[prayforpeaceofJerusalem]

You lied about what I said in my post, setting up a straw man for you to attack, BTW:
You claimed this: “If the Bible can be shown to contradict itself in only one place, your argument ceases to hold water.”

And yet I said nothing of the sort that you are stating. When the collection of books we call the Bible states “Thus saith the LORD”, then nothing in the collection of books which we call the Bible can contradict anything stated as “Thus saith the LORD”.
The sacred writings do not contradict the doctrine of “Thus saith the LORD” in any way. the sacred writings we call the Bible do not contradict the nature of the Person or the work of the LORD Jesus Christ.
No one can write anything and call it “inspired” as “Thus saith the LORD” since Jesus Christ came in flesh and gave His doctrine, and finished His work of redemption.
He is returning, and the doctrine of His return is first written of by Enoch and is lastly written of by John, who got the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” from Him, to write.
That Revelation closes what God speaks to this present creation. He has nothing to add and nothing is taken away, and anyone who does add anything or take anything away is anethema -cursed forever- from what His doctrine and teaching is as is revealed in the Gospels and Revelation, and which are all about the fulfillment of what is already prophesied and taught, in the law and the prophets, anyway.

Get that! -Joseph Smith is a fraud and a deceiver for claiming to have anything to say as “thus says the Lord” which has changed and added and taken away from the doctrine of the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ, and who is Himself, YHWH come in flesh of second Man creation to be the Kinsman/Redeemer to all Adam.
Joseph Smith is a proven false prophet and his translation is from his own imagination -or worse, as the word nephi is from the Hebrew root for “cast down” =nephil, and is what root word the nephillim [plural] is from.
In Enoch the nephillim/giants/cast down ones [plural] were to be disembodied by wars and by the flood of Noah, and were to be allowed to roam earth as evil spirits after the flood, to deceive into false worship of demons and worship of fallen angels, and to torment and afflict all Adamkind until the day of their removal from the earth at the return of the LORD Jesus Christ, when He comes to cleanse the earth of all things that offend, and comes to burn all the temples of the heathen over all the earth, and comes to establish His reign of Peace over all the earth from Jerusalem, Israel -in the middle east.

I said:“Bible” means collection of books.
One can have in their collection books that are written by men who know God and which books are true and are historical, but which are not “Thus saith the LORD”.
Their books will not contradict anything that is written as “Thus saith the LORD, if they are indeed true.
Joseph Smith’s books contradicted “Thus saith the LORD”.

There is nothing any man has written since Revelation of Jesus Christ that is a word from God in any manner, shape, or form.
Men may write books expounding the Gospel of Christ, and they do write excellent books doing so, but there is nothing added or taken away from that which Jesus Christ has spoken, and His last word is the book of Revealtion.”

[DelphiUser]

U Said: You lied about what I said in my post, setting up a straw man for you to attack, BTW:

U Said: You claimed this: “If the Bible can be shown to contradict itself in only one place, your argument ceases to hold water.”

My understanding from your post was that you were saying the Bible is inerrant and my argument is consistent with that belief, was I incorrect?

U Said: And yet I said nothing of the sort that you are stating. When the collection of books we call the Bible states “Thus saith the LORD”, then nothing in the collection of books which we call the Bible can contradict anything stated as “Thus saith the LORD”.

So what you were saying was that the Bible is only inerrant when saying "Thus saith the Lord". This is a unique and inherently easier to defend position.

Is it literal "thus Saith the Lord" phrases, or for example, are the "Ten Commandments" inerrant?

U Said: The sacred writings do not contradict the doctrine of “Thus saith the LORD” in any way.

That's what I am trying to find out, I guess, you will have to admit that only where Joseph said "Thus saith the Lord" can't contradict (If it works for the Bible, it has to be applied to other things claiming to be scripture, when you invalidate them by the same rules you use on scripture, or your test is not logical)

U Said: the sacred writings we call the Bible do not contradict the nature of the Person or the work of the LORD Jesus Christ.

The sacred writings of the Book of Mormon do not contradict the nature of the person or the work of Jesus Christ, indeed they clarify much that is not told to us in the Bible.

U Said: No one can write anything and call it “inspired” as “Thus saith the LORD” since Jesus Christ came in flesh and gave His doctrine, and finished His work of redemption.

Why? He finished his work and the Apostles continued to say "Thus saith the Lord" for 100 Years at least. God has always told prophets what he would do, thus is a statement that is at odds with the Bible: Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Since the Bible Prophesies of Prophets in the last days, we know that prophets did not end with Jesus. (who was way more than a prophet)

U Said: He is returning, and the doctrine of His return is first written of by Enoch and is lastly written of by John, who got the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” from Him, to write.

Actually, I believe that Adam knew and probably recorded prophecies of Jesus, but we don't have those records, so sure, we'll go with Enoch being the first we have...

U Said: That Revelation closes what God speaks to this present creation.

And how do you know that,the Scripture at the end of Revelation is almost exactly duplicated in Deuteronomy 4 : 2. The usage could just as easily mean not to add to or take away from the Book of revelations, actually, since the Bible had not been compiled yet, it makes more sense to interpret it that way, either way now we are beginning to speculate and interpret the scriptures and it's dangerous ground on which to speak in absolutes.

U Said: He has nothing to add and nothing is taken away, and anyone who does add anything or take anything away is anethema -cursed forever- from what His doctrine and teaching is as is revealed in the Gospels and Revelation, and which are all about the fulfillment of what is already prophesied and taught, in the law and the prophets, anyway.

Wow, you jump to conclusions with the best of them, first the add to or take away is not "set in stone" as applying to the whole Bible, you are adding right there to get there. On top of that, if it does then isn't the Trinity a construct of man, made doctrine of the church by a council of men, not by a prophet acting under god's command a better example of adding to the gospel as you infer by paraphrasing

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
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.

The Trinity not being biblical fits this bill completely, this is obviously what Paul was talking about, and now that the restoration is in effect, you want to stop it by saying it's a change?

U Said: Get that! -Joseph Smith is a fraud and a deceiver for claiming to have anything to say as “thus says the Lord” which has changed and added and taken away from the doctrine of the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ, and who is Himself, YHWH come in flesh of second Man creation to be the Kinsman/Redeemer to all Adam.

Do you even know where scripture ends and your interpretation begins? I actually wonder if you know that you are interpreting the scriptures!

If God tells you to say "thus Saith the Lord" you say it.

If God tells you to write something or translate something an call it scripture, you do it and call it scripture.

If anyone speaks of themselves, and says "Thus Saith the Lord" it does not matter what day or age, or if Revelations had been written yet, they are in trouble with God, and will be accursed.

You assume because of your interpretation of the scriptures that there will be no prophets, therefore Joseph cannot be one, it's easy, it requires no investigation, it's dismissal without examination, and it's lazy. It's also not Biblical.

First John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

U Said: Joseph Smith is a proven false prophet and his translation is from his own imagination -or worse

Joseph smith is a prophet of God, he learned more about God in those few minutes in the grove than you have in all your years of study.

U Said: the word nephi is from the Hebrew root for “cast down” =nephil, and is what root word the nephillim [plural] is from.

Wait, Anti's used to say Nephi was not a Hebrew name until it was found on the dead sea scrolls from Lehi's time, and then it came over from Egyptian, which is consistent with Nephi's own account of using Egyptian characters to write the Book of Mormon with. Egyptian going to have a radically different meaning than your demonic interpretation...

I did a quick search and came up with this: the name Nephi derives from the Egyptian word nfr.2 While nfr denotes "good, fine, goodly"3 of quality, it also signifies "beautiful, fair"4 of appearance. Assuming that at least some senses of the Egyptian word passed into Nephite language and culture, this second sense of nfr may have influenced Nephite self-perception. The article goes on to talk about the word play of referring to the Nephites as "Fair ones", here Go read the article your self. U Said: In Enoch the nephillim/giants/cast down ones [plural] were to be disembodied by wars and by the flood of Noah, and were to be allowed to roam earth as evil spirits after the flood, to deceive into false worship of demons and worship of fallen angels, and to torment and afflict all Adamkind until the day of their removal from the earth at the return of the LORD Jesus Christ, when He comes to cleanse the earth of all things that offend, and comes to burn all the temples of the heathen over all the earth, and comes to establish His reign of Peace over all the earth from Jerusalem, Israel -in the middle east.

Nephritis is kidney disease, maybe Nephi had kidney trouble, and that's why they called him that, LOL! Some times, especially if you are saying hey these two words sound alike, maybe they are related (with no more reason to connect them than that) then you jump on a word because it has a meaning that agrees with what you already believe, you end up with a truly ridiculous story. I am going to list some of the assumptions that you would have to accept "whole":

• Joseph Smith made the whole thing up even though he had a total of three years of formal education.
• Joseph smith was told this story by a demon who answered a prayer to God this demon kept God from answering and the Demon then Testified of Jesus as the Savior.
• Joseph with his three years of formal education knew and purposefully named people in his book names that descended from Ancient Hebrew, and played complicated word games with these Hebrew names that no one new were fashionable in the time period he was talking about until later....

GET REAL!

I Said: “Bible” means collection of books.

U Said: One can have in their collection books that are written by men who know God and which books are true and are historical, but which are not “Thus saith the LORD”.

You evil pompous posturing Person how dare you try to prophesy in the name of the Lord! You are now a proven false prophet and i am going to start researching demonic names that might sound like yours...<Sarc>

U Said: Their books will not contradict anything that is written as “Thus saith the LORD, if they are indeed true.

Joseph Smith’s books contradicted “Thus saith the LORD”.

This just might be fun, where did Joseph's "Thus Saith the Lord" contradict the Bible's "Thus saith the Lord"? Remember, anything out side of a "Thus saith the Lord" can contradict and it's not a problem (according to your rules) let's see them quotes! In the mean time, I'll look for "Thus saith the lord" contradictions in the Bible, wow this is much easier now that we don't have the pesky Ten Commandments and the Thou shalt not lie stuff...

Hey, I know, since only the parts of the Bible in "Thus Saith the Lord" quotes matter, why don't you print your own Bible?

U Said: There is nothing any man has written since Revelation of Jesus Christ that is a word from God in any manner, shape, or form.

Including the Nicene Creed, athanasian Creed, and the Apostles Creed, Etc. In fact all those involved in the creation of those creeds are accursed!

U Said: Men may write books expounding the Gospel of Christ, and they do write excellent books doing so, but there is nothing added or taken away from that which Jesus Christ has spoken, and His last word is the book of Revelation.”

(Except when they convene a council to compiled books, arrange them, create dogma Creeds or doctrine, or make people in to saints, tell people to pray to Mary, etc)

You're a funny Guy, please keep posting.