|
Author
|
Topic: Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
|
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: 03-08-2009
|
|
Message 46 of 352 (521519)
08-27-2009 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by Perdition
08-27-2009 4:48 PM
|
|
I think the LDS circularity/propaganda may be ignored.  Let's move on to my second question, which is this: Is there anything in the Bible, from Jesus or the apostles, that gives an impression that learning 'more' may be dangerous, because 'more' may mean less?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 4:48 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: 05-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 47 of 352 (521520)
08-27-2009 5:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by ochaye
08-27-2009 4:55 PM
|
|
I think the LDS circularity/propaganda may be ignored. I don't know what you mean here. Considering not only am I not a Mormon, I'm actually an atheist, I'm definitely not spewing propaganda.
Is there anything in the Bible, from Jesus or the apostles, that gives an impression that learning 'more' may be dangerous, because 'more' may mean less? Considering you asked this question, I'm sure there must be. If there is, please quote it for me, in context, and we can see if Jesus was really advocating not learning anything new from that moment on. If so, all the Christians who use modern technology are doomed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 4:55 PM | | ochaye has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 5:38 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: 03-16-2009
|
|
|
Message 48 of 352 (521524)
08-27-2009 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by ochaye
08-27-2009 4:41 PM
|
|
ochaye writes:
Ok. So, the Messiah, who was promised and prophesied in the OT, fulfilled the indication of the OT. There being no similar indications in the NT, the expectation is reasonably, on the assumption that God would use the same 'methodology' for further revelation, that there will be no further event to be expected that will necessitate recording of other revelation. If the divine rationale is that future events are to be pre-indicated, then one would expect nothing more of this nature.
Sure. Why not? Here's the indication that prophecy (scripture) is not going to stop being revealed. I also enjoy that it is stated to test what new scripture says.
quote:
1 Thess. 5
19-21 Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good
ochaye writes:
When Jesus came, he came into a context, one that was revealed for over a thousand years, so that he was unmistakably identified
This is a farce. The only reason we worship Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah -as opposed to the dozens, if not hundreds of other people who claimed to be the "Messiah" and were purported to have performed similar miracles, and obligations- is because the Roman Empire formally adopted the brand of Christianity created with the Council of Nicaea. There was (and still isn't) any clear indication that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.
ochaye writes:
And yet we are now to use our wits as best we can, without divine assistance?
No, we aren't to use our wits alone. Thessalonians clearly states that the spirit, and new prophecy is not to be shunned, but tested and gleaned for what is good.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 4:41 PM | | ochaye has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 5:41 PM | | Michamus has replied |
|
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: 03-08-2009
|
|
|
Message 49 of 352 (521528)
08-27-2009 5:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:00 PM
|
|
quote:
I not a Mormon, I'm actually an atheist, I'm definitely not spewing propaganda.
Sure? So the comment that 'there was more to come' was hypothetical?
quote:
I'm sure there must be.
So is it not reasonable to suppose that any and all claimed newer general revelations must at best be held with suspicion because they are a) without promise, prophecy or other pre-indication, and b)are warned of as potentially dangerous. Might it not be safer to discount them entirely?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:00 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: 03-08-2009
|
|
|
Message 50 of 352 (521530)
08-27-2009 5:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Michamus
08-27-2009 5:13 PM
|
|
quote:
Thessalonians clearly states that the spirit, and new prophecy is not to be shunned, but tested and gleaned for what is good.
But we don't know who has the Spirit. The Spirit must act upon what has already been revealed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Michamus, posted 08-27-2009 5:13 PM | | Michamus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by Michamus, posted 08-27-2009 8:26 PM | | ochaye has replied |
|
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: 05-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 51 of 352 (521534)
08-27-2009 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by ochaye
08-27-2009 5:38 PM
|
|
Sure? So the comment that 'there was more to come' was hypothetical? I was speaking from the point of view of a Mormon or perhaps other sect of Christianity that doesn't necessarily accept unconditionally that God will no longer ever inspire someone to write anything down ever again.
So is it not reasonable to suppose that any and all claimed newer general revelations must at best be held with suspicion because they are a) without promise, prophecy or other pre-indication, and b)are warned of as potentially dangerous. Might it not be safer to discount them entirely? Not if there is some necessary information in the new writing. For instance, Jews don't hold the NT as inspired by God, they're still waiting for someone who actually fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah. Christians disagree and think that Jesus fulfilled them and more. Would you say we should try and get all Christians to give up the NT because it could be dangerous if the NT is actually wrong and they're all following a false messiah? How successful do you think we would be if we tried? Holding it with suspicion would get back to the question Rahvin wanted you to answer...Should we accept this new revelation to be true and accurate. Most Christians don't accept the BoM, the Mormons have decided they think it is a true and accurate writing inspired by God. You're not forced to agree with them, but I would say you'd have to be obtuse not to see how someone could come to that conclusion based on the history of Judeo-Christian thought.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 5:38 PM | | ochaye has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 6:03 PM | | Perdition has not replied |
|
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: 03-08-2009
|
|
|
Message 52 of 352 (521537)
08-27-2009 6:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:54 PM
|
|
quote:
I was speaking from the point of view of a Mormon
Quite so.
quote:
Not if there is some necessary information in the new writing.
There would not be warnings about further claims if any more revelation was necessary.
quote:
Jews don't hold the NT as inspired by God
Mormons do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:54 PM | | Perdition has not replied |
|
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: 03-16-2009
|
|
|
Message 53 of 352 (521550)
08-27-2009 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by ochaye
08-27-2009 5:41 PM
|
|
ochaye writes:
But we don't know who has the Spirit. The Spirit must act upon what has already been revealed.
Nevermind, I am done discussing this topic with an individual unwilling to think above the level of a 5 year old.
Michamus writes:
Thessalonians clearly states that the spirit, and new prophecy is not to be shunned, but tested and gleaned for what is good.
Besides, this discussion is horribly off topic from whether the BoM contradicts the Bible. EOD
How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority. -unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by ochaye, posted 08-27-2009 5:41 PM | | ochaye has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by ochaye, posted 08-28-2009 6:26 AM | | Michamus has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 54 of 352 (521561)
08-27-2009 10:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
04-13-2009 7:53 AM
|
|
Contradiction 1: Start of Church
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but is it acceptable to go back to the question of the OP?
quote:
Peg is under the impression that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. I have asked her to provide 3 examples of the Book of Mormon contradicting the Bible. She has only responded so far with quotes from Joseph Smith, and a non-referenced summary of the LDS Church Belief.
I'll just present one contradiction in this post, the date of the start of the Christian Church. According to the Bible, the Christian Church began at the Feast of Pentecost, 50 days after Christs' crucifixion, as detailed in Acts 2. Note that in Mt 16:18, Jesus said that His Church was still future:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. But according to the Book of Mormon, it began much earlier. Mosiah 18:17, supposedly written about 145 BC, says:
And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church. [I can post more. But do they necessarily have to be from the Book of Mormon? It's easier to find contradictions between the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants, if that's an acceptable source.]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Michamus, posted 04-13-2009 7:53 AM | | Michamus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by Michamus, posted 08-28-2009 12:17 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 55 of 352 (521564)
08-27-2009 10:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
04-13-2009 7:53 AM
|
|
Contradiction 2: Birthplace of Jesus
According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:
Mt 2:1
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem ...
and this had been predicted by the prophet Micah:
Micah 5:2
As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah—
from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf,
one whose origins are in the distant past.
But the Book of Mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem:
Alma 7:10
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Michamus, posted 04-13-2009 7:53 AM | | Michamus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Michamus, posted 08-28-2009 12:29 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 56 of 352 (521567)
08-27-2009 11:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
04-13-2009 7:53 AM
|
|
Contradiction 3: Qualifications for Priesthood
According to the Old Testament, priests of Israel were exclusively from the tribe of Levi (who was one of the sons of Jacob):
Num 3:6-10
Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him.
... You are to assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they will be assigned exclusively to him out of all the Israelites.
So you are to appoint Aaron and his sons, and they will be responsible for their priesthood; but the unauthorized person who comes near must be put to death. But according to the Book of Mormon, Jacob himself and Joseph (one of Jacob's sons and a brother of Levi) were priests. (These men could not be priests according to the Bible.)
2 Nephi 5:26
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Michamus, posted 04-13-2009 7:53 AM | | Michamus has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 57 of 352 (521573)
08-27-2009 11:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
04-13-2009 7:53 AM
|
|
Contradiction 4: Length of Darkness
The Bible says that there was darkness for three hours at the time of Jesus' crucifixion:
Mt 27:45--Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land. Mk 15:33--Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
But the Book of Mormon says that this darkness extended for three days:
Helaman 14:20--But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead. 3 Nephi 8:3--And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Michamus, posted 04-13-2009 7:53 AM | | Michamus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Michamus, posted 08-28-2009 12:33 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 58 of 352 (521574)
08-28-2009 12:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
04-13-2009 7:53 AM
|
|
Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
The Bible says that we are saved by God's grace, through faith alone, not due to any works, achievements, or efforts on our part:
Eph 2:8-9
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.
But the Book of Mormon says that our works are necessary:
2 Nephi 25:23
for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
and Mormon doctrine clarifies that this means God's grace plus our works.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Michamus, posted 04-13-2009 7:53 AM | | Michamus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by Michamus, posted 08-28-2009 12:37 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 9:59 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: 03-08-2009
|
|
|
Message 59 of 352 (521588)
08-28-2009 6:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Michamus
08-27-2009 8:26 PM
|
|
quote:
Nevermind, I am done discussing this topic with an individual unwilling to think above the level of a 5 year old.
The predictable white flag.
quote:
this discussion is horribly off topic from whether the BoM contradicts the Bible.
It makes that discussion irrelevant as a main topic, which is no doubt horrible for Mormonism, though hopefully not for Mormons, who seek the truth. We now know that it is wrong for Bible believers even to think of using 'another testament'. The very title of the BoM gives it away. Besides, there are more than a few hints of the book's phoney nature within, to educated adults, at least. That the BoM does indeed contradict the Bible, and at its core, as kbertsche has illustrated in timely fashion, is therefore no surprise. 2 Nephi 25:23 shows Mormonism to be Roman Catholicism with a new face, an attempt by Catholics to assault Protestantism in a manner better suited to the modern age, and to American culture, than its own fundamentally medieval nature could adopt.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Michamus, posted 08-27-2009 8:26 PM | | Michamus has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 60 of 352 (521604)
08-28-2009 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
08-27-2009 11:15 PM
|
|
Re: Contradiction 3: Qualifications for Priesthood
This verse, and the verses surrounding it, is speaking of who is to guard the Ark of the Covenant, not a general qualification for priesthood.
kbertsche writes: According to the Old Testament, priests of Israel were exclusively from the tribe of Levi (who was one of the sons of Jacob):
Num 3:6-10
Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him.
... You are to assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they will be assigned exclusively to him out of all the Israelites.
So you are to appoint Aaron and his sons, and they will be responsible for their priesthood; but the unauthorized person who comes near must be put to death.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 08-27-2009 11:15 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by ochaye, posted 08-28-2009 9:03 AM | | hooah212002 has replied | | | Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 12:55 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2