Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

God commanded Abraham?


Benji

Recommended Posts

Guest johnny_cat
My point has always been that much of it can which gives it credibility. This should answer your question about what kind of scrutiny I have applied to the Bible.

This is, frankly, an untenable position. That the Bible describes some verifiable events and places has no bearing on its reliability as the word of God. What it proves is that the book has ancient origins.

If we were to read David Copperfield, for example, we would find in it fairly accurate descriptions of mid-19th century England, its people and places. By your standards, we could reliably conclude that David Copperfield was an accurate history, and that the people and events described therein actually existed. Except we know that it is a work of fiction.

Better still, the book of Doctrine and Covenants describes people and places and events in the 1830s and 1840s that can be verified. Why, my own ancestor, Frederick G. Williams, appears several times in that book. Are we to conclude that the visions and revelations in the book are thus verifiable and accurate?

Link to comment

johnny_cat, the historical verification of the Bible is not the only thing that gives it credibility. With reagrd to accepting it as the word of God, there are also several Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled when Christ came.

As for the validity of the things in D&C, the author's credibility comes into play there and frankly, I find very little.

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat
johnny_cat, the historical verification of the Bible is not the only thing that gives it credibility. With reagrd to accepting it as the word of God, there are also several Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled when Christ came.

Your reasoning is just a bit circular here. The Bible gives itself credibility because it fulfills its own prophecies. Seems to me the Book of Mormon does the same (think Columbus, Joseph Smith, all accurately prophesied in the BofM).

As for the validity of the things in D&C, the author's credibility comes into play there and frankly, I find very little.

A matter of opinion. Yet, you never question the credibility of the authors of the Bible. Who were they? Why do you consider them credible?

Rest assured that I am not questioning the divinity of the Bible. But I do find it odd that you insist on finding a rational foundation for your faith.

Link to comment

Benji, a prophet isn't only a person who predicts the future, but also one who teaches new doctrine that is revealed to that person by God such as the Bible being the only scripture. Since the doctrine of Bible only is not in the Bible and God revealed it to you, how can I not consider you a prophet? I'm not trying to be facetious here, but isn't that what a prophet does?

You position is very unstable Benji when it comes to defining what is and isn't scripture.

Some time ago, some person attempted to define what a Christian is. The dude did everything to exclude Mormons from being classified as Christians, but for every qualification that he gave, he either excluded a group he considered to be Christian or the definition included Mormons. He couldn't specificially define what a a Christian was without explicitly starting out with the initial basis of being a Christian was to not be a Mormon, but that wasn't found in the Bible.

You have listed scriptures that warned of false prophets, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that there would never be anymore prophets and it appears to me that you are going off the assumption that there are to nevet be anymore prophets.

In fact it talks about there being more prophets in the NT, especially in Revelation. Should we reject Revelation because of this and nowhere does it say that these are going to be the only prophets. And to state otherwise or that there will be no more prophets since the Bible doesn't specifically state there will be is a logical fallacy - an argument from silence. And it doesn't help to base ones beliefs on a logical fallacy.

Link to comment

johnny_cat, the prophecies in the Old Testament were written long before they occured which gives them credibility. Joseph Smith claims to have translated a book that is not historically verifiable and therefore it is very plausible that the "prophecies" contained in that book were prodiced in the 19th century. Anyone can write a book after the fact and put predictions in it. I believe he also put something about his own coming his version of the Bible too.

As for the credibility for the authors of the bible, I have their fulfilled prophecies as the proof that they were true prophets of God.

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat
johnny_cat, the prophecies in the Old Testament were written long before they occured which gives them credibility.

But this begs the question. You know the New Testament fulfills Old Testament prophecies because the New Testament tells you it does. Take Martin Harris and the Anton transcript for another example. Joseph Smith said that Martin's interview with Professor Anton specifically filled the prophecy about not being able to read a sealed book. Does that reflect either on the credibility of Martin and Joseph or on the Old Testament?

Again, the reasoning is circular.

Link to comment

urroner, claiming that the doctrine of the Bible is not in the Bible is pretty silly. And if your definition of prophet applies to me then it applies to everyone who believes in Biblical Christianity and we don't claim to be prophets. We do believe that the Bible claims that there should be nothing added to it nor taken away from it which you obviously disagree with. If for some reason we were to consider something additional it would have to be consistent with what has already been revealed in the Bile. Of course, Joseph Smith did claim to be a prophet which is very different and his gospel doesn't match with what is in the Bible. As for the additional prophets from Revelation you mentioned please give references.

Link to comment

johnny_cat, actually it is more than just the New Testament telling me so. Please see this link:

http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Link to comment
johnny_cat, the historical verification of the Bible is not the only thing that gives it credibility. With reagrd to accepting it as the word of God, there are also several Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled when Christ came.

As for the validity of the things in D&C, the author's credibility comes into play there and frankly, I find very little.

Nor will you find them as long as you interpret the Bible to say only what you wish it to mean, or somebody else told you. You are in danger of being in essentially the same position as many Christ spoke to who did not hear the full meaning of His parables.

You don't have to accept what JS said the Lord revealed about Abraham . . but you have been shown another interpretation is not only possible, but it is supported by an independent historian who had the capacity to know exactly what the original Hebrew writings/stories meant better than you or I. So continuing to say your interpretation is preferred without external proof that it is correct over a position supported externally is exactly the opposite of what you have posted here . . you are saying your faith in your interpretation is superior . . and you say it against two witnesses . . JS and Josephus ( as you've pointed out , we don't have to rely only on scripture to witness truth). Read Peter again and look in the mirror.

Now if you will move on to the BoM, you should recognize that it's only been known for less than 200 years and of course has only partially been connected to specific places and people . . but recognize also it took that long to put together the NT when there was a hot trail to follow. And a lot longer than that to find very little externally collected objective information . . most of what exists to support the NT was preserved by believers (and some has been faked) or is presumed (like the jar remnants found in Cana . . or the other Cana) even though a place is known.

What you are talking about . . your position . . is based on what we might call the preponderance of evidence you choose to accept or reject. I think it would be interesting for you to post a list of what *external* evidence we have for Christ's NT *teachings* in another thread.

Link to comment

I find it VERY INTERESTING that he just fulfilled the prophecy I refered to in the previous post, that comes from the Book of Mormon. That is, our anti-mormon friend, Benji, who believes the Book of Mormon can't be true because he thinks it has no prophesies that have been fulfilled, JUST FULLFILLED THE PROPHESIES I REFERED TO IN 2 NEPHI.

Link to comment
. . If for some reason we were to consider something additional it would have to be consistent with what has already been revealed in the Bile. . .

It would be more honest to say you look for it to agree with Biblical interpretations you choose to believe based on traditions of men, and/or your own interpretation.

But that doesn't preclude other interpretations from being correct . . . even if they don't fit your expectations . .

http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/7/51-52#51

The Bible reveals that has always been so . .

Link to comment

Actually, I don't believe the BOM to be untrue for many reasons, most of which I have already posted several times on this thread and others.

As for other interpretations of the Bible, I have never argued that they are not possible but I have argued as to their validity and neither the words of Josephus nor (especially) Joseph Smith give any credibility to this issue.

I have repeatedly said on this board that not everything in the Bible can be proved by external evidence but much of it can which gives it credibility. This is not true for most Mormon writings.

Link to comment
. .I have argued as to their validity and neither the words of Josephus nor (especially) Joseph Smith give any credibility to this issue.

Thank you for proving my last point . .

I have repeatedly said on this board that not everything in the Bible can be proved by external evidence but much of it can which gives it credibility.  This is not true for most Mormon writings.

So we're back to preponderance, IYO. This is basically the same as those who asked Christ to prove His divinity by miracles, IMO.

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat
johnny_cat, actually it is more than just the New Testament telling me so. Please see this link:

http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Oh, dear. I'm not at all sure where to start with this one.

Well, let's get to the heart of the matter: fulfillment of prophecy. Here's your source:

Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill
Link to comment

The truth of the matter is that there is much evidence to give some credibility to the Book of Mormon. Obviously, Benji has not studied this very carefully before. Obviously, evidence never proves anything. Not with the Bible, and not with the Book of Mormon. Many things that appear in the Book of Mormon were unheard of in Joseph Smith's day, but have been substantiated years after it's publication. (eg. barley in America, concrete roads, names found in the Book of Mormon, etc)

Link to comment

It really comes down to this: Either the Bible is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either Jesus was who he said he was or he is not. Either the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either the Book of Abraham is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he is not. I have presented my reasons for what I believe and you have presented yours. Clearly, we have come to different conclusions and that is the privilege we have in this country. I wish you all well, even though we disagree.

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat

Here's one take on a fulfilled prophecy from Terry Eagleton's "Pedants and Partisans":

The New Testament author known as Luke is presumably aware that Jesus was actually born in Galilee. But he needs to have him born in Judea, since the Messiah is to spring from the Judea-based house of David. A Messiah born in bumpkinish Galilee would be like one born in Gary, Indiana. So Luke coolly invents a Roman census, for which there is no independent evidence, which requires everyone to return to their place of birth to be registered. Since Jesus's father Joseph comes from Bethlehem in Judea, he and his wife Mary obediently trudge off to the town, where Jesus is conveniently born.

It would be hard to think up a more ludicrous way of registering the population of the entire Roman empire than having them all return to their birthplaces. Why not just register them on the spot? The result of such a madcap scheme would have been total chaos. The traffic jams would have made Ken Livingstone's job look positively cushy. And we would almost certainly have heard about this international gridlocking from rather more disinterested witnesses than Luke. Yet fundamentalists must take Luke at his word.

How does one refute this without going solely to the Biblical text?

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat
It really comes down to this: Either the Bible is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either Jesus was who he said he was or he is not. Either the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either the Book of Abraham is the revealed word of God or it is not. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he is not. I have presented my reasons for what I believe and you have presented yours. Clearly, we have come to different conclusions and that is the privilege we have in this country. I wish you all well, even though we disagree.

Hmmm. I don't recall having presented my reasons for believing anything.

Link to comment

Benji said:

It really comes down to this:  Either the Bible is the revealed word of God or it is not. 

I say:

Logical fallacy here Benji. The logical fallacy of False Dilemma. You seem to be dictating that either all the Bible is the revealed word of God or none of it is. We must either accept all of it or none of it.

Is this what you are saying?

Link to comment

Benji, I think we have come full circle. You went from saying in essence "The Book of Mormon can't be true like the Bible because....." to "Well, the Bible is true, and I have no reason for it other than my faith, and the Book of Mormon isn't true to me, and I have no reason for it other than my faith." Interesting indeed. So, it's plausable that the Book of Mormon is true just as it is that the Bible is false? In otherwords, why do you believe the Bible is true again? Is it based on faith? If so, what is your pretense for rejecting the Book of Mormon--faith?

Link to comment

I have made my positions clear time and again on this board. After being raised in Mormonism with no spiritual satisfaction whatsoever, much confusion and researching it thoroughly I concluded it to be a false religion concocted by a false prophet. I then began a relationship with Jesus Christ which has changed my life. The research I have done since has only confirmed this relationship and affirmed that the Bible is the true word of God. Because I am a full time student (and I'm growing tired of these endless arguments which I know will never end) I now need to return to my studies. Again, I wish you all well, even though we will have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...