How Can We Know When We Hear

Paul Ray · March 8, 2007

Why?

You seem to be aware of some reasons. You quoted some later on. Another is becuase the Lord wanted it to be done.

...These are weighty statements, Paul. After reading these statements would you expect the LDS to not highly esteem the JST?

I think we do highly esteem the JST. But no, I would not expect us not to.

When did the LDS print the JST? Was it 1979?

I don't think we have done it yet, aside from a few selections that are in our canon. We don't have the copyright, so it wouldn't be legal.

Did the church disobey God for over 100 years?

No. I don't think so. He told us to obey all our laws.

When we can't, because of laws, I don't think God considers that to be our fault.

We can only do what we can, anytime.

It does not seem to me that the LDS considers the JST important - they didnâ??t print it right away and they use the KJV instead. The LDS didn't make it available for you to read until recently.

The RLDS community has always had it. If I wanted to, and knew about it from them, I could've read it.

Are you saying that personal revelations you receive from God are Godâ??s word to you but personal revelations others receive are words for you to study while asking God for His guidance?

Yes. I don't simply believe people who say they are speaking for God until and/or unless God tells me that He inspired them.

I don't just believe people who say they are speaking for God.â? - agreed.

That's what I meant.

I think I see what you are saying. Some parts of the Bible (for example) are going to be more important to you than other parts, at least for right now. But, the other parts may be important and used by God to speak through personally to you say, next year. And some part of the Bible may never be used to speak to you but be used for someone else. All the parts of the Bible are equally available to you, though.

I find that I learn more the more I draw closer to God.

On the other hand, the Mormon Quad includes the KJV Bible, the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP. The JST is not included, so it must not be considered authoritative or inspired or sacred like the other works.

I think that's an assumption, and I do not agree. I consider every word of God to be sacred to me... just as soon as I know it's God's word.

It is a lesser work?

No, I don't think so.

How could it be?

I don't see how that could be possible.

LDS Bible Dictionary under Canon - â??A word of Greek origin, originally meaning â??a rod for testing straightness,â? - what does this mean to you?

The canon of scriptures are a measuring rod we can use to determine what scripture is.

The canon is like a big set of examples.

Are your personal views/feelings representative of the LDS church?

I don't speak for the Church. We have a President, and Apostles. That's their job.

I try not to assume, but sometimes we think we understand but we donâ??t!

That happens to me more than I care to admit.

Then, of course, we canâ??t ask questions!

I think it's important to know who to ask, and who to trust for answers.

Don't believe just what I say, anytime.

TrashcanMan79 · March 8, 2007

I don't speak for the Church. We have a President, and Apostles. That's their job.

We would have to admit, though, that they do not always do a bang-up job of this, yes? (Adam-God, The Seer, etc.).

Freedom in Truth · March 8, 2007

So what is the meaning of one who has and uses it to get more as a faithful servant, that to such a one more will be given? Or that of those who have, but that which they have will be taken away?

I am not totally sure what you are exactly referring to - my only idea is what I said involving studying French, etc. I will try to answer anyway and you can ask more questions if you need to.

We all have intrinsic value/worth to God - we are His masterpieces. He infinitely loves each of us. He desires a relationship with each of us. We walk with God, love Him, follow Him, and glorify Him as we serve Him and join His work on earth. Our motivation is our love for Him (not earning godhood, worthiness, etc.). Whatever God asks of us is for our good. We find purpose and fulfillment when we walk with God and join His will, and that is a â??rewardâ? in itself! We move towards becoming our true selves in fellowship with Him and we taste life in abundance.

Obedience/ good works do not earn salvation (relationship with God). But they do often show where our heart is.

Ephesians 2:4-10 â??But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsâ??it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ??and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ?? not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.â?

God gives us good works to do (also see The Parable of the Talents - Matthew 25:14-30). When we obey and walk in relationship with Him, good fruit is the result, and our faith and maturity in Him increases as well. We are now possibly ready for a larger or more difficult task, or even a task that needed the experience we gained doing the last task. We have heard, â??Well done!â? from our Father - what a reward!

As far as the third servant in the parable - it doesnâ??t appear that this servant is faith-filled. It also doesnâ??t appear that he knew his master very well (showing a lack of relationship). He was given an opportunity but he chose not to use it. He chose no relationship in his heart, and his actions accompany this.

Our actions show our heart. Our actions do not save us. The only way we could be worthy on our own is to be sinless, and that we will not be.

Freedom in Truth · March 8, 2007

I agree with the latter but object to the former, other wise God is a respector of persons. Christ wiped out original sin at his ressurection. Now its every man for himself.

Please give verses to support that only original sin was â??wiped outâ?. Also, please define original sin. I hope you are not going to say that it was just death brought into the world.

â??Now its every man for himself.â? Wow - that doesnâ??t sound like anything a Christian would say - that sounds like the World. Very self-focused sounding to me. Jesus gave His life for others - isnâ??t that our model? Arenâ??t we to bear one anotherâ??s burdens, serve others, etc.? How can you obey all these selfless commandments in order to get for yourself? The heart of someone who obeys selfless commands doesnâ??t go with the heart of someone out for himself.

The only way you one earn salvation or godhood or worthiness is to lower the qualifications. You canâ??t be sinless. You are also saying that Jesus went through the agony of death but that wasnâ??t enough to cover all your sins. The power of the cross has been diminished as well. Godâ??s power is diminished - your power is increased.

James 4:10 â??Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.â?

**************************

God is a â??respecter of personsâ? if infants are considered innocent.

Rom. 9: 11
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

The above verse says â??neither having done any good or evilâ?. No actions have been taken by the children yet, but what about their hearts? Even Jesus made it clear that the heart matters -

Matthew 5:27-29 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.â?

Psalm 51:5 â??Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.â?

Matt. 19: 14 (Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16)
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Are you suggesting that everyone who comes to Jesus is innocent? What about the adults who came to Jesus? Was Jesus talking about their child-like faith here? Does having faith make one sinless?

Ps. 127: 3
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

NIV - Psalm 127:3 â??Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.â?

Heritage - inheritance, possession, property. Many translations I could check agreed with the NIVâ??s sense of the passage. I donâ??t see how this verse shows that infants are innocent.

This verse also throws a kink into Grace Alone Salvation.
John 5: 29
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I see no kink. Actions originate in the heart. A heart that loves God will produce good fruit - a heart that chooses to rebel against God will produce bad fruit. Those who love God have chosen Life - those who rebelled have chosen separation from God. Good and evil actions show where the heart is. Actions do not save - your heart response to God determines whether or not you choose to accept Godâ??s gift of salvation (relationship).

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth
I see destruction for all those who do not bend their knee to Mormon beliefs.

Intresting you didn't quote the Bibilical verse that Go along with that...

â??No, Joseph Smith foresaw an ecumenical millenium composed of many churches.â?

The above is the quote I was responding to. I didnâ??t quote Bible verses because we were discussing what JS foresaw. I quoted what JS wrote (or was inspired to write). The Bible does not discuss two churches like the BoM does -

1 Nephi 14:10 â??And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.â?

Does the Bible speak of those who choose to rebel against God? Definitely. In fact, someone told me that Jesus spoke of Hell twice as much as he spoke of Heaven. But, being a member of a certain church doesnâ??t save you - where your heart is - your relationship with God - saves you.

Paul Ray · March 8, 2007

We would have to admit, though, that they do not always do a bang-up job of this, yes? (Adam-God, The Seer, etc.).

What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually taught concerning Adam and God was and is true. Some people just don't correctly interpret what they meant.

I'm not familiar with what you are referring to by the word "Seer". Can you cite the source for me?

TrashcanMan79 · March 8, 2007

Please give verses to support that only original sin was â??wiped outâ?. Also, please define original sin.

Over One Hundred Texts From the Bible That Show the Doctrine of Original Sin is Unbiblical and False

This shows that:

1) Original sin is unbiblical,

or, failing that

2) The Bible contradicts itself

or, failing that

3) The Bible is ambiguous and confusing.

TrashcanMan79 · March 8, 2007

What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually taught concerning Adam and God was and is true. Some people just don't correctly interpret what they meant.

I didn't realize Joseph Smith taught anything like Young's Adam-God. Did he?

Didn't Spencer W. Kimball reject Young's teaching of Adam-God? Was he misinterpreting it? What is your understanding of Adam-God teachings?

I'm not familiar with what you are referring to by the word "Seer". Can you cite the source for me?

'The Seer:' Reliable Source?

Zakuska · March 8, 2007

Please give verses to support that only original sin was â??wiped outâ?. Also, please define original sin. I hope you are not going to say that it was just death brought into the world.

There were two types of Death introduced at the fall.

1) Physical death - Remeber Adam mortally died at the age of 930 years old (Gen 5:5) Which was well within the Prophetic 1000 year "day".

2) He also spirtually died. Being cast out of Gods presence.

Did not God reconcil the world to himself through Christ?

Spiritual Death was done away with in Christ... thus the veil was ripped to signify anyone and everyone had Access to the father through the spirit. Original Sin was swallowed up in Christ and again man can commune with the father. One day Physcial death wuill be done away with. But that only will come at the second comming.

â??Now its every man for himself.â? Wow - that doesnâ??t sound like anything a Christian would say - that sounds like the World. Very self-focused sounding to me. Jesus gave His life for others - isnâ??t that our model? Arenâ??t we to bear one anotherâ??s burdens, serve others, etc.? How can you obey all these selfless commandments in order to get for yourself? The heart of someone who obeys selfless commands doesnâ??t go with the heart of someone out for himself.

Now I don't know if You are intentionally trying to missrepresent my words. The context in which I said that was to do with Man and his personal sins. Before the sour Grapes the sins of the fathers was counted on the heads of their children but now... "its every man for himself" He is accountable to God for himself wether his works are good or evil.

Rom. 14: 12

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

1 Pet. 4: 5

5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

The only way you one earn salvation or godhood or worthiness is to lower the qualifications. You canâ??t be sinless. You are also saying that Jesus went through the agony of death but that wasnâ??t enough to cover all your sins. The power of the cross has been diminished as well. Godâ??s power is diminished - your power is increased.

Which sins did Christ pay for?

Rom. 3: 25

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Who's going to pay for the sins I commit as a Beleiver?

Hint: Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 4:5

Me, Unless I repent.

Heb 6

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Are their sins that not even Christ Blood can cover?

1 Jn. 5: 16-17

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Matt. 12:31

31

TrashcanMan79 · March 8, 2007

Psalm 51:5 â??Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.â?

From gospeltruth.net (emphasis in original):

This text is not literal, it is figurative. For example, let us compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither."

If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can also be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will go back into their mother's womb: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither."

Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 should be understood literally. Both texts are figurative expressions. The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that little babies are born sinners, if they were also applied to Job 1:21 (or if they were applied to many other passages from the Bible), would permit every kind of perverted and absurd interpretation of the Word of God.

David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner (which would have been an excuse for his sins in a Psalm which was clearly a Psalm of confession). On the contrary, he was confessing the great magnitude and guilt of the sin he had committed; and he broke out in the language of strong feeling and emotion--the language of figure and symbol--to express the monstrousness of his sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

The Psalmist David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms; and he uses several figurative expressions in Psalm 51. Verses five, seven, and eight of Psalm 51 are all figurative expressions. So that if verse five can be used to teach the doctrine that babies are born sinners, then also verse seven can be used to teach the doctrine that hyssop cleanses us from sin:

"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." Psalm 51:7

Also, verse eight can be used to teach the doctrine that God breaks the bones of the Christian when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven:

"Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Psalm 51:8

And another Psalm, Psalm 58:3, can be used to teach the astonishing doctrine that all babies talk and tell lies from the very moment of their birth:

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3

But, who would teach from this last text the doctrine that babies really do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages should be taken literally. They are all figurative expressions. If they were taken in their literal sense, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality and impossible: Men do not enter again into their mother's womb. Hyssop does not purify our sins. Babies do not start speaking as soon as they come out of the womb. And babies are not born sinners!

Freedom in Truth · March 9, 2007

Freedom in Truth:
From Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Thank you for the article. At this point I donâ??t care about punctuation, typographical errors - and I donâ??t care much about spelling. I primarily care about changes that affect the meaning of the text. (Unlabeled quotes from the above article)

â??Years ago, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a book claiming to identify 3,000 changes between the original 1830 edition and the then present version.â?

The number is 3,913. A Mormon article cited on this thread stated over 100,000 changes.

â??The driving force for virtually all changes has been to (1) ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript and (2) to ensure that the text is accessible and readable. Alleged departures from the original text generally turn out to be simple clarifications or reworkings of awkward grammar rather than doctrinal changes.â?

How can you ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript when you only have about 25% of the manuscript? (You also donâ??t have the BoM in its original language.)

Why would anything need to be clarified?

It is to be expected that when the angel restores the gospel it will be restored in fullness and in the most perfect simplicity and plainness so that every point of the doctrine of Christ shall be clearly revealed and expressed in such language that no two persons could understand it differently...nothing else can be an infallible standard of the Christian religion; nothing else can reclaim them from divisions and strifes; nothing else will give certainty and stability so necessary to the happiness and salvation of man; and nothing else could be expected in the revelation of the gospel by an angel. Such a revelation is the Book of Mormon; the most infallible certainty characterizes every ordinance and every doctrinal point revealed in that book. In it there is no ambiguity

Hammer · March 9, 2007

We all have intrinsic value/worth to God - we are His masterpieces. He infinitely loves each of us. He desires a relationship with each of us. We walk with God, love Him, follow Him, and glorify Him as we serve Him and join His work on earth. Our motivation is our love for Him (not earning godhood, worthiness, etc.). Whatever God asks of us is for our good. We find purpose and fulfillment when we walk with God and join His will, and that is a â??rewardâ? in itself! We move towards becoming our true selves in fellowship with Him and we taste life in abundance.

Our motivation is our love for our God. You insinuate that our motivation is earning godhood or worthiness. These may be blessings added to our heads if we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, strength etc. We find purpose and fulfillment when we walk with God and become His will becoming one with Him as He is one with the Father. This is indeed a reward. We move towards becoming our truest selves in Him, not just through fellowship with Him. We taste, feast and rejoice in the abundance of His love, life, power.

Obedience/ good works do not earn salvation (relationship with God). But they do often show where our heart is.

Where our heart is there is our treasure also. Salvation can't be earned. Salvation is free. However, we must prove ourselves obedient. There is no entering into the Kingdom of God without having charity and charity is the end of obedience to the commandments. Charity is the relationship with Christ.

Ephesians 2:4-10 â??But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsâ??it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ??and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ?? not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.â?

Even so. But as James states:

James 2: 20, 26

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

God gives us good works to do (also see The Parable of the Talents - Matthew 25:14-30). When we obey and walk in relationship with Him, good fruit is the result, and our faith and maturity in Him increases as well. We are now possibly ready for a larger or more difficult task, or even a task that needed the experience we gained doing the last task. We have heard, â??Well done!â? from our Father - what a reward!

This is worth everything. There is no mountain high enough, or ocean too deep that one wouldn't cross, or go the depths to receive this if they had ever experience the extacy of God's pure love.

As far as the third servant in the parable - it doesnâ??t appear that this servant is faith-filled. It also doesnâ??t appear that he knew his master very well (showing a lack of relationship). He was given an opportunity but he chose not to use it. He chose no relationship in his heart, and his actions accompany this.

He had the choice. He received and did not magnify the gift of life, knowledge, or anything else.

Our actions show our heart. Our actions do not save us. The only way we could be worthy on our own is to be sinless, and that we will not be.

You must know that your idea of salvation and ours differ so to keep saying the same phrase over and over again doesn't cut. it.

We believe that everyone is saved from the physical death. Everyone will be raised to be judged. But we know that by our works we will be judged. That is what determines whether or not we will be gaining spiritual salvation. Those who deny Christ will not receive Salvation. Those who refuse the gift will not receive salvation's gift of the spirit. Works like Baptism, Loving one another, being born again-- are absolute works of necessity.

Then there is exaltation for the greater sacrifices and works through God. Have you read Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It would help you to better understand our doctrine and then you wouldn't keep saying works do not give us salvation.

Rev. 20: 12-13

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead werejudged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and bhell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Freedom in Truth · March 9, 2007

Hmmm... sounds just like the same difficulties they had bringing the Bible to the press.

Maybe it would have been easier â??bringing the Bible to pressâ? if it had been written in English in America in the 1800s. Maybe it would have been easier if God gave someone every Hebrew and Greek word, one by one.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/spell.htm

I already stated that I am not concerned much with spelling, especially when the text is not seen in a hat.

Do you check out articles before you cite them? Or do you just assume any atheist is accurate and you will agree with them?

Isaiah 7:14 - â??Apparently, Strong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) admits that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958). That entry lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.â?

Wrong - http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?...mp;isindex=5959

Also, the Septuagint uses the Greek word #3933 in this verse. This is the same word Matthew uses in 1:23 (â??the virgin will be with child . . â??). The word is used 14 times in the KJV and is always translated â??virginâ?. Definition -

1) a virgin

a) a marriageable maiden

b ) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

c) one's marriageable daughter

2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

a) one who has never had intercourse with women

Micah 2:6 - â??He drops Ephrathah and he drops 'ruler' over Israel and changes it to shepherd, because Jesus never became a ruler over Israel.â? (Matthew 2:6)

Wrong - NIV - Matthew 2:6b â??for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.â?

KJV - Matthew 2:6b â??for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.â?

Genesis 35:19 â??And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.â? Same word.

Isaiah 9:7 - It is not a name but a title, a description.

2 Kings 18:27b (verse reference not provided by the author) - KJV - â??hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?â? Is the meaning changed?

Good read on Bible Innerrancy...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm

How many verses in the Bible address homosexuality - just one?

Jesus and his disciples spoke Greek?

Who is the author of this article? What are his credentials? Does he know anything about Hebrew thought, language, customs, etc.? Has he thoroughly studied the Bible? Does he have an accurate understanding of Christian thought?

Do you listen to everyone and anyone? Is this your discernment?

You seem willing to use any source that supports your argument! Why do you think these sources are valid? The authors donâ??t even have secret, sacred understandings and knowledge. Is this discernment? Your argument seems to be that the Bible is as bad as the BoM. Isnâ??t the BoM supposed to be better? Can you only show that the BoM isnâ??t worse than the Bible (in your opinion)? If the BoM isnâ??t any better then why bother with it?

(Iâ??m hoping you didnâ??t thoroughly read these articles.)

Freedom in Truth · March 9, 2007

LOL. I would have ask for another book.
Edit to add: I would expect that that prophet would be strictly for teaching correct doctrine according to what had already been revealed. We all know how the same scriptures lead to many different interpretations. I would think this final prophet would be one preparing the way of the Lord's 2nd coming by defining and clearifying teachings already received, not to bring in more contraversy, but a way of unifying.

What if the prophet upheld the Mormon Quad but said there was a misunderstanding of the concept of godhood and he has come to correct this doctrine? Are the Mormon scriptural references on godhood specific or vague? Is the whole godhood concept from scripture or from the interpretation of scripture? Can the scriptures be interpreted differently?

A new prophetâ??s different teachings on godhood would be controversial only if you didnâ??t accept them. However, JSâ??s teachings were controversial, and that was O-K.

Zakuska · March 9, 2007

Maybe it would have been easier â??bringing the Bible to pressâ? if it had been written in English in America in the 1800s. Maybe it would have been easier if God gave someone every Hebrew and Greek word, one by one.

Yep every word then dictated to various scribes... to which has been accuratley shown could not spell worth a darn.

I already stated that I am not concerned much with spelling, especially when the text is not seen in a hat.
Do you check out articles before you cite them? Or do you just assume any atheist is accurate and you will agree with them?

Sure I do... see below to have a lesson in ressearch.

Isaiah 7:14 - â??Apparently, Strong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) admits that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958). That entry lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.â?
Wrong - http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?...mp;isindex=5959

Guess again... The Definition to which the author is refering to in your own link is 5958. Which does mention nothing about virginity....

5958 `elem eh'-lem from 5956; properly, something kept out of sight (Compare 5959), i.e. a lad:--young man, stripling.

Looking at the Blue letter Bible and the Hebrew Lexicon (even taking notice of the withstanding note) we also see nothing of 'Virginity' in the hebrew definition.

"A Girl of marriagable age"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/wor...05959&page=

Also, the Septuagint uses the Greek word #3933 in this verse. This is the same word Matthew uses in 1:23 (â??the virgin will be with child . . â??). The word is used 14 times in the KJV and is always translated â??virginâ?.
Definition -
1) a virgin
a) a marriageable maiden
b ) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
c) one's marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
a) one who has never had intercourse with women

Again... Its been Lost in Translation. The Hebrew word means simply "of age", "Able to be married" and has nothing to do with sexual state of the girl. Virginity can be assumed true. But the original definition of the word does not mean it.

Micah 2:6 - â??He drops Ephrathah and he drops 'ruler' over Israel and changes it to shepherd, because Jesus never became a ruler over Israel.â? (Matthew 2:6)
Wrong - NIV - Matthew 2:6b â??for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.â?

Matthew 2:6 (New International Version)

6 'But you, Bethlehem , in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'[a]"

Micah 5:2 (New International Version)

2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins [ b ] are from of old, from ancient times. [c] "

Notice how Ephrathah has been dropped.

Ruler has also been changed to Shepard.

Was Christ ever a Jewish King or Governor? No. His Kingdom was not of this world.

KJV - Matthew 2:6b â??for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.â?
Genesis 35:19 â??And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.â? Same word.
Isaiah 9:7 - It is not a name but a title, a description.
2 Kings 18:27b (verse reference not provided by the author) - KJV - â??hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?â? Is the meaning changed?

Lost in translation.

How many verses in the Bible address homosexuality - just one?

Not sure... never had to worry about it myself.

Jesus and his disciples spoke Greek?

Paul sure did... he nearly got strung up for desicrating the Jewish temple by taking Greeks into it. At least thats why he was arrested. And the Caananite dog... er... woman was Greek. Did not Christ and his Disciples speak to her?

You seem willing to use any source that supports your argument! Why do you think these sources are valid? The authors donâ??t even have secret, sacred understandings and knowledge. Is this discernment? Your argument seems to be that the Bible is as bad as the BoM. Isnâ??t the BoM supposed to be better? Can you only show that the BoM isnâ??t worse than the Bible (in your opinion)? If the BoM isnâ??t any better then why bother with it?

The Book of Mormon tells us the Bible has been Altered and many precious truths lost. So what happens when we put the premis to the test?

We find that to be exactly true. Eg. Duet 32:8 has been miss tranlated and changed for theological nessecity. Then you have the whole "Reed Sea" vs "Red Sea" debate. The Johnaian Comma.

The BOM is the corner stone of the restoration of all things. All the things that where lost and the secret works of Man will come to light before the second coming. The BOM restores some of the missing information. The D&C and the PGOP restore a little more. And there will be yet More revealed. Are we read for it?

worshiper23 · March 10, 2007

Well chances are it depends on the spirit if there seems to be a really uneasy fealing about then that might qualify

Freedom in Truth · March 11, 2007

If there is a god, and he is as bothered by lying as he is murder, then I would not look to him as a source of morality. Such a god would be underserving of worship, in my opinion. I would much rather be lied to than murdered. I would feel worse about murdering someone than just telling her no, she doesn't look fat in those jeans.
A god who does not distinguish between the two is not a god with whom I would have anything to do.

If there is a God, a Supreme Being, wouldnâ??t He need to be THE Source - Creator of all, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Wise? I mean, if youâ??re going to worship and bend your knee to a being, wouldnâ??t you need the being to be All Supreme? Wouldnâ??t He define Good and Morality? This would be a God deserving of your worship, as I think you have said.

Can one, with a finite brain, totally understand this type of God? Can an ant understand a man? Could a being be God if we could know as much as this being? Would it be wise to judge a Supreme Being like this when one doesnâ??t know all?

Though Life is a precious gift and something we have no right to end - is death the worst thing that can happen to someone? A lie can cause years of agony and suffering, not to mention the breaking of trust. You might feel worse about murdering than lying, but should sins be judged on the basis of how you feel about them? (If you actually purposefully murdered someone, you would already be very different from who you are now, so how would you know how you would feel?)

In Godâ??s perspective all sin is rebellion (choosing your way over Godâ??s way). And sin canâ??t be in the presence of God, so it separates you from God if it is not covered. If you think of yourself as a can of white paint, then any sin is a drop of black in the can - the can is no longer pure white.

Freedom in Truth · March 11, 2007

But here is where your reasoning shows its circularity, FIT.
I tell you that I am inspired by God. Why don't you respect me by not caring what I proclaim about myself?
All the Best!
--Consiglieri

I think you misunderstood what I said. I respect the Bible and accept its claim about itself, but not on the strength of that claim. That would be circular reasoning. I look at outside evidence as well.

I respect you as a person, but I do not accept your version of truth. And your claim that you are inspired by God is not enough for me either. I need some kind of evidence - something that validates JS (the source of your truth). I have nothing.

selek · March 11, 2007

I think you misunderstood what I said. I respect the Bible and accept its claim about itself, but not on the strength of that claim. That would be circular reasoning. I look at outside evidence as well.
I respect you as a person, but I do not accept your version of truth. And your claim that you are inspired by God is not enough for me either. I need some kind of evidence - something that validates JS (the source of your truth). I have nothing.

Where did Consig ever claim that Jospeh Smith was the source of his truth? Seem to me he's repeatedly specified that Heavenly Father, not Brother Joseph was the source of his truth- and the confirming witness to the same.

Tread very lightly, FIT- the same razor you attempt to slash Mormonism with can easily undercut your own truth claims.

There is every bit as much evidence for the Book of Mormon as there is the historical Jesus. The same hammer you weild to kick out the supports for my faith will work equally well against yours.

Freedom in Truth · March 11, 2007

Nice Tap Dance FIT...
Num 23
19 God is not a man, that he should alie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he cspoken, and shall he not make it good?
20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.
Jonah 4: 2
2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and amerciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Does God "Repent" (ie change his mind) or not?

God does not change His mind, but it can look to us like He does. We change our minds because we receive new information, we realize we were wrong, we receive pressure from others, or our original decision was arbitrary and we make a new arbitrary decision. Does God receive new information? Is He ever wrong? Is He pressured from others? Does He decide arbitrarily? What you see in Jonah is anthropopathism.

Numbers 23:19 - â??God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent . . .â? God is not a man? He is according to you. God doesnâ??t repent? He does according to you. And, hereâ??s another verse JS missed.

Freedom in Truth · March 13, 2007

Sign In

How Can We Know When We Hear

Recommended Posts

Paul Ray

TrashcanMan79

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

Paul Ray

TrashcanMan79

TrashcanMan79

Zakuska

TrashcanMan79

Freedom in Truth

Hammer

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

Zakuska

worshiper23

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

selek

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

Freedom in Truth

Zakuska

Doctor Steuss

Paul Ray

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse