• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
1 Nephi 1

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

I Samuel 1:1

Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

Ezekiel 1:1

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

The Book of Mormon 1:1

And now I, Mormon, make a record of the things which I have both seen and heard, and call it the Book of Mormon.

Hosea 1:1

The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel:


The Book of Moroni 1:1

Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
So, where are the comparissions that theoritically have been made and what purpose where you hoping they'd serve?
 
Last edited:
So are you comparing that they both state lineages and that they receive revelations from God? Most ancient civilizations believed it was important to keep track of ancestry, and isn't it important to a religion to have communication with the appropriate deity?
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
Well, one stresses GOD's revelation, while the other seems to promote the men as the authors... It seems rather obvious to me, but then...

They both seem to indicate they were written by men. The only difference is the books contained in the bible are written by numerous men. Which one did you think stresses your god's revelation?
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
They both seem to indicate they were written by men. The only difference is the books contained in the bible are written by numerous men. Which one did you think stresses your god's revelation?

You may wish to revisit Hosea 1:1 again. The "mormon" text almost reads as thought those involved wrote it on a whim. Example: Moroni 1:1

The one at least alludes to GOD's inspiration.
 
Last edited:

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
You may wish to revisit Hosea 1:1 again. The "mormon" text almost reads as thought those involved wrote it on a whim. Example: Moroni 1:1

The one at least alludes to GOD's inspiration.

Hosea 1:1 "The word of the LORD that came to Hosea" Unless you're arguing that a written book or something literally flew to hosea it's clear that, even if it's inspired by this god, it was written down by men. And LN, you should avoid opening that can of worms when you call the bible gods word. You think your god is perfect, but the bible has many, many, many errors. If it's the word of god then the bible itself disproves the notion of this 'perfect' god which would ultimately disprove the very notion you were trying to prove with your thread.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Hosea 1:1 "The word of the LORD that came to Hosea" Unless you're arguing that a written book or something literally flew to hosea it's clear that, even if it's inspired by this god, it was written down by men. And LN, you should avoid opening that can of worms when you call the bible gods word. You think your god is perfect, but the bible has many, many, many errors. If it's the word of god then the bible itself disproves the notion of this 'perfect' god which would ultimately disprove the very notion you were trying to prove with your thread.


What you don't seem to grasp is that Hosea is saying that GOD inspired him in what to write. This isn't his story. Please tell me one error found in the Bible.
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
What you don't seem to grasp is that Hosea is saying that GOD inspired him in what to write. This isn't his story. Please tell me one error found in the Bible.

Just one? Alright, Bats are listed as birds. They are in fact mammals, if you're not aware. Also, I'm sure mormons would claim that what's found in the BoM was inspired by god as well. Inspired doesn't mean much. Oh, and I did use the word inspired right in the post you responded to. Perhaps you can read more carefully next time.
 
Last edited:

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
It all depends on the implications of an "orderly" account. Luke say that "many have undertaken to draw up..." But Luke doesn't call these other accounts "orderly."

The author of luke makes it plain he was not an eye witness to jesus nor does he claim 'devine inspiration'. Orderly is hardly 'devine' now is it?

And you seem to have completely ignored the whole, numerious errors of the bible issue after one was listed. Why ask for one if you don't care to read it?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It all depends on the implications of an "orderly" account. Luke say that "many have undertaken to draw up..." But Luke doesn't call these other accounts "orderly."
You're missing my point. Luke states at the outset that this is a human (as opposed to Divine) action.
 
I have a relevant question: did you actually study the BoM, or are you just picking at it? Either is fine, but one shows you are ignorant while the other shows you have made an attempt at understanding. I used to be a Mormon, and for my own reasons I am no longer. I used to be many different things...
I know it isn't "good" of me, but when I see people prying ANY religion apart because of ignorance, it bothers me. Can we not rise above it all and leave each other to their own? We can still have debates and discussions, but this seems like you are trying to prove something without coming out and saying what you are trying to prove.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
The author of luke makes it plain he was not an eye witness to jesus nor does he claim 'devine inspiration'. Orderly is hardly 'devine' now is it?

And you seem to have completely ignored the whole, numerious errors of the bible issue after one was listed. Why ask for one if you don't care to read it?

There can be no order without the divine. And I did read it. What Luke clearly doesn't say is 'I give an account and I got this account from other accounts I found.'

See Ether 1:1-2
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
You're missing my point. Luke states at the outset that this is a human (as opposed to Divine) action.

Clearly, Luke did a CAREFUL investigation of eyewitness accounts of servants of the LORD. He in no way indicates that he is making a record of his own proceeding in his days. Nor that he was commanded by a disciple that he should write down what he felt most precious...

Note: I Nephi 1:1 Jacob 1:1&2


It also would appear very odd that if this was the "NORM" with regard to writing scripture, that such a large book as the Bible would be full of such inferences seemingly so common in such a small book as the book of Mormon... However, such is clearly not the case with any regularity in the pages of the Bible ---- much less the opening lines of any given text............
 
Last edited:

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
I have a relevant question: did you actually study the BoM, or are you just picking at it? Either is fine, but one shows you are ignorant while the other shows you have made an attempt at understanding. I used to be a Mormon, and for my own reasons I am no longer. I used to be many different things...
I know it isn't "good" of me, but when I see people prying ANY religion apart because of ignorance, it bothers me. Can we not rise above it all and leave each other to their own? We can still have debates and discussions, but this seems like you are trying to prove something without coming out and saying what you are trying to prove.


I have studied it and I have been led of GOD to point out all its man made qualities, both for the sake of those involved and my own spiritual growth... From that point one can bring the horses to water. Only GOD may make them drink.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There can be no order without the divine.
If that's true, then it's just as true for the BOM.
What Luke clearly doesn't say is 'I give an account and I got this account from other accounts I found.'
Luke is clear about his task: writing history. He's not writing theology. The late authorship of Luke tells us that Luke could not have been an eyewitness and, therefore, must have gotten his information from "other sources." In other words, he's heard the stories, and he's set out to make sense of all of them. In fact, he pretty much does "clearly say" that "I got this account from other accounts."
Clearly, Luke did a CAREFUL investigation of eyewitness accounts of servants of the LORD. He in no way indicates that he is making a record of his own proceeding in his days. Nor that he was commanded by a disciple that he should write down what he felt most precious...
Doesn't address my comment.
It also would appear very odd that if this was the "NORM" with regard to writing scripture
Luke didn't set out to "write scripture." He set out to write a history.
I have studied it and I have been led of GOD to point out all its man made qualities
But you're not led to point out the same with regard to the Bible?
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
If that's true, then it's just as true for the BOM.

Luke is clear about his task: writing history. He's not writing theology. The late authorship of Luke tells us that Luke could not have been an eyewitness and, therefore, must have gotten his information from "other sources." In other words, he's heard the stories, and he's set out to make sense of all of them. In fact, he pretty much does "clearly say" that "I got this account from other accounts."

Doesn't address my comment.

Luke didn't set out to "write scripture." He set out to write a history.

But you're not led to point out the same with regard to the Bible?
Author: The gospel of Luke does not identify its author. From Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3, it is clear that the same author wrote both Luke and Acts, addressing both to “most excellent Theophilus,” possibly a Roman dignitary. The tradition from the earliest days of the church has been that Luke, a physician and a close companion of the Apostle Paul, wrote both Luke and Acts (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11). This would make Luke the only Gentile to pen any books of Scripture.

Date of Writing: The Gospel of Luke was likely written between 58 and 65 A.D.

Purpose of Writing: As with the other two synoptic gospels—Matthew and Mark—this book’s purpose is to reveal the Lord Jesus Christ and all He “began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven” (Acts 1:1-2). Luke’s gospel is unique in that is a meticulous history—an “orderly account” (Luke 1:3) consistent with the Luke’s medical mind—often giving details the other accounts omit. Luke’s history of the life of the Great Physician emphasizes His ministry to—and compassion for—Gentiles, Samaritans, women, children, tax collectors, sinners, and others regarded as outcasts in Israel.

Key Verses: Luke 2:4-7: “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Luke 3:16, "John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Luke 4:18-19, 21: “‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.’ Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Luke 18:31-32: “Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.’"

Luke 23:33-34: "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’"

Luke 24:1-3: "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."
 
Top