Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Jim

Playing fast and loose with history?

OK:
This isn't the Bear Pit, so let's try to keep the discussion civilised.
The subject on the Bear Pit split from my blog diverted into the basis for foundation of various religious groups ( Note: I'm trying to keep the language as moderate as possible, here.)
Several of these groups claimed a historical basis for their foundation or doctrine, the evidence for which is, at best non-existent, or at worst, fraudulent.
Of course, I realise that Christianity itself has few extra biblical sources - but they DO exist, and with the plethora of mid second century sources, multiply.
Yet some religious traditions, in the face of counter-evidence, maintain their position.
Several of these groups were founded by people who were completely ignorant of the culture, history, linguistic or ethnicity of the areas in which they set their 'foundational/doctrinal' events.
Would any proponent of such groups explain this, please?
Derek

Re: Playing fast and loose with history?

Jim wrote:
OK:
This isn't the Bear Pit, so let's try to keep the discussion civilised.
The subject on the Bear Pit split from my blog diverted into the basis for foundation of various religious groups ( Note: I'm trying to keep the language as moderate as possible, here.)
Several of these groups claimed a historical basis for their foundation or doctrine, the evidence for which is, at best non-existent, or at worst, fraudulent.
Of course, I realise that Christianity itself has few extra biblical sources - but they DO exist, and with the plethora of mid second century sources, multiply.
Yet some religious traditions, in the face of counter-evidence, maintain their position.
Several of these groups were founded by people who were completely ignorant of the culture, history, linguistic or ethnicity of the areas in which they set their 'foundational/doctrinal' events.
Would any proponent of such groups explain this, please?


Would any proponent of such groups explain this, please? Gladly

Well, lets try again.


Jeff Linsay clearly shows the influence of the Hebrew Language in the BOM

The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon


If you're interested in possible Book of Mormon "Hebraisms" (language structures in the English translation suggesting Hebraic roots in the original), one good essay is "The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon" by Dr. John A. Tvedtnes. This is a chapter in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Comp., 1991), pp. 77-91. This is one of several excellent books available free online at the Maxwell Institute (FARMS).

Here a couple of excerpts:


   Hebrew uses another compound preposition that would be translated literally as from before the presence of or from before the face of. English would normally use simply from. The influence of the Hebrew can be seen in these Book of Mormon passages:

   "they fled from before my presence" (1 Nephi 4:28)

   "he had gone from before my presence" (1 Nephi 11:12)

   "they were carried away . . . from before my face" (1 Nephi 11:29)


And here's one from the discussion of conjunctions:

   Another difference between Hebrew and English conjunctions is that in Hebrew the same conjunction can carry both the meaning and and also the opposite meaning but. Here are two well-known Bible passages in which the King James Version renders the conjunction but:

   "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" (Genesis 2:16-17).

   "And as for Ishmael . . . I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac" (Genesis 17:20-21).

   Evidence for Hebraism in the Book of Mormon lies in the fact that some passages use the conjunction and when but is expected. Here, for example, are two different versions of the Lord's promise to Lehi:

   "Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence" (2 Nephi 1:20; compare Alma 50:20).

   "Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence" (2 Nephi 4:4).

   In one of the quotations of this promise, Joseph Smith rendered the conjunction and, while in another place, he rendered it but. In other Book of Mormon passages, Joseph translated and when in English we would expect but because a contrastive meaning is clearly called for:

   "And when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and (= but) when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it" (Moroni 9:4).

   "He commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And (= but) he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts" (3 Nephi 20:1).

And from his final section:

   Words Used in Unusual Ways

   At several points in the Book of Mormon, we encounter English words used in ways that are unknown or unexpected in our language. King Mosiah said, "I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people" (Mosiah 1:11). In English we would expect distinguished from. But the Book of Mormon passage reflects the normal Hebrew expression, which uses the compound preposition that means from above.

   Jacob wrote that Nephi instructed him regarding Nephite sacred preaching, revelations, and prophecies that "I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates" (Jacob 1:4). The term head seems out of place. We would expect something like most important to be used. But the expression is readily explainable in terms of Hebrew. The Hebrew word for the head of the body is sometimes used to describe things as chief (see Deuteronomy 33:15; Psalm 137:6; and Proverbs 1:21) or precious (see Amos 6:1; Song of Solomon 4:14; Ezekiel 27:22). This is probably the sense in which Jacob used the word.

   Nephi wrote, "We are upon an isle of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:20). It seems strange to have Nephi call the American continent an island. But the Hebrew word generally translated isle in the Bible has a wider range of meaning than just island. It most often refers to coastal lands.

http://mormanity.blogspot.co.uk/2...background-of-book-of-mormon.html
Derek

Sufficient to cast doubt upon your initial statement that indicates a fraud and deception. Before you condemn it may pay to get the story from both sides instead of the one you favor

Quote:
Reflections of Sami Hanna
Elder Russell M. Nelson
General Sunday School Presidency 1976


My neighbor, Sam Hanna, is a native Egyptian. He is an academic scholar who moved into our neighborhood to accept an assignment with the University as a specialist in Middle Eastern Studies and the Semitic group of languages such as Arabic, Abyssinian, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian. Being a newcomer into our community, he felt the Mormons were a bit of a curiosity.

Upon learning the name Mormon came from our belief that the Book of Mormon is divine scripture, he was intrigued by the existence of the Book of Mormon. He has erroneously thought this was American literature. When he was told that the Book of Mormon was translated from the ancient Egyptian or modified Hebrew type of hieroglyphic into the English language by the Prophet Joseph Smith, he became even more engrossed, for this was his native language and he knows much about the other Semitic languages as well as the modern languages.

So challenged was he by this book that he embarked on the project of translating the Book of Mormon from English to Arabic. This translation was different from other translations, for this was to be a translation back to the original language of the book. To make a long story short, the process of this translation became the process of his conversion; for he soon knew the Book of Mormon to be a divine document even though he knew virtually nothing of the organization of the Church or of its programs. His conversion came purely from the linguistics of the book which he found could not have been composed by an American, no matter how gifted. Some of his observations I think will be of interest to you, as they were to me, for they clarify some of the unique aspects of the book.

1. Jarom 2: "It must needs be . . ." This expression, odd and awkward in English, is excellent Arabic grammar. Elsewhere in the book the use of the compound verbs "did eat," "did go," "did smile," etc., again awkward and rarely used in English, are classical and correct grammar in the Semitic languages.

2. Omni 18: "Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory." Brother Hanna indicates that this is a typical custom of his Semitic forebearers to recite their genealogy from memory.

3. Words of Mormon 17: Reference is made here as in other parts of the Book of Mormon, to the "stiffneckedness" of his people. Brother Hanna perceives that this word would be a very unusual word for an American youth as Joseph Smith to use. An American would likely prefer an adjective such as stubborn or inflexible. But the custom in the Arabic language is to use just such a descriptive adjective. Stiff-necked is an adjective they use in describing an obstinate person.

4. Mosiah 11:8: "King Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings and ornamented them with fine work and precious things, including ziff." Have you ever wondered about the meaning of the word "ziff" referred to in this scripture? This word, although in the Book of Mormon, is not contained in dictionaries of the English language. Yet it translates freely back into the Arabic language, for ziff is a special kind of curved sword somewhat like a simitar which is carried in a sheath and often used for ornamentation as well as for more practical purposes. The discovery of the word "ziff" in the Book of Mormon really excited my neighbor, Brother Hanna.

5. Alma 63:11 Reference is made to Helaman, son of Helaman. Why did not Joseph Smith interpret this as Helaman, Jr., which would have been more logical for him, bearing the same name as his father, Joseph, and being named Joseph Smith, Jr. In Arabic, Brother Hanna explains, there is no word "junior" to cover this circumstance. Their custom is to use the terminology Joseph, son of Joseph; Helaman, son of Helaman, etc.

6. Helaman 1:3: Here reference is made to the contending for the judgment seat. Brother Hanna observes that the use of the term "judgment seat" would be quite strange to an American who might have used a more familiar noun such as governor, president, or ruler. Yet, in Arabic custom,the place of power rests in the judgment seat and whoever occupies that seat, is the authority and power. The authority goes with the seat and not with the office or the person. So, this, in the Semitic languages, connotes the meaning exactly.

7. Helaman 3:14: In this verse, there are a total of eighteen "ands." Reviewers of the Book of Mormon have, on occasion, been critical of the grammar in such a passage where the use of the word "and" seems so repetitious. Yet Brother Hanna explains that each of the "ands" in this verse is absolutely essential to the meaning, when this verse is expressed in Arabic, for the omission of any "and" would nullify the meaning of the whole verse.

8. Helaman 3: 18-19: Have you wondered why the Book of Mormon cites a numbering system such as this? Do we say "forty and six, forty and seven, forty and eight"? No, Joseph Smith's natural interpretation would more appropriately have been forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight without the "ands." Brother Hanna excitedly observes that the use of "and" in "forty and six" is precisely correct Arabic. Remember they number as well as read from right to left and recite their numbers with the "and" to separate the columns.

Well, I have just cited a few of these examples. There are many more! As Latter-day Saint leaders, we are aware of the Semitic origin of the Book of Mormon. The fact that an Arabic scholar such as this seems a beautiful internal consistency in the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the book, is of great interest, for the Prophet Joseph did not merely render an interpretation, but a word for word translation from the Egyptian type of hieroglyphic into the English language. Brother Hanna said the Book of Mormon simply flowed back into the Arabic language.

You will be pleased to know that the Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon is now complete; that it will soon be available in this language which is read and spoken by 150 million people. Actually, there are about 700 million people who are able to read Arabic who now do not have access to the precious truths of the Book of Mormon. This is over two times the number of people on earth during the Savior's earthly ministry, at which time He challenged His disciples to preach the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

Several of these groups were founded by people who were completely ignorant of the culture, history, linguistic or ethnicity of the areas in which they set their 'foundational/doctrinal' events. I would say that the LDS are not one of these groups

http://www.moroni10.com/Hanna.html
gone

Re: Playing fast and loose with history?

Jim wrote:
OK:
This isn't the Bear Pit, so let's try to keep the discussion civilised.
The subject on the Bear Pit split from my blog diverted into the basis for foundation of various religious groups ( Note: I'm trying to keep the language as moderate as possible, here.)
Several of these groups claimed a historical basis for their foundation or doctrine, the evidence for which is, at best non-existent, or at worst, fraudulent.
Of course, I realise that Christianity itself has few extra biblical sources - but they DO exist, and with the plethora of mid second century sources, multiply.
Yet some religious traditions, in the face of counter-evidence, maintain their position.
Several of these groups were founded by people who were completely ignorant of the culture, history, linguistic or ethnicity of the areas in which they set their 'foundational/doctrinal' events.
Would any proponent of such groups explain this, please?


Christianity has spawned many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, some are pretty nasty.
Jim

Re: Playing fast and loose with history?

SAdly, with this I agree, floo - but then I'd suggest they would then no longer BE Christian, but cults.
However, I'm trying - seriously - to understand those who seemed to wish to anchor their idea of Christianity in what, in the nineteenth century in particular, were perceived as "the mysteries of the Orient".
gone

I think the Pentecostal movement is an unpleasant cult, as nasty as the JWs and Mormons. My experience of it was horrible, and it doesn't seemed to have changed from what I can see.
Jim

Don't lump all Pentecostals together, floo.
I attended one for many years, and they are not a 'prosperity gospel' shower.
Whether you like them or not, though, you have to admit that they were not founded on some ninteenth century pseudo-history!
Lexilogio

Floo wrote:
I think the Pentecostal movement is an unpleasant cult, as nasty as the JWs and Mormons. My experience of it was horrible, and it doesn't seemed to have changed from what I can see.


Not all Pentecostals, JWs and Mormons are nasty. Every group has its difficult element.

I would only use that terminology where a group was systematically harming its members.
gone

I am not claiming ALL the members of these sects are nasty, but the dogmas are, imo.
Farmer Geddon

Look - this has been going on since the concept of the Christ.

Even the original Christian Paul saw this was going on, why do you think he wrote so many letters trying to correct this anomaly?
Jim

OK;
first, any objective historian would not use a biassed source to research.
For Example, I would not use a Scottish Nationalist historian to research Anglo-Scottish relations ( in isolation, of course).
Therefore an lds historian would have to be taken in the same way, compared to the corpus of material available from other sources.
In that degree, then, I reiterate: there is not one shred of evidence for Semitic migration from Egypt in sixth or fifth century times.
You may have an Egyptian friend; congratulations. I have several, two of whom were directors of the s
Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, another being the late, respected Egyptologist Labib Habatchi, under whom I had the privelage to study.
His discipline, apart from the usual Dyn XVIII stuff, was the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period - which was my choice as well.
He excavated in Naucratis and other Delta ports, and specialised in foriegn relations between Egypt and the Levant in the sixth century BC.
I'd suggest his expertise was sufficient to qualify him to opine on migration and marine activities in the sixth centuries.
Don't forget that, unless a foriegn power were aiding Egypt, or a foriegn people were being exploited to meet her needs, one of the characteristics which defined Egyopt in Pharonic times was xenophobia.
This was the case in the sixth century BC - following the Ethiopin conquest in DynXXV, the newly won independance made the Saite (XXVIth) dynasty monarchs very jumpy when it came to 'foriegners', recording their presence and activities meticulously.
No such record exists for a Jewish migratory population in the Delta.
Jim

floo:
Which particular dogmas?
THere are as many Pentecostal Churches as ther are doctrines.
You need to be more specific!
Farmer Geddon

Jim seriously - have you seen how priests and fathers have been taught religion over the past 200 years?



This is a genuine lecture, and many more after, that priests and fathers receive at theology colleges/universities..

It should make you think..  unless dogma has a hold of your soul!!
Jim

FG:
It doesn't surprise me.
See what I mean about trying to remain objective?
I mean, the net is great - but the amount of biased sites out there is frightening. I'm afraid to say a load of them are from (probably well-meaning) Christian - or indeed mormon supporters who have a preconceived agenda.
You simply can't do that in Ancient History!
Egyptology is littered with well meaning amateurs who thought they knew the histories, so went out to force the evidence into their idea of what they should be.
We're still dealing with the baggage some of these idealists left us.
My own two main interests in Egyptology, the end of the eighteenth dynasty, and the third Intermediate and Late Periods, are dogged with Christian 'historians' seeking a proto-Messianic figure in Akhenaten, or Greek historians and a few JW hangers on trying to re-write history to suit their own theories of world history from c700-400BC.
Most of the time, the REAL experts have to go round like firemen, extinguishing the flames of myth the 'historians' created - or limiting the damage they did in the process.
Derek

Jim

Quote:
OK;
first, any objective historian would not use a biassed source to research.
For Example, I would not use a Scottish Nationalist historian to research Anglo-Scottish relations ( in isolation, of course).
Therefore an lds historian would have to be taken in the same way, compared to the corpus of material available from other sources.
In that degree, then, I reiterate: there is not one shred of evidence for Semitic migration from Egypt in sixth or fifth century times.


My source was not an LDS source. Dr Sammi Hanna was not a member of the LDS Church when he translated the BOM back into Semitic language. He was in the employ of Brigham Young University.

Quote:
You may have an Egyptian friend; congratulations. I have several, two of whom were directors of the s

Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, another being the late, respected Egyptologist Labib Habatchi, under whom I had the privelage to study.
His discipline, apart from the usual Dyn XVIII stuff, was the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period - which was my choice as well.
He excavated in Naucratis and other Delta ports, and specialised in foriegn relations between Egypt and the Levant in the sixth century BC.
I'd suggest his expertise was sufficient to qualify him to opine on migration and marine activities in the sixth centuries.


I have no friends who are Egyptians. Dr Sammi Hanna was the friend of Elder Nelson, a world renowned heart surgeon. I do not believe is boosting who I know or who I am friends with. It does not make me a better person because of who I know. But you seem to have some good friends who can be as wrong at this as Dr Sammi Hanna might be.

Quote:
Don't forget that, unless a foriegn power were aiding Egypt, or a foriegn people were being exploited to meet her needs, one of the characteristics which defined Egyopt in Pharonic times was xenophobia.
This was the case in the sixth century BC - following the Ethiopin conquest in DynXXV, the newly won independance made the Saite (XXVIth) dynasty monarchs very jumpy when it came to 'foriegners', recording their presence and activities meticulously.
No such record exists for a Jewish migratory population in the Delta.


I have responded to you original points, as follows.

Quote:
Several of these groups claimed a historical basis for their foundation or doctrine, the evidence for which is, at best non-existent, or at worst, fraudulent.

Quote:

Several of these groups were founded by people who were completely ignorant of the culture, history, linguistic or ethnicity of the areas in which they set their 'foundational/doctrinal' events.
Would any proponent of such groups explain this, please?


I have provided evidence that refutes your claim, or at the very least causes one to rethink their opinion. The evidence shows a clear connection between the Hebrew Language and the way the BOM was translated. Now, as I have said, I am not certain whether the BOM is true or not, however, when influential people, like this, talk, then I listen in the same way as I would listen to those who make opposing claims. Thus far, nothing anyone has said refutes the BOM. 200 years in circulation and not a smidgeon of proof to deny its authenticity. Translated into almost every language in the world at great cost to the church, the BOM is free. Scholars having tried countless times to discredit it. If there were proof available to deny its origins then Mormonism would not exist today. It is one of the fastest growing churches in the world. It has some of the most influential people in the world as members, It is the most successful self sustaining church in the world with the largest independent welfare system feeding the hungry world wide and saving lives as it does. If any credible evidence existed that would make it hogwash then it would have petered out and disappears many years ago, especially with the controversy of polygamy, the blacks having the priesthood restore, the mountain meadows massacre , the splitting of the church, and countless other events that brought disrepute to the church.

Why is that church thriving so much? Let me tell you
Quote:

Matthew 7:16-20

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


Now look at the fruit of the BAC on here and many other forums. Look at the way in which we talk to each other. You would never see that behavior from a Mormon, yet the Born Again Christians are their biggest critic, spreading lies and misrepresenting, about an organization that produces the sweetest fruit available anywhere.
gone

Jim wrote:
floo:
Which particular dogmas?
THere are as many Pentecostal Churches as ther are doctrines.
You need to be more specific!


The you have to be 'saved' or go to hell is a very nasty dogma, imo.
Derek

Floo wrote:
Jim wrote:
floo:
Which particular dogmas?
THere are as many Pentecostal Churches as ther are doctrines.
You need to be more specific!


The you have to be 'saved' or go to hell is a very nasty dogma, imo.


That is a Born Again Dogma. Your best buddy subscribes to that exact dogma. How do you reconcile that.
Jim

Which is not a Pentecostalist doctrine, as far as I am aware.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:

Your best buddy subscribes to that exact dogma. How do you reconcile that.


Warning:  Just cut it with the personal stuff or this will be split off and sent to the Bear Pit.
Jim

Ralph:
Again, I reiterate;
There is not one verifiable piece of evidence that any Semites emigrated from Egypt in the sixth or fifth century BC.
There is no evidence from unbiased sources that any Semitic population existed in the New World before the settlement of that continent by non native Americans.
As for Brigham Young University?
Well, it's hardly unbiased, is it?

By the way, I was not name dropping; simply informing you that the foremost experts in the field of Late Period Egyptology confirm my points.
Again, unbiased sources, some Christian, others Islamic or atheist, but expert in the field nonetheless.

When the individual who wrote the BOM did so, he was unaware of the scholarship of his own day, as well as that of succeeding generations, which has firmly confirmed the points I have made.

I am trying here not to single out the lds religion - unfortunately the JW religion was contaminated with the same 'Egyptomania' which takes away any credence either may have had in the eyes of those who HAVE studied the discipline of Egyptology to any extent.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Which is not a Pentecostalist doctrine, as far as I am aware.


Jim


Please allow me to let Wiki speak for the Brigham Young University, which is the third most successful Univeristy in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University

No, it is not a Pentecostal doctrine but it is a Born Again Christian Doctrine. At the funeral of my brother-in-law, who was a Born Again Christian, sadly, they made that point clear to the whole congregation during the Sermon. We are either saved or we face hell fire and damnation. My dear old mother and father were not Born Again so does that mean that they are in hell right now. Is the judgement a farcical phenomenon as those who are Born Again will make the Kingdom of God and those who are not, won't. No Judgement required.

It is not personal it is the belief system of a whole congregation. If that makes anyone feel ashamed of their belief then get out of it as soon as you can. Look at what happened to Jody Stowell. It is easy to become oversensitive to suggestion.


MODERATOR: Edited.  Second warning - this is not the Bear Pit.
Jim

Here's a cautionary tale

http://www.janishutchinson.com/arcbkmorm.html

as to why, when one DOES use unbiased expertise in these matters, the biased sources are seen to bring nothing but discredit on the group they claim to support.
Derek

Janis Hutchinson - Welcome to my site!

The chair of our committee is Dr. Janis Hutchinson, PhD. M.P.H., Professor of Anthropology at the University of Houston.

God bless her though. She joined the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ In 1978, as she said,  I secretly joined a Mormon Fundamentalist group. I don't blame her for doing all that she can to help ex-cult members. These splt off groups can be very nasty plus people like yourself confuse them with the real Mormons.

She is a disgruntled ex-fundamentalist Mormon who has found time, in her busy schedule, to discredit the faith she came from by using the vehicle of the faith she now belongs to. She also does nothing to prevent the confusion that arises when saying you are a Mormon without specifying which faith you belong to. Why? More people know the mainstream Mormons so the sale of books are greater. These people cannot be trusted. Their views are bigoted and bias. I have the same qualification, and more, being a man, within the Real Mormon Church as she does. I just do not bear a grudge and see it for what it is. A church that is so heavily laden with good fruits that the odd couple of bad ones, like Janis claiming to be a main stream Mormon, do nothing to stop the production of the fruit. Come on Jim. At least use someone that does not have a agenda of revenge and an expensive lifestyle to pay for by selling books. At least choose a real Mormon whose central office is in Salt Lake City, Utah.


Quote:
How often have you said, "I wish I knew more about Mormon beliefs so I could be better equipped to talk with Mormons—especially the missionaries." Well, you've come to the right place. Or, perhaps you are a Mormon investigating this site for the first time, and ask, "Can I believe what I read on this site?" Rest assured you can trust what you read here. I spent thirty-five happy years serving in all the organizations; taught the Gospel Doctrine class, served two local missions, married in the temple, and was active in genealogy work. So, you might ask: "Why would someone who enjoyed the church that much, leave?" The answer is: there must have been a pretty strong reason. You'll find out that reason as you peruse this site, read and study the articles. You'll also be excited at the kind of detail presented, including extensive endnotes that cite LDS sources. As Sergeant Friday used to say on the old Dragnet series, "Just the facts, maam. Just the facts." That's what you'll get.

Be sure to check out my:

- See more at: http://www.janishutchinson.com/#sthash.xPcZzsUZ.dpuf


She also has a very good book out on missionary that you can purchase for just $14.95
Ketty

Quote:
Situated at the heart of Salt Lake City, Utah, Temple Square is the spiritual, cultural and administrative center of the Mormon faith.  This ten acres plot of land includes a Temple, a domed tabernacle and numerous buildings,  monuments and memorials. While this place may seem holy and wholesome, a closer look at the structures reveal the presence of occult, pagan and masonic symbols. A deeper study of those grounds only adds to the controversy regarding Mormonism and reveals the disturbing truth about its real god


http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinist...inister-sites-temple-square-utah/

Jim

Ralph;
You will notice that I have been very careful to state my opposiyon to biased sources.
Hutchinson was NOT the source.
She may well have an agenda - but the sources whom she uses are highly respected, accredited in their field.
Breasted, in particular, though long dead, is still highly respected for his work on translation.
If he said such a linguistic mess as 'reformed Egyptian' is nonsense - then nonsense it is. I have found no reasonable source to say otherwise.
My own studies in hieroglyphs, albeit limited in univeersity, have helped me to the samre conclusion.
The only significant change in hieroglyphs, hieratic or demotic scripts came with the Roman Period and the abandoment of Pharonic culture.
The present Coptic Church maintains a form of demotic script which is the inheritance of the classic Egyptian language.

As for the other sources used in the article, most are very highly respected in their field.
Jim

To show that I'm not simply dismissing the lds stuff, take a look at
http;amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_archaeology_Egypt_Moses

This purports to be a serious site - but in actuality, there is nothing but myth and speculation, and a supreme disregard for the masses of evidence from the reigns of the monarchs involved.
indeed, the author of the site totally ignores the fact that one of the monarchs, Hatshepsut, NEVER ruled independently; her reign was spent, for the first seven years as regent for her son Menkheperure Thutmose III, and the remainder as co-regent.
Simple things like this make a mockery of those who try to put the record straight.
In an effort to 'prove' the Bible - which does not need proving - this site, and too many others like it, heap ridicule on the faith they seek to spread.
Jim

I'll try posting that link again - it didn't seem to link in my last post.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_archaeology_Egypt_Moses
Derek

Jim wrote:
To show that I'm not simply dismissing the lds stuff, take a look at
http;amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_archaeology_Egypt_Moses

This purports to be a serious site - but in actuality, there is nothing but myth and speculation, and a supreme disregard for the masses of evidence from the reigns of the monarchs involved.
indeed, the author of the site totally ignores the fact that one of the monarchs, Hatshepsut, NEVER ruled independently; her reign was spent, for the first seven years as regent for her son Menkheperure Thutmose III, and the remainder as co-regent.
Simple things like this make a mockery of those who try to put the record straight.
In an effort to 'prove' the Bible - which does not need proving - this site, and too many others like it, heap ridicule on the faith they seek to spread.


Jim

I am not for one minute suggesting that you are dismissing the LDS Stuff. I am on the opposite end of the table to you. The BOM exists, it is still very much in print in many languages, it has been scrutinized by many educational establishments with none being able to discredit it, a challenge has been issued and has yet to be meet by anyone, Joseph Smith was too illiterate, young and inexperienced to write it himself in such a short time introducing new words to the English language and many idioms, 14 million people believe what is written in its pages,  two sets of witnesses testify that they saw the gold plates and two scribes testify that Joseph Smith translated the BOM from those plates. I am mentioning a few things pertaining to its appearance with hundreds of anomalies suggesting that it was a divinely inspired work.

Now consider the word WHY. Why would Joseph Smith try to deceive people by producing this fraud. What did he stand to gain. Wealth and prosperity - No, not a penny. He was tarred and feathered many times, he lost two of his children at the hands of the mob. He was arrested on trumped up charges 37 times and released without charge on 36 occasions, the last one is when he was martyred. He was poisoned, had his noise broken three times, was chased and beaten several time and all he had to say was that he lied and was wrong and everything would have stopped. How do you put reason to that. This scoundrel and fraudster was hounded like a dog and persecuted to a point where he almost gave in, for what? Because he said that he had a visitation from God the father and his son Jesus Christ. What would you do if a 14 year old boy said that to you? Would you want to kill him? You, and people like you, are still hounding him with name calling such as charlatan. I am not asking you to believe the BOM, I do not think that I do either, but at least ask the word WHY. for what reason would he do this. What would it take for you to do it? Do not listen to the stupid anti-Mormon rhetoric put on  the internet and regenerated on here. Use your own intellect to try and fathom out why a boy, in the bible belt of the USA, would attempt to create a knew religion.

Lastly, the very nature of the internet means that every time that you come up with evidence suggesting that there is no evidence for the BOM I can find evidence to suggest that there is evidence. We can do this until the cows come home. Who is right? The ultimate test is by using your knees to find out the truth. I tried and got nothing. The problem with that is that I did not get anything to say it was a lie either. That means that it remains an open question to me but maybe you are more righteous then me and will get a definite answer. In the meantime, I will defend their right, and my right, to worship the God of our choice without harm or malice from others. That is the Christian way so should be your way. Unfortunately, I cannot continue this with you as I am leaving the forum for a while. My words are being unfairly censored so I will go somewhere where they are not. Why not open an account on proof directory and we can continue this in an amicable environment, although Keturah is there as well.

I am no longer a Mormon but my belief is heavily steeped in these two articles of faith.

Articles of Faith 11 and 13


11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Jim

Here's another daft site - and, don't worry, Ralph, it has absolutely nothing to do with Smith.
Not even HE was THAT deluded...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread344155/pg1
Jim

If anyone wants their mind well and truly boggled
http://theancientsacredmysteries.com/akhenaton_moses.htm
is worth a look...the author of this tripe-fest claims Solomon was a Pharaoh.....
Lexilogio

Jim wrote:
Here's another daft site - and, don't worry, Ralph, it has absolutely nothing to do with Smith.
Not even HE was THAT deluded...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread344155/pg1


There are always loads of conspiracy theories about the Egyptians. I read one a couple of years ago by Graham Hancock.
Jim

Hancock?
LANGUAGE. LEXI!

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum