Anakin7 Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) See also LDS Sentinel Kryptonian Blake Ostlers material responding to LDS critics who criticize our view of the creation Drama within our scriptures and True Doctrine that we proclaim - http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/ostler-blake Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb The Atonement It Is the Central Doctrine In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited May 22, 2016 by Anakin7
Jim Stiles Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: All horribly ambiguous. It's semantics. You do know of course that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the text is in Greek, and we are reading it in English, right? If the word was closer to "made" in Aramaic, as it is sometimes translated even in English, your whole thesis goes out the window. Did Trump "create" Trump tower? Did he "make" it? Does a sculptor "create" a sculpture? Did Disney "create" Disneyland? Do "creative" people really NOT "create"? So all of ex nihilo rests on THAT? And involving 3 different ancient languages which are so far removed in time and culture as to be practically alien? Honestly, Bro Stiles, that is a real stretch. And then we have the question of why we should trust the Bible about this in the first place when it is so full of legends, suspicious authorship, stories shown never to have happened etc etc? VERY shaky! With what would you replace the Bible with? The Book of Mormon? A document with absolutely no provenance and no evidence that it is anything other than a piece of 19th century religious fiction. A book purportedly translated from Golden Plates by looking at a seerstone in a hat. Golden Plates that no one ever saw with their natural eyes.
mfbukowski Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 38 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: With what would you replace the Bible with? The Book of Mormon? A document with absolutely no provenance and no evidence that it is anything other than a piece of 19th century religious fiction. A book purportedly translated from Golden Plates by looking at a seerstone in a hat. Golden Plates that no one ever saw with their natural eyes. I think you are quite naive about the provenance of the bible, but there is no reason to go there with you. Let me ask you a question though. Presume you got in a time machine and saw the crucixion of a person alleged to be "Jesus of Nazareth", as if he existed and we have firm evidence that he did (We do not, if one does not accept the bible as factually true) You would see a human being crucified. Horrible. What evidence would you have that your sins are now forgiven because that person died? 1
Jim Stiles Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think you are quite naive about the provenance of the bible, but there is no reason to go there with you. Let me ask you a question though. Presume you got in a time machine and saw the crucixion of a person alleged to be "Jesus of Nazareth", as if he existed and we have firm evidence that he did (We do not, if one does not accept the bible as factually true) You would see a human being crucified. Horrible. What evidence would you have that your sins are now forgiven because that person died? I would have what Jesus said and what he did. Quote Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. Quote John 20:11-16 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Quote 1 John 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
mfbukowski Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: I would have what Jesus said and what he did. Circular. Did you even read my post? 1
mfbukowski Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I would have what Jesus said and what he did. I think not. You deny the golden rule. You do unto others what you cannot handle being done unto you. That is not Christianity. You seek to induce doubt in others without even examining your own presuppositions. Again- you quote the bible as evidence for the bible's own authenticity. If I quoted the BOM as evidence for its own authenticity you would go through the roof. You say the Bible has "provenance" without even examining its provenance. And even if the bible DID have 'provenance" AND can be proven historically accurate, with a six day creation, talking donkeys, the sun stopping, and pagan Magi following a moving star which stopped over a single house in an obscure town in Palestine, seas parting, water into wine, etc etc etc- none of which can be proven to be "historical", you STILL cannot show historically that the death of a single human being on a cross 2000 years ago forgave YOUR sins and mine. All this because the bible, half of the authors of which we do not even know, has "provenance"??? Even if we doubt the Book of Mormon, at least it was written by a real person who lived 200 years ago whom many hold to be a "prophet". His prophethood can only be revealed to you personally by God himself. You are unable to LOOK at these issues while attempting to cast doubt on Mormon beliefs. THAT is not the golden rule, nor is it "Christian". 1
boblloyd91 Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: With what would you replace the Bible with? The Book of Mormon? A document with absolutely no provenance and no evidence that it is anything other than a piece of 19th century religious fiction. A book purportedly translated from Golden Plates by looking at a seerstone in a hat. Golden Plates that no one ever saw with their natural eyes. Oh you poor dear....those polemic talking points about the Book of Mormon have been refuted soundly time and time again. In fact just recently the Mormon Interpreter published an article dealing with your baseless accusations here you go: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/idle-and-slothful-strange-stories-book-of-mormon-origins-and-the-historical-record/
Jim Stiles Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Circular. Did you even read my post? You are the one who is circular. I have evidence that the people discussed in the Bible were real people. Do you have any evidence that the people in the Book of Mormon were real people? How about the proof that the Book Abraham is nothing like what it claims to be?
mfbukowski Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 9 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: Oh you poor dear....those polemic talking points about the Book of Mormon have been refuted soundly time and time again. In fact just recently the Mormon Interpreter published an article dealing with your baseless accusations here you go: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/idle-and-slothful-strange-stories-book-of-mormon-origins-and-the-historical-record/ Agree. There is no point in carrying on with someone who does not understand your arguments. He makes no response, he just keeps shoveling recycled rubbish. 1
Jim Stiles Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 9 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: Oh you poor dear....those polemic talking points about the Book of Mormon have been refuted soundly time and time again. In fact just recently the Mormon Interpreter published an article dealing with your baseless accusations here you go: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/idle-and-slothful-strange-stories-book-of-mormon-origins-and-the-historical-record/ Quote Abstract: From the very beginning, Joseph’s story about the origins of the Book of Mormon seemed wild and unbelievable. Today, however, Joseph’s account enjoys a high degree of corroboration from (1) eyewitness accounts confirming Joseph’s possession of actual metal plates and other artifacts, with some even corroborating the involvement of an angel in providing access to the record; (2) eyewitness reports on the process of producing the text; and (3) evidence from the original manuscript. This evidence is reviewed here, and the implications it has for the Book of Mormon’s origin are considered. The eyewitness accounts did not even get the weight of the plates correct. The eyewitness accounts for the production of the text do not jive with the many changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon by the LDS church over the years. Especially the changes made to remove racist content from the Book of Mormon.
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think not. You deny the golden rule. You do unto others what you cannot handle being done unto you. That is not Christianity. You seek to induce doubt in others without even examining your own presuppositions. If I had cancer, especially a curable cancer, then I would want someone to tell me. Quote Again- you quote the bible as evidence for the bible's own authenticity. If I quoted the BOM as evidence for its own authenticity you would go through the roof. You say the Bible has "provenance" without even examining its provenance. We have 5,686 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We are certain of approximately 99.5% of the words of the New Testament. https://C***.org/manuscript-evidence Quote And even if the bible DID have 'provenance" AND can be proven historically accurate, with a six day creation, talking donkeys, the sun stopping, and pagan Magi following a moving star which stopped over a single house in an obscure town in Palestine, seas parting, water into wine, etc etc etc- none of which can be proven to be "historical", you STILL cannot show historically that the death of a single human being on a cross 2000 years ago forgave YOUR sins and mine. I cannot prove that the Bible is true. I also cannot prove that Barack Obama is president of the United States. However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the first two sentences of this paragraph are true statements. There is none such evidence for the Book of Mormon. Quote All this because the bible, half of the authors of which we do not even know, has "provenance"??? Yes. Quote Even if we doubt the Book of Mormon, at least it was written by a real person who lived 200 years ago whom many hold to be a "prophet". His prophethood can only be revealed to you personally by God himself. Yes, Joseph Smith Jr. was a real 19th century confidence man. Quote You are unable to LOOK at these issues while attempting to cast doubt on Mormon beliefs. Do you want to compare and contrast the characters of Christ Jesus and Joseph Smith Jr.? Quote THAT is not the golden rule, nor is it "Christian". I seek after truth. Mormons cannot say the same.
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said: We have 5,686 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We are certain of approximately 99.5% of the words of the New Testament. Since CARM's web site is censored, let me expand the section on the provenance of the New Testament. New Testament Date Written: A.D. 50-100 Earliest Copy: c. A.D. 130 Time Span between Original & Copy: <100 years Number of Copies: 5600 Textural Purity: 99.5%
3DOP Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: The eyewitness accounts did not even get the weight of the plates correct. The eyewitness accounts for the production of the text do not jive with the many changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon by the LDS church over the years. Especially the changes made to remove racist content from the Book of Mormon. changed my mind about posting. Rory Edited May 23, 2016 by 3DOP
boblloyd91 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: If I had cancer, especially a curable cancer, then I would want someone to tell me. We have 5,686 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We are certain of approximately 99.5% of the words of the New Testament. https://C***.org/manuscript-evidence I cannot prove that the Bible is true. I also cannot prove that Barack Obama is president of the United States. However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the first two sentences of this paragraph are true statements. There is none such evidence for the Book of Mormon. Yes. Yes, Joseph Smith Jr. was a real 19th century confidence man. Do you want to compare and contrast the characters of Christ Jesus and Joseph Smith Jr.? I seek after truth. Mormons cannot say the same. In reading your responses Jim, the evidence actually shows that your "truth seeking" is little more then ad hominem attacks, relying on straw men, and repeating your assumptions loudly and repetitively while ignoring any responses from active Latter Day Saints who have also sought the truth. Unfortunately you are more content to poison the well instead of acknowledge that people have looked at the history of the Church and studied the Book of Mormon and found things that point to Mormonism being more then just a 19th century fraud as you so loudly bellow. It boggles my mind that you would say something as insulting as that Mormons suppress the truth on purpose. You have no idea of the spiritual journey of me or other active Latter Day Saints, but then again I don't think anyone here on this board has accused you yet of being a thoughtful and intelligent poster! In response to comparing Jesus and Joseph, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no comparison, as the Savior is the Son of God and is our Savior and Redeemer. Any Latter Day Saint would agree with that. I hope you're not under the delusion that you think we worship Joseph and hold him equal with the Savior.... 4
boblloyd91 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The eyewitness accounts did not even get the weight of the plates correct. The eyewitness accounts for the production of the text do not jive with the many changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon by the LDS church over the years. Especially the changes made to remove racist content from the Book of Mormon. 😂 that's your response to that article!?! Before I go further I must say that I love the bible, and read it daily, however if you think the bible is free from some of the issues the Book of Mormon also has then you are fooling yourself. The bible has been manipulated in translation by Evangelicals to more fully conform to their Theological views. Look no further then the NIV, the ESV and the Scofield bible... 1
3DOP Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: 😂 that's your response to that article!?! Before I go further I must say that I love the bible, and read it daily, however if you think the bible is free from some of the issues the Book of Mormon also has then you are fooling yourself. The bible has been manipulated in translation by Evangelicals to more fully conform to their Theological views. Look no further then the NIV, the ESV and the Scofield bible... Hey Bob Lloyd. First...Let me commend you again for ridding yourself of one of the most grotesque avatars to have been seen on these pages, for one that is the very opposite. I need to update my own one of these days. Maybe I should go for one of my kids when they were little? From one who used two well bound Scofield BIbles until they fell apart, it is simply a dispensational commentary on the King James Version. It is not a translation, and the commentary is not likely to be defended by Jim Stiles who is far from dispensational. What is the ESV? Edited May 23, 2016 by 3DOP 3
Anakin7 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Since CARM's web site is censored, let me expand the section on the provenance of the New Testament. New Testament Date Written: A.D. 50-100 Earliest Copy: c. A.D. 130 Time Span between Original & Copy: <100 years Number of Copies: 5600 Textural Purity: 99.5% A number of years ago I invited a few LDS Missionaries to The Claremont California Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center located on the campus of The Claremont School of Theology [A Methodist Seminary]. Mike Phelps the Director of the center there [ A Baptist] gave a 1 hr presentation on the ancient Bible manuscripts to us. At the end during a Q and A I asked him if the # of 99.5% was correct that is presented in theological publications concerning the Bible's accuracy. He stated no that the number is actually closer to 85 %. From my understanding he has read and seen the manuscripts [ They Have them copied on micro fish air filtered/conditioned vault there ]. I find this of interest to the knowledgable individuals who are fair and even minded about this. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine Washing My robes in the Blood Of The lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 1
mfbukowski Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I seek after truth. Mormons cannot say the same. Personal attack to most of the people here. Your Christianity is showing again. 2
mfbukowski Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 31 minutes ago, Anakin7 said: A number of years ago I invited a few LDS Missionaries to The Claremont California Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center located on the campus of The Claremont School of Theology [A Methodist Seminary]. Mike Phelps the Director of the center there [ A Baptist] gave a 1 hr presentation on the ancient Bible manuscripts to us. At the end during a Q and A I asked him if the # of 99.5% was correct that is presented in theological publications concerning the Bible's accuracy. He stated no that the number is actually closer to 85 %. From my understanding he has read and seen the manuscripts [ They Have them copied on micro fish air filtered/conditioned vault there ]. I find this of interest to the knowledgable individuals who are fair and even minded about this. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine Washing My robes in the Blood Of The lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 I have no clue what this even means So there is an 85% chance that the earth is 6000 years old, that the sun stops occasionally, that donkeys talk, that stars lead people to a particular house and stay over that particular house, that Moses parted the sea, that the Exodus really happened along with a global flood and fitting 2 of each species into a boat, that there is scientific evidence for the resurrection and... what else?
boblloyd91 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 2 hours ago, 3DOP said: Hey Bob Lloyd. First...Let me commend you again for ridding yourself of one of the most grotesque avatars to have been seen on these pages, for one that is the very opposite. I need to update my own one of these days. Maybe I should go for one of my kids when they were little? From one who used two well bound Scofield BIbles until they fell apart, it is simply a dispensational commentary on the King James Version. It is not a translation, and the commentary is not likely to be defended by Jim Stiles who is far from dispensational. What is the ESV? The ESV is the English Standard Version favored by those with Calvinist leanings as it tends to use wording that is amenable to Calvinist doctrine. What I was pointing out to Jim is that different bible versions are developed often with a certain preconceived notion. I mentioned the NIV as a prime example of this. See NT Wright's remarks about the NIV for further discussion. I felt Jim was being hypocritical for criticisms of LDS scriptural changes when there are numerous translations and revisions of the bible (along with a myriad of interpretations and commentaries). Thanks for bringing me up to par on the Scofield version, as I was under the assumption it was a translation rather than simply a commentary 1
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 5 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: 😂 that's your response to that article!?! Before I go further I must say that I love the bible, and read it daily, however if you think the bible is free from some of the issues the Book of Mormon also has then you are fooling yourself. The bible has been manipulated in translation by Evangelicals to more fully conform to their Theological views. Look no further then the NIV, the ESV and the Scofield bible... That was my response to the abstract of the article. The article was too long for me to respond to, so I responded to the abstract of the article. I use the KJV almost exclusively here to avoid one more argument. The NIV is a good comic book Bible. If all that one reads is comic books, then the NIV is a good version to use. I would recommend it to children. I do not use Schofield's notes. Some of his notes are useful, but Schofield's general scheme is a terrible manipulation of scripture. I have a physical copy of the ESV Bible. It seems to be OK, but I prefer the NKJV.
saemo Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) On 5/18/2016 at 8:33 AM, RevTestament said: I just wanted your take on that particular one from Acts because I believe it is one of the clearest. So from your response I take it you view that particular restoration as a restoration of the number of people before the Savior returns? or does a "restoration of all things" talk about a restoration of gospel principles as "things" - priesthood, etc? Well, the only other group I know of with any prohibition on marriage who could be described as departing from the faith were the Shakers - which appear to have lasted not very long... I wonder how you personally reconcile the verses of 1 Timothy 3 which says a bishop should have a wife. Do you feel that has anything to do with being able to judge how he oversees his family? "4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" In other words a man who is not a good family man should not be called as a bishop... it seems to be saying. Just wondered your thoughts on that. Restoration of all things, is in reference to the second coming, as alluded to in verse 20. I understand it as council against selecting men with more than one wife, not selecting men who are married. I wonder how you reconcile 1 Timothy 3 and historical polygamy? Edited May 23, 2016 by saemo 2
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 5 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: In reading your responses Jim, the evidence actually shows that your "truth seeking" is little more then ad hominem attacks, relying on straw men, and repeating your assumptions loudly and repetitively while ignoring any responses from active Latter Day Saints who have also sought the truth. Unfortunately you are more content to poison the well instead of acknowledge that people have looked at the history of the Church and studied the Book of Mormon and found things that point to Mormonism being more then just a 19th century fraud as you so loudly bellow. It boggles my mind that you would say something as insulting as that Mormons suppress the truth on purpose. You have no idea of the spiritual journey of me or other active Latter Day Saints, but then again I don't think anyone here on this board has accused you yet of being a thoughtful and intelligent poster! In response to comparing Jesus and Joseph, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no comparison, as the Savior is the Son of God and is our Savior and Redeemer. Any Latter Day Saint would agree with that. I hope you're not under the delusion that you think we worship Joseph and hold him equal with the Savior.... Romans 1:18-23. Every unregenerated person subconsciously represses the truth of God that is available to them. There is one quote by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses that suggests that the imprimatur of Joseph Smith Jr. may be needed to access the Celestial Kingdom. Make of that what one will. I should have said Joseph Smith Jr. and Paul of Tarsus, but we know so much more about Joseph Smith Jr. than we do of St. Paul.
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 3 hours ago, boblloyd91 said: The ESV is the English Standard Version favored by those with Calvinist leanings as it tends to use wording that is amenable to Calvinist doctrine. What I was pointing out to Jim is that different bible versions are developed often with a certain preconceived notion. I mentioned the NIV as a prime example of this. See NT Wright's remarks about the NIV for further discussion. I felt Jim was being hypocritical for criticisms of LDS scriptural changes when there are numerous translations and revisions of the bible (along with a myriad of interpretations and commentaries). Thanks for bringing me up to par on the Scofield version, as I was under the assumption it was a translation rather than simply a commentary If the ESV is amenable to Calvinist doctrine, then so is the NKJV and the KJV. I personally do not trust N.T. Wright when it comes to understanding Paul, but I see what he says about the NIV's handling of Romans 3. The NIV has its problems in Genesis as well. Other people have slammed the NIV for other reasons as well. http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/nt-wright-slams-the-niv/
Jim Stiles Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 5 hours ago, Anakin7 said: A number of years ago I invited a few LDS Missionaries to The Claremont California Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center located on the campus of The Claremont School of Theology [A Methodist Seminary]. Mike Phelps the Director of the center there [ A Baptist] gave a 1 hr presentation on the ancient Bible manuscripts to us. At the end during a Q and A I asked him if the # of 99.5% was correct that is presented in theological publications concerning the Bible's accuracy. He stated no that the number is actually closer to 85 %. From my understanding he has read and seen the manuscripts [ They Have them copied on micro fish air filtered/conditioned vault there ]. I find this of interest to the knowledgable individuals who are fair and even minded about this. The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine Washing My robes in the Blood Of The lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 I have heard both the 85% and the 99.5% numbers before. I did not personally make the calculations to arrive at either figure. CARM also gives a textural purity of 95% for Homer's Iliad. I figure the same calculation was made for the Bible and the Iliad. Daniel Wallace quoted the 85% figure in a debate with Bart Ehrman. During this debate Ehrman admitted that none of the uncertain parts of the New Testament have any relevance for the major doctrines of Christianity.
Recommended Posts