Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Watchmen]

Sigh. The Mormon doctrine of the 3 degrees of glory is NOT located in Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians. As a matter of fact, he doesn't even use the word Telestial (as it didn't even exist until the 19th century). In Paul's epistle when he used the Greek word ἐπουράνιος (epouranios) it simply means "heavenly". And when he used the Greek word ἐπίγειος (epigeios) it simply means "earthly". How on earth (epigeios) could anyone twist 1 Cor. 15:40 to teach the Mormon concept of 3 degrees of glory is beyond me!

It might be beyond you, but it's not beyond me.

 

[madhatter85]

Seems like anti-mormon junkies can't get enough of this website huh?

 

[Watchmen]

Truid has been mostly fair and reasonable. I would not describe him as an anti-Mormon.

 

[Truid]

I can see the point you are making, yes.

Thank you.

 

[Truid]

You wouldn't go so far, but I would.

If God is perfect, how can the Book of Mormon be His word? Especially since the Book of Mormon admits it has errors and that these errors are the fault of Men (not God). BTW, I'm talking about the original writings on the plates not the "translation" done by Joseph Smith (which if true and done accurately would have transferred those errors from the plates onto the paper Smith's scribes were writing on).

 

[Truid]

Seems like anti-mormon junkies can't get enough of this website huh?

:angel2:

 

[Truid]

Truid has been mostly fair and reasonable. I would not describe him as an anti-Mormon.

:bow:

 

[Katzpur]

If God is perfect, how can the Book of Mormon be His word? Especially since the Book of Mormon admits it has errors and that these errors are the fault of Men (not God). BTW, I'm talking about the original writings on the plates not the "translation" done by Joseph Smith (which if true and done accurately would have transferred those errors from the plates onto the paper Smith's scribes were writing on).

As long as human beings are part of a process, there is the possibility of error. Please don't tell me you believe the Bible to be inerrant, and that every single solitary word that appears in the Bible (whichever version you might choose to see as "inerrant") is the exact word God would have written had He sat down, pen in hand, and written it.

 

[Truid]

As long as human beings are part of a process, there is the possibility of error. Please don't tell me you believe the Bible to be inerrant, and that every single solitary word that appears in the Bible (whichever version you might choose to see as "inerrant") is the exact word God would have written had He sat down, pen in hand, and written it.

The only "Word of God" that I recognize is the original inspired words spoken by the Apostles and Prophets sent by God. I also recognize the original "autographia" manuscripts as the written word of God. However, the copies and translations which came later, imho, only contain the word of God. But they (themselves) are not the same as the original. In other words, I don't believe the translations or copies were inspired.

 

[Watchmen]

The only "Word of God" that I recognize is the original inspired words spoken by the Apostles and Prophets sent by God. I also recognize the original "autographia" manuscripts as the written word of God. However, the copies and translations which came later, imho, only contain the word of God. But they (themselves) are not the same as the original. In other words, I don't believe the translations or copies were inspired.

What original inspired words spoken by the Apostles and Prophets sent by God do you have?

 

[Truid]

What original inspired words spoken by the Apostles and Prophets sent by God do you have?

I don't possess any original manuscripts. No one does. However, just because the manuscripts we do have are not literally "inspired" does not mean they are not extremely accurate. Did you know that there are "over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD. 10

• In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.11

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this -- of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament."
Bible Manuscripts

 

[Katzpur]

I don't possess any original manuscripts. No one does. However, just because the manuscripts we do have are not literally "inspired" does not mean they are not extremely accurate. Did you know that there are "over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD. 10

• In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.11

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this -- of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament."
Bible Manuscripts

Truid, in light of this information you just posted, I'd like to point out to you that the question you asked:

If God is perfect, how can the Book of Mormon be His word? Especially since the Book of Mormon admits it has errors and that these errors are the fault of Men (not God). BTW, I'm talking about the original writings on the plates not the "translation" done by Joseph Smith (which if true and done accurately would have transferred those errors from the plates onto the paper Smith's scribes were writing on).

can be answered pretty much as you have answered Watchman's question about the biblical manuscripts. Much of the Book of Mormon is simply a religious and secular history of a group of people and not specifically words dictated by God to His prophets who lived in the Western Hemisphere. If, while recording some event that took place, the author made a minor error, it wouldn't affect the teachings and doctrines presented in the book. The message is what's perfect. If a word here or there was transcribed incorrectly, it doesn't change the truthfulness of that message any more than similar minor errors or missing words, phrases or lines in the bible change the truthfulness of its message.

 

[Watchmen]

Thanks for clarifying there's nothing original - only the works of those 200-300 years after the events described actually took place.

We too trust in the prophets and apostles for our scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

The only "Word of God" that I recognize is the original inspired words spoken by the Apostles and Prophets sent by God. I also recognize the original "autographia" manuscripts as the written word of God. However, the copies and translations which came later, imho, only contain the word of God. But they (themselves) are not the same as the original. In other words, I don't believe the translations or copies were inspired.

Let's be real careful here. Which "autographia" are you referring to? The gospels are all anonymous. The "autographs" were added later. Many of the letters ascribed to Paul are not truly Paul's. And Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus.

How do we identify these "original, inspired words spoken by the apostles and prophets?"
This is getting dangerously close to "the Bible fell out of the sky" thinking, which is fuzzy, at best.

Like the Mormons, all we really have, finally, is Tradition. And it seems to serve us pretty faithfully.

 

[Watchmen]

Tradition!!! Tradition!

-Fiddler on the Roof

 

[RemnanteK]

I just heard a story about someones vision for heaven.

This man is in Heaven just soaking up the glory of it all and he feels a tap on his shoulder.
He turns to see his angel smiling at him.
His angel asks him. "Would you mind if we took a trip to a planed on the edge of the universe.
He asks the angel. "Why what is there?"
The angel says. "There are a group there that wants to hear what salvation from sin is like, and they want to hear it from you."
They get there and the angel sits in the back with wings folded and listens to the stories of how great Gods love is.

Needless to say it blew my mind to think about how awesome that would be. I can't wait!

 

[Katzpur]

I just heard a story about someones vision for heaven.

This man is in Heaven just soaking up the glory of it all and he feels a tap on his shoulder.
He turns to see his angel smiling at him.
His angel asks him. "Would you mind if we took a trip to a planed on the edge of the universe.
He asks the angel. "Why what is there?"
The angel says. "There are a group there that wants to hear what salvation from sin is like, and they want to hear it from you."
They get there and the angel sits in the back with wings folded and listens to the stories of how great Gods love is.

Needless to say it blew my mind to think about how awesome that would be. I can't wait!

Yeah, that would really be cool, wouldn't it? :yes:

 

[Truid]

Truid, in light of this information you just posted, I'd like to point out to you that the question you asked: can be answered pretty much as you have answered Watchman's question about the biblical manuscripts. Much of the Book of Mormon is simply a religious and secular history of a group of people and not specifically words dictated by God to His prophets who lived in the Western Hemisphere. If, while recording some event that took place, the author made a minor error, it wouldn't affect the teachings and doctrines presented in the book. The message is what's perfect. If a word here or there was transcribed incorrectly, it doesn't change the truthfulness of that message any more than similar minor errors or missing words, phrases or lines in the bible change the truthfulness of its message.

Then I guess we agree. :clap

 

[Katzpur]

Oh my gosh! In six minutes it will have been 24 hours since someone posted on this thread! What's the matter? Have all you Christians all of a sudden decided that you accept the Book of Mormon as valid? :biglaugh::seesaw::tuna:unk:

 

[Watchmen]

Let me get them primed:


I don't accept the Book of Mormon because it has horses in it.