RevTestament Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 12 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: You're certainly entitled to that opinion. And I wish you well with that. Meanwhile, the JST for the adjoining chapter (Rev 12), proffered that at least in *that* section of the Book of Revelation, the 1260 days were instead meant to be understood as 1260 *years*. I agree that in Rev 12 the 1260 days refers to years, but perhaps you should wonder why JS didn't say that about Rev 11. Again the two witnesses are literal, and are also referenced in Zechariah 4: 11 ¶Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? 12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves? 13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord. 14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. Obviously, they don't live for 1260 years. Not every phrase that says "days" means years. Peter said that a day is as a thousand years to the Lord, which is another prophetic key. Quote Again, I invite careful side-by-side comparison between Daniel 8 (an 1844 timeline) and Revelation 11 (another 1844 timeline). The law of witnesses required two or three witnesses to establish anything, and per the Bible, when it comes to *the timing* for the event intended to prepare a people for Christ's return, the restitution/Restoration of all things mentioned in Acts, those witnesses were Daniel/Gabriel, and John. Daniel 11 is not a timeline to 1844 either. It too ends with a resurrection. I don't know anyone else in the church besides you who believes a resurrection happened then. Nor did the great day of trouble start prophesied in Daniel 12. Rather, the prophesy keys to the 7th seal, in which the keys to the resurrection are turned again. "But the rest of the dead shall not live again until the thousand years are finished. This is the first resurrection." D & C squarely puts JS in the sixth seal covenant.
waveslider Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Well I can say with certainty that members of my own family would not read any book on the gospel that was not published by the Church or Deseret Book or related companies. I once suggested we watch God's Army and they refused because it was about the Church but not made by the Church. I agree that the Church doesn't restrict its members reading materials, but there are members who believe that to be the case that don't only exist in legend. I remember when we were told in church to use discretion when referencing passages from the, "Chicken Soup For The Soul," series of books, because while they had a lot of good things within them, they weren't approved gospel doctrine by the church officials and to use discernment when citing references from them for talks and things. This was done because so many people were reading them, and it wasn't frowned upon at all, except when people started to use them as authoritative material for doctrinal principles.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 Does the Bible say it's OK to read the Bible?
Bobbieaware Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) On 9/16/2016 at 2:56 PM, Christian Mormon said: I wish I could find in the Bible where it is okay to read the book of Mormon. My relative says that she will only read the book of Mormon if the Bible tells her it's okay to read it. I would tell her the Bible prophesies (Revelation 11) there will two prophets who will teach and prophesy in Jerusalem just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. If she follows her own rules, of necessity, she will have to reject everything these two prophets of the Lord will preach and testify because, by her own admission, the only revelations she can pay any attention to are already in the Bible. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. (Revelation 11) Edited September 18, 2016 by Bobbieaware
notHagoth7 Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: I agree that in Rev 12 the 1260 days refers to years.... OK, so we have common ground for a starting point. 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: ...but perhaps you should wonder why JS didn't say that about Rev 11... I did once. Answer: agency. 1. As Joseph explained: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” 2. Also: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.26-28?lang=eng#25 So Joseph taught a true principle about a day/year correlation in prophecy. (He didn't spell out every jot and tittle of prophecy in every chapter.) Therefore, what each person then chooses to do with that principle, and where/how one chooses to apply it becomes a matter of agency. 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Again the two witnesses are literal, and are also referenced in Zechariah 4... Agreed. And the implications of that correlation are much more far reaching than most might imagine. 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Obviously, they don't live for 1260 years.... Agreed. Rev 11 does *not* claim that they would live for 1260 years. But Rev 11 instead illustrates that they would live up until the end of 1260. A distinct difference. In other words, Revelation provides the timeline for their martrydom, rather than the duration of their ministry, which is why I specifically mentioned earlier that the word "for" in the common English translation does not exist in the Greek - but is instead a gloss that distorts from the passage's meaning. Again, Rev 11 simply says that the two witnesses would live up until they completed their testimony...the end of the 1260. 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Not every phrase that says "days" means years.... Agreed completely. Not *every* phrase does. However, the exception is that in *apocalyptic* literature, such as in Daniel, Revelation, and Ezekiel, such phrases generally *do* mean years. Edited September 18, 2016 by notHagoth7
notHagoth7 Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, RevTestament said: ...Daniel 11 is not a timeline to 1844 either.... Daniel 11? For clarity, did you instead mean Daniel 8? Or Rev 11? Either way, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that one (or both) of them did *not* foretell 1844. 7 hours ago, RevTestament said: ...It too ends with a resurrection. I don't know anyone else in the church besides you who believes a resurrection happened then. Pardon? I am *not* of the opinion that the three main passages I referred to *are* speaking of a literal resurrection. Instead, I respectfully disagree with your literal interpretation of that symbolic passage, just as I disagree with your claim that I have asserted that the timeline ends with a resurrection. 7 hours ago, RevTestament said: Nor did the great day of trouble start prophesied in Daniel 12. Rather, the prophesy keys to the 7th seal, in which the keys to the resurrection are turned again. "But the rest of the dead shall not live again until the thousand years are finished. This is the first resurrection." D & C squarely puts JS in the sixth seal covenant. Once again, you've misunderstood and misconstrued my meaning. IIRC, I made *no* assertion in this thread about the 7th seal. Nor did I insist that Joseph was resurrected in 1844. Nor did I say anything yet about the foretold time of trouble. Edited September 19, 2016 by notHagoth7
notHagoth7 Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time have different reckonings. Pondering/fathoming angel's time and prophet's time is central to objections some are having here. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.4?lang=eng#3 Edited September 18, 2016 by notHagoth7 1
notHagoth7 Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 I am done commenting in this thread. Again, per the OP, the second witness of Christ (the Nephite record), the Restoration, and Joseph's ministry were all foretold. It is beyond OK to read the Book of Mormon.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 13 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: 1. The early Restoration was contemporary with the Ottoman Empire, and John's intended audience (the churches of Asia Minor) lived under the flag of that same Empire. In my view, those are two very real and concrete connections when reflecting on the intended latter-day meaning of such things. 2. In addition to the clarity proffered by Joseph in the JST that the 1260 days in Rev 12 were meant to be understood as 1260 *years*, (a view shared over the years by millions of non-LDS Bible believers), a latter-day apostle descended from Hyrum built further upon Joseph's foundation by specifically stating/publishing that the 1260 years were meant to be understood as years that were based upon a 354-day lunar calendar. I don't know whether you find such testimony helpful, given your ?aversion? to granting merit/consideration to the latter-day history/culture of Asia Minor. As I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with anyone pursuing this interesting line of inquiry and correlation. I simply don't buy it as valid, and prefer the far more fecund Jewish calendric correlations. 13 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: Perhaps this line of thought may be better suited to benefit those outside our faith, rather than those within. I respect whatever you choose to believe in such matters, and whatever John Pratt chooses to write relating to Jewish-calendrical correlations. I sincerely wish you well with your views. That said, when it comes to timelines in Revelation, things such as those cited from a latter-day prophet and from a latter-day apostle carry *much* greater weight with me. .................... In my experience in the church, 1. Lehi's 600-year Messianic timeline gets a fair amount of air time. 2. Same for Samuel the Lamanite's 5-year timeline. 3. There's also the 400-year timeframe foretold by both Alma and Samuel the Lamanite. But that doesn't get mentioned near as often. In Sunday School today, the 5-year and 400-year timeframes were mentioned, but the large class I was in was (apparently) wholly ignorant of the 600-year timeline, and the teacher was specifically asking for something along those lines. I didn't bother to reply. Only a small minority of Mormons are at all aware of the systematic BofM chronology, and even John Pratt has problems understanding it. The sweep of it is far more grand that nearly anyone imagines. 13 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: So the Nephite precedent for prophetic timelines in scripture is clearly there. And is even in our lesson manuals. Meanwhile, few Mormons have yet considered that the stick of Judah might also bear similar timelines related to the latter-day kingdom of God...let alone what such things might mean for hastening the work. Perhaps so, but I am not impressed with what our lessons manuals say about it.
Gervin Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/17/2016 at 5:21 PM, Robert F. Smith said: In the Bible bashes I have witnessed, the Mormons very quickly dominated and humiliated their opponents. What is a Bible bash? Is the goal to humiliate an opponent?
boblloyd91 Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, Gervin said: What is a Bible bash? Is the goal to humiliate an opponent? Pretty much.
Gervin Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: Pretty much. That makes sense; I figured Robert F. Smith was gloating.
Five Solas Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 29 minutes ago, Gervin said: What is a Bible bash? Is the goal to humiliate an opponent? Robert F. Smith owes us a link or two to demonstrate his previous claim on the thread--"Bible bashes I have witnessed, the Mormons very quickly dominated and humiliated their opponents." But he sure doesn't seem to be in any hurry himself... ;0) --Erik
boblloyd91 Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gervin said: That makes sense; I figured Robert F. Smith was gloating. To be fair, in my experience it's almost always Evangelicals who are the aggressors. 3
Atheist Mormon Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/16/2016 at 1:56 PM, Christian Mormon said: I wish I could find in the Bible where it is okay to read the book of Mormon. My relative says that she will only read the book of Mormon if the Bible tells her it's okay to read it. I wish I could understand what is so big deal about reading Bible, since it was unavailable to humans 99% of their civilized life.
waveslider Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: To be fair, in my experience it's almost always Evangelicals who are the aggressors. That was very true with my experience as well, that is why it was addicting to actually be able to put them in their place using the very Bible they were trying to use to discredit us. I had to beware of pride. The problem was that if you just bashed them on their terms, they would be trying to throw multiple scriptures and ideas at the same time and the pace was so frantic that it was always an argument. This is why I really loved to slow the bash down to a civil discussion right off the bat. Then it at least felt like a teaching moment rather than just putting someone back in their place. 1
Gervin Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 31 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: To be fair, in my experience it's almost always Evangelicals who are the aggressors. I still dont know what a Bible bash is - or the rules.
waveslider Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 52 minutes ago, Five Solas said: Robert F. Smith owes us a link or two to demonstrate his previous claim on the thread--"Bible bashes I have witnessed, the Mormons very quickly dominated and humiliated their opponents." But he sure doesn't seem to be in any hurry himself... ;0) --Erik There are a few ex preachers in Kentucky that now have a testimony of the BOM, and Joseph Smith, that I have personally engaged with, when I used James 1:19-20 as the very first scripture rather than the one that they wanted to use first. 1
Stargazer Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/16/2016 at 0:35 PM, Christian Mormon said: She says that Revelations says that you're not supposed to add to or take away from. But I already know all the answers to that. I was hoping there was something that says it's okay to add scripture. Deuteronomy 4:2 says the same thing as Rev 22:18 If Deuteronomy 4:2 meant everything after Deuteronomy was adding to the word of God, all you'd have left would be the Pentateuch. In fact, Rev 22:18 abjures men from adding or taking away from the Book of Revelation. GOD, on the other hand, can do as He pleases. 1
boblloyd91 Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 27 minutes ago, Gervin said: I still dont know what a Bible bash is - or the rules. That's a good question. Basically it's when two different Christian denominations fight over whose interpretation is correct regarding the bible. As far as rules, I don't think that's possible as both sides often have completely different rules of how to interpret the bible (such as sola Scriptura, the magisterium, patristics, etc.) As others have said they are unproductive and create an atmosphere of contention and bad feeling. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Gervin said: What is a Bible bash? Is the goal to humiliate an opponent? A puerile and silly contest in which Bible thumpers try to outdo each other in Scripture mastery. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: Robert F. Smith owes us a link or two to demonstrate his previous claim on the thread--"Bible bashes I have witnessed, the Mormons very quickly dominated and humiliated their opponents." But he sure doesn't seem to be in any hurry himself... ;0) --Erik How do you imagine that we should recreate those Bible bashes which several of us here have witnessed or participated in during years past, Erik?? They weren't videotaped or filmed. However, one indicator of this is independent research showing that Mormons know the Bible better than evangelicals. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home/50374273-76/bible-religion-survey-atheists.html.csp (the names of Jim Faulconer and Richard Evans are misspelled), and http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ . 2
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Gervin said: That makes sense; I figured Robert F. Smith was gloating. Evil thinks as evil does.
Gervin Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Evil thinks as evil does. you were chastising Mormons? good, I have a higher opinion of you now ..,
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: There is no such such thing as completely accurate calendar. SEE http://wolfishmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/accuracy-or-lack-thereof-of-jewish.html Depends on what standard of accuracy you are holding any given calendar. However, of all the calendars of mankind, the Maya had the most precise and complex calendar of all.
Recommended Posts