Book of Jeraneck?

[Matthew0059]

Here is my opinion. If anyone is concerned about the “Book of Jeraneck” then seek out the best and most informed source you can find that believes and champions the “Book of Jeraneck” and first learn all you can from that source. Then set about to discern as best you can the value the book can bring to you. Do this first!

Hear, hear.

If you are not concerned with the “Book of Jeraneck” then do not be concerned and leave it to what-ever it will be to those that would make something of it. If you wish to discuss the Book then discuss it with someone that is successful and knowledgeable of it and able to defend it. To trash it among disbelievers is a waste of time to which no one will learn anything or benefit in any way - it will only engender prejudices and malice.

The Traveler

My concern is with some of the close-but-not-wholly-accurate assertions being made on this thread that might lead some to believe this Book of Jeraneck might be legitimate- or at least confuse some as the the source of legitimacy for scripture.

[Traveler]

Hear, hear.

My concern is with some of the close-but-not-wholly-accurate assertions being made on this thread that might lead some to believe this Book of Jeraneck might be legitimate- or at least confuse some as the the source of legitimacy for scripture.

I will appeal to my scientific nature. I have learned (sometimes from sad experience) that before I say something has no merit or value - (will fail scientific testing), that I should either consult to see if someone has tested a thing and can provide data or I need to test it myself and obtain the data.

Should I attempt to discredit something without actual understanding and data - then not only will I prove myself to be an unreliable source but I cannot justify ever using proper methods to justify anything.

If someone is confused as to whether or not something is legitimate - speaking from emotion and unfounded opinion will only make something to appear the more legitimate because the arguments against it are not legitimate. By drawing even negative attention to something gives it some credibility. If something is so obviously foolish that only a fool would believe it - what profit is there in debating the issue - it only gives the fool credibility - and the advantage if one understands debating tacticts.

The Traveler

[Matthew0059]

If someone is confused as to whether or not something is legitimate - speaking from emotion and unfounded opinion will only make something to appear the more legitimate because the arguments against it are not legitimate. By drawing even negative attention to something gives it some credibility. If something is so obviously foolish that only a fool would believe it - what profit is there in debating the issue - it only gives the fool credibility - and the advantage if one understands debating tacticts.

The Traveler

I'm not a trained logician or scientist. My main concern when reading this thread is bert10's appeal to doctrine (shaky/confusing doctrine, no less!) to appear to give the Book of Jeraneck a hope of legitimacy. As always, my concern is that those who aren't trained in spiritual matters may get confused by such talk.

I can tell that your advice has wisdom backing it, and I don't dispute it. I ask you your opinion: from the data and links provided in this thread and available via the internet (e.g., the text of the Book of Jeraneck, Gill's publicity videos, etc.), do you think there's enough information to fairly judge the matter?

Edited February 11, 2011 by Matthew0059

[JohnnyRudick]

I will appeal to my scientific nature. I have learned (sometimes from sad experience) that before I say something has no merit or value - (will fail scientific testing), that I should either consult to see if someone has tested a thing and can provide data or I need to test it myself and obtain the data.

Should I attempt to discredit something without actual understanding and data - then not only will I prove myself to be an unreliable source but I cannot justify ever using proper methods to justify anything.

If someone is confused as to whether or not something is legitimate - speaking from emotion and unfounded opinion will only make something to appear the more legitimate because the arguments against it are not legitimate. By drawing even negative attention to something gives it some credibility. If something is so obviously foolish that only a fool would believe it - what profit is there in debating the issue - it only gives the fool credibility - and the advantage if one understands debating tacticts.

The Traveler

The majority of comments on this book have limited themselves to

basically

"If new revelation from God was to come forth to the world,

it will come forth through His prophet.".

And then went on from that already established truth.

Now what is emotional unfounded jabber is that?

[GeneC]

I heard enough from the video of the 'cloning' of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with supposed differences which really weren't differences or differences that weren't even explained or answered along with other bumbling attempts at explaining his so called new testament of Jesus Christ, which by the way adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge.

Why people can entertain such nonsense is beyond me. When are our LDS leaders going to let us in on this, oh they don't know about it yet? or they know about it and are keeping silent. I'll read it if and when President Monson announces it in conference.

[JohnnyRudick]

I heard enough from the video of the 'cloning' of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with supposed differences which really weren't differences or differences that weren't even explained or answered along with other bumbling attempts at explaining his so called new testament of Jesus Christ, which by the way adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge.

Why people can entertain such nonsense is beyond me. When are our LDS leaders going to let us in on this, oh they don't know about it yet? or they know about it and are keeping silent. I'll read it if and when President Monson announces it in conference.

I pray this is "tongue in cheek" here.

Why would they even bother?

Now as I write thinking about it, yes, I would

think that this could cause some confusion:confused: among some,

sooooooooooo:mellow:

[Justice]

I'll read it if and when President Monson announces it in conference.

Ahhh the simple litmus test to which I was referring.

[bert10]

You are right that to condemn things out of prejudice is not what LDS are about..for this is what GOD calls to be an "Unbeliever". Believers are they who first believe and then prove.

God said for us to read good books. And any books that enjoins us to love GOD and teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, and to Repent and to forgive and to have mercy and compassion that teach consequences to Sin is a good book. Whether it is another testimony of Jesus Christ or not....does not need to be factored in for it to be considered as a good book.

Again the Lord said...if anything teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, then it is of GOD. You can find this in the NT.

bert10

I will quote (with some added helps) something I find interesting from the sacred scriptures. "Does our law (scriptures and doctrine) allow us to condemn a man (or the beliefs of others) before we have heard HIM (THEM) speak!"

If so - either you or I do not properly understand or practice the 11th Article of Faith

The Traveler

[bert10]

Why argue? Anyone who uses worldly means to judge that book as another testimony of Jesus Christ will err. Just as the Christians who are trying to use worldly means to judge the BOM has another testimony of Jesus Christ. Truth is of the Spirit of Truth and only from the Spirit of truth.

We do not need to judge it or view it as another testimony of Jesus Christ since it pertains to the land of England.

Is it a GOOD BOOK to read? The answer is yes.

Also all that we should be concerned with at the beginning...if it claims that Jesus is the Christ. That is He is the Son of GOD and the only name which we may be saved? - And that if it does also teach repentance, Love, forgiveness, compassion and mercy? And consequences to Sin?

Then it is a good book if it fulfills those conditions. We do not have to accept it as another testimony of Jesus Christ.

Again....Whether it is real or fictional it is still a good book. This book seem to parallel the BOM and it seems on the surface to teach the same lessons.

For them who wish to know if it is true...then they should apply the same rules in knowing the truth concerning the BOM to that Book.

bert10

I'm not a trained logician or scientist. My main concern when reading this thread is bert10's appeal to doctrine (shaky/confusing doctrine, no less!) to appear to give the Book of Jeraneck a hope of legitimacy. As always, my concern is that those who aren't trained in spiritual matters may get confused by such talk.

I can tell that your advice has wisdom backing it, and I don't dispute it. I ask you your opinion: from the data and links provided in this thread and available via the internet (e.g., the text of the Book of Jeraneck, Gill's publicity videos, etc.), do you think there's enough information to fairly judge the matter?

[JohnnyRudick]

Ahhh the simple litmus test to which I was referring.

Yup:cool:

[rameumptom]

I am quite disappointed by many posters on this forum. I want to thank several posters that have pointed out that many of the arguments against the Book of Jeraneck are in essence the same as so many arguments against the Book of Mormon.

The Traveler

That is why I read it, and then wrote up regarding it. I noted areas where it departs greatly from the Book of Mormon - its inconsistencies. Such as having almost no reference to Christ and his atonement, while the BoM focuses its teachings on Christ. Such as the Urim and Thummim being a place, like Stonehenge, where a person steps into before a council, versus a device that is used to translate and make a person a seer. Except as a warning against war (especially a 3d world war), it has no other real teachings in it. It lacks in the things we learn from the BoM and Bible.

Do I think it is an evil book? Only insofar as it confuses people and leads them away from the true prophets and apostles of God today. It makes claims, including in its title (another testament). When it comes to the Book of Mormon, we are told to read and ponder it, then ask God about it. Well, I put the Book of Jeraneck to the same test.

Edited February 12, 2011 by rameumptom

[JohnnyRudick]

That is why I read it, and then wrote up regarding it. I noted areas where it departs greatly from the Book of Mormon - its inconsistencies. Such as having almost no reference to Christ and his atonement, while the BoM focuses its teachings on Christ. Such as the Urim and Thummim being a place, like Stonehenge, where a person steps into before a council, versus a device that is used to translate and make a person a seer. Except as a warning against war (especially a 3d world war), it has no other real teachings in it. It lacks in the things we learn from the BoM and Bible.

Do I think it is an evil book? Only insofar as it confuses people and leads them away from the true prophets and apostles of God today. It makes claims, including in its title (another testament). When it comes to the Book of Mormon, we are told to read and ponder it, then ask God about it. Well, I put the Book of Jeraneck to the same test.

And I thank you for reading it.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you:)),

that is good enough for me.

I most likely will never get around to

reading it (I am waiting for the movie to come out:eek:)

Thanks again for your synopsis.

[Traveler]

I thought to add something that I hope will not derail this thread but add some food for thought.

In the east (Asia) Christianity dates back to the same time periods of the early Christians of the Mediterranean. Mostly in our day they are called the Nestorian Christians because of their stand concerning the Trinity. Because they are a relative small group of Christians they are ignored for the most part by the more western Christians.

One point of interest and the reason I am posting this is because they have a very ancient and rather interesting manuscript as part of their Bible. They claim it was written by the very hand of Jesus to a king in Asia. The manuscript has been authenticated and carbon dated to the time of Jesus and the parchment verified to have come from the Jerusalem area. But is it really the hand of Christ or a very ancient forgery? That is impossible to say because there is nothing else to compare the script to be certain it is the hand writing of Jesus. But all indications are that it is authentic.

Any else - other than me read this scripture? Is there more interest in something from hand of Jeraneck than from the hand of Jesus?

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

I thought to add something that I hope will not derail this thread but add some food for thought.

In the east (Asia) Christianity dates back to the same time periods of the early Christians of the Mediterranean. Mostly in our day they are called the Nestorian Christians because of their stand concerning the Trinity. Because they are a relative small group of Christians they are ignored for the most part by the more western Christians.

One point of interest and the reason I am posting this is because they have a very ancient and rather interesting manuscript as part of their Bible. They claim it was written by the very hand of Jesus to a king in Asia. The manuscript has been authenticated and carbon dated to the time of Jesus and the parchment verified to have come from the Jerusalem area. But is it really the hand of Christ or a very ancient forgery? That is impossible to say because there is nothing else to compare the script to be certain it is the hand writing of Jesus. But all indications are that it is authentic.

Any else - other than me read this scripture? Is there more interest in something from hand of Jeraneck than from the hand of Jesus?

The Traveler

I consider it like I do the Apocrypha. The Lord told Joseph Smith that there are many good things, but perhaps some extrapolations of men in it as well. If we can read it with the Spirit, then we can gain benefit from it.

The differences between this manuscript and the Book of Jeraneck are: 1. we have the actual ancient manuscript, 2. it can be verified to be ancient.

Even with the Book of Mormon, we have witnesses to the gold plates, as well as some possible archaeological evidence (Nahom, etc), of which volumes have been written. I can't see how the BoJ will have those same benefits.

[bert10]

Books do not have authority...the Spirit of GOD does though. We are commanded to read all good books that edify. And this one does. Today there are not many books that are written that Edify...but if anything that does Edify it is of GOD.

God does not say to use the book of Jareneck instead of the bible or the BOM. Surely there must be a place in one's heart for books that testify of Christ, teach to love men and their neighbors, urge men to repent etc. And teaches that there are consequences to sin.

bert10

It could be an identical copy of the Book of Mormon but without the Authority of Jesus Christ it is but folly.

[rameumptom]

As a work of fiction or even as a parable for instruction, the Book of Jeraneck is not a bad book. It is the claim behind the book that is destructive. Its author, the prophet Gill, insists it is a historical volume and should be placed equal to the Bible and Book of Mormon. THAT is where this book has its problems. The faith claims behind it could lead people away from the true and living prophets and apostles of God, to follow a false prophet.

The BoJ doesn't compare to the Book of Mormon in depth of doctrine and instruction, nor in the witnesses to the book. Gill is the only witness to this ancient volume, whereas the Book of Mormon has 12 witnesses, as well as its internal challenge to pray about the book (BoJ has no such challenge).

BTW, Bert, have you read the Book of Jeraneck? You make claims for it, but I have yet to know whether you actually read it so far.

Edited February 14, 2011 by rameumptom

[bert10]

Yeah I have read it. Sometime ago. In it I did not find anything that would condone wickedness.

Information do not need to always be labeled immediately. We can view it as other books we read: Simply as an interesting story for now.

bert10

As a work of fiction or even as a parable for instruction, the Book of Jeraneck is not a bad book. It is the claim behind the book that is destructive. Its author, the prophet Gill, insists it is a historical volume and should be placed equal to the Bible and Book of Mormon. THAT is where this book has its problems. The faith claims behind it could lead people away from the true and living prophets and apostles of God, to follow a false prophet.

The BoJ doesn't compare to the Book of Mormon in depth of doctrine and instruction, nor in the witnesses to the book. Gill is the only witness to this ancient volume, whereas the Book of Mormon has 12 witnesses, as well as its internal challenge to pray about the book (BoJ has no such challenge).

BTW, Bert, have you read the Book of Jeraneck? You make claims for it, but I have yet to know whether you actually read it so far.

[JohnnyRudick]

Yeah I have read it. Sometime ago. In it I did not find anything that would condone wickedness.

Information do not need to always be labeled immediately. We can view it as other books we read: Simply as an interesting story for now.

bert10

I feel we need to warn that this is "Simply as an interesting story for now.".

We know better, let us not keep quiet about it.

There seems to be an odd feeling I get

about some - defending this book it seems -

to keep people quiet about it's dangers.

What is that all about?

[bert10]

You know better how? Has God said anything to you? or are you using your wisdom in judging this?

Anyway you guys do what you want. I will continue to keep an open mind and say...that with GOD all things are possible. To disprove and reject by prejudice which is using our wisdom instead of using the tools that GOD gave us for finding out the truth... is what unbelievers do. Believers believe all things are possible and then go about proving it and judging by the fruits. As for myself it is not that important. I have way to many other things to do.

bert10

[slamjet]

You know better how? Has God said anything to you? or are you using your wisdom in judging this?

Anyway you guys do what you want. I will continue to keep an open mind and say...that with GOD all things are possible. To disprove and reject by prejudice which is using our wisdom instead of using the tools that GOD gave us for finding out the truth... is what unbelievers do. Believers believe all things are possible and then go about proving it and judging by the fruits. As for myself it is not that important. I have way to many other things to do.

bert10

This time, stay in one sentence; are you calling us unbelievers? And don't say you don't judge. You have. Period.

[volgadon]

I have way to many other things to do.

Yet somehow there is always time to tout spiritual superiority.

[bert10]

One will not be deceived if he holds on tight to the Spirit of GOD. I would not teach any man to follow him. If a man does not Believe the BOM then he will not believe his book either. But if a man has a true testimony of the BOM, why should he go to follow after another book?

And GOD said whatsoever teach men that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD then it is of GOD.

And if this man is deceived and is not of GOD then he will not succeed. When the leader of a true cult dies..so does the cult.

Tell me who first turns against this Church and becomes its worst enemy when times are hard? And they are coming.

bert10

bert10-

This man, the so-called prophet Gill? His claims run absolutely contrary to accepted doctrine of the true Church of JESUS CHRIST. His teachings are calculated to mimic the cultural and basic doctrinal aspects of Mormonism to pry away the weak of the true faith.

Remember the admonition of scripture- "touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing" (Moroni 10:30).

[bert10]

I have given the definition of what GOD calls a believer not men and what GOD calls an unbeliever.

How you classify yourself is up to you.

bert10

This time, stay in one sentence; are you calling us unbelievers? And don't say you don't judge. You have. Period.

Edited February 15, 2011 by bert10

[GeneC]

Books do not have authority...the Spirit of GOD does though. We are commanded to read all good books that edify. And this one does. Today there are not many books that are written that Edify...but if anything that does Edify it is of GOD.

God does not say to use the book of Jareneck instead of the bible or the BOM. Surely there must be a place in one's heart for books that testify of Christ, teach to love men and their neighbors, urge men to repent etc. And teaches that there are consequences to sin.

bert10

Yes there are. Why did you find one?

Also God hasn't said squat about the book of J

[JohnnyRudick]

You know better how? Has God said anything to you? or are you using your wisdom in judging this?

Anyway you guys do what you want. I will continue to keep an open mind and say...that with GOD all things are possible. To disprove and reject by prejudice which is using our wisdom instead of using the tools that GOD gave us for finding out the truth... is what unbelievers do. Believers believe all things are possible and then go about proving it and judging by the fruits. As for myself it is not that important. I have way to many other things to do.

bert10

Yes, a mind that is open.

God has given us His guidelines for judging whether it be of God or not.

We have a world wide Church today with a Prophet at it's head.

The Keys in his hands to dispense to whomsoever God directs.

I'll stick with that.