� David Miller wrote:
> David Miller wrote: > >> Technically, you are correct. I agree that the admonitions > >> apply specifically to those books. However, the concept > >> can be broadened to include other books and even other > >> compilations of books. > > DAVEH: > > IF you do that, then you would have to exclude a good > > portion of the Bible......specifically, everything post > > Deuteronomy! > > I don't see it that way. DAVEH:� Then you must be technically ignoring the truth!� <VBG> ��� Seriously though........I do not believe for a minute that it means anything except changing (adding, deleting or fiddling with the intent/content) the Word of God for evil purposes is wrong, whether it is included in a compilation such as the Bible or not.� The Word of God should stand on its own wherever it be found.� Currently, many Christians assume that it is totally and wholly found only in the Bible, and then they apply those specific passages to the Bible as a whole.� I think that is improper.� Whether books are added to or subtracted from the Bible or not a problem, as long as they are recognized as the revealed Word of God.� But.....to add something not of God, or delete something to hide the intent/change of the Lord is the problem God addressed in Dt & Rev. > �The concept is that even though a book like the > gospel of John does not specifically say not to add or remove things from > it, we would consider it just as wrong for someone to take it upon > themselves to do that. DAVEH:� I agree. > �This is not to say that another book might not also > be considered Scripture. DAVEH:� I agree. > I don't have a problem considering that the Book of Mormon might be > Scripture.� The idea itself is not wrong, in my opinion.� I see no valid > authority from God that has closed the Canon of Scripture. DAVEH:� I think there are many Protestants who might disagree with you on that! > �However, where > the Book of Mormon seriously fails is when it criticizes the Scriptures > before it as not being what God had intended. DAVEH:� You seem intent on limiting "Scriptures" as being only what is found in the Bible.� Yet above you suggested " This is not to say that another book might not also be considered Scripture."�� If you really believe such, then why would you not think it possible that there is more of the Lord's will that may be revealed elsewhere than the Bible?� Doesn't that imply that the Bible may lack some important information? > This is a huge red flag.� It > is the language of cults across the world and throughout history.� >From the > Gnostics of the 2nd century to The Way International of the 20th century, > this is what all cults proclaim, that what came before them is in gross > error and they are the light which will fix the problem. > > Jesus and the apostles, on the other hand, never claimed any sort of problem > with the Scriptures that came before them. DAVEH:� Yet it was THEY who contributed significantly to EXPANDING Scripture!� And why should they complain?� They had more OT Scripture than we do now!� We should be the ones who are wondering what happened to the material they referenced. > On the contrary, they affirmed > the authority of Scripture and testified to God's hand of Providence in > preserving them for mankind.� Do you see the difference here? DAVEH:� Yep......they were working with a full deck.� Our deck, even though expanded since then, is obviously lacking material they considered from God. > DAVEH: > > Because the Bible is an "arbitrary" collection of books. > > I respectfully disagree.� :-)� Arbitrary?� ???� Why do you assume that? DAVEH:� Because of the way the Apocrypha was treated.� At one time is was included in the Bible, and now it has fallen in disfavor, and has be discarded as questionable material.� The King James scholars felt it was pertinent.� Since then, somebody made a decision to remove it?� Why?� Did the teachings there seem problematic now, but didn't 4 centuries ago? > �You > underestimate the power and sovereignty of God. DAVEH:� And I think you underestimate his promise of free will to men.� If men truly have agency to do wrong, then there is a possible conflict if you seem to believe God would deny them that right to add/subtract something from the Bible. > DaveH wrote: > > What we call the Bible today, is different from > > what was thought of as the Bible many years ago. > > So? DAVEH:� SO.......even though those passages in Dt & Rv give the warning, it is simply for the books themselves, not the compilation of Biblical books.....contrary to the opinion of many Christians.� And....I think you agree with me on that. > DaveH wrote: > > Missing material is a problem, whether it is a single > > word, passage or book. > > Why is this a problem?� Because the Book of Mormon tells you it is a > problem? DAVEH:� The revealed Word of God (Gospel) is the Owner's Manual for the Book of Life.� The fewer pages we have, the more chance of misunderstanding and misdirection.� Who is content with a portion of the Lord's revealed Gospel?� Logically, can we really be comfortable knowing there is more of God's revealed will than we have, but it is was lost? > DaveH wrote: > > The instances you mentioned (Deut & Rev) we both > > agree pertain to said books. However, the BofM's > > comment does not refer to a specific book, but to > > Scripture as a whole, which the Bible is not---in a > > complete sense. Does that make sense, DavidM? > > No, I'm not following you at all.� The Book of Mormon refers to the "book of > the Lamb of God," not to "books."� It says that it proceeded out of the > mouth of a Jew, that it contains the covenants of the Lord and many of the > prophecies of the holy prophets.� It says that the Gentiles find worth in it > and go after it.� Blaine said this is the Bible. DAVEH:� I agree.� It was quite late when wrote the above, and I really didn't put it down correctly.� I should have reviewed what I wrote before I posted it.� My mistake. > �It then tells of other > Scriptures coming forth to restore what had been taken out of this "book of > the Lamb."� The footnote in my Book of Mormon indicates this is the Book of > Mormon.� Now you indicate that the Book of Mormon is talking about > Scriptures as a whole, and not just the Bible.� It seems to me that you and > Blaine don't agree on this, and neither does the Book of Mormon agree with > either of you.� This is some of the most confused and mixed up stuff that I > have ever heard. DAVEH:� My comment was certainly in error on that.......sorry. > DaveH wrote: > > I'm not sure I'm even saying it right, or conveying > > what I'm thinking. > > Well if you are confused about it, you can imagine how confused I am about > it.� :-) DAVEH:� LOL......Yeah, I know.....I didn't mean to confuse you, and I certainly should have spent more time in my explanation....I misspoke. > DaveH wrote: > > But I think you are trying to equate the comments in > > the Bible with the comments in the BofM, and I don't > > think they are necessarily directly related. > > I'm trying to understand what the Book of Mormon has to say about the Bible. > Note that Blaine led us all into this discussion by claiming that the Book > of Mormon was clear and simple, compared to the Bible.� He was explaining > how the Bible was missing "plain and precious parts" but the Book of Mormon > was not. DAVEH:� I do not recall Blaine saying ".....the Book of Mormon was not".� Are you sure he said such?� There are things the BofM fails to discuss.� Many things (such as the need for baptism) is much clearer in the BofM than the Bible.� Other things may better be explained from the Bible perspective. > �Now you are saying that we can't directly compare the Bible and > the Book of Mormon. DAVEH:� You can certainly compare them.� But it doesn't make sense to pit them against each other.� They were meant to work hand in hand in a complimentary manner, to give a better understanding of the Gospel. > DaveH wrote: > > That may confuse you..... > > You got that right. DAVEH:� .� It isn't that I try to confuse you on purpose, but I fail at many things and sometimes I just don't do well explaining stuff. > DaveH wrote: > > ... and if it does, I'll try to explain it in a different > > way. Just let me know. > > I'm letting you know.� Please explain! DAVEH:� I can't even remember the question!� But let me offer my thoughts on the Gospel Plan as a whole.� The Lord has revealed much of the Gospel in what we call the Scriptures.� Protestants normally limit that to just the Bible.� LDS theology does not limit the revealed will of God in such a way.� Anything/anybody who detracts (or changes) from what God has revealed, only detracts from the Gospel and impedes mans' eternal progression.� The less mankind knows of the Gospel, the more power Satan has, IMHO.��� Does that give you a better understanding of my perspective, DavidM? > Peace be with you. > David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
