Wow, very cool!

Ditto: I was a student of JP during his first year teaching at Biola University .

I was a student of J P at Liberty. What a blessing!

I did not know LDSers were claiming the scriptures had been altered. How do they rationalize that against their claim that the KJV is correct to the degree that it is correctly translated? I created an illustration of an interlinear translation of John 1:1-3. It had a line of the Greek, the literal translation below it, and the words of the JST below that. The visual result is as you might expect. Unfortunately, finance and age have so isolated me that I’ve never had a chance to get an LDSer’s reaction.

@@ricksonora6656 Hi Rick. I present the argument as a series of premises to test the plausibility of: (1) The Bible manuscript alteration test Premise 1: According to 1 Nephi 13:20-25, the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were unaltered in the time of the Twelve Apostles of the New Testament: The Hebrew Scriptures went “forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.” (v25) Furthermore, “when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.” (v24) Premise 2: After the days of the Twelve Apostles, approximately the First Century, there arose “the abominable church.” Premise 3: According to 1 Nephi 13:26-29 “the abominable church” took away from the Bible, that is, from both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the New Testament, “many plain and precious parts.” Premise 4: The plain and precious parts were removed from existing manuscripts by cutting them out of the manuscripts, erasing the parts, or covering up the parts to be ignored, leaving obvious holes or erasures or coverings in the manuscripts. Or new copies of the manuscripts were made which did not include the removed parts and the previous manuscripts were destroyed or the altered passages no longer read where the missing parts could be noticed. Premise 5: Jewish priests and other Jewish synagogue leaders who were custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures at the time the plain and precious parts were removed from the Hebrew Scriptures by the abominable church cooperated with or were participants in the conspiracy to remove them. Premise 6: No Jewish or Christian person who was part of the removal conspiracy later repented and confessed his role in this evil alteration of God’s word, or no record of such a confession was recorded in a document that has survived. Premise 7: In general, people, both Jews and Christians, who were not part of the conspiracy to remove the plain and precious parts and who read the Bible manuscripts immediately after the abominable church removed them did not realize that the plain and precious parts had been removed; or no record of anyone having known about the removal at the time is known today. These people would have included Jews who read the Hebrew Scripture manuscripts regularly in the synagogues and Christians who regularly read manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments in church services. They would also have included trained Jewish and Christian scribes who were entrusted with making new copies of the manuscripts and scholars who studied the Scriptures. Or all these people who knew about the removal at the time either kept quiet, no reporting of it by them has survived, or none of their reports has come to light. Premise 8: The taking away of the plain and precious parts was unknown or this knowledge was unpreserved in documents that have come down to us until Joseph Smith revealed this around 1830. Premise 9: The reason no one knew after the removal that parts had been removed is for one or more of the following reasons: (1) church officials who were part of the conspiracy controlled all the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament manuscripts in existence; (2) all the church officials who possessed all the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament manuscripts conspired together to uniformly remove the above-mentioned parts from all the manuscripts or to produce new manuscripts with the removed parts absent; (3) before the above removal took place, no Jewish or Christian non-participant in the conspiracy had memorized or was familiar enough with the affected passages of the Bible to realize afterward that the removal had happened; (4) no person who noticed the removal reported the change in a form that has survived into the present; or (5) no unchanged manuscripts survived in the years following to come down to us in the present. Hypothesis: All of the above premises are plausible. Test: Check the plausibility of all the above premises. ------------------------------ My own conclusion: I think the premises are highly implausible, but I let the LDS missionaries make up their minds about it. That no central control of the Scriptures happened for the reasons Dr. Moreland gives was a protection and is an undermining of the credibility of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church.

I should have said that Premises 3-9 are the implausible ones.

@@ricksonora6656 Rick, to answer your question about the KJV. For Mormons, the KJV is the best we can do. Their editions of the KJV have footnotes quoting the Joseph Smith Translation at appropriate points as correctives to the KJV. It's interesting that the LDS leaders have never fully endorsed the Joseph Smith Translation "corrections" and incorporated them into the text of a new Joseph Smith KJV Translation edition. I think the fact that the Book of Mormon utilizes KJV language is incentive to keep using the KJV, lest the Book of Mormon seem outdated.

@@bobwilli2 They R CYA ing the JST as just a commentary of the KJV as then they think the Revelation curse doesn't apply to Joseph Smith. They do say things were taken out : but they never say what those R . Their big one now is basically using the Roman Catholic argument of needing works( their ordinances) + Grace through FAITH for Salvation. They used to deny it now they say we need both as they try to look more mainline Christian. Thoughtful FAITH ( Jacob) just thinks he debunked the trinity in his debate with a trinitarian : you might look at that video and Mormon comments too.

You got it!

Thx for watching!

Awesome, Lisa. It’s a challenging book, so pace yourself!

@@SeanMcDowell will do! I just finished a 3 year Diploma of Biblical Studies offered by my church (kind of a Canadian College equivalent) and am taking a 6 month break before I apply to take my Masters in Theology at Acadia University in Spiritual Formation. I was actually able to download it in Logos (which I got with your discount code from a previous Q&A back in May).

The main thing about disagreeing has to do with tone, in my opinion. Love all people but disagree on issues related to your faith. Shalom

Well said

I really love the hit and run tactics of atheists who assert someone believes something “without evidence” and yet totally ignores the fact that both of these men have provided literally millions of words concerning the evidence they have for taking the position they do. When an atheist says, “there is no evidence for X” I simply assume you are too closed minded to admit their is evidence (you arbitrarily decide what is evidence and what is not) or rather your are simply ignorant of the evidence that has been provided over the past several decades by both of these men, let alone the dozens alive today.

Oh that quantity was quality. As a great man said”what is provided without evidence, may be rejected without evidence”(C. E. Hitchens) . If Moreland/Craig had evidence for the soul or god they wouldn’t be philosophers and theologians they would have Nobel prizes in godfindingolagy. Listen to the words theologians use, e.g “there are literally hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection ” when almost all appear to be someone else saying that “these people or those people saw him risen” and that is not a witness it is hearsay. But sleep easy, you must be right for you wrote more words than I. 😂

Your hidden assumption is that they deserve it. If you could see yourself through God’s eyes, you’d know we don’t.

​@@ricksonora6656 I don't assume anyone deserves to experience God's presence. I do assume that God loves every person, that his manifest presence is a natural expression of his love, and that some people can't find it even though they desire to. Hence the problem.

It's possible God can directly move for you. God wants faith based on His power, not human argument.

@fatalheart7382 Exactly. I'm just waiting to see some power. Maybe something like 10,000 children starving to death every single day being put to an immediate halt. God should be able to pull that off with his infinite power, right?

@@ddavidjeremy Why should He? Nothing dies unless He puts it in motion. That's alot of destiny you want Him to change just to please you. XD What about the 10k children that don't die? Why is 10k more so important to you? Are you doing anything to stop them from dying?

@fatalheart7382 I donate money. It's what I can do. I wish it was more. Did you really think that comment through?

@@ddavidjeremy Yes. You seem to be implying that unless God changes the destiny of 10000 children you won't believe in Him. It's pretty egocentric. XD But it is an honor to meet with someone who actually backs up their heart for people. God will reward you for the good you do.

How is one saved? Is it by believing the Bible is inerrant? No, it’s by believing in the risen Jesus and declaring him as Lord. (Rom 10:9). The early followers of the Way were presented not with a Bible to believe (it wasn’t assembled yet). They were presented with the eye witness testimony of Christ raised. A right view of Jesus will lead one to embrace Biblical inerrancy. If we believe he predicted his own death and resurrection and pulled it off, we can certainly believe whatever he says about scripture which will lead us to understand that it is inspired and without error. Jesus is the central and core foundation for our faith!

You got some love in this one!!!

😂 best comment of the day

Your feelings obviously got hurt !

@@davidjanbaz7728 What?

You left like 10 comments 😂 You have a lot of time on your hands.

@@ryanranard5187 Money...something I don't have Time... something I have in abundance. It didn't take long I commented while I was watching. I am so used to back and forth conversation from Paltalk, Discord ect. It's like the other half of a conversation from the audience or one audience member. I don't think I just represent myself either. I say statements or ask questions others are probably thinking as well.

Dr. Craig wrote a book that’s more at a layman’s level, ‘On Guard’.

I know, I'm definitely not at this level of sophisticated apologetics. A lot of this went over my head, I'm glad that I'm not the only one.

Isa. 59:1-2 clearly teaches that sin cuts a person off from God. It's high time that ppl stop playing the "you're preaching salvation by works" card just because they can't understand simple theology. The Bible clearly states at the end of Gen. 3 that God cut mankind off from Him and the tree of life after Adam's sin. God calling ppl at various times doesn't change the fact sin cuts ppl off from God.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Who decided to make mankind and put our sin bait? um could it be Yahweh?

Still some issues with that approach. How would they pass the perfect test when only but God can do so?

Surgery.

He lowered it for people like U.

@@davidjanbaz7728 TYPICAL Xtian: LIAR. WLC lowered the bar for HIMSELF. It's on video, you ignorant troll. HA HA HA HA HA

Do you still marry you first cousins?

@@hwd7 "@hwd7171 2 minutes ago Do you still marry you first cousins? " TYPICAL Sean McDowell commenter: A Xtian BIGOT. Who goes to Church on Sunday and shouts how he is "saved" and going to heaven. LOL

Cringe comment lol.

“Xtian Ethics” meaning Christian Ethics?

Legit like a youth kid in youth group level thinking.

​@@parkerj1776Apparently that's what they do now. Noticed it popping up in comments sections a few weeks ago.

@@rebelresource SAY the people who worship a genocidal god. In a system where he is allowed to KILL ANYONE. LOL

Apparently, you do not understand logic. If the spirit is asexual, then it does not have a gendered identity. If the spirit does not have a gendered identity, then no male can claim that he changes his body to align with a female spirit’s identity, and no female can claim that she changes her body to align with a male spirit’s identity. The closest you can come to a logical statement is that a person can neuter his or her body to align with an neuter or androgynous identity. This comprises rejection of the sexed identity that God assigned to you for your journey on Earth. Rejecting God’s assignment is rebellion against God Himself. That is why scriptures say that that such people will have their place in the Lake of Fire. Traitors against the King of Kings get capital punishment. God made a way of escape from this condemnation. But it is beyond the scope of this thread, as well as useless to those who don’t see their need for redemption.

@@ricksonora6656 Not on the basis of gender of the soul, but on the basis of a gender identity. Just as "Jewish" is an identity, and there are identities other than "Jewish", "trans" is an identity. Paul could have added "there is neither cis nor trans". Just as one can go from slave to free (see Exodus) or from Gentile to Jew (see Ruth), one can begin male (or presumed to identify as male) and become female (by trans affirmation procedures).

@@11kravitznThere’s equivocal usage here. Even granting a sex-gender distinction, words like “he” and “she” *still* and *also* refer to sex, and sex is *real* (although not reducible to chromosomes). So it’s entirely appropriate to describe a male-bodied person as “he.” When push comes to shove (metaphorically-don’t harass or bully or assault trans people!), what people really seem to mean by “gender” is something like personality. So different cultures have *specific* ideas about how a male-bodied person is “supposed” to act/think/etc. So, if a male-bodied person doesn’t conform to that expectation, they may feel more drawn to the label “she” given what that culture expects of female-bodied persons. Of course, that person is still male, and still a boy/man, even if we call them “she” out of respect or to make them feel embraced. Ironically , it’s often the activists themselves who blur the sex-gender distinction. Another situation is one wherein a person born male-bodied is repulsed by their body and strongly wishes they had been born female-bodied instead. They may even *sincerely* and very strongly believe /feel, “I was SUPPOSED to be born female bodied.” In that latter case, we may call them “she” to show respect or embrace them, and perhaps also to prevent them from panic. Of course, in that case, the person is still technically male, and is a “he” IF by “he” we mean “male bodied person.” The question of whether a trans woman “is a real woman” again gets us into equivocation. IF we define woman as”anyone who identifies as a woman,” then yes, obviously that person IS a “real woman.” The problem is that the definition “x is anyone who identifies as x” does *not* actually tell us *what* x is. If I tell “I’m a REAL extraterrestrial alien” you will at least know what I’m claiming to be. But if I say, “I am a woman” under the definition of “anyone who identifies as a woman” I’d just be saying, “I identify as one who identifies as a woman.” There’s no linguistic content there. it’s OKAY for people to disagree with the trans definition of “woman.” You can’t compel people to use language the way you want. And even if everyone did go along with it, we would still be left with real differences between female sex and male sex (which are NOT entirely or even largely due to socialization), and surely we would still need words for those categories. Also, the vast majority of trans people are not intersex (so don’t appropriate their situation) and most intersex people can still be classified as male or female* * I’m open to some people being both or neither sex, but that wouldn’t cover most intersex people, and again most trans aren’t intersex. AND, appealing to intersex merely blurs the sex-gender distinction …

@@11kravitznTomas Bogardus has a number of published papers and video presentations dealing with all of the arguments in detail. I highly recommend his work. And also Kathleen Stock. If you’re already familiar, cool.

Finally, even if Moreland is mistaken on a few verses, the broader claim that he simply “evidently doesn’t understand scripture” (per se) is below the belt and obnoxious.