-
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!
Lot - Why he wasn't such a bad guy.
- Thread starter Bishka
- Start date
- Status
FFH
Veteran Member
Joseph Smith Inspired changes are in purple, and the King James difference are in parenthesis.
Gen. 19: 31-38
31- And the firstborn dealt wickedly, and said unto the younger, Our father has become (is) old, and we have (there is) not a man on (in) the earth to come in unto us, to live with us after the manner of all that live on the earth:
32- Therefore come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33- And they did wickedly, and made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34- And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35- And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36- Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37- And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab the same is the father of the Moabites, the same which are unto this day.
38- And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: (the same is) the father of the children which are Ammonites, the same which are (of Ammon) unto this day.
Gen. 19: 31-38
31- And the firstborn dealt wickedly, and said unto the younger, Our father has become (is) old, and we have (there is) not a man on (in) the earth to come in unto us, to live with us after the manner of all that live on the earth:
32- Therefore come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33- And they did wickedly, and made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34- And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35- And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36- Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37- And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab the same is the father of the Moabites, the same which are unto this day.
38- And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: (the same is) the father of the children which are Ammonites, the same which are (of Ammon) unto this day.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
beckysoup61 said:
Becky, I like you and am not wanting to come across as if I am being mean, but how in the world are you making the argument that an "inspired version" of a story, that was originally written down well over 2500 years ago, and re-written (in its inspired form) by Joseph Smith in the 1800's was "changed" in its original writing, and Joe's version is actually the more accurate?
I guess what I am getting at, is how is the original, as you put it, story written in 1875 A.D. (or thereabouts) while a "changed version" of this original 19th century story was written 500 or 600 B.C.? I hope the logical problems with this are obvious.
B.
rocka21
Brother Rock
[SIZE=+0]i also think it is interesting that both authors of the NEW WORLD TRANSATION - JW, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]and the BOOK of MORMON- Both saw an ANGLE of LIGHT. ( please correct me if i am wrong).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]i wonder who else can come as an angle of light? hummmmm.....[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]and the BOOK of MORMON- Both saw an ANGLE of LIGHT. ( please correct me if i am wrong).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]i wonder who else can come as an angle of light? hummmmm.....[/SIZE]
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
rocka21 said:
well, first off, everybody sees an "angle" of light everyday. I think what you meant to write was ANGEL. Second, I have no idea about what JW's claim. Third, the fact that satan can appear as something doesn't mean that ALL angels are satan, that would just be stupid of you to claim that all angels (or angles) are satan. uh, fourth is that God the Father and Jesus Christ also appeared to Joseph Smith, can satan come to people impersonating God? yeah, didn't think so. Finally, if you think our church was inspired by satan why has our church done so much good and grown so fast? Jesus said that "by their works ye shall know them" because good fruit does not come from a bad tree. For you to make petty and obviously false claims like that just shows your ignorance and lack of brotherly love for a fellow christian denomination. thanks.
Faint
Well-Known Member
I'm one of those. He offers his daughters to be raped. Later he has sex with them. God condones all of this. It's a bad, bad message to send, but understandable when viewed in context with the misogyny of that ancient culture.beckysoup61 said:
This is true, it has been a work in progress for many, many years. The simple variations in the current versions attest to the fact that translation and interpretation are not uniform.
Whatever. He REWROTE sections the way he wanted to. That's the bottom line here.
First, I would question why an all-powerful/inspirational deity could not inspire the original scribes to record the details properly. Then I would ask what makes Joseph Smith more of an expert in language translation than all the others who have set work to interpret the text. Third, if there are so many errors, how can any of the original be trusted?
The term translation is misleading. I would use the term "rewriting", as in "altering" the original content.
Why? Because according to reputable scholars, the Bible does not translate this way. All we have is Smith's claim "just trust me on this".
IF it was found in some long-lost, confirmable section of the Bible...and not some relatively modern man's "visions", then perhaps I'd be more likely to believe it as the correct version of events (which are not to be confused with actual historical events). Look, you can't say if "you don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet" is not part of this discussion. It is. If I believed he was a prophet, I would likely discount any evidence to the contrary of the ideas you're promoting. But I don't believe he was anything, so it makes his version all around pointless.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
angellous_evangellous said:
After re-reading this thread, I still stand by my original assessment.
rocka21
Brother Rock
comprehend said:
sorry, i should of left the last line out. sorry about my ignorance and lack of brotherly love.
i remember reading a long time ago the Joseph Smith story. If i am not mistaken, the angle said it was an angle of God. i wish joseph smith would have asked " do you come in the name of Jesus". i think that is in both Jw and lds stories - an angle from God appeared and gives the TRUE revelation of scriptures
just a side note. if an angle ever appears to you, before you let it speak , before you say anything. ASK FIRST- DO you come in the name of JESUS. - then proceed according to the answer you get.
rocka21
Brother Rock
[SIZE=+0]straight from the mormon straight. WOW[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
“Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. it was mormons son, Marroni! After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.
A glorified resurrected being........... WOW! speechless........... i thought it was an angle. sorry , ...........it was a profits son who hid plates and came back in a glorified resurrected body on sept. 21, 1823 and told Joseph Smith were they were.
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
“Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. it was mormons son, Marroni! After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.
A glorified resurrected being........... WOW! speechless........... i thought it was an angle. sorry , ...........it was a profits son who hid plates and came back in a glorified resurrected body on sept. 21, 1823 and told Joseph Smith were they were.
rocka21
Brother Rock
SoyLeche said:
1. I belive it was the offical Mormon website. i clicked a link from a member here.
2. thanks, - how can i debate if i don't know facts, which i am trying to learn. to most christians Angles or angleic beings were created by God in heaven , not people who have died.
i am trying to think of people who have died that appeared after death in the KJV bible.
off the top.
Samuel - who the which of endor produced , which was a deceiving spirit.
moses and elijah- appeared to Jesus.
and Jesus - who appeared to the disciples.
then in 1831 - i guess Maroni..........
- Status