RevTestament Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 In an old thread Tony Frank said: Quote Putting this out there for discussion. I know this is a long post, but I say that anyone who believes the Bible and believes in Jesus Christ, and who carefully reads this post, will know that the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is the word of God. (If you are a faithful Latter-day Saint, you will really like this post.) In the Bible, 1 John, chapter 4, we can clearly read the criteria for true prophets and false in verses 1-3: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” Now that we know God’s criteria for knowing true prophets from false prophets, let’s see if the Book of Mormon prophets confess that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” 600 years before the coming of the Savior, a Book of Mormon prophet named Nephi wrote that the Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken was the Son of God, and he declared, “The way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world if it so be that they repent and come unto him.” Lehi, another prophet, told his son Jacob, “There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. “Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.” Nephi prophesied to his people, “Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days, he shall rise from the dead with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day and my heart doth magnify his holy name. “For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. While I don't believe that simply affirming that our Savior is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High, makes one a prophet, nor one's words "scripture" I do believe that it is biblical evidence that one is not of the adversary or antichrist. For example just because the Urantia Book affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, does not make the Urantia Book scripture. It so happens the Urantia Book denies the efficaciousness of Christ's atonement. The Qu'ran says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, but denies He died on the cross for us, and denies that He is the Son of God. To say that God has a Son is to commit "shirk" in Islam. So again scripture must be read in its full context. However, in all particulars the Book of Mormon does meet the various tests put forth in the Bible. It affirms that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Most High. It affirms His atonement, and His teachings. So although it is not "proof" that the BoM is scripture, it is Biblical support that the BoM is scripture. Are there any others? Why yes: Ez 37: 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, andwrite upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 18 ¶And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? 19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 20 ¶And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and willcleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. Is 29: 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. 13 ¶Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips dohonour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. 15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? 16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? 17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? 18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of thebook, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. 22 Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the Godof Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. John 10:16 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 3 Nephi 15:21 21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. What others are there?
Abulafia Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) I'd say, yes, you can apply those passages to the Book of Mormon, just as the early followers applied Hebrew scripture to Jesus, but there are also contemporary explanations in terms of the author's intent and purpose. So, your first reference was most likely in reference to the Docetists, and thus 1 John reflects and is arguing against a particular theological view about who Jesus was, and when he became God if you like. Edited December 7, 2016 by Abulafia 2
Gray Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 I think what you mean is these are Biblical interpretations in support of the Book of Mormon. And these are quite specifically Mormon interpretations. 1
bluebell Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: I think what you mean is these are Biblical interpretations in support of the Book of Mormon. And these are quite specifically Mormon interpretations. What is the non-lds interpretation of John 10:16 and Isa. 29:11? I've never read them and it would be really interesting to know. 1
rodheadlee Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: What is the non-lds interpretation of John 10:16 and Isa. 29:11? I've never read them and it would be really interesting to know. John 10:16 as taught to me by Evs refers to the Lost 10 tribes of Israel.
Gray Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: What is the non-lds interpretation of John 10:16 and Isa. 29:11? I've never read them and it would be really interesting to know. Here's some context for Isaiah 29. In context it doesn't read like a prophesy for the BOM. Of course Matthew prooftexted Isaiah in the same way that Mormons prooftext Isaiah, so this kind of thing is nothing new: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N04_197.pdf Quote Isaiah 29:9-16: Isaiah's responsibility is to a recalcitrant people, and the rhetoric of his divine commission in chapter 6 paints them as unrepentant. Isaiah is there told to say to the people: "Indeed listen, but do 36. On this chapter and First Isaiah, see Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (New Century Bible; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980); Joseph Jensen and William H. Irwin, "Isaiah 1-39," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown et al. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 229-48; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974); Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1-39 (Interpretation Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993); Gerald T. Sheppard, "Isaiah 1-39," Harper's Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays et al. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 542-70; Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 16; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 28-39 (Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament X/l-3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982). 37. For critically reading the events of these chapters as a single event, see Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor Bible 11; [New York]: Doubleday, 1988), 223-51. 38. See Theodore J. Lewis, "Dead, Abode of the," Anchor Bible Dictionary, 2:101-105. 198 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought not understand; indeed look, but do not comprehend"; God then tells Isaiah directly to "Make that people's mind heavy, stop its ears, and close its eyes, lest when they look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, they comprehend, repent, and are saved" (6:9-10; compare 28:11-12). Chapter 29 similarly tells the people to be stupefied and blind (v. 9) and explains that God has spread over them a "spirit of deep sleep, [he] has shut your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers" (v. 10). This blindness and repression of revelation is compared in a simile to a document which is sealed. This probably refers to the practice in biblical antiquity of rolling or folding a document, wrapping it with string, and affixing a clay seal to prevent tampering (compare 1 Kgs. 21:8; Jer. 32:10-14). The simile emphasizes the lack of legibility or accessibility in two ways: a person who knows how to read cannot read it because the document cannot be opened, and a person who does not know how to read cannot read the document at all, sealed or open. This simile is not a prophecy, but simply a figure of speech to emphasize the spiritual blindness of Isaiah's people already set out in vv. 9-10. The simile makes perfect sense in the Isaiah context and therefore appears to be its original formulation I believe John 10:16 is commonly interpreted to be referring to the gentiles. From a spiritual perspective, scripture can of course be interpreted any which way that supports the spiritual quest. The likely intent of the author isn't important in that sense. 1
RevTestament Posted December 7, 2016 Author Posted December 7, 2016 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: John 10:16 as taught to me by Evs refers to the Lost 10 tribes of Israel. There is evidence that Deut has been slightly altered by the post_Yeshua Jews because the Septuagint and a Qumran fragment support a version which seems to indicate that YHWH as a son of Elohim inherits Israel, while other sons of Elohim the Most High inherit the other nations. If accepted, this tends to support the view that Jesus' statement is specifically regarding His inheritance of the tribes of Israel rather than all the Gentiles.
snowflake Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: In an old thread Tony Frank said: While I don't believe that simply affirming that our Savior is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High, makes one a prophet, nor one's words "scripture" I do believe that it is biblical evidence that one is not of the adversary or antichrist. For example just because the Urantia Book affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, does not make the Urantia Book scripture. It so happens the Urantia Book denies the efficaciousness of Christ's atonement. The Qu'ran says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, but denies He died on the cross for us, and denies that He is the Son of God. To say that God has a Son is to commit "shirk" in Islam. So again scripture must be read in its full context. However, in all particulars the Book of Mormon does meet the various tests put forth in the Bible. It affirms that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Most High. It affirms His atonement, and His teachings. So although it is not "proof" that the BoM is scripture, it is Biblical support that the BoM is scripture. Are there any others? Why yes: Ez 37: 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, andwrite upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 18 ¶And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? 19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 20 ¶And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and willcleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. Is 29: 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. 13 ¶Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips dohonour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. 15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? 16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? 17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? 18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of thebook, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. 22 Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the Godof Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. John 10:16 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 3 Nephi 15:21 21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. What others are there? Great post!, one question I have for you is: What does it mean when it says "Jesus is come in the Flesh"? The way I look at it, is to cross reference John chapter 1. John 1 tells us "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God" and that "the word became flesh and dwelt among us", in other words, God himself became Flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus (Ev's view). This is actually something that is denied by the LDS faith if I am correct? The LDS believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God (literal child offspring), not that God became flesh and dwelt among us (EV's view). So your statement above that the bible proves the LDS view of "Jesus is come in the flesh" in fact not correct when looked at closely.
Abulafia Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) Bluebell, I don't know if this will help, but the references in 1 John have been discussed by Bart Ehrman in his book 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'. Here's the link.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NHIBM3p83UcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=1 John 4&f=false If you go to p 125 that has one explanation for the information you are looking for. Edited December 7, 2016 by Abulafia 2
RevTestament Posted December 7, 2016 Author Posted December 7, 2016 39 minutes ago, snowflake said: Great post!, one question I have for you is: What does it mean when it says "Jesus is come in the Flesh"? The way I look at it, is to cross reference John chapter 1. John 1 tells us "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God" and that "the word became flesh and dwelt among us", in other words, God himself became Flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus (Ev's view). This is actually something that is denied by the LDS faith if I am correct? The LDS believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God (literal child offspring), not that God became flesh and dwelt among us (EV's view). Thank you for your compliment - quite refreshing! While the statements of some GAs might be interpreted this way, I don't accept that Yeshua was somehow a literal offspring of Elohim by the flesh. In other words I don't believe that the Most High took Mary to wife. Yeshua became the Son of God by the oath of the Father as Hebrews says. In other words "the Son" is a priesthood office which Yeshua was begotten into after being made perfect as Hebrews says. In other words the relationship of the Father and Begotten Son is one of covenant and not physical flesh. Here the scriptures prove the Nicene Creed is wrong to infer that Yeshua was begotten "before all ages/worlds." Before the "day" when He was begotten, He was like us. The OT says Jesus was already Elohim. In fact I believe Genesis 3 :22 shows He was in the beginning of the world already known as YHWH Elohim with the Father. Did El Elyon, become flesh, and come to earth? NO. Only the Father is El Elyon the Most High Power/El. The traditional trinitarian view makes a revealing scriptural error here. Luke tells us Yeshua is the Son of the Most High. There is no scripture calling Yeshua the Most High El. In fact the creeds again mix this up by referring to the Father as El Shaddai, when in fact this is Jesus appearing to Abram. So did YHWH Elohim come to earth in the flesh? Yes, but only Yeshua is being referred to here. El Elyon, who is also YHWH Elohim, did not come to this earth "in the flesh" except as a visitor. Whether His corporeal form includes the scriptural meaning of "flesh" is doubtful. He is not a mortal man, although we are in his form in appearance. Quote So your statement above that the bible proves the LDS view of "Jesus is come in the flesh" in fact not correct when looked at closely. That is not my statement. I am in fact saying the Bible cannot "prove" the Book of Mormon. What I am saying is that the Biblical statement is evidence or support for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
snowflake Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 36 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Thank you for your compliment - quite refreshing! While the statements of some GAs might be interpreted this way, I don't accept that Yeshua was somehow a literal offspring of Elohim by the flesh. In other words I don't believe that the Most High took Mary to wife. Yeshua became the Son of God by the oath of the Father as Hebrews says. In other words "the Son" is a priesthood office which Yeshua was begotten into after being made perfect as Hebrews says. In other words the relationship of the Father and Begotten Son is one of covenant and not physical flesh. Here the scriptures prove the Nicene Creed is wrong to infer that Yeshua was begotten "before all ages/worlds." Before the "day" when He was begotten, He was like us. The OT says Jesus was already Elohim. In fact I believe Genesis 3 :22 shows He was in the beginning of the world already known as YHWH Elohim with the Father. Did El Elyon, become flesh, and come to earth? NO. Only the Father is El Elyon the Most High Power/El. The traditional trinitarian view makes a revealing scriptural error here. Luke tells us Yeshua is the Son of the Most High. There is no scripture calling Yeshua the Most High El. In fact the creeds again mix this up by referring to the Father as El Shaddai, when in fact this is Jesus appearing to Abram. So did YHWH Elohim come to earth in the flesh? Yes, but only Yeshua is being referred to here. El Elyon, who is also YHWH Elohim, did not come to this earth "in the flesh" except as a visitor. Whether His corporeal form includes the scriptural meaning of "flesh" is doubtful. He is not a mortal man, although we are in his form in appearance. That is not my statement. I am in fact saying the Bible cannot "prove" the Book of Mormon. What I am saying is that the Biblical statement is evidence or support for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Ok, I would give you that that specific statement could be support for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.....but not Mormonism.
RevTestament Posted December 7, 2016 Author Posted December 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, snowflake said: Ok, I would give you that that specific statement could be support for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.....but not Mormonism. I didn't say that either. I really don't know what "Mormonism" is. I believe in the restored gospel, and the scriptures. I do not refer to myself as "a Mormon" but as LDS Christian. Beyond that I somewhat often find myself in disagreement with statements by various GAs on various subjects, usually because I believe they conflict with Biblical scriptures, but sometimes also other scriptures. So if you define Mormonism as being everything said by a GA as contained in McConkie's Mormon Doctrine for instance, I will flat tell you that I believe the Bible is not always consistent with their statements, and I will side with my interpretation of the scriptures in the Bible, D & C, The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, etc. I do believe the Church has the essentials of the restored gospel correct. When it comes to ideas about the nature of the Godhead, etc, however, I don't always agree. I will side with the scriptures unless the spirit guides me otherwise.
snowflake Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 16 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I didn't say that either. I really don't know what "Mormonism" is. I believe in the restored gospel, and the scriptures. I do not refer to myself as "a Mormon" but as LDS Christian. Beyond that I somewhat often find myself in disagreement with statements by various GAs on various subjects, usually because I believe they conflict with Biblical scriptures, but sometimes also other scriptures. So if you define Mormonism as being everything said by a GA as contained in McConkie's Mormon Doctrine for instance, I will flat tell you that I believe the Bible is not always consistent with their statements, and I will side with my interpretation of the scriptures in the Bible, D & C, The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, etc. I do believe the Church has the essentials of the restored gospel correct. When it comes to ideas about the nature of the Godhead, etc, however, I don't always agree. I will side with the scriptures unless the spirit guides me otherwise. Thank you for your candid response, I can respect your perspective above. I would certainly agree with your statement that the LDS leaders don't particularly agree with the Bible. The current Salt lake version of Mormonism is vastly different that what was first taught by Joseph. I like the honesty that you show when you side with your individual interpretation of the scriptures, I truly appreciate that, I don't see that very often on this discussion board. I would say that in my personal study of the scriptures you have listed above, that I came to the conclusion that only the Bible was divinely inspired word of God,.... IMHO.
RevTestament Posted December 7, 2016 Author Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, snowflake said: Thank you for your candid response, I can respect your perspective above. I would certainly agree with your statement that the LDS leaders don't particularly agree with the Bible. The current Salt lake version of Mormonism is vastly different that what was first taught by Joseph. I like the honesty that you show when you side with your individual interpretation of the scriptures, I truly appreciate that, I don't see that very often on this discussion board. I would say that in my personal study of the scriptures you have listed above, that I came to the conclusion that only the Bible was divinely inspired word of God,.... IMHO. I too find myself being refreshed by your candid position about the context of the scriptures. I find myself being in the unenviable position of knowing the truthfulness of the restored gospel and trying to hold onto the scriptures in the face of what seem to be somewhat "outlandish" statements of various GAs - at least as recorded in various publications such as Journal of Discourses. For instance I do not believe Pratt that God "married" Mary. The BoM calls Mary a Virgin, and the Bible says no man "knew" Mary until Jesus was born. Luke says that Jesus was conceived though the Holy Spirit. I have a hard time rejecting that in favor or BY's apparent position - at least as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. However, the JoD are not an official Church publication, and are not generally accepted as scripture. So existing scripture wins that battle in my mind. As for the other scriptures I discussed, I have read them all in their entirety, which I really doubt you can say, and know they are all inspired. I invite a discussion with yourself on what you feel shows they are not scripture. Perhaps we should begin with the issue of whether you believe there can be any more scripture. R U one that accepts Sola Scriptura? Edited December 7, 2016 by RevTestament
waveslider Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16 While all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction, the key lies not in proving the BoM because,"All scripture is given by inspiration of God....." rather as it says here in 1 John, we need to try the spirits in light of knowing the Holy Spirit of God: 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world. “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God Christ sends us the Holy Ghost and one reason he does this is for the purpose of not getting led astray. In Christ's own words: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth....." John 16:13 Since there are only about four or five scripture references that can questionably be talking about he BoM, depending upon your interpretation of them, in the whole Bible, as far as I have ever found. I think the better question should be where in the Bible does it state that there can't be a BoM? As far as I can see there is only one that ever held any merit at all, but it in it's proper context doesn't hold water either: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Revelation 22:18 Since it states emphatically, "....this book," it doesn't work for me seeing how the Bible is a compilation of many different books and only the book of Revelations is obviously referred to here. 1
Woody Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 The devils would exclaim that they knew who Jesus was (that he had come in the flesh); therefore, the "test" in 1John 4:1-3 is bogus. It doubtless had some logic originally, but it was corrupted. The manuscript variants prove it was edited. It's not even clear whether the test is for spirits, prophets, or doctrines.
RevTestament Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: I too find myself being refreshed by your candid position about the context of the scriptures. I find myself being in the unenviable position of knowing the truthfulness of the restored gospel and trying to hold onto the scriptures in the face of what seem to be somewhat "outlandish" statements of various GAs - at least as recorded in various publications such as Journal of Discourses. For instance I do not believe Pratt that God "married" Mary. The BoM calls Mary a Virgin, and the Bible says no man "knew" Mary until Jesus was born. Luke says that Jesus was conceived though the Holy Spirit. I have a hard time rejecting that in favor or BY's apparent position - at least as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. However, the JoD are not an official Church publication, and are not generally accepted as scripture. So existing scripture wins that battle in my mind. As for the other scriptures I discussed, I have read them all in their entirety, which I really doubt you can say, and know they are all inspired. I invite a discussion with yourself on what you feel shows they are not scripture. Perhaps we should begin with the issue of whether you believe there can be any more scripture. R U one that accepts Sola Scriptura? No challenge to the scriptures? Do the scriptures win? I don't want to seem facetious, but I thought perhaps you had some reason to doubt the scriptures in and of themselves. Perhaps you don't. If not, I challenge you to read them, pray about them, and let's discuss them. Keep in mind that I am quite candid about my disagreement with some GAs regarding the scriptures, so my challenge does not apply to their interpretations of the scriptures, but to the scriptures themselves. For instance I will not defend BYs apparent statements that Eden is in America. He believed JS taught this, I believe him to be plain wrong. If you read Moses, you will find it referring to one of the rivers flowing east of Assyria. There is just no way Assyria can be placed in the Americas. The Adam-ondi-Ahman mentioned in the D&C is different than the original one in a valley, and I believe is so named because that is where Michael will come to sit as prophesied in Daniel, and begin the gathering of the tribes. So I interpret the scriptures differently than BY. My challenge is to read the scriptures, and present whatever about them you feel disqualifies them as scripture. I do not hold them to be perfect as presently constituted either - either the Bible or the BoM. Edited December 8, 2016 by RevTestament
snowflake Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: I too find myself being refreshed by your candid position about the context of the scriptures. I find myself being in the unenviable position of knowing the truthfulness of the restored gospel and trying to hold onto the scriptures in the face of what seem to be somewhat "outlandish" statements of various GAs - at least as recorded in various publications such as Journal of Discourses. For instance I do not believe Pratt that God "married" Mary. The BoM calls Mary a Virgin, and the Bible says no man "knew" Mary until Jesus was born. Luke says that Jesus was conceived though the Holy Spirit. I have a hard time rejecting that in favor or BY's apparent position - at least as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. However, the JoD are not an official Church publication, and are not generally accepted as scripture. So existing scripture wins that battle in my mind. As for the other scriptures I discussed, I have read them all in their entirety, which I really doubt you can say, and know they are all inspired. I invite a discussion with yourself on what you feel shows they are not scripture. Perhaps we should begin with the issue of whether you believe there can be any more scripture. R U one that accepts Sola Scriptura? I believe the Bible to be authoritative, complete, true and accurate, the ultimate authority, God's literal word given to us, so I guess that is Sola Scriptura correct? If I were to say what my biggest problems are with the BOM are: 1. Lack of any manuscripts, golden plates, evidence of language (reformed Egyptian) concerning the text of the BOM itself. When compared to the Bible which has literally tens of thousands of manuscripts in several different languages. The BOM is severely lacking in evidence proving the manuscript itself is truly being ancient, there is just nothing there. 2. Absence of verifiable archeological places. Again when compared to the Bible the BOM is severely lacking in evidence for people, places and cultures. We can go to the temple mount, we know where Jericho is, ancient Hebrew artifacts exist, thousands of them. Other cultures describe the fact that Israel existed in the correct time frame and in the correct location. We know where Babylon is, Nebuccadnezer is someone that we can attach evidence to. The BOM has nothing of the sort, no places, no peoples, no tangible fact to place faith in. These are just a scratch on the surface as to the problems with the BOM story itself. The Bible is not based on faith alone, there is a ton of evidence showing the storyline actually took place in a real place and in a real time with real people. Of course I admit that none of this proves the bible to be True as well, but it gives me a lot of evidence and facts that support the storyline of the Bible itself.
RevTestament Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, snowflake said: I believe the Bible to be authoritative, complete, true and accurate, the ultimate authority, God's literal word given to us, so I guess that is Sola Scriptura correct? If I were to say what my biggest problems are with the BOM are: 1. Lack of any manuscripts, golden plates, evidence of language (reformed Egyptian) concerning the text of the BOM itself. When compared to the Bible which has literally tens of thousands of manuscripts in several different languages. The BOM is severely lacking in evidence proving the manuscript itself is truly being ancient, there is just nothing there. 2. Absence of verifiable archeological places. Again when compared to the Bible the BOM is severely lacking in evidence for people, places and cultures. We can go to the temple mount, we know where Jericho is, ancient Hebrew artifacts exist, thousands of them. Other cultures describe the fact that Israel existed in the correct time frame and in the correct location. We know where Babylon is, Nebuccadnezer is someone that we can attach evidence to. The BOM has nothing of the sort, no places, no peoples, no tangible fact to place faith in. These are just a scratch on the surface as to the problems with the BOM story itself. The Bible is not based on faith alone, there is a ton of evidence showing the storyline actually took place in a real place and in a real time with real people. Of course I admit that none of this proves the bible to be True as well, but it gives me a lot of evidence and facts that support the storyline of the Bible itself. As for the Bible being "complete": Do you believe that prophecy is inspired, and is scripture? If so, do you believe the two witnesses of Revelation 11 have prophesied already? If not, will their prophecy be inspired? If so, will it be scripture? If so, is your Bible "complete" never to be added to again? Does your Bible contain the Book of Jasher? 2 Samuel 1:18 18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) Joshua 10:13 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Do you believe Solomon had 4000 chariots or 40,000 chariots? 2 Chronicles 9:25 25 ¶And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. 1 Kings 4:26 26 ¶And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. Do you believe that Psalms 145 had a complete set of acrostic verses like that found in the Septuagint or is it properly missing one of the acrostic verses as presently constituted in the KJV? Did the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7 originally exist or was it added from a manuscript margin by Catholic scribes as the Catholic Church now admits? Why is it not found in other early Bible versions such as the Peshitta/Syriac version which is otherwise highly accurate? As for the Book of Mormon. Is there any major Biblical fault you find in it like those contained in the Urantia Book or the Qu'ran? Or are your objections limited to your perception that it lacks corroborating archaeological evidence? What if there is substantial corroborating archaeological evidence? Edited December 8, 2016 by RevTestament typos
Gray Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 3 hours ago, snowflake said: I believe the Bible to be authoritative, complete, true and accurate, the ultimate authority, God's literal word given to us, so I guess that is Sola Scriptura correct? If I were to say what my biggest problems are with the BOM are: 1. Lack of any manuscripts, golden plates, evidence of language (reformed Egyptian) concerning the text of the BOM itself. When compared to the Bible which has literally tens of thousands of manuscripts in several different languages. The BOM is severely lacking in evidence proving the manuscript itself is truly being ancient, there is just nothing there. 2. Absence of verifiable archeological places. Again when compared to the Bible the BOM is severely lacking in evidence for people, places and cultures. We can go to the temple mount, we know where Jericho is, ancient Hebrew artifacts exist, thousands of them. Other cultures describe the fact that Israel existed in the correct time frame and in the correct location. We know where Babylon is, Nebuccadnezer is someone that we can attach evidence to. The BOM has nothing of the sort, no places, no peoples, no tangible fact to place faith in. These are just a scratch on the surface as to the problems with the BOM story itself. The Bible is not based on faith alone, there is a ton of evidence showing the storyline actually took place in a real place and in a real time with real people. Of course I admit that none of this proves the bible to be True as well, but it gives me a lot of evidence and facts that support the storyline of the Bible itself. The Book of Mormon actually has a similar status to the story of the Exodus. There are no contemporary accounts and no real archaeological evidence for either the BOM of the exodus. All we have are stories written generations later by people who were not there. So why assume the Exodus is historical but the BOM is not?
RevTestament Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: The Book of Mormon actually has a similar status to the story of the Exodus. There are no contemporary accounts and no real archaeological evidence for either the BOM of the exodus. All we have are stories written generations later by people who were not there. So why assume the Exodus is historical but the BOM is not? I know you r trying to help, but I do believe there is some supporting archaeological evidence to support the biblical story of the Exodus - nothing terribly direct, but corroborating, nonetheless. And I believe there is some real archaeological evidence for the BOM exodus as well. It seems Nahom is a real place in Yemen, Arabia. It turns out there exists a place almost due east of it as described in the BoM which meets all the particulars of the Bountiful where the Lehites built their boat. I believe there are many more archaeological points which are met with specificity in the promise land too.
snowflake Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: As for the Bible being "complete": Do you believe that prophecy is inspired, and is scripture? If so, do you believe the two witnesses of Revelation 11 have prophesied already? If not, will their prophecy be inspired? If so, will it be scripture? If so, is your Bible "complete" never to be added to again? Does your Bible contain the Book of Jasher? 2 Samuel 1:18 18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) Joshua 10:13 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Do you believe Solomon had 4000 chariots or 40,000 chariots? 2 Chronicles 9:25 25 ¶And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. 1 Kings 4:26 26 ¶And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. Do you believe that Psalms 145 had a complete set of acrostic verses like that found in the Septuagint or is it properly missing one of the acrostic verses as presently constituted in the KJV? Did the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7 originally exist or was it added from a manuscript margin by Catholic scribes as the Catholic Church now admits? Why is it not found in other early Bible versions such as the Peshitta/Syriac version which is otherwise highly accurate? As for the Book of Mormon. Is there any major Biblical fault you find in it like those contained in the Urantia Book or the Qu'ran? Or are your objections limited to your perception that it lacks corroborating archaeological evidence? What if there is substantial corroborating archaeological evidence? I'm sure you are aware that there are many extra-biblical ancient books that are not included in the canon of scripture, they are not considered "inspired" books. I have a whole collection of different versions of bibles (I like the KJV the best because the problems surrounding this particular version is well documented and well known). The catholic bible has Daniel chapters 13 and 14 as well as many other books. (73 books in the catholic bible). The KJV I use does not have Jasher. As to the chariots, Soloman was one of the richest man in history up to that point, he had a lot of wealth, 4000 or 40,000 I don't know, need to do some homework on that. How does that affect the story? I find it interesting how the LDS will nitpick over insignificant details from different ancient biblical texts that are incredibly accurate with each other when the overall messages are identical. The vast majority of the ancient texts agree. You say this yourself above that Peshitta/Syriac versions are highly accurate? I agree there are some details and some translation/transmission issues but these are pretty much well known about and it does no affect the accuracy of the Bible. Switched letters, different spelling of places and such happen. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, or "God breathed". Now, lets start comparing those pre-1830 BOM manuscripts.........oh yeah, there aren't any......not even one tiny little scrap....except the one used for the book of Abraham, but that is for a different thread:)
snowflake Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: The Book of Mormon actually has a similar status to the story of the Exodus. There are no contemporary accounts and no real archaeological evidence for either the BOM of the exodus. All we have are stories written generations later by people who were not there. So why assume the Exodus is historical but the BOM is not? I agree that there is not a lot of tangible evidence for the Exodus, but we do have textual evidence that supports the text of Exodus itself. And we know the Jews existed, Egypt existed, and that many places described in the Torah have been identified today. Again, this type of evidence does not prove the event (exodus) took place, but it gives weight to the Bible.
RevTestament Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: I'm sure you are aware that there are many extra-biblical ancient books that are not included in the canon of scripture, they are not considered "inspired" books. I have a whole collection of different versions of bibles (I like the KJV the best because the problems surrounding this particular version is well documented and well known). The catholic bible has Daniel chapters 13 and 14 as well as many other books. (73 books in the catholic bible). The KJV I use does not have Jasher. I am sure you are aware that is why the Protestants retranslated the Bible without relying on the Catholic Bible. So you are saying that the accuracy of the Bible suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church? Mind you I am not saying the Book of Jasher we now have is the original inspired version. I am just saying that the Bible refers to it, and we don't seem to have it, which seems to render the Bible incomplete. You did not address the prophesied future prophesy of the 2 witnesses either. Either it will be additional scripture, or it won't. Which do you believe? Quote As to the chariots, Soloman was one of the richest man in history up to that point, he had a lot of wealth, 4000 or 40,000 I don't know, need to do some homework on that. How does that affect the story? I don't think there is any way Solomon had 40,000 chariots. Not even Egypt had near that many. Other verses support the 4,000 number or even 1,400 number with there being 4000 stalls but 1,400 chariots - a much more tenable number than 40,000. It doesn't really affect the story, but it does show the Bible has suffered some scribal errors. Quote I find it interesting how the LDS will nitpick over insignificant details from different ancient biblical texts that are incredibly accurate with each other when the overall messages are identical. The vast majority of the ancient texts agree. You say this yourself above that Peshitta/Syriac versions are highly accurate? I agree there are some details and some translation/transmission issues but these are pretty much well known about and it does no affect the accuracy of the Bible. Switched letters, different spelling of places and such happen. As they do with the BoM too. So perhaps you can forgive it if it gets the day of the passover incorrect to the tenth place. But critics often like to pick at every change that has ever occurred to it. Quote I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, or "God breathed". As do I my friend - but that doesn't change the fact that it has suffered some scribal errors - some books were lost. etc. Hence, my effort to point out a few. Quote Now, lets start comparing those pre-1830 BOM manuscripts.........oh yeah, there aren't any......not even one tiny little scrap....except the one used for the book of Abraham, but that is for a different thread:) Yep, no BoM manuscripts. Have to take the Book on faith and prayer. Is that so bad? Do all those thousands of biblical manuscripts lead the majority of the world to accept the BIble? What if there is another book which corroborates it? Is that helpful or damaging? What if there is another book which helps explain it? Is that helpful or damaging? These seem like helpful things but the vast majority of Christendom dismisses this other book without reading it because it has no ancient manuscripts they can see and touch. You mean they have to have faith? The HORROR!!! Or is that the heart of the teachings of our Savior? While there may not be even a tiny scrap of an ancient manuscript for you to examine, I believe there is other significant archaeological evidence to support most of the points in the Book of Mormon. All the points that used to be major sticking points are coming back to haunt the critics who used to harp on them like horse, elephants, and many other things. Are you open to the evidence you so claim to need? What if I present it to you? What then? Will you continue to harp on what is not there instead of examining what is there and reading the BoM? If you pray to your Father in heaven in the name of your Savior, do you believe He will lead you astray, or is He obliged to answer you truthfully?
snowflake Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: The Book of Mormon actually has a similar status to the story of the Exodus. There are no contemporary accounts and no real archaeological evidence for either the BOM of the exodus. All we have are stories written generations later by people who were not there. So why assume the Exodus is historical but the BOM is not? You do realize that Egypt is a real place with an ancient culture we can study, just like with the Jews, real people with a real history, real language. We don't have any of these basics with the BOM. At least not anything in the new world.
Recommended Posts