Mormons Have World's Largest Database on Human Race: Why?

page: 16
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


Yes there are some that have their own lines traced way back as a matter of record. They are not mormon in the one case that I know of.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?



Anyway, I keep religion as a matter of prayer, you can research and find any information to suit your particular fancy, pro-lds or anti, just depends on who you are willing to believe. All your contentions have been covered ad infinitum but I'm sure you would not accept the alternate research because it definitely will not suit your views.


I did my own research without any anti-mormon books open near by or with the direction of known anti-mormon teachers. I got one of their bibles and studied it. I spent many hours talking with mormons that came to my home about every week for almost a year.

And let me tell you something I am not the sort that looks for things to back up my "fancy" or other ideas. Its much more than who one is willing to believe and frankly I dont subcribe to anyones ideas about the mormons dont even know anyone to subcribe to, I do my own figuring on what to believe based on an open minded look and study and did the favor of letting the mormons speak for themselves against it face to face.

So you keep religion as a matter of prayer oh how pious of you. Dont need to study you are getting direct feed in the mystic ozone layer. I would not pray about something like this unless it reached a point where it was hard to discern and I have never been to that point on this subject it being so plain that a bat could see it.


You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
edit on Tue Dec 28 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigrex

You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.


Hmm - - I wonder if I could learn Catholicism from books and talking to people in a year's time.

But Yes! Who ever said Mormon's are the Resurrected church of Jesus or whatever - - that is correct.

Hence the name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?



Well, let's take a few of your points since you studied for a year. Have you read Jesus the Christ, the Doctrine & Covenants, and all of what are considered the Standard Works? What did you read that portrayed "fancy footwork" or redacting of history, you may not call those anti-"mormon" works, but one could easily do so. No one was there, so whomever writes history can pretty much say or record whatever they like, all sorts of books will try a myriad of ways to offer discrepancy, theories, multiple accounts, and even falsehoods, you can never take anything you read at face value, even if it discredits Joseph Smith. Of course, I'm sure you know that, but as I have eluded to, it comes down to which "stories" you are going to believe, and ultimately it is a matter of faith. So, again, in my mind it is natural to ask God. I have asked and have my answer, I will not deny it, I can't pass it along to you, everyone needs to know for themselves through personal revelation. It is good to study something out in your mind, but you have come across things which are untrue or which do not matter and it has become a stumbling block for you, you apparently admit that you don't even think it is important to ask God about it. So, it's probably not as important as I would like to discuss this matter with you. I cannot change your mind over the internet, and this is ranging off topic of the original thread.

I will assume one of your contentions is polygamy, it is for most people. Even Brigham Young claimed to have "wished for the grave" when that was given as a commandment. Again, purely a matter of faith, if you don't have pure personal revelation about that one, you were primed to leave the Church back then, no one really knows the reason for the revelation. Sure, naysayers will say it was because Joseph Smith was a pervert or something of that nature. I don't know the reason, but if you believe the Church, as I do, I know it shows that God gives direction for specific times and circumstances and then revokes those commands as needed. (Yes, that's wide open for anyone who does not share the same faith). My personal thoughts on polygamy and why it was "instituted" are only my own, but I feel it could have possibly been due to the hardships of the times and the deaths that would occur across the plains, possibly there were fewer men and more women, perhaps it was to help preserve and promulgate certain genes for purposes known to the Lord. Maybe it separated those who had a real testimony from those who had no personal revelation. Whatever it was, in a nutshell, no one knows, and it is probably the easiest thing to attack, right along with blacks and the priesthood.
edit on 27-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bigrex
 


Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.

Now we must remember at this point the King James was translated from Hebrew to english of 1611 and the translation was agreed on by several translaters. So then Smith would of had to translated that section of the plates, that contained sections of Isaiah, into an exact reproduction on the King James text. Even if Smith knew how to translate hebrew, and the plates would have had to been in hebrew, the chances of an exact reproduction at that are so large as to not even be worth mentioning. Not to mention that in Smiths day the King James 1611 english was a bit out of fasion to say the least and yet Smith translated these plates using outdated english words. In other words his translation should have been of a more modern english. This one fact points to rank plagiarism. As it is we know Smith didnt know hebrew to translate it to begin with even if the plates had been in hebrew. Smith said the plates were in "reformed Egyptian" and so to make it even harder to believe that Smith could have produced an exact english translation of the isaiah sections.

And this is only one section. The book of mormon is full to the hilt with stolen chapters, paragraphs, verses and phrases ect taken right out of the King James bible. It is also clear in the whole work that Smith continued to mimic King James english even in areas that have no conection with the KJV. There are many volumes of american english of Smiths day to show that americans didnt speak that way anymore and yet Smith insisted in translating the plates in old english style clearly for effect.

As well Smith is said to have translated these plates around 1830. I just happen to have a thick volume with extensive notes writen by Adam Clarke in 1830 and it is clear that americans of that time didnt speak 1611 king james and in fact for the very large part spoke and wrote as we do today. In fact I cant find a single case where Clark even uses a thee, thou, hath or ye in all of his comentary!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?


. Whatever it was, in a nutshell, no one knows, and it is probably the easiest thing to attack, right along with blacks and the priesthood.


Well just those points right there end up saying a lot that fly into the face of the new testement. Smith could have never had the ideas about blacks he had had he been in line with the revelation of the gosple being open to the gentiles. This very mystery as Paul called it and said that the old prophets longed to understand it was now shown to the apostles of that day.

And the priesthood types that the mormons embrace were clearly shown as defunct in the book of Hebrews.

As far as many wives Paul was clear about a minister being the husband of one wife.

These points are not passe to this discussion. Especially when we consider that Smith said his mission and revelation was to set the church back on the right path and yet he cant even get the foundational truths in order but goes back even behind the new testement to priest classes that had palyed out, establishes racist ideas about the mark of cain that are no where in the bible really but born out of current biblical interpretation of his day and promotes adultry.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bigrex

You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.




Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bigrex

You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.




Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.


Yeah - but my hubby is a born and raised Mormon. And has like a photo graphic memory.

I was only Mormon for 5 years. I quit mostly because it is male dominated - - - its also way too fundamental for me.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.

Now we must remember at this point the King James was translated from Hebrew to english of 1611 and the translation was agreed on by several translaters. So then Smith would of had to translated that section of the plates, that contained sections of Isaiah, into an exact reproduction on the King James text. Even if Smith knew how to translate hebrew, and the plates would have had to been in hebrew, the chances of an exact reproduction at that are so large as to not even be worth mentioning. Not to mention that in Smiths day the King James 1611 english was a bit out of fasion to say the least and yet Smith translated these plates using outdated english words. In other words his translation should have been of a more modern english. This one fact points to rank plagiarism. As it is we know Smith didnt know hebrew to translate it to begin with even if the plates had been in hebrew. Smith said the plates were in "reformed Egyptian" and so to make it even harder to believe that Smith could have produced an exact english translation of the isaiah sections.

And this is only one section. The book of mormon is full to the hilt with stolen chapters, paragraphs, verses and phrases ect taken right out of the King James bible. It is also clear in the whole work that Smith continued to mimic King James english even in areas that have no conection with the KJV. There are many volumes of american english of Smiths day to show that americans didnt speak that way anymore and yet Smith insisted in translating the plates in old english style clearly for effect.

As well Smith is said to have translated these plates around 1830. I just happen to have a thick volume with extensive notes writen by Adam Clarke in 1830 and it is clear that americans of that time didnt speak 1611 king james and in fact for the very large part spoke and wrote as we do today. In fact I cant find a single case where Clark even uses a thee, thou, hath or ye in all of his comentary!





The King James version is considered to be a literary masterpiece, why wouldn't Joseph Smith rely on it for improving his English and giving a nice sounding version of the portions of the Book of Mormon that quote the Bible? Why should he change those portions if the King James was actually sufficient for those verses? So, that others could criticize him on that point? Nevertheless, he did make small changes here and there, only when needed, the Nephi version of Isaiah is not a word for word exact copy of the King James version of Isaiah. I just quickly found a verse here, Isaiah 6:13 "But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return,..". 2nd Nephi 16:13 "But yet there shall be a tenth and they shall return,.." of course we believe that Isaiah was a prophet preceding Nephi, and of course Nephi often referred to Isaiah in his own writings. He expressly tells us when he quotes Isaiah. I will add that Joseph Smith did a revised version of the King James New Testament, I'm sure you know that, but I mention it here because others may not know. Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling. I will say there are some similar themes in both books and some similar historical teaching situations, but I would like to see one of your whole chapters lifted word for word from the Bible where it is not expressly spelled out as being as such like Isaiah. Surely there would be potential for similar phraseology since both were works of literature originally with a similar cultural origin.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigrex
. . . the Nephi version of Isaiah is not a word for word exact copy of the King James version of Isaiah. I just quickly found a verse here, Isaiah 6:13 "But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return,..". 2nd Nephi 16:13 "But yet there shall be a tenth and they shall return,.." of course we believe that Isaiah was a prophet preceding Nephi, and of course Nephi often referred to Isaiah in his own writings. He expressly tells us when he quotes Isaiah. I will add that Joseph Smith did a revised version of the King James New Testament, I'm sure you know that, but I mention it here because others may not know.


Funny my hubby just came home - and I was telling him about this thread.

He immediately brought up Isaiah - explaining Isaiah is the only book that is in both the Book of Mormon and the bible. And supports you in Joseph Smith revising the King James New Testament.

Anyway - - hubby explained to me - - pretty much what you just posted.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?


. Whatever it was, in a nutshell, no one knows, and it is probably the easiest thing to attack, right along with blacks and the priesthood.


Well just those points right there end up saying a lot that fly into the face of the new testement. Smith could have never had the ideas about blacks he had had he been in line with the revelation of the gosple being open to the gentiles. This very mystery as Paul called it and said that the old prophets longed to understand it was now shown to the apostles of that day.

And the priesthood types that the mormons embrace were clearly shown as defunct in the book of Hebrews.

As far as many wives Paul was clear about a minister being the husband of one wife.

These points are not passe to this discussion. Especially when we consider that Smith said his mission and revelation was to set the church back on the right path and yet he cant even get the foundational truths in order but goes back even behind the new testement to priest classes that had palyed out, establishes racist ideas about the mark of cain that are no where in the bible really but born out of current biblical interpretation of his day and promotes adultry.


Blacks could always be baptized in what today is called the lds faith, but the issue was the priesthood. Again, with the priesthood in the Old Testament vs. the New, as compared to the last days (today) we believe in continued revelation. Truths are eternal, some things related to what is revealed to the children of men can vary according to what is needed, allowed, or able to be received in a generation or dispensation. The time of the Gentiles is drawing to a close.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bigrex

You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.




Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.




reply to post by Logarock
 


Yes, as I said it is good to study things out, but prayer does have a place, especially in a search for what is considered a faith based religion. I've been studying it for years, I was born into it, but that does not automatically give you a testimony. I have seen many Utah Mormons or what can be referred to "jack mormons" who are very far removed from the original pioneers, their form of the religion has been reduced to social perks, and what is popular to some extent. Many will fall away when times are not so flush and in favor of the lds faith. Persecutions will probably begin again for whatever reason, as prophesied, in the next few generations. I suspect half of the Church among the Gentiles will fall away, and then half of those will fall away, but those numbers are not revelation, only accounts from other sources.
edit on 27-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

I know you and I had differences of opinions in the past but this is where we find common ground.


I'd rather be hated by the world for Jesus Christ's namesake than to be loved by it and risk eternal damnation.

The world didn't understand Jesus' work 2000 years ago and it doesn't understand His work now. Nothings changed.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by Annee
 

I know you and I had differences of opinions in the past but this is where we find common ground.


I'd rather be hated by the world for Jesus Christ's namesake than to be loved by it and risk eternal damnation.

The world didn't understand Jesus' work 2000 years ago and it doesn't understand His work now. Nothings changed.



What I personally believe - is not mainstream. However - I do believe the "message of Love attributed to Jesus" (whoever/whatever Jesus really is) - - is correct. Religion however - is a product of man. I think ALL beliefs have been corrupted by man - - including LDS.

If you really get into the depths of Momonism though - - you will find it is a very Spiritual and Progressive belief. I admire greatly how it is organized and run - - especially with focus on family.

In my opinion - it is becoming more and more fundamental Christian every day. My hubby officially resigned from the church because of their Political involvement in Prop 8.

-----------------------------

On subject: I see no conspiracy in connection with genealogy records.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
(NM - I thought this was a much shorter thread, I realize what I said has already basically been said.)
edit on 12/27/2010 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Well i thought this thread was about the geneaology records that were being kept by the Mormons and not the dicussion of the religion itself wether it is based on the king james version or wether it is even a true religion or not...but the fact that the man smith initiated it...and the fact that the smiths in the matrix were dressed as mormons is intriguing to say the least...but that is a bit off topic...so i will not go there...but I will still say thanks to them collecting all this data myself as it has helped me to understand a lot about myself and the way i think and how i view this world we live in.
I have now traced my family back to the 1290's and it is very very interesting indeed ...and the geneological records have helped me achieve this which i can appreciate...but it was obviouly not the only source....but Bloodlines are very important and just ask wnyone in the Illuminati how important they are and how we mix our bloodlines.
The links between each and everyone of us can be traced and that might lead us to some understanding of the creation of mankind and where our divergence came into play during our creation and what sort of OUTSIDE influences may have been involved in our development as human beings.
Also the Information that is being collected by the Mormon Church is public domain and availible to most people if they want to look...now they are not asking for money from people to view this data and that is a good thing...and it can also be very useful to people if they were adopted or if they are looking for that missing link in there family line ....I am not a religious person but i do study many religions as it helps us in human understanding and the way the world is going that is not a bad thing.
So as far as them collecting this info i say good on them as long as they keep it availible to the public to access and to be able to go throught for the benifit of all individuals...
Also there has been a recent study showing that people who actually look into their family trees ...also do better on exams just by the act of looking into their pasts
Interesting to say the least i would say.
edit on 043131p://f46Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.





Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling.


Here is the problem with "suffer" as he used it. We can see what he is saying. Dont suffer or allow or let or permit us to go into temptation.

The problem is that there are several greek words for suffer.....but none of these words was used here (Matt 16:13 or Luke 11:4). The greek word there is εἰσφέρω eispherō used only 7 times in the greek NT and it has a very confined meaning....to lead into or bring into like taking hold of something and leading it like say a horse or a man by the arm. Thats why the KJv translaters used "lead" for eisphero and both matthew and Luke were carefull to use it. Had they wanted to say allow they would have use any one of several words that mean allow.

The word suffer as used in the greek KJV mean to allow, permit, grant as in "suffer me first to go bury my father" or "suffer us to go into the pigs".

Smith use of suffer here is just very poor greek and not a translation at all. Suffer changes the meaning of the passage. In fact many have had issues with this passage becouse it suggests to some that God will lead some into a wrong way. Be that as it may the word is "lead" like leading a horse to water not "suffer" or allow a horse to water.

As well the rest of the passage also supports the word eisphero in "deliver" us from evil- ῥύομαι rhyomai deliver. Both words eisphero and rhyomia represent outside force working on the subject....to lead or to deliver. Anyway suffer will not work here. Sounds good but the greek is more precise and it just shows that Smith was not greek sage and in fact its clear that he was changing KJV greek translation according to his understanding of the passage in english not from an understanding of the greek.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Logarock because: sp



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bigrex

You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.




Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.




reply to post by Logarock
 


Yes, as I said it is good to study things out, but prayer does have a place, especially in a search for what is considered a faith based religion. I've been studying it for years, I was born into it, but that does not automatically give you a testimony.


I would cation you here becouse you come from a frame whos founder used "stones" and the aid of a spirit being and his own clamied special powers to interpert plates and other documents....without any prior knowlege of the written language...... As well I am aware of what the power of "prayer" means to the Mormons. It is simply not a time to petition God or praise God but to receive special knowlege outside of having to study, which is what Smith was all about. In this way it is a cop out. Why should we distract ourself with prayer here? If we have the Spirit and it is bearing witness and is the Spirit of truth then we have discernment working in us already. If we then study....

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

....then we will not be ashamed by letting ourselves be lead astray after false doctrine. We will be able to rightly divide the true from the false.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Logarock because: sp



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
double post
edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
 


Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.





Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling.


Here is the problem with "suffer" as he used it. We can see what he is saying. Dont suffer or allow or let or permit us to go into temptation.

The problem is that there are several greek words for suffer.....but none of these words was used here (Matt 16:13 or Luke 11:4). The greek word there is εἰσφέρω eispherō used only 7 times in the greek NT and it has a very confined meaning....to lead into or bring into like taking hold of something and leading it like say a horse or a man by the arm. Thats why the KJv translaters used "lead" for eisphero and both matthew and Luke were carefull to use it. Had they wanted to say allow they would have use any one of several words that mean allow.

The word suffer as used in the greek KJV mean to allow, permit, grant as in "suffer me first to go bury my father" or "suffer us to go into the pigs".

Smith use of suffer here is just very poor greek and not a translation at all. Suffer changes the meaning of the passage. In fact many have had issues with this passage becouse it suggests to some that God will lead some into a wrong way. Be that as it may the word is "lead" like leading a horse to water not "suffer" or allow a horse to water.

As well the rest of the passage also supports the word eisphero in "deliver" us from evil- ῥύομαι rhyomai deliver. Both words eisphero and rhyomia represent outside force working on the subject....to lead or to deliver. Anyway suffer will not work here. Sounds good but the greek is more precise and it just shows that Smith was not greek sage and in fact its clear that he was changing KJV greek translation according to his understanding of the passage in english not from an understanding of the greek.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Logarock because: sp


Well, I better wrap my end of the discussion up, I am getting messages from ABS about to take the long cane and pull me off the stage so to speak. Back on topic for me after this one I guess and back to the conspiracy theory.

Keep in mind the word "lead" is used in it's past tense "led", so don't think that it was removed, it is there, again the Joseph Smith version of the New Testament is more about clarifying or revising than retransmitting an ancient text in a new language. He was not working from a manuscript on this "translation" so it was not literally a translation but rather an exercise in revelation, whether you believe in that kind of thing or not. Again, his job was to clarify an ancient text which could be misconstrued in a modern language context, perhaps past recopying of manuscripts could also muddy things to some extent.

And on the other point about receiving revelation from God, I could easily quote James 1:5. The story of Daniel interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar's dream also comes to mind. I think you will agree that was not a cop out, no one is saying study is not important, it is the first part of the equation, a means to an end, not the end itself, which is personal revelation. Thank you.

edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: added comments
edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: typo
edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: edit sentence structure
edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join