serapha

Just notes on previously published material.~serapha~

Hi there! I am just looking for resources that the LDS's don't criticize. It seems no matter who I cite as a source, someone has negative statements about them. ~serapha~

Hi there! To preclude a deluge of criticism, could you, the members of the CoJCoLDS, provide me with a listing of reliable sources on the book of mormon. Names of people who are reliable authors or critics, or names of published works would be good. ~serapha~

I think the bottom of the page might be wrong. I'm reading critical text concerning the timeline of the bom. The argument that is presented for Lehi being a caravaneer arises from certain words in the text. One of the words is the tents, of which there is no indication that they were purchased. There were ten couples in the group, plus what possessions they carried, and several tents would be required. Lehi was considered to be wealthy and from what I read, they had servants, gold and silver; his family would not have lived in tents--but a caravaneer would have tents available for his work, which would include trade and marketing, and familiarity with the Frankincense Trail... all these things necessary to survive the trip through the desert. (BTW... that would not be MY argument... ) My argument would read quite differently. ~serapha~ The bottom of my page says the same thing, and we have different publications.What critical text are you reading? Maybe if you read further on in the BoM, you would come to the story of the Mulekites, which was another group that left Jerusalem about 10 years later, during the actual battle with the Babylonians. So, the text justifies itself. (But I am sure you would come back and admit you were wrong when you got to it if it hadn't been pointed out first. I have that kind of faith in you. ) Could I have a quick reference to the Mulekites in the bom... and "yes" I would return to correct my misunderstanding. ~serapha~

Hi there! Did I just read in a commentary on 1 Nephi that God commanded one person to kill his brother, and it is under the commandment of God, yet you question the Bible concerning killing on command? I am confused on this point, but I will address the statement from a biblical standpoint in a separate response... I would want to keep any comments or comparisons between the bom and the Bible separate from addressing strictly biblical statements. okay? ~serapha~

Hi there! "bump" and questions or comments. Was it not against the rulings of the Jewish priesthood that all geneologies would be destroyed? Laban states in verse 13 that Laman is a robber, yet he would never be able to take such a claim before the Sanhedrin as he would found in error himself for having held the ancestry records in his home. "All of the literature current among the masses was carefully scanned and revised. The ethical code was reënforced, and wherever necessary purged of objectionable matter. This censorship was carried to such an extent that it was attempted to reject even Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Ezekiel as undesirable; and it was only with great difficulty that those in authority were prevailed upon to let them remain. The records of ancestry, however, tracing the descent of every existing family, which were the pride of the people, as well as all works treating of medical science and the art of healing, were buried and hidden beyond recovery." http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0138.htm 1. Gospel Principles, page 24, "By keeping God's commandments, we prepare for eternal life and exaltation. Could someone define "eternal life" and "exaltation"? I am aware of the "works" with "faith" teachings of the CoJCoLDS's, but a question... 2. If one is saved by faith, and does no works, yet professes to be a member of the CoJCoLDS's, what happens to them, what is their eternal reward? 3. "Sometimes we do not know the reason for a particular commandment. However, we show our faith an trust in God when we obey without knowing why" When is it a time for accepting in faith without question, or is it always just total acceptance without question? There are interesting commentary points at this link concerning a cave found in the desert which some attribute the to place where Nephi and his brothers could have stayed. Paleography dates the inscription to the correct time for the bom, but the first obvious error is in the use of the word "mountain" instead of "border" in the inscription. http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...phi/1Nephi3.htm

Hi! I think the bottom of the page might be wrong. I'm reading critical text concerning the timeline of the bom. The argument that is presented for Lehi being a caravaneer arises from certain words in the text. One of the words is the tents, of which there is no indication that they were purchased. There were ten couples in the group, plus what possessions they carried, and several tents would be required. Lehi was considered to be wealthy and from what I read, they had servants, gold and silver; his family would not have lived in tents--but a caravaneer would have tents available for his work, which would include trade and marketing, and familiarity with the Frankincense Trail... all these things necessary to survive the trip through the desert. (BTW... that would not be MY argument... ) My argument would read quite differently. ~serapha~

You may say whatever you please.... since you have "dismissed" Moses from the Bible because there is no proof of his existence. May I ask a question in return? When the bom speaks in first person, then obviously, that is no indication that the person authored the book, correct? Or, since there is no proof of the existence of Lehi, or any other bom personage, that they, too, are to be dismissed? Thus, the bom is just "supposed writings"?? Now, before you reply, take a step back and read what you wrote, applying the same rules that you administer to the Bible as authenticity to the bom. ~serapha~

<chuckles> ~serapha~

Hi! Where does the bom say that? As for the tents, that is an historical evidence. ~serapha~

Is that statement a first cousin to .... "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." So in counter-statement, whenever I say the Bible states "this", you will say but the Prophet Joseph Smith was given a new revelation to restore the church. IN both cases, the question is, "Who is translating correctly?" I suggest that we dismiss with the "rulings", and try a real conversation before frustration creates more hardship. So, what passage of the Bible do you find "not to be true"? ~serapha~

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...phi/1Nephi2.htm The Babylonian captivity was 586 B.C.E. (right?) More current writings indicate that Lehi was present "in Jerusalem" during and after the captivity as I quoted above. Do scribes have the standard 250-pound tents laying around for 10 families? 4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness. BTW, I like Brant Gardner's page because it has all the evidneces posted in the text. ~serapha~

I get that but I don't know that a literal interpretation or the Bible requires you to think that the earth is 6000 years old, just that man is 6000 years old. Hi there! Well, were they literal 24-hour days in the creation account? really? ~serapha~

Just curious, De 10:3 And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. who is "I". ~serapha~

Hi there! From the text (and other writings), it is obvious that Lehi is either a caravaneer or a skilled craftman, or both. If he "in Jerusalem" as the text reads, why was he not removed in captivity to Babylon? Also, the text identifies that, "None remained except the poorest sort of the people in the land. " Now one could say that Lehi did not live in Jerusalem (the city), but in the land of Jerusalem meaning the outlying city, but then, there is a diffulcy with the passage that states, "none remained except the poorest sor of people in the land". Now, obviously because of the references to gold and silver, they were not the "poorest sort of the people"... ~serapha~

Questions... or maybe answers? Now, Lehi is the "only" dreamer in the book of mormon, and after his time, there was no more record of God speaking to man by vision/dreams. The present-day revelation to the living prophet, is that ever cited to be by dreams? Just curious... Nibley writes that in the ancient languages of Egyptian, arabic, and Hebrew, that the Hebrew word for "borders" is cognated into the other languages.--border meaning mountains. "Wilderness" though has two context in the Bible, though the beloved KJV and others have translated "wilderness" to always be the desolate desert area. Now, we are dealing with a group of people who adhered to the mosaic law to the letter, and this family had grown through several generations in the Jerusalem area, to be an active part of the community. As a caranveer, Lehi, would have needed the acceptance and apperoval of the local people to have prospered in Judah. As a part of the moasic law, Judah had centralized worship, and the building of an individual atlar should have been a foreign concept to Lehi. Right? Another curious question... Who is this "Lour our God" for whom the sacrifice is made? Elohim or Jehovah? Is there a significance to these statements? such as a "blessing" to the older children, or as an admonishment to their character? If "he" is Lehi, could some explain "confound" to me? And (curious again) where would these prophecies be fulfillled? Hopefully, someone could add clarity to my thoughts... ~serapha~

It does become important in the discussions on archaeological and historical evidences... what is important is "when" the skilled metal workers were taken away from Jerusalem to Babylonia. Many simply say that Lehi left before that date... but in my recent reading (Lehi, 81 evidences) it is identified that "Lehi, obviously, was not one of those previously deported, probably because he dwelt outside Jerusalem proper." )page 18) Whereas the Bible states in 2 Kings 24... "Now Nebuchadnezzar carried away all Jerusalem, with all its princes, all the mighty men of valour, altogether ten thousand captives which included all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained except the poorest sort of the people in the land. " ~serapha~

There is a theory on that, and I don't remember the name of the particular theory, but it is that angels can only make sounds in perfect pitch, therefore, they cannot sing in minor harmony. Basically, the means that the sad things of life give up as song that is sung in the minor keys... the sad-sounding songs. Since angels don't have the experience of sadness, they don't know the minor notes. And, if you look at the text in context, you will see that angels chant or resound, but not that they sing... and BTW... When I am the "music" person, we don't sing or play those Christmas songs which have angels singing. ~serapha~

-infallible and true in their present day form, as we have them now, not just in some ancient manuscript lost long ago. no, of course not. Manuscript committees write accoring to what their philosophy is. Let's stick with a reliable translation or else go back to the Hebrew and Greek. -infallible and true in their present day translations. (ditto above.) -infallible and true and literal in the stories and narratives. If the story is about an individual or people then we are to understand that the person or people and the narrative as told, represents actual history, that it really happened. Words have their generally understood meanings. If the scriptures say angel, then we are to understand that there really was a supernatural being. Metaphors such as a Christ being a lamb or a hen spreading her wing are not literal. <span style='color:red'>Somehow I feel this is "bait", but I'll bite. -parables and figures of speech as in the New Testament are not understood to be straighforward history and thus we are to employ a less scientific standard in understanding them. Figurative or allegorical interpretations are to be held to a minimum. Miraculous events are historical and the moral and ethical teachings are binding and valid. I believe you already brought it to my attention concerning the actual lack of evidence for miracles--although historically and archaeologically there are "supports. -scriptures are to be understood as self-contained in that what Isaiah says need not be understood in the context of Paul. Each work stands on its own. Likewise, Judges is not dependent upon Genesis to be understood. Each is true according to the standards in this list. Likewise, the scriptures do not depend upon outside materials to define them. They are valid unto themselves. That isn't fundament dispensational theology. Daniel clarifies and relates to Revelation. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the original manuscripts. etc.. etc... Psalm 22 is useless without Christ to fulfill the messianic prophecy -the scriptures are complete unto themselves, meaning that you cannot make an appeal to silence or omission in order to make the scripture true, correct or valid. In other words, Jewish tradition is irrelevant to understanding Jewish writings? -the scriptures never lie or deceive. If there is a lie in the Bible, then it all needs to be pitched as I will not be able to determine which is truth and which is a lie. -the scripture are authoritative and are binding on all people everywhere in all times. Can you live with those defintion; No... I can't live with those definitions... do you have anything to add or change. ...and before we begin, can we stipulate that what we are going to discuss is whether or not the Bible meets the standards as defined, not whether the Bible is good or bad or indifferent or that one interpretation of Bible or its inerrany means you hate or reject God and the Bible and another perspective means you are favored of God... A counter proposal... Hermeneutics The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also known as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas. This position is suppored in the following ways. 1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communications in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works. 2. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's birth and rearing, ministry, death, and resurrection were all filled literally. 3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be employed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts. Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology. Literal imterpretaton results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism. The opponents of dispensationalism say that it gives the view of compartmentalizing the Bible, which has the effect of destroying its unity. Nothing culd be further from the truth. C. I. Scofield identifed seven evidences that the Bible is one book, (1) from Genesis it bears witness to one God, (2) it forms one continuous story, (3) it sets forth the most unlikely future predictions, (4) it is a progressive unfolding of the truth, (5) from beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption, (6) it's great theme thoughout is the person and work of the Christ, and (7) the fourty-four writers over a period of sixteen centuries have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding ("A Panoramic View of the Bible" in the introduction to The Scofield Reference bible). Instead of clouding biblical unity, dispensationalism serves to clarify it. It brings into sharp focus the progressive unfolding of God's plan throughout the ages. It is this disclosure of God's absolute truth that stands in direct opposition to modern self-centered relativism. Thus, dispensationalism sees the unity, the varity, and the progressive character of God's purposes for the world as no other system of theology does. It is though these progressive stages that God is glorified. R. L. Thomas C. A. Blaising D. L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, Wheaton:1993 Charles C. Ryrie Dispensationalism, Moody 1995 R. L Saucy The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, Zondervan 1993 R. L. Thomas, A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics, When the Trumpet Sounds, Harvest House 1995

Hi there! Just for clarity, I'm not in this latest "discussion", nor am I going to participate. I do hope to bring this thread into a resurrection to life status when some other foundational beliefs are discussed and identified.... if there's anything left to resurrect. ~serapha~

snow, I know that you don't mind learning, so let me toss this tidbid to you.... There are two reasons why the trees were harvested.... 1) glass blowing (in the Galilee area) ....which required tremendous sources of fuel. 2) At one time Israel used the number of tree on one's property as the tax base.... and surprise, the trees disappeared. duh. God gave mankind a good earth... and Israel was rich... while God gave out of need... man is destroying out of greed... I have to go out of state today, back tomorrow. ~serapha~

This question? BTW... is "tracking" the term for following a thread... whatever the term is... I don't subscribe to threads, that notifications be sent to me... so if I don't reply to a question, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.... asking is always good. So I asked... you said... and then I asked... and you said I have to question the term "unacceptable to Christ" because I have never heard that term before the last posting when you used it in your question to me. So, first, please clarify the term so I understand without question what you are asking... okay? As for anyone going to hell, I won't be making any judgments on anyone's eternal destination.... except my own.... <grin> "I'm redeemed!" Even after you explain the term "unacceptable to Christ", I won't be replying to what would be a judgment call on anyone's salvation. au contraire... I would never ignore the Bible, I don't remember the verse, though, that said my conversion to Christianity was dependent upon my works. ~serapha~

I believe the Old Testament (the "Scriptures") and the New Testament (the "Christian Scriptures") were given by God and are preserved by God just as He promised, and therefore, they are infallible. I understand that many people see the Bible as filled with errors and, therefore, fallible. I think that, before addressing other issues here (conerning "books," it might be important to address the fallibility or infallibility of the Bible first, so the discussions do not go to statemate again and again about the credibility of the Bible. So, without posting extensive cut-n-paste responses from "anti-biblical" sites, would anyone care to post what they view as "fallible" in the Bible. I would like the chance to "convert" you to my way of thinking (Is that grounds for dismissal from this site????) B) ~serapha~

(personal comments ignored) And... so, where's the part where the pastoralists were in conflict with the farmers indicating the "boot" out of mesopatomia... and why wasn't Abraham's father and brother "booted" out also. Perhaps, the difference is the significance of polytheism versus monotheism and that it has nothing to do with the physical geographics of the area. That is where you and I differ. God did give them the good stuff.... ever taste the dirt in Israel? It's beautiful to view the valleys in Israel. The valley of armegeddon.... it's beautifully green all year round... and for 25 miles across the valley.... continuous green carpet. God gave them water... not still waters, but living waters... and that's a big difference in Judaic teachings. And you have to remember that the "wilderness" was not always meaning "desolation" as is described when Lehi left Jerusalem and traveled to Yemen and Saudi. ~serapha~

And "anti" defined... against, hostile to. therefore, the entirity of the word "anti-mormon"is a hostility to the prophet Mormon, or to the members (the people) of the CoJCoLDS. And what person is hostile towards the people? Very few. My point is that the word is overemphasized and overused. ~serapha~