The literal & infallible word of God

[Mr. Peanut]

I like this passage from the Bible about the words in the Bible that Jesus spoke:

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[kadzbiz]

HI!

The Bible, as well as Jesus Christ himself may be compared to an art gallery containing art of the highest caliber, if you will. The art is not judged by the people, rather the people are judged by the art. When a pop star calls the Mona Lisa a "piece of 'garbage'" and that is quoting it mildly, it speaks more about their character, not the art itself.

Cheers!

Well, this again is another very subjective statement. It is only an opinion that the Bible could be compared to an art gallery containing art "of the highest quality". Who are the judges? If you were to take a vote of every single person in the world, then I wonder, just like any piece of art, what the final judgment would be - is it art or is it not, is it good art or is it not. The reverse would also have to be true in judging art. What if I decree that a widely ridiculed piece is magnificent and others say it is rubbish; what does that say about me then?

Art Institute duped: 'It was a brilliant forgery'

I think this may prove my point Jay.

 

[FFH]

What is the proof that Joseph had this inspiration for this task?

If you compare the King James and the Joseph Smith inspired verions side by side, they are identicle about 90 percent of the time, the other 10 percent is completely obvious to any reader that someone purposely changed and/or ommitted certain original texts to fit their belief.

Intentional alterations to the original.

You would have to see the two compared side by side. I've given a link to SOME of the corrections earlier in this thread. I've purchased a book that shows ALL the corrections side by side with the King James, everything from punctuation and grammer to twisted, changed and missing words, sentences, paragraphs, pages are all there to scrutinize. I've been through the entire side by side corrections of the Old and New Testament. It's extremely obvious that men have altered the King James, yet miraculously it's still a good 90 percent intact. That's a miracle in itself. Joseph Smith just fixed the other 10 percent to make it perfect and complete.

The Joseph Smith inpsired version reads much much better than the King James. It has a GREAT spirit about it.

Why does the LDS church not use the JSI version.

It's very expensive to purchase a Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, since we don't own the rights to it.

Joseph Smith's wife kept the finished product, after Joseph Smith died, and chose to pass it down to her kids. Joseph Smith's wife Emma chose to stay in Illinois after Joseph Smith's death, rather than move west to Salt Lake with Brigham Young, who became the next President of the LDS church.

Emma kept Joseph Smith's work he had done on the English version of the Bible, which was restored to it's perfect and complete form. Emma wanted to keep the inspired Bible for her own reasons, rather than turn it over to the heads of the LDS church at that time. Why she did this I'm not sure and why she chose to not move west with the LDS saints, I don't know, all I know is that she kept the finished restored/inspired English Bible for herself and her direct posterity.

The missionaries at my house said it was changed by the LDS sect that currently has the legal rights on the version is this true or was he wrong?

Again, I've been through it thoroughly and it is all intact, there are no changes that I can see whatsoever. It all matches with the portions of the restored/inspired version that we have, for instance those found in the book of Moses, which is approximately the first 13 chapters of Genesis restored, which is where most of the King James is in gross error. with many missing pages and changed words, sentences and paragraphs.It's a very interesting read, if you compare the King James along with the Joseph Smith inspired version.

I've given links to the book which shows the changes side by side in other threads.

 

[FFH]

With all due respect FFH, I don't believe in "inspirations from God" and ancient seer stones. And I don't see what the significance of being blood related to Joseph Smith's parents is. Even if you were Joseph's wife, it wouldn't mean anything.

I always give that as a reference, to show that I'm not just some Joe Shmo, I know what I'm talking about. I know a little bit about the history behind the Joseph Smith inspired version and I've been through it (inspired version of the Bible) very very thoroughly and have checked out every correction word by word, sentence by sentence, etc. It's amazing how detailed Joseph Smith was, but really it was the Lord that made the corrections, not Joseph Smith, he only did what the Lord showed him to do.

Christ is the Word and "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us".

I try to dispell the rumors about it (inspired version of the Bible), for instance, has it been changed by the RLDS (Reorganized Latter-day Saints). The Community of Christ church bought out the RLDS church and now has the rights to the Joseph Smith inspired version. It's still intact, no changes have been made that I can see.

See this link: Selections from the Book of Moses (Genesis 1-13 restored) These are the most altered and missing portions of the King James from Genesis chapter 1-13.

The only changes the RLDS church made was to the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS scripture), NOT the Inspired version of the Bible. God would not allow that to happen.

The RLDS church can change the Doctrine and Covenants and it doesn't matter because we (LDS church) have the original, not the RLDS (now Comunity of Christ) church. The same goes for the Book of Mormon. Even if they change it we still have the original. That's not the case though with the Joseph Smith Inpired version, but they haven't changed a thing. I've prayed and studied it thoroughly and it's all there, no changes have been made.

The book of Moses (first 13 chapters of Genesis restored) is an original that the LDS church owns and I've compared it to the Joseph Smith inspired version the RLDS/Community of Christ church owns and it's identicle.

 

[kadzbiz]

.....It's very expensive to purchase a Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, since we don't own the rights to it......

I don't know why the Bible and all it's versions aren't free. You'd think being free would benefit religion.

.... Joseph Smith, he only did what the Lord showed him to do. ......

I would say that Joseph Smith only did what he SAID the Lord showed him to do.

 

[*Paul*]

It's extremely obvious that men have altered the King James, yet miraculously it's still a good 90 percent intact. That's a miracle in itself. Joseph Smith just fixed the other 10 percent to make it perfect and complete.

You do realise that you can still purchase the origanal 1611 edition of the king James translation don't you, if you compare it to the one I use the only difference is the way the paragraphs are set out, the 1611 spelling has been changed so that "the" doesn't read as "ye" and "save" doesn't read "fave" there were some printing (not translation) errors that have been corrected.

The Joseph Smith inpsired version reads much much better than the King James. It has a GREAT spirit about it.It's very expensive to purchase a Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, since we don't own the rights to it.

I have a copy of it on my computer. The fruits that have come from the King James bible have been manifold, God has honoured it as HIs Word in English, it's translation stands and is as good as any other (better in my humble opinion).

It's a very interesting read, if you compare the King James along with the Joseph Smith inspired version.

But for me it would show where the JSIV is in error and has added to the Word of God not the other way around.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Well, this again is another very subjective statement. It is only an opinion that the Bible could be compared to an art gallery containing art "of the highest quality". Who are the judges? If you were to take a vote of every single person in the world, then I wonder, just like any piece of art, what the final judgment would be - is it art or is it not, is it good art or is it not. The reverse would also have to be true in judging art. What if I decree that a widely ridiculed piece is magnificent and others say it is rubbish; what does that say about me then?



I think this may prove my point Jay.

F.F. Bruce used this same analogy comparing the Mona Lisa to Christ, in the Gospel of John, p. 91. (I read it recently but did not recall where). He said,

"In a gallery where artistic masterpieces are on display, it is not the masterpieces but the visitors who are on trial...The pop-star who was reported some years ago to have dismissed the Mona Lisa as "a load of rubbish" (except he used a less polite word than 'rubbish') did not tell us anything about the Mona Lisa; he told us much about himself. What is true in the aesthetic realm is equally true in the spiritual realm. The man who depreciates Christ, or thinks him unworthy of his allegiance, passes judgment on himself, not on Christ. He does not need to wait until the day of judgment; the verdict on him has been pronounced already. There will indeed be a final day of judgment (John 5:25-29), but that day will serve only to confirm the judgment already passed."

 

[Mr. Peanut]

You do realise that you can still purchase the origanal 1611 edition of the king James translation don't you, if you compare it to the one I use the only difference is the way the paragraphs are set out, the 1611 spelling has been changed so that "the" doesn't read as "ye" and "save" doesn't read "fave" there were some printing (not translation) errors that have been corrected.

I have a copy of it on my computer. The fruits that have come from the King James bible have been manifold, God has honoured it as HIs Word in English, it's translation stands and is as good as any other (better in my humble opinion).

But for me it would show where the JSIV is in error and has added to the Word of God not the other way around.

Well said!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The man who depreciates Christ, or thinks him unworthy of his allegiance, passes judgment on himself, not on Christ.

What a piece of self-serving rubbish that was.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

What a piece of self-serving rubbish that was.

See what I mean?

 

[Smoke]

The Joseph Smith inpsired version reads much much better than the King James. It has a GREAT spirit about it.It's very expensive to purchase a Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, since we don't own the rights to it.

Nobody does. The RLDS Church obtained its copyright in 1867. Under copyright law in effect at the time, the copyright would have expired in 1881 unless it was renewed, in which case it would have expired in 1895. That means the Inspired Version has been in the public domain for at least 112 years. The only reason the LDS Church doesn't publish it is that the leaders of the Church don't want to publish it.

 

[*Paul*]

Nobody does. The RLDS Church obtained its copyright in 1867. Under copyright law in effect at the time, the copyright would have expired in 1881 unless it was renewed, in which case it would have expired in 1895. That means the Inspired Version has been in the public domain for at least 112 years. The only reason the LDS Church doesn't publish it is that the leaders of the Church don't want to publish it.

Is that really true?

 

[Smoke]

Is that really true?

I don't really read minds, but it's in the public domain, and they have the money to publish it, so it seems like a pretty safe bet that they just don't want to.

 

[tomspug]

You know, kadzbiz, I wasn't even talking to you. I was only commenting on angellous's post and was, thus, talking to him. So if you got offended, it was your own fault.

The point I was making was that no one makes the argument that men DIDN'T write the Bible. And no one is arguing that they WEREN'T gathered into one book by a consensus. All of the books in the Bible are separate works that (amazingly) don't contradict each other but all point to Jesus Christ at a vast array of different points in history. They validate the lineage of Christ. They validate the prophecies concerning Christ. They validate the covenants made in Genesis that were fulfilled by Christ. They show the historical harmony of the Bible (and so does science). They show testimonial harmony between FOUR GOSPELS. And they show the original doctrines and principles of the church by those that were still alive when Christ was alive, validating the religion as not being based on miraculous claims but on testimony (which is pretty hard to argue with, unless you think that a bunch of crazy people pulled the wool over the eyes of hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses).

 

[Smoke]

All of the books in the Bible are separate works that (amazingly) don't contradict each other but all point to Jesus Christ at a vast array of different points in history. They validate the lineage of Christ.

Yeah, that's really impressive. Or would be if it were true.

​

 

[SassDiva2000]

The original Scriptures were inspired and "God-breathed"; however, we do not have the originals...we do not even have copies of the originals. That's why all the translations are somewhat different. That's where faith comes into play. Do you not believe God to be wise enough to have filtered down to us enough of what we need to be saved by Him and inherit eternal life? God is not the author of confusion...man does that (and Satan)...both have done a great job of doing that....

Not only do you not have the originals, but there were different versions of the gospels (such as Mark, for instance). How do you know that you even have the correct version?

 

[Smoke]

Not only do you not have the originals, but there were different versions of the gospels (such as Mark, for instance). How do you know that you even have the correct version?

You have to bother why God bothered to inspire an inerrant original in the first place, knowing it would be corrupted in the future.

 

[kadzbiz]

You know, kadzbiz, I wasn't even talking to you. I was only commenting on angellous's post and was, thus, talking to him. So if you got offended, it was your own fault......... And they show the original doctrines and principles of the church by those that were still alive when Christ was alive, validating the religion as not being based on miraculous claims but on testimony (which is pretty hard to argue with, unless you think that a bunch of crazy people pulled the wool over the eyes of hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses).

I don't get offended that easily. In any case, I re-read the posts I can can hardly see how it related to AE's post, but I'll take you for your word.

Magicians pull the wool over thousands of people all the time, and don't get me started on politicians. And furthermore, eyewitnesses to what? None of the books of the Bible were contemperaneous, so it proves nothing.

You have to bother why God bothered to inspire an inerrant original in the first place, knowing it would be corrupted in the future.

Agreed.

 

[Somkid]

If anyone took the bible literally and did as it said there would be mass murder in the streets of the USA, murdering anyone who was not a Christian and everyone in their town, children would be put to death for not listening to their mother or father, rape would be everywhere and slavery would be added to the stock exchange. Personally (if I believed any of it) I would tend to think the devil inspired the bible to discredit god take a good literal read of it, it is stone evil and against any civilized thinking.

 

[kadzbiz]

...... take a good literal read of it, it is stone evil and against any civilized thinking.

That's why I had such a problem with it, because I read it too literally. Some say take it literally, some say take it proverbially, some say it's a great historical reference, others say it's not to be viewed like that at all. That's why I say, it's a book. Just a book. A chore to read, difficult to interpret, and to some it does wonders and to others it creates monsters.

As for the devil, if I believed in him, I've have to believe in God and vice versa.