DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I have yet to see a rational argument for following the religion of a single 19th century man over the 1800 years of church history prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.  The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Pentecostals do not agree on much, but they all basically use the same Bible.

No, because you base your thinking on history and popularity, not reason.  This post proves it.  What is "rational" to you is what everyone else is doing.

And still, though I have asked many times, you have given me no reason to believe the bible

You should be Hindu.  More people are Hindu and the religion is older so it must be more rational.  Or Buddhist.  Or if you like old better than numbers of adherents, Zoroastrian.

Or in today's world, if you like rational how about atheism?  Lots and lots of those around.  Think how popular you would be then and you never have to think at all!!  Just believe what everyone else does!

Edited February 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The Ten Commandments forbade the use of images in worship.  Hezekiah was just following the law that they were always supposed to follow.

The houses of worship in Egypt were probably synagogues or something similar.  Synagogues did not replace the Temple in Jerusalem, but were local places of worship for when a trip to Jerusalem was not practical, or possible after 70 CE.  They did not replace the temple, like the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon.

Clear proof that the Bible is wrong because it was written by a worshiper of idols. 

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I have yet to see a rational argument for following the religion of a single 19th century man over the 1800 years of church history prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.  The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Pentecostals do not agree on much, but they all basically use the same Bible.

Um, all else being equal, rationally, the more recent the religion, the closer we can be to the revelation, with less translation, historical or cultural differences causing confusion.

That said, I believe there is spiritual value and truth present in most major religions. I'm sure that the trust in experiences of personal revelation from God contribute to that. God is merciful and gives light abundantly to those who seek Him.

 

[amo]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

1 Chronicle 6.  I suggest using the New International Version for this text.  He was a Levite assigned to the cities in Ephraim.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%206&version=KJV;NIV;RSV

I gues nowadays not only them mormons " ...believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."

 

amo

Edited February 20, 2016 by amo

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The Ten Commandments forbade the use of images in worship.  Hezekiah was just following the law that they were always supposed to follow.

So Hezekiah "brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made" (II Kings 18:4), as you have pointed out to us.  But you still have not dealt with my question of how it is that Moses becomes a heretic in your eyes:  Because, it is the Lord himself who commanded Moses to make that brazen serpent, and lifted it up, so that those who looked upon it could be healed (Numbers 21:8-9), for "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14).  You freely jettison the Messianic meaning of the Nehushtan, without a second thought.

The houses of worship in Egypt were probably synagogues or something similar.  Synagogues did not replace the Temple in Jerusalem, but were local places of worship for when a trip to Jerusalem was not practical, or possible after 70 CE.  They did not replace the temple, like the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon.

There were certainly synagogues in Egypt, just  as there were for diaspora Jews all around the Mediterranean world, but we are not talking about synagogues which were mistaken for temples.  We are discussing real Jewish temples, which functioned exactly as Jewish temples are supposed to function -- including animal sacrifices performed by Levites (and their Aaronides).  You can read about them in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri#Jewish_temple_at_Elephantine , and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Onias .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

1 Chronicle 6.  I suggest using the New International Version for this text.  He was a Levite assigned to the cities in Ephraim.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%206&version=KJV;NIV;RSV

The Persian period Chronicler put a lot of tendentious information into his text.  The far more dependable and ancient I Samuel 1 has Samuel as an Ephraimite (even in the NIV), and has his mother specially dedicating the boy to the Lord -- which is unnecessary for a priest.

Otherwise, it would make about as much sense to declare that the Levitical name Amminadab in I Chron 6 shows that Book of Mormon use of that same name proves that Levites were in the New World.

[Jim Stiles]

9 hours ago, amo said:

I gues nowadays not only them mormons " ...believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."

 

amo

It is not a translation issue, but a manuscript issue.  Some manuscripts are missing a key line.  The NIV includes the line.  The KJV, NKJV, and RSV omit the line.

[Jim Stiles]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Ten Commandments forbade the use of images in worship.  Hezekiah was just following the law that they were always supposed to follow.

So Hezekiah "brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made" (II Kings 18:4), as you have pointed out to us.  But you still have not dealt with my question of how it is that Moses becomes a heretic in your eyes:  Because, it is the Lord himself who commanded Moses to make that brazen serpent, and lifted it up, so that those who looked upon it could be healed (Numbers 21:8-9), for "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14).  You freely jettison the Messianic meaning of the Nehushtan, without a second thought.

The houses of worship in Egypt were probably synagogues or something similar.  Synagogues did not replace the Temple in Jerusalem, but were local places of worship for when a trip to Jerusalem was not practical, or possible after 70 CE.  They did not replace the temple, like the New World temple documented in the Book of Mormon.

There were certainly synagogues in Egypt, just  as there were for diaspora Jews all around the Mediterranean world, but we are not talking about synagogues which were mistaken for temples.  We are discussing real Jewish temples, which functioned exactly as Jewish temples are supposed to function -- including animal sacrifices performed by Levites (and their Aaronides).  You can read about them in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri#Jewish_temple_at_Elephantine , and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Onias .

Moses did not have the people worship the brazen serpent.  Remember, God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses who gave it to the people.  Moses would not have the people use any image in worship.

To me those temples fail the smell test.  The temple in the Land of Onias does not appear to have replaced the Jerusalem Temple, and the temple at Elephantine appears to have been a center for the henotheistic worship of Yahweh.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

It is not a translation issue, but a manuscript issue.  Some manuscripts are missing a key line.  The NIV includes the line.  The KJV, NKJV, and RSV omit the line.

But how many different Bible translations are out there that Christians use? That's what he is referring to. Other Christian faiths claim we don't trust the Bible because of our article of faith which says "we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it translated correctly". But then those same Christians, when talking about certain verses, will either use a particular Bible translation that fits their interpretation or quite often will say, "now a "better" translation of that Greek or Hebrew word would have been........." 

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by JAHS

[Jim Stiles]

9 hours ago, amo said:

Really wonder who may have gotten his/her testimony FROM "an 19th century con man"...

 

amo

Alexander Campbell?  He was not a con man.  I used to belong to a church that had historical ties to the denomination that Campbell founded.  The church was chuck full of Democrats.  I did not leave for that reason.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

It is not a translation issue, but a manuscript issue.  Some manuscripts are missing a key line.  The NIV includes the line.  The KJV, NKJV, and RSV omit the line.

Isn't the choice of what manuscript to follow a translation issue?  

[Jim Stiles]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn't the choice of what manuscript to follow a translation issue?  

It is a transmission issue.  We know what the Hebrew says, we are just not sure if it belongs or not.

[Calm]

Meaning that if one includes it or not, the choice could be an error, correct?

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

Moses did not have the people worship the brazen serpent.  Remember, God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses who gave it to the people.  Moses would not have the people use any image in worship.

Now you are starting to see the nuances I was suggesting to you.  Bravo !!

To me those temples fail the smell test.  The temple in the Land of Onias does not appear to have replaced the Jerusalem Temple, and the temple at Elephantine appears to have been a center for the henotheistic worship of Yahweh.

We're talking multiple temples, not replacements, Jim.  As for the Temple of Onias IV at Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) in Egypt, Onias IV was the rightful HP who should have been in charge in Jerusalem.  You can read about it in Josephus.  I first started reading Josephus back in 1965, and it really opened my eyes.  By the way, Josephus (Yoseph ben Mattatyahu) was a priest as well as general of the Galilean forces fighting the Romans.

 

[Jim Stiles]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning that if one includes it or not, the choice could be an error, correct?

Sure.  The inerrancy, infallibility statements in the evangelical creeds refer to the autographs of scripture.  We do not have the autographs of scripture, but what we have is pretty good.

Quote

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAPTER 1
Of the Holy Scripture

1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

Of the Old Testament...

Of the New Testament...

All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Scriptural proof texts upon request.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Jim Stiles
information had to be added to the WCF quote

[Jim Stiles]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moses did not have the people worship the brazen serpent.  Remember, God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses who gave it to the people.  Moses would not have the people use any image in worship.

Now you are starting to see the nuances I was suggesting to you.  Bravo !!

To me those temples fail the smell test.  The temple in the Land of Onias does not appear to have replaced the Jerusalem Temple, and the temple at Elephantine appears to have been a center for the henotheistic worship of Yahweh.

We're talking multiple temples, not replacements, Jim.  As for the Temple of Onias IV at Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) in Egypt, Onias IV was the rightful HP who should have been in charge in Jerusalem.  You can read about it in Josephus.  I first started reading Josephus back in 1965, and it really opened my eyes.  By the way, Josephus (Yoseph ben Mattatyahu) was a priest as well as general of the Galilean forces fighting the Romans.

We have reached the end of my knowledge of the Old Testament.  I will, however, pick up a Kindle copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

[Jim Stiles]

Randall Schanze, who I do not always agree with, has an article on the writing of the gospels that is pertinent to this conversation on the canon of scripture and may be useful.

http://mahatmarandy.net/?p=447

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

We have reached the end of my knowledge of the Old Testament.  I will, however, pick up a Kindle copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Yeh, and follow  that up with his Wars of the Jews.