How Can We Know When We Hear

[TrashcanMan79]

I 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?.

So?

I've noticed you use this reasoning every time a variant is discussed that remains in the JST, yet I know of no one who believes Joseph Smith produced an inerrant, perfect version of the Bible. (And if they do, they're wrong!)

Edited to add: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Joseph_Smith...inal_Bible_text

[Freedom in Truth]

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html

Thanks - I've already seen this. I was looking for the text of Hebrews 1:3 in this codex.

[structurecop]

It 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.

The Secret Gospel of Mark was related by Clement of Alexandria, a very orthodox church father and the account fills a very noticeable hole in the current canonized version. I see little reason to doubt its authenticity.

[Freedom in Truth]

Have you read Grant Jeffrey's "THE SIGNATURE OF GOD"?

No . . . why?

[TrashcanMan79]

The Secret Gospel of Mark was related by Clement of Alexandria, a very orthodox church father and the account fills a very noticeable hole in the current canonized version. I see little reason to doubt its authenticity.

The authenticity of the Clement letter is disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Saba_lett...er_authenticity

[structurecop]

The authenticity of the Clement letter is disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Saba_lett...er_authenticity

The Wikipedia article does not mention that both Morton Smith and later G. Guy Stroumsa (whose work has appeared in the FARMS Review) actually saw the letter in the monastery library. G. Guy Stroumsa related the account to Bart Ehrman. Why Stroumsa has not been more public with his witness is anyone's guess.

EDITED TO ADD: On a second look, the article does mention G. Guy Stroumsa's witness of the document.

[Freedom in Truth]

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.

Since we didn't have the BoM for approx. 1700 years, then God left us in the dark for 1700 years.

Are you claiming that the same God who protects the BoM did not protect the Bible?

What doctrines did the Lord reveal through the BoM?

[structurecop]

What doctrines did the Lord reveal through the BoM?

What doctrines did he reveal in 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles? The multiple Gospels? Why the duplicity?

[Hammer]

Since we didn't have the BoM for approx. 1700 years, then God left us in the dark for 1700 years.

1. Are you claiming that the same God who protects the BoM did not protect the Bible?

2. What doctrines did the Lord reveal through the BoM?

1. Are you saying that everything must be equal? Are you saying that if the people who were born in the Abrahamic linage were more protected than those who weren't? Is this speaking of the same God who protected the BoM, but not the Bible?

You want to just put forth empty comparisons or really discuss something.

2. Read the BoM and find out for yourself.

[Freedom in Truth]

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.

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God

Verse in 1830 edition - And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God

I am not sure truth was easy to find in 1830.

[Zakuska]

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.

Justin claims the Jews were editing/deleting out all kinds of Scripture passage to deChristify the OT.

I think I might have just found another one... that I did not know about before.

I do not proceed to have a mere verbal controversy with you, as I have not attempted to establish proof about Christ from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you 2409 which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, and Esdras, and David; but from those which are even now admitted by you, which had your teachers comprehended, be well assured they would have deleted them, as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. And this was a mysterious type of Christ being about to cut your nation in two, and to raise those worthy of the honour to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets; but He has said that He will send others to the condemnation of the unquenchable fire along with similar disobedient and impenitent men from all the nations. â??For they shall come,â?? He said, â??from the west and from the east, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.â?? 2410 And I have mentioned p. 260 these things, taking nothing whatever into consideration, except the speaking of the truth, and refusing to be coerced by any one, even though I should be forthwith torn in pieces by you. For I gave no thought to any of my people, that is, the Samaritans, when I had a communication in writing with C

[Freedom in Truth]

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?

FIT,

The better question is... would he? Why would he take our free will away like that?

If God would not desire to protect His revelation, then we would not have free will. If we don't know His revelation we can't choose to follow Him.

If people didn't have Truth for 1700 years (approx.) then they could not choose to follow Truth. Obviously God did allow people to vary Biblical text - but not to the point where it changed Truth.

[Zakuska]

On the contrary... it forces us to go to him in Prayer and seek Personal Revelation of our own.

"Ask and it shall be given"

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God

Verse in 1830 edition - And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God

I am not sure truth was easy to find in 1830.

Simple clarification on which Deity in the God head was being addressed.

Do you see a problem with that? I dont.

[Freedom in Truth]

Hmm I'm shocked that a Bible college would not document a textual varient potentially challenging to inerrancy views.

Then why did they list any variants?

I think those who believe in inerrancy believe in no variants - is this correct? I don't believe in an inerrant text - I believe in an inerrant revelation/message.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thanks - I've already seen this. I was looking for the text of Hebrews 1:3 in this codex.

I've been searching for the actual text. In the website it gives the word that was most likely changed (but it doesn't give it in English).

Interestingly, while searching to see if I could find anything, I ran into this:

A later corrector changed it back, and wrote in the margin "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!" It turns out the original was not correct.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Sa.../bravo_dave.htm

So basically, according to this site, it was the guy who wrote the little comment in the sidelines that may have been the fool and knave...

(The same claim is made at this site: http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/ntmss.htm)

[Freedom in Truth]

So?

I've noticed you use this reasoning every time a variant is discussed that remains in the JST, yet I know of no one who believes Joseph Smith produced an inerrant, perfect version of the Bible. (And if they do, they're wrong!)

Edited to add: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Joseph_Smith...inal_Bible_text

Then what was the point of JS producing a "translation"? Did he not "translate" with the Spirit? He works through 1 John 5 and makes changes but leaves the Johannine Comma? (which people feel supports the Trinity, I might add) If JS changed verses before and after the Johannine Comma, I think he read the Johannine Comma. Didn't he, even without the Spirit, say to himself "Wow - verse 7 and 8 can't be right"?

I find many, many variants in the JST. Variants, like the Johannine Comma, which are contrary to Mormon doctrine. If JS did not produce an inerrant, perfect version of the Bible, then how can you be confident that he produced the BoM, D&C, and PoGP without many mistakes?

JS said the BoM was "the most correct of any book on earth". (History of the Church 4:461) Is it? Did he do a better job with the BoM than the JST?

[structurecop]

Then why did they list any variants?

I think those who believe in inerrancy believe in no variants - is this correct? I don't believe in an inerrant text - I believe in an inerrant revelation/message.

A quick scan of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graecum should set any inerrantist straight. The inerrant message perspective is quite a bit more defensible; though, if there isn't textual evidence to back your position, (one canon to rule them all) then you're pretty much left without a stick with which to beat Mormonism.

EDITED for punctuation -- a sure sign of the fallibility of my post.

[Zakuska]

I find many, many variants in the JST. Variants, like the Johannine Comma, which are contrary to Mormon doctrine. If JS did not produce an inerrant, perfect version of the Bible, then how can you be confident that he produced the BoM, D&C, and PoGP without many mistakes?

JS said the BoM was "the most correct of any book on earth". (History of the Church 4:461) Is it? Did he do a better job with the BoM than the JST?

Simple answer...

We don't expect him to have done it.

Not even the Author of the Book (ie Mormon) claimed inerrancy.

From the title page:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Mormons don't hold to Inerrancy in anything. Even Gods mouth peace on earth.

Why do you expect JS to be God incarnate? Why do you expect the Bible to be innerant? That raises it to the level of God and turns it into an Idol.

heres an article about "The most Correct Book":

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=98

[Hammer]

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God

Verse in 1830 edition - And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God

I am not sure truth was easy to find in 1830.

You want to really get it right? Read why Son of God and God are the same thing in true understanding:

THE BOOK OF MOSIAH

CHAPTER 15

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in bflesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Sonâ??

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ??

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal cFather of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

[Son]

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God

Verse in 1830 edition - And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God

I am not sure truth was easy to find in 1830.

Discernment sees no conflict with either statement...

[Hammer]

Please expond on Shakespeare's editing job, if you would.

Interesting read.

Some have claimed that the playwright William Shakespeare was involved in the translation, pointing to Psalm 46 as proof, where, counting 46 words from the beginning, one comes upon the word "shake", and counting 46 words backwards from the end, one comes upon the word "spear". Additionally, Shakespeare was 46 years of age at the time of the translating. Most scholars dismiss claims of Shakespeare's involvement in translating the King James Version, and do not accept this example as evidence of his involvement. Notably, the Geneva Bible and several other earlier translations contained the same coincidence, despite several of them being published before or just shortly after Shakespeare's birth. [1]

[Neighbor]

Like keeping the women quiet at church? Goodluck!

Church of Christ is very perfectionist:-) At fhu.edu there is a lectureship series and you can go to open forum. They don't allow the song leader, adult sunday school teacher, preacher, or even leading in public prayer by a woman in the worship services. Now that I think about it my mother may not have even said grace at the table? Anyway, one comment was that there was a small church in the hills of W VA that had only women gathering for worship!!! They weren't sure if it was OK for them to have worship services or take communion.

[Neighbor]

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.

Neighbor: I know it's true with the Bible.

[Hammer]

Neighbor: I know it's true with the Bible.

What's true with the Bible? The BoM? I agree. Both have the Lord's sanction with in the bounds of righteous principles. Both contain the errors of men. I don't, however, believe the Bible is as correct a book as the BoM.

[Neighbor]

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."

Neighbor: Perhaps. Perhaps, unless the one killed by the mob was guilty of a variety of gross crimes against his neighbors, brethren, the State and God Himself. That's a pretty big charge, but if true it might not be a doctrine of demons to hold one accountable to the very judgement and sentence decreed of God in the Scriptures? Albeit that such a judgment would also bring the one taking liberty to do so outside of the system of justice instituted by God through the State and Nation would be accountable for his actions to the State and Nation. Either way both sides are accountable to God.

Are you saying Joseph NEVER took such liberty himself?:-) Thanks for your thoughts!:-) Maybe as I learn more about JS I'll see him more as you do? I try to be fair.