Justice

Can you post more info, or provide a link where you get your information? I am having a discussion with a friend at work about the coming forth of the Bible. I'm trying to get him to watch the new BYU produced documentary series Fires of Faith. But, I'd love to read more of this info.

My favorite scripture about faith is, at first glance, the "generic" one that doesn't seem to say much. But, with a close reading and word break down, it says much. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. When you read this verse it seems to give the impression that "faith is something not real or tangible, something you can't put your finger on." In actuality, this verse is stating quite the opposite. Look at the word break down: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for It doesn't say "faith is something you hope for, that you can't see." It says "faith is the substance; faith is something real." What is the substance of what you hope for? I would aks the obvious, "what do you do to bring about your hopes?" If you do nothing to bring about your hopes, then you can be confident that you will always just hope, never achieving. As you take steps to accomplish things that lead you to your hope, then you have some substance of your hope. This is why I like the example of farming. Does a farmer set out to plow a field just to plow a field? What is hope in plowing a field? Obviously, so that he can harvest a crop. WHat if he does nothing to bring about his hope? Then, obviously, it will always just be a hope. The same for the second part of the verse: the evidence of things not seen Again, it doesn't say "faith is not seen," it says "faith is the evidence" of your hope. What is the evidence of your hope? See above. Eternal Life is the hope of every Christian. What do we do to bring about that hope? That is the true nature of faith (in Christ). At some point in time that faith (exercised in Christ) will be evident. There will be signs of your faith. If so, there is no faith, because by it's very definition there must be evidence. It may defy evidence at first (maybe it always does at first), but evidence will come.

And, by the way, the word baptize is taken from the Greek word that literally meant "to immerse in water." The mode is only questioned because of interpretation and a lack of understanding of how all can be baptized, even if they weren't while alive.

It only sounds like it because we have to counter "it is God-breathed" and therefore perfect and error free. Any stance that contends there are mistakes would sound critical. The Bible is the word of God, but that does not mean it has to be perfect. This is the belief I see that I try to refute. In order to oppose the view that the Bible is perfect, it is necessary to point out mistakes. As I point out mistakes, by nature it comes across as critical. I think the part that makes it seem I am being very critical of the Bible text itself is the fact that much of the "error" in the Bible is the misinterpretations and false doctrines that people read into it. I think by pointing out mistakes to the text itself, it is easier to point out how it might have been misinterpreted. So, maybe I am being overly critical of the text itself, when I intend to be more critical of the interpretations. But, since you cannot show someone where they have misinterpreted something, it is easier to first address the textual errors, hoping it may lead to the interpretation errors.

I searched for baptism in the New Testament and it came back with 60 hits. Here are a few of them: John 3: 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Silent? Hardly. I'll buy misinterpreted, but silent? As if these few quotes weren't enough evidence... Here is one hit where people refused to be baptized and look how it talks about them, and the specific reason how people could know that they rejected the word of God: Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Again, PC, hardly silent... just misinterpreted, quite possibly (more than likely) due to changes to the text. So, again, if a person does not get baptized because he believes the Bible teaches he does not have to, but in reality he does, where does that leave that man? Is it important? Would that be worth fussing about? It is critical, even necessary, to get the word of God right. That a man would make a change to a text simply because he disagrees is deplorable. That it was done is indisputable.

Again, PC, if the Bible teaches you don't have to be baptized to be "saved," and the Book of Mormon teaches that you do, then one is right and one is wrong. Assuming the Book of Mormon is right and you have to be baptized to be "saved," then those people who don't get baptized because they misunderstood the Bible are in danger. That interpretation of the Bible cannot save you. I believe the Bible used to be more clear about being baptized by immersion. It's very obvious that there was motive to change it. So, how reliable the Bible is all depends on how well one interprets truth from it. If the texts had been changed to sway readers to a certain person's view, that's not very reliable. So, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Christ, and can lead a man to God, but he has to understand that ordinances (where covenants are made) are necessary. If one reads the Bible and does not participate in ordinances because of the way he interprets it, then it's not the Bible that's faulty, but the interpretation. The text should have been left alone for all to see it clearly, then all would be baptized by immersion, and we wouldn't need to turn to the Book of Mormon for the definitive answer.

PC, many Christian churches believe you don't have to be baptized to be "saved." The Book of Mormon teahces that you do, and not only that, but it has to be by immersion, and by one holding the Priesthood of God. I see the Book of Mormon clarifying the Bible. Now, if the Book of Mormon is right, then it IS worth fussing about!

Now, for something interesting... I searched for "one God" in the LDS standard works (which includes the KJV), and these are some of the hits in the Book of Mormon: Mosiah 15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. Mosiah 15:5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. Alma 33:1 Now after Alma had spoken these words, they sent forth unto him desiring to know whether they should believe in one God, that they might obtain this fruit of which he had spoken, or how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith. 1 Nephi 13:41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth. 2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. 2 hits in the Old Testament, 6 in the New... 10 in the Book of Mormon. So, as has been said, it may not be the translation we're pointing a finger at, but more the transmission, or interpretaiton or understanding of the words.

I have the same impression, not only because that's what it sounded like they said, but after I asked, it is in fact exactly how they explained it. It was said," if historians find any mistakes, then the older versions are in error and the newer version was what God intended us to have, right up to the KJV and beyond." It was very clear, and is why the NIV version of the verse that uses "God breathed" is a clear attempt by a translator to force the Bible to claim it is mistake free, and a blatant attempt to alter the words to mean something different; something that the individual believed. That's the travesty of it all. That's deplorable, and I believe people who changed the Bible to make it say what they believed will be held accountable. I agree with early Christian writer who said "knave! leave it alone!" Let the reader decide!

I have heard it said that the Bible is "God-breathed," thus making it the perfect word of God. My comment would be that Adam was also "God-breathed," yet God did not control him, nor was he perfect. God does not prevent man from making changes, not even to His word. This belief that the "Bible is God-breathed" is rather narrow-minded in my view.

PC, in all seriousness, I believe your beliefs are built on tradtions and dogma far more than you know. Many of the truths you profess were in the hands of wicked people who altered teachings, beliefs, and doctrines to fit their own views. One very small example is indulgences. I'm confident that wasn't part of what Christ taught. (I'm not saying you believe in indulgences, I'm saying you believe doctrines that were controlled and taught by people who instituted indulgences).

I'm not concerned about "mistakes" or "discrepencies" that resulted from accidental error, or even people who attempted, with best intentions, to restore text to a more original state. What I'm concerned about are the times when the Bible was deliberatly changed, or parts were deliberately removed or added to encourage a certain person's interpretation. It no doubtedly happened. Spartain has listed some of the most common ones.

I don't find the term "there is only one God" in the Bible, that must be how you interpret it, since that would more accurately portray it as numerical than "one God." I did find this: 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. "One God the Father" and "one Lord Jesus Christ" and notice the difference, "of whom" all things were made speaking of the Fahter, and "by whom" all things were made when speaking of the Son. This leans toward 2 in number, since they had a different role in creation. In fact, searching for "one God" in the Bible, there are 2 hits in the Old Testament, neither of which are definitive (one is talking about Pharoah's dream), the other is in Malachi and states "one GOd" did something, not saying there isn't others. But, here are the other 5 places "one God" appears in the New Testament, noting the use that best fits your interpretation was made by a Scribe, and is still not definitive: Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 1 Timothy 2: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. These uses just aren't definitive of "there is only one God" as you say. One of the verses mentions "one God" and "one Mediator." This suggests that there are 2, but both called God (plural as I suggest). Other prophets use different language that perhaps more accurately fits your interpretation. Those prophets are all in the Old Testament, and we could discuss those for years and probably not get anywhere.

I suppose just about anything can be used as examples of something. But, I don't understand the point you're making with the terms you used. Do you disagree that the terms man and god can both be used as singular and plural?

I never stated it did. What I said is that the terms "man" and "god" are similar in our language, insomuch that they can be used both as singular and plural. This is a true statement, whether or not you like it. Of course it would be seen as a stretch if it offers an explanation of how your belief may have been twisted from the truth. The scripture you quoted "one God" can be either singular or plural in English, as I have shown. That's just the way it is in our language. In fact, if you read the Bible in other languages the term "God" is more frequently understood in the plural form. I have a good friend who is a 4th year Spanish teacher at the local High School, and served his mission in Mexico. He says the Spanish Bible (and French and German) teach God more in line with what Joseph Smith taught than with what Trinitarians teach. I have another friend who's first language is Spanish and he agrees. God is used and understood in Bibles of other languages more often to be plural than in the mainstream Christian understanding of the English Bible. It's easy to state "that's not so" and quote a scripture that you understand differently than I do, but if you're going to refute the idea, you need to bring evidence realted to my point, or evidence about how God cannot be plural and singular.

BYU TV has a new 2 part documentary on the coming forth of the Bible. You can watch on-line here: BYUtv - Home Comments?

I want to grab these comments from a different thread and see what kind of discussion it leads to. The terms used for man and god are strikingly similar, in that they can be both singular and plural. The term God HAS BEEN used as both in scripture, and is the root foundation of the confusion. Scripture never meant to say "God is only one being or essence," outside of the fact that nothing else is like "God," as nothing is like "man." But, as you have it, "one" can be interpreted different ways. It is proper to say that an individual is both "man" and "a man." It is proper to say Deity is both "God" and "a God." That doesn't mean there's just a single God any more than it means there's a single man. All man is of one flesh (kind of flesh) and all God is of one essense (kind of essense).

It took me a minute to find it, but here is the talk and counsel you need, my friend. ?Hope Ya Know, We Had a Hard Time? - general-conference

You describe my wife and our relationship about 20 years ago. My wife was also abused, and suffered from many of the same things you describe. All I can tell you is that we've been married 20 years (almost) and it didn't get better overnight. It's going to take a huge effort on your part to overcome the destruction done to her by the abuse. If you're not willing, or if your marriage isn't worth it to you, then you may as well just throw in the towel now. You're just wasting your time. But, one piece of advice before you decide... remember the harder you work at something the greater the rewards are. You're in store for a great marriage if you grab the bull by the horns and decide now you're in this until the end. So, put away this doubt and uncertainty and decide your marriage is eternal, and put your working shoes on. It's going to take a great deal of effort and sacrifice, but unless there's something else in your life more worthy of your time and effort, what have you got to lose? My wife went through counseling shortly after we got married (I only went with her when she asked). She says it helped her, but she had surpressed memories that were brought out during the counseling. It made it very difficult on us, but is necessary for long term health and sanity... especially for when you have kids. You've chosen your path, and you now have to be the bigger man, or get off the horse now before any more harm is done. In my case, it took several long years before she even "began" to trust me. As far as your relationship with her is concenred, you have to be beyond reproach with her. Any dishonesty will go a long way. Be honest, and let her know you are going to be. You have to tell her everything for a time. She's the one that needs help, and you're the one that is "put out" because of it. But, she's your wife, and she's worth it. Just love her, and don't give up on her... don't even think that you want to leave. She can't think or see it in you that you're considering leaving. Tell her you're there no matter what, and she'll test you... but do it. Even when she's angry, screaming, and calling you names (and hits you if it happens) tell her you love her and you'll always be there for her. It'll all be over soon, and you'll have the marriage you want with the person you've chosen. You're going to have to pray for His help and strength. But, make the decision now.

You know, considering the "becoming equal with the Father" question, it is clear, again, that we can use the term "man" as an example for understanding (if you look at it right). The Constitution says "all men are created equal." but, that really isn't the case in reality. Infants are "more equal" than adults, but still not equal. Some people will have the BORN IN ability to run fast, some will not. An infant is inferior to his father in many different ways. A father is inferior to his grandfather in many ways. An infant can become like his father, and even grandfather. I think we use this analogy to somehow think we can become equal to God or even greater than God (singularly speaking of the Father). I think many outside our faith use this line of thinking to see our belief as heretical. The fact is, we can never become greater than God the Father, or even equal to Him in the same eternity. He will always be greater, if for no other reason than we are His offspring and will always owe Him our very existence. Now, the couplette often discussed about become as God must be taken in perspective. A boy can become like his father. But, just as the boy has become like his father, his father has now progressed, and the two are not alike at any given time. In the eternities where age does not weaken you, but strengthens you, one can see how the two will never be the same, even though we are of the same essence or existence.

This is a point I have debating on trying to make, but have not had the words. Like the term "man." You can be speaking of one man in particular, or, you can be speaking of all men together. For instance, "Man is developing technology at an increasing pace." "Man is" in this sentence is singular and proper in our language (it is properly followed by is) even though it is speaking of the family of man. "God" is and can be a similar term in our language. When the Bible says "God created the earth" it in fact meant many Gods created the earth, even if acting under the direction of the One God (the Father) they were all subordinate to. Back to "man." There is only one flesh that is man. Zebra is not man; zebra is the flesh of horse. Tuna is not the flesh of man; tuna is the flesh of fish. So, man is one, and there is none like him. The terms used for man and god are strikingly similar, in that they can be both singular and plural. The term God HAS BEEN used as both in scripture, and is the root foundation of the confusion. Scripture never meant to say "God is only one being or essence," outside of the fact that nothing else is like "God," as nothing is like "man" (as mentioned previously). But, as you have it, "one" can be interpreted different ways. It is proper to say that an individual is both "man" and "a man." It is proper to say Deity is both "God" and "a God." That doesn't mean there's just a single God any more than it means there's a single man. All man is of one flesh (kind of) and all God is of one essense (kind of). I don't know how many different ways I can say it, but I have decided this is the confusion.

Any Trinitarians willing to help me with this?

I have nothing to fear... nothing will ever happen to my house!

Although I had heard of this Bible before, I was never inspiried to research it, for some reason, until you posted about it. I thought this was interesting: The translation itself uses a literal approach that has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah)... It is a Catholic translation and was encouraged by Pope Pius the 12th in 1943 (English in 1966). It's different from most translations because it uses the Hebrew and Greek instead of the Vulgate. I would be excited to read it and see what insights it offers, but I know that even history itself is tainted by the beliefs of the writer and reader, and when language tranlations are necessary, the tranlators as well. Does anyone have any general comments aobut it who has read it?

The other question I have, that I would really like to hear explained from a Trinitarian standpoint, is what about angels and Lucifer? If God existed alone, and man did not exist until he was put on this earth, when were the "angels" made? They did exist prior to man being created on this earth, didn't they? And, what of Lucifer? He appears in the Garden of Eden story without having been created, and apparently existed prior to man's creation. Who are the angels and Lucifer? Where did they come from? When did they come about? What was this war in heaven where Lucifer was cast out?