What does it mean

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?

I believe we have the original words within the existing m****cripts. You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ. Jeff just admit that this is your position because we both know that it is.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

What evidence do you have to show that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I believe we have the original words within the existing m****cripts.

Which Bible contains exactly the original words, no more and no less?

You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ.

That is a lie.

Jeff just admit that this is your position because we both know that it is.

NEITHER of us knows that to be true. One of us knows it to be false, as a matter of fact.

What evidence do you have to show that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts?

Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Other than that glaring fallacy, you almost have a valid point.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Which Bible contains exactly the original words, no more and no less?

We have the words within the existing m****cripts. Which section of scripture do you claim is wrong so we can take a look at it?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That is a lie.

What I have said is not a lie but the absolute truth which I will repeat again, you nor BigJ believe the Bible as it is written.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Sure you believe they are different. Who do you think you are kidding Jeff?

If what you say is true then you would have to believe that the revisions that Joseph made in the JST of the Bible are completely false. Is that your position now?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?
Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

You doubt that the Bible is the word of God as we have it today.. According to mormonism it is far more the words of men than of God.. Here is a flash for you. The original m****cripts of the Bible were not written in English.. Most of us rely on a translation.. Not one word of the KJV is found in the original m****cripts. Learned and faithful men have given us a translation that conveys the meaning and spirit of the original. There are other translation that are closer to the language we speck today that are also as faithful to the original as the KJV is but are in a language that makes it much easier for us to understand.. Is the wording different, yes.. Does it have the same revelations from God? YES.. Tell me what is the different meaning in the following two sentences.

In the growing season the big oak tree in covered with green leaves..

When the weather in warm for months that huge oak is in full leaf..

Are they saying the same thing? They are worded totally different, but they have the same message.. It isn't the word for word translation that needed to convey God's word. It is the message, the intent of those words.. Are they faithful to the original? This we find in the scholarly translation available to us.. Translations like the KJV, The ASB, the NASB, and the NIV. The "inspired version" doesn't fit. Smith additions nor his deletions have any scholarship to support them. The word are of course different but the meaning of the text of the scripture is there unchanged, unaltered.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Other than that glaring fallacy, you almost have a valid point.

Get to the point, of a valid point, or something.
I gladly put my point up for review if there were a point to contrast with the LDS view of the Holy Bible.
Can it be trusted?
Is all that one needs to have Salvation be contained in the Holy Bible?
These are just two to the point we two can come to a conclusion too.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What I have said is not a lie but the absolute truth which I will repeat again, you nor BigJ believe the Bible as it is written.

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

Okay, so here is one that a TBM believe wasn't mis-translated or in error, okay that's one.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

WE have discussed what baptism is already.. To many it is infant baptism, to some it is being part of the Body of Christ being immersed into it.. To others this means a baptism that comes only by the Holy Spirit. Who are you to say what baptism in this p***age means? Does it confirm that it is speaking of water baptism? NO.. There is no doubt that BELIEVING is the key in this p***age and that baptism is something we do when we believe.. BUT if a person doesn't believe they are ****ed.. I still say that even Mark 16:16 is God's absolute truth.. Billy will agree with that.. Ask him.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

We have the words within the existing m****cripts.

Are all existing m****cripts 100% reliable and authentic? Are all existing m****cripts equally reliable?

Or are some more reliable than others?

Which section of scripture do you claim is wrong so we can take a look at it?

"Commenting on the death of Judas Iscariot, 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)"

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.

Ball is in your court.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Are all existing m****cripts 100% reliable and authentic? Are all existing m****cripts equally reliable?

Not every m****cript is equal. But we have thousands of ancient Greek M****cripts for the NT and because of the vast quan***y of ancient m****cripts we know exactly what we have and the variations among each m****cript. So how on earth do you feel this helps your case? Can you explain your little theory for me?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"Commenting on the death of Judas Iscariot, 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)"

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.

Ball is in your court.

You just gave me a section of scripture that you believe contains the actual words of Matthew that have not been been corrupted, and I would agree with you that these are the actual words of Matthew that have not been corrupted. Perhaps you can give me an example of the corruption of the Bible that you Mormons claim to have taken place. BTW I have asked you this before and you have not given me any proof whatsoever that what you claim has any validity in reality.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Not every m****cript is equal.

So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So all you have to do, Billy, is point out which Bible that is, and back it up with compelling evidence, and you will have won the debate, because you will have shown that there IS a Bible that is 100% reliable.

Until you do that, no one is under any obligation to believe your "feeling" that such a Bible exists.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So all you have to do, Billy, is point out which Bible that is, and back it up with compelling evidence, and you will have won the debate, because you will have shown that there IS a Bible that is 100% reliable.

Until you do that, no one is under any obligation to believe your "feeling" that such a Bible exists.

That is fine Jeff.. Just show me one instance in the Bible that teaches inaccurate doctrine.. Show me the corruption of God's word.. I have asked before and so far all I hear is crickets.. Oh you did bring up Mark 16:16 and yet I was able to show that it fits fine into all scripture.. I say that all the Codex used in biblical translation are God's word, just as the NIV, the NASB, and the KJV are all God's word.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

Did you answer my question?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Did you answer my question?

I see that you side stepped my statement and question. Here it is again for you.

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

Your ***umption doesn't hold water Jeff. IF there was only a single m****cript AND the m****cript was not reliable then yes we would have a problem. BUT we have thousands of ancient m****cripts so your objection isn't an issue. You should know this but you are trying to deny the facts in order to support your false beliefs.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

If you would bother going to any modern translation and read the notation within the text you would see the following (or similar notation):

"[Some of the earliest m****cripts do not include 16:9–20.]" ESV.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So tell me which section of scripture has been changed and is unreliable? Can you give me a few examples?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Did you answer my question?

I did but you didn't answer.. That's fine I just thought that you had no answer.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I see that you side stepped my statement and question. Here it is again for you.

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

Me sidestep? You didn't even begin to address my question. Why should I ignore that and just appease you?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

If you would bother going to any modern translation and read the notation within the text you would see the following (or similar notation):

"[Some of the earliest m****cripts do not include 16:9–20.]" ESV.

So then that would be a no? You don't believe the Bible as it is written. This totally ****s up your argument.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

So then that would be a no? You don't believe the Bible as it is written. This totally ****s up your argument.

I explained to you that we do believe the Bible as it is in the KJV Bible. In Mark 16:16 we aren't told what baptism it is they is demanded.. It could mean (And I think it does) immersing one's self by faith into Jesus. It could be infant baptism. It could be believers baptism.. There is nothing in the p***age that requires baptism by immersion. Yes some of the early m****cripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. Still many m****cripts do include this p***age. I would reject it is it taught doctrines such as God has a body as tangible as man's. that there are three Gods, or that the Priesthood wasn't changed. None of those doctrines are included. The nature of God is not denied, and the priesthood is not questioned.. All it teaches is that those that believe and are baptized will be saved.. All Believers by faith are immersed into Jesus. Maybe a supporting p***age will help you understand.

Gal. 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Again not a word about water but instead we are taught that we are Baptized into Christ not into a church not into water..

The Children of Israel were said to have been baptized into Moses. No one of them was immersed in water.. There were instead immersed in the faith God had shown forth in His miracles through Moses..

1 Cor 10:1-2
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ign orant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all p***ed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea

You really don't believe that any of these people were immersed into the water of the red Sea do you?

Exod 14:16
But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Yet the Bible calls this Baptism.. Your insistence that Mark 16:16 is water baptism when it is not stated in the text is one one interputation of that text and not above question.. IHS jim