Elias, or in other words - I've changed the title...

[_madeleine]

There's no such thing as non-Biblical scripture.

Mahabharata, The Vedas, The Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, The Sutras?

ha, lol, I thought of Christian scripture. Those aren't Christian scripture either.

[_MCB]

Semantics. There is Scripture, and there is scripture.

[_Corpsegrinder]

There's no such thing as non-Biblical scripture.

Are you saying that your unprovable, supernatural belief system is true while all other unprovable, supernatural belief systems are false? That doesn't seem particularly fair. It also reeks of spiritual intolerance.

Semantics. There is Scripture, and there is scripture.

You mean like as in...

Bible = scripture.

Holy Koran = Scripture.

Come on, both should be capitolized, or niether should be capitolized...wouldn't you agree?

[_Quasimodo]

Mahabharata, The Vedas, The Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, The Sutras?

ha, lol, I thought of Christian scripture. Those aren't Christian scripture either.

Ok. The Apocrypha, The book of Judas (recently found), the Book of Mary Magdalene, The Gospel of Thomas?

[_MCB]

You mean like as in...

Bible = scripture.

Holy Koran = Scripture.

Come on, both should be capitolized, or niether should be capitolized...wouldn't you agree?

Whatever the writer regards as canonized Scripture within their faith tradition should be capitalized Scripture. When I say Scripture, I mean the Bible. I would not say "Holy Qu'ran" I would say Qu'ran. Mormons may refer to the Book of Mormon as Scripture, and they have the right to do so. I would call the entire corpus of Mormon canonized writings as Mormon scripture. They are not sacred writings within my faith tradition. Would you rather I use the word "garbage"?

If you want to refer to Dawkins' (pbuh) writings as Scripture, go right ahead.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Whatever the writer regards as canonized Scripture within their faith tradition should be capitalized Scripture.

Sure, assuming you’re comfortable with the We’re-Right-Everybody-Else-Is-Wrong attitude that forms the basis of all monotheistic religions. But I’m pretty sure that type of mindset causes far more problems than it solves. I mean, is there any reason to believe spiritual intolerance is any less inexcusable than racial- or gender-based intolerance?

[_gdemetz]

Madeline, once again you are showing your ignorance here. Do you think that God has to limit Himself to only one book of scripture?! The Bible itself quotes other books as authoritative! The Bible itself prophesies of other books: "truth will spring out of the earth" (see also Ezekiel 37)! Does it state anywhere in the Bible that it is the last and only authoritative scripture?! No, on the contrary, it states that there will be a restitution of all things, and if it is truly a restitution of all things, then that restitution would also include lost scripture!!!

Ludwig can't even answer my question. He just asks me another question. I will just state that Joseph Smith was not the ignorant person that he tries to portray him as. He was very self educated. He knew a lot of Hebrew, etc., and he also reviewed many translations of the Bible. In fact, he stated that the German Bible was the best translation, better than the English!

[_Corpsegrinder]

Do you think that God has to limit Himself to only one book of scripture?!

Well, these are the same people who believe that an eternal and infinite being (assuming such a creature exists) is somehow limited to three and only three divine personages: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Doesn’t it stand to reason that an infinite being would encompass an infinite number of divine personages? (Ditto for the potential existence of a similar infinitude of holy writ.)

[_gdemetz]

Maybe you don't understand Mormon doctrine or the scriptures. The scriptures as well as Mormon doctrine teach that there are many gods. The three you mention are the three which preside over us.

[_ludwigm]

Ludwig can't even answer my question. He just asks me another question.

Answer:
Elias is one of the translation errors of the KJV. No more, no less.
...
Why did Joseph Smith (a prophet, seer, revelator, translator - see D&C 21:1, 107:92, 124:125) said false, contradictory and baffling things about some "eliases"? Because he know nothing about those eliases.
This is my answer. (See my signature about preachers who were spouting gibberish... ) If You don't like my answer - I am certain You don't - then search another. I suggest You this official item, ...

Got it?

You don't like my answer - as I prophecied.

I will just state that Joseph Smith was not the ignorant person that he tries to portray him as. He was very self educated. He knew a lot of Hebrew, etc., and he also reviewed many translations of the Bible. In fact, he stated that the German Bible was the best translation, better than the English!

Reviewed many translations? And he didn't noticed that none of them use two different name for one person, as the KJV for Elijah+Elias?
Probably he has reviewed them through his greasy hat.

Stated that the German Bible was the best translation? And he didn't noticed that there is one prophet called Elia everywhere the KJV blabbering about two different name? Probably he should have changed the battery in the urimthummim.