sonofpaul

Hello All, I am sorry that I have not kept up with all the questions. I am working on my Master's degree and responding to everyone is low on the list of things to do at the moment. I do have one question for happyirish. Are all the books that you listed above, are they written by people associated with the LDS church or doctrine? If so, please provide some books written by people that are not linked to the LDS church. I will give an example of why this is important: I drive a GM car with 171,000 miles on it. In the past, my parents owned a GM car that had 376,000 miles on it and it still work in OK condition. As I am looking into getting a new in the future, I find FORD, Dodge, and GM all saying they are the number one car in America. How can all of them be number one? (There is some truth to their claims, but when you compare all the claims, stats and history of each company, a different picture arises.) I am bias toward GM based on my past experiences with their vehicles. Who is to say that FORD is better than Dodge? If I talk to someone from FORD, they will tell me that their cars are the best on the market. If I talk to someone from Dodge, they will tell me that their cars are the best. So, who is right? Well, those people that have nothing to gain from supporting either group, but care about comparing the facts of one company to the facts of another. Son of Paul

Ahh, so you don’t have the original writings of the Bible either, huh.Do you know where those writings are? Each book of the Bible was written at least 1,900 years ago, and we do not have the original manuscripts today. The texts that today's Bibles are based on are literally "copies of copies". When this fact is understood, it is an obvious and understandable question to ask, "Well, how do we know that the Bible is reliable? How do we know that what we read is an accurate representation of what was written all those millenia ago?" First, there are a multiplicity of copies of the texts of the New Testament that date from within a couple of generations of their writing. Further to this, the copies come from different geographical locations and have been translated into other languages at a very early time. This helps us, as we can compare texts found in two different geographical locations and surmise that where they match up they're accurate to their original copy. So when we compare a number of manuscripts from a very early time period and different geographical locations, it is very easy to see what is accurate and what is not. We can also look at the translations into other languages and compare meanings as another source of independent information. When compared to other ancient texts the New Testament is quite in a world of its own with regard to reliability. We have more than 5,000 Greek New Testament Manuscripts today, dating from c.100 AD to c.800 AD (that's only a generation or two between original authorship and earliest existing copy) whereas the next most reliable text that comes to us from a similar time-period is Homer's Iliad, composed in 800 BC, of which we have 650 Greek manuscripts dating from c.100-200 AD (that's about 900 years between original authorship and the earliest existing copy). If you include translations of the New Testament, we have over 24,000 copies of the New Testament coming down to us from Antiquity, and that does not include quotes. The New Testament was widely quoted in the early centuries AD providing even more sources to compare (it is said that if we lost all Greek versions of the New Testament, we could still piece a complete copy together solely from quotations made from it by the early Church Fathers). That's a great deal of evidence to the authority of the New Testament, and makes it not only reliable, but by far the most reliable document to come down to us from Antiquity. It is quite common to hear someone accuse the New Testament of containing 200,000 errors. In a way, that statement is quite true - although it is misleading (and it is more correct to say that there are approximately 200,000 variants). The problem arises as copies were made of copies: obviously, when the scribes of ancient times labouriously copied from one faded text onto a clean sheet, mistakes were bound to occur. Some manuscripts have lines repeated as the scribes' mind wandered, others have the sequence of words incorrect at some point, others have words misspelled. The figure of 200,000 comes from the addition of these errors in all the manuscripts. So if a scribe made three mistakes whilst making one copy of the New Testament, and then his copy was copied by 100 others, even assuming they did not make any further errors, that is now counted as three hundred variants when compared to other texts that do not carry the original mistake. Then if each of those copies are themselves copied twenty times, again, without further mistake, that becomes 6,000 variants. Remembering that there are over 5,000 manuscripts, most of which are 'copies of copies', you realise that 200,000 variants is quite understandable - even, to be expected. Further to that, the types of mistakes encountered from scribal error tend not to influence the message of a text, unless whole lines are skipped inadvertently. Whether words are misspelled, repeated or written out of sequence; generally speaking, they will still represent the original intended message and therefore are reliable. http://www.1way2god.net/biblereliability.html As far as they have been translated correctly, yes. If you are reading the Greek and Hebrew texts directly, how can you mistranslate them? Son of Paul

The original tablets were given back to Moroni. Yes, by a prophet of God. Not according to the words of God both personally and through all of His prophets.Are you saying that the words of God and His prophets aren’t good enough for you? Ahh, so you don’t have the original writings of the Bible either, huh.Do you know where those writings are? As far as they have been translated correctly, yes. Yes, as far as it has been translated correctly. ← Ray Please explain what you mean by translated correctly? Son of Paul

I use 4 different verisons. Two are concept by concept paraphrases for my devotional times. They are easier to read than direct translations, but keep the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew. The Message New International Verison When I do exegetical Bible study, I use the NASB and KJV. The NASB is the best direct translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. KJV is ok. When doing exegetical Bible study, I look at the Greek and Hebrew words, so that I can understand the meaning of the text. Son of Paul

First off let me state this. The What If questions were used for dramatic effect, in order to get your attention to the center point that I was making. Can Mormon Doctrine withstand the same scrutiny that the Bible has withstood? Josie you can the closest to the main idea I had for this topic with your general information. You mentioned scrutiny and gave examples of mobs and murders, etc. That is physical scrutiny, but I was talking about academic scrutiny. For example: The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from metal tablets (Gold and/or Copper). Where are these tablets and has Joseph Smith’s translations been verified? This would require a copy of or the original tablets. The Bible was originally written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. We have copies of the Hebrew Bible that are dated before 100 AD. The have copies of the Greek New Testament from the 11th Century. You stated that the LDS accepts the KJV version of the Bible. Do you accept the Hebrew and Greek version that pre-date the KJV by at least 500 years? How about the NASB, potentially the most literal translation of the Greek and Hebrew bible? Son of Paul

You are correct, as if you were to ask me if what I believe is not true. I have thought about it and like you the Holy Spirit confirms it in me as well. But, I asked if Mormon doctrine could withstand the same scrutiny that the Bible has to withstand? Does God speak to normal people like you and me or does he only speak through the prophets? Son of Paul

What if the Mormon doctrine was wrong? What if Joseph Smith was telling a tall tale? What if everything that you have been told from the Mormon Church is false? What if the evangelical’s God exists? What if you had to give an account before the evangelical’s God? What if the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God? What if God created the world as the book of Genesis states? What would it mean to the Mormon faith, if some or all of these questions are true? What would it mean to your understanding grace and salvation? As an evangelical, I have full confidence in my beliefs. I believe in One True God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe that God began a good work in me and He is faithful to bring that good work through to completion. I believe that if I die tonight, that I will be with God forever. Both History and Science bring validity to the Bible and my Beliefs. Daily the Bible comes under extreme scrutiny from history and science scholars, yet it remains strong. Can the Mormon doctrine withstand the same scrutiny? How would you respond to these questions? Son of Paul

bizabra: Do you know what the Science Method is? Until you can provide observations of and experiments that test the hypotheses of Macro Evolution (Apes turn into Man). It does not belong in the science class room either. Yet that is where it is. Are you even willing to admit that Macro Evolution (Apes turn into Man) could be false? Is there something wrong with this picture? Items that can not be observed are matters of religion, not science!!!!!!!!! Son of Paul

A sinful and broken people, display the characteristics of God? Where is your historical evidence to support this statement? Son of Paul

I do agree with you, that evidence is not proof. So let me restated my question then. Where is your evidence that supports your beliefs? Son of Paul

In your opinion, is it possible to gain all knowledge? How then do you address Exodus 20:3-4, two of God's Commandments?

NOTE: I know the title is misspelled. It should be Characteristics, but I can not change it. Hello, I am looking for peoples views on the character of God that are displayed in history. I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, true characterizes of God will be displayed through documents that can be historically verified. Please be willing to provide historical references to support your documents. I will take the first one: FAITHFULNESS There are 2 examples of God's Faithfulness. 1. When Israel was in the wilderness they complained a lot. Yet, God was faithful in providing them with food to eat. 2. God called me to a college that was to expensive for me or my parents to pay for. In faith believed that God would supply the money for me to go and I went. Now that I am done with college, I have very little college debt compare to my friends that attended the same college and the national average for college debt. I believe God was faithful to provide for me. Son of Paul

Do the LDS believe that God works in the life of the believer, so that they may be transformed? Here is a picture of what I believe. Son of Paul

Traveler: Let me see if I can address your concerns. First, I believe that God is eternal, all powerful and all knowing. I believe that God created the earth and all living things in it and told them to reproduce after their own kind. I believe that God has created man and has given man the ability to understand parts of His vast knowledge. We have to options of what to do with that knowledge: 1. Give God the glory for our new found understanding OR 2. Say that I can God/There is no God. If you think about that, it is the same thing that Satan did; the same thing that Adam did; the same sin that we all do as humans. But that is for a different topic. I believe in science. I see it as a God given ability, so that we can understand God faithfulness more and thus give Him the glory. Science and Religion can go hand in hand, if you follow this understanding. (Thus my reason for believe in micro evolution). What is this gap that you are talking about? I do not see it. I am asking you, as the macro evolutionist, to explain the differences and the co-dependant relationships that is observed in nature. If you look at it from my belief structure, there is an “infinite” gap that macro evolution can not explain. If all life came from the same place, why is there a need for life to have a co-dependant relationship? Complexity When I am talking about complexity, I am using a “wide-angle lens.” I am looking at all the co-dependant relationships that I know of and I see everything working together very well. But, if you look at just one cell (with the technology that we have today) you see a orderly system at work. Cells build on each other to create life. Life is sustained by a co-depending relationship with other cells of a different type. If you look at the atom (again with the technology that we have today) you see a very simple and orderly system. If you look at the universe, you see a complex system that follow the same order as the atom. And this just happened by chance? Yes, your statement is true, but you will need to provide it from your end. Marco Evolution is based on the idea of mutations, which benefited the organism(s) and happened over millions of years, caused life as we know it today. Explain why there is so much variety in life? How can the variety of life happened through macro evolution? One leads to two, two leads to four, four leads to eight… How do macro evolutionists explain the fact that there are still apes on the earth, if they are a less evolved than man? How do macro evolutionists explain the different instincts display in nature? My belief does not have a problem explaining this: Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 1:20-25. God spoke the variety into existence! The animals of the sea, air, and land. Things that can not be observed are areas of faith and religion, not science. As I stated, I start with the belief of God and I worship the God, who created everything. When science explains something that was not known before; I say “Thanks be to God, the God of all wisdom and knowledge.” This is a statement of human nature, which is sinful. But again that is a different topic. Let me give you an example that does not follow that logic: Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the most prominent architects of the first half of the 20th century. His designs are admired and even studied by other architects. But, no matter how long a person looks at all the design that Wright produced, they will never understand the thoughts and the creative process that Wright had or followed while he was designing. The same is true with God. We can look at everything he created, but we will not be able to understand why something is the way it is. Isaiah 55:8-9 Let me explain the context of Romans 1:18-25. 1. God created life to testify that he exists. 2. So, created man is without excuse. They have a choice to admit that God is real and that he created the world. Or do what they did. 3. Man (who was told about God, most likely from their parents) did not give glory to God. Man claimed to be wise and “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1:23 4. God turn them over to their sinful desires… No, God did not create the mule. God created the donkeys with 62 chromosomes. He also created horses with 64 chromosomes. He told them to reproduce after their own kind. Donkeys with Donkeys; Horses with Horses. When this is done, there is no problem. Now the mating practices of Horses and Donkeys are very similar. God created life with the desire to reproduce. There is nothing stopping a donkey from mating with a horse or vice versa. But, their offspring was not the intended plan of God and that is why the mule is sterile. (The same is true with humans. Male with Female. Not Male with Male or Female with Female. But yet again that topic is for another time.) Which makes more since? God created a system that reproduces after it's own kind or God creates every living cell at every moment in life. Science and my faith believe life is a system that can reproduce after it's own kind. As you stated, theories of gravity and quantum mechanics explain events that can be observed. Evolution on the micro level is also observable. It is when you take a group of theories and link them together, with the premise that it will take millions of year to see the out come. Macro Evolution has never been observed by a living human, because it take millions of years to see the out come. Then a theory can not be observed, it moves from the arena of science to the arena of religion. Let me ask you this. Has your company build a robot that has the ability to see a football flying through the air and just by looking at football, can that robot calculate the most likely landing position of it? And then move at least 40 different motors, so that it can intercept the football before it hits the ground? And that is one simple thing that our brains can do. Scientists have never succeeded in creating life from non-living things, such as compounds or machines (and in my opinion, they never will. Life only comes from one place: GOD). Scientists have improved man’s understand of life, but they can not explain how it came to be. My belief is that God gave us (man) the ability to understand parts of life, so that He could be glorified though our understanding. My perspective shows me that God is big than I am and I will never be God or know everything about God. (Isaiah 55:8-9) So, I leave the burden of proof to you. Show me the proof that plants and animals evolved from the same substance OR explain how the co-dependant relationships developed using science. Son of Paul

Traveler You stated that understanding from scripture comes partly through the study of it. That is what I am asking you. I want to know if you study the scriptures by looking at the significant words in a passage, the history and culture that the passage was written in, the author's general point behind the writing of the passage, and the big picture of the entire text? Do you look at the exegetical meaning of passages in the BOM? Son of Paul