LDS Symbols are Reminders

[mmksparbud]

Here is one account attributed to the Three Nephites.

... “At this critical moment, God showed them that he was on their side, for he performed one of the greatest miracles that ever happened. The Arabs suddenly threw down their arms and surrendered. When their delegation appeared with the white flag, they asked, ‘Where are the three men and where are all the troops we saw?’ The Jews told them that they did not know anything of the three men, for this group was their entire force. The Arabs said that they saw three persons, with long beards and flowing white robes who warned them not to fight any longer, otherwise they would all be killed. They became so frightened that they decided to give up. What an encouragement this was for the Jews to realize that God was fighting for them. ...

http://askgramps.org/have-there-been-any-sightings-of-the-three-nephites/

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...8D44E9983DB7C8F564F68D44E&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP


I find it offensive that you would take a miraculous incident, one of many, in the 6 day war, and attribute it to your belief system. There were literally thousands of angels see during this war. I saw the special were the soldiers, from both sides described this----nothing to do with Nephites.

 

[Super14LDS]

Some editorial comments seem to have made their way into the text itself. For instance, following the Savior’s declaration that John would “tarry till I come” (John 21:22), the narrative continues: “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (v. 23). Taken at face value, the second part of this statement seems to discount the idea of John’s being translated. Those words likely reflect an editor’s view of the speculation about John.[31]


That is what is said when faced with truth----However, in the original, not one single time is the wording any different----it is John that makes the statement as he does not want any misconception. It is clearly not an "editors' view of the speculation about John"

Nestle GNT 1904

ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει· οὐκ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, ἀλλ’ Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ;

Westcott and Hort 1881
Ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει. οὐκ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, ἀλλ' Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ;
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
Ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει. οὐκ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, ἀλλ' Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ;
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφούς, ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει· καὶ οὐκ εἴπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει· ἀλλ', Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρός σε;
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει· καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, ἀλλ’ Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ;
Tischendorf 8th Edition
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει· καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, ἀλλ’· ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφούς, ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει· καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει· ἀλλ’, Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρός σε;
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκει· ἀλλ' Ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι τί πρὸς σέ
not Adv
599 [e] apothnēskei ἀποθνήσκει, he dies; V-PIA-3S
235 [e] all’ ἀλλ’ but, Conj
1437 [e] Ean Ἐὰν If Conj
846 [e] auton αὐτὸν him PPro-AM3S
2309 [e] thelō θέλω I desire V-PSA-1S
3306 [e] menein μένειν to remain V-PNA
2193 [e] heōs ἕως until Conj
2064 [e] erchomai ἔρχομαι, I come, V-PIM/P-1S
5101 [e] ti τί what [is it] IPro-NNS
4314 [e] pros πρὸς to Prep
4771 [e] se σέ; you?

Unfortunately all your examples are after 383 A.D. where an opportunity was lost per this excerpt from a great article on the history of bible translations of which SDA Pastor Doug sparked my interest a couple of years ago when he discussed the critical and received texts.

... When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating: "Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been "altered, " "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time. Unfortunately, has Roman masters did not allow him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing corrupt Latin versions. ...

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/cassidy-factfiction4.html

 

[mmksparbud]

Unfortunately all your examples are after 383 A.D. where an opportunity was lost per this excerpt from a great article on the history of bible translations of which SDA Pastor Doug sparked my interest a couple of years ago when he discussed the critical and received texts.

... When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating: "Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been "altered, " "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time. Unfortunately, has Roman masters did not allow him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing corrupt Latin versions. ...

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/cassidy-factfiction4.html

From the same article:

"There are only two types of texts, the correct text, and the corrupt text! The overwhelming majority of the evidence indicates the correct text is best represented by the Traditional text that has been preserved by God, and all others represent the corrupt, heretical text that has been decimated by the attacks of Satan and his unbelieving hoards.

The Guardians of the New Testament. Just as God appointed the Jews to be the guardians of the Old Testament, so also He has appointed guardians of the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 3:14, 15, the Bible says, "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth", and in John 17:17, the Lord Jesus Christ identifies what exactly that truth is, "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truthThe Bible clearly teaches that the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and that the truth is the Word of God. Therefore, the local church is the pillar and ground, the guardian, of the Word of God, the Bible.."

This is the 2nd time you have tried to use my church to uphold your believes----don't do it again. And I will tell you this----Even if someone from my church should write something that agrees with your distorted view of the bible---I will turn on them like a scorpion.

 

[mmksparbud]

Just so there is no misunderstanding----I do not blindly follow the dictates of my church. I follow the bible and anytime they, as a church, should not agree with the bible, I will no longer call myself a member. There have been members that have tried to pawn off their own ideas as that of the church---they've been quickly severed from the body. If the church should turn and start preaching something unbiblical, that is the cut off point. Whatever new light God gives, will not contradict the light He has already given. His word is not to be messed with. So do not continue trying to find something that someone from my church has written that you think upholds a Mormon view. You can sound like you follow the same Christian ideals, but in the center of it will be JS and his writings. If you throw out JS, you have nothing, for you discount the bible --- you can throw out EGW and our doctrines still stand for they are biblical. You can throw out the Pope and the Catholic church would still have the bible, you can throw out Luther and Protestants would still have the bible. Yours is the only one that if you throw out JS---the whole thing falls.
Isa_55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

[fatboys]

Just so there is no misunderstanding----I do not blindly follow the dictates of my church. I follow the bible and anytime they, as a church, should not agree with the bible, I will no longer call myself a member. There have been members that have tried to pawn off their own ideas as that of the church---they've been quickly severed from the body. If the church should turn and start preaching something unbiblical, that is the cut off point. Whatever new light God gives, will not contradict the light He has already given. His word is not to be messed with. So do not continue trying to find something that someone from my church has written that you think upholds a Mormon view. You can sound like you follow the same Christian ideals, but in the center of it will be JS and his writings. If you throw out JS, you have nothing, for you discount the bible --- you can throw out EGW and our doctrines still stand for they are biblical. You can throw out the Pope and the Catholic church would still have the bible, you can throw out Luther and Protestants would still have the bible. Yours is the only one that if you throw out JS---the whole thing falls.
Isa_55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

You are not anything more than I am. You cannot interpret the bible because you do not have the authority to do so. your church does not the power or authority to interpret the bible. If there was a church or person who could interpret correctly they would be called a prophet or an apostle. You have done your best but so have thousands of other mainstream Christians.

 

[drstevej]

You are not anything more than I am. You cannot interpret the bible because you do not have the authority to do so. your church does not the power or authority to interpret the bible.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul commends believers in Berea for searching the Scripture for themselves to evaluate the accuracy of Paul's teaching. Your post is evaluated as errant in light of the teaching of Acts 17:11.

 

[fatboys]

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul commends believers in Berea for searching the Scripture for themselves to evaluate the accuracy of Paul's teaching. Your post is evaluated as errant in light of the teaching of Acts 17:11.

Say an imperfect man who is not authorized to interpret any scriptures

 

[mmksparbud]

You are not anything more than I am. You cannot interpret the bible because you do not have the authority to do so. your church does not the power or authority to interpret the bible. If there was a church or person who could interpret correctly they would be called a prophet or an apostle. You have done your best but so have thousands of other mainstream Christians.

And did I say I was???? And for your information---every church has their prophets--the Catholic church is loaded with them, we have them. Luther is considered one---who isn't one is JS. And guess what----nobody ever has to shake the hand of Satan or his angels to spot him.
Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Say an imperfect man who is not authorized to interpret any scriptures

Scripture doesn't need "interpretation" by a person - Scripture interprets itself. All we as people need to do is search the Scriptures. All of us are imperfect which is why nobody needs to be given special powers in order to understand Scripture. The only thing anyone has to do is read it and work to understand it just like anything else we read.

It's logic and reason. The Scriptures provide the story, the information. Faith comes into play when a person decides whether to believe it or not. Many people understand the Bible and don't accept it. I took a "Bible as Literature" class in college and the understanding was clear to anyone in the class, and they understood it, but many did not accept it, including the professor who delivered the class. Only Scripture interprets Scripture. We don't do anything more than understand it. Huge difference.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Scripture doesn't need "interpretation" by a person - Scripture interprets itself. All we as people need to do is search the Scriptures. All of us are imperfect which is why nobody needs to be given special powers in order to understand Scripture. The only thing anyone has to do is read it and work to understand it just like anything else we read.

It's logic and reason. The Scriptures provide the story, the information. Faith comes into play when a person decides whether to believe it or not. Many people understand the Bible and don't accept it. I took a "Bible as Literature" class in college and the understanding was clear to anyone in the class, and they understood it, but many did not accept it, including the professor who delivered the class. Only Scripture interprets Scripture. We don't do anything more than understand it. Huge difference.

You are suspiciously leaving out the Holy Spirit...

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You are suspiciously leaving out the Holy Spirit...

I'm talking about understanding, not believing. I already said this, re-read what I said earlier.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I'm talking about understanding, not believing. I already said this, re-read what I said earlier.

An I'm primarily concerned about belief. I've said that multiple times.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

An I'm primarily concerned about belief. I've said that multiple times.

So what part are you failing to understand?

 

[Rescued One]

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul commends believers in Berea for searching the Scripture for themselves to evaluate the accuracy of Paul's teaching. Your post is evaluated as errant in light of the teaching of Acts 17:11.

I'm sure Joseph Smith knew he wanted to change the Bible, so he wrote 1 Nephi 13

"It has been the rule of my life to find out if I could, by listening closely to what they said and by asking the Lord to help me interpret it, what they had in mind for the Latter-day Saints to do and then do it. I am happy to say, not boastfully but gratefully, that I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life."
Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1941, p.123

 

[fatboys]

I'm sure Joseph Smith knew he wanted to change the Bible, so he wrote 1 Nephi 13

"It has been the rule of my life to find out if I could, by listening closely to what they said and by asking the Lord to help me interpret it, what they had in mind for the Latter-day Saints to do and then do it. I am happy to say, not boastfully but gratefully, that I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life."
Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1941, p.123

So what your saying is that Joseph Smith had foresight to put into the Book of Mormon that the bible was incomplete at the age he translated it? Talk about far reaching.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes, JS was very clever, I must say. He has a lot to answer for. That there is a higher power is no doubt, to me anymore, but it is not of God. It all seeks to elevate man, and in the process, diminishes God and Jesus---that is very obvious now. I didn't see that at the very beginning. With every new thing that has been introduced here, it became more and more glaring. And now----bloody sweat paid the price for our sins!!! The sheer torture that Satan put our Christ through is made of little importance. I bet you all do not approve of the movie by Mel Gibson-----it points out the horrors of the cross, not Gethsemane. The start of the action does not ever mean it is finished----as the saying goes---it ain't over till the fat lady sings---she sang at the cross---not at Gethsemane. And the final curtain, however, was on resurrection day. There Satan was put in his place for good. The entire universe has now seen that the sin he started with his rebellion in heaven, finally ended with what he did at the cross. He thought the death of Christ was the end and victory was His----The resurrection marks the start of the end of Satan, that end comes soon.

 

[fatboys]

Yes, JS was very clever, I must say. He has a lot to answer for. That there is a higher power is no doubt, to me anymore, but it is not of God. It all seeks to elevate man, and in the process, diminishes God and Jesus---that is very obvious now. I didn't see that at the very beginning. With every new thing that has been introduced here, it became more and more glaring. And now----bloody sweat paid the price for our sins!!! The sheer torture that Satan put our Christ through is made of little importance. I bet you all do not approve of the movie by Mel Gibson-----it points out the horrors of the cross, not Gethsemane. The start of the action does not ever mean it is finished----as the saying goes---it ain't over till the fat lady sings---she sang at the cross---not at Gethsemane. And the final curtain, however, was on resurrection day. There Satan was put in his place for good. The entire universe has now seen that the sin he started with his rebellion in heaven, finally ended with what he did at the cross. He thought the death of Christ was the end and victory was His----The resurrection marks the start of the end of Satan, that end comes soon.

Think about it. Think about all the blood which has npbeen spilt and the thousands which which were hung on crosses they may have been tortured more cruel but not one sin was paid for. You want me to believe that Jesus paid for all transgressions on a device that thousands before him had died on?
You believe that if a person does not believe they will be thrust down to hell and live eternally in pain and suffering. Why would God require more from those who do not repent than what the savior went through on a device of death?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Think about it. Think about all the blood which has npbeen spilt and the thousands which which were hung on crosses they may have been tortured more cruel but not one sin was paid for. You want me to believe that Jesus paid for all transgressions on a device that thousands before him had died on?
You believe that if a person does not believe they will be thrust down to hell and live eternally in pain and suffering. Why would God require more from those who do not repent than what the savior went through on a device of death?

It's not a matter of what I want you to believe; the Bible says that Christ paid the price for our sins on the Cross and that those who reject this will be cast into hell. You can believe what you want but the Bible says what it says and it's your choice to believe it or reject it.

As for God "requiring more from those who do not repent than what the savior went through on a device of death", I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing that those who don't repent can do to be saved.

 

[fatboys]

It's not a matter of what I want you to believe; the Bible says that Christ paid the price for our sins on the Cross and that those who reject this will be cast into hell. You can believe what you want but the Bible says what it says and it's your choice to believe it or reject it.

As for God "requiring more from those who do not repent than what the savior went through on a device of death", I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing that those who don't repent can do to be saved.

John this is your interpretation. And he did pay for sins on the cross but it doesn't make sense to me that God shuttered from fear or weakness at the thought of death or spilling blood. He is God. If it doesn't make sense I struggle with it to be true. It makes more sense to me that in order to pay the price God had to go through a process that was more than a mortal could go through. The cross was not sufficient to do the job in my opinion.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

John this is your interpretation.

No, this is what the Bible says. It doesn't involve my feelings or beliefs.

And he did pay for sins on the cross but it doesn't make sense to me that God shuttered from fear or weakness at the thought of death or spilling blood.

That it doesn't make sense to you and you use that for establishing your belief means that you are the one interpreting it to be something. Interpretation means you are viewing it subjectively (as you accused me of doing, even though I'm objectively looking at what the Bible says).

He was a man - why wouldn't he have shuddered at the prospect of torment and suffering? What man wouldn't?

He is God.

Fully God and fully man - both.

If it doesn't make sense I struggle with it to be true. It makes more sense to me that in order to pay the price God had to go through a process that was more than a mortal could go through. The cross was not sufficient to do the job in my opinion.

Again, you put your own subjective views above what God's Word says. Your opinion doesn't stack up to the facts of the Bible.

To a lot of people it doesn't make sense that God would send someone to hell for not believing even if that person did many good works for most of his life while sending someone who sinned most of his life to heaven simply because that person repented and accepted Him. It doesn't seem "fair" to our senses. But this is what God has deemed to be fair and it is what God says makes "sense" to Him. Our concepts of justice and fairness are perverted by sin and we must look to and obey God for what is truly fair.