Hi Thanks for your reply, *****************************************************
I see that you are someone who is relatively fixtaious on what is written in a book, ok we are all entitled to our opinions, but i myself have emailed information with personal experience, can i ask this question?:
Have you ever yourself felt the descriptions of the holy ghost that is noted in Galatians? Because i have, every single one, as i asked the spirit to identify itself.
The other one with Wicca, wicca is a modern new age religion that was started by gerald Gardiner in 1947, but i have felt the spirit from wicca which is the same as the holy ghost described in Galatians on every single description!
Also the bible is a mishmash of writing, it is possible to say that exodus was written before Genisis, as these books talk of a pre history to that of Moses himself ( these 2 books are classed as in the catagory of the five books of moses).
Also archeologists have found evidence of the flood that would consitute perhaps for the time of Noah, but from around the same carbon dating, a clay tablet which records this same flood was by someone other than Noah's family ( as the clay tablet records the writers name....Not included in the bible), so it's possible & reasonable to conclude that other people survived the flood of Noah & his family, whereas the bible tells us that it was only Noah & his family survived the flood!
You have also mentioned the Isaiah scriptures of a book sealed in the ground pertaining to a familiar spirit, how do you know for sure that this is the book of mormon? And not some other book that was sealed & found, or rather not been found yet? Also, was Joseph's father ( talking about the Joseph of his coat of many colours, sold into slavery in Eygpt by his brothers...Old Testament) was he just as guilty for lustful wanting, as he had was it 4 wives? With 12 sons and a daughter, was he just as guilty as the Joseph Smith?
Much of bible scriputure is left for the readers to work as a jigsaw puzzle, as the time of Christ that certain prophecies pertaining to his birth & life, some people matched to the talmud, others & this includes learned priests, did not acclaim such prophecies to christ. So it is really a matter of what you believe when you look at words written on paper, as it was christ who himself was the word, a book is not a manifestation of the holy christ in the flesh, a book is a book & a man is a man & a God A God, a spirit a spirit.
Also i don't mind discussions with anyone, but your words are rather extreme to be calling someone a fool, when you may just as much, one be yourself, i personally don't let these things bother me, but if you were to talk to someone else like that, it may cause a very nasty or unpleasent situation ( recall the fruit of the spirit......)
Well, i have my own opinions, i'm freely entitled to them by the grace of God, i also choose by the fruit of the spirit to be ready for discussion but not arguing on an unpleasent scale, to be kind and loving ( peaceful) etc. How about you?
Must say, your email was interesting.
25th May, 2005 - TCE replies:My Opinion versus Your Opinion?
You write: I see that you are someone who is relatively fixtaious on what is written in a book, ok we are all entitled to our opinions.…
A Counterfeit Spirit
TCE: The Bible says of the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12):
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
It is the Word of God which demolishes arguments and determines what is truth. Though many people believe the old saying - 'we are all entitled to our opinion(s)' - the completely accurate and logical statement would be: 'Whether anyone is entitled to hold their opinion depends entirely on the facts they introduce to support that opinion!' Obviously people who hold opinions that defy the facts - such as the neo-Nazis in contemporary Germany who deny the Holocaust - do not deserve to have their 'opinion' taken seriously! So, let us see if your latest opinions are to be taken seriously.
Wicca, 'Folk Magic' & Mormonism
You write: ... but i myself have emailed information with personal experience, can i ask this question? Have you ever yourself felt the descriptions of the holy ghost that is noted in Galatians? Because i have, every single one, as i asked the spirit to identify itself.
The other one with Wicca, wicca is a modern new age religion that was started by gerald Gardiner in 1947, but i have felt the spirit from wicca which is the same as the holy ghost described in Galatians on every single description!
TCE: You are continuing to use the methods of Joseph Smith to determine what is true to you. Nowhere in the whole of Scripture (the Bible!) does God ask us to rely on any feelings to determine the truth or the leading of the Holy Spirit. There are many deceived people who believe they have the Holy Spirit, but the Bible states unequivocally that the Holy Spirit of God will lead true believers into 'all truth' (John 16:7,13). The Mormons, Wiccans, and all other religions, are clearly strangers to Scriptural truth - so we can be certain that they do not have, or know, the Holy Spirit!
Further: you 'asked the spirit to identify itself'!? Were you surprised when 'the spirit' identified itself with the Holy Spirit of the Bible? Should we be surprised by this since Christians are clearly warned that the counterfeit work of Satan is to present 'another gospel' (Galatians 1:6-9), 'another Jesus', and 'another Spirit' (2 Corinthians 11:4) :
'For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.'
So it comes as no surprise that the 'spirit from wicca' passed itself off to you as the Holy Spirit. You subjected yourself to a non-Biblical test - the same scam worked by Joseph Smith in his 'burning in the bosom' deception, supposedly adding James 1:5 to Moroni 10:4:
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Scripture tells us that 'There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death' (Proverbs 14:12). Satan tried to deceive Jesus into his agenda, disguising it as 'a step of faith', when he tempted him to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple: 'For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.' But Jesus answered him: 'It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God' (Luke 4:10-12). So what seems like stepping out in faith, or praying in faith, may really be falling into a trap.
We have met many people who employed such false tests and temptations. Suppose a man is about to embark on a particular action and, to assure himself that this course is God's will for him, he prays: 'Dear God, if what I am about to do is not your will, please strike me dead right now!' When God fails to go along with his false test, the man thanks God for showing him that this was indeed His will! Such 'confirmation' from God is as valid as that of the potential convert who prays about the Book of Mormon and then receives the 'burning in the bosom' promised. They think that this is God's way of declaring the Book of Mormon to be true, when it is actually a test from Satan.
God encourages us to pray but does not expect us to ask Him questions that we ought to be able to answer for ourselves, or which He has already spoken about through His Word found only in the Bible. We are foolish to expect Him to give everyone of us personal answers to every question we might wish to ask.
We evaluate the Book of Mormon, the 'spirit of wicca', and every other suspected deception the same way that the Bereans evaluated the message preached to them by the apostle Paul: They 'searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so' (Acts 17:11). They compared the words Paul preached with those they read in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah and His message, and this solid evidence led them to accept Jesus as the Christ. The Bible warns us: 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world' (1 John 4:1) and, regarding spiritual things, we are encouraged to 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good' (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
LDS attack Old Testament
It is widely believed that Aleister Crowley initiated Gerald Gardiner into the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) in 1946. Knowing the satanic inclinations of Crowley, it would be surprising to find an initiate of his involved in anything but witchcraft. So it is no surprise to find someone influenced by the demons that led Joseph Smith from 'folk magic' (strictly speaking: necromancy, divination, and witchcraft) to occultic Mormonism, also being led into wicca.
If you now have a testimony to the 'spirit of wicca' what happened to your testimony to 'Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon'? If you 'felt the descriptions of the holy ghost' did you experience them as a Mormon or as a Wiccan, or were they the same? Satan works many similar deceptions on people who rely on 'feelings' to determine their truth, and it is for this reason that many who visit Roman Catholic shrines to one of the acclaimed Marian apparitions testify that the Holy Spirit can be 'felt' mightily in that place! Are you really going to accept that the Holy Spirit of God will be found at even the most pagan or Satanic venue?
Further consideration should be given to the very late arrival on the scene of Gardiner's brand of witchcraft. Of course, he would claim that he had merely rediscovered or revived the old religion - just as Joseph Smith's scam relied on convincing people that he had 'restored' the 'lost truth' of the gospel of Jesus Christ! Both fall down on the same type of evidence and logic - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Gospel of Jesus needed restoring for the historical record never shows it having disappeared from the earth, and Wicca has absolutely no authentic written historical records to 'prove' that it exists today in the form it may have existed in the past. This means we can draw the same conclusion for both these false religions - and many others - that there is absolutely no proof that either existed for nearly 2,000 years and therefore anyone seeking spiritual enlightenment would have been left to their own devices with no guide of any kind as to where the truth lies! Of course, this is the same situation you are still in if you believe in any brand of pantheism. But you are also left to struggle in the dark with the very same questions. The most important one of all, which pantheism can never answer, is that, if we are all part of 'god,' why did we ever begin a cycle of re-incarnation! For why would someone knowing what it was to be 'god' ever chose to leave that state in the first place? Christianity gives good reason for the 'fall of man' (which Mormonism idiotically denies!), but Wiccans join all other pantheists in having absolutely no good reason to exist in their current state! We will return to the illogic of the Wiccan view later.
Jeremiah 36 exposes LDS claims
You write: Also the bible is a mishmash of writing, it is possible to say that exodus was written before Genisis, as these books talk of a pre history to that of Moses himself ( these 2 books are classed as in the catagory of the five books of moses).
TCE: The Bible will only 'gel' when it is read by a believer led by the Holy Spirit and only the ignorant would describe it as a 'mishmash.' Those who doubt the order or content of the books of the Bible do so because their reasoning is faulty. First the evidence should be examined and then the case should be decided. Attacks on the Bible, and Moses, are nothing new and they have been adequately rebuffed throughout history. The attack on Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch, and arguments about the order in which the books 'must' have been written, is an old one which fails for the following reasons:
Moses was in a position to write the Pentateuch. He was educated in the royal court of Egypt, which was highly advanced academically. He had firsthand knowledge of the geography of Egypt and the Sinai, with plenty of time - 40 years in wandering and 40 more years beyond that - to compose his work. There is ample external evidence to support the high standards of writing prevalent in Moses* day. Even the writings of uneducated slaves, working in the Egyptian turquoise mines, have been found by archaeologists.
There are about two dozen verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and one dozen in the Christian Scriptures which state, or strongly imply, that Moses was the author.
The evidence within the Pentateuch points to Mosaic authorship, clearly portraying Moses as the author of certain portions in such phrases as: 'And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord' (Exodus 24:4, KJV). 'And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people' (Exodus 24:7, KJV). 'And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel' (Exodus 34:27, RSV). To these references many others could be added.
Not only does the internal evidence of the Scriptures make it clear that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but other Old Testament books make Mosaic authorship clear. Joshua 8:32 (KJV) refers to 'the law of Moses, which he wrote.' Additional Old Testament references include I Kings 2:3, II Kings 14:6 and Joshua 23:6, which attribute to Moses the authorship of the Pentateuch.
Jewish tradition is firm in its belief in Mosaic authorship. Ecclesiasticus, one of the books of the apocrypha, written about 180 B.C., states: 'All this is the covenant-book of God Most High, the Law which Moses enacted to be the heritage of the assemblies of Jacob' (Ecclesiasticus 24:23). The Talmud, in Baba Bathra, 146, which is a Jewish commentary on the first five books (around 200 B.C.), along with the writings of Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37) and Philo (A.D. 20) also concur.
Early Christian tradition likewise agrees that Moses composed the Pentateuch. The writings of Junilius (527-565 A.D.) and Leontius of Byzantium (sixth century A.D.) along with Church fathers Melito (A.D. 175), Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348-386) and Hilary (A.D. 366) teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Add to this the testimony of the New Testament. The apostles believed that 'Moses wrote unto us' (Mark 12:19, KJV) as did the apostle Paul who, when speaking of a passage in the Pentateuch, said, 'Moses describeth' (Romans 10:5, KJV).
However, the issue as to the authorship of the first five books is once-and-for-all solved by the testimony of the God-man Jesus Christ. Jesus made it clear that Moses wrote these books (Mark 7:10; 10:3-5; 12:26; Luke 5:14, 16:29-31; 24:27, 44; John 7:19, 23). In John 5:45-47, Jesus states, 'Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you don*t believe his writings, how will you believe My words?' (NASB). This is the real crunch for those who attack Moses. Jesus knows that they don't believe in Him - not the real, historical Saviour - but they will accept 'another Jesus' (2 Corinthians 11:4), whether it is the Mormon Jesus, or a New Age Wiccan Jesus.
In the past 50 years archaeological finds have vindicated many of the Old Testament claims supporting the probability of Mosaic authorship. This is because most of the finds demonstrate that only someone who lived during the time the Bible purports that Moses lived could have known and written about the things in these books.
Anyone presuming that Moses couldn't have written Genesis because he wasn't born until the beginning of Exodus clearly ignores the possible explanations for the way in which this record was preserved and recorded by the power of God. It is amazing that some people will give credence to almost any theory and inventions of men rather than believe that God has the ability to preserve every detail of His Word as He sees fit. Theories have been put forward, similar to the kind of reasoning you use, Shelley, which don't require a shred of evidence. It is fashionable, in some quarters, to claim the Pentateuch is a result of a compilation of various documents which existed prior to books being put together in their present form by some (unnamed and unknown) editor. However, these books were originally written as a single unbroken scroll. It was divided into the 5 books that we read today sometime before the 2nd Century BCE.
Anachronism exposing BOM
People who believe in man-made theories about the formation of biblical works have clearly never been party to a prophecy, word of knowledge, or wisdom, imparted by the Holy Spirit, which proves to be 100% accurate in detail. They would rather accept the words and actions of a proven false prophet, such as Joseph Smith, before they accept the Word of God. Actually, a chapter in the Bible that clearly shows the foolishness of the Mormon claims concerning the preservation and accuracy of the Bible is found in Jeremiah 36: here we can read how evil king Jehoiakim burnt the scroll that God had given Jeremiah who had then dictated the words to Baruch the scribe. God replaced all the words and even added some more (36:32):
32 (AV)Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.
Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, when he lost the first 116 pages of his 'translation' of the Book of Mormon, he was unable to recover the work and, despite his attempts to cover up his failure with a feeble story of 'being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again', he was again shown to be a deceiver by careful investigation into the 'black-holes' in his replacement work!
Similar disbelief, of the kind you have voiced, has been expressed over Moses' authorship of the fifth book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy, mainly on the grounds that Chapter 34 contains the account of Moses* death. Presumably this is why you write: 'exodus was written before Genisis.' Doubters argue that, since no one can write an account of his own death, this must mean that the Book of Deuteronomy had to have been written later than the time of Moses! Although the Bible does not specifically state that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, even if he only authored the majority of the Torah it is possible that another writer (perhaps Joshua) added the obituary at the end of the work. It would be amazing if the death of Moses was not recorded in these books, even if as an obituary, since the account of his entire life had been told here in such great detail. The appearance of the account of Moses* death in no way affects his authorship of the preceding 33 chapters. Some orthodox Christians and Jews might argue that Chapter 34 in Deuteronomy was actually prophetic but, whichever way his death comes to be included in the account, this does not force one to attribute the rest of Deuteronomy, or the whole Pentateuch, to someone besides Moses.
If Moses was, indeed, the editor of a compilation that already existed, one of the few questions it would answer is the appearance of what might be seen as more than slightly immodest references to himself:
Numbers 12:3: Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. (KJV)
And some might wonder if God would have inspired Moses to write these words about himself:
Deuteronomy 34:10: 10 'And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face...' (KJV).
Thus some may claim that this was also a passage written after Moses' death. But when all of the evidence is considered together, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is shown to be a reasonable fact. Such primary evidence would be accepted without hesitation in a court of law, and any theory of multiple documents would be ruled out as inadmissible since there is simply no evidence to support such a theory which cannot be reasonably answered, as shown here.
'Gilgamish Epic' vs Noah
From the Mormon viewpoint it is worth reading 1 Nephi 22:20:
And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.
According to page notes in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, 1990 edition) this was allegedly written 'between 588 and 570 B.C.' by the transplanted Israelite named Nephi who was reading from 'the books of Moses,' specifically Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 (cf. 1 Nephi 19:23). However, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly had him read this portion from Acts 3:22, 23 instead, even though the Book of Acts was not written until over six hundred years later! Compare Moses' words of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 (KJV) with 1 Nephi 22:20, and then compare Acts 3:22, 23 (KJV). It is obvious which one is quoted in 1 Nephi.
The Book of Mormon agrees that the Pentateuch is made up of 'the books of Moses;'
The author of the Book of Mormon is a fraudster who has copied the account from the book of Acts, therefore proving that Nephi was not writing 'between 588 and 570 B.C.' !
This is just one example of anachronistic quotation in the Book of Mormon (cf. Alma 58:40 and Mormon 9:8, 9) and there are enough other examples of anachronism and inappropriate use of biblical material to convince an unbiased examiner that it is not an ancient work.
You write: Also archeologists have found evidence of the flood that would consitute perhaps for the time of Noah, but from around the same carbon dating, a clay tablet which records this same flood was by someone other than Noah's family ( as the clay tablet records the writers name....Not included in the bible), so it's possible & reasonable to conclude that other people survived the flood of Noah & his family, whereas the bible tells us that it was only Noah & his family survived the flood!
TCE: since you don't give any details to indicate what you might be referring to we can only comment generally on your apparent meaning (bearing in mind the 'difficulties' of your sentence construction). Perhaps you are not familiar with the 'flood accounts' of other nations. There are quite a variety, such as the Sumerian 'Deluge' story, the Akkadian 'Atrahasis' epic, the Epic of Gilgamesh, apart from the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. Do any of these other accounts cast doubt on the Biblical account of the worldwide flood, or do they share a common origin?
One account of a disastrous flood was recounted in 300 quatrains, inscribed on twelve large clay tablets found at Nineveh, told by the legendary king Gilgamesh who gave an account of a man who was said to have lived before and after 'a disastrous Flood.' The texts were delivered to the British Museum, but it still took several decades before they were finally deciphered. Shortly before 1900 A.D., Assyriologists finally deciphered the Akkadian language of the court and diplomacy of the time of King Ashurbanipal. Its form, however, dates not from the time when it was placed in the library at Nineveh but from 1,000 years earlier. It goes back as far as Hammurabi, the great king of Babylon, for soon a second copy was discovered in his capital on the Euphrates. Further archaeological finds confirmed that the 'Gilgamesh Epic' belonged to the heritage of all the great nations of the Ancient East. Hittites and Egyptians translated it into their own tongues, and cuneiform tablets discovered by the Nile still clearly showed the marks in red ink opposite those parts which the Egyptian scribes found difficulty in translating.
(Continued on page 396)