According to the Book of Mormon, the second book of Nephi was penned between 588B.C. and 570B.C. This book is: "An account of the death of Lehi. Nephi's brethren rebel against him. The Lord warns Nephi to depart into the wilderness. His journeying in the wilderness." according to Joseph Smith.
Within the 29th chapter of 2nd Nephi, the heading goes like this; "Many gentiles shall reject the Book of Mormon-They shall say: We need no more Bible-The Lord speaks to many nations-He will judge the world out of the books thus written." And so the story unfolds...
"But behold, there shall be many-at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;
2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;
3 And because my words hall hiss forth-many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails [travels] and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? (Skip 5)
6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? (Skip 7, 8, and 9)
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according their works, according to that which is written.
12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. " (Funny how no other house or nation wrote it?)
The Book of Mormon states that this writing was put together as far back as 588 B.C. In the Harper's Bible Dictionary it states; "The composition of the Bible took more than 1,000 years. The O.T. developed from 1200 B.C. to 100 B.C., the only surviving portion of the national literature of early Israelites. The N.T. was written during the 1st century A.D. and possibly the early 2[n]d century."
The word "Bible" is derived from Latin and Greek languages; "biblia" or "books."
The Torah was canonized around 300B.C. and the New Testament around 375A.D, therefore, when the BOM talks about a Bible, it is incorrect. I find that the logic for "A Bible!" to be even part of the Book of Mormon is defiant. It should not even be there. All references to the Bible from the Book of Mormon are on sandy soil, not solid ground; and are to be disregarded, or even better yet, discarded!
NO MORE HISSING PLEASE!
A Bible! A Bible! A Hiss?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
5 comments:
The only thing that needs to be discarded is the notion that person could not use his own frame of reference, his own terminology, and other parts of himself when writing a genuinely holy book.
Why does it have to be all God or all man?
What's wrong with a bit of both?
I'm not sure what is wrong with the word "Bible" in the Book of Mormon. It translates to a "collection of books".
The Jews already had a "collection of books" that was the compilation of the works of Moses and the rest of the Prophets leading up to Nephi's departure from Jerusalem.
So why is it difficult to understand that the very people Nephi had known would have rejected a new record such as the BoM because they already had a "Bible" (or "collection of book").
This argument is invalid anyway since if Nephi was a Prophet of God, then God could have told him that modern day Christians would have a hard time accepting the BoM because of their "Bible".
Also, your very argument invalidates the common anti-mormon argument found in Revelations 22:18
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book".
If you say that it is impossible for a Prophet to know the existence of a compiled Bible during this period of time, then you also have to say that John only referred to his own Book (Revelations), not the entire Bible.
So which way are you going to have it?
God Bless you both!!
Seth, If you study the Holy Bible you will see that it's all God.
Casey, The term "bible" is a Greek and Latin term; not Jewish. That particular word was used to define words written after the old testament was written, not during or before. The Jews had oracle laws for many, many years before putting the Torah on paper. I'm not sure what you getting at with the book of Revelations, and that is a whole new subject. By-the-way, I'm not anti-anything.
Handmaiden
I have studied the Bible - extensively. And it pretty obviously is not "all God."
How else do you explain that one of the Gospels has Jesus being crucified on the Passover while another one picks a different date.
Is God schizophrenic or something?
Oracles
Oracles
Oracles
Post a Comment