Bible Under Fire

[Ray]

Bible Dictionary: CANON

Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.

And btw, the next time when true prophets and apostles see fit to formally add to the “collection of scripture”, they may either include all of the scriptures within one “Holy Bible”, or leave them all in the various books and magazines and pamphlets and web pages in which they currently can be found.

Or in other words, true prophets and apostles can either add to the books in the Quad or leave the other scriptures in the form in which they are and will continue to be found.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon.

What you are saying here is exactly what I do not understand. You say that the Christian church is build upon the scripture. But I do not see the doctrine of cannon in that scripture. It also seems to me that this building of the kingdom (or church) upon the scriputres is a doctirne of the Pharicees and Scribs in critizism of Christ. They had the law and the prophets which was their guide. Jesus said that the purpose of these things (scripture) were to testify of him. It it Christ (the Messiah) that we must look for as the corner stone upon which the church must be built - not scripture.

The Traveler

I’d like to add to this point.

While most Christians conform their understanding of God to the scriptures contained in the “Holy Bible”, which is proper in the correct context, the scriptures actually come from those who are authorized to speak for God, or more specifically, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or in other words, while most Christians put their faith in a book, including many books written by Christians, true Christians receive revelation from Jesus Christ, sometimes writing those revelations down in books.

And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.

[Snow]

According to my personal research the doctrine of cannon is a Pagan doctrine. I find no such doctrine in scripture. It therefore appears to me that the doctrine of cannizing scripture is a heresy and false and part of the paganization of Christianity.

I think you have a mistaken idea of what "canon" means. Maybe this from Dallin Oakes (Jan. 95 Ensign) will help:

Because of our belief in continuing revelation, we Latter-day Saints maintain that the canon (the authoritative body) of scriptures is open. In fact, the scriptural canon is open in several ways, and continuing revelation is crucial to each of them.

First, we believe that God will guide his children by giving new additions to the existing body of scriptures through the prophet and the established procedures of his Church. The Book of Mormon is such an addition. So are the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, including sections 137 and 138 [D&C 137; D&C 138], which were added in our lifetime.

Second, we believe that God will give new revelations on the meaning of scriptures previously canonized, meanings that were not evident in earlier times. These new revelations are of two types: public and private.

Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive.

Our belief in an open canon also includes private revelations to individual seekers of the meaning of existing scriptures. Such revelations are necessary because, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve observed, “Each pronouncement in the holy scriptures … is so written as to reveal little or much, depending on the spiritual capacity of the student” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 71).

[Traveler]

Let me begin by reviewing a few things.

1. I believe that the Bible contains some of G-d’s words of scripture given to man.

2. Consider what G-d tells us in Isaiah 46:9-10 - “I am G-d, and there is non like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Here we learn that G-d knows all things from the beginning to the end. We also learn that he declares this same knowledge to man. A complete set of scriptures (Cannon) must declare all things from the beginning to the end. This is not my opinion but G-d’s word. No man has the right to say otherwise or declare a subset of scriptures as the final set of G-d’s word.

3. How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared. Remember he promised through Isaiah that he declares what he does - if he is going to do it then he will declare it. To say G-d does otherwise is to claim the scriptures lie. If G-d revealed his will concerning Canonization then that scripture was lost. If G-d has other methods of revealing his secrets then would someone please quote the scripture?

4. It has been suggested that G-d inspired man, contrary to scripture, to create a scripture cannon. This he did to answer prayer of good believers. REALLY? Every time the good believers got to gather to discuss the scripture cannon there were many different opinions of what that should be. To be honest, history seems to record that the group that one won were those that had the biggest army and killed the most people. (Example Charlemagne that declared by his blood stained might his personal preference that would become the most used Christian cannon as it is defined today among Western Christians)

5. The concept of the LDS “Standard Works” as our “Open” cannon is strictly a matter of semantics. The concept of cannon is that of fixed which does not mean open. I will concede the LDS “Standard Works” as a open cannon but with the following exceptions:

A. The Standard Works are scriptures that have been given through prophets and are G-d’s word to all. Because G-d (according to his promise) does reveal his work through his servants that are called by him to be prophets LDS know that the Bible contains some of G-d’s Word. No other Christian denomination can make that claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy.

B. Besides the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture prophesies. For example sometimes G-d reveals scripture specific to a generation as he did through the prophet Noah concerning the flood or through the prophet Jonah a warning to the city of Nineveh. As with Noah G-d has revealed to the world his will concerning families. This warning prophesy and indication of blessings is not just to the LDS but to all the world and can be read at the following link <http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html>

C. Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture that is given only to special followers. For example Jesus often taught his 12 apostles things that were not taught to his other followers. Although Jesus taught many things to his Apostles at the last supper most of what he taught is not in the Bible. LDS have learned that certain things are not taught in scriptures open to public. These things are taught as sacred “pearls” in the temple as prophesied (once again G-d declares his knowledge in advance) in Isaiah 2:2-3 (BTW the Ute word “Utah” means the top of the mountains. Is it not amazing how G-d’s words are fulfilled?)

D. Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there is scripture given specific to an individual person. This is known as “Patriarch Blessings”. The example in scripture is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when they blessed their children. LDS are also given personal scripture specific to them and their time of probation. Again only LDS fulfill the prophesy of giving G-d’s specific declaration to individuals as was done in scripture.

Without this understanding I am not sure anyone can understand the LDS stand concerning scripture. And again I ask the question? Does no one believe the scriptures - That G-d must declare it in his way if there is to be a cannon and what that cannon must be.

The Traveler

[Snow]

5. The concept of the LDS “Standard Works” as our “Open” cannon is strictly a matter of semantics. The concept of cannon is that of fixed which does not mean open. I will concede the LDS “Standard Works” as a open cannon but with the following exceptions:

The Traveler

I still think you have an odd idea of what canon means. Canon is not a matter of sematics. It is the a collection of books considered to be scripture - it is the measuring stick against which we measure all other pronouncements. Our canon is open but even non-LDS Christians have to believe in a theoretically open (though not practically open) canon.

Prison Chaplain just read a book by a Mormon and Evangelical scholar who says so.

[prisonchaplain]

Consider what G-d tells us in Isaiah 46:9-10 - “I am G-d, and there is non like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Here we learn that G-d knows all things from the beginning to the end. We also learn that he declares this same knowledge to man. A complete set of scriptures (Cannon) must declare all things from the beginning to the end. This is not my opinion but G-d’s word. No man has the right to say otherwise or declare a subset of scriptures as the final set of G-d’s word.

Let me break this Scripture reference down into bits:

1. I am G-d. The one true and living God is speaking here.

2. Declaring the end from the begininning. So, God, tells us the beginning to the end. He explains it to us.

3. and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. Yes, God does give us prophecy. He tells us things to come.

4. saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure. What God advises is and will remain. Also, God does what He wants.

From the above, I cannot find a promise that God will reveal to us EVERY DETAIL of his plans, or even of that which He has already done. If we say that this passage requires that Scripture (mind you, Scripture is not the topic of this passage at all--and certainly not canon) contain material from the beginning, well Genesis covers that. From the end, John's Revelation of Christ covers that. I'm not arguing here that the canon must be closed, but merely that this passage from Isaiah does not require it, because God does not promise to grant us EVERY DETAIL of his doings.

I would refer the reader to the story of Job. Job demands of God to know WHY troubles have come his way. God's response is basically that He is God and Job is man, and man cannot advise God. Job humbles himself, declaring that God is indeed God. Consider also 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us that we now see through a dark glass, and not until that which is perfect comes (referring to the second coming of Jesus), will we see as God sees.

How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared.

Amos does not address Scripture canon either. It neither predicts nor denies the possiblity that a later council of church leaders might discern which books belong and which books do not belong in the canon. Keep in mind--no matter how you parse the verbage, the LDS Church does have a canon. Open or closed, there are writings that the church does not regard as Scripture (i.e., the Syrian additions).

You seem to be reading way too much into this passage. This is not an all-encompassing promise that God will always reveal every detail of his work to prophets. Rather, God is saying that to Israel that He warns them when punishment is coming--and that He compels his prophets to issue the warnings. The people are without excuse when judgment comes--they've been warned. This is akin to dad saying, "I told you that if you didn't clean your room you'd be grounded, so why are you crying now that you are grounded?"

Remember he promised through Isaiah that he declares what he does - if he is going to do it then he will declare it. To say G-d does otherwise is to claim the scriptures lie. If G-d revealed his will concerning Canonization then that scripture was lost. If G-d has other methods of revealing his secrets then would someone please quote the scripture?

Again, you've taken a local reminder of God to his people that the troubles they are suffering were declared by God already, and that they are without excuse and without cause to ask, "Why?" at this point. Amos is not addressing canonization one way or the other. God certainly does not offer us every detail of his plans. Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden for looking for more than God had revealed.

It has been suggested that G-d inspired man, contrary to scripture, to create a scripture cannon. This he did to answer prayer of good believers. REALLY?

You accuse the LDS Church with the same hammer you would use on the rest of Christianity with this claim. The LDS Church rejects certain books--does not include them in its "Standard Works."

Every time the good believers got to gather to discuss the scripture cannon there were many different opinions of what that should be. To be honest, history seems to record that the group that one won were those that had the biggest army and killed the most people. (Example Charlemagne that declared by his blood stained might his personal preference that would become the most used Christian cannon as it is defined today among Western Christians)

IMHO your opinion of church history and canonization is colored by your doctrine of Restored gospel. You have every incentive to be untrusting of the Early post-apostolic church. Suffice to say that your interpretation here flies in the face of the rest of Christianity, and I dare say, even many LDS religious history scholars probably would not offer such a overarching and frankly dismissive condemnation.

The concept of the LDS “Standard Works” as our “Open” cannon is strictly a matter of semantics. The concept of cannon is that of fixed which does not mean open.

A canon, in the context of religion, is an established Scripture. Whether a religion's leadership is willing to add to or revise a canon is another issue. Thus the adjectives "open and closed." Frankly, you are writing your own definition of canon, so that you can deny that your church has one, and condemn the rest of Christianity for its "heretical canon." It is much harder to condemn a canon, if the difference is one of degree vs. core nature.

I will concede the LDS “Standard Works” as a open cannon but with the following exceptions:

A. The Standard Works are scriptures that have been given through prophets and are G-d’s word to all. Because G-d (according to his promise) does reveal his work through his servants that are called by him to be prophets LDS know that the Bible contains some of G-d’s Word. No other Christian denomination can make that claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy.

Pardon my confusion here, but you have said that the Bible is God's Words. Your only argument is that there is more available. Then you say that non-LDS Christians (the other 99.4%) cannot claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy. What do you mean? Do you believe the Bible or not? Do we have to prove it to you?

Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture that is given only to special followers. For example Jesus often taught his 12 apostles things that were not taught to his other followers. Although Jesus taught many things to his Apostles at the last supper most of what he taught is not in the Bible. LDS have learned that certain things are not taught in scriptures open to public. These things are taught as sacred “pearls” in the temple as prophesied (once again G-d declares his knowledge in advance) in Isaiah 2:2-3 (BTW the Ute word “Utah” means the top of the mountains. Is it not amazing how G-d’s words are fulfilled?)

There is no question but that Jesus shared things with his leadership that He did not explain to the crowds--many of whom were not even believers. However, if you extend this principle to say that God always intends to reserve for his most faithful followers enticing secrets, hidden knowledge, etc., you come in danger of the Gnostic heresy. For the most part, the Bible is an open book, easily understood. Yes, it is also one that scholars can never fully fathom! However, the primary focus of the gospel is not mystery, hidden knowledge, or enticing secrets. It is Christ, and him crucified, for the salvation of his creation.

Without this understanding I am not sure anyone can understand the LDS stand concerning scripture. And again I ask the question? Does no one believe the scriptures - That G-d must declare it in his way if there is to be a cannon and what that cannon must be.

And again I respond, if God truly considers canon a heresy, than the .06% of Christendom that is the LDS Church has as much to answer for as the 99.4% that are not. Either canon is God's will or it isn't. You have not demonstrated why an open canon is superior. Rather, you have argued against canon itself--something your church has.

[Ray]

Perhaps it would help some people to understand what the word "canon" really means, and for that I suggest that people consult a thesaurus or language lexicon.

For instance, according to the thesaurus I use, which is usually the one in Word, "canon" is another word for "standard, rule, norm, principle, tenet, or law".

Or in other words, "canon" is another word for "standard", not an exhaustive collection of everything in agreement with the "standard".

Or in other words, determining what is "canon" for scripture does not determine everything that constitutes "scripture", any more than a "canon" for law determines everything that is law, although all scripture should be in harmony with the scriptures in a canon or standard used to show what scripture is.

And btw, to those who scoff at "semantics", I suggest you consider how much it can help to understand the meaning of the words we use.

[Traveler]

How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared.

Amos does not address Scripture canon either. It neither predicts nor denies the possiblity that a later council of church leaders might discern which books belong and which books do not belong in the canon. Keep in mind--no matter how you parse the verbage, the LDS Church does have a canon. Open or closed, there are writings that the church does not regard as Scripture (i.e., the Syrian additions).

You seem to be reading way too much into this passage. This is not an all-encompassing promise that God will always reveal every detail of his work to prophets. Rather, God is saying that to Israel that He warns them when punishment is coming--and that He compels his prophets to issue the warnings. The people are without excuse when judgment comes--they've been warned. This is akin to dad saying, "I told you that if you didn't clean your room you'd be grounded, so why are you crying now that you are grounded?"

From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.

The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.

I find it rather interesting that at this point of the discussion that I as LDS am saying that we can believe and trust what the Bible tells us and that you as an evangalical are saying we need to believe and trust in continious revelation concenring this matter. :) Shall we take a poll as to when the two of us will reverse this stand? :)

I am greatful you have consider my thoughts. I have read your as well.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Perhaps it would help some people to understand what the word "canon" really means, and for that I suggest that people consult a thesaurus or language lexicon.

For instance, according to the thesaurus I use, which is usually the one in Word, "canon" is another word for "standard, rule, norm, principle, tenet, or law".

Or in other words, "canon" is another word for "standard", not an exhaustive collection of everything in agreement with the "standard".

Or in other words, determining what is "canon" for scripture does not determine everything that constitutes "scripture", any more than a "canon" for law determines everything that is law, although all scripture should be in harmony with the scriptures in a canon or standard used to show what scripture is.

And btw, to those who scoff at "semantics", I suggest you consider how much it can help to understand the meaning of the words we use.

Your points are good. I will change my thinking about what is cannon and standard works. But I still feel that if we are talking about the cannon or standard works that G-d, and not man has that right to declair it. And somewhere in that cannon or standard work ought to be an explanation by G-d concerning such a matter. (there is in the LDS Standard Works or Open Cannon or what ever else it it called) But I see no such G-dly recognization in the traditional Christian Cannon - and that I believe is a matter of concern because if we can trust the Cannon for important things this I would think is an important thing?

The Traveler

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.

Some important understandings about Amos.

1. He was a prophet of God for Israel.

2. His audience is national Israel.

3. The overarching theme of Amos is righteousness and divine retribution for sin.

God is warning Israel that they have a deal, and that they've broken it. Punishment is coming, and God is explaining it to his prophets. These prophets, including Amos, will be compelled to proclaim what God is going to do. No one will have an excuse, "I didn't know...why weren't we warned?" It's all laid out. You sin, you suffer.

To wrest Amos 3:7 from this context, and insist that the whole of Christianity is wrong because it does not have the office of prophet is an incredible and unnecessary stretch. Can God still speak through prophets? Of course. Does God still communicate through gifts of prophecy? Absolutely. Does Amos 3:7 mean that there must be ONE living appointed church leader for all of Christians, who's words are so inspired, that written Scripture must be interpreted in the light of his/her truths? I'm not seeing that teaching in Amos. Hard as I look, that is an incredible stretch--at least based on this passage.

The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.

Except that God did command that the words be written and compiled. As evidence I present this testimony:

For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. That you mightest know the certainty of those tings, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4

So Luke wrote his gospel so that there would be a perfect understanding of what was believed and what was to be taught.

And perhaps the most famous passage concerning the value of Scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, troughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I find it rather interesting that at this point of the discussion that I as LDS am saying that we can believe and trust what the Bible tells us and that you as an evangalical are saying we need to believe and trust in continious revelation concenring this matter. :) Shall we take a poll as to when the two of us will reverse this stand? :)

Your sense of irony is keen, but remember that we both believe in continuing revelation. The difference is that most of Christianity has no testimony about the Standard Works, other than of the Bible. Additionally, most of Christianity has a de facto closed canon, though, admittedly, there is no Scripture that conclusively says it must be so. On the other hand, Mormon canon is not only open, but it is to be interpreted in light of the living prophet's words.

How wide is the divide? More than a little, but perhaps less than many have thought.

[Ray]

Heh, keep working at it, prisonchaplain. Someday you'll make an even more wonderful "saint".

And btw, I'm not using "Mormon" or "LDS" because those words are not always understood.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.

Some important understandings about Amos.

1. He was a prophet of God for Israel.

2. His audience is national Israel.

3. The overarching theme of Amos is righteousness and divine retribution for sin.

God is warning Israel that they have a deal, and that they've broken it. Punishment is coming, and God is explaining it to his prophets. These prophets, including Amos, will be compelled to proclaim what God is going to do. No one will have an excuse, "I didn't know...why weren't we warned?" It's all laid out. You sin, you suffer.

To wrest Amos 3:7 from this context, and insist that the whole of Christianity is wrong because it does not have the office of prophet is an incredible and unnecessary stretch. Can God still speak through prophets? Of course. Does God still communicate through gifts of prophecy? Absolutely. Does Amos 3:7 mean that there must be ONE living appointed church leader for all of Christians, who's words are so inspired, that written Scripture must be interpreted in the light of his/her truths? I'm not seeing that teaching in Amos. Hard as I look, that is an incredible stretch--at least based on this passage.

The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.

Except that God did command that the words be written and compiled. As evidence I present this testimony:

For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. That you mightest know the certainty of those tings, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4

So Luke wrote his gospel so that there would be a perfect understanding of what was believed and what was to be taught.

And perhaps the most famous passage concerning the value of Scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, troughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I guess that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not reall apply to all scriptures - we need to understand it's context so that we can exclude Amos for the reasons you posted.

In addition since you like to consider the context of scripture lets explore context concerning the scripture I quoted a while back in Isaiah. Isaiah is not what one would call regular scripture it is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic that is quite complex and in gulfs a rash of other minor poetic forms. Perhaps the most accurate Biblical scripture text is the Isaiah scroll found among the Dead Sea Scriptures. The scroll itself is special and there has never been a find like this. But that aside. The complete scroll is one of the only scripture text to be translated from the Dead Sea Scriptures. The translations that have been published are almost exclusively from non-Scripture or commentary text. Okay enough of the drum roll. The poetic structure of Isaiah connects Isaiah 46:9-10 with Isaiah 44:6-8. The following is a translation of those verses as translated by a Jewish Rabbi connected to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: by poetic form.

Isaiah 46:9- 10

“Review the prophecies of the events of old!

I am G-d, there is none other.

I am divine; nothing resembles me.

I foretell the end from the beginning,

from ancient times things not yet done.

I speak, and my purposes take effect;

I accomplish all my will.”

This scripture thought is also linked as follows:

Isaiah 44:6-8

“Thus says the L-rd, the King of Israel,

the L-rd of Host, their Redeemer;

I was at the first and I am at the last;

apart from me there is no G-d.

Who predicts what happens as do I,

and is the equal of me

in appointing a people from of old ‘as types,’

foretelling things to come?

Be not perturbed or shaken.

Have I not made it known to you from of old?

Did I not foretell it, you being my witnesses?

Is there a G-d, then, apart from me?

There is no Rock unknown to me.”

There is a very important doctrine given in these verses:

That is that G-d does foretell what he will do. He does this by telling us of what he has done anciently. In other words the story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt is not just a story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt. It is also a prophesy of G-d delivering his children from spiritual bondage throughout many ages.

Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:

Ephesians 2:19-20:

“Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d:

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

also Ephesians 4:11-13

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G-d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”

Since Christians are so perfectly united and of a unity of faith - we can no get rid of prophets?

Thanks for listening

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I guess that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not reall apply to all scriptures - we need to understand it's context so that we can exclude Amos for the reasons you posted.

Ah, that keen but misplaced sense of the ironic shows up, yet again. The Timothy passage specifically says it applies to all Scripture--and especially so the Old Testament, since that was the Scripture of the time (the New Testament writings were still a work in progress at the writing of this letter). To say that all Scripture is inspired and useful is not to say that all Scripture applies carte blanche to all situations, however we wish to apply it. So, Amos saying God warns his people before He punishes them, using his prophets, does not, OF NECESSITY, mean that President Hinckley is the one Prophet for all Christians, and that any previous Scripture must be interpreted in light of his words.

There is a very important doctrine given in these verses (Isaiah 46:9- 10; 44:6-8). That is that G-d does foretell what he will do. He does this by telling us of what he has done anciently. In other words the story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt is not just a story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt. It is also a prophesy of G-d delivering his children from spiritual bondage throughout many ages.

Just to note...thus far, I'm in agreement. It is not uncommon that Old Testament prophecies that see a fulfillment a few generations or even centuries later, foretell yet another and perhaps greater future fulfillment.

Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:

Ephesians 2:19-20: Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

It is not unusual for New Testament writers to refer to the prophets, or the "law and the prophets" in reference to the Scripture of their day--the Old Testament. I do not believe there is anyone in the New Testament who is referred to as a prophet--though John was "the revelator."

also Ephesians 4:11-13: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G-d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”

Since Christians are so perfectly united and of a unity of faith - we can no get rid of prophets?

Two comments about "prophets" here. 1. To prophecy is to proclaim, so there is a sense in which every pastor is a prophet.

2. Those with the gift of prophecy are prophets, in this sense. And yet, like the New Testament church, which never seemed to have turned those who exercised the gift of prophecy into "Prophet So & So," likewise, today we tend to say, "Bro. Smith has the gift of prophecy." Or, "Bro. Jones offered an insightful prophecy the other day." Then again, some of our African-American Pentecostal churches do bestow the title of prophet upon those who operate in the gift.

[Ray]

First, we refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as President Hinckley, not Prophet Hinckley.

Second, we acknowledge and sustain President Hinckley as the Prophet, capital P, in recognition of the fact that President Hinckley is the prophet for the entire Church, also in recognition of the fact that our Lord gives revelation to His servants in their specific spheres of responsibility which He has delegated and duly authorized.

And finally, if you don’t realize it, we [the members of the Church] also acknowledge and sustain the two councilors in the First Presidency, and the members of the quorum of Twelve Apostles, as well as the General Authorities of the Church, as prophets, seers, and revelators in their specific spheres of responsibility, also in recognition of the fact that we can only know those people are prophets, seers and revelators by receiving personal revelation for ourselves.

Or in other words, each and every member of the church of Christ on Earth is or at least should be a prophet of Jesus Christ, acting in our own specific spheres of responsibility with the aid of personal revelation from our Lord.

[prisonchaplain]

First, we refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as President Hinckley, not Prophet Hinckley.

I knew you considered him the living prophet, so assumed it was a church office he held. However, it sounds like the LDS has the same reticence about using the "prophet" as a title as we Pentecostals do. You recognize the gift--give it a much more elevated weight than we do, but also decline to make the gift a title.

BTW, I surely meant no offense or disrespect, and will refrain from using the title Prophet for LDS leaders in the future.

And finally, if you don’t realize it, we [the members of the Church] also acknowledge and sustain the two councilors in the First Presidency, and the members of the quorum of Twelve Apostles, as well as the General Authorities of the Church, as prophets, seers, and revelators in their specific spheres of responsibility, also in recognition of the fact that we can only know those people are prophets, seers and revelators by receiving personal revelation for ourselves.

Or in other words, each and every member of the church of Christ on Earth is or at least should be a prophet of Jesus Christ, acting in our own specific spheres of responsibility with the aid of personal revelation from our Lord.

So, the LDS is closer to the concept of "priesthood of all believers" than I thought. Perhaps "prophethood of all believers" would be more accurate, though?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

First, we refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as President Hinckley, not Prophet Hinckley.

I knew you considered him the living prophet, so assumed it was a church office he held. However, it sounds like the LDS has the same reticence about using the "prophet" as a title as we Pentecostals do. You recognize the gift--give it a much more elevated weight than we do, but also decline to make the gift a title.

BTW, I surely meant no offense or disrespect, and will refrain from using the title Prophet for LDS leaders in the future.

There is nothing wrong with us referring to President Hinckley as the Prophet, as long as you understand that what we mean is that President Hinckley is the presiding prophet on Earth… for reasons I will explain [again] later.

<div class='quotemain'>

And finally, if you don’t realize it, we [the members of the Church] also acknowledge and sustain the two councilors in the First Presidency, and the members of the quorum of Twelve Apostles, as well as the General Authorities of the Church, as prophets, seers, and revelators in their specific spheres of responsibility, also in recognition of the fact that we can only know those people are prophets, seers and revelators by receiving personal revelation for ourselves.

Or in other words, each and every member of the church of Christ on Earth is or at least should be a prophet of Jesus Christ, acting in our own specific spheres of responsibility with the aid of personal revelation from our Lord.

So, the LDS is closer to the concept of "priesthood of all believers" than I thought. Perhaps "prophethood of all believers" would be more accurate, though?

There is a difference between priesthood and prophecy… priesthood refers to authority given by God, or the people who have His authority, while prophecy refers to a gift (of revelation) of God, not necessarily with any authority.

And btw, the reason we believe President Hinckley is the presiding prophet on Earth is because [we believe] our Lord has given him authority over all of His work here on Earth, as well as the gift of prophecy and various other gifts.

[Traveler]

Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:

Ephesians 2:19-20: Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

It is not unusual for New Testament writers to refer to the prophets, or the "law and the prophets" in reference to the Scripture of their day--the Old Testament. I do not believe there is anyone in the New Testament who is referred to as a prophet--though John was "the revelator."

This is not exactly true. In the days of Jesus it was generally believed that there were 3 parts of the scriptures. The first is "The Law" or the Torah. The second is "The Prophets" and the third is often called "The Writings" because Jesus would often say in reference to these scriptures "It is written". However we find another part in the Dead Sea Scrolls which I will call the commentaries. Now that we have the DDS we know that sometimes when Jesus said it is written he was referencing this part.

I think it is a stretch to assume that a reference to “prophets” should be understood to be scriptures for several reasons. The Torah, even today, is considered by the Jews to be the most important of all scripture. To reference the scriptures of the prophets outside of the context of the Law would be an incomplete reference. BTW it is interesting to me that Daniel is not considered with the prophets and one of the main points of reference in the NT and the DDS.

If someone wanted to point out the importance of scripture to their fellow Christians they would not do so without referencing “The Law” and perhaps the other scriptures. Sometimes when making emphases or importance of a notion they would reference the Law without the prophets but it makes no sense the other way around. The context of Ephesians is clearly concerning organization of Christ’s Church.

Lets take a look at another scripture in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time which was before us.”

I would say that in general when G-d has sent a prophet to warn or lead the people - the people have resisted. The last days leading up to the time of the return of Jesus is a critical time to G-d and his people. Just as the prophet John the Baptist came before Jesus so shall there be a prophet in these last time just as “it hath been already of old time which was before us”

The Traveler

PS. President Hinkley is the prophet of G-d to the world and not just the LDS, which is the reason for the "Declaration" link I gave in a previous post. It is a warning to the world about the greatest concern of G-d to our generation.

[Red]

I apologize again,

I started this thread with the intent to answer questions but since then I've had a steady stream of other school assignments, so I haven't had a chance to sit down and look at this site till now. I should have enough time to read everthing up to this point tonight and I'll be thinkmulling over the issues over the next few days. I'll make every effort to respond.

-Red

[Red]

<div class='quotemain'>Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original.

I'm not sure we can be certain that "we can reconstruct the original" perfectly. But I do believe that through study of things available and prayer, the Spirit can and does make sense of things for everyone who earnestly seeks it.

If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable[...]

...or that in conjunction with His Spirit, it is reliable.

There is some truth to what you are saying. Even Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will us to all truth. But truth needs to be objective doesn't?

If the revelation of the Holy Spirit was the final word for me on what the Bible says, then who's to say I'm just making the Bible say whatever I want it to? In this case I would be subjecting the Bible under me, even if I claim that God told me what it was"really" saying. Anyone can say God told them something, and there needs to be a way to test that.

So I do not think that the all-powerful God whom I know would leave us high and dry without an objective standard of truth. If the Holy Spirit leads me to a truth about the word, that truth ought to be verifiable by someone else objectively, otherwise, the truth is up for grabs. Also, the New Testament places the scripture above spiritual experience as a source for authority/truth.

[Red]

Should we accept your apologist explanation of the biblical confusion on the matter of Goliath's killer?

....

The Bible paints David as some superhuman uberKing. The historical or archeological evidence for that is very poor. More, it seems he was a local or regional leader whose history was embellished to make him appear almost mythical as part of creating a Jewish history and legacy. Why, Why - young David killed a not just a Phillistine, but, but a giant, yes that's it, a 10 foot giant and all with his little slingshot.

The King James translators saw the conflict and tried to hide it by adding in "the brother of" Goliath to the story of the Elhanan killing but in fact that was a manufacture of words that were not in the manuscripts. The manuscripts clearly said that Elhanan killed Goliath. Davids probably did kill someone but his biographers borrowed from the Elhanan story to pump up the King.

It appears that you did accept my "apologist explanation" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in the matter of who killed Goliath, because instead defending your earlier charge you shifted to just taking pot-shots any where else. Anyway, in regards to the Elhanan issue, even if the original manuscript ever did read "Elhanan killed Goliath" (which it apparently did not in veiw of 2 Chronicles), then we could still undrstand it to be talking about a different Goliath from Gath killed in what is stated as a different battle, fought when David was an aging man, not a youth.

You criticize the Bible on Goliath's height...have you ever been down to the farm?...did either of us ever fight in that battle? Are either of us fully aware of the range of genetic potential in humans? Which of us, based on our "extensive knowledge" can say for certain that Goliath could never have been 10 ft tall? If God wants to allow the existence of 10 foot tall warriors He can certainly do that. We are talking about the same God who split the Red Sea in the Gulf of Acaba for his people to walk through and then drowned the pursuing Egyptian army, whose chariots still remain by the way (the wood having been replaced by corol; they've been photographed, filmed and catalogued; if anyone is interested I can email the photos I have). Now if that acount is accurate, who are we to doubt Goliath's height? Across the hall in my dorm there lives an Australian basket-ball player--a Giant! I've never asked him, but he's pushing 7 1/2 ft for sure, mabye creeping up to 8. So what's 10 ft? I see him walking down the hall and Goliath doesn't seem too much of a strench at all.

About David bringing Goliath's head to Saul in Jerusalem: Saul wasn't in Jerusalem at all, he was encamped with his army by the valley of Elah (v.17:2). Also, in v.55 we find that Saul actually watched David fight Goliath. So in v.57 David, fresh from the battle and holding the head in his hand, meets Saul there in Elah, probably in a tent, not in Jerusalem. Now in v.17:54 it says:

"And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his [Goliath's] armour in his tent."

There is no mention of bringing it to Saul. In the preceeding vereses we are told how the battle went, what the Israelites did with the spoil and then what David did with his. These three verses are a summary, a sort of time-out in the narrative which informs us that David eventually took the head with him to Jerusalem when he later conquered it. Heck, I'd have gone with a commemorative plaque instead of carrying around a giant head for a few years and then putting it in my trophy case, but to each his own I guess. "What's that smell?" Jonathan asked unto David; "Well, long story short..." David replied.

Then in 17:58, did Saul forget who David was? No, he had no idea who David was at the time. Did some redactor come along and weave two different acounts together? No, it is one acount shown in a non-chronological order for teaching purposes (besides, if it was a reactor editing two stories into one, you'd think he would have done a better job of corrected any inconsistencies he saw).

The teaching method or literary form used in chapters 16-18 is called "hysterologia, in which something is put last that according to the usual order should be put first" (Hard Sayings of the Bible). The purpose of the teaching is to show David's spirituallity vs. Saul's decline.

So here's the chronological order I'd suggest (also from Hard Sayings):

Samuel anoints David--16:1-13

David kills Goliath; Saul first meets him and gives him a military post--17:1-18:9

The Evil spirit torments Saul; harpist is needed, servant suggests David--16:14-23

Saul tries to kill David, etc.--18:10-30

Here is the key: in v.16:18 a servant recommends a certain harpist who is a "son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that cunning in playing, a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him." Props to this servant, he really sells it! Notice that the servant never mentions David's name, but Saul knows exactly who the servant is talking about (and I'm sure everyone else did), since in v.19 the king says in a letter to Jesse, "Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep." Now, was David known as a man of war when he stood before Saul in vv.17:33-39? Not a chance! Instead of saying, "I've killed 1000's of Philistines already!" David said, "uh, one time I killed a lion, and another time I killed a bear." So the episode with Goliath, and then David leading Saul's armies to many victories, slaying "10s of 1000s of Philistines" all happened before David played the harp for Saul.

And on a closing note, a young man with a sling-shot in those days was a very deadly person indeed. They were often part of the military in those days, in that region. From what I understand they would usually throw rounded stones about the size of a baseball at around 100 mph. So yes, that would go through your skull like it was cheese, as happened to Goliath.

[Traveler]

My concern of the Bible (and scripture in general) is not if such is inspired. My objection is when a claim is made that is not true. The scriptures are a ancient record of G-d's word among the ancients. I want to draw a difference between G-d's word and his spirit inspiration. I can accept that men were inspired to put together a group of scriptures and call it a Bible. What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).

Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).

Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.

The Traveler

1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation.

2. Timothy clearly had a finite set of writings in mind when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.

4. Ultimately, your own church has a canon.

Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).

Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.

The Traveler

1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation.

2. Timothy clearly had a finite set of writings in mind when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.

4. Ultimately, your own church has a canon.

Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"

Thank you for responding. My understanding and thinking is a little different than yours.

To your #1. This appears to be an over simpilification to me. We know from the DSS that several versions of the old testament documents were referenced as scripture. Just in the Law and the Prophets there were at least 2 versions or every book maintained as what you call cannon and in some cases as many as 5 different versions were kept. We also know that many scriptures used and quoted as "cannon" scripture by Jesus and the writers of the NT are not part of the Bible. This also plays into your #2.

To your #4. There is a distinct difference in our cannon. Owr standard works include scripture that designate what scripture are to be included in a "Minimun" cannon. In addition our standard works include instructions of how to include or increas our cannon or standard works.

This brings me to my point as included in your final statement and #4

3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.

Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"

If a doctrine, idea or religious activity is not included in the "Cannon" then any believer (gullible or not) can be influenced by the same spirit inspiring the National Enquirer, or favorite TV preacher as what should be "gosple" as far as what a Bible or cannon should include or not include as cannon. This simply means that the Bible is not authority to define itself as cannon. Some other and higher authority must be used. If what is included as cannon in the Bible is not sufficent to define cannon gosple (doctrine) and some other authority must be used then that authority is always greater than the Bible and that authority should define gosple and every other needful religious activity and the Bible should be defined as nifty but un-needed inferior source of stuff that cannot be relied on for any important matter in which there is confusion or disagrement.

I do not see any other conclusion to draw when such an important doctrine is missing - and that is my concern about the Bible. Not what it has but what it is missing. Being incomplete confusion and disagrement cannot be setteled by the Bible. But that is exactly what most of Christianity attempts to do with it.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

If a doctrine, idea or religious activity is not included in the "Cannon" then any believer (gullible or not) can be influenced by the same spirit inspiring the National Enquirer, or favorite TV preacher as what should be "gosple" as far as what a Bible or cannon should include or not include as cannon. This simply means that the Bible is not authority to define itself as cannon. Some other and higher authority must be used. If what is included as cannon in the Bible is not sufficent to define cannon gosple (doctrine) and some other authority must be used then that authority is always greater than the Bible and that authority should define gosple and every other needful religious activity and the Bible should be defined as nifty but un-needed inferior source of stuff that cannot be relied on for any important matter in which there is confusion or disagrement. I do not see any other conclusion to draw when such an important doctrine is missing - and that is my concern about the Bible. Not what it has but what it is missing. Being incomplete confusion and disagrement cannot be setteled by the Bible. But that is exactly what most of Christianity attempts to do with it.

The Traveler

A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.

[Red]

<div class='quotemain'>

I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why?

What is the Bible – really? ...

I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was.

...

The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians.

...

It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs.

The Traveler

Your objections have their roots in questioning God's goodness and Hid infinite ability to provide. Really, if God couldn't preserve one book then what good is He?

You say that the present Bible is essentially man's work. Since when was God unable to raise up good a capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?

And of course the Bible is divisive. Truth has a funny way of doing that when some cling to it but others reject it, "becoming wise in their own eyes." Didn't Jesus say say that families would brake apart over Him? Yes, Jesus Himself, the Prince of Peace is a very divisive individual indeed. And that's a good thing.

By criticizing the Bible as "divisive," I would have to guess that in your mind the original Bible must have been a great unifying force. If so, why were there so many divisions within Christianity from the get-go (read the book of Acts for example, and Galatians; most of the Epistles were written to quell disputes). And if it was such a great unifier why did some feel the need to change it via some grand empire-wide conspiracy? Again, why couldn't the God who gave this unifying Holy Book preserve for more than a few generations.

"Man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4. So what kind of useless God would leave us without our life-line? Your church teaches that all of christiandom fell into apostasy from A.D 100ish--1830. Now all those people went to spirit prison during that time and are likely still there if what your church teaches is true, since they wouldn't have known the "true Gospel." You say, 'that's why we are baptized for the dead, and we'll do more baptisms in the 1000 year kingdom. But correct me if I'm wrong, those people will never have a shot at the Celestial Kingdom--they will never get to be with their Heavenly, shut out from His presence in a lesser heaven for eternity, all because that same God failed in preserving His own word of life for future generations.

You believe that God rose up a prophet in these later times to show us the way again, to restore the true Gospel? What was stopping God from doing that beforehand? No power in the universe!

When people reject truth, it is not because truth itself is bad, but because they have forgotten the Majesty of God Almighty. Majestic...yep, that's my Abba. :)