Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Authenticity of the Bible
Stand to Reason ^ | April 2005 | Gregory Koukl

Posted on 01/09/2006 3:56:46 AM PST by Quester

The Bible or the Book or Mormon?

Gregory Koukl

Do you know how to show a Mormon person the difference in reliability between the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Find out here.

The question of the authority of the Bible and its divine inspiration can be stated very simply: Is the Bible a book given by God to man, or is it a book produced by man--and merely by man--about God? Those are the only two options I think we're faced with. The Bible is either a divine product, or it isn't a divine product, but a mere product of human thinking. If it isn't a divine product, then human authorship is the whole story.

The way you can attempt to answer the question, "Is the Bible really inspired"--does it have a divine origin--is to see whether the Bible has marks of the supernatural.

Your Bible (is) a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process.

It isn't enough to simply assume the Bible's authority from the beginning. Christians assume from the get-go that the Bible is God's word, and frequently they won't take it any further than that. Unfortunately, that isn't going to be good enough for most people. Many non-Christians assume from the get-go the Bible's not inspired. They revere the book, or respect it in some fashion, but as for it being the word of God? No. It's written by men and men make mistakes. That's their view.

Now, I think somebody who takes this view has to at least acknowledge, first of all, that they didn't actually reason to the conclusion that the Bible was not inspired. Unless, of course, they thought it was reasonable to conclude that since men were involved, the Bible must have errors.

That certainly doesn't follow, that since human beings may be prone to err, they're necessarily erring in the things they write about God. It may be that they are, but it doesn't automatically mean they are. It seems to me you have to look a little further before you can draw that conclusion. You have to look at the information itself. You have to look at the evidence. Men can err, but did they err in this case?

Another thing that this view doesn't take into consideration is that the Bible itself claims to be God's word. Now, of course, that doesn't make it true, per se. We've got to go further than the mere claim. But it is significant that many who don't believe in Christianity still respect the Bible. This book they respect makes this claim about itself over and over again, and if the book is worthy of respect, then certainly the claim is worthy of respect. It's worthy of careful consideration.

I think the way to answer the question is to see whether the Bible has the mark of the supernatural--whether it has God's "signature" on it--or not, or whether it simply seems to be a book just given by man, having all the marks of natural human beings, and the limitations thereof, and no sign of the supernatural. That's the tact I take in my defense for the authority of the Scriptures. I give some reasons why I think the Bible is supernatural and not natural. It's a book given by God to man, not merely a book by man about God. But, inevitably, what's going to happen is, even if you make your case, someone is going to say, "All right, even if I accepted that in the originals--the autographs--we have an accurate representation of God's word, we don't have those documents anymore. In fact, they've disappeared and now we only have copies of copies of copies of copies." Or, sometimes people put it this way: "The Bible's been translated and retranslated so many times we can't trust what we have now." Well, that's not the truth of the matter. Your Bible--your New American Standard, New International Version, King James, New King James, etc.--is not a translation of a translation of a translation. It's a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process. So, they miscast the problem. But they still have a legitimate concern about the issue of change.

I addressed this issue in a talk this morning ("Has God Spoken?"), and afterwards a friend told me about his visit to a Mormon temple in Utah, how he was taken aside and interviewed about his own religious beliefs. It was a gentle attempt at evangelizing by a Mormon representative there.

My friend has used Stand to Reason materials and has heard the radio show, and he was ready with some very good responses to the Mormon woman about the authority of the Scriptures. One of the things she came back with is, "Yes, we believe the Bible is inspired insofar as it's properly translated."

Now, this is a key point Mormons make, and they make it over and over again. I'm not sure why it's so important to make that point because it's uncontroversial. As a Christian, I would have to agree with it. I don't believe in a Bible that's improperly translated; I believe in the authority of the Bible if it's properly translated.

But, you see, Mormons take a further step I don't take because I know better. They immediately presume, as does the man on the street, that the Bible has been changed down through the ages and that we can't trust what we have now.

I want to give you a couple of reasons why that objection is disingenuous coming from a Mormon. I want to give you some tools to respond to it.

The Mormons say that the Bible is God's word insofar as it is properly translated. Certainly, I agree with that. I don't know how anybody could disagree with it. Why do they make such a fuss over something as obvious as that? Because they're convinced it isn't properly translated because the texts we possess have been corrupted through transmission over the years.

Several years ago I was staying with a Mormon family for a couple of days and had an opportunity to check out their bookshelf. I pulled down a doctrinal book. This book wasn't a popular Mormon treatment, but one of their own theological works written by one of their chief theologians named McConkie I believe.

I paged through it and got to the section on the reliability of the Bible. There I found the rule just as I've quoted it above, but was stunned to also find the Bible summarily dismissed in the next sentence. This Mormon theologian claimed--totally contrary to fact--that the Bible has been changed so many times in its copying and recopying down through the years that no one knows what the original was like.

I was actually shocked to see a sophisticated theological work by a principle Mormon theologian offer such an academically lame response to this issue. This is a question in the field known as "lower criticism," or "textual criticism." The goal of the textual critic is to reconstruct ancient manuscripts from surviving copies.

The issue of biblical textual reconstruction has been discussed time and time again by secular scholars. The academic evidence shows it's an open and shut case, not in favor of the Bible's corruption, but rather in favor of the Bible's textual purity.

This Mormon theologian did no homework. None. Zero. Zip. Because any homework in this area reveals quite a different thing--99.8 percent purity of the Scriptures--far better than any other manuscripts from antiquity, bar none.

This misleading approach is appealing to Mormon's for a reason: They don't want the Bible passing judgment on their doctrine, because their doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from Joseph Smith. And it doesn't fit the Bible; it contradicts it.

So, the easiest way to deal with this conflict is to give lip service to the authority of the Bible, saying, "Yes we believe it is inspired," and then they take away with the left hand what they give with the right, "but that doesn't matter, because we don't have the inspired Bible anymore. We've just got a cut-and-paste version that's nothing like the original. We do have the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Joseph Smith's writings, though, and my heart tells me these are inspired by God." That's why you won't find Mormon doctrines in the Bible. You'll find them in the Book of Mormon , the Doctrine and Covenants , the Pearl of Great Price and the writings of Joseph Smith. And you won't hear Mormons quote the Bible very much, except when it helps their case. Then the Bible suddenly takes on authority. That's the first reason why I think Mormonism's qualifier about the authority of the Bible is disingenuous: When they have a verse that seems to make their case--never mind if they lift it out of context, which they do frequently--then they use it. Otherwise,

"It's not properly translated."

They'll point to the book of Ezekiel (37:19), for example, where the Lord talks about combining the stick of Judah with the stick of Joseph. This, they say, is a clear prophecy that the Bible ("the stick of Judah") is to be joined with the Book of Mormon ("the stick of Joseph") to comprise the full revelation of God. They ignore, of course, the context itself in which God actually gives the interpretation (v. 21), which has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon. Now, I guess they must believe that, even though the Bible in general can't be trusted, this particular verse has survived intact and has been translated properly, or else certainly they wouldn't be quoting from it. Odd. You see, this is cheating, ladies and gentlemen. When the text speaks against the Mormon view, they dismiss it as not being translated accurately. But when it speaks for their view--at least when they can make it look like it does, on first glance--well, then the Bible's accurate. That's cheating.

It's also cheating because they haven't shown academically that the manuscripts of the Bible can't be trusted because of the way they've been handed down. You'd think that if they were really concerned about God speaking through the Bible--that the only way to get at God's word is to have it translated accurately--they would do the homework. After all, if they say it's God's word, then you think they'd do the work to find out what has come down in tact and what hasn't survived. But they don't do that. In fact, when my friend pointed out to the Mormon that the Bible hasn't been changed and that it is authoritative, his information was just dismissed. She moved on to something else. It was just dismissed! You'd think somebody who doesn't trust the Bible because they think it hasn't been properly translated, when she's shown that it can be trusted because it is properly translated, would then say (if they were genuine in their concern here), "Well, I'm glad I've learned that! Now I can go to the Scripture with full confidence and draw the truth from it, and I can weigh the Book of Mormon against the Bible (since the Bible came first, after all)." But no, it's just ignored.

The Book of Mormon has been changed hundreds of times, as a point in fact.. . . So even by their own rule, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. But that doesn't matter because Mormons have a burning in their hearts.

You know, if you've talked with Mormons very much about the authority of their documents, when all of their quasi-apologetics for their books have been dismembered (and it's easy to do), they always fall back on an argument that you cannot dismember: "I believe in my heart that the Book of Mormon is really from God." We can respect such a belief. But can you see how, if that's what one ends up falling back on, it's disingenuous to pretend like there are evidences that really matter for your view and against the Bible's authority? If what you end up doing is ignoring contrary evidence, and you finally fall back on a defense that cannot be refuted, even in principle--because I can't change what you think is happening in your heart--then that shows you don't really care about the evidence at all. What you care about is protecting your own belief system, whether it's true or not. That is what's disingenuous. The evidence ultimately doesn't seem to matter.

By the way, there's one other point that could be offered here. When a Mormon says, "The Bible's inspired insofar as it has been properly translated," your first question should be, "Do you mean to say that if the Bible has been changed, it shouldn't be trusted?" They're going to say, "Of course it shouldn't be trusted if it's been changed." Then ask this question, "How many times has the Book of Mormon been changed?" The Book of Mormon has been changed hundreds of times, as a point in fact. This is very well documented. We do have the original documents of the Book of Mormon and we have the current ones and there are hundreds of changes. So even by their own rule, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. But that doesn't matter because Mormons have a burning in their hearts.

And that shows why it's so dangerous to depend on feelings alone when issues of eternal truth are at stake.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755

(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

© 2005 Stand to Reason ARR | 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755 Voicemail (800) 2-REASON TM | Local phone (562) 595-7333 | Fax (562) 595-7332 | questions@str.org


TOPICS: Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: authenticity; bible; book; mormon; protestant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Gamecock

Oh uh, The GRPL Swarm, I think its about Mormonism. But you could sure start a tangent on Catholics, just expect back-up. What ever happened to drstevej? I really enjoyed his comments.


21 posted on 01/09/2006 9:32:03 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

>No Christian authority until the reformation approached the Scriptures as a Christian Koran,<

Not exactly sure what you are implying but Peter (remember him)said scripture was more reliable than a audible voice from God.


22 posted on 01/09/2006 11:50:30 AM PST by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
Drstevej is in the outer darkness, I mean he was banned for life....

A lot of folks from all faiths miss him. He is a good guy.

But I do know he's out there somewhere,


23 posted on 01/09/2006 12:22:53 PM PST by Gamecock (..ours is a trivial age, and the church has been deeply affected by this pervasive triviality. JMB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quester

Mormonism relates to Christianity pretty much as Islam does. The new revelation supercedes the Bible. The difference is that The Latter Day Saints ha dto live in a country ruled by Christians; therefore they have to mask their differences with the Christians. The Muslims. on the other hand, were conquerers and did not have to make concessions to the ruling authority. If they had, then they would have used the Bible, but treated the Koran as an "interpretation" of it and a correction. As they were conquerors, the Muslims simply brushed the Bible aside as an inferior revelation, and almost none of them have any knowledge of it.


24 posted on 01/09/2006 12:41:03 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
The Bible is accurate? Which one? The Wyckham, KJV, Revised Standard, Vulgate, whatever? Is the version that's accurate in English accurate in German? In Hausa?

They're all accurate ... and why shouldn't they be, ... they are all translated from the original languages.

Koukl just ignores the Mormons' story of the angelic source of the Book of Mormon, which would seem to make their claim to divine inspiration both more direct and more recent than any that can be made for the Bible.

Not really ... Paul, in his letter to the New Testament Galatian church told the congregation to disregard ...

... even an angel which came forth with a different gospel than had already been presented to them ...

... as he warned them that ...

... even Satan, himself, will masqurade as an angel of light.

25 posted on 01/09/2006 1:47:50 PM PST by Quester (If you can't trust Jesus, ... who can you trust ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Mormonism relates to Christianity pretty much as Islam does. The new revelation supercedes the Bible. The difference is that The Latter Day Saints ha dto live in a country ruled by Christians; therefore they have to mask their differences with the Christians. The Muslims. on the other hand, were conquerers and did not have to make concessions to the ruling authority. If they had, then they would have used the Bible, but treated the Koran as an "interpretation" of it and a correction. As they were conquerors, the Muslims simply brushed the Bible aside as an inferior revelation, and almost none of them have any knowledge of it.

You present an interesting hypothetical about Islam, the Koran, and the Bible.

However, you may have misunderstood the attitude of the Latter-day Saints toward the Bible. If I understand your post, you seem to imply that we view Momonism as "superseding" the Bible; that the Book of Mormon corrects the Bible; that Bible is "an inferior revelation"; and that few of us have any knowledge of the Bible. I do not believe those assertions to be true.

The Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be scripture, just as we consider the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be scripture. We also believe that God can, in his wisdom, reveal additional scripture. In other words, we have an open canon.

In my view, the Book of Mormon does not supersede the Bible so much as confirm it. Both books teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason, both are vital to the Latter-day Saints.

Nor is the Bible "inferior" to our other books of scripture. The Bible is indispensable. It contains much that is not to be had in our other books of scripture, including the knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles.

As for our knowledge of the Bible, I would point out that our Sunday School classes study the scriptures in a four-year cycle:

Old Testament (2006)

New Testament (2007)

Book of Mormon (2008)

Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price (2009)

Note that this year's course of study is the Old Testament; next year's will be the New Testament. Thus, two years out of four our Sunday Schools study the Bible.

Now, I realize that some will say that Mormons read the Bible but do not understand it. I do not wish to start an argument with them about Biblical interpretation. That is a discussion for another day.

26 posted on 01/09/2006 2:33:53 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; David Isaac
Actually, it says the opposite - "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) How about quoting verse 26 also. You can take the Bible out of context by being selective in how and what you choose to present.

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Also: Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

27 posted on 01/09/2006 3:51:01 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

He was, we agreed on little, but he was a good man.


28 posted on 01/09/2006 4:25:02 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every amouth• may be stopped, and all the world may become bguilty before God.

20 Therefore by the adeeds• of the blaw there shall no flesh be cjustified• in his sight: for dby• the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the arighteousness of God bwithout• the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have asinned•, and come short of the glory of God;
24 aBeing• bjustified• freely by his cgrace through the dredemption that is in Christ Jesus:


29 posted on 01/09/2006 4:44:12 PM PST by BlueMoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlueMoose

Goodness, you can still say someone is a good man without denying the fact he is a sinner.


30 posted on 01/09/2006 4:53:55 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Grut

***The Bible is accurate? Which one? The Wyckham, KJV, Revised Standard, Vulgate, whatever? Is the version that's accurate in English accurate in German? In Hausa? ***

An excerpt from the ORIGIONAL 1611 KJV preface FROM THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER

• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

***Koukl just ignores the Mormons' story of the angelic source of the Book of Mormon, which would seem to make their claim to divine inspiration both more direct and more recent than any that can be made for the Bible.***

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER GOSPEL;
Which is NOT another; but there be some that trouble you, and would PERVERT the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preachedunto you, let him be ACCURSED.
As we said before, so say I again, If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.----St Paul

....Galatians 1:8-9.


31 posted on 01/09/2006 5:50:30 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

Scripture is indeed reliable, once the problem of interpretation of texts is correctly solved. But the process by which Scripture came to be, and to be recognized as a reliable testimony, is complex and involves synergia between divine and human activity.

The notion that the Scriptures are just 'given by God' is really a Christian notion, it is the claim made for the Koran (= 'recitaiton' in Arabic) by the adherents of the false prophet Mohammed. Study the actual history of the Christian canon of Scripture (not the post hoc explanations of the 'closing of the canon' given by protestant apologists for *sola scriptura*), and you'll see what I mean.


32 posted on 01/09/2006 5:56:36 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Quester

I am not terribly impressed with the author's reasoning here. It seems he sets up his own false dichotomy in arguing that the only way to approach the Bible is to assume that it is either totally infallible or a fabrication of man. Mormons do not believe this. They do believe that the Bible of today is different than what the original authors wrote and that the omissions have been from negligence or have been "lost" because certain doctrines disagreed with the those accepted by the Powers-that-be who later ran the church after the death of the apostles.

How do they claim to know this? Not from examining the original writings because those are either non-existent or not available to laymen, or from "reverse-engineering" later translations. They believe this because of what they believe is modern-day revelation directly from God. (And JoelinCanada, the Lord didn't give the Bible in Greek; the Bible was written in the various languages of the human scribes and at least the Old Testament was translated into Greek in just seventy days, so Greek is also attentuated scripture for most of the Bible.)

Mormons do not try to argue their beliefs in terms of intellectual analysis. They say that the Lord personally appeared to a young boy who wanted to know what denomination was the correct church and told that kid that none were correct because their doctrines were tainted by the philosophies of men. You can either believe that the Lord is still involved with His children and speaks today through a living prophet or you can believe that He has been silent for two millenia and relies completely on the Bible to guide us. But you can't intellectually argue that Joseph Smith did not have a vision of the Lord. You can question it, as you should, but you can't prove it didn't happen or that it did happen. This can only be believed (or discounted) through personal revelation and faith.

The position of Mormons on the Bible is that it is incomplete because of those omissions and that another book, written by a people schooled in the same Law of Moses as the Old Testament people, and later visited by the Savior himself after His crucifixion ("and other sheep have I which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John 10:16)) addresses, supplements and clarifies the same gospel the Savior taught in Israel.

Therefore the Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is a supplement to the Bible, clarifying areas of doctrine and gospel which are either entirely missing or ambiguous in the Bible (and Mormons believe that someday we will meet other people who also have records of the Savior's visits and teachings to them to supplement both the Bible and the Book of Mormon). Now please don't argue that the Bible isn't ambiguous, else why are there so many different denominations of Christians and so many different beliefs and practices as regards basic matters such as the Eucharist, baptism, sacraments, faith and works and other basic doctrines of the gospel. And don't argue that the Bible must not be supplemented by other sources, or you discount the creeds, the "traditions" and the writings of the Church fathers, all of which have supplemented or clarified for one denomination or another, parts of the Bible.

All that Mormons say is that they looked at the claims of Joseph Smith with an open mind, read the Book of Mormon, and asked the purported author, aka the Lord, whether it was true and they believe they received an answer. And they believe anyone is entitled to the same revelation from the Holy Spirit. But too many people seem afraid to take that step and that is understandable but please don't denigrate those who have gone through that process and believe they have received an answer. The author calls this disingenuous and assumes Mormons are fraudulent. You can argue that a belief is wrong but don't presume to know the motivations of those who hold different beliefs. Each side believes it has superior knowledge. Test it yourself and, instead of listening to so-called experts on either side, study the claims of both sides and go to the Lord in prayer and in sincere curiosity and listen to His answer--if you dare. Then follow your answer. Period. I can say it seems clear that the author of this analysis hasn't bothered to do this.

I post this cautiously because I don't have time to sit and respond to all comments this might engender. But even if I do, my answer would be: Have you read the Book of Mormon, compared it to the Bible, and gone to the Lord in prayer, expecting an answer? If you haven't done this, please don't bother to make an intellectual argument against doing so. As James 1:5-6 says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . . "


33 posted on 01/09/2006 6:21:20 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueMoose; Gamecock

The fact that Gamecock had no problem with my assertion says something. Gamecock and I could not be further apart theologicaly, he is a Reformed Calvinist (GRPL Swarm), I am an Orthodox Roman Catholic (supposed member of TTGC), but we both recognized the zestful debate brought by the late drstevej and the type of man he was. Gamecock and I would both assert he was in need of divine grace for salvation since he was sinner, as are we all, but I will still call him, a good man.


34 posted on 01/09/2006 6:32:04 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Quester

"What you care about is protecting your own belief system, whether it's true or not."

To believe one's belief system is to protect, preserve and perpetuate a people and its culture, while at the same time uniting its organizational structure. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that ought to be the ultimate purpose of organized religion. The Mormons are, unknowingly, I believe, doing exactly that. God bless them!

Love thy neighbor.


35 posted on 01/09/2006 6:48:49 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoelinCanada

It is so clear from the article that the author and the organization he represents is anti God and anti-Christian.

Today with this article they're attacking and demeaning the Mormons, tomorrow, I'm sure, it will be the turn of other Christians.

The ultimate purpose of pieces such as these, is not necessarily to attack, debase and ridicule Christianity, rather to destroy it's culture and, hence, and people.

The devil is in the minutiae.


36 posted on 01/09/2006 6:57:34 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

An ongoing revelation makes the Mormon religion a non-traditional religion. In any case, my perception is that In a NATION of Deseret, the on-going revelation would have taken a different direction. In a Christian country, more stress on the person of Jesus; in Deseret, less so. As you say, hypothetical, but what is not, is the severe reduction of Morman territory, in large part because of the issue of pologamy, ending in a threat to supress the whole Church. Then the new revelation that enables the Church to survive in a hostile society.


37 posted on 01/09/2006 7:49:42 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Quester

What?


38 posted on 01/09/2006 9:51:14 PM PST by BlueMoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quester; Ruy Dias de Bivar
... even an angel which came forth with a different gospel than had already been presented to them ... Satan, himself, will masqurade as an angel of light.

If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

So, a salesman tells you that anybody who offers you a different deal than his just wants to rip you off; and you believe him?

39 posted on 01/10/2006 4:33:21 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Grut
... even an angel which came forth with a different gospel than had already been presented to them ... Satan, himself, will masqurade as an angel of light.

If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.


So, a salesman tells you that anybody who offers you a different deal than his just wants to rip you off; and you believe him?


Do you believe that the Apostle Paul was a salesman (i.e. that He wasn't truly speaking for God) ?

40 posted on 01/10/2006 8:21:08 AM PST by Quester (If you can't trust Jesus, ... who can you trust ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson