Enoch111: the Bible uses plural language to describe God at points, such as Gen 1:26 and Gen 3:22. The Hebrew word "Elohim" is frequently plural. Me believing the Bible does not remotely make me "not a Christian".
What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
There is only one God, Jesus Christ his only begotten son who was sent here in human form in order to save us all who believes in him.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Never said that Christianity is not based on the Bible. But the fact is God cannot be bound between the covers of the Bible.
Now you can either believe this false book and remain a Mormon, or you can renounce Mormonism and become a Christian.
You now presume to be the judge of who are Christians and who is not. Mormons are Christian for sure. But it does not surprise me because you have the gall to judge God, that He better do and say as you believe, when you believe He should. What if He does not return in the way that you read in the Bible. That happened to the Jews....Are you going to attack Christ?
Just because people print phony Bibles, that doesn't mean that God's word has been corrupted. God, who moved on men through the Holy Spirit to write His word, is certainly able to keep His word from becoming corrupted. Paraphrases of the Bible should be suspect, but translations by scholars who know the original languages and have translated using early manuscripts are a different matter.
Isn't it convenient that some men have claimed that the Bible has been corrupted when they wanted to change what it says in order to suit their sinful desires?
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
I never said God’s word is corrupted, may God strike me dead where I stand right this minute if I said that!
I said the books which men write are corrupted, there is a difference.
Isn’t it convenient that you try to knock down those that don’t agree with you?
Last edited:
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
I was not being dishonest you asked which translation I was using; I assumed you meant what translation I use generally, which is the NKJV. My mistake was that this was not what you were asking, you wanted to know what translation I was quoting from when I quoted John 1:1 which was Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott which I clearly stated.
I was quoting directly from the Diaglott, not from the NWT.
No thank you, I have no wish to get into a debate with you about what the Witnesses believe or don’t believe you’ll need to argue that case with an actual Witness himself not me; however I should like to make a few brief remarks concerning what you have presented here.
But of course these numerous scholars “with true credentials”, have condemned the NWT they would naturally condemn anything which in anyway contradicted what orthodoxy teaches, the majority of these so-called scholars having been taught in one or more of the various schools (seminaries) of men.
No their works could not possibly be prejudice or biased towards traditional evangelical theology in anyway now could they?
I’m not saying the NWT is perfect as are any translations (although our King James friends would argue the point), but it is much better than many translations. See our blog post entitled, “How to Choose a Bible Translation”.
It should be understood that the interlinear translation connected with this work was not the work of the Society it was the work of Westcott and Hort entitled, “The New Testament in the Original Greek” (published in1881) neither of whom were affiliated with the Society.
Likewise it should be known as stated in the preface of the Kingdom Interlinear that in the interlinear literal translation of the Greek the English words ARE NOT taken bodily or directly from the New World Translation and placed under the appropriate Greek word. No! But under each Greek word is placed its basic meaning, according to its grammatical construction, whether this agrees literally with the New World Translation or not.
It is not something unusual for a particular translation (viz. NWT, AV, RSV, NIV), to be presented side by side with an interlinear translation; this in no way implies that the two are in full agreement with each other. Generally the interlinear translation is selected because it most closely supports the particular translation of the publisher. However what we as Bible students should want is what the original Greek text says. Only by getting this basic meaning can we determine whether the NWT or any other Bible translation for that matter is right or not.
I will not waste any more consecrated time arguing this issue with you as not only have I to many projects on my plate at this time, but the issue is neither edifying nor uplifting to the body of Christ, but rather only tends to division.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
You are entitled to your opinions, to agree or to disagree as you like however this does not imply that you are correct in your assumptions.
I too am not a Trinitarian and likewise absolutely affirm the divinity of Christ. Nor does it bother me to be labelled Arian that is with the assumption that this is because my views on the relationship between the Father and the Son, viz. that the Father and Son are separate beings and that the Father is superior in power, wisdom and authority are similar to those styled Arians.
Our friend Prayer Warrior states that “Arianism has long been a heresy of established Christianity”.
Established Christianity another way of saying orthodoxy, i.e., Arianism has long been considered a heresy to the church nominal, the apostate or professing church.
When our Lord first came into existence, was brought forth by the Father he was consider a son, even as angels (those kept their first estate of purity) are considered sons of God and so too man when originally created. The word Father signifies cause or authorship of being, life-giver, one who bestows life and the word son, correspondingly signifies one produced, generated, one who receives life from a father.
Our Lord before he became a man, was a spirit being, as "God is a spirit," and angels are spirits; and he was the "first born of every creature," or "born before all creation," as some translate it--the beginning of Jehovah God's creative work. (Rev 1:8; 3:14) And since he is both the first and the last, the beginning and ending of Jehovah's direct creative work, it is very evident that he was the ONLY Son of God thus directly begotten of the Father.
Although God calls angels sons, mark the pointedness of the apostle's question, and how it points out our Lord's superiority, when he asks, "Unto which of the angels said he at any time, "Thou art my [special] son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Heb 1:5; 5:5)
As for the how see our blog post entitled, “Was our Lord a created being?” for a more through answer to this question.
Continued with next post.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
“Being in the form of God” or “being in the nature (of) God” does not imply that our Lord was divine, but rather that he was in same nature, a glorious spirit being as God, so too the angels. "God is spirit (that is he is a spirit being; invisible, mighty, powerful, and influential); and those worshiping him must worship in spirit (honest-hearted) and truth."—John 4:24
Our Lord was a spirit being, both before taking the likeness of men, and after. He alone is the only living creature to have ever experienced existence in three different natures--first, a very high order of spiritual nature, higher than angels; secondly, the human nature, a little lower than the angels; and thirdly, the divine nature, which is superior to all others.
“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” (Col 1:19 NKJV)
The fullness of God does indeed dwell in the Son, for he is the image of the invisible God..." (Col 1:15) not only was he the image of the Father in his preexistence, but also whilst a human, and still remains even to this day.
All of God's intelligent and responsible creatures were created in His image, in His mental and moral likeness: that is, their mental and moral faculties are facsimiles of the divine nature. The difference, between them is in the range and scope of these corresponding faculties: the one (mortal beings, man and angels) is finite while the other (immortal beings) is infinite. The range of the human nature is confined to the earth, while the range and scope of the divine is wider than the universe, boundless as space and unlimited as eternity.
Of course the true intent of the statement as used in the text was to imply that in him God gave complete authority, not merely over man, but over all things, both heavenly and earthly, fullness here means unlimited or complete power. “All power (authority) is given unto me, in heaven and in earth.” (Matt 28:18)
The mere fact that our Lord “came forth from the Father” (John 1:27) that he was begotten of the Father does not imply that he would automatically share the same divine nature. If this were so, then we would be equally just to surmise that, that which his Son as a divine being, created or brought forth should also be divine, i.e. angels and men.
This is merely conjecture on your part and has no scriptural support. I’m sorry but this borders on the same ludicrous ideas put forth by our Trinitarian friends in support of their false doctrine.
In what way could it be said then that our Lord was highly exalted if he were merely reinstated to the same position which he supposedly possessed before?
An immortal being is one such as possesses life inherent meaning his existence is not dependent upon any outside source, he is death proof, incorruptible and nothing can change this. This is precisely why the Father is being very selective about those with whom he is going to give the gift of the divine nature. All such who will receive the crown of life must be made copies of God’s dear son, must past the same stringent test as he did else they will be disqualified.
"It was foreknown to God that his human creature would fall; he had determined that his sentence should be death; and he had prearranged that the test he would impose upon his Only Begotten would be that he should, of his own free will, become the Redeemer of mankind, and, by so great a sacrifice as this implied, manifest his loyalty to the Father, and his faith in him. Thus, in the divine plan he was the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." From this standpoint we perceive that so far from being forced to be man's redeemer--so far from the Father's practicing injustice toward the Son in this requirement, it was the Father's preparation of him for the great exaltation--far above angels, principalities and powers and every name that is named, as partaker of his own nature and sharer of his own throne. (Heb. 1:4; Eph. 1:21)
From this standpoint we cannot wonder that the Apostle speaks of our Lord's undertaking to be our Redeemer "for the joy that was set before him." (Heb. 12:2) The joy was not merely the anticipation of the highest place in the New Creation, far above all other creations; but we may reasonably suppose that this was a part of it. Nevertheless, we notice in our Redeemer's prayer to the Father while passing through the trials, that, with characteristic modesty, he did not refer to the great dignity and glory and immortality (the Divine nature) promised him and expected; but with a beautiful simplicity and humility asked merely that he should be restored to his previous station; as though he esteemed it honor enough that he should have been chosen of the Father as his agent to carry forward other features of the divine plan, as he already had been the honored agent in the creation of all things that were made. (John 1:3) His simple words were,
"Father, glorify me with the glory (the glorious spirit nature) that I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5) But the Father's answer was full of meaning when he said, "I have already glorified [honored] thee, and I will glorify [honor] thee additionally." John 12:28, Vatican MS.
I'm guessing that you meant this to be a diss, but it's really not.
Like most other Christians groups, LDS Christians FIRMLY believe in the importance of having a high quality translation of scripture. Hence the LDS Christian codification stressing this: "as far as it is translated correctly". Low quality / biased translations not accepted as the word of God.
As to LDS Christians not being sola scriptura: that's not an attack on scripture or viewing it as "deficient" at all. Rather, there is focus on God Himself and the importance of having continuing revelation from Him. At the core, everything is checked up against Him directly and each individual person having that testimony from the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Isn't it convenient that some men have claimed that the Bible has been corrupted when they wanted to change what it says in order to suit their sinful desires?
See the reviews of those that preferred St. Jerome's Bible over the Geneva Bible.
See the reviews of those that preferred the Geneva Bible over the KJV.
And of course you know the reviews of those that prefer the KJV over modern translations.
Older translations have a tendency to reflect the beliefs, traditions, and concerns of the time periods.
One of the more easy items to point out is the choice of the phrase wise men over Magi, the concerns being obvious.
I'm just now reading through these posts. Sorry it took me so long.
I assumed you were a JW because of the translation you used. If not, what do you call yourself?
No, I'm not trying to diss anyone. I believe that the Bible has been dissed by people who don't want to live by what it says, so they change or ignore the parts that they don't like. I think this is a very dangerous practice.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
Bible Students.
And as for Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson this is not a JW publication. Wilson was not a JW and just because the Watch Tower (not the original one headed by Pastor Russell, but the one taken over by Judge Rutherford following the Pastors death) acquired the rights to the Diaglott and its publication when they took over the Tower does not change this fact.
In fact the JW's no longer use it as far as I know, but rather have switched over to Wescott and Hort's interlinear (published in 1881).
Last edited:
I totally agree.
Which is why i live the way I do, and you do the way you do. Despite different intereprations of scripture/beliefs, we are both striving (completely imperfectly) to follow Christ.
I appreciate the explanation, but the two translations of the verse I asked you about are identical. As you could see, most Bible translations say "the Word was God." I don't want to get into a debate about this, but I didn't know of any other translations that say otherwise.
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
Not to side track but how are Jehova's Witnesses a cult?
The ones I know strictly follow the Bible, they don't celebrate their own birthdays, or other holidays.
The ones I know strictly follow the Bible, they don't celebrate their own birthdays, or other holidays.
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
Jesus is the Son of God.Well, in John 1 they even claim that the Lord Jesus isn't God...
Similar threads
