Printable View
I've been thinking about this for quite some time now, in the back of the Bible it says, "thou shall not take away or add to this book," and if the book of mormon is a "addition to the Bible" then wouldn't that prove the religion to be false since it is based on the book of mormon...
sincerely,
gh0st
I ghost I good question, but this should be posted in the cosmos forum, Cosmos
A forum dealing with philosophy, religion, ethics, morals, laws, logical & mathematical problems, etc.
oh and i'm not anti-mormon
DOH!
You are correct in your idea that since the Bible says that any addition/innovation is not to be added. But I remember seeing a program on the discovery channel that stated they have been able to (by the style of writing or re-writing) identify at least FOUR different authors of the Bible. Under that premise, if the NIV or the King James or what have you, has been modified, then one can not use it as a standard to verify anothers authenticity.
The bible itself claims to have been written by dozensQuote:
I remember seeing a program on the discovery channel that stated they have been able to (by the style of writing or re-writing) identify at least FOUR different authors of the Bible.
of authors, over hundreds of years. This doesn't mean
that it has been tampered with.
:cool:
If I may disagree, I believe it was tampered with. It was written by humans who put in their biased views as to the events as they happened. As such, it is not true to the original events and tampered with.Quote:
rcgreen said:
The bible itself claims to have been written by dozens
of authors, over hundreds of years. This doesn't mean
that it has been tampered with.
In addition, with each translation attempts to define ideas or words alter the meaning of the texted. You need only look at the fact that there are many different sects of Christianity.
I think the sects are more due to differences in interpretationQuote:
You need only look at the fact that there are many different sects of Christianity.
than translation. Most of the text is not in dispute.
What the religious or moral meaning of it is on the other hand,
people have a lot of scope to read into it what seems right.
Even contemporary works of literature, people see different
messages.
:cool:
*******************Quote:
Originally posted here by I gh0st I
I've been thinking about this for quite some time now, in the back of the Bible it says, "thou shall not take away or add to this book," and if the book of mormon is a "addition to the Bible" then wouldn't that prove the religion to be false since it is based on the book of mormon...
sincerely,
gh0st
Is this the proper forum for such a question?
Went to the website lds.org for your enquiry, and they don't say anything about the BoM being anything like an "addition to the bible", rather they say it is "another witness for Jesus Christ". reading further into the preface, the book itself says that same thing. will bet the doughnuts that you'll not find anything in there about today's internet, computer technology, computer security, software, hardware or anything else that relates to AO main interests. You might find some ancient history the text says comes from several centuries ago in the north and south american continent, if you read far enough. Now, i've been slightly wrong before on occasion, and i may be incorrect again sometime in the future, but this is not the day. and this is enough religion for one setting. :D
************Quote:
Originally posted here by MsMittens
If I may disagree, I believe it was tampered with. It was written by humans who put in their biased views as to the events as they happened. As such, it is not true to the original events and tampered with.
In addition, with each translation attempts to define ideas or words alter the meaning of the texted. You need only look at the fact that there are many different sects of Christianity.
MsMittens is absolutely correct in her cool and calculated assessment of the historical path the words in the Bible had to take before they arrived at the Guttenberg Press. If you have followed even casually the events surrounding the handling of even the "Dead Sea Scrolls" for the past 60 years or so you can get a general idea of the intensity the Bible texts must have suffered prior to seeing the light of day and the scrutiny of the general public. Countless fingers labored for centuries trying to record with quill, or scribe, or stick, the events as they happened or as they thought they might have happened. In fact, i've heard it on good authority that brother John and brother James (who were recording monks from the historical library) died when their wagon was sideswiped by an army of speeding chariots. When they arrived at the pearly gates, St. Peter was surprised 'cause they were not on his incoming list for that day, so told them they could just hang out for a couple hours until he could get their quarters prepared. Bro John says he'd like to go see all the beautiful trees, grass, flowers and golden buildings, since he'd heard so much about them. Bro James says he'd like to go see the library where all the original texts were kept. St Peter gives them both a temporary visitor's permit. An hour later, Bro John returns to the Gate, and St. Peter sends him to find James. Sure enough there's James, still in the library, great and huge volumes spread all over the place, and old James leaning his face on his arm and just sobbing and stamping his feet for all he's worth. Alarmed, Bro John goes over, pats James on the shoulder and asks; "What's wrong, James, it can't be all that bad...?". James finally gets his voice under control and blurts out; "...Yes it is, John, we were robbed, John, we were robbed, and it's too late now...The *word* was celebrate, celeb<u>R</u>ate!"
So there ya go. If Bro John and Bro James finally found just one word that had an exrta letter which changed the whole idea, then you can bet probably there are a whole bunch more words that got changed, added or dropped, either accidentally or on purpose. And that probably still doesn't make the book worth any less than it is. Any book that tries to get people to do good things for other people has to be worth it's weight in AU. :D :D :D
I got a question....how many Apostles did Jesus have? Twelve. Now why is that only about 5 or six' testimonies appears in the New Testament? What happened to remaining account of events? One can't argue that maybe they did not keep a journal, for they were in the presence of one of the greatest and highly admired people in history. Surely they kept a record somewhere. Why do they not deserve a mention in the New Testament???
I semi agree but the one thing that hasn't been stated is that the bible in supposed to be inspired from God. So that the acutal writtting would be from god. If thats the case than there chould not be any more additions to the bible. That would make it complete but god. I do agree that interpitation has played a very large part modifing the original text. The Dead sea's scrools are supposed to be original transcript from Moses, plus other events that had happened. What changes did King James do. What about the interpration of Hilter and the white suppremicy???
You can always change a view of text the key is what the true inspireation is.
Ahem, ...may we digress here; the celebrated "Dead Sea Scrolls" were, to the best opinion by the scholors on hand in the early years of the discovery, composed at various dates between about 170 B.C. and 68 A.D. They represent the religious beliefs of an (probably) Essene Brotherhood which occupied the monestary during that time (based on the discovery of coins at the site) at Qumran on the western shores of the Dead Sea. The latter date of 68 A.D. coincides roughly with the arrival of the Tenth Roman Legion which had been sent to take care of a Jewish revolt. It is quite probable that the Brother's contemporary scrolls, as well as several which were somewhat older than the contemporaries, were hidden up at that time to defeat discovery by the Legionaires. The main Monestary was designed as a fort, by the way, and certain relecs have been discovered which support the theory that the good brethren were trying to defend their monastery. ..... Haven't found anything from Qumran supposed to be written by Moses, though, maybe someone could enlighten us?