See me.. this is where I come to the door in a red satin cape with horns and a pitchfork...
for effect make sure you have fake blood all over yourself =)
"Sorry I was in the middle of a sacrifice to appease Satan would you like to come in?"
watch them church folk run =P
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,650
- 203
- 106
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: themusgrat
Just for the record, you are wrong, they add a bunch of crap that is not in the king james version. that is why they are not christian.... Anyways, I agree, I would have had some fun with that loser though
Just for the record, I'm not wrong. Perhaps you would like to specifiy some of the "bunch of crap that is not in the king james version"? As for why they are not considered Christian, it has much more to do with their teaching on Christ that most people do not consider them Christian, it has nothing to do with the version of the Bible they use. Otherwise, there would be several other denominations guilty of the same thing.
There are several variants of the bible, most notably between the catholic and protestant versions.
Some of the books have been renamed, but the primary difference lie in the catholic bible addition of:
Tobit
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Odes
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Letter of Jeremiah
Baruch
As well as some orthodox church additions
Jubilees,
Book of Enoch,
The Shepherd of Hermas,
1 Clement,
Acts of Paul
3 Corinthians
However back to the original issue.
the Mormons use the complete protestant bible, with the addition of the book of mormon.
These are the sacred texts of latter day saints.
First Book of Nephi: His Reign and Ministry
Second Book of Nephi
Book of Jacob: The Brother of Nephi
Book of Enos
Book of Jarom
Book of Omni
Words of Mormon
Book of Mosiah
Book of Alma: The Son of Alma
Book of Helaman
Third Nephi: The Book of Nephi, The Son of Nephi, Who Was the Son of Helaman
Fourth Nephi: The Book of Nephi, Who Is the Son of Nephi, One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ
Book of Mormon
Book of Ether
Book of Moroni
Testimony of Three Witnesses
Testimony of Eight Witnesses
Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith
just to make a point however, there are several "lost books of the bible" which have been included in bibles used by other churches throughout the ages.
The Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of the Birth of Mary
The Protevangelion
The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
The Apostles' Creed (throughout history)
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Epistles of Clement (The First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians)
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philidelphians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas (Visions, Commands, and Similitudes)
Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor
Letter of Pilate to Herod
The Lost Gospel of Peter
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (The First and Second Book of Adam and Eve)
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Letter of Aristeas
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Originally posted by: Vegitto
I have plenty of stuff left to scare them away. Oddly, I never saw any Jehova's witnesses anymore (they used to 'visit' at least once a week) when I took a big bite out of a cow heart that I was actually preparing for my cats
cooked? or dripping with blood :Q
keep a stack of pamphlets of 3 or so different religions next to the door. (i'd go with islam, jehovas witness, and scientology) When they stop by just start proselytizing to them, and shove a pamphlet in their hand.
Probably you know us college kids. I should have popped porn into the VCR before I answered. :-/
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: themusgrat
Just for the record, you are wrong, they add a bunch of crap that is not in the king james version. that is why they are not christian.... Anyways, I agree, I would have had some fun with that loser though
Just for the record, I'm not wrong. Perhaps you would like to specifiy some of the "bunch of crap that is not in the king james version"? As for why they are not considered Christian, it has much more to do with their teaching on Christ that most people do not consider them Christian, it has nothing to do with the version of the Bible they use. Otherwise, there would be several other denominations guilty of the same thing.
Not that this thread is about this but I went to a mormon church for years and you add a LOT to the bible. You do not insert words into the bible literally but if you read all your other texts they "further explain" events in the original bible and sometimes change them a great deal. That is in no uncertain terms adding a bunch of crap not in the king james version.
If I handed you Huckleberry Finn and then a "companion guide" that expanded on the original story and elaborated on alot of it, then told you you couldn't read one without the other would you consider that adding stuff?
EDIT: Or if you have to be literal your version of the king james version has footnotes pointing towards books that are not in the original bible, especally D&C so yes, you literally add stuff to the bible too.
Give me a break. Almost every version of the Bible today has footnotes and references, put there for the convenience of the reader, not as a requirement. It is not adding anything to the Bible, it is plain and simply there to help the reader see other instances of the topic being discussed in other places in the Bible.
As for D&C, that is not part of the Bible, nor has it ever been considered such. If you consider a footnote to be an addition to the Bible, so be it, but you condemn a lot more religions than just Mormonism. Also, according to your definition, anyone who write commentary on the Bible, or attempts to write a book helping people to understand portions of the Bible, is also guilty of the same crime.
Your definition is absurd. Perhaps we should all go back to the original list of books for the New Testament as described in the Muratorian Canon. After all, wouldn't every change since then be a contradiction of your definition? I mean honestly, why do we need Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, several books by John, and shouldn't we add Revelations of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon back? And then, since most current translations are based off later editions, their all wrong too and guilty of the same crime.
Like I said, give me a break. Your definition is ridiculous.
This may or may not be worth pointing out on you as I'm sure you can't handle the thought that I may be right as well as other people, but when most religions put footnotes in the bible they lead to other parts of the bible! If the footnote leads to a different book that is adding to the bible. If you have a problem with my definition go to your bishop and say "Do we consider the bible a complete work or do we add to it through the D&C and PogP?" See what he says. From then on you can admit that mormons add to the bible.
Also you said it's not required reading. Are you saying the D&C and PogP are optional reading? The mormon footnotes lead to "enhanced" versions in "The Roadmap" that you guys get with your bible. That is in no uncertain terms adding. If I point to John in a footnote from Mark that is not adding. If I point to First Nephi that is adding.
I am presbyterian, we have books religious people wrote but they are merely that person's interpretation or opinion. They are in no way endorsed by the church officially and are not considered and sort of actual guide to live by or sanctioned by God/Jesus. Mormons, on the other hand, have books that are equally as hallowed as the bible such as the PogP and the D&C. They then have lesser books officially sponsored by the church such as The Holy Temple, and The Miracle of Forgiveness which I had to read when I 69'd with my mormon g/f.
I am simply letting you know that I am not merely pulling crap out of my butt here. Don't forget I am not exaggerating or spouting rumor. I studied and attended the LDS church for a good while. Also, I am not criticising you or your religion in any way. I am merely pointing out that, like Jews, you regard alot more as holy works tan just the bible.
It's not worth pointing out because it's a ignorant argument, not because I can't handle your ability to be right. Though, as soon as you show signs of this possibility, I'll have a look.
Go to my Bishop? Bag that. How about I just listen to the leaders of the church? Or, better yet, look at the title page of the Book of Mormon? Let's see, 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ'. Hmm, it doesn't say, 'An extension of the testament of Jesus Christ' or 'The rest of the testament of Jesus Christ'. It says 'another testament'. Let's look at that definition, shall we?
another: different; distinct; of a different period, place, or kind, very similar to.
Hmm, looks like your argument is sinking faster than a submarine with a screen door.
Are the D&C and PoGP optional reading in order to understand the nature of the verse to which they are referenced? Absolutely. These book do not contain the Books of the Bible in an "enhanced version". As for "The Roadmap", I have no idea what you're talking about. I'd be impressed to see if you did either. Again, as for the adding portion, see the previous post as it's obvious you didn't read it. Perhaps you will this time.
Congratulations, you "69'd" someone. Is that supposed to anger me, impress me, or just make me realize what a pathetic person you are? If it's the third, you succeeded. As for your commment on officially sanctioned material, if you accept the Muratorian Canon (which defines the books of the Bible) or you accept the idea of the Trinity, you are accepting items that are endorsed by your church, are sanctioned by God/Jesus, and yet are still not included in the Bible. If you don't accept these two items, you are not presbyterian. If you do accept them, you are in violation of your own definition.
I am happy you spent the time studying the LDS church. I have done the same during my membership. I have never stated, and never will, that we do not regard other books as holy works. However, none of these books are extensions of the Bible, replacements of the Bible, or do they in any way disrespect the Bible. If you are trying to make the point that we believe that there is more than just the Bible, make it. I'll agree with you. But we DO NOT ADD anything to the Bible. We used the King James Version and you will find absolutely no difference between the version we use and any other KJV you can buy in the store, minus footnotes.
So like I said, if you want to argue that we USE more than just the Bible, feel free. But you know as well as I that we do not ADD to the Bible.
put them in a headlock and make them drink a mason jar filled with your pee. thast how i dont buy best buy warrantess.
Sorry, but you are no Christian. You're riding the fence and being hypocritical, who is himself giving Christians a bad name. While accusing others of doing the same.
I'm not going to go ny further than defend my statements so far because no matter how many people (mormons included) on this board have reasoned with you in the past you never get it.
Ask Pres. Hinkley for all I care it doesn't have to be your bishop and they will tell you the same things:
1) D&C and PogP are not optional in any way. If they are the whole Mormon religion crubles. The "authority" given to the LDS church is what sets them apart. The bible does not cover this. Prophecise? Perhaps, but it sure doesn't state it.
2) In the 3 LDS churches I went to EVERY ONE called the book of mormon "The Roadmap" and a "Companion Book" to the bible. Perhaps that is restricted to Utah and Georgia but I somehow very seriously doubt it since the names came from speeches given by church leaders. They make it clear that without the book of mormon the bible is not complete. If it is not complete then obviously it adds something to it even if it is a second book.
3) I'm sorry having a sex life makes me pathetic, I guess to be cool you have to keep it in your pants. Furthermore defining the books of the bible is not adding, it's defining. We say "this is our bible". You guys say "This is our bible....and oh yeah the book of mormon changes the context of some of the major points in the bible a huge deal". As for the trinity that's interpretation, like your separate but equal, that's not adding anything. The bible is not 100% clear on this. Where do you guys get the idea they're separate? Let me give you a hint it's not from the bible.
4) Perhaps the problem we're having here is the definition of add. If I gave you a hamburger and I said "eat this" that would be a hamburger. If I gave you a hamburger with cheese right next to it and said "you cannot eat this hamburger without the cheese. I am keeping the cheese separate but in every bite of burger you have to tear off cheese and put it in your mouth." Is that not a cheeseburger?
When asked why Mormon missionaries recruit Christians. Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinkley seemed to coin a clever phrase which Mormons now quote frequently: "Bring us what you have and we will add to it!"
Here's a good post on the technicalities (I know it will be hard for you to see them even though people smarter than I have brought them up to you before) the Mormon church uses to add to the bible:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml#add
Scroll down to "How dare you add to the word of God? Revelation 22:18-19 forbids this!"
The Mormons acknoweledge that it is not ok to add to the bible directly which is why they get all fired up every time you tell them they do, but in fact there is no way around adding texts that "refine" or "shed new light" upon a story by telling it more clearly or in more detail is in fact adding to the original work. It's like making an extended version of a movie with different actors and a slightly different script but identical storyline, places, the works and saying it isn't adding to the original movie.
Now, is the "original" bible correct and finished? I dunno probably not. If the King James Version the "right" version, again I dunno but probably not. I'm not calling you a sinner or saying ANYTHING bad about the LDS faith, I respect it and it's followers very much but you guys add to the bible in as direct a fashion as possible without changing the text or merging it and the book of mormon. I mean when you sell "LDS bibles" that have the 2 in there back to back that share table of contents arguing that you call one the bible and one the book of mormon is a bit rediculous.
Also, what's emblazoned on the front of every book of mormon? "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". How can writing another book that includes the SAME stories as the original plus new stories not be adding?
Sure, I get it. Everyone tries to find some flaw, and no one does. I got that a long time ago, but thanks for proving it yet again.
First, I never stated reading D&C or the PoGP were option for a better understand of the Gopsel. I did however, as you may or may not have understood, state that they are not necessary in order to understand each and every verse they are reference against.
As for the Authority, the Bible covers authority very well. The PoGP has absolutely nothing to do with the Authority of this church, other than recounting the story in the History of Joseph Smith. I'm not quite sure what you meant by 'Prophecise'.
I have never heard the reference "Roadmap", and I've lived in Utah for 5 years. Is it a companion? Yes, which would therefore mean that it is a separate book for them Bible, yet serves to reinforce the teachings of the Bible. Is the gospel taught in the Bible complete without the Book of Mormon? No. Is the Bible itself complete without the Book of Mormon? Seems to be.
Yet again, there is a big difference between literally adding to the Bible and adding additional teachings to suppliment the Bible. One implies that we are alter the Bible or the teachings therein. This we have never done and is exactly the point I have been trying to make, which you seem to simply avoid. The second I have never denied, and have repeatedly stated that if this is what you are trying to say, then say it. Don't act like what we have done is the first thing.
Your sex life isn't what makes you pathetic. The fact that you feel compelled to share it with everyone does. I don't care who you've 69'd, or the fact that the woman was Mormon. Keep it to yourself.
So tell me, what's the difference between adding teachings from the Book of Mormon and adding teaching from other writings not in the Bible? After all, this is what happened. It took 4 major meeting to determine what should and shouldn't be there. Now personally, I don't particularly care to have my religion government by men who lived that long ago and who I don't believe had the authority or revelation necessary to make such a decision. If you do, fine. That's your choice. But there are several books and many teaching which we omitted that do not contradict the Bible and should have been included. Yet if it happened, people like you would make the exact claim you're making, and it would be just as pointless.
No, I think the problem is your understanding of the difference between scripture and the Bible. By using the Book of Mormon, we add to the SCRIPTURE that is available. We make no adjustments to the Bible itself. However, since you view the Bible as the only scripture available, adding scripture and adding to the Bible are essentially one and the same. You're wrong, but that the way you've most likely always been taught. Argue what you wish, but that the real problem.
Yes, having studied this to a great extent, I find such a claim completely ignorant. That book was not even the last one written. The reason that was written had to do with translaters altering text. It had absolutely nothing to do with adding to the Word of God. And look, even there they say the "Word of God", not the Bible. Get it yet?
Yet again, your reasoning of "refine" or "shed new light" were the exact reasons the original list of Books of the Bible was changed, then changed again, and then again. Whether you accept that or not, it is the same. It just suits your need to push it off to the side, so you do. Doesn't change anything though.
Again, same argument, but still no point. If we had merged the books, you'd have a point. Since we haven't, you have no point.
Hey, this is blantant evidence that you haven't read my post because I've already discussed this. And as a matter of clarification, the stories are not the same genius. In fact, the Book of Mormon was written on a completely different continent. I mean, why did you even bring this up? A comment like that makes it look like you know absolutely nothing about the book. Other than a few chapters quoted of Isaiah, which contain absolutely no alterations, there is not a single Biblical story quoted in the Book of Mormon. That was by far you most condemning statement to you argument that either of us have made.
Keep trying.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter