Z
zerinus
Guest
Sorry, I meant to say, “are not contradictory”. Bad typo. Just noticed.
- Status
K
kikkichan
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Don’t look now, but Bethlehem was, and is, in the 'land of Jerusalem." IF this were a contradiction, you would be correct, but it’s not. Suffice it to say that this is one “contradiction” that actually is evidence FOR the Book of Mormon, since it uses conversational conventions that were more likely at that time. I’m not going to go into it here, but you can see the way this so-called “contradiction” is resolved here.
er…can you explain why Jesus has two very different genealogies, one in Matthew, one in Luke, that both claim to be Joseph’s line?
Pascal’s wager again…cute turn on it, though. The trouble is, of course, that we believe that one gets ONE full and fair chance to hear of Christ and His gospel. One. If I have it here and turn away, what makes you think that it would be offered to me again?
With all due respect, lady, you do not get to tell me what sins I am guilty of, when you are guilty of…perhaps not a sin, but willful ignorance is certainly unwise.
You come at me with what you believe to be searing ‘proof’ of contradictions between the bible and the Book of Mormon—but have you even attempted to ask how we have reconciled these ‘contradictions’ before you aim the 'weapon?" Obviously not.
Before you write another accusatory word, you might want to see what WE say about these things. We are, after all the ones who need to deal with them and to reconcile them. You might find out that what we say makes sense–or you might not. If it does make sense, then you shrug your shoulders and go on to a better example. If it doesn’t, then you look for the argument against our reconciliation of the texts.
As to THIS one…Jenny, c’mon. Do you REALLY think that Joseph Smith, raised on the KJV and revivalist Christianity, didn’t know down to his bootheels that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? You guys arguing this one are trying to have this both ways: either Joseph plagiarized the bible wholesale (in which case, he knew it pretty well, wouldn’t you say?) or he didn’t know it enough to keep from making a mistake this egregious.
Turns out…it wasn’t a mistake. But I’ll let you read the argument, and you can form a rebuttal if you wish. At least then it will be an honest one.
I just noticed…you are a Baptist, not a Catholic. Or rather, you are an ex-Catholic turned Baptist. This explains a great deal.
J
jesuspsr
Guest
ha ha ha ha haThank you Zerinus for your answer. I have read your blog and also the article about the bible. According to you, archaeology, etc. is not an exact science, therefore accepting your description, and explanation, I can only come to one conclusion, that both the bible and the BOM are both fables and a bunch of tripe. There is no actual, intangible, irrefutible, proof for either. I will now become an atheist.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
J
Janet1983
Guest
I see I absolutely do not get through to you, because any logical argument runs into the indoctrinated wall of willfull ignorance. I will pray for you, because only God can lead you onto the true path…
One more remark however… My last article was written by two people… The logic argumentation was my fruit and everything after that, showing what is at stake, was written by my wonderful ex-Mormon husband who knows the terms, teachings and theology way better than I do, even though I am learning quickly.
May God lead you to the Truth.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Then your husband needs to do more research. You were given at least two, perhaps three, places to go that explains the seeming discrepancy between the “Jerusalem/Bethlahem” text.
Did you look?
Will you answer the question about the two genealogies of Christ?
J
Janet1983
Guest
Wasting my time on debating a brick wall?
I’d rather pray for you because that actually does work.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I see.
Well, that is indeed a wonderful example of blind faith. I do appreciate your prayers, however.
U
usemelord
Guest
Here I am back again zerinus and dianaiad. Of course, you’ll remember my original request which was for LDS contributors to pick one or the other, the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Initially dianaiad’s response was to answer my question with a question of her own, that is, to ask me which book of the many books of the Bible would I pick? Obviously, the Bible is a collection of books just as is the Book of Mormon, so picking your favorite book of the Bible, or your favorite book from the Book of Mormon proved nothing, rather only avoided the initial request—the Bible or the Book of Mormon, one or the other please. Then zerinus (post #479) said he would answer my question only if I answered a question of his first (sound familiar?) which was for me to pick either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of John. I answered his request (post #493) selecting the Gospel of John. Next, dianaiad accused me of setting a “rhetorical trap” (post #496). This was followed by zerinus response (post #498) promising me that he would answer my original question, but wanted to “draw it out” a bit more. Yawn. Just as I expected, I can’t get a direct answer. Earlier I related an experience that I had with a neighbor a number of years ago who was a bishop in a local LDS church. When I asked him the same question, he had no trouble and answered without hesitation, “The Book of Mormon.” So, then, why is this such a difficult question? A bishop could answer it, but no one else here can? I’m reminded of an article I read a few years ago in “This Rock” magazine comparing Jesus and Buddha. After four or five pages of fascinating reading the article concluded with one observation: “Jesus is God, Buddha is not.” Well, in a similar manner it could be said, “The Bible is the Word of God, the Book of Mormon is not.” Zerinus, I’m still waiting for your to fulfill your promise and answer my original question, unless you elect to “draw it out” even more.
S
SkinnyJay
Guest
I would assume the LDS would have their own reasoning of this but in the case this is a serious question I will answer.
Matthew => audience: Jews => Interested in the lineage from Abraham through David.
Luke => audience: Gentiles => Interested in title “Son of God”. Easier when considering pagan background of the people.
Jews would have ears for decedent of Abraham while Gentiles couldn’t care less about the patriarch. Each author is writing towards a specific group of people so why fill the writings with writings that would be useless for the target audience.
Heres what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the matter: Genealogy of Christ.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t like the idea of you mixing your dialogue with me, with your dialogue with someone else. I am not responsible, nor answerable, for your dialogues with other LDS; and they are not responsible, nor answerable, for your conversations with me.
Well, I told you the reason why I prefer to answer your question with another question. I have studied the life and teachings of the Savior, and I like to emulate His example. I try to learn from Him. What is good enough for Him, is good enough for me. He was the master teacher. His teaching methods and techniques were second to none! There are certain teaching moments where a question is best answered with another question. He was able to recognize those situations, and apply that principle to His best advantage. What objection do you have to my emulating His example, and learning from Him?
Now you are really talking! You are applying a double standard here. It is a kind of doubletalk. There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. You see, from my point of view, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both divinely inspired and sacred scripture. There is absolutely no difference between them in that regard. The comparison between Jesus and Buddha does not apply here, because the Buddhists don’t consider the Buddha to be God, but we consider the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture just like the Bible. Therefore choosing between the two presents me with the same dilemma that choosing between the Gospels of John and Matthew did to you. Now if you do not consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture, that is a perfectly legitimate position to hold, and it is something that we can talk about later if you like. But that is an entirely different issue from the question that you are posing to me. When you begin to recognize that, we get closer to my answering the question you have put to me.
I promise you that I will answer your question when you have answered my questions which I had asked in a previous post. In addition, I would also like you to tell me why you would choose the Gospel of Matthew over the Gospel of John? I explained to you why I would choose the latter. That is because I find the Gospel of John to be more inspirational and faith promoting, although Matthew seems to provide more facts about the life and ministry of the Savior. John seems to appeal to the heart, while Matthew appeals to the intellect and the mind. The moments it captures in the life of Jesus are more significant to me than those of Matthew, such as His final prayer moments with His disciples on the night of His crucifixion. Can you tell me what makes the Gospel of Matthew appeal to you more than that of John?
D
dianaiad
Guest
We answered it, sir.
You just didn’t like the answer. I’m sorry about that, but that’s the truth.
Scripture, ALL scripture, is ‘useful for instruction.’ The bible is a collection of books, including two sub collections, the OT and the NT. We separate the Bible and the Book of Mormon EXACTLY the way you separate the OT and the NT—books of scripture separated by classification, not by importance. The OT is about God’s dealing with His children before Christ, and the NT is about His dealings with His children during and after Christ’s death. The Book of Mormon is about His dealings with His children in the Americas. The Doctrine and Covenants is about His dealings with His children in more modern times. The Pearl of Great Price is a small collection of scriptures about His dealings with two of His greatest prophets. They should probably be put in the OT, but hey, I don’t suppose you guys would like that much.
We publish these volumes separately…but we also publish them as one volume of scripture, where they all dwell together between one cover, just as the OT and the NT do in the bible. (though I have seen plenty of copies of just the OT or the NT).
To US, and this is the important thing, sir, what WE think about this (since after all you are insisting that we be the ones to make this ludicrous choice) it IS just like choosing between Mathew and John, or letters from Peter or Paul.
You are requiring that we make an impossible choice. We have told you so, and told you why. If you want to continue to crow about somehow ‘winning’ something, be my guest, but you will look rather silly.
There is an old fable about how the hands, head and feet of the body got to grumbling about how much work they had to do, where the stomach and the liver just sat there: they didn’t have to till the soil, or walk behind the plow, or think about how to feed a family; they just sat there and received the food that was earned so dearly by the rest of the body parts. So, one day they decided to get rid of the stomach and liver; after all, they were just dead weights, right?
As the body lay dying, they discovered too late that everything in the body has a part to play,and attempting to choose between the parts will kill the whole.
Scripture is like that. I know that you don’t believe in the BOM, but WE do. So I would never be stupid enough to ask you seriously to choose between Mathew and Mark, except as an illustration of why your insistence that WE choose is so idiotic.
Take that final answer and…do something with it.
Or not.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have no problem with your answer. The reason I asked the question was that here was a seemingly huge contradiction between one book of the NT and another, but that it wasn’t all that difficult to reconcile those differences so that they are understood. The same can be said for almost all the NT 'internal contradictions."
The reason I used it was that, just as Janet uses the “at Jerusalem/in Bethlehem” 'contradiction" as somehow proof positive that these two books ARE contradictory, so do many non-believers use the two genealogies to ‘prove’ that the NT is false.
In both cases, there is a perfectly logical and reasonable reconciliation that eliminates the problem. In fact, the “at Jerusalem/in Bethlehem” question is answered so well that it actually supports the BoM, rather than detracts from it. Turns out that the BoM reference to 'at Jerusalem" is precisely the proper language use for someone not from that area.
When she can find a ‘contradiction’ that we do NOT have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for, THEN she can crow…but if she will not even go look to see if we have one, that’s going to cause a hitch in the debate, and a pretty big credibility drop, seems to me.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Although I am not the one who did ask you I need to tell you something:
The Bible is the Word of God and so every book within the Bible is the Word of God. If we choose one over the other that is just a personal preference, but it does not have any further implication as it is simply both the Word of God.
I do love the book of John and if I had to choose I would choose John, just because it is very deep in theological questions…
On the other hand there is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew so this is a very close call. One of my favourite passages is in Matthew.
Among the Epistles I like Romans best, even though there are very great passages in every other epistle. Romans however is loaded with divine truth…
Choosing one over the other therefore is a simple matter of preference and not of theological value except in a case of contradiction.
U
usemelord
Guest
zerinus and dianaiad, I was not surprised by your answers. I rather expected sermons in response and that’s what I got. Oh well. And zerinus you asked why I picked the Gospel of Matthew over the Gospel of John. You may as well have asked me to pick ONE book of the entire Bible, what’s the difference? And my answer to that would be to put on a blindfold and throw a dart. Anywhere the dart landed I would be comfortable with that book, ANY book of the Bible really. The point is that I’ll take any individual book from Genesis to Revelation. If you demand for me to give you a reason, it would simply be that I love each book of the Bible on its own. This whole exercise is getting rather tiresome. Methinks it’s time to unsubscribe, perhaps.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Very good, Janet. Now put yourself in our shoes (since we are the ones you are asking to make this choice) and substitute “Book of Mormon” and “Bible” in the place of John and Matthew, or Romans. Then apply that last sentence as if you were LDS so that you will know where we are coming from.
It is not logical for you to demand that we apply YOUR prejudices to OUR beliefs. It is true; you don’t believe in the Book of Mormon. But you can NOT ask us to choose as if we did not believe in it.
Z
zerinus
Guest
You are now changing tack. I didn’t ask you which one of the books of the Bible would you choose. I gave you a choice between two specific books. You chose one book, and I asked why that particular one. If you have now changed your answer, and want to choose by throwing darts, then that is my answer too! You want to know which book I would choose, the Bible or the Book of Mormon? The answer is the same as yours. I will throw darts. Whichever one it falls on, I will choose that one!
I assure you it is getting tiresome for me too. You remember what Jesus did, when the Pharisees dillydallied and would not give Him a straight answer. He wouldn’t answer them either! He said, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things” (Matthew 21:27). Maybe that is the kind of answer you require.
J
Janet1983
Guest
To make it simple for you: I DID choose… your turn.
(Not that I expect you to be able to make such a choice… You weren’t asked anyway, but I guess you have that habit… )
Here is some other remark (I hope I will not regret overstimulating you)…
It is completely logical to ask “BoM or Bible?”… They are comparable, because they have a similar structure: Several books that are put together into one.
Nobody asked you to decide between Alma and Helaman… That would be the same as choosing Matthew or John… Alma/Helaman as well as Matthew/John are part of a unit that is inseparable. One is the BoM and the other is God’s Word in the Bible.
D
dianaiad
Guest
This is a public forum with everybody eligible to comment. That’s the idea. So yeah, I was asked.
And you did NOT choose. You made all sorts of hems and haws…but using the same criteria you used, I will say that I love Proverbs for the wisdom, The Song of Solomon for the poetry, the story of Jonah for it’s story of recalcitrant prophets, Luke for it’s lovely story of the birth of Jesus, the epistles of Peter for their gentle teaching, the epistles of Paul for his fire and brimstone, the book of Nephi for its story and lessons…oh, I could pick amongst the scriptures and tell you why I prefer one sort or the other all day, but in the end, you said it yourself; there is no reason to choose between them THEOLOGICALLY,. even if you did add “except for contradictions.” there.
I also notice that YOU did not address the two genealogies of Jesus. Why is that, I wonder?
M
mjf001
Guest
You have the right to choose any book you like. You have the right to believe the way you want to believe. You have the right to be wrong. Just because you believe you’re not wrong doesn’t change the fact that the only truth in the LDS is there because of the Grace of God. Not because Joseph Smith is a prophet or because the books he fabricated are true.
- Status