How Can We Know When We Hear

[TrashcanMan79]

Interesting post Trashcanman.

Misquoting Jesus is full of interesting tidbits such as that. I highly recommend it.

[Zakuska]

Me too!

[TrashcanMan79]

You keep giving me variants, and I am beginning to think that you do not hear me when I say that I know there are variants, that I accept them, and that I still believe the message of the Bible is not changed.

I keep giving you variants? You asked,

Of the thousands of variants, how many did Ehrman point out? And how many of those alter revelation?

I provided you with the list of scriptures Ehrman addressed so you could see for yourself "how many" and if they, in your understanding, "altered revelation." I thought I was just answering your question as helpfully as I could, but you seem to think I "keep giving you variants" and that I "do not hear you" when you say the variants do not concern you in any meaningful way? I can't recall "giving you variants" any other time, and I can't recall implying that you "do not accept them" or that they should alter your understanding of what the Bible's "revelation" is. Have you confused my posts with someone else's?

[TrashcanMan79]

JST this and JST that. (a paraphrase)

FYI: when posting specifically to me, you can dispense with all the jabs at the JST. I reject it as I do every other translation/version of the Bible.

Though I must say I am perplexed by your use of this argument: the Bible contains errors (many of them), but even though you can accept it as a reliable, though errant, record of God's revelation, Mormons should view the JST as suspect because these same errors (which do not affect God's revelation at all, per you) persist? Given Mormons' view on the nature of scripture (ie: they ain't inerrant) and the nature of prophets (ie: they ain't infallible), it doesn't seem to me this is effective argument at all.

Maybe Mormons have a view not unlike yours: the errors of their scriptures do not affect their understanding of God's message/revelation? Or are only non-Mormon Chirstians afforded this privilege?

[Hammer]

I really don't think that is it. In reading the introduction it would seem that only those "who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ" would grasp what Jude was saying. (Verse 1)

So why didn't JS give that chapter in his JST?:-)

Ask the Lord.

[TrashcanMan79]

Ask the Lord.

Because this has proven reliable in the past?

[Hammer]

Because this has proven reliable in the past?

Has for me and mine.

[Neighbor]

And in verse 14 he quotes scripture that isnt in the Bible. Perhaps those who were "preserved in Jesus Chirst" had a bigger bible than we do right now.

Because it wasn't for him to reveal. Its for the seven Thunders. Of course now you have some splanin to do because Apparently Jesus didn't reveal the entire Mystery "once and for all" as you claimed. Got anything more than a unsubstantiated one liner?

The good news of God was revealed in Jesus Christ. God revealed the good news. That every word or thought of God is not revealed is also good news:-), for surely man would not be able to abide in it, but that which is revealed we are able to with the help of the grace of God, His mercy, patience, gospel, teachings of Jesus Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the appeal of a good conscience towards God in faith.

The Scripture is in the Bible!:-), at least that part of it relevant to what was said. Jesus also quoted from I Enoch. I've said before that in my opinion it should be in the Bible. Why didn't Joseph Smith Jr. ensure the missing book was restored to the LDS Bible?

Since Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Word of God to mankind and Jesus said His work of revealing what God directed Him to reveal was finiished -combined with the work God gave Him to do - only the final revelation that will make the gospel 'the faith made sight' in the complete fulfillment of Gods' judgements and rewards and fulfillment of His word is yet to occur. Since we aren't there yet, but still on the journey, I'd rather abide in the teachings of Jesus Christ for my sojourn.

If you choose to abide in the teachings of a prophet who claims otherwise, that is your right to do so.

[consiglieri]

Interesting post Trashcanman. I'd heard some say Jesus may have been a stone mason, but didn't know where they got that information from. If He chose humble Himself to be found in the form of man, it isn't a supprise that He was a construction worker. What is remarkable is that a construction worker could live a life in which no man could accuse Him of ever sinning!!!:-)

People accused Jesus of sinning all the time!!!:-)

You, apparently, choose to not believe their allegations. How come?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The Scripture is in the Bible!:-), at least that part of it relevant to what was said. Jesus also quoted from I Enoch. I've said before that in my opinion it should be in the Bible. Why didn't Joseph Smith Jr. ensure the missing book was restored to the LDS Bible?

Joseph Smith did ensure the missing book of Enoch was restored to the LDS Bible.

It is located in Moses 6-7.

The remarkable thing is that, without having the Book of Enoch at his disposal, Joseph Smith managed to restore it in all its ancient authenticity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I've been out of town a while, just got back - need to go back and search for your post.

For thought: What about Jude's teaching? Is Jude truth?

I don't know. I'm kinda hazy on the whole truth/false thing.

I am sure that the author of the epistle of Jude was teaching the truth as he saw it.

You will also note an obvious dependence of Jude on Peter, or vice-versa.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Getting back to the point of the thread:

How can you know what you hear is not deception? How can you know you are not one of the elect who are deceived?

As Jude says, the gospel was given once for all - not time after time after time. In the fulness of time Jesus came to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God - the very gospel of God. How can you have the same gospel that Jesus, Peter, John, James, Paul and Jude taught if you cannot fully support it objectively by what they taught as the gospel?

I think your question is an excellent one. How can I know that what I hear is not deception?

I would answer that I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that what I believe is true, and get over it if you can.

Now it is your turn: How do you know that what you hear is not deception?

I would also say that I think that nobody has the same gospel that Jesus, Peter, John, James, Paul and Jude taught, because they did not all teach the "same gospel." That is why there are so many contradictions amongst the teachings of these various authors. And technically, it is hard to say at this point what gospel Jesus taught inasmuch as we have none of his writings.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

...if he (God) really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place.

That's good logic. If God wanted us to have his actual words, he would have preserved his words in tact.

...but that does not mean we woudn't be able to translate his words into language(s) we could all understand.

Given the circumstances that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.

That's bad logic.

First, Erhman gave no proof that God didn't preserve God's words, or that the words in the Bible are not God's. Personally, I don't believe they are, or were, at any point, but that is beside the point. It's not proven that God didn't speak or mentally transmit his thoughts in Aaramic, and/or Hebrew, and/or Greek, and/or the language of King James, and/or any and/or all other people.

Secondly, the fact remains that God could have inspirerd some people to write what they wrote in the first place... even if some other people later chose to alter God's words or the words God had originally inspired.

I can easily escape his "inescapable thought".

[TrashcanMan79]

First, Erhman gave no proof that God didn't preserve God's words, or that the words in the Bible are not God's.

Have you read Misquoting Jesus? He spends quite a bit of time addressing this issue.

[Paul Ray]

Have you read Misquoting Jesus? He spends quite a bit of time addressing this issue.

Addressing an issue and providing proof of a conclusion do not equate to the same thing, you know.

What is his proof? I'd like to see it.

All I see is a statement of his beliefs.

[TrashcanMan79]

Addressing an issue and providing proof of a conclusion do not equate to the same thing, you know.

Very true. I was only providing a quote to show Freedom in Truth that she was largely correct in assuming that Ehrman lost his faith because he equated inerrancy with the reliablity of scripture. For him, because the Bible is not the former, it cannot be the latter.

What is his proof? I'd like to see it.

Don't know if I would call it proof, but he makes his argument in the book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

All I see is a statement of his beliefs.

This is because, in that particular post, I quoted only a portion of a single paragraph from a 240+ page book. I recommend reading it. (In fact, it just came out in paperback with supplemental material added.) You can disagree with his conclusion, but he shows very convincingly how scribes intentionally and unintentionally altered the Biblical text throughout the centuries, and that in some cases, these alterations exist in modern translations, and in other cases, we have no idea what the original reading of a given text actually said. Interesting stuff.

[Paul Ray]

I quoted only a portion of a single paragraph from a 240+ page book. I recommend reading it. (In fact, it just came out in paperback with supplemental material added.) You can disagree with his conclusion, but he shows very convincingly how scribes intentionally and unintentionally altered the Biblical text throughout the centuries, and that in some cases, these alterations exist in modern translations, and in other cases, we have no idea what the original reading of a given text actually said. Interesting stuff.

Heh, I already know that. Why read a book about something I already know?

Do you think if I read it, and continue to read it, it will somehow become more interesting?

... even though it's a rehash of what I already know?

I'm looking for further light and knowledge from my Father, not a rehash of what I already know.

Let's keep the rock rolling, people.

[TrashcanMan79]

Heh, I already know that. Why read a book about something I already know?

If I were you, then, I wouldn't read it. It would be a huge waste of time.

Do you think if I read it, and continue to read it, it will somehow become more interesting?

Don't know. Maybe if we spent some together, maybe dinner and a movie, I could get a better feel for what you find interesting.

I'm looking for further light and knowledge from my Father.

Go spend some more time with your quad then (or the parts of it that you think are inspired by your Father).

[Paul Ray]

Go spend some more time with your quad then (or the parts of it that you think are inspired by your Father).

Heh, I've already read that too.

I'm trying to learn more than I know.

And btw, what do you think the "iron rod" is?

Is it God's word, or all of the words of God, or the words from some other people?

I already know what I think, but what do you think?

[TrashcanMan79]

And btw, what do you think the "iron rod" is?

Is it God's word, or all of the words of God, or the words from some other people?

If one were of the disposition to believe that there is a God, and that that God is interested in communicating with humans, I suppose I would think that the proverbial "iron rod" would be whatever God has commanded man to write or speak.

What's your take on the "iron rod"? (BTW - You are active and believing LDS right? I lose track of who's who around here....)

[Paul Ray]

If one were of the disposition to believe that there is a God, and that that God is interested in communicating with humans, I suppose I would think that the proverbial "iron rod" would be whatever God has commanded man to write or speak.

Would it be ONLY what God commanded man to write or speak?

What if God spoke to a man and that man wrote what God said or inspired that man to think, without commanding the man to write it down?

What's your take on the "iron rod"? (BTW - You are active and believing LDS right? I lose track of who's who around here....)

Heh, I can understand that. It would be nice if we had a name tag, or something to show our persuasion.

"Yes, I am an active and believing latter-day saint."

I think of the iron rod as the actual words of God, whether they're written down or repeated by others.

If God tells someone something, using words, or even thoughts, then I'd say they have the word of God.

I think some people on this planet, including a lot of LDS, think of the Bible, and/or some other books, as God's word, but I think of those as a reflection of God's words, or the thoughts God inspired man to write.

So when I hold to the rod, the iron rod, I try to commune with God, personally. It may help me sometimes to read some words from other people, but I don't know they're God's words until God tells me they are.

I don't just believe people who say they are speaking for God.

[Freedom in Truth]

This reverses the suggested theory that JS tried to 'change' the Bible to fit his doctrines in the BoM and D&C.

So now we know that according to you, authority amongst us, that JS was right on all along.

Your statement seems very odd to me. Are you saying that JS didnâ??t intend to â??restore truthsâ? to the Bible? That would contradict the quotes below. How was JS â??right on all alongâ???

From the LDS Bible Dictionary - JST - â??A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as â??a branch of his callingâ? as a prophet.â?

From the JST introduction - â??Following are selected portions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Version of the Bible (JST). The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding. . . . Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world.â?

JS was a very important prophet of yours, if not the most important prophet. He was chosen by God to restore truths to the Bible that had been lost or altered. Now, with that given information, picture this -

JS is working on a Biblical passage, under divine inspiration. He changes 1 John 5:13 -

KJV - â??. . . and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.â?

JST - â??. . . and that ye may continue to believe on the name of the Son of God.â?

But he doesnâ??t touch the Johannine Comma. And this is just one of at least 50 examples I could give you.

The problem here is that people like Erhman came along and started pointing out possible additions, alterations, etc. to the Biblical text. Mormons seem to like what he says because they claim the text has been altered. However, Erhmanâ??s verses/passages donâ??t seem to correspond with JSâ??s modifications. This was a possible opportunity for JS to be proved a true prophet - yet he was not proved by Ehrmanâ??s research.

How many times does a prophet need to be right to be a true prophet? How many times can he be wrong?

[Freedom in Truth]

What little I have read of the Mormon attitude toward Smith's version of the Bible does not reflect that it is considered solely a restoration of the Bible's 'original text' (you are aware, I trust, that no 'originals' exist at all for comparison?).

If we had original copies we would not be discussing variants. If we had originals JS would have only been able to give â??newâ? revelation and he could not have claimed he was restoring truth that was lost.

Are the only additions/deletions Mormons claim JS restored to the Bible those sections which are not provable? (no manuscript evidence) Or is Ehrman wrong and the variants he listed were probably part of the original autographs?

For example,

QUOTE

To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text.

- from Joseph Smith Translation as a restoration of the original Bible text

A similar sentiment is expressed by Stephen Robinson in How Wide the Divide:

QUOTE

Of course we believe the JST is "inspired," but that is not the same thing as saying it always restores the original texts of the biblical books.... [T]he Joseph Smith translation should be understood to contain additional revelation, alternate readings, prophetic commentary or midrash, harmonization, clarification and corrections of the original as well as corrections to the original. (emphasis in original)

Is there an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST? (There may well be, I'm not asking rhetorically.)

How the LDS views the JST is interesting. View #1 is that JS was commanded by God to translate and publish the Bible, and that he finished.

D&C 35 - Introduction - "At this time the Prophet was engaged almost daily in making a translation of the Bible. The translation was begun as early as June 1830, and both Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer had served as scribes. Since they had now been called to other duties, Sidney Rigdon was called by divine appointment to serve as the Prophetâ??s scribe in this work (verse 20)."

D&C 35:20 - "And a commandment I give unto theeâ??that thou shalt write for him; and the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect;"

D&C 73:3-4 - "Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again; And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished."

D&C 124:89 - "If he will do my will let him from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph, and with his interest support the cause of the poor, and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth."

In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures [Old Testament], for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

LDS View #2 - JS didnâ??t finish, and the church only uses some of JSâ??s modifications. And, the published JST contains many â??correctionsâ?. In fact, JS kept making changes in the JST. If he had lived longer he might have changed modifications the church uses now. Is this â??one of the great evidences of the divine mission of Joseph Smith." Is it â??a remarkable evidence of the prophetic power of Joseph Smithâ??

â??The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.â? (JST introduction on lds.org)

â??A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as â??a branch of his callingâ? as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work.â? (under JST, Bible Dictionary, lds.org)

"In consequence, at the command of the Lord and while acting under the spirit of revelation, the Prophet corrected, revised, altered, added to, and deleted from the King James Version of the Bible to form what is now commonly referred to as the Inspired Version of the Bibleâ?¦. The first 151 verses of the Old Testament, down to Genesis 6:13, are published as the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. But as restored by the Prophet the true rendition contains about 400 verses and a wealth of new doctrinal knowledge and historical data.... the marvelous flood of light and knowledge revealed through the Inspired Version of the Bible is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of Joseph Smith." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 383-84)

Apostle John A. Widtsoe affirms: â??It is a remarkable evidence of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. Hundreds of changes make clear many a disputed textâ? (Joseph Smithâ??Seeker After Truth, p.251). (some of the above quotes from utlm.org)

So after the church edited JS (and God) they called the remaining modifications evidence of JS as a prophet? I guess someone else in the church heard from God better than JS did.

[Freedom in Truth]

Why, when God spoke anciently, were His words recorded, collected, and regarded as scripture, but not now? Is your God a changing God?

Even in Bible times not every word or action of God was written down. I believe I already gave the last two verses of John for an example.

John 20:30-31 â??Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.â?

As I have said, personal revelation to someone that is already stated in the Bible (love your neighbor) is unnecessary. So I must assume that what you are really asking is if God can say something new.

My God does not change. Any â??newâ? revelation canâ??t present a different God. Your new revelation does present a different God - Mormons have explained this by saying that your God is not different, that He was just misrepresented in the â??alteredâ? Biblical text. However, there is no evidence that the text was altered in revelation. There is also no evidence that JS heard from God. And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

[Freedom in Truth]

Why were the apocrapha eliminated? Most if not all biblical scholars study it in order to understand the Bible. They also study Josephus and other ancient historians of the day. So why would anyone think the Bible was enough?

I donâ??t know if the apocrypha was ever accepted. (I never got to your post, TCM, on the other thread - I still hope to though.) It seems, from my research so far, that there were many types of errors in these writings. There were (and are) tests to determine if writing is â??authoritativeâ? or not - the apocrypha apparently didnâ??t pass. And it seems that Jesus and the Jews didnâ??t consider it authoritative as well.

There is a difference between studying, say, Jewish culture to better understand the Bible, and studying Godâ??s revelation/message to us. The Bible is enough for Godâ??s revelation/message. Other writings help us understand the setting, culture, language, etc.

God is not a changing God. But His people are a changing people. The world is a changing world. God doesn't put the same bandaid on a different sore.

There are no different sores. Human nature has not changed, unfortunately.

Ridgedness is a sin and is not the same thing as unchanging.

I believe it is called â??stiff-neckedâ?! Holding fast to Truth is not a sin - refusing to change your sinful ways is.

[Freedom in Truth]

It appears others have already engaged your comments, but I felt the need to respond to what I bolded above (your undercover claim of me being dishonest and plagiarizing). You are quite right that I did not cite the source, so here you go... my dad. That is a short list of scriptures he has found over the years while studying his scriptures; which include the KJV, MNT, NIV, PRS, WET, and NAB. (Yes, these other versions are Bibles that he [a Mormon] has chosen).

As far as other versions go, I was unaware that there was something in the Articles of Faith, or anywhere else in Mormon doctrine that require the use of only the KJV. Maybe all of those saints in non-English speaking countries need to get with the program. And no, variants aren't overly important to me, since I was taught from a young age that the Bible (any version) is not inerrant.

I did not mean to claim you were dishonest, etc. If anything I thought you just forgot, ran out of time, etc. I actually think it is kind of cool that your source is your Dad! Why did he make the list? (just curious)

Mormons usually (if not always) cite the KJV to me. Also, this is the version the church chose to print with footnotes from the JST. So it seems that the LDS puts its stamp of approval on the KJV first. (Isnâ??t the KJV translated into other languages?)

But I am glad to hear that your father used different versions. Do you as well?