Why Did God Leave The Dead Sea Scrolls And Not The Plates.

[Gaea]

People Can Prove where the Old Testament came From, And They Can read The Anciant Document To Prove it.

The Deciples Of Jesus The Christ left There Out Books To, but Know One Can See the Origionals.

The Book Of Mormon Is The Same.

Why?

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Gaea,

Just out of curiosity, how come you capitalize so many words?

People Can Prove where the Old Testament came From, And They Can read The Anciant Document To Prove it.

Well, the DSS are ancient, but they certainly are not originals. We don't have the originals for any books of the Bible. At best, we possibly have sixth or seventh generation copies, and most manuscripts are probably further away than that.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date between 200 B.C. and A.D. 70. That's 600 years after the original writings of the prophets. The earliest NT manuscripts we have date between A.D. 150 and A.D. 300. Thats 100-250 years after the originals.

We're told that a portion of the Book of Mormon was sealed by a metal band, and we're told that God didn't want that portion translated yet. That's one difference between the BoM source records and biblical sources.

LM

[WillowTheWhisp]

We have no guarantee that the DSS or the Nag Hammadi docoments are accurate accounts or even accurate copies of the originals. They could be people's personal interpretations. There are ancient documents which support the Biblical accounts but there are also many others of equal antiquity which contradict the accepted scriptures.

[a-train]

There is but a single proof offered by the LORD. It is the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

Excellent point a-train.

[Dr T]

When we compare the thousands of manuscripts/fragments that are in possession however, we see the consistency of like 99.9% of all the documents. That show they were passed down better than any other ancient document. We don't question Homer's Odyssey as being "not accurate" but question the Bible because that is what's been taught.

[Moksha]

Hi Gaea,

Just out of curiosity, how come you capitalize so many words?

LM

Computer generated artificial intelligence program perhaps with a slight flaw in one of the subroutine programs?

[jadams_4040]

There is but a single proof offered by the LORD. It is the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.

-a-train

Thats not the only proof, but most definately the icing on the cake.:)

[jjrogers]

I think the reason why there is no proof of The Book of Mormon is because God wants us to exercise faith. How many people do you know, including members of the church, who believe in the Bible because of history, but have actually never received a spiritual witness that it is true? Therefore you see many people who say the Bible is true but have no desire and make no effert to actually live its teachings.

[Dale]

God did not leave the scrolls. In the Old World they made all sorts of copies. In the New World they only wrote on the Gold plates. Thus many copies were not left to find.

Meso-American texts do not exist that conradicts the Book of Mormon. They were no copy of sacred texts happy as copyists were in the Old World. If critics could find ancient histories, place names, people names, maps ect that contradicts the book they would. Such texts do not survive from that period to contradict the book.

The originals of Bible books do not exist? Does the Bible only become trustworthy when they started making copies? Do we have to see the originals before we can trust the Bible. We do not have the original of the Book of John or 1st Nephi, but i can trust both books.

[Gaea]

The Both Differ In One Point. Please Tell Me Why You Accept The Book Of Genesis To Be Acurate If you Believe The Book Of Abraham I Acurate.

[Dale]

One was written by a strict mono-theist and one who knew God and Christ were two persons. The book indicates point blank the gods (angels) assisted in creation. But the Genisis account was written by a person seeking to minimize their involvement. So today its usually employed the argument the "us" and" our of the account are not to be taken literally. But if God is talking to the angels that involves them as his assistants in creation.

The author of John 1:1 considered the is literal, or would not had the word with God. The angels were with God.

Sometimes a seeming contradiction is an illusion. The Book of Abraham just does point blank what the Genisis account says a bit. So that the angels get a little credit, but its treated as God did it. Why can't both accounts be true?

This does have to do with the reliability of ancient manuscripts. The KJV account is probably reliable. It is still possible that a strict mono-theist not Moses edited the text to take out Jesus, and the Gods part. Or Moses being afraid the Gods meaning small "god"s might be worshipped with God simply used "God" not Gods. Without seeing the lost first copy i cannot offer more than an opinion based on a copy. But Abraham was not afraid people would worship the small "gods" so involved them more with God as "Gods" in creation.

With the Book of Mormon inspite of the missing original we do have evidences for antiquity of the text. Books like Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon get into that. The Geographic details in 1st Nephi do agree with external details in the Old World. I see a lot of stuff not just all the stuff that looks modern to its critics. One other example they see a modern revival in the book, and we see an ancient festival in the book.

I am currently going through the critics case against the Book of Mormon. I have done that many times over the last 20 years. I have found many answers, or know where to find answers. I find all my books accept Zondervans The New Mormon challenge ignores evidence for the aniquity of the text. And FARMS in two reviews rebutted that attempt to rebut those evidences. So to me i don't need to have the plates to prove anything to me as long as some evidences exist for it.

I am Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints). We split with the LDS after about 15 years. We rejected the Book of Abrahaam, and its Gods based on a misunderstanding. But with the book of Mormon we have many members and leaders who have bought into the idea historicity of the book does not matter. To me if the book is not historical at all there never were plates. The plates idea would be just a prop in an elaborate fraud.

Dan Vogel a critic of the books historicity had an idea Joseph Smith fabricated tin plates. If he did that he got rid of them, so that is why we don't have the plates. He did that to cover up an act of fraud. That is why a person must develop their own intellectual reasons to believe in the book. Some people can't ask God about the book until they have some reasons to trust the book. The lack of plates denies us one type of physical proof, but not our ability to test the book anyway.

[Traveler]

When we compare the thousands of manuscripts/fragments that are in possession however, we see the consistency of like 99.9% of all the documents. That show they were passed down better than any other ancient document. We don't question Homer's Odyssey as being "not accurate" but question the Bible because that is what's been taught.

This is not exactly true. The most accurate (earliest) manuscripts of the New Testament have never been made public. We cannot even get a list of the Books involved. With the establishment of the Trinitarians in control of Christianity the "Canonization" of what is and is not scripture and who should have access has been a most interesting aspect of history.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The Both Differ In One Point. Please Tell Me Why You Accept The Book Of Genesis To Be Acurate If you Believe The Book Of Abraham I Acurate.

This is a most difficult question. Since there are many variations to the Book of Genesis which "family" of the Genesis versions manuscripts are you talking about?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

When we compare the thousands of manuscripts/fragments that are in possession however, we see the consistency of like 99.9% of all the documents. That show they were passed down better than any other ancient document. We don't question Homer's Odyssey as being "not accurate" but question the Bible because that is what's been taught.

What we do know is that of the thousand of manuscripts there are great disagreements in every one of them and as a result - thousands of variant readings of the ancient Biblical works. I will give just one example of this variation with a simple question. Which of the names of G-d were the children of Israel commanded not to take in vein? Be careful - this is not a philosophical question but a specific question in regards to specific manuscripts. One can argue that there is no difference but I can return the question – If there is no difference in the various names used why are so many names used at that same point? The original had to have only one specific name – why was it changed and who authorized it?

The Traveler

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Does any of this matter? Seeing the plates wouldn't make them the true word of God. It just means they exist. It proves nothing in the validity and claim of the Book of Mormon as the word of God. It is the word of God because it is the Word of God.

In reference to the DSS, there are those, even in the church, that walk by a fair amount of sight. The DSS scrolls, like the plates, prove nothing. It is just another way to weed out the unfaithful, for those that feel that there has to be physical evidence to make it true.

"For we walk by faith, not by sight:" -2 Corinthians 5:7

[Dale]

We do not know from the scrolls that the Bible writers can be trusted. The copyists could have copied something written by a supposed prophet guilty of a scam. A false prophet might get extra money from his innocent dupes. People bring you extra food when you are a prophet. To trust a prophet one has to do that on trust.

With the New Testament manuscripts i think the number is 5,000. They are in various states. I think one piece is the size of a postage stamp. When the 1st 5,000 copies of the Book of Book of Mormon got off the press that ought to prove the book. That is if we think having 5,000 copies of 1st Nephi proves anything.

The logic with the Dead Sea Scrolls is if we have tons of copies that proves the originals existed. What is Moses never wrote Genisis. I do not know if a copy of Genisis was among the scrolls. What if some later writer usurping Moses name falsely attributed the book to him? That he had anything to do with the book is disputed. We don't have anyway to prove any inspired man had anything to do with the book. Outside of its inspirational claims it might just be a work of fiction.

[rameumptom]

Let's also remember that many groups worked to preserve the Bible over time. OTOH, the Spaniards destroyed all of the Mesoamerican documents, save a handful that survived (like the Popul Vuh).

Still, there are many changes in the Bible over time. There are key differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, for example. Then there is the Documentary Hypothesis that shows there are multiple versions of the scriptures combined into the Bible we have today. This explains the two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2), and that there are two Flood stories combined into one story (one story has 40 days, the other 13 months; one has a raven, the other a dove; one has 2 animals, the other has 7 animals, etc). It also explains the two stories of Moses striking a rock to bring forth water at the same location twice.

And why do we not find something as major as the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red Sea in any non-Biblical sources? Seems to me that would have been an astounding event, at least that's what the Bible teaches as the Israelites move forward and the people of the land are terrified of them.

Professor Bart Ehrman notes that of the copies of the New Testament available today that were written prior to the Gutenberg press, there are more differences than there are words in the KJV New Testament! True, not all of the differences are major, but there are enough major differences to bring up questions on some readings. Of course, this includes the Johannine comma, which is a very big issue. Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IOW, both the Bible and Book of Mormon require faith to believe them. They also require a studious mind to understand the actual doctrines within them, knowing that some mistakes may slip in due to the weakness of the translators and editors.

[rameumptom]

The Both Differ In One Point. Please Tell Me Why You Accept The Book Of Genesis To Be Acurate If you Believe The Book Of Abraham I Acurate.

Gaea, would you specify in exactly what point they differ? I do not see anything that differs amongst them. Also, please note that early Abrahamic traditions agree with things in the BoA: Abraham being sacrificed, Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians, etc.

Just because it isn't in the Bible, does not mean it didn't happen. One cannot fully describe Abraham's 100+ years in just a few chapters.

[Dale]

I have seen critics of the Book of Mormon go after its reliability based on 3,900+ changes. Thanks to FAIR they have shown Bible variants match these very same Book of Mormon type of changes. If scriptural variants are enough to discredit the innerancy of any religious text the Bible is in the same situation.

Without seeing the original and the Dead sea versions its impossible to check for early added, or deleted material. The earlier the manuscript the less likely later copyists tinkered with the copies they copied. But all it takes is one corrupted copy produced by a corrupt group and scribe to ruin later copies.

Of course i am aware of Bible proof texts that are supposed to say the Bible was protected from tampering. I have read Evangelical stuff on Mormonism for about 20 years now. Plus i have read their case for Bible reliability. I agree with them some and disagree with them much. But i have honestly pondered their case but am not all persuaded by it. FAIR has a new talk online with Bible transmission topics on its main pages. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage

[rameumptom]

Thanks, Dale. The reality is, both the Bible and Book of Mormon are imperfect writings. But are they reliable? Of course. The key is to take all the verses in context, and not take one verse out of the entire Bible (or Book of Mormon) and make a doctrine out of it.

There are themes in both books that are clear, compelling, and complete. Those are the points we should focus on in both of these books. Trying to prove/disprove the Godhead and/or Trinity from a couple passages in the Bible is a massive effort in futility. There are evidences that can be found for both, depending on one's reading of certain passages. But those descriptions of God are found in only a very few passages.

Found more abundantly are scriptures detailing God's love, mercy, and righteousness. Perhaps that is what we Christians should be focusing upon?

[rameumptom]

We do not know from the scrolls that the Bible writers can be trusted. The copyists could have copied something written by a supposed prophet guilty of a scam. A false prophet might get extra money from his innocent dupes. People bring you extra food when you are a prophet. To trust a prophet one has to do that on trust.

With the New Testament manuscripts i think the number is 5,000. They are in various states. I think one piece is the size of a postage stamp. When the 1st 5,000 copies of the Book of Book of Mormon got off the press that ought to prove the book. That is if we think having 5,000 copies of 1st Nephi proves anything.

The logic with the Dead Sea Scrolls is if we have tons of copies that proves the originals existed. What is Moses never wrote Genisis. I do not know if a copy of Genisis was among the scrolls. What if some later writer usurping Moses name falsely attributed the book to him? That he had anything to do with the book is disputed. We don't have anyway to prove any inspired man had anything to do with the book. Outside of its inspirational claims it might just be a work of fiction.

The original Book of Mormon states there was a Book of Moses, but was later changed to state the Books of Moses. Joseph Smith and others did not know the Documentary Hypothesis, or the possibility that there really was only one book that Moses wrote, and if so, perhaps only portions of the 5 books were in it. Other portions were possibly added later by the Deuteronomists and others.

BTW, the DSS have at least one portion of a copy of all the books of the Old Testament, except for Esther (IIRC). Then again, there are also portions or full copies of dozens of other books, as well. The question then is: if we are going to believe in the reliability of the DSS for the Biblical texts, why don't we add these other writings to the Bible?

[Snow]

People Can Prove where the Old Testament came From, And They Can read The Anciant Document To Prove it.

Okay - prove where the book of Genesis came from - specifically.

The Deciples Of Jesus The Christ left There Out Books To, but Know One Can See the Origionals.

The Book Of Mormon Is The Same.

Why?

Can you please proof your post before you hit 'submit' please?

[Snow]

When we compare the thousands of manuscripts/fragments that are in possession however, we see the consistency of like 99.9% of all the documents. That show they were passed down better than any other ancient document. We don't question Homer's Odyssey as being "not accurate" but question the Bible because that is what's been taught.

We don't question the accuracy of Homer's Odyssey?

Huh? If you don't question it you would be the only person that I've ever heard of that doesn't. Anyone who knows anything about it knows that Homer is not the original author, rather he is the first, if there even was such a singular person as Homer, of the great oral poets to record the Homerian epic in written form. It had been handed down for ages orally and retold and reinterpreted by every oral poet from generation to generation. How faithful the Homerian Illiad and Odyssey are to the original original cannot even be guessed at. Furthermore, no copy of the original manuscript copy is in existence so how true to the manuscript copy our modern version is likewise is unknown.

Doesn't everybody know that?

[Dale]

I trust the Book of Mormon is right about Genisis being scripture. The Joseph Smith Translation did also re-affirm the books place in the Bible.

The presence of the scrolls does not prove what scripture claims about itself is true. My belief in scripture and God is not based on Bible manuscripts alone, but on faith in God. Reading the scriptures inspire me to think about and have faith in God. But if i did not have that faith all the Dead Sea Scrolls would be to me is religious fiction.