A single Biblical passage to undermine all of mormonism.

[arieh0310]

BJ Colbert:

I prefer to not read unseen messages into scripture as the Catholics seem to do, but to take it literally as far as it is translated correctly.

That statement alone deflates your entire tome. How can any Mormon seriously say that the LDS church takes a literal approach to Scripture (so far as it is translated correctly)? What is the LDS stance on transubstantiation? The LDS church rarely takes a literal approach to Scripture but instead employs semantic gymnastics to prove its heretical interpretations. Anytime that Scripture proves a Mormon doctrine wrong your scholars do not go back to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to settle the debate, you simply label it as a corrupt passage and ignore it.

So, I once again throw out the challenge: Can any Mormon take this passage from Isaiah (knowing that Isaiah has been proven to be uncorrupted) and explain it away?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

arieh0310:

That statement alone deflates your entire tome. How can any Mormon seriously say that the LDS church takes a literal approach to Scripture (so far as it is translated correctly)? What is the LDS stance on transubstantiation? The LDS church rarely takes a literal approach to Scripture but instead employs semantic gymnastics to prove its heretical interpretations. Anytime that Scripture proves a Mormon doctrine wrong your scholars do not go back to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to settle the debate, you simply label it as a corrupt passage and ignore it.

So, I once again throw out the challenge: Can any Mormon take this passage from Isaiah (knowing that Isaiah has been proven to be uncorrupted) and explain it away?

Did you even bother to read the passage from the introduction of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, which says that some of your own translations are not correct? How do you explain that? Which translation do you believe? At least we have only one Bible to read, and it is God’s word,as far as it is translated correctly, we have not changed it as you have done by making many Bibles, and saying they are all correct, depending on who is doing the reading. Your priests have a different bible than you have. Which one is most correct? The Douay-Rheims says that they are the most correct of all Catholic translations, but some Catholics do not agree with that translation. So which one do you read and agree with? There is no passage labeled as corrupt, except by you. I follow the Bible literally, with footnotes to further explain certain passages. Your own CB has footnotes to enhance the understanding, at least the Douay-Rheims does. Does that mean you threw out the real meaning in favour of your own interpretation? I do not think so. Since Jesus often spoke in parables, sometimes it takes a little clarification to dummies like me. I for one appreciate some explanations of Biblical terms and passages. I appreciate the explanations and footnotes of the CB as well, it has helped me understand the Catholic view of some of the scriptures.
There are many persons of all faiths who put their own spin on scripture as to what it means to them personally in their lives. I think God speaks to each of us through scripture and gives us guidance in our lives through prayer and his Holy Scripture. Certain passages have different meaning to me at different times in my life, and will seem to jump off the page at those times, when I need special guidance, to give comfort and special help when I need it.
The basic message is there and is mostly correct, even with incorrect translations. You still follow your CB with incorrect translations, because the message is from God and the meat of the message is there in spite of mistakes by humans in translating. Read the different versions of the Catholic Bible and you will see the (to me) quite large differences between them. It is the same with the KJV and the clarifications by Joseph Smith. The meat is there and that is what is most important. We do not study Joseph Smith’s translation,(except to check the footnotes as I did in the CB) we study the KJV.
As far as Isaiah, we believe it and trust that it is accurate, just as you do. There is no argument here, except the one in your own mind.

BJ

 

[arieh0310]

BJ Colbert:

Did you even bother to read the passage from the introduction of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, which says that some of your own translations are not correct? How do you explain that? Which translation do you believe? At least we have only one Bible to read, and it is God’s word,as far as it is translated correctly, we have not changed it as you have done by making many Bibles, and saying they are all correct, depending on who is doing the reading.

Your whole argument seems to distort what we mean by Scripture being wholly inspired and inerrant. What we believe is that the original manuscripts written by the original author is inspired and inerrant. We can be thoroughly assured of the accuracy of the manuscipts we have in our possesion now because of the sheer number is manuscripts extant that wholly agree with each other and by continuing archeological evidence proving the verasity of Scripture. Why we have so many translations is because of the art of translating and transliterating ancient words, sentence structure, idioms, etc. For example, in one translation we read that King David rested with his fathers, in another we read that Kind David died and was buried. It conveys the same message, only one was translated word for word and one was transliterate thought for thought. Although we have several translations not one essential doctrine is contradicted. To rely on only one version that doesn’t use the latest manuscript evidence or scholarship and written in archaic English is foolish and invites error.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

arieh0310:

Your whole argument seems to distort what we mean by Scripture being wholly inspired and inerrant. What we believe is that the original manuscripts written by the original author is inspired and inerrant. We can be thoroughly assured of the accuracy of the manuscipts we have in our possesion now because of the sheer number is manuscripts extant that wholly agree with each other and by continuing archeological evidence proving the verasity of Scripture. Why we have so many translations is because of the art of translating and transliterating ancient words, sentence structure, idioms, etc. For example, in one translation we read that King David rested with his fathers, in another we read that Kind David died and was buried. It conveys the same message, only one was translated word for word and one was transliterate thought for thought. Although we have several translations not one essential doctrine is contradicted. To rely on only one version that doesn’t use the latest manuscript evidence or scholarship and written in archaic English is foolish and invites error.

I agree with you that scripture is wholly inspired, it is the translation that can be in error, because after all it is a human translating. Just as the Douay-Rhiems version says in its introduction, the translators often use their own words instead of God’s original words and therefore it takes away the original meaning and may keep the Holy Ghost from giving the inspiration you would get from the original translation. With so many translations how do you know which is the most correct?

So you are saying that the Catholic Bible is not written in archaic English? I really don’t know about that, so can’t argue there.
I agree with what you say above. That is exactly what I was saying above. The words are God’s but sometimes they need clarification from the mistranslation. It very seldom changes the meaning, except to clarify the meaning and make it easier to read.
As in Joseph Smith’s translation. BJ

 

[arieh0310]

BJ Colbert:

The words are God’s but sometimes they need clarification from the mistranslation. It very seldom changes the meaning, except to clarify the meaning and make it easier to read.
As in Joseph Smith’s translation. BJ

Smith didn’t add footnotes to clarify verses, he totally changed their meanings. For example, in the KJV Isaiah 65:1 reads, “I am found of them who seek after me, I give unto them that ask of me; I am not found of them that sought me not; or that inquireth not after me.” Paul quoted this verse in Rom. 10:20, but in Joseph Smith’s translation it says: “But Esaias is very bold and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.” Smith’s “inspiration” speaks for itself!

The big difference is that we have Greek and Hebrew scholars trying to faithfully translate the manuscripts in their original language, the LDS church has one guy saying, “hey, trust me I’m a prophet”.

 

[arieh0310]

arieh0310:

For example, in the KJV Isaiah 65:1 reads

I meant to write “Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version” not “KJV”. Smith’s Inspired version contradicts itself.

 

[MEP]

BJ Colbert:

So you are saying that the Catholic Bible is not written in archaic English? I really don’t know about that, so can’t argue there.

Hehe… the “Catholic Bible”. That’s kind of a topic of debate right now. Traditionally, the Douay-Rheims Bible is the Catholic English bible, and it is very archaic English (served as the basis for the KJV if I’m not mistaken). The DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate and not from original sources (how important that is varies depending on who you’re talking to).

Today, we also have the New American Bible (NAB) which was translated in the 70s from original sources and was part of the post-Vatican II efforts to produce a wholly ecumenical English Bible. Not all Catholic scholars are fond of this translation and many more take issue with the commentary found in most editions of the NAB. I’m not enough of a Bible scholar to offer much more info than that.

Additionally, the Catholic church has recognized the Catholic Edition of the RSV and the NRSV, but I’m not sure how welcome those editions really are now that the NAB is around (and traditionalists will probably always stick to the DR, I’d get a Haydock Bible myself if I could afford one — anyone know of one online? I can’t imagine it’s covered by copyright after all these years).

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

The big difference is that we have Greek and Hebrew scholars trying to faithfully translate the manuscripts in their original language, the LDS church has one guy saying, “hey, trust me I’m a prophet”.

I don’t know about the Hebrew, but there are many Greek manuscripts that many scholars (not LDS) are working on. Many of them agreeing that there was some serious tapering going on - this is not widely spoken about in “Christian” circles.

As far as Prophets and inspiration or revelation goes, this was how the church was to be guided. It was only when this ordained method of church leadership ceased that there was a reliance on what had been written.

 

[Vidar]

Paul G:

I don’t know about the Hebrew, but there are many Greek manuscripts that many scholars (not LDS) are working on. Many of them agreeing that there was some serious tapering going on - this is not widely spoken about in “Christian” circles.

As far as Prophets and inspiration or revelation goes, this was how the church was to be guided. It was only when this ordained method of church leadership ceased that there was a reliance on what had been written.

If you want to look at serious tapering, compare the original book of commandments to the D&C. I have commented on the changes with regards to the priesthood elsewhere, but there are numerous others. About 2500 words have been altered. Many revelations say the exact opposite of what they did in the original edition. All to accomodate Joseph Smith’s new ideas. David Whitmer wasn’t very happy about this, which is why he left the mormon church.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Paul G:

I don’t know about the Hebrew, but there are many Greek manuscripts that many scholars (not LDS) are working on. Many of them agreeing that there was some serious tapering going on - this is not widely spoken about in “Christian” circles.

“Many,” huh? Care to name some? I can only think of Bart Ehrman.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

I don’t know about the Hebrew, but there are many Greek manuscripts that many scholars (not LDS) are working on. Many of them agreeing that there was some serious tapering going on - this is not widely spoken about in “Christian” circles.

Send the link. There are over 15,000 full and partial New Testament manuscripts extant that are in near perfect harmony. These manuscripts were copied by scribes over several hundred years all across the globe. When the Apostles wrote their letters they were immediately copied and sent throughout the Christian world. In order to accomplish “serious tampering” would require an amazingly coordinated worldwide conspiracy (all before the advent of the internet).

I always hear this tripe from Mormons. I once had a guy tell me that there was some stained glass in Eastern Europe that depicted some Mormon idea, another tell me there was some evidence of horses and pigs in America prior to Columbus. I am starting to get weary of obfuscation.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Yeah, I’ve learned to be instantly wary of any evidences that include the word “many” and/or have no actual names, places, etc. attached to them.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

Send the link. There are over 15,000 full and partial New Testament manuscripts extant that are in near perfect harmony. These manuscripts were copied by scribes over several hundred years all across the globe. When the Apostles wrote their letters they were immediately copied and sent throughout the Christian world. In order to accomplish “serious tampering” would require an amazingly coordinated worldwide conspiracy (all before the advent of the internet).

I’m quite sure that there is widespread agreement within theological groups. However my comment stands that there is little consensus between groups.

 

[Paul_G]

If you want to look at serious tapering, compare the original book of commandments to the

Paul the Apostle struggled greatly with this problem in the church

David Whitmer wasn’t very happy about this, which is why he left the mormon church.

Your assertions are not the reason David Whitmer left the church. He didn’t leave his was excommunicated. All his trash talk came afterward.

 

[Vidar]

Paul G:

Paul the Apostle struggled greatly with this problem in the church

Your assertions are not the reason David Whitmer left the church. He didn’t leave his was excommunicated. All his trash talk came afterward.

I see that you are not willing to seriously interact with the evidence. Somehow that does not surprise me. If you read Whitmer’s “An adress to all believers in Christ” and then read the BOC and the D&C to verify the facts, they check out. It is a fact that Smith rewrote his revelations, interpolating numerous words and sentences and stories that were previously unheard of in the mormon church. In some cases the revelations convey the exact opposite meaning of what was originally stated. Get a copy of the BOC and read it for yourself.

The reason I am mentioning this is again because you (and Tom and the rest of the LDS “missionaries” in here) ought to apply the same standards to your own early history as you do to the history of the early Catholic Church. You do not, nor can you. It would disprove your own religion. When it comes to Catholicism you strain out a gnat. But with regards to your own religion you are perfectly willing to swallow a camel.

Vidar

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

I’m quite sure that there is widespread agreement within theological groups. However my comment stands that there is little consensus between groups.

There may be various opinions on what the words mean but not on what the words are. It is true that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations but not 30,000 drasticly different manuscripts. I guess that is why Christ set up an infallible teaching Church.

 

[PaulDupre]

BJ Colbert:

We follow the original Bible with some clarifications, of the original translation, in footnotes, but no changes have been made in the copy, it is the same as the version all other churches follow. Indeed it is the same as the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible except for the books that are excluded from the KJV, such as Machabees, Lamentations, Baruch, Osee, etc.

The “ORIGINAL BIBLE”? The LDS church uses the King James Version, which is not “the original bible” by a long shot! The Latin Vulgate is 1000 years older than the King James, and there were versions in the original greek, aramaic and hebrew before that.

Osee, by the way, is the original name for Joshua, which is in every bible including yours. Lamentations is also in every bible, including yours. Please BJ, learn just a little bit of what you’re talking about. You have been royally scammed by the Mormons.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

PaulDupre:

The “ORIGINAL BIBLE”? The LDS church uses the King James Version, which is not “the original bible” by a long shot! The Latin Vulgate is 1000 years older than the King James, and there were versions in the original greek, aramaic and hebrew before that.

Osee, by the way, is the original name for Joshua, which is in every bible including yours. Lamentations is also in every bible, including yours. Please BJ, learn just a little bit of what you’re talking about. You have been royally scammed by the Mormons.

Ooops! Did I say that? sorry, just a slip, you are right, I forgot about Lamentations…and I know your bible is the first, but I was talking about KJV, if we used the Catholic bible I wouldn’t have said that all other Christian religions use the one we use. I would agree yours was first and for all I know may be the most correct and complete. OK? BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

arieh0310:

Smith didn’t add footnotes to clarify verses, he totally changed their meanings. For example, in the KJV Isaiah 65:1 reads, “I am found of them who seek after me, I give unto them that ask of me; I am not found of them that sought me not; or that inquireth not after me.” Paul quoted this verse in Rom. 10:20, but in Joseph Smith’s translation it says: “But Esaias is very bold and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.” Smith’s “inspiration” speaks for itself!

The big difference is that we have Greek and Hebrew scholars trying to faithfully translate the manuscripts in their original language, the LDS church has one guy saying, “hey, trust me I’m a prophet”.

You are right again, Smith did not add footnotes, he only transferred the inspiration he had from God to written words. The translation is from God alone, and stands as a correction to mistranslations of His words by men. God simply corrected the mistranslations through his servant Joseph Smith.
BJ

 

[arieh0310]

BJ Colbert:

You are right again, Smith did not add footnotes, he only transferred the inspiration he had from God to written words. The translation is from God alone, and stands as a correction to mistranslations of His words by men. God simply corrected the mistranslations through his servant Joseph Smith.
BJ

How could God inspire JS to insert a contradition in the Bible as my example clearly illustrates?