structurecop Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 I thought Joseph Smith gave his scribe a word-for-word dictation of what he read off a stone or urim and thummin.Precisely what he dictated may not be contained in the current text of our Book of Mormon. I think Royal Skousen highlighted some of the possible inconsistencies between the printer's manuscript and what actually made it into the printed version.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Revelation 11 tells us that the gentiles will trod the holy city for 1260 Years.Its 2000 years hence. http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/rev_trumpets6b.htmlGod sent his Angel from heaven with the Gospel to preach to bring Judgement on the Gentile nations and Israel.Rev 14 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to dpreach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made eheaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Now there is no blindess because the second witness has been given.Do you realize how many different interpretations there are of Revelation among Christians, let alone possible Mormon interpretations? Revelation is not necessarily chronological either.â??The power that trod the people of God under foot for twelve hundred and sixty years was the papacy, which was established in Rome in 538 A.D. and continued to have political authority until 1798 A.D.â? (from your cited article)Are you saying that it is now 2000 years hence - 3798 A.D.? What holy city did the Gentiles trod? Jerusalem?If the two witnesses are the Old and New Testament, then you would be saying that there is now no blindness because we have the NT, correct? If there was no blindness because the second witness, the NT, has been given - then why the BoM?We Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. A remnant of Israel will choose to be Godâ??s people, and a few (compared to all) Gentiles will choose to be Godâ??s people.Romans 11:28b-29 - ". . . but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Matthew 7:13-14 - "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.â?â??During most of this time the Bible was available only in expensive, hand-copied manuscripts â?? the exclusive property of clerics and a small Latin-educated elite. They insisted that the common people learn the scriptures filtered through the orthodox teachings of the clergy, thus allowing the common people to study the Bible on their own was highly discouraged. â?? (article)It seems that the problem was people not reading and following the Bible - not that â??plain and precious truthâ? was lost.Have you read and studied the Bible? The whole Bible? If so, how many times? Did you read it filtered through Mormon teachings?
Freedom in Truth Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 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.I don't think people in their hearts are different from Biblical times.
Zakuska Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Yes... Ive read the Bible several times. Have you?Yes... I've studied it and not through "mormon" lenses either.Even Martin Luther himself pointed to the fufillment of Rev 14:6 as 1830.What Holy city?ZionThey took her by force.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 The revelation that scripture can be incorporated into our corpus whenever God deems it appropriate.Corpus - "a collection of writings"Is this the definition you are using? The only thing important to you is that God (supposedly) spoke again? Did He say anything new in the BoM? (revelation - not history)It sure helps my relationship with God deepen by putting forth the Gospel in a much straight forward fashion than the Bible writers do. Its answer a lot of unanswered Bible questions.What does - the BoM? What does it answer that the Bible does not?
structurecop Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Corpus - "a collection of writings"Is this the definition you are using? The only thing important to you is that God (supposedly) spoke again? Did He say anything new in the BoM? (revelation - not history)What does - the BoM? What does it answer that the Bible does not?Yes, that is the definition I am using. Have you read the OT prophets? Is there anything in their message that hadn't been repeated a hundred times before by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, etc? Repent, oh Judah, or you will be destroyed! Blah blah blah
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 The only thing important to you is that God (supposedly) spoke again? Did He say anything new in the BoM? (revelation - not history)So God can only speak if He's got something to say that He hasn't said before? Got it. (But somehow I doubt you accept God's 'new' revelations to Joseph Smith...)
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Did He say anything new in the BoM? (revelation - not history) What does it answer that the Bible does not?Found a little list of 'Plain and Precious BOM Doctrines'. Do you believe that each and every one of these is adequately attested to in the Bible?
Paul Ray Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 What does - the BoM? What does it answer that the Bible does not?Try thinking about that some more and maybe you will be able to answer your own question.What does the Book of Mormon tell you that you wouldn't know about without the Book of Mormon?Think about that carefully and objectively. The Book of Mormon is a book. What does that book tell you? Read the book and then see what you see.
Paul Ray Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Found a little list of 'Plain and Precious BOM Doctrines'. Do you believe that each and every one of these is adequately attested to in the Bible?Even if the Book of Mormon said exactly the same thing as the Bible, word for word, it would still tell us something.It would tell us there's another book that has the same information. It would be another witness for the testimony that came from the first witness.Think about the Book of Mormon as a person named Mormon and what Mormon said in his writings, and the Holy Bible as a person who said whatever he said. Take Paul, for example, and think of the Bible as Paul, or what Paul wrote as he shared what he thought. Both books were actually written by people, you know, so it's not like I am saying something weird.If Paul told us something, and then Mormon repeated it, we would then have two people who were saying the same thing. Now try thinking that Paul said the same thing as Mormon, but he used some different words to say the same thing... that the thoughts they expressed are in agreement, even though they both used some different words. Now try thinking that Paul added something, a little more detail for instance, than Mormon did while Mormon said what he said.See my point?The Book of Mormon has value as simply another witness, especially considering how the witnesses are in agreement. And some of the people who wrote the books added a thought here and there, even though they are all in agreement.And btw, I would think that what I'm saying would be apparent to everyone, but it seems that some people don't think the way I do. But with a little more thought, I think it should become apparent.Each witness adds some more strength to a testimony.
consiglieri Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 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!:-)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!:-)Okay, here we go matey!The following is from John Tvedtnes' review of Drosnin's the Bible Code, and was published in the FARMS review of Books 14/1 (2002):Sternberg also took up the challenge launched by the principal Bible Code researcher, Michael Dorsnin, in an article published in the 9 June 1997 Newsweek, in which he stated, "When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby **** I will believe them." Sternberg asked an Australian mathematics professor, Brendan McKay, "to search Moby **** for such encrypted messages. He found 13 'predicted' assassinations of public figures, several of them prime ministers or presidents or their equivalents." Two examples appear in Sternberg's article. One has a message reading, "Pres--Somoza--dies--he was shot--gun," which one might connect to the 1980 assassination of former Nicaraguan president Anastasio Somoza. The other has "Igandhi" in a vertical line intersected by a horizontal line reading "thebloodydeed," which brings to mind the assassination of Indian prime minister Indira Ghandhi in 1984. Using the same reasoning for Sternberg's study as that employed by the Bible Code researchers, we would have to conclude that God also dictated Moby **** and that Herman Melville was a prophet! A Web site at cs.anu.edu.au/-bdm/dilugim/moby.html cites the various "Assassinations Foretold in Moby ****" and includes the Moby **** prediction of the death of Princess Diana. But even Robert Louis Stevenson predicted the princess's death and that of President Kennedy in his Treasure Island, as can be seen by the examples posted at www.nsli.com/.../torah.The truth, however, is that with enough permutations, one can find such "prophetic" messages in any lengthy text. A Greek Orthodox priest of my acquaintance, using the Bible Code software, found the name Joseph Smith (written in Hebrew characters) several times in the book of Genesis. I wonder how the many Evangelical Christians who have bought into the Bible Code business would react to this kind of information."Well then, why wait any longer to find out? How do you, Neighbor, as an Evangelical Christian who has "bought into the Bible Code business," react to this kind of information?Now, anybody else want a piece of me?All the Best!--Consiglieri
Doctor Steuss Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Now, anybody else want a piece of me?All the Best!--ConsiglieriI do, but the piece I want is in support of you. Here's some visuals...http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.htmlA tidbit of importance Note that English with the vowels included is far less flexible than Hebrew when it comes to making letters into words. So it seems to me that not only was it written by G-d (if one believes as Neighbor does), but G-d might even hold it in higher esteem than the Bible.
consiglieri Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks for the visuals, my psychedelic friend.But I am really wanting to hear from Neighbor what he makes of all the times the name "Joseph Smith" is repeated in Genesis.Shall I fill the fount?--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I am still waiting to hear from Neighbor what he makes of all the times the name "Joseph Smith" is repeated in the Hebrew book of Genesis.Maybe the Bible Code is for real, after all.--Consiglieri
structurecop Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I am still waiting to hear from Neighbor what he makes of all the times the name "Joseph Smith" is repeated in the Hebrew book of Genesis.Maybe the Bible Code is for real, after all.--ConsiglieriI ran my own matrix, and found out if you put the entire book of Habbakuk into blocks 136 characters long the first letter spells out... "consig... harass... poor neighbor... stuck in corner."
consiglieri Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I ran my own matrix, and found out if you put the entire book of Habbakuk into blocks 136 characters long the first letter spells out... "consig... harass... poor neighbor... stuck in corner."
Freedom in Truth Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 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, 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?Iâ??m having a â??deja vuâ? experience here!How many other people agreed with Origen? How many manuscripts had problems? Which ones? Do we have these today?Did anyone say people were perfect?Since the JST has the Johannine Comma I guess Origen would not be happy with JS! Would Origen consider JS to have â??perverse audacityâ?? Would he say JS made additions as he pleased?Origen quoted the New Testament 17,992 times - 9,231 of these quotes were from the gospels. Origenâ??s quotes match what we have today as the NT. (from Evidence That Demands A Verdict) Did Origen quote what he thought to be inaccurate revelation? He seemed to be able to know the difference.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 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.Revelation - communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agency. As I understand it, JS didnâ??t â??learnâ? the BoM or learn the language on the golden plates - it was revealed to Him. When God is giving you the words you donâ??t have to understand, you just write them down. If God is giving you words you donâ??t have to edit Him.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 took out the phrase but then put it back in? This does not seem like greater knowledge, but like going in circles.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 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.Well either your source is wrong or I don't fit into the "most" category. Many of my friends and many teachers/authors wouldn't fit into the "most" category either. I stand on consistent revelation.
Freedom in Truth Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 13 2007, 02:45 PM) 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.What I was saying is I apparently do not hold to the typical definition of inerrancy because I believe in inerrant revelation and not an inerrant text. Therefore I don't want to argue or support an inerrant text. I was not speaking of personal interpretations.
structurecop Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Origen quoted the New Testament 17,992 times - 9,231 of these quotes were from the gospels. Origenâ??s quotes match what we have today as the NT. (from Evidence That Demands A Verdict) Did Origen quote what he thought to be inaccurate revelation? He seemed to be able to know the difference.Coming from Josh McDowell, I immediately have the feeling that number is either incorrect or skewed. Are there even 17,992 verses in the entire New Testament?
Doctor Steuss Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Coming from Josh McDowell, I immediately have the feeling that number is either incorrect or skewed. Are there even 17,992 verses in the entire New Testament?Either way, I'm hoping that Mr. McDowell has insights to the following question of mine...Were the following in the original manuscripts?:Matthew 23:14Mark 9:44,46Mark 11:26Mark 15:28Luke 4:4 (the words "but by every word of God")Luke 9:55,56 (the words "and said, Ye know not what matter of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them")Luke 17:36Luke 22:43,44Luke 23:17
consiglieri Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Still waiting to hear from Neighbor. First he calls me out. Then he disappears.Won't you, please?Won't you, please?Please won't you be . . .My Neighbor?All the Best--Mr. Consiglieri
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 How many other people agreed with Origen?At least one; Celsus, writing before Origen's observation of the same phenomenon, commented:'Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.'-as quoted by Origen in Contra Celsus 2.27Are you disputing that scribes intentionally and unintentionally corrupted mansuscripts when copying them? If so, I would enthusiastically recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.
TrashcanMan79 Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Coming from Josh McDowell, I immediately have the feeling that number is either incorrect or skewed.Why is that? Does McDowell have a reputation for inaccuracies?Are there even 17,992 verses in the entire New Testament?Not even close. There are less than 9,000 verses in the NT. (That appears to be the general consensus of a Google search into the matter, anyway). Perhaps a more meaningful statistic McDowell could have given us would be how much of the NT Origen quoted. If Origen quoted John 3:16 over three thousand times, it would seem a bit irrelevant (if not misleading) to argue that the New Testament is free from error because "Origen quoted the New Testament over 3,000 times, and in each instance his quotation matches exactly to our present day Bible!"Still waiting to hear from Neighbor. First he calls me out. Then he disappears.Won't you, please?Won't you, please?Please won't you be . . .My Neighbor?All the Best--Mr. ConsiglieriDon't think Neighbor's been on since you posted that death blow to the so-called 'Bible Code'. I look forward to his response as well.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.