If You Received An Answer...

[Billy]

Can't be Jesus, he never ruled Israel. He was a peasant that was put to death.

I think this is referring to David Koresh, didn't he have his ears pierced? Read verse 9, he says he is determined to wipe out every nation that attacks Israel. Hmmm, guess he failed there.

Sounds like Koresh again. Of course, Isaiah 53 is more likely talking about the nation of Israel. Nor is the chapter presented as a prophecy of what is to come, it even speaks in past tense. Verses 11-12 make it clear it is the Lords servant being talked about, likely the nation of Israel, and not the Lord himself. Remember, the writer has no concept of a triune god of three persons existing in some undivided blob.

Jesus was never a king, can't be him. I presume we could find some ruling king that road a donkey to better fit this prophecy. Verse 10 says the King would rule from sea to sea, hmm, not Jesus, he didn't rule anything! And no, it doesn't say the king would first come as a suffering messiah and then return as a triumphant king. Ya know, there is a reason the Jews then and now do not recognize Jesus as their promised King, perhaps because he didn't fulfill the prophecies.

I presume by your comments you are not Christian or LDS, but I will respond anyway for others.

If you look at the LDS Topical Guide under "JESUS CHRIST, CRUCIFIXION OF" , "JESUS CHRIST, DEATH OF" and "JESUS CHRIST, PROPHECIES ABOUT" it uses some of the same references that I used in my previous post that point to Christ from the OT scriptures

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/32

JESUS CHRIST, CRUCIFIXION OF

See also Jesus Christ, Death of

Ps. 22: 1 (Mark 15: 34) my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isa. 53: 12 (Mosiah 14: 12) poured out his soul unto death.

Zech. 12: 10 (John 19: 37) they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.

Zech. 13: 6 What are these wounds in thine hands.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/34

JESUS CHRIST, DEATH OF

See also Jesus Christ, Crucifixion of

Prov. 14: 32 righteous hath hope in his death.

Isa. 25: 8 He will swallow up death in victory.

Isa. 53: 9 (Mosiah 14: 9) made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.

Isa. 53: 12 (Mosiah 14: 12) poured out his soul unto death.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/57

JESUS CHRIST, PROPHECIES ABOUT

Gen. 3: 15 (Rom. 16: 20) her seed . . . shall bruise thy head.

Gen. 49: 10 sceptre . . . until Shiloh come.

Gen. 49: 24 (D&C 50: 44) from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.

Num. 24: 17 there shall come a Star out of Jacob.

Deut. 18: 15 (Acts 7: 37; 3 Ne. 20: 23) raise up unto thee a Prophet.

Ps. 2: 7 (Ps. 2: 12) Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.

Ps. 22: 1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.

Ps. 24: 10 Who is this King of glory.

Ps. 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Ps. 68: 18 thou hast led captivity captive.

Ps. 69: 9 zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Ps. 69: 21 (Matt. 27: 34, 48) in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

Ps. 110: 4 priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Ps. 118: 22 (Matt. 21: 42; Jacob 4: 15) stone which the builders refused is become the head.

Ps. 132: 17 make the horn of David to bud.

Isa. 7: 14 (Matt. 1: 23; 2 Ne. 17: 14) a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . . Immanuel.

Isa. 9: 6 (2 Ne. 19: 6) unto us a child is born.

Isa. 11: 1 (2 Ne. 21: 1) there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.

Isa. 25: 9 this is our God: we have waited for him.

Isa. 28: 16 I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone.

Isa. 40: 3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

Isa. 42: 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners.

Isa. 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks.

Isa. 53: 5 (Mosiah 14: 5) he was wounded for our transgressions.

Isa. 59: 20 Redeemer shall come to Zion.

Isa. 61: 1 anointed me to preach good tidings.

Jer. 23: 5 (Jer. 33: 15) raise unto David a righteous Branch.

Ezek. 37: 12 (Matt. 27: 52) I will open your graves.

Dan. 9: 24 to make reconciliation for iniquity.

Dan. 9: 26 shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Hosea 11: 1 (Matt. 2: 15) I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Hosea 13: 14 I will redeem them from death.

Jonah 2: 6 (Jonah 2: 2-9) Thou brought up my life from corruption.

Micah 5: 2 (Matt. 2: 6) Bethlehem . . . out of thee shall he come forth unto me.

Hab. 3: 13 thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people.

Zech. 3: 8 (Zech. 6: 12) I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

Zech. 9: 9 thy King cometh unto thee . . . riding upon an ***.

Zech. 11: 13 I was prised at . . . thirty pieces of silver.

Zech. 13: 6 I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Mal. 3: 1 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.

[Anijen]

I presume by your comments you are not Christian or LDS, but I will respond anyway for others.

If you look at the LDS Topical Guide under "JESUS CHRIST, CRUCIFIXION OF" , "JESUS CHRIST, DEATH OF" and "JESUS CHRIST, PROPHECIES ABOUT" it uses some of the same references that I used in my previous post that point to Christ from the OT scriptures

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/32

JESUS CHRIST, CRUCIFIXION OF

See also Jesus Christ, Death of

Ps. 22: 1 (Mark 15: 34) my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isa. 53: 12 (Mosiah 14: 12) poured out his soul unto death.

Zech. 12: 10 (John 19: 37) they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.

Zech. 13: 6 What are these wounds in thine hands.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/34

JESUS CHRIST, DEATH OF

See also Jesus Christ, Crucifixion of

Prov. 14: 32 righteous hath hope in his death.

Isa. 25: 8 He will swallow up death in victory.

Isa. 53: 9 (Mosiah 14: 9) made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.

Isa. 53: 12 (Mosiah 14: 12) poured out his soul unto death.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/57

JESUS CHRIST, PROPHECIES ABOUT

Gen. 3: 15 (Rom. 16: 20) her seed . . . shall bruise thy head.

Gen. 49: 10 sceptre . . . until Shiloh come.

Gen. 49: 24 (D&C 50: 44) from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.

Num. 24: 17 there shall come a Star out of Jacob.

Deut. 18: 15 (Acts 7: 37; 3 Ne. 20: 23) raise up unto thee a Prophet.

Ps. 2: 7 (Ps. 2: 12) Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.

Ps. 22: 1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me.

Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.

Ps. 24: 10 Who is this King of glory.

Ps. 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Ps. 68: 18 thou hast led captivity captive.

Ps. 69: 9 zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Ps. 69: 21 (Matt. 27: 34, 48) in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

Ps. 110: 4 priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Ps. 118: 22 (Matt. 21: 42; Jacob 4: 15) stone which the builders refused is become the head.

Ps. 132: 17 make the horn of David to bud.

Isa. 7: 14 (Matt. 1: 23; 2 Ne. 17: 14) a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . . Immanuel.

Isa. 9: 6 (2 Ne. 19: 6) unto us a child is born.

Isa. 11: 1 (2 Ne. 21: 1) there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.

Isa. 25: 9 this is our God: we have waited for him.

Isa. 28: 16 I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone.

Isa. 40: 3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

Isa. 42: 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners.

Isa. 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks.

Isa. 53: 5 (Mosiah 14: 5) he was wounded for our transgressions.

Isa. 59: 20 Redeemer shall come to Zion.

Isa. 61: 1 anointed me to preach good tidings.

Jer. 23: 5 (Jer. 33: 15) raise unto David a righteous Branch.

Ezek. 37: 12 (Matt. 27: 52) I will open your graves.

Dan. 9: 24 to make reconciliation for iniquity.

Dan. 9: 26 shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Hosea 11: 1 (Matt. 2: 15) I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Hosea 13: 14 I will redeem them from death.

Jonah 2: 6 (Jonah 2: 2-9) Thou brought up my life from corruption.

Micah 5: 2 (Matt. 2: 6) Bethlehem . . . out of thee shall he come forth unto me.

Hab. 3: 13 thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people.

Zech. 3: 8 (Zech. 6: 12) I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

Zech. 9: 9 thy King cometh unto thee . . . riding upon an ***.

Zech. 11: 13 I was prised at . . . thirty pieces of silver.

Zech. 13: 6 I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Mal. 3: 1 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.

Does anybody else find this kind of funny Billy using a LDS source/scripture to defend against an atheist?

[Billy]

Does anybody else find this kind of funny Billy using a LDS source/scripture to defend against an atheist?

Did you miss the top line of my post?

"I presume by your comments you are not Christian or LDS, but I will respond anyway for others."

[ryanelwood]

Does anybody else find this kind of funny Billy using a LDS source/scripture to defend against an atheist?

Yes I do, it would have been better for him to have responded to the substance of what I said rather than respond to me for the purpose of others.

[Billy]

That Daniel knew what? This is crazy!

Did you look at the link from the previous post?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Daniel 9:25

25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

1. Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem

The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.

2. Until the Messiah presents himself as king

Then, one day, He meticulously arranges it.7 On this particular day he rode into the city of Jerusalem riding on a donkey, deliberately fulfilling a prophecy by Zechariah that the Messiah would present Himself as king in just that way:

3. 7 + 62=69 weeks of years (483 years)

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

[Billy]

Yes I do, it would have been better for him to have responded to the substance of what I said rather than respond to me for the purpose of others.

I really did not know that you were an atheist until it was brought up after my post, but of course I suspected it. When I wrote my post I thought that you MAY of been a far left wing LDS member trying to prove your point by denigrating the Bible, while of course still believing in the Bible.

My post was really in response to selek's initial question (not your post specifically) about prophecy in the Bible as he asks in his post below

Please demonstrate objectively that there is any prophecy in the Bible.

I thought it was odd that he asked about prophecy when in the LDS TG it has a section on that exact subject

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/57

"JESUS CHRIST, PROPHECIES ABOUT"

Let me add that in the LDS TG it does include scriptures from the Book of Mormon. But the difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is the fact that the prophecies in the OT predate the prophecy whereas in the Book of Mormon they postdate the prophecy.

Bible Septuagint translation 200+BC

Book of Mormon 1830 AD

[Avatar4321]

If I receive a spiritual witness that Historical Christianity is true, and someone else receives a spiritual witness that Mormonism is true, Can both be correct?

One cannot be IMHO

So how do we know which is correct?

Ours, because as youve already pointed out in this hypothetical, your experience never really happened.

[Zakuska]

If I receive a spiritual witness that Historical Christianity is true, and someone else receives a spiritual witness that Mormonism is true, Can both be correct?

One cannot be IMHO

So how do we know which is correct?

Does not the same God send rain on the just and the unjust alike?

[Brade]

People from different faiths have testimonies that confirm the truthfulness of what they believe. This raises the important question which Phinehas addresses above, can people with mutually exclusive beliefs receive a testimony that is from God that confirms what they believe is true, if their beliefs are mutually exclusive?

I can't presume to know the mind of God here and so I'll say that it is possible that God could tell two different people mutually exclusive things with either one of them being true and the other false or neither of them being true. Please be aware that I'm not saying this is always the case or ever the case I'm only describing it as a possibility. Perhaps, sometimes, he tells people things that will help them most given their life experience. And, yes, I accept that I could be getting information from God about the truthfulness of Mormonism not because it is actually true but because it's most useful to me know to fulfill God's purposes in me.

Is there any role to looking at the evidence first and then "studying it out in your mind" prior to receiving a spiritual witness? Or should you forgo any evidence and go straight for the testimony?

Sure. That's the approach I took with Mormonism. I don't see why we should always expect it to work that way. If you have a powerful putative spiritual experience it's justifiable, per non-LDS Christian philosophy, to adobt the belief content of the experience whether you have any other sort of evidence or not. Other evidence can certainly help you internally make sense of your experience but I cannot think of a single bit of "evidence", setting aside putative spiritual experiences, that would be a good reason to adopt Christian or Mormon beliefs. With respect to the historical arguments. It's just too big a leap to get that Jesus is the Son of God from the fact that the bible mentions the names of places that can be confirmed to exist. Just because Palmyra is a real place is hardly a good reason to think God appeared to Joseph Smith.

To be fair, give us some examples. I've never heard a genuine, living, breathing LDS on these boards being casually dismissive of another person's spiritual witness.

I'm not going to name names because I just don't feel like it's appropriate or needed. I hope you can understand that. Also, I guess we've just had different experiences with within our own faith. I've heard, in person, people dismiss another person's spiritual experience in exactly such a way. It's disgusting.

[cdowis]

Billy asks an interesting question:

People from different faiths have testimonies that confirm the truthfulness of what they believe. This raises the important question which Phinehas addresses above, can people with **mutually exclusive beliefs** receive a testimony that is from God that confirms what they believe is true, if their beliefs are mutually exclusive?

emphasis mine

Your question is based on a false assumption.

All religions have a portion of the truth. Mohammed, Budda, etc all brought a portion of the gospel to mankind, and the Lord grants His spirit to testify of these truths that are contained in these religions.

But He will not testify to a falsehood.

The LDS church is the only organization that has the fullness of the gospel. JS restored the priesthood authority, as well as the the fullness of the gospel. And the Lord can and will testify to that truth.

[cdowis]

Is there any role to looking at the evidence first and then "studying it out in your mind" prior to receiving a spiritual witness? Or should you forgo any evidence and go straight for the testimony?

Yet another excellent question.

Moroni 10:4 "And when ye shall *receive* these things...." is often interpreted as ==> "read a few pages and pray".

Alma 32, starting with verse 17, gives us a better understanding. Yes, in some cases a person can receive an immediate witness, but for many this is a journey, the "receive" is more than reading a couple of pages.

Now, your "looking at the evidence" question. Depends on what you mean by evidence. If you are speaking of spiritual evidence as discussed in Alma 32, or whether this means archeology, historical evidence, looking at JS and the critical reviews of his life. I think you will find the answer in 1 Cor. chapter 2 [10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

[consiglieri]

What a strange day we live in when asking God for knowledge, wisdom, and truth is mocked as heretical whereas mocking the Holy Spirit and relying on the understanding of the flesh is proclaimed to be the only way to God.

It is a strange day, indeed.

I was reading the Didache at 3:00 this morning and noted that this early Christian document clarified that the sin against the Holy Ghost that would not be forgiven was to tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaks "in the spirit."

11:7 And ye shall not tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

I am drawing no conclusions from this nor making any accusations.

I'm just sayin' . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[selek]

1. 70 weeks of Daniel--predicting the presentation of Christ

"The Precision of Prophecy

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

How could Daniel have known this in advance? How could anyone have contrived to have this detailed prediction documented over three centuries in advance? But there's more." http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

2. Messianic prophecies in the OT. The Septuagint translated from Hebrew to Greek 200+ BC

Such as

Micah 5:2

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins [c] are from of old,

from ancient times. [d] "

Zec 12:10

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Isa 53:5

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!

Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,

righteous and having salvation,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Sorry, Billy, but these examples just don't cut it.

The accounts you cited were recorded after the events in question took place, and the supposed prophecies could have been inserted at that time.

From the viewpoint of a disinterested party, your examples are no more proven than is the claim that Al Capone's tax returns must be genuine because Al Capone signed them (and we all know how that one turned out).

Remember, the qualifier was objective proof that these were prophecies.

Appealing to the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible is a circular argument, not an objective one, and certainly not proof.

And as I stated above, I'm not interested in disproving the Bible- only your double standard.

You take the Bible on faith- and by your own admission- on the basis of a spiritual witness, yet you condemn us loudly, roundly, and aggressively for doing precisely the same thing with the Book of Mormon.

You're laughing at us for being up to our chins in poop, but dare not shout too loudly lest you get a mouthful yourself.

Simply put- your methods are the height of hypocrisy and your own house is every bit as much glass is as ours.

[Brade]

You're laughing at us for being up to our chins in poop, but dare not shout too loudly lest you get a mouthful yourself.

That was the funniest thing I've read in a while. Great (or not so great?) imagery. I'll have to remember that one. And, Billy, I'm not laughing at this at your expense specifically. It's just a funny thing to say period. Nevertheless, his (disgusting) point is a good one. Essentially, we're in the same epistemological boat with respect to our beliefs. You might say that there's more historical evidence that supports stories and events in the Bible but none of that confirms mystical or spiritual events. If the Bible is true and the Book of Mormon is false that's the case independent of how much historical evidence there is. The opposite holds as well.

[Billy]

Sorry, Billy, but these examples just don't cut it.

The accounts you cited were recorded after the events in question took place, and the supposed prophecies could have been inserted at that time.

Are you saying that the OT quotes were written after the time of Christ? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the septuagint version of the OT?

Remember, the qualifier was objective proof that these were prophecies.

What part do you not believe the OT or the NT?

Appealing to the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible is a circular argument, not an objective one, and certainly not proof.

You asked in a previous post

Please demonstrate objectively that there is any prophecy in the Bible.

How do you show that there is prophecy in the Bible without using the Bible to show that there is prophecy in the Bible?

If an event is written down before it takes place and it then takes place after the fact that is a fulfillment of prophecy. Now I think that your objection is that you do not believe the accounts in the OT or the NT, that is an entirely different issue. Do you think that the writings from the gospels were altered to falsely write in the events surrounding the life of Christ (i.e. that it is a totally false account of the life of Christ)?

Simply put- your methods are the height of hypocrisy and your own house is every bit as much glass is as ours.

I guess I don't understand how you see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are on equal footing.

[Billy]

You might say that there's more historical evidence that supports stories and events in the Bible but none of that confirms mystical or spiritual events. If the Bible is true and the Book of Mormon is false that's the case independent of how much historical evidence there is. The opposite holds as well.

As I said before, I agree that there is an aspect of faith and spiritual witness that one must take to believe in the spiritual aspect of any religious book. But I disagree with you that the non spiritual events associated with that account are not important to the truthfulness of the the spiritual aspects.

For example, say a book claims to have true history in addition to the spiritual aspects of the book, you are correct that it would be hard to prove one way or another the spiritual claims. But you could try to prove or see the validity of the other non spiritual aspects of that particular writing. In this example I am not speaking about the Book of Mormon per say, but if you could show that the history in the "historical book" was totally false and that the witnesses to that book also were not telling the truth, would you say that this has no impact on the truthfulness of the spiritual message that it is associated with?

Or an other example

If a witness on the witness stand tells obvious lies during part of his testimony and provides conflicting data during aspects of his testimony, could you trust him in areas of his testimony where he was the only witness to a specific event?

[Luigi]

Bottom line I would agree with you it is on faith. But I would disagree with you with respect to the fact that the Bible does have historical evidence which I think supports it more than a book that has no historical evidence, especially if both books claim to be historically accurate.

Example one

If I interviewed a person for a job and that person gave me his life story, I could go back and verify events in his life and see if they checked out. I could verify the things that he told me to see if in fact what he said was truth or a lie. I could verify places that he said existed at the time, like schools, churches, pastors, friends etc. I could also verify equipment that he said he used at the time he used them, such as computers or cell phones. What I mean by this is that if he told me he used a cell phone in the 1960's then I know that this would not be true and would make me question his truthfulness or his story. It would be impossible to check out every single aspect of that persons life, but by cross checking many different aspects of his life I could come to a reasonable conclusion of that persons honestly and reliability of his story.

And I suppose if his life story included visitations by angels or resurection from the dead you'd figure that as long as some of the other historical aspects of his story checked out you could take the angels and resurection thing on faith, right?

[selek]

Are you saying that the OT quotes were written after the time of Christ?

No, I'm saying that they were written after the fact and any correlations derived are therefore suspect from an objective point of view.

Objectively, it is distinctly possible that the extant records of Christ's ministry were written and revised specifically to "fulfill" the earlier prophecies, just as certain Egyptian geneologies were specifically rewritten to tie them to early Pharaonic dynasties.

In other words, the possibility cannot be dismissed that the scribes fudged the records of Christ specifically to tie him to the prophecies, conflating his importance and thereby enhance thier own legitimacy as his disciples. Objectively, they had both the means and motive to build up this "Christ" figure's importance (a status which no contemporary historian or political figure recognized or accorded him). Doing so increased their political power and in many cases temporal well-being.

They stood to gain by building up the reputation and temporal and spiritual "authority" of their god-figure.

For the record, I don't believe that any such thing took place- but it is an objective possibility.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate (ironic, isn't it) to demonstrate that you're holding my faith to a different standard than your own. The same charges you make against my faith can be made just as readily against yours.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the septuagint version of the OT?

If memory serves, the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves post-date Christ (though I could be mistaken) and all of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament come well after the fact.

What part do you not believe the OT or the NT?

And this is where you keep going off the rails. It's not about what I believe (for I do believe the Bible), but what an objective reader would perceive and believe.

Objectively, there you've offered no proof that the history contained in the Bible was not revised to match the earlier "prophecy".

How do you show that there is prophecy in the Bible without using the Bible to show that there is prophecy in the Bible?

Again, I specified objective proof. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular logic.

It's like using Al Capone's tax returns to prove Al Capone paid his taxes.

Since we know that the Bible has been revised and editted fairly extensively, we don't know that the accounts weren't altered after the fact, as I explain above.

Essentially, you're going to need independent corroboration of the claims made by the Bible- and those simply don't exist.

If an event is written down before it takes place and it then takes place after the fact that is a fulfillment of prophecy.

By that standard, Nostradamus was a prophet. There are a great many people who see the literal fulfillment of his predictions everyday. The same can be said of Muhammad and Islam.

Do you believe that the writings of Nostradamus are scripture? If not, why not?

Do you believe that the Koran is scripture? If not, why not?

They both meet the criterion you just specified.

Do you believe the Doctrine and Covenants is Scripture? It, too, contains prophecies that have been fulfilled.

Now I think that your objection is that you do not believe the accounts in the OT or the NT, that is an entirely different issue.

Nonsense. I believe both the Old and the New Testament.

The problem, however, is not what I believe.

The problem is what is provable, and what is demonstrably and objectively factual.

And on those grounds, the Bible and the Book of Mormon must both be taken on faith.

Do you think that the writings from the gospels were altered to falsely write in the events surrounding the life of Christ (i.e. that it is a totally false account of the life of Christ)?

I do not. But an objective witness can and will argue that there is no archeological evidence to the existence of Christ, and all of the extant textual evidence is tied closely to his followers- making it suspect on the basis of conflict-of-interest.

I guess I don't understand how you see that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are on equal footing.

To quote the esteemed Master Yoda, "And that is why you fail."

The rocks you throw at the Book of Mormon are just as readily thrown at the Bible and are equally "damning".

Both the adherents to your faith and the adherents to my own are bound to take certain things- ironically, the same things- on faith, because they cannot be proven objectively.

The birth, death, ministry, and divinity of Christ, the compilation and preservation of all Scripture, and the continued succession of the believers are all things that cannot be proven objectively. Each must be taken on faith.

The abyss exists in that you insist on holding the Book of Mormon and the LDS faith to a different standard than your own.

That's bias, not objectivity. It is dogma, rather than reason.

Your faith has no more firm a foundation than my own, your theology no more objective reality than my own, and your creeds no more definitive proof than mine.

We both live in glass houses, the difference is that you insist on throwing stones.

[cdowis]

In this example I am not speaking about the Book of Mormon per say, but if you could show that the history in the "historical book" was totally false and that the witnesses to that book also were not telling the truth, would you say that this has no impact on the truthfulness of the spiritual message that it is associated with?

Archeologists and historians have "proven" that the Bible account of Moses and Joshua are false, according to a recent PBS documentary. The first five books of the Bible are fiction, according to these scientists and scholars.

You would then say that this proves the Bible is false. Theoretically speaking, of course.

[Billy]

No, I'm saying that they were written after the fact and any correlations derived are therefore suspect from an objective point of view.

So you are saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus? Were the Jewish leaders in on this conspiracy--even to this day?

Objectively, it is distinctly possible that the extant records of Christ's ministry were written and revised specifically to "fulfill" the earlier prophecies, just as certain Egyptian geneologies were specifically rewritten to tie them to early Pharaonic dynasties.

Do you have any experts that would support the notion that the Gospels were changed in such a dramatic way as you noted above? (And I am not talking about known minor things like the women caught in the act of adultery or the last several verses of Mark)

[selek]

So you are saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus? Were the Jews in on this conspiracy?

No. I am saying it is possible.

Do you have any experts that would support the notion that the Gospels were changed in such a dramatic way as you noted above.? (And I am not talking about known minor things like the women caught in the act of adultery or the last several verses of Mark)

What part of "possible" are you having trouble grasping? I'm not saying it happened. I'm saying it is possible.

As far as "experts", shall we start with the least among them, Hitchens and then move forward?

What you're trying to dodge- and cannot- is that there is no objective proof for the historicity and accuracy of the Bible, let alone of the supernatural claims contained therein.

They must be taken on faith.

Your foundational texts are no more demonstrably true than are ours.

You keep trying to turn this into me attacking the Bible, which isn't the case.

All I'm doing is applying your methodology to your holy book and thereby exposing the fallacies in your reasoning.

You use certain grounds and biases to attack the Book of Mormon, but dare not apply the same standard to your own holy writ- for it will surely fail.

If a standard is to have any meaning, it must be applied universally.

You cannot justly condemn me for sins you yourself have committed.

You cannot damn my holy book on certain grounds and then excuse your own for the same failings.

Contrary to what you would assert and how you would spin this to avoid conceding the point, it is not the Bible that I am attacking, but your methodology, your biases, and your preconceptions.

I have read and studied the Bible many times. I take it on faith that the Bible is the word of God, written for the enlightenment, edification, and redemption of man.

I have read and studied the Book of Mormon many times. I take it on faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God- a second witness of Christ, written for the enlightenment, edification, and redemption of man.

I believe in the Book of Mormon for all the same reasons I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible for all the same reasons I believe in the Book of Mormon.

[Brade]

So you are saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus? Were the Jewish leaders in on this conspiracy--even to this day?

Do you have any experts that would support the notion that the Gospels were changed in such a dramatic way as you noted above? (And I am not talking about known minor things like the women caught in the act of adultery or the last several verses of Mark)

You're missing his point Billy. He's not saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus. He's saying there's no way to prove they weren't. There's quite a difference. In fact, if you go back and read his post you'll see that he doesn't believe the OT versus were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus. He's saying there is no way for either of you to prove that and that the fundamental reason you both believe as you do is because of putative religious experience.

[Luigi]

So you are saying that the OT verses were written after the fact to support the validity of Jesus? Were the Jewish leaders in on this conspiracy--even to this day?

The OT prophecies didn't need to be written to support Jesus, all that had to happen is for the crafters of the New Testament to put in details of Jesus' life which would make him appear to fulfill OT prophecy. Even with that consideration the OT prophecies are broad enough so as to be interpreted many ways (and thus easily interpreted to apply to Jesus). Even the Daniel prophecy you refer to has multiple interpretations with multiple 'fulfillments'.

[selek]

The OT prophecies didn't need to be written to support Jesus, all that had to happen is for the crafters of the New Testament to put in details of Jesus' life which would make him appear to fulfill OT prophecy. Even with that consideration the OT prophecies are broad enough so as to interpreted many ways (and thus easily interpreted to apply to Jesus). Even the Daniel prophecy you refer to has multiple interpretations with multiple 'fulfillments'.

Thank you, Luigi- this is precisely what I've been trying to communicate to Billy- along with the idea that he cannot condemn my holy writ for failings his own commits.

[Brade]

I had to quote you're poop comment from earlier. Yes, it tickled me that much.