Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:57 pm
.
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
Karen my sister! You did not offend me; I refuse to be offended! However, I thought you were trying to teach me something though, so I was waiting to hear how to be careful on this forum before proceeding with you. I am learning new things from others about the forum and pray to be a blessing. This is my prayer: To be "...gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her children, so affectionately longing for you, ...well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear...for you remember our labor and toil, for laboring night and day that we might not be a burden to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God." Karen, I have always had an abundance of mothering love so this verse was a joy to discover and a prayer to remember in any situation.karenprtlnd wrote:I apologize.karenprtlnd wrote: Selah-....... Please be a bit careful in quoting, and re-wording things in previous posts, and inserting foriegn ideas and terminology......
Karen, I used the "quote" button twice in a row...! Wow! I'm getting better at this forum thing...karenprtlnd wrote:Selah- I am so late in checking back. I don't maintain a personal computer at home, so I havn't explored modems, but your comments were very insightful. Thank-you.
Please be a bit careful on quoting, and re-wording things in previous posts, and inserting foriegn ideas and terminology, but all in all, the KJV and the NKJV may not be that much of a problem. I use the KJV. It's been a classic. It supposedly was done in 1600 England, and it is devoid of the bias of present day denominationalism. It has often been used by translators as a classic comparison for a very long time. It is the LDS standard, but many versions seem to convey the same text quite similarly. I tend to stick with the KJV however.
As there are no New Testament manuscripts in the [original hand] to be officially preserved, I do not at all find this a stumbling block in NT authenticity as read, nor of the multiple witness of events of Jesus Christ themselves, as discribed by a few of his choice disciples, in the original witness of Jesus Christ, Son of the one true living God, on earth. I also find the 14 letters of Saul/Paul to the churches, contemporary enough to the event of Christ and surrounding areas, to still hold the same authority as do those few manuscripts by His personal twelve.
The D&C is merely an abreviated chronology of the writings of Joseph Smith, JSHC (by Joseph Smith himself), which is often used instead, because it gives in more detail, surrounding circumstances of his writings. Included are the revelations, while the Urim and Thummim were still actually being used. The PGP,i.e. 1). the book of Moses, being a revelation by Joseph Smith while he was studying the books of Moses; and 2). the book of Abraham, which was rendered from papyri, offered by a traveling egyptian mummy show, seemingly as a personal favor, and was never intended as official church scripture until many years after the death of Joseph Smith at 38 years of age, in 1844. The book of LDS definitions and termenology, erroneously entitled "Mormon Doctrine" (to replace the BoM?) by its author Bruce R. McConkie, I personally felt, overstepped its bounds, in the tradition of his fathers era just a few years before. If your not LDS because of the book of Mormon, you may just be getting in the way of current debated issues finally getting resoved, unless you can explain how there can be an LDS Church without it.
The actual abridgement of records onto plates by use of hieroglyphs, instead of hebrew on scrolls or cuneform, were said in the actual hand of Mormon, then end plates, of coarse by his son Moroni. They were translated by the actual "seer stones" that had been buried with the original plates themselves, and by the power of God. Meaning, that Joseph Smith had permission by God to do so, and if someone were to have just stumbled upon them, probably not have been able to get them to work. I will search and ask around for its, the plates and seer stones, return and transfer,(possibly back to their original owners ? ) as this might be of wide intrest to others, as well as to myself. I'll let you know.
That NO "original authored" manuscripts of the NT nor the BoM are at hand, has in no way gotten in the way, as a record of just this one people of JHVH, including the OT. Its entirety, as read, leads the reader always to God The Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, who, having been now resurrected, Lord of all the earth.
I believe that the LDS will become able to gladly conceed that The Bible and its people, are to be the agreed "authority" of Holy Scripture, in time, and through much practiced dialogue. I for one, have appreciate the many efforts of others and much patience.
I use the NKJV, but when I was six months pregnant with my oldest son (he's in his 30's) I worked two weeks at the 1971 summer SDA Southwestern Adventist Conference as a secretary. For those two weeks, I earned just enough $ to buy a small KJV Bible that I could hide in my clothes if/when the "Time of Trouble" came upon us. I still have that Bible. Even through all the 24 years that I thought Christianity was the wrong religion, I kept that Bible. Now, it rests in the tray between the bucket seats of my car. Now that I have been a Christian for ten years (therefore, having read the NKJV through end to end four times and studied it some too) the KJV is not so hard to understand anymore. My NKJV is very marked up though, so it is still my favorite of the two---although the KJV is my favorite for sentimental reasons.I use the KJV. It's been a classic. It supposedly was done in 1600 England, and it is devoid of the bias of present day denominationalism. It has often been used by translators as a classic comparison for a very long time. It is the LDS standard, but many versions seem to convey the same text quite similarly. I tend to stick with the KJV however.
Yes, I would generally agree. We can confidently learn from the four accounts of Jesus' life by the four writers of the Gospels. In addition, we can be confident in Paul's authoritative words because Acts 9:13-30 outlines the story whereby Ananias, the disciples, Barnabas and even the Jews received his words as from the Lord Jesus Christ.As there are no New Testament manuscripts in the [original hand] to be officially preserved, I do not at all find this a stumbling block in NT authenticity as read, nor of the multiple witness of events of Jesus Christ themselves, as discribed by a few of his choice disciples, in the original witness of Jesus Christ, Son of the one true living God, on earth. I also find the 14 letters of Saul/Paul to the churches, contemporary enough to the event of Christ and surrounding areas, to still hold the same authority as do those few manuscripts by His personal twelve.
Karen, with all due respect, I am not convinced of your claims as to the D&C and BoM having any authority to speak into human life. I have not seen nor heard the evidence to even indicate it is historically true, much less spiritually authentic. I could site my historical examples of reasons why I believe this way, but have purposefully prayed you and I build trust between the two of us before we look at such evidence. More than anything else, my hope, heart, and prayer is to (1.) keep the unity of faith, and (2) love all people rather they are believers or not. So you see, disagreeing about the authority of LDS scripture is not on my radar. I do in fact want us to both know, trust and obey truth!!!!! However, I have no need to be right at the expense of hurting your feelings. I read from your own posts that you believe as you do and I realize that you won't change your mind until or unless you see the truth because....like I think I remember you saying, you are a "truth seeker." Well, I am too. Let's do it together.The D&C is merely an abreviated chronology of the writings of Joseph Smith, JSHC (by Joseph Smith himself), which is often used instead, because it gives in more detail, surrounding circumstances of his writings. Included are the revelations, while the Urim and Thummim were still actually being used. The PGP,i.e. 1). the book of Moses, being a revelation by Joseph Smith while he was studying the books of Moses; and 2). the book of Abraham, which was rendered from papyri, offered by a traveling egyptian mummy show, seemingly as a personal favor, and was never intended as official church scripture until many years after the death of Joseph Smith at 38 years of age, in 1844. The book of LDS definitions and termenology, erroneously entitled "Mormon Doctrine" (to replace the BoM?) by its author Bruce R. McConkie, I personally felt, overstepped its bounds, in the tradition of his fathers era just a few years before. If your not LDS because of the book of Mormon, you may just be getting in the way of current debated issues finally getting resoved, unless you can explain how there can be an LDS Church without it.
The actual abridgement of records onto plates by use of hieroglyphs, instead of hebrew on scrolls or cuneform, were said in the actual hand of Mormon, then end plates, of coarse by his son Moroni. They were translated by the actual "seer stones" that had been buried with the original plates themselves, and by the power of God. Meaning, that Joseph Smith had permission by God to do so, and if someone were to have just stumbled upon them, probably not have been able to get them to work. I will search and ask around for its, the plates and seer stones, return and transfer,(possibly back to their original owners ? ) as this might be of wide intrest to others, as well as to myself. I'll let you know.
Will you present to me the evidence from the BoM, that might in fact, lead to the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the Bible teaches? It is my understanding that, on the one hand, we worship the same Jesus, except you believe Jesus made a trip to the now known United States, and on the other hand, I believe He ascended to heaven from "as far as Bethany." (Luke 24:50) Is it true that the BoM teaches things about Jesus that are exact contradictions to what the Bible teaches about Jesus?That NO "original authored" manuscripts of the NT nor the BoM are at hand, has in no way gotten in the way, as a record of just this one people of JHVH, including the OT. Its entirety, as read, leads the reader always to God The Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, who, having been now resurrected, Lord of all the earth.
Hi Karen, We agree that various translations of the NT are used by many. My daughter just called me as I was writing this post and read something. It fits into our discussion. She shared that in II Cor. 3: 2,3 Paul states that "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men, clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart." This scripture describes a translation, one that has not been discussed during my short time on this forum. I am grateful to be reminded of it because as we consider the options for scriptural translations, I think it is most important to remember that our very lives---the way we live our lives---is a translation to God's word too. People, Christians, non-believers and backsliders alike, will "read" our lives and get an impression of Christianity. Another verse my daughter pointed out is James 1:22, 23 "...be doers of the word, and not hearers only..." So the lesson she reminded me of is that our actions are a type of scriptural translation. Do our actions translate the NT accurately? That is a question that I ask myself.Selah. Hi.
The NT will be fine.
This forum does alot of work on-with-by various translations and versions of the NT. This is fine and on going. This will continue well into the future I'm sure. There have been many versions and translations produced. My hope is that no one group is ever allowed to change or damage the only ancient manuscripts we might have left nor where they are kept. I have a KJV that I read. I think I might get car sick if I kept re-reading everchanging wordings over and over again, just for the sake of an argument. When a scripture is quoted, I wish to know what translation that the user has brought up. (KJV) or (RSV) for instance. I use the KJV but I am not freaked out by other translations. I simply use a KJV.
Okay, I'll venture over to those threads and read some of them (or all of them eventually).There are many outside public sources in which to review the BoM, and argue it. There are also previously created topics in this LDS Religions & Philosophies section entitled "an lds view of :The Book of Mormon", "RE-Joseph Smith", and "an lds view of : LDS history and its writings". All these may interest a "By What Authority" argument.
As for the BoM. The lds believe these people had left Jerusalem at 1st year Zedekiah, which would be around 2 Kings 24. This may or may not even come into play. They would have already left long before NT Jerusalem.
Well Karen, when I finish this post, I will move over to the thread you mention and read about the BoM. I am a little bit confused though by some of what you say above. I thought we were engaged in establishing our reasons for agreeing that the Bible and the BoM are the authority by which we should be ruled.karenprtlnd wrote:Selah,
I posted my comments to the book of Mormon under that particular topic, as I am not requiring you to have read the book of Mormon in order to open up a discussion that will be primarily new testament based. Nor require reading any of the books that may have been suggested thus far, merely to engage in a conversation regarding the authority of the new testament. I need no proof that a present copy of a particular edition of a book actually exists before reading it nor require any kind of proof that it exists after having read it.
As for "By What Authority", there can be agreement from me to use the KJV of the new testament as primary and other translations of the new testament as secondary for sake conversation. What do you think about this?
Someone with a good imagination can write a fascinating book, publish it on crinkly paper and bind it in soft leather and call it a scripture.I need no proof that a present copy of a particular edition of a book actually exists before reading it nor require any kind of proof that it exists after having read it.
Yes, Karen, the question is something like this, Who says the BoM can give you instructions for your thoughts and actions? for your very life?! Who said "the glorified man" can give you instructions for your thoughts and actions? for your very life?karenprtlnd wrote:Hi !
So, a question of the hour......
What writings did the Creator of the Universe give us to rule our thinking and actions?
What writings
How about a new testament based conversation. I think we can already agree on the NT writings. However, if the KJV looks like it may become a problem for many on this forum, would someone like to make another suggestion at this point?