10 facts

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. I'm saying you don't know your own history and then sit arrogantly and judge me.

As Christ puts it: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I do not find the Holy Bible suspect, I just recognize that you ignore your own history and how this collection of books came to be. You think that God can guide the hand of many men, but do not think he can work a miracle with one.

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this. But what does this have to do with the fact that you don't seem to understand your own history regarding the Bible and the beam in your own eye?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this.

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?

I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.

But this is once again not the point....the point is that most non-denominationals do not look at the history of the Bible when pointing fingers at others.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

Which are the "modern texts" of the Bible? Do you have issue with the King James translation of the Bible? Or do you agree with the way the modern texts is not always in agreement with the KJV?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Which are the "modern texts" of the Bible? Do you have issue with the King James translation of the Bible? Or do you agree with the way the modern texts is not always in agreement with the KJV?

I told you in my prior post. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

--let alone which books should and were included and which were removed. . .

What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

The first glaring question to you is if these books should be in the Bible then why haven't they been added to the official LDS Bible?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The first glaring question to you is if these books should be in the Bible then why haven't they been added to the official LDS Bible?

I'm not talking about what Mormons believe or what they don't. I am discussing the hypocritical stance of those who critic our history while ignoring their own. If you, or others, feel I need to defend my history and the decisions made regarding our canon, then you need to start with the defense of your own history. I think this is what Christ meant by remove the beam from your own eye first. I haven't seen you do that.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

Screenshot 2014-04-29 10.34.48 (1).jpg

http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/kingjame...church-kjb.php

Cooperstown Bible. (The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments).

Cooperstown, NY: H. & E. Phinney, 1828.

This Bible is a copy from the same edition that Joseph Smith revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833. Oliver Cowdery purchased Joseph's copy at E. B. Grandin's shop in Palmyra, New York, in October 1829, during the time Grandin was printing the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Screenshot 2014-04-29 10.34.48 (1).jpg

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Once again, I am discussing with you the beam in your own eye, but I can see that you just don't want to go there. I think if there is one thing I take away from Christ's dealings with the Pharisees and Sadducees was that he was completely and utterly disgusted with this type of hypocritical behavior---they spent some much time pointing the finger at others that they refused to see that three fingers were pointing back at them.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Once again, I am discussing with you the beam in your own eye, but I can see that you just don't want to go there.

Protestants and mormons agree on the Biblical canon--one of the few areas that we actually agree--and you want to discuss canon? OK

You threw out several books in a prior post--do you actually believe that any of those should be in the Bible? If so which ones exactly?

BTW can you tell me why Joseph Smith took out the Apocrypha out of his KJV Bible? And if any of these books should be in the Bible why they are not in the current lds Bible?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Screenshot 2014-04-29 10.34.48 (1).jpg

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Bump for BigJ

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Bump for BigJ

No, as stated, you really need to defend your own stance; or be hypocritical.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Screenshot 2014-04-29 10.34.48 (1).jpg

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Bump for BigJ

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, as stated, you really need to defend your own stance; or be hypocritical.

Come on BigJ certainly you can answer this for me. Or can you?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Bump for BigJ

Come on BigJ certainly you can answer this for me. Or can you?

Billyray, you don't seem to realize that I don't feel the need to answer you as your own stance is hypocritical. If you look in the New Testament, you will often find Christ did the same. You can try to keep egging me on, but you have yet to resolve your own hypocrisy in the questions you ask.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Screenshot 2014-04-29 10.34.48 (1).jpg
http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/kingjame...church-kjb.php

Cooperstown Bible. (The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments).

Cooperstown, NY: H. & E. Phinney, 1828.

This Bible is a copy from the same edition that Joseph Smith revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833. Oliver Cowdery purchased Joseph's copy at E. B. Grandin's shop in Palmyra, New York, in October 1829, during the time Grandin was printing the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Billyray, you don't seem to realize that I don't feel the need to answer you as your own stance is hypocritical. If you look in the New Testament, you will often find Christ did the same. You can try to keep egging me on, but you have yet to resolve your own hypocrisy in the questions you ask.

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head. You asked me if I believed it was right to take out the inspired books from the Catholic Bible. So here is my position for you again for you in a nutshell. The "inspired" books in the Catholic Bible were added (canonized) by the Catholic church--they weren't taken out like you have falsely claimed. The apocryphal books that your mentioned are not in the Jewish canon, nor did Jerome--who translated the Latin Vulgate--consider these books to be inspired scripture.

So now that I have taken the time to refresh your memory about my position on this could you please (pretty please) address my question--the one you keep trying to avoid.


Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head.

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.

Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.

Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

I don't not consider Jerome a prophet no more than I consider me a prophet. He just happened to be the guy who took it upon himself to get the *** done.
He didn't use a magic hat, or hide behind a curtain. All he did was work hard over years and come up with the best we could have. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. There are no need for any new books even if it was written in Reformed Egyptian, and popped out of Joseph Smith jr. Hat.