Blaine,
At the time the King James Version was translated it is possible that the
meaning of "perfect" was appropriate due to it's denotation at that time,
but has evolved to mean something slightly different today.
That idea is not the same as the Bible being translated incorrectly.
Often, Blaine, I have noticed that you sometimes do not fully grasp what
is being said and misrepresent it. It appears as though you are often
trying too hard to find fault where none exists.
Besides, I am not the one that claimed that the (KJV) translation was
perfect, although I do believe that it fully reveals the word of God and
what He wants us to know. This is twice now that you have attributed other's
beliefs to me, the other being in your description of what I believe about
Jesus. I would like to request that if you are going to attribute things to
me that you quote the post in which I said them.
Finally, a book full of contradiction, plaigerism, fairytales, and
falsehoods cannot possibly be a substitute for, or even a supplement to the
Bible.
Example: Consider this quote from the bom:
"ETH 1:40 And it came to pass that the Lord did hear the brother of
Jared, and had compassion upon him, and said unto him: . . . And there
shall be none greater than the nation which I will raise up unto me of thy
seed, upon all the face of the earth."
Q: No greater nation upon all the face of the earth, eh? How many Jaredites
do you know?
A: None. This is a false prophecy by a false god to a fictitious character.
In other words, a fairytale.
Perry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus of the Bible
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:09:10 EDT
Blaine: The word "perfect" is likely the right word, otherwise, you have
to
admit the Mormon claim that the Bible is to be believed only insofar as it
is translated correctly is true.
Which will it be? Last time this came up, you insisted the Bible was
perfect--other TT'rs arrived at the same conclusion. You guys can't have
it both
ways. If the bible is not a perfect instrument, then the BoM or a similar
book
revealed from heaven must be needed.
In a message dated 7/2/2005 12:20:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read that the word "perfect" in 1611 meant what "complete" means to
us today. Try rereading that verse with "complete" in place of "perfect"
and
see if it sounds any different to you.
Do we have anyone on TT that can confirm what I have read regarding the
denotation of the word "perfect" in 1611? Languages evolve, as you all
know,
and English is no excuse. Things today do not always mean what they did
almost 496 years ago.
Perry
>From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus of the Bible
>Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:34:42 -0500
>
>Kevin Deegan wrote:
>
>>
>>...........
>>According to one LDS prophet: "In his Sermon on the Mount he made the
>>command to all men: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which
is
>>in heaven is perfect." (Matt.5:48.) Being perfect means to *triumph
over
>>sin*. This is a *mandate* from the Lord. He is just and wise and
kind.
>>He would never require anything from his children which was not for
their
>>benefit and which was not attainable. * Perfection therefore is an
>>achievable goal*."
>>Remember it says "BE" not future tense become perfect, how are you NOW?
>>Are you Triumphing? Are you perfect?
----------
"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.
