I don’t know how you can look at the original article and not call it antagonistic. It seems to be a clear shot across the bow of those who hold to inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.
****
If one is sincere one will recognized there are many verses in the Bible that disagree with this Idealist who thinks the Bible is inerrant and sufficient.
This is really not meant to be contentious or a shot across the bow.
There are others who also love the Bible besides the Idealist and are frustrated when reading and comes across references to another book or verse it is not to be found.
Ecumenical means all who love their Bible have a right to defend or address some discrepancy in a cordial matter!
The Word of the God is inerrant!
That is not the same about the manuscripts especially when we don’t even have the originals to compare to the 3 or 4 generation copies of collections of manuscripts that the Bible is composed.
Some like to justify saying God is in Control yet we do not have the original works during the time the Lord gave revelations to His prophets!
When I have quoted scripture to show how the Lord warn His children than some like to tie that warning to another saturation, but if the world can do evil in that situation does it not stand to reason the world can do evil when and where it would like too when the children deny it is impossible to follow the Lord Commandments?
Those who deny the covenants of the Lord have no promise here or in Heaven they have no authority to bind here on earth on in Heaven!
If one is sincere one will recognized there are many verses in the Bible that disagree with this Idealist who thinks the Bible is inerrant and sufficient. [restornu]
The Word of the God is inerrant! [restornu]
- - - - - - — - - - - -
Ummm....does anyone else see the logical disconnect here???
Some like to justify saying God is in Control yet we do not have the original works during the time the Lord gave revelations to His prophets!
- - - - - -
The LDS don’t have the ‘gold plates’ either.
The treasure of the DSS shows that the Biblical MSS are pretty close in dates (esp the OT) and show that the so called ‘variants’ really aren’t.
The DSS has done a lot to prove the reliability of the Bible texts.
How about a few citations then? It shouldn't be hard given their are "many verses in the Bible" which show this. Why didn't Paul know about these verses when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
This is really not meant to be contentious or a shot across the bow.
So you'd have no problem with people posting articles which question the foundation of the Book of Mormon in this "ecumenical" forum. Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.