When was the Bible validated by God?

[Drumroller]

This thread is really interesting and somewhat humorous.

This thread? You sure you are posting on the right one?

Virtually all of the lds posters are either troubled, arguing or complaining that God did not validate the Bible. Yet, at least I thought, they claim that it is one of their standard works and is therefor the word of God.

What are you smoking?

All of this generates a couple of questions for me:

Does the frustration stem from an environment or culture of control and obedience where one is "told" what to believe as opposed to reaching a conclusion on their own?

or,

Is this merely an attempt to lower the demonstrable standards of the Bible down to a level required to accept the BOM as the word of God?

Ok put down the crack pipe

Shouldn't one just ask themself if they believe the Bible to be the word of God and be done with it?

This is the only part of your post that makes sense. I think you'll find many LDS will agree with it. Many do seek the spirit when they read any scripture.

[Zakuska]

Roman,

In no way is the Bible complete in all amnner of things---God is still speaking and revalation is still coming---but for this dispensation---he will only speak thru his word---which is far greater and bigger and has vast amounts of wisdom and revalation it it that has not be unlock to us as of yet---

So what if God is unlocking something and we fail to see it for waht it is?

[emaughan]

Virtually all of the lds posters are either troubled, arguing or complaining that God did not validate the Bible. Yet, at least I thought, they claim that it is one of their standard works and is therefor the word of God.

You really missed what has been stated! Reread the posts and notice that no non-LDS has yet to answer the question. Only the LDS have what we believe to be divine affirmation of the holiness of the bible.

[Del March]

Your still loading your question. When you put the word complete in the question.

Oh, OK. I wasn't trying to load the question with that word. It's just that so many people keep saying that God has said everything we need to know.

In no way is the Bible complete in all amnner of things---God is still speaking and revalation is still coming---but for this dispensation---he will only speak thru his word

Ah, OK. I wasn't aware this was your point of view.

May I just ask you if you think God spoke again after the Apostolic era, and if He will speak again? And if yes, what form did/will that speaking take: a prophet, a new book of scriptures, an angel, or something else?

In fact, since you are speaking in the present time ("God is still speaking and revelation is still coming"), may I ask what form do that speaking and revelation take?

Del

[JLH]

We LDS believe that the Bible is the word of God. But we do NOT believe that it is totally accurate, complete or definitive,

Del March,

Is this something you've been told to believe?

If not, I assume there would be some lds church official explanation of which parts of the Bible are inaccurate and incomplete and would have corrected these parts.

I mean, it is only logical that if something is wrong, the one claiming this would know specifically what is and how it should be corrected.

Could you please refer me to the official lds site or source identifying the inaccurate parts of the Bible and what the proper corrections are.

Short of this, I think you have just demonstrated by point that this is just something you have "been told to believe".

[Del March]

Could you please refer me to the official lds site or source identifying the inaccurate parts of the Bible and what the proper corrections are.

Ever heard of the Joseph Smith Translation?

We LDS don't need to have a completely corrected Bible, because we have additional scriptures and living prophets to help us understand anything that is unclear in the Bible.

Del

[roman]

Your still loading your question. When you put the word complete in the question.

Oh, OK. I wasn't trying to load the question with that word. It's just that so many people keep saying that God has said everything we need to know.

In no way is the Bible complete in all amnner of things---God is still speaking and revalation is still coming---but for this dispensation---he will only speak thru his word

Ah, OK. I wasn't aware this was your point of view.

May I just ask you if you think God spoke again after the Apostolic era, and if He will speak again? And if yes, what form did/will that speaking take: a prophet, a new book of scriptures, an angel, or something else?

In fact, since you are speaking in the present time ("God is still speaking and revelation is still coming"), may I ask what form do that speaking and revelation take?

Del

Del;

Now we are getting some where----Please allow me to get back to you later or even tommorrow-----I've got workmen in my back yard building me a storage building---and they need me----so its off i go

BTW---excellant questions

[Del March]

Roman,

I'll have to go to bed soon anyway, so take your time, no problem

Del

[JLH]

Ever heard of the Joseph Smith Translation?

Ok.

Now Del March,

Lets be very specific here.

Does the lds church officially stand behind the JST as being corrected from all errors. If so, provide me the official church source for this postion. If not, what is your point with this response?

Nothing personal here, but this is my point. When you "drill down" within the statements of many lds posters here, when they are trying to make factual claims, one will often find the jello. I guess what I'm saying is that your statement is more "emotional" as it is really just what "you've been told to believe".

[Zakuska]

JLH,

Christians know the Bibles got problems. Why are there volumns and volumns addressing bible difficulties. Its a proven fact things have been changed. Its not what we've been told to beleive... but demonstrably true.

Ever read the book by Bart Erhman... Department Chair of comparative religion at Christian Bible College. "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." ?

Ever compare 1+2 Kings with 1 + 2 Chronicles? Why are the number soooo inflated between the two? They are chronicalling the same time period.

[JLH]

Ever compare 1+2 Kings with 1 + 2 Chronicles? Why are the number soooo inflated between the two? They are chronicalling the same time period.

Zak,

So did the JST version correct whatever problems you think exist between Kings and Chronicles?

If not, would you agree with me that Del March has been mislead in his/her beliefs?

Del March claimed the JST version is the corrected version of the Bible in his/her response to me.

I mean, after all, if the JST was a corrected translation provided by Smith, why doesn't the lds church use it, instead of the KJV?

Sorry to "drill down" again.

[Del March]

Does the lds church officially stand behind the JST as being corrected from all errors.

No idea. I doubt it, though.

If not, what is your point with this response?

My point is that we did correct some of the mistakes. So we have identified some of the parts where the KJV (for example) is not correct. So "the Bible is sometimes inaccurate" is not just something I have been told: it's something I have been shown.

I mean, after all, if the JST was a corrected translation provided by Smith, why doesn't the lds church use it, instead of the KJV?

From what I know, we don't hold the copyright, or something like that. However, we do use a part of it. It's in our triple-combination. You can find it on the church's site.

Del

[emaughan]

Does the lds church officially stand behind the JST as being corrected from all errors.

No. It was a work in progress that never was finished before Joseph's death.

It does provide some good insights, but unfortunately it never made it to completion.

[JLH]

JLH:

Does the lds church officially stand behind the JST as being corrected from all errors.

Del March: No idea. I doubt it, though.

Emaughan: No. It was a work in progress that never was finished before Joseph's death.

Thanks guys for the Jello! Keeps moving around, eh?

Del March,

You first tell me that the JST is the corrected copy, fixing all the errors.

Then when I "drill down" you change your answer.

Now what your saying is that you really don't know. If the lds church does not stand behind it, how do you know which parts were corrected?

Again, you have demonstrated my point that you merely believe what you've been told. Classic!

JLH: I mean, after all, if the JST was a corrected translation provided by Smith, why doesn't the lds church use it, instead of the KJV?

Del March: From what I know, we don't hold the copyright, or something like that.

Come on Del March, think through this. The lds church does not own the copyright to the KJV either. Does that stop them from using it? Hello, anyone home?

No. It was a work in progress that never was finished before Joseph's death.

It does provide some good insights, but unfortunately it never made it to completion.

If you believe that it was only a work in progress and never completed, how do you know which parts were "good insights" and which parts still needed corrections? Again, is this just what you've been told?

[Guest johnny_cat]

JLH: Why all the insults?

[Del March]

Del March,

You first tell me that the JST is the corrected copy, fixing all the errors.

Where did I say that the JST corrected ALL the errors?

If the lds church does not stand behind it, how do you know which parts were corrected?

Because we have them in our Bible.

Again, you have demonstrated my point that you merely believe what you've been told.  Classic!

Maybe it would help me understand your point if you told me what you think I "believe I've been told".

Come on Del March, think through this.  The lds church does not own the copyright to the KJV either.  Does that stop them from using it?  Hello, anyone home?

Hey, I did say I don't know! We DO use a part of the JST. What I don't know is if that part is in fact the whole translation Joseph had the time to do or not, and if not, why we don't use the rest. Ask some of the historians, will you?

If you believe that it was only a work in progress and never completed, how do you know which parts were "good insights" and which parts still needed corrections?  Again, is this just what you've been told?

We obviously know which parts have been corrected, because we have the correction. As for the rest, we apply the same rule to it as to all the rest of our Holy Scriptures: it has to fit in the doctrine as revealed by all the scriptures and the prophets. And of course we also rely, as always, on the Holy Ghost.

Del

[emaughan]

JLH: Why all the insults?

He needs a refill on his meds?

Del answered honestly JHL - why get on her case because she did not know for sure? Take a happy pill man!

[Guest johnny_cat]

Del answered honestly Del - why get on her case because she did not know for sure? Take a happy man!

That's why I asked why he was insulting her.

I just don't understand the easiness with which some people treat others like dirt.

[Del March]

JLH: Why all the insults?

I don't know, but if he goes on like that, he's going to end up in the same bag as another poster I was having a discussion with recently: the Ignore bag.

I might not be the brightest bulb on this board, but I'm not being deliberately stupid either

Del

[Guest johnny_cat]

I might not be the brightest bulb on this board, but I'm not being deliberately stupid either

You seem to hold your own quite well here. I'm sorry some people can't be civil.

[JLH]

I just don't understand the easiness with which some people treat others like dirt.

JLH: Why all the insults? 

johnny, any criticism for emaughan or are lds poster exempt?

He needs a refill on his meds?

Del answered honestly JHL - why get on her case because she did not know for sure? Take a happy pill man!

emaughan, something about living in glass houses comes to mind here.

For the record:

What about the fish bumper stickers - JLH hello...

Priceless.

For the record:

Del March, my apologies. Let's have a conversation about copyright restrictions.

[Guest johnny_cat]

johnny, any criticism for emaughan or are lds poster exempt?

I dunno. I haven't read the whole thread. I came in when you were making fun of Del. It has nothing to do with your religious stance. Critics of the church have not cornered the market on rude behavior.

OK, emaughan's "hello" was snarky, too. Like I said before, one can be an effective debater without being an ....

[JLH]

OK, emaughan's "hello" was snarky, too.

Just snarky, but not treating people like dirt. Like I said, must be an lds "exemption thing".

[simply_disappear]

The church's official stand on the use of the JST is this:

"The Inspired Version {as it is called by its publishers} does not supplant the King James Version as the officiatl church version of the Bible, but the expalanations and changes made by teh Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages.

"Part of the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith were finally approved before his death; and some of these have been cited in current church instructional materials or may be cited in future church instructional materials.

"Accordingly, these cited portions of the Inspired Version may be used by church writersa nad teachers, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, in connection with the Biblical interpretations, applying always the divine injunction that 'whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom.'" (D&C 91:5)

"When the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price offer information relative to biblical interpretation, these should be given preference in writing and teaching. But when these sources of latter-day revelation do not provide significant information which is available in the Inspired Version then this version may be used." (Editorial, Church News, 7 Dec. 1974, p. 16.)

[Guest johnny_cat]

Just snarky, but not treating people like dirt. Like I said, must be an lds "exemption thing".

Yes, it was snarky, rude, mean, whatever you want to call it, from the little snippet I saw.

The difference for me was that I saw what Del said, and I did not understand (and still don't) why you responded like that. If you can't see that what you said to Del was completely uncalled for, I don't know what to say to you. That you choose to see it as my bias against critics doesn't change anything.