If God the Father has a Father, and if the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely expandable to include all Gods, then our Father belongs to two Godheads, one of which Jesus is not a part of. If God the Father does have a Father, and if the Godhead is infinitely inclusive of all exalted Gods, then the Godhead that is “one” is potentially comprised of an infinite number of Gods.
Also, if Jesus becomes a Heavenly Father with his own “Firstborn Son”, and if the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely inclusive of all Gods, then Jesus will belong to a Godhead that our Father doesn’t belong to.
If the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely inclusive of all Gods, just how many Godheads can a God in the Mormon universe belong to?
Can you imagine Jesus saying to the Father, “I’ll be hanging out with my other Godheads this weekend”?
OJ, I reject the JST (I just read John 1 in his version) because it has absolutely no manuscript support whatsoever and destroys the intentions of the Gospel writers, just like everything else Smith ever produced. I compared it with my Greek New Testament, which makes notes of all significant textual variants from the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts that we possess, and find no evidence for any of his emendations. How do you justify JS changing John 1:1 from “In the beginning was the Word (the Logos who John soon thereafter identifies as Jesus Christ)” to “In the beginning the gospel was preached through the Son, and the gospel was the word..”? It destroys John’s whole point. Are we to believe that John original intended for John 1:14 to say, “And the gospel became flesh and dwelt among us.”?
How can you follow a religion based upon the musings of one man that are refuted by so much evidence? There is no evidence that those plain and precious truths ever existed. If JS’s correction of the biblical text is so accurate why hasn’t your church thrown out the KJV and used it exclusively? I’ll tell you why. Because just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation it would be rejected outright by any honest biblical scholar. At least the Watchtower Society mistranslated actual manuscripts. Your prophet just made it up. Shameful.
liv4jc,
Did you know there are ancient precedents for lost scriptures being restored without manuscripts?
In the Christian Arabic “Book of the Rolls,” the account is told of Ezra restoring by revelation scriptures that had been lost by fire.
This account is corroborated in The conflict of Adam and Eve, 4 Ezra, and Cave of Treasures- all ancient Hebrew books.
Jeremiah 36 tells of the Lord instructing Jeremiah “Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. . . . Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words”
Interesting….
Yes, it is interesting if that’s the spin you want to put on it, however, our scrolls have not been lost. There are intricate manuscript trails that can be traced and manuscript families that can be assembled based upon corroborated or conflicting, unctuals, fragments, manuscripts, ets. If you want to believe that adding and removing words from the bible to make it fit your theology is O.K., then have at it. The fact is that it’s obvious JS was working from the KJV English translation when he created the JST. Joseph Smith’s re-writing doesn’t even make sense when the literature is examined. The first 18 verses of John’s gospel are a theologically rich Christian confession of faith in the deity of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith’s translation misses the whole point of what John was trying to convey. He diminishes the revelation and glory of Jesus Christ and turns him into the message, not the God of salvation.
Looking back at your earlier post, which version of the JST are you reading? This is what I have for John 1:18-19 from the dadadaDA (trumpet herald)! “Official Scriptures.LDS.org”, the combination of which it takes to create the JST John 1:18 verse you quoted.
All of which is in italics except the beginning of verse 19 which says, “And no man hath seen God at any time” That means that all that other stuff doesn’t match the KJV bible translated from the texts receptus, right? Or does your church use a different method when showing words that are added for clarification?
What you posted above is this, ““No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.”
Why did you quote the first part verse 19, but use the ending of verse 18 to make it sound like the real John 1:18? I don’t have an official JST copy so I had to rely upon the online version. Do you have a previous unamended version of the amended Joseph Smith version? Maybe you can point me to a Joseph Smith Greek or Reformed Egyptian manuscript to find out where the translation error occurred. If Joseph Smith is a prophet of the restoration I really want to make sure he’s telling the truth. I won’t trust my eternal soul to any old Joe.
The JST conversation is always interesting, given the way everyone parses the unfinished and unexplained purpose of the so-called “Translation”. I would say check out FAIRwiki.org, for instance this citation to McConkie:
“By pure revelation, he inserted many new concepts and views …Some chapters he rewrote and realigned so that the things said in them take on a new perspective and meaning, such as the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the first chapter in the gospel of John.”
The JST is only occasionally an actual “translation” as we consider the word in our contemporary usage. The idea of “interpretation” vs. creation of a version of scripture into English is evident in the way Joseph Smith uses the term throughout his life.
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew version of the OT dated to about 900 AD. Though the DSS are fragmentary and don’t cover 100% of the OT text, the manuscripts which are complete, such as the Isaiah scrolls, have literally thousands of differences from the “Traditional” Hebrew. Likewise, John 1:18 has at least 7 widely varying versions in the Greek. The KJV actually is theologically compromised, omitting the most likely translation: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.(NASB)” At the very least John 1:18 teaches there are two God’s in Christianity; It could also indicate Jesus is a begotten being. Neither reading, both with excellent textual attestation, supports the false doctrines of trinitarian interpretation.
Peace.
liv4jc,
My mistake- I used the JST footnote from the KJV at the LDS.org site. I never knew the longer version was online at the church site- good call.
That being said- it doesn’t change my point in the least. That point being that the JST clarifies that no man has seen God except He has testified of Christ. That is a huge difference from saying no man has ever seen God.
Such a difference could not be bigger in considering the relationship between God and man. And knowing which of those two possibilities is true is a huge deal. That was my point.
I believe the JST is a restoration of text received by direct revelation to the prophet.
Question- can you explain why and how Joseph’s restoration of biblical verses also restored chiastic structures within that text? That is right- a look at the paralellism within the text shows that before Joseph’s restoration to certain passages, there exist only fragmented paralells and chiasms. But looking at the JST version shows that there are completed, beautiful chiastic parallels in the text.
Revelation 12:1-4 is a great example.
Please explain that.
Okay, I see we are on a merry-go-round with the Mormon posters who do anything they can to defend the teachings of a false prophet.
Let’s look at the words of a false apostle: “By pure revelation, he inserted many new concepts and views …Some chapters he rewrote and realigned so that the things said in them take on a new perspective and meaning, such as the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the first chapter in the gospel of John.”
Hello!!! Red flags everywhere!!! Your house built by JS is burning and you don’t even feel the flames. That is called being habituated to believe the lies of false prophets and apostles.
OJ and Vook: The premise from which you work is that God is not able to preserve His revealed work and that Jesus Christ lied when He said that Holy Spirit would lead us in all truth. Such faulty presuppositions are nothing more than pure heresy. You want us to believe in a powerless god. So, go ahead and sing the praises of your dead prophet who left you all as orphans to defend his heretical teachings. But, don’t think that you’re going to get away with spreading such fallacies without being contended by the faithful followers of Jesus Christ. There are those who lurk on these pages, and so we write for their benefit, that they may see that Mormonism is totally different than Christianity despite the fact that you all try to use the same language as we. Pride is the downfall of many men. I pray that you allow the Good Lord to humble you to the point of acknowledging that with regard to your Mormon testimonies you don’t know anything. And, the reason I feel qualified to say this to you is because I had to go through such a process.
Truly praying for the lost in Mormonism…
jack,
I can hardly cut through your rhetoric, friend.
Having left the Church of Jesus Christ hardly qualifies one to make the conclusions and judgements you obviously feel comfortable making. Either you broke out of the “haze or mormonism” as you like to think or you are one of the seeds who was choked in the parable taught by Christ.
Claiming the former over and over again doesn’t win arguments.
To what merry-go-round do you refer?
Any response to the points I have presented about the JST other than saying you know better than me and other LDS because you have been in our position before?
Vook, it’s apparent that you have been reading the false scholarship of FAIRwiki by your statement that there are “seven widely varying versions in the Greek.” Please provide your source of this opinion. What is the breadth of your knowledge in regards to textual criticism and what academic texts do you use to support your view? According to my Greek Diglot with annotated textual variants and New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip W. Comfort p. 255 there are only three textual variants in John 1:18 and they are not widely varying versions. These variants are,
These manuscript families are disparate by only two variants, not seven: the presence of the article ’o which is rendered “the” in readings 1 and 3, and the presence of the variant uios “Son” from variant 3 only. Reading 1 is attested to in the amended Sainaticus (most of the NT 4th century), P75 (Luke and John ca 200), 33 (all NT except Revelation 9th century), and the Coptic Bohairic from north Africa (all NT 9th century). The manuscripts relied upon by Westcott and Hort (WH) and the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies (NU) do not have the article “’o”, but do have the variant Theos “God” instead of uios “Son”. They are relied upon by reading 2. WHNU uses P66 (John late 2nd century), Sainaticus (most of the NT 4th century), Vaticanus (most of the NT 4th century), Ephraemi Rescriptus (most of NT with many lacunae 5th century), Regius (most of the gospels 8th century), and a variant from the margin of Syriac Harclean (all of the NT from 616 A.D.).
Reading 3 is found in the KJV and is attested to by the problematic Textus Receptus (14th century compilation), Alexandrinus (most of the NT 9th century), a variant version of Ephraemi Rescriptus, a variant of the Freer Gospels (5th century), 038 (gospels 9th century), 044 (Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles 9th century), f1 and f13, which are a late family of manuscripts known as the Farrar Group (Gospels 11th-15th century), the Majority text consisting of thousands of miniscules containing similar text, and Syriac Curetonianus (Gospels 5th century).
With the discovery of P66 and P75 the most likely reading was tipped in favor of the word Theos being the original reading as you quoted from the NASB (my favorite version, although I’m growing fond of the NET due to the number of footnotes). I wrote all of the above not to show off how much I have studied this issue, but to demonstrate the overwhelming manuscript evidence we have for the bible as a whole. With that evidence it’s fairly easy to determine the most likely reading of the original text and show that although some things have been added, nothing has been lost. You cannot prove that there were any plain and precious truths lost because the evidence for the bible being copied faithfully is overwhelming despite the lies of your false prophets in the BoM and the head false prophet Joseph Smith, who was nothing but an ignorant braggart.
As for the rendering of monogenes as “only begotten God/Son” it does not speak of “begetting” or creating. It is a combination of two words, monos, meaning “one, only, single” and genos/ginomai, which is a “kind or type” and ginomai is a verb of being. Combining genos with monos strengthens the word to make it clear that it is one of a kind or unique, meaning that Jesus is the one and only unique God, which points to the Trinity and not the existence of two Gods. The problem comes in with the false understanding that the second word is a form of the Greek gennasthai/ganna’o, which does mean to give birth to or to beget. The evidence lies in the spelling using only one “nu” in genos/genomai as opposed to the two “nu’s” in gennasthai/ganna’o</i. (for in depth treatment also see The Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James R. White p. 201-202).
How many swings does your false prophet get before you will finally determine he’s out?
Jim, I don’t have time to answer you today, but I will look at Revelation and try to get back to you. I have a busy weekend ahead of me.
liv4jc,
People need to understand WHEN plain and precious truths were likely removed from scripture.
Demonstrating the relative consistency of manuscripts dating from the second to the fifth centuries does not solve the puzzle or prove LDS are wrong.
Do you understand that the most likely time period in which significant textual changes were made with doctrinal implications was within the first and early part of the second century.
In other words, all the manuscipts found to date could be 100% in agreement, but that would not prove anything. If they all originated from one single manusript, it would show that since that early manuscript- the transmission has been perfect. It demonstrates NOTHING about the accuracy of that original manuscript.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS OF THE BIBLE- THE ORIGINALS.
There is a vacuum in early church history during the latter end of the first century. Nobody knows where the earliest manuscripts came from and who copied them. THAT IS THE CRUCIAL DEBATE.
Sir Frederick Kenyon, the famous NT scholar said:
“The originals of the several books have long ago disappeared. They must have perished in the very infancy of the Church; for no allusion is ever made to them by any Christian writer. (Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts, 1962, p 155).
Dr. Frederick C. Grant, father of the multiple source theory, said:
“In the first two centuries this original text disappeared under a mass of variants, created by errors, by conscious alterations, and by attempts to remedy the uncertainties thus created. Then, as further attempts to recover the lost truth were made, the families of text that we now know took shape. They were, however, nuclei rather than completed forms of text, and did not at once absorb all the atoms that the period of disorder had brought into existence.”
Therein lies the problem.
Frederick Kenyon is wrong, Jim. The church fathers who were taught by the Apostles and their disciples quote gospel and epistles passages verbatim and in paraphrase continually. It is estimated that over 97 percent of the NT can be reconstructed from quotations made by the early church writers. It formed their theology, which in the context of this thread was Trinitarian. This has been demonstrated time and time again. For every NT scholar you dig up that says we don’t have accurate transmission of the NT text I can find several that disagree. The transmission of the NT text was so widespread that it was impossible for anyone to control the transmission of the text, which has preserved it rather than destroyed it. What makes you believe that the majority of those who were copying it didn’t handle it with extreme care because they believed it to be the word of God? You’re claiming a conspiracy of monumental proportions for which you have very little evidence, yet you are willing to believe in the text written by JS which has no support at all other than his claim of revelation. That’s very dangerous, Jim, as it has eternal consequences if your faith in JS is misplaced. The bottom line is we can both support our opinions with historians and scholars who are like minded. I’ll place my faith in the arena with the most physical evidence. You rely solely on blind faith in the man Joseph Smith and we’ll see how it pans out in the end. I’m going to at least make it to the terrestrial kingdom if I’m wrong. What happens to you if you are placing your faith in the Jesus of Joseph Smith? I’d look into that if I were you.
liv4jc,
Which “church fathers” do you refer to in particular? What years did they live?
Please show me exactly which persons were directly taught by the original apostles and how they transcribed their words. How much of the NT could be accounted for that way?
It is circular logic to rely on “church fathers” who are actually quoting the same manuscripts from which all the others have descended. You are still left without the autographs. No textual critics would disagree with me.
Grant and Kenyon were experts in the field and spent their whole lives studying the issue. I would not be so quick to dismiss their opinions without considering them. The worlds foremost authorities largely agree on this issue. It is the experts that depend on inerrency that make claims that we posess virtual copies of the autographs.
Realize that if such errors occured, it doesn’t provide a problem for LDS. It is a huge problem for evangelicals and those who insist on Biblical inerrency.
The belief in inerrency is so naive in my opinion. There is so much evidence to the contrary and essentially none that supports such a belief.
Textual critics largely agree with Joseph Smiths assessment. And there is ancient precedent for the restoration of prior scripture through revelation.
Nobody can account for the absolute blackout and vacuum in the church between about 70 A.D. and the late 2nd century. Nothing. Zip. Does that bother you at all?
OJ,
I know it’s difficult to accept the fact that God led someone out of Mormonism because you believe it’s true. In your mind, you believe me to be an apostate. In my mind, I believe you to be deceived. I think I’ve expressed myself rather clearly, OJ. I don’t see the struggle in understanding what I’ve written. What you fail to grasp is that for one to leave the LDS Church, one has to make judgments and conclusions. For you to stay in the LDS Church, you have to make judgments and conclusions. I don’t see how you making such a statement about me is relevant to the discussion, other than to try and steer the conversation away from the false teachings of Mormonism. I have judged JS to be a false prophet, and have concluded the LDS Church to be a false church. It’s not that difficult, really. You could do it, too, OJ, but you would have to realize that you have been programmed to think a certain way. I was programmed that way, myself, OJ, and I won’t kid you in saying the deprogrammming process is easy. It’s not. It’s very difficult at times. God is working to give you the truth, OJ, but you would rather reject His word and accept the words of a false prophet. That’s your prerogative, OJ. But, I won’t stop praying for you.
Blessings…
from Martin Luther & Mormonism
“…The LDS have the Bible in their homes, in their own language. But their religion still keeps the Bible truth out of their minds and hearts in at least five ways:
1- The LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted (cf. the 8th Article of Faith)…”
Jim Olsen’s response
“Your statement that “the LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted” is simply not true and is pure manipulation of AoF 8.”
How interesting, as you, Jim, are YET AGAIN trying to find fault with the Bible to validate ole Joe’s Myth
jack,
Is there anything objective or factual you would like to discuss. Anything other than why the LDS church sucks, how they brainwash people, and that its members are going to hell?
setfree,
I read the Bible on a daily basis. It is a bedrock document in my faith. It doesn’t really matter what you think it is to me.
I am not “attacking” the Bible. That accusation is usually employed by a party as a way of avoiding issues.
Again- AoF 8 is spot on, and I can demonstrate that any person on this site is in agreement- simply answer the questions of which translation do you read and why?
A person obviously reads the translation they most trust or think is most accurate. So obviously there are varying degrees of reliability among the translations.
AoF 8 means just that- it is correct to the degree that it is translated correctly. How can you argue with that.
This distracts from the real discussion about the Bible- its manuscripts, interpretation, history, etc. It can only lead to the typical statements on two different sides of the same old line.
I would say that the Bible is not what you claim it is- an infallable, inerrent document hot off the press of God. That is a very uninformed position from somebody who desperately needs the Bible to be everything there is without blemish. The objective data is simply not on your side.
Jim,
I have to say this first. I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that the Bible is the bedrock of your faith. That you might be reading it every single day, and still not understand the basics is… I don’t know. Amazing.
Secondly, do you not understand what Christians believe about the Bible being “accurate”, after so much time on this blog?
It doesn’t mean that there are no textual errors. What it means is that from start to finish, through all of the text, there is a single message that keeps coming at you over and over and over again, so that you can’t miss it. It is this message, so well preserved in it’s various shapes and forms, that we need to know! It’s what God wanted to tell us, and did so!
There is going to be, I hope, another Christian, who gives the issue much better wording than I have. But you’re plain old fooling yourself if you think that God would be so dumb as to build a book for a couple thousand years, that couldn’t hold water cuz it got so full of holes, and had to be “restored” by some magic-rock-bearing, story-telling, wife-stealing, lying, egomaniacal American creep in the 1830’s!
Setfree,
You do a good job of expressing yourself clearly and plainly. The Mormon will never understand that he/she absolutely believes in a god who is inept and incapable of preserving His revealed word. They refuse to understand that God works through a broken humanity. They don’t understand the term “heilsgeschichte,” and that salvation history as found in the Bible is inerrant. They fool themselves into thinking the Bible is the bedrock of their faith, but the evidence against that claim is staggering. If it were truly the bedrock of their faith, they would reject JS and his teachings in a heart beat.
Keep up the good work!
OJ,
The only thing I can say at this point is that I’m praying for you.
Peace…
Setfree,
I said the Bible is a bedrock document of my faith.
Jack said:
“The Mormon will never understand that he/she absolutely believes in a god who is inept and incapable of preserving His revealed word.”
Setfree said:
“But you’re plain old fooling yourself if you think that God would be so dumb as to build a book for a couple thousand years, that couldn’t hold water.”
Can you see the same massive assumption in those two statements?
You set up the inerrancy of the Bible as a test of God’s power. How do you justify that? Honestly, what is the basis for this doctrine?
Where does it say that the God of the Universe will prevent any influence from taking passages out of or adding them to the Bible, or that he would provide a perfect translation? Or that He would collect all the intended books from all of the ancient sources available into the Bible?
It is fine if you believe that, but where do you get that conviction and doctrine?
It is the same as claiming Revelations 22:19 says that nobody should add to or take away from the Bible.
Do you believe God created the earth in 144 hours?
Did God collect all the books into the Bible? Do you know who did that, and when? What authority did they have? Do you know the criteria used to determine which books would be included. Do you know who has removed more pages of the Bible in the last 150 years than anybody else? (Evangelicals)
By the way- the only scriptural justification I know of for claiming that God had a hand in preserving the books of the Bible is actually found in the Book of Mormon.
Jack- thanks for the prayers- I need all the help I can get.
Christianity is a historically based faith that has historical documents that have been collected that form it’s primary doctrine. If the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John cannot hold up to examination, then the Christian faith has nothing to stand upon. This is the reason that skeptics of all stripes attack these documents – they understand that these works are the basis of the Christian religion. Joseph Smith and Mormonism are built on this foundation of skepticism. The books that form the groundwork text of the Christian faith are attacked as inaccurate, being altered with many plain and precious truths removed. This challenge must be met with careful examination. Does the Mormon have a good argument? If this were a court case, what does the preponderance of evidence indicate? Olsen Jim and Mormons claim the primary text of Christianity is inaccurate and has been altered and distorted with many parts removed. Set Free, Jackg, liv4jc and other Christians claim that these documents have come down to us intact with no significant alterations. Using historical analysis we can determine which group is most likely accurate in their assessment. Where does the evidence take us? Which conclusion is supported by the facts? Christianity is a fact based religion. It asserts that Jesus died on a cross in a real place and time, (and that by His death, burial, and resurrection, He accomplished salvation for all those who trust in Him alone). This is a real historic claim (coupled with a religious claim) – Jesus death and resurrection is not a subjective experience, but something that can be examined as a historical occurrence. Likewise the Scriptures, and specifically the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John can be examined as historical documents – do they hold up? and where does the evidence point?
(con’t.)
Jim Olsen said to Jack:
“Is there anything objective or factual you would like to discuss? Anything other than why the LDS church sucks, how they brainwash people, and that its members are going to hell?”
(Standing and clapping): Well, Olsen, that pretty much sums it up. I love it when Mormons just give us the “brass tacks” of the current situation. I would like to give a “roger that and a big 10-4” on the going to hell part. Christians don’t want Mormons going there, but if they want to harden their heart, use their agency, remain polytheists, believe in a false prophet and god, then that is exactly where you/they will end up.
Olsen, your heart has become harder and harder over the last few months. You, and Mormons like yourself, have two options: 1. Give glory to God by renouncing a false prophet and god and putting your faith (by belief and grace only) in the real Jesus of the Bible thus receiving God’s perfect mercy (such as Abraham – Romans 4:20) or 2. Receive perfect justice in God’s judgment by being cast into hell because of the hardening of your heart (such as Pharaoh – Romans 9:17-18). We don’t want you to join Joseph Smith and Brigham Young there, but if you want to give glory to God through justice by your burning flesh (Rev 14:10-11), then it’s up to you. Just to let you know: there is plenty of room in hell for the Mormons, Hindus and other polytheists of the world: (KJV: Prov 27:20 – “Hell and destruction are never full”).
That’s too strong for you? You want me to tone it down? You don’t like what the Bible says about hell? You demand an apology for letting you know what the final outcome will be for hardness of the heart? You’re not going to get one.
Repent.
Now.
That’s all.
Have a nice day.
Getting at the historical reliability of Christianity is the crux of the argument for skeptics. Mormons must show that corruption entered the primary text of the Christian religion or there is no need for a restoration. Other non-believers have a need to show corruption, so that Christianity is just another man-made religion, with religious texts that have been manipulated, fabricated, and distorted. Christianity does make historic claims and it is absolutely fair to test it in this way.
How do you establish the historical reliability of ancient documents? There are three tests that have been worked through by a long line of scholars in the fields of classics and ancient history:
1) the bibliographical test – how has the document come down to us today?
2) the internal evidence test – what do the texts reveal about their own reliability? does the author claim eyewitness status or is he far removed from what he is writing about?
3) the external evidence test – do other documents tell the same story or are they contradicted? are there other sources that back-up what is written?
First let’s look at the Bibliographical test. How do the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John compare with other ancient histories?
Caesar’s Gallic Wars was written between 58 – 50BC. The earliest copy we have have was written 900 A.D. – a time span of 1000 years between writing and our copies. There are 10 copies.
Thucydides Histories was written 480-425 B.C. the earliest copy we now have is from 900 A.D. – a time span of 1300 years. Only 8 copies exist.
Plato’s Tetralogies – written about 427 – 347 B.C., the earliest copy we have is also from 900 A.D. – a time span of 1300 years. 7 copies exist.
(Con’t.)
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – written between 60 – 90 A.D. The earliest complete copies we have are the Bodmer Papyrus from 200 A.D. and the Codex Vaticanus from 325 A.D. – a time span of 140 – 265 years. In excess of 15,000 copies exist. There are fragments of these documents attesting to their reliability that date from 100 A.D. – a time span of 10 – 40 years.
The different documents that we have come down from different copies – provided different historical threads to follow, compare, and evaluate. The Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John documents are beyond compare in the amount of historical bibliographical evidence which supports them. My original question – which conclusion is supported by the facts? – the Mormon position that these documents are inaccurate with much content removed or altered? Or the Christian argument that they have come down to us intact? By bibliographical standards these 4 documents are beyond compare – they are attested to by more evidence, closer to the time of writing, and multiple sources than any other ancient historical document. There is a mountain of evidence. The Christian position is supported overwhelmingly! If this were a court of law, the jury would have to come down on the side of Christians. The Mormon position of corruption is a foundation of their faith – without distortion and corruption there is no need for a restoration, no need for the JST, no need for the Book of Mormon.
I will write later showing the internal evidence for these books, and how they are attested to by external evidence from their time period.
**The information in these posts was adapted from a book called “Religion on Trial,” written by Craig A. Parton.
Mobaby,
Great straw man argument.
When did I say that Christianity is not historical?
Nothing you said counters my argument- There is a vacuum of information about the NT manuscripts in the very infancy of the church. Even if the majority of textual critics and experts in the field didn’t agree with me, it still would be impossible for you to prove a negative. It is impossible for you to prove that the NT manuscripts were never manipulated before the earliest extant copies were made- do you get that.
You are correct that a lot of copies have been made of the NT.
Over 100 million copies have been made of the Book of Mormon- and it is just over 180 years ago since its first publication- orders of magnitude more than the NT in the same time frame. I guess by your criteria- it has to be true.
The New Testament gospels and letters are of a different nature than the historical writings you cite. A whole religion(s) was based partly on the NT documents, even if there were fractures and break-offs from that religion.
Andy- I really thought I remembered from a while back that you came across as more academic. Your arguments are really falling in with the rhetoric and grandstanding of others. Disappointing.
Anybody want to take a stab at actually answering any of my questions?
Like who compiled the NT? What authority did they have? Silence…
OJ,
What exactly is the straw man? Explain.
I will stand by the argument I have made. The preponderance of evidence supports the Christian position, and does not lend any credibility at all to the Mormon position. The documents that were collected into the NT are historical documents, they were passed around separately before they were formed into the New Testament. As such, we have separate fragments and lines of copies. None of these support the argument that many things have been changed, removed, or otherwise distorted in the New Testament. My argument from the historical perspective is to destroy your argument that these books have been changed. The minor textual variants do not support the Mormon argument that ‘many plain and precious truths’ have been removed from the Bible. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, he did not foresee the great abundance of material that would become available that completely undermines his position of the Bible being corrupted. The Mormon argument that the books of the Bible have been changed is left completely without support. There are over 15,000 copies of books of the Bible that date from antiquity – they attest to the reliability of Scripture. You are free to believe by faith without any evidence that the Bible has been distorted, but historical facts do not support your position.
I will address your Book of Mormon argument later and apply the same tests to this book if I have time. I notice you claim that the Book of Mormon is 180 years old, interesting, because that is not what the book itself claims.
Here is a link to a radio program that recently addressed the evidence for the historical reliability of the Book of Luke specifically, and also addresses the reliability of Matthew, Mark, and John as well as the position of the higher critics which OJ sites as supporting his beliefs. What do the higher critics base their arguments on? Take a listen:
http://issuesetc.org/2010/05/05/4822/
Olsen,
Academics and scholastic “rabbit chasers” are a waste of time with some Mormons. You couldn’t answer the simplest of questions last year and “drew blanks” or ran away in silence when it really got tough. You can play BYU all day long and that is your agency. When it comes to the heart of the Gospel it’s a waste of time. BYU, FARMS and FAIR are not the official LDS Church and what they have to say in an official capacity is absolutely meaningless. They are only scholars in their own mind – not anywhere else worth respect.
When Mormons have hardened themselves to the point that you have that leaves no choice for the Christian to let them know where their hardness is going to send them – hell/outer darkness. No apologies. No toning it down.
Your “scholastic and academic” arguments are laughable, unfounded and are easily refuted. The sheer ignorance and denial of Mormons on historicity of the Christian church is beyond my mental comprehension. Exposing you to the Bible, church history, exegesis, textual criticism, etc., would bring you humiliation and embarrassment. I’ll spare you of this for the sake of your own pride. You are spiritually blind and dead so it’s a waste of time. You are DOA (dead on arrival) spiritually to the real God as demonstrated in the Bible (Eph 2:1).
You’re the only Mormon contributing here so relish in your temporary attention. You have garnered enough of mine. My efforts in ministry are to those that have not “seared their conscience” COMPLETELY to a false prophet and god (1 Tim 4:2) and are willing to listen and look at the evidence and the Gospel if God in His providence decides to open their heart and eyes to the truth (2 Tim 2:25-26; Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16).
It’s been a year. You’ve had enough time now to answer the question asked of you a year ago. Your inability to answer or deal with questions regarding Joseph Smith’s god is the real disappointment.
Repent.
Now.
That’s all.
Have a nice day.
OJ, frankly it would take me hours to compile a meaningful answer to your question, and I don’t have that kind of time to spend. I wish I did. Hundreds of books over the course of as many years have been written in defense of the biblical text. Do you think JS was the first one off the boat on this issue, as if he had made some new claim? False prophets have always existed questioning the bible, and will until the Lord returns. Have you ever heard of Mohammed or Charles Russell? I honestly don’t have the time or the patience to re-answer all of your questions. Remember how this conversation started? You were defending the accuracy of the JST, a bible that your own church won’t canonize because it would prove his utter ignorance of the bible and its message. If you want to believe it’s true, why not join the LDS group that uses it exclusively and toss out the KJV, which based upon your argument could have said Jesus was a pink show pony in its original form. If you insist on disparaging the reliability of the NT text then you must also doubt all of history prior to the past several hundred years. What we have learned about ancient history from literature has far less documentation with manuscripts that are far less consistent and are hundreds and thousands of years removed from the actual events (see mobaby’s posts, for example). Are you willing to hold secular history to the same standard that you hold the biblical record? Remember, if using the same standard you can’t fall back on archaeology as proof, because as Mormons always tell Christians, archaeological evidence or lack thereof doesn’t prove that something happened or existed or not. Case in point, the Book of Mormon. Nothing I or anyone else provides for you in the form of documentation will ever soften your heart apart from the work of God. The argument you present reveals a ludicrous double standard that I hope those seeking the truth will see. Thanks for the springboards to testify of the truth.
liv4jc,
You have come to the fundamental point I would suggest for you and LDS critics here- the EVs on this site do not have the same standard in approaching the BOM and Bible.
You have faith that the NT documents are true and accurate even though there is not a 100% traceable record from the apostles- the “missing link” being the vacuum of about 150 years of which I have spoken. I think you are largely justified in such a belief, although there are passages that I think probably did not make it through that infancy period.
None of you have good answers to my questions because nobody really knows the answers.
Understand that part of the problem I refer to is the decisions as to what texts and books would be included in the NT- who made those decisions and why. Did they really have authority? Some books have been removed over the last 2 millennia- who decided to do that?
I have absolutely no problem with you standing on faith in your position. My point is just that- you do not have 100% verifiable proof that the Bible is what you believe. Period. And that is OK.
There is plenty of proof for the BOM- the greatest in my opinion is the text itself. But like the Bible, a person ultimately stands on faith. You and others insist on a different standard of proof for the BOM. I just think you all should see that there is truly a double standard.
Andy- you sound like the officials who sentenced heretics to die at the stake a few centuries ago. Take it easy brother. I think this is intended to be a discussion directed by reason, evidence, and intelligence, not hysteria.
I have no idea what question you refer from a year ago. I have had hundreds of questions sent my direction over this period. And I do attempt to answer as many as I can, even though the reverse doesn’t happen too often.
Also-
Mobaby- the straw-man you through out there is equating my argument with the claim that “Christianity is not historical.” Christianity not being historical is a pretty huge, broad claim, and one which I never made. It is easy to refute at many levels largely because it is a very poorly defined claim. And in proving Christianity to be “historical” (whatever that might mean) you feel you would be proving my argument false.
My argument about the compilation and transmission of scripture is totally different that the argument “Christianity is not historical.”
That is a huge straw-man argument.
I’m not even close to being a biblical scholar, nor have easy access to reference books at this time, but there are a couple of things that Olsen Jim said that got my dander up a bit.
Olsen Jim– “WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS OF THE BIBLE- THE ORIGINALS”
Again- AoF 8 is spot on, and I can demonstrate that any person on this site is in agreement- simply answer the questions of which translation do you read and why?
A person obviously reads the translation they most trust or think is most accurate. So obviously there are varying degrees of reliability among the translations.
Editing the above– my time elapsed… :p
I’m not even close to being a biblical scholar, nor have easy access to reference books at this time, but there are a couple of things that Olsen Jim said that got my dander up a bit.
Olsen Jim– WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS OF THE BIBLE- THE ORIGINALS
Easy response–
NIETHER DO WE HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON- THE ORIGINAL PLATES.
It becomes a case of you show me yours…
Olsen Jim–
Since I trust the translators and therefore most modern translations, for everyday and devotional reading, I read the translation that flows most smoothly through my brain, which happens to be the NIV. I have others, just for variety, but I don’t think one is more accurate than the others.
Since I don’t read the one translation I trust most or think is most accurate, your supposition regarding the varying degrees of accuracy is invalid.
OJ,
I never said that you claim “Christianity is not historical.” Never said it. So who is using a straw man?
I am using the historical nature of the Christian faith, the verifiable truth of the accuracy of the books of the Bible from a historical perspective to destroy the Mormon position you hold that the Bible has been corrupted and many plain and precious truths have been removed. The preponderance of the historical evidence supports that we have accurately received what was originally written. The textual variants are so rare and minor that they are inconsequential, except to those skeptics such as yourself who come to these Biblical books with a presupposition that they are corrupt. Joseph Smith got it wrong, he failed to foretell what was coming, the manuscript evidence which would undo his claim of corruption. You can hold on to your belief that in the first 10 – 40 years (we have fragments of NT scripture dating from that early that attest that the books are accurate, that fill in even the 150 year gap you claim) the books were corrupted, however, there is NO EVIDENCE for this. We do NOT see widely varying manuscripts with sections removed or altered – either it didn’t happen or there was a massive conspiracy to track down every copy of every book and alter each one removing secret temple rituals or some such. There is a mountain of ancient historical documents testifying against your position. I am going with the reliability of Scripture. This has NOTHING to do with translation – NOTHING. Yes there are many different translations available today, but this has no bearing on whether we have accurate early manuscripts. It also has nothing to do with whether what the text of the Bible says is true, but we can know with a near certainty (not 100%, as nothing is ever 100%) that these books are accurate and reliable. The evidence is overwhelming.
Get rid of your straw man, and deal with the real argument.
Mobaby, LDS can’t deal with textual criticism because there is no basis for it in Mormonism. OJ says that there are millions of copies of the BoM, so using our reasoning it must be true. That’s like saying there are millions of copies of the King James Bible or the NASB, etc. so it must be true. There’s a huge difference. We actually have thousands of manuscripts that we can examine to determine if the KJV or NASB were translated correctly. We cannot do that with the BoM, and the BoA manuscript scroll fragment proves it’s a fraud. OJ is either playing stupid, being deceitful, completely spiritually blind, or is totally clueless to what the difference is. There are no BoM golden plates, brass plates, copper plates, papyri, manuscripts, or any other writing found anywhere on this continent that contain any portion of the BoM or describe the BoM culture apart from the manuscripts JS supposedly translated himself and the millions of BoM copies the LDS church distributes. The LDS church continues to lie to its members about the true origins of the BoM, the inerrancy in transmission from the early versions to the modern, and the method by which it was translated, while casting doubt on the reliability of the bible. Even after the plates had been taken to heaven we have textual variants within the BoM created by people who actually did add and remove text that affected doctrine, and we can prove it because we still have the earlier copies! This is how intellectually corrupt the LDS church and its scholarly members are (most members could care less about anything we are discussing). They criticize the bible and make claims they cannot prove, yet refuse to admit the problems that no original plate evidence and the thousands of documented changes to the BoM text present. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I often ask myself, “Are these people for real?”
Good job defending your position. I pray that what you have written will reach those who are searching.
Jim,
I’m trying to figure your position out. On one
hand you sound like a liberal “christian” who
has lost respect for God’s Word as being a
trustworthy guide for spiritual truth, yet on
the other hand you belong to a religion that
calls the Bible, God’s word, a standard guide
of your faith. Is the Bible trustworhy?
It seems like your leaders have given mixed
messages on this issue. I would expect better
from Christ’s “modern apostles”. Are you trying
to “muddy the water” by bringing up where some
verses are in question, or where there are some
unanswered questions on the Bible’s transmission
in the first two centuries of the Christian church?
I will say that for me, the Bible is trustworthy.
There are some verses that seem probmatic, yet
there is no doctrine in question. Here’s what
your church has said about the New Testament:
” This years adult curriculum study provides the
opportunity for a renewed emphasis on the New
Testament and it’s witness of the life and
teachings of the mortal Messiah–Jesus Christ.
Containing the most extensive record known to
exist of Jesus and of the apostles closely
associated with Him, the New Testament is one
of the world’s greatest written treasures….
Let diligence and determination govern our study
of this important compilation so that its
pages of eternal treasure might be opened as a
blessing upon all who partake of its truths.”
[ Church News,1-5-1991].
That sounds about right to me.
So the real issue is, have Mormon prophets/
apostles been trustworthy in their interpretation
of the Bible. Have they rightly divided the Word
of God? [2Tim 2:15].
OJ,
It’s always the same with you. You try to reason away the authority of the Bible for you and the decisions you make regarding your faith. I will say it again, and hope you can respond: you build your argument against the Bible on the faulty presuppositions that 1. God is not able to preserve His word; 2. the Jesus lied when He said the Spirit would lead us in all truth. We can accept the Bible as inerrant because we believe the opposite that you believe regarding God’s power and Jesus’ reliability when He speaks. You never address this other than with lame attacks against me. Are you not able to respond? You would have to be terribly honest and admit the presuppositions I assign to you and your thinking are true. That’s what the teachings of false prophets have done to you: they have “programmed” you (you can call it brainwashing if you want; I was just trying to be nice) to believe in a totally inept and impotent god that can’t swim against the tide of human frailties, sins, free-will, or whatever you think to be too much for him to preserve his word. That’s your god, OJ; it’s not the God as described in and throughout the biblical text. You have also been “programmed” to believe in a god who can’t save you and bring you into his prescence without the help of man’s efforts. What Mormons believe about God goes beyond synergism, and enters the realm of heresies. You talk about plain and precious truths being removed from the Bible by wicked men. Let’s see: god was a man, like you and me, which means he was also a sinner in need of a savior. That’s a precious truth? That sounds more like a lie, OJ; in fact, it is a lie when you measure it against the biblical text.
OJ, it is so sad to see you fight against the Truth. I pray for you, OJ, that you will be “deprogrammed” from the false teachings you have been carefully taught. When you can truly trust God for Who He is, you will be able to trust the written word He revealed to us.
Peace…
Rae,
You are correct- we don’t have the gold plates from which the BOM was translated. Neither do we have the autographs, or originals, from the NT (or OT for that matter).
That is my point.
Yet EVs routinely approach topics and arguments as if we do in fact have the original manuscripts from the Bible. And they criticize believers in the BOM for not having the “originals.” Total double standard.
I understand that you all disagree with me, but does anybody understand what I am saying? Can anybody account for the period between about 40 A.D. and about 140 A.D. as far as NT manuscripts?
As nobody can give a real answer for this, you have no ground to stand on when you say Joseph Smith didn’t know what he was saying when he said that plain and precious truths were removed from ancient scripture. Especially since the foremost experts in the field agree with him in principle.
Jack-
Can you show me where God said He would preserve the Bible. That is an interesting claim since there is no reference to the Bible in the Bible. The books of the Bible were compiled centuries after the last book was written. Once again I will ask- do you know who compiled the Bible and what criteria they used for choosing books?
Your argument of inerrancy has no legs my friend. Upon what evidences do you base your argument?
Using your logic, it should be impossible for some guy to burn a copy of the Bible. You are seriously functioning at that level of argument.
How does Jesus’ statement that the Holy Ghost would lead us into all truth mean the Bible collection of books is inerrant? You are making huge leaps of faith.
So don’t criticize LDS for believing the BOM. It looks silly from where you stand.
I posted this on Jan 14th and think it bears repeating:
“The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had one soul and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, teaches them, and hands them down with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.” – Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies I:10:2)
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Revelator. He was raised in a Christian home, & was familiar intimately with the Gospel. He was one of the first to recognize the canonical character of all four Gospels. He wrote primarily against the Gnostics, [who Mormons love to find similarities with]; who John condemns.
From this quote you see how ‘well aware’ the early Church Fathers were about keeping the integrity of God’s word, and how aware they were of the Heresies creeping into the Church. Men like Ireneaus grew up with the faith, were taught it by men who sat at the feet of the Apostles, and ‘handed down’ the doctrines of the Trinity and the Nature of God. The oldest fragment we have is the Gospel of John, dated at 125 A.D. This Mormon fantasy of Apostasy and the intentional deletion of plain and precious doctrines is a fantasy. What is ‘plain and precious’ about the SECRET Mormon Temple Ritual?
The notion of a ‘great apostasy’ is false, and the denigration of the Bible by modern-day revisionists & the claim of ’secret knowledge’ are as untrue today as theY were at the time of Ireneaus.
These men denounced polytheism & the notion that anything was created or made before God. They understood and taught that Jesus WAS GOD, not a spirit son of a mortal man who ‘attained’ Godhood by complying with Law. We have these teachings ‘handed down’ to us, through the preserved Word of God, and like the Christians of the First and Second Centuries, don’t want, don’t need and understand the heresy of ’secret doctrines’ taught by the Gnostics & by men like Joseph Smith. Jesus is the true Revelation, and is still guiding the world and those that believe on His Name by His Spirit. That is Modern Revelation, out in the open and there for ALL to see.
Jim, you are misrepresenting the Christian argument and you are well aware that you are lying. Nobody here has ever said that we are in possession of the original writings of the NT. What is being asserted is that despite thousands of textual variants among the tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts, fragments, miniscules, etc. the majority of the NT text is in agreement. The NT gospels and epistles were copied by hand and distributed quickly over a wide geographic area, probably within months or a few short years of being written. From those copies numerous other copies were made, and from those numerous copies were made, and so on. Mistakes that were made were repeated, and sometimes they were fixed or written in the margins as glosses, giving us more textual variants. Most of those mistakes are just that, mistakes in grammar, spelling, word addition or deletion, etc. Some copyists intentionally changed words to clarify doctrine and some intentionally added or removed portions to change doctrine, but when the existing manuscripts are taken as a whole and examined, we can identify what those differences are. The job of the textual critic is to try to discover as closely as possible what the original reading was by determining which textual variant is most likely the original reading, but somewhere among those variants the original reading still exists. What I think you are asserting is that sometime between 40 AD and our first compiled manuscript we had a single or very small line of textual transmission where someone was controlling the transmission of the text. During that time plain and precious truths were removed from the text, then the mass copying began giving us the enormous amount of textual evidence that we have today. That is the only way the kind of corruption you are alleging could have taken place. With all of the evidence we have those lost truths would be in there somewhere. We have zero BoM manuscripts or anything like it anywhere.
Until recently, I thought the Mormon 8AoF said that Mormons trust the Bible, given that there might be a few mis-translations to iron out.
Recently, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that 8AoF is a lie. The best word to describe it (I think the credit goes to jackg, an ex-Mormon, if I recall correctly) is “calculating”.
It is designed by a man with consummate language skills to deceive Bible-believers into thinking that he trusts the Bible, while affirming to his own disciples his skepticism of it.
However, his skills in language extend no further than his own mother tongue and his equally consummate ignorance that in other languages grammar, syntax, idioms and metaphors bore no direct “translation” to his own, particularly the ancient languages of the Hebrews and Greeks. According to the myth, he translated the BoM word upon word without the slightest hindrance from profoundly different sentence structures, tenses, idioms and the like.
Joseph Smith had no right to judge what was “translated correctly”. Its rather like asking Richard Dawkins to judge which is the “correct” Church to join (except that Dawkins has some worthwhile comments to make on genetics, and Joseph had some knowledge of…what? Freemasonry?)
The “…as far as it is translated correctly…” is a mean, malicious joke; made by a guy who wanted to fool the world into believing that he had a magic gift of translation.
Martin, I’m glad you put this out here. It’s nice to see someone who wasn’t in the program figure it out by different means.
This summary belongs on the luther post too :}
Grindael,
You make it sound as if all “church fathers” were in agreement about doctrine and theology. That could not be further from the truth.
Being a student of a student of an apostle does not guarantee anything. You are exercising a great deal of faith there- in a mortal man with no apostolic authority (who is considered by many to be a papist).
There were plenty of people who disagreed with Ireneaus on many points of doctrine. Why was he correct? He had opinions just as we all do. Are you willing to admit you are following somebody with no direct authority from God?
It just so happens that Irenaeus had great influence and many of his ideas happened to win in the counsels. That proves nothing. (the majority at the Counsel of Nicea were of the belief that The Father and Son were NOT one in substance).
Are you really saying that the government-supported and enforced religion that came from the first 2-3 hundred years after Christ was not apostate?
Honestly, it is hard to understand how you can claim the apostasy didn’t occur. I understand if you say Joseph Smith was wrong, etc. etc. But it simply doesn’t jive with history to claim that there was a clear and uniform gospel and theology at any period dating back to the first extant fragments of the NT.
From the earliest period onward there were divisions everywhere on theology and liturgy. I hardly know where to start to document such divisions and controversies. The fact that the government-sponsored counsels concluded certain things amidst great disagreement hardly seems the foundation to make any claim of unity. I am surprised a guy like you who seems cynical and doubtful about “the man” would make such arguments.
liv4jc,
“With all of the evidence we have those lost truths would be in there somewhere.”
That is a big assumption. And by the way, there are plenty of places one can find traces and elements of LDS doctrine back in the early church.
Yeah, Jim, we Christians are just full of big assumptions. What is not a big assumption I guess is that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon plates despite the fact that there is not any trace of evidence for a large, literate, pseudo-Jewish theocracy that spanned North America from coast to coast. There is not one fragment, miniscule, page, document, manuscript, scroll, metal plate, codex or any reformed Egyptian or Hebrew writing of any kind, secular or religious, that has been found on a continent that has been inhabited, explored, and excavated through archaeology and construction for hundreds of years.
Yes, Jim, you are correct. I am floored by your powers of reasoning and examination of evidence. How could I have not seen it until now? The evidence for the inerrant transmission of the BoM text is all around us, while we have no possible way of knowing if the events recorded in the bible or any other literary work of the ancient world actually occurred because we just don’t have the photocopies of the originals. Based upon the mountains of evidence for the BoM and the pristine character of Joseph Smith I’m going to denounce the Jesus of the bible and convert to Mormonism.
liv4jc,
It has been at least 3 posts since I explained my position, but you apparently have forgotten (or never understood).
My point is that EVs have a double standard for approaching the Bible and the BOM. When did I ever say we had the gold plates, etc.?
To date, nobody has attempted to answer my basic questions about how the Bible was compiled, who did it, what authority did they have, and what criteria did they use to exclude other works.
(I know it has been two or three sentences since I explained the purpose for my argument, so I will say again that it is not to diminish faith in the Bible, but to point out the double standard in approach).
OJ –
It is not a double standard. Here’s the argument in very simple terms:
The Book of Mormon – absolutely no historical or archeological evidence. No historical textual evidence – no 500 year old copies, no 1000 year old copies, no 1500 year old, no 1800 year old copies no 1900 year old fragments. Nothing – zip, zero.
The Books which comprise the Bible – an amazing abundance of evidence, both historical, textual, and archeological.
Very simple, yet HUGE difference – same standard applied to both.
Mobaby,
Trying to dismiss the BOM doesn’t answer any of my questions. Do you have answers to these fundamental questions about the Bible?
OJ,
You think you have something on us because there isn’t a passage that says God will preserve His word. It’s about what we believe about God. What we believe about God is not the same. Your god is unable to preserve his word, and your Jesus is a liar. You don’t see how it connects, but I can’t help that. I guess it’s just plain old-fashioned obstinancy on your part. So, go ahead and believe in the impotent god you believe in, and I’ll continue to believe in the Almighty and All-powerful God as described in the biblical text. He has the power to save you, OJ. All you have to do is believe in Him, and you will be justified by your faith. Your god doesn’t have that saving power, and needs you to help him with your works. Let me know how that works for you, OJ.
BTW, I don’t see how you can tell mobaby what you just said when you do the same thing.
Praying for your soul, OJ.