What does it mean

[Billyray]

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 believe it as written which is that this section of scripture is a late addition and unlikely part of the original text, which is exactly why the notation is clearly identified within the text and is clearly broken off from the rest of the text. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Care to explain that for me?

BTW I don't any issues with the verse that you quoted and it is a true statement which is that those who have faith and are baptized are saved.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I believe it as written which is that this section of scripture is a late addition and unlikely part of the original text,

So any Bible that contains that section is not 100% reliable as inerrant scripture. Correct?

So the millions of Christians over the centuries who weren't aware of the fake-ness of that section of their Bibles...what about their salvation? They believed that ALL of their Bible was 100% inerrant, when in fact is contained some uninspired, added, fake scripture. Is it okay to have scripture that isn't inerrant, and to believe in the veracity of that scripture?

BTW I don't any issues with the verse that you quoted and it is a true statement which is that those who have faith and are baptized are saved.

So those who merely have faith alone, but fail to get baptized.....are not saved?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So any Bible that contains that section is not 100% reliable as inerrant scripture. Correct?

The sections of the NT that appear to be later additions are clearly identified as such in the text so it is crystal clear. In addition variants are also noted. LikeI have said I believe we have the original text within the m****cripts. You on the other hand don't believe that we have the original and therefore you don't believe the Bible as written.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So the millions of Christians over the centuries who weren't aware of the fake-ness of that section of their Bibles...what about their salvation?

Salvation is based on faith in Christ. For example the NT books weren't even written down for many years after the death of Christ during the early church period yet many people were saved.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So those who merely have faith alone, but fail to get baptized.....are not saved?

No. Those who have faith in Christ are saved. Works do not contribute for salvation. And you know all the NT verses that support this position. Or do you?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No. Those who have faith in Christ are saved. Works do not contribute for salvation. And you know all the NT verses that support this position. Or do you?

I know them. But why didn't the verse in question just say "All who believe are saved" ??

Why was it important to say He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved" ??

What happens to those who DON'T believe but are baptized anyway?
What happens to those who believe, but refuse to be baptized?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Salvation is based on faith in Christ. For example the NT books weren't even written down for many years after the death of Christ during the early church period yet many people were saved.

So it's possible for a person to believe in a book that contains some authentically inspired scripture, but also contains unreliable or fake verses (like those Bibles that contain " a late addition and unlikely part of the original text"---and still have salvation because salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on owning an inerrant Bible?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I know them. But why didn't the verse in question just say "All who believe are saved" ??

What the verse in question says is completely true. What it doesn't tell us is the fate of those who have faith but are not baptized. However the Bible is not silent on this issue and we have plenty of other verses that teach us that those who have faith are saved and that our works do not contribute for salvation. If you would like I would be happy to go over those verses again with you.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What happens to those who DON'T believe but are baptized anyway?

Those who get baptized but do not believe in Christ will not be saved.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So it's possible for a person to believe in a book that contains some authentically inspired scripture, but also contains unreliable or fake verses (like those Bibles that contain " a late addition and unlikely part of the original text"---and still have salvation because salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on owning an inerrant Bible?

Absolutely. Many people have come to faith in the true God of the Bible by reading works by modern day Christian authors and in those works they quote Biblical scripture.

In the NT there are three clearly documented sections that are identified within the text in modern translations which means that they are likely late additions i.e. not part of the original text. However these three sections are consistent with the original text. This is completely different than the LDS position (JST of the Bible is one example) which completely changes and is inconsistent with the existing Biblical text.

Now tell me Jeff what part of the Bible has been corrupted and changed by evil men? Can you give me a couple of examples?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What the verse in question says is completely true. What it doesn't tell us is the fate of those who have faith but are not baptized.

It does tell us, by implication. If Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins, then it seems reasonable to conclude that those who don't get baptized, don't get their sins remitted. And there won't be many who make it to heaven with unremitted sins. Therefore, if you don't get baptized, you won't be let into heaven.

However the Bible is not silent on this issue and we have plenty of other verses that teach us that those who have faith are saved and that our works do not contribute for salvation. If you would like I would be happy to go over those verses again with you.

Please go over all NT verses that contain the phrase "faith alone," and let's review what they say about faith alone being good enough to justify you....

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Absolutely. Many people have come to faith in the true God of the Bible by reading works by modern day Christian authors and in those works they quote Biblical scripture.

Then it's possible that many people have come to faith in the true God by reading the Book of Mormon, since it quotes Biblical scripture. Right?

In the NT there are three clearly documented sections that are identified within the text in modern translations which means that they are likely late additions i.e. not part of the original text. However these three sections are consistent with the original text.

Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.

Now tell me Jeff what part of the Bible has been corrupted and changed by evil men? Can you give me a couple of examples?

It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

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.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Then it's possible that many people have come to faith in the true God by reading the Book of Mormon, since it quotes Biblical scripture. Right?


Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.


It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

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.

Evil or careless it makes no difference.. Jesus promised that His word would NEVER P*** AWAY even if heaven and earth do.. What does that teach? IT teaches that God's word is still there, pure as it was spoken by Jesus, and will be for all time.. To doubt that is to doubt Jesus. That is faithlessness not faithfulness. Since we are saved by God's grace though FAITH, there is no salvation in faithlessness.. By that authority I can tell you that you are NOT SAVED nor will you ever be as long as you deny the promises of the Lord Jesus..

In Matthew 27:9-10, you insist that you have found err. You look at the Bible as being flawed, I look at it as being the promised inerrant word of God. Therefore I read it for what it actually says. Matthew does not say that the quotation was written by Jeremiah, but rather spoken (rheo) by Jeremiah. It is possible, therefore, that the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to report a spoken prophecy of Jeremiah instead of your insistence that it had to be written.. Here again you prove your lack of faith in the word Jesus gave us as a promise to see that His word hasn't p***ed away.. See if Matthew 27:9-10 was a lie how could we trust any of the word.. It would be dead to us.. Jesus promised that that would never happen.. You accept the idea that it did, I deny your weak ***ertions as to scripture fallibility and believe that what the scripture teaches in absolute truth as is promised by the God of all creation.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Evil or careless it makes no difference..

I think I agree with you on that. Whether the changes that made the Bible different from the original texts was accidental or deliberate, it doesn't matter, because the result was the same--changes occurred.

Jesus promised that His word would NEVER P*** AWAY even if heaven and earth do.. What does that teach?

IT teaches that any DECREE Jesus made remains valid forever. For example, if He stated that all who want eternal life must be baptized, that decree will always be true, no matter how much time p***es. There won't come a time when the unbaptized will be let in.

It's not a promise that the Bible would never be changed.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147935]I think I agree with you on that. Whether the changes that made the Bible different from the original texts was accidental or deliberate, it doesn't matter, because the result was the same--changes occurred.

Changes occurred? I guess that depends on what you believe the word of God to be.. It it the wording used by the Translators of the KJ Bible? Is it the exact wording even on the copies of the original text on Hebrew, and Greek? When they were first copied do you think all the churches were controlled by one authority or did each Bishop and the elders of those churches have authority over just their church? Could an authority from Ephesus dictate changes to the leaders of the church at Thyatira? Changes to Scripture because a leader there didn't like that Jesus was call God in the scripture and not just the Son of God? Such a concept is ludicrous..

IT teaches that any DECREE Jesus made remains valid forever. For example, if He stated that all who want eternal life must be baptized, that decree will always be true, no matter how much time p***es. There won't come a time when the unbaptized will be let in.

Do you mean baptized in water? Where does Jesus command anything of the kind? You are reading your own doctrine into the scripture again without thinking about what is really being taught.. In Matthew Jesus commands that believers go and baptize.. He doesn't command anyone to receive baptism.. In Mark 16 we are taught that whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved.. Never is the kind of baptism, water, spiritual, pouring, sprinkling dictated there.. Nor is the age of the candidate spoken of.. It could include infant baptism, or pouring of water over the head of a dying man.. I happen to agree with the Amish in their belief that a spiritual baptism is enough..

Again you change just what is taught in the Word.. It doesn't say that His decrees will remain valid forever it SAYS that "Heaven and Earth would p*** away but HIS WORDS would never p*** away.. He is God Jeff.. He isn't some weak demigod that needs the help of men to be successful in any of His dealings.. The BofM teaches that God give no commandment to men unless he prepares a way to keep such a command.. Now look at Section 84 of the D&C and read this:

D&C 84:2-5
Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all p*** away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.


And why was there never a temple finished in Far West? One was started was it not? So the generation that started that would should not have all p***ed away until that temple was complete.. But wait there was persecution from the mobs as will as the Militia of the State of Missouri, Did God defeat them as He had done Egypt for His people Israel? Nope He is said to have given a different reason for not preparing a way to accomplish what He had commanded..

D&C 124:49-
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

What is the matter with your god? You say that He is the same God that defeated Egypt but for some reason he couldn't handle the mobs or the 19th century Missouri Militia. Dang good thing he doesn't come up against the Utah National Guard, they have artillery and helicopter gun ships.... I guess since he could see a way to have "His children" keep this commandment that the BofM is a lie about any of His commandment being made and expected to be kept.. He can't provide a way for anyone to keep his commands..

It's not a promise that the Bible would never be changed.

Unlike mormonism Christians believe God ans when He tells us that even if all creation dies His words will live on, we believe Him.. The words Jesus gave us, ALL OF THEM, for He is also the God of the OT.. His message in what ever language we receive it is pure and undefiled. It is His word. His message to man that will never change or be defiled.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It does tell us, by implication. If Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins, then it seems reasonable to conclude that those who don't get baptized, don't get their sins remitted. And there won't be many who make it to heaven with unremitted sins. Therefore, if you don't get baptized, you won't be let into heaven.

You are ***uming that into the text. From this verse we know that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Which is absolutely true as written. But it doesn't say anything about those believe but are not baptized. If there were no other verses in the entire NT that spoke on this subject then I would agree that you might come to the conclusion (i.e. ***ume) that both faith and baptism are required for salvation. However we have lots of verses that show that works do not contribute for salvation and that salvation is by faith. The thief on the cross had faith and was saved but he was not baptized so this one example alone disproves your ***umption.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.

Mormon doctrine is not consistent with what is taught in the Bible, that is why Mormonism teaches that the Bible has been corrupted.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

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.

As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text. The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text. The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.

Because they deny the promises of GOD to keep His message pure for us.. They deny the Gift and Power of God.. In so doing they deny God directly. They hold the same place as those that, in the day Jesus walked among us held, that place is they are the children of the devil (John 8:44).. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text.

So we both agree with part of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy--we both believe that the original texts, written by inspired men of God, were doctrinally correct. Where we differ is that I don't feel required to believe that the Bible has REMAINED inerrant through the centuries. Why should I? Look at other things God has created, declared good, and then left in uninspired men's hands:

1. The earth. Started out good, but God allowed men to mess it up.

2. Adam and Eve: Started out sinless, immortal, and devoid of a sin nature (according to Evangelicals), but God didn't prevent them from messing up.

3. Christianity: Started out founded and led by Jesus Himself, with 12 apostles chosen personally by Him. Fast forward 300 years, and it's all messed up.

The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.

It's been PROVEN that all known extant copies of the NT deviate from the original text in one place or another, thanks to errors, deletions, or additions.

Case in point: The Johannine Comma. Most scholars believe it wasn't in the original m****cript. Right there, your theory that God magically kept the Bible totally free from alterations throughout all the centuries, gets shot down.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Because they deny the promises of GOD to keep His message pure for us.

If all Bible messages have been kept 100% free from alterations, then how do you explain the Johannine Comma?

They deny the Gift and Power of God.

YOU deny the power of God to bring back doctrines and leadership structure that got abandoned by post-apostolic Christendom.
YOU deny God's power to set up a church in the latter days that has apostles as leaders.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

If all Bible messages have been kept 100% free from alterations, then how do you explain the Johannine Comma?

What has been altered exactly since we know that this was a late addition and not part of the original?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So we both agree with part of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy--we both believe that the original texts, written by inspired men of God, were doctrinally correct.

No YOU believe that it is possible that the original text was corrupt when you said that Matthew may have gotten it wrong.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's been PROVEN that all known extant copies of the NT deviate from the original text in one place or another, thanks to errors, deletions, or additions.

Case in point: The Johannine Comma. Most scholars believe it wasn't in the original m****cript. Right there, your theory that God magically kept the Bible totally free from alterations throughout all the centuries, gets shot down.

We know that this was a late addition and not part of the original which is noted in modern translations in the footnotes. So what exactly was altered in this case?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What has been altered exactly since we know that this was a late addition and not part of the original?

Just as you said: The Bible itself was altered when someone inserted a late addition into it--an addition that shouldn't have been inserted. Which resulted in an altered Bible.

Doesn't that shoot a hole in Jim's belief that God would never allow such tampering to occur, because of that "promise" that He would always keep the Bible free from tampering?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No YOU believe that it is possible that the original text was corrupt when you said that Matthew may have gotten it wrong.

Just because I believe it's POSSIBLE that it could have possibly have maybe been Matthew who made the error, that doesn't mean that I believe it was Matthew. I think I even said so, earlier--that my belief is that it wasn't Matthew, it was probably a scribe or copyist. Believing in the possibility that something could occur doesn't mean you believe it will occur.