Kev, the only way to prove God exists is by what he wrote in the Bible, as that is his only revelation of himself to us. Certainly, outside confirmation is necessary, historical and scientific facts included must be in agreement with what the Bible states. As well, the reason for believing in the Bible must be based on an understanding of what is being said, and not blind hope.
The reason why there is no real discussion, is simple. When I state the Bible is complete, I mean it is complete and there is no need for any further revelation. When he says the Bible is complete, he means it is complete, but there is further revelation which can and does accompany it.
The simple fact is that any Christian can spend their whole lives studying the Bible without fully understanding all that is contained therein. All the information necessary for Salvation and Godly living is already contained in the Bible which has existed for nearly 2000 years.
Dave
Um, you just answered that question in you next question. Sounds like terrain to me. Also, there are various references to terrain. I could quote them for you, but you've already stated you wouldn't read them anyway.
If you finished reading it, you would realize that the Nephite nation was wiped out. All remaining cities today would therefore be Lamanite, therefore there would be no distinction between Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. You're truly showing a complete lack of knowledge.
Remains of their cities have been found. Seeing as the two were at war and their cities were almost all destroyed, as is clearly stated, it's rather difficult to say "this pile of rubble was this city". I'm sorry, but I believe most of the "Welcome to Zarahemla" signs were probably destroyed.
Considering we are missing from 400AD to around 1600AD, I'd say there are all kind of different possibilities of what happened. Why doesn't the Book of Mormon state it? Either because the authors were not there when it happened, or because it happened after the book of Mormon was completed.
I'm sure many of them did, but I dont' know for sure. I'm rather positive it was not the first thing on the conquistador's minds as they were ravaging villages to stop and ask if any of then knew the name or location of a certain Nephite city. As well, being the gentlemen that they were, they destroyed most of the records and history of the people they conquered, which tend to make putting things together rather difficult, if you can imagine.
There were two hills called Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. It has been debated whether these two hills are the same, but not verified as far as I am aware. The main hill that is of the utmost importance is in New York. How did they get there that quickly? What do you mean? They have freakin years and decades. I'm pretty sure you can walk from central america to New York in the span of a decade.
Remains? Remains of what? The hill Cumorah was not a city, it was a hill. If you wish to see its remains, go walk up it. It's still there today.
Perhaps you could explain that?
Sure did.
There have been several theories made actually, and some have come up with some rather interesting results.
Here is a good link you might wish to check out. I have looked at everythng, but what I've seen so far looks rather correct to me.
Linky
Umm, that's like saying there is no history book to verify the existence of your history book. That makes no sense. The book was compiled from the historical records created officially by the people. It is the history.
Your evidence is lacking, severely. What's honestly the funniest thing to me is how you would use the same tool to attempt to "disprove" Mormonism that is being used to "disprove" the Bible. It's going to fail on both counts, but good luck with that.
In the meantime, quit reading off website and try to come up with real questions from doing a real study.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, the Book of Mormon doesn't state that time. I put that in there so you'd have a reference. You'd know that if you'd actually read the thing.
Actually, hate to point it out to you, but that still agrees 100% with my explanation and 0% with yours. You're only condemning yourself. I'd stop if I were you, but please feel free to continue.
And as I'm pointing out, those are clearly names that Joseph Smith made up in the 1800's as that is when the terms first began appearing in any books.
Your faith in their existance doesn't prove they existed. There was and is no outside evidence in any book predating Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon.
My guess is they were referring to the reamains of the great civilization.
"In A.D. 421, Moroni, the last survivor of a great civilization that had inhabited the Americas since about 600 B.C., buried in this hill a set of gold plates on which was recorded the history of his people. In 1827, Moroni returned as an angel and delivered the plates to Joseph Smith, who translated them and published them as the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
The reason why significant gaps don't exist is because the "missing" people never actually existed. There is no evidence of their existance, anywhere.
Theories by Mormons. Yet still no actual evidence of any of the cities mentioned, or any ancient civilization, or anything that was first published by Joseph Smith in the 1800's.
Proof of what the Bible is saying exists outside of people who believe the Bible, and always has. There is and never was proof of any ancient civilization as described by Joseph Smith in the 1800's.
Dave
I think it boils down to whether or not you have faith in something, either you believe it or you don't. end of story.
Just FYI it does say in the Bible that no more of God's word will be revealed. That is why most Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
That doesn't point out anything. Show me where the Garden of Eden is. Show me where the City of Enoch is. You have the exact same problem. People can guess where they are, and we can believe they exist, but there is nothing to prove they did. Does that mean they didn't? No. Again, you're agrument is ridiculous, and you're only making yourself look bad.
Nor does my faith in the Bible, or yours. What's your point Dave? There are several books and article written that theorize on the existence of these locations, some say they did exist, some saying the didn't. The only thing that proves is that archeology can be used as a complete proof of the existence or lack of existence of anything. Congratulations, you've proven nothing.
Read the paragraph Dave. My word, do I have to spell it out for you. His civilization inhabited the Americas, not the hill. The hill is simply were he left the record.
Wow, you are just totally not even there. WHAT GAPS!!!!!!! WHAT GAPS!!!!!!!!! You talk about gaps, but never explain what you're talking about.
The references and links are not all by Mormons. And let me ask, how many main stream Christians do you think would look for evidence of the Book of Mormon, post it on their website, and say "Look what we found out was true!". Get over it Dave. The source does not invalidate the results.
There has always been proof that people have existed there. Do you live in a bubble? It's not a question of whether the people or the civilization existed, cause it's obvious they did. The question is whether this is a true record of them. And so far, you've done nothing to refute that, not even close.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No, it doesn't.
The Revelation was not the last book of the Bible to be written and, at the time of its writing, it was a completely independent piece of work -- the compilation of books that we refer to as the Bible today did not even exist until nearly 250 years after the Revelation was written (i.e. at the Council of Nicaea).
The problem with the so-called literal interpretation of the Bible is that literal is an opinion.
"That doesn't point out anything. Show me where the Garden of Eden is. Show me where the City of Enoch is. You have the exact same problem. People can guess where they are, and we can believe they exist, but there is nothing to prove they did. Does that mean they didn't? No. Again, you're agrument is ridiculous, and you're only making yourself look bad."
Actually I don't have a problem. I'm not trying to prove to you that the Book of Mormom which was written by Joseph Smith in the 1800's, is another Testament of Jesus Christ as was clearly warned would happen in the Bible which was completed about 2000 years ago.
"Nor does my faith in the Bible, or yours. What's your point Dave? There are several books and article written that theorize on the existence of these locations, some say they did exist, some saying the didn't. The only thing that proves is that archeology can be used as a complete proof of the existence or lack of existence of anything. Congratulations, you've proven nothing."
I'm not trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ, which was warned of in the Bible, and for which there is no outside evidence of the great civilization ending in Moroni in any book predating Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon.
"Read the paragraph Dave. My word, do I have to spell it out for you. His civilization inhabited the Americas, not the hill. The hill is simply were he left the record."
Exactly. Which is why I said my guess, in regards to their reference and your comment.
"Wow, you are just totally not even there. WHAT GAPS!!!!!!! WHAT GAPS!!!!!!!!! You talk about gaps, but never explain what you're talking about."
The gaps that should exist if the great civilization ending without Moroni existed.
"The references and links are not all by Mormons. And let me ask, how many main stream Christians do you think would look for evidence of the Book of Mormon, post it on their website, and say "Look what we found out was true!". Get over it Dave. The source does not invalidate the results."
It does for me, and it's up to you to prove that the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ (contrary to what the Bible expressly warns would happen) to me with outside sources proving the existance of the great civilization of Moroni prior to Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon.
"There has always been proof that people have existed there. Do you live in a bubble? It's not a question of whether the people or the civilization existed, cause it's obvious they did. The question is whether this is a true record of them. And so far, you've done nothing to refute that, not even close."
Wait a minute, hold up. I'm not the one trying to get you to believe in another Testimony of Jesus Christ contrary to the Bible. Your the Mormon, and your entitled to believe whatever you want, but if you expect me to believe the Book of Mormon for which there is no outside evidence prior to Joseph Smith and for which the Bible expressly warns would happen, you need to provide the proof, not me.
Dave
Actually I don't have a problem. I'm not trying to prove to you that the Book of Mormom which was written by Joseph Smith in the 1800's, is another Testament of Jesus Christ as was clearly warned would happen in the Bible which was completed about 2000 years ago.
"Nor does my faith in the Bible, or yours. What's your point Dave? There are several books and article written that theorize on the existence of these locations, some say they did exist, some saying the didn't. The only thing that proves is that archeology can be used as a complete proof of the existence or lack of existence of anything. Congratulations, you've proven nothing."
I'm not trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ, which was warned of in the Bible, and for which there is no outside evidence of the great civilization ending in Moroni in any book predating Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon.
"Read the paragraph Dave. My word, do I have to spell it out for you. His civilization inhabited the Americas, not the hill. The hill is simply were he left the record."
Exactly. Which is why I said my guess, in regards to their reference and your comment.
"Wow, you are just totally not even there. WHAT GAPS!!!!!!! WHAT GAPS!!!!!!!!! You talk about gaps, but never explain what you're talking about."
The gaps that should exist if the great civilization ending without Moroni existed.
"The references and links are not all by Mormons. And let me ask, how many main stream Christians do you think would look for evidence of the Book of Mormon, post it on their website, and say "Look what we found out was true!". Get over it Dave. The source does not invalidate the results."
It does for me, and it's up to you to prove that the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ (contrary to what the Bible expressly warns would happen) to me with outside sources proving the existance of the great civilization of Moroni prior to Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon.
"There has always been proof that people have existed there. Do you live in a bubble? It's not a question of whether the people or the civilization existed, cause it's obvious they did. The question is whether this is a true record of them. And so far, you've done nothing to refute that, not even close."
Wait a minute, hold up. I'm not the one trying to get you to believe in another Testimony of Jesus Christ contrary to the Bible. Your the Mormon, and your entitled to believe whatever you want, but if you expect me to believe the Book of Mormon for which there is no outside evidence prior to Joseph Smith and for which the Bible expressly warns would happen, you need to provide the proof, not me.
Dave
Kev, the proof of God's existance is all around us, but your right, repentance and faith are necessary for Salvation.
Heb.11
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[3] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Dave
LOL. Nice cop-out. Though actually, I have no burden of proof to prove it to you. It's you that has to answer to God for rejecting it, not me. Believe it or don't, but don't try your pathetic attempt to disprove it by using examples or proofs that disprove your own belief. It's very bad form and doesn't help you at all.
Not warned about, but testified about. Big difference.
Oh, the imaginary gaps that you created don't exist? What are the odds.
And again, that statement is pure proof you've never read the book.
Again, not my problem. No burden here. You accept whatever you wish, I just hope your explains hold up in the face of God.
No Dave, I don't need proof. It's God's book, not mine, and is prophecied of in the Bible, you just refuse to accept it. Such is your right, as long as you're willing to acknowledge it.
"LOL. Nice cop-out. Though actually, I have no burden of proof to prove it to you. It's you that has to answer to God for rejecting it, not me. Believe it or don't, but don't try your pathetic attempt to disprove it by using examples or proofs that disprove your own belief. It's very bad form and doesn't help you at all."
I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is a lie, I know that Joseph Smith is a false Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is another false prophet of God today) and I know that the Mormon Church is a false church on the face of the earth today
"Not warned about, but testified about. Big difference."
Symantics aside, the warning is clear
Matt.24
[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Gal.1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
"Oh, the imaginary gaps that you created don't exist? What are the odds.
And again, that statement is pure proof you've never read the book."
The gaps that should exist don't, because the great civilization that Joseph Smith claimed to exist didn't.
" Again, not my problem. No burden here. You accept whatever you wish, I just hope your explains hold up in the face of God. "
Matt.24
[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Gal.1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I'm sure the Word of God will hold up in the face of God.
"No Dave, I don't need proof. It's God's book, not mine, and is prophecied of in the Bible, you just refuse to accept it. Such is your right, as long as you're willing to acknowledge it."
I have been acknowledging it, and will do so again. I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is a lie, I know that Joseph Smith is a false Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is another false prophet of God today) and I know that the Mormon Church is a false church on the face of the earth today which was started in the 1800's by a false prophet named Joseph Smith.
Dave
I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is a lie, I know that Joseph Smith is a false Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is another false prophet of God today) and I know that the Mormon Church is a false church on the face of the earth today
"Not warned about, but testified about. Big difference."
Symantics aside, the warning is clear
Matt.24
[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Gal.1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
"Oh, the imaginary gaps that you created don't exist? What are the odds.
And again, that statement is pure proof you've never read the book."
The gaps that should exist don't, because the great civilization that Joseph Smith claimed to exist didn't.
" Again, not my problem. No burden here. You accept whatever you wish, I just hope your explains hold up in the face of God. "
Matt.24
[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Gal.1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I'm sure the Word of God will hold up in the face of God.
"No Dave, I don't need proof. It's God's book, not mine, and is prophecied of in the Bible, you just refuse to accept it. Such is your right, as long as you're willing to acknowledge it."
I have been acknowledging it, and will do so again. I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is a lie, I know that Joseph Smith is a false Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is another false prophet of God today) and I know that the Mormon Church is a false church on the face of the earth today which was started in the 1800's by a false prophet named Joseph Smith.
Dave
You can not bear witness to that which you have not read, studied, and prayed about. But man do I feel sorry for you. Would't want to be you at judgment day.
Yes it is. Hopefully you listen.
Yet again, no explanation as to what gaps you are refering to. Hey, that gaps in the Bible prove it doesn't exist. What gaps? The gaps in the Bible. Which are? The gaps in the Bible.
By the way, who's on first?
Yes it will, and I look very forward to the day.
And I again state, you can not bear testimony of that which you have no testimony of, but nice try.
Your argument are flawed, you logic is a like a state graph with no edges, and someone can get more out of 42 as the meaning of life than they can out of your explanations. Consider the conversation over. You stick to the Bible only, I'll stick with the word of God.
/*cue cheers from crowd over the idea that this thread might actually die*/
"Consider the conversation over. You stick to the Bible only, I'll stick with the word of God."
Good idea. I'll stick to the Word of God, the Bible, and you stick to the Book of Mormon etal.
Dave
Good idea. I'll stick to the Word of God, the Bible, and you stick to the Book of Mormon etal.
Dave
Galatians says Gospel. Gospel is a set of teachings, not a book. So long as any further revelation or books do not contradict that gospel, they are not teaching a different gospel. So like Vic said, no it doesn't.
Please explain to me how the Mormon gospel is not different from the Bible. Especially since what it preaches IS completely different...
*Announcement to engineereeyore*:
I will acknowledge from here on out that I cannot say for certain that John was written before Revelation. This is not because I found compelling evidence against it, but because I cannot find any evidence that goes into depth about the date of the writing and gives definitive proof. Everything I find suggests a date, and writes a brief sentence or paragraph about it; nothing detailed enough to come to a conclusion. The 85-early 90's date still stands strong, though; and I will say that there is reason to believe that this is so, and you can read my reasoning later in this response.
End announcement
Your link gives me a time line with dates, that is all. How can I make assumption based on something like that?
The validity and evidence of a 96 AD date, as opposed to a pre-70's date, is presented in the links.
Of course I am, but I also have proof to back it up.
The dates for the writings of John, sans-Revelation, are traditionally said to be anywhere from 85 AD to the early 90's. Revelation is 96 AD. So how is the earliest date for the Gospel "much later" than the earliest date for Revelation? It is if you include the pre-70's date of preterists, but that is incorrect.
Here is some very strong internal evidence supporting the pre-Revelation dating of John:
John 21:20-24 (King James Version)
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Your link shows nothing. It is a simple time line with dates; there is nothing explaining how they obtained them.
And who exactly are these "experts"? The overwhelming evidence in favor of the later date, is not just from present times; it has been supported since the early church age, as demonstrated in that quote.
Do I have the "authority" to state that there is a Trinity even though the Bible doesn't specifically say so? Yes, I do, because even though it doesn't outright say that word, I can determine from context and common sense that this is speaking of the Trinity.
It is not coincidence that Revelation ends like it does:
Revelation 22:20-21 (King James Version)
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
The End
He ends by proclaiming that he will return "quickly." This comes after God's revelation of the judgment to come and the promises of eternity.
Now tell me, what more exactly would God have to reveal to mankind after Revelation? Why would God write the conclusion to his Book, and then proceed to write more, especially at a much later date when this would confuse Christians abroad and shake their faith in the Bible as being perfect and complete?
The Bible reveals to mankind the history of the world from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation), what else is there to say?
Where did I say that God "lost" them. The term "lost books" refers to other books mentioned in the Bible (Epistle to the Laodiceans, for instance) that were not excepted as part of the canon by believers. There is very little known about these books, so it is obvious that God did not intend for them to be including in his holy writ otherwise he would have preserved them like he said.
You sure seem to not have faith in the God you claim to believe is capable of doing what he says he is. Why are you questioning his authority and power and the authenticity of his Word so much?
Is that all you got out of that article? You're basing your evidence on several numbers that the author did not reveal why he choose them. Truth is we don't know exactly when the books were written, but we do know the basic time frame in which they were; estimates. Anyway, that wasn't even remotely close to the point of the article, was it?
So how is this better than my link in any way? Once again, a simple chart with no substance.
Nobody ever said that Revelation was the Bible, but that it was an integrated part of it much like the chapters in a book. It also doesn't matter if the Bible didn't exist when Revelation was written, as it was God's responsibility to preserve his Word. Sure the men weren't inspired, but that doesn't mean God didn't have part in making sure that his Word would be preserved.
Why are you doubting so much?
If you add to Z, you are not adding to X as an individual part of the encyclopedia, but to the encyclopedia as a whole who's parts are individual yet united as one.
For one moment, take away all of the individual distinctions of each section of the encyclopedia (the markings such as A,B,C, et al), and imagine them as combined physically into one giant, continuous book. Now pose the same question. Do you see where I'm taking you?
Just because there are distinctions within the sections (books) of the encyclopedia (Bible) does not mean that you isolate one from the other. They are separate (In name, topic, etc.), yet the same (All part of a greater whole that is united as one). When you refer to Z or Y, you are, in both cases, referring to the encyclopedia; yet Z is neither Y, nor the encyclopedia. When you add to Revelation, you add to the Bible; when you add to the Bible, you are not necessarily adding to the Revelation section, but because they are one, the distinction does not matter.
Either way, Revelation isn't the only place that forbids adding or taking away:
Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James Version)
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:6 (King James Version)
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
I assume when you say "scripture," you mean scripture as that of God. In this case, what other scripture (holy) is there?
I will acknowledge from here on out that I cannot say for certain that John was written before Revelation. This is not because I found compelling evidence against it, but because I cannot find any evidence that goes into depth about the date of the writing and gives definitive proof. Everything I find suggests a date, and writes a brief sentence or paragraph about it; nothing detailed enough to come to a conclusion. The 85-early 90's date still stands strong, though; and I will say that there is reason to believe that this is so, and you can read my reasoning later in this response.
End announcement
Your link gives me a time line with dates, that is all. How can I make assumption based on something like that?
The validity and evidence of a 96 AD date, as opposed to a pre-70's date, is presented in the links.
Of course I am, but I also have proof to back it up.
The dates for the writings of John, sans-Revelation, are traditionally said to be anywhere from 85 AD to the early 90's. Revelation is 96 AD. So how is the earliest date for the Gospel "much later" than the earliest date for Revelation? It is if you include the pre-70's date of preterists, but that is incorrect.
Here is some very strong internal evidence supporting the pre-Revelation dating of John:
John 21:20-24 (King James Version)
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Your link shows nothing. It is a simple time line with dates; there is nothing explaining how they obtained them.
And who exactly are these "experts"? The overwhelming evidence in favor of the later date, is not just from present times; it has been supported since the early church age, as demonstrated in that quote.
Do I have the "authority" to state that there is a Trinity even though the Bible doesn't specifically say so? Yes, I do, because even though it doesn't outright say that word, I can determine from context and common sense that this is speaking of the Trinity.
It is not coincidence that Revelation ends like it does:
Revelation 22:20-21 (King James Version)
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
The End
He ends by proclaiming that he will return "quickly." This comes after God's revelation of the judgment to come and the promises of eternity.
Now tell me, what more exactly would God have to reveal to mankind after Revelation? Why would God write the conclusion to his Book, and then proceed to write more, especially at a much later date when this would confuse Christians abroad and shake their faith in the Bible as being perfect and complete?
The Bible reveals to mankind the history of the world from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation), what else is there to say?
Where did I say that God "lost" them. The term "lost books" refers to other books mentioned in the Bible (Epistle to the Laodiceans, for instance) that were not excepted as part of the canon by believers. There is very little known about these books, so it is obvious that God did not intend for them to be including in his holy writ otherwise he would have preserved them like he said.
You sure seem to not have faith in the God you claim to believe is capable of doing what he says he is. Why are you questioning his authority and power and the authenticity of his Word so much?
Is that all you got out of that article? You're basing your evidence on several numbers that the author did not reveal why he choose them. Truth is we don't know exactly when the books were written, but we do know the basic time frame in which they were; estimates. Anyway, that wasn't even remotely close to the point of the article, was it?
So how is this better than my link in any way? Once again, a simple chart with no substance.
Nobody ever said that Revelation was the Bible, but that it was an integrated part of it much like the chapters in a book. It also doesn't matter if the Bible didn't exist when Revelation was written, as it was God's responsibility to preserve his Word. Sure the men weren't inspired, but that doesn't mean God didn't have part in making sure that his Word would be preserved.
Why are you doubting so much?
If you add to Z, you are not adding to X as an individual part of the encyclopedia, but to the encyclopedia as a whole who's parts are individual yet united as one.
For one moment, take away all of the individual distinctions of each section of the encyclopedia (the markings such as A,B,C, et al), and imagine them as combined physically into one giant, continuous book. Now pose the same question. Do you see where I'm taking you?
Just because there are distinctions within the sections (books) of the encyclopedia (Bible) does not mean that you isolate one from the other. They are separate (In name, topic, etc.), yet the same (All part of a greater whole that is united as one). When you refer to Z or Y, you are, in both cases, referring to the encyclopedia; yet Z is neither Y, nor the encyclopedia. When you add to Revelation, you add to the Bible; when you add to the Bible, you are not necessarily adding to the Revelation section, but because they are one, the distinction does not matter.
Either way, Revelation isn't the only place that forbids adding or taking away:
Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James Version)
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:6 (King James Version)
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
I assume when you say "scripture," you mean scripture as that of God. In this case, what other scripture (holy) is there?
Perhaps you could explain what is different? It teaches faith in God, in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. I teaches that Christ was crucified for our sins and has allowed us a way to return to him again. It teaches principles of faith, repentence, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Please explain to me what is different between that and what the Bible teaches?
Directly from the site. "The prologue/elilogue to Gospel not completed until after 95 AD." Is there something in that that is confusing or that I'm missing?
And yet there is still evidence that points to an earlier date. Funny.
I thought you made an announcement that this topic was pretty much over?
No you don't. There is ample proof to validify the claim of closer to 69 A.D., just as there is in the 96 A.D. Matter of fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was not written all at one time, but over a large period of time, such as is seen here.
Gospel of John
What the crap? What was John doing add to scripture after having written Revelations?
No, that is very valid. And see the link above again.
What does that have to do with anything? Even if it did, that only proves that portion of the Book was written first, not the book.
Then maybe you should ask them, or, you could do your own search. You could try "dates of new testament books". Found plenty there that supports my claim. Actually, found several links that point to many of the other New Testament book, not written by John, being written in the early 100's. What does it also show? Some people think nothing could have been written after 95 A.D. Matter of fact, I found one saying nothing could have been written before 75AD. That one was interesting.
Point is, like you already stated, neither of us can prove the other wrong, so what's the point here?
It says nothing about the Trinity. There are very specific example of 3 distinctly separate individuals constituting the Godhead (which is spoken of in the Bible, as opposed to the Trinity) working together as ONE. This definition clearly works with every verse of scripture in the Bible. You're plain and simply does not.
The second coming of the Christ was also prophecied of in Isaiah. Why did the Bible not end there? What more could he possibly have to say? What kind of a question is that? He's got a whole heck of a lot more he could and did say.
Many of the topics in the Bible were only scarcely touched upon. Is it not possible that he spoke more on the subject than was recorded in the Bible? As I said before, there were other groups that existed other than just the ones in Jerusalem. What were his dealings with them? And if he had dealings with them, wouldn't it be important to know about them?
And here's a big reason. With all the screw-up's men are having with understanding the scripture, why couldn't he provide more to help eliminate the confusion?
Plenty. What else happened between, as I believe it is plainly obvious it reveals the history of only a small group of people, not even all of the tribes of Israel.
So I will ask again, since you still won't answer. Where the men that put together the Bible inspired? Did they have the authority from God, the same that existed in the Biblical writings, to do what they did? Plus, not all books were "lost". Several of them were still there and simply weren't included. What right did these men have to "add to or take away from" the Bible? These books existed. If the verse means what you believe it means, they had no right to do so.
Oh, I'm not the one questioning God. You're the one saying he can't write anymore than he has, nor that he can give his word to anyone other than what the Bible says he did. Matter of fact, the Bible clearly states he did give it word to others, yet you would still reject these words cause their not in the Bible.
Clearly, it's not me with the problem. I accept the Bible as the word of God, and I accept the books in it as the Word of God. However, I'm not willing to let men tell me when God has said enough.
It shows the evolution of the Bible, a book you clearly claim can not be changed. If you idea is correct, why do you support it being changed?
You're exactly correct, which is why other books are currently available for people to read and learn from even today. Since these men weren't inspired, they obviously didn't have any right to do what they did (even though you support them in it), so in order to make it better, God has to do something. So what has he done? He's brought forth additional scripture that we can use as a witness of the first.
Look at all the crap that's come out these days. Now several of these book are crap. They are obvious Arianist knock-offs, and many of them are confusing the crap out of people. Why? Because we know the Bible didn't contain everything. So the question is, what is correct of the stuff that was left out? Well, give the Bible a second witness, like the Book of Mormon, and it's all much easier to sort out because it verifies the teachings within the Bible. These new books not only have to correspond with the Bible, but with the Book of Mormon also. And if they don't, they're knock-offs. If they do, then they are likely legitimate writings that could have been/should have been included. Thus one of the truly great purposes of the Book of Mormon, a second witness of Christ.
I doubt man, not God. There's a big difference.
Yes I do, and I see my point still holding.
So what you're saying is that everything past Deuteronomy 4:2 is false? Obviously, since your interpretation is correct, then nothing more could be added after that. Everything else is false.
Your interpretation, not mine, has not disproved the majority of the Bible. Congratulations.
Book of Mormon. Wonderful book of scripture. You should read it. Together with the Bible, it can bring you closer to God than you ever thought possible. Did for me.
*Verse disputed*
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Well first of all, the Trinity is not the only thing in the universe that has a composite nature.
Take water for example. Water can exist in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each individual state of water is unique, yet all three are hydrogen hydroxide. Likewise, water can exist in its three forms at the same time.
The same can be applied to the Trinity. Each personage of the Trinity is like water. You have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Each is individual, yet all three are the same God, at the same time.
You must also remember that God created man in his own image:
Genesis 1:26 (King James Version)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Notice how he mentions his plurality three times.
Man is a triune being. We consist of three "parts": body, soul, and spirit. All three parts are distinct from the other, yet they all form one man. God created us in his image; is it merely coincidence then that we are also a trinity?
Here is great explanation of what is meant by that passage (Ephesians 5:31):
You are taking the verse to mean a literal combining of bodies to form one freakish object. God, on the other hand, is describing a proper union between husband and wife that results in sweet harmony between them.
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Well first of all, the Trinity is not the only thing in the universe that has a composite nature.
Take water for example. Water can exist in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each individual state of water is unique, yet all three are hydrogen hydroxide. Likewise, water can exist in its three forms at the same time.
The same can be applied to the Trinity. Each personage of the Trinity is like water. You have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Each is individual, yet all three are the same God, at the same time.
You must also remember that God created man in his own image:
Genesis 1:26 (King James Version)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Notice how he mentions his plurality three times.
Man is a triune being. We consist of three "parts": body, soul, and spirit. All three parts are distinct from the other, yet they all form one man. God created us in his image; is it merely coincidence then that we are also a trinity?
Here is great explanation of what is meant by that passage (Ephesians 5:31):
You are taking the verse to mean a literal combining of bodies to form one freakish object. God, on the other hand, is describing a proper union between husband and wife that results in sweet harmony between them.
No, that doesn't work, because water can not exist in all three state simultaneously as the Godhead does. Water can be in one and only one state at a time. And as we all know, the 3 always exist simultaneously. A very good evidence of this is at the Baptism of Christ. So your explanation still doesn't work.
Um, the soul is the combination of the body and spirit. It is not a separate entity, so that doesn't really work either.
But the verse it great to show that their were in fact 3 distinct individuals there, or at least more than one, thus even adding to my case.
Are you starting to see how the Trinity idea just doesn't make sense?
Yes, that explains my point exactly. Two distinctly different people working together as one. God is one distinct being, Jesus is another, and the Holy Spirit is another, thereby making three distinct beings. However, they work together in harmony as one.
I am not stating that two people are supposed to become one person, as I'm rather positive I stated rather clearly. But the definition of the Trinity mean they are exactly like that. It not me stating that, it the concept of the Trinity stating that.
If you agree with me that there are 3 distinct and separate beings that work together in perfect unity as one, then you do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. So which is it? Do you accept what your own example says, or do you accept the Trinity?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter