Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

urroner

Which version of the Bible is most infallible?

Recommended Posts

I simply refuse to allow LDS to "sneak" in their assumptions in the form of rhetorical questions, where they try to get their beliefs a "solid ground" without offering any evidence of their own for doing so. It's fallacious argumentation.

When those who hold that position can demonstrate conclusively that they are in fact "inspired" (as they unfoundedly claim), then I will agree with them.

Then why did you not respond to my last remarks...since I am clearly in the wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Theophilus said:
How's this for a reason: If a prophet is inspired, then his writings should be included in the Bible since they would be considered the Word of God. (If a prophet is not inspired then, in the minds of many, he isn't really a prophet and none of his writings should therefore be included in the Bible.)

But here is the problem... You are arguing a false "all or nothing" dichotomy, of either everything the prophet utters/writes is inspired, or else nothing is and he is not a prophet.

I reject your false dichotomy.

And I have to wonder where all the LDS are at the moment (are you LDS, btw?), since all LDS would be on my side, for they are constantly arguing that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such", or "only when he says, 'thus saith the Lord'". Indeed, that's the reason so many LDS reject Young's and Hyde's teachings in the JoD, ("Uh, he wasn't speaking as a prophet").

Actually, I am LDS, and I wasn't making the argument that prophets are always prophets. I agree that I posed a false dichotomy, and I am glad that you reject it. (As you should.)

But then we come back to the same problem that is constantly posed to the LDS: how do you know, exactly, when a prophet is speaking as a prophet? You certainly can't know it with regard to the missing writings; they very well may have been inspired, but you dismiss them as uninspired simply because you don't have them. That seems a rather flimsy reason for rejecting something, actually.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the prophets we do have quote from, cite, or commend the missing works. If they were inspiring enough for ancient prophets, why should we--today--consider them uninspired?

Theophilus said: I am making no such "assumption", of course, and I reject your attempts to try to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Actually I am not shifting anything. I am, however, asking you to back up your assertion that these missing books are not inspired. Their mere absense from the present-day cannon does not prove they were uninspired. In fact, as I already pointed out, the esteem in which they were held by the prophets who cited them should speak as to whether they were inspired or not, or at least whether they were viewed as such by the prophets making the references.

Theophilus said: The original assertion is that these books are "inspired", and should therefore "be included in the Bible.

Two separate issues. They can be considered inspired (as the prophets clearly considered them), but whether they should be included in the Bible or not is an issue already decided by people in an earlier age. We have inherited what we have, and--for better or worse--we work with what we have. The fact that there are works missing that at least some ancient prophets considered important enough to reference may cast doubt on any number of issues, such as whether the original compilers of the Bible left things out or, if they didn't have access to them, why a God who supposedly protected His Word, would see fit to not protect those parts yet inspire His prophets to reference them or cite from them.

Theophilus said: I take no position on whether they are inspired or not, since I do not know, and I reject either assumption (that they are inspired, or that they aren't), until proof can be given.

If they can be proved to be "inspired", then they belong in the Bible.

LDS have not yet demonstated that they are "inspired", that they should be in the Bible.

Ahhh... the magic "p" word. You and I know that proof is in the eye of the beholder. I can provide evidence (as I have) and I can cite other biblical scholars who question why some writings were left out. But whether you accept that as "proof" or not is entirely up to you. And, again, I'm not shifting any burden of proof. I'm simply discussing logical errors in the position you are staking out.

Theophilus said: I simply refuse to allow LDS to "sneak" in their assumptions in the form of rhetorical questions, where they try to get their beliefs a "solid ground" without offering any evidence of their own for doing so.  It's fallacious argumentation.

No more fallacious than arguing that the missing books should be excluded pending some impossible proof that you insist must be forthcoming. I think the words of the ancient prophets themselves is evidence enough that important things may have been left out. Whether you choose to accept that as evidence or not is up to you, but if you reject it as such you still need to answer why God would inspire them to make statements about books that no longer exist. If God knew the beginning from the end, why wouldn't he have either told the prophets not to cite from them, or provide a way for His inerrant Word to survive intact to the present day? (The LDS know the answer; I'm suspecting that you don't.)

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, I am LDS, and I wasn't making the argument that prophets are always prophets. I agree that I posed a false dichotomy, and I am glad that you reject it. (As you should.)

Thank you for confirming that I should never trust anything you say.

Unfortunately, I guess it's asking too much to ask that LDS be honest with others here. :P

they very well may have been inspired, but you dismiss them as uninspired simply because you don't have them.

<sigh>

Please actually read what I have to say, before presuming to falsely put words in my mouth. I explicitly told you in my last response that I was not assuming or asserting that they were "inspired". I told you explicitly that I was taking no position one way or the other.

That seems a rather flimsy reason for rejecting something, actually.

It's not my "reason", and I'm not "rejecting" anything.

The argument is academic... We don't know one way or the other if they are inspired or not, and even if we knew, we don't have the books anyway... So what's the point in arguing?!

My longtime position is that it's pointless to argue this, and IMO the only reason that LDS argue such an unarguable point is to try to attack the Bible, claiming it's "incomplete", and "many plain and precious parts removed".

The problem is compounded by the fact that the prophets we do have quote from, cite, or commend the missing works. If they were inspiring enough for ancient prophets, why should we--today--consider them uninspired?

You make another assumption that I reject...

I don't believe that prophets' mere "citing" or "quoting" them makes the entire book de facto "inspired".

If you can show that a Biblical prophet said, "This book <X> is inspired Scripture", then you might have a case. But it seems to be nothing more than an assumption on your part.

Actually I am not shifting anything. I am, however, asking you to back up your assertion that these missing books are not inspired.

<sigh>

Not my assertion.

I already explained that to you in my last post, when I reject your attempts to shift the burden of proof. It's not me that says they definitely "are not inspired", it's the LDS who claim that they are. Can you not understand the difference?

The LDS made the claim, the LDS have the burden of proof.

Their mere absense from the present-day cannon does not prove they were uninspired.

Nor is that my argument.

I don't need an argument, since I don't have the burden of proof.

It's the LDS who made the assertion, they have the burden of proving it.

In fact, as I already pointed out, the esteem in which they were held by the prophets who cited them should speak as to whether they were inspired or not, or at least whether they were viewed as such by the prophets making the references.

And in fact, as I already pointed out, that observation means nothing, the prophets quoting them made no claim that those referenced books were "inspired", and that is simply an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Two separate issues. They can be considered inspired (as the prophets clearly considered them),

No, "clearly" not.

I find it sad that whenever LDS can't support their position with valid means, they have to resort simply that their position is "clear" or "obvious" or "plain", despite vast amounts of disagreements by others.

The fact that there are works missing that at least some ancient prophets considered important enough to reference may cast doubt on any number of issues,

So you simply assert that "there are works missing".

You are question-begging, of course.

such as whether the original compilers of the Bible left things out or, if they didn't have access to them, why a God who supposedly protected His Word, would see fit not not protect those parts yet inspire His prophets to reference them or cite from them.

Your entire argument here assumes that the works in question should be included in the first place, and so you are yet again question-begging.

No more fallacious than arguing that the missing books should be excluded pending some impossible proof that you insist must be forthcoming.

So you're arguing that they should be put in the Bible regardless of whether they are inspired or not?!?! Is truly your position?

but if you reject it as such you still need to answer why God would inspire them to make statements about books that no longer exist.

Why do I allegedly "need to answer" this?

If God knew the beginning from the end, why wouldn't he have either told the prophets not to cite from them, or provide a way for His inerrant Word to survive intact to the present day?

You present yet another false dichotomy (you seem to enjoy those... <_<)

Either you demand God preserve all those works, or else you demand God prevent His prophets from quoting them. Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with inspired prophets quoting works which, in their entirety, are not inspired.

I'm perfectly happy to leave the status quo, and you haven't demonstrated why there is anything wrong with that, other than the fact that it goes against LDS traditions.

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post
My longtime position is that it's pointless to argue this, and IMO the only reason that LDS argue such an unarguable point is to try to attack the Bible, claiming it's "incomplete", and "many plain and precious parts removed".

Sigh, BIGGER SIGH

Theo, I perceive that this might be hard for you to understand since, so far, you have refused to remove you "Mormons are idiot" blinders, but it's not the Bible we are attacking, but it YOUR POSITION. Maybe you can't conceive that, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Urroner quoting:

(Theophilus @ Mar 18 2006, 09:12 PM)

My longtime position is that it's pointless to argue this, and IMO the only reason that LDS argue such an unarguable point is to try to attack the Bible, claiming it's "incomplete", and "many plain and precious parts removed". 

And won't accept anything the brings his alread preconceived notion into question.

Also- Circular reasoning.

I don't believe that prophets' mere "citing" or "quoting" them makes the entire book de facto "inspired".

Im confused... Isn't that one of the criteria they used a Nicea?

Share this post


Link to post
If you can show that a Biblical prophet said, "This book <X> is inspired Scripture", then you might have a case.

You have asked for a reason to believe these missing works are inspired, I gave it, and you are, for some reason, not responding to it...so I will give you another opportunity.

Within the Bible (which you claim is inspired and infallable), it mentions prophecies and visions from seers that are not currently found in the Bible. Tell me, then, why would an inspired work reference visions and prophecies if they were not inspired themselves? If they were not inspired prophecies and visions, I would think an inspired writer would not mention them to be prophecies or visions in the first place. Why would an inspired prophet refer to prophecies and visions that did not come from the Lord? Since prophecies and visions of inspired men are inspired, themselves, why are they not apart of an infallable collection of writings? Don't you think if something was important enough for the Lord to have his servant prophecy about, it is important for us to have in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
You have asked for a reason to believe these missing works are inspired, I gave it, and you are, for some reason, not responding to it...so I will give you another opportunity.

Apparently I'm not allowed to disagree with you by believing it's not a very good reason. :P

Within the Bible (which you claim is inspired and infallable), it mentions prophecies and visions from seers that are not currently found in the Bible.

You have an amazing grasp of the obvious.

Tell me, then, why would an inspired work reference visions and prophecies if they were not inspired themselves?

You see, this is exactly what I was explaining to Allen earlier about LDS and their tendency to try to pass forth unfounded assumptions in the form of rhetorical questions.

Since I wasn't around when the works in question were written, and nobody knows what they contained, and since I don't know the mind of the Biblical prophet, I have no way of answering your question.

If you have an answer to your own question which can be seen to be supportable, then we have something to talk about. But for now it simply looks like you are trying to validate your assumption, an assumption based on nothing.

And I reject such an assumption.

If they were not inspired prophecies and visions, I would think an inspired writer would not mention them to be prophecies or visions in the first place.

Well, obviously I disagree with you.

And just as obviously, I see no reason to share your opinion.

Why would an inspired prophet refer to prophecies and visions that did not come from the Lord?

He didn't refer to "prophecies and visions", he referred to a book.

As to why, I suggest you read the context of each citation, to see why it was referenced. Since I've already checked all the citations, I know for a fact that none of them claim that the extraBiblical works are "inspired".

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

Im sorry but I can't let these ones slide: (Breaking Radio Silence)

If you have an answer to your own question which can be seen to be supportable, then we have something to talk about. But for now it simply looks like you are trying to validate your assumption, an assumption based on nothing.

And I reject such an assumption.

Heb 11

1 NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

<_<

We provide Evidence and doubting Thomopholius "rejects" it out of hand because it does not conform to his Image of God.

Lets all Pray for Theopholius, reeeallly pray hard for him.

He didn't refer to "prophecies and visions", he referred to a book.

As to why, I suggest you read the context of each citation, to see why it was referenced. Since I've already checked all the citations, I know for a fact that none of them claim that the extraBiblical works are "inspired".

:unsure:

2 Chr. 9

29

Share this post


Link to post
Apparently I'm not allowed to disagree with you by believing it's not a very good reason.

Share this post


Link to post

Lets take a look at some of the other "FACTS" Theo seems to have overlooked.

Lost scriptures: There are many sacred writings mentioned in the scriptures that we do not have today, among which are these books and writers: the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), the wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14), Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9: 29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12: 15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13: 22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19), Enoch (Jude 1: 14), and the words of Zenock, Neum, and Zenos (1 Ne. 19: 10), Zenos (Jacob 5: 1), Zenock and Ezias (Hel. 8: 20), and a book of remembrance (Moses 6: 5); and epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3), and from Laodicea (Col. 4: 16).

Heres the first reference:

Ex 24

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Now how can a book contain a covenant from the LORD that ALL Israel has promised to obey and NOT be inspired?

Num 21:14

14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Can a book bare the name "Wars of YHWH" and not be Inspired?

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

2 Sam. 1

18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

Can a book Record a Miracle of God and not be inspired?

1 King 11

41

Share this post


Link to post
Theophilus said:
Actually, I am LDS, and I wasn't making the argument that prophets are always prophets. I agree that I posed a false dichotomy, and I am glad that you reject it. (As you should.)

Thank you for confirming that I should never trust anything you say.

Confirming? Since I don't think we've had any discussions before, does that mean that you prejudged me? Interesting.

Theophilus said: Unfortunately, I guess it's asking too much to ask that LDS be honest with others  here. :unsure:

Nice jab. Weren't you the one earlier in this thread who was pouting because someone said "Teach me O master," and you thought it disparaging? Pot, meet kettle. <_<

Theophilus said: <sigh>

Please actually read what I have to say, before presuming to falsely put words in my mouth.  I explicitly told you in my last response that I was not assuming or asserting that they were "inspired".  I told you explicitly that I was taking no position one way or the other.

And please don't falsely presume that I don't read what you have to say. (That, too, would be mischaracterization of the same type you accuse me.)

The fact is, I did read what you had to say. In fact, I've read through the entire thread twice. You did say that you don't assume the missing books were either inspired or not. You say you take no position, but it is interesting that your non-position has the same net effect as taking a position that the books are not inspired--the effect of exclusion.

Theophilus said: It's not my "reason", and I'm not "rejecting" anything. The argument is academic...  We don't know one way or the other if they are inspired or not, and even if we knew, we don't have the books anyway...  So what's the point in arguing?!

Here's the point: I say that the books may be inspired, and I don't dismiss that they could be. You say they may be inspired, but dismiss any consideration of them until acceptable proof is presented. Do you understand the difference?

Theophilus said: My longtime position is that it's pointless to argue this, and IMO the only reason that LDS argue such an unarguable point is to try to attack the Bible, claiming it's "incomplete", and "many plain and precious parts removed".

Attack the Bible? Interesting. (Wrong, but interesting nonetheless.)

Theophilus said: You make another assumption that I reject... I don't believe that prophets' mere "citing" or "quoting" them makes the entire book de facto "inspired".

Now who's presenting false dichotomies and putting words in people's mouths? I don't believe your little strawman here, either. I said nothing about the entire books being inspired. (Feel free to go back and read through my posts; I'll wait. I said that they may be inspired. Big difference.)

The fact remains, however, that the missing books were referenced by multiple prophets. These prophets thought that, at a minimum, the portion they referenced was inspired, else they--in acting on their own inspiration--would not have included such references in their own words.

Theophilus said: If you can show that a Biblical prophet said, "This book <X> is inspired Scripture", then you might have a case.  But it seems to be nothing more than an assumption on your part.

Now who's making assumptions? You seem to assume (and I admit that I may be reading you wrong) that biblical prophets would view "scripture" in the same way we do. I've seen no evidence that such is the case; perhaps you have.

Theophilus said:
Actually I am not shifting anything. I am, however, asking you to back up your assertion that these missing books are not inspired.

<sigh>

Not my assertion.

I already explained that to you in my last post, when I reject your attempts to shift the burden of proof. It's not me that says they definitely "are not inspired", it's the LDS who claim that they are. Can you not understand the difference?

Yes, I can understand the difference. But you've again mischaracterized a position in order to present a false dichotomy. The LDS (myself included) have not claimed that the missing books are definitely inspired; we've simply said that they may be inspired. We leave the door open to the possibility.

Theophilus said: The LDS made the claim, the LDS have the burden of proof.

Nice try, but the LDS don't make the claim. They just point out that stuff is missing, that missing stuff may be inspired, and it seems odd that there would be possibly inspired stuff missing from what is claimed to be an inerrant, complete cannon.

Theophilus said: I don't need an argument, since I don't have the burden of proof. It's the LDS who made the assertion, they have the burden of proving it.

What assertion? That stuff is missing? I think we both agree on that. (Right?) That the missing stuff may be inspired? Are you afraid to agree to that? That it is odd that possibly inspired stuff is missing from an inerrant, complete cannon? Do you have a problem with that assertion?

I'm just trying to figure out which LDS assertion you want proved. (After we figure that out, and agree whether it is a strawman or not, then we can move on to figuring out what you would accept as "proof.")

Theophilus said: And in fact, as I already pointed out, that observation means nothing, the prophets quoting them made no claim that those referenced books were "inspired", and that is simply an unwarranted assumption on your part.

It means nothing that a prophet, supposedly writing God's words, in a book that was supposedly put together through the grace and power of God, chose to quote from other writings that we no longer have or that were omitted. Gottcha. :P

Theophilus said: I find it sad that whenever LDS can't support their position with valid means, they have to resort simply that their position is "clear" or "obvious" or "plain", despite vast amounts of disagreements by others.

Do you always have this problem with stereotyping people? I'm sorry if you don't see the choice of references made by ancient prophets to be a "clear" indication of the esteem in which they held the texts that they were referencing. But please, don't attribute my use of such a word as indicative of an inability to support my position. (I promise to try to not mischaracterize your motives if you'll try the same with me.)

Theophilus said: So you simply assert that "there are works missing". You are question-begging, of course.

Do I need to go back and reference, again, the missing works that were discussed earlier in the thread? Since they are there to read in the dialogue, and you indicated that you've "seen the list [of missing works] hundreds of times" (page 4 of this thread), I don't see how you can now claim that I am question-begging.

So, let's recap...

1. Some biblical prophets reference some texts that are missing from the Bible, by name.

2. These texts may (or may not) be inspired, but the mere fact that biblical prophets chose to reference them indicates that the texts were regarded with at least some measure of esteem.

3. The authors of at least some of the missing texts are referred to by biblical prophets as seers (Samuel, Gad, and Iddo) and as prophets (Nathan and Ahijah).

4. Some of the missing texts are referred to, by prophets, as visions and prophecies.

But we are not to assume that these texts, visions, or prophecies were totally inspired. And, if they were inspired in part, they did not rise to whatever level necessary for their inclusion in the cannon. And, if they weren't included because they were lost, then God didn't see fit to protect those texts, visions, or prophecies long enough to make sure they were included, in the same manner that He supposedly protected the other texts, visions, and prophecies that were eventually included.

If visions and prophecies are, by definition, part of God's dealings with man, how can an inerrant, complete cannon be missing such things and still be the sum total of God's full word?

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

awyt,

If visions and prophecies are, by definition, part of God's dealings with man, how can an inerrant, complete cannon be missing such things and still be the sum total of God's full word?

Not only that... How can a book that an Entire Nation has promised to obey, and is said to have been inspired by the LORD and was commanded to be read to them prior to them making the covenant to obey it, be missing and then the Canon be declared whole and complete?

Share this post


Link to post
I vote that Theo is just a big playground bully

:P<_<

I am familiar with Theo from Beliefnet, and he does come across as a complete bully to those (me :unsure: ) who 'defend the faith'.

The LDS (myself included) have not claimed that the missing books are definitely inspired; we've simply said that they may be inspired. We leave the door open to the possibility.

And my whole point was to show, Theo, that you cannot claim the Bible to be inherent, without addressing the fact that numerous books (inspired or not) were left out of the final draft of the Bible (greek: books) by a group of men. How can you claim infallibility, when what is deemed infallable, itself, is based upon the decisions of Man?

Share this post


Link to post

Matt 4

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

If Entire Books are missing how can we live by Every Word?

and the words of Zenock, Neum, and Zenos (1 Ne. 19: 10), Zenos (Jacob 5: 1), Zenock and Ezias (Hel. 8: 20),

Hey... I never realized that... Not even the Book of Mormon is Complete!

Share this post


Link to post

Matthew 13 folks.

John 14-17.

Jesus gave us everything we need for life and godliness in truth.

If He didn't give it to the Apostles, who recorded it for us, then we don't need it.

Share this post


Link to post

Is everything that the Apostles Recorded in the Bible?

There Are missing Epistles of Paul.

Like I said... let the Spirit be your Guide:

John 16

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Apparently Christ didn't give everything because the Spirit would teach the believers more.

There is also a large section of Revelation missing.

Rev 10

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

So who is the Prophet that is going to Reveal it?

Share this post


Link to post

<sigh>

I really don't know why I bother. There's obviously no point.

I pointed out earlier that I'm obviously not allowed to disagree. LDS denied this, of course, but it's obviously not true. If I continue holding my position with facts, LDS make cocky remarks about me "digging a deeper hole for myself" (ie. ad hominem") and then constantly do their "victory dance" with every post. If I don't respond, then LDS simply claim that I'm "running away", and "can't deal" with their position. Either way, no matter what I do, LDS can (and do) twist it to make themselves the "winners".

But that's the point, isn't it? LDS seem to think this is all about "winning" arguments. Let's see... I haven't convinced them, they haven't convinced me, so how is that in any way a "victory"? I can just as easily point out that LDS still haven't demonstrated that (1) other books should be added to the Bible, or that (2) the books mentioned in the Bible are allegedly "inspired". So from my perspective, I "won". So again I ask, if we each have "won" in our own eyes, what's the point of proclaiming "victory"? It's meaningless.

I vote that Theo is just a big playground bully

<Chuckle> That's a laugh.

Three or four LDS have been "bullying" me all through this thread, and you claim I'm the "bully"?! That's rich. But then again, LDS seem to loving playing the "martyr" card.

I am familiar with Theo from Beliefnet,

Um, no, you're not.

I've never been onn "Beliefnet", I don't know what, or where, that is.

And my whole point was to show, Theo, that you cannot claim the Bible to be inherent, without addressing the fact that numerous books (inspired or not) were left out of the final draft of the Bible (greek: books) by a group of men.  How can you claim infallibility, when what is deemed infallable, itself, is based upon the decisions of Man?

Your criticism would be valid if God wasn't in control of the decision-making process, or to put it another way, if their choices weren't guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe that it was (Heb. 11:1, you quoted that verse, right Zak?) Of course, it might be possible that they weren't guided by the HS, but until/unless you can demonstrate that, then your criticism seems without potency.

There Are missing Epistles of Paul.

I've already addressed this.

Eph. 3 is referring to Eph. 1, and the epistle "from Laodicea" is Ephesians.

Of course, you are free to disagree, but until/unless you can prove that such isn't the case, then you can't rightly claim "there are missing epistles of Paul".

There is also a large section of Revelation missing. Rev 10:4

Now you're really reaching, IMO.

This isn't part of "the Bible".

I agree we don't have those scrolls yet, and I never claimed otherwise.

We simply haven't received them yet.

Confirming? Since I don't think we've had any discussions before, does that mean that you prejudged me? Interesting.

<sigh> I'm getting sick and tired of all this ad hominem. No, I didn't "prejudge" you. My first impression (which I didn't draw conclusions from) was when you gave me the false dichotomy. My "confirmation" was when you admitted not only that you did so, but apparently did so intentionally. This is my last remark to you, Allen, unless you choose to apologize. 'Nuff said.

This next set of quotes is a bunch of assumption-carrying rhetorical "questions", the kind I was referring to earlier. The poster wishes to present his assumption as "argued conclusion", and shifts the burden of proof onto me, to give evidence to reject it. I reject the invalid way the assumptions are being presented.

Ex 24

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Now how can a book contain a covenant from the LORD that ALL Israel has promised to obey and NOT be inspired?

I've already addressed this previously. We have the Lord's covenant in the Pentateuch, so I see no reason to believe that the contents are "missing". I was asked "where in the Pentateuch" it is, and since we don't know the contents of the quoted book, it's impossible for me to say, so that's quite a disingenuous question. If you show me the contents of the book, I'll be glad to show you where it is in the Pentateuch.

Aside from that, the poster is simply assuming that it is "missing".

Num 21:14

14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Can a book bare the name "Wars of YHWH" and not be Inspired?

(It's "bear".)

Again, the poster asks a self-serving question, hiding the premise, "If it contains the name 'Wars of YHWH', then it must be inspired", and I reject such an assumption.

It appears to be simply a history text, recording facts in history.

Why should we assume that it is especially "inspired"?

Next.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

2 Sam. 1

18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

Can a book Record a Miracle of God and not be inspired?

Obviously...

Do not the LDS GA's talk about "miracles of God", yet their speeches are not considered "inspired" by LDS (at least not in unanimous concensus).

Your very post recorded the miracle, "and the sun stood still", does that make your post "inspired"? I don't think so.

1 King 11

41

Share this post


Link to post
I agree we don't have those scrolls yet, and I never claimed otherwise.

We simply haven't received them yet.

And under the Evangelical Paradigm. We never can because the Canon is closed. And there can never be another prophet because John was the Last one and Christ gave us everything that God has ever said.

'Nuff said God. We don't need you any more.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree we don't have those scrolls yet, and I never claimed otherwise.

We simply haven't received them yet.

And under the Evangelical Paradigm. We never can because the Canon is closed.

<sigh>

No, that is not the "Evangelical paradigm".

I find it incredibly ironic that another thread was recently started, "false claims of Mormon beliefs I've heard", or something to that effect. Obviously, misrepresentation is not a one-way street.

Too bad more people didn't sincerely follow, "What is hateful to oneself, do not do to another".

'Nuff said God. We don't need you any more.

That may be your view, but it is certainly not the EV view.

We have the Holy Spirit (ie. God).

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

Who can never dictate another word of Scripture because the canon is closed?

What good is a spirit who's bound up with duct tape?

Share this post


Link to post
<sigh>

I really don't know why I bother. There's obviously no point.

I pointed out earlier that I'm obviously not allowed to disagree.

SIGH, BIGGER SIGH

Theo, that is such a sad strawman. All you have been doing is disagreeing and apparently people are willing to discuss things with you. Shouting "WOLF" when there isn't any or claming the sky if falling is plain silly.

Share this post


Link to post

Urroner... I call Theos Bluff.

Both Iddo and Shemaiah where prophets in Israel.

2 Chr 12

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

I belelve LDS know where the book of Iddo went, however... we don't have all of it either, just an Abridgement.

What I can't understand is my Eyes keep playing tricks on me. Does the Target seem to be Moving to you?

Every time we bring in Evidence Theo ups the bar.

He said that... "None of the missing stuff was called visions or prophecy" We refute him on that...

The Target moves and he ups the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Confirming? Since I don't think we've had any discussions before, does that mean that you prejudged me? Interesting.

<sigh> I'm getting sick and tired of all this ad hominem. No, I didn't "prejudge" you. My first impression (which I didn't draw conclusions from) was when you gave me the false dichotomy. My "confirmation" was when you admitted not only that you did so, but apparently did so intentionally. This is my last remark to you, Allen, unless you choose to apologize. 'Nuff said.

If I am to judge by your comments (what else do I have to judge by?), you are getting sick and tired of something, but I can assure you it is not ad hominem. Me commenting on your choice of words ("confirming") does not constitute ad hominem. You may want to refer to a good dictionary to understand what it really is. (And, to head off any misconception, me suggesting that you learn what a word means is not ad hominem either.)

I'm sorry you had to go back to one of my early posts on this thread to find a statement worthy of cutting off discussion. I don't think I need to apologize for wanting to have that discussion and for asking questions that you are apparently uncomfortable with. In my mind it is not about "winning" (as you say). It is about two adults discussing why they believe the way they do, and asking each other questions about those beliefs.

'Nuff said.

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Rhinomelon, while for different reasons, because I know he doesn't hate Mormons like Theo does, seems to have followed in his foot step by saying Justin "Made a Mistake".

Lets see exactly what it is Justin said in his debate with the Trypho:

QUOTE 

Here Trypho [the Jew] remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah] "And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' "Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72, in ANF 1:234-235

Ok so now we have the OT saying that the Lord decends into Hades to "preach the gospel of salvation" to those who had died without a Knowledge of the Gospel. In the OT.

Can you show me any corroborating testimony from any OT manuscript that has the passage Justin quotes in it? I doubt you can, so it is quite reasonable to believe that it was never part of the Old Testament, and so it is not an example of something removed from the Bible. As far as I know, this passage is only quoted in Justin Martyr and in Irenaeus. Even then, they disagree as to where it comes from. In short, this is not admissible evidence, because it rests on your assumptions rather than on actual textual evidence.

More later. Take care, everyone :P

Share this post


Link to post

Rhino,

Do you think that Justin or Irenaus would base a debate on such a precarious assumption and false accusation?

He is accusing the Jews of removing scripture that proved Christ was Christ after all.

What is the law of the court room, "Reasonable doubt"?

The Fact that 2 Infamous church fathers bring up the same charge even though they might disagree on where it was located, (The Jewish Cannon was in the process of being settled after all) ought to at least count for something. That is unless you are trying to sully their reputation?

Any Judge would allow it.

EDIT: spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×