Baptisms for the Dead

Very poor try at making my post look bad.
Why Fred, do you mean what I said is similar to your favorite line, “making your lie look like the truth, and the truth look like a lie?”

=+=+=
You do know there was more then one visit, And Jesus was guiding them.

His visitors even followed 1 John 4:2-3 and spoke of how Christ had come in the flesh. It proves that they were at least not false messengers.

=+=+=
You mean there was more than one VERSION.

++++++++++++++++++++++

You write this as if you want us to think that the first vision was the only visit by heavenly messengers. If so, how misleading.

If not, you have no knowledge of the spirits that visited and said the Christ came to the earth and died for our sins.

You mean there was more than one VERSION.

+++++++++++++++++

Let us look at the idea that by using different words to describe one event at different times, makes the Joseph Smith a false Prophet.

Using your standard, PAUL IS ALSO A FALSE PROPHET.

— Acts 9:7 —
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
— Acts 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.
—Acts 26:14 —
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .

THERE GOES YOUR IDEA THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND COMPLEAT, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

THERE GOES YOUR IDEA THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND COMPLEAT, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

Fred, YOU believe in Joseph Smith. I don't. Your attempt to discredit the Bible only brings discredit on your effort and I imagine, offends many Christians. Give it up.

You must mean where the bible does not agree with itself. — Acts 9:7 — And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. — Acts 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. —Acts 26:14 — And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .

While I think the lay bishop is a closer model to NT leadership, there are times like these--posts like these--where nothing replaces the Greek training that Protestant pastors receive @ seminaries...while LDS remain surprisingly unlearned in Greek (surprising because LDS make it a point to become learned in multiple areas).

The simple fact is that both English and Greek words have multiple nuanced meanings...and while the folks in 1611 got the Greek words right, there are some instances where the proper nuance wasn't selected. (This doesn't change any Christian doctrine) Hence, while the key reason why the KJV has needed replacing is that English word meanings change--many KJV words are archaic and no longer in use or much use--a secondary reason is this nuance I'm talking about...A broader comparision of koine Greek as it was used in secular times before, during and after the New Testament was written has become available to us--to see how these words were actually utilized in non-NT contexts.

(Unfortunately for LDS, there isn't ANY justification for the wide & varied accounts by Joseph of his first vision)

Did they hear a voice? (Yes, when you include the NIV version of Acts 22:9, all three passages say they did): Acts 22:9 (NIV): My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (So no contradiction there-- as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking)

Is this translation justified? Yes.

According to rationalChristianity.com: The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand." This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place: "Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound.

To get even more technical with the Greek, here is Gleason Archer explaining it: . . . In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382)

As for any other "contradictions":

Did the men say anything in response? [No, they were speechless (Acts 9:7)] Does that contradict anything? (No)

What did Paul's companions see? Did they see any man or personage? [No (Acts 9:7), but they did see a "light" (Acts 22:9)] Does that contradict? (No, men aren't usually the source of light, now are they?)

How did the men react? They heard a sound (Acts 9:7); they were left speechless--fixed to the spot (Acts 9:7); they were afraid (Acts 22:9); they fell to the earth (Acts 26:14); having already heard a sound (Acts 9:7), and just like John 12:28, Paul--and Paul only--heard the voice specifically speaking to him (Acts 26:14).

Does any of that contradict? (No). There's two ways to look at this where it doesn't contradict: (1) Upon hearing the sound, they stood speechless; upon seeing the light, they hit the turf. (2) Haley says that "the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear."

I am amazed anyone would find Smith to be more credible than the writers of christian scripture.
But that’s just me I guess.

You must mean where the bible does not agree with itself. — Acts 9:7 — And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. — Acts 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. —Acts 26:14 — And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .
While I think the lay bishop is a closer model to NT leadership, there are times like these—posts like these—where nothing replaces the Greek training that Protestant pastors receive @ seminaries...while LDS remain surprisingly unlearned in Greek (surprising because LDS make it a point to become learned in multiple areas).
The simple fact is that both English and Greek words have multiple nuanced meanings...and while the folks in 1611 got the Greek words right, there are some instances where the proper nuance wasn’t selected. (This doesn’t change any Christian doctrine) Hence, while the key reason why the KJV has needed replacing is that English word meanings change—many KJV words are archaic and no longer in use or much use—a secondary reason is this nuance I’m talking about...A broader comparision of koine Greek as it was used in secular times before, during and after the New Testament was written has become available to us—to see how these words were actually utilized in non-NT contexts.

(Unfortunately for LDS, there isn’t ANY justification for the wide & varied accounts by Joseph of his first vision)

Did they hear a voice? (Yes, when you include the NIV version of Acts 22:9, all three passages say they did): Acts 22:9 (NIV): My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (So no contradiction there— as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking)

Is this translation justified? Yes.

According to rationalChristianity.com: The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes “The Greek “akouo”, like our word “hear”, has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand.” This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place: “Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again”. The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him” [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound.

To get even more technical with the Greek, here is Gleason Archer explaining it: . . . In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb “to hear” takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul’s companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen—accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: “I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me,” NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382)

As for any other “contradictions”:

Did the men say anything in response? [No, they were speechless (Acts 9:7)] Does that contradict anything? (No)

What did Paul’s companions see? Did they see any man or personage? [No (Acts 9:7), but they did see a “light” (Acts 22:9)] Does that contradict? (No, men aren’t usually the source of light, now are they?)

How did the men react? They heard a sound (Acts 9:7); they were left speechless—fixed to the spot (Acts 9:7); they were afraid (Acts 22:9); they fell to the earth (Acts 26:14); having already heard a sound (Acts 9:7), and just like John 12:28, Paul—and Paul only—heard the voice specifically speaking to him (Acts 26:14).

Does any of that contradict? (No). There’s two ways to look at this where it doesn’t contradict: (1) Upon hearing the sound, they stood speechless; upon seeing the light, they hit the turf. (2) Haley says that “the word rendered ‘stood’ also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Alot of pretty words, and yet you do not hold yourself to your own standards. You have not put the same standards to Paul’s First Vision accounts as you have put to Joseph Smith’s First Vision account.

Now try and do the Joseph Smith’s First Vision for internal continuity, forgetting that you say that what happened is wrong. Only internal continuity.

Then compare it to the internal continuity of Paul’s First Vision. If one is right, they are both right, if one is wrong, they are both wrong, from the point of internal continuity.

I know you will want to point out the items that do not agree with what you think is right, but refrain yourself for once and only compare internal continuity.

Now try and do the Joseph Smith’s First Vision for internal continuity, forgetting that you say that what happened is wrong. Only internal continuity.

Then compare it to the internal continuity of Paul’s First Vision. If one is right, they are both right, if one is wrong, they are both wrong, from the point of internal continuity.

Nice try with the deflection away from the CONTENT of the 'first vision'!!

For ANYTHING to trump the existing bible we have, it HAS to pass THIS test:

Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”

If one believes the Bible is correct, then, by that Standard, Mormonism fails the test.

If, however, you are convinced that the Bible is either in error, been corrupted or mis-interpreted, then you are free to believe whatever you wish.

'Only internal continuity' is a sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas magician!