Critism on revelations
"Non christian, judaist and islamic scholars mention that those so called revelations are othen in contradiction whith each other. Also within the religions itself. So Allah should have punished a jewish fishermans village for not worshipping the sabbath by changing them in pigs and apes. But nowhere in the same Qu'ran can be found that believers are forbidden to work at any day of the weak. Also the so called revelations can't be true. Like that all people living on earth should be inbreed from Noach's three sons. And while God or Allah should have been communicating at a very difficult way to Paul and Muhammed (by voices in their head) in the very same stories of those "prophets" God simply talked to Adam, Eve, Kain and Noach. Without any angel." - this was reverted, I copied it here.
What is wrong isn't really the idea you are trying to write. It's that it is written and spelled so badly no one would ever want to try to repair it. The first word you typed ("Critism") is spelled wrong. You might try cleaning it up and reposting it in complete sentences, with appropriate capitalizations, etc. Otherwise, when we see stuff like this get posted, about five words in it will get reverted, because no one wants to read a mess like this. Thank you for your efforts, though. I would suggest having a friend help you by proofreading your draft before you post it, or post it here on the talk page and try to explain what you mean carefully. human 15:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- I know at least once you said that English is not your native language. We'd be happy to help you with it. Researcher 15:05, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- IMMA PARSIN THIS PASSAGE! Snark at the content is in <sup></sup> tags:
Scholars, especially those who are not adherents to any Abrahamic faith, observeShouldn't be too hard to find, but specific citations would be nice that alleged revelations often contradict one other, as do larger amounts of religious doctrine based on them. As such, Allah should have punished a non-Sabbath-honouring Jewish villagelolwut? This really is weird. It cannot, however, be found in the Koran that believers are forbidden to work on any day of the week. It is also arguable that revelations by their very nature cannot be true, at least discounting divine intervention - The following isn't a revelation, but still- such as all people living on earth having been born from only Noah's three sons. Furthermore, they seem inconsistent - while Paul and Mohammad heard voices in their head, God simply talked to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Noah, while others, such as Mary and Zechariah, received messages via angelsHow, exactly, does one hear someone talking without hearing voices in their head?
Thoughts on This
This book seems to go into great detail on Daniel and Revelation, it also goes into great historical detail http://understanding-daniel-revelation.com thoughts? (warning, might trigger catholics)--(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 19:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The Tree of life page quotes 'Revelation 22:1-5' - in which it is said that God's servants will have his name on their foreheads. How does this differ from the number of the beast? Anna Livia (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Christianity is correct
Her sincerity is pure. The Lack of ego and pretension are proof. A serious seeker that was not satisfied with compromise and found truth. It's not your usual spiel. — Unsigned, by: 2601:1c1:8904:5be0:6dba:2767:aeb1:590e / talk / contribs
Factual errors in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s section.
- "Smith was told by the Angel Moroni that no-one else was allowed to see these plates — on pain of death."
Joseph Smith-History 1:42 describes: "Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed." According to this, it was Joseph who risked destruction if he showed the plates without permission, not the person to whom he showed them. Of course, we also have the accounts of Josiah Stowell, Mary Whitmer, and the Three and Eight witnesses, who all claimed to view the plates without any threat of destruction.
- "Lucy Harris, the wife of Martin Harris, was a little more skeptical than her gullible and by then heavily indebted husband, and asked to read the 116 pages that had to date been produced."
Lucy Harris was living in Manchester, New York, while the translation process was taking place in Harmony, Pennsylvania, in 1828. By all accounts, it was Martin Harris who asked about the manuscript. There are two additional things Martin did in order to show his own skepticism and the skepticism of his family.
- He took a copy of characters that Joseph copied from the plates to four professors in New York in order to verify them.
- Before offering his assistance as scribe, he interrogated Emma, the Smiths, and Joseph regarding details of the Book of Mormon's appearance. All were questioned separately. Emma first and the Smiths last. After questioning them, he compared the accounts of Emma and the Smiths to Joseph's.
- "Fortunately Smith received a revelation advising him that the plates should not again be translated, and in their place he received replacement plates."
The preface to the 1830 edition explains why the section wasn't retranslated: the people who stole them were planning to introduce a modified document. Notably, nobody came forward to say they had the pages or showed its contents afterwards, since, by coming forward, they would actually substantiate Joseph's claim of prophecy.
- He was told by God to found a bank. The bank collapsed within a month, leading Smith to flee an arrest warrant for illegal banking — leaving behind many bankrupted followers who'd been told that investing in the bank was a religious duty.
The KSS was organized in January of 1837 and collapsed in November of 1837. That's eleven months difference, not one.
Sure, all of the investor's money was lost when the KSS failed. Big deal. Practically every other bank in the country also collapsed (see Panic of 1837). All of them were speculative and under-capitalized. Nobody kept any reserves so when the tiniest by of speculative insecurity hit and somebody tried to make a withdrawal, the whole house of cards collapsed all across.
Joseph and Sydney Rigdon were found guilty of illegal banking, each fined $1000. They appealed, but before the appeal could be heard, they were forced to leave the state.