Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 241 of 352 (535171)
11-13-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Blue Jay
11-13-2009 9:02 AM


Re: Historical Context
quote:
It’s becoming clear to me that you are using your view of historical Christian faith as the context under which to interpret what the Bible says, and thereby retroactively apply the title biblical to those interpretations that are consonant with your philosophy.
No, this is not what I'm doing. Sorry if my mentions of "historic Christian faith" gave you this impression. The Bible should be interpreted on its own terms, based on grammatical, historical, and contextual details.
I mentioned Church history in response to charges that the "faith alone" perspective is something novel, introduced by Luther. Rather, "faith alone" was the understanding of the early church as well and is part of historic Christianity. This does not mean that it is correct, of course, but it does prove that it is not a recent innovation or a perversion of the historic Christian faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Blue Jay, posted 11-13-2009 9:02 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 11:37 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 247 by Blue Jay, posted 11-13-2009 9:48 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 242 of 352 (535173)
11-13-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by kbertsche
11-13-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Historical Context
quote:
the early church
People mean very different things by that term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2009 11:32 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 243 of 352 (535174)
11-13-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Michamus
11-13-2009 11:19 AM


Re: No case to answer!
quote:
Goodnight, Ochaye, in your mist of guesswork, your endless search for nothing at all. Travel on, hoping never to arrive.
The one and only purpose of Mormonism is to oppose Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Michamus, posted 11-13-2009 11:19 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Michamus, posted 11-13-2009 3:08 PM ochaye has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 244 of 352 (535188)
11-13-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by ochaye
11-13-2009 11:45 AM


Re: No case to answer!
The one and only purpose of Ochaye is to oppose Christianity.
I can do this all day too... Doesn't take much brainpower to work the way you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 11:45 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 3:35 PM Michamus has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 245 of 352 (535194)
11-13-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Michamus
11-13-2009 3:08 PM


Re: No case to answer!
quote:
I can do this all day too..
Only by rule-breaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Michamus, posted 11-13-2009 3:08 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Michamus, posted 11-13-2009 9:29 PM ochaye has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


(1)
Message 246 of 352 (535233)
11-13-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by ochaye
11-13-2009 3:35 PM


Re: No case to answer!
4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Since we are talking about rules, it seems you have a lot of trouble with this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 3:35 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 10:00 PM Michamus has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 247 of 352 (535236)
11-13-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by kbertsche
11-13-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Historical Context
Hi, Kbertsche.
kbertsche writes:
I mentioned Church history in response to charges that the "faith alone" perspective is something novel...
You're right: I lost the context of our disagreement in the midst of all the other ones I was trying to maintain. This is where it started:
kbertsche writes:
Bluejay writes:
And, finally, it is abundantly clear that KBertsche and Ochaye have nothing more than a personal interpretation about what the Bible message is. In fact, ironically, most of the Christian community disagrees with them about their interpretation.
Sorry, but what you say is false. What we have been explaining is the historic Christian faith.
Message 175
Clearly, when I called it a "personal opinion," you understandably thought I meant that you were writing your own brand of Christianity. I actually meant to say that you were treating any contradiction to your interpretation of the Bible, as a contradiction to the Bible.
To be fair, I understand why you interpret the Bible the way you do. I obviously disagree that it is the correct interpretation, or is the only possible interpretation. On that grounds, I argue that it is unreasonable to call contradictions to your favored interpretation of the Bible contradictions to the Bible itself.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2009 11:32 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 248 of 352 (535237)
11-13-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Michamus
11-13-2009 9:29 PM


Re: No case to answer!
See what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Michamus, posted 11-13-2009 9:29 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Michamus, posted 11-14-2009 8:16 AM ochaye has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 249 of 352 (535238)
11-13-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by kbertsche
09-08-2009 9:42 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
Hi, KBertsche.
kbertsche writes:
Paul specifically uses the directional word "work out." This is in contrast to his mention of God "working in" in the next verse. There is nothing improper about this use of English.
I'd like to beat the Philippians 2 horse a little more:
quote:
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Philippians 2:12-13(NIV)
Technically, what you called a "directional word" is part of a transtive verb phrase (meaning a verb that takes on a direct object, the direct object, in this case, being "your salvation").
This is in contrast to the usage of the verb "works" in verse 13, which is intransitive, having no direct object attached to it.
Granted, I do not know how the Greek grammer pans out, but, in this case, these two words can only be seen as having the synergistic meaning you attribute to them based on a fluke of English grammar that places the words "out" and "in" adjacent to two different usages of the word "work."
"Out" is attached directly to the "work" in verse 12, making "out" an adverb and "work out" a verb phrase.
"In" is attached directly to the word "you" in verse 13, making "in" a preposition and "in you" a prepositional phrase.
So, there isn't a "work out" vs "work in" dichotomy in these verses. Based on the English grammar, it is completely invalid to treat these as grammatically synergistic. So, verse 13 provides no context for interpreting the language used in verse 12.
Granted, Iano's belief that our good works are only the result of God working in us* is fully supported by this scripture. However, I reject this one simply because it makes no intuitive sense to say, "Do X," when what you mean is, "Let God do X through you." What good could possibly be done by saying that?
*I'm not sure if this is also your belief: I'm more familiar with Iano's theology than yours
Edited by Bluejay, : "out" is not a transitive verb
And, closing code for italic "intransitive"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kbertsche, posted 09-08-2009 9:42 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ochaye, posted 11-14-2009 7:16 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 322 by kbertsche, posted 11-19-2009 12:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 250 of 352 (535264)
11-14-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Blue Jay
11-13-2009 10:17 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
quote:
I'd like to beat the Philippians 2 horse a little more
You can beat around the bush 'til you're blue in the face, with a Calvinist. Do get to the point, now you're here.
Yet again:
What does one believe in to be saved?
Mormons do believe in belief, do they? One is beginning to wonder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Blue Jay, posted 11-13-2009 10:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Blue Jay, posted 11-14-2009 5:06 PM ochaye has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


(1)
Message 251 of 352 (535268)
11-14-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by ochaye
11-13-2009 10:00 PM


Re: No case to answer!
ochaye writes:
See what I mean.
Yep, I've known what you've meant the whole time.
As a warning to others, I would highly recommend not responding to ochaye's posts (I'm not anymore until he decides to post something related to the OP, and actually cites sources for his opinions).
To put it plainly:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ochaye, posted 11-13-2009 10:00 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by ochaye, posted 11-14-2009 9:17 AM Michamus has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 252 of 352 (535278)
11-14-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Michamus
11-14-2009 8:16 AM


Requiescat in pace.
Mormonism has officially closed down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Michamus, posted 11-14-2009 8:16 AM Michamus has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 253 of 352 (535310)
11-14-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ochaye
11-14-2009 7:16 AM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
Hi, Ochaye.
You really want somebody to answer this question:
ochaye writes:
What does one believe in to be saved?
Answer: God.
Now, would you like an intelligent answer?
Then do get to your point. Until you prove that your random, pointed questions have anything to do with this discussion, you shouldn't be surprised that you keep getting ignored.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ochaye, posted 11-14-2009 7:16 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by ochaye, posted 11-14-2009 5:40 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


(1)
Message 254 of 352 (535316)
11-14-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Blue Jay
11-14-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
quote:
Answer: God.
'You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder.' Jas 2:19 NIV
quote:
Now, would you like an intelligent answer?
Surely Mormon teachers can do better than 'God'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Blue Jay, posted 11-14-2009 5:06 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 255 of 352 (535324)
11-14-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Blue Jay
11-13-2009 10:46 AM


Re: What must I do ? BELIEVE
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes:
If the real reason for my giving the ice cream is not blonde hair,
Where in the following statement did you say anything about you giving the ice cream to those who had blonde hair?
Message 222
Bluejay writes:
If I were to say, Blonde-haired people get ice cream, wouldn’t you automatically conclude that having blonde hair is the reason those people get ice cream? Well, you should, because that’s the implication of that statement.
You mentioned no source of the ice cream.
Bluejay writes:
If eternal life is a gift, why does He require you to believe in Him in order to receive it?
What part of belief cause's eternal life not to be a gift?
Here are the definitions again as you ignored them the first time.
Dictionary definition of gift.
Gift = 1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation Source
A legal definition of gift from a legal dictionary.
Gift A transfer of property with nothing given in return.
In strict common law, no contract, with attendant reciprocal legal obligation, exists without consideration. But for a gift, the absence of consideration is a requirement.
As Justice Jackett wrote in Littler v Canada:
"A contract of sale, which is, by definition, a transfer of property for a consideration, cannot be a gift, which is, by definition, a disposition of property without consideration."
Source
Bluejay writes:
There is no difference between our beliefs in principle:
There is a big difference. You got the horse at the wrong end of the wagon.
Bluejay writes:
Neither of us really believes that eternal life is a "gift," in the strictest sense
Speak for yourself.
I believe eternal life is a gift of God that you can only receive.
Bluejay writes:
so I find this argument to be extremely dishonest of you.
Why? Since I believe it is a totally free gift that you can not earn, buy, or do any good deed to obtain.
Let me give an illustration.
One Sunday morning at the end of the service I pulled out a $20 dollar bill and announced I would give it to anyone who came and got it. I talked for another two minutes and made the offer a second time. I then talked for three more minutes and made the announcement again. One of the adults convinced his son who was 5 years old to come down to the front and get the $20.
When he got to the front the first words out of his mouth was, "are you really going to give it to me"?
Evidently no one believed I would give them the $20.
I handed him the $20 and then I said:
God offeres eternal life the same way. He has made the offer all you have to do is receive it.
Now you tell me how you could receive it if you did not believe God existed and would give you the gift?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Blue Jay, posted 11-13-2009 10:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 8:56 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 257 by Blue Jay, posted 11-14-2009 9:50 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024