Jump to content

The First Version of the First Vision


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, the people to whom the revelation was given believed it.

That's circular reasoning. 

One of the things I like about the Book of Mormon is that it does not ask the reader to accept circular reasoning. 

2 hours ago, Islander said:

If you don't believe that revelation you should not believe any other.

Nor does that logically follow either, especially if God the Holy Spirit is a reliable indicator of truth.  

"Prove [test, carefully examine] all things, hold fast that which is good."  Paul said that, and it's arguably a concise distillation of Alma Chapter 32.   No need for such if God only allows perfect scriptures perfectly translated. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
On 6/9/2022 at 6:01 PM, Islander said:

Again, you are speculating as to the likelihood of the text being edited. We know that the Genesis was extemporaneous; a revelation of God to Moses. but subsequent books are not likely to be distant from the source. The same the Gospels and all of Paul's letter being written within a few decades after the events and during the lives of many eyewitnesses. 

The Greek texts are translations and thus not relevant to the discussion.  

There is no speculation, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint leave no doubt the Hebrew Masora on which our Bible's Old Testament was translated from was edited by Anti-Christian Jews after the fall of Jerusalem to remove all Christian proof texts the show the Messiah would be divine and that the God of Israel is the begotten son of the Father, El Elyon.

Genesis was edited, it combines two sources, there are two accounts of Adam being created, you can see the Sethite and the Cainite genealogies that are different. If it all came unedited from one source, tell me whether Enoch who was translated into heaven was the third generation from Cain or the seventh generation through Seth? I say the Seth line, but that is because that is favored in the New Testament in the line of Christ, but that doesn't excuse the fact the document was edited together with another text.

A number of deliberate alterations have been made to the New Testament in the interests of doctrines that were difficult to assess. The keepers corrupted the scriptures in order to have support for their special views. The most infamous is probably the Comma Johanneum (John 5:7) appearing nowhere in earliest New Testament manuscripts. This fact is attested to by numerous scholars, this text has obviously been intentionally edited to bolster the Trinity doctrine.

As much as it can shock, let me say I am a faithful believer, and I believe in the worth and power of these texts. So, my Brother in Christ, this I say onto you, beware idolatry in their various forms, even "bibliolotry". No book or translation can be inerrant. No one has to rely on any specific list of inspired books; A person doesn't even have to be literate. Most of the early Christians were illiterate, but they had inspired leaders who had the Holy Ghost, and they also had the Holy Ghost to tell them what they were taught by their leaders was true.

On 6/9/2022 at 6:04 PM, Islander said:

Well, the people to whom the revelation was given believed it. If you don't believe that revelation you should not believe any other. The scriptures are not a buffet line to pick and chose what you would like to believe and discard what you would not. 

Not everyone. When they discovered Deuteronomy in the temple and took it to the young King Josiah, he didn't believe it at first, they had to convince him, he never heard of it. Not a single patriarch or king has ever obeyed the Deuteronomic Law, this is the first king to try to do so, and for all of his efforts, fate forsook him on the battlefield and his kingdom was ultimately brought to ruin. And all the Deuteronomist scribes could do to explain this fact in the history books of the Bible they wrote, was to blame it on the great wickedness of his dead predecessor, King Manasseh. Deuteronomy was not written by Moses in its current form, some parts are indeed ancient and valuable, but it was edited. Or are you telling me Moses was writing that book when it gets to the part where he died?

th-151070858.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm faithful, and believe the worth and power of these texts. So, my Brother in Christ, beware idolatry in their various forms, even "bibliolotry"... No one has to rely on any specific list of inspired books; A person doesn't even have to be literate. Most of the early Christians were illiterate, but they had inspired leaders who had the Holy Ghost, and they also had the Holy Ghost to tell them what they were taught by their leaders was true.

While I completely lack your scholarly background, what you describe here is pretty much the conclusion I came to.

Link to comment

Oh, I don't have a scholarly background, I am lucky that the few books I bother to read happen to be some of the best. Get your hands on a few books on the Royal Cult Studies, like Margret Barker and a poke around in a few Pseudopigrapha books, and in a few years you'll be me.

th-376359062.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Genesis was edited, it combines two sources, there are two accounts of Adam being created, you can see the Sethite and the Cainite genealogies that are different. If it all came unedited from one source, tell me whether Enoch who was translated into heaven was the third generation from Cain or the seventh generation through Seth? I say the Seth line, but that is because that is favored in the New Testament in the line of Christ, but that doesn't excuse the fact the document was edited together with another text.

Since scripture is inerrant I think you will find there is only one solution. Enoch came through the line of Seth. But later he was born again to Cain. How? By being turned into a vampire. You see, after Cain was cursed to walk the earth without relief and had his fling with Lillith and learned his dark powers he started to turn on the children of Seth to propagate his kind. Enoch was the third vampire Cain created.

See, simple.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

tell me whether Enoch who was translated into heaven was the third generation from Cain or the seventh generation through Seth? I say the Seth line, but that is because that is favored in the New Testament in the line of Christ, but that doesn't excuse the fact the document was edited together with another text.

Perhaps there has been more than one person named Enoch.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps there has been more than one person named Enoch.

Perhaps, but two Enochs who each sired a Methuselah and each of these Methuselahs sired a Lamech? Possible, sure, but must one believe that theory just because the simplest answer is beyond acceptance here? That the two lines are corruptions of one oral tradition, and by the time Moses put the traditions to paper instead of including one, included both?

The First Book of Enoch has a similar issue, being by Enoch, its probably older than Moses' Genesis, it's Book of Similitudes has three different variants. This seems to show it was originally orally transmitted until put to paper around 500 BC, but by then there were 3 variants, and instead of simply choosing one, they wisely put all three down. Who am I to say that invalidates the first Book of Enoch as inspired just because it was edited so? Its one of the most quoted scriptures in the New Testament.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Oh, I don't have a scholarly background, I am lucky that the few books I bother to read happen to be some of the best. Get your hands on a few books on the Royal Cult Studies, like Margret Barker and a poke around in a few Pseudopigrapha books, and in a few years you'll be me.

Kudos to you for following the instructions of D&C 88:118 to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

My own strongest interests lie in other areas, but I appreciate you taking the time to learn and then "teach one another words of wisdom" (also from D&C 88:118).

Edited by manol
Link to comment
On 6/9/2022 at 9:16 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I’m glad you do heartily endorse the Catholic Ecumenical Councils that compiled the Bible. If you are so certain we got it right then, perhaps you should join up with us now. If not, then you are just at the buffet line, picking and choosing which Ecumenical Council you would like to believe and discarding which ones you would not. 

The earliest reference to the NT books date from 250 A.D., Origen produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books–more than a hundred years before Athanasius. In his typical allegorical fashion, Origen used the story of Joshua to describe the New Testament canon. This is 200 plus years prior to any catholic council. Subsequent councils reaffirmed what the primitive church had established since early on. The letters of Paul were in circulation in the 50's AD.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...