A Response To Eli Soriano's Dishonesty On Mormon Theology

By Bro. Nathan 

So sa video na ito na sinend ng isang Bro. natin, may isang so called "bishop" na nagtanong kay Eli Soriano about a suspected na contradiction sa Bible concerning the vision account ni Paul. i watched the whole video at madaming problems tayong makikita dito. on Acts 9:2; 22:9, sa vision account ni Paul, Eli Soriano doesn't provide yung actual na backround. Luke's writing style is not enough. Latter Day Saint Sidney Perry gives more insight than Soriano do na hindi makatingin sa context. His commentary reads :

That some very unusual but objective experience happened to Saul is to be seen in the conduct of his companions at the time. In Acts 9:7-8 (Authorized Version), we are told that they “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man,” and found it necessary, because Saul had been blinded, to lead him “by the hand” into Damascus. In in the account in Acts 22:9 we are told that Saul’s companions “saw indeed the light, . . . but they heard not the voice of him that spake . . . “The discrepancy in these two accounts was cleared up by the prophet Joseph Smith, who make known by the spirit of revelation that the one in Acts 22 is to be regarded as correct. (See “Inspired” revision of the Bible.)

Unfortunately for the religious welfare of mankind, modern rationalists, in their open opposition to the supernatural, have given wide publicity to their “natural” explanations of Saul’s vision and conversion. To Latter-day Saints a brief summary of their views may be of profit and interest if only because of the fact that the prophet Joseph Smith’s accounts of his first and subsequent visions have been attacked in much the same manner. The rationalist hypotheses may be reduced to two: (1) Saul was by nature nervous and excitable, subject to attacks of hysteria and epilepsy, and predisposed to visions and ecstasies. The appearance of Christ to him, therefore, on his mission to Damascus, was but the first of those ecstatic experiences which were repeated at intervals thereafter. (2) Saul’s conversion, with the extraordinary phenomena that accompanied it, was but the final crisis of a great mental and soul-searching struggle that had shaken him profoundly since the death of Stephen. All during his trip to Damascus Saul was questioning his own motives in persecuting the Church. By day and by night he was harried and haunted with thoughts and feelings of fear, remorse and uncertainty. Finally, when he was near the great Oriental metropolis, Saul’s great interior struggle reached its climax. A psychological transformation took place in him which Luke has erroneously materialized.

So much for the critics. But the evidence does not bear out their conclusion. As many believers in Saul’s remarkable vision have not been slow to point out, his own words ascribe his conversion absolutely and without question to God’s grace and the personal intervention of the Christ

It pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen [Gentiles]. (Gal. 1:15-16)

Nowhere in the New Testament records is it possible to find any hint of Saul’s having a soul-searching struggle while on the way to Damascus. He seems to have been caught unawares when our Lord vouchsafed him his first great vision.

The charge that Saul was subject to attacks of hysteria and epilepsy is difficult to maintain in view of the fact that the men with him at the time of his vision also saw the light and were speechless and afraid. (Acts 9:7; 22:9).

The evidence points to the fact that Saul was miraculously turned from carrying out a plan which he zealously believed to be right. To make him about-face, the Lord delivered a spiritual “jolt” that the proud Pharisee never forgot. The arisen Christ made him out as a persecutor, instead of a good man in God’s service. But, quickly, and effectually convinced that he was in the service of the wrong master, Saul asked the Lord what he should do. The Master did not berate him, but gave to him a divine commission which the Apostle was to recall in later years before King Agrippa. Part of it we have already quoted above, but a repetition of that part may be pardoned.

But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Acts 22:16-18)

Saul now knew his real life’s work, and he entered into the Lord’s service with the same vigor and zeal that had characterized his career as a Pharisee. Like Alma the Younger and the four sons of King Mosiah of Book of Mormon fame (Mosiah 27:8-37), who years before on the American continent, had had a very similar conversion to his, Saul anxiously embarked upon a course tending not only to undo the damage he had wrought upon the church, but also to spread its fame and increase its membership throughout the Roman Empire. (Sidney B. Sperry, Paul’s Life and Letters [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Publishers, 1955], 18-20, emphasis added)

Robert Bowman, even though nagfafail sa Latter Day Saint theology at sa Trinitarianism, he comments :

Certainly, at least in this English translation, these statements in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 constitute a verbal contradiction. Since the Greek words translated “heard” and “voice” are the same words in both texts, they constitute (at least on the level of individual words) a verbal contradiction in Greek as well. (p. 11)

In the end, literary explanations for the apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 seem to fall short of actually explaining the difference. Readers of Scripture need not be closed to the possibility of explanations for apparent discrepancies that appeal to the authors’ literary purposes, but the interpretations offered must still give a coherent explanation. In this particular instance, the proposed literary explanations do not seem genuinely explanatory. (p. 16)

The most commonly given explanation for the apparent discrepancy regarding what Paul’s companions heard is that they heard (9:7) but did not understand (22:9) the voice of Christ who spoke to Paul.43 . . . Long before anyone had proposed that the differences in cases had anything to do with the matter, Calvin had suggested that Paul’s companions heard the sound but did not understand the words, as noted previously.70 This explanation of hearing but not understanding has been advocated by many of the same grammarians who disputed the grammatical argument. A. T. Robertson, for example, explains that rather than thinking that Luke has flatly contradicted himself, it is quite natural to understand Acts 9:7 to mean that Paul’s companions heard the sound of Christ’s voice but could not understand it. Such a distinction is “possible and even probable here” even though it is not a grammatically “necessary” distinction that can be assumed elsewhere.71 Richard Young concludes, “Whether the distinction is valid must be decided on an individual basis and on the sense of the context. It does seem to be valid for Acts 9:7 and 22:9.”72 Wallace argues, “It is still most reasonable to conclude that these accounts are not presenting contradictory views about what Paul’s companions heard.” He suggests that “both ἀκούω and φωνή carried different nuances in each source” Luke had used for his accounts. “Hence, what looks like a contradiction is in reality evidence of Luke’s reticence to drastically alter the traditions as handed down to him.”73 Although the suggestion of different nuances in the parallel accounts is a reasonable one, it need not be made dependent on the notion of separate sources, as explained earlier . . . Although the grammatical argument for understanding Acts 22:9 to mean that Paul’s companions heard but did not understand falls short, there are contextual reasons for accepting this explanation.

1. There is a reasonable, general presumption that a literate, careful author more than likely is not contradicting himself in the same book when recounting something more than once. The point is not that an author can never contradict himself but that the burden of proof in an instance such as this is on the one alleging a definite contradiction. Some allegations of contradiction are simply more credible than others, even independent of the specifics. All other things being equal, that two authors contradict each other is quite possible. That an author contradicts himself in books written years apart is possible though somewhat surprising. That an author contradicts himself within the same book is possible but very surprising.74 Stated in this way, the argument is not “circular,” as Peter Enns alleges.75 Finally, the claim that an author who demonstrates high literate skill and care contradicts himself within the same book is possible but a priori so unlikely that the claimed contradiction bears the burden of proof. To put the matter the other way around, if a plausible explanation is available that would clear up the discrepancy, it should be preferred in such cases to the claim that the author has clumsily contradicted himself. Since Luke was clearly a consummate author,76 the burden of proof is on those who assert that Acts 9:7 must be understood as a clear contradiction of 22:9.

2. Suppose Acts 9:7 means that Paul’s companions heard the sound of Christ’s voice while 22:9 means that they were not able to hear the specific words that Christ said. This distinction would neatly parallel the distinction the two texts make with regard to what Paul’s companions saw: they saw the light (22:9) but did not see the person whom Paul saw in the light (9:7). Thus both the sound and the light were indistinct or unidentifiable for Paul’s companions but were perceived and understood by Paul as the voice and appearance of a figure who identified himself as Jesus.77 . . . . . . These four considerations would seem sufficient to conclude in favor of this explanation of the apparent discrepancy.

At sa second part ng pagtatanong ng self claimed na Bishop na ito, nagtanong siya regarding sa Articles of Faith 1:8 and claims that the bible ay contradictory sa Latter Day Saint theology. however, if someone is an honest reader, it's not. you can't take the context of of each account para paglabasin na contradictory ang dalawa. this is one example ng Red herring AND THE WHOLE PART TWO IS A RED HERRING. so pano naging relevant sa question regarding sa Infallibility at Innerancy ng Bible?

6:34 — Ang Articles of Faith no. 8 tells not na hindi natin paniwalaan ang Bible, but to show na i-understand natin ang Bible IN THE WAY APOSTLES UNDERSTOOD IT in the times ng inscripturation. Kaya important din ang Hermanautics at this point. But this is also against sa so called na "Sola Scriptura" or infallibility ng bible. The bible is profitable (ωλεφιμος [2 Tim. 3:16-17]) at hindi sufficient. Show me any passage sa Greek new testament na gumagamit ng Greek words for sufficiency para sa sufficiency ng scripture and let's see. And no. 2 ang Bible is translated many times but laging may corruption. Ito ang tinatawag natin na translation bias kagaya ng makikita natin sa NIV, NWT, NASB, TLB, etc. Na may mga paraphases at eisegetical statements. At sa Textual criticism na kung saan ang manuscripts ng bible have many variants of over 8000 plus. pwede itong Makita sa Critical apparatus ng Nestle-Aland 28 ng Greek new testament. The bible is not free from corruption at still, we believe in the bible at tinitingnan namin ang context unlike sa Soriano style na ni hindi makaexegete

5:32 — taking the Doctrine and Covenants out of context regarding sa Temple lot Prophecy. Prophecy ba ito o isang commandment through revelation? Kahit na prophecy man lang, wouldn't it depend sa Latter Day Saints sa Temple lot? Na ang prophecy na ito ay affected sa choices ng tayo like the prophecies ni Jeremiah kay Zedekiah na unfulfilled dahil naging pasaway si Zedekiah? (Jer. 34:4-5; cf 2 Kgs. 25:7; Jer. 52) at sa people of Nineveh na nagrepent that spared them from destruction kahit na walang demands si Yahweh to change His mind? (Jonah 3:4-5), at sa sinabi ni Yahweh kay David na may mga magdadala sa kanya kay Saul pero hindi natuloy dahil umiwas si David? (1 Sam. 23:12-14). At sa sinabi ni Isaiah na may mamatay si Hezekiah but hindi natuloy dahil nagplead si King Hezekiah at 15 more years ang naidagdag sa kanyang buhay? (2 Kgs. 20:1-6), at sa sinabi ni Yahweh na pababagsakin Niya ang Israel pero binago ni Yahweh ang kanyang isip? (Num. 14:11-20). conditional ba ang prophecies, Mr Soriano? Nakadepend ba ang fulfillment ng prophecies sa agency ng tao?

5:51 — this is where nagcocommitt si Eli Soriano ng fallacy of false comparison at appealing to ridicule. Nasaan ang rationality? And btw, Latter Day Saints have a much more developed Theology compared sa MCGI. We even have bible scholars. Anong meron sa MCGI? si Eli Soriano na hindi makabasa nang mabuti ng Greek?

4:08 — is one example of taking the Levitical law on prophets and prophecies completely out of context. The Deuteronomy passage does not say that a man is a false prophet because his prophecy failed, only that the failed prophecy is false. This being the case, it is incorrect to conclude, as most critics do, that one false prophecy (even if some true prophecies are given) makes Joseph Smith a false prophet. The danger in so defining the Deuteronomy passage lies in the fact that there is a tendency on the part of non-believers to “explain away” the prophecy, while believers seek ways to defend it. Thus, the process of determining the truth or falseness of a prophecy becomes, to some extent, subjective.

Consequently, a critic of Joseph Smith can look at a hundred of his prophecies, find one that, in his judgment, is in error, and thereby conclude that Joseph himself was a false prophet. That this has, in fact, happened with true prophets is evidenced in the Bible itself, where we read Jesus’ statement about the stoning and rejection of the ancient prophets of Israel (Mt. 23:37). These men were undoubtedly stoned because, in the judgment of their contemporaries, they were false prophets. A good example of the rejection of a prophet is the story of Jeremiah, who was imprisoned and mistreated by the leaders of Judah, who refused to believe his message.

President Joseph Fielding Smith, commenting on the passage from Deuteronomy 18, wrote,

When is a prophet a prophet? whenever he speaks under the inspiration and influence of the Holy Ghost… When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously. Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is. (Doctrines of Salvation 1:187)

By watching the video, one can conclude that a prophet of God cannot utter a single false prophecy, no one! If ever single one of these prophecies failed to come to pass, then he is a false prophet. Am I right! Eli Soriano? 

If this test is true to Joseph Smith, this would also be true to Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, John, or any other person claiming to be a prophet. Let us cite some Biblical Prophets and see if they will pass the test.

Let's take Jeremiah if he also fails as a prophet. Jeremiah was so upset that his predictions weren’t coming to pass that he called God a liar. (Jer. 15:18; 20:7). Jeremiah also predicted that King Zedekiah would die in peace and that odours would be burned for him. (Jer. 34:4-5). Instead, Zedekiah had his eyes put out, his children slaughtered, and he died in a Babylonian prison (2 Kgs. 25:7; Jer. 52). On another occasion Jeremiah prophesied that King Jehoiakim “shall have none to sit upon the throne of David,” (Jer. 36:30), and yet the very next king was Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim. (1 Chr. 3:16; Jer. 37:1). There are others, but according to your video, one mistake and you are out, so Jeremiah is out and was a false prophet.

Another example, in Micah 3:12, the prophet predicts the inevitable downfall of Jerusalem. This passage provides the only unambiguous instance in the Hebrew Bible of a prophetic message being specifically referred to in another prophetic collection, for it is discussed in Jer. 26:18-19. Jerusalem, however, had not fallen; but this does not mean that Micah was dismissed or condemned as a false prophet on the grounds that his prophecy had not been fullfilled as Kramer’s reading would require. Rather, the claim is made that Hezekiah’s repentance had led Yahweh to change his mind and spare the city, and such a claim cannot readily be refuted.

Another one is Jonah who was called of God to proclaim the downfall of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh, and that the city would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4). Period. No loopholes or conditions were given for the prophecy. No explicit escape clause was provided wherein the people could escape the imminent doom through repentance and Yahweh would change His mind and stay His hand. However, that is exactly what the people did and that is exactly how Yahweh reacted. Jonah 3:5 reports that the people “believed God, and proclaimed a fast” and repented of their wickedness. In response God did not destroy Nineveh and its inhabitants, despite what Jonah had earlier prophesied. Jonah in turn was incensed (Jonah 4:1) that God would back down from His previous decree, and the rest of the book of Jonah is spent in accounting for God’s justification of the whole affair.

Let's see mga MCGI if you can answer this arguments WITH RELEVANCE at EXEGESIS

3:24 — another example ng misusage ng Bible. This begs the question kung sino ba ang mga inaadress nito kay Paul at kung ano ba ang purposes ng mga ito sa Pastoral epistles. the Greek reads : 

δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, (Nestle-Aland 28)

Kung babasahin natin ang THEME ng buong chapter, this is where Paul gives requirements for those na magdedesire na maging Bishops and Deacons (vv. 1, 8; cf Titus 1). In it's context, verse 2 and the entirerity of the chapter applies only to bishops and deacons. Not prophets or apostles like Joseph Smith.Hermeneutically, ang Greek sentence sa first clause na μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (mias gunaikos andra) is not definitive. Wala itong usual na construction so it can be translated in a variety of ways as "first wife","married" o kaya "married once". The context tells us na requirement sa Isang bishop ang dapat married siya. commenting on the injunction that a bishop should be a “husband of one wife” in the Pastoral Epistles, Nathan Nzyoka Joshua wrote:

" . . . faithfulness before marriage and in marriage is most likely what Paul was proposing for the overseer to adhere to. A prominent biblical example of the great significance attached to premarital faithfulness is the relationship of Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1:18-25. A non-biblical equivalent to that requirement is found in Xenophon’s second-century AD writing, Ephesiaca 1.11.3-5, in which there is a vow of a young couple to remain chaste for each other. Notably also, in the first century AD, marital faithfulness was also portrayed by remaining unmarried after divorce or after the death of a spouse; a practice that was regarded as honourable. There are many inscriptions on tombstones praising women who had been married to one husband only (see Meeks, First Urban Christians, 228n135). It was common to find on epitaphs the epithets, unavira (“married to one man only”), or virginius and virginia, meaning respectively “a husband who never had but the one wife” and “a wife who never had but the one husband.” Kelly supports that interpretation by saying that it was considered meritorious for one to remain unmarried after the death of a spouse or after divorce because remarriage was viewed as self-indulgence. He supports his argument with Paul’s suggestion to abstain from remarriage and even to occasionally abstain from sexual pleasure within marriage (1 Cor 7:1-7, 40). He says that church officers were expected to set a good example to the other people by being satisfied with a single marriage. However, he points out that, second marriages were not absolutely forbidden in the early Christian centuries (J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy, Titis, Black’s New Testament Commentaries [London: Black, 1963], 75-76). Paul supported and encouraged remarriage, especially for young widows, instead of enrolling them for support by the church (1 Tim 5:11-15). Nevertheless, it is likely that those who had remarried could not be chosen to be leaders in the church, just as they could not be enlisted to get benefaction from the church in case they became widows again (1 Tim 5:9)." (Nathan Nzyoka Joshua, Benefaction and Patronage in Leadership: A Socio-Historical Exegesis of the Pastoral Epistles [Langham Monographs; Carlisle, UK: Langham Publishing, 2018], 175-76)

As an aside, here is the note from Meek’s The First Urban Christians, referenced by Joshua above:

" In Greek romances of the Roman period, the plot customarily depends upon the chaste devotion of a couple to each other, preserved despite the most bizarre threats. In the Ephesiaca of Xenophon of Ephesus, for example, Habrocomes and Anthia vow "that you will abide chaste unto me and never tolerate another man, and I that I shall never consort with another woman" (1.11.3-5, trans. Hadas 1964, 80). That such sentiments were widely cherished is suggested not only by the popularity of such novels, which would hardly have appealed to the well educated, but by the existence of many epitaphs praising women who were μονανδρος or univira. Examples from Jewish tombs in Leon 1960, 129f.."

3:06 — "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Mk. 10:6-8; 1 Cor. 6:16). Ang phrase na ito kapag babasahin mo nanaman ito in context, one (אחד; εις) ay nagrerefer not on the number of wife/ves but on their marital unity. Frank Moore comments :

"Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinsip may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens." (Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon, p. 8)

1:51 — notice the difference ng legally married at sinasabi dito sa D&C 132 na "vowed to no other man" kung nagbabasa lang nang mabuti at honest si Soriano. Eli Soriano however ay dishonest sa kanyang mga statements. The difference between polygamy and adultery is explicit pero hindi lang dinedefine ni Soriano ang dalawang terms na ito honestly. Let's take David for example regarding dito sa Adultery argument ni Soriano against Polygamy. David sinned because of Murdering Uriah for the cause of taking Bathseba as his wife. (1 Sam. 11:1-17). Uriah is King David's soilder and David plans to place Uriah at the frontmen of the battle so he would be easily killed and when that happens, King David will marry Bathseba as his wife (1 Sam. 11:6-14), after his plan became successful, David married Bathseba and they later had a son, that they named Solomon (2 Sam. 11:27; 12:24). The Lord later sent a prophet named Nathan to warn David about the consequences that he did. It reports : 

"Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And he came to him, and said to him: “There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” So David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, “ As the LORD lives, the man who has done this shall surely die! And he shall restore fourfold for the lamb, because he did this thing and because he had no pity.” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’ ” So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Sam. 12:1-13) NKJV

Nathan told David that the Lord "gave...... his wives" (v. 8) and other blessings for David yet David sinned against the Lord for killing Uriah (and not for practicing polygamy). killing someone in order for taking his wife is a sin. its adultery. that's the main point of Jacob 1:15. and David, later after his death, he's been described as the following says :  

" because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kgs. 15:5) JPS Tanakh

So now we can conclude na walang ginawang iba dito si Soriano other than sa pagiging dishonest sa Latter Day Saint theology at sa Bible itself.

Like and support our Facebook page : fb.com/ldswarriors2000

Visit our blog : ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com