dberrie2020
Super Member
So--when did it become the "real word of God"--before or after the 100,000 changes? Also--are you claiming an inerrant Word only after the changes of "error"? That's a lot of errors.
Bump for DaGeo
Have you heard of the Burning of the Bosom?
- Thread starter radvermin
- Start date
So--when did it become the "real word of God"--before or after the 100,000 changes? Also--are you claiming an inerrant Word only after the changes of "error"? That's a lot of errors.
Bump for DaGeo
Richard7
Well-known member
You talked with two missionaries and they said they never felt a burning.. so what is that suppose to mean... why even mention two missionaries as if they were the answer to the burning in the bosom, what else did they teach you? your turn!
Well, taking into context what I was responding to, you said,
Yes, its scripture when you have applied it according to Moroni 10:5 a promise by God that he will reveal the truthfulness of the BOM...
Not always a burning in the bosom, with me it was a dream as close to a vision as anyone could imagine...
If I understand you correctly you're saying it's not always a burning in the bosom. In response to that I mentioned a story with the two missionaries who call the BoM Scripture but have never experienced the Burning, but would say it's scripture for other reason.
So, the reason why I mentioned them was that I was agreeing with you, that for you it doesn't have to be a burning in the bosom. That's why the very first word I said in response to you was "Yeah".
Richard7
Well-known member
Thx.
You’re not making any sense as usual but seems you’re getting worst. Ok, Just take a deep breath and try again
Yes, and like a beginning student in elementary school, you haven’t learned to make distinctions. But that’s ok, I’m here to help.Right, think of that and then tell me that the Bible is inerrant.
Don’t worry about your mistakes, you’ll catch on sooner or later.
Think of it this way, does a student copy error affect the teacher’s perfect copy
This isn’t a hard one. I’m going easy on you because of your ongoing confusion. Wish you the best.
Of course they aren’t to you
?????Like I said earlier, ask yourself this. Does a student copy error affect the perfection of the original copyRight, think of that and then tell me that the Bible is inerrant.
note self: next time don’t ask him to “ask himself”, that’s probably the person confusing him
?????Do that, but so far you make a bad parrot
Good parrots don’t repeat nonsense ????.My server can’t get that stuff up. So if you’re serious, take the time to write them out. I can’t wait
Yes but you won’t give me your evidence for fear I might refute it.
Yea. But you’re the one drowning. Please let me help you into the real life boat
brotherofJared
Well-known member
You've given my nothing but your opinion. U have nothing I want or need. You have certainly not provided any evidence that you do.
dberrie2020
Super Member
dberrie2020 said:---So--when did it become the "real word of God"--before or after the 100,000 changes? Also--are you claiming an inerrant Word only after those changes of "error"? That's a lot of errors.
Your server didn't have any problem pulling up the 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon. And I pulled the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text for you.
You won't have to wait--the 100,000 changed have already been made.
So--if the 4,000 changes of the Book of Mormon throw you into a feeding frenzy--what would the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text do to your disposition?
Your server didn't have any problem pulling up the 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon. And I pulled the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text for you.
So if you’re serious, take the time to write them out. I can’t wait
You won't have to wait--the 100,000 changed have already been made.
So--if the 4,000 changes of the Book of Mormon throw you into a feeding frenzy--what would the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text do to your disposition?
dberrie2020
Super Member
dberrie2020 said:---So--when did it become the "real word of God"--before or after the 100,000 changes? Also--are you claiming an inerrant Word only after those changes of "error"? That's a lot of errors.
Your server didn't have any problem pulling up the 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon. And I pulled the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text for you.
You won't have to wait--the 100,000 changed have already been made.
So--if the 4,000 changes of the Book of Mormon throw you into a feeding frenzy--what would the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text do to your disposition?
Your server didn't have any problem pulling up the 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon. And I pulled the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text for you.
So if you’re serious, take the time to write them out. I can’t wait
You won't have to wait--the 100,000 changed have already been made.
So--if the 4,000 changes of the Book of Mormon throw you into a feeding frenzy--what would the 100,000 changes of the Biblical text do to your disposition?
Variants and changes are two different things.
Both the Book of Mormon and Bible have variants due to punctuation. I get the feeling that this is included in your "100,000 changes" but not in Dberrie's 4,000. I could be wrong. But if I'm correct then DBerrie was being generous and fair.
Another is spelling mistakes, these happen in translations. I can get that weed and reed would be a variant due to mishearing Joseph Smith and shouldn't be an argument against he Book of Mormon. And a difference in spelling happens in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.
However, I would say that if you want to make a comparison, you'd have to look at the changes in the Bible that change doctrine vs the changes in the Book of Mormon that change doctrine.
For example, modern texts do not have a passage that the KJV has regarding the trinity in 1 John.
A change in text? Only in so far as being more accurate to the original manuscript. A change in doctrine? Not at all!
I'll leave DBerrie to discern whether the changes he is referring to in the Book of Mormon actually change doctrine.
You should do the same with your 100,000.
Ok, that’s find. I guess you can copy and paste but you can’t actually find them either.
Thanks for making my case
I don’t really need your help but great to have you on board refuting your own beliefs
???Thanks, I agree, you already had “your nothing...” but that was before I came along
?? At least we agree about “your nothing”
dberrie2020
Super Member
Finding some of the numerous changes wouldn't be hard for anyone interested in doing so:
Psalm 82:1-New American Standard Bible 1995
1 God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.
Psalm 82:1---New American Standard Bible--2020
1 God takes His position in His assembly;
He judges in the midst of the gods.
If one were interested, in just the book of Matthew alone--
"THE CHANGES IN THEIR PROPER NEW TESTAMENT ORDER ARE NOW LISTED:
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html
MATTHEW
1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
5:22 "without a cause" is removed. In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out. It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4).
6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.
8:29 "Jesus" is left out. The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.
9:13 "to repentance" is left out. The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted.
15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.
16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted. The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times.
17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God.
18:2 "Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."
18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.
18:15 "against thee" is omitted. This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error.
18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.
19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed. This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.
19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.
20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out. The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.
21:12 "of God" is out. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there.
22:30 "of God" is removed. There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.
23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.
25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted. The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent.
26:28 "new" is dropped before testament. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians.
27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted. It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.
28:6 "the Lord" is omitted. The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers."