Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Bible'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Third Hour Popular Forums
    • Third Hour Admin Alerts
    • LDS Gospel Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
    • Current Events
    • Advice Board
  • Gospel Boards
    • Jewish Beliefs Board
    • Christian Beliefs Board
    • Organizations
    • Study Boards
  • General Discussion Forums
    • Parenting
    • Interests
    • Just for Fun
  • Resources
    • Family
    • Missionary Work
    • Family History
    • Preparedness
    • Share
    • LDS Resources and Information
  • International Forums

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 18 results

  1. In the string @Grunt started about a question by an investigator, the dilemma of how we know when the spiritual sense we have is true--that it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us--came up. Immediately my Protestant background kicked in and I thought: sola scriptura. The Bible is the final authority. No prompting of the Spirit will contradict it. Then I considered Catholicism. A friend of mine converted to that faith, and says he no longer claims the right to interpret scripture--that the church leadership has that authority. Then I remembered the beliefs of my friends here. Members do interpret scripture, but they look beyond the Bible. They also follow the modern prophets of the church, sometimes quoting from their speeches and writings. So...what is the answer when there is uncertainty about a spiritual prompting? Pray? Go to scriptures? Consider the sayings of the prophets? If so, what's the "go to" order?
  2. Perhaps the title was a trigger. Many Evangelicals, and perhaps others, accuse members of not reading the Bible 'in context.' Frankly, most of us are guilty from time to time. We have our pet verses and our favored passages--the ones that seem to prove our beliefs. My simple suggestion for understanding any scripture in context: Read it through quickly--even by scanning. For example, try reading the Bible for 10-chapters a day. Skim over the so-and-so beget so-and-so, go quickly over the elements including in building the tabernacle--just get the big picture of what is happening. You will finish in about 3-4 months. Afterwards, when someone comes a long and brings you a "magic-bullet" verse, supposedly proving something that seems odd, there will be a sense. They may seem to have a point. You may not have an immediate answer. However, Holy Spirit will shield you, and you will just know that this "proof" doesn't fit the big picture of scripture. Thoughts?
  3. I've been reading the book of Genesis (started in chapter 6) and I'm currently on chapter 16. So far my experience with Genesis has been one of a paranoid child walking through the woods at night jumping at every sound he hears. I'm skeptical of every verse I read thinking to myself "how close is this to the original, how many errors are here?" I know the 8th article of faith but it doesn't answer my question. Its getting to the point where I'm only accepting a minority of what I'm reading. For example, the account of Ham's cursing is so vague that, if read literally, Noah cursed Ham for seeing his penis. It's described as "this thing you have done" it's obvious there's something missing in the account. And for some reason I doubted that Abram had hundreds of servants, imagining him as some kind a vagrant with a small flock. "He couldn't have that many servants back then" (I don't even know what this statement means.) Apparently certain theological groups in Judaism altered certain passages of the Old Testament to remove any indication that Yahweh was subservient to the most High God. How prevalent was this practice? So, basically, here's the question. Am I reading a great fiction penned by scribes and poachers? Is it a bad plastic surgery? Or is the Old Testament fundamentally accurate in it's rendering of the original text? How should I understand the Old Testament?
  4. There are literally hundreds of Bible versions in English. Why? Can all of them be "correct"? It is a heated debate among evangelicals: the "King Jimmy"/KJV-Only crowd, and the rest in opposition. Where does the Mormon church stand? (I am not referring to LDS belief in a restored gospel - I am only concerned with what is the most complete, accurate, translation of the Bible, and how the leadership views modern versions.) Supporters of modern Bible versions (NIV, the Message, NASB, Living Bible, etc.) do so usually for intellectual reasons that have no relevance to scripture, except to those who see the Bible as only a work of Man, which is not meant to be taken literally, or is deemed by them to be incompatible with modern values. The other reason I hear is that the newer ones are easier to read. The KJV crowd feels that modern "per-versions" as they call these upstarts, are made out of greed for profit (we really don't NEED a hundred English Bible versions, do we?) since the KJV of 1611 is Public Domain. They raise the issue of whether UN-godly men have any right to handle the Word of God and translate it with their worldly judgment. I can tell you that a search of the publishing company Zondervan led me to a parent company, and thence to Hearst Publications...purveyors of smut like Hustler and Playboy! Are such persons trustworthy with anyone's holy writings? Especially the Bible, which condemns much of their own conduct? I can tell you that, as a published writer, I know it is impossible for all the Bibles to be, in truth, genuine, God-inspired Bibles. How? Well, look up publishing copyright law. To be granted a copyright, a work must be "substantially different" from "all other" versions! Thus, all these Bibles cannot be equally Bibles. Each has a copyright. This creates a problem in any church, if the body of believers use a variety of Bibles. There is a spirit of discord created by the confusion these sow. People cannot be in 'one accord' if they cannot even read verses together in harmony. Young converts can be overwhelmed by the choices and the disagreements.IMO this plethora of modern Bibles is harmful to followers of Jesus Christ. It is written: God is not the author of confusion. To restate the question: how does the LDS view modern Bible versions, and what is their preferred Bible for study/corporate prayer? Taking this article as an example of academic scholarly thought on the matter gives us some facts to check and ponder. It's a bit of a history lesson, too.
  5. There are many strings on this site about how the church is grappling with LGBT issues--remaining true to God, yet showing love and sensitivity. Turns out even conservative Evangelical churches are paying a price for holding to truth.
  6. This is a rabbinic response to the frequent attack on the Jewish (and Gospel) practice of "slavery". The Gospel is, and always has been, a Gospel of Charity. Lehi ============================================================================ Does the Bible believe in slavery? By Rabbi Hillel Goldberg It’s a claim often bandied about by the, ahem, “enlightened” and used to prove the evils that would result from a Bible-based society. But is it true? The answer seems straightforward. This week’s Torah portion opens (Exodus 21:2-6): “If you buy a Jewish eved [the Hebrew may be translated slave, servant, or bondsman], he shall work for six years and in the seventh he shall go free, for no charge. If he shall arrive by himself [unmarried], he shall leave by himself; if he is the husband of a woman, his wife shall leave with him. If his master will give him a woman and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out by himself. “But if the eved shall say, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children — I shall not go free,’ then his master shall bring him to the court and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore through his ear with the awl, and he shall serve him forever.” You can read the rest here.
  7. Here is an interesting, astute article advocating for national Israel's existence and importance to God, from both a Jewish and Christian perspective.
  8. I've seen several of the books in the "Made Harder" series such as can been seen Here: and Here: And was wondering if anyone has read or used them. I was thinking about possibly getting one or some of them for scripture study, but was unsure if it would be worth it or not. I would like to hear about your thoughts, or reviews of them.
  9. Perhaps the best answer to those who choose to live in sin, and loudly proclaim, "God made me this way!" is to ask, "Which is more important to ask, how you were made or WHO made you?" If the latter, then instead of insisting that our current status is optimal, maybe we should look to the Maker's "original factory settings?" Those can be found in The Instructions. And yes--they are included.
  10. (Note: This is an article I wrote several years ago for the Examiner. I thought you all might enjoy it and that it will lead to interesting discussions.) Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. 1. The Bible is a single book McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36) Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38) The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38) The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed. Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39) Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39) In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible. 2. The Bible preceded doctrine Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41) 3. True religion is Bible religion Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today? 4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43) 5. The canon is closed Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable. 6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50) The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority. Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly. Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son. 7. To know the Bible is to understand it The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53) The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54) 8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54) Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement. In this "war of words" and "tumult of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else. Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.
  11. Dear Sirs and Madams, I'm currently working my way through Eric Shuster's fascinating book, Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest, and the author briefly mentioned that the Bible bears witness to the Book of Mormon in Ezekiel 37:15-28. However, when I read the passage in question, it seemed to only be talking about the future promise of a reunited Davidic Kingdom and perhaps the arrival of the Messiah. Where is the reference to the Book of Mormon? In Christ, Geoffrey
  12. I bore my testimony to a friend about God's unconditional love for all of his children, and that friend countered with this scripture: Exodus 20:5 says "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" My friend goes on to say: "So...he is going to spite myself, my children, my grand and great grandchildren, just because I don't wholly worship him? Yeah, that sounds like love. And the fact that supposedly you are damned to hell for rejecting a God that you have absolutely no proof of. He is like "here, earthlings. Imma put you on this planet and give you this book that is full of contradictions and doesn't fully make sense, and if you don't put all your faith in me you get to spend eternity in fire and brimstone. Also, I'm going to make myself as scarce as possible and not show you or any other human that i really exist." Theres a guy, who created the whole universe, gave up his only son, has the POWER to create an entire universe yet not enough power to save starving abused children or slaves or dying humans, and if you don't worship him you go to hell. But he loves you. Right." As you can see, she's so anti-God and anti-Mormon that I'm really unsure of what to say that can really help her out. I don't want to fuel the fire, but I don't want to shove my beliefs down her throat, either. I just hope that I can come up with the right thing to say that will allow her to stop for a moment and reevaluate her beliefs. If anyone would be so kind as to back me up and share their wisdom, it would be much appreciated. In the meantime, I'm searching for scriptures that will reassure her that God does, in fact, Love us all with a pure and unconditional Love.
  13. This is really two questions in one thread, but I feel they belong together. Could you maintain your faith in Mormon doctrines using only the Holy Bible? Also, what exactly in the Holy Bible is considered to be incorrectly translated?
  14. I was recently introduced to the Mormon church through a good friend of mine recently. Not knowing that they were Mormon's my wife to be and I were invited to church with them. Having grown up in the CM&A and planning on planting a new church roots in the local Bapist church I was always willing to goto church with someone. After the church service my wife to be and I were totally shocked. At what we had just heard, that being said...I attempted to keep an open mind and not knowing much I started to do some research on the Mormon and LDS churches. As I learned more I became quite troubled.... Basically my question boils down to this... How does the LDS church resolve conflicts between it's beliefs and what the Bible teaches us. If one accepts the Bible as the Word of God, when teachings of the church conflict with the Bible both can't be right, therefore I am curious as to how the church reconciles it's beliefs with the Word of God. I do have quite a list of issues my research has lead me to believe is conflicting so I am willing to discuss them one by one... Therefore lets start with the first one in Genesis. How can the Mormon church believe that if Adam & Eve hadn't sinned and committed the first sin, and therefore the fall of man kind we wouldn't be here today ? When that's CLEARLY not what the Bible teaches ?
  15. Can LDS members read non-Mormon or anti-Mormon literarure as they are searching for answers to their spiritual questions? Or are you constrained to read only LDS litereature disregarding all else as I understand it is while you are on you LDS missions.
  16. i wrote in décember 09 i'm sorry. Marchons gaiement ensemble vers la chapelle Dans nos souliers claquant sur la ruelle De bonne heure réveillant la ville sainte Réciter en ce jour béni la complainte De Jésus, notre bien-aimé sauveur Qui fut persécuté dans d'atroces douleurs Implorez pardon de vos erreurs Venez nombreux écouter nos cantiques Priez pour éloigner les sceptiques De ce lieu mystérieux et aussi antique Pressez-vous sur les bancs luisants Venez femmes, hommes et enfants Se repentir, est venu le temps Marchons gaiement vers la chapelle Dans nos souliers claquant sur la ruelle Chaque discours, témoignage est réel Prenez réconfort, soyez à l'écoute Etroit est le chemin menant à la route Si un jour vous avez le moindre doute Ouvrez votre coeur, votre âme au créateur Ne cessez donc d'aimer votre Seigneur Toujours il sera là, n'ayez donc peur Réjouissez-vous d'être en vie Et d'avoir des temps de répit Un repos pour que les langues se délient Malgré les six jours noirs Etudiez, lisez presque chaque soir Le livre sacré, votre unique espoir Marchons gaiement vers la chapelle Dans nos souliers claquant sur la ruelle.
  17. Hello. Tonight I had a conversation with a fellow user. I will not give the name. I wish to post the emails we exhanged. I expressed my opinions on the questions this person brought up. It lead to an interesting conclusion on my view of the church and religion all together. I still want to be a member of the church and follow most of the teachings. My true feelings came out and it may be upsetting to other members. I apologize if that is the case. I'd be interested on other peoples take on what transpired. Thanks. :) --------------------------- user: Do you believe everything Joseph Smith taught about God the father? me: Hello, No, I don't believe everything that Joseph Smith taught. user: so why do you call him a prophet of God if you don't believe everything he taught in his sermons? me: The LDS church calls him a prophet of God. I've never personally called him a prophet. He may be correct in some teachings and wrong in others. He makes mistakes like everyone else who has ever lived with the exception of Jesus Christ. user: Sir how could you not agree with all of his teachings, the LDS church calls him a true prophet of God right? What prophet of God ever made mistakes because they aren't like you and me me: I can answer your question with a broader answer. The LDS church claims to be the only true restored church on Earth today. I don't think there is a church that has 100% of all the facts correct. As long as I accept Jesus Christ into my Heart and try to live a good life, I should probably be granted everlasting life in heaven. I'm a member of the LDS church because I've found it to be the one I'm most comfortable with. user:How do we know if someone is truly a prophet of God? and also are there Biblical guidelines for testing someone claiming to be a prophet? me: I recently listened to an evangelical talk about how one can tell if a person is truly a prophet of God. They stated a question. "What is the prophet's track record in foretelling the future?" Hopfully the prophet should be correct all the time. Joseph Smith was not right all the time. I'm not well versed in the Bible, so I'll unable to give you any biblical references about prophets. My advice is to continue to do research and pray about what is pondering in your heart. You will recieve an answer. user: So sir you've just stated yourself that Joseph Smith wasn't always right yourself. And I'll give you one example of a Biblical text that clearly states what a true Prophet of God is. Deut 13, verses 1-3, Israel was warned about false prophets who would try to lead them after strange gods. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13:1-3) So sir by biblical standards Joseph Smith was a false Prophet. I'd also like to pose the question to you have you ever asked yourself what the Bible says about seeing what is true and how to do that? and also what does the Bible say about trusting in your own heart? These are serious things to ask yourself because by what you've said and by what the Bible says you are believing in a False God by what Joseph Smith is teaching and you as a Mormon will be judged according the the standards of the Bible. So this subject should dearly matter to you sir. all paths don't lead to heaven. I'm only trying to ask questions and reavel what the Bible teaches and what truths aren't taught to you in the Mormon Church. I pray that you would be willing to ask some quesitons yourself for Joseph Smith is clearly teaching against what God explicitly taught in the Bible and there are sever consequences to pay for following another God me: You have a good point there. I did mention earlier that I did accept Jesus Christ into my Heart. I know the bible warns us that there will be false prophets. They will decieve the elect. I can trust in those teachings. Other things in the Bible I don't believe in. One example is the great flood. I believe there was a massive flood. I don't believe it covered the entire earth and all of God's Animals and plants were on an Ark. To be totally honest with you, I have thoughts on several religions being accepted by God. Christianity, budism, new-agers, muslims, all worship the "one source" of God. It depends on what you believe. I have chosen Christianity even though it may not be perfect. user:Sir let me ask you this. Why did God give us the Bible? me: God has given man teachings to help us understand Him and what he expects of us. The Bible is one example. The Quran is another example. Many teachings were givien to man thousands of years ago. Through out time, these teachings have been translated. I'm sure many are out of context of the original teaching. This was done by man by his own failings or gain. Diferent cultures wanted to have the teachings to meet what they expected. That is why there is such diversity in religion. Unfortunatly, these different belief systems have caused wars and will continue to. I think we should respect any persons belief system and not judge them. user: So your going to say that God gave us the quran? on what basis do you have to say such a blasphemous thing? And with your other comment your willing to doubt the sufficeny of God in the ways that he gave us his word in the Bible? me: God gave us teachings. Man compiled the Bible, Quran, and other written works that other religions read. That's my belief simply stated. If you feel I'm going to Hell for what i believe in that's okay with me. End on conversation. user: Sir I'm only asking questions please don't assume judgment. I am being sincere and care about you. Don't feel I'm trying to tear you down or anything by no means is that the case sir. I'll let you be and pray about words of encouragment for you. Have a wonderful evening and I look forward to talking more me: With your permission, i'd like to post our entire conversation in the forum section. I will not use your name. I'm sure many members would be surprised in what my take on religion is. thanks the user did not respond about permission. Since I did not use the name, I felt it would be ok to post this.
  18. Faith and Historicity of the Bible and Book of Mormon Grace for Grace