First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

LittleNipper · Dec 3, 2009

You may wish to note that Luke was a gentile and wrote seemingly in that accord. Nephi and all his descendants were supposed to be Hebrew... Of course Mr. Smith was a gentile...

sojourner · Dec 3, 2009

addressing both to most excellent Theophilus, possibly a Roman dignitary.

Or possibly a beloved fellow servant.

This would make Luke the only Gentile to pen any books of Scripture.

Not necessarily. We don't know about the authors of some of the epistles, and some of them could very easily have been Gentile.

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

There is some scholastic conjecture for an early date for Luke. Most reputable scholars date Luke in the 80s-90s.

consistent with the Lukes medical mind

It is unlikely that the author of Luke was a physician. In any case, the text does not necessarily suggest that possibility by its language or style.

Lukes history of the life of the Great Physician emphasizes His ministry toand compassion forGentiles, Samaritans, women, children, tax collectors, sinners, and others regarded as outcasts in Israel.

Making it much more a possibility that the author, himself, was an "outcast," and so more deeply identified with their plight.

sojourner · Dec 3, 2009

LittleNipper said:
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."

It might be nice for you to cite your sources, rather than plagiarize. None of this addresses my post which this quotes and supposes to address. What is your purpose in posting these passages?

sojourner · Dec 3, 2009

LittleNipper said:
You may wish to note that Luke was a gentile and wrote seemingly in that accord. Nephi and all his descendants were supposed to be Hebrew... Of course Mr. Smith was a gentile...

Which does not support your position in making the comparison.

LittleNipper · Dec 3, 2009

sojourner said:
It might be nice for you to cite your sources, rather than plagiarize. None of this addresses my post which this quotes and supposes to address. What is your purpose in posting these passages?

Notes in an NIV. The verses posted show the inferiority of the book of Mormon which pales in any comparison.

LittleNipper · Dec 3, 2009

sojourner said:
Or possibly a beloved fellow servant.

Not necessarily. We don't know about the authors of some of the epistles, and some of them could very easily have been Gentile.

There is some scholastic conjecture for an early date for Luke. Most reputable scholars date Luke in the 80s-90s.

It is unlikely that the author of Luke was a physician. In any case, the text does not necessarily suggest that possibility by its language or style.

Making it much more a possibility that the author, himself, was an "outcast," and so more deeply identified with their plight.

I suppose that you are a Mormon. When did Mormons start listening to most "reputable" scholars? It is highly likely that Luke was a doctor because of his attention to details. An outcast is not a likely person to be highly educated.

tumbleweed41 · Dec 3, 2009

LittleNipper said:
Notes in an NIV. The verses posted show the inferiority of the book of Mormon which pales in any comparison.

Shall we then compare the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh with the Biblical story of Noah.
By your reasoning, the Biblical account would pale in comparison to the older, and more poetic Epic of Gilgamesh.
And even though we can find many similarities between the two accounts, the Epic must be true, while the Biblical story must be false.
After all, the Epic came first. It is better written.

If you are going to attack the revealed revelation of one belief, you should be prepared to defend you own.

sojourner · Dec 3, 2009

LittleNipper said:
I suppose that you are a Mormon. When did Mormons start listening to most "reputable" scholars? It is highly likely that Luke was a doctor because of his attention to details. An outcast is not a likely person to be highly educated.

You suppose wrong. While I personally doubt the validity of the BOM, (sorry, LDS friends!) I think we at least have to come up with a better argument than you've posed here. Your argument against its validity is, IMO, weak at best.

Actually, "attention to detail" would not particularly have been on the radar screen of a 1st-century physician. And, actually, "outcast" is a somewhat misleading term. There's a provocative theory that Luke was literate, and scribed for someone wealthy. In that culture, scribes (not to be confused with the Biblical Scribes) were a servant class. They were educated, had some standing in the community, but were lower than a merchant or a physician. Luke would have been "attached" to a wealthy person. Being such, he would have been able to empathize with other slaves and lower classes.

Hevenly Heathen · Dec 3, 2009

LittleNipper said:
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.

Only GOD can make them drink... Horses are an extension of GOD and only follow his will with no choices of their own. Would an act of cruelty to a horse be the same act on GOD?

You have some good points in your argument, and I would agree that the BoM was written by men, as the Bible was. I believe that both may have been inspired by this GOD of horses as well.

There is a "divine" spark in everything, and when man finds a hint of it within himself, there is often a need to get it out. Who's to say that the BoM virtues, values, morals, codes of conducts, etc. are of any less value than those in the Bible? In the Bible many of the lessons are taught through anecdotes, could not the BoM be anecdotal as well?

If one is expressing what they have experienced with the "divine" within, then it is inspired from and by GOD, so why is one of less value than another?

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

tumbleweed41 said:
Shall we then compare the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh with the Biblical story of Noah.
By your reasoning, the Biblical account would pale in comparison to the older, and more poetic Epic of Gilgamesh.
And even though we can find many similarities between the two accounts, the Epic must be true, while the Biblical story must be false.
After all, the Epic came first. It is better written.

If you are going to attack the revealed revelation of one belief, you should be prepared to defend you own.

The epic of Gilgamesh pales in comparison with the rather scientific Biblical FLOOD account. The Gilamesh tale does support the fact that a verbal account of the FLOOD obviously existed for sometime before it was written down. GOD's account is the corrected version.

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

Hevenly Heathen said:
Only GOD can make them drink... Horses are an extension of GOD and only follow his will with no choices of their own. Would an act of cruelty to a horse be the same act on GOD?

You have some good points in your argument, and I would agree that the BoM was written by men, as the Bible was. I believe that both may have been inspired by this GOD of horses as well.

There is a "divine" spark in everything, and when man finds a hint of it within himself, there is often a need to get it out. Who's to say that the BoM virtues, values, morals, codes of conducts, etc. are of any less value than those in the Bible? In the Bible many of the lessons are taught through anecdotes, could not the BoM be anecdotal as well?

If one is expressing what they have experienced with the "divine" within, then it is inspired from and by GOD, so why is one of less value than another?

CHRIST must be a very real SAVIOR or everyone is still lost in their sins. And a tale of a man who kills his drunken uncle, steals his clothes, lies to and threatens the uncle's servant and then steals documents ----doesn't have the moral fiber of the Bible. Rather it sounds like the excuses devised by men and not a perfect LORD.

tumbleweed41 · Dec 4, 2009

LittleNipper said:
The epic of Gilgamesh pales in comparison with the rather scientific Biblical FLOOD account.

Please enlighten us on these 'scientific' Biblical accounts.

LittleNipper said:
The Gilamesh tale does support the fact that a verbal account of the FLOOD obviously existed for sometime before it was written down.

Ya think?

LittleNipper said:
GOD's account is the corrected version.

Why would you say that? The Epic was written down long before the Biblical account was.

Perhaps the BOM is the 'corrected version'..... :shrug:

tumbleweed41 · Dec 4, 2009

LittleNipper said:
CHRIST must be a very real SAVIOR or everyone is still lost in their sins. And a tale of a man who kills his drunken uncle, steals his clothes, lies to and threatens the uncle's servant and then steals documents ----doesn't have the moral fiber of the Bible. Rather it sounds like the excuses devised by men and not a perfect LORD.

Yeah, like the tale of a man forced to impregnate his dead brothers wife. Or the tale of two daughters tricking their drunken father into impregnating them. Or the tale of that same man offering his daughters to a crowd of rapists. Or the tales of the forcible enslavement and rape of a defeated cities virgins.....

You see, as much fault as you can find in the BoM, can also be found in the Bible.

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

tumbleweed41 said:
Please enlighten us on these 'scientific' Biblical accounts.

Ya think?

Why would you say that? The Epic was written down long before the Biblical account was.

Perhaps the BOM is the 'corrected version'.....

Was not Moses the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter? Did he not also speak directly to GOD. I'm sure he was aware of various historic traditions. The FLOOD tradition exists worldwide ----- which is more than I can say of the accounts found in the books of Mormon.

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

tumbleweed41 said:
Yeah, like the tale of a man forced to impregnate his dead brothers wife. Or the tale of two daughters tricking their drunken father into impregnating them. Or the tale of that same man offering his daughters to a crowd of rapists. Or the tales of the forcible enslavement and rape of a defeated cities virgins.....

You see, as much fault as you can find in the BoM, can also be found in the Bible.

These things happened and not all were of GOD's design but as men tried to "assist" GOD in their own way. The Bible does record the ugliness of man with all his warts where it moves the history towards the birth of the MESSIAH.

The book of Mormon paints man as noble and throws in CHRIST where HE seems appropriate to motivate a tale of men...

tumbleweed41 · Dec 4, 2009

LittleNipper said:
Was not Moses the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter? Did he not also speak directly to GOD.

So the story goes.

LittleNipper said:
I'm sure he was aware of various historic traditions. The FLOOD tradition exists worldwide ----- which is more than I can say of the accounts found in the books of Mormon.

Actually, no. While there are various flood myths, it is not a worldwide phenomenon. Flood myths exist in areas that would be prone to an extreme flood. Tidal wave myths exist in the pacific islands. Great freeze myths exist in the far northern areas. Volcano myth abound in regions of volcanic activities.
So it would be more accurate to say that disaster myths are worldwide.
Not to mention that the writer(s) of Geneses were, as you said, well aware of the Sumerian flood myths. Plagerism works all around, doesn't it?

BTW, still waiting on your example of the 'science' in the Biblical account.

Hevenly Heathen · Dec 4, 2009

LittleNipper said:
Was not Moses the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter? Did he not also speak directly to GOD. I'm sure he was aware of various historic traditions. The FLOOD tradition exists worldwide ----- which is more than I can say of the accounts found in the books of Mormon.

Yes Moses was, according to the Bible. The Bible was still written by man. And what Flood accounts are found in the BoM?

LittleNipper said:
CHRIST must be a very real SAVIOR or everyone is still lost in their sins.

What is my sin? I will take responsibility for my actions, why does Jesus have to do it for me? You seek to prove that the Bible is superior: it is, for you.

Are you certain you have studied the BoM? It appears as though you just perused it for your own sake to dis-prove it to others. Which is fine, but don't blaspheme other religions. If you want a debate, you have to be willing to see other points of view, not accuse others and demand they see you as right.

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

tumbleweed41 said:
Please enlighten us on these 'scientific' Biblical accounts.

Ya think?

Why would you say that? The Epic was written down long before the Biblical account was.

Perhaps the BOM is the 'corrected version'.....

Does not the Bible provide the size and scale of the ark? Does not the Bible provide the exact length of the FLOOD? Does not the Bible provide how many of each animal was to be put on the ark?

tumbleweed41 · Dec 4, 2009

LittleNipper said:
These things happened and not all were of GOD's design but as men tried to "assist" GOD in their own way. The Bible does record the ugliness of man with all his warts where it moves the history towards the birth of the MESSIAH.

Please study the books of the Prophets in the OT. You will see that the Christian Messiah in no way matches that spoken of by the prophets.

LittleNipper said:
The book of Mormon paints man as noble and throws in CHRIST where HE seems appropriate to motivate a tale of men...

Just as the NT attempted to match up the Christ to the Jewish Messiah in order to justify the 'new covenant'.

LittleNipper · Dec 4, 2009

Hevenly Heathen said:
Yes Moses was, according to the Bible. The Bible was still written by man. And what Flood accounts are found in the BoM?

What is my sin? I will take responsibility for my actions, why does Jesus have to do it for me? You seek to prove that the Bible is superior: it is, for you.

Are you certain you have studied the BoM? It appears as though you just perused it for your own sake to dis-prove it to others. Which is fine, but don't blaspheme other religions. If you want a debate, you have to be willing to see other points of view, not accuse others and demand they see you as right.

The stores found in the book of Mormon are not found anywhere else. There is no collaborating evidence. JESUS has to do it for you because you are not perfect. ONLY GOD is perfect. To pay for it yourself means you go to hell. I'm sure you don't want that and neither do I.

First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Seeker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Resident Liberal Hippie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Seeker

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Well-Known Member