Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums $5 Off Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Shop Popular Services pivdl pivdl pivdl  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Baby Sale
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Scripture that proves the book of Mormon is not from God


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 962 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 2:25:30 PM PDT
Mickey's post:
But yes, if God (assuming he exists) creates a person knowing they will jump off a cliff or smoke, although he doesn't have to, he is responsible.
=================================
God doesn't know, Hence the reason for this earth life. If God knew, then there would be no point in testing us here on earth.

While I recognize that God knows all knowledge. And as such, is referred to as "all knowing". I don't believe however, that when I reach out to grasp a glass of water, he'll know whether I will accidentally dump it or not.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

JesusChrist.lds.org

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 2:30:47 PM PDT
Mickey says:
Did God know what Adolf Hitler would do the Jews?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 2:53:41 PM PDT
Mickey says:
I'm not sure what you mean by "perceptions." Are you referring to hearing, sight and smell?

I certainly don't see logic in that.
---------------------------------------------------
Hm... Let's have another go at this simple reality.

There are three "systems" of perception in the human race.

All you need to do is name them and once you do so then we can proceed with answering some of your statements and questions correctly.

If you need help, make a phone call or two, the answers you get there may actually give you a handle on whether the individuals you know are cognizant of the subject or not. This naturally will be of future use to you if at some point you need knowledgeable information/advice. At least you will know where to turn.

Suggest you bring this discussion over to the Amazon thread "Prometheus Lass Conversations with San Diego". Where the subject can be discussed without a lot of "fluff" that takes place here.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 2:56:30 PM PDT
Mickey says:
I don't know what you're talking about,so I think you'd better name them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:18:09 PM PDT
Joseph Smith, he dead.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:25:13 PM PDT
May 29, 2012 2:56:30 PM PDT
Mickey says:

I don't know what you're talking about,so I think you'd better name them.
-------------------------------------------------------

San Diego reply:

One is rationalism. What are the other two?

It is not my job to teach sixth grade subject matter on these threads. Your job is to know "how" to think before you actually engage "any" subject matter.

If you want to continue to discuss the subject matter on this thread (or any thread for that matter) you need to have a handle on the "mechanics" of human "systems" of perception.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:34:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 3:40:08 PM PDT
Mickey says:
My job is to know how to think?

Given your interminable and confusing posts, I question if you know how to think. A primary sign of good thinking is clarity. And whatever you're talking about, it's not sixth grade subject matter.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:51:31 PM PDT
May 29, 2012 3:34:46 PM PDT
Mickey says:

My job is to know how to think?
Given your interminable, unclear and verbose posts, I question if you know how to think. A primary sign of good thinking is clarity. And whatever you're talking about, it's not sixth grade subject matter.
--------------------------------------------------
San Diego reply.

I had the subject in sixth grade. And that was 76 years ago.

Again, one of the three "systems" of perception is rationalism.

What are the other two?

If you find this difficult it is not surprising your grasp of other realities is also in need of comprehension adjustment.

Just two more to go; remember the "Little train that Could". Take you time, those of us reading these posts are not in any hurry. Ask around, be teachable. If you need to view the movie "Good Will Hunting" again, do so.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:02:01 PM PDT
Mickey says:
"Sixth grade subject matter" is common knowledge and this is not. I googled "3 systems of perception" and there was nothing there about rationalism and two other systems. I assume your two other systems are something like emotion, spirituality, etc., but there's no way for me to know if you don't tell me. And patronizing and belittling me, as you are doing, is not evidence of a superior intellect. Just tell me what they are, or stop wasting my time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:30:21 PM PDT
I don't know.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

Posted on May 29, 2012 5:03:19 PM PDT
AGmaC says:
Wow, a lot of time spent here verbalizing things that are assumed and speculated. Time that could have been spent praying and asking God to teach you something about it. Too bad - a lot of discussion for nothing. I remember the Savior of Mankind saw a lot of that going on among those who 'knew what religion should be' (so the Sadusees, Pharisees, Hippocrates, Scribes thought). He walked past them and they never recognized that he was the answer to all their discussions.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 6:00:08 PM PDT
How little do they realize. ;-)

What part of the Great North West are you from?

And Oscar is a Great Movie!

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 6:08:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 6:09:04 PM PDT
AGmaC says:
Me? Oregon - died in the wool, true blue, through and through Oregonian. Grew up in Eugene and love the free thinking I learned there - Go Ducks. ;) In order to stay with the discussion though, I'll add that I didn't ever find out what scripture proved that the Book of Mormon wasn't true - and why it would prove that. I just haven't read any such scripture in the New Testament. So, with going on 175 comments, the title of this discussion is still hanging out there. Too bad.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:33:23 PM PDT
John -My LDS friend showed me in the back of his KJV a section of corrected verses done by J Smith. He said that Smith's translation was the most accurate translation available.

I don't recall the verses cited there - except for John 1:1, which bore little resemblance to the actual Greek text. I pointed out to my friend that what he was so proud of was not a "better translation" from Smith, but it was a whole new reading that was radically different from the Greek text. The issue created by Smith was not one of translation, but, rather, one of textual accuracy. I asked what manuscripts Smith used to create his "better translation," and I just don't think my friend could grasp the issue created when somebody wants to alter the Greek text of the NT, without any manuscript support whatsoever..

If an angel came to me and said that the accepted version of the Greek text was in error, and he was going to reveal to me a corrected version, I would reject that angel, as well as his new version.

It's one thing to argue over verses where there are textual issues, but, good grief, there are no textual issues with John 1:1. How many NT manuscripts do we have? - 5,000?. Not all include the Gospel of John, but there must be a few hundred that do.

This is a perfect example of why Paul warned against anyone - even an angel - that tried to teach a different gospel.

My LDS friend: a sweet guy, but sadly indoctrinated into non-biblical theology. And his mind is closed to rational thinking. He thinks with his emotion, instead of his intellect. From what I've seen, that seems to be the method used in the LDS Church

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:35:03 PM PDT
Great point, nothing in the NT disproves the Book of Mormon.

Rather, John 20: 30 ¶And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
And John21: 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Seem to indicate there would be more of Gods word.

Christ indicated there were other sheep he needed to visit. And the OT Ezekiel mentions the Stick of Judea and Ephraim all indicate more to come.
The above mentions no book by name, but rather books to come.....

I grew up in Kitsap County WA. Tad distant from Eugene.

Alaska's constitution was based on Oregon's.

Welcome to the Amazon forums.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 8:50:44 PM PDT
Michael R. Davenport's post:
I don't recall the verses cited there - except for John 1:1, which bore little resemblance to the actual Greek text. I pointed out to my friend that what he was so proud of was not a "better translation" from Smith, but it was a whole new reading that was radically different from the Greek text. The issue created by Smith was not one of translation, but, rather, one of textual accuracy. I asked what manuscripts Smith used to create his "better translation," and I just don't think my friend could grasp the issue created when somebody wants to alter the Greek text of the NT, without any manuscript support whatsoever..
=================================
Your friend is apparently unaware that the Inspired Translation of the Bible wasn't a re-translation from ANY prior text. Rather, it was revelation straight from God to Joseph Smith of what was originally recorded. I postulate that when the ORIGINAL manuscripts are found, that they will match what was revealed to JS.
The ultimate source of truth? The Buck stops with God. And if God had JS correct a Bible verse, who are we to second guess God?

BTW, the LDS church doesn't own the copyright for the Inspired Version of the Bible, nor has had custodial possession of it. The LDS church can't vouch for the transmission accuracy of the Inspired Version. There is a small chance that what JS wrote down has also been altered. Hence one possible reason why it's added only as foot notes to the LDS edition of the KJV of the Bible.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

scriptures.lds.org

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 10:31:27 PM PDT
John,

Can you point me to where David Koresh told his followers there was "another" testament? Or for that matter Jim Jones?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 11:23:38 PM PDT
Brother NIV,

I don't think that is what he said, it certainly isn't what I read. I think he was stating simply that the logic he was using against the LDS could be equally applied to what he was stating.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 12:23:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 30, 2012 12:31:10 AM PDT
John

You said:

sadly indoctrinated into non-biblical theology

Reply

Could you or ought you be referring to the many who are indoctrinated into the Nicene Creed, which even Athanasius admitted was NONBIBLICAL. Are you indoctrinated into the nonbiblical Nicene Creed?

Athanasius admitted it was nonbiblical but claimed he was obligated to use nonbiblical wording because Arius had done it first. Now that the bible is freely available to the common man and has wide circulation, it has created many diverse opinions about how it should be interpreted. We are free to read the bible for ourselves and not confined to the opinions of castrated monks from the 3rd century, whose education was from the Greek schools of philosophy and who mirrored the language of those schools as they laid down their descriptions of what truths existed in Christianity. It would have been better had they simply distributed the bible and let people read for themselves.

Everyone who listens to anyone who produces commentary of any kind which is extrabiblical could have this accusation made against them. Early in the U.S. the Presbyterian Church would not allow ANY songs to be sung except literally the Psalms, because anything else would be unbiblical. Now, everyone recognizes in view of the explosion of thousands of documents, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls and Koch's Apocalypse of Abraham, that the ancient world had many religious things which we did not retain long enough to put in the bible. Every bible believer today, perhaps unwittingly through personal interpretation believes something which is not supported by the text. The first shock when you study NT Greek is how many possibilities there are for nearly every paragraph.

Since the discovery of the Memphite doctrine, (see the Shabako stone) for example, and the current awareness of the concept of a Grand Council in Heaven prior to earth's formation, there are scholars who regard much of the Abrahamic literature as credible material. Some think that the word "Logos" in John 1 actually refers to this council, at which God's word was sufficient to put everything in action. The Greek is entirely consistent with this idea, which has only recently come into awareness as material on the Grand Council has come to the fore. To think that a few bishops just happened on ALL the possible truth that there was to be had in ancient documents is not a theory that flies any more, not in the face of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are thousands of years older than any document used to translate our present day bible.

It doesn't pay to be dogmatic anymore, and no Christian can claim a monopoly on reading the entire bible accurately. We learn more every day. Not a few passages of the OT come from old Egyptian literature. Who would have guessed. It is too late in the day for any one person to claim "I" have the truth, listen to ME." Dogma is out and investigation is in. We are all searching for the truth, using whatever helps are available to us.

P.S. I happen to believe Athanasius was sincere. That doesn't mean I think he was right. Too much Aristotle in his language.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 1:30:04 AM PDT
Blu Boy says:
To be fair Brother Niv, for your father son story to equate to god, the father would be the one driving the car that runs the kid over with.... purposefully.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 1:37:14 AM PDT
Blu Boy says:
arpard-

You win ten points for this comment. Heart of Darkness is one of my favorite novels and for you to mirror Kurts with Smith is revelatory! Bravo.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 7:55:06 AM PDT
John says:
Reed

"Can you point me to where David Koresh told his followers there was "another" testament? Or for that matter Jim Jones?"
They all claimed they received a revelation for God.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 7:58:19 AM PDT
John says:
Church of Jesus Christ of LDS
"Rather, John 20: 30 ¶And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
And John21: 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Seem to indicate there would be more of Gods word." That may be true but the revelation WILL NOT come from an angel.And it WILL NOT come from Joseph Smith because he added to the book of revelation.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:04:21 AM PDT
John says:
Church of Jesus Christ of LSD
"The FACT is that 14 million LDS consider this Gospel the same as the NT Gospel." So? The Fact is that every major cult believes their Bible to be the same as the New Testament gospel.
"
"We see all the other denominations as the "another Gospel", manifest by FACT they are all different, no unity." But the FACT is they never recieved their revelation for another gospel from an angel.

"What specifically do you see as not the same? " For one Joseph Smith said the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri.In the Bible God says Zion will be His dwelling place FOREVER.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:08:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 30, 2012 8:20:37 AM PDT
John says:
Jeffery
"
"Jeff's reply: Here is what Jesus taught about the gospel in the Book of Mormon:.
Jeff's reply: Here is what Jesus taught about the gospel in the Book of Mormon:"

Since Joseph Smith got his revelation for the book of Mormon from an angel it is not of God,no matter what Joseph Smith wrote about what Jesus said.Many false prophets wrote things they said they recieved from God.Plus Joseph Smith added to the book of Revelation.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
780 7 days ago
Catholic-Protestant Discussion Part XXX 8625 1 minute ago
Christian religious liberty under attack 6363 1 minute ago
Intelligent Design demolished in three words 185 2 minutes ago
Love Wins 1700 3 minutes ago
Opinions on Carrier's 'On this Historicity of Jesus'? 204 6 minutes ago
Signs we are Living in the Last Days - Apostasy, Counterfeit Christianity, Persecution, the Rapture of the Church, the Time of Tribulation, and the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ... Part Two 2836 8 minutes ago
Things Biblegod can't do 1037 10 minutes ago
A chance to prove Christianity 49 17 minutes ago
Can Christianity be saved from the harm done by Literalist ID/Creationist End Times fundies: Part the Ninth 7648 36 minutes ago
Paul's vicarious sin atonement doctrine: morally reprehensible and un-Christian 2381 44 minutes ago
coming soon to a nation near you? 0 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  51
Total posts:  962
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 26, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions