Brigham Young?

[LittleNipper]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you speaking about me, or about Prof Barr, who was an evangelical and president of his campus Christian organization -- but who had little patience with the nonsensical claims of inerrancy.

You mock vicarious baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 (which follows a vicarious Jewish rite described in 2 Maccabees 12).  Yet Prof D. A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School said in 1998:

If that is so, then why don't the Gospels agree on what Jesus did and said and when he did it?  Why is the Bible filled with thousands of inconsistencies and anachronisms?

Inerrancy of scripture is under attack for many reasons --- not the least of which is trying to find excuses for one's personal behavior and also to appease agnostic materialistic views of science and even religious interpretations upholding questionable dogma such as transubstantiation, the immaculate conception (Mary), establishing the exact time of Christ's return,  Jesus and the Archangel Michael being the same --- and I have not even touched upon Mormon beliefs. Maaccabees was not considered a part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ. I can appriciate it as a historical record and nothing more.  Please consider  the following: http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/ 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You and I are not perfect either.  Yet we fundamentally disagree on this matter.  Do you think that one should be a professional, trained meteorologist to speak authoritatively about hurricanes?   You speak as though you have authority in LDS history and theology, and you think that anyone at all can pass judgement on Brigham's Adam-God theory, without knowing anything about LDS history -- such as the fact that Orson Pratt disagreed with Brigham on that very issue, something you are afraid to acknowledge.  Instead, you claim that Satan made changes  in the Journal of Discourses.  You have made your ignorance the measure of reality.  Smooth move, Sam.

Yet we have seen no such changes, and the 116 pages were never recovered, a fact which you never acknowledge.  Another fact which you fail to acknowledge is that Satan can only do what God allows him to do:

D&C 10:14 "Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing."

I  have mentioned God's sovereignty in this matter before, and you have refused to accept this.  Why are you afraid to acknowledge that you are fundamentally wrong?

 I believe prophets are experts in Revelation. Nope, you don't have to be a professional, trained meteorologist to talk about hurricanes. You didn't understand my question, so let me repeat it: Would you listen to a meteorologist that couldn't tell the difference between a Cat 5 Hurricane and a tropical storm? 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 I believe prophets are experts in Revelation. Nope,  you don't have to be a professional, trained meteorologist to talk about hurricanes.  You didn't understand my question, so let me repeat it: Would you listen to a meteorologist that couldn't tell the difference between a Cat 5 Hurricane and a tropical storm? 

Once again, you confirm the main problem which you have:  Lack of knowledge about history and theology lead you to make completely erroneous statements about prophets, revelation, and Satan.  Moreover, when proven wrong, you are deeply fearful of admitting that you were mistaken.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Inerrancy of scripture is under attack for many reasons --- not the least of which is trying to find excuses for one's personal behavior and also to appease agnostic materialistic views of science and even religious interpretations upholding questionable dogma such as transubstantiation, the immaculate conception (Mary), establishing the exact time of Christ's return,  Jesus and the Archangel Michael being the same --- and I have not even touched upon Mormon beliefs. Maaccabees was not considered a part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ. I can appriciate it as a historical record and nothing more.  Please consider  the following: http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/ 

Twice now you have failed to deal with my comments on the huge number of anachronisms and aporias in the Bible -- which alone disprove inerrancy of Scripture.  Instead, you comment on irrelevant theological claims of various kinds, as though that justifies your failure to face the wide disparities in the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

Of course, 2 Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha (considered deuterocanonical by the Roman Catholics).  I did not say it was part of the formal canon of Scripture.  Even yokels know that much anyhow.  Your comment is meant to deflect from the historical fact that a Jewish rite is described in 2 Macc 12 which is an obvious precursor to vicarious baptism for the dead -- so the great Prof James Barr claimed, noting that even the verbiage of the Greek is similar, and was probably in the mind of Paul as he wrote 1 Cor 15:29.

The only way you are able to maintain a belief in inerrancy is by ignoring the Bible, scholarship, history, and logic.  You might want to consider other points of view than the narrow one which you have now, and which is very destructive of authentic belief in the Bible.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC0XCQP9k0 .

 

[LittleNipper]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Twice now you have failed to deal with my comments on the huge number of anachronisms and aporias in the Bible -- which alone disprove inerrancy of Scripture.  Instead, you comment on irrelevant theological claims of various kinds, as though that justifies your failure to face the wide disparities in the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

Of course, 2 Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha (considered deuterocanonical by the Roman Catholics).  I did not say it was part of the formal canon of Scripture.  Even yokels know that much anyhow.  Your comment is meant to deflect from the historical fact that a Jewish rite is described in 2 Macc 12 which is an obvious precursor to vicarious baptism for the dead -- so the great Prof James Barr claimed, noting that even the verbiage of the Greek is similar, and was probably in the mind of Paul as he wrote 1 Cor 15:29.

The only way you are able to maintain a belief in inerrancy is by ignoring the Bible, scholarship, history, and logic.  You might want to consider other points of view than the narrow one which you have now, and which is very destructive of authentic belief in the Bible.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC0XCQP9k0 .

 

Show me one contradiction or what you consider an error in the Bible. Let's reason together. As for II Maccabees, I see it as secular. What man adds to the one true religion does nothing to enhance what GOD designed. I might add that I do not believe the Earth is billions of years old and that the FLOOD was not global. It doesn't matter to me if that is in direct disagreement with someone else's opinion or not. There are certainly enough scholarship to go around. And to agree with GOD is to always be in the majority.

Edited September 9, 2017 by LittleNipper

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, you confirm the main problem which you have:  Lack of knowledge about history and theology lead you to make completely erroneous statements about prophets, revelation, and Satan.  Moreover, when proven wrong, you are deeply fearful of admitting that you were mistaken.

Okay, let's forget about history and theology for a moment. What happens when you keep making the same mistake in your job over and over again? You could get fired. What happens when you are given too much anesthesia? The doctor gets fired.  If Young was teaching Adam/God for many years God would have fired him. No excuse for being a fallible human. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, let's forget about history and theology for a moment. What happens when you keep making the same mistake in your job over and over again? You could get fired. What happens when you are given too much anesthesia? The doctor gets fired.

It is true that incompetent doctors might very well get sued and lose their positions within hospitals and medical groups -- perhaps even have their medical licenses revoked or cancelled.  But what happens to people on discussion boards who don't understand history and religion, and who continually make false statements about that?

Quote

 If Young was teaching Adam/God for many years God would have fired him. No excuse for being a fallible human. 

Your conclusion that God would have fired him is based on what set of facts?  How would God presumably go about firing him?  Would He send an angel to do it?  Or someone else?  What is the process God uses to fire prophets He doesn't like?  Do you have any historical examples?

Moses made some errors, and he was punished by God.  How did God punish him?  Do you recall?  Can you recall other incidents?  How about Peter denying Christ three times?  That was an awful mistake, and very embarrassing.  How was he punished for that?  Were Moses or Peter "fired" for their mistakes?  How about the Prophet Jona, who refused to obey God?  How was he punished, Sam?  How is it that he and Abraham both felt that they could even argue with God?  Do you ever bother to think through your claims before you make them?

Edited September 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is true that incompetent doctors might very well get sued and lose their positions within hospitals and medical groups -- perhaps even have their medical licenses revoked or cancelled.  

Thank you. Being a fallible human is no excuse. 

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your conclusion that God would have fired him is based on what set of facts?  How would God presumably go about firing him?  Would He send an angel to do it?  Or someone else?  What is the process God uses to fire prophets He doesn't like?  Do you have any historical examples?

I don't know how exactly, but 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "I keep on disciplining my body, making it serve me so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not somehow be disqualified." President Wilford Woodruff declared, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray".  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moses made some errors, and he was punished by God.  How did God punish him?  Do you recall?  Can you recall other incidents?  How about Peter denying Christ three times?  That was an awful mistake, and very embarrassing.  How was he punished for that?  Were Moses or Peter "fired" for their mistakes?  How about the Prophet Jona, who refused to obey God?  How was he punished, Sam?  How is that he and Abraham both felt that they could even argue with God?  Do you ever bother to think through your claims before you make them?

No, but all of them were chastened by God. Was Young ever chastened for allegedly teaching Adam/God? Thank you for bringing that up, you gave me another reason to believe that Young never taught Adam/God. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Show me one contradiction or what you consider an error in the Bible. Let's reason together

I Kings 7:23 (was Solomon’s rope long enough to encircle his bronze sea?)*
I Kings 7:26 vs II Chronicles 4:5 (was the bronze sea of 2,000, or of 3,000 baths?  Which is correct?)

*  Mary Matthews says: “In fact, ten cubits in diameter would result in a circumference of 565.49 inches, or 31.42 cubits, so the 30-cubit rope would be 15.49" too short to encircle it completely — more than a foot. A circumference of 30 cubits means a diameter of 171.89 inches, or 9.55 cubits, so the distance brim to brim would be 8.11 inches shorter than Solomon's rope.” 

I can demonstrate a thousand more biblical discrepancies of various kinds, which an inerrant text could not contain.

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

. As for II Maccabees, I see it as secular.

Yes, it is a historical record.  Didn't say otherwise, and you once again deliberately ignore what I did say.  Why are you afraid to reply to the points I make?

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

What man adds to the one true religion does nothing to enhance what GOD designed. I might add that I do not believe the Earth is billions of years old and that the FLOOD was not global. It doesn't matter to me if that is in direct disagreement with someone else's opinion or not. There are certainly enough scholarship to go around. And to agree with GOD is to always be in the majority.

False belief is still false, even if you pretend to be on God's side.  The biblical text does not favor your false views.  If you respected the Bible you would bother to treat it with the respect it is due, by studying it seriously.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but all of them were chastened by God. Was Young ever chastened for allegedly teaching Adam/God? Thank you for bringing that up, you gave me another reason to believe that Young never taught Adam/God. 

So they weren't "fired," but only chastened?  How do you know that B. Young was not chastened?  After all, even Orson Pratt chastened him.

Moreover, what was Moses' final punishment by God?  It was not mere chastening.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Thank you. Being a fallible human is no excuse. 

I don't know how exactly, but 1 Corinthians 9:27 says "I keep on disciplining my body, making it serve me so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not somehow be disqualified." President Wilford Woodruff declared, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray".  

So, what would "firing" look like if we saw it happen, which is a big if.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So they weren't "fired," but only chastened?  How do you know that B. Young was not chastened?  After all, even Orson Pratt chastened him.

Moreover, what was Moses' final punishment by God?  It was not mere chastening.

All of them repented after being chastened. Did Young ever repent? 

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, what would "firing" look like if we saw it happen, which is a big if.

No idea, it has never happened because God is very wise in choosing his servants. God is the perfect employer. 

[Bob Crockett]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can demonstrate a thousand more biblical discrepancies of various kinds, which an inerrant text could not contain.

 

 

It's basically inerrant.   Like, when Deuteronomy says that a Moabite cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation, and yet there's a whole book of the Bible dedicated to David's grandmother, a Moabite, I just put on my tin foil apologetic hat and say that there are two Moabs.  One in Mesoamerica and one in New York.

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but all of them were chastened by God. Was Young ever chastened for allegedly teaching Adam/God? Thank you for bringing that up, you gave me another reason to believe that Young never taught Adam/God. 

You are starting to sound like those people who believe Joseph never lived polygamy.
Ignoring history because it makes you uncomfortable.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are starting to sound like those people who believe Joseph never lived polygamy.
Ignoring history because it makes you uncomfortable.

Do you believe Young said, "which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God"? Do you believe Young was capable of telling the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts? 

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I Kings 7:23 (was Solomon’s rope long enough to encircle his bronze sea?)*
I Kings 7:26 vs II Chronicles 4:5 (was the bronze sea of 2,000, or of 3,000 baths?  Which is correct?)

*  Mary Matthews says: “In fact, ten cubits in diameter would result in a circumference of 565.49 inches, or 31.42 cubits, so the 30-cubit rope would be 15.49" too short to encircle it completely — more than a foot. A circumference of 30 cubits means a diameter of 171.89 inches, or 9.55 cubits, so the distance brim to brim would be 8.11 inches shorter than Solomon's rope.” 

I can demonstrate a thousand more biblical discrepancies of various kinds, which an inerrant text could not contain.

Yes, it is a historical record.  Didn't say otherwise, and you once again deliberately ignore what I did say.  Why are you afraid to reply to the points I make?

False belief is still false, even if you pretend to be on God's side.  The biblical text does not favor your false views.  If you respected the Bible you would bother to treat it with the respect it is due, by studying it seriously.

The problem is you accept a value from the book of Maccabees and are trying to apply it to what you believe. I'm saying that Maccabees is likely correct in it's historic data, but that doesn't give GODLY validity to the ritualism and behavior it records.  If you respected the Bible you would study it and seek to understand what you are told are errors.

Here is something that explains Pi and Solomon's Holy Sea. It's far more interesting than Mary Matthews views: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

Of course if they allowed this in Public Schools, the students would not be able to be led around by a bunch of hedonistic agnostics/atheists. And students would be able to think for themselves.... 

Edited September 9, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

The Calculations

Here again is the quote being referred to:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be "from one rim to the other", so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.

The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness), let's instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the casting of the piece.   Copyright © Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved

Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:

outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches 
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches 
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches

To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches. Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be: 90 – 4 = 86 inches Let's do the calculations: inner radius:  86 inches  inner circumference:  540 inches

The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:

540 = 2(pi)(86) 
540 = 172(pi)

Solving, we get pi =  ⁵⁴⁰/₁₇₂  =  ¹³⁵/₄₃   = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.

Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The problem is you accept a value from the book of Maccabees and are trying to apply it to what you believe. I'm saying that Maccabees is likely correct in it's historic data, but that doesn't give GODLY validity to the ritualism and behavior it records.  If you respected the Bible you would study it and seek to understand what you are told are errors.

I am not giving Maccabees special status, and did not suggest it.  You even agree "that Maccabees is likely correct in his historic data."  Why then do you have a problem with a Jewish precursor to a Christian rite?  In fact, vicarious rites are part of Jewish tradition, just as intercession of the saints is a Roman Catholic doctrine.  Mormons practice the restored Gospel.  Why are you so fearful of that?

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Here is something that explains Pi and Solomon's Holy Sea. It's far more interesting than Mary Matthews views: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm 

Sorry, that just doesn't do it.  A 30-cubit rope is going to be about 524" long, not nearly enough to go around the circumference of 549.2" (= 31.4 cubits). And, if we used the long cubit of 20.5", the 30 cubit rope would still be a full cubit too short to fit a circumference of 640.6" (31.2 cubits).  Saying that the measures in those days were inexact is not true.  They had precise, marked measuring sticks just as we do today, and speaking of inner or outer dimensions would not give any significant difference.  However, since they did not have pi in those days, the solution may require an approximation in the calculation of the circumference.

You didn't deal with the different volumes for the Bronze Sea in I Kings and I Chronicles.  The problem does have a solution, but you can be sure that fundamentalist evangelicals won't find it.

Quote

Of course if they allowed this in Public Schools, the students would not be able to be led around by a bunch of hedonistic agnostics/atheists. And students would be able to think for themselves.... 

Well, maybe you should send your children to private/parochial schools.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It's basically inerrant.   Like, when Deuteronomy says that a Moabite cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation, and yet there's a whole book of the Bible dedicated to David's grandmother, a Moabite, I just put on my tin foil apologetic hat and say that there are two Moabs.  One in Mesoamerica and one in New York.

You forgot to add a grimacing or smiley face, Bob.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So they weren't "fired," but only chastened?  How do you know that B. Young was not chastened?  After all, even Orson Pratt chastened him.

Moreover, what was Moses' final punishment by God?  It was not mere chastening.

All of them repented after being chastened. Did Young ever repent? 

  3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, what would "firing" look like if we saw it happen, which is a big if.

No idea, it has never happened because God is very wise in choosing his servants. God is the perfect employer. 

Are you going to answer my questions, or are you afraid of being embarrassed by wrong answers?

So, God has never fired one of his prophets?  Are you sure, Sam?

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You forgot to add a grimacing or smiley face, Bob.

(that is shiny tin foil, not a dunce hat)

[Glenn101]

On 9/8/2017 at 6:46 PM, JLHPROF said:

Apparently that's what Brigham believed.
For goodness sake, Orson Pratt was nearly disfellowshipped for disagreeing with him.

If it was as you describe, the orthodox view, then there would have been nothing for Orson Pratt to disagree with.

It is more orthodox than the view that Adam did not die but was somehow translated or translated himself although he was not a celestial being at the time, but a mortal, fallen being. Orson Pratt objected to B.Y.'s statement that Adam/Michael is the Father of Jesus Christ. That is a true statement. (It is not a true statement that the earthly Adam was the being that begot Jesus Christ in the flesh.) Pratt also believed that Adam was formed of the dust of this earth, literally. And that is not true according to the Book of Moses. Brigham did not expound upon his ideas to Orson, but according to Willford Woodruff, he told Orson to go get his own revelations.

 All who will take this course will know by revelation that God is our
Father; they will understand the relationship they hold to him and to their fellow−beings. The world may in
vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God
whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of
our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who
dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of.
JD 13:312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870

On August 9 of 1852, Orson Pratt preached a sermon where he stated that the first marriage on this earth was performed by God in the Garden of Eden (he probably got his cue from Joseph Smith's remarks in a marriage ceremony he performed in 1835 where Joseph said that marriage was in instituted in the Garden of Eden). It would be odd if Brigham was not aware of those remarks since he was a devout student of Josesh Smith. This speech was given before the Journal of Discourses was first published and it made it through the vetting process in 1853 for speeches that were suitable to go to England to be included in the JOD. It is known that Brigham reviewed some of Pratt's and had a run in with Pratt on at least one concerning what Brigham felt was false doctrine. So, it is strange that if Brigham believed that the earthly Adam came here with a celestial body and brought a celestial wife with him, that he would allow this speech to go unchallenged and to be published, since Adam and Eve were supposedly already married.

I am going to quote another excerpt from the very same sermon on April 9, 1952 by B.Y. that started the whole thing which really should have stopped it or given people pause to think.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael,
these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in
the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

Here Brigham Young identifies three people Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael pretty much knocking into a cocked hat a theory that Michael the Archangel who became the earthly Adam is the one that begat the Savior. Eloheim is equated with the Father by B.Y. (I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim JD 4:216, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857)

But I am going to stop beating this dead horse.  I have referenced why I believe what I believe about what Brigham was trying to teach. What we discover in the next life may may prove me wrong and you can say I told you so, but it will not affect our potential for exaltation either way.

Glenn

 

 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, God has never fired one of his prophets?  Are you sure, Sam?

I am not sure, but God didn't fire BY. 

In a job when you make a mistake your boss makes sure it gets fixed. God is the perfect boss. 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you going to answer my questions, or are you afraid of being embarrassed by wrong answers?

I did. Do you believe BY was capable of telling the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts? 

Would God choose a prophet that didn't know how? 

Edited September 10, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I....................................................

In a job when you make a mistake your boss makes sure it gets fixed. God is the perfect boss. 

Is that a valid comparison?  You obviously haven't yet read the Bible.  Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 

Once you have read the Bible, you might begin to understand the ways of God.  At present, because you know so little about God and  his prophets, you assume that they never get fired, and you make other false assumptions about them.

Quote

I did.

No, you did not answer my questions, probably since your knowledge of the Bible is so inadequate.  I asked the following questions:

Quote

So they weren't "fired," but only chastened?  How do you know that B. Young was not chastened?  After all, even Orson Pratt chastened him.

Moreover, what was Moses' final punishment by God?  It was not mere chastening.

Why are you afraid of a small Bible quiz?

Quote

Do you believe BY was capable of telling the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts? 

Would God choose a prophet that didn't know how? 

BY was capable some of the time, sure.  But he was as fallible as any other human, and could substitute his own opinions when he felt strongly.  Paul did the same thing from time to time in his letters.  God sometimes chose very simple people as prophets, while at other times he chose men of greatness.  You speak as though you understand the full intent of God, which is a quite arrogant attitude.  Not only Jona, but also Moses and Isaiah expressed great doubt about their ability to be prophet.  Are you even familiar with that fact?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Robert F. Smith