Menu
Home
Forums
Visual works
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Info & rules
Site rules
Server list
Sanctuary Discord
Sanctuary FAQ
Sanctuary's origins
Staffing policies
Sanctuary YouTube
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Banned members
User verification codes
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found
here.
If you have any questions, try our FAQ
here
or see our video on
why this site exists at all!
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Deific Discussions
What are your religions beliefs, if any?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Reply to thread
Message
<p>[QUOTE="Houseman, post: 4175, member: 7"]</p><p>I don't see "too many possible explanations" as a problem when confronted with an alleged biblical inconsistency. </p><p></p><p>For example, let's say that the inconsistency is in verse A, he's in this country, and in verse B he's in another country. What are the possible explanations? That he simply walked, and that sufficient time had passed between verses to allow him to do so. That the author of verse A was using the modern name of the area, after it was conquered by invaders, similar to how one might call Constantinople "Istanbul". That the author of verse B was using the old name of the country, before it was invaded and renamed. That the two countries bordered and the subject was close enough. That the two countries had very similar names and some copyist made an error. I could go on.</p><p></p><p>I don't see the above as a bad thing. In this context, the more explanations, the better.</p><p></p><p>As for "Too many possible interpretations", I see that as a completely different issue, to which I'll ask the same questions I asked earlier: Must we blame the bible for this? If 50% of students fail a math class, should we conclude that the book is too ambiguous?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. Sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be saying that there are differences between JWs and LDS.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you give an example of a serious problem that exists in the bible, but is resolved by the BoM?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But the LDS still quotes from it, and uses it in their teachings I'd imagine. Why do you trust any part of the bible to be correct, or as it says in the articles of faith, "translated correctly"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I read somewhere that the BoM has gone through something like 20+ changes between then and now. Is this true? If so, doesn't this present the same problem?</p><p></p><p>Also, wasn't "Reformed Egyptian" supposed to be completely unknown? Isn't it <em>still</em> completely unknown to the rest of the modern world? How could there exist an expert for Joseph Smith to send documents to? Was this expert somehow the only other person in the world capable of translating this language? Why didn't this expert teach anybody else about Reformed Egyptian?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I was attempting to ask: "What makes you so sure that what happened to the bible won't also happen to the BoM?"</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Houseman, post: 4175, member: 7"] I don't see "too many possible explanations" as a problem when confronted with an alleged biblical inconsistency. For example, let's say that the inconsistency is in verse A, he's in this country, and in verse B he's in another country. What are the possible explanations? That he simply walked, and that sufficient time had passed between verses to allow him to do so. That the author of verse A was using the modern name of the area, after it was conquered by invaders, similar to how one might call Constantinople "Istanbul". That the author of verse B was using the old name of the country, before it was invaded and renamed. That the two countries bordered and the subject was close enough. That the two countries had very similar names and some copyist made an error. I could go on. I don't see the above as a bad thing. In this context, the more explanations, the better. As for "Too many possible interpretations", I see that as a completely different issue, to which I'll ask the same questions I asked earlier: Must we blame the bible for this? If 50% of students fail a math class, should we conclude that the book is too ambiguous? Okay. Sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be saying that there are differences between JWs and LDS. Can you give an example of a serious problem that exists in the bible, but is resolved by the BoM? But the LDS still quotes from it, and uses it in their teachings I'd imagine. Why do you trust any part of the bible to be correct, or as it says in the articles of faith, "translated correctly"? I read somewhere that the BoM has gone through something like 20+ changes between then and now. Is this true? If so, doesn't this present the same problem? Also, wasn't "Reformed Egyptian" supposed to be completely unknown? Isn't it [i]still[/i] completely unknown to the rest of the modern world? How could there exist an expert for Joseph Smith to send documents to? Was this expert somehow the only other person in the world capable of translating this language? Why didn't this expert teach anybody else about Reformed Egyptian? I was attempting to ask: "What makes you so sure that what happened to the bible won't also happen to the BoM?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Preview
Name
Verification
What is the name of the default style? (Look to the bottom left of the page.)
Post reply
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Deific Discussions
What are your religions beliefs, if any?
Top