LDS The Reliability of the Bible

Yodas_Prodigy1 · Apr 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
No, I am just answering your statement. We live with the reality that the bible has not been translated correctly in all of its versions. You do not. And again, you reflect my argument, by telling me my argument is foolish instead of countering my argument with an your own argument. No counter argument, I win again.

Not really... The Bible is translated accurately... The message from God shows in all of the accurate translations - KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS ... What you have to grapple with is that the message of the Bible is consistent in each of these "translations"...

We have the Greek... We have the Hebrew... The irony in all of this is that you are willing to elevate the BOM with over 5,000 documented changes in it... You won't find 1% of that level of concern in the Bible...

Yodas_Prodigy1 · Apr 17, 2019

tampasteve said:
MOD HAT ON

So, what is the debate with LDS/Mormons that you are proposing? Can you state a position you are taking? Remember, officially the LDS use the KJV of the Bible - albeit with typically rather different explanation on the verses and often with exposition or additional quotes from the JSV. Also, let us remember part of this forum's SOP:

Debates are only between orthodox Christian members and members of the specific non-Christian religion or faith being challenged.

MOD HAT OFF

If you are speaking to me, I think I mentioned the debate within the OP.

'Why should we believe that the Bible is in any way in error or unreliable ("not translated correctly”)?'

As you read through the LDS responses, you see their opposition forming.

Blessings...

JackRT · Apr 17, 2019

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:
It is always good to show how little you guys know about the Bible...

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

I am sure that you realize that the word "virgin" in those citations is very questionable. A more accurate rendition is "a young woman who has not yet birthed a child". Aside from that the prophesy is not about an event centuries in the future but an event less than nine months away.

BigDaddy4 · Apr 18, 2019

Ironhold said:
How about responding to my post above?

No one else has.

How about actually responding to my post that you quoted instead of spinning of another rabbit trail?

Why would someone respond to your strawman arguments that you constructed and attempt to disprove?

Ironhold said:
Your average anti-Mormon work

Ironhold said:
The anti-Mormon works

Where are these "works"?

Peter1000 · Apr 18, 2019

BigDaddy4 said:
You get your winner's blue ribbon by participating in the thread, I guess?

Which "version" of Greek, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew is not translated correctly?

Nobody knows, since there is no originals. If you line them up, one beside the other and go verse for verse, you will see what I mean.

If for instance, take Revelations 3:14. If the Greek says X, and the Aramaic says Y, and the Hebrew says Z, where do you go to find out which one is the true Word of God? Nowhere. No originals. We are stuck with debate, which has been endless for thousands of years, even up to this day.

See what I mean?

So what do we do? We understand the limits of the bible, and we love to read it, and we know from present day apostles and prophets more information that can help us know the truth about
Revelations 3:14. That is why we need current apostles and prophets, to confirm what the bible says,
and keep us on the right path.

Peter1000 · Apr 18, 2019

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:
It is always good to show how little you guys know about the Bible...

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Interesting that you would find a name in the bible that is not "Jesus", but is 'Immanuel", and then tell me how little I know about the bible. Did the angel Gabriel tell Mary to name her child "Immanuel", NO. He told her to name the child "Jesus", which she did.

Now if Isaiah would have said, A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Jesus, that would have been what I am looking for. But he didn't.

I happen to believe that this verse from Isaiah does prophecy of the birth of Jesus, but why did he not use the name that Gabriel told Mary to name him?

Yes, 'God is with us' is true , but it is God the Son, not God the Father. So why is his actual name Jesus, which means to save, or rescue.

Until I know you, I would not ever tell you "how little you know about the Bible". You lose the discussion with those kinds of words.

This much I do know, you can search the OT for the rest of your life, and not find the name "Jesus" in any verse.

Peter1000 · Apr 18, 2019

JackRT said:
I am sure that you realize that the word "virgin" in those citations is very questionable. A more accurate rendition is "a young woman who has not yet birthed a child". Aside from that the prophesy is not about an event centuries in the future but an event less than nine months away.

The word 'virgin' is not controversial.

The only way it became controversial is centuries ago the Jews tried to change the word from 'virign' to 'a young woman'. They are the ones that tried to whitewash anything about a Messiah that would come to earth in a lowly station and be crucified and die on a cross. They did not understand the roll of the first advent Messiah. All they could see is the second advent Messiah that would come and conquer the world and be the King.

They could not stomach a lowly Messiah, so any verses in the OT that they thought referred to him, they changed or cut out. This is one of the verses they changed. What is so unique about a young woman giving birth to her first child. Nothing. So in their minds, it eliminated the miraculous virgin birth that was totally unique, which is what happened to our Savior Jesus Christ.

So again, no controversy. No spinning a more accurate rendition, it was simply and sublimely a 'virgin' birth.

JackRT · Apr 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
The word 'virgin' is not controversial.

The only way it became controversial is centuries ago the Jews tried to change the word from 'virign' to 'a young woman'. They are the ones that tried to whitewash anything about a Messiah that would come to earth in a lowly station and be crucified and die on a cross. They did not understand the roll of the first advent Messiah. All they could see is the second advent Messiah that would come and conquer the world and be the King.

They could not stomach a lowly Messiah, so any verses in the OT that they thought referred to him, they changed or cut out. This is one of the verses they changed. What is so unique about a young woman giving birth to her first child. Nothing. So in their minds, it eliminated the miraculous virgin birth that was totally unique, which is what happened to our Savior Jesus Christ.

So again, no controversy. No spinning a more accurate rendition, it was simply and sublimely a 'virgin' birth.

Do you seriously suggest that the Jews actually deliberately altered their own sacred scriptures? I see such a claim as just another anti-Semitic incident in the almost two thousand year history of such incidents.

Peter1000 · Apr 18, 2019

JackRT said:
Do you seriously suggest that the Jews actually deliberately altered their own sacred scriptures? I see such a claim as just another anti-Semitic incident in the almost two thousand year history of such incidents.

Did you see why they did it?

I am not anti-semitic. I love Isreal, I love that the Trump administration is for Israel. I have been to Israel 2 times and going again in 2020. I am not anti-Semitic. But they did alter their own holy books, especially apostate priests and scholars. Why did they do it? Did you read why?

Ironhold · Apr 18, 2019

BigDaddy4 said:
How about actually responding to my post that you quoted instead of spinning of another rabbit trail?

I take it that you have no answer then?

Why would someone respond to your strawman arguments that you constructed and attempt to disprove?

"The BoM talks about steel!" is one of the most common anti-Mormon arguments on the internet. Just about any work that tries to attack it directly is likely going to bring it up at some point.

Rubiks · Apr 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
The word 'virgin' is not controversial.

The only way it became controversial is centuries ago the Jews tried to change the word from 'virign' to 'a young woman'. They are the ones that tried to whitewash anything about a Messiah that would come to earth in a lowly station and be crucified and die on a cross. They did not understand the roll of the first advent Messiah. All they could see is the second advent Messiah that would come and conquer the world and be the King.

They could not stomach a lowly Messiah, so any verses in the OT that they thought referred to him, they changed or cut out. This is one of the verses they changed. What is so unique about a young woman giving birth to her first child. Nothing. So in their minds, it eliminated the miraculous virgin birth that was totally unique, which is what happened to our Savior Jesus Christ.

So again, no controversy. No spinning a more accurate rendition, it was simply and sublimely a 'virgin' birth.

Strictly speaking, the Greek word parthenos doesn't mean virgin either.

JackRT · Apr 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Why did they do it? Did you read why?

Yes, I read why. That charge is based on a guess. It remains to be proven. At the moment it is just innuendo.

Peter1000 · Apr 18, 2019

Rubiks said:
Strictly speaking, the Greek word parthenos doesn't mean virgin either.

How bout unstrictly speaking?

Yodas_Prodigy1 · Apr 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Interesting that you would find a name in the bible that is not "Jesus", but is 'Immanuel", and then tell me how little I know about the bible. Did the angel Gabriel tell Mary to name her child "Immanuel", NO. He told her to name the child "Jesus", which she did.

Now if Isaiah would have said, A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Jesus, that would have been what I am looking for. But he didn't.

I happen to believe that this verse from Isaiah does prophecy of the birth of Jesus, but why did he not use the name that Gabriel told Mary to name him?

Yes, 'God is with us' is true , but it is God the Son, not God the Father. So why is his actual name Jesus, which means to save, or rescue.

Until I know you, I would not ever tell you "how little you know about the Bible". You lose the discussion with those kinds of words.

This much I do know, you can search the OT for the rest of your life, and not find the name "Jesus" in any verse.

LOL's... Denial is a powerful tool...

Rubiks · Apr 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
How bout unstrictly speaking?

It seems to mean "virgin" in later Greek as well as modern Greek. "Parthenos" is just a translation of Hebrew "almah" (young maiden, etc.) which is usually, but not necessarily, a virgin.

BigDaddy4 · Apr 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Nobody knows, since there is no originals. If you line them up, one beside the other and go verse for verse, you will see what I mean.

Science is not your friend in this argument.

Peter1000 said:
If for instance, take Revelations 3:14. If the Greek says X, and the Aramaic says Y, and the Hebrew says Z, where do you go to find out which one is the true Word of God? Nowhere. No originals. We are stuck with debate, which has been endless for thousands of years, even up to this day.

See what I mean?

No, I don't see what you mean. Why don't you post Revelations 3:14 in all 3 languages and then we can compare them.

The only ones "stuck" on debate are the lds and others who do not trust Scripture and have to make up their own conspiracy theories to attempt to justify their own belief system. Some of us can trust the God keeps his word from generation to generation.

And this fascination with having to have the "originals" is so hypocritical it's funny, yet not funny. Where are your original "golden plates"? Produce those and then you may start to have some credibility in your demand for original Biblical texts.

Peter1000 said:
So what do we do? We understand the limits of the bible, and we love to read it, and we know from present day apostles and prophets more information that can help us know the truth about
Revelations 3:14. That is why we need current apostles and prophets, to confirm what the bible says,
and keep us on the right path.

There is no truth to be found in your false prophets.

BigDaddy4 · Apr 19, 2019

Ironhold said:
I take it that you have no answer then?

That's your answer to my question? Aren't you the one who occasionally spouts off about internet etiquette?? Do as you say but not as you do, huh?

Ironhold said:
"The BoM talks about steel!" is one of the most common anti-Mormon arguments on the internet. Just about any work that tries to attack it directly is likely going to bring it up at some point.

Not the topic of the thread nor the conversation. But you seem to jump out of your shoes to create these strawmen arguments.

Peter1000 · Apr 19, 2019

Rubiks said:
It seems to mean "virgin" in later Greek as well as modern Greek. "Parthenos" is just a translation of Hebrew "almah" (young maiden, etc.) which is usually, but not necessarily, a virgin.

Well we know this young maiden was a 'virgin'. OK?

JackRT · Apr 19, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Well we know this young maiden was a 'virgin'. OK?

At least one Bible scholar I have read suggests that the meaning is "a young woman, not necessarily married, who has not yet birthed a child".

Peter1000 · Apr 21, 2019

JackRT said:
At least one Bible scholar I have read suggests that the meaning is "a young woman, not necessarily married, who has not yet birthed a child".

I'm sure there are many 'bible scholars' that would take that position. I just am not interested in their particular scholarly studies. We know that Mary was a virgin, and still gave birth to Jesus the Christ. Right?

We don't even need a scholar to tell us that is the truth, let alone a scholar that is making a name for himself that tells us that it may not be necessarily true.

LDS The Reliability of the Bible

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

proud libtard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

proud libtard

It's a new season...

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads