Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 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!Thats the first time a Christian has ever admited that. :CHINFLOOR:
structurecop Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Many copying techniques were not poor - check out the Masoretic scribes!In comparison to the DSS, the Masoretic text is also the poorest.
structurecop Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Again, could you give more detail so I can research this?Was this one situation or a huge pattern?http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 That's right. And the devils in Hell also know the truth of "Mormonism." Well, at least according to Brigham:BTW, another fantastic quote from the same sermon:More from Pres. Young (from a different sermon):And even more from Brother Brigham (yet another sermon):Edit:Forgot to include references. The first two are from JoD Vol 9 "ETERNAL PUNISHMENT-"MORMONISM," &c." given on January 12, 1862The third is from JoD Vol 13 "TRUTH AND ERROR" given on APRIL 24, 1870Last from JoD Vol 11 "HOLY GHOST REQUISITE TO TEACH THE TRUTH" given April 29, 1866That would be one side of the coin, the other being the contemporary claim that Mormonism had taken doctrines from every known religion and melded it into the new religion as a matter of not possibly being true.
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 It would help to see the demons preaching it. Otherwise, I am inclined to think that something that doesn't ring true is just a product of the infinity of human errors to be found in this world. The idea that something is a doctrine of demons is highly dangerous because it replaces reason with fear. Instead of analyzing each doctrine independently to see whether it comports with common sense and reason, we get caught up in worrying about the source of the doctrine. For that reason, I choose to completely discard the concern that a particular doctrine might have stemmed from a demon. I imagine there are likely some demons in the universe who actually have a good idea. Why should I discredit it just because it came from a demon?Do we have record of any 'doctrine of demons' in the Bible? I'd site the temptation of Eve, occultic practices, necromancy, and the religions of that use idols for starters. Wouldn't it be any religion that sets itself up to oppose God in any way?
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 Well if I am a Christian, I just look at everything about the LDS church and state that they are the best example of teaching doctrines of demons.If I am LDS, I test the spirits,, and I look at the fruits of the Spirit. I believe Christ:Matt. 7: 16 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Can one be of God and refuse to take Him at His word? After all, the great deception is to lead away even the very elect if that were possible. Jesus said His words were imperishable by any means.
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 A few scriptures that came to my mind talk about how to identify some of the doctrine of demons:"But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him." Moroni 7:17The devil stirs up men and women to hate the laws of God.They who listen to Satan do not want to abide any law especially the laws of God. Their desire is to abide in sin. They want to do their own will and seek for their own gain. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:35)The Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day loved the law and mans additions to it. They even condemned Jesus as breaking the laws of God. They thought themselves quite righteous and godly. They loved the power and authority it gave them over other men, yet didn't know God at all. Jesus said they were of their father the Devil. As such, I really don't put much stock in the verses you supplied...have any from the Bible to support your view?Thanks!
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 What verse are you referring to?Didn't JS "cast doubt on the surety of God's word"?Still haven't received my replacement study Bible, so I can't give the verse right now, but once when Jesus was teaching He said that if anyone desired to know if what He taught was of God or not that by doing what He said that the person could know if it were of God or not.Did JS?:-) The BOM implies the Bible corrupted.
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 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...Zakuska, why not let everyone read the title of the book and see if they don't agree?
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 There are facts and evidence supporting the Biblical text as well.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?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.Have you read Grant Jeffrey's "THE SIGNATURE OF GOD"?
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 The Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day loved the law and mans additions to it. They even condemned Jesus as breaking the laws of God. They thought themselves quite righteous and godly. They loved the power and authority it gave them over other men, yet didn't know God at all. Jesus said they were of their father the Devil. As such, I really don't put much stock in the verses you supplied...have any from the Bible to support your view?Thanks!Hmmm... sounds like Modern Day Evangelical Christians!
structurecop Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Can one be of God and refuse to take Him at His word? After all, the great deception is to lead away even the very elect if that were possible. Jesus said His words were imperishable by any means.As soon as I can discern anything as being God's word, I will take him at it. I see a lot of perishable words supposedly attributed to God which seems to contradict what you're saying.
Neighbor Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 As soon as I can discern anything as being God's word, I will take him at it. I see a lot of perishable words supposedly attributed to God which seems to contradict what you're saying.The only real way to know is to be a disciple of Jesus. We can all sit at His feet and learn the same lessons given to the disciples of old. If those words are words of eternal life they should still be effective today!:-)
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Like keeping the women quiet at church? Goodluck!
Hammer 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.Exactly. No matter how many supposed fallacies one searches for in the BoM it is protected and revealed through the Lord. He loves us too much to leave us in the dark.
Son Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Exactly. No matter how many supposed fallacies one searches for in the BoM it is protected and revealed through the Lord. He loves us too much to leave us in the dark.Absolutely! Truth is easy to find when you are asking and looking.Mankind tends to think it's going to come up univited and just smear itself all over you.
Doctor Steuss Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 That would be one side of the coin, the other being the contemporary claim that Mormonism had taken doctrines from every known religion and melded it into the new religion as a matter of not possibly being true.Wow. Add books and expertise on "every known religion" to the library of Joseph, Oliver, Sidney, Martin, et. al.I love contemporary claims...
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 "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)I did some research but could not find out the text of Hebrews 1:3 in this codex. I looked at information on variant verses but this verse was not listed - http://web.ovc.edu/tc/lay24heb.htm , for example.Have you found any information on this verse?I may be wrong, but I think Christians and Mormons would agree that God is capable of protecting His revelation if He wanted to. The question is - would God desire to protect His revelation? If not, why not? And if not, then what would that say about the character of God?
Daniel Peterson Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 LDS 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'?In some cases, it's quite clear. For example, if someone says of the victim of a mob murder that he got what he deserved, that's obviously a "doctrine of demons."
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 FIT,The better question is... would he? Why would he take our free will away like that?
structurecop Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I did some research but could not find out the text of Hebrews 1:3 in this codex. I looked at information on variant verses but this verse was not listed - http://web.ovc.edu/tc/lay24heb.htm , for example.Hmm I'm shocked that a Bible college would not document a textual varient potentially challenging to inerrancy views.
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I did some research but could not find out the text of Hebrews 1:3 in this codex. I looked at information on variant verses but this verse was not listed - http://web.ovc.edu/tc/lay24heb.htm , for example.Have you found any information on this verse?What did you use as search criteria? I googled "variant + hebrews 1:3" and found this rather easily:"Scribes altered the phrase 'purification for sins' to 'purification for our sins' to avoid the parallel between Christ and the Levitical priests who provided purification for their own sins as well as those of the people."
Freedom in Truth 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.I would have to look at Justinâ??s exact claim to evaluate it - do you have a source for this information? I would need more info. on your second claim (another ECF) as well.In Fact Jermiah 8:8 claims some one was tampering with Scripture.Jeremiah 8:8 - How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? â??A scribe is one who copies Godâ??s law. They were often respected as teachers and authorities on Godâ??s law.â? http://ebible.org/web/glossary.htm The verse does not say that the scribes are miscopying Torah - they could have been writing expositions or commentary on Torah.In Jeremiah 36:32 Jeremiah dictates to his scribe â??all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fireâ?. God is able to protect His word.In Jeremiah 26:4 it says â??Say to them, 'This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow my law, which I have set before you,â? Did God hold the people accountable for the Law when they could not know it? Heres a few other examples.Duet 32:8 "Children of God" to "Children of Israel" by Hypermontheist JewsI am not sure what your point is in Deutonomy 32:8 - could you clarify? I did see that the JST says â??children of Israelâ?.Romans 8:1Romans 8:1 - â??Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesusâ?. My Bible footnotes that â??who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spiritâ? was included in some late manuscripts after the word Jesus. Does this addition change revelation or doctrine?Johainan CommaThe Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 - My Bible also footnotes this. It was added in 1522. This means that the doctrine of the Trinity was established before these verses were added. The Johannine Comma is also in Joseph Smithâ??s translation of the Bible. He changed 1 John 5:18 but the rest of the chapter is the same as the KJV Bible. It is interesting to me that JS didnâ??t delete these verses.Secret Gospel of MarkIt seems that the authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark is debated. There were many â??gospelsâ? rejected, many of which were Gnostic. Gnosticism was considered heresy by the early church fathers. You may or may not agree, but that is why such gospels/letters were not included.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Thats the first time a Christian has ever admited that. :CHINFLOOR:Though I am tempted to be distinguished as the first Christian to admit that there are a few variants that arenâ??t easily reconcilable, I have to be honest and admit that other Christians have said just that! I have two books on my table written by Christians who say this, and they reference others . . . so who knows how many Christians have said this?! So I am surprised that you are surprised!But, lest you run with this - let me clarify and say that we are talking about a very, very few number. Variants are to be expected in thousands of years, especially with years of hand-copying. And, one manuscript that says something like â??the cat was created before the dogâ? is not going to be considered very weighty if many other manuscripts say â??the dog was created before the catâ?, especially if the manuscripts include this fact 50 times and it is different once! (please excuse my example)However, the BoM, not 200 years old, has many edits/changes/variants - many which change doctrine or content.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.