Why I like this forum so much

[MacG]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...

That's what I was thinking, too. But in Jim's defense, the explanation/rationalization that you cited was quite similar, IMO--it seems to be, basically, "Embrace any explanations that keep us from questioning the theory that the Bible was and is absolutely error-free."

This or variations of it is a common human tendency, and it's probably common among LDS as much as any other group.

IMO

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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?

Bump for Jeff.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Bump for Jeff.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?

I am non-closed-minded enough to allow for the POSSIBILITY that EITHER Matthew OR a copyist made a mistake in writing relatively unimportant details of events. My personal BELIEF is that it was more likely the copyist. Is that clear enough this time?

As for when the mistake first occurred, I don't care enough to waste my time finding out, but if you want a rough estimate, I will go with "Sometime between the late 1st century and late 10th century."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I am non-closed-minded enough to allow for the POSSIBILITY that EITHER Matthew OR a copyist made a mistake in writing relatively unimportant details of events. My personal BELIEF is that it was more likely the copyist. Is that clear enough this time?

Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake. So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

As for when the mistake first occurred, I don't care enough to waste my time finding out, but if you want a rough estimate, I will go with "Sometime between the late 1st century and late 10th century."

OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

, IMO--it seems to be, basically, "Embrace any explanations that keep us from questioning the theory that the Bible was and is absolutely error-free."
IMO

I never said that. What I did say that we are are erasing the discrepancies as we go about examining not only scripture but the culture around it. The reference to Jeremiah makes sense now and a likely paraphrase like we do today. "The Bible says "The lust for money feeds the roots of evil resulting in forgiveness and the root of bitterness to wrap around one's soul." As you have said the point remains and this variance is not such a big deal.

My objection to Jim's idea is that the evidence for it is no better than TCJCLD's m****cript evidence for the BoM. It is duly noted that you defended Jim however I still think it is a below par apologetic until some m****cript evidence shows up. I thought of this apologetic by saying it is probably another m****cript which got destroyed which we no longer have access to. Very similar to Jim's apocryphal ***ertion but did not hold it out as a possibility due my very same critique. Neither do I hold to the "it says that Jeremiah spoke and therefore it was part of the oral tradition" for the same reason.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake. So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?

OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?

Many LDS think that there was one copy of the text made, by which all copies were made.. The facts are that there were thousands. They have no way to explain why all those thousands of m****cripts contains the same "ERRORS" as all those others when many weren't copies of of any common m****cript save the one penned under the direct dictation of the apostle.. Copies were made and sent all over the known world. Those again were copied.. The copies of the copies had no common pedigree other than the original but those copies were also copied and copied again. The copies held by the church at Rome had never been near the copies held in Ephesus. Yet the pure undefiled context of the original dictation from Matthew as brought to his remembrance through the HOLY Spirit was present in each m****cript. It is there today in the KJ, NIV, and NASB.. The only place it is absent is in the non scholarly attempts to "correct" the Bible made by the cults.. Those such as the New World Translation or the Inspired Version.. The promised of Jesus (GOD), that His words would live eternally are proof enough for the believer that His word is there and trustworthy throughout all time.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Interesting that you took up adultery after you left Mormonism.

The difference between Mormonism and many other religions is that repentence takes on a whole new level. You are not permitted to just take up your sin with God--you also have to take it up with those in authority because you have not only offended God, but offended all those with whom you promised to be a representative a Christ. You took on Christ's name and with it a responsibility. Just like if you worked for a company and embezzled from them, it would not be enough to set things right just with God--there is a whole other group that you have hurt Therefore, the process of repentence in the LDS faith often means that one may be disfellowshiped or even excommunicated if the sin is serious enough. The sinner then gets to start the long-process of repentence in which God must be satisfied, your wife must be satisfied and those in authority must be satisfied that you have truely taken every step to right your wrong. The person can then be rebaptized and re-enter into God's grace.

You belive a person should be "tossed' if they do not believe the Bible is God's word. Well, committing adultery is a pretty big sign that you are not believing what God says

When do mormons take up adultery?

Many people throughout the Church and, generally speaking, throughout the world have now abandoned the anciently cherished Hebraic-Christian moral standard of chas***y. Frequently married people commit adultery and single people indulge their p***ions in acts of fornication. The results are unhappiness, the loss of love, breaking up of homes and destroying of family life, increase in the number of divorces, shame, loss of spirituality, apostasy, and eventually loss of eternal salvation.

Let us cite only a few of the numerous cases that have come to my personal attention recently. A few months ago a mother of five children came to my office. She wept bitterly as she told me that her husband had spent most of his time during the past year with another man’s wife. She explained that on a number of occasions she followed him in her car to the other woman’s place. Naturally, the sinful husband was miserable, the wife was very sorrowful, and the children were brokenhearted. “… wickedness never was happiness.” (Alma 41:10.)

About a year ago a young man came to my office and wept as if his heart would break. He said, “I committed adultery about two years ago. The sin is causing me such mental anguish that I cannot bear it any longer. If I must be excommunicated, please have the Church take action soon. My suffering is beyond description. I want to do what I can to pay for that terrible sin.”

Cases could be multiplied. But these two examples should be enough to illustrate the gravity of the sin of adultery. (Elder Milton R. Hunter April Conference 1971)

Oh course members of the LDS church are perfect and never commit adultery. As Elder Hunter put it "Many people throughout the Church" commit this terrible sin.. Does that mean they can't be forgiven? According to your reaction it is clear that I can't be.. I think I should set your judgments aside and go with what the Bible teaches.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Should your judgment be final when God has told me that? You understand that He also said that if I confess my sin He is faithful and just to forgive me of my sin and cleanse me of all unrighteousness (1John 1:9). You stand here denouncing me for a sin that was confessed to my Lord, before the Church, and even to nonbelievers and you doubt the virility of my repentance? It was ten years ago now and this act has not been repeated and yet you doubt my repentance and haul it up as a sign of my unfaithfulness? There is one who is the accuser and you and those of your fellows that continue to dwell on a sin from years ago, a sin that I have turned away from and denounced to all in the Church and without, are doing his work (Revelation 12:7-12).. Is that where you elegance exists? It is not I that is aligned with Satan in this matter, look where those other three fingers are pointing at as you point at me.. IHS jim

[neverending]

Julie,
It has been ages since I last was here on this forum. After reading your latest post and pointing fingers at James and accusing him of adultery, I had to come and let you know that you are such a hateful person!! It is because of LDS members such as yourself that I left Mormonism. Course it was long before I was treated so badly by members like you that I began questioning the doctrines but that is for another time.
You are familiar with the saying, "those who live in gl*** houses shouldn't throw stones?" Come down off your pedestal Julie. You are no better than anyone else, yet you think you are and look down your nose at non-members and truth be known, your own members. Don't forget, I was born and raised in Mormonism, James and I married in one of your temples. We held many church positions as well i.e. Sunday School teacher, Primary Teacher, Beehive Teacher, Primary Secretary, Visiting Teacher of course and MIA 1st Councilor, (that was James) as well of course, Home Teacher. Both of us have studied Mormonism for years having read your Church History, comparing the Book of Mormon with the Bible, Joseph Smith's testimony, David Whitmer's, "An Address to all Believers in Christ" McConkie's book, "Mormon Doctrine" just to name a few. In all of these books, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke to us and gave us the ***urance that Mormonism was false and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and believing in him and his so called, restored church only leads people away from the "true God and Jesus Christ". Julie, you want to believe in lies, great, that is your choice. As for me and my house, we will serve the true and living God, not some man made god who at one time was a flesh and blood man, but a God who has always been God from everlasting to everlasting.
Julie, one question for you. Do you want to be a brood mare for eternity? Do you want to share your husband with other wives for eternity? Give it some serious thought and just maybe be honest with yourself for I know what my answer was to that idea......NO WAY!!! This is a man made idea that has no scriptural base to it. So, when you have become perfect, then and only then will you have the right to judge my husband or anyone else. I find it pathetic that when a Mormon doesn't have anything to say they resort to bashing and name calling....your Bishop would be so proud.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake.

I don't think it has ever stated that everything any prophet or apostle ever wrote, including Matthew, has been error-free. Don't we believe that Joseph Smith was a greater prophet than even Matthew was, yet we don't claim Smith was inerrant, so what does that do to your claim about what we think of Matthew?

So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?

I allow for the possibility of lots of stuff. For example, I believe it POSSIBLE that y'all Trinitarian Calvinists have the most correct theology and soteriology--even if your beliefs comprise just a tiny fraction of Christianity. I just don't ***ign a high probability to your beliefs being the most correct. But I think it's possible.

OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?

Well, Matthew writes his synoptic gospel in about 60 AD, and when he did, he "plagiarized" Mark's gospel to a high degree, allegedly:

"The most widely accepted hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for various reasons. Matthew even reproduced about ninety percent of Mark, while Luke reproduced about sixty percent."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm

So if Mark's gospel doesn't contain this discrepancy, then the version of Matthew's gospel that we have introduces an apparent error. It's not that hard to admit. Anyway, Matthew puts his name to his version of the events of Jesus' life, and fairly soon, someone makes a copy of it so it can be spread to all the world. If that copy had this error, then the next guy who decided to copy THAT COPY, would have included the error in HIS copy, and it just continued that way.

Another possibility that could explain the error:

"Some scholars believe that "Matthew wrote two Gospels-one in a Palestinian language and the other in Greek."
(ibid.)

Maybe the other copy didn't have the error, but Matthew or the guy who copied the one we have, goofed up and wrote "Jeremiah" when the correct word was "Zechariah." I have written a paper by hand, and then re-written it, and it was really hard for me to make sure the rewrite was identical to the original. Imagine if your original was in one language, and your rewrite was an attempt to write the same account in a different language. That would be hard even to today's translators. Minor mistakes such as these are not a big deal to most people, though, IMO.

Other than these scenarios, what's the alternative explanation? What other reasonable explanation IS there for this discrepancy?

Mac provided one. IMO, it's less likely to be the answer than the ones I suggested, but anything is possible. The theory that there were zero mistakes of any kind in any of the original m****cripts is one of the LEAST-likely to be correct, IMO.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I don't think it has ever stated that everything any prophet or apostle ever wrote, including Matthew, has been error-free. Don't we believe that Joseph Smith was a greater prophet than even Matthew was, yet we don't claim Smith was inerrant, so what does that do to your claim about what we think of Matthew?

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Bible was pure while in the hands of the Apostles. Do you disagree with this statement from the Book of Mormon?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Anyway, Matthew puts his name to his version of the events of Jesus' life, and fairly soon, someone makes a copy of it so it can be spread to all the world. If that copy had this error, then the next guy who decided to copy THAT COPY, would have included the error in HIS copy, and it just continued that way.

So in your theory a person makes a single copy which includes an error, and the copy that has an error in it is the only copy that was ever made from the original document. Is that your position?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I have written a paper by hand, and then re-written it, and it was really hard for me to make sure the rewrite was identical to the original.

Now take the original document and copy it hundreds of times. Each copy will have many mistakes in it but each copy will have a mistakes in a different places in the text. Now hide the original document and just use the copies that you made from the original and I guarantee that you can reconstruct what was in the original document by just using the copies. This is exactly what we have with textual variants and this is what is done when textual critics try and reconstruct the text. The original words are present in the various documents but we also have variants.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I want my 72 virgins, unless they are 72 year old virgins!

This is a commonly held reward in Islam however it has been discovered the English translation is actually 'version'. There are awaiting the martyr 72 versions of their beloved text.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Bible was pure while in the hands of the Apostles.

Doctrinally pure, yeah.

Do you disagree with this statement from the Book of Mormon?

As you can see, I don't disagree with it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So in your theory a person makes a single copy which includes an error, and the copy that has an error in it is the only copy that was ever made from the original document. Is that your position?

I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Doctrinally pure, yeah.

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

If corruption was already present in the Bible during the time of the Apostles then it was not pure.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

The problem with your theory is that an error made it into a single copy from the original and that was the only copy made from the original AND that all subsequent copies were made from this single copy that had an error in it. Plus this ***umes that this copy was made early during the lives of the living apostles and that not a single apostle noticed this so called error.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

Because I don't think it was a error that was changed from the original.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by neverending

Julie,
It has been ages since I last was here on this forum. After reading your latest post and pointing fingers at James and accusing him of adultery, I had to come and let you know that you are such a hateful person!! It is because of LDS members such as yourself that I left Mormonism. Course it was long before I was treated so badly by members like you that I began questioning the doctrines but that is for another time.
You are familiar with the saying, "those who live in gl*** houses shouldn't throw stones?" Come down off your pedestal Julie. You are no better than anyone else, yet you think you are and look down your nose at non-members and truth be known, your own members. Don't forget, I was born and raised in Mormonism, James and I married in one of your temples. We held many church positions as well i.e. Sunday School teacher, Primary Teacher, Beehive Teacher, Primary Secretary, Visiting Teacher of course and MIA 1st Councilor, (that was James) as well of course, Home Teacher. Both of us have studied Mormonism for years having read your Church History, comparing the Book of Mormon with the Bible, Joseph Smith's testimony, David Whitmer's, "An Address to all Believers in Christ" McConkie's book, "Mormon Doctrine" just to name a few. In all of these books, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke to us and gave us the ***urance that Mormonism was false and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and believing in him and his so called, restored church only leads people away from the "true God and Jesus Christ". Julie, you want to believe in lies, great, that is your choice. As for me and my house, we will serve the true and living God, not some man made god who at one time was a flesh and blood man, but a God who has always been God from everlasting to everlasting.
Julie, one question for you. Do you want to be a brood mare for eternity? Do you want to share your husband with other wives for eternity? Give it some serious thought and just maybe be honest with yourself for I know what my answer was to that idea......NO WAY!!! This is a man made idea that has no scriptural base to it. So, when you have become perfect, then and only then will you have the right to judge my husband or anyone else. I find it pathetic that when a Mormon doesn't have anything to say they resort to bashing and name calling....your Bishop would be so proud.

Amen! And Amen!

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

We do know of one non-possibility, it was impossible that the mormon god wrote the Holy Bible, there are just not enough,(and it came to p***) to p*** as coming from the mormon god.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

If corruption was already present in the Bible during the time of the Apostles then it was not pure.

Accidentally attributing something to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah doesn't equal corruption. Deliberately altering a text so it supports Trinitarianism is an example of a corrupted text.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because I don't think it was a error that was changed from the original.

So your theory is that the error existed in the original m****cript that Matthew wrote, and that over the centuries, as copies were made, and copies of those copies, this error was never caught and fixed. Or it was caught, it was noticed, but no one dared fix it because the consequences of doing so were too dire.

[jdjhere]

nrajeffreturns stated in post #155 “Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

Jesus was glorified BEFORE He became a man, Jeff. Read John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." That's because He has ALWAYS been God. Jesus took on flesh... and was fully man the WHOLE time still being fully God. There was never a time when Jesus was a "mere mortal." He revealed His Glory to His disciples who stated (Matthew 17:2) "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So your theory is that the error existed in the original m****cript that Matthew wrote, and that over the centuries, as copies were made, and copies of those copies, this error was never caught and fixed. Or it was caught, it was noticed, but no one dared fix it because the consequences of doing so were too dire.

My position is that what we have is exactly what Matthew wrote down and it is not an error from Matthew's perspective.