It is better to preach for something instead to preach against somebody. In the first case you do for love in the second you do for hate.
A very kind person asked several questions so I will try to do a briefing here.
1) At the time the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written, the name" Jesus Christ" had never been known, he did not even know Himself by that name. It was not until the Bible was translated into English language that this name appears.
You are right but you have to consider that Joseph Smith was translating from the golden plates and he did the translation in a way that it could be clear for the people of his time, or for his same culture. Example: the word "Book" was unknown in the Old Testament, the right word should be "scroll", but in all the modern Bibles you find the word Book not scroll, is this making the Bible false? No! Why? for the same reason that Joseph did, the modern translators put the word that best fit for the culture and mentality of their time.
2) There is no baptism in the Old Testament times. In 1st Nephi 20:1 the Mormon church added the words:"or out of the water of baptism" to Isaiah's writings. Is this an attempt to strengthen the Mormon claim that baptism was practiced by the people in the Old Testament? 2 Nephi 9:23-24; 31:5-6 talks about repentance and baptism 550 B.C. not even possible.
Well if you believe in the Bible you should accept this concept as true. Let me explain and quote several scriptures. Nobody can enter into the Kingdom of God unless they are baptized, according to the word of Jesus to Nicodemus, Jesus didn't introduce the Baptism, John was baptizing before he came to be baptized from him. Let's read from John 1:25 "And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" Think about it, the proper question to ask should be: " What are you doing here?" If they didn't know anything about it, instead no question for what he was doing, this means that they knew what he was doing, so they were asking: "Why... if you are not......" they were simply asking by what authority he could perform the baptism. For me there is no doubt that they knew about it. Lets read Matthew 3:1-7 "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea.... and they went out to him Jerusalem in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, (do you understand? It is speaking like His was different from THEIRS) he said unto them' O generation of vipers, who hath warned to flee from the wrath to come?) This implies that they knew the meaning of the ordinance, in fact when Jesus came to be baptized He said, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.)What had to be fulfilled? The Gospel had not been given at that moment so he was fulfilling something already in the law. Jesus didn't introduce baptism, it was already there and when John started to baptize, the people went to be baptized and the doctors of the law went for the same reason, the only thing they needed to have was the authority, the same great problem we are supposed to have today, with the dozens and dozens of churches everywhere. But at this point there is another scripture very interesting to read. I Corinthians 10:1-2
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers, were under the cloud, and all passed throughout the sea; AND WERE ALL BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES in the cloud and in the SEA" At this point I guess the discussion is over.
3)
The Laban story. Nephi was commanded in the BOM to kill Laban and secure the plates. We thought that God gave us all a commandment: "Thou shall not kill??? Would God not honor his own commandment? Laban was passed out on the ground drunk, Nephi did not need to kill Laban, this story has always bothered us.
About this topic there are several interesting scriptures in the Bible, but it is enough to make one clear that the ways of the Lord are different from the ways of men, maybe strange to understand but it is not our problem to criticize His way. I Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep camel and ass." I could ask the same question: "Why was it necessary? Especially for infants, at that time?" Thou shalt not kill" was already in the Law "Would God not honor His commandment?" For this do you think the Bible is still true?
The first question usually come from the "Friends" of the church, I don't like to say enemies.
"Did Brigham Young preach the theory Adam God?"
Well I wasn't present at that time, but my opinion is pretty simple. Joseph Fielding Smith gave a beautiful explanation in his book "Doctrines of Salvation", anyway because it is really impossible to know exactly what he said about this topic, I have another suggestion. He was the prophet in charge. Everybody knows how strong his personality was. Why didn't he propose this "new" doctrine officially in a general conference, like revelation, how the law of God requires? He didn't do it and the church never received a doctrine or revelation like that, and above all the church never preached a doctrine like that. I'd say it was misunderstanding. I want to show an example. Paul writing to the Corinthians in Chapter 7 speaking about the marriage, often he wrote: "but I speak this by permission and not for commandment......but to the rest speak I not the Lord........Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment"Notwistanding all his precautions he was misunderstood and there are priests and nuns that can't get married. I guess it was the same for Brigham young, but there is a difference. The Adam God theory didn't affect the Church because it never was preached and presented like official doctrine of the Church. . The only ones that gave emphasis to this were surely the "friends," they wanted to give us more revelations than we have already. It seems appropriate at this point to state briefly what has been the prevailing LDS belief. The idea most readily found in the LDS scriptures, the teaching of all of Brigham Young's successors is that Adam and all of the human family have a common Father and God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ. In fact, this very concept was stated in public sermons on several occasions by Brigham Young himself. An example is found in his April 17, 1870 sermon:
The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve. Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238; 10:231; 13:309).
So, with the exception of several sermons that fell far short of official pronouncements, Mormon belief has been consistent in stating that the Father and God of Moses, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, and all the rest of mankind is the same being who is the Father and God of Adam.
For who I am and stuff like that, you can go in Testimonies, there you will find a link for special experiences, My story and My conversion story
How does God answer our questions most clearly and in the greatest detail? In the written "God-breathed" word of God? Or by a feeling you have which can be influenced by your biases and even by demons?
I love a question like this. It gives me the opportunity to clarify the cornerstone of revelation. In the written "God-breathed" word of God we have promises from Jesus Himself about the prayer. We are invited to pray anytime and above all we are invited to ask and we have the Master's promise that if you ask for a piece of bread, you CAN'T RECEIVE A STONE and if you ask for a fish you CAN'T RECEIVE A SERPENT. In this case you should maintain your faith in the written God-breathed word of God, or in this particular case it is more difficult because it doesn't fit well in your belief? There are many others that I would quote but why? Is not the word of our Master enough? I give you a challenge... find at least 2 scriptures in which the topic is clearly declared, in this particular case the prayer, and there is a warning that you could be answered by demons, and I will quote several more that they declare like I quoted at the beginning. You can try but not " It says, but it means" You have a good sample in the scripture I quoted above. It is in the Bible, right? About your concern regarding feelings. I know what you mean. You are worried about "the heart burning" maybe since you support the Bible you should take a look on Luke 24:32 "And they said one to another, Did not OUR HEART BURN WITHIN US while He talked with us by the way, and while he opened us the scriptures?" Those disciples weren't concerned like you but they weren't deceived by demons, they talked to the Lord Himself and they spoke like it was pretty usual to have such feelings to be confirmed to the true.
Question:" Why do the Mormons believe in other Scriptures when the Bible warns, "Don't add anything to this book...." At the end of Revelation?
Answer: It would seem a good question, but it isn't and I am going to explain why. First of all the word Bible, it means "Books" and it is a canon of books put together for the first time after the death of the Apostles, so at the time of John there was nothing like a Bible, but only the scriptures of the Jews and letters and Gospels were not yet put together, so it is pretty easy to say that when John wrote "this book" was clearly referring to 'his book of Revelation." Also, it is well known that the second and third letter of John himself were written after Revelation, so He added something too. But anyway we have to think about another big question that usually non-members ask : "Why do you believe in Prophets when the Bible says that there are no more!" those 2 questions are surely well related,:"Prophets usually give us revelations. Revelations are usually written in sacred books."
It is interesting to note that usually very good believers of Christ have these questions arise. It would be easy to answer by quoting one favorite verse of our prophet Joseph Smith Revelation 19:10 "For the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy." So how is it possible to have the testimony of Jesus and deny the Spirit of prophesy? And if there is no more prophesy, there is no more testimony of Jesus. What a problem! But it is not a problem. Look, John said himself in Revelation 10:11 "And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings"
"Where are those prophecies?" and why did he receive this commandment if the prophecies were over? But let me go ahead after that in the next chapter Revelation 11:3-6 "And I will give power unto my 2 witnesses, and they shall prophesy......" " These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy"A man wrote me "in this case Prophesy it means PREACH " and I replayed, "not so, because if John meant that word he would have written, instead he meant prophecy and he wrote what he felt right to write, not what makes you happy." So we have a proof that Revelation supports "Prophecy." But why do people maintain that "There is not more prophets"? I Corinthians 13:8 "Charity never faileth, but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail........." It would seem that they are right! It would be better to keep going on "whether be tongues, they shall cease (Strange in many cases. In Protestant churches they speak in tongues.) whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. (So we are going to be all ignorant) For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, thenthat which is in part shall be done away" Pretty clear isn't it?
The perfection is not come so far.
In fact in the next chapter I Corinthians 14:1
"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophecy" (strange! I thought it was over) verse 6 "Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying?" and verse 22 "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe"and verse 24 "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all" and verse 31 "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn" and verse 39 "Wherefore brethren covet to prophesy" See? the teachings of Paul were different. He was teaching that prophecy was necessary to the church until the perfection will come!!!!
The 7th chapter heading seems to imply that all who believe the Bible will also believe the Book of Mormon. So why do we not see this happen today?
Mormon 8:12 states that the Book of Mormon has errors in it. Why should I trust such a corrupt testimony, especially in the light of the Bible being perfect and without errors. 2 Tim 3:15-17.
Why did virtually all the ‘witnesses’ to the Book of Mormon apostatize from the faith?
The first question contains probably the answer in itself:"seems to imply", in reality the book of Mormon prophecies different regarding the church in the last days 1 Nephi 14:12.
In reality if you go at the very beginning of the book of Mormon, before that the Book starts it is written at the end of the introduction:"and now, if there are faults, they are mistakes of men.....
regarding 2 Thimoty 3:15-17 it is not saying that the Bible is perfect in his writing anyway if you want to try if the Bible has no mistakes, that is different, it is pretty easy to see that the Bible is full of mistakes of man, I mean translation, miswording and stuff like that, and that is what the book of Mormon is warning, mistakes of men in translations and stuff like that. you could go here www.bibleman.net and take a look at "Mormon illusion 2" you will find hundreds of mistakes of men in the Bible.
Why did virtually all the ‘witnesses’ to the Book of Mormon apostatize from the faith?
They had problems with the commandments and with Joseph Smith. I can't go in the details because it is a long story, the most important thing is that never they rejected their testimony of the book of Mormon. It would have been easy, specially when they were excommunicated, yes they didn't apostate, they were excommunicated, that is different. They never said:'it was a fraud. They always maintained to have seen the golden plates and Moronih. Oliver cowdery and Martin Harris later asked to be baptized again and that is a proof that they asked to be forgiven and they were. David Withmer didn't do the same, but never rejected his testimony. Once he heard that somebody was saying that and he payed from his personal pocket a newspaper to publish again his testimony, just before to dye. So it is true that they were excommunicated from the church, but they never denied their testimony. When they were excommunicated it was the best occasion for them to tell the "real" truth, if there was another one, but......
I could ask why Judas betrayed Jesus he was one of the Twelve, why Peter denied Jesus 3 times after he had received a warning from Jesus Himself, sincerely I don't have an answer it is hard to understand what is going on in another person, there are good times and bad times. When Peter denied Jesus probably was for fear, an human weakness. When Judas betrayed Jesus, probably it was for money, an human weakness. When the 3 witnesses were excommunicated from the church there was a big time against the church, probably it was easier to be outside than inside. You should consider that from that moment on the church received an extermination order, persecution, they had to abandon their property their houses and many things were going on. I don't know why they left but 2 of them were back in the fold and the last one never rejected his testimony. Peter had the occasion to be forgiven, why they shouldn't have the same opportunity?
2nd reading: Mormon 6:2-6:
If this happened as stated, and Joseph found the plates, then where are they today? Would you believe me if I said that I discovered a bright blue flying saucer from another galaxy. How would you feel if I said that it vanished away, leaving no proof? Would you then accept my request that you ‘pray about it’ as good evidence, or would you insist upon hard nosed evidence in the form of a space ship itself?
you could be right for the earthly things, but remember without faith it is impossible to please HIM. It would have been too easy. I have the book of Mormon like evidence that Joseph Smith had something, or do you really think he made it? and we have 3 + 8 witnesses that they saw the tables and 3 of them they saw Moronih. The earthly things are based on proof, you are right but here we are discussing of celestial things and Faith is what Paul explained certainty of things that you can't see, otherwise is not faith, and WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM. This is the simple reason why we don' have the golden plates, because in that case we wouldn't have the need or necessity of faith and that is contrary to the plan of God.
3rd reading: 3 Nephi 11-18:
Chapter 11 heading: My 1962 edition changes the chapter introduction to ‘Eternal Father,’ why was such a change made to just ‘Father’ in the present edition?
I don't know why this change was made, simply because sometimes there are many choices: could be a mistake, an omission and so on. I know this because on my Italian translation that I compared to the English translation I found several mistakes, for this reason there are new edition, trying to improve the book but unfortunately mistakes always happened. Anyway this is typical with the Bible too, every 30 or 40 years there are new editions and if you compare the new one with the old ones you will find many changes, they say that this changes were done to make the new edition more understandable to the new way to speak of the people. But there is a difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, we have the original manuscript, instead we have copies of the old manuscripts of the Bible and sometimes they don't match.
3 Nephi 11:12 This verse directly contradicts Acts 1:11. After his ascension Christ promises that he will come again at this second coming.
Regarding this problem you should understand that every book was written to a specific audience to clarify a specific problem, not always the books are connected even if they discuss the same topic, for example James says very different things about salvation by grace according to Paul he had a very different opinion, on my opinion they were discussing the same topic but they were discussing about different problems their audience needed different answers because they were looking to a different problem. Surely Jesus here was saying that to Jews because for them it was the last time to see Him.
Proverbs 26:4
4 ¶ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Which one is the correct suggestion?
3 Nephi 11:27 is a poor quotation of John 10:30. Putting ‘Father’ before ‘I’ subordinates the Son.
3 Nephi 11:34 is a total misquotation of Mark 16:16, and contradicts the Biblical record.
3 Nephi 11:36 again in a subtle way subordinates the Father, yet seems inspired by Jn 10:30.
well you should take a look at these verses.
1 Samuel 16:18
18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, [that is] cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD [is] with him.
Here David is a mighty valiant man, and a man of war and here
1 Samuel 17:33
33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou [art but] a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
Here is a boy. also in
1 Samuel 16:22
22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight.
It seems that David is well known to Saul, but in
1 Samuel 17:55
55 And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son [is] this youth? And Abner said, [As] thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell.
1 Samuel 17:56
56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].
This is a very strange passage, fortunately it is in the Bible.
Another very strange case is in
1 Samuel 31:4
4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
2 Samuel 1:14
14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?
2 Samuel 1:15
15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, [and] fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
2 Samuel 1:16
16 And David said unto him, Thy blood [be] upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
1 Chronicles 10:4
4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
1 Chronicles 10:5
5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise on the sword, and died.
Which scripture is the correct one? You could say that is armourbearer supposed that Saul was dead, yes but the scripture is saying that he SAW that Saul was dead and after you have to consider that those scriptures are in 3 different sacred books, why anybody didn't correct the wrong one? Keep in mind that a man was killed for that, but at least he was obeying his king. Anyway, 1 Chronicles 10 :5 affirms that he was dead.
See at least you should have the same questions for the Bible, but you don't question the Bible because you already accept it to be the word of God and you do good, mistakes of men don't destroy the word of God.
Why would a prophet of God, under the inspiration of God, make an error in translation by plagiarizing from the 4th edition of the KJV?
this seems a good question but.....
Exodus 6:3
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
pretty strange if you compare with
Genesis 22:14
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Interesting JehovahJireh, literally means Jehovah see and provide. So it is easy to say that Abraham knew the name of Jehovah. Interesting... very interesting.
So in the Bible God Himself was not aware to have already revealed to Abraham His Name. A prophet is a man and he can make mistakes too, for that reason the Book of Mormon at the very beginning warns about mistakes of men. Think about this, until the 4 edition that mistake was in the Bible and nobody was complaining about it, the change is a proof that even the Bible is subject to mistakes of men and it can be corrected, why people don't give the same opportunity to a book that from the very beginning is warning about mistakes of men? Probably these people are not completely fair in their opinions.
.
I believe that we should test all new revelations according to the former revelations, for God is not self-contradictory or the author of confusion. See 1st Thess 5:21 following:
1st Thess 5:19 ‘Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesying.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
This is another good question.
Genesis 17:7-8
7 ¶ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Genesis 17:8
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Hebrew 11:12-16
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Hebrews 11:12
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
Hebrews 11:13
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11:14
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Hebrews 11:15
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Hebrews 11:16
16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Genesis 17:13
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Exodus 40:15
15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
Leviticus 16:34
34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Leviticus 24:8
8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, [being taken] from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Does this not make the word "everlasting" meaningless?
What I am trying to tell you is: The Jews had the same problem with the Gospel because they were trying to understand Jesus in their way but Jesus gave them many times the right way to understand Him
Matthew 7:7-10: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?"
What a beautiful promise! But what I would like to take notice of is where Jesus said: "whom if his son ask bread [do you remember who is the living bread?] will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish( Did you know that the fish is a symbol of Christ or Christianity? even now on many car of Protestant people you can see the symbol of the fish and the word "Jesus", will he give him a serpent [do you remember who is the serpent?]" How do we ask anything from our Father in heaven? Is it not by prayer? I don't think Christ's use of the words bread and serpent were by chance. Therefore, it's clear that Jesus is once more promising us that if we pray to God, in return we will receive "bread" or "fish" (the living Christ) rather than the "serpent" (the devil), thus reassuring us about the safety of who answers our prayer.
John 14:13-17 Jesus made a similar promise: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraitheth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering" (James1:5-6).
Galatians 1:12: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
Sometimes new Revelations fulfill old revelations and replace them (The Gospel fulfilled the Law and replaced it, or not? I know that sometimes this process is confusing, the Jews were so confused that they couldn't accept the Gospel's idea or even worse the same Messiah.
I hope I am not confusing you more, I am just trying to show you that the scripture can be a sort of confusion, for this particular reason we have about 800 different churches with dozen of different point of view on doctrines. The Only way to be sure is to pray God, the great Maker of the scriptures to ask Him what is His opinion about them
Galatians 1:12: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
God says that there was no God formed before or after him (Isa 43:10). There is no other God besides him (Isa 45:21 and 44:6), and that the one God of the Bible made all things in both the heavens (plural) and the earth (Isa 44:24), see also (Heb 1:2 and Col 1:13-19). I conclude that there is only one God (Deut 6:4), and THAT POLYTHEISM IS A FALSE BELIEF.
I don't know if you believe in the Bible, but the Bible starts with the word Helohim that in Hebrew means "Gods".
In genesis 3:22 it says
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
How do you think about "ONE OF US"?
Genesis 11:7
Genesis 11:7
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, See the PLURAL?
psalms 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
WHAT ABOUT John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
or better Isaiah 48:12-16
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
13
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
14
All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
15
I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
what is interesting here at the verse 16 is that the Jehowaa's witnessess Bible quoted like if Jehowa sent another one Jehowa and the Bible of the Pope changed the word saying, we have changed the word because it is no possible that God is sending itself. But the problem is not that God is sending Himself because the person speaking is Jehowa and after Jehowa mentions the Lord, unfortunately for the Jeowas witnesses they translate always the word Lord in Jehowa.
Anyway we have a direct declaration from Jesus Himself regarding this topic John 10:31-36
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Keep on mind that is the only places in the scriptures that Jesus declares "and the scripture cannot be broken; " to make sure that they will understand his meaning.
One friend who is somewhat investigating the church is also Catholic but very
devout and has some apologetic work done for the RCC. They showed me some
scripture that stated that the Apostles were aloud to forgive sins, and that
the church would never be lost and stuff like that, and I really had not info
on that. I am just assuming that since you are Italian, you were also one
Roman Catholic, if you have any evidences that in a way, show that there
defiantly was an apostasy and that "apostolic succession" was not correct in
the Roman Catholic Church, I would much appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Johann Schisler
Matthew 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is the scripture that they maintain it refers that no apostasy will happen, but if you read well this verse is not speaking regarding apostasy, it is speaking about the final victory of the church, and that is completely different. Jesus Himself was speaking about an apostasy in Matthew 24:4-5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Probably a catholic could refer this verse to the Protestant, but Paul prophesied in 2 Tessalonians 2:2-4
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
The catholic use to say that this is still referring to the Protestants, but here is speaking regarding a specific person that is referring himself like God, by chance this is the Pope maintain to be the vicarious Christi (substitute of the son of God), also the word pope it means father. Anyway there is a better way to show that the original church will win the last battle but would have lost at least one battle. Revelation 13:1-7
AND I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
See! Revelation is speaking regarding the future and it is prophesying that the saints or church will be defeated, there is no way to escape here. We know that the church will win the last battle, but the Bible makes sure that the church has lost (after Peter) one battle, the battle of the apostasy, infact in Revelation 14:6-7
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
There is prophesied that an angel (Moronih?) will come to bring a Gospel, if the Gospel was on the earth there was no need to send an angel to bring another one, make sense?. If you think about the holy inquisition, the indulgences and other stuff like that, you will understand why John Paul II is asking for forgiveness regarding the past of the catholic church. There is no need to read the scriptures to see the apostasy in action, it is in every history's book. Anyway the Bible is clear.
Hello Dear brother,
I have a question regarding Hebrews 11 verse 40. Reading the KJV it appears to refer to genealogical work and temple service, yes, even the last footnote refers the reader to the topical guide for Genealogy. However, the first footnote refers the reader to a JST of the verse that when read below in the footnotes, it appears that the JST does not refer to genealogy at all. How can this be? We are referring to the original version as meaning one thing, then we have refered to it meaning another in the JST version. Also, one of the Apostles refers to the verse as referring to Genealogy in a talk given at the world religious convention, and his talk was printed as a pamphlet for investigators.
Please be aware that my testimony is strong, and I know there is an answer to this seeming discrepancy.
many thanks
Dear friend,
Your question is a good one, but sincerely I don't see a big problem and I am going to explain my point. My point is just my opinion, it could be right it could be wrong. Joseph Smith declared in his journal in 2 July 1833:" We this day finished the translating of the scriptures for which we returned gratitude to our Father in Heaven.
Despite of this declaration sometimes he made new corrections while he was doing sermons. One of the strongest evidence of the incomplete status of the JST is to be found in his sermons from 1833 to 1844. On numerous occasions the Prophet clarified and corrected biblical passages, which alterations were not reflected in his earlier inspired translation of the scriptures. For example, the second verse of the KJV describe the state of things in the morning of creation: "And the earth was without form, and void" Genesis 1:2. The JST of this verse is exactly the same as the KJV. In a sermon delivered on 5 January 1841 in Nauvoo, however, Joseph Smith taught that the words "without form and void" should be translated "empty and desolate" and in other occasions he clarified other passages that were not clarified in the JST. This is just to say that probably Joseph Smith could have better clarified many other parts of the Bible, even if in the 1833 he thought to have done with the JST. Anyway my opinion is based on this point. WE believe and sustain the Bible, I mean the KJV, because we don't have to scandalize the world, also it is in our article of faith that we sustain the Bible. Article 8 declares :"We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far it is translated correctly;. So using the Bible in its context it is not incorrect. Even the prophet Joseph Smith, and who better than him could know the Jst? Nobody! He made it!. The prophet in his sermon of King Follett given in the April 1844 during a conference meeting declared :" The greatest responsibility that God has given to us in this world it is to search our dead and to support his idea quoted Hebrew 11:40. This is the proof that Joseph Smith even though he knew that he changed that verse in another way, he could use the old one to make clear his point. He was just using a scripture in the Bible. When Moronih appeared to him the first time, He gave to him a different paraphrasing of Malachi 4:5-6 because he explained to Joseph it was clearer, but we use more often the classical declaration of the KJV instead of the quotation of Moronih. Probably when the prophet made his change regarding Hebrew 11:40 he was trying to explain a different concept related to the perfection that person can obtain in this life by trials and sufferings and for that moment it was enough, but when he was talking regarding the topic in the king Follet he used the verse of the kjv because it fitted perfectly in his idea. Usually when I do my talks in the church I don't use the JST, if I can avoid it I prefer to use the KJV, no because I don't trust in the JST, absolutely not I keep it sacred like the book of Mormon and the other scriptures, but just to reinforce the idea that the Bible contains the word of God.. I believe that the Bible was corrupted from the people, but I am confident that God left a way to find, by clues and smart searching, the truth in it anyway, specially with the knowledge of the other modern revelations, without them probably it would be impossible to understand the Bible at the Best but having those new means it is possible to find the right answers in the Bible. That is why I made my page "The Bible and the Book of Mormon". The Bible is the greatest witness of the Book of Mormon and the modern revelations are helping to better understand the Bible in its full meaning. At that point many prophecies or scriptures without explanation are finding a clearer explanation.
I don't know if I had satisfied you question, but this is my opinion.
Thanks for asking.
Massimo.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento