The Instigator
JeffreyJ.YoungTim
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Tradesecret2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is the book of Mormon reliable, is it from God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 114029
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

JeffreyJ.YoungTim

Con

Is the book of Mormon reliable and is it from God? I deny that it is.
Tradesecret2

Pro

Yes, I think that so far as books of religions go, or indeed any worldview, that the book of Mormon is reliable. Is it from God? well that is a separate question and ought to be separated from this question.
Debate Round No. 1
JeffreyJ.YoungTim

Con

Hello brother, I want to start off by giving all thanks to My Father, and Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit, because He saved me. Also, thank you for accepting this challenge, this is an important topic, and I believe it will benefit many who place their salavation from the teachings of this little blue book.
To explain if the Book of Mormon is reliable, you have to read the book itself. It contains thousands of words from King James Version 1611. Exact word for word quotations, some of great length. Obivously Joseph Smith made free use of the bible to boost his so-called revelation of golden plates. Alot of segments from the Book of Mormon have been plagiarized from the Bible King James Version. There is even direct quotes from the Gospel of Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Almost word for word this same verse is found in 3Nephi 11:33-34, or (Gospel of Joseph). Additionally, Joseph Smith places one of Peters sermons found in the book of Acts in which Peter was quoting a verse found on the Old testament, Deuteronomy 18:15-19. While writing 3Nephi 20:23 making Christ a flatout "liar", when he was "preaching" His sermon to the Nephites. Why? Because the sermon itself takes what Peter says in those words and commits a lie by saying that Jesus is the one who preached this sermon, secondly regarding this sermon, how can he quote or borrow from a sermon that was not yet even preached, according to Mr. Prophet Joseph Smith's timetable? Lastly, the Book of Mormon has NO archaeological support what so ever, here is a source regarding this fact : Rob Bowman, "How Mormons Are Defending the Book of Mormon," Part Three, Christian Research Journal, Summer 1989, p.28. This places a large barrier between the Book of Mormon and the reader, unless the reader doesn't even care and just wants to follow anything.
Tradesecret2

Pro

This debate is about whether the book of Mormon is reliable at all and also whether it is from God. It is not about how reliable it is or whether it inerrant or infallible.

So is the Book of Mormon reliable to any extent or not at all? I say yes. It is reliable to some extent. It is also to some extent words from the very God you worship.

Indeed, you confirm as much in your own statement. "It contains thousands of words from King James Version 1611. Exact word for word quotations, some of great length." "here is even direct quotes from the Gospel of Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Would you agree that those words which are now imprinted within the Book of Mormon are trustworthy? Surely they must be and you would not dispute it. After all, if they are simply lifted out or your trustworthy book, and transplanted then surely they remain trustworthy.

Secondly, this argument obviously has a second implication to it. These words which have been lifted or plagiarised from the bible surely are the very words of God. I am sure you would not deny this? Hence it is the only logical conclusion to draw that the Book of Mormon to some extent is the very word of God, at least in the parts you say have been lifted from the bible's pages. Of which you suggest is lots.

Your argument to this point requires the Bible to be reliable. But then you say there is no archeological support "what so ever" - to support the Book of Mormon. This is troubling. Are you saying that the bible has no archeological evidence to support it including the so called plagiarised parts?

Friend, thank you for this opportunity to debate you. Unfortunately, I have clearly defeated your proposition that the Book of Mormon is not reliable at all.
Debate Round No. 2
JeffreyJ.YoungTim

Con

The Mormon claim is that the Book Of Mormon is the final revelation given by God. If it is a revelation from God, then it is a divine book in which should be free from all error. If it is free from all error, then its perfection would communicate that it is indeed from a Holy and Perfect God, thus, its reliability as being from God is confirmed. But do we find it free from error? No we dont! In the process of translating the BOM, from hieroglyphics on gold plates, to refute your opposition and defend my statement on plagiarism, this is because errors found in the KJV 1611 are echoed in the BOM, in other words the BOM revisions are found that it follows the KJV into error, echoing mis-translations or including translations of the late Greek. Certainly the so-called early BOM SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME ERRORS FROM THE MUCH LATER KJV. How can a book claim to have been written from 600 b.c.- 421 a.d. but yet contain exact quotations from the future year 1611, interesting? This shows that Mr. Prophet Joseph Smith copied the KJV blindly, not showing awareness of translation problems and errors in the KJV. Responding to your second implication, this is irrelevant, but since you want to bring it up Articles of Faith verse 8, affirms We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Also 1Nephi 13:38, states the bible is incomplete, but the BOM is the word of God, if its personally translated by Joseph Smith. Very obscure, which leads me to this, Mr. Liberal heres proof in a response that the Bible is realiable (unlike your little blue book BOM): evidence: Archeological findings: Excavation sites and artifacts provide evidence that many events, people, and places mentioned in the bible really existed-such as the city Jericho and its famous walls or the hitties, a people group once thought by skeptics (sort of like you) to be a myth. Documentation: Records from Jewish Historian Josephus and Aramaic targums, evidence recognized by major scholars.
Tradesecret2

Pro

Hello Friend,

thanks for your response. Is there a reason you have attempted to shift the goal posts? Your debate question remains "Is the book of Mormon reliable, and is it from God? Now you seem to be wanting to argue that it is not free from error. I submit that is a different debate and you ought to have articulated that in the beginning. Learn your lesson and move on.

I have never argued that BOM is free from error and nor do I wish to make that claim. Nevertheless, despite your assertion that the "plagiarized" sections from the KJV are erroneous, you have not provided even one example of the same which means you have not proved your point. I still argue that even if some is in error, that you would still agree that not every bit is in error. This demonstrates that the BOM is still to some extent reliable and to some extent the very words of God.

This debate is about whether the BOM is reliable at all. It is not about whether the Mormons believe it is reliable at all; although that would produce even more fodder against you. My second implication is relevant because you believe that the KJV is the Word of God whether the Mormons believe it is interpreted correctly or not. Hence BOM MUST to some extent contain the Word of God even if they are plagiarised from the KJV.

I have not suggested the Bible is not true nor accurate. I have not denied that it has archeological evidence to support it. All I have asserted is that so far as the BOM has plagiarised any part of the KJV without error that the same archeological evidence which supports the KJV also supports the plagiarised bits in the BOM.

Hence, I have persuasively addressed the question of debate as put by you. I have convincedly demonstrated that the BOM is reliable to some extent and that it is the Words of God to some extent. You have not refuted this in any of your arguments, even though you have unsuccessfully attempted to change the goalposts. Thank you for the debate. I accept your concession.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Tradesecret2 3 years ago
Tradesecret2
Brother Gino,

thanks for your comments. If you think I sidestepped - your reply is of a similar calibre. the con in this debate may well have won the argument from your position. That is a matter for yourself. as for logical fallacies - lol - please provide me even one.

the con in this debate presumed that I took a particular view which I did not. He never properly explained his position. His primary argument was "the Mormons plagiarized the bible - therefore it is not reliable". I don't think that is an argument. And if you think it was - wow! it speaks volumes about you. the con needed to explain "reliable" refers to and in what context it is or it is not. Understandably he thinks it is unreliable - but a debate is more than an assertion. My arguments simply demonstrated the flaws in con's arguments. for me to win this debate, I had to do little more. If you think he won - then let me tell you about a bridge I have for sale "
Posted by BrotherGino 3 years ago
BrotherGino
Tradesecret2, you had more logical fallacies in your presentation than a second-year English student at the university level! I mean this with no disrespect at all, but re-read your presentation for yourself- its right thete in plain of sight! You LOST this debate not just because of that, but for many other reasons as well. But honrstly, practice makes perfect and I know from each debate we all grow..Amen!!
Posted by Tradesecret2 3 years ago
Tradesecret2
LOL at BrotherGino,

Would you care to elaborate where I side-stepped? The debate question was about reliability not about inerrancy or infallibility. I specifically addressed reliability. It is not my problem if YoungTim failed to explain himself properly in the debate question and then further in his debate.

When I read the question it uses the word "is" not "if". I fail to see how YoungTim scored any points let alone won the debate. Still, if that is your point of view, then it pointless to discuss this any further.
Posted by BrotherGino 3 years ago
BrotherGino
Tradesecret2 clearly LOST this debate!! He commited "false-assumptions", he had a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the debate topic, he commited Ad-hommenen....YoungTim PROVED his position and Tradesecret2 FAILED to defend his position. Here is another problem of Tradesecret2, he said " BOM had some words of God"...the PROBLEM IS..the debate was about "IF" the BOM was FROM God!!!!....Good Job JeffJ!!!
Posted by BrotherGino 3 years ago
BrotherGino
Wow!!!! This was a one sideded victory for YoungTim!...The other guy side stepped and evaded the wuestion...JeffJ clearly Won!!
Posted by Arganger 3 years ago
Arganger
dukeofpanda you beat me to the punch.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
It isn't, read Revelation 22:18,19

This could also be applied to Islam
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.