Jump to content


Do You Love God?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 11:42 AM

Can people who make the claim of faith, but who behave like pagans, be taken seriously?

Jesus said, in John 14:15, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments". And John, speaking in the spirit, says in 1 John 2:4, "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

I would say the answer is obviously no.

The problem, I think, is that the Gospel has been essentially destroyed in a great many churchs. What percentage I couldn't say, but a large proportion of today's church preaches what the Bible calls "another gospel" (Galatians 1:8-9).

Would anyone like to comment on examples from their own experience?

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 07:59 PM

To many christians are all to willing to compromise because of certain doctrines that make them unafraid of God, and has destroyed their faith. One doctrine that makes salvation condone sin instead of forgive sin. That God is love, and there is no punishment for sin after your saved.

It makes salvation, from Christ look like what catholics believe, and it does not matter what faith it comes from. I often run into catholic believing people, including friends, who think it's ok to sin because they can go and confess it, and then continue doing it. The doctrine I'm about to mention pretty much works in the same manner. It allows you to accept Christ, but then continue in your sin with no fear of ever having to conform to what God would have you to be. This makes salvation condone sin instead of forgive sin. And makes it to where repentance is not needed.

The doctrine? OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved).

#3 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 25 May 2005 - 09:25 PM

The problem, I think, is that the Gospel has been essentially destroyed in a great many churchs. What percentage I couldn't say, but a large proportion of today's church preaches what the Bible calls "another gospel"  (Galatians 1:8-9).

View Post


I agree, the ELCA immediately comes to mind. I've met one Christian in a Bible Study that I am convinced is saved, but attends an ELCA. Some of them I just don't think realize the compromise their leaders and even their pastor is involved in. For example, one of their senior pastors tools around with that Funk character of the Jesus Seminar. Anyone associated with that group is completely apostate, clearly not Chirstian, since they even deny the ressurection as real history.

The problem is that people don't like the Jesus of the Bible, so they invent their own Jesus. A Jesus that condones adultery, H*m*s*xuality, P*rn*gr*phy, abortion, polygamy, you name it. They worship a Jesus who never existed.

Fred

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 10:31 PM

Fred,

What is elca? Also, I found a neat website on doctrines. I'm still checking it out to make sure it's not promoting something wrong before I leave a link here. But if it turns out ok, I'll leave it here. The reading so far is quite interesting. It's confirming what I already know, and is giving insight on somethings I did not know. I like sites that are to the point, and don't beat around the bush. And also give loads of verses and examples.

So many sites just preach what they believe, and pull things out of context.

#5 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 04:17 AM

T This makes salvation condone sin instead of forgive sin. And makes it to where repentance is not needed.

The doctrine? OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved).



Sorry, you do not understand that doctrine. What it does is separates those who are like the ones I mentioned from those who actually do believe. Those who truly belong to Christ will have no desire at all to continue in sin, or to presume upon grace by deliberate disobedience. They are saved, they know it, and have a deep desire to do the things that please God. The idea that we think repentance unnecessary is ludicrous since we know full well that without it there can be no forgivness.

#6 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 26 May 2005 - 10:37 AM

Most Christians I have spoken with tell me OSAS.
So - is this not a universal Christian doctrine?
If not - how would you "lose" salvation.
I read in the gospels that Jesus said (paraphrase) that no one could take someone from His hand.

Some thoughts for the confused?
Thanks

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 May 2005 - 12:35 PM

Most Christians I have spoken with tell me OSAS.
So - is this not a universal Christian doctrine?
If not - how would you "lose" salvation.
I read in the gospels that Jesus said (paraphrase) that no one could take someone from His hand.

Some thoughts for the confused?
Thanks

View Post


I believe OSAS is the prevelant view, but there are some good scholars who reject it (there are a lot of secondary doctrines where you can find good scholars hashing it out on both sides). I personally just haven't spent enough time on this doctrine, but currently lean toward OSAS given my current understanding of scripture (i'ts the one tulip in Calvinism I don't have a problem with :)) However I am open to the idea that I just might be wrong, which I realize would be a major shock to everyone here if that were to occur. :P

I am aware of at least some of the verses used to argue against it, but I haven't spent a lot of time seeing if and how they could work with the OSAS passages such as the one you mentioned. Perhaps a good topic for someone to start.

Fred

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 May 2005 - 02:00 PM

I believe OSAS is the prevelant view, but there are some good scholars who reject it

View Post


Re OSAS, That would make for an interesting topic, I recommend a couple of side topics to be included, e.g.

If one marries a Muslim you must renounce your previous faith and state in public, that Allah is the one true god (paraphrased). and

According to Mormon doctrine your dead kin (may or already has been) posthumously baptised into the Mormon church. (And even as an atheist I find this practice strangely disturbing).

#9 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:00 PM

Ok, I would like to make a few comments here, and I know this is a touchy subject for some, but please take them respectfully.

The doctrine I'm about to mention pretty much works in the same manner. It allows you to accept Christ, but then continue in your sin with no fear of ever having to conform to what God would have you to be. This makes salvation condone sin instead of forgive sin.

The doctrine? OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved).


The 1st thing that I disagree with in this position is that Doctrinal Truth is determined by human behavior, i.e. if a certain human behavior is possible, then we have to interpret scripture another way. This is human viewpoint thinking, and not divine viewpoint. Divine viewpoint is not dependant on human behavior.

IMO, if you want to defend this position, then it must be done on the basis of scripture alone, and not what you think people may do if its the truth. Its true, that people will abuse God's grace, but the human race cannot nullify God's grace.

Accepting the fact that you are saved inspite of your behavior is exactly where Paul started his 1st letter to the Corinthians, who were about as wild a bunch as existed in the early church.

1CO 1:4 ¶ I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
1CO 1:5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge,
1CO 1:6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,
1CO 1:7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ
.
1CO 1:8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.


He didn't start by reminding them that they could lose their salvation, and that they had better change. How would he know if they hadn't already lost their salvation? How could he say that they would be "blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ", with all the sinning that was going on, if they could lose thier salvation?

And makes it to where repentance is not needed.


Repentance comes from the greek worm metanoia, and it means to change your mind. It has no emotional connotation to it as incorrectly taught by some churches, e.g. the Baptist Church.

In Christ,

Terry
P.S. I don't really have anything against Baptist Churches, as they are the ones I agree with most, but they are flat wrong about feeling sorry for sins to be saved.....

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:02 PM

Can people who make the claim of faith, but who behave like pagans, be taken seriously?


What do you mean by "behave like pagans"?

Terry

#11 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:11 PM

If one marries a Muslim you must renounce your previous faith and state in public, that Allah is the one true god (paraphrased).


2 Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" Some people will claim that this does not apply to marriage since Paul had previously addressed the topic. But what is overlooked (or ignored) is that Paul was speaking of conversion with the result that one spouse was a believer and the other not. Even if such is not completely at odds with the Scripture it is at least highly inadvisable because of the problems that will, of necessity, arise. Paul may also have had in mind Deuteronomy 22:10 which prohibits yolking an ox and an ass together.


According to Mormon doctrine your dead kin (may or already has been) posthumously baptised into the Mormon church. (And even as an atheist I find this practice strangely disturbing).

View Post


It is worse than disturbing. It is a direct contradiction of the Scripture. In Hebrews 9:27 we find this: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: " The death spoken of here is an actual physical death, not spiritual death, and it generally applies to all men (there have been, and will be exceptions). But the antecedent 'judgment' applies equally to all men. It is patent from the Scripture that at the point of death one of two, and only two, possibilities will come to pass. The spirit of the believer goes immediately to be with the Lord to await the judgment seat of Christ, and the spirit of the unbeliever awaits the Great White Throne judjment of God Almighty which shall cast him into hell. Mormon doctrine notwithstanding, those who die unrepentant are eternally lost.

It is because of such twisted theology that Mormonism is not Christian despite their presumptive use of the Name.

#12 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:26 PM

I think that at this point I am going to cite what the doctrine wrongly called OSAS actually is, and all of the dozens of scriptures that demonstrate it. Maybe I'll move it to a separate thread later.

Of the Perseverance of the Saints (This is the correct name of the doctrine)

They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally, nor finally, fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

Phil. i. 6; 2 Pet. i. 10; John x. 28, 29; 1 John iii. 9; I Pet. i. 5, 9.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

2 Tim. ii. 18, 19; Jer. xxxi. 3; Heb. x. 10, 14; Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Heb. ix. 12, 13, 14, 15; Rom viii. 33 to the end; John xvii. 11, 24; Luke xxii. 32; Heb. vii. 25; John xiv. 16 17; 1 John ii. 27; 1 John iii. 9; Jer. xxxii. 40; John x. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 John ii. 19.

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

Matt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74; Ps. li. title and verse 14; Isa. lxiv. 5, 7, 9; 2 Sam. xi. 27; Eph. iv. 30; Ps. li. 8, 10, 12; Rev. ii. 4; Cant. v. 2, 3, 4, 6; Isa. lxiii. 17; Mark vi. 52; Mark xvi. 14; Ps. xxxii. 3, 4; Ps. li. 8; 2 Sam. xii. 14; Ps. lxxxix. 31, 32; 1 Cor. xi. 32.

Repentance comes from the greek worm metanoia, and it means to change your mind.  It has no emotional connotation to it as incorrectly taught by some churches, e.g. the Baptist Church.


The word itself doesn't, but the concept does. Saving faith is not a mere intellectual exercise. When one finally sees the magnitude of the offence he has given God it is most unlikely that there will be no emotional reaction.

#13 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:28 PM

What do you mean by "behave like pagans"?

Terry

View Post


I mean behavior which demonstrates that the individual has no god but himself, or behavior which makes it plain that the individual does not believe what he says he does.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:55 PM

2 Corinthians 6:14, 

View Post


The Corinthians passage appears to advise against a course of action because it is not righteous, but stops short of explaining the consequences. Would the consequences extend to ‘once save always saved’ and that perhaps it’s not a given?
I would assume a formal renouncement of one faith for another (assumption the conversion is genuine) is about as a strong a statement as one could make.

I had a read of the Deuteronomy 22 it appears to be a list of Do’s and Don’ts, is there anything more to it than practical advise? The Ox and Ass statement seem a bit of an oddity in the middle of that text, if one is to be read into it, anything more than face value.


It is worse than disturbing. It is a direct contradiction of the Scripture. It is because of such twisted theology that Mormonism is not Christian despite their presumptive use of the Name.

View Post


I once had a discussion with a Mormon on this matter, I tried to glean from him if the book of Mormon supplants or enhances the Bible, I got no answer, I suspect he thought I was leading him to some schism. Some of the more religious (especially from the Jewish members) saw posthumous baptism as a form of insult, and I must admit I feel that same way.


p.s posted befor the Decon's May 27 2005, 12:26 PM post, which i now need to read.

#15 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:57 PM

Ok, I would like to make a few comments here, and I know this is a touchy subject for some, but please take them respectfully.
The 1st thing that I disagree with in this position is that Doctrinal Truth is determined by human behavior, i.e. if a certain human behavior is possible, then we have to interpret scripture another way.  This is human viewpoint thinking, and not divine viewpoint.  Divine viewpoint is not dependant on human behavior.

IMO, if you want to defend this position, then it must be done on the basis of scripture alone, and not what you think people may do if its the truth.  Its true, that people will abuse God's grace, but the human race cannot nullify God's grace.

Accepting the fact that you are saved inspite of your behavior is exactly where Paul started his 1st letter to the Corinthians, who were about as wild a bunch as existed in the early church.

1CO 1:4 ¶ I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
1CO 1:5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge,
1CO 1:6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,
1CO 1:7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ
.
1CO 1:8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He didn't start by reminding them that they could lose their salvation, and that they had better change.  How would he know if they hadn't already lost their salvation?  How could he say that they would be "blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ", with all the sinning that was going on, if they could lose thier salvation?
Repentance comes from the greek worm metanoia, and it means to change your mind.  It has no emotional connotation to it as incorrectly taught by some churches, e.g. the Baptist Church.

In Christ,

Terry
P.S. I don't really have anything against Baptist Churches, as they are the ones I agree with most, but they are flat wrong about feeling sorry for sins to be saved.....

View Post


Ya don't have to get all worked up. I was testing the waters to see where everybody stood. If I would have listed a bunch of scripture, I would have been hi jacking the thread. So since I was the one who brought it up, I guess I'll start a thread on it. I know this is deacon's section, but I am going to post a few rules for this type of debate. Why? I have debated it on several forums, and I have seen it split forums. How strong is my arguement using God's word? Let's just say the owner of one forum change his mind, and so did his wife when I was finished. Though they never admitted it, their debate against me soon turned to be on my side. As many others at that forum. Which made some people leave.

Why did they leave? The co-owner of the forum changed the rules to shut me up. And this made alot of members mad who saw the light of what I debated and they left. So the rules that I make is to keep the thread from going that far. For if it starts going into the direction it did at the one forum, I will close the thread. I don't want anyone in there who cannot be in there with an open mind. For it was the closed mindedness of a few that caused all the problems.

#16 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2005 - 05:04 AM

I once had a discussion with a Mormon on this matter, I tried to glean from him if the book of Mormon supplants or enhances the Bible, I got no answer, I suspect he thought I was leading him to some schism.  Some of the more religious (especially from the Jewish members) saw posthumous baptism as a form of insult, and I must admit I feel that same way.


When does an apostate ever give a straight answer to a straight question? Generally, the Book of Mormon is, in their view, the equal of the Bible. And of their New World Translation, that is most likely true. The Mormon Church has edited out, changed, or modified, a lot of what the text says because it did not agree with Smith's view that the Book of Mormon is "the most perfect book on earth".

If you want to be astounded at how Joseph Smith and his disciples have corrupted Christian doctrine have a look at this: http://sub.namb.net/...on/comparis.asp

#17 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 July 2010 - 02:02 AM

When does an apostate ever give a straight answer to a straight question? Generally, the Book of Mormon is, in their view, the equal of the Bible. And of their New World Translation, that is most likely true. The Mormon Church has edited out, changed, or modified, a lot of what the text says because it did not agree with Smith's view that the Book of Mormon is "the most perfect book on earth".

If you want to be astounded at how Joseph Smith and his disciples have corrupted Christian doctrine have a look at this: http://sub.namb.net/...on/comparis.asp

View Post


The Mormon church uses the King James Bible, the New World Translation is used by the JW's. The Mormons use a Bible with no edits, changes or modifications.

Evangelical hate sites about the Mormons generally greatly distort Mormon beliefs. I would not take what is in that site without further study.

#18 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 July 2010 - 06:32 AM

The Mormon church uses the King James Bible, the New World Translation is used by the JW's. The Mormons use a Bible with no edits, changes or modifications.

Evangelical hate sites about the Mormons generally greatly distort Mormon beliefs. I would not take what is in that site without further study.

View Post


Hi Geode,

The Mormons read the Book of Mormon in addition to the KJV. On the front cover it says "Another Testament [covenant] of Jesus Christ." One need go any further--they deny that Christ's blood covenant is sufficient, so we need additional help--"another testament."

In the following passage found in Hebrews chapter 9, the author explains the finality and absolute sufficiency of the blood covenant of Jesus Christ with all who will turn to him by faith. I'm going to make a few comments between the verses.

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

This is the authority of the New Testament. Christ paid the penalty required by the first covenant (Old Testament)--the law. He sets us free from that penalty, which is death. The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)

SO you see, the New Testament isn't just the last half of your Bible--it's a living document. It is the testimony and teaching of what Jesus gave whoever would receive.

16In the case of a will,d it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Christ died, making his new covenant active. SO now he has paid the penalty of the first covenant and activated the new covenant by his death on the cross.

18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies.

SO now Paul gives us the pattern of blood covenant established in the law, and in fact from the beginning. This is exactly why God did not accept Cain's offering and accepted Abel's (Genesis 3). Because Cain's was a bloodless sacrifice.


22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

There it is. Without blood, there is no forgiveness. Blood must activate a covenant. Where is the blood that activated the Book of Mormon?

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.


There is alot here, but I have emphasized verse 26. Basically to show that it is not necessary for Christ to come and suffer again. His atonement at the cross, through his death burial and resurrection is completely sufficient for salvation. Anything that detracts or adds to that is counterfeit.

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 July 2010 - 06:56 AM

The Mormon church uses the King James Bible, the New World Translation is used by the JW's. The Mormons use a Bible with no edits, changes or modifications.

Evangelical hate sites about the Mormons generally greatly distort Mormon beliefs. I would not take what is in that site without further study.

View Post


LOL, I knew there was a reason I got a visit from some Mormons last night. I come in here and there it is. I asked them a bunch of questions about the stuff I have read on the internet. They did not deny that they believe that God lives on a planet called Kalob (not sure of the spelling) And their he makes spirit babies for all the humans born on this planet.

I pinned them down and asked them why God or any other spiritual being needs a planet? They dodged the question by saying God does not need a planet (denying their own belief). I asked them about the spirit babies, they came back with: Don't you have a spirit? The whole conversation was based on this and that their belief was the only true belief. So I asked them: If your belief is the only true belief, then everyone before the Mormons went to hell? They answered the question as if there was no hell. So I asked them if what they believed was a type of universalism? They looked puzzled, so I explained that universalism is a belief where people think everyone will go to Heaven regardless. They did not deny this but said: We believe everyone has a chance to go to Heaven.

After all this fudging, and not answering things directly, but always indirectly. I decided I had heard enough and told them I was not interested. They wanted to convert me to Mormonism. They were not interested in whether I had accepted Christ. They were on a recruiting mission. We shook hands and they left.

If they had been more straight with their answers, I was going to invite them in and have a longer conversation and even offer refreshments. But after seeing how they were even contradicting themselves, and basically dodging questions asked. And that they were more worried about me converting to their faith than whether i was saved. I decided I had heard enough and more conversation would have been pointless and a waste of time.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 July 2010 - 08:33 AM

The Mormon church uses the King James Bible, the New World Translation is used by the JW's. The Mormons use a Bible with no edits, changes or modifications.

Evangelical hate sites about the Mormons generally greatly distort Mormon beliefs. I would not take what is in that site without further study.

View Post


This is incorrect, and therefore untrue:

The Mormons use the Bible + the Book of Mormon (which, for the most part is anathema to the Bible). In other words, the Mormons use the Bible, except where they don't like what it says. They will then either twist the scriptures to fit their views, or refer to the book of Mormon to meet their views.

The JW's came up with their own translation (sans scholarship) that out-and-out mistranslates and distorts scripture verses to meet their needs.

You really should do a little more research before you promulgate propaganda here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users