Post by Jason on Jun 26, 2006 0:06:47 GMT -4
Let me sincerely appologize to anyone other than Dead Hoosiers who may be checking on this thread occasionally if we are boring you to death.
Correct, God does not contradict himself. He does sometimes change his mind, however.
Case in point; the Israelites were told that the law was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Any Israelite who obeyed the Law of Moses before Christ's coming obeyed this standard, and God justified him in doing so. When Christ appeared however, the standard changed. Now those who follow Christ's teachings were required to follow a higher and distinctly different standard than what the BC Israelites followed - "turn the other cheek". You may call it an expansion, but it was a definite change - what was acceptable before was no longer acceptable.
And as you pointed out yourself, many of the things God's people were required to do changed when Christ appeared. Doesn't this indicated they could change again?
No word or prophecy exists indicating there would be any change in the game plan after His coming. What is written concerning Christ in the NT covers everything through eternity.
No word or prophecy exists indicating that there would never be any other changes in the game plan after His coming either. Neither is there anything that said God would never give any further scripture.
Allow me to quote a relevent passage of the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 29:3 "And because my words shall hiss forth-many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."
2 Nephi 29:8-10 "Wherefore murmer ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."
I'm no expert in how the veracity of books is established, but I'm pretty sure that it's not by the age of the text--that is, presuming that the newer writing is more accurate simply because it's newer.
A text that is older has had more time to be altered, mis-copied, or mis-translated. The Dead Sea scrolls were such an astounding and useful discovery because they were so much older than any other text that had been found. The age of a text is not the only standard I would use in judging the validitiy of a text but it is something to keep in mind when reviewing ancient texts (not just the Bible).
The Bible mentions several books of scripture are missing from our current text, including:
Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:6), Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13), A book of statutes (1 Sam. 10:25), Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29), Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29), Book of Shamaiah (2 Chron. 12:15), Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34), Acts of Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:22), Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19), earlier epistle from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:19), another epistle from Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), an epistle of Paul from Laodicea (Col. 4:16), former epistle of Jude (Jude 1:3), and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14).
These texts have been lost to us in time (there are some books claiming to be the Prophecies of Enoch, but none of them are credible as such). If one or more were discovered today, and somehow verified as authentic, would you disregard them anyway or would you accept them as scripture?
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Your point? I said no one should put a book before God. "The Word" is one of Christ's titles - it does not refer to written text.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
In the LDS view, the gospel taught by the LDS church is the same as the original. It is not a different gospel than what Paul received, and therefore the LDS church is not accursed for teaching it.
The word "gospel" here cannot refer to the Bible specifically because the Bible was not compiled at the time these words were written. If it were taken to literally mean "if anyone preaches anything more than what is in this book then they are accursed" then it would have to mean that only the letter to the Galatians is to be considered scripture.
Since Christ (who is eternal) is Lucifer's creator, how can He be Lucifer's brother?
So do you instead teach that Christ is Lucifer's father?
Read the whole first chapter of Colossians again. Does the scripture refer to God the Father, Jesus Christ, or both?
As I said, quoting scripture at each other doesn't resolve very much. Scripture can be read to mean different things by different people with different understandings of how they fit together. Plus there's the fact that much of my understanding of the gospel comes from scripture that is not present in the Bible.
Can I instead ask you a question that may be somewhat personal instead:
How do you know that the Bible is correct?
I'm not saying by this that you don't know the Bible is correct or that it isn't correct or anything of the sort. What I'm asking you is what procedure you used to determine if it is correct. Did you simply accept what you were told by your parents or pastor? Did you study it and then decide it was right? Were you convinced by archaeological discoveries? There must be some reason you accept the Bible as your religious authority. What is that reason?
Correct, God does not contradict himself. He does sometimes change his mind, however.
Case in point; the Israelites were told that the law was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Any Israelite who obeyed the Law of Moses before Christ's coming obeyed this standard, and God justified him in doing so. When Christ appeared however, the standard changed. Now those who follow Christ's teachings were required to follow a higher and distinctly different standard than what the BC Israelites followed - "turn the other cheek". You may call it an expansion, but it was a definite change - what was acceptable before was no longer acceptable.
And as you pointed out yourself, many of the things God's people were required to do changed when Christ appeared. Doesn't this indicated they could change again?
No word or prophecy exists indicating there would be any change in the game plan after His coming. What is written concerning Christ in the NT covers everything through eternity.
No word or prophecy exists indicating that there would never be any other changes in the game plan after His coming either. Neither is there anything that said God would never give any further scripture.
Allow me to quote a relevent passage of the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 29:3 "And because my words shall hiss forth-many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."
2 Nephi 29:8-10 "Wherefore murmer ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."
I'm no expert in how the veracity of books is established, but I'm pretty sure that it's not by the age of the text--that is, presuming that the newer writing is more accurate simply because it's newer.
A text that is older has had more time to be altered, mis-copied, or mis-translated. The Dead Sea scrolls were such an astounding and useful discovery because they were so much older than any other text that had been found. The age of a text is not the only standard I would use in judging the validitiy of a text but it is something to keep in mind when reviewing ancient texts (not just the Bible).
The Bible mentions several books of scripture are missing from our current text, including:
Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:6), Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13), A book of statutes (1 Sam. 10:25), Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29), Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29), Book of Shamaiah (2 Chron. 12:15), Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34), Acts of Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:22), Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19), earlier epistle from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:19), another epistle from Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), an epistle of Paul from Laodicea (Col. 4:16), former epistle of Jude (Jude 1:3), and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14).
These texts have been lost to us in time (there are some books claiming to be the Prophecies of Enoch, but none of them are credible as such). If one or more were discovered today, and somehow verified as authentic, would you disregard them anyway or would you accept them as scripture?
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Your point? I said no one should put a book before God. "The Word" is one of Christ's titles - it does not refer to written text.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
In the LDS view, the gospel taught by the LDS church is the same as the original. It is not a different gospel than what Paul received, and therefore the LDS church is not accursed for teaching it.
The word "gospel" here cannot refer to the Bible specifically because the Bible was not compiled at the time these words were written. If it were taken to literally mean "if anyone preaches anything more than what is in this book then they are accursed" then it would have to mean that only the letter to the Galatians is to be considered scripture.
Since Christ (who is eternal) is Lucifer's creator, how can He be Lucifer's brother?
So do you instead teach that Christ is Lucifer's father?
Read the whole first chapter of Colossians again. Does the scripture refer to God the Father, Jesus Christ, or both?
As I said, quoting scripture at each other doesn't resolve very much. Scripture can be read to mean different things by different people with different understandings of how they fit together. Plus there's the fact that much of my understanding of the gospel comes from scripture that is not present in the Bible.
Can I instead ask you a question that may be somewhat personal instead:
How do you know that the Bible is correct?
I'm not saying by this that you don't know the Bible is correct or that it isn't correct or anything of the sort. What I'm asking you is what procedure you used to determine if it is correct. Did you simply accept what you were told by your parents or pastor? Did you study it and then decide it was right? Were you convinced by archaeological discoveries? There must be some reason you accept the Bible as your religious authority. What is that reason?