mormonism

[Der Alte]

This I agree with.

I was thinking you were stating that there are no errors at all in the bible. This is simply not the case as Paul's vision of the Lord is case in point. There are different versions of exactly how it transpired, but the infallible part is that the vision did happen and from this started a great and powerful ministry. I'm not so much concerned as to the mechanics, which differs somewhat, that's ok.
TW

The different accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion experience are NOT contradictory. What may appear, to some, to be contradiction are readily clarified by referring to the original language.

 

[twhite982]

Bible

Gen 1


Book of Mormon

2 Nephi 2:14-15

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
TW

 

[twhite982]

The different accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion experience are NOT contradictory. What may appear, to some, to be contradiction are readily clarified by referring to the original language.

Could you clarify for me the different accounts?

In one Paul's companions hear a voice and in the other they see a light.

Acts 9:7
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Thanks,
TW

P.S. As I looked through the greek it seemed to me to be pretty straightfoward. Hope to hear your insight on the verses.

 

[Der Alte]

Could you clarify for me the different accounts?

In one Paul's companions hear a voice and in the other they see a light.

Acts 9:7
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Thanks,
TW

P.S. As I looked through the greek it seemed to me to be pretty straightfoward. Hope to hear your insight on the verses.

It has to do with the case of the word. That "hearing a voice" was mentioned does NOT mean they did NOT see a light, or vice versa.

Here is the exegesis of these two verses by A.T. Robertson who taught Biblical Greek to Doctoral students for 47 years.

Strong's G191 ακούω akouō ak-oo'-o

A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Act 9:7 -
That journeyed with him (hoi sunodeuontes autōi). Not in the older Greek, but in the Koiné, with the associative instrumental. Speechless (eneoi). Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. Hearing the voice, but beholding no man (akouontes men tēs phōnēs, mēdena de theōrountes). Two present active participles in contrast (men, de). In Act_22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phōs etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in Act_9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one") a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phōnē as in Joh_3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouō is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phōnē. They heard the sound (Act_9:7), but did not understand the words (Act_22:9). However, this distinction in case with akouō, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in Joh_3:8 where phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Act_9:4. Besides in Act_22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Act_26:14, interchangeably.

Act 22:9 -
But they heard not the voice (tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in Act_22:7 to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (Act_9:7) just as they beheld the light (Act_22:9), but did not see Jesus (Act_9:7). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about Act_22:14; Act_26:14. The verb akouō is used in the sense of understand (Mar_4:33; 1Co_14:2). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul’s speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: “And they became afraid” (kai emphoboi egenonto). Clearly not genuine.​

 

[twhite982]

It has to do with the case of the word. That "hearing a voice" was mentioned does NOT mean they did NOT see a light, or vice versa.

Clearly I'm no greek specialist, but as I looked at the greek words used (light & heard) in context of other verses the meanings as it seems to be portrayed in Acts 9 and 22 seem to me to be correct.

This really is a secondary issue to me and I only brought it up because I feel the bible is not without error linguistically. Thats OK with me because I look past all that to the message for me.

Your quote is very interesting. You say that because they heard a voice, this doesn't necessarily exclude them from seeing a light and vice versa. Well this is what I've been trying to explain to you about John 4:24. Just because God is spirit doesn't preclude Him from being corpeal.

TW

 

[evangelist]

Anti-mormon sites are the ones that bash our church and try to discredit us.

they are warning sites that all.

 

[Der Alte]

Clearly I'm no greek specialist, but as I looked at the greek words used (light & heard) in context of other verses the meanings as it seems to be portrayed in Acts 9 and 22 seem to me to be correct.

This really is a secondary issue to me and I only brought it up because I feel the bible is not without error linguistically. Thats OK with me because I look past all that to the message for me.

Your quote is very interesting. You say that because they heard a voice, this doesn't necessarily exclude them from seeing a light and vice versa. Well this is what I've been trying to explain to you about John 4:24. Just because God is spirit doesn't preclude Him from being corpeal.

TW

Unfortunately, we cannot translate anything, sacred or secular, simply by looking up the meanings of words in a dictionary. Greek had five noun cases and several more verb tenses, which clearly affect how a word is rendered. A good example of the problem, in English, would be house. Is that the noun howss, a dwelling place? Or is it the verb howze, to place in a dwelling?

I have not been involved in the John 4:24 discussion but I see a difference. In the two accounts of Paul's Damascus road experience each account mentions something the other does not. Thus establishing the possibility of the missing element in the alternate account. With the John 4:24 account, I do not know of another verse anywhere that states or implies that God also had a flesh and blood body.

It would open a huge can of worms to start speculating on what characteristics God might have, simply because the Bible does not specifically say he does not have it. Here is a ridiculous example. Does God have three eyes? The Bible does not specifically say He doesn't.

 

[twhite982]

Unfortunately, we cannot translate anything, sacred or secular, simply by looking up the meanings of words in a dictionary. Greek had five noun cases and several more verb tenses, which clearly affect how a word is rendered. A good example of the problem, in English, would be house. Is that the noun howss, a dwelling place? Or is it the verb howze, to place in a dwelling?

Again I'm no greek specialist, but this is just how I see the greek words used for "light & heard" used in the context of other bible verses.

I have not been involved in the John 4:24 discussion but I see a difference. In the two accounts of Paul's Damascus road experience each account mentions something the other does not. Thus establishing the possibility of the missing element in the alternate account. With the John 4:24 account, I do not know of another verse anywhere that states or implies that God also had a flesh and blood body.

Flesh and bone, not flesh and blood.
Sorry I thought you were someone else , please forgive me

It would open a huge can of worms to start speculating on what characteristics God might have, simply because the Bible does not specifically say he does not have it. Here is a ridiculous example. Does God have three eyes? The Bible does not specifically say He doesn't.

There are concepts that aren't specifically outlined and clearly stated in the bible that we hold to be true. God having a physical body is hinted at in the bible, but I concede that it is not absolutely spelled out. The word trinity is not in the bible and neither is bible, but that stop people from believing these things.

TW

 

[Aaron11]

Could you clarify for me the different accounts?

In one Paul's companions hear a voice and in the other they see a light.

Acts 9:7
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Thanks,
TW

P.S. As I looked through the greek it seemed to me to be pretty straightfoward. Hope to hear your insight on the verses.

It is straightforward. People have to twist and turn the Bible because they are so convinced that it is perfectly inspired, word for word from God. Since it doesn't read that way, they try to make it work by trying to force the text.

 

[Aaron11]

It has to do with the case of the word. That "hearing a voice" was mentioned does NOT mean they did NOT see a light, or vice versa.

That is not what your Greek scholar was even saying. His point was that the words could have been used in different senses. Like, when Luke said that they heard the voice, he might've meant that the noise was heard. Then, when he said that they did not hear the voice, it could have meant that they did not understand. If you have already determined that the Bible is a perfect book that is a subject of plenary inspiration, then you basically have to believe this, although it is a stretch.

 

[Aaron11]

deleted

 

[Aaron11]

Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10 Did the centurion approach Jesus or send messengers to do such?

2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Chronicles 19:18 How many people did David really kill?

Here are two very basic contradictions in the Bible.

Some people think you have to assume that scripture is inspired word for word if there is any possibility. If you think this way, I am sure that no amount of evidence would change your mind. On the other hand, if you have your mind open at all you will realize that imperfections like this bear some weight in the argument.

Does this create a problem for my relationship with Christ? No. My relationship with Christ is based on the Gospel, which the Bible records. I believe that the Bible records the Gospel accurately. Of course there are some details that might be less than accurate, but perfection in text is not what pays for my sins.

 

[emerald Dragon]

SAatan can make you feel temporaly good, but only Christ can input teh love of God into your heart. When you pary, Satan cannot attack you, it is a direct link with God.


The stick of Judah is the bible, and the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon. This comes about because Joseph's descendants go across the ocean as the nephites. In the bible it says that Joseph's descendents will go "across the wall", meaning out of the Holy land. Judah's descendants became the old testament prophets, who wrote the bible.

I have to look up the exact verses.

 

[emerald Dragon]

the verses I told you about:

Gen. 49: 22(branches over the wall)
Ezek. 37: 19 (stick of Judah and joseph will be one in my hand)
John 10: 16(other sheep I have, which are not of this fold[the nephites])
The stick of Joseph was also known as the stick of Ephraim

The Stick of Ephraim:
A prophetic reference to the Book of Mormon as a record of one portion of the tribe of Ephraim that was led from Jerusalem to America about 600 B.C. When joined with the stick of Judah (the Bible), the two records form a unified, complementary testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, his resurrection from the grave, and his divine work among these two segments of the house of Israel. See Ezek. 37: 15-19

 

[Aaron11]

Definetly not proof text for anyone. If you were to read that without hearing your explanation, you wouldn't assume that it is talking about another people on the North American continent. It is convenient for Mormons to quote that, but it definetly isn't too strong of an argument.

 

[gort]

Aaron11,

It is the Spiritual things I am speaking of, not literary, nor minute differences in speech, language and customs of man.......the spiritual things of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit......these things are in tune and harmonize, the things that do not change, nor ever will. Not the voices heard by some, nor the lights that were seen, and possibly mistranslated, it is the "context" of things. What things mean spiritually.

The difference between worshipping and praying in the Spirit, and praying by giving lip service......taking scripture and beliefs out of context. The things that the Holy Spirit reveals to us are as treasures, filled with wonder and excitement, awe and inspiration, that which comes from the Heart of God, inspired to man throught the Holy Spirit, the opening of the eyes of the heart of man, by the work of the Holy Spirit, the restoration of man, after man has realized his sin and the true meaning of sin, that it is certain earned death, a just reward in the Righteous and Holy eyes of God, yet through His Love for us, and not that we love HIm, His beloved Son paid our payment of sin, by laying down His Life for man, and dying on the Cross, and rose again on the 3rd day. And through the washing of His Blood, for His Blood cleanseth all things, we are given imputed rightousness and become the sons of God. Through Grace alone, and not by works, for the works of man (to earn grace) are as dirty rags before the Lord. It is the Work of Christ Jesus on the Cross, that all who are written in the Book of Life, shall see the Face of God forever. And all these things were to be before the world was even made.

These things harmonize, and are in unity, as One, as are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[gort]

And then along came Joseph Smith.........

 

[Der Alte]

That is not what your Greek scholar was even saying. His point was that the words could have been used in different senses. Like, when Luke said that they heard the voice, he might've meant that the noise was heard. Then, when he said that they did not hear the voice, it could have meant that they did not understand. If you have already determined that the Bible is a perfect book that is a subject of plenary inspiration, then you basically have to believe this, although it is a stretch.

The first sentence, "It has to do with the case of the word." is what Robertson said. The second sentence, "That "hearing a voice" was mentioned does NOT mean they did NOT see a light, or vice versa.," was what I said. And that is NOT twisting anything.

Here it is again. Act 22:9 says they saw a light. Act 9:7 does NOT contradict that. It doesn't mention a light but it also does not specifically say they did not see a light. No contradiction.

Acts 9:7 says they heard a voice. Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice. But according to Greek scholars, including the one I quoted, the CASE of the word "hear" allows it to be interpreted in the sense of "understand." Again twisting nothing and no contradiction.

I look for how the scriptures can be harmonized instead of searching for so-called contradictions, which OBTW have been addressed in detail by several sites online.

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
​

"If you have already determined that the Bible is a perfect book that is a subject of plenary inspiration, then you basically have to believe this, although it is a stretch." And this is just the kind of stuff someone comes up with when they don't know the language, or the culture and are intent on finding errors and contradictions in the Bible.

Robertson doesn't stretch anything. If you think so, it will take more than that. Either go get, or find somebody with, 47 years experience teaching Greek, then, using the recognized Greek language resources, prove that the Greek word "akuow," never means "to understand." Plan on being embarrassed.

And OBTW Robertson wrote over 40 books on the Bible and NT, including a 2600 page Greek grammar which is still used as a reference today, 60 years after his death, and a 2 volume exegesis of the NT, Word Pictures in the New Testament," which I quoted from.

Those who thrive on finding so-called errors and contradictions in the Bible are generally those who use those alleged errors to excuse their unBiblical doctrines.

 

[Der Alte]

Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10 Did the centurion approach Jesus or send messengers to do such?

2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Chronicles 19:18 How many people did David really kill?

Here are two very basic contradictions in the Bible.

Some people think you have to assume that scripture is inspired word for word if there is any possibility. If you think this way, I am sure that no amount of evidence would change your mind. On the other hand, if you have your mind open at all you will realize that imperfections like this bear some weight in the argument.

Two very basically misunderstood texts, which enemies of Christianity and the Bible point to as errors and contradictions. Instead of just assuming these are errors, have you even bothered to find how they might be harmonized? There are several sites online that address these and other so-called errors and contradictions. I'll allow you time to demonstrate your objectivity and interest in finding the truth before I give you the answer. Are you as interested in reinforcing the truth in the Bible as you are in undermining it?

 

[solar_mirth]

the verses I told you about_:

Gen. 49: 22(branches over the wall)
Ezek. 37: 19 (stick of Judah and joseph will be one in my hand)
John 10: 16(other sheep I have, which are not of this fold[the nephites])
The stick of Joseph was also known as the stick of Ephraim

The Stick of Ephraim:
A prophetic reference to the Book of Mormon as a record of one portion of the tribe of Ephraim that was led from Jerusalem to America about 600 B.C. When joined with the stick of Judah (the Bible), the two records form a unified, complementary testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, his resurrection from the grave, and his divine work among these two segments of the house of Israel. See Ezek. 37: 15-19

the mormons believe that the stick of eprhaim means the book of mormon because scrolls were rolled on sticks. there are three problems with that belief. 1) the word used literally means a piece of wood. there is another word used for scroll. the word used here never means scroll anywhere in the bible. 2) the book of mormon was not written on a scroll anyways. it was written on golden tablets that could not be rolled on a stick if that were even correct in the first place. 3) the command is directed to "son of man." in the book of ezekiel this title refers directly to ezekiel himself. it is not a command to any human, it is a command to ezekiel. he didn't write the book of mormon, did he?

John 10:16 is referring to gentiles. Jesus is addressing a group of Jews at this point. he is referring to the fact that the gospel is for all people, not just the Jews.

Genesis 49:22 refers to the fruits of his spiritual life, not his loins. God is saying that other would be able to enjoy the fruits of his relationship with God. as they already had through his miraculous life.

none of these verses have anything to do with the book of mormon. if you have any more verses, though, i would like to hear them as well.