What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[LittleNipper]

I find the tones to be different. The Book of Mormon seems to be generally more personal and familiar. The Bible, in many ways seems more distant and harder to relate to (mostly in the OT). For instance, you rarely get to get a good feel for who the people in the Bible are. There are exceptions of course. I think it's cool how in the Book of Mormon you get to know some of the characters really well. You can feel much more of a personal connection. Not that anyone cares, but my favorite Old Testament exception to this generalization is when Joshua speaks powerfully and personally in Joshua 24. It's like a breath of fresh air.

Maybe becuae it's about GOD and HIS plan (the Bible) and not about men and their plans (BoM).

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

You get stuff like that based on dialect of the writer or in this case orator of the stories to a scribe. Both of which had arguable educations, thus it would be no small surprise if they botched up the language having no formal education.

Well, at least they seem to have a method to their madness. I really find the Book of Mormon to have a distinct and unique flavor. I like it. Take the sentence structure. You get some long and convoluted sentences. Look at the one LittleNipper quoted.

 

[zomg]

Isaiah in the Bible
- Isaiah is quoted more often than any other prophet.
-The King James Version has sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, containing 1,292 verses.
- New Testament writers had great respect fo Isaiah, quoting him fifty-seven times.

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon
- Isaiah is quoted by Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi, Moroni and the Savior.
- In all, they quote twenty-two chapters of Isaiah, more than any other prophet is quoted.
- Nephi alone quotes sixteen chapters of Isaiah, and the Savior quoted two chapters.
- They quote 414 Isaiah verses (32 percent of Isaiah).
- They paraphrase at least another thirty-four verses (3 percent of Isaiah).
- In all, they put 35 perfect of the book of Isaiah on their small, very valuable plates.
-Making Precious Things Plain, pgs 85-86

The Nephites carried the brass plates with them. These plates contained the five books of Moses amongst other writings. Nephi does quote heavily from Isaiah. He does cite his source

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Well, at least they seem to have a method to their madness. I really find the Book of Mormon to have a distinct and unique flavor. I like it. Take the sentence structure. You get some long and convoluted sentences. Look at the one LittleNipper quoted.

I guess the next question is does it's appeal to you as an easier read make it more correct? Does that make it more divine? IF so on what basis?

To me the fact that when I read the bible and can see how plainly human these people are speaks volumes to me about a certain realness. That being said.....the amount that the Bible rather hodge podgedly throws stuff together in such a transparent fashion as to be condemning speaks volumes about it's errant ways also.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Maybe becuae it's about GOD and HIS plan (the Bible) and not about men and their plans (BoM).

Maybe. I wouldn't come to that conclusion. The authors of the Book of Mormon wanted us to come to a better understanding of God and his dealings with man. They believed that reading the history of their people could help in this endeavor.

 

[LittleNipper]

Isaiah in the Bible
- Isaiah is quoted more often than any other prophet.
-The King James Version has sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, containing 1,292 verses.
- New Testament writers had great respect fo Isaiah, quoting him fifty-seven times.

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon
- Isaiah is quoted by Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi, Moroni and the Savior.
- In all, they quote twenty-two chapters of Isaiah, more than any other prophet is quoted.
- Nephi alone quotes sixteen chapters of Isaiah, and the Savior quoted two chapters.
- They quote 414 Isaiah verses (32 percent of Isaiah).
- They paraphrase at least another thirty-four verses (3 percent of Isaiah).
- In all, they put 35 perfect of the book of Isaiah on their small, very valuable plates.
-Making Precious Things Plain, pgs 85-86

The Nephites carried the brass plates with them. These plates contained the five books of Moses amongst other writings. Nephi does quote heavily from Isaiah. He does cite his source

And yet oddly (given a belief among Mormons) none of these quoted verses show any correction of mistakes of the "corrupted Bible." But the verses are quoted even as in the King James.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

And yet oddly (given a belief among Mormons) none of this quoted verses show any correction of mistakes of the "corrupted Bible." But the verses are quoted even as in the King James.

DING DING DING. You win the no prize. The prize is a coveted award for people who get the answer right....yet it won't change a dang thing.:foryou:

 

[zomg]

And yet oddly (given a belief among Mormons) none of these quoted verses show any correction of mistakes of the "corrupted Bible." But the verses are quoted even as in the King James.

Yep. I've noticed that myself

 

[LittleNipper]

DING DING DING. You win the no prize. The prize is a coveted award for people who get the answer right....yet it won't change a dang thing.:foryou:

It will make those that really love the LORD wonder a bit if they consider the book of Mormon equal with the Bible. Perhaps?

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

It will make those that really love the LORD wonder a bit if they consider the book of Mormon equal with the Bible. Perhaps?

IT's times like these that I feel compelled to answer that line of thought with a Biblical quote.

II Thessalonians 2:11
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I guess the next question is does it's appeal to you as an easier read make it more correct? Does that make it more divine? IF so on what basis?

Ease of reading certainly doesn't make it more divine. I believe that Isaiah is some of the most profound and important prophecy we have access to. If you've ever read Isaiah, you'll know it isn't exactly an easy read.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Ease of reading certainly doesn't make it more divine. I believe that Isaiah is some of the most profound and important prophecy we have access to. If you've ever read Isaiah, you'll know it isn't exactly an easy read.

Easier than Daniel and Ezekiel IMO. I like Isaiah....cause as an Atheist it is most useful when refuting Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

This next point only makes sense from the perspective of someone who believes in the Bible (aka Jesus Christ is the son of God, etc.), yet rejects the Book of Mormon. From that perspective I would find the Book of Mormon to be a very odd book. What is it's purpose? Why did Joseph Smith write it? Was he deceived by the Devil? Or just trying to con a bunch of people? I mean, the message of the book is very Christian in its practical application. And I know that it has lead a great many people to believe in Christ and to seek to serve him and live his teachings. Why on earth would Satan want that to happen?

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

This next point only makes sense from the perspective of someone who believes in the Bible (aka Jesus Christ is the son of God, etc.), yet rejects the Book of Mormon. From that perspective I would find the Book of Mormon to be a very odd book. What is it's purpose? Why did Joseph Smith write it? Was he deceived by the Devil? Or just trying to con a bunch of people? I mean, the message of the book is very Christian in its practical application. And I know that it has lead a great many people to believe in Christ and to seek to serve him and live his teachings. Why on earth would Satan want that to happen?

Because if you are led astray and follow the wrong Pied Piper...you go to hell. Which interestingly enough is a construct of modern religion taken from pagan practices.

 

[LittleNipper]

Because if you are led astray and follow the wrong Pied Piper...you go to hell. Which interestingly enough is a construct of modern religion taken from pagan practices.

Not really. If one doesn't have a personal relationship with the Heavenly FATHER through the LORD JESUS CHRIST, then that person isn't a child of GOD and is bound for an eternal separation. The HOLY SPIRIT (COMFORTER) witnesses to the soul of the individual with such a relationship...

Once in the hands of JESUS, always in the hands of JESUS.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Not really. If one doesn't have a personal relationship with the Heavenly FATHER through the LORD JESUS CHRIST, then that person isn't a child of GOD and is bound for an eternal separation. The HOLY SPIRIT (COMFORTER) witnesses to the soul of the individual with such a relationship...

Once in the hands of JESUS, always in the hands of JESUS.

Not really. That is a modern fundamentalist construct native to the south. Whereby you can back slide but once saved always saved. This is not a universally accepted idea.

For example your theory is much like saying....Since I was baptized in the church and saved, regardless of the fact that I am an Atheist now I will go to heaven. The scripture would argue that to deny god is blasphemous and as such I could never enter heaven. Can't have it both ways. But again people make up a lot of stuff for the sake of their religion. Again the concept of hell is VERY messed up in modern Christianity. IT is now used as a scare tactic. In it's original Jewish terms there were two places. Gehenna and Sheol. Neither are hell. both are staging areas.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Because if you are led astray and follow the wrong Pied Piper...you go to hell. Which interestingly enough is a construct of modern religion taken from pagan practices.

I actually don't think the bible is consistent with that type of idea. I think it clearly teaches that all good is on the same side and that Satan never attempts to bring about anything good.

 

[LittleNipper]

This next point only makes sense from the perspective of someone who believes in the Bible (aka Jesus Christ is the son of God, etc.), yet rejects the Book of Mormon. From that perspective I would find the Book of Mormon to be a very odd book. What is it's purpose? Why did Joseph Smith write it? Was he deceived by the Devil? Or just trying to con a bunch of people? I mean, the message of the book is very Christian in its practical application. And I know that it has lead a great many people to believe in Christ and to seek to serve him and live his teachings. Why on earth would Satan want that to happen?

I believe that "Christianity" was popular in America at that time and Mr. Smith believed there was money and power to be had. Why did Judas do what he did? For that very reason (See John 12:6).

 

[LittleNipper]

Not really. That is a modern fundamentalist construct native to the south. Whereby you can back slide but once saved always saved. This is not a universally accepted idea.

For example your theory is much like saying....Since I was baptized in the church and saved, regardless of the fact that I am an Atheist now I will go to heaven. The scripture would argue that to deny god is blasphemous and as such I could never enter heaven. Can't have it both ways. But again people make up a lot of stuff for the sake of their religion. Again the concept of hell is VERY messed up in modern Christianity. IT is now used as a scare tactic. In it's original Jewish terms there were two places. Gehenna and Sheol. Neither are hell. both are staging areas.

GOD does cause early death and also such a one may lose treasures in heaven.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

I actually don't think the bible is consistent with that type of idea. I think it clearly teaches that all good is on the same side and that Satan never attempts to bring about anything good.

You are indeed wrong. The entirety of the speakings of the end times revolves around a figure....we call the anti-christ....that does miraculously wonderful things. He brings peace to the world. PEople follow this very well spoken leader. And as a result they are pulled away from God. Book of revelations.

Now of course that all depends on how you take it. PERSONALLY I look at Revelations as Apocalyptic literature that is written about things that were happening at the inception of its writing. Not the future stuff that it is espoused to be.