Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[_hatersinmyward]

I think it may seem odd because much of what was originally taught and understood has been changed, or buried, or burned, so that man could promote his own version of the Gospel; thereby convincing believers to follow their commandments of men. Thus, such a comment/teaching would not have been questioned by ancient converts; however, they are a mystery to believers today.

jo

Have you looked over Joseph Smith's Complete KJV revamp? It's nonsense, he changed the color of Jesus's robe from scarlet to purple and it's nearly impossible to understand his Genesis translation. I don't believe Joseph even wrote his KJV revamp. I think Emma made it herself because she wanted the attention, or the local ruling class wrote it. Either way, this can explain why Joseph used KJV excerpts in the Book of Mormon, if of course Joseph wrote the Bible manuscript himself.

[_jo1952]

Jo, I don't think I have to explain extra Biblical philosophies at all....that does appear to be the domain of Mormonism. But the question remains: how do you make the leap to heaven, one two three or however many, from a text which is clearly not talking about heaven but what the resurrected body (flesh) will be like in its resurrected state?

Meh - it's not as clear as you think. Scripture becomes a stumbling block for both non-believers as well as believers.

It is interesting that you don't think you need to explain extra Biblical philosophies such as the Kabbalah which I specifically pointed to. Since it is the Hebrews we have looked to in order to provide us with their historical relationship with our God, I would think that most believers would jump at the chance to learn as much as they could about what was historically taught to the Hebrews about our God; especially since the Old Testament is mostly representative of their temporal relationship with God, while the Kabbalah deals with their spiritual relationship with God.

Inasmuch as you are so interested in Apologetics, especially in arguing against the LDS, I would challenge you to do some research into reliable sources which teach Kabbalah. It could change your entire point of view about what you currently believe about God. Afterall, the very source of your current beliefs about God came from the Hebrew's relationship with God.

Aren't you even interested in why most of today's Christendom totally ignores what is taught in Kabbalah? Why it is that the higher teachings of the Hebrews are so conspicuously absent??

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

As I said, I'll leave the extra Biblical philosophies to Mormons who seem to like add on stuff. My belief is firmly entrenched in the Person of Jesus in whom we have the full revelation of God. He alone is sufficient. But again, "...the question remains: how do you make the leap to heaven, one two or three or however many, from a text which is clearly not talking about heaven but what the resurrected body (flesh) will be like in its resurrected state?"

[_jo1952]

Have you looked over Joseph Smith's Complete KJV revamp? It's nonsense, he changed the color of Jesus's robe from scarlet to purple and it's nearly impossible to understand his Genesis translation. I don't believe Joseph even wrote his KJV revamp. I think Emma made it herself because she wanted the attention, or the local ruling class wrote it. Either way, this can explain why Joseph used KJV excerpts in the Book of Mormon, if of course Joseph wrote the Bible manuscript himself.

Yes, I have. As a matter of fact I have a copy which includes the photo-copied original manuscript pages of Joseph Smith's translation of the KJV Bible.

It does not surprise me that you are having trouble making sense of Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis. Scholars today are still arguing over the original translation of Genesis.

Do you find it odd that the New Testament used excerpts from the Old Testament? And why in the world would Christians canonize what non-Christian's use for Holy Scripture?

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

Translation is a misnomer. He did not do a translation...that is from one language to another. He did revisions or rewrites in the English (KJV) to the things he was already teaching.

[_jo1952]

As I said, I'll leave the extra Biblical philosophies to Mormons who seem to like add on stuff. My belief is firmly entrenched in the Person of Jesus in whom we have the full revelation of God. He alone is sufficient. But again, "...the question remains: how do you make the leap to heaven, one two or three or however many, from a text which is clearly not talking about heaven but what the resurrected body (flesh) will be like in its resurrected state?"

I already gave you my answer. Here it is again: Meh - it's not as clear as you think. Scripture becomes a stumbling block for both non-believers as well as believers. In other words, there are many interpretations of passages in the Bible.

CFR please that in the Person of Jesus we have the full revelation of God. And what exactly does that even mean according to your beliefs? It sounds like you believe you do not need the Holy Spirit to guide or lead you to All Truth. When you say He alone is sufficient, does that mean you do not think you need to do anything once you have accepted Him? What do you do with the teachings of the Apostles where they continued to teach exhort the members of the church? Are those teachings not necessary? If not, then why are they taught? If yes, then there appears to be a conflict within your belief.

You said: but what the resurrected body (flesh) will be like in its resurrected state?" Paul teaches that a body of flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50).

Blessings,

jo

[_hatersinmyward]

Yes, I have. As a matter of fact I have a copy which includes the photo-copied original manuscript pages of Joseph Smith's translation of the KJV Bible.

It does not surprise me that you are having trouble making sense of Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis. Scholars today are still arguing over the original translation of Genesis.

Do you find it odd that the New Testament used excerpts from the Old Testament?

Yeah, I suppose God wouldn't waste time devising corny one liners.

If scholars are having a difficult time deciphering Joseph's translations of Genesis, they need to keep in mind the text was written by an uneducated farm boy.

And why in the world would Christians canonize what non-Christian's use for Holy Scripture?

Because God uses the exact same grammar mistakes over and over.

[_jo1952]

Translation is a misnomer. He did not do a translation...that is from one language to another. He did revisions or rewrites in the English (KJV) to the things he was already teaching.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/translation
trans·la·tion
noun \tran(t)s-ˈlā-shən, tranz-\
Definition of TRANSLATION
1: an act, process, or instance of translating: as

a : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a rendering

b : a change to a different substance, form, or appearance : conversion

c (1) : a transformation of coordinates in which the new axes are parallel to the old ones (2) : uniform motion of a body in a straight line

Synonyms: rephrasing, restatement, restating, rewording, translating, paraphrase

Indeed there are various "from English into English" versions of the Bible which use the very word "Translation" in their title.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

If scholars are having a difficult time deciphering Joseph's translations of Genesis, they need to keep in mind the text was written by an uneducated farm boy.

I never said scholars were having a difficult time deciphering Joseph's translation of Genesis. They are still arguing over pre-JST translations of Genesis.

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

Jo, I don't think you did give an answer. I think you avoided an answer. The passage is very clear in talking about resurrection not heaven. Paul uses various comparisons to describe how the current body (flesh) will be changed in the resurrection. He is not talking at all about heaven the place but how the resurrected body will be different from the earthly body just as the moon is different from the sun, just as stars are different and just as one star appears to differ from another in glory as we see them. This is not a proof text for for the idea of multiple heavens plain and simple