Justice

Yeah, it wasn't a complete quote, and without the complete quote it can be misunderstood. D&C 84 17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years. 18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God. 19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. 20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. 23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; 24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. 25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; Very powerful teachings here, and more explanations as to what may have been removed from or changed in the Bible.

I will see your 1 John and raise you a 3 Nephi: 3 Nephi 11: 10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. 11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. 12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven. 13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying: 14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. ... and with Oliver Cowdrey's testimony: On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! While the world was racked and distracted—while millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the ‘blaze of day’; yes, more—above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! ...and with part of the lost conversation between Moses and God: Moses 1: 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe. The voice of a living prophet who speaks the living words of God to men can only be out-trumped by God Himself. In every age of the world prophets have spoken God's will to man... this age is no different. We don't force you to open your mind and heart toward these things, but we invite and strongly encourage you to do so. It all hinges on whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God. We can talk about it for another 300 message board pages in this forum, but the heart of the matter is this: Either the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith or they did not. That truth can be discerned by sincerely reading the Book of Mormon with an open heart, and honestly desiring to know if it is true. If you have your mind made up and it is closed before hand, then it is not promised that you can come to know anything.

People have believed your view of God for 1500 years. It's not new. It's not yours. What's new is the knowledge that came from Joseph Smith's first vision. That's what the majority of the world seems not ready to receive yet.

PC, you've said so many very intelligent things I don't care to try to list them, but this has to rank up near the top. Let me think about it for a while and I may respond.

Very interesting.

SpringGirl could be right. But, in fact, The Father is glorified and perfected. The path He took there is meaningless now.

Ahhh. Perhaps. I was looking at it more for an LDS persective where a certain amount of coverting will be done in the Spirit World. They are stepping way out on a limb if they claim to know how people will respond to the Gospel as spirits. I think Christians should always give a person the chance to change, and let God judge him.

This was also the problem of the church after the Apostles were killed. Then, in my view, by saying Christ is not the literal Son of God, but a manifestation of God in the flesh, they essentially killed off the Son of God also.

I like your entire definition, phi39. It shows thought and understanding. I especially like the last part (quoted).

So, then at Jesus' batism He is being a ventriliquist, throwing His voice into the air to act as if He is speaking to Himself from the sky as another person? The Father's voice is clearly heard from heaven, speaking to those present as a witness that Christ is His beloved Son. If so, that's a game of deception, and He should understand why we are confused, if in fact it is we who are wrong.

When you discuss religion with others you have to realize that there are many different ways to interpret the words of scripture, or even words in general. This is evident in the number of churches there are in the world, all interpreting the Bible differently. To accuse someone of disregarding it may not be the best way to approach a religious conversation. It would be better to ask how they interpret it. The way you worded your question is accusatory and shows little desire to actually understand what another believes.

I didn't read it all, PC... but did they really say "to those who deny CHrist?" Or, did they say "to those who do not accept Him?" Because those are two very different things.

The problem is not God's word, but interpretation of God's word. EVERYONE believes when they read the Bible they are being led by the Spirit. It's funny though, the typical measuring stick of if one is being taught by the spirit when reading is if they agree with what the individual believes. Proof of this is found in all the different Christians who believe differently, yet get hteir truth from the same book, the Bible. I have the written words of prophets as you do. I also have the spoken words of living prophets called of God today. Yes, interpreting scripture for yourself is dangerous, but following the counsel and admonition of a living prophet is not.

I recently (before any of the recent Bible threads) read a long (very) critical text analysis of all Book of Mormon texts and releases. We have some of the original manuscript, and we have nearly all of the printer's manuscript. We also have all versions where changes were made to the text. It would surprise most members to learn how many changes have been made. By far, the vast majority of changes happened when they hand copies the original to create a printer's copy, and the mistakes made it type-setting. Preparing the Book of Mormon for printing (both together) resulted in a huge amount of textual errors. One thing I found interesting is this critical text analysis found patterns in expression. In one area, there was a place where Joseph Smith changed a passage to what he felt was more accurate, but by so doing, broke the pattern of language found for that phrase. What did I get from reading it? An even firmer testimony that it was produced in the manner Joseph SMith said it was. They found an incredible amount of Hebrew literary styles and phrases. FAIR Topical Guide: Changes in the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon/Textual changes - FAIRMormon Book of Mormon Critical Text Project Completes Text Analysis - Insights - Volume 29 - Issue 3 Someone else had a link to the entire presentation of a critical text analysis of the Book of Mormon... would love if you would link it in this thread.

As long as we're being technical, this scripture contradicts itself. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is seven words not one.

What I'm answering is not if the "word of God" has been preserved, but why didn't God preserve the written form of His word. We need to come together on these terms or this will be a fruitless discussion. The Bible is called the word of God becuase it contains the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ, and prophets spoke and wrote, when inspired by the Spirit, the things of God, or the things God would have men know. I have never, and will never, dispute this. Our dispute is about what exactly "His word" means. You seem to claim whether spoken by God, or written and translated by men over 1,500 years by dozens of different people into dozens of different laguages, it is the same. It is exactly the same! There is proof that this just isn't the case. The very proof that God did not micromanage the written form of His word can be readily seen, to any logical mind, in all the various translations of His word that we have. This is what I'm speaking about, and it cannot be disputed. What you are saying is that none of these errors amount to any real change in His word. By saying that you admit textual change. What we can debate is whether or not any of the changes amounted to anything, not whether or not any changes actually happened. The way I have shown many Protestant preachers teach that the Bible is "God-breathed" just cannot be so. There have been changes, and there is proof. God did not write the Bible Himself. He spoke to men and they wrote it, and it was subsequently copied and translated such that no two texts of manuscript match exactly today. I would much rather have a discussion about the tampering, and if it caused any meaningful changes. I wish you would admit that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible in the world today and that no two are exactly the same. That would make our discussion much easier, and more focused on whether those changes amounted to anything. My "interpretation" that heret was mistranslated into man's pen was shown by evidence and findings, not interpretation. That they used writing boards, not scrolls, or worse, "sticks," was shown by evidence and findings, not interpretation. That Ezekiel actually held something (a writing board) in his hand "before their eyes" is part of the text. The fact that the people asked what he meant by showing them the "books" he made is in the text. They just didn't know what he held until the 1950s. I talked to one minister who said what Ezekiel actually held were scepters symbolic of the tribes, and not writings at all. With the way the text is currently in the Bible you can arrive at that interpretation. But, if it were "more accurately translated" you could not. If you don't get that Ezekiel held writings, you miss the primary point of his prophecy. Who are the two nations? Judah and Ephraim. Is the prophecy only speaking allegorically about tribes, or does it speak about the writings of those tribes? Clearly, what he held up was a symbolic writing board representing the writings of both nations, joined together. When the writings of the two nations are joined together, then the people would be joined together. With modern discoveries of the items used in the prophecy, this is the best interpretation because it fits all aspects of the prophecy. If you understand that "stick" was not a "stick" or a scepter, but a writing board, it singles in on what Ezekiel was representing symbolically, the writings of those people. If that is not understood, the meaning is missed. What does it mean to you when it speaks of the "stick of Joseph, which was in the hand of Ephraim?" Do we have it? Do you think the "stick of Judah" is symbolically speaking of the Bible? Soninme, what if the new findings show how it was mistranslated and misinterpreted? What if it is speaking about the joining of the writings of the tribe of Judah with the writings of the tribe of Joseph through Ephraim? What if it's talking about the Bible and Book of Mormon, since, with the new evidence, they fit the descriptions perfectly?

"His word" is unchanging. His word has been preserved because He speaks to men of all ages, and He speaks the same words. Those men can then write it, or fix it if it has been written down or copied wrong. We have several prime examples of this in the Book of Mormon. Compare: Malachi 4 To: 3 Nephi 24 And look at this specific example of a time where Christ wanted certain things written in their scriptures, and questions why they weren't. 3 Nephi 23: 6 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not. 7 And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept. 8 And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said: 9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so? 10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled. 11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did rise and appear unto many and did minister unto them? 12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written. 13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded.

That's an ironic question since we're discussing one of those differences in this thread. Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Spirit to write the word of God, and later developed copy errors and mistranslations, or it is literally written by and breathed by God Himself and has remained in it's perfect form throughout history, completely unchanged by men. But, I'll bite and give you a mistranslation from the Hebrew text to the KJV that masked the true meaning of a prophecy. However, I don't know what good it will do. Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This is a classic translation error. In Exodus Aaron used a "tool" called a "heret" in Hebrew to carve the surface of the golden calf he made. Isaiah used a "man's pen" to write on paper, even though it was also a "heret" or carving tool. The overlying problem is that it was not discovered that ancient Judeah used writing boards during Isaiah's day until the 1950s. This caused several random mistranslations (like above) throughout the Old Testament, most notably in Ezekiel. It masked one specific prophecy so much that people can't recognize something in the Bible even though it is very specific in naming it. Since most Christians (I've spoken to) see Ezekiel 37 as speaking allegorically about tribes, and not about writings, which is the main purpose of the verses, it would be quite remarakable if there were evidence linking it to actual writings. People cannot see what was originally written because of the way it was mistranslated, even though, once understood, the truth can be gathered from the words. But, it requires external (to the Bible) help. And, you have to use different words than what are in the KJV to properly describe and understand it. There are several articles and books dealing with these types of things. One article I found on the LDS web site dealing with this specific issue is here: Ezekiel?s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel - Ensign Feb. 1987 - ensign It will help you get more familiar with what I'm talking about. But, this is the first time I've seen that particular article and have not read it. I got my information many years ago in a book I have on my shelf. Did you know Ezekiel was talking about the "writings of the descendants of Ephraim" and not just about tribes? Did you know that the Book of Mormon is the writings of the descendants of Ephraim?

Are you suggesting my view is contrary to His? I claim the Bible is the word of God. All I'm saying it is not "perfect" as delivered from the mouth or pen of the prophets. There is variation in the text, not in God's word. I don't recall saying it can't be trusted, just that it's not "perfect as delivered" to man. There have been some changes to it, not that it has been destroyed and God's word can no longer be discerned. If you are suggesting the Bible is the perfect word of God, unchanged from the way it was spoken or written by the prophets, then you must say which version, because they are all textually different.

I love this. So, do you believe the Bible is "inspired" as traslated in the KJV, or do you believe more in line with the definition of "God-breathed" as I have quoted others to say? I didn't know you are of the Assembly of God faith.

Alma 42 is the definitive voice in this matter. :) Alma is explaining the resurrection to his son, Corianton, and that with it will come what he calls a "restoration." 27 Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. 28 If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. There is no spiritual "magic" in the resurrection like there is physical "magic." If you know the question that is being answered you can see what Alma is teaching: 1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. It is logical. It is not injustice, it is perfect justice to be returned (or restored) to the same condition. It is mercy to be perfect physically. If God could restore good for evil then all would inherit the Celetial Kingdom. But, that would be unfair, or unjust, to those who exercised faith in Christ and repented of their sins.

If you are implying that I disagree with this verse and am speaking contrary to it, then either I have done a poor job in communicating my belief, or you don't understand what I'm trying to say. There is a huge difference between truths as they exist in heaven (The Lord's word is eternal) and the limited and finite and mistranlated way man has recorded them in written form on paper. If you believe any version of the Bible is "God-breathed" and the written words of men perfectly portrays the way God's spoken words exist in heaven, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I understand, PC. I agree. If anyone is willing to really listen to WHY we do not believe the Bible is God-breathed (according to the definition used by most Christians teachers today) they would be forced to agree. The fact is, most are not objective. It's important to point out the definition I'm using. I have viewed over 30, maybe 50, web sites where the word "God-breathed" was defined. Here are some very typical definitions I found on over 80% of the sites I visited (copying and pasting small quotes directly from those web sites): "He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means 'God-breathed' or 'breathed out by God,' and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God..." (A Word from the Word - Dr. Dan Hayden -- Dan Hayden) "Now, we believe that the Bible is God's breath. We believe God wrote every word of it. God gave it. God revealed it. What is in here is what God said." (Grace to You -- Grace to You by John MacArthur) Taking "God-breathed" literally from either the Latin or Greek causes misunderstandings in our language. These Christian teachers define the meaning they have given to "God-breathed" and project it back to what it "must have" meant in Latin and Greek. You can't do that. It did not mean what they purport it to mean. "God-breathed" isn't even an English word, it's a construct that helps them portray their view of what the Bible is, NOT what the Bible claimed to be. Inspired means it is revelation, that MEN spoke or wrote when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. It does not mean God Himself breathed (or spoke) the words of the Bible and therefore He will not allow them to be changed or altered. There is a stark difference in the implication of "God-breathed" over "inspiration." The term meant that they are truth because they are the words of God as spoken by the prophets. There was never a claim by the Bible that God Himself breathed them and they were perfectly recorded and preserved. Inspiration carries with it the meaning that man participated, and that a man was inspired by God to do something. "God-breathed" carries with it the feeling that man had no part of what happened, it was God controlling it from beginning to end, hence the belief that the Bible is perfect. So, it is not my intent to refute that the Bible is inspired, but that it is "God-breathed" as professed by some modern translators.

There are possible logical explanations for this. On day 1 God created "light." What He didn't do is create a generating and sustaining source of it nearby the earth, which He had to create later. The trees could have been sustained by this other source of light until the sun took over. Even still, it could simply have been that the light and glory that emmanated from His Person sustained life until He set things in order.

You know, the "God-breathed" has occupied my mind a great deal lately. I come away with 2 main thoughts. 1. The Greek word translated to "inspiration" in the KJV does indeed translate directly into English as "God-breathed." However, the word meant something different in anceint times as the definition it has been given in our language. The word "theopneustos" in their language meant "inspired" according to every expert who knows anything about the Greek language at the time it was written, and is why it was translated inspired in the KJV and not God-breathed. Even though it translates to "God-breathed" in our language it doesn't mean it ever had this meaning of "perfection and controlled" as it has been given in our day. You can't project the definition backward through time and say it's what they meant. The word in their language literally meant that it was perfect and true at the time "God breathed" it, but it does not mean God controlled any subsequent copying or translating. It does not account for errors that have been made, whether accidental or intentional. It is very narrow and closed minded to believe it meant the same thing in their language as it does in ours. 2. Which translation is "God-breathed?" There are hundreds of Bibles in the world today, in many different languages. There are several different versions or translations in most languages. None of them match perfectly. Which translation is God-breathed?