Bible verse by verse

[_Servant]

Ah, so I'm supposed to ignore 2 thousand years of a "legitimate" Papacy because a philandering self appointed Prophet" said to? Are you serious or don't you see the error of your logic?

The truth will set you free Betty!

So what you're saying is that you don't care what the Bible actually says, you just care what your tradition says. I believe I called that.

So do you actually care what the Book of Mormon says? Do you trust it as a reliable channel of God's communication to men? The Book of Mormon is Sabellian (not polytheistic), it teaches modified salvation through faith alone, and pretty much lines up with 19th century-style Christianity. So, do you believe it?

[_maklelan]

So do you actually care what the Book of Mormon says?

Of course I do.

Do you trust it as a reliable channel of God's communication to men?

I trust it as far as its message is verified by the Spirit. That's the most reliable channel.

The Book of Mormon is Sabellian (not polytheistic),

That's not true at all. I've pointed out to you how misrepresentative that is numerous times. Unsurprisingly, you've never bothered to engage my concerns.

it teaches modified salvation through faith alone, and pretty much lines up with 19th century-style Christianity. So, do you believe it?

Much more than I believe you.

[_Servant]

So do you actually care what the Book of Mormon says?

Of course I do.

Do you trust it as a reliable channel of God's communication to men?

I trust it as far as its message is verified by the Spirit. That's the most reliable channel.

The Book of Mormon is Sabellian (not polytheistic),

That's not true at all. I've pointed out to you how misrepresentative that is numerous times. Unsurprisingly, you've never bothered to engage my concerns.

it teaches modified salvation through faith alone, and pretty much lines up with 19th century-style Christianity. So, do you believe it?

Much more than I believe you.

Unlike you, mak, I don't work to have people believe me - I believe, however, that it's important to believe the Gospel of Christ, including belief in His physical resurrection. So, what parts of the Book of Mormon are "verified by the Spirit" and what parts are not? And who gets to decide - you? Do you believe, for instance, the Book of Mormon when it speaks of Christ's physical resurrection?

[_LittleNipper]

15 And he turneth back unto the man of God, he and all his camp, and cometh in, and standeth before him, and saith, `Lo, I pray thee, I have known that there is not a God in all the earth except in Israel; and now, take, I pray thee, a blessing from thy servant.'

16 And he saith, `Jehovah liveth, before whom I have stood -- if I take [it];' and he presseth on him to take, and he refuseth.

17 And Naaman saith, `If not -- let be given, I pray thee, to thy servant, a couple of mules' burden of earth, for thy servant doth make no more burnt-offering and sacrifice to other gods, but to Jehovah.

These verses illustrate a fascinating fact about early Israelite worship of YHWH. Prior to the exile, YHWH was only considered the God of Israel. Other gods ruled over the other nations. YHWH's jurisdiction was Israel alone. We already saw how YHWH was defeated by the deity ruling over Moabite when he went beyond his purview. Deut 32:8-9 (see 4QDeut-j) reflects the tradition that the high god allotted the nations to his sons, with Israel going to YHWH (one of the sons of El at this time). It wasn't until Psalm 82 that the gods of the nations were deposed and YHWH took over their purviews (Ps 82:8 - "Rise up, O God, and judge the earth, for you shall inherit all nations"). When Saul chased David out of Israel, David responded that being forced beyond the borders constituted being forced to worship other gods (1 Sam 26:19--note, the "inheritance of the Lord" is Israel alone, per Deut 32:8-9). Ps 137:4 asks, "How can we sing the songs of YHWH in a strange land?"

Here, Naaman reflects the same understanding by insisting (1) that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel (note, the rhetoric is not that Israel's god is the only god, but only that there is no god anywhere else--just within the borders of Israel), and (2) that he will worship only YHWH, but will need to take Israelite soil with him to do so. In other words, he's going to transplant a part of Israel to his own nation so he can legitimately offer worship to the deity who rules over Israelite soil.

Naaman sees that there is ONLY ONE GOD, as only this Lord of Israel had the ability to heal him. Naaman wanted to take some soil back so that he might honor God with sacrifices as though done in Israel. I told you before that the Israelites had drifted into paganism and had become superstitious. They feared other gods, but not because other gods had any power. The Israelites were their own worst enemy and their own fears harmed them. God Says "I AM." Another way to say the same thing is, "They're Not." The Bible doesn't even give ground to Satan. You are listening to teachers who do not know God and are trying their best to cast doubt on the Bible as God's Word. Mormonism builds upon the Book of Mormon as it attempts to reduce the Bible to its level. In other words, the Book of Mormon is nothing but borrowed and made-up tales, and so the Bible must be demonstrated to be the very same (which it can never be) so that the Book of Mormon doesn't seem TOTALLY INFERIOR (which it is).

[_maklelan]

Naaman sees that there is ONLY ONE GOD, as only this Lord of Israel had the ability to heal him.

Yeah, this is just rhetoric, like calling Assyria a "non-people," or saying all people who make idols are "nothing and less than nothing." He also points out that that one God is only in Israel. Looks like the rest of the earth has no access to any deities at all. Kinda sad.

Naaman wanted to take some soil back so that he might honor God with sacrifices as though done in Israel.

Yes, reflecting the notion that the deity was restricted to its homeland.

I told you before that the Israelites had drifted into paganism and had become superstitious. They feared other gods, but not because other gods had any power.

But 2 Kgs 3:27 shows they absolutely were thought to have power, even by authors of the biblical texts.

The Israelites were their own worst enemy and their own fears harmed them. God Says "I AM." Another way to say the same thing is, "They're Not."

No, that's not another way to say the same thing.

The Bible doesn't even give ground to Satan.

He's one of the sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1), and he's obviously a deity.

You are listening to teachers who do not know God and are trying their best to cast doubt on the Bible as God's Word.

No, I'm reading the texts for what they say and not what a tradition says.

Mormonism builds upon the Book of Mormon as it attempts to reduce the Bible to its level. In other words, the Book of Mormon is nothing but borrowed and made-up tales, and so the Bible must be demonstrated to be the very same (which it can never be).

Thanks for that, but it doesn't address my claims.

[_Servant]

Naaman sees that there is ONLY ONE GOD, as only this Lord of Israel had the ability to heal him.

Yeah, this is just rhetoric, like calling Assyria a "non-people," or saying all people who make idols are "nothing and less than nothing." He also points out that that one God is only in Israel. Looks like the rest of the earth has no access to any deities at all. Kinda sad.

Naaman wanted to take some soil back so that he might honor God with sacrifices as though done in Israel.

Yes, reflecting the notion that the deity was restricted to its homeland.

I told you before that the Israelites had drifted into paganism and had become superstitious. They feared other gods, but not because other gods had any power.

But 2 Kgs 3:27 shows they absolutely were thought to have power, even by authors of the biblical texts.

The Israelites were their own worst enemy and their own fears harmed them. God Says "I AM." Another way to say the same thing is, "They're Not."

No, that's not another way to say the same thing.

The Bible doesn't even give ground to Satan.

He's one of the sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1), and he's obviously a deity.

You are listening to teachers who do not know God and are trying their best to cast doubt on the Bible as God's Word.

No, I'm reading the texts for what they say and not what a tradition says.

Mormonism builds upon the Book of Mormon as it attempts to reduce the Bible to its level. In other words, the Book of Mormon is nothing but borrowed and made-up tales, and so the Bible must be demonstrated to be the very same (which it can never be).

Thanks for that, but it doesn't address my claims.

But when your claims are nothing but Arian rubbish, and you dismiss out of hand as "rhetoric" texts contradicting your "claim", what's the purpose of even trying to debate someone who thinks he has all the answers!

[_maklelan]

But when your claims are nothing but Arian rubbish, and you dismiss out of hand as "rhetoric" texts contradicting your "claim", what's the purpose of even trying to debate someone who thinks he has all the answers!

I have made full and lengthy cases for exactly why those verses are just rhetoric on literally dozens of occasions, Catherine, and no one at CARM has ever even tried to engage them. If I've posted them in Mormonism, I have been banned for being off-topic and told to post them in the appropriate forum. If I post them in the appropriate forum, none of you come out from your hiding places to engage me, even when I directly and repeatedly invite you. I'm certainly not going to waste my time making those cases here with you while you're on this campaign of sectarianism.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

(snip) And the clearer understanding is that Greek, and Chinese, are far deeper then you are willing to accept.

Nipper, here's yet another example from your own link of how certain Christians are willing to misrepresent and distort the facts...

Bible Probe (http://www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm) defines "鬼" as meaning "devil", and then falsely attempts to connect it to Genesis by claiming "田" means the Garden of Eden. But in point of fact, "田" is actually a pictograph of an agricultural field divided by irrigation ditches, and therefore has nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. (FYI, the ideogram for garden looks like this "園".)

Bible probe also falsely defines "魔" as "tempter" when in fact it's merely synonymous with "鬼", save for the addition of the phonetic element "麻". (Phonetic elements do not change the meaning of radical elements.)

Nipper, why do certain Christians find it necessary to engage in pious fraud?

[Guest]

(snip) And the clearer understanding is that Greek, and Chinese, are far deeper then you are willing to accept.

Nipper, here's yet another example from your own link of how certain Christians are willing to misrepresent and distort the facts...

Bible Probe (http://www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm) defines "鬼" as meaning "devil", and then falsely attempts to connect it to Genesis by claiming "田" means the Garden of Eden. But in point of fact, "田" is actually a pictograph of an agricultural field divided by irrigation ditches, and therefore has nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. (FYI, the ideogram for garden looks like this "園".)

Bible probe also falsely defines "魔" as "tempter" when in fact it's merely synonymous with "鬼", save for the addition of the phonetic element "麻". (Phonetic elements do not change the meaning of radical elements.)

Nipper, why do certain Christians find it necessary to engage in pious fraud?

I don't see this as fraud. These are but educated considerations or possibilities. It is like the theory of evolution. I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more. The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as it is not ancient but dates to about the time of the Great Revival, but was promoted as ancient scripture text --- which is most obvious that it is not.

[_ludwigm]

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

There is a Hungarian saying:
Bagoly mondja verébnek, hogy nagyfejű. = The owl tells the sparrow that her head is big.