volgadon Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 See this is why you must learn to read the whole post my good friend. I said relying on a comedy sketch to tell you HISTORY is not scholarly, just like using the Colbert Report to get modern political commentary is not scholarly. Now using a comedy sketch to show the obvious state of my oppositions lack luster rebuttals is not historic, so the use is pointless like most of your commentary has been. You really need to read not what is said, unless you enjoy making pointless and baseless accusations that are completely inaccurate and false.You are right, relying on a comedy sketch to teach one history is not scholarly. Luckily I did not do that. I was comparing your inaccurate view of an historical event with another one, but one intentionally inaccurate. Archie Duke shooting an ostrich.
WalkerW Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 He has done some. I have even given him a point or two for a few comments. I would love to know where these are at. All I've seen since he has been here is the very intolerance and ignorance that people like Foxtrot44 accuse us of.
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 LDSguy 1986, I am curious. Do you think the section for Explanations of the Abbreviations is part of the Standard Works (and therefore canon?) The Index? I am curious as to how such can be considered scripture.Another LDS.org definition of the Bible from the Bible Dictionary itself: Structure of the Bible. The Christian Bible has two great divisions, familiarly known as the Old and New Testaments.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I'm created in the image of God. I was born with the light of Christ, and I have the gift of the Holy Ghost. I know the difference between good and evil. I presume that God is good. If you think that God might be evil, you are entitled to that opinion.I'm not telling God anything. I'm telling you, and you, sir, are not God.I know that I am not God, nor anywhere close, and I know my thoughts are not God's thoughts. So I don't presume to second guess God on any decision He makes, including ordering the execution of every last Canaanite.
volgadon Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I would love to know where these are at. All I've seen since he has been here is the very intolerance and ignorance that people like Foxtrot44 accuse us of.I recall seeing one or two here, and maybe a couple more at lds.net.
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I never said it was, If the Bible Dictionary is not the Bible (the KJV) then please tell me where it is in this list of the Standard Works given on lds.org:The volumes of scripture officially accepted by the Church, including the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. http://lds.org/study/topics/standard-works?lang=eng
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I know that I am not God, nor anywhere close, and I know my thoughts are not God's thoughts. So I don't presume to second guess God on any decision He makes, including ordering the execution of every last Canaanite.Use the sense of right and wrong that God gave you. Slavish, robotic acceptance of any atrocity in the name of God is not Godly.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Use the sense of right and wrong that God gave you. Slavish, robotic acceptance of any atrocity in the name of God is not Godly.I do use my sense of right and wrong... it is right to accept the decisions of an all-knowing just God, even if I don't understand them- it is wrong to second-guess the decisions of a just God based on my fallen, mortal understanding of right vs. wrong.
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I would love to know where these are at. All I've seen since he has been here is the very intolerance and ignorance that people like Foxtrot44 accuse us of.I think this post is a good example of considered thought: http://www.mormondia...__p__1208989818I think LDSguy 1986 runs mainly into problems when he starts talking in absolutes.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 If the Bible Dictionary is not the Bible (the KJV) then please tell me where it is in this list of the Standard Works given on lds.org:http://lds.org/study...-works?lang=engIt is CONTAINED in the LDS KJV, so it is listed there under KJV. It isn't the KJV, but it is part of the LDS version of the KJV, there is a big difference and one that if ignored removed this part of the LDS KJV from the Standard Works unjustly.Is the Articles of Faith part of the Standard Works?
LeSellers Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Is the Articles of Faith part of the Standard Works?Yes, and it's included in the canonized text of the Pearl of Great Price, quite a difference from the Bible Dictionary which is not.Lehi
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Yes, and it's included in the canonized text of the Pearl of Great Price, quite a difference from the Bible Dictionary which is not.LehiSo the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? I need to send mine back then because mine is defective, can I get a full refund since they sent me a incorrect LDS KJV?
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I do use my sense of right and wrong... it is right to accept the decisions of an all-knowing just God, even if I don't understand them- it is wrong to second-guess the decisions of a just God based on my fallen, mortal understanding of right vs. wrong.No, what you're exercising now is blind obedience, based on a document (the OT) known to be riddled with factual errors.
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? I need to send mine back then because mine is defective, can I get a full refund since they sent me a incorrect LDS KJV?Hey don't forget the copyright notices and the Bible maps. Those must be canonized too, since they're in the same book!
volgadon Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? Have you seen the missionary copies?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? I need to send mine back then because mine is defective, can I get a full refund since they sent me a incorrect LDS KJV?Not only that, you need to buy a set of RLDS scriptures from Price Publishing and start going to the Restoration Group in Winston-Salem. (I can get you the phone number)
WalkerW Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? The "LDS KJV" I handed out on my mission didn't have this supposedly canonized Bible Dictionary.Are the chapter headings canonized too?
WalkerW Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Have you seen the missionary copies?Beat me to it. By the way, I love that you're now a "filthy socialist."
LeSellers Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So the Bible Dictionary is not included in the LDS KJV then? Please read what I wrote. I specifically used the phrase "the canonized text of the Pearl of Great Price" for a reason. [Emphasis added]The Dictionary is not part of the canonized text of the LDS edition of the AV. If it were, the Dictionary would be published in Spanish, at least, and probably several other languages. I haven't heard of any of these being published as part of the local accepted/canonized Bibles. Lehi
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 It is CONTAINED in the LDS KJV, so it is listed there under KJV. It isn't the KJV, but it is part of the LDS version of the KJV, CFR that it is listed "under the KJV" and not as an external attachment. I have linked to several quotes from lds.org that state the Bible consists of two divisions, the Old and New Testament. Nowhere is it stated that the Bible dictionary is "under the KJV" in the way you mean.there is a big difference and one that if ignored removed this part of the LDS KJV from the Standard Works unjustly.And yet there was no problem with not having that bible dictionary as an appendix to the KJV for over 150 years.........nor are we required to use that particular version, but only encouraged to use because of its aid in study (and interestingly enough people are directed to more detailed bible dictionaries NOT attached to the KJV as a substitute if they want a more indepth approach).
LeSellers Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Wow, any why would Syria decide to assassinate the Archduke of Austrian [sic], if there was no tension either?As I recall, Syria [sic, Serbia?] had nothing to do with the assassination. It was a single, private, individual, acting for a terrorist group, not an agent of Serbia/Syria or any other nation. The assassination was caused by the tensions between the nations and the result of the assassination was WWI, because Austria declared war on Syria following the assassination. The tension that lead to the decision to assassination the archduke is the ammunition being loaded and the weapon cocked, the assassination is the trigger being pulled. Which is exactly what I am saying. The assassination was not the cause of the war, merely the triggering event. The assassin, rather than being a member of a separatist terrorist group ("the Black Hand"), could have simply been insane. Had there been no tension, the assassination could have been disregarded by Austria. Did John Hinckley's attempted assassination of President Reagan trigger a war? If not, and, as I was in the military at the time, and would have remembered it if there had been, then there is no case to be made that assassinating a high political figure, by necessity, causes war. Without an assassination of the Archduke you have not war, just like without pulling the trigger on a loaded handgun you have nothing more than an expensive paperweight. On the other hand, I recall several wars that did not begin with an assassination. Mounting tensions DOES NOT equal war, look at North and South Korea, they have had mounting tensions that almost lead to war (and lead to several skirmishes) since the cease fire between the two nations. Tension is not an act of war, only the reasoning that leads to an act of war. True, so far. However, absent tensions, there will be no war, either, unlike assassinations, without which there have been many wars. Deploying troops on boarders, threats of conflict, ect are not acts of war, it is posturing and it is trying to deter a war not create one.As in WWII when the European aggressor sent troops to the border of Poland? Deploying troops to the border is not always an attempt to deter war. It is often the prelude to a war. Let the other guy see how tough you are and they might back down, now once someone assassinates the heir to the throne of your nation when you are built up and warning them you mean business, that is an act of war.You have yet to show that Gavrilo Princip was acting as an agent of Serbia Syria. Lehi
Calm Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Is the Articles of Faith part of the Standard Works?One more comment and then I'm off for my evening nap (went out to eat and now can't keep my eyes open due to not sleeping last night...):If one goes and looks in the actual book (not the missionary or military edition which don't have them at all...so how can they be part of the "standard"?, but the full version with study aids included) one will find the Bible Dictionary included in the back section labeled "Appendix".The Articles of Faith are not in the Appendix. There is a significant difference between the actual text of a work (that which is described as the sacred writings) and an appendix. An appendix is defined as "supplemental material" in contrast to being described as a "standard" for "standard works".
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 No, what you're exercising now is blind obedience, based on a document (the OT) known to be riddled with factual errors.I simply adore how you accuse me of blind obedience. If I was blindly obedient, I would still be LDS, defending all the beliefs and faith-promoting history I grew up with. Please don't ever accuse me of such again, I have went through too much to be where I am at, and accusing me of being a mindless robot is insulting.
semlogo Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 I simply adore how you accuse me of blind obedience. If I was blindly obedient, I would still be LDS, defending all the beliefs and faith-promoting history I grew up with. Please don't ever accuse me of such again, I have went through too much to be where I am at, and accusing me of being a mindless robot is insulting.Blind obedience is blind obedience, whether to a book or an organization.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.