Freedom in Truth Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 1. Could you give a reference for your statement by Christians that "they [the LDS Church] are the best example of teaching doctrines of demons"? Then could you support that any Christian will state this?2, If you test the spirits, look at the fruits of the Spirit, and believe Christ, then you are relying on your ability to spiritually discern. It seems to me you are relying on yourself only. Is your discernment infallible?Proverbs 16:25a - "There is a way that seems right to a man . . ."1. You are the one who gave me this information. Should I quote from your pm to me?2. Again, would you like me to quote from my pm to you?1. Did I state the quote in those words, or are those your words? I searched my pms and cannot come up with that quote.2. I do not recall you ever answering whether or not your discernment is infallible. Or is it that you said your discernment is infallible but you are fallible?
William James Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The step before denying God is to deny the devil exists.And the step before rejecting belief in (or emphasis on) the devil is embracing reason. Beware all you intellectuals! You are headed straight to hell. If only you would cast all reason aside . . .
Freedom in Truth Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 For me, Jesus said if we do what He said that we will know if it is of God or not. I can see a number of places from scripture that a common demonic doctrine is to cast doubt on the surety of Gods' word or to teach something against what God has declared with the temptation to think otherwise for several reasons...What verse are you referring to?Didn't JS "cast doubt on the surety of God's word"?
structurecop Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Didn't JS "cast doubt on the surety of God's word"?The Bible doesn't need JS to cast doubt on the surety of its records. It does that well enough on its own.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 And the step before rejecting belief in (or emphasis on) the devil is embracing reason. Beware all you intellectuals! You are headed straight to hell. If only you would cast all reason aside . . .Reasoning only give you some reasons, and that doesn't tell you if your reasons are true.To know a reason is true we need an assurance from... someone.I trust God.
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 This is the biggest Doctrinal lie that has ever been told...Gen. 3: 4 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:Yet the Eternal youth industry brings in billion upon billions each year.All these anti-aging creams and butters and hair colorings...
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Didn't JS "cast doubt on the surety of God's word"?Nope. If you believe Joseph did, please give me your reasons. Thank you.
structurecop Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Yet the Eternal youth industry brings in billion upon billions each year.All these anti-aging creams and butters and hair colorings...I don't think any of these carry with them the promise of eternal life -- just looking younger until that fateful day.
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Well.. you can always mummify yourself alive by eating twinkies.
structurecop Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Well.. you can always mummify yourself alive by eating twinkies.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The Bible doesn't need JS to cast doubt on the surety of its records. It does that well enough on its own.The Bible doesn't cast doubt on itself - people cast doubt."I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). In the 1800s the Bible was generally accepted in America as God's Word (nothing is ever accepted 100%). JS's message was "don't believe the Bible, believe me" (wording mine). Mormons believe JS had good reason to spread this idea - traditional Christians don't.
Hammer Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The Bible doesn't cast doubt on itself - people cast doubt."I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). In the 1800s the Bible was generally accepted in America as God's Word (nothing is ever accepted 100%). JS's message was "don't believe the Bible, believe me" (wording mine). Mormons believe JS had good reason to spread this idea - traditional Christians don't.Believe as you wish, it doesn't make it so. I would think you have kept your head in the sand too long my friend. Have you heard about Shakespears editing job on the Bible? Have you counted just how many different translations and renditions there are of this book?This work, was mostly done by men like JS who was fallable. You live by a word that was penned by men, though given at some time in some way through God.
structurecop Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The Bible doesn't cast doubt on itself - people cast doubt.Yeah, those people with their pesky historical facts and evidence. "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). Are you saying this isn't true? I'd be very interested in the scholarship that shows that the Bible is exactly the same as it was penned by the original writers. In the 1800s the Bible was generally accepted in America as God's Word (nothing is ever accepted 100%). JS's message was "don't believe the Bible, believe me" (wording mine). Mormons believe JS had good reason to spread this idea - traditional Christians don't.In the 1800s it was also generally accepted that it was okay to buy and sell human beings. What's your point?
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The Bible doesn't cast doubt on itself - people cast doubt."I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). In the 1800s the Bible was generally accepted in America as God's Word (nothing is ever accepted 100%). JS's message was "don't believe the Bible, believe me" (wording mine). Mormons believe JS had good reason to spread this idea - traditional Christians don't.It's funny that JS gets the bum rap here on this deal when the people who actually translated the Bible and put it on the press, where complaining about how poorly the text had been preserved and transmitted.eg.JoromeLuther - Removed 4 books and called the Epitsle of James the "Gospel of straw".WicliffeAll had complaints.Theres even a fragment of the ancient Bible some where that has red editors ink on it which reads... " WOULD YOU QUIT CHANGING THE TEXT!"
structurecop Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Theres even a fragment of the ancient Bible some where that has red editors ink on it which reads... " WOULD YOU QUIT CHANGING THE TEXT!"Yes, the precise fragment is quoted in Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I think the scribe was a little more explicit in his rebuke, even calling the prior scribe a name.
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Yes, the precise fragment is quoted in Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I think the scribe was a little more explicit in his rebuke, even calling the prior scribe a name."Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" - The complaint of a scribe, written in the margin of Codex Vaticanus at Heb. 1:3. (source)
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Moroni gave us the way to judge, with a perfect knowldge. Don't have my scriptures with me I beleive it is in 7th Chapter????Pa PaLDS and non-LDS alike use the scripture to warn against 'doctrines of demons' being taught and believed.How do you determine if what someone says or does is a 'doctrine of demons'?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Believe as you wish, it doesn't make it so. I would think you have kept your head in the sand too long my friend. Have you heard about Shakespears editing job on the Bible? Have you counted just how many different translations and renditions there are of this book?This work, was mostly done by men like JS who was fallable. You live by a word that was penned by men, though given at some time in some way through God.Please expond on Shakespeare's editing job, if you would.Yes, there are many editions and translations of the Bible within traditional Christianity. All translators, editors, and original writers were and are fallible. Yet revelation is consistent - God's message is consistent.God is able to protect His revelation, regardless of fallible people. And God did protect His Truth because He desires to walk with us and to be known by us. He loves us too much to leave us in the dark.
structurecop Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 God is able to protect His revelation, regardless of fallible people. And God did protect His Truth because He desires to walk with us and to be known by us. He loves us too much to leave us in the dark.So God protects his revelation but allows people to fall into doctrinal squabbles due to poor copying techniques?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Yeah, those people with their pesky historical facts and evidence. There are facts and evidence supporting the Biblical text as well.Are you saying this isn't true? I'd be very interested in the scholarship that shows that the Bible is exactly the same as it was penned by the original writers.We have no copies of the original autographs. We do have knowledge of how meticulous Jewish scribes were. Compared to other works of the same period we have a wealth of manuscripts. The variants in the vast majority of cases make no difference in revelation.Compare this situation to the works of JS. In less than 200 years there have been many additions and changes - many which affect revelation.No, I do not think translators were ignorant - though I don't say they had perfect knowledge either. How much Hebrew and Greek did JS know before he wrote his translation (a translation mostly not used by his own church)? "Careless transcribers" - on what basis did JS form this opinion? "Designing and corrupt priests" - where is JS's historical evidence for this? And what was the motive for all these priests?In the 1800s it was also generally accepted that it was okay to buy and sell human beings. What's your point?My point was that JS's ideas "cast doubt on the surety of God's word" within a society that generally did not doubt. I was not debating who was right and who was wrong at this point.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 It's funny that JS gets the bum rap here on this deal when the people who actually translated the Bible and put it on the press, where complaining about how poorly the text had been preserved and transmitted.eg.JoromeLuther - Removed 4 books and called the Epitsle of James the "Gospel of straw".WicliffeAll had complaints.Theres even a fragment of the ancient Bible some where that has red editors ink on it which reads... " WOULD YOU QUIT CHANGING THE TEXT!"Please give specific details so we can discuss them. What type of variants were these people discussing?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Yes, the precise fragment is quoted in Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I think the scribe was a little more explicit in his rebuke, even calling the prior scribe a name.Again, could you give more detail so I can research this?Was this one situation or a huge pattern?
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Its a huge Pattern. Justin accuses the Jews of Removing Scripture from the OT too. Another ECF repeats the Claim but misatributes it to be in Isaiah instead of Jeremiah.In Fact Jermiah 8:8 claims some one was tampering with Scripture.Heres a few other examples.Duet 32:8 "Children of God" to "Children of Israel" by Hypermontheist JewsRomans 8:1Johainan CommaSecret Gospel of Mark
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 FIT:God is able to protect His revelation, regardless of fallible people. And God did protect His Truth because He desires to walk with us and to be known by us. He loves us too much to leave us in the dark.Rom. 11: 7, 25 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest awere blinded ... 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come Why did he leave the Jews in the dark?Guess what... The fullness of the Gentiles has come in and judgement has been set and new light has been given and people are rejecting it just like they did at the time of Christ. God does love us... but he will not stop us from corruping that which he gives us. That would take away free will.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 So God protects his revelation but allows people to fall into doctrinal squabbles due to poor copying techniques?We have free will. The variants (except for a very few cases) do not affect revelation at all.Many copying techniques were not poor - check out the Masoretic scribes!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.