To All former Evangelicals/Protestants

[Galatians220]

Before I post my question my coming here is for my learning about the LDS Church. I began my search when I met an LDS in class and from then on I attended on Sundays going on all three classes (Communion, Doctrines, and Mens) for six months. I wanted to learn from the LDS thenselves instead of learning only from the Apologist themselves.

I've ended my visits because of a lack of time, church priorities, but also learning enough to know that, unfortunately have more disagreements with the LDS doctrine than agree. However, I have promised my friend to continue reading the Book of Mormon so that the Spirit can enlighten me on things that may confirm the truth you all believed in, and I will keep that promise.

I am here to learn from you, on why you believed that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and I feel that there is no better group or place to ask than here. I want to talk to those who use to believe in:

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.

2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)

3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I want most especially to talk to those who have read the Bible for many years as an Evangelical/Protestant and if any, those who have experiences and learning in Apologetics, defending the 3 fundamental doctrines above. My primary question to you is this:

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

This is pretty much the last part of my learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. apart from the Book of Mormon. I look forward to reading all of your feedbacks.

I've received a lot of feedback but it wasn't what I was expecting. Some came out of curiosity but others came suspecting yet another attacker of their faith and that 's understandable. Let me assure you all that I am not here to debunk any doctrine or beliefs. My purpose here is only to learn and encourage.

If anyone would like to tell their story on how they've converted from a fundamentalist Protestant/Evangelical Church to the LDS, I'd be happy to hear and learn from you. You will not be condemned by me nor will I let anyone do that.

Debating will also be prohibited here, this is a neutral thread. I will however answer questions but if anyone wishes to challenge me, then set up your own thread but not here.

God bless :)

Edited October 23, 2009 by Galatians220

[bytebear]

Can I assume by your first point, that you mean Sola Scritura?

May I recommend reading the book, "How Wide the Divide?" by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. One author is an evangelical scholar, and the other an LDS scholar. Both have excellent credentials, especially in Bible studies. The book covers the topics you have pointed out, and discusses the differences and similarities in belief. I think it would be a great study guide for you.

[Galatians220]

Can I assume by your first point, that you mean Sola Scritura?

May I recommend reading the book, "How Wide the Divide?" by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. One author is an evangelical scholar, and the other an LDS scholar. Both have excellent credentials, especially in Bible studies. The book covers the topics you have pointed out, and discusses the differences and similarities in belief. I think it would be a great study guide for you.

Yes, it is sola scriptura, I didn't want to use terms that some may not be familiar with. Do you know if this Evangelical is one who originally is a believer in the inerrancy of scripture?

I would like to read it when I have time but I'd like to know from those who use to believe in it.

[Elohel]

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

No argument ever convinced anybody. Nobody ever gained a true witness from the Holy Spirit through debate and argument.

You seem like a well versed scriptorian, and a true Evangelical. I think I might be a bit mentally outclassed, especially when it comes to these subjects. As a matter of fact, I don't even meet your criteria for a well read previous Protestant. What I do know, however, is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

To entertain your idea, though, I will give my common reply to my issue of the Trinity. It is by no means a complete discourse of all my issue with the Trinity, but it seems to be my strongest.

There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.

The word was "heis".

This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)"

This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;"

Anyway, just my .02. Thanks!

[Maxel]

Do you know if this Evangelical is one who originally is a believer in the inerrancy of scripture?

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

[Lilac]

I did not read the other posts because I'm supposed to be working and I'm taking a quick mental break.

I am a practicing Protestant.

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

Good questions...

[rameumptom]

You said you attended for 6 months, but called our meetings "communion, doctrines, and mens"? That seems strange that you wouldn't have called them by the name we use: "Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, Priesthood" had you really attended for such a length of time.

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.

2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)

3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I am an apologist for the LDS faith. However, I've closely studied all of these issues you bring up, from many viewpoints. The Bible is vague enough to allow these beliefs, or the ones the LDS believe in. There are non-LDS scholars who have written on these issues from both sides. As for #3, even traditional Christians disagree on this one, as some are Calvinist, others Arminian, and other Pelagian.

The "WORD OF GOD" IS the primary source of truth. But the definition of "word of God" is the kicker. Do you confine it to the Bible? Or do you realize that there are other words of God? If you are Bible only, what do you do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the dozens of books that Jews and Christians once considered scripture, but were rejected centuries after Christ's death by St Jerome? How about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted 39 times in the New Testament? Should it be part of the Bible? Or if it isn't inspired, does that mean the apostles were wrong to quote it?

As for Trinity, there are now some non-LDS scholars who are beginning to accept the concept of a "social Trinity." And there are Christians who believe in modalism today, as well.

[rameumptom]

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

The Chicago statement leaves much to desire, however. It does not give details as to how later interpolations would affect the Bible. It leaves it up to the Bible reader to try and determine what is originally from the prophets, and what was added later. There are still problems, for instance, with the Johannine Comma in the KJV (taken out of most later Bible versions). I still have many evangelicals use it to "prove" the Trinity, even though it was added centuries later.

[Guest]

I hope I won't sound harsh here. If it comes out as such, I apologize - it is not my intent.

The problem with scriptorians, bible scholars, etc., is that sometimes, in their quest for logical truth and exactness (mostly linguistic), they forget that the Bible is not intended to be read as a textbook.

I used to be Catholic, so I don't belong in this thread, but I'm just going to add my 2 cents in:

The reason I profess that the Book of Mormon is true is because I have spiritual revelation that the Great Apostasy is true. I fasted, prayed, sat on the beach with the book, the Great Apostasy, read it cover to cover and I had a screaming in my ear and a thudding in my heart to confirm that it is true. Flashes of my past experiences came to mind to support its truth. It is like I have always known it, I just never saw it! That was the start of my spiritual journey to conversion.

I believe, debating over scripture is not going to get you anywhere. Fast and pray and ask God. That works better, I think.

[Galatians220]

No argument ever convinced anybody. Nobody ever gained a true witness from the Holy Spirit through debate and argument.

You seem like a well versed scriptorian, and a true Evangelical. I think I might be a bit mentally outclassed, especially when it comes to these subjects. As a matter of fact, I don't even meet your criteria for a well read previous Protestant. What I do know, however, is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

To entertain your idea, though, I will give my common reply to my issue of the Trinity. It is by no means a complete discourse of all my issue with the Trinity, but it seems to be my strongest.

There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.

The word was "heis".

This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)"

This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;"

Anyway, just my .02. Thanks!

Your 2 cents is a good suppliment to me in the defense of the Trinity :) Heis does mean One but in a kind of a union as you just said. Thanks for your contribution Elohel

By the way, is your name in hebrew? :)

[Galatians220]

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

Evangelical and Protestant Churches, particularly the fundamentalist does not believe in that part of the Chicago Statement; the question in my mind is whether he has always believed that or has he been convinced that the Bible can have inconsistencies due to human influence.

From my reading, and understanding, if any inconsistancy is found in scripture, then God's Word is not inspired. See my Statement of Faith submission on my profile

[Galatians220]

Hi Lilac

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

The reason why there have been so many denominations is because of something that they have read, in scripture, that the existing church has never either emphasized or have missed.

Martin Luther and those before him have becoming aware of unbiblical practices in the church of Rome, John Calvin saw the emphasis of the Souvreignty of God, and Predestination that he believed existed. John Arminius on the otherhand saw God giving man, Free Will, and believe that we can walk away from his Grace and Salvation. Baptists saw immersion as the proper way to baptise and the realization that children can't be baptised if they do not fully understand the Gospel, and then there are those who believed that Miracles in Acts never have diminished.

Now some of these men and women are right and some are wrong but it is not because of a contradiction of emphasis, it is because the Bible has only begun to be read and it is a very large text (only a few could have the time to read all of it). Some might read the bible literally, and some might read it as though it has hidden meanings. Therefore, some can easily take a verse out of it's context and create a whole new doctrine which is really not supported by scripture at all.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

The Trinity in the Bible is considered, a Mystery, because it is difficult to explain yet the idea of it is clearly there. Now you know that God is One; no one who believes in scripture can deny that. However, scripture also shows that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-5). A contradiction? No.

From the beginning, the Biblical creation account says "Let US create man in OUR image and in OUR likeness..." By that, the Jews have already known the Godhead by the time Moses says the Shema "Hear O Israel, the LORD God (Elohim), the LORD is One." Even the word, God in Hebrew is Elohim (plural ending) instead of Eloh (singular). Scripture also gives several instances where God appeared but in three (Genesis 18:1-3, Isaiah 48:16-17).

The Answer is that God is Tri-une. 1 God in 3 distinct persons. While is difficult to understand it, it is not impossible to prove. Read the 3 analogies; we are 1 single person right? How about an egg? 1 egg yes? And Time? Well look at what they are made of:

Person: Body-Soul-Spirit

Egg: Shell-White-Yoke

Time: Past-Present-Future

The concept of 3 in 1, is everywhere that even those who do not have scripture, the Gentiles, believed in the Godhead (Romans 1:18-24).

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

I mean that we are saved by faith alone which means that if you believe, if you put your faith in Christ, you have Eternal Life. Now some LDS actually believed in what I believe but the majority doesn't so they would agree with you. What you've just described is the idea that is necessary in a Christian's life. faith and works do go hand in hand but from what I see, it's not for salvation because it is not to be merited or earned in any way at all.

[Elphaba]

I thought you were here to learn about the tenants of Mormonism.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Hi Lilac

The reason why there have been so many denominations is because of something that they have read, in scripture, that the existing church has never either emphasized or have missed.

Martin Luther and those before him have becoming aware of unbiblical practices in the church of Rome, John Calvin saw the emphasis of the Souvreignty of God, and Predestination that he believed existed. John Arminius on the otherhand saw God giving man, Free Will, and believe that we can walk away from his Grace and Salvation. Baptists saw immersion as the proper way to baptise and the realization that children can't be baptised if they do not fully understand the Gospel, and then there are those who believed that Miracles in Acts never have diminished.

Now some of these men and women are right and some are wrong but it is not because of a contradiction of emphasis, it is because the Bible has only begun to be read and it is a very large text (only a few could have the time to read all of it). Some might read the bible literally, and some might read it as though it has hidden meanings. Therefore, some can easily take a verse out of it's context and create a whole new doctrine which is really not supported by scripture at all.

The Trinity in the Bible is considered, a Mystery, because it is difficult to explain yet the idea of it is clearly there. Now you know that God is One; no one who believes in scripture can deny that. However, scripture also shows that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-5). A contradiction? No.

From the beginning, the Biblical creation account says "Let US create man in OUR image and in OUR likeness..." By that, the Jews have already known the Godhead by the time Moses says the Shema "Hear O Israel, the LORD God (Elohim), the LORD is One." Even the word, God in Hebrew is Elohim (plural ending) instead of Eloh (singular). Scripture also gives several instances where God appeared but in three (Genesis 18:1-3, Isaiah 48:16-17).

The Answer is that God is Tri-une. 1 God in 3 distinct persons. While is difficult to understand it, it is not impossible to prove. Read the 3 analogies; we are 1 single person right? How about an egg? 1 egg yes? And Time? Well look at what they are made of:

Person: Body-Soul-Spirit

Egg: Shell-White-Yoke

Time: Past-Present-Future

The concept of 3 in 1, is everywhere that even those who do not have scripture, the Gentiles, believed in the Godhead (Romans 1:18-24).

I mean that we are saved by faith alone which means that if you believe, if you put your faith in Christ, you have Eternal Life. Now some LDS actually believed in what I believe but the majority doesn't so they would agree with you. What you've just described is the idea that is necessary in a Christian's life. faith and works do go hand in hand but from what I see, it's not for salvation because it is not to be merited or earned in any way at all.

I thought you were here to learn about the tenets of Mormism.

Elphaba

[Galatians220]

I hope I won't sound harsh here. If it comes out as such, I apologize - it is not my intent.

You won't sound harsh to me unless you call me names.

The problem with scriptorians, bible scholars, etc., is that sometimes, in their quest for logical truth and exactness (mostly linguistic), they forget that the Bible is not intended to be read as a textbook.

In your view, how should the Bible be intended if it is not to be used as a textbook? Is it still the standard of truth for readers to use in testing the spirits?

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. - 1 John 4:1

I used to be Catholic, so I don't belong in this thread, but I'm just going to add my 2 cents in:

So have I. I grew up Catholic and have wanted to become a Franciscan Monk just like St. Francis and have hoped to be cannonized a Saint. Not everybody shared my enthuzism though and that disturbed me a bit.

I believe, debating over scripture is not going to get you anywhere. Fast and pray and ask God. That works better, I think.

Rarely it ever lead any to conversion immediatetly. We both know this because each party has pride and each holds their beliefs dearly but what argument does is either to sow seeds or it will hold them accountable before the Lord.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. - John 15:22

[Galatians220]

I did not read the other posts because I'm supposed to be working and I'm taking a quick mental break.

I am a practicing Protestant.

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

Good questions...

I thought you were here to learn about the tenets of Mormism.

Elphaba

My intentions here are clearly stated above. I am here to learn, but also to learn from former evangelicans and protestants who converted. here, I am answering or clarifying certain teaching she did not understand. She is not a Mormon. However, I have gone a bit far on salvation.

If I am here to convert her, I would have used scripture to back myself up in this but i've stated only what I believed. And if I am here just to debate the LDS and convert them, I would have started a thread and placed my argument for them to answer.

Please know that I will only debate if someone fired the first shot, and then I will naturally return fire but in a respectful way.

[Galatians220]

I am an apologist for the LDS faith. However, I've closely studied all of these issues you bring up, from many viewpoints. The Bible is vague enough to allow these beliefs, or the ones the LDS believe in. There are non-LDS scholars who have written on these issues from both sides. As for #3, even traditional Christians disagree on this one, as some are Calvinist, others Arminian, and other Pelagian.

Well it nice to meet another Apologist though we differ in our faiths. I'd say that I am a mere student, still learning but am able to defend the gospel.

Threy do have disagreements in whether we are Eternally Secured or not; whether we are presestined or given free will, but that's not because of the vagueness of scripture. Like I said to Lilac, in those times people has just begun to read the Bible so some may read it literally, and some wouldn't. And since the Bible is so big, it is not easy to remember everything. For example, in Romans 9, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. Calvinist used that verse as an exaple or proof that God predestines people but the general context is about Israel, how God chose them above all people but because of their unbelief, the Gospel is given to the gentiles.

The "WORD OF GOD" IS the primary source of truth. But the definition of "word of God" is the kicker. Do you confine it to the Bible? Or do you realize that there are other words of God? If you are Bible only, what do you do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the dozens of books that Jews and Christians once considered scripture, but were rejected centuries after Christ's death by St Jerome? How about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted 39 times in the New Testament? Should it be part of the Bible? Or if it isn't inspired, does that mean the apostles were wrong to quote it?

the Dead Sea Scrolls does include books that are not part of the traditional Jewish and Protestant text. That said however, there's a reason why the Book of Enoch, Wisdom, Sirach, Gospel of Thomas was banned. Now let me ask you a question,

Why do you think the Gospel of Thomas was denied?

As for Trinity, there are now some non-LDS scholars who are beginning to accept the concept of a "social Trinity." And there are Christians who believe in modalism today, as well.

Well that's unfortunate because the Bible clearly states that God does not come in modes. Now I don't know what the Social Trinity means but I'm not one to accept what's popular today or what's accepted. I am also not one to accept beliefs of the Church Fathers no matter what they say.

Now, I got to ask you ... what brought you here? We could have had this discussion on another thread

[rameumptom]

Evangelical and Protestant Churches, particularly the fundamentalist does not believe in that part of the Chicago Statement; the question in my mind is whether he has always believed that or has he been convinced that the Bible can have inconsistencies due to human influence.

From my reading, and understanding, if any inconsistancy is found in scripture, then God's Word is not inspired. See my Statement of Faith submission on my profile

Your black/white insistent on a perfect Bible is inconsistent with the Bible itself, as it occasionally disagrees with itself.

True or false: Something can be inspired of God, and not be perfect.

If you say true, then the Bible does not have to be perfectly inspired. It can have flaws, interpolations of men, and still be 90+% correct and inspired.

If you say false, then we have to completely reject all the prophets of the Bible, through whom we received the words of the Bible, because none of them were perfect. And if we reject those prophets, then we must reject the Bible that came from them.

Since Peter denied Christ three times, does that mean we must reject his letters and the Book of Acts? Since Paul went about killing Christians, and later causing contention within the Church by opposing Peter and others, does that mean we toss out his letters?

Because Moses disobeyed God at the waters of Meribah, do we toss out the Ten Commandments?

Or do we realize there are weaknesses and mistakes and errors, but it still is mostly inspired?

So, which is it: true or false?

[Galatians220]

Your black/white insistent on a perfect Bible is inconsistent with the Bible itself, as it occasionally disagrees with itself.

True or false: Something can be inspired of God, and not be perfect.

If you say true, then the Bible does not have to be perfectly inspired. It can have flaws, interpolations of men, and still be 90+% correct and inspired.

If you say false, then we have to completely reject all the prophets of the Bible, through whom we received the words of the Bible, because none of them were perfect. And if we reject those prophets, then we must reject the Bible that came from them.

I say True, but I will NOT believe that the Word of God is 90% inspired.

To understand the degree of truth, error, flaw, and purity of the Word of God, you have to understand God himself. We both know that God is Good, correct? That means that He is not just Loving and Merciful but He is Just, and He is - Holy. That means that no impure thing can come to Him. He is defined by His names.

"Kadosh" = Holy One

"El Shaddai" = God Almighy

"Jehovah Jirah" = The LORD will provide

Etc... they all mean something and these names are not just nice descriptions of God but it is who He is. His names are Important, it is Powerful (1). You know that if you misuse His name, you will be severely chatized. However, compared to His Word, God says:

2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. - Psalm 138:2

You think that God, in His Holiness, who will punish man for misusing His name, would allow MAN to corrupt His Words, even a little bit?

Since Peter denied Christ three times, does that mean we must reject his letters and the Book of Acts? Since Paul went about killing Christians, and later causing contention within the Church by opposing Peter and others, does that mean we toss out his letters?

Because Moses disobeyed God at the waters of Meribah, do we toss out the Ten Commandments?

Or do we realize there are weaknesses and mistakes and errors, but it still is mostly inspired?

You're Kidding me right? I am utterly Stunned

Now how does Peter, Denying Christ 3x times tells a total Nitwit reader to DENY Christ 3X?

And how does Paul, Killing Christians, tells a complete Dunce, to do the same?

And since Moses committed a mistake, a full Ignramous will follow?

How does ANY of this, evidence of an inconsistancy, Error, contradiction, etc, on the eyes of any reader, both learned and unlearned? Once they have read the Bible for themselves, do you really think People can be that Foolish?

With all due Respect, have you actually read those parts of the Bible? Because if you did, you should have known, Already, that those are the ACCOUNTS of their LIVES. ANY reader, no matter how much of a Zero they are, can understand, that:

1. Jesus told Peter that before the Rooster croos a 3rd time, he will deny Christ 3x

2. Paul persecuted and Killed Christians Before he was... what? SAVED!

3. Paul was opposed by those who Disagreed with him on fundamental Doctrines. Now... how likely is it that a Reader throw out the letters of Paul when reading Paul's words? If it were a different author, telling the reader to deny Paul's writings then he/she would!

4. Moses did not Hold God to reverance when he struck the rock giving an ill-testimony. The Consenquesce FOLLOWs that he was Denied Entry to the Promiseland!

All the reader has to do, is to READ the story, not just open up a bible, select a single verse, and blindly follow it? How many people do you know who would do that and say "Yes, I have read the whole Bible"?

So, which is it: true or false?

My answer is TRUE.

1. The Names of God

[rameumptom]

Galatians,

You totally misunderstood what I wrote. Once again, it is a matter of exegesis (seeking the original meaning), and not eisegesis (imposing your own meaning).

My point with the Bible is that each of these prophets was imperfect, yet we agree that their writings are inspired, at least to a point. If a person does not have to be perfect to be a prophet, then we can expect them and their writings to be imperfect.

However, while you answered true, your statements afterward insisted on false for the answer. You said the prophets do not need to be perfect, but God is still perfect and so the writings must be perfect. Circular arguments to avoid being caught up by a true/false question. You essentially answered "none of the above."

Either the statement was true: something is inspired but not perfect OR

false: something must be perfect to be inspired.

There is no third option, which you tried to achieve by saying true, and then stating otherwise in your comments. So, once again, is it true OR false. "None of the above" or "all of the above" are not answers to the question.

[Galatians220]

Galatians,

You totally misunderstood what I wrote. Once again, it is a matter of exegesis (seeking the original meaning), and not eisegesis (imposing your own meaning).

My point with the Bible is that each of these prophets was imperfect, yet we agree that their writings are inspired, at least to a point. If a person does not have to be perfect to be a prophet, then we can expect them and their writings to be imperfect.

However, while you answered true, your statements afterward insisted on false for the answer. You said the prophets do not need to be perfect, but God is still perfect and so the writings must be perfect. Circular arguments to avoid being caught up by a true/false question. You essentially answered "none of the above."

Either the statement was true: something is inspired but not perfect OR

false: something must be perfect to be inspired.

There is no third option, which you tried to achieve by saying true, and then stating otherwise in your comments. So, once again, is it true OR false. "None of the above" or "all of the above" are not answers to the question.

You're formula in determining the truthfulness of scripture is to add human weakness into it so of course, and naturally, everything has to fit the way you think it is, that humans will eventually inject their bias, their presumptions, and their belief or to make copyist errors along the way because like the message that goes from ear to ear, the end message will be far different than that of the original.

However, you're forgetting the fact that God moved these men in 2 Peter 1, so how can he allow error into his words? To say that the Bible is 90% inspired is to say that God has been negligent 10% of the time:

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. - Psalm 12:6

12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

19 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

- Proverbs 22:12, 19-21

Are you willing to believe that God lied when He said this? If you're right, He DID Lie, and He DID Fail because God made it absolutely clear that He Keep His words Pure, and that He preserves His words.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Galatians220

[rameumptom]

No, for the Bible to be 90% inspired means God has been active in preventing Satan and man from destroying it. But it also allows God to give mankind their agency and free will, an allowance to make mistakes. Peter can deny Christ 3 times, and still be acceptable as an apostle. Jonah can run away, and still be an acceptable prophet to Nineveh. Jeremiah can tell the Jewish leaders that they have intentionally rewritten the holy words in their day, and yet we can still have an inspired Bible.

The evidences are just so major in showing the Bible is not the perfect word of God. At the same time, it is an amazing set of writings that show God's inspiration.

Otherwise, if we insist it is perfect, then one anomaly should knock the entire book over and prove it wrong. Read "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, and you'll find several conflicts in the New Testament alone. Moses proclaimed his law to be an "everlasting covenant", yet Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Which is it? If the Bible is perfect, how can the Mosaic Law be an everlasting covenant AND fulfilled at the same time?

God's words ARE pure. But they are changed as they are rewritten by mankind. If the Bible is perfect and the Mosaic Law IS an everlasting covenant, then may I ask if you've been circumcised and provided animal sacrifices to your local Levite priest? Do you abstain from pork and lobster? Do you celebrate the Jewish festivals and rites?

It is like shooting fish in a barrel, and yet the fish still swim to the top thinking there's more water to go to....

Edited September 3, 2009 by rameumptom

[Galatians220]

No, for the Bible to be 90% inspired means God has been active in preventing Satan and man from destroying it. But it also allows God to give mankind their agency and free will, an allowance to make mistakes. Peter can deny Christ 3 times, and still be acceptable as an apostle. Jonah can run away, and still be an acceptable prophet to Nineveh. Jeremiah can tell the Jewish leaders that they have intentionally rewritten the holy words in their day, and yet we can still have an inspired Bible.

Wait a minute, where in Psalms 12:6, and Proverbs 22:12, 19-21 says that He only prevents Satan from corrupting his words? The freedom to commit sin in a Christian's life does not apply to the preservation of Scripture. Again, let me show you the scripture again:

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. - Psalm 12:6

12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

19 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? - Proverbs 22:12, 19-21

Where on earth did it say that He will only protect His word from Satan but will allow man to corrupt it?

The evidences are just so major in showing the Bible is not the perfect word of God. At the same time, it is an amazing set of writings that show God's inspiration.

Sounds like God half-heartedly kept His words pure. You said before that 90% is inspired yet here, the evidence is major. You know he scripture, so tell me, how majorly did God messed up?

Otherwise, if we insist it is perfect, then one anomaly should knock the entire book over and prove it wrong. Read "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, and you'll find several conflicts in the New Testament alone. Moses proclaimed his law to be an "everlasting covenant", yet Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Which is it? If the Bible is perfect, how can the Mosaic Law be an everlasting covenant AND fulfilled at the same time?

That's right, one error can do God over. I don't have that much time to read them so bring it on. I think the reason there are so many, so called conflicts in scripture is that they didn't try hard enough to solve those problem in the first place. As you have already seen, I've pretty much answered every single one of those problems.

God's words ARE pure. But they are changed as they are rewritten by mankind. If the Bible is perfect and the Mosaic Law IS an everlasting covenant, then may I ask if you've been circumcised and provided animal sacrifices to your local Levite priest? Do you abstain from pork and lobster? Do you celebrate the Jewish festivals and rites?

It is like shooting fish in a barrel, and yet the fish still swim to the top thinking there's more water to go to....

That, "everlasting covenant" is ONLY applied for the Jewish people:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. - Deuteronomy 17:7-8

Much of the Mosaic Law is ceremonial for which the Jews are tasked to follow that relates to the Sabbath, the temple, the sacrifices, etc and not just the 10 moral commandments. Thye are not tasked in doing this simply because He wants them to, but because they are the chosen people above ALL people.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. - Ibid 7:6

Therefore, the ceremonials, the temple worship, the animal sacrifices etc does NOT apply to them. Furthermore, God made the Law not just to make people right before him:

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. - Romans 3:19-20

On Circumcision:

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses....

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? - Acts 17:5-10

On the Sabbath, festavels, and temple rite:

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: - Colossians 2:14-16

And finally, the Moral Law itself

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. - Deuteronomy 18:18

"...Like unto Thee..." Moses is the Lawgiver, not just a Prophet. therefore, one who is coming will be like Moses but better - that's Jesus

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Mattehw 5:17-18

(John 19:30 - It is finished!)

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

...

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: - Galatians 3:10-13

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. - John 1:17

Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses and then dying to it; He is the Final sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10), the end of the Law for Righteousness (Romans 10:2-4).

[rameumptom]

I am looking at facts. Jeremiah accused the temple priests of doctoring the scriptures. The Johannine Comma is perfect proof of the New Testament being adulterated centuries later by a Christian priest who wanted to put more evidence of the Trinity into the Bible. It is still in the KJV, but removed from other newer Bibles. Which Bible, then, is "more perfect", the one with the Johannine Comma, or the one without? Was the Christian priest, NOT a prophet or apostle, called of God to change the writings of the apostle John? If so, how do you know? And if he was, why are so many Bibles removing it today?

Ignore this 800 lb gorilla if you wish, but it still is in the room. The Bible is not perfect. How then does God preserve his word?

Through modern apostles and prophets. God reveals his secrets through prophets (Amos 3:7). God gives apostles and prophets, so we are not tossed to and fro by winds of false doctrines (Eph 4:11-14). And the foundation of the gospel is apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) and NOT the Bible. If you want the word of God preserved, it will not be in a sealed book, as the Bible is. It will be in living words revealed to modern prophets.

[Galatians220]

I am looking at facts. Jeremiah accused the temple priests of doctoring the scriptures. The Johannine Comma is perfect proof of the New Testament being adulterated centuries later by a Christian priest who wanted to put more evidence of the Trinity into the Bible. It is still in the KJV, but removed from other newer Bibles. Which Bible, then, is "more perfect", the one with the Johannine Comma, or the one without? Was the Christian priest, NOT a prophet or apostle, called of God to change the writings of the apostle John? If so, how do you know? And if he was, why are so many Bibles removing it today?

Ignore this 800 lb gorilla if you wish, but it still is in the room. The Bible is not perfect. How then does God preserve his word?

Through modern apostles and prophets. God reveals his secrets through prophets (Amos 3:7). God gives apostles and prophets, so we are not tossed to and fro by winds of false doctrines (Eph 4:11-14). And the foundation of the gospel is apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) and NOT the Bible. If you want the word of God preserved, it will not be in a sealed book, as the Bible is. It will be in living words revealed to modern prophets.

While I still agree that those scribes tried and did, as well as those teachers, their writing has never made it to the Word of God and has never been considered inspired if it did. The extra-biblical writings has been inside the Bible, it was never considered inspired by the Jews nor the Christians until the Reformation.

1 John 5:7 is actually supported by the Byzantine Text (Majority Text) which is the largest body the collection of scripture and it shows 1 John 5:7.

The reason why most modern translations have not 1 John 5:7 is because all of them is based on the Alexandrian Text which is the oldest text found (2nd Century).

I would liken the Alexandrian to a rough draft not that it has all of these grammar errors that needs revision, but because it is simple, and at that time, the people of that time does not have a lot of paper as we do today (not to mention the fact that they are under persecution which made the availability of paper difficult). So no space is wasted and when you look at the actual text, it doesn't have verse numbers, capitol letters, and titles on them.

The King James Only movement believes that the New versions of the Bibles are false because of the alleged deliberate omissions of certain words in texts. For example:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. - John 6:47 KJV

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

- Jhn 6:47 - NASB and others

John 6 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. - Luke 4:4 KJV

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.' " - Luke 4:4 NASB and others

Luke 4:4 NASB and others

(Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Some alleged omissions are the details such as this, and some are quite glaring. In Revelations 1:8 and 11, the modern versions only has one, Alpha and Omega and that is only to God. They don't have verse 11.

If they are right, the devil in his ability to deceive, omitted the key wordings of scripture to blunt the power of it's message and to be honest, it is not that hard to see that. The King James Bible has been in the hands of believers ever since it's been distributed in the 16th century so for 3 1/2 centuries, it has been the dominant text of truth and then the discovery of the Alexandrian.

While the text itself does not give false information, the omissions themselves have raised a lot of eyebrows including mine. To be honest, the Byzantine Text does not have all the details either but not as much, and as far as I know, there's not a full verse omission, just the details. Here's a site that displayed most of these alleged omissions: Various Contradictions and Omissions

Today, bibles are being produced for the sake of easy reading so you have the literal, "word-for-word" versions (NASB, RSV, YLT), and then increasingly, the "thought-for-thought" versions (NLT, LB, CEV) and unfortunately, those "Thought-for-thought" bibles are nothing more than paraphrases, they are NOT inspired.

There is already a Bible that is Gender-Neutral, the Holman Christian Standard Bible in order to make it a friendly Bible for everyone by changing "mankind," or "He" to a more neutral kind. And this is not the first time a Bible is produced to fit a belief system. The Jehovah's Witnesses have made their own Bible, the New World Translation which deliberately changed, adding words, and twisted clear Trinitarian verses:

Ex:

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. - John 1:1

6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”4 - Hebrews 1:6

The Bible as you know does NOT have the letter "a" in the passage and that the word "Obeisance" was deliberately in place of "Worship."

You want to use the Coma, go ahead but remember.... there is a much larger body of text that supports my argument. And if you are going to use these troubling facts on new bible versions as further proof of the bible not 100% perfect, then let me tell you that there is a difference between altering Bible messages already made and erroneous bibles produced.

Like the extra-biblical books such as Tobit, and Maccabees 1-4, Satan can produce false Bibles to further cause doubt on the Word of God. His strategy is to sow seeds of doubt and though they are small, if there is enough of them will add up to cause doubt. I can see that he did a good job on you already because you are not so trusting in the Bible but more inclined to trust in the Prophets than God's Word.

Mind you, Jesus did not use His authority to defeat Satan, but He used the Word of God. While we should all listen to our prophets, they should not replace the Word of God nor hold greater importance. The Bereans have received Paul warmly, but they have checked the Word of God to see if Paul, the most important Apostle is telling the truth, That is why they are more Noble than the Thessalonians.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Galatians220