I don’t mean to answer for Diana, as she is much more knowledgable and eloquent than I, and I don’t claim to be an apologist either, but this is my 2 cents:
The Johanine comma was just an example of how one thing has crept in, that we now know of, this leaves open the door for other possible insertions or ommissions to help further a point of view.
She has me on ignore so she won’t answer anyway. If you can’t beat the truth, ignore it, right? But I welcome the response nonetheless.
Your point only has validity if we can demonstrate that a given passage has been warped and distorted, implying a different meaning. This is the reason that the Mormons harp on different versions of the Bible without bothering to read and compare any of them. Since all that I’m aware of, except the Joseph Smith Translation, use the same sources, going back as far as possible, put the translation into print for ease of readability, for serious study, or in the dialact of that particular era. Just because different terminology is used don’t mean that the meaning is going to be wholly different.
The Bible is reliable as far as it is translated correctly. This does not only include getting the words right, but the meaning of those words too. We can use the Bible to provide evidence for all our beliefs.
Okay, let’s explore that; if the Bible was reliable, why did God have Joseph Smith ‘retranslate’ it? And why, then, doesn’t the LDS use that version, the JST? Why would God allow the apostate RLDS obtain the copyright to it and leave the LDS, the church he supposedly leads, get only the notes from it? How is it that your God was stymied by a mere woman, Emma Smith?
Yes, ‘getting the words right’ is important, but curious how they so often line up with those we find in the KJV, first published in 1611 when the BOM was supposedly written 1,226 years earlier. Since we know that Smith really had nothing to do with the translation of the BOM, the words had to be from God, if we are to believe the accounts of David Whitmer and Apostle Russle M. Nelson.
None of that makes any sense, does it?
Okay, if you can use the Bible to support your beliefs, please show me where the Bible tells us that we can become gods like God.
You can use the Bible ot provide evidence for your beliefs. Now since our beliefs do not line up exactly, there has been a mistranslation of the meaning of those words somewhere along the lines.
An example you use is infant baptism. This actually goes further than just infant baptism but what exactly is baptism and why it is necessary.
While Catholics and LDS may agree baptism is necessary, there are other Christians who believe it is not.
I would say that the true meaning of baptism was lost. We look at the same words but pull different meanings from them.
I am a Biblical Christian first and a Catholic second. When the RCC and the Bible differ, I abdicate to the Bible. I don’t win a lot of friends that way, but I have to speak the truth whenever given the opportunity.
There was no ‘mistranslation’ per se; there’s the Mormon church, however, using Christian terms to describe very un-Christian things.
You’re making baptism much more difficult than it has to be; since water is such a powerful image in the Bible, giving life, sustaining it, and then taking it away, it’s as much symbolic as it is necessary in the process. To be baptised is to make a public display of a rebirth into the ways of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
Baptism, under certain circumstances, isn’t necessary for salvation, as we see demonstrated in the example of the thief crucified next to Jesus.
While I plan to have my daughter baptised Catholic, it’s not necessary because she has no ability to choose between good and evil as of this point. I’m going to do so for tradition’s sake, not because there’s any Biblical standard for it being required.
I would be carefull about calling God a “bumbling idiot”. Remember He had trouble keeping the house of Israel faithful, even with all kinds of prophets, mighty miracles and a stern law. How much less likely was it that He could keep the gospel intact without prophets, mighty miracles and without temporal enforcement
I don’t say that to give you more ammunition, but just to point out that He has to work with imperfect people.
I’m not calling the Biblical God an idiot, but rather the little god of Mormonism; the two aren’t the same. My God promised that his Word would stand forever (Isa. 40:8) but yours couldn’t keep it together and let it leave the earth for some 1,900 years before gathering a group of liars, frauds, thieves, and miscreants to ‘restore’ his church. What was he doing in that span of time?
You then use that as a launching pad for claiming authority for your church because it claims to have modern prophets. Okay, I’ll meet you there and ask you this: how many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet? And how can you continue to claim Joseph Smith as a prophet with a perfect 0% accuracy rating?
