Till: Book of Mormon

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

STB
I would already be skeptical because of the errancies of the book of
Mormon and its origin.  It was merely one man that was given the book, he
copied it and then the original disappeared.  Is that the correct
summary?  If it is it seems very hokey.

POOBAH
Now we're getting somewhere. Why don't you tell us what errancies you've
found in the Book of Mormon. I warn you, however, be careful, because any
arguments you use for contradictions in the Book of Mormon we will turn
against your Bible so fast it will make your head spin.

You realize, of course, that every Book of Mormon contains, in the
introduction,  "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses," who are named, sworn
witness who testify that they saw & handled the golden plates, and know that
God spoke the translation. They further testify that they saw an angel come
down from heaven. Further, there is the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses"
who saw the golden tablets; once again, named, sworn witnesses. Why do you
reject such testimony when I'm sure you will later ask us to accept the
historicity of the resurrection based on Paul's "five hundred"?

• Previous message: Till: Book of Mormon
• Next message: Till: Book of Mormon
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]