"Lucifer, is a missed translation, of  lai ze far',(My spelling is not right) but it means, to disregard the proper rules and laws, going about doing your own thing, regardless of what that thing is. It is various forms of anarchy, where people allow others to do their own thing, regardless, if it is good, or if it is corrupt. Basically it is saying, if you ignore my crimes and indiscretions, than I will ignore your crimes and indiscretions. We are all criminals, therefore, we will hear, see, or speak no condemnation, against you, and you will hear, see, or speak no condemnation, against me. We are all partakers, of the plunder, abductions, rapes, and murders. We will determine all right and wrong according to our seductive whims and immoral desires. We will keep our acts, and deeds, occultic and hidden from the view of all of the individuals, whom we destroy. All is gray our light is illness, smoke and haze, and it is to remain gray. No good or bad. No consequences for our freedom to randomly commit all manner of crime. This is our freedom, and our libery, and we and determined to keep it that way, regardless. We are the luciferous enterprises of the occultic law, and immoral gospel merchants. Our money is all false, as is our way. We are the makers, takers, and rackers, of filthy lucre. We are the Mafioso, and our institutions, and our enterprises, are the Mafias."

I hope this is helpful,
Sincerely,
Wholly Polterguiste

Geegee,

My point is that the Isaish passage, concerning the Hebrew word Heylel, has been improperly translated by the christians.

If you are right, then when exactly did this improper translation occur?

On a somewhat personal note (and I don't mean to sound like a jerk), I think you are getting yourself caught up in something rather trivial.  If you are going to reject Christianity over something there are certainly bigger doctrinal issues you could choose from.  Say for example the virgin birth, the ressurection, Christ's claim to be God, Noah's ark, etc.

As for a the Lucifer reference Mormons do have other scripture regarding this name and I qouted it earlier but I will repost it.  This revelation that Joseph had was not his alone, he had it with Sidney Rigdon.  Also it occurred in front of about a dozen wittnesses (just so I don't have to have another epistemological argument, see Christianity forum).

D&C 76:
25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him

Hey 8d8 glad you are back!

1) You stated that the Bible that we use today is full of ridiculous errors, yet the Mormon church uses the King James version. Also, Joseph Smith copied a lot of it , if not quoting it verbatim, then just changing the names but re-hashing the plot over again (Is this possibly how you got the original story with Paul's conversation with Jesus confused with the same basic story in Mosiah 27, but with Alma and an angel instead?)

Sorry, ridiculous may have been too harsh of a word.  The Mormons do refer to the KJ version of the Bible.  We believe it to be the most correct translation thus far.
From the 8th Article of Faith:
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

YOU might believe that JS copied and re-hashed the Bible to create the BoM but I find that very unbelievable, especially given the short amount of time from when he claimed to have received the plates and it was published (which if I remember correctly was about two years).  Not to mention the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses.  Sure there are similarities between the two books, God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  He is bound to employ similar means by which to communicate with different individuals.  The similarities could just as easily be argued in support of the BoM.  Finally, no that is not why I messed up Paul's story.  I could have just as easily messed it up with Moses, Abraham, David, John, etc.

2) Joseph Smith is quoted as saying " the BoM is the most correct of any book on Earth" ('History of the Church', v.4, p. 461)In view of the fact that
Joseph was a 'true prophet', is the translation of the BoM which he translated in fact the correct translation? Did his translation contain any errors? If not, how does the Mormon church account for the over 4,000 changes which have been made to the BoM since it was originally written in 1830?

Of course his translation was correct.  I know of no errors.  I do know that the fonts, paper and other arrangement changes have been made as technology and needs changed.  If you want to know what each of the 4,000 changes were (or even if that is a true statement) you will have to ask someone else because, I don't know.

While were on that topic, how many changes were made to the Bible?  How many omissions and corrections?  I don't know, do you?

Whoa,
this is weird I swear your post changed from when I copied it to after I posted my response...now it says

3)If Lehi indeed lived circa 600 B.C. as is claimed, how is it the 'plates' contained the Bible 600 years before the birth of Jesus, Paul and the other apostles? How could it be 'free of ridiculous manipulations' which hadn't been written yet?(Even portions of the OT were written after this period, ie.- 1&2 Chronicles were written around 450 - 400 B.C. Ezra & Nehemiah were linked together as a single book in the original Hebrew Bible. The events in Nehemiah were completed sometime after 440 B.C.)

How did that happen?

While were on that topic, how many changes were made to the Bible?  How many omissions and corrections?  I don't know, do you?

 
 As far as I have read, the OT has been extremely reliably preserved, with the Dead Sea scrolls providing evidence .
 As  I have stated in previous posts, there are over 5,000 known original manuscripts of the New Testament, with virtually no divergent  material observed.
 It is a fact that many word changes have been made to the BoM since 1830. Some examples include: A 1908 edition shows the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism" was not a part of 1 Nephi20:1
 11 Nephi 30:6 taught that Lamanites (the persons of darker skin) would turn white if they accepted Mormon doctrine. In 1981, portions referring to Lamanites turning white were changed to instead read that they would turn "pure."
 It is also common to see italicized words in the KJV. These italics are not from the original text, but were added by the translators to make the English text easier to understand. These italics were to let the reader understand that the translators had added the words themselves, in an honest effort to keep the translation as accurate as possible. If JS recieved the BoM directly from God, as he stated, why do the portions of the BoM which quote from the King James contain the same italicized words added by the translators? And the same problems occur as in my last post Val, how is it that these plates from 600 B.C. contained quotes from the Bible which hadn't been written yet? Seems like plagiarism to me, Val... :(

Did a little digging and found this...for those who are interested.

Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon?
Robert J. Matthews,

I see you're still playing naive, Val. Of course there's a question there, there's been a huge question sitting there begging to be answered ever since we started talking. Only you keep pretending you have answered it by dancing around the issue with references.
 The whole thing is about whether the person/prophet is reliable in the first place, not what their text and teaching has been shaped into by others over time. Either they spoke from God and clearly revealed His message, or they didn't.  I can tell you without any hesitation that Christians would be beyond horrified if we found out that people had been 'tweaking' the Bible, and would demand that the original text be immediately restored. The Bible itself even commands that it be copied exactly as is, (Rev. 22:18) " I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from the book of this prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Earlier we briefly discussed the issue of what a true prophet really is. The Biblical tests of a prophet are numerous. Deuteronomy 18:21 addresses the issue when it tells us "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?"22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.   We see in the preceding verses, that God takes false prophets very seriously, as He says in v.20, " But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Other references include Deut. 13:1-5 and Jeremiah 23: 31,32
 In 1835 Smith stated," It was the will of God that those who went to Zion,with the determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even fifty-six years, should wind up the scene." (Reference- History of the Church, v.2, p.183)
This would have put his prophecy of the Second Coming of Christ sometime in the year 1891. Also, in Doctrines and Covenants 84:4,5 Joseph Smith prophesied a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri, which never took place as foretold, "which temple shall be reared in this generation, for verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord."
 So I could go on and on, Val but what's my point in all of this? To hopefully persuade you examine for yourself in truth, to look for the clear message of the gospel, because we know the enemy tries what he can to confuse, blind and otherwise impede our way.

That has to be the nicest insult I have ever recieved! I guess that leaves us with nothing left to discuss. Too bad, I kind of liked you!

Try not to feel offended, Valarie.  I'm guessing you realized the point I was making then?  Good.  Heres something that might be boring but I am just curious.

What do you think, as a Mormon - Is there any particular bible version that you/they esteem better than the rest?   What is the Mormons favourite bible version and why?  I like the KJV, myself. :D

And I "kinda" like you too! :D

Valarie.  I understand the need to vent.  I've done it myself.  Most of my venting probably could be found in the threads that were lost in the hacking, though.

But my posts were not to be taken as patronizing you.  This was not my intention.  I wanted to simply know what you were aware of.  And besides, I don't think that I've accused you of skirting any issue..or such like words.  Cue those words, please, to others who have actually made you feel this way, or have used such words.  I haven't (I don't think).  And, I still "kinda" like you. :D

Did you understand the reason for my question(s).  You have offered no rebuttal yet...but, perhaps a complaint and false accusation to me?  My question was simple, actually.  But like i noted, this "copying" thing, and the "Lucifer" idea, was based on my understanding due to my thoughts and studies, and I could be wrong.  I gave you an opportunity to show me where I am misunderstanding.  If you want too, you can go to my last/latest post and answer it point by point...or you can agree with me with what I said to be true.  Now, IF you agree that what I said to be true, then this does not necessarily prove the BoM wrong...but it may give reason too look at it more closely.  Thats all.  I know, I know, that there is the suggestion there that since that "copying" claim may have been  FALSE, then does it mean that this was a lie?  Not necessarily.  This is why I wanted to examine the claim much more closely.

Geegee, Mormons use the KJ version of the Bible. It is believed to be the most correct version. I don't know exactly why, I could probably reference some stuff on www.lds.org but then, somehow, I would be accused of giving you the run around.

Ahh...  Did you notice that I too already gave my preference before you answered?  I really do like the KJV.  But I am also aware of the many mistranslations in it.  I really don't know if it is the "most correct version" though.  (shrugs).  Tell, me, why do they think this is the "most" correct version around?  What about you?  Do you think this is the most correct version?  (I supposse I could hook up to that link, but I find it more fun to converse with you.  Forgive me for that)