Bible Forbids Additional Scriptures?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Being different doesn't imply one change the other or vice versa. It is matter of observational viewpoint and authorship that is at play here. We both can hear or see the same play, but will write it differently based on our authorship.

How many times have their been journalist writing on what they hear when Joseph Smith gives a sermon and not being entirely accurate with each other writings Snow? I think you know that answer.

I do know the answer, but apparently you do not. The author of Matthew had Mark as a source as he composed his gospel. He knew what the author of Mark wrote on that issue and choose to change it, to say something different, while leaving many other things, but not all things, untouched.

It's not as if Matthew was an eyewitness to the events he described and so heard or thought it heard it differently. None of the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses. Mark was like a 4th remove from Jesus and Matthew was one more remove past Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know the answer, but apparently you do not. The author of Matthew had Mark as a source as he composed his gospel. He knew what the author of Mark wrote on that issue and choose to change it, to say something different, while leaving many other things, but not all things, untouched.

It's not as if Matthew was an eyewitness to the events he described and so heard or thought it heard it differently. None of the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses. Mark was like a 4th remove from Jesus and Matthew was one more remove past Mark.

Or Snow, nor do you or any scholar today. Nor have you have seen it for yourself [firsthand witness] based on your own post postulation. This is still ‘thousand-hand speculation’ based on your own assessment. I don't know and you don't know, but what a SEER can altar back to its original source. We can only assume what is given is an accurate translation base on the last council approving its canonization.

Now, wasn't Matthew an Apostle of the Savior? Wasn't Mark a scribed in Jesus day? Isn't Mark the first known writing among the four NT scriptures? Hmm...whom among the scholars do we trust?

Side note here: Mark is a 'unique' individual that more about him will surface when we will receive a greater detail with the writings of those who lived in Christ days.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Snow, nor do you or any scholar today. Nor have you have seen it for yourself [firsthand witness] based on your own post postulation.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you restate clearly?

This is still ‘thousand-hand speculation’ based on your own assessment.

No - it's not my assessment. It's the majority or even the consensus scholarly opinion. As a matter of fact, I am currently reading a book published by Deseret Books and Elder Morrison points out some of the same issues.

I don't know and you don't know, but what a SEER can altar back to its original source.

I don't know that that means either. Mark or Matthew or both were wrong. They can't both be right, regardless of whether one or the other was inspired.

We can only assume what is given is an accurate translation base on the last council approving its canonization.

The Council of Trent? What's that got to do with anything? We are talking about the original texts here - it has nothing to do with canonization.

Now, wasn't Matthew an Apostle of the Savior? Wasn't Mark a scribed in Jesus day? Isn't Mark the first known writing among the four NT scriptures? Hmm...whom among the scholars do we trust?

1. Mark was not an apostle. The author of Mark is unknown. It is clear from the text and the mistakes about Galilean custom and geography that the author was unfamiliar with the area. It is also clear, from the previous example that he was not well acquainted with the Old Testament. Some people think John Mark was the author but I doubt it. I think most scholars doubt it.

2.. The author of the Gospel of Matthew is unknown. The book was written anonymously. That Matthew was the author was a late guess. It's clear from textual analysis that Matthew was not an eyewitness, not even close.

Regardless of who wrote the Gospels - Mark got Isaiah wrong and Matthew corrected him. If you can demonstrate that is incorrect, go ahead but you can't otherwise you would have done so by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am soooo tired of people telling me what I'm supposed to believe - based upon what they read.

I usually say something like, "really" or "isn't that interesting" and let the topic go.

If someone truly 'wants' to know and is willing to discuss it with you - fine. But usually, those who say something liket his are only interested in pushing their opinions on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...stick with the Spirit; it will never lead you astray.

As with any posting on this forum, discernment of the Spirit is the method to ensure if there is anything worthy for your edification. If not, ask the GOD whether or not, it is correct.

A notoriously unreliable method.

Do you know that Catholics and Muslims and heretics and Republicans and soccer players use the same methodology and come away with completely contradictory ideas?

Anyway... did you ask the Spirit who which was right and which was wrong? The author of Mark or the author of Matthew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...stick with the Spirit; it will never lead you astray.

As with any posting on this forum, discernment of the Spirit is the method to ensure if there is anything worthy for your edification. If not, ask the GOD whether or not, it is correct.

The Spirit only works within the context of our knowledge and ability to understand things. It also won't fight us over things we are not ready to understand. This holds true even for apostles, as Joseph F. Smith and James Talmage argued over evolution and other issues.

We cannot be saved in ignorance, and we've been commanded to learn out of the best books. Relying solely upon the Spirit to tell us things is to ignore the first major portion of the command: first we must search it out in our own minds, and THEN ask if it is right (D&C 9).

The Spirit is indispensable for us learning truth. But first we must study and learn concepts and ideas, ponder them, and then bring them to the Lord with an open mind, in order to have the Spirit teach us and confirm truth to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dudes,

Put on your thinking bonnets. Please.

1. They both say different things. Either one is correct/accurate or neither is but they cannot both be accurate... CUZ THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

of course they are different (altho not different enough to take too much of a concern)... How have you eliminated the possibilities enough to conclude that mark and etc are responsible for them?

2. We know what Isaiah says. We know what Exodus says, We know what Malachi says. Mark misquotes, and Matthew corrects him. Look it up. It's in the Bible.

The bible says it therefore that is the case?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scriptures that we have in the Bible clearly indicate that anciently there was no official canon of scripture. There was no official list of scriptures used by the ancients. There were scriptures more familiar than others but that is not the point. As we examine the scripture text of 2Chr chapter 34 of the Old Testament we discover that the Priest Hilkiah finds a book of scripture in the Temple that was unknown to the people at the time. This find tells us two things about the manner that the L-rd dealt with the ancient covenant people from which we have obtained our Old Testament scriptures.

First: That there was no official list of scriptures to comprise a canon. If there had been such a list the people would have known something was missing and the title of that scripture scroll as well as the author. Note that in this case the lost book was written by Moses.

Second: That it never was a concept or doctrine of those ancient peoples that kept scripture to publish an official list of canon. In all of ancient history never once is there any mention of the doctrine of canon.

If we ask ourselves – where did the doctrine of canon come from? I will leave that question as an assignment to the reader with the caveat that it did not come from the ancients or the scriptures they gave us. As I have discussed the nature and purpose of scripture canon with those that espouse and believe the doctrine; the doctrine of canon is deeply seeded in the doctrine and concept that scripture canon is the authority of doctrine. In other words the scripture canon is used to justify and filter ALL doctrine to be espoused and used today. The scripture canon being the authority, all doctrines therefore must conform to the canon. I see a great breach in logic here. To begin with, the doctrine of canon is not given nor does it conform to the manner the ancients used ancient scriptures. The list of canon was determined based on human concepts, desires and definitions – it can be argued that there is no direction from G-d to even consider canon. Even the requirements for consideration are lacking from scripture and are a human fabrication somewhat “after the fact”. Thus the logic of canon fails within the construct of why canon is needed to begin with.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spirit only works within the context of our knowledge and ability to understand things. It also won't fight us over things we are not ready to understand. This holds true even for apostles, as Joseph F. Smith and James Talmage argued over evolution and other issues.

We cannot be saved in ignorance, and we've been commanded to learn out of the best books. Relying solely upon the Spirit to tell us things is to ignore the first major portion of the command: first we must search it out in our own minds, and THEN ask if it is right (D&C 9).

The Spirit is indispensable for us learning truth. But first we must study and learn concepts and ideas, ponder them, and then bring them to the Lord with an open mind, in order to have the Spirit teach us and confirm truth to us.

What was the point of this post? Noting post conversion between us and others concerning the appropriate method of receiving correct answer, your own posting mirrors what I had posted on previous threads. Is this a senior moment Ram? ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Researching information a few minutes ago, here is an instance where scholars where in involved in aiding the brethren with the 1979 edition of the LDS edition of the King James Bible;

President Harold B. Lee organized a Bible Aids Committee to prepare an edition of the Bible which would provide doctrinal and historical helps for Latter-day Saint students of the scriptures. Among the first matters proposed in the preparation of the LDS edition of the Bible was that significant changes from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible be included. As progress went forward on this new LDS edition, it became clear that such a project would lead naturally to a consideration of the status of the triple combination as well. The Bible Aids Committee became the Scriptures Publications Committee, and consisted finally of Elders Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie. These three members of the Council of the Twelve were assisted primarily by three members of the BYU Religious Education faculty: Ellis T. Rasmussen, Robert C. Patch, and Robert J. Matthews. In addition, literally hundreds of members of the Church Educational System aided in producing the Topical Guide and an extremely complex cross-referencing system between all four books within the standard works. 'Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things', by Monte S. Nyman, Robert L. Millet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course they are different (altho not different enough to take too much of a concern)...

Not much? Misrepresent Isaiah and incorrectly attribute the words of two other authors to him.

It's all good, right?

How have you eliminated the possibilities enough to conclude that mark and etc are responsible for them?

If it's your theory that it was space alien evil monks that penned the verses in Mark and Matthew instead of the authors who wrote the rest of the text, it would be up to you to demonstrate it.

The bible says it therefore that is the case?

Same thing applies. If you think that Peter, Paul and Mary wrote Exodus, Malachi and Isaiah, it's up to you to show it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much? Misrepresent Isaiah and incorrectly attribute the words of two other authors to him.

It's all good, right?

I checked the quote from mark and the quote from isaiah, both talk about making a straight path or straight highway for God.

You chose a poor example.

If it's your theory that it was space alien evil monks that penned the verses in Mark and Matthew instead of the authors who wrote the rest of the text, it would be up to you to demonstrate it.

fair enough, altho i didn't know you believed that evil monks came from outer space...

Then you need to prove -

1. That it is indeed Matthew who is quoting mark (or vice versa).

2. that mark had and was using the words of isaiah as we have them.

3. that the transmission of the respective pieces of scripture have been transmitted and translated perfectly... both for the apostles in their day and then to us.

Same thing applies. If you think that Peter, Paul and Mary wrote Exodus, Malachi and Isaiah, it's up to you to show it.

where'd i say that? and how does that answer my question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argumentation is not a negative thing per se. It is a process of applying facts and logic to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion. It can be quite effective as a learning tool to those that participate.

At what point does an argument become a negative thing instead of a learning tool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argumentation is not a negative thing per se. It is a process of applying facts and logic to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion. It can be quite effective as a learning tool to those that participate.

At what point does an argument become a negative thing instead of a learning tool?

I think when you personally attack the other one because of his/her answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the quote from mark and the quote from isaiah, both talk about making a straight path or straight highway for God.

You chose a poor example.

Simply put, you are flat out wrong.

The author of Mark says: "In the prophet Isaiah it stands writtenL 'Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness Prepare a way for the Lord: clear a straight path for him." Mark 1:2-3

That is wrong - it is untrue. That does not stand written in Isaiah. Mark gets it wrong. Obvisiously he is writing from a pre-composed source that made the mistake and he doesn't bother to check what Isaiah really says. What Mark improperly attributed to Isaiah is a merging of the first nine words of the Septuagint Greek version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphase of the Hebrew Malachi 3:1, that is then joined with a paraphrase of the Septuagint Isaiah 40:30.

fair enough, altho i didn't know you believed that evil monks came from outer space...

Then you need to prove -

1. That it is indeed Matthew who is quoting mark (or vice versa).

Scholarly consensus dude. Do your own homework. The idea that Matthew preceded Mark was abandoned many years ago.

2. that mark had and was using the words of isaiah as we have them.

He WASN"T using the words of the Isaiah - that's the point. If you have a Septuagint and Hebrew OT you could check it. I have it in front of me and can see what's written.

3. that the transmission of the respective pieces of scripture have been transmitted and translated perfectly... both for the apostles in their day and then to us.

Go ahead and claim that the verses have been altered. Be specific. Which words and verses were altered and how do you know. Burden of proof dude.

where'd i say that? and how does that answer my question?

Read you post. Your question implied that the Bible, in this case Mark, was wrong. Whatever - go ahead and demonstrate it you can. It's your implied claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. An appeal to mystery and the great unknown is not much of an argument.

2. Regardless, Matthew changed Mark and either Mark or Matthew changed Isaiah, so your point, mysterious as it is, is moot.

"Let me see. Which logical-fallacy label can I attach to this person's assertion?" Snow, you do not seem too interested in discussion. It seems you just want to argue and win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argumentation is not a negative thing per se. It is a process of applying facts and logic to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion. It can be quite effective as a learning tool to those that participate.

At what point does an argument become a negative thing instead of a learning tool?

Good question. Those better at logical argumentation often win the day. I think that is why so many people intuitively distrust lawyers. Many are not after the truth; they just want to win, and those who are better at the sport, win, even if they shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let me see. Which logical-fallacy label can I attach to this person's assertion?" Snow, you do not seem too interested in discussion. It seems you just want to argue and win.

It matters not whether I am interest in discussion or whether you think I am interested; as a factual matter, the author Mark messed up quote and the author of Matthew did not. You could debate, and be my guest, that Matthew preceded Mark but you'd be arguing an extreme minority position and you won't attract any credibility - unless you know something nobody else know - if so, please tell me.

And if you think that you can point out a logical fallacy in my post # 64, by all means, please educate me. I'd be even more interested if you can show that I factually mistaken.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share