Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
If the Bible is not inerrant, then it is not Truth.

This is untrue. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a collection of writings, most of which were written by prophets of God.

It is not the complete collection of all the writings of the prophets.

The Bible is not perfect because man put the words to paper and translated it, and man is not perfect.

There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also. Claiming the Bible to be inerrant does not win you points with God.
458 posted on 05/11/2015 12:11:45 PM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies ]


To: StormPrepper
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

This is untrue. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a collection of writings, most of which were written by prophets of God.

So, you don't expect God to tell the truth then?

461 posted on 05/11/2015 12:32:06 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]

To: StormPrepper; metmom
This is untrue. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a collection of writings, most of which were written by prophets of God.

The entire Bible is the work of Prophets ...not some of them

It is not the complete collection of all the writings of the prophets.

It is the complete writings of the prophets of God. The only books not written by prophets are the Apocryphal books .

The Bible is not perfect because man put the words to paper and translated it, and man is not perfect.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever."

God is capable of protecting His word...or He is not God at all

471 posted on 05/11/2015 1:04:54 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]

To: StormPrepper; metmom
>>There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also.<<

Show us one.

475 posted on 05/11/2015 1:14:38 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]

To: StormPrepper
There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also.

Not any more!!

God (thru Joseph Smith) removed them.

Use the Inspired Version now.

Uh; you DO; don't you??

I hear that SLC still tells it's people to use the KJV.

What's up with THAT??

502 posted on 05/11/2015 3:01:23 PM PDT by Elsie (I was here earlier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]

To: StormPrepper
The Bible is not perfect because man put the words to paper and translated it, and man is not perfect.

HMMMmmm...






"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."
---Joseph Knight's journal.


"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.
(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),
"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,
as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,
and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."


"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"
reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881
in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:
 
 "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,
Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12
June 15, 1879,  pp. 190-91.)


Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:
 
"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"
("A New Witness for Christ in America,"
Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)


"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."
---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.




503 posted on 05/11/2015 3:02:24 PM PDT by Elsie (I was here earlier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson