too.

lol I can’t stand the King James Bible.

 

[lax16]

Ummmm… Do you know how the Bible was put together? Have you forgotten or do you not know?

The books of the Bible were written **B]over thousands of years **/COLOR]and were originally individual books like “The Gospel According to St John” and “The First Epistle General of Peter”, etc written on paprus scrolls. **To make a copy, they had to **pain-stakingly copy each word by hand to another scroll. Bible comes from the Greek word “Biblia” meaning “books”. It was made up of many books. It wasn’t until much later that it became known as “The Book”.

chris - Do YOU know how the Bible was put together? How could the Bible have been written over "thousands of years" as you claim, when St. Jerome translated it in 342-420?
btw - St. Jerome was Catholic.

from drbo.org

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

 

[lax16]

The catholic church does not believe itself to be the only true church? I think that you got that wrong. And what is the message of christ that the mormons do not have?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” **Those “who ****believe in Christ and have been **properly baptized **are ****put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” **(emphasis mine)

 

[dianaiad]

chris - Do YOU know how the Bible was put together? How could the Bible have been written over "thousands of years" as you claim, when St. Jerome translated it in 342-420?
btw - St. Jerome was Catholic.

from drbo.org

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

lax, are you truly equating the translating of the bible from earlier manuscripts and languages as equivalent to the writing of those manuscripts, as if the men who wrote them no longer could claim authorship? Should we be calling the books contained therein the 'gospels of Jerome?"

Yes, he translated those into Latin three centuries after Christ. That did not, however, take authorship away from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses (or whoever…) David, et.al., and those men did indeed write the bible ‘over thousands of years…’ or at least they wrote the works that were later complied into what we know as the bible.

 

[lax16]

lax, are you truly equating the translating of the bible from earlier manuscripts and languages as equivalent to the writing of those manuscripts, as if the men who wrote them no longer could claim authorship? ** Should we be calling the books contained therein the 'gospels of Jerome?" **
Yes, he translated those into Latin three centuries after Christ. That did not, however, **take ****authorship away from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses **(or whoever…) David, et.al., and those men did indeed write the bible ‘over thousands of years…’ or at least they wrote the works that were later complied into what we know as the bible.

I am responding to chris who, in error, claimed that it took thousands of years to write the Bible.

No, we should not be calling the gospels “The gospels of Jerome” but I think **it’s time **Mormons give credit where credit is due in the history of the early Church. What St. Jerome did was a huge task! And to think he did this when he was in apostasy…

You’re losing me here…who is talking about **authorship **of the gospels???

If you want to talk about the Hebrew Bible, and how long it took to write that, that’s another topic. ** (Please note chris’ post was referring to the New Testament).**

 

[lax16]

Ummmm… Do you know how the Bible was put together? Have you forgotten or do you not know?

**The Bible is the stick of Judah (written by the Jews or descendants of Judah). The Book **of Mormon is the stick of Joseph (written by the descendants of Joseph). Don’t forget, Judah and Joseph were the lead tribes in ancient Israel. Together they both testify that Jesus is the Christ.

Please explain this idea that the Bible is the stick of Judah etc

 

[AtticusFinch]

lax16:
Please explain this idea that the Bible is the stick of Judah etc

Mormons believe that the word stick refers to scripture since scrolls used parchment wrapped around sticks.

What is odd is that they then refer to the Book of Mormon as a second “stick” when the Book of Mormon was not written on scrolls, but on plates. So, either God did not know how the Book of Mormon would be written, or the idea that sticks refer to the Bible and Book of Mormon is simply something else again…

 

[dianaiad]

I am responding to chris who, in error, claimed that it took thousands of years to write the Bible.

No, we should not be calling the gospels “The gospels of Jerome” but I think **it’s time **Mormons give credit where credit is due in the history of the early Church. What St. Jerome did was a huge task! And to think he did this when he was in apostasy…

You’re losing me here…who is talking about **authorship **of the gospels???

If you want to talk about the Hebrew Bible, and how long it took to write that, that’s another topic. ** (Please note chris’ post was referring to the New Testament).**

When one speaks of “WRITING,” one speaks of the creation of the ideas involved in the written document. Anything else is 'translation" or “transcription.” The verb ‘writing’ is assumed by the English speaking world to refer to authorship, not further translation or copying activities.

I for one would never attempt to dismiss the work of the early Catholic church fathers in the preservation and translation of scripture, either for praise or for criticism; it was their choices, after all, that determined what we now accept AS mainstream scripture in the Christian world…or at least, mostly.

As vital a work as it was, though, it wasn’t ‘writing’ the scriptures. Jerome did not write the NT. He didn’t write the OT. His work may have been (I believe it was) yeoman and substantial, but he was not the author.

Or the Author.

To make any case that he was, or to give him more credit for the actual content of scripture than a really good translator should have, seems to be a problematic position to take, especially if one is going to criticize JS as having written the Book of Mormon.

I will admit to some confusion regarding your stand on this.

Diana

 

[lax16]

When one speaks of “WRITING,” one speaks of the creation of the ideas involved in the written document. Anything else is 'translation" or “transcription.” The verb ‘writing’ is assumed by the English speaking world to refer to authorship, not further translation or copying activities.

I for one would never attempt to dismiss the work of the early Catholic church fathers in the preservation and translation of scripture, either for praise or for criticism; it was their choices, after all, that determined what we now accept AS mainstream scripture in the Christian world…or at least, mostly.

As vital a work as it was, though, it wasn’t ‘writing’ the scriptures. Jerome did not write the NT. He didn’t write the OT. His work may have been (I believe it was) yeoman and substantial, but he was not the author.

Or the Author.

To make any case that he was, or to give him more credit for the actual content of scripture than a really good translator should have, seems to be a problematic position to take, especially if one is going to criticize JS as having written the Book of Mormon.

I will admit to some confusion regarding your stand on this.

Diana

Diana - It did not take thousands of years to write the New Testament as chris said. If you disagree, prove it.

 

[lax16]

Ummmm… **Do you know how the Bible was put together? ** Have you forgotten or do you not know?

**The books of the Bible were written **over thousands of years and were originally individual books like “The Gospel According to St John” and “**The First Epistle **General of Peter”, etc written on paprus scrolls. To make a copy, they had to pain-stakingly copy each word by hand to another scroll. Bible comes from the Greek word “Biblia” meaning “books”. It was made up of many books. It wasn’t until much later that it became known as “The Book”.

The Bible is the stick of Judah (written by the Jews or descendants of Judah). The Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph (written by the descendants of Joseph). Don’t forget, Judah and Joseph were the lead tribes in ancient Israel. Together they both testify that Jesus is the Christ.

I’m re-posting chris’ comments because you seem to not understand what I was answering.

 

[Stephen168]

Have any of you guys ever read the Book of Mormon?

No, I don’t read fiction

I have the book of Mormon at home and I often read it too. Have you ever read it, if so then how did you get it?

Some mormon missionaries gave it to me.

It is called the book of Mormon because it was a guy called Mormon who put all the books together and collectively made one book out of it.

That’s a bit like calling the bible the book of John, or the book of Peter, or what ever…

Why wasn’t it given a proper decent name?

I guess that would be like calling the New Testament; The Book of Damasus.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, I don’t read fiction

I’ve been thinking the same thing for days.

 

[lax16]

chris - Do YOU know how the Bible was put together? How could the Bible have been written over "thousands of years" as you claim, when St. Jerome translated it in 342-420?
btw - St. Jerome was Catholic.

from drbo.org

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

Diana - Please note the number of times (in blue) the words translate/word-for-word rendering were used in my post. **Not once did I say St. Jerome **wrote the Bible.

 

[lax16]

When one speaks of “WRITING,” one speaks of the creation of the ideas involved in the written document. Anything else is 'translation" or “transcription.” The verb ‘writing’ is assumed by the English speaking world to refer to authorship, not further translation or copying activities.

I for one would never attempt to dismiss the work of the early Catholic church fathers in the preservation and translation of scripture, either for praise or for criticism; it was their choices, after all, that determined what we now accept AS mainstream scripture in the Christian world…or at least, mostly.

As vital a work as it was, though, it wasn’t ‘writing’ the scriptures. Jerome did not write the NT. He didn’t write the OT. His work may have been (I believe it was) yeoman and substantial, but he was not the author.

Or the Author.

To make any case that he was, or to give him more credit for the actual content of scripture than a really good translator should have, seems to be a problematic position to take, especially if one is going to criticize JS as having written the Book of Mormon.

I will admit to some confusion regarding your stand on this.
Diana

I can see there is **great confusion. ** Let me attempt to break it down.

You claim I said St. Jerome wrote the NT (and then gave me the definition of author ) - I did not.

You claim that I assume he wrote it and was not the translator - I did not.

You said I give more credit for the actual content than for being a really good translator - I did not.

Obviously Diana, the reason for bringing up St. Jerome and providing the commentary from the Introduction to the Douay-Rheims Bible online was for one purpose:

To show that if St. Jerome was translating the New Testament in the **years 342-420, **obviously **thousands of years had not passed **from the time of Jesus to the time of St. Jerome’s translations.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m re-posting chris’ comments because you seem to not understand what I was answering.

Actually, I thought that he was referring to the entire book, OT and NT, but was using books from the NT as examples.