Revelations 22:18

[WillowTheWhisp]

So by definition then it wouldn't be brainwashing if we are encouraged to read study and search out the answers for ourselves?

[Abraham]

Without causing offense these comments about the BofM are totally without merit and are evidence of lack of intelligence, diligence, and are more often than not moronic. These comments are not opinions they are prejucicial rantings from a bigoted mind. If you don't accept it as being divine that is your perrogotative (see Article of Faith #11) but don't make ignorant statements that are unsupportable just because your pastor told you so. Consider this.

The facts in this case are fairly evident. The Bible is not complete. It does not say it is complete (the Bible never refers to itself); in fact, it strongly suggests the existence of other sacred writings. Anti-Mormons argue that the Bible does say it is complete and that it does refer to itself. However, to them the phrase "the Word of God," or "the Word," refers to the Bible exclusively since it is the only scripture they will accept. When we understand that those references actually mean any word spoken by God or his prophets to the children of earth, everything changes.

A little history about the Bible may be helpful here. Many people today think of the Bible as one book, although it is in fact a collection of books, letters (epistles), and histories that have been written, rewritten, translated, and retranslated. The Bible didn't just appear; it was assembled, disassembled, and reassembled as new ideas and new material emerged. The Muratorian Fragment of A.D. 180 did not include the books of Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, but it did include the Apocalypse of Peter. At the same time, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered by Origen to be divinely inspired. Clement of Alexandria considered a "secret" book of Mark to be genuine. Celsus claimed that Christians altered the text of scripture and changed its character to "enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism." In about A.D. 300 the church considered the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be spurious. However, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter were admitted to the canon of scripture but later removed.30 More than a thousand years later, Martin Luther declared the biblical books of Esther, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter, among others, unworthy to be among the "true and noblest books of the new testament." Luther considered the book of James to be "an epistle of straw," having "no gospel quality to it."31 Perhaps he did not approve of these books because the teachings they contained were at odds with his personal preference for the Augustinian doctrine of grace alone as the key to salvation.

The first English language Bible was published less than 500 years ago. The popular King James Version was published in 1611, the Revised King James Version in 1885, the American Translation in 1931, the Revised Standard Version in 1947, the Good News Bible and the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, the New American Bible and the New England Bible in 1970, and the Common Bible in 1973.32 How many English translations of the Bible do we need? Clearly, for many the Bible has been and continues to be an evolving scripture.

As for the question of completeness, we might consider a few referenced biblical statements for which we have no reference. Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew is citing a text unknown to us. To which prophets does he refer? Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that Jesus will be called a Nazarene. One of the most popular of Christian scriptures is the Savior's statement "It is more blessed to give than to receive." We find this quotation in Acts 20:35 as part of a statement from Paul to the elders at Ephesus. This statement from the Savior does not appear in any other book of the Bible. Paul may have read or heard this statement elsewhere and then quoted the Master's divine words. It doesn't bother me that neither Matthew's nor Paul's statement includes a footnote to another scripture. But those who argue for a complete canon of scripture in the Bible--nothing excluded--beg a serious question.

The Bible is scripture--it is the word of God and should be reverenced, studied, and appreciated for its immense contribution to the salvation of the children of God. However, the Bible has been used for both good and evil. Unprincipled peopled have used Bible verses as justification for all sorts of mischief. Others have been led into unproductive and even damning paths because they have failed to understand and apply wise interpretation to Bible statements. The Bible has been used as a weapon against righteousness by evil-disposed pastors, priests, and pagans alike. The Bible, as with any scripture or statement by any religious leader, must be carefully considered against what is known and understood about truth and salvation. It is important that all scripture be translated correctly.

I will yield to respected Protestant writer Lloyd Averill for the last word on this biblical inerrancy issue. He writes,

It is clear that Calvin cannot be identified with the scriptural literalism affirmed by present-day fundamentalists. Nor, indeed, can any other major figure in the history of Christian thought prior to 1800. Contrary to fundamentalist claims, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as they have formulated it is not a return to primitive Christianity or to Christian orthodoxy. Rather, it was an innovation fashioned scarcely more than a hundred years ago as a weapon to be used against the modernist movement.33

Try and tell me that the Psalm of Nephi (also referred to as Nephi's soliloquy) or Chapter 9, or Jacob's relating of Zenos' allegory are mere musings of a 14 year old boy. Though it make little difference the evidence e.g., chiasmus, and an altar of rocks, or a river of water, because spiritual things are discerned by the spirit not by convincing.

Let me say, "I cannot deny the Book of Mormon, nor the full Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know it is true. i have behled what I cannot mention here, but suffice it to say, I know, and I know the God of the Universe knows I know it!! I dare not deny it."

I strive to have perfect patience, love, and forgiveness for any who differ with me, but I cannot endorse darkness.

You say you believe in an Omnipotent God but he ) can't reveal his will to man (revelation has ceased) 2) He can't create any other universe or planets and alike, 3) He can't have prophets like paterns of old, 4) he can't come to earth 5) he can't add to his own word 6) he can't help us in these latter days ( I guess because we don't need his help as we are doing so well without his help 7) that he is the author of the grand confusion of Chritiansdom made up of approx. 32, 000 (or 25,000 I can't remember which), churches which are diametrically opposed (by difinition of theri unique doctrine which make their sects/liturgy/doctrines separate) to each other. Which God do ascribe to???

Abraham of Abraham

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thank you for the Biblical history there. I find it fascinating how many changes have taken place in what we casually refer to as one book. It's particularly interesting that some books which are now included in our Bible were at one time thought to be heresy, especially the Book of revelation which people always quote from when claiming that nothing should be added to the Bible.

[Hemidakota]

So how do you explain this passage? I believe it pertains to the whole Bible.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Do you know that third John was written after the Revelation? Since when did this scroll be considered the last writing of the collection of books called the bible, knowing it was the pagans and apostates that selected what should be canonized?

There is list of four times that a council was convened to canonized different scriptures and revelation at one time was not even considered prior to this last held 367AD Athanasius meeting.

[kona0197]

It strikes me funny that you all continue on while I said I no longer wish to talk about this topic.

Oh and Abraham: I don't have a Pastor. Nor do I go to a Church that has one.

[Hemidakota]

Then I apologize.

[kona0197]

No worries. I'm just trying to avoid a few arguments. Thanks.

[Abraham]

Sometimes one just has to have the final word as a defender of the faith.

Abraham

[skalenfehl]

word!

[havejoy]

And sometimes a conversation can continue on without the OP's interest or input.

[Guest tomk]

And sometimes a conversation can continue on without the OP's interest or input.

kona complains that we continued on without him, but still takes the time to scan our posts in the thread he "could not care less about". Kinda funny.

[kona0197]

Very antagonistic statement Tomk.

[Guest tomk]

Very antagonistic statement Tomk.

You're right. That wasn't very nice of me.

I'm sorry -- I will try to knock that off in the future.

Deal?

[Misshalfway]

I still think the verse was meant as a warning to adding on the the Bible.

That's part of the reason I have never prayed about weather or not the BOM is true. That and there is no physical proof about any of the stuff in the BOM. Any 2nd Nephi 29 bothers me. How would people back in 33 AD know about the Bible?

I think that this means not to add or take away from the gospel. If the bible wasn't to be changed in Deut., then the whole New Testament would have to go.

It is clear to me the Bible is a grouping of lots of different records. When John wrote this there was no compiled Bible that we see and know today.

The Nephites had the Books of Moses. In fact, just after leaving Jerusalem, Lehi sent his sons back to jerusalem to get those books.

You have to also keep in mind that the BofM is not necessarily a history of these ancient americans. It was written for us today and those early prophets wrote revelations that pertain to the Lord's work in the latter days. They never had the book. It was compiled by Mormon and his son Moroni and buried in the ground. The BofM is not just for mormon people.... it is for the whole earth to testify of Christ.

[kona0197]

Yeah but the Bible actually can be proven by archaeological evidence. BOM can not.

You must question everything. You can not take someone's word on face value or depend on a prayer that the BOM is true.

Faith in something is more than a prayer.

[Hemidakota]

So where is the Garden of Eden?

[kona0197]

Well the Bible says the Garden Of Eden was next to the river Euphrates so one would logically assume it existed in present day Iraq...

Not America.

[Elgama]

Yeah but the Bible actually can be proven by archaeological evidence. BOM can not.

You must question everything. You can not take someone's word on face value or depend on a prayer that the BOM is true.

Faith in something is more than a prayer.

There is nothing in archaeological evidence that proves any of the patriarchs exist - the crossing of the red sea and Moses is a bit dodgy, you have to look to someone like David Rohl who is not highly respected as an archaeologist (at least in the peer reviews I personally like his ideas) to get most of the timelines straight... there is no evidence Sodom and Gommorah existed although an interesting theory about it being under the Dead Sea. Yes we know where Jerusalem and Bethlehem are because they have been continously occupied.

And more importantly there is nothing anywhere in the archaeological record at present that proves the Bible is the Word of God. For that you have to rely on Faith no different than the Book of Mormon, the Quran or the Bhagdad Gita

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

And Paris is not in France, it is in Illinois

[Hemidakota]

Well the Bible says the Garden Of Eden was next to the river Euphrates so one would logically assume it existed in present day Iraq...

Not America.

I can say, I did managed to stand on Adam's alter for a few seconds.

[kona0197]

Believe what you wish.

[Hemidakota]

There is nothing in archaeological evidence that proves any of the patriarchs exist - the crossing of the red sea and Moses is a bit dodgy, you have to look to someone like David Rohl who is not highly respected as an archaeologist (at least in the peer reviews I personally like his ideas) to get most of the timelines straight... there is no evidence Sodom and Gommorah existed although an interesting theory about it being under the Dead Sea. Yes we know where Jerusalem and Bethlehem are because they have been continously occupied.

And more importantly there is nothing anywhere in the archaeological record at present that proves the Bible is the Word of God. For that you have to rely on Faith no different than the Book of Mormon, the Quran or the Bhagdad Gita

-Charley

There a few at our wonderful school that will snoobed there noses at Moses and the ten plagues.

[Hemidakota]

Believe what you wish.

That is beauty of 'free agency'. We can make that choice.

[Elgama]

There a few at our wonderful school that will snoobed there noses at Moses and the ten plagues.

thats because some academics are too arrogant to simply say we don't know and we just can't prove it

-Charley

[kona0197]

Isn't saying the Bible is not true kind of like saying Jesus didn't exist?