Skip to comments.
Mark 400th Anniversary of King James Version by Studying Bible [Mormon]
LDS.org ^
Posted on 10/03/2011 8:52:51 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; General Discusssion; Other non-Christian
KEYWORDS: antichristian; bible; inman; lds; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 next last
To: ejonesie22; Alamo-Girl; reaganaut; Tennessee Nana; Elsie; Godzilla; Colofornian; Zakeet; ...
The LDS mind does not comprehend a 'work of faith', even when it posts the example Paul gave of Abraham. So, just for readers of this thread, let's make an analogy:
When Abraham was taking Isaac to the place upon the mountain where he believed he was to make sacrifice to God, he told the servants to wait at the foot of the mount, that 'they' --he and Isaac-- would make the sacrifice and return to them at the foot of the mount. Abraham was making a work of faith in that he believed God' promises to him regarding making his descendants so numerous as to be like the sands of the sea. Abraham believed God would restore Isaac regardless, so that God would keep His promises. 'Abraham believed God and it was counted for him righteousness.' Now the clue, as provided by Jesus speaking to Thomas after the Cross: Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
When I place my faith in Jesus on my cross suffered He in my stead, then I act upon that belief by striving to keep the Two Great Commandments, God imputes to me righteousness, just as He did for Abraham in believing the promises of God. Thus salvation is by faith not of 'works' lest any man should boast. An act of faith is behaving as Jesus told the Pharisees was the work God required, as illustrated by Abraham's 'work of righteousness', where Abraham behaved according to his belief, his trust, in God's Promise.
A clue: Jesus told the Pharisees that David rejoiced 'to see His day'; Jesus taught them that 'blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'
Finally, Paul differentiates 'works of righteousness which we have done' and the work which God requires, which is trusting in His Promises, as illustrated with the example of Abraham and the trust Rahab exhibited and ultimately as Jesus illustrated perfectly in going willingly to the Cross trusting God would raise up the body and 'not allow His Holy One to see corruption'. Trusting in God's Promise is a different 'work' than something one does in pride of self, such as charity work trying to earn God's favor.
121
posted on
10/04/2011 8:02:03 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
To: Elsie
Bear..
bare...
what DIFFERENCE does it make??
- - - - -
Whether you get killed or are just cold.
122
posted on
10/04/2011 8:07:46 AM PDT
by
reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".)
To: Elsie
MormonDude(I get this warm and fuzzy feeling every time I read about Moroni...)
- — - - -
Here this might help then...
http://www.affirmation.org/
123
posted on
10/04/2011 8:12:18 AM PDT
by
reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".)
To: oremites; svcw
Then why don’t you “correct” that which you allege is misinformation instead of just alleging the poster is engaged in spreading misinformation?
124
posted on
10/04/2011 8:27:55 AM PDT
by
SZonian
(July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
To: oremites; svcw
Mormons have offered up absolutely no proof that the Bible was/is mistranslated. Nor can they turn to the JS translation either since you don’t use it.
I’m sorry, it appears that god lied to JS when he told him to “correct” the Bible. JS got killed before he could complete “god’s” assignment to him.
What you appear to be saying is that God is not omnipotent. That IF the Bible were not translated correctly and IF JS were a true prophet, why would God permit JS to be killed before he could complete God’s work?
Hmmm...
125
posted on
10/04/2011 8:31:24 AM PDT
by
SZonian
(July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
To: oremites; svcw
Interesting gambit you got going there.
Instead of countering the information presented, you keep using a question as a “response” in an attempt to deflect and to keep the poster on the defensive.
How...alinsky like.
126
posted on
10/04/2011 8:33:48 AM PDT
by
SZonian
(July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
To: SZonian
Are you as amused as I am that posting links to lds sites and publications, using lds’ own words, using the lds historical documents, quoting lds leaders directly is considered misinformation.
You are correct we never or rarely have a response that points out what the lds’ own words are misrepresented.
127
posted on
10/04/2011 8:44:28 AM PDT
by
svcw
(Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often. - Mae West)
To: oremites; svcw
"Unfortunately, you haven't provided a single quote where an LDS leader stated that Mary had physical sex with God."Yes, svcw has provided the quotes, names, sources, etc. you so casually dismiss. Denying it does little for your "argument".
"You simply assumed that is what they were talking about because that is what you want to see."
Could it be that you're simply denying it because it contradicts with your worldview?
Aren't you simply assuming they didn't say it because that would contradict with that you want to see?
128
posted on
10/04/2011 8:45:07 AM PDT
by
SZonian
(July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
To: SZonian; oremites; svcw
I suspect Oremites realised he got ‘schooled’ on this thread and won’t be back. SZ, I’m sure you remember what it was like (I know I do) when we (as LDS) were confronted with things we couldn’t explain or defend. It was easier to run away than try to actually defend LDS beliefs. We see it on here alot.
129
posted on
10/04/2011 8:46:17 AM PDT
by
reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".)
To: svcw; SZonian; oremites; MHGinTN
A faith that cannot be defended is a faith that is not worth having.
130
posted on
10/04/2011 8:52:15 AM PDT
by
reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".)
To: svcw; reaganaut
It’s good exercise though and it offers up valuable insight about how TBM’s think and the tactics they attempt to bring to the table.
131
posted on
10/04/2011 8:55:27 AM PDT
by
SZonian
(July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
To: SZonian; oremites; svcw
Then why dont you correct that which you allege is misinformation instead of just alleging the poster is engaged in spreading misinformation? You are so funny SZ. We have yet to see a mormon post the "correct" information here - always the pasturized milk versions.
132
posted on
10/04/2011 9:44:28 AM PDT
by
Godzilla
(3-7-77)
To: Elsie
Got a list of these we can see; instead of us hoping that you are telling the truth?You can start with these: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/19/bible-king-james-version-david-edgar http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
133
posted on
10/04/2011 10:51:34 AM PDT
by
DustyMoment
(Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
To: SZonian
134
posted on
10/04/2011 11:44:56 AM PDT
by
reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see".)
To: DustyMoment
Ok, I'll bite, so what is the correct translation that does not “gild the lily”...
Where is this real unadulterated Gospel of Christ
found...
135
posted on
10/04/2011 11:56:49 AM PDT
by
ejonesie22
(8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
To: reaganaut
136
posted on
10/04/2011 12:10:44 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
To: ejonesie22
Well the oldest is of course Codex Sinaiticus from 4th century A.D. Other fragmentary go back to 2nd or late 1st Century
As far as a modern language translation, for English there are 2 primary schools of thought
Literal word for word translation that may make the English some what less “modern” and a bit “wooden”
ESV and NASB are exmaples of this
while a more idiomatic / paraphrase style is represented by
NIV
Living Bible (a paraphrase of NASB)
Personally I tend to read NASB and NIV but if push comes to shove the most NASB would be my pref but smidgen.
There are of course many others, the works that translate from the most ancient manuscripts with the large number of scholars are to my way of thinking the most accurate.
To: Bidimus1
I tend towards the NIV in general use for teaching due to clarity as well as the ASV but don't see either of those making the KJV inaccurate or obsolete except in language. Even the Catholics and Orthodox find the KJV an acceptable translation of the books it contains.
Each translations sees its variations and direct accuracy varies but to say they are “fiction” or don't accurately portray the Gospel is a tick much.
I wonder what failings our friend sees beyonds that.
138
posted on
10/04/2011 12:31:32 PM PDT
by
ejonesie22
(8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
To: ejonesie22
If i recall there are a few grammatical errors in KJV , the were copied word for word by j.smith by the way.
The archaic language of KJV makes it some what harder to read as I tend to have to “translate” to modern English as I go.
At least one lds person I knew said other translations did not have the “feel” of the KJV. I guess its like old English script seems more.. “formal” than just reg text.
To: MHGinTN
I see a problem with this approach. One thing I don’t think you can accuse Mormons of is a lack of faith. Holding fast to their position in light of the total lack of archaeological evidence to support the BOM; the multiple substantive changes therein; the demonstrated fraud of the Book of Abraham translation; contradictory accounts of the First Vision; apostasy and condemnation of the original “witnesses”; false prophecies, etc., etc.; they pretty much live and breathe faith. The question becomes, what is that faith based on?
There is what I call the Architecture of Faith, wherein one establishes a factual base (beginning with the concept that we live in and perceive a real, physical world relayed to us mostly accurately by our five senses) and then begins to build a construct of beliefs upon that foundation, each level tied to that which comes before. The mortar that binds these “bricks” is faith, filling the gap between what is believed and what can be objectively proven. There is always going to be some mortar required for any belief (for instance, the belief that while driving through an intersection on a green light, the belief that you’re not going to be hit by a car ignoring the opposing red light; sure it can happen, but the odds are it won’t, so driving through the intersection requires no great amount faith). The important issue is the ratio of faith to evidence; bricks to mortar.
A structure composed of more mortar than brick is extremely shaky and can collapse under very little stress. This is why it’s important for Christians to know why they believe what they believe. An individual’s beliefs may be sound, but if they’re based solely on faith (i.e., it’s what they were taught by someone they liked, so they accepted it), they may crumble in time of testing, or be deceived by whoever shows up at their door carrying a “customized” Bible or other gospel.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson