I find this facinating redy....because as with you....he re-wrote to fit his selfish needs....But it doesn't work that way.....God's laws are God's laws and rewrite to fit what you think it should be just is not the case.



Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs.

Laban, mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:9), makes use of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also had steel swords (Ether 7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote to 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of the Scriptures indicate that the word translated steel in the Old Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly rendered bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the Hebrew word , probably meaning iron.

William Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the Book of Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as a possible justification for the rendering of steel in the Book of Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite steel with the ‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew word for bronze.” The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon is that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries of Joseph Smith have claimed that Smith could not continue “translating” the gold plates unless the scribe read each word back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should really have been bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book was translated by the gift and power of God, since it shows that errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation.

Mormons sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet invented compass (known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from thence we fetched a compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute this subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there we made a circle.”

Added to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not only contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations purporting to come from the same God who inspired the Book of Mormon. The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1) records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9, 10) states:

“the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.”

The Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was Bethlehem described as a separate town in the Bible. The contradiction is irreconcilable.

Another area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon concerns sin and Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8 states the doctrine that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today’s schools. The Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which places sin at the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to the sin and guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made (Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it clearly states that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12).

There are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself, if indeed it is supposed that He had anything to do with the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph Smith.

In the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism:

“Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sin. Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.”

But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated:

And there is also an eye for an eye....and no matter what God did what God had to do....not only for his people but for the world as a whole.....And I think you need to understand all 613 of the laws before you claim contradiction.

you're partially right and you're wrong
yes he did . Muhammed physically wrote it but the angel Gabriel came to him and dictated the word of god the Koran is not muhammeds words. the Koran is the only book written by God not inspired!. look it up. they did however see it as a miracle because Muhammed could not read or write.

Allah didnt write the Qu'ran! Where did you get that from?

There are two schools of thought about who actually wrote the Qu'ran and how it was assembled because it is a known fact that Muhammad was so illiterate that he could not read or write.

First, the Muslim leaders tell the people that Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran and it was a miracle because Muhammad was illiterate in spite of the fact that Muhammad himself spoke against miracles and said he could not and did not do any miracles, therefore, calling Muhammad a liar.

The other school of thought comes from today's theological scholars or experts who claim that the Qu'ran was put together later by a Caliph who simply organized notes left by Muhammad. Amazingly, this belief defies common sense because, first, a man who cannot write cannot leave notes and, second, the size of the Koran would have required to write a huge amount of notes. It is only common sense that an illiterate person who cannot read or write cannot leave any notes much less enough notes to write a book six hundred pages long.

Use some common sense. If Muhammad could write enough notes to write a six hundred page book, why didn't he just write the book?

The only thing this proves is that many scholars and experts don't have any common sense.

So, if you were Muhammad, wanted to write a very important religious document, and you had enslaved a large number of both Jewish and non-Jewish scribes, who would you use to write your religious document?

There is only one answer and that would be a Jewish scribe.

As a matter of fact, after I realized this, I found out that a group of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Middle East who were fluent in Aramaic, studied the Qu'ran and came to the same conclusion for the same and different reasons.

Based on their observations and my guess-work, I believe that what almost certainly happened was that Muhammad used a Jewish rabbi slave to write the Qu'ran, knowing he would be killed after the Qu'ran was finished, the slave wrote in secret messages to other Jews by writing in errors in referring to the Bible, and Muhammad's fellow leaders killed the Jewish rabbi after the Qu'ran was completed and they had disposed of Muhammad claiming he had been taken up to heaven by Allah.

nope if man survives, it will reain the same belushi, man is like cancer the planet either need's to rid itself of or it will keep spreading it's inherent disease till it's no longer able to infest anything thats here.A world full of witless wanker's

what prompt's them - meaning christians - is that they are all that is left - when this takes place. the unsaved are already gone. burnt up before jesus step's foot on earth.