Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Sola'lor]

Hahaha. Watchmen. I had to make this my avatar because everytime I saw yours I got depressed. I needed something to cancel it out. But yes, I think this new movie is an insult to Start Trek. It completely violates everything that has been established. Now I may be wrong and they do something in the end that restored the "original timeline." But I'm not counting on it.

Now I'm not saying the movie wont be good. But it should be it's own film and not part of Star Trek. It just doesn't even remotely try to follow what was established. It's like they just made their own show and borrowed the names from Star Trek.

Sorry for going off topic. I was just answering a question from watchmen.

 

[sojourner]

Oddly, at one time it was thought that Revelations was written by some monk, centuries after the rest of the New Testament. Luke is about 60 to 67 AD and Acts is considered about the same. I hold Revelations to about 96 AD.

Luke is about 80-95, and there is some plausible evidence for a later date, possibly as late as 125! Revelation is about 95. John is dated at 90-100. Therefore, Revelation may not have been the last book, so there's no real reason to believe that it is the "capstone" in any sense, other than it is one person's apocalyptic ending to the Biblical story.

 

[LittleNipper]

Luke is about 80-95, and there is some plausible evidence for a later date, possibly as late as 125! Revelation is about 95. John is dated at 90-100. Therefore, Revelation may not have been the last book, so there's no real reason to believe that it is the "capstone" in any sense, other than it is one person's apocalyptic ending to the Biblical story.

The ONLY reason for anyone to try to make the book of Revelation younger than it is would be to make it easier to explain how additional "books" might be allowed into the canon of scripture. There is every reason to insist Luke is an older book than Revelation.

I see no helpful additional salvation advice provided by any Gnostic text. Additional text only create confusion and that is always the intent of satan.

 

[Sola'lor]

I'm sorry but no book after the Book of Deuteronomy is God's word. In chapter 4 it says this:

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Since anything after Deuteronomy would be an addition and thus not from God.

This post is sarcastic just so you know.

 

[LittleNipper]

Even if Revelations was the last book writen by John in 96 AD. The first writings in the Book of Mormon started in about 600BC. Thats 696 Years before Revelation, well within the acceptable timeframe of Biblacal content.

The books of the Aprocropha were/are not accepted as part of the Old Testament canon even though their historic existence is easy to document...

 

[Sola'lor]

Actually the books of the Apocrypha were included as a regular part of the Bible until mid 16th Century. If you look up the index of the Gutenburg Bible you'll see that apocryphal books are included just as any other book.

 

[sojourner]

The ONLY reason for anyone to try to make the book of Revelation younger than it is would be to make it easier to explain how additional "books" might be allowed into the canon of scripture. There is every reason to insist Luke is an older book than Revelation.

I see no helpful additional salvation advice provided by any Gnostic text. Additional text only create confusion and that is always the intent of satan.

Well, good reason, but not every reason. The late-Luke theory is very plausible.

Your last statement is also not universally true. Sometimes additional texts serve to clarify. Thomas is very helpful to some exegetical processes.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually the books of the Apocrypha were included as a regular part of the Bible until mid 16th Century. If you look up the index of the Gutenburg Bible you'll see that apocryphal books are included just as any other book.

Actually, the JEWs NEVER accepted the apocryphal books as scriptural. It was Jerome who translated the Bible and the apocryphal books into Latin at the request of Pope Damasus; however, Jerome ALWAYS held that the non-Hebrewic text were not canon. In fact, Jerome was eventually forced out of Rome and he went to Bethlehem. The Pope and the Catholic church insisted that the Apocrypha was all scriptural.

With the Reformation, the Protestants accepted a return to Jerome's opinion. The Old Testament Canon was retured to those books accepted by the JEWs at the time of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. CHRIST never gave any credibility to any of the aprocryphal text. The aprocryphal books, while considered historic, are not considered divinely inspired by either the JEWs, the early CHURCH, nor the Protestant reformers (I might add that Martin Luther himself took issue with the Book of Revelations). But this is due to the terrible distortions he witnessed with the Latin scriptural translations.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, the JEWs NEVER accepted the apocryphal books as scriptural. It was Jerome who translated the Bible and the apocryphal books into Latin at the request of Pope Damasus; however, Jerome ALWAYS held that the non-Hebrewic text were not canon. In fact, Jerome was eventually forced out of Rome and he went to Bethlehem. The Pope and the Catholic church insisted that the Apocrypha was all scriptural.

With the Reformation, the Protestants accepted a return to Jerome's opinion. The Old Testament Canon was retured to those books accepted by the JEWs at the time of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. CHRIST never gave any credibility to any of the aprocryphal text. The aprocryphal books, while considered historic, are not considered divinely inspired by either the JEWs, the early CHURCH, nor the Protestant reformers (I might add that Martin Luther himself took issue with the Book of Revelations). But this is due to the terrible distortions he witnessed with the Latin scriptural translations.

Except that Jerome translated the LXX. They were already there, before Xy became a separate religion, collected with all the other books of the Bible.

 

[Sola'lor]

Actually, the JEWs NEVER accepted the apocryphal books as scriptural. It was Jerome who translated the Bible and the apocryphal books into Latin at the request of Pope Damasus; however, Jerome ALWAYS held that the non-Hebrewic text were not canon. In fact, Jerome was eventually forced out of Rome and he went to Bethlehem. The Pope and the Catholic church insisted that the Apocrypha was all scriptural.

The jews never accepted Christ either.

With the Reformation, the Protestants accepted a return to Jerome's opinion. The Old Testament Canon was retured to those books accepted by the JEWs at the time of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. CHRIST never gave any credibility to any of the aprocryphal text. The aprocryphal books, while considered historic, are not considered divinely inspired by either the JEWs, the early CHURCH, nor the Protestant reformers (I might add that Martin Luther himself took issue with the Book of Revelations). But this is due to the terrible distortions he witnessed with the Latin scriptural translations.

So who gets to determine which books belong in the Bible? Which version is most correct? Personaly i think te most correct version are the original versions straight from the authors' hands. But of course if we went back to them there wouldn't be a bible. There would just be a bunch of individual books.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm sorry but no book after the Book of Deuteronomy is God's word. In chapter 4 it says this:

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Since anything after Deuteronomy would be an addition and thus not from God.

This post is sarcastic just so you know.

In Deuteronomy GOD is referring to the LAW.

Do not add to what I command you and do not substract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your GOD that I give you. NIV

Interestingly, once the LAW is given, GOD never adds to them ----- CHRIST but fulfills them. HE does say which is the most important and shows the LAW to not be superficial in their nature, but HE never adds to the LAW.

The command in Revelations is directed towards any additional PROCHECY.
GOD will provide NO ADDITIONAL PROPHETIC MESSAGE. This is in direct contrast to the beliefs of mormonism that is founded almost entirely on additional "prophetic messages" revealed to their "prophets."

 

[LittleNipper]

The jews never accepted Christ either.



So who gets to determine which books belong in the Bible? Which version is most correct? Personaly i think the most correct version are the original versions straight from the authors' hands. But of course if we went back to them there wouldn't be a bible. There would just be a bunch of individual books.

The earlist members of CHRIST's CHURCH were nearly all JEWS. HIS disciples certainly were. GOD controls the course of history and not man.

 

[Sola'lor]

The command in Revelations is directed towards any additional PROCHECY.
GOD will provide NO ADDITIONAL PROPHETIC MESSAGE. This is in direct contrast to the beliefs of mormonism that is founded almost entirely on additional "prophetic messages" revealed to their "prophets."

So your claim is that the verses in Revelations specifically condemn any additional prophecy from God, ever. Is my understanding of your claim correct?

 

[Sola'lor]

The earlist members of CHRIST's CHURCH were nearly all JEWS. HIS disciples certainly were.

They wrere Jews nationally and racially but not religiously. They were Christians religiously.

GOD controls the course of history and not man.

So who gets to determine which books are officially part of the Bible? History? God? If so where can I get the God Version of the Bible. I wonder who his publisher is.

 

[LittleNipper]

So your claim is that the verses in Revelations specifically condemn any additional prophecy from God, ever. Is my understanding of your claim correct?

New scriptural revelation ---- yes.

 

[LittleNipper]

They wrere Jews nationally and racially but not religiously. They were Christians religiously.



So who gets to determine which books are officially part of the Bible? History? God? If so where can I get the God Version of the Bible. I wonder who his publisher is.

GOD, and HE selected who, when and where. And I would question the religious part. They taught where? They concerned themselves with circumcision and eating pork... They had been JEWS. Saul/Paul is a prime example.

 

[sojourner]

GOD, and HE selected who, when and where.

I suppose that the church leaders had very little to do with the whole process...

 

[LittleNipper]

I suppose that the church leaders had very little to do with the whole process...

Who selected the church leaders ---- GOD or man? Who mades someone a believer, GOD or man? Who picked Mary ---- GOD or man?

 

[sojourner]

Who selected the church leaders ---- GOD or man? Who mades someone a believer, GOD or man? Who picked Mary ---- GOD or man?

1) God and humanity
2) God and the believer
3) God and Mary

You're forgetting the whole relationship thing.

 

[edward]

Just for the record and trying not to be nit-picking. The last book of the bible is NOT "Revelations." It is "Revelation" as in "The Revelation of St. John the Divine."

It is not a salvation matter or anything vitally important. It's just proper and correct. When discussing the the Epistle to the Hebrews we don't shorten it to "Hebrew." If we are going to discuss the bible, let's at least get the names of the books correct.

Edward