Why I like this forum so much

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Yes--and the location of that disconnect is between the facts and your mistaken inferences.


Nice try, but the facts are these: I believe BOTH of them contain inspired scripture, and I believe that what the original authors wrote in BOTH of them was inspired and doctrinally correct . I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.


Scottie can't beam you up until you acknowledge that.

What you believe are not necessarily facts.. They are positions of your faith.. That isn't bad I have positions of my faith just like you do, The first is that I believe that Jesus is God, being God the whole of the Bible is His word.. Then I couple that to His promise that His words would never p*** away, even if heaven and earth do. Therefore through my faith in who Jesus is I hold that the Bible is both pure and complete.. It needs no other testament. It has the authority to point us toward the one true God, it has the power through the Holy Spirit to direct all peoples to salvation. It tells us we are saved by God's grace (Unmerited favor) through faith in Jesus. Not through grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO.. No person has ever done all they could do. Not even Jesus.. There were still people who were blind, lame, and possessed by evil spirits in Judah as He walked among us but because of the flesh He was limited.. He did what He did in fulfillment of prophecy..

We are much less likely to do all we can do. We will watch a movie instead of study His word. We will visit with friends before to go out to spread the word of God. We sleep instead of pray. No one alive does ALL THEY CAN DO.. I don't claim that what I teach are facts. I do claim that those things I teach are BIBLICAL.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Yes--and the location of that disconnect is between the facts and your mistaken inferences.


Nice try, but the facts are these: I believe BOTH of them contain inspired scripture, and I believe that what the original authors wrote in BOTH of them was inspired and doctrinally correct . I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.


Scottie can't beam you up until you acknowledge that.

Scottie, beamed me up and said, "now go back down and wait for his answer about Joseph Smith jr.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean..

One of the ways we clear the errors of transmission is by finding older copies and their fragments. The Bible due to its wide spread acceptance and reverence for it has the benefit of going back in time as it were. What we find is that is is largely been transmitted faithfully with few errors of import. Fragments that we have are copies of bible texts without dispute. So one would think the bible is a reliable foundation for believability from these types of forensics.

The Book of Mormon however has the severe handicap of only one copy to go from and nothing further back to indicate its accuracy of transmission through JS. It is as if it appeared whole cloth in the 1800's. You have to take his word for it. This handicap leaves those who trust it in a conundrum. One one hand it is believed to be accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated and on the other hand nothing to check it against for such errors. One has no idea where it has been incorrectly translated much less where it has been accurately translated.

More over when some of the sacred texts are purported to be one thing and translated into the Book of Abraham and forensically it turns out to be an entirely different sacred text then that casts shadows on the unverifiable transmission of the BoM. Degradation by ***ociation.

Bible texts are never anything other than bible texts and we have fragments back to the first century. The BoM has no such support. I suppose more faith is need to believe it in the face of these forensics but then that's why it is called faith, no?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But in the example that you gave me you said that Matthew got it wrong.

Did I really say that? I could have sworn that what I said was that

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

[nrajeffreturns]

Getting back to why I like this forum much more than I like C@%m, guess what I just got? An infraction for QUOTING BrianH. Apparently, quoting his insults and using them as responses to his other insults, is insulting to him, and guess who gets punished? Not him, nooooooo. It's the person who merely quotes what he said. Somehow, for some unfathomable reason, when he says it then it's fine, but when you quote him saying it, you have insulted him. I will never understand how that works in the fevered minds of Cram mods.

Dear NRA-Jeff,
You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason: Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.

Original Post:http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4783028
Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
I guess we can add paranoia to the long list of deleterious side-effects of Mormonism.

(then I quoted his insult/attack he later made on ME:

"Just more pseudo-cleaver adolescent jeering. No substance. No argument. No reasoning. Just ...jeering.
That's just ...pitiful," BRIAN.

(then he said)
...the intellectual and spiritual poverty induced by your religion...

(so I quoted him again)

"Just more pseudo-cleaver adolescent jeering. No substance. No argument. No reasoning. Just ...jeering.
That's just ...pitiful," BRIAN.

(then he said this about another pro-LDS poster)
..Thus, I have no more use for him.

(my response was this)
So you view yourself as so superior that others are just here for your use, and when you have no more use for them, you feel that they should be disposed of, by you. Interesting insight into some people's egos.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Did I really say that? I could have sworn that what I said was that

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

Yea you did say that Matthew got it wrong.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

So are you going to retract your statement?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Yea you did say that Matthew got it wrong.

You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.

So are you going to retract your statement?

L O L

Let's look at your fallacious reasoning: Suppose you found a verse in the BOM that said that 2+2=5, and you found a Bible verse saying that 2+2=4. So you concluded "Either the BOM or the Bible is wrong." (Since there's no way they could both be right)

Using your fallacious reasoning, you would be accusing the Bible of being wrong.

See how fallacious that is?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.



L O L

Let's look at your fallacious reasoning: Suppose you found a verse in the BOM that said that 2+2=5, and you found a Bible verse saying that 2+2=4. So you concluded "Either the BOM or the Bible is wrong." (Since there's no way they could both be right)

Using your fallacious reasoning, you would be accusing the Bible of being wrong.

See how fallacious that is?

What, 2=2 aint 5? Even Joseph Smith jr. knows 2+2=5.
The fact is we have only Joseph Smith jr. Word on the Book of Mormon, and that is how he found it. The angel Boroni told him to walk about the Hill Coocumorah four times, but as we know he walked around it 5 times thus he missed the real book of moron and the rest is history.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.

You are the one who mentioned that Matthew got it wrong. Or are you now saying that Matthew got it right and the mistake was made later? Which is it? You are the one who makes the claim the the Bible is wrong but you are having a hard time telling me where the a so called mistake crept into the Bible.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are the one who mentioned that Matthew got it wrong.

What part of

"Matthew OR A SCRIBE got it wrong"

is tripping you up and causing you to make the obviously FALSE claim that I said that Matthew got it wrong?

And are you saying that the scribe got it wrong?

[jdjhere]

What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

lol, with a mormon what does it matter about any part of the Holy Bible? Oh I guss with the exception of the Joseph Smith jr. Plagiarized edition.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

Where Matthew quoted Jeremiah but in reality the idea is found in Zedekiah. But don't quote me on that

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

Scroll up 5 posts before your post asking this, to Post 181, where you should find the latest instance of it, OR look below, where I will re-re-repeat it:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Scroll up 5 posts before your post asking this, to Post 181, where you should find the latest instance of it, OR look below, where I will re-re-repeat it:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

Other's POV is that the order of the books or rather scrolls played a part in this. It seems that it was customary to refer to the first book of the scroll, in this case Jeremiah, even if the 'quoted' material was further in and by another writer.

Some make the case that Matthew says it was spoken by Jeremiah and therefore may have been referring to an oral tradition but I am not sure that is a very powerful apologetic - it seems to speculative. I much prefer the first one.

There is a little more here

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

Other's POV is that the order of the books or rather scrolls played a part in this. It seems that it was customary to refer to the first book of the scroll, in this case Jeremiah, even if the 'quoted' material was further in and by another writer.
Some make the case that Matthew says it was spoken by Jeremiah and therefore may have been referring to an oral tradition but I am not sure that is a very powerful apologetic - it seems to speculative. I much prefer the first one.There is a little more here

Thanks for that competing theory, Mac, but the simpler explanation--that Matthew or more probably a scribe just wrote the wrong prophet, no harm, no foul--is more likely the correct one, IMO.

This discrepancy is only a big deal to people who raise the Bible's authors AND copyists to the level of God, and feel compelled to believe that it's impossible for an author or copyist to accidentally put in the wrong word occasionally.

It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the scriptures aren't inspired. It just means that of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes.

Such mistakes surely don't diminish my faith in God one bit.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What part of

"Matthew OR A SCRIBE got it wrong"

is tripping you up and causing you to make the obviously FALSE claim that I said that Matthew got it wrong?

And are you saying that the scribe got it wrong?

So do you think Matthew may have gotten it wrong? This is a simple question Jeff.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So do you think Matthew may have gotten it wrong? This is a simple question Jeff.

"...of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes."

Why didn't that answer your question the first time?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"...of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes."

Why didn't that answer your question the first time?

It makes a big difference to understand your position so we can tease out your theory. On the one hand you believe that Matthew got it wrong which would mean that you don't even believe that the original was correct. This also goes against what your own church teaches. On the other hand you have big problems with your theory but we haven't gotten there yet. Perhaps you can give us a succinct story line to fit what you really believe and then we can go from there.

[nrajeffreturns]

Well, given the obvious fact that someone got it wrong (unless the theory Mac cited is the solution), I will state that I think it's more likely that a scribe/copyist was the one who made the mistake, then Matthew himself.


Why, Billy? Which of the 2 do YOU think made the mistake? Matthew, or a scribe or copyist? I gave you my answer, now you give yours.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Well, given the obvious fact that someone got it wrong (unless the theory Mac cited is the solution), I will state that I think it's more likely that a scribe/copyist was the one who made the mistake, then Matthew himself.

OK so you are going to drop Matthew as the culprit for this "so-called" error. Fair enough. Now you are going with the scribe/copyist as the one who made a mistake. When do you think that this mistake took place?

BTW I don't think it is a mistake--rather I believe that what we have is exactly what Matthew wrote down originally.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Thanks for that competing theory, Mac, but the simpler explanation--that Matthew or more probably a scribe just wrote the wrong prophet, no harm, no foul--is more likely the correct one, IMO.

This discrepancy is only a big deal to people who raise the Bible's authors AND copyists to the level of God, and feel compelled to believe that it's impossible for an author or copyist to accidentally put in the wrong word occasionally.

It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the scriptures aren't inspired. It just means that of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes.

Such mistakes surely don't diminish my faith in God one bit.

I find it interesting that you would hand wave off an historical indexing practice in favor of your prejudice for corruption. I mean isn't it more better to weed out our misperceptions when we can for a more accurate presentation and understanding of life 2k years ago and what cultural framework the writers were influenced by? I recognize that accepting such an explanation would remove one more perceived error in the text and force one to recognize ones bias may not be as comprehensive or unified as once thought but it would be more accurate representation of the text. For me accepting it means one more answer to those who ask about these kinds of things one less hurdle on the path to Christ.

We make use of the same ***umption mechanism really. I ***ume because there are explanations for things such as this there will be more and that there are some errors which are being weeded out with the p***age of time. A sort of anti-entropy. You on the other hand seem to accept there are errors and that's it. If I took that position then for me everything I read has the possibility of error. Not proofing it out would lead to doubt in my case. I think this is why so many evangelical kids drop out of church when they get to a secular college. They have not been armed with such decent apologetics and are left red-faced in cl***. Looking the fool they only re***ert for the Professor that Christians are, shall we say, opiated by their belief unable to think for themselves in dreamland. I personally do not like it when my wit makes for a bad witness.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by MacG

I find it interesting that you would hand wave off an historical indexing practice in favor of your prejudice for corruption. I mean isn't it more better to weed out our misperceptions when we can for a more accurate presentation and understanding of life 2k years ago and what cultural framework the writers were influenced by? I recognize that accepting such an explanation would remove one more perceived error in the text and force one to recognize ones bias may not be as comprehensive or unified as once thought but it would be more accurate representation of the text. For me accepting it means one more answer to those who ask about these kinds of things one less hurdle on the path to Christ.

We make use of the same ***umption mechanism really. I ***ume because there are explanations for things such as this there will be more and that there are some errors which are being weeded out with the p***age of time. A sort of anti-entropy. You on the other hand seem to accept there are errors and that's it. If I took that position then for me everything I read has the possibility of error. Not proofing it out would lead to doubt in my case. I think this is why so many evangelical kids drop out of church when they get to a secular college. They have not been armed with such decent apologetics and are left red-faced in cl***. Looking the fool they only re***ert for the Professor that Christians are, shall we say, opiated by their belief unable to think for themselves in dreamland. I personally do not like it when my wit makes for a bad witness.

This is so simple to explain. The Bible contains wisdom where such a statement is wisdom and it is wise. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch.. Here Matthew quotes from an apocryphal work ascribed to Jeremiah.. That is as complex as it is.. Even children can understand that. But there are those that will do anything to try to make the promises of Jesus into the lies of Jesus. Of such men beware, there is no truth in them.. IHS jim

[MacG]

Interesting. An Apocryphal book. Which one?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by MacG

Interesting. An Apocryphal book. Which one?

Just because it was available to Matthew doesn't mean that it had to be protected by God like scripture was, and available to us.. Not a single p***age in any Apocryphal book is scripture unless a p***age is quoted in the Bible.. Those p***ages are protected.. IHS jim