GDKT

Robert J Matthews, a BYU historian discussing the matter in 1975 said: "...the manuscript shows that Smith went all the way through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. But it also shows that he did not make all the necessary corrections in one effort. This situation makes it impossible to give a statistical answer to questions about how much of the translation was completed or how much was not completed. What is evident, however, is that any part of the translation might have been further touched upon and improved by additional revelation and emendation by Smith." I do not question what is or isn't written in the JST. What I did question is whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Knowing that, the rest is secondary. "The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth" - Bruce R McConkie, Ensign If the Comma Johanneum were to indicate a false doctrine, especially one dealing with the Godhead, I personally believe it would have been corrected by Joseph Smith. However, I do not see any discrepancies between the Church's belief and the Comma Johanneum "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." We know God the father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings--united as one in purpose. We know God and Jesus both have physical bodies of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost is a Spirit with no body, were it not so he could not permanently dwell within us.

I think one of the quickest ways to settle the "what is missing/mistranslated" from the Bible discussion is to take a look at the Joseph Smith Translation. Just the fact that it exists shows LDS members that God deemed the bible at least partially incorrect. If you go back and read some of the JST verses, you will see where some errors have occurred in the current translations of the bible. Also, see the following link to view a list of scriptures which identify other (possible) books of scripture that have not been found/identified today. Topical Guide: Scriptures, Lost

It's extremely simple. We believe that the bible is inspired scripture, written by prophets and apostles of God. We do not question the original pen of these holy servants. What we do question are the countless translations that have been made over 2 thousand years, the missing texts, and the false interpretations. This is one inspect in which a living prophet can help abundantly. Also, in regards to the churchs/devil worshippers--I must stay my ground and insist the false churches are more dangerous. Why? Because the people who are devil worshippers are already lost. They have hardened their hearts perhaps beyond repair, and belong to a different flock. Those satanic practices are of no appeal or interest to the good people today. The false churches, however, have an appearance of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. They blindly lead the good and decent sons and daughters of God into a religion devoid of the priesthood, among other problems.

Soninme, I think you are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that new testament writings aren't scripture. LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture. What I believe was meant by the statement "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed". The only question we have now is what constitutes ALL SCRIPTURE?" is that there is MORE scripture than what is found in just the bible.

How is the blood test even that relevant? I mean there's only two options He was drunk and ran over and killed a motorcylist. He wasn't drunk and ran over and killed a motorcyclist. How would either of those options not convict him of manslaughter or negligent homicide?

but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers? Matthew, do you realize you completely switched around the subjects of my sentences? That isn't very fair. I questioned if the CHURCHES were more dangerous than the devil worshippers (as a figure of speach, I might add). I did not say that the decent people belong to those churches are more dangerous than devil worshippers. Please try and be fair with my statements or read them more carefully next time.

This is a touchy subject. I understand people's viewpoints on how honest people in different churches are able to slowly progress along their spiritual journey, but what are these other churches? Aren't they even more dangerous than the devil worshippers? They lead people to believe they are in the truth and doing the right thing, when in fact they are not. I know many wonderful people, born and raised catholics, who baptize their infants--a practice that we know is "an evil abomination" to quote Mormon. Remember, there are only 2 churches. The church of Jesus Christ, and the church of the devil. Just because the devil can imitate the gifts of the spirit and even perform miracles (here's looking at you, pharoah) doesn't mean it's progression in the right direction or something we should celebrate. Again--it's a really tough situation. You want to help your friends/family but at the same time don't want to run the risk of having them become more deceived by the institutions man has created on this earth--because they will stay on this earth after death.

It's times like these that I miss the Mosaic Law.

Might as well ban me, I just barely joined so my account isn't worth much, I'll just make a new one if someone needs it for the quota.

I am new here, and while browsing many old topics I often see members who are banned. Now, being banned isn't a new concept to me--I've used many forums before this. But generally I associate bannings with obscenely offensive or rude behavior. All of the posts I have seen from these banned members have been very normal posts--many respectful and insightful ones. I'm aware that it's possible that at some later time, they did do something horrible... I guess I just find that hard to believe. So what's the deal with all the banned members around here? Are people pulling a "Judas" after posting good things for a long time?

There are many "mistakes" in the bible. That doesn't mean God made a mistake. It means the men who wrote/translated it are capable of erring. Even Moroni in the Book of Mormon admits this when he says "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. " To argue that the bible is complete or perfect is pretty silly seeing as how we know of many books which are missing from it, and the bible itself contains many discrepancies in certain accounts ranging from the age or name of persons all the way to what was written on the cross.

With all due respect, Maya, you may want to check your sources. There isn't really anyone credible that tries to argue dates earlier than 68 AD--and even that would still place it as one of the latest books in the NT. There seem to be a large amount of historians set on later dates around 90 AD. Dating Revelation New Testament Books - Dating

John 21:25 "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." We believe that in addition to the Bible, God communicated to his other sons and daughters that were inarguably found on other continents at the time the bible was written. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is "Was God only communicating with and inspiring prophets in Israel while those in the americas and the islands of the sea dwindled and perished in unbelief?" 2 Nephi 29:7 "Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?"

I was under this impression as well. When I studied this, I remember there being discrepancies but the general consensus is that John and Revelation were the last books, and were finished very closely to the same time (relatively speaking)

I see what you did there! har har