Ehrman & Wallace Debate

The Ehrman Project presents Daniel Wallace and Bart Ehrman discuss the reliability of the New Testament and whether or not we have sufficient evidence of the original manuscripts. I think the thing that may surprise many with merely a passing knowledge of Ehrman is how much he and Wallace agree upon.

I noticed the key thing Ehrman pressed upon was how many experts agree that the discussion about whether or not the “original manuscripts” can be known is a pointless debate. There is a key distinction between what Ehrman and Wallace mean by “original manuscripts”. Wallace is referring to the manuscript the author handed over to be delivered to his intended audience. Ehrman doesn’t dive too deeply into what he means but it seems he’s dealing with a postmodern problem that’s more in line with the existence of truth than a historical document that was delivered to Christians in the city of Rome. That distinction must be reinforced as both sides deliver their evidences.

Ehrman proves himself an excellent communicator and an impassioned advocate. Listening to just the first 40 minutes of the event would undoubtedly leave many with little hope for the historical claims of the New Testament. But Wallace answers those challenges with patience and confidence.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “Ehrman & Wallace Debate

  1. I watched the debate a while back and two thing stuck out to me.

    First is that Bart Ehman is attacking a very specific form of inerrancy here. My guess is this is the form of inerrantism he believe when he was at Moody Bible Institute. I forget where this is in the video, but he lays his cards on the table when he defines what is in his mind the original New Testament. I’m not sure about the exact wording, but for him any variation from the original scribal copy or any variation from the exact words spoken to an amanuensis and on Ehrman’s definition, the original is lost forever. Especially in the case of amanuensis this becomes ludicrous because it becomes easy to envision a case where an original never existed. If the original amanuensis heard a word wrong, and wrote it wrong, then the original literally disappeared the second the speaker moved on to the next word. Or what about the case where an amanuensis cleaned up the grammar during dictation? His definition is so strict it may have problems reflecting reality.

    Second is that because of this really strict definition, he’s got a really fine line to walk. If you cannot reconstruct an ancient text to a certain level of reliability, then it’s time to turn in your historian’s badge. You can still be a literary critic of whatever best text you reconstruct, but it is historically useless. Put simply, he risks putting himself out of a job with a really strict definition of original. Even more, he risks flushing ancient history down the toilet, because if the textual history of the NT isn’t good enough for historical work, then pretty much no other ancient text is either. But, if he does think the NT text is reliable enough, one has to wonder why not consider that the original or at least good enough for the purposes of both faith and history?

  2. Yes, it would have been nice if they had come to agreement beforehand on what the term “original document” means and then argued for or against the same thing.

  3. Well, I’ve always suspected Ehrman was attacking a certain version of inerrancy and that there were other scholarly versions of it that were resistant to his arguments. However, the real question is whether the version Ehrman is attacking should be allowed to define the majority or even a good deal of what actual Evangelicals believe.

    You know, the whole “should we listen to the scholars or the masses” – debate we’ve hashed out ad-nauseum on this blog.

  4. Even more, he risks flushing ancient history down the toilet, because if the textual history of the NT isn’t good enough for historical work, then pretty much no other ancient text is either. But, if he does think the NT text is reliable enough, one has to wonder why not consider that the original or at least good enough for the purposes of both faith and history?

    Its hard to believe any reasonable historian of ancient history believes in the historicity of our historical accounts of ancient history like most Christians believe in the historicity of the New Testament.

    There is a leap from saying: (1)” I believe that the current New Testament is reasonably similar to that of the first century” to saying (2) “the New Testament is an historical account whose authenticity is on par with the certainty and specificity popularly assigned to it.

    Ehrman’s arguments underscore the gaps because he wants to shake the way most people view the text. Wallace seems to want to affirm a comfortable level of certainty even while acknowledging that absolute certainty is not reasonable.

  5. Its hard to believe any reasonable historian of ancient history believes in the historicity of our historical accounts of ancient history like most Christians believe in the historicity of the New Testament.

    This is actually irrelevant to the point I was making. The debate, and my point, was strictly about textual criticism. The point you are making concerns higher criticism, in this case mostly source criticism and redactional criticism. This may sound pedantic, but I think failing to make this distinction causes people to make unwarranted conclusions from the arguments that Bart Ehrman makes.

    Text criticism is only about trying to reconstruct the original text. Nothing else. I can’t stress that enough. You have to do text criticism before you can do any higher criticism. If you can’t establish a baseline text with a reasonable degree of accuracy, then doing history and engaging in higher criticism is a moot point, because you can’t rely on the text. In logical terms, if you are doing history with the NT and engaging in higher criticism, then you think the text critical problems pose no significant obstacles.

    Does Bart Ehrman do history and higher criticism? Absolutely. Therefore, Bart Ehrman thinks that text critical problems are no barriers to doing history. That’s what I meant when I said “why not consider that the original or at least good enough for the purposes of both faith and history.” This is what I consider to be the strongest argument against Bart Ehrman, his own work in history largely undermines his text critical arguments.

    In fact if you look at Ehrman’s historical work he is anything but the iconoclast that he is reputed to be. If you just look at his historical Jesus work, he is way to the right of the Jesus Seminar and probably most of the theological faculty at Harvard and Yale Divinity schools. In fact, I’d even put him to the right of E.P. Sanders, whom I consider to be the best example of middle-of-the-road historical Jesus work.

    Now if you want to argue against the general historicity of the gospels or the NT in general, go right ahead, but that’s a separate issue. Failing to keep the two separate is part of the problem as people tend to want to jump from extremely mild textual variants to not reliable history, which is unwarranted (like I said, if you want to argue against historicity of the NT that’s a separate argument unrelated to text criticism). For the most part text-critical problems don’t affect faith or history, the only exceptions to this I can think of are some text-critical issues which affect Mormons and charismatics.

  6. The thing Bart Ehrman became famous for was proving that the changes to the manuscripts over time were not random errors but rather showed a move towards Christian orthodoxy. In particular verses were altered to remove adoptionism, separatism (the Christ that inhabited Jesus was an inferior being to the Father), docetism and modalism. In and of itself this is troublesome for Protestants since it shows that the theology of Catholicism drove the biblical text in a way inconsistent with their theology of biblical origins.

    Tom is right though that Wallace and Ehrman don’t agree on the original sources. Ehrman himself never did much work on this but I’d assume he’s in line with secular scholarship that the forms of the books we have are major reconstructions of earlier works. So for example is canonical Luke a reworking of the Gospel of the Lord (Marcion’s Luke) or is Marcion’s Luke a shortening of canonical Luke? Was Bultmann right about the origins of John? Was Schmithals right about Corinthians being a reorganization of other earlier materials? We have far too many early versions of books to believe a group a first century apostles wrote these books in the form they exist today essentially from scratch.

  7. David, I see your point with regard to Textual vs. Higher criticism. I’m superficially familiar with the scholarship but I can see how this distinction makes a big difference.

    However, when I look at this debate, it doesn’t seem to be primarily motivated by academic interest. When I see Ehrman, I see a poster child for secularism, which is only mildly interested in the academic distinctions. I think that on the textual criticism account Wallace wins the debate, It seems clear that the new testament we can reconstruct today is a representation of a group of works of early christian authors that were revered by early christian followers.

    The only thing that Ehrman wins on is that nobody is near certain about the precise content of the original manuscripts, the original authorship and format of the works, and the precise intent of the author. Ehrman is a poster child of secularism because he points out to people raised Christian that it is far from clear that the Bible was not written how it was claimed to be written in Sunday School. Because his arguments do that, his loss in these debates is more influential than Wallace’s win. Wallace assures us that we can reliably reconstruct some New Testament that very early Christians believed was authoritative. But that may not be enough to remain dedicated to a faith where much depends on the precise language of the text.

  8. One has to admit that Dr. Bart Ehrman has established some serious concerns about the New Testament manuscripts we currently have. The fact that manuscripts have shown major issues, as passages removed, others added and so forth.

    What these issues show without a doubt, is the desperate need by humanity for the restoration of God’s gospel of Salvation through revelation. That is the only means by which we can circumvent this manuscript issue to get on the salvation track.

    I cannot accept any doctrine or idea that claims a gospel for our salvation is established in altered and fragmented manuscripts by scholars who cannot agree and who are not receiving revelation from God, to determine what God’s word is suppose to look like. Do I want my salvation to be depended on them? – Nay.

    Is that not called the doctrines of men?

    These are the latter days and these days are counting by faster each moment. The world had about 2000 years to get things right and failed, God had to restore his gospel. God saw this and knew that mankind would corrupt his doctrines, loose many, replace them and bicker for centuries, create senseless schisms, launch endless debates and burnings at the stake.

    Mankind, with what they had, could not get their act together, spiritually speaking and now things are catching up and the truth is being revealed as God promised.

    Granted this debate on the validity of the manuscripts is centuries old, at lest since John Mill of the 1700’s, but the effect of Dr. Ehrman’s research will have a huge impact on mainstream Christianity.

    Where it will lead? – not sure, but the time of righteousness will prevail and Dr. Ehrman’s work is that door.

  9. Mark2012 —

    I agree with you that Ehrman and others like him will lead towards an alternative Christianity. In this day with the widespread move away form the Textus Receptus and towards the Nestle-Aland we finally have essentially a universal opinion that the specific traditional text did not survive the centuries and reconstruction is a complex scholarly work. We today have a situation where Christians who believe the bible to be without error are using bibles whose very construction mandates that the bible has error. I don’t believe that can last.

    And I’m glad you are willing to look that squarely in the face. If we assume that Ehrman opens the door then what we end up with is a revised Christology. Jesus is not eternally God, but rather a subordinate being to the father. A man with a special spirit (the Christ) not intrinsically a god but given godhood, as an inferior god to the father. Which is along the same lines as the kinds of revisions in Mormonism, though not exactly the same.

    Where Ehrman doesn’t go though because he does lower criticism is the more important issue of the selection of books which is also a work of men. If the Great Apostasy happened it must have happened quickly. There had to have been substantial corruption of Christianity almost universally by the early 2nd century. The lights have been going out in the time of Paul to use Hugh Nibley’s metaphor. The Pastoral Epistles (1Tim, 2Tim, Tit) are just too late to not be the works of men. These were books written by people killing off True Christianity justifying the creation of proto-Catholocism. So why are they in the Mormon bible?

    I agree with you 100% on what the early Mormons were trying to do to restore the church and the gospel. And I think had Ehrman lived at that time they might have embraced him. Later American Arianist movements did embrace the lower criticism of their day, in America the two movements overlapped and some of the earliest religious advocates of lower textual criticism were the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Joseph Smith lived two generations too early, for lower criticism to have done specific positive work, during his lifetime the work was negative: i.e. showing the bibles of the time could not possible be preserved bibles from the antiquity. And the LDS church has embraced that.

    What I don’t believe is your last point about a time of righteousness. I don’t believe that the LDS church has any desire to actually complete the work they started. They seem to have lost heart in the 1880s and retreated for the last 150 years.

  10. I think Ehman’s work is only of serious concern if you subscribe to the sort of biblical inerrancy dogma he describes himself growing up with.

    If you jettison inerrancy, there really aren’t too many concerns for your faith.

  11. I think Ehman’s work is only of serious concern if you subscribe to the sort of biblical inerrancy dogma he describes himself growing up with.

    If you jettison inerrancy, there really aren’t too many concerns for your faith.

    This, 100%.

  12. CD-Host: To let you know is that I am with the LDS Church. I came into the Church by way of the Holy Ghost, so the spiritual witness of which Church is God’s has already been established and rooted in me.

    In saying that, I have known about the Bible and its problems for quite some time. I am glad that someone like Ehrman has taken a stand and spoken up about it. He may not be perfect, but he is certainly a very good lead in.

    Quite possibly Ehrman’s work may lead to the revision of mainstream Christianity, but it will not lead to a widespread change to true faith because people have a tendency to hold to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. They may revise them but remain in the context of their error. Few will change because they will seek Heavenly Father in the spirit and truth they are suppose to do.

    As to Christ himself. Well, spiritually speaking he has inherited all that God is and has, he is, by all eternal definition, a God. I don’t take the position he is subordinate, that does not fit the nature of Heavenly father and hoe he works. Of course, was Christ a God prior to his incarnation or not? According to the scriptures he was Jehovah, many mainstream Christians disbelieve this, but revelation says he was.

    The one thing that has concerned me is why Joseph Smith included 1 John 5:7-8 when according to Ehrman it was added in centuries later by scribes. As par usual, when something concerns me about what Joseph Smith said or did, I work on it the faithful way (prayer, etc) and I do get answers, some take time other come quickly.

    Time of righteousness. Things operate in cycles, there is always opposition and these latter days seem to show things accelerating. That is what occurs when many shaking events occur. God also spoke of revealing the truth, wicked counsels and secret works are being revealed into the open. For this to occur at a greater rate requires what I have called a “time of righteousness” because darkness cannot be revealed without the light.

  13. Mark12 I would like you to know that I am also with the LDs and I have prayed to know by the power of the HOLY. GHOST. about why Joseph Smith included John 5:7-8 in the Bible which you and I know is not the only scripture in These Latter Days of the book of Mormon! And Mark12 I would like you to now that Thyr Heavenly Father told me by the power of his holy ghost that john 5:7-8 is THE TRUE BIBLE without parts that were taken away by evil scribes who wanted to change the Restored Priesthood from the face of the earth and the apostles. I know without a shadow of a doubt that if you look on http://LDS.Org/Scriptures?lang=eng (we should capitalize ‘Scriptures because it is reverent and we should not use it like slang like calling The Savior just “Jesus” like it is his first name and we are buddies because I know that he is The only Begotten Son Of Our Heavenly Father And His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ By The Power Of The Holy Ghost In These Latter Days). But if you look at that web Site on the World Wide Web you can see that John 5-7:8 says 7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

    8 Jesus saith unto him, aRise, take up thy bed, and walk.

    Marc12 I don;t know why you would want to say that this beautiful verse is not the True Bible of joseph Smith of the Latter Day Saints revealed. I know because I know the Holy ghost told me in the still, smalll voice that it is trus. Marc12, I KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE IN THE NAME O JESUS CHRIST AMEN. and if you pray to the Hevanly Father with all your might, mind, and strength for a real and sincere answer Marc12 I know with every fiber of my being that he will tell you by the Holy Ghost that it is true!

    Come on now, Marc12! It is the Holy Ghost of our Heavenly Father not the Holy Ehrman! (lol) In the name of JESUS CHRIST AMEN!

  14. I am sorry I saw your name mroe carefully and I was spelling it wrong. It is MArk12 with a k.

  15. Gidgiddoni: The verse you quoted, John 5:7-8, is not the verse I spoke of in my post. Put a ” 1 ” before the John and that is the verse I addressed. That verse is the verse, according to Ehrman, was added by scribes centuries later.

    According to Dr. Ehrman, that passage was not in the Greek manuscripts. Desiderius Erasmus, in 1516, put together a New Testament based solely on the Greek manuscripts. His edition did not include that passage and Latin theologians were upset and accused him of undermining the Trinity doctrine. He challenged them to produce a Greek manuscript that had that passage and he will add it in his next edition. According to Ehrman, the Latin theologians copied the Greek manuscript and “added” in that passage by translating the Latin into Greek. Erasmus kept to his word and added it into his next edition of the New Testament and the King James scribes incorporated it into the King James Bible. Its been there since.

    In the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) that verse is the same as the King James version, so it was not changed when Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible by revelation (JST).

    Do I doubt Joseph Smith and think he was not receiving revelation from God to write the JST? No, I do not, but I certainly want to understand why God allowed that verse to remain unedited. Certainly a test of faith of what I am to do, so that is why I said I will address that matter personally in a faithful way an d will get an answer, eventually.

    So you misread what I wrote.

  16. mark12 I want you to know that you can pray to the Holy Ghost in the name of Thy Heavenly Father Jesus Christ and TWELVE LIVING APOSTLES OF A PROPHET OF GOD!!! to know that I did not misread you because I know that I have prayed to thy Heavenly father with real hear and a sincere heart to know if I misread you and I want you to know that the still, small voice sais “No.” No I did not misread you. I know that John all of the John is in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly because I looked there and saw it myaelf! And then I prayed and the Holy. Ghost. told me “Yes.” “Yes, john is in the Bible.”

    NOTHING YOU CAN SAY WILL EVER MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND BECAUSE THY HEAVENLY FATHER HIMSELF HAS TOLD ME IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST AMEN. but I know you can also pray to know as I know by the Very Holy Ghost of Heavenly Father that it is true. In the name of Jesus Christ (“The Savior”) of Latter-Day Saints Amen.

  17. Gidgiddoni:
    Ok, I am not going to argue, this is heading into a tangent, but I will say that I am not trying to change anyone here, certainly not you Gidgiddoni. I believe your taking what I say far too much to the left, or right, which ever it is.

    It has been by the Spirit of God that I have come to understand his doctrine both in the Bible and in the restored gospel. I have not brushed aside the Bible, goodness by no means as I know it is the word of God so long as it is correctly translated and interpreted, hence by the Spirit as per Paul’s words in ” 1 Corinthians 2:12-15 “. (First Corinthians).

    By the way, praying “to” the Holy Ghost or any other person other than Heavenly Father is the way of the Catholics. Pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ is the format used, that is in accordance to John 4:24. So the 12 apostles do not come into it. Maybe your exuberance is taking you that way?

    Thank-you for your comments. Appreciate them.
    Blessings Gidgiddoni.

  18. Brother R I do not know if you know this but I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints and I don;t know if you know that we do not believe in having a testimony because of all caps or because of altar calls or science. We believe in a testimony of Thy Son Jesus Christ of the Holy Ghost of Latter Day Saints (“THe Savior”) because the holy ghosat told us by the sweet, small voice of thy Holy Ghost that it is TRUE. That is why you could never change my mind because it is my testimony in the name of Jesus Christ amen.

  19. Marc2012 I dont know if you eman swaying is like “gay” if you are making fun of me and calling me a homosexual lifestyle ((“gay”) because of swaying. I think you might be making fun of me but I need you to know that this is the most serious sin (“adultery”) is doing “gay”. I have prayed and found out that this homosexual lifestyle is a lot of people you might not expect like one time by the powerof th Holy Ghost I found out that Jared C 9″Brother C” is what we would usually say in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because it is not reverent to use first names or nick names like a kid uses with his buddy and like some “Christians” who are “Non-Members” say just Jesus about the Savior instead of sayibng Christ his title or Savior. Although sometimes I think we should call him “President Christ” or “Savior Christ” because I am not 100% sure which is the most reverent)) but I know by the power of thy son the Holy Ghost that Jared C does gay and I have asked him in the name of the thy only begotten son jJesus Christ to stop and to repent. It makes me so sad to know how many people are led into this very serious sin (“adultery.”_.

    So amrc12 I do not know if that is what you are saying but I do not think it is appropriate to make jokes about sin like that./ in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints we have something called the “Priesthood” and when you have the “Priesthood” it is not appropeiate to make jokes about sins or to tell people about your past transgressions EVER. I know this is true.

  20. Gidgiddoni: why do you think anyone is trying to change your mind on anything, let alone your faith and LDS Church membership?

  21. I know, byt the power of the Holy Ghost of Our Heavenly Father that am not the hom,osexual lifestlye. In the name of Jesus Christ Amen.

  22. Gidgiddoni: Whoa, please take a step back here and read the context of what is said. “Sway” means to convince, to encourage, and the context refers to your faith and beliefs. This has ***nothing to do*** with sexuality. Whatever is getting you on this tangent has nothing to do with this comment forum or the blog post about Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Wallace. We are talking specifically about Dr. Ehrman’s research about the ancient Greek manuscript and the later century Latin manuscripts. Can you stay in context?

  23. O_o

    Gid, sorry… the Gidget remark maybe got you thinking this, but that really was just a play on words. And the “sway” remark by mark was just a response to my sarcastic remarks about your ALL CAPS typing. No one was even remotely thinking about homosexuality – I’m quite sure.

  24. Marc2012 I do not know if you knew this but in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints we “Know” that the Greek and Latins took many plain and precious truths from the Bible (like Star A and Star B. ect.)but I know that you can pray to Our Heavenly Father in the name of thy only begotten SON Jesus Christ and he will tell you by the power of the still, small voice of the priesthood of God! (Heavenly Father) to know that Joseph Smith was a modern-day prophet of Heavenly Father just like “Moses” in the Bible who led the Children of Israel to the Red Sea but Joseph Smith led the Latter Day Saints to the BOOK OF MORMON. That is why I know. In the name of Jesus Christ Amen. “My testimony.”

  25. Mark 12, This is how I know that you are not a member of the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We believe that when you are done with a talk or something you should say “IN THE NAME OF THY SON JESUS CHRIST AMEN” and not just, “the end” and not clap for the person who spoke because it is not reverent. I do not know if you are a wolf or some other animal in sheep’s clothing trying to destroy the testimony of Jesus Christ of the Holy Ghost but I know that you are talking baout John as far as it is translated correctly and I am very uncomfortable with this./ It gives me a feeling of darkness which is how I know by the Holy Ghost that you are not Marc12 of the Latter Day Saints.

  26. Gidgiddoni: Please, I said what I said to end the tangent direction you were taking without encouraging anything else, but I see that was a failed attempt.

    For reasons of anonymity, I am not going to reveal my full name, which says I am not going to link you to my spiritual testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the LDS Church, the restored Gospel or the prophet. Reason is I already had a year of harassment from some crazy person on the web that I did not need to restart. So to that end, I am just Mark 2012 on the web when I make comments on other forums. So my testimony is not required here since this is not a forum or attempt by anyone to attack LDS or my faith.

    Now, about this viewpoint of yours that I am not with the LDS Church.

    Believe what you want, but that view you have has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, it is just your viewpoint, nothing more. The Holy Spirit does not tell us what to think or do, that is against free will and choice so each time you keep claiming by the Holy Ghost (way overused), you are not and it is just you.

    I do not question your faith, but please do not push me to do so, because I will.

    Next, I am not posting a testimony here, neither is it appropriate to claim, even constantly, in the name of the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost. This is merely a comment forum and I am expressing my personal views and understanding about the topic of Dr. Ehrman. Hence I speak in my own name, not in the name of the Spirit.

    Can you accept that and end this tangent & targeting you are doing?

    Blessings. Mark2012

  27. “I mean I AM NOT A HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE AMEN.”

    Gidget, I have a testimony, that you are, in fact a homosexual lifestyle. How else do you explain this:

  28. Trust me there was.
    Respect is important.
    Only when we respect each other can we get along properly
    Life is short
    Let things slide more often.

  29. Jared C: Then should that been better to let slide and see what happens from my post? Surely, one cannot get respect from a personal jab, correct?

  30. I agree, but it helps to understand Gidget.
    T ruth is eternal.
    R etribution is temporal.
    O thers may judge Gidget for what he is.
    L et him do his thing.
    L et’s not judge him too harshly.

  31. Brother Jared C I know by the power of the Holy Ghost and the still, small voice that thy Heavenly Father does not want you to do gay (“sex sin”) but I know Brother C that I want to testify to you that the Savior (“JESUS CHRIST”) can help you to not do ANY GAY AT ALL. I do not know if you have read this one book called the BOOK OF MORMON, ANOTHER TESTAMTNR OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS but in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints we believe that this book is the most true book of the children of Israel in This The American Continent on the face of the whole earth and Brother C I knwo that this book says that (written by a prophet of thy Heavenly Father!) says that thy HEavently Father wants you to bbe perfect which means (still, small voice) not to do ANY GAY AT ALL. This book (“Mormon”) says that you must become perfect, as a little child is perfect, and little children are not gay Jared C (Brother Jared C) so I fel to my knees and prayed to ask thy HEavenly Fether in the name of HIS HOLY GHOST if it was okay for you to do just less gay and he told me through a burning in my bosom that No. No sex sin at all. For it is the sin next to murder. But let me tell you that the Holy Ghost of God told me that he would give you strength to be perfect and never do sex sins again. I know this is true. Amen.

  32. I just wanted to give the highlights of Gidget’s last “comment”:

    JESUS CHRIST…ANY GAY AT ALL…BOOK OF MORMON, ANOTHER TESTAMTNR OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS…ANY GAY AT ALL…HE…HIS HOLY GHOST.

    Yelling always makes it easy to spot the main points.

  33. Marc12 I have read your post again and I have prayed about it to thy Heavenly Father and I KNOW by the power of the Holy Ghost of President Jesus Christ that you are WRONG when you aid that Believe what you want, but that view you have has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, it is just your viewpoint, nothing more. The Holy Spirit does not tell us what to think or do, that is against free will and choice so each time you keep claiming by the Holy Ghost (way overused), you are not and it is just you. I know that the Holy Ghost of the Latter Day Saints (“LDS”) can tell us whether somethign is true or not. I know it bears witness of the truth because 1 I read this in the Book of Mormon another TESTAMTNE OF JESUS CHRIST and 2 I prayed like Mormoni says to pray with real heart and sincere intent and I DID NOT WAVER EVER MARC!@ EVER. And this book (“of Mormon”) says that the Holy Ghost will speak to you in your mind and your ehart with the still, small voice that things are true and not. This ghost (a good ghost) will not spook you. He will tell you what is true and what is not true. This ghost (“Jesus Christ’s Ghost!) will tell you in many ways but mostly the feeling in your burning bosom of a still, small voice. Like it says in the Book of Mormons.

    So marc12 I do not know if you are trying to tell my not to pray but I also know that the scriptuires say that the spirit of the devil tells you not to pray. I knwo this becauise it says so in a scripture. And I know that the scriptures are TRUE IN THESE LATTER DAY SAINTS.

  34. Marc12 I will tell you why I think that you are trying to DESTROY MY TRSIMONY because now you are talking baout swimming in a simming pool (that is what “the deep end” means like in a pool) but marc12 we know that we should nto swim in either end of a swimming pool because it says in the Book of Mormon Another testamtnt OIf Jesus Christ (“Golden Plates”) that the “Adeversary” (that means you know who whose name we are not supposed to say because it could be very, very bad) has powers over the deep and and I also think the shallow end but I was not sure so I said a quick prayer to the Holy Ghost of Thy heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ to ask if we could swim at either end and they HEavenly Father tolsd me thorugh the pwoer of the still small voice in the bosom that both ends of the pool have the ADVERSARY in it. Also that is why in the Latter Day Saints we do not let our missionaries go swimming but really nobody should go swimming because you have to take your (I cannot tell you about it because the temple is too sacred to talk about but we wear something we are NEVER sippposed to take off and you would have to take them off to go swomming) so DO NOT GO SWIMMING.

    I know you are not supposed ot say the name of the “Adversary” because it gives him power but I do not think there is a rule about showing a picture of him and I would like to show you this picture of the adversary so if you are thinking of foing swimming in a swimming pool (“either end”) you will know who is at the bottom of the pool:

    WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GO SWIMMING WITH THAT. WHAT DOES THE HOLY GHOST TELL YOU? (Hint: “No. Do not go swimming”)

  35. It will not show my picture. This is where the picture of the “Adversary” is on the World, Wide, Web:

    DO NOT GO SWIMMING WITH THAT

  36. Gidgiddoni: Your posts have nothing to do with the conversation at all. You speak in tangents, confusion, disarray and a constant circling around something. But I think this has to do with something called medication.

  37. Mark2012, before you get scared away and never comment at this blog again, you should know that Gidgiddoni only seems to show up to comment on very old posts. Posts that have passed like water under a bridge. I hear trolls only drink water found underneath bridges but that kind of off-topic speculation makes me sound like Gidgiddoni.

  38. Boy, the temptation to be sarcastic about Gidgiddoni is worst than needing to drink coffee. There might be some medication or herbal remedy for that, I have to find out.

    It was a thought to walk away, especially since Gidgiddoni does not reflect a LDS Saint, but hopely things will stop spinning in circles. Interesting though, when he posted that image of a distorted demon, that really reflected the way the conversation was going and no matter where I tried to duck from one hand trying to smack me, one of the other 12 blindsides me up the side of my head as another smacks to keep me standing up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s