I got a piece of it written in Lamanite!
Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
How many of you LDS members KNOW this?
So, the LDS Living Prophet® is now MINDREADING God??
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
In this case the question to Resty should be
“Can you honestly say that you have read every verse of the MISSING books that currently NOT in our Canon of Scripture?”
These are not missing scriptures the LDS already knows that we only have 1/3 of the Book of Mormon the rest is yet to come forth in the Lord due time!
____________________________________________
So the books that are missing are from Joseph Smith’s book of mormon and not the Christian Bible ???
I know we Christians have ALL of the Chyristian Bible...
But the mormons are missing 66% of their book of mormon ???
Are there problems with FR ???
An ad hominem attack? Really?
Let me rephrase that to "A good introductory book..."
I’m a friend of Restornu’s, so I get to post!
***
In your dreams tooties! LOL
I was not aware and now I don’t know which ones were on that post!
That makes it much better...
I think the mod was referring to the links that were on 26, which the mod removed. Chick is antagonistic.
A real bible scholar puts ehrman to the wood shed here.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/sepoct/3.8.html
Not to my knowledge.
Oh baby oh baby doncha treat me this away,
I'll be back on my feet some day.
I didn't know that.
I got a piece of it written in Lamanite!
Despite the foregoing criticisms, my sympathies often lie with Ehrman. The rigidity of the fundamentalism in which I grew up far exceeded anything he has described concerning his own experience. His inveighing against homogenizing the distinctive messages of biblical authors for the sake of historical harmony strikes in me a resonant chord. And at an early stage of my doctoral research on Matthew's use of the Old Testament, what increasingly seemed to count as misquotations—the usual suspects: reversing Micah's description of Bethlehem as small into a strong denial of that description (2:5–6), quoting Hosea's reference to Israel's exodus from Egypt as though it predicted the Messiah's stay in Egypt and exit from there (2:15), and so on—led me at one point to say aloud in the privacy of my study, "God, it's not looking good for you and your book." So why didn't I arrive at Ehrman's "dead end"? I have no explanation except to say that "by the grace of God" (the phrase Ehrman judges a textual corruption in Hebrews 2:8–9) I was spared a hardening of the categories through which Scripture is perceived. Or since they were already hard—unreasonably hard—I should rather say that the Spirit of God softened my categories so as to give them an elasticity that accommodates the human features of Scripture without excluding its ultimately divine origin. I pray that Ehrman and all others like him may enjoy such a softening.
NT textual criticism is just pointing out the facts. How we deal with those facts is important. Some cling to false traditions about the Bible and others throw it out altogether. Gundry believes the human alterations to the Biblical text could be divinely inspired. Personally, given the nature of the alterations, I wouldn't think so in most cases. I think the books of the NT were divinely inspired when originally written and in spite of human alterations over the centuries continues to serve the purpose of testifying that Jesus is who he said he is, our Savior and Redeemer.
A good introductory book on the subject is: “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”.
The subject being NT textual criticism.
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.