T
TheosisM
Guest
Is that really the Mormon view? The qualification “as far as it is translated correctly” says otherwise to me.
- Status
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
Excuse me, didn’t put it in “Mormon speak”–God can protect the Scriptures (but needs Joseph Smith to translate them correctly) and of course, since He is such is obviously such a failure, He cannot protect His Church from apostasy (even though He said that He would.)
M
MyzTek
Guest
This statement of “as far as it is translated correctly” should be taken with consideration of the Joseph Smith “translation.” This version of the Bible inserts lengthy passages not found in any manuscript, which shows us that the Mormon view goes well beyond mere translation into modern languages and speaks directly to the Mormon view of the reliability of the transmission of the scriptures in the original languages. For Joseph Smith’s “inspired” translation to be true, the theory of the great apostasy most definitely includes the idea that not only did God allow priesthood authority to pass from the earth, but also that he removed (or never intended) protection of the scriptures from being corrupted or lost.
This is of course just IMHO based on what I have studied.
peace
M
Marie5890
Guest
My thoughts go to the idea that truths were preserved by the very institution they claim was in apostasy.
No, that doesnt make sense now that I look back on it.
I do understand the LDS view of apostasy. I was one.
It just causes me cognitive dissonance over the idea that truths compiled and given to the world by the very institution Mormons believe fell into apostasy many years earlier.
It’s not like the Bible existed at the time that they believe when the apostasy happened. It came much later. And it came from tradition.
M
MyzTek
Guest
See my above post. The JST goes well beyond questions of translation and requires that passages previously unknown to any ancient manuscript were supernaturally revealed to Joseph Smith.
This part is not IMHO, it is immediately clear when comparing the JST to any modern translation or ancient manuscript of the Scriptures.
peace
M
Marie5890
Guest
If the great apostasy was a reality, then did the CC even have the authority to compile the Bible?
How come God just didn’t wait until the 1830’s and let Joseph Smith both translate the BoM and compile the Bible since they believe he had authority.
How come God just didn’t wait until the 1830’s and let Joseph Smith both translate the BoM and compile the Bible since they believe he had authority.
M
Marie5890
Guest
(I should point out and make it clear that I do understand the LDS prism. I had it. I lived it. Im just challenging that prism now by thinking “outside the box” of that prism, as it were. Questioning that if the apostasy claims authority was stripped from the world, did the CC have the authority to compile the Bible in the first place? Does the CC lacking authority invalidate in anyway the compilation of the Bible ??..Or the compilation of the Bible it completely irrelevant to whether or not the CC had authority?)
Just some musing “outside the box”
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
This means, “as far as your translation/interpretation agrees with Joseph Smith’s imagination”.
J
Jay53
Guest
Kind of like how Muslims believe the parts of the Bible that aren’t corrupt are those that agree with the Quran and Muhammad.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, same thing.Kind of like how Muslims believe the parts of the Bible that aren’t corrupt are those that agree with the Quran and Muhammad.
S
SteveVH
Guest
In answering this very question, the local Mormon bishop in my neck of the woods explained to me that “Not all truth was lost. Only ‘priestly authority’ was lost.” That’s a subject for another thread which has already been beaten to death in previous threads.
By the way, the ascertion that it was not the Catholic Church who wrote the New Testament, but rather God, is a straw man. Of course the Catholic Church believes that God is the author of all sacred scripture. It was the CC that proclaimed it so. The question is, how does anyone but the CC know that they chose the correct writings to proclaim as “inspired”? There were many “writings” circulating at the time (Didache, etc.) It was the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that determined which of these were “inspired” and which were not. The rest of Christianity must accept that the CC was led by the Holy Spirit in its determination and therefore must accept its authority. There is simply no other way to know.
P
ParkerD
Guest
TheosisM,
Thanks for showing an understanding of the “Mormon view” and the qualification “as far as it is translated correctly.”
P
ParkerD
Guest
Marie5890,
If you’re saying the Bible came completely from oral history and that the ECF had that oral history among them and wrote it all down and that became the Bible, then I think you haven’t read much. Have you read of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and so forth? How in the world do the Jews have the Pentateuch if they were supposed to have gotten that from the Catholic church via oral history? Do you think the writings of Paul and of John all came word for word from oral history compiled by people who lived “much later” than they lived?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Marie5890,
If you are seriously considering this question, then you could take 30 minutes or so and read Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon–the allegory written by a prophet named Zenos about the “tame and wild olive trees” and explaining the purposes of God in both the scattering of Israel and the gathering of Israel (meaning all the tribes, not just Judah).
By the way, my family read that particular chapter a few nights ago, together. My children understood it quite well, though it is not particularly easy reading. One needs to be aware of the concept of an olive orchard and the process of grafting and the process of gathering ripe fruit.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Marie5890,So, somehow, the Bible made it thru the Great Apostasy even with translation problems etc., but the authority didnt?
God could protect the Bible, but not His authority?
He withdrew His authority, but not His Word?
If you will take these questions and read Revelation 13:7 and Daniel 7:25, then you will realize that God is in charge of what He allows to happen on the earth, and what He allows powerful people to do whether they have the best interests of the people in mind or not.
Those verses show that “power was given him [the “beast”] over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” or in other words that “he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the Saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” In Daniel 7:21 and 23 also read the words “prevailed against them” and “shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.”
Next, read Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 3:7. Christ Himself is the only holder of the “key of David” and He can allow hell and the powers of darkness to “open” or “shut” with His key; He has that kind of power, but uses it to fulfill the purposes of God on the earth and in the spirit world.
It was a major purpose of God to have the Bible go forth in the world, and the world owes more credit to the Jews than to anyone else for the fact that we have the Bible today. But the world also owes credit to God and Christ, Who knew exactly what was happening and knew Their purposes for allowing “great words” to be spoken “against the most High” and allowing “devour the whole earth” and allowing “prevailed against them.”
As to the use of keys by the ambassadors of Christ on earth, surely it makes sense that the Giver of the keys would want them used in a particular way or would disallow their use in His name? (In other words, if the receivers of the keys who thought they had them and even insisted they had them, go off on a tangent doing their own thing with the “keys” they insist they have, then the authority to use the keys has not been preserved by the receivers, and they are no longer representing the Giver of the keys.)
As far as the term “His Word”, it is important to realize that “His Word” relies always on the Holy Spirit being present with anyone who translated scriptural writing or who taught from the scriptures with any words of their own that were outside of the specific doctrines of the scriptures.
Consider an example of pure water (everlasting water) flowing from a pure fountain or a pure underground spring. The water is pure when it surfaces, but whether it remains pure depends upon outside influences that make contact with the water. Even if impure, the water that keeps flowing and providing sustenance to those who use it downstream, may indeed provide sustenance that gives them great good (i.e. great truths) in their lives, but this does not mean the water may not have some impurities, or that the Provider of the water approves of the impurities that have happened along the way. The Provider allows freedom of entry, freedom of competing ideologies, freedom of changing the composition of the water even though He loves all of the people who will depend upon the water. His plan allows for the freedom while all the while having a plan that will allow for a recovery from any impurities of the water, when all has been said and done by the time of the complete harvest drawn from the recipients of the water’s life-giving sustenance.
M
MyzTek
Guest
To be fair this is not at all what Marie said. When the cannon was endorsed by the Catholic Church, it was all written down, not "oral history. I am 100% certain this is what she believes and meant by her comments. In fact, as far as I have been able to discern, it was all written down before the last apostle died or was killed. The oldest manuscripts and fragments would seem to confirm this. If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest you present it instead of constructing a straw man for yourself to burn down…
P
ParkerD
Guest
MyzTek,
These were the words Marie5890 wrote in the post I was responding to with my comment you have cited:
“It’s not like the Bible existed at the time that they believe when the apostasy happened. It came much later. And it came from tradition.”
So what you have written here (which I agree with, generally) has contradicted what Marie wrote in her post. Thank you for clarifying for her.
I apologize if Marie was offended by what I was led to understand from her words. If you knew what she meant and have stated it better, then that’s great.
These were the words Marie5890 wrote in the post I was responding to with my comment you have cited:
“It’s not like the Bible existed at the time that they believe when the apostasy happened. It came much later. And it came from tradition.”
So what you have written here (which I agree with, generally) has contradicted what Marie wrote in her post. Thank you for clarifying for her.
I apologize if Marie was offended by what I was led to understand from her words. If you knew what she meant and have stated it better, then that’s great.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I have a question for all the Catholics here: Do you believe that the Jews gave us the Old Testament?
R
Rv_Cain_Spencer
Guest
I’m sure they think that the bible is unreliable. They do love the apostle John though.
Here is their evidence that even the apostle John knew that the church was commiting heresy at the time;
Revelations;
Last chapter, verse 18
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
In other words, they were already adding heresy to the teachings of christianity and they had alrerady ommited some teachings too.
R
Rv_Cain_Spencer
Guest
Jews did give the world the bible, yes. Why do you ask?
- Status