To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twopekinguys said:
Actually, there are portions of original Bible manuscripts that are intact.

Wiki can be your friend. Read it hereen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

I’ll help you about a bit, and give you a quote. (emphasis mine)
“Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete (1QIsa), and one around 75% complete (1QIsb). These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE to 70 CE.[1]”

You really shouldn’t make outlandish claims that can easily be refuted
Click to expand...
You have original “copies” you do not he original. There are like 5 crumbs of what might be part of the original scribes work or at least within the period that the copies started from the new testament. The parts of Isaiah, the oldest we have are from the dead sea scrolls, but they are not originals as written by the scribes.
 
PaulDupre1 said:
Joseph Smith made up the BoA out of whole cloth. The proof is simple - we have the facsimiles from the scrolls and we have Joseph’s interpretation of them in the BoA. Joseph’s so-called translation of the facsimiles is so wrong as to be comical. Case closed.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Click to expand...
I guess you just can’t read. I’ll waste my time here and repeat. We do not have the roll that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from.
 
KathleenGee said:
BrotherJared…after all of Hyrum’s questions were posted…and I think they were done so for a reason…

Are you the former Hyrum???

Just wondering as we were waiting for his response…after a number of questions…and so I thought the thread was being used to glean information for rebuttal.

Likewise, my apologies if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...
I am not Hyrum. Not sure what questions u are talking about. Will search.
 
BrotherofJared said:
You have original “copies” you do not he original. There are like 5 crumbs of what might be part of the original scribes work or at least within the period that the copies started from the new testament. The parts of Isaiah, the oldest we have are from the dead sea scrolls, but they are not originals as written by the scribes.
Click to expand...
Do you have proof for this?
 
BrotherofJared said:
I guess you just can’t read. I’ll waste my time here and repeat. We do not have the roll that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from.
Click to expand...
I think we have ay least one of them, but that doesn’t matter. We have at least one of the surviving facsimiles. Egyptologists have had ample time to interpreted the facsimiles, both on the surviving scroll fragments and from the copies made by the LDS church and delivered to Egyptologists as late as the 1960s. Every non-Mormon Egyptologist, and some LDS Egyptologists, have concluded that Joseph Smith’s interpretation had nothing to do with the subjects of the facsimiles. He got everything wrong - everything. He even put a human head on the image of Horus, whose jackal head was missing in the scroll.

Here is one of the surviving facsimiles:



And here is Joseph’s completion of the picture with the missing fragments filled in from his own imagination:



The facsimile has nothing to do with Abraham and everything to do with Egyptian pagan funeral rites.
 
BrotherofJared said:
Did you miss the part, “as written by the scribes…”
Click to expand...
You said “review much of the original content”. The original content are supposedly the golden plates. What the scribes write is, as you’ve already pointed out, not trustworthy. I’m not sure why Mormons use scripture at all, seeing how you don’t trust any.
 
PaulDupre1 said:
I think we have ay least one of them, but that doesn’t matter. We have at least one of the surviving facsimiles. Egyptologists have had ample time to interpreted the facsimiles, both on the surviving scroll fragments and from the copies made by the LDS church and delivered to Egyptologists as late as the 1960s. Every non-Mormon Egyptologist, and some LDS Egyptologists, have concluded that Joseph Smith’s interpretation had nothing to do with the subjects of the facsimiles. He got everything wrong - everything. He even put a human head on the image of Horus, whose jackal head was missing in the scroll.

Here is one of the surviving facsimiles:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I.jpg

And here is Joseph’s completion of the picture with the missing fragments filled in from his own imagination:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Abraham_Facsimile_1.png

The facsimile has nothing to do with Abraham and everything to do with Egyptian pagan funeral rites.
Click to expand...
We can also compare Smith’s “translation” as canonized in the Mormon Book of Abraham, to the correct translation.

The numbers correspond to the numbers on the Book of Abraham version in the Pearl of Great Price. The first line is Smith’s translation, the second that of Non-Mormon Egyptologists, Theodule Deveria.
  1. The Angel of the Lord.
    “The soul of Osiris (which should have a human head)”
  2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
    “Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion”
  3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
    “The God Anubis (who should have a jackal’s head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris”
  4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah [sic], Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
“The funeral bed of Osiris”
  1. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
    Canopic jar portraying Qebehsenuf with a falcon’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  2. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
    Canopic jar portraying Duamutef with a jackal’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  3. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
    Canopic jar portraying Hapy with an ape’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  4. The idolatrous god of Korash.
    Canopic jar portraying Imsety with a human head - one of the four sons of Horus
  5. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
    “The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet”
  6. Abraham in Egypt.
    “Altar laden with offerings”
  7. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
    “An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art”
  8. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
“Customary representation of ground in Egyptian paintings (The word Shauman is not Egyptian, and the Hebrew word is badly copied)”
 
BrotherofJared said:
I think that’s stretching it a bit. White is symbolic for pure. That we’d clarify the meaning of white doesn’t change doctrine IMO.
Click to expand...
Ok, don’t like that one, try these.

First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.”

First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):."…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: “yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!”

Definitely doctrinal changes here don’t ya think?
 
PaulDupre1 said:
I think we have ay least one of them, but that doesn’t matter. We have at least one of the surviving facsimiles. Egyptologists have had ample time to interpreted the facsimiles, both on the surviving scroll fragments and from the copies made by the LDS church and delivered to Egyptologists as late as the 1960s. Every non-Mormon Egyptologist, and some LDS Egyptologists, have concluded that Joseph Smith’s interpretation had nothing to do with the subjects of the facsimiles. He got everything wrong - everything. He even put a human head on the image of Horus, whose jackal head was missing in the scroll.

Here is one of the surviving facsimiles:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I.jpg

And here is Joseph’s completion of the picture with the missing fragments filled in from his own imagination:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Abraham_Facsimile_1.png

The facsimile has nothing to do with Abraham and everything to do with Egyptian pagan funeral rites.
Click to expand...
Well, if what I said is true then that must not be from the Book of Abraham. The vignette you have is incomplete. Whether the priest has the head of a jackal or a human is left to speculation. We don’t even know from what we have if the priest is holding a knife or not which would make a big difference to the interpretation of that vignette. I still believe the jury is out on this and I know we don’t have roll that the Book of Abraham came from.
 
RebeccaJ said:
You said “review much of the original content”. The original content are supposedly the golden plates. What the scribes write is, as you’ve already pointed out, not trustworthy. I’m not sure why Mormons use scripture at all, seeing how you don’t trust any.
Click to expand...
I guess people just don’t understand the difference between scribe and author, even if the author was a scribe, but the closest we have to the original content is the scribes copy as it came from the translator. You don’t have that for the Bible.
 
BrotherofJared said:
I guess people just don’t understand the difference between scribe and author, even if the author was a scribe, but the closest we have to the original content is the scribes copy as it came from the translator. You don’t have that for the Bible.
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon was authored by 19th century men. So sure, you have the original manuscript because it was published in the U.S. by a group of people. What is the point? Scripture is invalid when it is old?

Do you not believe God protects His word? Or only so far as it supports your Mormon scriptures?
 
RebeccaJ said:
We can also compare Smith’s “translation” as canonized in the Mormon Book of Abraham, to the correct translation.

The numbers correspond to the numbers on the Book of Abraham version in the Pearl of Great Price. The first line is Smith’s translation, the second that of Non-Mormon Egyptologists, Theodule Deveria.
  1. The Angel of the Lord.
    “The soul of Osiris (which should have a human head)”
  2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
    “Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion”
  3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
    “The God Anubis (who should have a jackal’s head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris”
  4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah [sic], Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
“The funeral bed of Osiris”
  1. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
    Canopic jar portraying Qebehsenuf with a falcon’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  2. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
    Canopic jar portraying Duamutef with a jackal’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  3. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
    Canopic jar portraying Hapy with an ape’s head - one of the four sons of Horus
  4. The idolatrous god of Korash.
    Canopic jar portraying Imsety with a human head - one of the four sons of Horus
  5. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
    “The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet”
  6. Abraham in Egypt.
    “Altar laden with offerings”
  7. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
    “An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art”
  8. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
“Customary representation of ground in Egyptian paintings (The word Shauman is not Egyptian, and the Hebrew word is badly copied)”
Click to expand...
Well it’s nice that the Egyptologist filled in the missing parts with what “should” be there, but he doesn’t really know what’s there. It would make a big difference if the priest was holding a knife and his head was human, etc. Based on what’s not there, I’d say the Egyptologist translation isn’t very reliable either.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The Book of Mormon was authored by 19th century men. So sure, you have the original manuscript because it was published in the U.S. by a group of people. What is the point? Scripture is invalid when it is old?

Do you not believe God protects His word? Or only so far as it supports your Mormon scriptures?
Click to expand...
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you should follow the links back to find out. The argument here was we changed the wording of the Book of Mormon. Some suppose it also changes doctrine. I pointed out the the Bible, supposedly infallible to some has gone through many changes so that today, we have several different renditions of the Book and we don’t even have the original manuscripts from which to make changes. Therefore, if the Book of Mormon is false because of changes made, then the Bible must be false. But Mormons believe neither is false and any scholar can tell you that the Bible is not infallible.
 
BrotherJared, thanks for clarifying who you are.

I would only question why you would want to believe in a local person, born 160 years ago here in America…who now has the new take on all of Christianity…and why Mormonism that had so much anti-Catholic principles in its foundation, spends time now learning all it can from Catholicism, drawing on it to absorb our perspective, tone, manner of speaking…as well as some parts of our universal Catechism, which Mormons are inverting to mean something they dont…ccc460.

I would step back and pray to the Lord to ask Him do you want a nationalistic belief system or authentic Christianity?? What are you really seeking??
 
KathleenGee said:
BrotherJared, thanks for clarifying who you are.

I would only question why you would want to believe in a local person, born 160 years ago here in America…who now has the new take on all of Christianity…and why Mormonism that had so much anti-Catholic principles in its foundation, spends time now learning all it can from Catholicism, drawing on it to absorb our perspective, tone, manner of speaking…as well as some parts of our universal Catechism, which Mormons are inverting to mean something they dont…ccc460.

I would step back and pray to the Lord to ask Him do you want a nationalistic belief system or authentic Christianity?? What are you really seeking??
Click to expand...
Seek Christ…you will find Him in His Church. There is a force keeping you from doing that BrotherJared. Be courageous, you have nothing to loose and everything to gain .
Rich
www.utahmission.com
 
BrotherofJared said:
Well it’s nice that the Egyptologist filled in the missing parts with what “should” be there, but he doesn’t really know what’s there. It would make a big difference if the priest was holding a knife and his head was human, etc. Based on what’s not there, I’d say the Egyptologist translation isn’t very reliable either.
Click to expand...
Oh my heck. I’m starting to think you are a troll.

Please, read something besides Mormon apologetics. Look up the Osiris Myth, Ba and the gods of Egypt. Of course it is known what is there because there are multiple examples of the EXACT SAME THING.

Which is more plausible, based on real scholarship, and aligns to reality? Is it a retelling of one of a sacred and common story of Egyptian cosmology, or is it what Smith made up off the top of his head? :hmmm:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The Egyptian deity, Anubis, performing the funeral rite for Osiris.




Ba is represented as a human-headed bird that leaves the body when a person dies. The face of Ba was the exact likeness of that of the deceased person.

Osiris
Anubis
Nephthys
Isis
Horus
Imset
Hapi
Duamutef
Qebehsenuef
 
BrotherofJared said:
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you should follow the links back to find out. The argument here was we changed the wording of the Book of Mormon. Some suppose it also changes doctrine. I pointed out the the Bible, supposedly infallible to some has gone through many changes so that today, we have several different renditions of the Book and we don’t even have the original manuscripts from which to make changes. Therefore, if the Book of Mormon is false because of changes made, then the Bible must be false. But Mormons believe neither is false and any scholar can tell you that the Bible is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Hello, if you have evidence for changes to the Bible that change Catholic doctrine, please present it.

The Book of Mormon was changed such that doctrine was changed. Particularly concerning the nature of God, and Jesus Christ.
 
KathleenGee said:
BrotherJared, thanks for clarifying who you are.

I would only question why you would want to believe in a local person, born 160 years ago here in America…who now has the new take on all of Christianity…and why Mormonism that had so much anti-Catholic principles in its foundation, spends time now learning all it can from Catholicism, drawing on it to absorb our perspective, tone, manner of speaking…as well as some parts of our universal Catechism, which Mormons are inverting to mean something they dont…ccc460.

I would step back and pray to the Lord to ask Him do you want a nationalistic belief system or authentic Christianity?? What are you really seeking??
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in a local person born 160 years ago. I believe in Jesus Christ who was from eternity to all eternity. What I believe is that he spoke to Joseph Smith face to face and gave him commandments which he fulfilled to his own determent just like all the prophets and apostles before him.

I really don’t know what anti-Catholic principles you are talking about. As far as I’m concerned either you are the one true church or we are. All the rest in Christianity who branched off from you can’t possibly be it. If they broke off, then they changed the truth if indeed you are the truth. I’ve asked God and He has told me that I’m on the right path.

I hope that answers your question.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Hello, if you have evidence for changes to the Bible that change Catholic doctrine, please present it.

The Book of Mormon was changed such that doctrine was changed. Particularly concerning the nature of God, and Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I’ve already address those changes to the BoM. Those changes have not changed doctrine, though non-Mormons have twisted it so it looks like it. So, lets talk about the changes to the Bible. There’s the NIV, the New Living Translation (translated from what??), English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Kang James Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, NET Bible, GOD’S WORD Translation, Jubilee Bible 2000, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version and I could go on. Those are the ones from today. I wouldn’t even try to address the changes that have been cataloged during the last 2000 years. I don’t even want to start on Orthodox and Ethiopian versions.

Who had license to make those changes? Didn’t God protect his word and deliver it exactly as He wanted it? He who adds or takes away from this book… Yeah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top