If apostasy happened, isn't the NT product of it?

[Atheist Mormon]

Since it was compiled after few centuries later? 

[Duncan]

That's what the late Prof. Robert Matthews of BYU was saying, the gospel and church was corrupted before the gospels, epistles of Paul were written. The dating of the NT is controversial, but it wasn't a few centuries, I think.. the earliest fragment from the Gospel of John dates to before 150 ce

[carbon dioxide]

56 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Since it was compiled after few centuries later? 

The content itself was produced before the apostasy.  It was compiled later on and the Church has never declared that the compilation was complete.

[Glenn101]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The content itself was produced before the apostasy.  It was compiled later on and the Church has never declared that the compilation was complete.

Nor completely correct.

 

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Since it was compiled after few centuries later? 

The apostasy lasted for 1260 years according to Rev 12, and Daniel. If it ended around 1798 then it began around 538 AD. That is well after the gospels were written. The first compilation of the Bible was apparently at the behest of Emperor Constantine somewhere around 330 AD. We know from existing records from early Christians that the four gospels were already written by 200 AD. I believe they were indeed written in the first century. Anyway, that was far before the apostasy really got underway. Prof Matthews is wrong.

[Atheist Mormon]

29 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Nor completely correct.

 

The question is; how come LDS is using Bible as scripture? 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The question is; how come LDS is using Bible as scripture? 

what other books have the doings of Jesus when he was in Galilee and the regions round about?

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The question is; how come LDS is using Bible as scripture? 

As far as it is translated correctly. Revelation being used to fill in the blanks, such as 2 Corinthians 15:40.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The question is; how come LDS is using Bible as scripture? 

Because if we only accepted scripture that conveyed truth perfectly we would have a blank book.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

what other books have the doings of Jesus when he was in Galilee and the regions round about?

So, we are using an "apostate" Bible....

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

So, we are using an "apostate" Bible....

Pretty much

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The question is; how come LDS is using Bible as scripture? 

No, the question is which Bible?

30 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

So, we are using an "apostate" Bible....

I thought you were a non-LDS apostate - no "we" here. 

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Pretty much

Nope. The Lord told Joseph Smith the KJV was usable. Note how little of the KJV NT he changed. If the Lord wanted more of it changed, He would certainly have told JS so.

[Atheist Mormon]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Pretty much

Can't believe I waited almost forty years to figure this out....

[Atheist Mormon]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, the question is which Bible?

I thought you were a non-LDS apostate - no "we" here. 

Nope. The Lord told Joseph Smith the KJV was usable. Note how little of the KJV NT he changed. If the Lord wanted more of it changed, He would certainly have told JS so.

Okay.....please slow down with your ice-cold sarcasm; it's going to kill me.....

Coming back those four Gospels; I always wondered how believers tolerated those disconnected, disagreed books....

[Storm Rider]

This stuff makes me laugh out loud. The fundamental teachings of the Church seem to go out the window in the rush to appear....intelligent.  Okay, folks, back up. What books of scripture are held to be the word of God?  Yup, 500 points to the first answer - the Bible, which is both the Old and New Testaments. Now, don't run away, think a little bit.  If we hold the Bible to be the word of God, could it also be a product of the apostasy?  There ya go, 1000 points to the tenth answer - NO.  

Seriously, guys, come on. This is not a challenging question unless you stop thinking. Yes, there is room for disagreement as to when the Apostasy began and when it was complete. The major characteristic of the Apostasy is the loss of the Priesthood Keys and all of the writers of the New Testament wrote while the keys were still on the earth. You guys are breathing your own ether - get out and read some scripture, go to Sunday School class again and for goodness sakes, quit listening to echo chambers. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Storm Rider

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

So, we are using an "apostate" Bible....

The Bible contains the word of God, compiled by apostates.  

Hence the need for “another testament of Jesus Christ”, which states that many plain and precious things have been left out of the Bible.

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This stuff makes me laugh out loud. The fundamental teachings of the Church seem to go out the window in the rush to appear....intelligent.  Okay, folks, back up. What books of scripture are held to be the word of God?  Yup, 500 points to the first answer - the Bible, which is both the Old and New Testaments. Now, don't run away, think a little bit.  If we hold the Bible to be the world of God could it also be a product of the apostasy?  There ya go, 1000 points to the tenth answer - NO.  

Seriously, guys, come one. This is not a challenging question unless you stop thinking. Yes, there is room for disagreement as to when the Apostasy began and when it was complete. The major characteristic of the Apostasy is the loss of the Priesthood Keys and all of the writers of the New Testament wrote while the keys were still on the earth. You guys are breathing your own ether - get out and read some scripture, go to Sunday School class again and for goodness sakes, quit listening to echo chambers. 

I would argue it can be both the word of God and be somewhat apostate. Over 50 percent of what is taught in your average LDS ward during the three hour block is pretty false. It is a good natured and attempting to be helpful kind of false and it leads people to Christ but without the Spirit it can lead you very astray.

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, the question is which Bible?

I thought you were a non-LDS apostate - no "we" here. 

Nope. The Lord told Joseph Smith the KJV was usable. Note how little of the KJV NT he changed. If the Lord wanted more of it changed, He would certainly have told JS so.

Can't G-d make perfect use of a filthy tool?

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Okay.....please slow down with your ice-cold sarcasm; it's going to kill me.....

Coming back those four Gospels; I always wondered how believers tolerated those disconnected, disagreed books....

Their disagreements are not important to their lessons. Yes, different witnesses are going to remember things a little bit differently. John gives the most spiritual insights to our Savior. Its tone definitely suggests it was written after Jerusalem was destroyed. It has a bit of a hostile tone towards Jews of Yeshua's day. I believe Luke was the first gospel written in Greek so it has a bent towards a Greek audience ie Yeshua's genealogy, etc.  I think you far overstate their differences. 

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

The Bible contains the word of God, compiled by apostates.  

Hence the need for “another testament of Jesus Christ”, which states that many plain and precious things have been left out of the Bible.

Another testament which virtually completely agrees with the KJV Bible.... I simply do not understand the LDS compulsion to pick on the KJV. I agree it is not perfect, but where are the drastic changes needed? Are you going to claim that it is not the stick which is to merge with the stick of Joseph? If so, when will we get the right stick? 

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Can't G-d make perfect use of a filthy tool?

If you are implying that the KJV is a "filthy tool" I strongly disagree. I think you are picking on the wrong Bible. 

[USU78]

Just now, RevTestament said:

If you are implying that the KJV is a "filthy tool" I strongly disagree. I think you are picking on the wrong Bible. 

I'm thinking you're missing the point. It is an artifact of the early Reformation, but is steeped in Arisotilean silliness and Anglo-Saxon academic arrogance. Pretty stuff to be sure.

But even in the original languages, assuming clean copies could be found, they are at best an approximation of G-d's TRVTH, which we can, at least most of us, barely glimpse.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm thinking you're missing the point. It is an artifact of the early Reformation, but is steeped in Arisotilean silliness and Anglo-Saxon academic arrogance. Pretty stuff to be sure.

But even in the original languages, assuming clean copies could be found, they are at best an approximation of G-d's TRVTH, which we can, at least most of us, barely glimpse.

I consider all scripture to be "an approximation of God's Truth." That is the very nature of language. It approximates true intentions and meanings to try to get a point across. If not, everyone would interpret the Bible exactly like me - and I believe no one does. To get the full meaning, one must develop a relationship with Yeshua and ask Him. I believe that is the way it is designed.

Maybe you could list your known instances of "Aristotilean silliness and Anglo-Saxon arrogance" - I think most of that comes from improper interpretation rather than the scriptures. Are you sure you are not giving me your interpretation through your darkly colored glasses?

[USU78]

Just now, RevTestament said:

I consider all scripture to be "an approximation of God's Truth." That is the very nature of language. It approximates true intentions and meanings to try to get a point across. If not, everyone would interpret the Bible exactly like me - and I believe no one does. To get the full meaning, one must develop a relationship with Yeshua and ask Him. I believe that is the way it is designed.

Maybe you could list your known instances of "Aristotilean silliness and Anglo-Saxon arrogance" - I think most of that comes from improper interpretation rather than the scriptures. Are you sure you are not giving me your interpretation through your darkly colored glasses?

I don't see it as dark at all. Didn't I say it's pretty stuff? I adore the language and the poetry and the musicality. I couldn't do without it.

But at the same time I recognize the weaknesses in translation, etc. They used to bother me. But G-d makes perfect use of that all too human artifact. His love shouts through the inadequacy.  It's inadequate but it's probably the grandest product of humanity's oh so limited genius.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't see it as dark at all. Didn't I say it's pretty stuff? I adore the language and the poetry and the musicality. I couldn't do without it.

But at the same time I recognize the weaknesses in translation, etc. They used to bother me. But G-d makes perfect use of that all too human artifact. His love shouts through the inadequacy.  It's inadequate but it's probably the grandest product of humanity's oh so limited genius.

Fair enough. I have myself listed various weaknesses in the translation found in the KJV. I agree that in various ways it hides truth. My guess is we would largely agree on a list of points here. I believe most of the time where it hides truth, it is not intentional, but a few definitely seem intentional to me for theological reasons. Nevertheless, I think the truth can be arrived at through the records we have. It just takes an open mind and little diligence.