serapha

Hi there! Perhaps you wouldlike to give me a reference in the scriptures where "torah" in a wider sence applies to all Hebrew teachings? ~serapha~

BTW. you mail email anyone anything that you wish. My comments will be based upon the original text, that would be the book, "Who Wrote the Bible" by Friedman, and not ~serapha says~ I will just be presenting the facts. It is up to you to determine if all the article is on the mark or not. I say it is not-- based upon the cited text. I just wanted you to know that it won't be my "opinion" of anything, but what the research shows. Now we will be getting closer to my "style" ... ~later~ ~serapha~

Hello snow, et. al. It wasn't me that said that they knew ~serapha~ and that they had read 5-6 postings and knew exactly what I would say and how to rebutt it.... You see, snow, what I do, and where I make the most contributions, in this type of discussion is.. Two weeks ago, I wasn't real knowledgeable on the distribution of the J, E, D, and P texts of the Bible, and I certainly wasn't aware of their application to the book of mormon. So, what I did, is, I went and got the book from the library, and I read it so that I would have a clue about what the author was referencing. You see, I do that. I don't just jump in and say... "It's all wrong"... make a bunch of comments and sling mud and then move on. I really do try to get all the eggs in one basket, and that requires a tremendous about of reading before replying. But in general, the text of the article in application to the hyposthesis boils down to the statement that the first five books of the Bible are ascribed to have been written by four people from the Old Testament period, and assembled by a fifth person, the redactor who gives us the finished product we see today. The J passages are based upon the southern kingdom, the E passages are based upon the northern kingdom (thats the book of mormon line) , the P passages are from the Priestly input, the D version is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah having written it, and the redactor is usually accredited to being Ezra. Now, I know that no one on here is afraid to learn, and yes, I would like to go through the article over the next few days and I would be glad to explain from the original author and from comments made by this author concerning the credibility of the book of mormon. You see the correlation between the hypothesis and the book of mormon is cited as a "proof" for the book of mormon. I will be right "upfront", and say, I don't see it that way. So, if you want to discuss it, we can... Or, you can just continue to post, "I know all the arguments that ~serapha~ will present, and I know the standard rebuttals". No, you don't know me... and you certainly don't know my style. I am not afraid to learn, nor am I unwilling to spend time researching and investigating. So, are you ready to learn, or just ready to tell me how much you know about me? I will check back later tonight, I have a family obligation today. BTW... the first error I would point out in the article is that the book of Jeremiah is NOT a part of the torah as is cited in the article. The torah is the first five books of the Old Testament, which we all know does not include the book of Jeremiah. I believe that to be a minor oversite of the author, and not an indication of his skill level on the subject matter. ~serapha~

I believe we are failing to communicate. I posted here.... and then I saw that I had a message and then I posed a reply to the message. That is the series of my communications... It is a seemingly easy concept to understand once you have been through the process... once you see the tiny "message" notation at the top of the forum, once you re-read the copyright citation, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps, I am friendly, but the user screen is not friend to me? ~serapha~

Care to re-state all? Spencer I didn't know that the Nephi Project was an "anti-mormon" site. Can't imagine any other reason why the link was removed. I certainly won't reference it again... most certainly won't reference Lehi in the Wilderness and the 81 evidences.... another Nephi project I do believe. I guess I can giggle with the best of them.... and save the intelligent comments for other forums ~serapha~

Oh my.... I must "bump" Are we going through a chapter in the book of mormon... are we, huh? Huh? Whose commentary are we going to use? Is there a copy online. I get tired of buying all the books that everyone says is sooooo good.... ~serapha~

There goes you chance at a plural marriage if the US Supreme Court keeps changing the marriage laws. :) Ummmmmmm........................ I am not a man, just like Snow is not a woman. Maybe we should switch avatars. People keep getting us gender-confused. So, I would not be eligible for plural marriage anyway. And you don't think I'm going to share my man with anyone else, do you? Get real. does gender make a difference in intelligent responses? just curious. ~serapha~ (BTW.... always with wings...)

Okay, here's the article, and I'll give you guys time to read over it, and I'll be back tomorrow to post my comments, and then, as snow says... she (?) will post the easy rebuttal.. Biblical Scholarship Supports Book of Mormon Authorship The Nephi Project November 2000, Bear River City, Utah Copyright © 2000 Nephi Project. All rights reserved By George D. Potter Today Documentary Hypothesis or Higher Criticism is the methodology used by scholars at the world’s leading universities as well as most Jewish and Christian seminaries. The line of scholarship sets aside dogmatic assumptions about the authorship of the Bible, and looks to linguistics, archaeology, history and other disciplines to decipher the authorship of the scriptures. The Documentary Hypothesis school of biblical inquiry needed a millennium to finally be accepted by scholars as the prevailing theory on the origins of the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch. Prior to 1830, the date of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, scholars supporting this line of reasoning were persecuted. One such notable scholar, Benedict Spinoza, wrote in his Tractaus theologico-politicus (1670 A.D. “It is …clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses. Under its hypothetical framework, biblical scholars have amassed substantial evidence that neither Moses, nor any one man, was the author of the Pentateuch. The body of evidence for this conclusion includes a pattern of doublets (multiple accounts of the same events), events transpiring after the time of Moses that he could not have known about, contradictions in the reporting of the same events, writing styles indicative of a later period, and considerable historical evidence supporting the motives of the authors at the alleged time and place in which the hypothesis holds the books were written. Although LDS Church leaders have generally criticized Documentary Hypothesis [ii], others have taken a tolerant view. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., wrote: The article in it's entirity is at... http://nephiproject.com/biblical_scholarsh...ip_supports.htm Spencer, I edited the text out because I realized that I had left some of "my" comments in the text by accident. It is better that the document be reviewed without my comments ... my apologizes... ~serapha~

So, I think I will open a new thread. ~serapha~

Actually, after the onslaught of trolls and the lack of response by the moderators, I told them I wasn't going to be posting on the "unorthodox Christianity" forum. I have been posting on the general apologetics tonight and my regular postings in "questions in Christianity" ... oh yeah.... and the one posting to the senior adminsitrator concerning your use of the "cross" as your icon when you adher to the book of mormon. I would think that you would be proud of your beliefs..... Myself, I like it simple... no crosses, no reps, nothing I don't have to carry around with my name ~serapha~

Not to worry, your posts were very revealing. It's just not that tough. In any discussion we engage, why don't we just agree that you won't hold the Church of Jesus Christ to any standard to which you will not hold your own. K? Oh, that's fair enough... and a second agreement... for every book that I read on the CoJCoLDS's you agree to read one that I recommend. Is that fair enough? book for book.. or web page for web page. I wouldn't want to be held to a higher standard than you would place yourself. ~serapha~

Ya think? Besides. I can't really condescend to anyone unless they allow me to I have about 10,000 on the internet, so your expertise is about what.... 6/100 of 1 percent. Yeah, you probably do. I don't usually make the argument. I don't usually generate posts, I reply to postings. My speciality is archaeology... and what I am reading right now is Brant Gardner's web page concerning the commentary on the book of mormon and his dissertations on mesoamerican culture and his presentations at the 2002 and 2003 conferences. Is there anyone here that can carry on conversation in that discipline? Or maybe George Potter's article on the authenticity of the book of mormon to higher criticisms? Well, snow, you said it be easy to "rebuttal" my statements..... that there would be dishonesty in the spin.... so, go for it. talk to me. ~serapha~

Hello Jenda, You do seem to be finding a new home at christianforums. I guess maybe it is more to your liking now that you realize that the "bigots" aren't really "bigots" and that the members there are capable of discussions when they aren't "attacked" by trolls. I don't want to be misunderstood here, or misquoted. I am not here to "troll" as most of you were at christiansforums. I am here to dialogue on subjects concerning the CoJCoLDS's. This is the right place? BTW, jenda, you need not reply, I see that you are busy on christianforums... someone else may answer ~serapha~

Hi there! It is okay if I post here, isn't it? I promise that I won't behave on your forum as all of you did on christianforums. You are going to welcome here, aren't you? I am free to post as long as I follow the rules, right? ~serapha~