A Question from a non-Mormon

[brick]

I am not a Mormon, but I have a copy of the "Book of Mormon" at home, and have read
parts of Doctrines and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.            As I have read the book of
Mormon I have noticed that there are large sections of the book which copy almost word
for word from the King James version of the Bible.           I find this to be very strange.         

The Book of Mormon was supposedly copied from Golden Plates which were inscribed a couple of thousand years ago in "Reformed Egyptian".            Why would these same plates translate word for word in King James English?  Also, it is a known fact that the King James translators made errors when translating some of the Hebrew/Greek words in several places---yet these same errors appear in the Book of Mormon which was translated from plates thousands of years old!!  Also, the King James translators also added "helps" to certain verses which appear in italics which are not part of the original manuscripts-----yet these also are directly translated into the book of Mormon!! (as though someone were copying directly from the King James Bible, not golden plates, and therefore copying all the errors and additions that are found in that version of the Bible).  

One verse,  1 John 5:7 is now known not to be part of any original manuscript, and was added to the King James from overzealous translators---yet the book of Mormon paraphrases this verse in 3 Nephi 11.             I do not mean to be contentious here----truly---this is not my purpose for coming.   I really am interested in finding out if any of you have ever thought how strange it is that Matthew 7(and many other chapters from the New Testament) would be exactly transliterated in 1611 English, with all the translating errors and additions, into the book of Mormon word for word, along with several other places in the same book?  Did Moroni, or whoever chiseled those golden plates know two thousand years ahead of time what errors would be made by King James translators in 1611 and thus add them to the plates?   Highly unlikely!

I will be completely honest----after seeing this for myself I have been led to believe that the Book of Mormon cannot be the Word of God---but is the clever work of a man.   The odds that those plates would have all the errors, additions, and wording of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible translators is just not believable.     I would like to hear your opinions on this of course.            

--Brick

[Admin]

The interesting thing about your post is that you entitle it a "question", but you seem to have all the answers and just stating opinion rather than having an actual question.

[brick]

Dear Administrator----

I think if you reread the post you will see that there are several questions in
it that I would like to see explanations for.    I even ended asking for others
opinions on it.   The whole post is actually a question---the question being how
can one accept the book of Mormon as the Word of God if it appears to have
places that are copied exactly from the 1611 King James Bible?  How could those
who chiseled the golden plates a couple of thousand years ago have known what
errors and additions there would be to a Bible that was to be written in 1611? Because
the wording from that edition is copied word from word in some places including the
mistranslations, and additions in italics as they appear in the Bible of 1611--yet they
are somehow also on golden plates supposedly inscribed 2000 years or more before
that.   My question is---how is that possible?

[brick]

Since this is a non-Mormon thread I want to continue to ask a few more questions.      I hope you don't see this as "hate-filled"--it is not.      I am truly asking questions---and I am asking them based on statements I am making that I know will be controversial to believers in Mormon doctrine.      I hope those who read don't take offense-----I am asking the same things many non-Mormons ask once investigating the book of Mormon---it is really just a natural thing to do.   

So, here goes:

Here's one more question, although you can call it a statement if you'd like to.     :>)

The Old Testament and the New Testament are both written from literally hundreds and hundreds
of ancient fragments and texts that God made sure were saved from destruction through time.     The Dead Sea scrolls confirmed that many of these fragments contain the same message that was given thousands of years ago.      God has made sure that there is plenty of evidence that the Bible was indeed written over a period of thousands of years.      40 authors added to this great and historic Word of God.   
Also, much of the Bible is proven historically, cities appearing where the Bible says they did, and cultures discovered through archaeology proving that these people mentioned in the Bible existed.   

But the Book of Mormon has no evidence to be garnered from fragments which were written thousands of years ago.     In fact, there is nothing historic to be investigated except for writings made 1820 and after! Thewhole book is to be accepted on the word of one man, Joseph Smith, who said he had in his possesion "golden plates".      Then we have a "testimony of three witnesses" who never really saw the plates, but testify that what is written down from them is real.      Then there is a testimony of 8 persons also, who also never saw the plates but testify that what Joseph Smith said was true.      But there are no other "fragments" that have been found after Joseph wrote this all down in 1820.     In fact, these plates are no longer in anyone's possesion--we have to take the word of Joseph that they did indeed exist.   

One question is----do you really believe God would work that way?  Would he indeed reveal everything in that book to only one man, then take away all the evidence for these "plates", and leave neither fragment nor clue afterwards??  Why would the Bible have so much evidence archaeologically and historically to prove that it has been around for thousands of years, while the book of Mormon must be accepted as coming from Golden Plates which we have no "proof" ever really existed??  Why would God have so much evidence in place to verify that the Bible is extremely old, yet leave nothing but the testimony of one prophet and a few witnesses he convinced that the Book of Mormon is true??

Have you ever thought that you are putting your whole eternal destiny into a doctrine that one man claimed was true without any other verifiable archaeological or historical evidence that any of the peoples he wrote of ever really existed??  There is no archaelogical proof the Lamanites or Nephites ever really existed.      Yet we know the Israelites, Philistines, Egyptians, etc.     existed for sure---too much evidence exists to deny these people were real.      Yet no valid archaeologists say that there is any proof whatsoever that the Lamanites, or Nephites were a real people, accept for archaeologists who are Mormons of course!  :>)  and even they hope that "one day" more evidence will be found.   They must admit that there is no real proof that has been found "yet" that can verify the massive civilization that supposedly existed as is mentioned in the book of Mormon.   There is just no verifiable archaeological evidence.

Am I ranting? I don't mean to----I am seriously asking how one can put their whole eternal destiny into belief in a book that in no way can be historically proven? Again, please do not take offense, or think this is spoken in a hateful or mocking manner---I truly am stating and then asking these things based on my own inquiries after reading the Book of Mormon and questioning it's origins.    

[tubaloth]

Answer to the first question (if you want an answer) can be found here
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai284.html

[tubaloth]

But the Book of Mormon has no evidence to be garnered from fragments which were written thousands of years ago.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Then we have a "testimony of three witnesses" who never really saw the plates, but testify that what is written down from them is real.   

Have you read the testimony of the three witnesses?
“That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi…And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.”

Did you miss read that?

Is that not good enough evidence?

Then there is a testimony of 8 persons also, who also never saw the plates but testify that what Joseph Smith said was true.   

“That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.”

Its pretty clear that the Three Witness saw the plates.  The story is even better. The plates where actually show to two of the Witnesses at one setting and the once with the last witness, but they all agree on what they saw.  This one done by the power of God (the angel is the one that brought the plates and showed them).

The 8 witnesses were pretty much the same,  expect it was Joseph Smith that brought them before them.  Each witness could look at the plates as they wanted.  This wasn’t just an art show?

In fact, these plates are no longer in anyone's possesion--we have to take the word of Joseph that they did indeed exist.

That’s the way the Lord wanted it. 
Testimony of God doesn’t come from seeing God, it comes from those that know the truth about God.  To have a faith is not seeing completely!  The Book of Mormon is true not because of the Gold Plates but because of the spirit of God that is felt as they are read.

Am I ranting? I don't mean to----I am seriously asking how one can put their whole eternal destiny into belief in a book that in no way can be historically proven? Again, please do not take offense, or think this is spoken in a hateful or mocking manner---I truly am stating and then asking these things based on my own inquiries after reading the Book of Mormon and questioning it's origins.   

Has God been proven?  What Evidence do you have that God is there?
There is more to the Bible then just location and places and names.  Its how it brings one closer to God.  How one knows the principles that are being taught in the book are true.  The key is through revelation!  Yes through prayer and answers to prayers!  How does one know the Atonement of Jesus Christ is even needed? 
We can prove locations, rivers, streams, mountains all day, but that doesn't do anything if the book doesn't teach us of God's plan.

[Admin]

Well, if you are truly asking I hope you are also truly open to the answer. I'm sure that many here will attempt to answer you. Have you asked God about it?

[brick]

".  .  .  .  and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.   And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven.  .  .  "

You will notice----they said they saw the plates by the power of God, and that an "angel" brought them down and showed them to them.    They do not say they saw them while Joseph had them in  his possesion.    In fact, the farmer, Martin Hariis, admitted he hadn't really seen them, but that he knew that Joseph was an upright fellow, etc.  ----he said this to a Professor of Linguistics (Professor Anthon).   He took "copies" of the characters Joseph had written from the supposed plates, not the plates themselves.   Joseph Smith said Anthon verified they were authentic, but Anthon later said that was not true, and he felt that Harris, the farmer, was the victim of a "fraud" that was being used to obtain money from the sale of his farm. 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that anyone kept records on "plates"----but all records were kept on scrolls and parchments.    That is why there are so many "fragments" of these scrolls available as proof that scripture has existed for thousands of years.    With Mormonism there are no "fragments" or historical evidence of any kind.    We only have Joseph's word and the word of a few witnesses (who are mostly people who are related such as the Whitmer's and Smith's).    We have only their "word" that ancient "plates" existed.    No other "plates" have ever been found---no additional "fragments" from the Lamanites or Nephites----nothing----zip!