Why do MORMONs continually BASH the BIBLE??
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
>a deceptive lie or statement of shear stupidity.
So... we’re not wool-gathering?
{That should be sheer.}
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shear
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sheer
The actual words in a given translation of the Bible aren’t infallible; the spiritual truths they convey, are. Those really don’t vary from translation to translation.
Fixed it for you...is that was was meant? Just curious.
Seriously? But you will still use whatever portion of scripture of the Old and New Testament, when convenient?
Well, how convenient.
Aren’t you really invalidating your claim to the Bible, in any way, as it is so flawed. As such, how can it be trusted for it’s integrity.
Said integrity, is a perspective of subjective view and a foundation of baked bread which can easily be eaten by the birds or washed away in the tide.
What is your point? Really? Your answer is important as it is for posterity, so be sincere and introspect.
Sorry for the last paragraph, they are incongruent with your values, which shift like dunes in the Sahara.
Don’t mean to be so rough, but you really can’t have it both ways and still continue proudly claim your Christian-Lite Heritage.
Your link does not work.
As you probably know, the LDS religion depends on the theory of grave error in the New Testament, not the Old.
NO ONE can be held in esteem as an author above God! It’s HIS Word to us and HE’S Almighty. If anyone thinks that HE IS NOT CAPABLE of getting HIS Truth to us accurately is living in pride.
Go ahead, who ever your are - take the fall!
I wish to respectfully offer the point that good texts were used, and wore out. Bad texts were avoided, put in pots, and would not be used if there was better, and so, had a good chance of being preserved.
One example of that is the Codex Sinaiticus
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus";
One can ignore the abundant evidence, but it’s time to recognize that only God is the final and perfect authority, and that’s why we need continuing revelation from his authorized prophets and apostles.
____________________________________________
Of which there are none...
Why do MORMONs continually BASH the BIBLE??
The scholars who put the KJ together had the decency, in cases in which they did not understand something, to leave the language the way they found it so as to retain the possibility that somebody 300 years later might could figure it out. This is why I have no use for yuppie Bibles and prefer the KJ.
Sorry no need to answer. I should have looked at the link first - how deceptive of you rusty. No wonder this is not an open thread.
Hi, restornu! Nice to see you today. :)
Why, as a Christian, would I be the least bit interested in what a non-Christian has to say about “inaccuracies” in the Bible? You either believe it to be the word of God or you don’t. If you believe it to be the word of God, then, yes things do make sense and one can see the wonders of the book. If you don’t believe it to be the word of God it will look like it’s riddled with errors.
Sinful man will never see the glory of God.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
This is deceptively written. The most eminent scholars in the world believe, as, I'm sure, this one does, that, based upon the compiled research and investigation of Biblical texts by them all, collectively, that there is an astoundingly small [insignificant] variation in written text from times of antiquity, until now.
I've not delved into the minutia of the article, but I'm guessing that the ‘trove’ of ‘worn out’ scrolls, etc, cited were, in fact, a storehouse of scribes-in-traning's practice work....and collected either to be sacrificially burned or left unsullied for containing the name of God.
The claims of the scholar in the article, if conveyed accurately by the journalist, are significantly at odds with the general consensus among his peers, which I've read and heard throughout the years. A caveat....