theirs a reason you only get like 56 views, cause you use the bible improperly picking and choosing things without using context, this video is you straight up lying or being horribly misinformed about which verses coincide with the very end and which coincide with the time it was written, daniels end of days prophecies coincide well with the new testament ones
I don't talk about daniel, I gave just purely secular view of viewing bible literally. offcourse I understand that most things must be checked spiritually with different angel, but I just used the same standard the antimormons use when they critique Smith and that standard would destroy biblical prophets too.
lol you didnt show any failed prophecies just your inability to understand which ones are for the the far future, daniel is full of end time prophecies mixed in with the ones they are doing for that day
I wasn't talking about far future ones, Jeremiah prophesied the way zedekiah would die, yet it didn't hapen that way. Samson failed to deliver Israel also, in fact after samson was dead, israel was even more in bondage to the philistians.
most importantly we don't try to prove mormonism to anyone, we ask them to listen to our message and take it to god for him to answer if it is true? Our people make research to show people that mormonism has it's own merits to stand on also from intellectual stand point but that is never the basis for our testimonies, so understand that first. We don't care if someone misquotes and takes youngs and smiths prophesies out of context to "prove" them wrong, god has said differently.
that repentance was from the bible, joseph smith allways changed it in jst so it doesn't say he repented. So God doesn't repent, but he does sometimes tell people that bad things will happen if they don't repent, but if they do, he wont let the disaster to come. In these prophesies the part of asking people to repent was omitted, so one can only spekulate why? I think that god still gave them the chance to repent after the degree was given, but that's just me, maybe the prophet was just wrong?
I just want you to realize that FIRST: I'm not claiming that the bible is the word of God; second, does disproving the bible do anything towards proving Mormonism?
How did the bible come into being? If you are talking about the King James New Testament it is a translation of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy; it had a lot of stages to get messed up in. The Book of Mormon was given character by character from a rock in a hat "By the gift and power of God".
I know the translation/copy issue of the king james bible and that's why I also am willing to admit frailties. first edition of book of mormon came mostly from the printters COPY of the manuscript, and that copy had some errors, something like eight errors per manuscript page, So bom wasn't published from the god aided translation and neither was oliver cowderry perfect when he scribet the first manuscript, many spelling errors for example took place, and no punctuation existed in the manuscript
So God didn't reveal the dots and commas or grammar as one might think, but the mesage in general was from god, men made their work wich is never perfect, even if it would be most correct, it's still never perfect, neither did smith say so, most correct means not perfect. Evangelicals generally believe that king james bible is without fault and was produced by the inspiration of the holy ghost, believe it or not, but this is the general belief in america and england among protestants.
You mentioned the portions that are missing from your Dutch bible; were you aware that the Holy Ghost (TM by Mormons) sucked so bad as to let modifications to the text slip in to the KJV?
The portion that you claim is missing from your Dutch bible is curiously absent from any copies of the text produced before one monk wrote it as a note in the margin? Look it up.
If I write notes in the margin of my bible, do those notes become scripture?
it's a finnish bible. And I know that the portion missing was a monks addition, but it's still in the kjv and protestants believe generally that the kjv is error free.
Church uses the standard kjv, so offcourse it's in the official bible of the church, but all the student guides are clear to let people to know the fallacy of that portion. Smith didn't take it out, because he never finished his translation, restoration completely.
Ok, why did it take 3 different occasions to correct all of the errors? 1837, 1840, 1841.
Why have the scrolls that the official facscimilies in the back of the Pearl of Great Price been found to have been a standard funerary text for Khonsu Osiris Hor. These texts were verified to have been funerary texts for Hor by Hugh Nibley (official church historian).
Because men are not perfect, and because the original manuscript got destroyed by water and mold.
The scrols of the boa are handled in a different forum, don't go off the topic. Now it's known that these "funerary" scrolls are also being used by the living, and it's been known since atleast 1913 that these facsimilies can mean loads of differen things in egyptian culture and different times of history. Read more of nibleys stuff and he makes it clear that the meanings smith gave are plausible.
Nibley is a lunatic who argues from a faulty position and has nothing to stand on. He likes to make mountains out of molehills where it credits the church and molehills out of mountains when it doesn't.
well, the egyptologist in 1913 wasn't nibley neither is John Gee who has phd from yale on egyptology. Nibley also takes all his points from revered egyptologists and their studies, so u can call him a lunatic and exaccerator, but he has all the sources u can check and quite a few, Gee included has said that he never takes the sources out of context, even if you anti mormon lunatics who make mountains out of mole hills, would like to assure you without authoritative study.
that reference from year 1913 was non lds who said that lds can escape criticism because of the multiple meaning thing.
Non lds egyptologist don't understand lds theology and thus they can't put together the interpretations of those facismiles egyptian meaning with the spiritual christian stuff, but it was their definitions that nibley used to show how the interpretations can really work in lds way aswell, but you haveto read those sources yourself.
Sorry, I found it . . . Nibley examined the scrolls and found that they were funerary texts for some guy. If you can find a copy of the Improvement Era from anytime between 1968 and May 1970, you will learn that the fragments are of an Egyptian funeral ceremony.
theirs a reason you only get like 56 views, cause you use the bible improperly picking and choosing things without using context, this video is you straight up lying or being horribly misinformed about which verses coincide with the very end and which coincide with the time it was written, daniels end of days prophecies coincide well with the new testament ones
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
I don't talk about daniel, I gave just purely secular view of viewing bible literally. offcourse I understand that most things must be checked spiritually with different angel, but I just used the same standard the antimormons use when they critique Smith and that standard would destroy biblical prophets too.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
lol you didnt show any failed prophecies just your inability to understand which ones are for the the far future, daniel is full of end time prophecies mixed in with the ones they are doing for that day
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
I wasn't talking about far future ones, Jeremiah prophesied the way zedekiah would die, yet it didn't hapen that way. Samson failed to deliver Israel also, in fact after samson was dead, israel was even more in bondage to the philistians.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
most importantly we don't try to prove mormonism to anyone, we ask them to listen to our message and take it to god for him to answer if it is true? Our people make research to show people that mormonism has it's own merits to stand on also from intellectual stand point but that is never the basis for our testimonies, so understand that first. We don't care if someone misquotes and takes youngs and smiths prophesies out of context to "prove" them wrong, god has said differently.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Can an omniscient God repent?
grnmessiah 3 years ago
that repentance was from the bible, joseph smith allways changed it in jst so it doesn't say he repented. So God doesn't repent, but he does sometimes tell people that bad things will happen if they don't repent, but if they do, he wont let the disaster to come. In these prophesies the part of asking people to repent was omitted, so one can only spekulate why? I think that god still gave them the chance to repent after the degree was given, but that's just me, maybe the prophet was just wrong?
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
I just want you to realize that FIRST: I'm not claiming that the bible is the word of God; second, does disproving the bible do anything towards proving Mormonism?
grnmessiah 3 years ago
no, but it makes a point that if believeing fallible bible imposes standard of perfection for lds, maybe they should rethink their position again.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
How did the bible come into being? If you are talking about the King James New Testament it is a translation of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy; it had a lot of stages to get messed up in. The Book of Mormon was given character by character from a rock in a hat "By the gift and power of God".
grnmessiah 3 years ago
I know the translation/copy issue of the king james bible and that's why I also am willing to admit frailties. first edition of book of mormon came mostly from the printters COPY of the manuscript, and that copy had some errors, something like eight errors per manuscript page, So bom wasn't published from the god aided translation and neither was oliver cowderry perfect when he scribet the first manuscript, many spelling errors for example took place, and no punctuation existed in the manuscript
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
So God didn't reveal the dots and commas or grammar as one might think, but the mesage in general was from god, men made their work wich is never perfect, even if it would be most correct, it's still never perfect, neither did smith say so, most correct means not perfect. Evangelicals generally believe that king james bible is without fault and was produced by the inspiration of the holy ghost, believe it or not, but this is the general belief in america and england among protestants.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
You mentioned the portions that are missing from your Dutch bible; were you aware that the Holy Ghost (TM by Mormons) sucked so bad as to let modifications to the text slip in to the KJV?
The portion that you claim is missing from your Dutch bible is curiously absent from any copies of the text produced before one monk wrote it as a note in the margin? Look it up.
If I write notes in the margin of my bible, do those notes become scripture?
grnmessiah 3 years ago
it's a finnish bible. And I know that the portion missing was a monks addition, but it's still in the kjv and protestants believe generally that the kjv is error free.
Church uses the standard kjv, so offcourse it's in the official bible of the church, but all the student guides are clear to let people to know the fallacy of that portion. Smith didn't take it out, because he never finished his translation, restoration completely.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Ok, why did it take 3 different occasions to correct all of the errors? 1837, 1840, 1841.
Why have the scrolls that the official facscimilies in the back of the Pearl of Great Price been found to have been a standard funerary text for Khonsu Osiris Hor. These texts were verified to have been funerary texts for Hor by Hugh Nibley (official church historian).
grnmessiah 3 years ago
Because men are not perfect, and because the original manuscript got destroyed by water and mold.
The scrols of the boa are handled in a different forum, don't go off the topic. Now it's known that these "funerary" scrolls are also being used by the living, and it's been known since atleast 1913 that these facsimilies can mean loads of differen things in egyptian culture and different times of history. Read more of nibleys stuff and he makes it clear that the meanings smith gave are plausible.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Nibley is a lunatic who argues from a faulty position and has nothing to stand on. He likes to make mountains out of molehills where it credits the church and molehills out of mountains when it doesn't.
grnmessiah 3 years ago
well, the egyptologist in 1913 wasn't nibley neither is John Gee who has phd from yale on egyptology. Nibley also takes all his points from revered egyptologists and their studies, so u can call him a lunatic and exaccerator, but he has all the sources u can check and quite a few, Gee included has said that he never takes the sources out of context, even if you anti mormon lunatics who make mountains out of mole hills, would like to assure you without authoritative study.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Ok--reference a REAL Egyptologist (not from BYU).
grnmessiah 3 years ago
that reference from year 1913 was non lds who said that lds can escape criticism because of the multiple meaning thing.
Non lds egyptologist don't understand lds theology and thus they can't put together the interpretations of those facismiles egyptian meaning with the spiritual christian stuff, but it was their definitions that nibley used to show how the interpretations can really work in lds way aswell, but you haveto read those sources yourself.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Was this after the original scrolls that Joseph Smith translated were found in the 1960's?
grnmessiah 3 years ago
Sorry, I found it . . . Nibley examined the scrolls and found that they were funerary texts for some guy. If you can find a copy of the Improvement Era from anytime between 1968 and May 1970, you will learn that the fragments are of an Egyptian funeral ceremony.
They were found in the Metropolitan Museum.
grnmessiah 3 years ago