Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 423

Thread: 10 facts

  1. #51
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?

  2. #52
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?
    You are ***uming I don't know, you ***ume a lot. Interpret and translate are not one in the same.
    It really is difficult to have a debate with someone who questions the Holy Bible, but swallow hook, line and sinker con-man Joseph Smith jr. book of fiction called the Book of Mormon.
    I just wished you had the same concern for the Holy Bible as you do the Book of Mormon.

  3. #53
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    You are ***uming I don't know, you ***ume a lot. Interpret and translate are not one in the same.
    It really is difficult to have a debate with someone who questions the Holy Bible, but swallow hook, line and sinker con-man Joseph Smith jr. book of fiction called the Book of Mormon.
    I just wished you had the same concern for the Holy Bible as you do the Book of Mormon.

    I do not question the Bible---I just have the ***urance to truly understand it, one must have the teaching of the Holy Ghost---which is why my signature line reads as it does.

    So, please do explain the difference between translate and interpret. And in so doing, can you please explain why some "modern" versions of the Bible are different than the KJV, even removing words at times.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  6. #56
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  8. #58
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?

  9. #59
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I do not question the Bible---I just have the ***urance to truly understand it, one must have the teaching of the Holy Ghost---which is why my signature line reads as it does.

    So, please do explain the difference between translate and interpret. And in so doing, can you please explain why some "modern" versions of the Bible are different than the KJV, even removing words at times.
    You will have to ask the folks who did the changes, and not me. I had nothing to do with it. If you don't know the difference between translate and interpret, then we are truly miles apart. You may interpret what I just wrote, but there is no need to translate it unless it is for someone who can't read English.

  10. #60
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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).
    Where these books taken out of the Catholic Bible or did the Catholics put them into the Bible?

    What did Jerome have to say about these books?

  11. #61
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=Billyray;155697]Where these books taken out of the Catholic Bible or did the Catholics put them into the Bible?

    What did Jerome have to say about these books?[/QUOTE

    Yes, Billyray, Jerome is the key. Even the Liberal BBC had to admit the KJB, and St Jerome were closely linked. The 66 Books of the Holy Bible and St Jerome connection is what holds the key.

  12. #62
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post

    Yes, Billyray, Jerome is the key. Even the Liberal BBC had to admit the KJB, and St Jerome were closely linked. The 66 Books of the Holy Bible and St Jerome connection is what holds the key.
    If BigJ knew what she was talking about she would know that the Catholic Church added these books as canon NOT that the Protestants removed these books. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate made notes that these books were not considered canonical books.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    You will have to ask the folks who did the changes, and not me. I had nothing to do with it.
    And yet, knowing nothing of your religious history, you caste stones. I think that is the point the Savior made regarding hypocrisy.

    If you don't know the difference between translate and interpret, then we are truly miles apart. You may interpret what I just wrote, but there is no need to translate it unless it is for someone who can't read English.
    And yet isn't interpreting part of translating? Can you do one without the other? So, when the men translated that Bible into the KJV, do you agree that they were right 100%?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    If BigJ knew what she was talking about she would know that the Catholic Church added these books as canon NOT that the Protestants removed these books. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate made notes that these books were not considered canonical books.
    And here we go into deciding who was right and who was wrong? This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  15. #65
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    [BigJulie;155638]

    The Church IS the caretaker of the Apocrypha. It was the leadership of the church who decided what to keep as scripture and what not to. The history of my church is no different. The only difference is that you have detached yourself from your original leadership. You have no real leadership and not real control--of that I understand, but it is like a child stating that it has no connection to their parent only because they say so.
    The Apocrypha was private composition just like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Since these are NOT the word of God each author is responsible for their content. The churches that held these as scripture can also be included as responsible parties. Mormonism is responsible for the BofM the D&C, the PofPG and for the recorded statements of their prophet seer and revelator, that include the History of the church and the JofD.. The Church however is NOT responsible for any writings it doesn't believe or hold to be scripture.. The Church never has held the Apocrypha to be scripture or hold any authority over the doctrine of the Church.. The Church did write it and doesn't believe it it is NOT the Church's responsibility. In The History of the Church the LDS can't say that. It was written by them as commanded by their god through their prophet. It was commanded to be compiled again by the owners of the text (the general authorities).. I have shown in my posts that the matter of three God is held to be doctrine by the LDS church and even in the church's standard works.

    While I know that the LDS would like to claim parts of the Apocrypha as God's truth are you willing to accept doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. The treasury is the great scales concept of salvation.. Good on one side bad on the other. Which ever is greater determines your eternal destiny. This is what you say the Church is responsible for? These books are NOT Scripture and never have been scripture. Yes there were many that were ****n around by ever wind of doctrine but those who believed in Jesus never accepted those texts.. It is your insistence that the Apocrypha was scripture that have failed to be proven.. The Christian Church is not and never was the Catholic church.. Although there were many true believers in Jesus there was no organized Catholic church until at least AD 440.. You can make them responsible for the Apocrypha if you wish.. I claim no connection with or authority from the Catholic church.

    Of The Bible, the Church does have authority over. We keep it pure and unchanged.. We have done this in the past by producing so many copies of the truth that a lie would stick out like a sore thumb.. That has worked for over 2000 years.. Look even your church won't use the "Inspired Translation". And why is that? Simple. Because the changes made by Smith have proven it to be a fraud.. Our plan of flooding the world with the truth has worked and even Smith couldn't could find a way to introduce error because of it.. The Bishops (Pastors) of the Church gathered to differentiate between error and truth.. Those writings that could be shown to have been scripture since the beginning, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts were used as a rule to measure other text.. Those that taught doctrines out of agreement with those were excluded.. There were many corrupt teaches that like the idea of men paying for their own sins since it gave them power over the people to punish them if they didn't like their actions and in many churches the Apocrypha was accepted as truth.. These churches were accepted by the king and it became Catholic church..

    So, you failed at your hypocritical defense. Start by explaining why you do not use the Apocrypha. I understand you do not have authority over it. You then must accept that you have no connection or authority to when it comes to the Bible as well as those leaders who decided what was in the Bible were also the ones who made decisions regarding the Apocrypha.
    Hypocritical defense? How can a defense be hypocritical.. All I said about it is that it is not seen as scripture by the church. I don't deny it's existence. There are Apocryphal books of the OT as well as the New.. NONE of those have ever been included as scripture by the Jewish community. The NT Apocrypha wasn't made known until the 4th century. Show me where such writings agree the first 5 books of the NT? All of then teach heresy. If a lie exists within a truth it is still a lie and make the truth around it to be of no effect.. That is the story of the Apocrypha..

    Oh, that red Gods you showed, that is just the true definition of elohim. We have already discussed that as well.
    Elohim is also the meaning for men with the power of life and death over the people.. The meaning for the idols of the people outside of Israel.. Just like we call idols, the gods of Babylon, their Gods.. It's all the same word in Hebrew.. Were the "Us" in the Genesis story three separate Gods? Moses received that account and also the truth about God's nature from God Himself. He said that the Lord our God is One Lord.. God called Himself "I AM". That is the meaning for the word seen as YHWH in the scripture text.. That is the Name of God.. That name has never been ascribed to judges of the people nor to the false gods of the people of the land.. It belongs to God and only to God.. IHS jim
    Last edited by James Banta; 04-29-2014 at 02:10 PM.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    The Apocrypha was private composition just like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
    Who says?

    I claim no connection with or authority from the Catholic church.
    Then you have no root or branch. You see yourself as free-floating with no connection or responsibility to those who came before you. Hence, the hypocrisy.

    The Bible the Church does have authority over. We keep it pure and unchanged..
    How many translations are there now?



    Hypocritical defense? How can a defense be hypocritical..
    When the critique you make of others can be said of yourself. I asked you to defend yourself, and you could not without hypocrisy.




    Elohim is also the meaning for men with the power of life and death over the people..
    Okay, so do you mean that God used the word to describe himself as well as men in power?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  17. #67
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    And here we go into deciding who was right and who was wrong? This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?
    1. That the Catholic Church canonized these books as inspired text
    2. The Protestants removed inspired text

    BigJ which position would you say is most accurate?

  18. #68
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?
    Who said that Jerome was wrong with what he wrote in his notes?

  19. #69
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    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

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    Bump for BigJ
    No, as stated, you really need to defend your own stance; or be hypocritical.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    Who said that Jerome was wrong with what he wrote in his notes?
    That is the question, isn't it. Who has the authority to say he was wrong or say he was right? Here is a little bit from Wiki--not the best source, but a source:
    He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.]
    But, do I bump you for not addressing:
    This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  22. #72
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=BigJulie;155700]

    And yet, knowing nothing of your religious history, you caste stones. I think that is the point the Savior made regarding hypocrisy.



    And yet isn't interpreting part of translating? Can you do one without the other? So, when the men translated that Bible into the KJV, do you agree that they were right 100%?
    More reflecting stones, and not casting. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction given to Joseph Smith jr. For profit, and it didn't work out the way ol jo intended. So he took another approach and bingo we got us a new religion. How about that!

  23. #73
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE][BigJulie;155622]
    And thus we begin to see your spin---if you reference a scripture and post it in your thread, you do not recognize that you actually mentioned it. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is, as one famous spinner once said.
    Read my post again. see that baptism is incidental to the post.. It could have been the Lord's supper, or walking on water .. Baptism wasn't the point in the post..


    Like I said James, you would rather spin and sensationalize then to really share the truth about what we believe. I rest ***ured that God knows and you know what you are doing and some day you will be held accountable for it.
    The spin here is yours.. I was addressing exaltation in my post, baptism was in the quote that supported my point.. Seems that the BofM teaches that salvation has little to do with earning salvation. It is only the starting line of a long race.. So you are SPINNING baptism to be the whole point of that proof that exaltation requires obedience to laws and ordinances.. IHS jim
    Last edited by James Banta; 04-29-2014 at 06:59 PM.

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE=RealFakeHair;155722]
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post

    More reflecting stones, and not casting. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction given to Joseph Smith jr. For profit, and it didn't work out the way ol jo intended. So he took another approach and bingo we got us a new religion. How about that!
    The Book of Mormon is not a work of fiction. Anyone who has ever tried to write a book would know that there is no way that Joseph Smith could have written this of his own accord. One pastor I spoke to about it acknowledged that it must have been some "supernatural force'---but of course believed it was not a good source. But those who read the Book of Mormon can see it does good in their life.

    But what exactly is "reflecting stones"---you cast stones because you don't know your own history---just as you are casting right now. This attack on the Book of Mormon is surely casting and not reflecting.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post

    Read my post again. see that baptism is incidental to the post.. It could have been the Lord's supper, or walking on water .. Baptism wasn't the point in the post..
    Yes, I agree that scripture you used did not really back your point. But, that was my point...you don't refer to our scripture in your attacks.
    Last edited by BigJulie; 04-29-2014 at 10:34 PM.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •