Looking at the SBC's official website you can go through several topics, some of them significant and you will see the SBC has no view on the matter, and the ones they do have official stances on they remind you they are NON-binding resolutions, despite some of the resolutions advocate the change of governmental laws, despite the SBC stating it strongly adheres to the separation of church and state. http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp
The only issue they seem to take a dogmatic stance on is homosexuality--you cannot endorse it, so as long as you financially support the SBC and are against homosexuality--you can probably be a member, in addition to a fairly vague statement of faith, which they do not believe is a test for fellowship.
Phelps grew up in Meridian, Miss., and was groomed to attend the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., but he abandoned those plans soon after he attended a tent revival in the summer of 1947 and heard the calling to preach. That same year, while still a teenager, he was ordained a Southern Baptist minister and moved to Cleveland, Tenn., to attend Bob Jones University.
According to the official Southern Baptist Convention website, in 1925 the Southern Baptist statement of faith called "Baptist Faith and Message" claimed they used "bread and wine" for their communion ceremony.
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The act is a symbol of our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour. It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ. --Baptist 1925 Baptist Faith and Message
XVI. The Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is designed to commemorate His death, to confirm the faith and other graces of Christians, and to be a bond, pledge and renewal of their communion with Him, and of their church fellowship.--Abstract of Principles (1858)
For evil-doers shall be cut off; but those that wait for the LORD, they shall inherit theland.---Psalm 37:9
They claim that this teaches that when a righteous Jehovah Witness dies and are resurrected (but are not part of the 'elect' class of 'born again' that go to heaven--the 144,000) they get to live on Earth--again! Anyway, I am interested in first finding the plain meaning of this verse--the idea that King David probably had in mind. Then finding the possible spiritual meaning that applies to the New Covenant.
First, look for the usage of the expression "inherit the earth" or "land," we see God gives Abraham land, but some of the land Abraham has to wait for because God is giving them time to get their act together (which He knows will not happen, but does so nonetheless to give them a fair chance):
And He said to him, "I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it."--Genesis 15:7
And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.--Genesis 28:4
"And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites will not be complete until then."--Genesis 15:16
Here are some more examples of land inheritance:
And the Lord said to me, Do not distress the Moabites, and do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land [as] an inheritance, because I have given Ar to the children of Lot [as] an inheritance.--Deuteronomy 2:9
And the Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, and the children of Esau were driving them out, and they exterminated them from before them and dwelt in their stead, just as the Israelites did to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord gave them.--Deuteronomy 2:12
And when you approach opposite the children of Ammon, neither distress them, nor provoke them, for I will not give you of the land of the children of Ammon as an inheritance, because I have given it to the children of Lot as an inheritance.--Deuteronomy 2:19
Israel inherited land that previously belonged to Canaanites (though not all of it, some of it was not taken like those that lived in remote place, or went abroad like to north Africa) and land that belong to some more obscure tribes, as Exodus frequently states:
I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to
bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a
land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and
the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the
Jebusite.--Exodus 3:8
And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.--Exodus 3:17
And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.--Exodus 13:5
And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee--Exodus 13:11
And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.--Exodus 23:28
And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:--Exodus 33:2
In the Bible generally righteous people were given the land of wicked people that were judged by God and subsequently evicted, or only allowed to live if they paid tribute to conquering ruler, Israel allowed many others to live in its territory in the time of Solomon on this condition. When Israel was disobedient they were attacked, if not conquered and made slaves like in the case of the Captivity in Babylon, then were restored to their homeland, or in the Era of the Romans where they also had to pay taxes to Rome to be left alone.
The plain reading in the mind of King David when writing Psalm 37 was almost certainly God's sense of giving actual land to more righteous nations, and punishing other nations by taking their land. Perhaps, King David had in mind the boundaries of the land of Israel in their time, after David his son Solomon ruled Israel when its borders were at its biggest:
Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of
the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and
served Solomon all the days of his life.--1 Kings 4:21
This was a fulfilment of Genesis 15:
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your
offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river,
the river Euphrates--Genesis 15:18
Now let's look for similar verses outside of the Torah "inheriting the land," in the Psalms we see:
His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.--Psalm 25:13
For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.--Psalm 37:9
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.--Psalm 37:11
For [such as be] blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and [they that be] cursed of him shall be cut off.--Psalm 37:22
The righteous shall inherit theland, and dwell therein for ever.--Psalm 37:29
Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see [it].--Psalm 37:34
[How] thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; [how] thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out.--Psalm 44:2
For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them.--Psalm 44:3
For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession.--Psalm 69:35
And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;--Psalm 105:44
In this see the Psalms talk about TAKING land by force (killing, cutting off, driving out) as part of the inheritance, which cannot refer to heaven--at least not easily! Furthermore, it refers to the SEED of a person inheriting the land as in Psalm 25:13, this is what happened in the case of Abraham, his seed received it, not Abraham himself.
For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.--Isaiah 54:3
When thou criest, let thy companies deliver thee; but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take [them]: but he that putteth his trust in me shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain;--Isaiah 57:13
Thy people also [shall be] all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.--Isaiah 60:21
And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.--Isaiah 65:9
Psalm 37 could have a spiritual application, just as "inherit my holy mountain" seems to. As I mentioned elsewhere, "land" in the Psalms and the Hebrew bible can refer to the temple ground (which was not yet built when David wrote the Psalm, though its not excluded as being prophetic) in which case its sometimes called the "land of the living" and the Temple itself was a sort of Heaven on Earth, since it was where God dwelt on Earth. Taking into account the Sermon on the Mount--the beatitude about the meek inheriting the Earth probably has the Kingdom of Heaven in mind as an inheritance, and uses "land" as an expression for it since it was used for inheritance in the old testament.
Here are the beatitudes:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
It would seem strange for Jesus to interject a earthly existence considering before and after it in the Beatitudes he makes explicit references to people going to heaven for being poor in spirit, and being persecuted for His sake.
The following are from the New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures, 1984, reprinted in 2006, from the section at the back called "Bible Topics for Discussion" p.1652 and on.
The following BLACK text is from the NWT, whereas the BLUE are my comments.
1. Ancestor Worship
Ancestors are dead, unconscious..... Ec 9:5, 10
Here is what the NWT says in the verses cited:
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten--Ecclesiastes 9:5
The JW's and the groups share an ancestry with like the Seventh Day Adventists like to point to this verse to "prove" the dead are not "conscious." However, they typically quote the verse as simply "the dead know nothing," however, just before it says that "the living know THAT THEY WILL DIE," this is the knowledge spoken about. The "living know they will die" and because of this they can have some form of reward and perhaps even repent if needed, but the dead, since they are already dead, their fate is sealed and there is nothing they can do to change that, nothing they can prevent anymore. In fact, a famous Jewish Hebrew Bible commentator--Rashi on this writes:
“For
the living know that they will die” and perhaps their hearts will return on the day of death and
they will repent of their ways, but after they die, they do not know
anything, and they have no more reward for the actions that they do from
their deaths and onwards, for whoever toils on the eve of the Sabbath will
eat on the Sabbath.—chabad.org
Now verse 10 in the NWT,
Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.--Ecclesiastes 9:10
Again, its simply telling people to work now, since there's nothing they can do once their dead and that now during life they can do works pleasuring to God like verse 7 has:
Go, eat your food with rejoicing, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart, for already the true God has found pleasure in your works.--Ecclesiastes 9:7
Again, here is RaShI:
“for there is neither deed,
etc. in the grave”
for your merit after you die, and if you did so, you have no reckoning in the
grave to worry about. The verse is transposed, [to be explained]: for there
is neither deed nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave for the wicked, nor
reckoning for the righteous, when the wicked give their accounting. So is it
expounded in the Midrash (unknown). And one who interprets it without
transposing it, according to its apparent meaning, interprets חֶשְּׁבּוֹן
as an
expression of “thought,” what he can still do to free himself from judgment.—Chabad.org
Furthermore, the witch of Endor incident with King Saul is evidence always used against soul sleepers, because the Sacred Writers refers to the dead Samuel addressing the living Saul, though typically soul sleepers want to insist its actually a demon, despite the fact it says it is Samuels speaking.
3. Baptism
A. A Christian requirement
Only for those old enough to be taught....................Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 2:41
The Jehovah Witnesses are taking from the Baptists on this point, just as they did about Jesus being Michael. First, Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.--Matthew 28:19-20 NWT
I assume the JW reasoning is that they must be taught before being baptized. First, in order to start a new religion, you first must get converts, and only adults can convert, so it would not be reasonable to see a mention of infants here. Second, this is no clear condemnation of infant baptism, so why is it used? Furthermore, this verse says to convert nations, not part of them, by excluding their children, and as mentioned before why shouldn't children excluded from a covenant?
The second proof text is:
So those who gladly accepted his word were baptized, and on that day about 3,000 people were added.--Acts 2:41 NWT
Again, this verse just shows that they gained converts from adults and that those adults were baptized. It is not making a law concerning baptism, just stating what happened, nor is it excluding that their children would also be baptized.
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.--Colossians 2:10
We see here St Paul linking circumcision and baptism, circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old testament as in Genesis 17, and Baptism is a sign for the new, in the Old Covenant children could enter a Covenant, so what wouldn't they likewise be able to in the New Covenant?
Immersion in water is proper way.................................................Ac 8:38,39; Joh 3:23
Here is what the NWT says for Acts 8:38-39 that's used.
With that he commanded the chariot to halt, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, Jehovah’s spirit quickly led Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him anymore, but he went on his way rejoicing.--Acts 8:38-9 NWT
Nothing in this verse talks or alludes to full immersion being a requirement. Its just simply stating an event. From this verse if we were to make facts into rules concerning baptism let us likewise make being an Ethiopian and eunuch a requirement for baptism, or that the person performing the baptism must be in the water too. As for the next proof text:
But John too was baptizing in Ae′non near Sa′lim, because there was a great quantity of water there, and people kept coming and were being baptized;--John 3:23 NWT
This proof text says even less than the first, it only says people came to John and were baptized! It makes no mention of age, or says immersion was REQUIRED. Furthermore, its much easier to baptize a large number of people in a river than with cups, or in bath tubs. Also, this was John's baptism, not Christ's since people that were baptized by John had to be rebaptized when they became Christian as seen in Acts 19:1-3, so what does this verse have to prove?
B. Does not wash sins away
Jesus was not baptized to wash away sins............................1 Pe 2:22, 3:18
I have no idea why this section is here about Jesus' baptism since no one believes Jesus sinned, so I cannot understand their logic. Just because Jesus's baptism did not forgive sins, does not mean it does not forgive other peoples! Interesting though, is that 1 Peter 3:21 says "baptism saves you now."
Jesus' blood washes away sins..............................1 Jo 1:7
I have seen this logic before--from a Baptist once again (no surprise). Here is what the verse says:
However, if we
are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have
fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us
from all sin--1 John 1:7
The reasoning is generally since BLOOD washes away sins, therefore baptism cannot! Why not apply this reasoning to faith, grace, repentance--would anyone say THOSE do not save, but the blood does, wouldn't that be a false dichotomy? Furthermore, Christ said:
for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.--Matthew 26:28 NWT
So Christ here says His blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins, and then we see St Peter saying something similar....
Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ forforgiveness of your sins--Acts 2:38 NWT
Interesting, both verses say "for the remission of sins" but one mentions blood and the other baptism, to the JW this is a dilemma, since ONLY the blood washes away sin. We also have St Paul's baptism mentioning baptism washing away sins
And now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized, and wash your sins away by your calling on his name.--Acts 22:16 NWT
By the way, they added the "by" in at "by your calling on his name."
5. Blood
A. Transfusions violate sacredness of blood
Noah was told blood was sacred, was the life ..........Gen 9:4, 16
Jehovah Witnesses are known for their foolish views of blood transfusions, sometimes they or their children will die as a consequence, they even have lawyers to prevent doctors from administering it, so only court orders can save the child's life, or driving 100s of miles to a facility that feels sorry for JWs and has artificial blood or some other means to save their lives. However, this verse forbids eating animal blood, eating it states, it was not concerned with anything else. Here is what Genesis 9:4 says
Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.--Genesis 9:4 NWT
This is a strange translation, it almost makes it sound like the prohibition is more about not eating a living animal, or not mixing blood with meat. The JW interpretation of this verse seems to go contrary to the spirit of the section which is about not killing people/saving lives, the JW interpretation makes this deadly, when the Bible is concerned with keeping life. Here is what Genesis 9:16 says
And the rainbow
will occur in the cloud, and I will certainly see it and remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of every kind on the earth.”--Genesis 9:16 NWT
This verse doesn't even mention blood, or eating, or transfusions, not sure why its cited, perhaps a typographical error?
Law covenant prohibited feeding on blood .................Lev 17:14; 7:26,27
These verses do forbid EATING it, but it that the same as getting a transfusion? No. Jehovah Witnesses want to take this verse well beyond its meaning. Jews do not read these verses as condemning blood transfusion, in fact Jews believe receiving a blood transfusion can be a commandment if its will save your life. If a Jehovah Witness dies as a result of needing a blood transfusion that they refuse--they consider them a martyr! Whereas, others would considers would consider someone killing you for your faith an act of martyrdom.
Two years before the Mormon "prophet" and founder--Joseph
Smith died, he gave one of his most infamous and controversial sermons where he
asserted God used to be a human and is not eternal, and that Genesis 1 teaches
there are multiple Gods. Smith's sermon will be in black and my words in blue.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted
man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil
were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who
upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I
say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like
yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was
created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction
from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes
with another.
Smith here shows that Mormons have a radically different
idea of God than Christians, or even other Monotheistic faiths. Mormonism does
not believe God is immutable, but rather had to BECOME God. Going even
further, he insists God still looks like a man, but chooses not to show it to us!
He bases this on Adam being made in the "image and likeness of God." Like much
of Mormon doctrine it seems to have an origin in Jewish mysticism,
neo-Platonism, and old fashioned paganism, in this case the rabbinical writing Genesis Rabbah 8:10 does has a section where a rabbi insists Adam looked exactly like
God. However, the issue is we know what "image of God" means in the
ancient world, as many Jewish commentaries like Etz Hayim mention, in the
ancient Middle East kings were often called the "image of a god," so the Bible
here is telling us all human beings are made in the image of God, and this is
repeated in the Noachide laws of Genesis 9:6. So rather that one person
being the image of God, all men are, thus democraticizing it, and showing all
humans were made to rule the earth and endowed with free will and intellect by
God. Joseph Smith, however, ignoring traditional understanding, or being
ignorant of the expression interprets it literally. Furthermore, if God was a
man, why doesn't Joseph Smith tell us where God when He was a man came from? Who
created him?
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for
consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we
should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I
am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that
God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,
so that you may see.
He seems to be only concern
with how a man became god and unconcerned with the much bigger question of where
he came from. Furthermore, Smith's statement about God not being God "from
eternity" seems to contradict his own holy book:
For behold, God knowing all things, beingfrom everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.--Moroni 7:22
Perhaps Smith has his own ideas of what "everlasting" and
"eternal" mean also?
These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are
simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the
character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses
with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the
Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I
will show it from the Bible.
This analogy seems to imply Jesus was not God before hand
since he went through the same process as the Father. We know this is not the
case because John 1:1 said the "word WAS God" in regards to "the beginning."
Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ
I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an
archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution
would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures
inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the
Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a
manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to
do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe
it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say
it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth
and hell together to refute it.
Here we see the "prophet" cannot get the verse right,
Mormons say Smith is paraphrasing John 5:26 which reads:
"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He
gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;--John 5:26
The verse is nothing to do with the
Father and Son having died once and needing to resurrect, otherwise someone
would have have to have given the Father power to die and resurrect likewise!
Ofcourse, Smith does not want to provide or refer to this person.
Furthermore, Smith completely misunderstands the verse--its talking about the
Father posessing life--that is "salvation" and giving the ability to save to the
Son, and its not talking about themselves, the whole context of John 5:26 is the
Son judgement and giving life to people, whether spiritual or physical, though
spiritual life (salvation) is the one emphasized the most as in
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and
believes him who sent me has eternal life. He
does not come into judgment, but has passed
from death to life.--John 5:24
those who have done good to the
resurrection of life, and those who have done
evil to the resurrection of judgment.--John
5:29
Furthermore, we have a similar verse to John 5:26 only a
few verses before, but about judgement--which Jesus contrasts with life
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to
the Son,--John 5:22
The Father gave the Son JUDGEMENT and LIFE, refering to
the ability to damn and save people, just as verse John 5:29 that I posted above
shows!
Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise
and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be
kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by
going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great
one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the
resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to
sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you
to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming
His name, is not trifling with you or me.
Great advertising technique, tell your members they too
can become Gods! This is incredibly different from the historical
Christian doctrine of Theosis, which is about becoming by grace what God is by
nature, not about achieving some Divine powers and being transformed into a
member of a pantheon! Interestingly, he says there are already gods
The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings
These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners
when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or
dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and
dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God
and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.
If we were to read this section by itself as it it were
written by an ordinary, it does not sounds strange, pagan, or crazy, but nothing
Joseph Smith his idea of "heirs" is very different.
What is it? To inherit the same power, the
same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god,
and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.
What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came
rolling into existence.
This is just a power trip, power is a common theme in new
age religions like Wicca too and is part of its appeal to the weak. Also,
notice how Smith seems to invent a quote that vague resembles a real saying of
Jesus, partly by combining sayings of Jesus and smashing quotes together--just
as he did several times through out the book of Mormon (especially about
baptism read 3 Nephi 11):
glory that I had
with you before the world existed.--John 17:5
the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what
he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does
likewise.--John 5:19
Mormons like John 5:19 especially, because they argue
that Jesus can only ressurect because he was the Father ressurect himself once,
however Jesus is talking again about life and judgement, about how the Father is
at work, so the Son is likewise as in the verse prior
Jesus answered
them, “My Father is working until now, and I am
working.”-John 5:17
My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and
trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it
to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him
in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and
thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father,
and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the
salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation,
and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so
much hath been said.
"Fear and trembling" is a phrase found about 4 times in
the New Testament and is only used about humans, not God, likewise the Book of
Mormon uses it obviously in Mormon 9:27 taking from Philippians 2:12 about
"working out your salvation with fear and trembling." Who does God have to fear
and trembling over? is it himself? The implication is that there is someone he
reports to, but of course Smith does not want to talk about that here either!
In this section Smith is still making God the Father and Jesus out to be self
seeking for self exaltation and to glorify themselves and ascend up some ladder
of godhood--much different than the Jesus of John 17:5 where Jesus asks to be
RESTORED to His previous glory, rather than being GIVEN NEW GLORY:
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was--John 17:5
Furthermore, a Jesus wanting to exalt himself gives us a
Jesus radically diffferent that the Biblical one that came in form of a servant
as Phillippians 2:7 and was exalted by God the Father because of it, especially
since the Mormon Jesus gets to take his father's place! This is an extremely
selfish, motivated Jesus--he gets a huge personal payout by helping man kind, he
gets to take his father's job!
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by
step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the
gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the
principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed
through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be
comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and
exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an
investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think
there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to
death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.
Joseph Smith is presenting his
religion as a sort of 12 step program where a persons goal is to achieve greater
and greater degrees of godhood by working their way up, perhaps even getting to
take Jesus' spot?
I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a
comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the
Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and
everything else. Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired
man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority
added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head!
There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion that
the "baith" or rather "beth" or "beit"--the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet
was added to Genesis 1:1, in fact a Mormon apologist from FAIR on this point
desperately tried to prove so with the following statement:
The idea that the Hebrew letter b (b) was a later addition was attested by some medieval Jewish commentators. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (born 1189), in his commentary on this verse, wrote, “Our scholars said that the bet in [bereshit] is superfluous.” Translator Michael Linetsky notes, “Apparently he refers to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, followed by Ibn Janah (see Riqmah, p. 86, n. 3) and probably Ibn Balcam (commentary to Hos. 1:1), who rendered our verse as: The beginning of what (or the first thing) God created was the sky and the earth as though the bet had been discarded.”--FAIRMormon on the King Follet Discourse
However, here is what Ibn Ezra REALLY said:
Our
sages have said that the [letter] bet was added, like the bet in
barishonah (“in the beginning”)
Bereshit 13:4, for you
find “at the beginning (rishonah) they travelled”
Bamidbar 2:9. But were that
the meaning, the bet would have been vocalized with a kamatz gadol.
And there are those who say that [the word] bereshit always [appears in]
attached [form], where the meaning is “at the beginning of the evening, or the
night, or the darkness”. But behold, they forgot “he saw a beginning reishit
for himself” Devarim 33:21.
And there are those who say that the bet is a subject without meaning.
Their reason is that it is unthinkable that there is no beginning to the heavens
and the earth. Therefore, it said “bereshit. But according to my opinion,
it is indeed an attached form, like “At the beginning (bereshit) of the
rule of Yehoyakim”. Now don’t wonder how can it be attached to a past tense verb
[instead of a noun], for behold, thus: “At the beginning (techilat) spoke
Hashem with Hoshea, and Hashem said to Hoshea”
Hoshea 1:2, “The city (kiryat)
where David camped” Yeshayahu 29:1. The meaning [of this usage] will be
explained for you in the second verse.--Ibn
Ezra Commentary on Genesis 1:1
The word נוסף is translated as "superfluous" in the work
cited by the Mormon apologist, while the work is translated above as "added",
which is truer to its real meaning! Translating it as "superfluous" makes no
sense because Ibn Ezra is giving reasons why its used. Ibn Ezra is not saying
someone added the Beit there--he is saying why the author of Genesis himself
added beit to reshit. No matter how its spun, nothing supports Joseph Smith's
claim of addition by an "old Jew."
It read
first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true
meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it,
you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more
than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand
council.
There is so much wrong with this claim. First of all, his
rendering requires the reader to assume reshit is refering to the "head of the
gods" where "gods" is absence in the Hebrew for "head of the gods." Furthermore,
Genesis 1:1 continues on to say "the heavens and the earth"--Smith's claim only
makes sense if you ignore the words immediately after. He would have to read
"“The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods. The heaven and the earth."
This would not make sense in Hebrew since there is a word that cannot be
translated into English 'et' in Genesis 1:1 that tells us "heaven and earth" are
the direct objects of the sentence, so they cannot be made part of another
sentence! The Hebrew reads:
Furthermore, Bara or as Smith seems to say it "baurau"
NEVER in the Bible means "bring forth"--there are other words that can mean
"bring forth." In fact, the Mormon translation of the bible available on the LDS
site has "bring forth" several times in Genesis 1 (v 11,12,20, 21, 24; 3:16 etc)
and the rest of Genesis and it is NEVER a translation of "bara."
I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye
doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the
Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the
Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat
at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which
were created at the time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and
lawyers of the scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let
the lawyers flutter and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctors might take
a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the
scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in
them.
The scriptuers come no where
near Smith's wild claims, he insists on believing the Scripture--I agree and the
Scriptures show he is wrong, furthermore, he argues they cannot be
altered--however, he accuses without merit Genesis 1:1 being altered by "an old
Jew," which suggests Smith himself is altering Scripture.
I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and
Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most
[nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which
God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son
of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James.
Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and
never get the keys. In the 21st [verse] of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old
German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, “If you preach anything not
according to the Bible, we will cry treason.” How can we escape the damnation of
hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin
says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and
the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank
God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy
Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book
in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments.
Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced
this testimony, were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the
Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.
This is a trivial point that people that read the Bible
in other languages see--sometimes different names are used, does it prove
anything really no, just that in English we've associated the New Testament
people named Jacob (Yaakov) as being "James." It's silly that a person that is a
great prophet should make a big deal about this. I seriously doubt Smith could
really read German, Latin or Hebrew--the prophet just could see words. If he knew Hebrew--it was the very little he learned from a Hebrew professor the church paid to give lessons--who was not even Mormon.
A Council of the Gods
In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they
came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it.
When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what
kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to
know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.
When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins
to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to
come to him, he is ready to come to us.
Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say
that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that
they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy
Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you
tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool.
But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost
does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and
I will associate myself with him.
This is neo-Platonism, a Greek
Philosophy that some Jews accepted that teaches that the universe is made from
eternal, uncreated elements. He humbly says he "knows more than all the world
put together!" Yet, he makes very simply mistakes!
Meaning of the Word Create
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and
they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer,
from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word
create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing;
it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a
ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of
chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory.
Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element
are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and
re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.
This contradicts what he said previously about the word
"bara" or as he says "baurau" where he said it means "bring forth," yet now he
says it means "to organize." Here Smith plainly shows his pagan thinking, in
addition to teaching many gods, he is teaching the universe preexisted God
himself, which is exactly what the pagan Greeks believed in their mythology
until being enlightened by the Gospel of Christ!
The argument by gay rights supporters for the acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage is the following:
Gay rights reasoning:
Premise: Humans have a conscience.
Premise: Wild animals do not have a conscience.
Premise: Immorality only can exist if a person has a conscience.
Inference: Animals (or at least most) do not have a conscience, therefore their behavior is morally neutral.
Conclusion: Therefore, a human mimicking animal behavior cannot be immoral, since the same behavior is not considered immoral when done by a wild animal.
and/or:
Premise: Only humans can be immoral.
Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable
Premise: Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species.
Conclusion: Therefore, homosexuality among human beings is natural and gay marriage should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.
However, if these conclusions are to be accepted, likewise the following argument should be accepted.
Premise: Only humans can be immoral.
Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable
Premise: Rape occurs in nature in several species.
Conclusion: Therefore, rape among human beings is natural and rape and rapists should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.
Will supporters of homosexuality likewise support these behaviors? Of course not. The "because animals do it argument" falls on its face since they refuse to let the sword cut both ways.
However, they might rebut that you cannot compare them since homosexuality is between 2 consenting parties. To which it should be noted that incest, polygamy and sometimes suicide can also be done with consent. So, the argument should have nothing to do with animals what so ever. Furthermore, why should more developed, more intelligent animals mimic behavior of lower animals? Isn't that NOT "forward thinking" and "backwards"?
NOTE: The video was TAKEN DOWN by youtube censors for 'hate speech' (several years later)!
Protestants reject the Eucharist as being actually substantially Christ's body and blood and opt for a symbolic view on the basis that eating blood and flesh of man is forbidden by the laws of Moses, therefore it would be "unclean" for Christ to actually do this.
However, Protestants generally make another argue that's unrelated about statues and images. They say the Laws of Moses forbid making statues and graven images in Exodus 20 in the 10 commandments, then say it does not matter that Exodus 25 has God ordering Moses to make a statue of angels on the ark, since its an exception and God specifically gave him orders to build it, so its ok for Moses.
Now, if we are to apply this reasoning to the Eucharistic debate their logic backfires on them. They would have to admit that despite God prohibiting eating flesh and blood in the Law, that if God (in the person of Christ) instructs people to eat His flesh and Blood, then it is lawful and must be done, since orders were given to do precisely that. So the Protestant's symbolic view of the Eucharist on the basis of prohibition of blood backfires on them and shows they have a double standard.
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath--Exodus 20:3
And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends of the ark-cover.
--Exodus 25:18
But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.--Deuteronomy 12:23
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.--John 6:53
Law God's "special instruction"
Don't drink blood (Deuteronomy 12:23) "Drink my blood" (John 6:53)
Don't make a graven images (Exodus 20:3) "make two cherubim of gold"(Exodus 25:18)
Furthermore, the law explains why not to "eat" the blood, because the "blood is the life" and Jesus said you must drink His blood to have life!
Also, some explain the commandment to drink His blood as a symbol that they are no longer bound to the laws of Moses but under a new covenant with new promises.
*Also Acts states:
avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood--Acts 15:20 (some debate if drinking blood is alluded to here at all, some believe its an expression for violence)
Regardless, if we are to accept the Protestant reasoning that a specific commandment may be an exception to a general rule, then even if Acts 15:20 addresses drinking blood, it does not matter since a specific command was given to do it in a special case with Christ.
Here is evidence Abba does not mean "daddy" we see Joseph addressing Pharoah talking about his father and brothers, and the accompanying Aramaic translation. The Hebrew has avi , the Aramaic has aba אַבָּא
Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said: 'My fatherand my
brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are
come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of
Goshen.'
--Genesis 47:1
וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי וְעָנְהוֹן
וְתוֹרֵיהוֹן וְכָל דִּילְהוֹן, אֲתוֹ מֵאַרְעָא דִּכְנָעַן; וְהָא
אִנּוּן, בְּאַרְעָא דְּגֹשֶׁן.
--Genesis 47:1 Onkelos Aramaic Translation using Hebrew font The Hebrew text reads Avi אָבִי , 'my father', the Aramaic reads אַבָּא aba, though another site has it as אַבָה --ava.
Now if Abba/Aba/a means "daddy" how silly would it be for Joseph--the prime minister of Egypt to address his boss concerning his father and brother using the word "daddy"? It would have been embarrassing! Granted Joseph probably did not use either Abba or Avi, since he would have been speaking Coptic to the Pharoah, however the Hebrew bible and the Aramaic translation of it use the ORDINARY word for "my father" which are avi and aba/ava.
Furthermore, Barabbas, has the word abba in it, yet no one supposes this means "son of daddy,"
We see the Aramaic texts (old Syriac and Peshitta) have Aba/Ava spelled the same as the Aramaic text of Genesis 47:1 "וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי " Here is how two popular Protestant lexicons explain the name "Bar Abbas"
Thayer
Barabbas = "son of a father or master"
1) the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
Strong
G912
Of Chaldee origin ([H1347] and G5 (Greek)); son of Abba; Bar-abbas, an Israelite: - Barabbas.
We see it is either a name, or just how to say "father", and if it is a name, its not likely a parent will name their son "daddy" (unless they're Hispanic, but even it would be a petname).
Now, let's go to the texts where the word "Abba" appears in Greek and English untranslated:
And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”--Mark 14:36 NASB
And he said, Father, my Father, thou canst (do) every thing, cause to pass from me this cup: but not my will, but thine.--Mark 14:36, Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
"And He said, My Father, everything is in your hands, it has arrived. Make this cup pass from me, yet not according to my will, but according to your will."--Mark 14:36 translation of Old Syriac Sinaiticus page 364
Elsewhere in the Peshitta text of Mark we see the SAME EXACT spelling of Aba being used
Jeshu responded and said, Amen I say
to you, There is no man who forsaketh houses, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of me,
and on account of my gospel,
--Mark 10:29 Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
"For a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father [ܘܐܒܐ] his son, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them."--Mark 13:12 translation from The Old Syriac Gospels: Matthew and Mark
Now for reference the other times Abba appears in the Greek texts of the New Testament untranslated:
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”--Romans 8:15 NASB
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”--Galatians 4:6 NASB
Finally, let's looks how dictionaries, lexicons, concordances refer to it as:
Thayer:
Abba = "father"
1) father, customary title used of
God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek
interpretation joined to it, that is apparently to be explained by the
fact that the Chaldee "ABBA" through frequent use in prayer, gradually
acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek
speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue. Part of Speech: noun Citing in TDNT: 1:5, 1
Strong:
G5
Of Chaldee origin [H2]; father (as a vocative): - Abba.
1 fatherCom.
--(a) of humansCom.
(a.1) honored senior, chief, masterOfA-Egypt, JLAtg.
(a.2) chief monkSyr.
--(b) Heavenly, i.e. God (see also below s.v. ˀabbā)JLAtg, PTA, CPA, Syr.
--(c) of animals: sireJBA.
2 ancestor, forefatherCom.
--(a) pl. parentsQum, Syr, JBA.
--(b) in particular, the three forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also sg. for any one of them)Qum, JLAtg, Gal, PTA, JBA.
--(c) progenitor, spiritual founderPTA.
--(d) the fathers of the ChurchSyr.
3 ˀabbā : my father! (vocative)JLAtg, Gal, PTA, CPA, Syr, JBAmb.
4 fig.Qum, JBA.
--(a) creator, sourceQum.
--(b) common factorJBA.
--(c) 'source' as an architectural termJLAtg.
5 byt ˀb, ܒܝܬ ܐܒ : family, clanOA, Qum, Syr.
6 as a personal nameSyr, JBA.
7 in compounds with relational terms.
--(a) ˀb ˀbwhy: grandfather or ancestorPalm.
--(b) אב דאב : paternal grandfatherPTA, JBA.
--(c) אבא דאימא : maternal grandfatherJBA.
--(d) אחא דאבא٠ אח אב : paternal uncle : see s.v. ˀḥbJBA.
Notice all of these say its just a way of saying father, biological or not and make no mention of it being a way of how a small child says "daddy." Yet sites like "gotquestions.com" ignorantly spread this "fact" around.
Should the Genetic Argument--"born that way" be relevant in a moral discussion about homosexuality?
No. If we were to judge the morality of homosexuality on the basis of a person's genetic predisposition, it would only be logical to apply this reasoning towards all behaviors. Some people are believed to be genetically predisposed to being more aggressive which in turn would cause them to be more likely to commit acts of violence.
IF homosexuality is arguably acceptable only the basis its genetic (if it is) then why is not violence likewise arguably acceptable on the basis on genetics? Double standard? I am not comparing homosexuality to violence as a lot of homosexual advocates might over simplify my argument to be, I am saying we must judge acts for themselves, and not look at genetics to justify them. They might say homosexuality is consensual, violence is not, well if that is the case then how is the genetic argument relevant at all in the discussion of morality? It isn't.
Furthermore, if homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted on the basis its between consenting adult, then shouldn't it be acceptable for two consenting adults to give each other narcotics since its consensual, and doesn't harm others? By this reasoning it might be argued incest, self infliction, and suicide should be tolerated or accepted on the basis if a person if only harming himself and not others, or acting with free will and consent.
Finally, why should a sexual act be recognized as acceptable by a society that is disproportionally linked to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and has no real benefit to society as a whole, except PERHAPS as a sort of population control--removing a number of people from the breeding population. Furthermore, if homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't the open homosexuality with homosexuals refraining from procreating decrease the future homosexual population? This may change though because of things like invitro fertilization.
I have recently run into a community of Seventh Day Adventists that are very anti-Catholic and very pro-KJV, insisting that the other Bibles are riddled with the fleas of Popery. Let's check out some of the Popish Romanism the KJV 1611 is logged full of.
Conclusion: This and many more show the Catholic influence in the King James Version 1611 Bible. A good seventh day Adventist or good Baptist should either reject this so called translation for its obvious influence by Popery or become a miserable papist himself! As it must be asked if Adventists and Baptists insist the KJV 1611 is perfect because of its pure manuscripts from Textus receptus of the Antioch Line, then why is it no Baptist or Adventist makes a modern-updated version of the text into modern English, rather than spend all the time on the older English of the KJV--since after all the NKJV is corrupt? Could it be no Baptist or Adventist is qualified to do such a thing, or that they cannot trust their own people?!
ADDENDUM:
Per request, the KJV 1611 calendar for December-January:
December:
Notice it includes the "Conc. of Mary" ie the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, feast day of St Nicholas on December 6, Luci virgin (St Lucy) on December 13, as well as Christmas on December 25, the feast of [Pope] St Sylvester on December 31
