KONGOS 0 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Lol. I give you a scripture, you point out some books and say that YOU don't think that the scripture can actually be taken litteraly and I am suppose to get all excited? Not me. You can question all you want, but the time will come when your questions are answered emphatically and you aint gonna like it. So, good luck.I was expressing my opinion on the matter. You still didn't say whether you've read the books or not. I'm assuming you haven't - it would mean getting a different and/or even new perspective on your faith which would probably just be sinful in your eyes. It doesn't matter though, it seems you are absolutely sure about everything you believe in. I am going to continue questioning because I'm not one to blindly follow anything - when you do that, you get things like Germany in WWII. Good luck to you... Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I was expressing my opinion on the matter. You still didn't say whether you've read the books or not. I'm assuming you haven't - it would mean getting a different and/or even new perspective on your faith which would probably just be sinful in your eyes. It doesn't matter though, it seems you are absolutely sure about everything you believe in. I am going to continue questioning because I'm not one to blindly follow anything - when you do that, you get things like Germany in WWII. Good luck to you...WEll i can say that i have read a few of the "lost scrolls" and let me some this...some seem pretty normal and I could see why people would want them in the bible...others make the Book of Mormon seem normal. The problem is this though...based on historical evidence we know that these books were nto written by who they were claimed to be buy. Most were first introduced after these people died.Its great that you are out lookin at all aspects but just realize that historicall these other texts just dont meet any sort of reliability test Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 ...others make the Book of Mormon seem normalwhat is IN the bible makes the book of mormon seem normalIts great that you are out lookin at all aspects but just realize that historicall these other texts just dont meet any sort of reliability testwhat reliability test is there that books in the bible meet that others don't? Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 what is IN the bible makes the book of mormon seem normalwhat reliability test is there that books in the bible meet that others don't?haha u should do a quick read of the book of mormon and their rules...i think ull find that in contrast the bible is quite a bland and boring readI am not going to go into the detail of what all happened but the jist is that they had to pass several tests including having to have been attributed to the author (reason the Gospel of Peter and Paul are not in the bible). They needed to be shown to be from the correct time period...(these meetings were done less than 200 years after the time of Jesus to unify the bible) and finally they had to be inline with the known teachings of Jesus. Several books came out afterwards that were more towards the mystical side were discounted based on the third reasoning and the fact that they were known to be from a later date then when Jesus and the Disciples lived Link to post Share on other sites
mcsoupman 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 what is IN the bible makes the book of mormon seem normalwhat reliability test is there that books in the bible meet that others don't?You must be talking about the canon or measuring stick used to identify what writings should be included in the Bible.written by a prophet or prophetically gifted personwritten to all generationswritten in accord with previous revelation Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 haha u should do a quick read of the book of mormon and their rules...i think ull find that in contrast the bible is quite a bland and boring readI am not going to go into the detail of what all happened but the jist is that they had to pass several tests including having to have been attributed to the author (reason the Gospel of Peter and Paul are not in the bible). They needed to be shown to be from the correct time period...(these meetings were done less than 200 years after the time of Jesus to unify the bible) and finally they had to be inline with the known teachings of Jesus. Several books came out afterwards that were more towards the mystical side were discounted based on the third reasoning and the fact that they were known to be from a later date then when Jesus and the Disciples lived Agreed. The Book of Mormon is sheer lunacy. Link to post Share on other sites
Sluggo 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Agreed. The Book of Mormon is sheer lunacy.The mormons don't think so.This is probably how atheists feel about The Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
KONGOS 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 WEll i can say that i have read a few of the "lost scrolls" and let me some this...some seem pretty normal and I could see why people would want them in the bible...others make the Book of Mormon seem normal. The problem is this though...based on historical evidence we know that these books were nto written by who they were claimed to be buy. Most were first introduced after these people died.Its great that you are out lookin at all aspects but just realize that historicall these other texts just dont meet any sort of reliability testWhich ones make the Book of Mormon seem "normal". Also FYI, the four gospels in the Bible were written well after Jesus's death and evidence suggests strongly that they were not actually written by the attributed authors. Most ancient scrolls have been attributed to someone but very rarely actually written by them. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Agreed. The Book of Mormon is sheer lunacy.what criteria do you use to conclude that joseph smith was full of it and biblical authors weren't? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 what criteria do you use to conclude that joseph smith was full of it and biblical authors weren't? If you knew the Bible you wouldn't have to ask. Link to post Share on other sites
Sluggo 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Can you please answer his question more thoroughly? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Can you please answer his question more thoroughly? No. Think for yourself, I have faith you can do it. Link to post Share on other sites
mcsoupman 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Can you please answer his question more thoroughly?My buddy lois must be getting tired.Here's a salvo. The book of mormon makes reference to people in the Americas that there is not confirming evidence of. Joe Smith was a known trickster. The book of mormon has had several recent "rewrites." Older versions seem to somehow "dissapear."Yes, sluggo you have made your point about faith based individuals appearing as lunatics (I am part of that group). We have also stated that it takes a huge stretch of the immagination to except the beliefs of darwinistic evolution (lunacy). Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 what criteria do you use to conclude that joseph smith was full of it and biblical authors weren't?well i think u would agree that to be deemed a prophet his prophecies would need to be deemed correct...in Joseph Smiths case he never had a prophecy come to terms...what would u like us to draw from that?Can you please answer his question more thoroughly?sluggo until u actually hav esomething to add to a conversation how about u hold off on the comments? You are about 5 steps behind anybody in terms of conversation...at least with crow and the others a real conversation can occur...with you its more about explaining whats is real and whats wrong with whatever dumb idea u have Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 well i think u would agree that to be deemed a prophet his prophecies would need to be deemed correct...in Joseph Smiths case he never had a prophecy come to terms...what would u like us to draw from that?sluggo until u actually hav esomething to add to a conversation how about u hold off on the comments? You are about 5 steps behind anybody in terms of conversation...at least with crow and the others a real conversation can occur...with you its more about explaining whats is real and whats wrong with whatever dumb idea u have Couldn't think of an answer for Crow, Matt, that will do nicely. All I could think of was the essentially retelling of Noahs Ark where the Ark ends up being football shaped. That always made me laugh. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The book of mormon makes reference to people in the Americas that there is not confirming evidence of. Joe Smith was a known trickster. The book of mormon has had several recent "rewrites."i asked how you differentiate it from the bible, not how they are similar We have also stated that it takes a huge stretch of the immagination to except the beliefs of darwinistic evolution (lunacy).and you've made a huge fool of yourself every time you did.well i think u would agree that to be deemed a prophet his prophecies would need to be deemed correct...in Joseph Smiths case he never had a prophecy come to terms...actually some probably have - if you twist the interpretations as much as you like to twist biblical prophecy to fit what you want it to fit. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 i asked how you differentiate it from the bible, not how they are similar and you've made a huge fool of yourself every time you did.actually some probably have - if you twist the interpretations as much as you like to twist biblical prophecy to fit what you want it to fit.The NASB version which is the most modern up to date version that we have, it uses the text of the oldest scripts found. True some of the scripts have errors but when you consider that the entire NT was hand written you can accept a misplace comma or 2. With misspelled words, if 99% had the word one way and then 1% had it the other i think u can safely assume which word was meant to be there. So we know the bible is quite accurate and has never suffered a drastic overwrite like some other religions (see Islam and Mormonism). In OT and around the time of Jesus if you claimed to be a prophet then you could live up until your first prophecy turned out to be false. If we held those same standards do you think Joseph Smith would have lived? Of course not. We know from historical and archeology (sp?), that he was wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 The NASB version which is the most modern up to date version that we have, it uses the text of the oldest scripts found. True some of the scripts have errors but when you consider that the entire NT was hand written you can accept a misplace comma or 2. With misspelled words, if 99% had the word one way and then 1% had it the other i think u can safely assume which word was meant to be there. So we know the bible is quite accurate and has never suffered a drastic overwrite like some other religions (see Islam and Mormonism). In OT and around the time of Jesus if you claimed to be a prophet then you could live up until your first prophecy turned out to be false. If we held those same standards do you think Joseph Smith would have lived? Of course not. We know from historical and archeology (sp?), that he was wrong. 6 months ago I was wrong as I could be about you. I officially aplogize. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now