James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

You wrote:

I expected Billy's responses on this thread. I didn't expect the tone or shallowness of your responses. Until you are willing to address the evident fallacy of biblical inerrancy - which I'm increasingly becoming convinced that you can't - it's going to make about as much sense to respond to you as it did to respond to Billy.

The underlined portion above is perhaps is instructive: Until I'm willing to admit that inerrancy is evidently false (that is, until I agree with you), you don't see much point in responding to me.

Okay. If those are to be the conditions, then I would agree that it wouldn't make much sense to continue to respond to me.

If I've misrepresented your position (which I'm now convinced my hyperbolic restatements have done to some degree), I sincerely apologize. I own my (intentionally) overblown responses to you.

Tell you what.

I suggest we make a new start here, starting now. I think we can at least come to understand one another.

Best.

cks

[Calm]

Is everything statement you make (either orally or in a written document) inevitably in error to some degree?

I would say yes because I can never completely express what my inner experience of meaning is in outward terms, even for very concrete observations.

I supposed if one does not define "incompleteness in description" as "in error" one could say something without error of intent, but the problem is if there is incompleteness, than there will be automatic miscommunication, the reader or listener will attach some meaning that was not meant to be attached sometime due to the sheer number of denotations and connotations that are out there (especially since connotations are often based on personal experience that is even more variable).

[Calm]

I suggest we make a new start here, starting now. I think we can at least come to understand one another.

My summary of your position is that God can communicate to others inerrantly, but others cannot receive that communication in the same way, their understanding will always be to some extent inerrant (oops, I meant "errant", I am definitely not a good example of an even close to inerrant writer).

Question--can God ever completely convey his meaning to something that cannot comprehend that completeness?

IOW, to me "to communicate" means more than just speaking or writing, it means interacting with an audience.

A person who speaks Chinese to me knowing that I do not speak Chinese (and could speak English with me and knows this) is not trying to communicate imo.

"To communicate" something has to have intent attached. IOW, God must intend that we understand something when he communicates with us, but because our understanding can never be perfect and inerrant, it would seem to me that God cannot communicate inerrantly with us, though he could certainly communicate inerrantly with another perfect being and does so with Christ and the Holy Ghost (thus can they be truly said to be "one").

Does this make sense and how does this fit with your actual interpretation of inerrancy.

[Billy]

So we still are faced with the absolute fact that human written communication is inadequate in expressing the divine intent - and hence cannot be inerrant.

I think you hit it right on the head. Just look at the Book of Abraham translation. What is written now is nothing like what was written on the original papyrus.

[cksalmon]

Tell you what. I'm going to CFR you on this one. Post where I said that God communicated erroneously not only to Joseph Smith, but to any of the prophets or writers of the Bible.

Hi j--

If language is intrinsically incapable of communicating error-free messages, if and when God communicates in language, his messages intrinsically contain errors.

I don't deny the power of the Spirit to communicate truth. But, my question would be, What is he communicating truth about? He must be communicating truths that have language-encoded analogs. Does the Spirit's guidance render those language-encoded analogs inerrant?

As I told Dr. Hamblin, my belief in inerrancy is not an evidential claim, but a presuppositional one. Heck, I don't even find it to be a controversial one. But, I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the ability of language to communicate error-free messages as he is.

How about this: you ask me questions, if you're so inclined, or make positive statements about your position, and I'll respond to them to the best of my ability.

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi CK

I note you failed to respond to the crux of the issue as I understand it.

So in terms of practical exegesis of the text, what is the distinction between a lost inerrant original manuscript that is only preserved in ambiguous language and errant manuscripts, and an errant original preserved in ambiguous language and errant manuscripts? Hypothetical inerrancy of a lost original has no practical significance.

[jwhitlock]

The underlined portion above is perhaps is instructive: Until I'm willing to admit that inerrancy is evidently false (that is, until I agree with you), you don't see much point in responding to me.

Sigh...

I fail to see how "until you are willing to address the evident fallacy of biblical inerrancy" - in which I indicate that the preponderance of evidence points to the lack of inerrancy - equates directly with "until I'm willing to admit that inerrancy is evidently false". You've not rephrased my statement accurately again.

If I've misrepresented your position (which I'm now convinced my hyperbolic restatements have done to some degree), I sincerely apologize. I own my (intentionally) overblown responses to you.

Tell you what.

I suggest we make a new start here, starting now. I think we can at least come to understand one another.

Fair enough.

It doesn't particularly matter to me whether we agree concerning inerrancy or not. I don't expect that.

However, I do want to know what evidence there is in support of biblical inerrancy in the original autographs. That's really all there is. I've made the point that human writing is inadequate in its ability to express divine intent. That logically leads to the conclusion that the written, original autographs cannot be inerrant, because inerrancy includes the ability to clearly express divine intent.

That's it.

The discussion doesn't need to be about whether God communicates His divine will in an understandable manner to an individual receiving the communication directly. It also doesn't need to be about whether further copies of the autographs have transmission or other errors in them. It doesn't need to be about understanding by the Spirit, although I posited that the Spirit is what God gave to accommodate for the inadequacy of the written language. All those things can be addressed at another time.

All the discussion or evidence simply needs to do is touch upon whether human written communication can be inerrant. Examples or evidence of such would help. Reasons as to why written communication can be inerrant can be dissected. Simple categorical rejections on either side won't add to the discussion.

That's all that's needed.

I am sincerely interested in seeing what you have to say about that single, pivotal point. That's about as clear as I can get.

[jwhitlock]

I think you hit it right on the head. Just look at the Book of Abraham translation. What is written now is nothing like what was written on the original papyrus.

Glad to see you admitting that the Bible cannot be inerrant - because of the single fact that it is human, written communication.

[Bill Hamblin]

Granting for the sake of argument that this is a genuine revelation from God to Joseph Smith, I would readily grant that it is possible for a reader to misunderstand God's intent. In other words, again, I don't hold to inerrancy of interpretation.

But your position is much radical than that. You would apparently affirm that D&C 1:31-32, as written above, inevitably and intrinsically contains error(s) (secondary to linguistic ambiguity), though I'd guess that you wouldn't presume to know what exactly in the verses is mistaken.

Nope, that's not my position. See how ambiguous language is!

Your response is typical of fundamentalistic dualistic assumptions. To reject inerrancy does not mean that every single sentence must have an error. It means human language is inherently susceptible to error and misunderstanding. The fact that I am fallible does not mean I am always wrong. It means I can be wrong.

At any rate, you're still ignoring the real issue. What practical difference does it make in exegesis if there is inerrant intent on God's part, if there is no such thing as inerrant interpretation?

[cksalmon]

Hi Cal--

My summary of your position is that God can communicate to others inerrantly, but others cannot receive that communication in the same way, their understanding will always be to some extent inerrant.

This is close. I would clarify in this way: "their understanding will always be to some extent inerrant has the potential to contain errors." I would not grant that it is impossible for God's audience to interpret/understand his communication without error.

Question--can God ever completely convey his meaning to something that cannot comprehend that completeness?

I wouldn't agree that humans are incapable of comprehending "completely" a message from God which he intends for them to comprehend "completely." Not that individuals are capable of completely comprehending God of course, but that God really can completely communicate what he intends to communicate to us via language. In other words, I don't believe errors are inevitable (and certainly not logically inevitable) along the communicative chain. Certainly, though, the are possible.

IOW, to me "to communicate" means more than just speaking or writing, it means interacting with an audience.

I'm surprised that this point hasn't been explicitly stated until now. I've been waiting for it. And, yes, I agree with you.

"To communicate" something has to have intent attached. IOW, God must intend that we understand something when he communicates with us, but because our understanding can never be perfect and inerrant, it would seem to me that God cannot communicate inerrantly with us, though he could certainly communicate inerrantly with another perfect being and does so with Christ and the Holy Ghost (thus can they be truly said to be "one").

I would suggest that not only can God communicate his intended meaning via language without errors on his part, but also that it is possible that we can understand his intended meaning without errors. I'm not arguing that this always happens (it manifestly doesn't), but only that it is actually possible. In other words, it is possible that we can actually understand what God actually intends us to understand via language. Error is not inevitable.

Does this make sense and how does this fit with your actual interpretation of inerrancy.

Yes. Good questions.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

If language is intrinsically incapable of communicating error-free messages, if and when God communicates in language, his messages intrinsically contain errors.

I don't deny the power of the Spirit to communicate truth. But, my question would be, What is he communicating truth about? He must be communicating truths that have language-encoded analogs. Does the Spirit's guidance render those language-encoded analogs inerrant?

As I told Dr. Hamblin, my belief in inerrancy is not an evidential claim, but a presuppositional one. Heck, I don't even find it to be a controversial one. But, I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the ability of language to communicate error-free messages as he is.

How about this: you ask me questions, if you're so inclined, or make positive statements about your position, and I'll respond to them to the best of my ability.

If I read this correctly, I believe you are assuming that God communicates to a recipient (prophet, etc.) using language of some sort. The recipient then writes down the words that were given. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think it happens that way, generally. While I don't rule out the possibility of word for word revelations given in English (or Hebrew, or whatever), I suspect that those communications are relatively rare, and are limited in scope.

Instead, it would appear that the communication of divine intent comes more in the way of completely understood ideas and concepts, and that it is then left to the recipient to communicate those ideas in his own words. While there may be spiritual help in choosing those words, the written or spoken communication is simply inadequate, by itself, to express fully the completely understood ideas and concepts as they were spiritually received.

Spiritual communication is a different kind of communication than mere words, written or spoken. It is a complete form of communication that does not lend itself well to transmission using the limitations of human language.

That's why I've been asking for an example of written communication that can be claimed to be inerrant. It would be interesting to dissect such a claim.

Perhaps an example is in order. Have you ever experienced something incredibly beautiful and peaceful, such as a sunset or other event? How does one communicate what is felt and understood by the event in written language? It is nearly impossible to do so. The best one can do is hope that the reader has experienced the same thing that you experienced, and that then your writing may be effective in helping to trigger that person's memories and feelings.

Note that the writing cannot communicate the experience in and of itself. It is inadequate to do so. People try, and some may get close, but even the best authors fall short. It is only when there is a shared experience - or when there is a shared Spirit (there I go off on the tangent again) - can the clear understanding start to come. The writing may serve as a catalyst, but it is inadequate to communicate the concept in and of itself.

Perhaps that explanation helps as to why I feel strongly that the original autographs from any recipient of revelation cannot be inerrant. They cannot adequately express the divine intent. Inerrancy is freedom from error; if the divine intent has not been fully captured in the writing, can it still be termed to be "error free"?

Do you think writing can communicate intent inerrantly? If so, how?

[Calm]

I would suggest that not only can God communicate his intended meaning via language without errors on his part, but also that it is possible that we can understand his intended meaning without errors. I'm not arguing that this always happens (it manifestly doesn't), but only that it is actually possible. In other words, it is possible that we can actually understand what God actually intends us to understand via language. Error is not inevitable.

Thank you for your time and appreciation.

It occurs to me that God can probably communicate to humans inerrantly (the message is not only perfectly conveyed, but perfectly received) but this would require the Lord to translate the human temporily, what LDS call "quickened" (is this term used by nonLDS in the same way?). Possibly also when the Spirit fully 'inform'/'fills' for want of a better a human. (add-on: it would appear that jwhitlock believes much the same here).

But that would mean that as soon as the presence of the Lord is lessened, that perfect understanding will diminish to a certain extent.

And that would also mean that as soon as the Spirit is not the sole medium through which God is speaking with man, error can creep in...thus the written word will inherently have the probability of error in understanding and definitely incompleteness.

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Nope, that's not my position. See how ambiguous language is!

Your response is typical of fundamentalistic dualistic assumptions.

Um...'kay.

To reject inerrancy does not mean that every single sentence must have an error.

Doesn't it?

Are some sentences, then, inerrant? Are you suggesting that language encoding actually does not inevitably, and as an intrinsic property of linguistic ambiguity, necessarily result in error?

If some sentences do not have errors--which is the logical corollary of the proposition "Not every single sentence must have an error"--then some sentences are error-free. That's been my position all along.

Are the sentences recorded in D&C 1:31-32 among those sentences that are error-free, in your opinion?

It means human language is inherently susceptible to error and misunderstanding. The fact that I am fallible does not mean I am always wrong. It means I can be wrong.

Right. I've affirmed this point all along.

At any rate, you're still ignoring the real issue. What practical difference does it make in exegesis if there is inerrant intent on God's part, if there is no such thing as inerrant interpretation?

That you find this particular issue paramount in no way determines that I must do likewise. It's just not the "real issue" for me. And, I don't concede that "there is no such thing as inerrant [that is, an error-free] interpretation," but rather that errant interpretation is a real thing.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

If I read this correctly, I believe you are assuming that God communicates to a recipient (prophet, etc.) using language of some sort. The recipient then writes down the words that were given. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi j--

I'm outta here, just for the evening (gonna play some old NES games on my emulator and then hit the hay). I appreciate your post and questions and will attempt to respond tomorrow.

I do just want to clarify something quickly: I don't believe in a dictation theory of revelation. What I think you've picked up on here was my attempting to make a very particular point, rather than a general one.

Until then...

cks

[coolrok7]

. . .To coolrok

By the way, the fact that the KJV is the preferred scripture for Gospel teaching is irrelevant, since I always read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. (And, in fact, none of the non-English speaking Saints, which now number more than the English speaking Saints, use the KJV.)

What Jesus says (asserts) in the Hebrew Schema is the standard (quoting from the Deuteronomy passage) and is not a â??plurality of godsâ? as Joseph Smith says:

Jesus answered, . . .â??HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORDâ? (Mark 12:29)

I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. . . .(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Josephâ??s words:

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. For how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know, for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so differently so as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible, . . .I at length came to the determination to â??ask of Godâ? (POGP, JOSEPH SMITH-HISTORY 1:11-13)

President Bensonâ??s talk, â??FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETâ? (February 26, 1980, at BYU), included the following in part (Even their own scripture can be trumped by a â??living prophetâ??):

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us then the standard works. . . .When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, â??Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.â? Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said, â??There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,â? said he, â??when compared with the living oracles those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the holy priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.â? That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: â??Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.â? (In Conference report, October 1897, pp.18-19). . .

This would apply now to President Monson (most of what is said today is a repeat of what was said in the past).

Joseph himself becomes the source of the idea of a â??purality of godsâ? teaching in the King Follet Discourse in which becomes the Mormon understanding read back into the Old/New Testament (Mormon doctrinal understanding is locked into King James English).

Additional context makes it relevant not â??irrelevantâ? for how â??preferredâ? is to be understood. It is â??sons of Godâ? as translated in King James English not â??sons of the godsâ? which is what you are asserting.

Iâ??m not saying this to be disrespectful to you and your knowledge of things based on your own studies but I do disagree with what you say on this particular point youâ??re making. The context for â??preferredâ? (and what meaning to be understood by that is):

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. . . .Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

This is the opposite of:

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (The Gospel Through The Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

Additional context for the Mormon understanding of when it comes to â??preferenceâ?:

â??Modern-Language Editions of the Book of Mormon Discouraged,â? Ensign, Apr. 1993, 74

We are pleased to announce that 4,855,167 copies of the Book of Mormon were sold during 1992. Of this number, 1,994,312 were in English, followed by 1,209,734 in Spanish. The remainder included translations in 36 other languages.

It is gratifying to note the ever-increasing distribution of this sacred scripture which has come to us as a voice speaking â??out of the dustâ? declaring the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Isa. 29:4.) The power of its testimony and the persuasive beauty of its language have touched the hearts of millions around the world.

From time to time there are those who wish to rewrite the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated â??by the gift and power of God,â? who has declared that â??it is true.â? (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.) The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was â??the most correct of any book on earth.â? (History of the Church, 4:461.) It contains â??the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.â? (D&C 20:9.)

When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children, such as the Book of Mormon Reader.)

We counsel everyone to cultivate the influence of the scriptures by personal study of the word of the Lord contained therein. When this is done prayerfully, each who reads may know the truth of these sacred words by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moro. 10:5.)

The BofM is not a translation in the way the term is normally understood. Translating is the process of transferring from one language into another so that it can be read and understood as close as possible to the original understanding before being translated.

The way it is normally pictured is Joseph sitting at the table with quill in hand writing on something while looking at the plates. It is described this way (but never pictured this way in Mormon publications that I've seen):

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

â??Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.â? (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.) (Russell M. Nelson, â??A Treasured Testament,â? Ensign, Jul 1993, 61; Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah.)

Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon:

Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way. . . .The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when recorded the sentence would disappear as usual. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p.168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)

Joseph didnâ??t translate from the BofM (storytelling was his genius, which I believe led to spiritual deception).

It was a story he had already been rehearsing (he later had it put down in writing by others, by dictation from his own mouth, supposedly reading the letters of light on the stone in his hat that he had put his face into in which the â??scribeâ? would write down his words as he was speaking them).

Josephâ??s mother enlightened us with how Joseph â??would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined.â? (before he even had the supposed plates in his possession):

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent hid whole life among them. (HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH BY HIS MOTHER, LUCY SMITH, p.88)

The story of Joseph Smith is not unique. Joseph Smith is Mohammad revisited (Mohammadâ??s cave and Josephâ??s bedroom):

Muhammad (PBUH) used to visit the cave (ghar) of Hira frequently for spiritual meditation. . . .The first revelation had descended on Muhammad (PBUH) through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). In this way Muhammad (PBUH) overcome with fear, hurried home and related to his beloved Khadija all that had happened. She comforted him assuring him that he had received true revelation from Allah. . . .The first revelation was shortly followed by a second one, which came to Muhammad (PBUH) when he was shivering and had been covered by a mantle at home. The command was: â??O thou enveloped in thy cloak, Arise and warn! Thy Lord magnifyâ?? . . .(Qurâ??an 74:1-3). Muhammad (PBUH), through Allahâ??s Word, had been chosen to spread His message (Islam and Christianity, p.41)

While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, . . .a personage appeared. . .He. . .said unto me. . .he was a messenger. . .from. . .God. . .name was Moroni. . .commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received. I obeyed; I returned to my father in the field, and rehearsed the whole matter to him. He replied to me that it was of God, and told me to go and do as commanded by the messenger (POGP, JOSEPH SMITHâ??HISTORY 1:30, 33, 49, 50)

[Billy]

Someone needs to tell Billy I'm not responding to him until he answers the previous questions. But since I'm not responding to him, I can't do it.

I have ask you twice now what question or questions? No response.

But since Billy has already admitted that the Bible as we have it contains errors and inconsistencies, perhaps someone should first ask him how we can trust anything in the Bible. Oh, wait; someone already did.

I answered this question as well in previous posts.

Bible

1. Historical record

2. Archeological evidence

3. Manuscript evidence--many different manuscripts from many different locations

4. Fulfilled prophecy

5. Jesus quoting OT verses and and OT prophets which validates those leaders, books, verses as being true (if you trust the words of Christ).

6. Majority of apostles who died as martyrs as a testimony of what they said was true.

7. Faith

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208543594

Bottom line I would agree with you it is on faith. But I would disagree with you with respect to the fact that the Bible does have historical evidence which I think supports it more than a book that has no historical evidence, especially if both books claim to be historically accurate.

Example one

If I interviewed a person for a job and that person gave me his life story, I could go back and verify events in his life and see if they checked out. I could verify the things that he told me to see if in fact what he said was truth or a lie. I could verify places that he said existed at the time, like schools, churches, pastors, friends etc. I could also verify equipment that he said he used at the time he used them, such as computers or cell phones. What I mean by this is that if he told me he used a cell phone in the 1960's then I know that this would not be true and would make me question his truthfulness or his story. It would be impossible to check out every single aspect of that persons life, but by cross checking many different aspects of his life I could come to a reasonable conclusion of that persons honestly and reliability of his story.

Example two

Say you have two hypothetical books, Book A and Book B

Both state that they ARE a historical record along with a spiritual account. If Book A proves to be historically accurate and Book B proves to be historically inaccurate, can you trust both books equally in terms of the spiritual message?

[jwhitlock]

I'm outta here, just for the evening (gonna play some old NES games on my emulator and then hit the hay).

What? Don't tell me you're into MAME...

[Bill Hamblin]

I have ask you twice now what question or questions? No response.

Somebody needs to tell Billy to look at #353. And while he's at it, check #367.

[Bill Hamblin]

That you find this particular issue paramount in no way determines that I must do likewise. It's just not the "real issue" for me. And, I don't concede that "there is no such thing as inerrant [that is, an error-free] interpretation," but rather that errant interpretation is a real thing.

So, this isn't a conversation after all. Got it.

At any rate, that is the question I've been trying to get some Evangelical to answer for a couple of days now. Not only have I not received a cogent answer, I haven't received any answer at all. Alas.

[urroner]

If I may make a suggestion, if it hasn't already been made, all you egghead types, CK, Cal, Dr. H, etc., you are making a very good discussion, but riffraff like me keep making obnoxious statements and causing noise in the stream. Soooooooooooooo, would it be possible to start up a thread like this, only cleaner, sans ambiguation and error, in the pundit forum. I realize that JW isn't one of the lofty, chosen ones, but maybe he can get a temporary reprieve from being one of the unwashed masses.

I think we need to see more action in the pundit forum anyway.

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

You wrote:

So, this isn't a conversation after all. Got it.

At any rate, that is the question I've been trying to get some Evangelical to answer for a couple of days now. Not only have I not received a cogent answer, I haven't received any answer at all. Alas.

If you'll recall, my very first response to you in this thread addressed my take on your question.

I don't personally hold to belief in autographical inerrancy because it yields practical benefits. (My belief in that regard is a faith-based presuppositional claim, not an evidential one.) In a similar vein, I am Christian because I believe that the truth claims of Christianity are, in fact, true, not because they are useful.

You responded, "That's because you're more cogent than Billy."

The very practical difference, in my mind, has been clearly brought out in what followed that initial exchange. I actually believe and affirm that God has specific, intentional meanings that he is able to express and we are able to understand without inevitable error. Belief in autographic inerrancy makes me optimistic about being able actually to know, without error, what God has communicated in scripture.

In the spirit of conversation, perhaps you could answer some of the questions I've asked specifically of you.

You wrote:

To reject inerrancy does not mean that every single sentence must have an error.

I asked:

Are some sentences, then, inerrant? Are you suggesting that language encoding actually does not inevitably, and as an intrinsic property of linguistic ambiguity, necessarily result in error?

I also asked:

Are the sentences recorded in D&C 1:31-32* among those sentences that are error-free, in your opinion?

Best.

cks

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;...

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps an example is in order. Have you ever experienced something incredibly beautiful and peaceful, such as a sunset or other event? How does one communicate what is felt and understood by the event in written language? It is nearly impossible to do so. The best one can do is hope that the reader has experienced the same thing that you experienced, and that then your writing may be effective in helping to trigger that person's memories and feelings.

Note that the writing cannot communicate the experience in and of itself. It is inadequate to do so. People try, and some may get close, but even the best authors fall short. It is only when there is a shared experience - or when there is a shared Spirit (there I go off on the tangent again) - can the clear understanding start to come. The writing may serve as a catalyst, but it is inadequate to communicate the concept in and of itself.

Perhaps that explanation helps as to why I feel strongly that the original autographs from any recipient of revelation cannot be inerrant. They cannot adequately express the divine intent. Inerrancy is freedom from error; if the divine intent has not been fully captured in the writing, can it still be termed to be "error free"?

The italicised portion here is crucial obviously. Communication of this sort is not unlike what we do here; we type in ambiguous language which is coded somehow and sent by means I do not understand and then decoded (hopefully) on the other side and again decoded by a human brain which probably again gets it wrong. The mere length of this thread is a testament to ambiguity.

And how do you explain your sunset to a blind man? This raises questions of who is and who is not "elect" and who can and who cannot receive and decode revelation. Is it like the reverse of color blindedness? What if only 20% of the population could see a color the others do not? And would those who could not see it maintain it was a figment of the other's imagination?

Surprise! Back to Matthew 13 again!

[mfbukowski]

Are some sentences, then, inerrant? Are you suggesting that language encoding actually does not inevitably, and as an intrinsic property of linguistic ambiguity, necessarily result in error?

If some sentences do not have errors--which is the logical corollary of the proposition "Not every single sentence must have an error"--then some sentences are error-free. That's been my position all along.

I don't think that anyone is saying that human communication is impossible because every possible sentence contains errors-- that is blatantly false. I think what IS being said is that one must view language as inherently ambiguous and look to context, intent, and all the other factors involved in communication. When my wife asks me to work on the "honey do" list she knows instantly by which kind of grunt I give her if I am going to actually do it or not. I would not say that this is evidence for the inerrency of language however. Language is only one facet of communication, and written language is even farther removed from verbal. Emoticons would not exist if that were not true.

Written language that is hundreds or thousands of years old which is also culturally remote is even more ambiguous, obviously.

[mfbukowski]

The very practical difference, in my mind, has been clearly brought out in what followed that initial exchange. I actually believe and affirm that God has specific, intentional meanings that he is able to express and we are able to understand without inevitable error. Belief in autographic inerrancy makes me optimistic about being able actually to know, without error, what God has communicated in scripture.

If this is true, why is there so much disagreement on so many issues like say, predestination, justification, etc. etc.? What is the source of error then in your mind?

[cksalmon]

Hi mfb--

I think what IS being said is that one must view language as inherently ambiguous and look to context, intent, and all the other factors involved in communication.

But, I've already affirmed that language is ambiguous. Your exegetical suggestions are non-controversial to me as well.

Best.

cks