How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???

[rameumptom]

We agree that man should not add nor take away from the Bible. But if God wishes to add revelation through modern prophets, that is His prerogative. That is the power of Restorationist Christianity, as we have in the LDS Church.

Bible text clearly shows that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch as we now have it. How could, for example, Moses write about his own death and burial at God's hand? Many of us LDS that believe in the Documentary Hypothesis believe that Moses had an original writing, but that it was written down by a few different authors in the days of Kings David and Solomon and later. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon strengthens this idea, as the Brass Plates of Laban were a Bible-like record that came from the northern kingdom of Israel. The teachings from the Brass plates we find in the Book of Mormon fit in perfectly with the scientific DH view of the author E (Elohist).

Why people are so afraid that God allowed inspired books to be written with imperfections, because man is imperfect, is really silly in my opinion. The LDS belief that God works with all men through their strengths and weaknesses makes perfect sense, and allows us to look at the Bible in a common sense manner: an inspired tome of writings that guide us to God.

Interestingly, Jesus did not first go to the Bible to show evidence of his own divinity. Instead, he testified of himself, and his miracles were the Father's testimony, with John the Baptist as his third witness. Jesus told the Pharisees to "search the scriptures" because they also testified of him, and the Pharisees thought that through the scriptures they had eternal life. Instead, they used the scriptures to lead them away from Christ. What was of most importance to the Savior was not the witness of him found in scripture, but the living witnesses. And so it is today. Jesus most powerful witnesses are not the ones in the Bible, but the ones that are living witnesses of his resurrection.

As for Genesis 1:25-26, it does mention Elohim and he does say "us." This does not necessarily mean the Trinity. LDS believe in the Godhead, a trio of Gods (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) that are one in all things, yet are three physically separate beings.

However, there is evidence within the Bible that there is more to it. The Bible explains the table of nations, 70 kingdoms set up by God at the time of Peleg, when the earth was divided. These 70 kingdoms were given to the 70 divine sons of Elohim as an inheritance. They were to learn to become wise and worthy gods by starting with one piece of land. Some dealt wisely, while others failed and were overcome by competing sons of Elohim. In Job 1, we see several sons of Elohim, including Satan (not the devil, but literally meaning Adversary) going to challenge Yahweh/Jehovah, one of the divine sons. Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance, even though it did not yet exist. Yahweh selected Abraham as the first born, and through his descendants established the nation of Israel. Later, through his wisdom and worthiness, Yahweh took over all the nations.

So, there are a few ways to interpret the "us" in Gen 1.

[Maureen]

I don't bible bash. I simple state what the chuch believes and what I have prayed and got a confirmation about.

We can go around and around about that. Bottom line the OP wanted to know how we handle discrencies, I explained why they are there. This should make it clear why there apear to be discrencies. You don't want to believe it, fine. You want to, you can pray, with an open mind, and get your answer. That is what I have done. I know that the bible is the word of God. I know that it is there for our use. I also know that it has been changed quite a bit, so it is not perfect. I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as well.

Hi Jenn, I'm not sure if your post is in response to mine but, I'm still curious by what you meant by this statement:

...We use the King James version as it is the version that has been translated the least amount of times...

M.

[jlf9999]

Ram

I may have to start taking back some the things I have been thinking about you. :)

[Soninme]

Please, what did Jesus think of the scriptures?

Shouldn't we think as He did?

Son

Why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said?

jlf9999

Not sure why you won't answer.... but I won't tell you what I think He said, I will quote Him.

Matt.4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matt 4:7 "It is written again,

Matt 4:10 "for it is written..

John 10:35 "and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matt 5:17 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.

There are many more.

Heaven and earth have not yet passed.

This is vastly different from your assertion;

the bible is chock full of errors.

Now, why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said of the scriptures

[jlf9999]

jlf9999

Not sure why you won't answer.... but I won't tell you what I think He said, I will quote Him.

Matt.4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matt 4:7 "It is written again,

Matt 4:10 "for it is written..

John 10:35 "and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matt 5:17 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.

There are many more.

Heaven and earth have not yet passed.

This is vastly different from your assertion;

Now, why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said of the scriptures

Son

No where that I read does Christ mention the bible. He speaks about the OT. It is logical to include the letters of the apostles though. I see nothing however that says the multitude of future copies of these holy writings would be accurately transcribed or translated. In fact, adding "accurately transcribed" to each of your quoted passages adds nothing except to demand that we believe only those which are complete and accurate. You must acknowledge that Christ would expect that of us. He would not want us to believe just any old thing that someone said was accurate would he? In fact, I think He would expect that we use some common sense in what we accepted as an accurate representation of what He said. I think he would expect that we not just blindly accept another man's word for it.

I think you can extrapolate that some of the important things have been removed from the bible and the OT. Take the Book of Enoch for example. Christ quoted from it so where is it? Do you contend that Christ thought it important enough to quote from but chose keep it out of the bible? Only in the minds of those who believe the non-biblical notion that God is sovereign therefore the bible is whole, complete and innerrent does that work. No one questions that God is sovereign but to accept that meme as true we would have to accept everything done in the name of Christianity in the last 2000 years is good and of God too.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[Soninme]

The bible is correct in as much as it is translated correctly. It has gone through several iterations. From the first Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin to English. Some of the Old Testament was left out too.

Please tell me which part of the OT did Jesus say was "left out"?

Was the Septugint an accurate translation?

I see nothing however that says the multitude of future copies of these holy writings would be accurately transcribed or translated.

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.(Matt 22:29)

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Words shall never pass away" (Matthew 24:35)

John 10:35 "and the scripture cannot be broken;

You must acknowledge that Christ would expect that of us. He would not want us to believe just any old thing that someone said was accurate would he? In fact, I think He would expect that we use some common sense in what we accepted as an accurate representation of what He said. I think he would expect that we not just blindly accept another man's word for it.

Well His word does say;

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

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If God would not/ could not/ did not, preserve His "word of truth"(John 17:17)(Ps 119:160) then what is the point of following those verses, especially for those born between 100 AD and 1830 or so?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Soninme

[Soninme]

I think you can extrapolate that some of the important things have been removed from the bible and the OT. Take the Book of Enoch for example. Christ quoted from it so where is it? Do you contend that Christ thought it important enough to quote from but chose keep it out of the bible?

Where?????

[daplautz]

I haven't been paying attention to all of the posts before this... but how does Christianity resolve its conflicts with the Bible?

[volgadon]

Well His word does say;

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

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Do you know what midrash means?

[RipplecutBuddha]

The only scriptures existant at the time of Christ was the OT and septuigant. He didn't say anything about the NT because, well, it didn't exist yet. As such, it is logically impossible for Christ to have said anything about the Bible, since even it wasn't compiled until well over 300 years following his birth.

Now, what Christ said as pertaining to the scriptures that existed while he was alive can be applied to the Bible in general, but only on the premise of accepting a continuing revelation from God which adds to the volume of scripture. It is only through that process that we have the NT in the first place, let alone the OT.

[rameumptom]

On my blog, I recently discussed how Christ viewed the scriptures. You can read it here:

Joel's Monastery: New Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12: “I Am the Bread of Life” John 5-6, Mark 6, Matt 14

Jesus was more into living witnesses than into dead ones, though they also were useful. Had he limited revelation to the Old Testament, the gospel would never have gone to the Gentiles. We would still perform animal sacrifice. We would not have a clear understanding of Jesus Christ and his atonement.

Scripture is important, but cannot bring us eternal life. Only following living prophets can do that for us.

In Jesus' day, the Old Testament from the Masoretic was not compiled into a book until after Jesus. The New Testament, as we now have it, was not compiled until centuries after Christ.

The Revelation ends with a curse. Why? Because in John's day there were many sects that were taking the words of the apostles and prophets and changing them to read and support their version of Christianity. John was not stating that more scripture could be added to the Bible (since it did not exist yet). He was saying that no man was authorized to change his words. Only God is authorized to add scripture or change it, and he has always done so through prophets and apostles. There is no other pattern given.

[rameumptom]

[1]God said, [in the Bible] "You can't add to His word, or take away from His word".

So if you believe the Bible, You know you can't add anything more to what God has already said in the Bible.

[2]The Bible says it is adequate to complete us, And as that is true, We don't need anything else.

[3]So read the Bible, Do what Poverbs 3: 5-6 says, Ask God to teaveal truth to you, Have an open mind and a teachable spirit and be willing to repent and turn to God'd teal truth,[The Bible]

The Bible did not exist when John ended his Revelation with a curse. Regular mankind was not allowed to add or take away. But John had no problem with God doing it. He was okay with Peter's revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles. He was okay with the idea that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. He even predicted that in the last days there would be 2 prophets with great power in Jerusalem during Armageddon, and their times of prophecy would last 3 1/2 years. How could that be if no one could add more?

Again, as I just wrote, and you can read on my blog, Jesus did not believe the scriptures could complete us. Instead, it was the words of living prophets and apostles that could complete us or guide us to a fullness. The Jews had the scriptures, but these had not led them to believe in Christ.

Joel's Monastery: New Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12: “I Am the Bread of Life” John 5-6, Mark 6, Matt 14

We do need to do as Proverbs 3:5-6 says and "lean not unto our own understanding." This means we must follow the understanding of living prophets and apostles. Amos 3:7 tells us that God only reveals through living prophets. That was the pattern anciently, and continued through the times of the apostles (Ephesians 4:11-17). And as John the Revelator foresaw, there will be prophets in the last days.

[jlf9999]

Where?????

My friend, I am going to take a pass on this one for now. Honestly I have heard the statement repeated for years but I can't find it without some effort. It is likely in some that stuff from the 1970's that I have not gone through in a while. I believe Jude quoted from it too but yet it (the book of Enoch) was excluded - I suggest for political reasons i.e. man made reasons, not God's.

[rameumptom]

To help bail out JT,

I've seen anywhere from 39 to over one hundred claimed as the number of quotes or references to the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) in the New Testament and/or Book of Mormon. Here, Daniel Gibbons gives us access to over 100 that he has found. However, since some of these reference 1 Enoch more than once for a verse, and others solely the Book of Mormon, we can see that the numbers are lower. While I didn't count, I'm thinking 39 would be a good number for solid references to 1 Enoch in the New Testament.

Enoch and the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Book Reviews Books Enoch Ethiopian Hebrew Margaret Barker Old Church Slavonic Old Testament Studies Uncategorized - Book of Mormon Enoch Ethiopian Hebrew Margaret Barker Old Church Slavonic - Daniel Bay G

The following shows the 1 Enoch references in boldface, using Charlesworth’s chapters and verses, followed by the verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon which are clearly quotations, allusions or strong verbal parallels from the 1 Enoch text.

1 Enoch 1:2 — 1 Peter 1:12

1 Enoch 1:9 — Matthew 25:31; and Jude 1:14-15

1 Enoch 6:5-8 — 1 Nephi 19:10-16

1 Enoch 7:4 — Acts 15:20

1 Enoch 8:3 — 1 Nephi 19:10

1 Enoch 9:4 — 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 15:3; Revelation 17:14; and Revelation 19:16

1 Enoch 9:3-4 — 1 Nephi 1:14

1 Enoch 10:4-6 — Jude 1:6

1 Enoch 10:7 — Romans 8:18-21

1 Enoch 10:12 — Jude 1:6

1 Enoch 10:13-14 — Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10; Revelation 20:14; and Revelation 20:15

1 Enoch 12:1-2 — 1 Timothy 6:16

1 Enoch 12-14 — 1 Peter 3:18-20; and 1 Peter 4:6

1 Enoch 13:10 — 1 Corinthians 6:3

1 Enoch 14:3 — 1 Corinthians 6:3

1 Enoch 14:8 — Matthew 17:5

1 Enoch 14:16, 19 — Revelation 5:11

1 Enoch 14:8-25 — 1 Nephi 1:5-12

1 Enoch 14:18-19 — Revelation 4:2-3

1 Enoch 15:6-7 — Luke 20:34-36

1 Enoch 16:1 — Matthew 8:29-32

1 Enoch 19:3 — 1 Peter 4:7

1 Enoch 22:3 — Matthew 24:31

1 Enoch 22:1-3 — Matthew 24:30; and Mark 13:24

1 Enoch 22:5-7 — Revelation 6:9-10

1 Enoch 25:1 — 1 Nephi 11:9-11

1 Enoch 25:1-5 — Revelation 2:7; Revelation 22:2; and Revelation 22:14

1 Enoch 27:2 — Matthew 5: 29-30

1 Enoch 38:2 — John 1:1-9

1 Enoch 38:2 — Matthew 26:24; and Mark 14:21

1 Enoch 38:4 — Matthew 17:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Mosiah 13:5; and Helaman 5:36

1 Enoch 41:2 — John 14:2-3

1 Enoch 45:3 — John 14:23

1 Enoch 45:4-5 — Revelation 21:1-3

1 Enoch 46:3 — John 4; and Colossians 2:2-3

1 Enoch 48:4 — Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; Acts 26:23; and 1 Nephi 21:6

1 Enoch 48:5 — Romans 15:9; Hebrews 2:12; and Alma 26:8

1 Enoch 49:4 — Alma 5:16-17

1 Enoch 51:1 – Revelation 20:13; and 2 Nephi 9:12

1 Enoch 56:5-8 — Revelation 20

1 Enoch 58:5-6 — Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12; and Romans 13:12

1 Enoch 61:7 — Hebrews 5:12

1 Enoch 62:2 — Revelation 19:15

1 Enoch 62:4 — Mark 13:8; and 1 Thessalonians 5:3

1 Enoch 62:5 — Matthew 24:30; and Matthew 25:31-46

1 Enoch 62:5-11 — 1 Corinthians 2:6

1 Enoch 62:13-16 — Matthew 17:2; Matthew 26:29; Matthew 28:3; Mark 9:3; Mark 16:5; Luke 9:29; Acts 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 5:1-3; Revelation 3:4; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 3:18; Revelation 4:4; Revelation 7:13; Revelation 19:8; 1 Nephi 12:10; 1 Nephi 12:11; Alma 5:21; Alma 5:24; Alma 5:27; Alma 13:11; Alma 34:36; 3 Nephi 19:25; and Ether 13:10

1 Enoch 71:1 — See references for 1 Enoch 62:13-16

1 Enoch 71:5-13 — Revelation 21:10-11; Acts 2:3-4; and Compare numerous parallels with 1 Nephi 1

1 Enoch 71 — Numerous references in both the NT and Book of Mormon

1 Enoch 71:15 – Hebrews 2:5

1 Enoch 71:16 — Romans 8:35-39

1 Enoch 72:1 — 2 Peter 3:13; and Revelation 21:1

1 Enoch 89:65-67 — 1 Nephi 21:1

1 Enoch 90:26-27 — Matthew 23:33

1 Enoch 90:29 — Hebrews 3:6; and Hebrews 13:14

1 Enoch 91:3-4 — James 1:6-8

1 Enoch 91:5-7 — Luke 21:9; and 2 Thessalonians 2:3

1 Enoch 91:10-11 — 1 Thessalonians 4:14-15

1 Enoch 93:1-16 — Matthew 23:37-38

1 Enoch 94:8-9 – James 5:1-6; and Helaman 13:31-5

1 Enoch 95:4-7 — Matthew 23:13-33

1 Enoch 96:1 — 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3

1 Enoch 97:10 — Helaman 13:31

1 Enoch 99:2 — Romans 16:20

1 Enoch 100:3 — Revelation 14:20

1 Enoch 100:5 — 1 Thessalonians 4:13

1 Enoch 100:9 — 1 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Hebrews 10:27; Hebrews 12:18; Hebrews 12:29; Revelation 18:8; and Revelation 20:9

1 Enoch 103:8 — Matthew 23:32

1 Enoch 104:1 — Matthew 18:10

1 Enoch 104:2 — Matthew 13:43; Philippians 2:15; and Alma 40:25

1 Enoch 104:3 — Alma 34:17-27; and 3 Nephi 24:5

1 Enoch 104:4 — Hebrews 10:23

1 Enoch 105:2 — John 14:23; 2 John 1:4; and 3 John 1:4

1 Enoch 107:1 — Revelation 20:2; and 1 Nephi 22:6

1 Enoch 108:2 — 1 Timothy 4:1; and 2 Timothy 3:1

1 Enoch 108:7 — Ephesians 3:10; and 1 Peter 1:12

1 Enoch 108:11-13 — Matthew 13:43; 1 Corinthians 15:51; Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 1:12-13; Alma 5:50; and Alma 40:25

[Soninme]

The following shows the 1 Enoch references in boldface, using Charlesworth’s chapters and verses, followed by the verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon which are clearly quotations, allusions or strong verbal parallels from the 1 Enoch text.

1 Enoch 1:2 — 1 Peter 1:12

Ram

I didn't go through the whole list, just the first few as, forgive me, I don't at all see what you see.

1 Enoch 1:2From them I heard all things, and understood what I saw; that which will not take place in this generation, but in a generation which is to succeed at a distant period, on account of the elect.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 Enoch 7:4 — Acts 15:20

1 Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

1 Enoch 9:4 — 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 15:3; Revelation 17:14; and Revelation 19:16

1 Enoch 9:4 You have made all things; you possess power over all things; and all things are open and manifest before you. You behold all things, and nothing can be concealed from you.

1 Timothy 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

I will though give you Jude 1:14

[volgadon]

Most of the NT doesn't contain direct quotes from 1 Enoch. However, much of it is heavily influenced by Enoch, especially by the section known as the Parables of Enoch.

[rameumptom]

Exactly what Volgadon stated. The Gospels were all written decades after the death of Christ. Matthew and Luke based much of their writing on those of Mark's, as well as at least one other source (known as Q or Quelle, Source). Some suggest that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas may have been influenced also by Q, as it also has many sayings of Jesus, some of which were common themes that predate Jesus.

That we have common sayings, cliches, and themes in our discussions today in English, is because someone else said it long ago. We "give up the ghost", made famous by Shakespeare, or "put our heads together", etc. These are modern sayings commonly used by all, even pastors, priests and prophets of today. Many of Jesus' sayings were already said by earlier prophets or wise men. Or he at least referenced them along the way. Matthew often notes a prophecy fulfilled made by earlier prophets, some of those prophecies not being in our Bible today.

So, Enoch was referenced or paraphrased, not necessarily quoted, many times in the New Testament. This is commonly accepted by most New Testament scholars.

[Soninme]

The following shows the 1 Enoch references in boldface, using Charlesworth’s chapters and verses, followed by the verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon which are clearly quotations, allusions or strong verbal parallels from the 1 Enoch text.

So, Enoch was referenced or paraphrased, not necessarily quoted,

Most of the NT doesn't contain direct quotes from 1 Enoch. However, much of it is heavily influenced by Enoch

But guys, you haven't shown me where?

Those verses referenced in my last post have nothing to do with each other. Your assertion that "This is commonly accepted by most New Testament scholars" is an opinion, just like mine that says the Bible we have today is the one Christ wanted.

If I could quote another Bible scholar Norman Geisler;

Jesus and the New Testament writers confirmed the Old Testament–they quoted from almost all the books; they referred to all the sections of the Old Testament; they used phrases like “Law and the Prophets” that always refers to the Old Testament. But how do we know the New Testament? Well, Jesus promised the New just as He had confirmed the Old. He said in John 14:26 and John 16:23, “The Holy Spirit is going to lead you, the Apostles, into all truth, bring to your remembrance whatever I have taught you.”

Now, whatever the Apostles taught was Spirit directed. Jesus said so. The New Testament is what the Apostles taught. Therefore, the New Testament is Spirit directed. Jesus promised that He would give the New Testament. The Apostles claimed this power. And they wrote it. The only place in the world you will find a record of Apostolic teaching is in the 27 books of the New Testament–no more, no less. There is no other book known to mankind that the Apostles wrote and every book that they wrote under the inspiration of God we have in the New Testament. Therefore, with the end of the New Testament, with the end of Apostolic teaching, we have the full and final revelation of God. Because Jesus said, “I will lead you to all truth,” not just some; “all truth necessary for faith and practice will be given to you.” The New Testament is the record of what was given to them; therefore, the New Testament completes the Canon, finishes the Bible. And when the last Apostle wrote the last book, referring to his book but indirectly to the whole Bible, he said, “Don’t add to it; don’t take away from it because the Bible is the complete Word of God.”

Thanks

[volgadon]

But guys, you haven't shown me where?

Why the question mark?

Anyway, don't take my word for it, here is an entire book with many essays relating to this subject. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man ... - Google Books

If I could quote another Bible scholar Norman Geisler;

Bible scholar? Do you mean the apologist, theologian, and philosopher Norman Geisler?

The only place in the world you will find a record of Apostolic teaching is in the 27 books of the New Testament–no more, no less. There is no other book known to mankind that the Apostles wrote and every book that they wrote under the inspiration of God we have in the New Testament.

The only Bart Ehrman book I own is one called "Lost Scriptures." Check it out.

but indirectly to the whole Bible,

If you are going to make that argument then we can easily counter and say "indirectly to the entire canon accepted by LDS."

“Don’t add to it; don’t take away from it because the Bible is the complete Word of God.”

Chapter and verse, please. You have grossly distorted the warning in Revelation, indeed, one could say that you are adding to it.

[volgadon]

Let me ask again, Soninme, do you know what midrash is.

[Soninme]

Volgadon

Surely and sadly, we are getting nowhere.

do you know what midrash is.

If you have a point please make it.

[Faith_Grace]

I read the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, and then the Book of Mormon, and then D&C.

I did not find anything conflicts. I find the Book of Mormon proves that the Bible is true, and D&C explains lots of things that I did not understand while reading the Bible.

And then I read some anti-Mormon things, there, I got confused... because they listed all the different beliefs between Mormons and Christians. (Mormons are Christians, but in order to make it clear and easy to understand I use the term Mormons)

After sometime, I thought, wait, why are the Mormons cults just because their belief is different? Why can't they be right?

Therefore lets start with the first one in Genesis. How can the Mormon church believe that if Adam & Eve hadn't sinned and committed the first sin, and therefore the fall of man kind we wouldn't be here today ? When that's CLEARLY not what the Bible teaches ?

I wonder what do you think what does the Bible clearly teach about the Adam and Eve?

Here is what I think just by reading the Bible alone.

Gen.2:24" Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."---“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”(1 Cor. 11: 11)

The Lord commanded them not to eat the fruit of those two trees, we all know that. But they disobeyed. Isn't that the original sin? To disobey. And if the Lord had not commanded them not to eat the fruit thereof, then they had not sinned.

And because they have sinned, their body became mortal, and subject to death. And so here we are, being born after their flesh, destined to death. If they had not sinned, we would not be who we are now, and the world (earth) would have been different I think.

So yes, because they've sinned, we are here now.

What's the problem with that? Why should not the Mormons or Christians believe that? Isn't it what the Bible teaches?

Or am I missing something? Does the Bible teach something different?

Edited April 26, 2011 by Faith_Grace

[Guest]

I read the Old Testament, and then the New Testament, and then the Book of Mormon, and then D&C.

I did not find anything conflicts. I find the Book of Mormon proves that the Bible is true, and D&C explains lots of things that I did not understand while reading the Bible.

And then I read some anti-Mormon things, there, I got confused... because they listed all the different beliefs between Mormons and Christians. (Mormons are Christians, but in order to make it clear and easy to understand I use the term Mormons)

After sometime, I thought, wait, why are the Mormons cults just because their belief is different? Why can't they be right?

I wonder what do you think what does the Bible clearly teach about the Adam and Eve?

Here is what I think just by reading the Bible alone.

Gen.2:24" Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."---“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”(1 Cor. 11: 11)

The Lord commanded them not to eat the fruit of those two trees, we all know that. But they disobeyed. Isn't that the original sin? To disobey. And if the Lord had not commanded them not to eat the fruit thereof, then they had not sinned.

And because they have sinned, their body became mortal, and subject to death. And so here we are, being born after their flesh, destined to death. If they had not sinned, we would not be who we are now, and the world (earth) would have been different I think.

So yes, because they've sinned, we are here now.

What's the problem with that? Why should not the Mormons or Christians believe that? Isn't it what the Bible teaches?

Or am I missing something? Does the Bible teach something different?

If you go by Catholic teaching, we would have been born in Eden (paradise) and lived as Adam and Eve lived before the fall - free from sin - if Eve stayed away from the apple.

[volgadon]

Volgadon

Surely and sadly, we are getting nowhere.

If you have a point please make it.

I take that as a no. Midrash is the ancient Jewish method of expounding the scriptures. The root of the word is to search. For an example of what it meant in practice, the ancient Jews sages took the song of the sea "And then Moses sang this song" and used it as a prooftext for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in the Pentateuch. Why? Taken literally, the grammatical construct of the Hebrew is actually "And then Moses will sing this song," IE the future tense. Why then is the future tense used? Obviously because Moses will be alive in the future, and this is a result of the resurrection. Similar principal to what Christ said about God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Nobody could take those verses at face value and go AHA! Resurrection of the dead!

A doctrine which people believed was taken and read into the scriptures! That is what the Thessalonicans were doing.

[Faith_Grace]

If you go by Catholic teaching, we would have been born in Eden (paradise) and lived as Adam and Eve lived before the fall - free from sin - if Eve stayed away from the apple.

Thank you anatess. Now I understand, but it's not what Bible says. That's why I did not want to learn from any church teachings. I love reading by myself. I did not have any lessons with the Mormon missionaries either, until I finished reading all the books.

I wonder where does the Savior go in the Catholic teaching. I don't mean to criticize.

This is what the Bible says.

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," (1Peter1:18-20)

what do they teach about this? If Adam and Even had not fall, then the foreordained Christ before the foundation of the world was not necessary and did not make any sense. Why would God foreordain a Christ before the creation of the world if the fall of Adam and Eve were not a part of His plan?

Edited April 27, 2011 by Faith_Grace