Kenngo1969 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Yes indeed. And this "simple math" has also yielded similarly astounding prophecies in the text of Moby ****. Or did you already know that?Is it time to line up to worship the great white whale?Thar she blows, matey!--Consiglieri(Now this is really funny. I type in the four letters after Moby's first name, and the message board renders them all in asterixes! Perhaps this is a sign that this is the true name of God and cannot therefore be written out? It's no more far fetched than the Bible Code!)From now on, I'm going to call everyone I don't like on this Board a "Moby," as in, "Oh, Consiglieri! You're such a Moby!" (Just kiddin', Consig! You know I like ya, even if ya have "gone over to the dark side" in your/my would-be chosen profession! That's too funny! If you'll excuse me, I'm going to start putting together my Moby List! P.S.: What if I had a friend named Richard whom I would like to invite to participate on this Board, and what if he wanted to make a certain four-letter derivative of his name his screen name? (Should I suggest "Moby" instead?! ) Probably not, since I've already advocated the use of "Moby" as a pejorative! Diâ??er, I mean, Richardâ??is a nice guy!)
Neighbor Posted February 10, 2007 Author Posted February 10, 2007 From now on, I'm going to call everyone I don't like on this Board a "Moby," as in, "Oh, Consiglieri! You're such a Moby!" (Just kiddin', Consig! You know I like ya, even if ya have "gone over to the dark side" in your/my would-be chosen profession! That's too funny! If you'll excuse me, I'm going to start putting together my Moby List! P.S.: What if I had a friend named Richard whom I would like to invite to participate on this Board, and what if he wanted to make a certain four-letter derivative of his name his screen name? (Should I suggest "Moby" instead?! ) Probably not, since I've already advocated the use of "Moby" as a pejorative! Di—er, I mean, Richard—is a nice guy!)Consig, can you show us the name in Moby ****, or another name, perhaps the name a name of the Messiah from the Bible that repeats equadistantly throughout hundreds of pages of text without breaking the chain? Show me that and I'll have to repent of my claim about this code in the Bible as being a proof that God wrote it exactly, and I should not consider that the code is of significance!:-)Sounds fair to me. I await your response in the affirmative or else your retraction of such outlandish and false reproofs against the BIBLE CODE!:-)
structurecop Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Consig, can you show us the name in Moby ****, or another name, perhaps the name a name of the Messiah from the Bible that repeats equadistantly throughout hundreds of pages of text without breaking the chain? Show me that and I'll have to repent of my claim about this code in the Bible as being a proof that God wrote it exactly, and I should not consider that the code is of significance!:-)More importantly, can you show the Bible code as reproducible in more than just one version of the Hebrew Genesis? Or is the Koren version of Genesis the only "true" one?
Neighbor Posted February 10, 2007 Author Posted February 10, 2007 More importantly, can you show the Bible code as reproducible in more than just one version of the Hebrew Genesis? Or is the Koren version of Genesis the only "true" one?It is only in the ancient Hebrew text.
structurecop Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 It is only in the ancient Hebrew text.Which ancient Hebrew text? There are multiple, each with variants.
Neighbor Posted February 10, 2007 Author Posted February 10, 2007 Which ancient Hebrew text? There are multiple, each with variants.It's in the book. Must be the inerrant original text and this is proof it is preserved or a check for corrupted text?:-)
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Freedom in Truth to Zakuska - â??Though I am tempted to be distinguished as the first Christian to admit that there are a few variants that arenâ??t easily reconcilable, . . .â?I was reading one of my books last night and I realized that I might have miscommunicated to you, or you might have misunderstood me. I thought it would be good to clarify -From Reinventing Jesus by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace -â??Of the 138,000 words of the original text [NT], only one or two might have no manuscript support. And in the places where conjecture may be necessary, this does not mean that we have no idea what the original text said. Instead, because almost all possible variants are already to be found in the manuscripts, scholars have a rather limited number of options with which to contend. . . . When skeptics try to make the claim that we simply have no clue what the original New Testament text said, one has to wonder what drives their dogmatic skepticism, because it certainly isnâ??t the evidence.â?(p. 109)â?? . . . no viable variable affects any cardinal truth of the New Testament.â? (p. 114)I donâ??t quite know what your point is on this subject.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 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"Have you received personal revelation on your own without LDS teachings? You say you trust your personal revelation, but you already know what your church teaches on Jesus and God the Father.Proverbs 16:25 - â??There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. â??Jeremiah 17:9 - â??The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?â? People feel they hear conflicting things from the Spirit. Does God contradict himself? Or is someone not hearing from God? How can you be sure youâ??re not hearing your own thoughts? Are you fallible, yet infallible in discerning who you hear from? If JS was not infallible in hearing the Spirit then you cannot be either, right?QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 8 2007, 03:41 PM) 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.QUOTE(Zakuska)Simple clarification on which Deity in the God head was being addressed.Do you see a problem with that? I dont.I see a big problem with that. The edit changed who Jesus was. The 1830 text easily supports a Trinitarian view.So the revelation JS received from God had to be clarified? Your church had to edit God? And, who edited either God or JS? Who was a greater prophet than JS that he heard God clearer?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 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.Well, Iâ??m not an â??inerrantistâ?. I believe the revelation/message is inerrant. How is there not textural evidence to support this position?Has Mormonism accepted all texts - Gnostic, Muslim, Buddist, etc.?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 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: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=98According to you, your books are not inerrant, not even in revelation. Your prophets are not inerrant. You are not inerrant, not even in your ability to hear from the Spirit. What you believe today could totally contradict what you believe tomorrow. So the â??truthâ? you believe today may not be â??truthâ? tomorrow. Whatâ??s the point of believing it? Whatâ??s the point of sharing it? Whatâ??s the point of arguing it?According to you, you cannot stand on JSâ??s revelation. He could have been wrong - he is fallible. You donâ??t expect him to have only given Truth. So why do you need him? Everything he wrote must be questioned, right?It seems to me that you have a very small God who doesnâ??t really desire to be known and doesnâ??t desire to have relationship with you.The Bible isnâ??t inerrant - its revelation/message is. I do not worship the Bible. I worship the God who revealed Himself to us through writers of the scriptures. Since there are many writers I am not hearing revelation through any one fallible man. The revelation given to all the writers is consistent. Since when do over 40 writers from different walks of life and living in different times agree? That is a miracle in itself. Your prophets, all Americans, living during 200 years, have not agreed. It looks like that is why they edited JS.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 8 2007, 03:41 PM) 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. The Son of God and God are the â??same thingâ? in true understanding - I would say it is called the Trinity.4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. Is your Jesus the God, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth? Are the people of this earth Jesusâ?? people, or Godâ??s people?I do not see that the BoM reveals a different Christian doctrine from the Bible. I think the verses in 1 Nephi (like 11:18) were changed at a later date because Mormon doctrine referring to God the Father and Jesus changed. I havenâ??t seen any evidence that JS, at the time of the BoM, had received revelation that changed revelation of the Bible. Since JS was not infallible, isn't this possible?Discernment sees no conflict with either statement...Then why were Godâ??s words edited? Or, who was more worthy than JS and heard Godâ??s words better?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 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]I agree with the last two sentences. Itâ??s hard to edit something before you are born, or just shortly after your birth.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 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.How do you get errors of men when each word is given to you one or two at a time? Wasnâ??t JS seeing the words, not listening? Could he not see well? Couldnâ??t you slowly dictate words to a young child? He might misspell - he might not punctuate - but wouldnâ??t the words be there? Would the child miss the words â??son ofâ? at least 4 times in one book - just those words? Would a child put in words not revealed to him by God? I would think that would be tricky.1830 BoM - â??yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their willsâ?Alma 29:4 "yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, according to their wills" The deleted words were returned to the text in 1981. So from about 1840 to 1980 the church decided that JS did not see these words? JS also apparently mistook the name Benjamin for Mosiah. Do they look similar to you? Or was it God who made the mistake?These are only a few examples.And, how do you know JS was in error? Who decided JS was in error?
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 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). Perhaps Smith was just a keen student of Origen:'The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions and deletions as they please.' - Origen, as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger's "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts"The parallel between Origen's and Smith's quotes is striking. Compare Smith's "ignorant translators" and "careless transcribers" with Origen's "negligence of some copyists". Compare Smith's "designing and corrupt priests" with Origen's "the perverse audacity of others" and "they make additions and deletions as they please".Smith's observation has apparently been shared since at least Origen's day, which was when? Third Century?
Jason Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Joseph learned line upon line and precept upon precept. When he made numerous alterations to the Book of Mormon text in 1838 it was with greater knowledge than he had when he chose which words to use to translate in 1830. We should not be surprised that his greater understanding led him to clarify some passages.
Zakuska Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Perhaps Smith was just a keen student of Origen:'The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions and deletions as they please.' - Origen in Against Celsus as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger's "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts"The parallel between Origen's and Smith's quotes is striking. Compare Smith's "ignorant translators" and "careless transcribers" with Origen's "negligence of some copyists". Compare Smith's "designing and corrupt priests" with Origen's "the perverse audacity of others" and "they make additions and deletions as they please".Smith's observation has apparently been shared since at least Origen's day, which was when? Third Century?Careful... the next thing we know Smith will have added another book to his never ending Dartmouth Library.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 In my studies of the Bible, I found that it isn't so much what is written, but what is missing.We only have some of the writings of a few of the apostles in the Bible. There are many books missing that have been lost. Important truths have been lost in the Bible because of the missing writings.How do you what is missing? How do you know all the apostles wrote? And how do you know the missing literature said different things than what we have?Would a loving God not give you the chance to know "important truths" you really need to know? Is your relationship with God at the mercy of sinful man?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Except for the fact that according to the Standard understanding of Innerracny there shouldn't have been any Alterations what so ever.I donâ??t know what the â??standard understandingâ? of inerrancy is. My view of inerrancy is from books and teachers. Since there are many Christian books which discuss variants and consistent revelation, I donâ??t think this view is unique to me, or new. Who decides what the â??standard understandingâ? is?Letâ??s discuss my view and your view, not other peopleâ??s view.
Zakuska Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 According to Dr. Erhamn the view held by "Most" evangelical Christians is the complete unequivocal understanding that every Jot and Tittle in the English Bible Is God breathed and unalterable."God said it. I beleive it. Case closed"But waht if God did not say it?Nearly every Anti-Mormon tract I have ever been Given by EV christians has made a big deal about the BOM correctly saying that the Bible has been corrupted.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Heres a quote from another thread given by the Pharoah with the failed botax issues. (Her Amun)I thought it might help in furthering discussion.QUOTE(Her Amun @ Feb 8 2007, 07:22 PM) â??Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little.â? (Journal of Discourses 9:311) I just read through Deuteronomy - it seems to me that the Lord told the stiff-necked people an awful lot of "little".I don't agree with the quote. Is there any evidence?However, your argument has been that "plain and precious truth" was lost. Now are you saying that it was never there because the people couldn't receive it?
Paul Ray Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 I donâ??t know what the â??standard understandingâ? of inerrancy is. My view of inerrancy is from books and teachers. Since there are many Christian books which discuss variants and consistent revelation, I donâ??t think this view is unique to me, or new. Who decides what the â??standard understandingâ? is?Letâ??s discuss my view and your view, not other peopleâ??s view.How about discussing the view God gives and will give to us?Part of what it means to correctly interpret the Bible is to not add our own private interpretations.I see nothing wrong with using our own words to explain things, but we should seek God's assurance for understanding the scriptures if we hope to correctly interpret the prophets.
Zemah Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 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.Wow, I hope I can remember that one.In God we trust.
Zemah Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 No problemo! Just so you know, "problem" is relegated to the feminine; it should be problema!
kantgomo Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 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 Eph. 6, the text speaks of putting on the full armor of God in order to stand against the wiles or schemes of the devil. So, I'd say that one would need to have the full armor of God. That is know the truth about Jesus, and must belong to Jesus. Christ, the truth, is our righteousness.
kantgomo Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Joseph learned line upon line and precept upon precept. When he made numerous alterations to the Book of Mormon text in 1838 it was with greater knowledge than he had when he chose which words to use to translate in 1830. We should not be surprised that his greater understanding led him to clarify some passages.I thought Joseph Smith gave his scribe a word-for-word dictation of what he read off a stone or urim and thummin.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.