Changes to Mormon Scriptures

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight did you see my comment about “most correct” (not “most perfect” as you stated)?

CORRECT
Definition
cor·rect kə rékt ]

ADJECTIVE
1.
accurate: accurate or without errors
“the correct time”
2.
acceptable: acceptable, or meeting a required standard
“correct dress”

PERFECT
Definition
per·fect
ADJECTIVE
1.
without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults

hmmmm…both say “without errors”

look like another red herrings bites the dust

 

[Janderich]

CORRECT
Definition
cor·rect kə rékt ]

ADJECTIVE
1.
accurate: accurate or without errors
“the correct time”
2.
acceptable: acceptable, or meeting a required standard
“correct dress”

PERFECT
Definition
per·fect
ADJECTIVE
1.
without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults

hmmmm…both say “without errors”

look like another red herrings bites the dust

Are you trying to convince me that “correct” is synonymous with the word “perfect” and that Joseph believed the book was perfect? This is clearly not the case. Joseph corrected the manuscript of the BofM while he was still alive. I’m not going to buy that one.

 

[Janderich]

lol…you have problems with your red herrings.

first, no one ever claimed the Bible to be “the most correct book”

second, The Bible was written thousands of years ago…the Book of mormon written less than 200 years ago.

The Bible was not translated into English first. The Book of Mormon was.

The Bible was written by many men. The Book of Mormon by Joe, copying from other sources.

I admire your attempt to throw red herrings to shift the focus…but it will not work.

You regularly accuse me of a red herring when I ask you a very similar question about your faith. Now who is dodging. It is a simple question. Is the Bible perfect? If not why does God allow errors? Steven calls it inerrant. Do you believe this to be the case? Will you answer or will you continue to deflect?

 

[kimg901]

So these changes are not changes of your doctrine? But they are then scriptural changes, yes? Dont scripture and doctrine go hand in hand? Im curious…

 

[TexanKnight]

Are you trying to convince me that “correct” is synonymous with the word “perfect” and that Joseph believed the book was perfect? This is clearly not the case. Joseph corrected the manuscript of the BofM while he was still alive. I’m not going to buy that one.

lol

I showed the definitions

you wanna argue with the dictionary with your red herrings now?

Joe lied. he always lied. Whether it was about this book, his affairs, his banking scandal…whatever.

And your red herrings dont change it

 

[TexanKnight]

You regularly accuse me of a red herring when I ask you a very similar question about your faith. Now who is dodging. It is a simple question. Is the Bible perfect? If not why does God allow errors? Steven calls it inerrant. Do you believe this to be the case? Will you answer or will you continue to deflect?

This thread is about the book of mormon. So, when shown how wrong you are…you try to switch it to the Bible.

You wanna discuss how wrong the Bible is, start your own thread.

Or…keep trying to throw red herrings into this one. I do not blame you

 

[kimg901]

You regularly accuse me of a red herring when I ask you a very similar question about your faith. Now who is dodging. It is a simple question. Is the Bible perfect? If not why does God allow errors? Steven calls it inerrant. Do you believe this to be the case? Will you answer or will you continue to deflect?

God doesnt allow errors, men do. The Bible we use (the correct bible ) hasnt had scriptural changes, only translations for other people (Spanish, German, Chinese, etc) whereas your b.o.m has had scriptural changes.

 

[Janderich]

So these changes are not changes of your doctrine? But they are then scriptural changes, yes? Dont scripture and doctrine go hand in hand? Im curious…

Not necessarily, doctrine is a principle or firmly held belief. Whether the word is Mosiah or Benjamin does not change doctrine.

 

[TexanKnight]

Not necessarily, doctrine is a principle or firmly held belief. Whether the word is Mosiah or Benjamin does not change doctrine.

cool…you are right…it only shows Joe did a poor job when he wrote the book.

now address each of the other plethora of examples we provided

 

[kimg901]

Not necessarily, doctrine is a principle or firmly held belief. Whether the word is Mosiah or Benjamin does not change doctrine.

Okay Jan, but do you believe in your b.o.m scripture too? Dont your scripture and doctrine back each other up? Catholic Doctrine like believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist were as the Bible supports it.

 

[Janderich]

This thread is about the book of mormon. So, when shown how wrong you are…you try to switch it to the Bible.

You wanna discuss how wrong the Bible is, start your own thread.

Or…keep trying to throw red herrings into this one. I do not blame you

I see, you will not answer. Do you not see that you are trying to hold the BofM (which you don’t believe in at all) to a higher standard then the Bible? This dual standard must work well, it allows you to throw stones at one book while using those same stones to build a pedestal for the other.

 

[TexanKnight]

I see, you will not answer.

I would on a thread about the Bible.

Not to your continued dodges and red herrings.

Now, address each of the examples.

You can;t

so you keep up the red herrings.

Typical LDS

 

[twopekinguys]

Jandrich,

Even though you tried to drag this thread off topic by bringing the Bible into it, you never did answer the question I posed to you at post #19.

You keep saying the Bible has errors and has been changed/corrected.

Prove it, or retract it. Simple as that.

 

[Janderich]

Jandrich,

Even though you tried to drag this thread off topic by bringing the Bible into it, you never did answer the question I posed to you at post #19.

You keep saying the Bible has errors and has been changed/corrected.

Prove it, or retract it. Simple as that.

Very well, there are whole books written about this topic. There have been thousands of changes and much of it cannot be verified because the oldest Biblical documents we have are copies of copies. However, even these have changed over time. One book, “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman points out a couple of the more egregious errors.

A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).

B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark.

C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):

There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine. (dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-changed-the-bible-and-why-bart-ehrmans-startling-answers/)

If we are being honest it is important to be honest about both books. This idea of inerrancy is simply foolishness.

 

[TexanKnight]

Very well, there are whole books written about this topic. There have been thousands of changes and much of it cannot be verified because the oldest Biblical documents we have are copies of copies. However, even these have changed over time. One book, “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman points out a couple of the more egregious errors.

If we are being honest it is important to be honest about both books. This idea of inerrancy is simply foolishness.

whew…got that out of your system I hope and now you can stay on topic and stop with the red herrings and start responding instead of dodging?

I doubt that is possible. By actually answering instead of dodging and using red herrings, you would start looking like a Catholic instead of a Mormon

 

[Janderich]

whew…got that out of your system I hope and now you can stay on topic and stop with the red herrings and start responding instead of dodging?

I doubt that is possible. By actually answering instead of dodging and using red herrings, you would start looking like a Catholic instead of a Mormon

I think I have answered your questions even though you have not answered mine.

 

[SteveVH]

Now I hope you don’t think the Bible is inerrant (ie. incapable of being wrong). This is simply not the case.

I believe what the Church teaches about it:

“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Dei Verbum 11).

If you believe that the Bible contains errors, how do you know what is error and what is not? It is not the Bible that is in error, it is the private interpretation that is in error. An inspired book requires an infallible interpreter, without one it is difficult to impossible to extract the truth from the pages of Scripture.

 

[TexanKnight]

I think I have answered your questions even though you have not answered mine.

Actually, you have not. You are still dodging. And you know it. And we both know why. You have no answers because deep inside you know ur church is false. Now. Dodge some more

 

[RebeccaJ]

Very well, there are whole books written about this topic. There have been thousands of changes and much of it cannot be verified because the oldest Biblical documents we have are copies of copies. However, even these have changed over time. One book, “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman points out a couple of the more egregious errors.

If we are being honest it is important to be honest about both books. This idea of inerrancy is simply foolishness.

What is the error?

I don’t think you are understanding how Catholics view scripture. A probable dual authorship does not negate that what is being taught is inspired. We understand scripture comes to us via human hands, human means in a human context.

The claim for the Book of Mormon is that is came to be via supernatural means, both in how Smith acquired it and how it was translated. The translation part, in particular, should be perfect. When substantial changes are made to it, how would you know that the changes are right? You have NO documents to go back to in order to verify the translation.

It is a poor claim to say we don’t have old documents for the Bible. You should study up on how modern translations of the Bible are being done. The methods, and available documents to translate from, compared one against the other, are far improved over the days of the King’s men.

I also think that you should stop giving the impression that Mormonism teaches the Bible and Book of Mormon are equally reliable, when it is clearly Mormon teaching that the Bible can be trusted only so far,while the Book of Mormon can be trusted with absolute certainty.

Like most things, Mormons have everything turned upside down.

 

[Patavium]

What is the error?

I don’t think you are understanding how Catholics view scripture. A probable dual authorship does not negate that what is being taught is inspired. We understand scripture comes to us via human hands, human means in a human context.

The claim for the Book of Mormon is that is came to be via supernatural means, both in how Smith acquired it and how it was translated. The translation part, in particular, should be perfect. When substantial changes are made to it, how would you know that the changes are right? You have NO documents to go back to in order to verify the translation.

It is a poor claim to say we don’t have old documents for the Bible. You should study up on how modern translations of the Bible are being done. The methods, and available documents to translate from, compared one against the other, are far improved over the days of the King’s men.

I also think that you should stop giving the impression that Mormonism teaches the Bible and Book of Mormon are equally reliable, when it is clearly Mormon teaching that the Bible can be trusted only so far,while the Book of Mormon can be trusted with absolute certainty.

Like most things, Mormons have everything turned upside down.

Yes. Wasn’t the book of Mormon translated using some Gold Plates?

According to Smith’s account, and also according to the book’s narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as “reformed Egyptian”[4] engraved on golden plates. Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel,[5] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ’s true church in the latter days.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/The_Book_of_Mormon-_An_Account_Written_by_the_Hand_of_Mormon_upon_Plates_Taken_from_the_Plates_of_Nephi.jpg