First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

[LittleNipper]

I asked a lot more than that.




For a second there, I thought you were actually going to answer one of my questions at long last.

You do realize that you didn't answer my question, don't you? You told me that if the Old Testament is wrong, then the New Testament is wrong... fair enough. But this doesn't tell us how we would determine whether the New Testament is right.

However, I'm more interested to hear whether you're Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic. Since you apparently reject the idea that the Christian Church could ever become apostate, I'm sure you belong to a denomination that claims an unbroken chain of authority stretching all the way back to Christ, don't you?

Also, have you managed to figure out how the Gospel authors mistook one day and two nights for three days and three nights?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You see problems with the Book of Mormon? Fair enough, but there are plenty of similar problems with the Old and New Testaments, too.

And some of the "contradictions" you've pointed out aren't really contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible at all, but more contradictions between the BoM and your personal theology.

I'm and Independent, Bible Believing, Born-again, Fundamentalist Christian. I do not twist Bible interpretations to fit either the book of Mormon, nor my beliefs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

They are not mentioned in the Bible, and yet there are people who believe both existed with little or no historic backing.

Ah,
So if one BELIEVES something exists, with little or no evidence, that makes it so?

 

[Demonic Kitten]

I'm and Independent, Bible Believing, Born-again, Fundamentalist Christian.

Did anyone else have an "ah-ha" moment when reading this?

 

[LittleNipper]

Did anyone else have an "ah-ha" moment when reading this?

Well, my guess is that I'm in a group that is at least seemingly consistant or an "ah-ha" would not be an obvious responce...

 

[Autodidact]

We are given a geographic location for Eden in the Bible ---- pre-FLOOD.

Yup, and it's not there. Like Atlantis.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We are given a geographic location for Eden in the Bible ---- pre-FLOOD.

Sorry, just had this mental image of the Cherubim guarding Eden watching the water slowly rise up around them.....:run:

 

[LittleNipper]

Yup, and it's not there. Like Atlantis.

Of course it is not presently there ---- now. It was removed by the FLOOD. The FLOOD happened, and there seems enough evidence for me to believe there was a FLOOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sorry, just had this mental image of the Cherubim guarding Eden watching the water slowly rise up around them.....:run:

I'm sure they simply got out of satan's way.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm sure they simply got out of satan's way.

Satan flooded Eden?

 

[LittleNipper]

Satan flooded Eden?

I believe all GOD needed to do was step back and turn satan loose. Satan is no one's friend. He is the accuser. He points the finger. Read the book of Job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm and Independent, Bible Believing, Born-again, Fundamentalist Christian. I do not twist Bible interpretations to fit either the book of Mormon, nor my beliefs.

I didn't say you twist your Bible interpretations, but I do think you limit yourself to a narrow set of interpretations based on preconceptions. For instance: I assume that you interpret the Old Testament in a way that is consistent with the New Testament, right?

As an example, take Daniel 3: do you think that the fourth figure that was seen in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was Christ? I know that many Christians do, however, most Jews would probably reject this idea as revisionism or the "twisting" that you apparently find objectionable.

I'd be dollars to donuts that you interpret the Old Testament on the basis that the New Testament is true. By the same token, Mormons interpret the Bible on the basis that the Book of Mormon is true. I really don't see a fundamental difference in the approach other than your initial decision about which books you're going to accept as true or not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I believe all GOD needed to do was step back and turn satan loose. Satan is no one's friend. He is the accuser. He points the finger. Read the book of Job.

Read it. I have also read Genesis. You know, the book that says....
6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Nope, no ha-satan flooding the Earth. God did it. God destroyed Man. The very creature he created. Why? Because he was sorry he had made them.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm and Independent, Bible Believing, Born-again, Fundamentalist Christian. I do not twist Bible interpretations to fit either the book of Mormon, nor my beliefs.

If you believe that jesus was the messiah then yes, you are twisting the books comprising the bble to fit your own beliefs.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course it is not presently there ---- now. It was removed by the FLOOD. The FLOOD happened, and there seems enough evidence for me to believe there was a FLOOD.

so the fact that there is not now, has never been, and could never be enough water to flood the entire world doesn't bother you? Or the fact that the geological evidence makes it clear that the world has never been underwater at the same time, that the earth is more than 4 billions years old, that life proceeded from the sea to land, and from single-celled organisms to complex vertebrates, the fact that such a vessel could not float, would have been destroyed, and could not possible accomodate the animals necessary, the fact that all plant life on earth would have been destroyed, that no fish and little marine life could have survived, none of that in any dents your personal creation myth?

 

[LittleNipper]

I didn't say you twist your Bible interpretations, but I do think you limit yourself to a narrow set of interpretations based on preconceptions. For instance: I assume that you interpret the Old Testament in a way that is consistent with the New Testament, right?

As an example, take Daniel 3: do you think that the fourth figure that was seen in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was Christ? I know that many Christians do, however, most Jews would probably reject this idea as revisionism or the "twisting" that you apparently find objectionable.

I'd be dollars to donuts that you interpret the Old Testament on the basis that the New Testament is true. By the same token, Mormons interpret the Bible on the basis that the Book of Mormon is true. I really don't see a fundamental difference in the approach other than your initial decision about which books you're going to accept as true or not.

I limit my interpretation of scripture to the entire Bible. I do not throw out verses that seem to contradict other scripture but try to understand such as a complete thought which place parameters on what the HOLY SPIRIT is presenting in the Bible.

I understand that the Old Testament has several Christophanies or pre JESUS manifestations of CHRIST. The non-Messianic Jew doesn't see CHRIST anywhere. They limit themselves to the tradition of upholding the LAW to the best that they can ------------ which I might add was/is not good enough for GOD.

The book of Mormon seems to bring interpretive contradictions to both the New and Old Testaments. The Mormon views the Bible in the light of the book of Mormon. The Christian should view the Bible in its own light.

 

[LittleNipper]

so the fact that there is not now, has never been, and could never be enough water to flood the entire world doesn't bother you? Or the fact that the geological evidence makes it clear that the world has never been underwater at the same time, that the earth is more than 4 billions years old, that life proceeded from the sea to land, and from single-celled organisms to complex vertebrates, the fact that such a vessel could not float, would have been destroyed, and could not possible accomodate the animals necessary, the fact that all plant life on earth would have been destroyed, that no fish and little marine life could have survived, none of that in any dents your personal creation myth?

Most of the Earth's surface (70%) is covered with water. In some areas the ocean is 7 miles deep. This doesn't take into consideration any ground water. The earth is GOD's creation and would reflect HIS characteristics when HE created it. I cannot be held to the notions of godless men...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I limit my interpretation of scripture to the entire Bible.

This seems self-contradictory. There's nothing in the Bible that limits you to the Bible, so this self-imposed limit must have come from somewhere else.

I do not throw out verses that seem to contradict other scripture but try to understand such as a complete thought which place parameters on what the HOLY SPIRIT is presenting in the Bible.

What verses do you think Mormons are throwing out?

Don't you think that mainstream Christians do the same when they throw out the Talmud?

I understand that the Old Testament has several Christophanies or pre JESUS manifestations of CHRIST. The non-Messianic Jew doesn't see CHRIST anywhere. They limit themselves to the tradition of upholding the LAW to the best that they can ------------ which I might add was/is not good enough for GOD.

... when you re-interpret the Tanakh based on your modern Christian understanding. See how it works?

The book of Mormon seems to bring interpretive contradictions to both the New and Old Testaments.

So far, the only contradictions I've seen between the Bible and the Book of Mormon are minor and are similar to the ones that are in the Bible to begin with (e.g. should you answer a fool according to his folly? How did Judas die? How long was Jesus in "the belly of the Earth"?). The major theological conflicts seem to be between the Book of Mormon and very specific interpretations of the Bible when a wider range of interpretations would be equally supported by the text.

The Mormon views the Bible in the light of the book of Mormon. The Christian should view the Bible in its own light.

But here's the thing: just because the books of the Bible are bound under one cover these days doesn't make the Bible a monolithic whole. You view the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. You view the Gospels in the light of the Epistles. You view the Book of Daniel in the light of Revelation. The Mormons go a step or two further, but the difference between their approach and yours is only a matter of degree.

 

[LittleNipper]

Read it. I have also read Genesis. You know, the book that says....
6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Nope, no ha-satan flooding the Earth. God did it. God destroyed Man. The very creature he created. Why? Because he was sorry he had made them.

GOD holds everything together. I believe GOD's feelings were being expressed to humanity as best as possible. I still feel that GOD simply allows satan to run amuck.
If men want to worship satan, GOD gives them satan... Such can never be a good thing.

 

[LittleNipper]

This seems self-contradictory. There's nothing in the Bible that limits you to the Bible, so this self-imposed limit must have come from somewhere else.


What verses do you think Mormons are throwing out?

Don't you think that mainstream Christians do the same when they throw out the Talmud?


... when you re-interpret the Tanakh based on your modern Christian understanding. See how it works?


So far, the only contradictions I've seen between the Bible and the Book of Mormon are minor and are similar to the ones that are in the Bible to begin with (e.g. should you answer a fool according to his folly? How did Judas die? How long was Jesus in "the belly of the Earth"?). The major theological conflicts seem to be between the Book of Mormon and very specific interpretations of the Bible when a wider range of interpretations would be equally supported by the text.


But here's the thing: just because the books of the Bible are bound under one cover these days doesn't make the Bible a monolithic whole. You view the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. You view the Gospels in the light of the Epistles. You view the Book of Daniel in the light of Revelation. The Mormons go a step or two further, but the difference between their approach and yours is only a matter of degree.

I would not interpret the Bible using your opinions. The very same goes for Joseph Smith. I believe that no one is saved trying to obey the Talmud. Following the LAW is rewarding in this life. One may live longer. The fact remains that CHRIST is the final sacrafice. CHRIST fulfilled the requirements of the LAW for those who will accept HIS remediation. Those that do not are under the full weight to fulfill the entire requirements of the LAW themselves. The book of Mormon seems to have no scriptural support to stand upon. It seems to have no historical evidence to stand upon.

I would not interpret the Bible using the Koran. Why exactly is that? Could it be that the Koran does not fit the tone, direction, message, etc., of the Old & New Testaments? There is much more historic validity for the Koran than can be found for the book of Mormon...

 

[tumbleweed41]

GOD holds everything together. I believe GOD's feelings were being expressed to humanity as best as possible. I still feel that GOD simply allows satan to run amuck.
If men want to worship satan, GOD gives them satan... Such can never be a good thing.

"I still feel..." Interesting that in spite of a Biblical verse that states simply that God himself destroyed the Earth with a flood, you "Feel" a different interpretation.

Would this be a revelation on your part?