Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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 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 Trinity is no different from the God-head; they are separate terms for the same thing.
Really? They're two different words. What's the point of using the word Trinity when the Biblical word is Godhead? If they're no different, why a new word that's not even in the Bible?
They are distinct and different ideals. Think of a head. How many pieces come together to make the head? Put that together with God and you realize it means that the Godhead is composed of more than one piece, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
The Bible never refers to multiple Gods, but it does refer to multiple gods. In fact the Bible eliminates any polytheistic possibilities with verses like these:
Actually, the first verse of the Bible specifically mentions multiple Gods, you just have to read it in Hebrew. Translated directly, it states: "The head of the Gods", not "And God".
Oh, and then there are all those verses that point to the fact that God and Christ are in fact two distinct and separate beings, which I've already listed (see previous posts). But here's another one for you. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ says, "Not my will, but thy will be done." How in the world does that work? If they're the same being, it is not possible for them to have separate, or different, wills. So how exactly does that work again?
Isaiah 45:5 (King James Version)
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isaiah 44:6 (King James Version)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
As you can see, your definition clearly does not work with every verse of scripture in the Bible.
Pathetic. Please tell me you have something better than that.
1st verse. You confuse 'beside' with 'besides' me. Very big difference.
2nd verse. 'Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel' (God), 'and his redeemer the LORD of hosts' (Jesus Christ). Now wait a minute, I thought there was only one. That verse actually very specifically references the two roles of the beings and even goes so far as to help prove my point and disprove yours. So thanks!
The Bible says that the Three that bear record in Heaven are one, not one in purpose. But as a Mormon, you must accept the tri-theistic teachings of your church, and thus you must make a way around what the Bible says.
Really? The Bible does say they are one, but not that they are singular. Look what you're saying! It makes no sense at all!
Consider the link you gave that talked about a husband and wife being one. Here's a quote.
If we believe God?s truth about oneness, then we will have to accept that the husband and wife is to blend together in such a marvelous way like the body that the two will be one. Who here complains because he has two eyes that function as one? Who here wish they only had one hand rather than two. But they function as one. They work together. That the husband and wife function as one does not cause any drag on the relationship but only brings extra support, strength and beauty. This is a marvelous marriage in function. The two work together as one. This is harmony and it is beautiful when it works.
I could not have stated it any more clearly. TWO FUNCTIONING AS ONE!!! Even your own quote disproves your belief!!!
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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 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?
You have to understand that the entire New Testament was prophesied of in the Old Testament. However, the New Testament reveals and expounds upon the OT prophesies. Looking back, we can see that what was being said in the OT is synonymous with what occurred in the NT; but that is only because we have the NT to reveal the mysteries. The OT by itself was not sufficient for the Church, which is why the NT was written.
Exactly!!! Thus the point of additional scripture!! The book of Mormon was prophecied of in the Old and New Testament, but you still reject it. So what's your theory again?
You're right, they weren't, and the Bible does not contain all that happened. It does, however, contain all the God deemed necessary or wanted us to know. John says:
Only according to your interpretation, not according to the Bible.
John 21:25 (King James Version)
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
So there was no doubt more that happened in the life of Christ, but the Lord provided us with all we need.
No, man provided all he could. With so much more that could have been written, and was, why are you complaining? My gosh, if you love the word of God so much, why are you complaining that he's given you more?
What confusion? I'm not confused about anything. The only confusion comes from those who wish to change the meaning of the Bible, and malign its holy words. And the Lord already provides us help when confusion arises. It's called prayer.
I'm well aware of that. Prayer is how I came to know the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, were the word of God. Prayer is a wonderful thing. Use it every day.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
The Bible reveals to mankind the history of the world from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation), what else is there to say?
[/i]
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.
As stated above, God chose to reveal what he thought important for us to know. Everything else, while certainly not harmful, is not what a Christian has to know.
How about this. God, in his infinite wisdom, recognized what would happen after his Apostles were killed. Knowing that men would go astray, and knowing that they would take away many of the plain and precious truths of the Bible, made preparation for additional scripture to come forth at the right time to help confirm the truthfulness of the first and to shed additional light on those things which have been taken away.
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that God is or was done talking. Nothing. Even if your interpretation of Revelations is correct, then why did he keep talking after that statement was made in Deuteronomy? Very simple. Because that verse doesn't mean what you believe it does. But you can't admit that because that's all the "proof" you have against the Book or Mormon or any other scripture that may come forth.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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 write otherwise he would have preserved them like he said.
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.
If you read down a little, you would see that I did answer you. Read before you talk.
That's good advice. Follow it.
No the men weren't inspired, but they were guided. The authority of God on the men should not be the question; what should be asked is whether or not God's authority was on the books that we have today, which it was. The fact that the Textus Receptus or Received Text, which consists of 90 percent of all Greek MSS, only includes those MSS which contain the books that we have today in the Bible is absolutely incredible. The fact that the books were accepted almost unanimously by the people in all of the churches at that time is also amazing. The fact that there has never been any major dispute at all over the credibility of these books is something not to be taken lightly.
What??? How can you be guide but not inspired? The authority of the men is very much in question. They're taking away from and adding to the Bible. If the verse means what you say it means, they dang well better have the authority to do it or the Book is crap. Everything in God's church has always been done through the proper authority. ALWAYS!! No exceptions. I dare say this was a pretty crucial thing done, so it dang well better have been done by those in authority, if they existed.
As for the Book being accepted, sure, only took at least 4 attempts to get everyone to agree. Some speculate more, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll go with 4. No dispute over the credibility?? Only if you don't count the authorship and date as being a dispute. What do you think the main disputes were in the formation of the Bible? As for their validity, although I agree they are the word of God, ask half the people on this forum. That's disputed every time a religious thread is created.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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?
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.
I didn't say he can't write anymore, I said he won't and he didn't. Big difference.
Fine, replace 'can't' with 'won't'. The argument still holds.
If you accept the Bible as the perfect Word of God, than your entire Mormon belief system falls apart. That's why your own writ says:
Articles of Faith 1:8
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...
Yes, I accept the Bible as the perfect word of God and it doesn't violate that article of Faith. What I don't accept are uninspired peoples translations of the Bible.
So tell me, which is the correct translation? They can't all be correct. And if I take out a phrase or reword it, am I not in violation of the verse in Revelations? If so, even the KJV is in violation (see comment on head of Gods above). So which one is right? You believe the same thing, you're just not willing to admit you might believe something a Mormon does.
This statement allows the privilege to change what the Bible says if it isn't in accordance with the Mormon beliefs.
No, it allows for mistranslations, nothing more. For crying out loud genius, we use the KJV, the exact same, unaltered, version you use. How is that changing anything?
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
So how is this better than my link in any way? Once again, a simple chart with no substance.
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?
I don't support it being changed, but that has nothing to do with it being formed.
You support the Bible in it's current form, which is a changed form. It has everything to do with it. If you really believed what you say, you'd only accept the original version.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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.
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.
What you keep harping on about is that the men weren't inspired so they could have no authority in what they did. It is true that these men were not inspired as were the men who wrote the Bible, but your putting to much weight on the word "inspired." Inspired in Greek means "God-breathed." The forty writers of the Bible were inspired in the sense that God "breathed" to them the words to write down. However, today "inspired" means other things one of which has to with Divine influence. Using the latter definition, the men were inspired which is why there must be a distinction between the two.
So you believe the men who translated the KJV were inspired. You're definition works perfectly fine. What about the men who initially created the Bible, you know, the leaders of the Catholic church. Are the leaders of the Catholic church inspired?
Yes, I put a lot of emphasis on inspiration. Why? Very simple. Every book in the Bible was written though inspiration. How can those books then be translated without inspiration? It might work if there was a direct translation from every language to every other language, but there is not. A word in one language could have several different meanings in another language. So which one is it? Only a truly inspired person would be able to make the correct translation every time. That is why it is so important.
Next I have to point out that the men did not actually pick the Canon of Scripture. The common people where the ones who recognized which books were of God. That is how the Textus Receptus [Received Text] obtained its name. It was also why the Greek text in the Textus Receptus was written in Koine Greek, or the Greek of the common people.
The Textus Receptus was written in 1516ad. What the crap does that have to do with the Muratorian Canon that was created around 200ad? Men did actually pick the Canon of Scripture, and they did it long before the Textus Receptus.
The various councils that were held served the purpose of ratifying the texts that were accepted by the majority, and establishing it as dogma. The Bible says:
One would like to think they did what the public wanted, but tell me. How many members of the public were walking around with copies of all the writings and submitted a vote saying, "I accept these writings"? There is absolutely nothing to say that the members of those councils even cared what the majority of people thought, only what the majority of those council members thought. And does a majority mean correct, or right? Somehow, I doubt it.
Mark 12:37 (King James Version)
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
It is clear that the common people were the ones who accepted Christ; they were the ones who gladly heard the Word of God.
What do that have to do with anything? That was almost 2,000 year previous. That's got nothing to do with it. These are completely different people!
The Book of Mormon isn't legitimate as it doesn't even correspond with the Bible. The Book of Mormon disagrees with and contradicts the Bible in so many ways that I can't see why Mormons even use the Bible in the first place.
If you'd care to mention some, I'd appreciate it. Several others have tried and failed terribly. Perhaps you'd care to give it a go?
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Why are you doubting so much?
I doubt man, not God. There's a big difference.
Then why question whether God preserved his Word or not?
As I very plainly stated, I don't question God. I question his word. The Book of Mormon is evidence to me that God DOES preserve his word.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
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.
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.
Since you want to act like you have no basic comprehension skills or common sense, I'll pose you a question.
What does that do to the Book of Mormon? Oops! That wasn't supposed to happen!
Bad question, as it does nothing to the Book of Mormon. Better question. What does that verse in Deuteronomy do to you interpretation of Revelations. Here's the answer. IT KILLS IT!!! If that verse means the same thing Revelations does, then everything past Deuteronomy is false, because you can't add anything else.
Where are you comprehension skills and common sense might be an even better question. It's very simple. Either you're right and everything past Deuteronomy is false, or your wrong. Whether you're right or wrong has not bearing on me scooter.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
I assume when you say "scripture," you mean scripture as that of God. In this case, what other scripture (holy) is there?
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.
So which one is the superior authority?
That's like asking with book of the Bible has superior authority. They don't trump each other, they work together. If they didn't, you'd have a point. But since they do, you have none. Neither has more authority than the other as they're both the word of God.
I actually plan on reading his book. Although, I disagree with him, I find it is not harmful to challenge your beliefs. Ignorance (or Ignorance by choice <people who choose to not listen because it doesn't fit their own beliefs> ) is by far one of my bieggest pet peeves with other people.
Facebook
Twitter