How is God supposed to communicate?

[Hoops22]

I am confident, for example, that Hoops22 experiences his most intense spiritual experiences among fellow Evangelicals and would not feel the same intense emotions reading the Book of Mormon or sitting in a Mormon congregation whereas a person raised Mormon would have the opposite experience of feeling relatively little spiritual emotions in a Evangelical meeting while feeling much more intense spritual emotions reading the Book of Mormon or attending Mormon services.

Not that you're terribly interested, but as an aside: I rarely feel emotional experiences in my group. I can't remember the last time I had.

And I agree with much of what you wrote.

And, a further point to consider: if one is dissatisfied, for what ever reason, with one's current spiritual environment, the pump is primed for an emotional experience that confirms one dissatisfaction with the former and satisfaction for the latter.

[Cold Steel]

There's a great story about a roofer who lost his grip on a steep roof and began sliding to his doom. He realized he had only seconds and as he slid to the edge, he offered a prayer up to God, that if he should be saved that he would live forever in his service and give all that he had to the poor and the destitute. As he neared the edge, his pants caught on a nail and he was saved! Looking heavenward, the man said, "Never mind, Lord. I was just saved by this nail!"

.

[Flyonthewall]

To write it down. One might begin with why they felt compelled to write it down to begin with. After all, many believing jews thought Jesus would be returning within their lifetime. So why would the apostles even be spurred to write these things down? Secondly, the H.S. is the communicator for us now (and them - post resurrection). He guarded His word, making it, so to speak, what it is supposed to be.

I think God has always been keen on record keeping so it is no surprise that the apostles wrote things down, or had them written.

I think it's a mistake to believe that the H.S. communicated to the writers of the Bible in the same way, or even to the same degree, as He does to us know. After all, God operated in a much more distinct and overt way (one might argue). Miracles were different. His OT presence was completely different than it is now. If one can accept that, and that seems patently obvious to me, one must ask why? And the why is because we know have His written word, established and consistent.

I agree that God operated in a much more overt way back then, but not so sure he would avoid the same way. Jesus kept referring to the scriptures they had so I'm not so sure that His word wasn't already written and established. Consistency seems a bit subjective.

No, we're not back at square one because we have His written word. I'll agree, and it would be foolish not to, that there are competing interpretations out there. However, the fact that there are competing interpretations does not mean that God is somehow confused about what He means. He does have an intended meaning, and it does require work - bu that's not a bad thing.

But we are back at square one because even though we have His written word, it must be interpreted, and Man isn't very consistent with that.

I am not saying that God is confused, but Man can be. A message to one group of people at one time, may not carry the same meaning to another group of people in another time and place. For example, some of the parables that Jesus told may not hold the same meaning to someone living on an island. In that case, Man tries to make things fit into what they understand, and as a result, things lose the original meaning.

Which leads to your authority question. Absolutely, The H.S. can and may speak to us in the ways you've described - though never to me. However, we have several other methods of which we can avail ourselves, UD mentioned them and I agree. I disagree with his order of importance or effectiveness, but they are the same. I'm unclear why the H.S. can't speak to us via those ways. IT seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I agree that the Holy Spirit has many different ways to communicate with us, and I think that if we do not know what to look for, we can overlook communications of the Holy Spirit and attribute them to something else.

I don't think there is an order of importance to communications from the Holy Spirit - anything He has to say is important, whether it be to an individual or to the whole world.

When one considers that God was dealing with a different point in history, therefor a different parameter in which He chose to operate, then I think they are perfectly consistent.

It almost sounds like you are saying God, who is unchanging, changes His method of operations depending on the time and place people are living in...careful, you are getting closer to the dark side...

To a large degree, yes. But perhaps the question could be put another way. Why should it be available to us in the same way as the apostles? After all, we have His written word, they didn't.

Why should truth be testified to in the same way? Consistency for one thing.

It seems to me that one can come to a reasonable, thoughtful, logical conclusion that the Bible is His written word. Does it take faith? Certainly. But THAT faith is also a gift from the H.S., at the point of true repentance.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. When it comes right down to it, faith is based on feelings because there really is no tangible evidence to back it up.

[Flyonthewall]

Your words:

My experience:

I was raised LDS but attended vacation Bible school with Baptist friends, sang in Pentacostal churches routinely throughout my adolescence, and have attended more weddings and funerals at non-LDS churches/synagogues than at LDS churches. I have had compelling spiritual experiences in a variety of these settings as well as completely non-religious settings and find truth in eastern traditions as well as completely secular ones. Moments of revelation and "pure knowledge" come as I encounter truth, regardless of the setting or the social cues.

All truth is independent... (D&C 93:30)

Agreed. The Holy Ghost is an equal opportunity testator. He can confirm truth where ever it is found.

[O-Brother]

As a Non-LDS, I don't disagree with "feelings". . . I'm just not as quick to assign them to something based on what Joseph Smith would like everyone to believe. I am aware of the complexity of the brain, and I am open to the fact that my "feelings" could be something other than what I would like to assign them as. I think when one draws closer to their spiritual side in any form, they will have feelings of the same you have come to know as the "holy ghost". One has to be careful when attaching meaning to the experience.

Feelings are the "doorway" not the communication itself. (:-) Feelings are too attached to the physical being. But, feelings can also be spiritual. The spiritual feeling IS the communication. But because we are in a physical world, the two are interconnected. After death, the same process appears to take place, without the physical aspect. There are no physical barriers so the spirit can communicate freely. Remember, we're physical beings in mortality. The spirit uses our physical feelings as the doorway to communication. This is so common that poets always refer to the "heart" to illustrate a strong feeling or emotion. In reality, unless you're having a heart attack, all feelings are actually in the brain, the final receptor. The brain is electromagnetically connected to our spirit and both brain and spirit exchange information all the time. When you die, the information stays with the spirit that floats away and all the information contained in the physical body perishes along with the body. That's why we can carry our knowledge to the next life, via the spirit. Our thoughts are the most spiritual part of us and the closest thing we can measure without seeing. That's becasue thoughts are closely connected with the spirit being inside us. That's why the scriptures clearly state that even our thoughts will condemn us. Thoughts can also shape our physical, emotional and spiritual being. Basically, the feelings that reveal whether something is true of false, or help us discern good from evil, for example, are all part of a complex structure of communication between the physical body and the spirit. Some people mention that they can feel when a loved one passes away, even if the event takes place miles away. Or they "feel" that someone is in need. That is just "spiritual" communication taking place. Spiritual communication is a network. When the network is in tune, we can even "hear" of "feel" that still small voice. The Holy Ghost operates on this level all the time. That's why when we're worthy, The Holy Ghost can communicate better through a cleaner channel. A Prophet has the cleanest channel with little or no interference.

Now, for the scary part, the Adversary uses some of these channels to get to us. It all depends on where the frequency is focused. Like a dial on the radio, that frequency can go all the way to the left, stay in the middle or go all the way to the right. There is an on and off button too. Low batteries, no batteries or dead batteries. Figuratively speaking. If the frequency goes all the way to the left, for example, the reception will get the wrong messages and our behavior will match the frequency. Most of us fall within mid-range. A highly spiritual person will be 2/3s of the way up and a Prophet can be on the right end of the dial most of the time. When you reach that level, you can even read people's minds and perceive their thoughts. Sounds crazy? It's isn't. Jesus did this quite often. So did many people in the Book of Mormon.

P.S.- Sometimes, other spirits can utilize these channels. For example, when doing temple or genealogy work. All this communication is predicated on the order that Heavely Father has established. Church members often talk about the "veil", or the veil being thin. I believe that they're referring the the channels being open or closed. All this gives meaning to "being in tune" with the Spirit, doesn't it? I believe that God communicates with us through these channels as well. When we close our eyes to say our prayers, we're tuning in to the channels. You will rarely see anyone say a prayer with their eyes open. There is relationship between closing the eyes and accessing Alpha waves inside the brain, which accesses the spirit. Ever wonder why you close your eyes when you pray? It's not just reverence, something actually happens when you close them. NO blessing, no prayer will normally be given with eyes wide open. When you sleep, it's a similar process for most people.

Anyway...gotta run.

[Hoops22]

I think God has always been keen on record keeping so it is no surprise that the apostles wrote things down, or had them written.

To a degree. But, remember that the prevailing wisdom of the day was that Jesus was returning in their lifetime. At some point it had to dawn on them that the record of Jesus' life, as well as His given revelation post resurrection should be written. It seems reasonable to me that that is what the H.S. was for.

I agree that God operated in a much more overt way back then, but not so sure he would avoid the same way. Jesus kept referring to the scriptures they had so I'm not so sure that His word wasn't already written and established. Consistency seems a bit subjective.

Well, of course they the OT, no one's disputing that. But, of course, there was no NT.

But we are back at square one because even though we have His written word, it must be interpreted, and Man isn't very consistent with that.

That is a misrepresentation. In terms of core doctrine, we are very conisistent. In terms of other things, I'm not sure that allowing for varying interpretations is such a bad thing. Can you show me where that might be? A good example might be the differences between the RCC and SBC. In terms of core doctrine, these two are remarkably consistent - the only exception might be the role that revelation plays in the health of both. But they are not so far apart as people think.

I am not saying that God is confused, but Man can be. A message to one group of people at one time, may not carry the same meaning to another group of people in another time and place. For example, some of the parables that Jesus told may not hold the same meaning to someone living on an island. In that case, Man tries to make things fit into what they understand, and as a result, things lose the original meaning.

There some truth there, this is a valid point. However, were someone to completely misunderstand any or all of the parable - which might be common - that mistunderstanding still does not change core doctrine. And it is through core doctrine that we know who God is.

I agree that the Holy Spirit has many different ways to communicate with us, and I think that if we do not know what to look for, we can overlook communications of the Holy Spirit and attribute them to something else.

And the reverse is equally true. If we are involved in the process, then the process can be, and most often is, tainted. But I think it's wrong to believe that if the HS communicates to us in one way, and that doesn't "take" that He throws up His hands in dismay. After all, He has given us a very specific and distinct communication already. It seems that there is an element of "I"ve already spoken to you about this, why can't you read it for yourself?"

I don't think there is an order of importance to communications from the Holy Spirit - anything He has to say is important, whether it be to an individual or to the whole world.

no one is saying that what He says isn't important. We are saying that He has already spoken.

It almost sounds like you are saying God, who is unchanging, changes His method of operations depending on the time and place people are living in...careful, you are getting closer to the dark side...

The character of God, who He is, never changes. I don't see why it's unreasonable that His method of communication changes, particularly post-resurrection, and post-bible.

Why should truth be testified to in the same way? Consistency for one thing.

don't get.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. When it comes right down to it, faith is based on feelings because there really is no tangible evidence to back it up.

I can not disagree more. Faith is NOT feelings. It is assurance, based on a lot of things, the most suspicious of which is feelings.

[DLClark]

If that is all "faith" is -- a "deposit" -- then perhaps some ignorant

people could argue that their faith is indeed "static" and cannot grow.

I'd like to meet one of these people whose faith is perfect and complete.

For the rest of us, our trust and reliance in God can indeed grow. Our

faith can expand, from the size of a mustard seed to infinite vastness.

Our optimism, our hope for things unseen, our assurance that God is at

work in our lives can expand endlessly.

Pity those whose faith can no longer grow ---

Uncle Dale

The Bible warns against adding to its revelation to us from God. That is why or faith is firmly fixed in the once delivered faith Jude 3. Jude 4 tells us why we must condent earnestly for the once deliviered faith.Jude 3-4

A Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. 4 For (Here is why) certain persons have crept (Creeps as they are called)in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Rev 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Deut 4:2-3

" You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 3 "

Deut 12:32

32 " Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Prov 30:6

6 Do not add to His words

Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

DLC

[Vance]

". . . ungodly persons . . . deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

And some deny Him by not believing what He taught while claiming to believe in him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Prov 30:6

6 Do not add to His words

Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

DLC

Such as faith with out works are dead. How can one claim to be saved by faith alone if you need works to make faith alive? I have never heard a good rebuttal to this point.

You want to take away what Christ and James taught that we must do something to lay claim to salvation. It is not a simple lip service and a mere beleif. That is but the beginning of the road.

[Vance]

The only verse in the entire Bible that has both of the words "faith" and "alone" is.........

Drum roll please....

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Oh the irony!

[Uncle Dale]

The Bible warns against adding to its revelation to us from God.

...

If that is the case, then "the Bible" should have ended with your quotes

from Deuteronomy and the psalms. Nothing should have been added thereafter.

If an authenticated third letter from Paul to the Corinthians were discovered

next week, and published, and quoted in some pastors' sermons, would we thus

be adding to "the Bible's" revelation to us from God? Would that damn us all?

"The Bible" we have today was a creation of the rabbis at Jamnia, added to

by gatherings of Christian bishops in later years. It is an assembled library

of books which did not even exist as a sacred collection in the time of

the Apostles.

Perhaps we should just go back to using the Septuagint -- which was a sort

of Bible in Jesus' day. ????

At any rate, my faith has grown over the years and I trust that it will

continue to expand until it comprehends all righteousness -- in communion

with the God of Israel (and not with a limited library of books blessed by

some ancient Council of greybeard bishops and a Roman Emperor).

Uncle Dale

[DLClark]

Jude 3 tells us that the deposit of truth the Bible was once delivered. No delivered over and over again. That means anything that comes after the Bible that claims to be the Word of God is incorrect. The deposit of truth was ONCE not many times delivered.

DLC

[Uncle Dale]

The Bible warns against adding to its revelation...

And, had you been one of those ancient voting bishops, who helped

decide upon which books should be in the Bible, and which should not,

on what basis would you have cast your vote against the inclusion

of the non-canonical Didache???

1. It was not written by an Apostle

2. Some other bishops rejected it

3. The Roman authorities didn't want it in the Bible

4. God spoke to you and told you to vote against its inclusion

????

Messy process, hunh? The way those old Catholic bishops decided

which books we could read and which ones we should not. *

Uncle Dale

-------

* To the credit of the RCC, they have included the Didache among the church fathers

[Uncle Dale]

Jude 3 tells us that the dopsit of truth the bible was once delivered. That mean anything that comes after the bible that cla9ims to be the Word of god is incorrect. the deposit of truth was ONCE not many times delivered.

DLC

So Jude was talking about BEFORE his letter was ever written?

Correct?

He never expected his letter to be included in the Bible, because

he was speaking AFTER -- speaking of a faith ALREADY delivered to

the saints before he ever composed his epistle.

How did Jude get put into our Bibles, if the faith was already

delivered ONCE and could not be delivered again, TWICE?

UD

[DLClark]

If that is the case, then "the Bible" should have ended with your quotes

from Deuteronomy and the psalms. Nothing should have been added thereafter.

If an authenticated third letter from Paul to the Corinthians were discovered

next week, and published, and quoted in some pastors' sermons, would we thus

be adding to "the Bible's" revelation to us from God? Would that damn us all?

"The Bible" we have today was a creation of the rabbis at Jamnia, added to

by gatherings of Christian bishops in later years. It is an assembled library

of books which did not even exist as a sacred collection in the time of

the Apostles.

Perhaps we should just go back to using the Septuagint -- which was a sort

of Bible in Jesus' day. ????

At any rate, my faith has grown over the years and I trust that it will

continue to expand until it comprehends all righteousness -- in communion

with the God of Israel (and not with a limited library of books blessed by

some ancient Council of greybeard bishops and a Roman Emperor).

Uncle Dale

The spetuagent contains error and was never considered by the Jews to be Scripture.

Jude 3 tells us that the deposit of truth the Bible was once delivered. No delivered over and over again. That means anything that comes after the Bible that claims to be the Word of God is incorrect. The deposit of truth was ONCE not many times delivered.

There is a major difference between the Catholic church and true Christianity. Not understanding the difference will cause confusion.

DLC

[Luigi]

Your words:

My experience:

I was raised LDS but attended vacation Bible school with Baptist friends, sang in Pentacostal churches routinely throughout my adolescence, and have attended more weddings and funerals at non-LDS churches/synagogues than at LDS churches. I have had compelling spiritual experiences in a variety of these settings as well as completely non-religious settings and find truth in eastern traditions as well as completely secular ones. Moments of revelation and "pure knowledge" come as I encounter truth, regardless of the setting or the social cues.

All truth is independent... (D&C 93:30)

I certainly did not exclude the possibility of religious experiences outside of one's own faith. I just said the strongest spiritual emotions are most likely to be associated with the environment and teachings of the faith one is raised in. I would assume that is the case with you or it seems you would have assumed the 'Spirit' was confirming the legitimacy of another faith over your own.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Jude 3 tells us that the deposit of truth the Bible was once delivered.

...

OK then, let me see if I've got this right.

Jude says that the Bible should consist of these books, and no others,

correct?

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Esther

Job

Psalm

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habakkuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Revelation

UD

[Luigi]

Not that you're terribly interested, but as an aside: I rarely feel emotional experiences in my group. I can't remember the last time I had.

I think everyone has a different capacity and intensity for spiritual emotions just as we have different levels of all other emotions. Evolution is not a process which yields completely uniform individuals either physically or emotionally.

Also it is important to note that because spiritual experiences are rather inconsistent almost all religions put stipulations on accepting such experiences. In fact even the example I cited of a speaker at BYU demonstrated that. He explained he was feeling what he would usually have considered spiritual emotions but kept reminding himself 'these people are apostates'. Likewise I imagine you have been raised to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (as well as a certain interpretation of the Bible) and to consequently reject any emotional experience, however poignant, which conflicts with this interpretation just as Mormons are taught to reject any spiritual experience which contradicts the teachings of the prophet.

And I agree with much of what you wrote.

Thanks. Though I admit I'm surprised since I didn't think you accepting evolutionary theory.

And, a further point to consider: if one is dissatisfied, for what ever reason, with one's current spiritual environment, the pump is primed for an emotional experience that confirms one dissatisfaction with the former and satisfaction for the latter.

Agreed, that is what I meant here:

However an individual can be moved toward experiencing spiritual emotions more intensely within a different social group through experiences which create doubt. While such doubts are attributed to apparent failures of the social group to uphold key principles, the attraction to these principles has an evolutionary basis and consequently the doubts are, in essence, doubts about the survivability of the social group. This can lead to an individual experiencing spirituality more intensely in a social group he was not raised in because his instincts are responding to another social group which is percieved as better at adopting those key principles.

[Uncle Dale]

The spetuagent contains error and was never considered by the Jews to be Scripture.

...

"spetuagent" ???

At least its detractors can correct any errors, hunh?

So the "spetuagent" is full of errors and was never

read by the Apostles of Jesus, correct?

So then, why did entire books out of that collection end up in our Bible?

Let's take one example -- the "Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach." In 90 C.E.

the rabbis met at Jamnia and decided not to canonize any Septuagint texts

which were not previously composed in Hebrew. At that time Jerusalem had

fallen to the Romans and had been destroyed, as had much of Judea. Nobody

could locate a Hebrew text for Ben Sirach -- and so it was excluded from

the "old testament" canon (later copied by the Christians).

Later a pre-Jamnia Hebrew text for Ben Sirach was located and is now

available for biblical scholars to study. Had that copy been on hand

in Jamnia in 90 C.E., probably Ben Sirach would have been accepted.

So why do you reject the book? 1. Because a bunch of non-Christian

Jesus-rejectors met in Palestine and a majority of their bunch decided

to reject the text, even though it was in the Septuagint. 2. Because

the Christian bishops later played copycat to the rabbis, and did not

write it into the initial canon -- 3. even though later Christian bishops

DID include it in their Bibles. And today you can go into any Greek

Orthodox church and find Ben Sirach -- or into any Syrian Christian

church -- or into any Ethiopian Christian church -- or into any

Roman Catholic Christian church -- and find it in their Bibles. You

can find Anglican/Episcopalian ministers who quote from Ben Sirach

as though it were scripture -- who carve his words into gravestones

as holy writ for the honoring of the fallen dead in foreign wars.

And yet you reject Ben Sirach ---- because... because Jude told you so?

?????????

UD

.

[Hoops22]

Thanks. Though I admit I'm surprised since I didn't think you accepting evolutionary theory.

I accept evolution theory. I reject evolution of species, for a variety of reasons.

[mercyngrace]

I certainly did not exclude the possibility of religious experiences outside of one's own faith. I just said the strongest spiritual emotions are most likely to be associated with the environment and teachings of the faith one is raised in. I would assume that is the case with you or it seems you would have assumed the 'Spirit' was confirming the legitimacy of another faith over your own.

The Spirit confirms the veracity of specific truths and those truths can be found anywhere. One of my favorite songs contains the following lyrics "Preachers on the podium speaking of saints, prophets on the sidewalk begging for change". I think that speaks to the idea that light and knowledge are all around us and often in the places we are least likely to look. The context I give to the revelation I receive is one thing - but how strongly I receive it or when and where it comes is dependent only on the presence of eternal truth or the necessity of my receiving the message.

[Uncle Dale]

OK then, let me see if I've got this right.

Jude says that the Bible should consist of these books, and no others,

correct?

Genesis

....

Revelation

UD

Oops!!

Silly me!

I left the Epistle of Jude out of the holy writ list!

Jude had his own epistle already in his Bible,

before he ever wrote that epistle;

right?

UD

.

[Luigi]

The Spirit confirms the veracity of specific truths and those truths can be found anywhere. One of my favorite songs contains the following lyrics "Preachers on the podium speaking of saints, prophets on the sidewalk begging for change". I think that speaks to the idea that light and knowledge are all around us and often in the places we are least likely to look. The context I give to the revelation I receive is one thing - but how strongly I receive it or when and where it comes is dependent only on the presence of eternal truth or the necessity of my receiving the message.

I fail to see your argument for how these emotions are not coming exclusively from your brain, a product of evolution serving the purposes I suggested, and instead coming completely or in part from 'the Spirit'.

[mercyngrace]

I fail to see your argument for how these emotions are not coming exclusively from your brain, a product of evolution serving the purposes I suggested, and instead coming completely or in part from 'the Spirit'.

Whether or not they are coming from my brain is a different issue.

What I took exception to was your suggestion that spiritual experiences were strongest within a learned context. (i.e. Hoops feeling the spirit strongest among EV brethren and an LDS in the temple or some other specifically LDS environment.)

Are we moving on to another subject now?

[DLClark]

OK then, let me see if I've got this right.

Jude says that the Bible should consist of these books, and no others,

correct?

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Esther

Job

Psalm

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habakkuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Revelation

UD

All 66 books of the Bible are the only inspired text we have. All other so called inspired writtings have errors in them.

DLC