Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Standard evangelical argument for the inerrancy of Scripture


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#21 Zakuska

Zakuska

    Creates Worlds Without Number

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,607 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 05:33 PM

When Jesus taught this...

John 6
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 ∂ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

He refers to his spoken words being Life. Why didn't he refer them back to the Law and the prophets?

Why didn't he say... hey Peter... "You have a Bible and there can be no more Bible... its all right there."

Edited by Zakuska, 09 March 2010 - 05:46 PM.

  • 0
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.‚ÄĚ -- Martin Luther
"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

#22 Darth J

Darth J

    Sith Lord

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 05:33 PM

The whole proposition is disingenuous, because Rob isn't really trying to prove that "Scripture" is "inerrant," he is trying to prove that the Bible is inerrant as taught by evangelical Christians.

Premise 1: Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant.
Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.


Besides the obvious and already pointed out circular reasoning, Rob also commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. http://www.fallacyfi...g/afthecon.html

And what an appropriate example is found on that site:

Premiss: If God reveals himself in the Bible, he will preserve a record of that revelation.
Premiss: God has preserved a record of his revelation.
Conclusion: God has revealed himself in the Bible.

Therefore, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise, and the conclusion is the antecedent of the first premise, which means that the argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.



And Rob also commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

The 29 students in Mr Strang's classroom gravely considered the two sentences scrawled across the freshly washed blackboard: All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.

"The apparent conclusionóthat all A's are B'sódoes have a certain allure, a kind of appealing logic."

Mr Strang blinked myopically, his wrinkled face resembling that of a good-natured troll. Then he whirled, and his chalk drew a large screeching X through both sentences.

"Of course," he snapped, "it's also dead wrong. Its error can easily be verified by substituting 'teenager' for A, 'ostrich' for B, and 'two-legged' for C in the original premises. Thus, all teenagers are two-legged, all ostriches are two-legged, and therefore all teenagers are ostriches. I doubt you'd accept that conclusion."

http://www.fallacyfi...g/undismid.html


The only test Rob gives for "what Jesus taught" is "Scripture." Despite having absolutely no evidence at all for the premise, let's assume hypothetically that Jesus really did teach that "Scripture" was "inerrant." Jesus could not possibly have been talking about the Old Testament, because while the various writings are purported to have existed prior to Jesus' life, they were not compiled in the form we know today. Additionally, Jesus had absolutely no role in determining which writings would eventually constitute the Old Testament.


Besides having no extrinsic evidence (which means that this is circular reasoning), Rob also assumes that Jesus approved of all of the various books that later became the Old Testament. This is beside the obvious problems of translation and copying. Rob further assumes that all of the content of all of the scattered, various writings that at some point became compiled (by someone other than Jesus!) would have been approved by Jesus.

Jesus could not possibly have been talking about the New Testament, because the four Gospels had not been written at the time he is purported to have said what was recorded in the Gospels decades later (again, assuming, without any proof but for argument's sake, that Jesus really taught this). He could not possibly have said a writing that did not yet exist was "inerrant." Additionally, Jesus had no role at all in deciding which of the scattered and various writings of early Christians were later compiled into the New Testament, so he could not possibly have been talking about the New Testament as a whole, either.

Jesus could not possibly have been talking about any of the dozens of versions of the Bible (in English, let alone other languages) that exist today, because he never had any role in deciding to create "the Bible" at all. Nor could he have possibly meant that the compilation as a whole or in its constituent parts was "inerrant," because it did not exist at any point during his lifetime.


There is also no evidence that Jesus ever taught anything, or that he even ever existed, outside of "Scripture." Whether Mormons and other Christians (if one concedes that Mormons are Christians, which Rob does not in fact do) both believe that Jesus was a real historical figure and that he really taught things that are written in the New Testament is irrelevant to the argument. The question that Rob keeps begging but never answering is how does anyone know that this is true in the first place?

I'm sure that Rob's reasoning--such as it is--is dazzling not only to himself, but to third-graders of all ages. Perhaps nowhere beyond this post has Rob nakedly demonstrated the house of cards that he considers to be religion. Having no claim of any authority to preach in Jesus' name, and not even claiming a reason why he would have such authority, Rob instead builds his house not on a rock, nor even on sand, but on a ludicrous conglomeration of speculation, unproven assumption, and fallacious reasoning that would make would make even Maury Povich embarrassed.

Then Rob and his fellows put up a website, http://www.irr.org, so that they may sit in judgment of others' faith in God, as if he were in a superior position or in greater authority than they at least claim to be.

However, Rob perpetually refuses to apply his own standards of "the truth" to himself, which is why he always refuses to engage the fundamental question of why should anyone listen to him to begin with. Instead, anyone who wants him to put up or shut up is childish, as shown in this thread: http://www.mormonapo...ng-in-john-1416

Evangelical Christians generally believe that that one "m" word is sinful--at least physically. Doing it mentally, however, seems to be what they consider to be the path to salvation.

Edited by Darth J, 09 March 2010 - 05:39 PM.

  • 0
Sometimes I make my kids wear sombreros and scuba fins around the house. Not because there is any reason. I just want to teach them obedience.

#23 Facsimile 3

Facsimile 3

    ◊Ď◊ź ◊ú◊ô ◊ú◊Ę◊ē◊£

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:14 PM

It must be properly treated as one of the normative writings of the community of the people of God. I could use the one-word term ďcanonicalĒ to denote this idea, but since some people argue that canonicity is a concept that developed after the New Testament period, we might do well to avoid using that term here. Notice that I am not addressing the question of whether all extant inspired texts are Scripture, that is, whether the class of extant inspired texts is identical to the class of Scripture texts. I think this is so, but I am not arguing the point here. I simply stipulate that the term Scripture refers to extant inspired texts that are normative texts of the community of the people of God.


First of all, I think you are trying to hide from the non divine aspects of the Bible here. The fact that an uninspired group of men came together to decide on what becomes scripture throws your whole premise into hot water.

Secondly, so the fact that a community of a people of God does not have certain inspired texts as normative throws out the idea of those texts being scripture? Perhaps you would say,"well how can it be scripture for them if they do not have it?" And that would be fine and all Rob, but what happens when they do find it (the Book of Mormon)? It seems like your arguments serve to only strengthen man stripping God of His ability to increase His words among a people of God. Nothing I can see in your premises prevent the Book of Mormon from being revealed by God.

By inerrant I mean that the text, properly read and understood, expresses no false teachings or doctrines, no conceptual falsehoods. Another way to state this is that inerrancy means that the text is fully truthful in what it affirms. If a text of Scripture affirms or teaches T, and if Scripture is inerrant, then T must be true and cannot be erroneous.


Again Rob I pose the same question:

In what way would you describe the New Testament as not disagreeing with the Old Testament without at the same time weakening your stance on the Book of Mormon disagreeing with the Bible?

Which you dodged the first time with this:

Before examining the evidence from the NT Gospels, I must address up front a common objection that could easily confuse the issue. In examining what Jesus said in the NT Gospels about Scripture, obviously we will be looking at statements pertaining in that historical context specifically to the OT. We all know that none of the NT books existed when Jesus spoke in Galilee or Jerusalem. (We also know that in the NT Gospels, Jesus never refers to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures.) My claim is that whatever Jesus taught about the nature of Scripture should apply to all Scripture, not just the OT. The alternative is to suppose that OT Scripture is inerrant but other Scripture (say, the NT) is not inerrant. This is a plausible position for an Orthodox Jew, but not for a Mormon or for anyone who professes to be a Christian. I have yet to meet any professing Christian who accepted the OT as inerrant Scripture but regarded the NT as errant. Perhaps such individuals exist, but I donít think this is a viable position in the context of the dispute between evangelicals and Mormons on the nature of Scripture. Indeed, most Christians of whatever religious perspective who deny scriptural inerrancy usually have the strongest objections or criticisms with regard to the OTóand this includes Mormons. Thus, I think we can plausibly contend that if OT Scripture is inerrant, then a fortiori other Scripture must also be inerrant. But if anyone wishes to argue that as followers of Jesus we should view the OT as inerrant but not the NT, let him make his case!


You have this uncanny ability to constantly attack Mormonism and always shift the burden of proof off your own shoulders. Why not try engaging my above question? If you took the time to actually read the Book of Mormon with this question in mind, you would find it to be, at its core, a connecting force between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Book of Mormon is really the bridge between the two Testaments. Because it is a bridge it most definitely brings to the surface a lot of the friction caused by a people trying to live the Law of Moses along with the Higher Law (before their visitation of the resurrected Jesus Christ).

2 Nephi 25

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

Edited by Facsimile 3, 09 March 2010 - 06:20 PM.

  • 0
Since truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the "intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the vague sense that it would be hubris on our part to abandon the traditional language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky, and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch with a realm which transcends the human.

Richard Rorty

#24 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:19 PM

Dan,

I've got a lot going on tonight, but I have time to reply to a few points in your posts. You wrote:

My first concern is the assumption inherent in premise 1 that the teachings of Jesus are verbatim represented in the NT. This begs the question of inerrancy in the scriptures, since it requires that there be no misrepresentation or corruption.


I don't think you understand the first premise at all. The first premise does not mean "Whatever the Gospels report Jesus saying is true." Rather, the first premise means, "Whatever the historical Jesus actually taught is true." The first premise neither asserts nor implies nor presupposes anything whatsoever about the reliability of any source for our knowledge of what Jesus taught. It simply asserts that if Jesus taught T, then T is true.

With this correction of your misunderstanding in mind, would you not agree with my first premise?

You wrote:

My second concern is that I don't find the explicit espousal of inerrancy in Jesus' teachings. I find a requirement that the texts be adhered to strictly, e.g., "not broken," but nothing to indicate Jesus felt every word and letter was the very voice of God and could not be wrong.


Yet Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 use language very close to what you are saying you can find "nothing to indicate" Jesus said. I'll have more to say about this later when I have more time.

You wrote:

The clearest evidence that such was not the case is his variegated use of MT, LXX, and even targumic readings of scriptures that he cites. For example, in Mark 4:26-29 Jesus cites Joel 3:13, and the version he cites agrees with a proto-Masoretic text-type against the Septuagint. In Matt 21:16 Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 in a form that agrees with LXX against MT. In Matt 11:5 (Luke 7:22) Jesus cites Isaiah 35, 26, and 61, and the readings agree with LXX against MT in many places (but not all). In Mark 4:12 Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10, but the conclusion, "and it be forgiven them" comes from the Targum, not from MT or LXX. The Targums are paraphrastic Aramaic translations.


I specifically addressed this point in my opening post. Inerrancy does not require Scriptural figures or writers to use exact verbatim quotations, including verbatim quotations of earlier Scriptural texts.

I have written:

"I have explained the logic of the argument and shown that anyone who professes to be a Christian ought to assent to both premises of the argument. This means that the argument is sound and the conclusion should be accepted."

You replied:

A bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy.


Naw. I did not say that someone who doesn't assent to inerrancy is not a Christian. I said that someone who professes to be a Christian ought to assent to the two premises and so ought to conclude that inerrancy is true. I realize there are Christians who don't agree.

You wrote:

I think your definition of inerrancy would be helpful before this discussion develops too much further.


I gave a definition of inerrancy, noted some specific and relevant qualifications, and cited a reference for a more thorough discussion of the definition of inerrancy. For your convenience, I will quote the paragraphs you missed:

By inerrant I mean that the text, properly read and understood, expresses no false teachings or doctrines, no conceptual falsehoods. Another way to state this is that inerrancy means that the text is fully truthful in what it affirms. If a text of Scripture affirms or teaches T, and if Scripture is inerrant, then T must be true and cannot be erroneous.



Please note that the concept of inerrancy admits of various legitimate qualifications. Inerrancy does not mean that the text must be absolutely precise in its reporting of numbers or of a personís speech or in its quotation of other sources. It does not entail that the text provides exhaustive information. It does not require that narrative texts recount events in precise chronological order. It acknowledges that copies of the text may have copying errors of various kinds and that translations of the text may not convey the meaning of the text with perfect accuracy. All of these qualifications are consistent with the claim that the text, properly read and understood, is fully truthful in all that it affirms. For a formal statement on the subject that articulates these qualifications in a helpful way, see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.


More later.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#25 jwhitlock

jwhitlock

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:31 PM

Very interesting discussion.

The claim of scriptural inerrancy is extraordinary, since it significantly contradicts the reality of the rest of written language. As such, proof of scriptural inerrancy should be clear, and incontrovertible.

I haven't seen anyone yet make a good case for inerrancy; there are simply far too many places to poke holes in it, as mak has demonstrated.

Rob's premise leaves quite a number of assumptions unanswered, something that an airtight premise wouldn't do. For instance, the connection was not well made as to why Jewish emphasis on the authority of the scribes and their interpretations of scripture should translate readily into an assumption that scripture is therefore inerrant. It also fails to address the gaping hole of textual originality, something that EV Christianity only seems to be able to address by using vague generalizations about God somehow preserving the text because it is His Word.

My premise is that the faith of Christians who reject scriptural inerrancy will, in the long run, be far greater and lasting than those who base their belief in something that is so easily disproven, such as inerrancy. Bart Ehrman is an interesting study of that particular situation.
  • 0
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"

#26 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:33 PM

Darth J,

You wrote:

The whole proposition is disingenuous, because Rob isn't really trying to prove that "Scripture" is "inerrant," he is trying to prove that the Bible is inerrant as taught by evangelical Christians.


Not true. Evangelical doctrine is errant. My doctrine is errant. Scripture is not.

Please retract your false statement.

You wrote:

Besides the obvious and already pointed out circular reasoning, Rob also commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. http://www.fallacyfi...g/afthecon.html

And what an appropriate example is found on that site:

And Rob also commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.


This is hilarious. Darth, it is not possible for the same syllogism to beg the question, affirm the consequent, and commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle! I'm going to be charitable and say (for now) that you don't know what you're talking about. The examples of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of the undistributed middle are structurally different forms of argument than each other and than the argument I presented.

Tell me: Is there anything illogical about the following argument?

a. Whatever the Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J is true.
b. The Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J that Mormonism is true.
c. Therefore, Mormonism is true.

The answer is No -- there is nothing illogical about the above argument. If the two premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I accept the first premise but not the second. This is the ONLY way to refute an argument of this form: you must dispute one or both of the premises.

Here's another one:

d. Whatever is in Salt Lake City is in Utah.
e. Temple Square is in Salt Lake City.
f. Therefore, Temple Square is in Utah.

Both of the above arguments follow the exact same logical form as my argument:

All Xs are B.
A is X.
Therefore, A is B.

You wrote:

I'm sure that Rob's reasoning--such as it is--is dazzling not only to himself, but to third-graders of all ages.


This, from someone who obviously would have flunked first-semester logic.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#27 Woody

Woody

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:38 PM

I present here a simple argument for the inerrancy of Scripture. In describing the argument as ďsimple,Ē I mean that the basic structure of the argument is simple and the premises of the argument easy enough to understand. Here it is:

Premise 1: Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant.
Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

The above is a logically deductive argument, more specifically a syllogism. The form of this argument is such that, if ...

You've got another fallacy here, the "Fallacy of the Gaudy Cloak". Premise 1 and the Conclusion are the Cloak. They are wrapped around the Little Minister, which is Premise 2. They are unnecessary. All you have to do is prove Premise 2 and you will have convinced your audience of all that's worthwhile in the argument.

The Gaudy Cloak Fallacy has this structure:

1. Premise no. 2 is true.
2. <premise 2>
3. Therefore, Premise 2 is true. Ta da!

Basically, it's a method of elaborating a simple teaching, which either will or won't convince the villagers, with superfluous verbiage, which will be impressive to the villagers. Wrapping the Little Minister in a Gaudy Cloak of logic demonstrates only that one does not understand logic. Does not identify superfluous outer layers and lop them off. In fact created those outer layers thinking that this is a value-adding activity.

It's like the monkeys going into the village while the people are away, putting on their clothes and hats, and pretending they are doing what villagers do, without having the slightest clue what villagers do or why.

It is a proof that the Spirit of God has deserted the opponents of Mormonism, leaving them unable to adroitly process information.

Wood
  • 0

#28 Woody

Woody

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 06:44 PM

... in a discussion between Catholics and Protestants, there will be no need to defend the premise that Jesus rose from the grave, since both sides accept this claim as fact. In a discussion between Protestants and Buddhists, on the other hand, this claim cannot be assumed as fact but must be defended with evidence. In this context, my argument is aimed at persuading any and all professing Christians that Scripture in inerrant. That includes but is not limited to Mormons.

Congratulations, Rob, for accepting the fact that Mormons are Christians.

This, I believe, puts you solidly on the Fun Side of the island.

Wood
  • 0

#29 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 07:16 PM

Woody,

Your fanciful and inaccurate analysis notwithstanding, I take it you agree with premise 1 and also agree that if premise 2 is true, then the conclusion of my argument follows. So that's a start.

Now, feel free to try to refute premise 2.

You've got another fallacy here, the "Fallacy of the Gaudy Cloak". Premise 1 and the Conclusion are the Cloak. They are wrapped around the Little Minister, which is Premise 2. They are unnecessary. All you have to do is prove Premise 2 and you will have convinced your audience of all that's worthwhile in the argument.

The Gaudy Cloak Fallacy has this structure:

1. Premise no. 2 is true.
2. <premise 2>
3. Therefore, Premise 2 is true. Ta da!

Basically, it's a method of elaborating a simple teaching, which either will or won't convince the villagers, with superfluous verbiage, which will be impressive to the villagers. Wrapping the Little Minister in a Gaudy Cloak of logic demonstrates only that one does not understand logic. Does not identify superfluous outer layers and lop them off. In fact created those outer layers thinking that this is a value-adding activity.

It's like the monkeys going into the village while the people are away, putting on their clothes and hats, and pretending they are doing what villagers do, without having the slightest clue what villagers do or why.

It is a proof that the Spirit of God has deserted the opponents of Mormonism, leaving them unable to adroitly process information.

Wood


  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#30 Darth J

Darth J

    Sith Lord

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 08:36 PM

Darth J,

Not true. Evangelical doctrine is errant. My doctrine is errant. Scripture is not.

Please retract your false statement.


1. So does evangelical doctrine come from somewhere other than scripture? Will you post that on your website?

2. "Evangelical Christians teach the Bible is inerrant" is a false statement"? Will you post that on your website, too?

This is hilarious. Darth, it is not possible for the same syllogism to beg the question, affirm the consequent, and commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle!



You have demonstrated otherwise.

1. Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.

Questions begged by this premise: that anyone knows what Jesus Christ actually taught, that he ever taught anything, that he actually existed, that what is written in any version of any ancient texts accurately reflects what he taught, that the translation (which requires interpretation) of any version of the New Testament as it exists today ("extant") accurately reflects what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament was accurate about what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament accurately remembered what Jesus taught, that going from Aramaic to Greek resulted in an accurate interpretation of what Jesus taught, and that nothing was added into the New Testament that was attributed to Jesus but that he never really said.

You don't have a way of answering any of these questions. And a concession that you and Mormons believe in Jesus and believe in the New Testament does not resolve the ontological question--which you are incapable of resolving--of who does anyone know the answer to any of these questions. Both ancient Spartans and ancient Athenians believed in Zeus. The fact that this belief was shared does not prove that Zeus existed.

2. Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant

You are begging the question with scripture, and you have not responded to my post on this. It is irrelevant how you define scripture, the question is how Jesus defined scripture. AND YOU CAN"T ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.

The undistributed middle is "scripture." Number 2 does not follow from Number 3 because you are equivocating about what "scripture" means. You have to, because you know what you mean by "scripture." YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE MEANT BY SCRIPTURE. You are trying to draw a conclusion by going from your assumption of what Jesus meant by "scripture" to what you mean by "scripture."

You are further begging the question and creating an undistributed middle with "inerrant," for the same reasons.

1. Whatever Jesus taught is true.
2. Jesus taught that the scriptures are errant.
3. Therefore, the scriptures are errant.

Which leads to a paradox. Since the only source of "what Jesus taught" is "scripture," so Jesus may have been errant in teaching that scripture is errant. But if Jesus was not errant, then the scripture are errant, which means that the source of his teaching about being errant is errant.

3. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

You are affirming the consequent because "Jesus taught that Scripture is inerrant" affirms "Whatever Jesus taught is true." "Scripture" is your only source for "whatever Jesus taught." "Therefore, Scripture is inerrant" is the antecedent of "Whatever Jesus taught is true." If whatever Jesus taught is true, and whatever he taught is in the scriptures, then it is a foregone conclusion that the scriptures are inerrant.


I'm going to be charitable and say (for now) that you don't know what you're talking about. The examples of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of the undistributed middle are structurally different forms of argument than each other and than the argument I presented.


Oh, so an undistributed middle can't cause you to affirm the consequent. Yes, I must be the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isn't distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.

For example:

All students carry backpacks. My grandfather carries a backpack. Therefore, my grandfather is a student. The middle term is the one that appears in both premises - in this case, it is the class of backpack carriers. It is undistributed because neither of its uses applies to all backpack carriers. Therefore it can't be used to connect students and my grandfather - both of them could be separate and unconnected divisions of the class of backpack carriers. Specifically, the structure of this example results in affirming the consequent.





http://psychology.wi...tributed_middle




Tell me: Is there anything illogical about the following argument?

a. Whatever the Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J is true.
b. The Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J that Mormonism is true.
c. Therefore, Mormonism is true.


But I thought that could only happen if I had been one of Jesus' original 12 apostles. http://www.mormonapo...g-in-john-1416/

The answer is No -- there is nothing illogical about the above argument. If the two premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I accept the first premise but not the second. This is the ONLY way to refute an argument of this form: you must dispute one or both of the premises.


As long as the definition of "Mormonism" remains constant. "Scripture" does not have the same meaning throughout your syllogism because you equivocate from Jesus' definition of "scripture" (which is never stated) to your definition of scripture.

To be comparable, your example would have to be:

1. Whatever the Holy Spirit reveals to Darth J is true.
2. The Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J that "Mormonism" is true.
3. Therefore, Warren Jeffs' understanding of "Mormonism" is true. http://fldstruth.org/

Here's another one:

d. Whatever is in Salt Lake City is in Utah.
e. Temple Square is in Salt Lake City.
f. Therefore, Temple Square is in Utah.


Temple Square has the same meaning in this example. "Scripture" does not have the same meaning in #2 and #3 in the syllogism you used to start this thread.

Both of the above arguments follow the exact same logical form as my argument:

All Xs are B.
A is X.
Therefore, A is B.


You have certainly convinced yourself of this. That is because you have not addressed your equivocation about what "scripture" may have meant to Jesus, and what it means to you.

This, from someone who obviously would have flunked first-semester logic.


Someone who believes in an inerrant, literal Bible isn't exactly in the best position to have a superior attitude about another person's intelligence. Or maybe every ethnic group and every species of animal that lives today really did descend from a small sample that went on Noah's ark and didn't drown only a few thousand years ago. Maybe space aliens or the devil planted all those cave men remains and animal fossils here to trick us.

Rob, your consistent refusal to answer my questions about what authority you have, or why your beliefs are superior to any other random religion, very strongly suggests that you do not have an answer for those questions. If it is all simply a matter of understanding what exact word was used in the remnants of a copy of a copy of a copy (and so on) of something that may or may not have been written by early apostles of Jesus, then I wonder why everyone who speaks Greek and believes in the Bible doesn't belong to the same church. I wonder why everyone who speaks Hebrew doesn't belong to the same church, let alone why there are differences of belief among Jews (the religion, not the race).

And when you consistently demand that the fundamental question of why anyone, anywhere should listen to what you have to say is off topic, you are only making it more obvious that you don't have these answers. Or, you'll have to say that God has inspired you in some way, and you know that's a trap when you're talking to Mormons.

Every single evangelical Christian I have ever met in my life has nothing more to offer than an increasing chain of assumptions based on the premise that we share some of the same assumptions. As I stated before, the fact that we may share some of the same assumptions does not prove that those shared assumptions are ontologically true.

You have offered no reason to believe that my statements in my earlier posts in response to you, here or on other threads, have been wrong. The only reason you want to engage in these incremental debates is to try to lead someone to believe that your religion is true. That's the only way you can, because you have nothing else to offer them.

Put up or shut up, Rob. Stop calling out Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and others, trying to tear down their faith as if that validates yours. Stop attempting to use a Bible that doesn't belong to you to prove others wrong and yourself right. In debate, a failure to answer is the same as a concession. Either show me the unicorn, or stop trying to get us to chase them with you.

Edited by Darth J, 09 March 2010 - 08:37 PM.

  • 0
Sometimes I make my kids wear sombreros and scuba fins around the house. Not because there is any reason. I just want to teach them obedience.

#31 maklelan

maklelan

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,086 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 01:56 AM

Dan,

I've got a lot going on tonight, but I have time to reply to a few points in your posts. You wrote:

I don't think you understand the first premise at all. The first premise does not mean "Whatever the Gospels report Jesus saying is true." Rather, the first premise means, "Whatever the historical Jesus actually taught is true." The first premise neither asserts nor implies nor presupposes anything whatsoever about the reliability of any source for our knowledge of what Jesus taught. It simply asserts that if Jesus taught T, then T is true.

With this correction of your misunderstanding in mind, would you not agree with my first premise?


I would agree with that premise, but it would have no connection to the rest of the argument, since you still can't get over the hurdle of what exactly his teachings were without presupposing the NT represents them exactly.

You wrote:

Yet Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 use language very close to what you are saying you can find "nothing to indicate" Jesus said. I'll have more to say about this later when I have more time.


But this is just hyperbolic rhetoric of authority. Not one jot or tittle of the Constitution is supposed to "pass away" either, without certain processes, and someone dogmatically promoting the authority of the Constitution can very easily say the exact same thing. Like I said, this doesn't promote inerrancy, just authority, and at this point in time it's still just hyperbole. It's not meant at all to be understood as an appeal to letter for letter inerrancy.

You wrote:

I specifically addressed this point in my opening post. Inerrancy does not require Scriptural figures or writers to use exact verbatim quotations, including verbatim quotations of earlier Scriptural texts.


I missed that portion. My apologies. Here's what seems to be the meat of that point:

By inerrant I mean that the text, properly read and understood, expresses no false teachings or doctrines, no conceptual falsehoods. Another way to state this is that inerrancy means that the text is fully truthful in what it affirms. If a text of Scripture affirms or teaches T, and if Scripture is inerrant, then T must be true and cannot be erroneous.

Please note that the concept of inerrancy admits of various legitimate qualifications. Inerrancy does not mean that the text must be absolutely precise in its reporting of numbers or of a personís speech or in its quotation of other sources. It does not entail that the text provides exhaustive information. It does not require that narrative texts recount events in precise chronological order. It acknowledges that copies of the text may have copying errors of various kinds and that translations of the text may not convey the meaning of the text with perfect accuracy.


A conclusion that can be drawn from this, if I understand you correctly, is that you don't subscribe to the kind of inerrancy you are asserting Jesus subscribed to, namely that every word and letter was the the inviolable and inspired word of God. Your inerrancy is the modern inerrancy just of doctrinal position. My immediate concern is why we're supposed to accept a different kind of inerrancy than the kind Christ accepted. If everything Christ taught is true, then his brand of inerrancy is true and not just the standard first century perspective (and I still heartily disagree that it was).

Next, the differences that exist between LXX, MT, and Christ's targumic readings are not differences only of translation or scribal error. They are significant interpretive differences. The targumic readings add considerably to the text, and the Septuagint readings are based on a very different textual tradition. You definition is going to have to allow for scribe and redactor manipulation of the text. If that's the case, what could possibly compel us to believe the text is doctrinally pure and pristine?

I have written:

"I have explained the logic of the argument and shown that anyone who professes to be a Christian ought to assent to both premises of the argument. This means that the argument is sound and the conclusion should be accepted."

You replied:

Naw. I did not say that someone who doesn't assent to inerrancy is not a Christian. I said that someone who professes to be a Christian ought to assent to the two premises and so ought to conclude that inerrancy is true. I realize there are Christians who don't agree.


But you also state that a Christian should not disagree.

You wrote:

I gave a definition of inerrancy, noted some specific and relevant qualifications, and cited a reference for a more thorough discussion of the definition of inerrancy. For your convenience, I will quote the paragraphs you missed:

More later.


You're right. I apologize for missing that.

Edited by maklelan, 10 March 2010 - 02:11 AM.

  • 0

#32 bert10

bert10

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 03:03 AM

If the scriptures were innerrant...then Christianity would have found a way to bring Zion down and not have empty hands after 1700 years. It will be up to the LDS to bring Zion down and it will take the time or some time less than it took for Enoch to prepare the people for translation.

Peace be unto you
bert10


I present here a simple argument for the inerrancy of Scripture. In describing the argument as ďsimple,Ē I mean that the basic structure of the argument is simple and the premises of the argument easy enough to understand. Here it is:

Premise 1: Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant.
Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

The above is a logically deductive argument, more specifically a syllogism. The form of this argument is such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I have stated the premises in normal English for ease of reading, but they can be stated more formally to make clear the logical structure of the argument:

Premise 1: Whatever is one of the teachings of Jesus Christ is true.
Premise 2: That Scripture is inerrant is one of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, that Scripture is inerrant is true.

The above argument follows the simple syllogistic form:

All Xs are B.
A is X.
Therefore, A is B.

Given the validity of the deductive form of the argument, the only way to challenge the argument rationally (reasonably) is to challenge one or both of the premises. Again, if the two premises of the argument are both true, then the conclusion must be true. Conversely, the case for the soundness of this argument rests on the evidence supporting the two premises. This does not mean that no premise may be used for which we cannot provide compelling proof that would satisfy everyone. For example, in a discussion between Catholics and Protestants, there will be no need to defend the premise that Jesus rose from the grave, since both sides accept this claim as fact. In a discussion between Protestants and Buddhists, on the other hand, this claim cannot be assumed as fact but must be defended with evidence. In this context, my argument is aimed at persuading any and all professing Christians that Scripture in inerrant. That includes but is not limited to Mormons. Anyone who professes to believe in Jesus Christ should, if I have presented the argument properly, find this argument persuasive. Still, in this presentation I will focus on presenting the evidence supporting my argument to Mormons.

Although the argument is simple, the defense of the argument need not be simplistic. There is considerable evidence that can and should be considered pertaining to the premises of the argument. In the remainder of this post, I will discuss briefly the basis for accepting the two premises of my argument. I make no apologies for the length of this treatment; it is necessary if the argument is to be understood properly and if the evidence for its premises is to be appreciated.

First Premise: Whatever Jesus Christ Taught Is True

Mormons should have no trouble assenting to the first premise of my argument: whatever Jesus Christ taught is true. Obviously, I would not make this a major premise of an argument intended to persuade atheists or Jews or Buddhists. But the belief of Latter-day Saints that Jesus Christ was Jehovah and that he came into the world as a human being for our salvation obviously demands assent to this first premise. The following statements nicely illustrate the usual if not uniform stance that the LDS Church and its leaders take on this point.



I sincerely hope that we do not need to debate this premise. If Jesus Christ taught something, then those of us who call ourselves Christians should accept what he taught as true.

Past experience leads me to anticipate that although Mormons will almost certainly have to agree to this premise, some of them will demand to know on what basis I accept it. That question is really a diversion from the present argument in its present context. Logically, anyone who accepts both premises of the argument must accept the conclusion, regardless of their reasons for accepting those premises. If you accept the first premise for reasons that differ from mine, that may be interesting, but it has nothing to do with the soundness of the present argument.

Still, I donít mind giving a short answer to the question. I am convinced that everything Jesus Christ taught is true because I am convinced on historical grounds that he resurrected from the grave. Jesusí resurrection proves that he was sent from God, as he claimed. To anticipate another objection, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus does not depend on the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Simply looking at the sources from an historianís perspective, examining the evidence and seeking to determine the best explanation for that evidence, leads me to conclude that Jesusí resurrection is historical fact. Evangelical scholars have produced numerous excellent works defending the historicity of the Resurrection in just this way. A good introduction to the subject is Gary Habermas and Michael Liconaís book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004).

If someone claimed to speak for God and then backed up his claim by rising from the dead, I consider his resurrection ample validation of his claim. Therefore, I accept that everything that Jesus Christ taught is true.

Second Premise: Jesus Christ Taught that Scripture Is Inerrant

I expect that the debate will focus on this second premise. My claim is that Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant. If this premise is true, then, given that whatever Jesus Christ taught must be true, it would follow that Scripture is indeed inerrant.

A. Defining Terms

Before proceeding further, it is crucial to define terms.

By Scripture I mean any and all texts that are extant, inspired by God, and properly treated as normative, foundational, or authoritative writings for the community of the people of God. Note that my definition stipulates three conditions for a text to be considered Scripture.

(1) It must be extant, that is, we must have access to the text. If a text is not extant, it is not presently Scripture. I leave open the question, then, of what to make of a text that was not extant but then becomes extant. Even supposing this can happen, as long as the text is not extant, it is not Scripture.

(2) It must be inspired by God. Obviously, we could engage in a lengthy discussion about what it means for a text to be inspired by God. I suggest that we simply stipulate that what we mean by this is a text that stands apart from other respected Christian literature as the result of God guiding the authors in some way to produce the text as an expression of divine revelation. This definition is deliberately imprecise because, again, I wish to avoid defining inspiration in a way that would beg the question of scriptural inerrancy.

(3) It must be properly treated as one of the normative writings of the community of the people of God. I could use the one-word term ďcanonicalĒ to denote this idea, but since some people argue that canonicity is a concept that developed after the New Testament period, we might do well to avoid using that term here. Notice that I am not addressing the question of whether all extant inspired texts are Scripture, that is, whether the class of extant inspired texts is identical to the class of Scripture texts. I think this is so, but I am not arguing the point here. I simply stipulate that the term Scripture refers to extant inspired texts that are normative texts of the community of the people of God.

By inerrant I mean that the text, properly read and understood, expresses no false teachings or doctrines, no conceptual falsehoods. Another way to state this is that inerrancy means that the text is fully truthful in what it affirms. If a text of Scripture affirms or teaches T, and if Scripture is inerrant, then T must be true and cannot be erroneous.

Please note that the concept of inerrancy admits of various legitimate qualifications. Inerrancy does not mean that the text must be absolutely precise in its reporting of numbers or of a personís speech or in its quotation of other sources. It does not entail that the text provides exhaustive information. It does not require that narrative texts recount events in precise chronological order. It acknowledges that copies of the text may have copying errors of various kinds and that translations of the text may not convey the meaning of the text with perfect accuracy. All of these qualifications are consistent with the claim that the text, properly read and understood, is fully truthful in all that it affirms. For a formal statement on the subject that articulates these qualifications in a helpful way, see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Finally, I should point out that inerrancy of Scripture does not mean that Scripture is complete or that the ďcanonĒ of Scripture is closed. I do believe that the canon of Scripture is complete, but this is not part of what I mean by inerrancy. Rather, inerrancy simply means that whatever Scripture exists teaches no false conceptions or doctrines. If new Scripture comes along, it will also be inerrant, if it is true that Scripture is inerrant.

B. Method

Since this premise is the one that Mormons will likely dispute, we must face the question of how one would go about establishing what Jesus taught on the subject of the nature of Scripture. The most important methodological concern is to avoid question-begging approaches. It wonít do for me to argue that Jesus taught scriptural inerrancy merely because Scripture reports Jesus teaching it, since this argument assumes what it seeks to prove. Nor will it do for Mormons to argue that Jesus didnít teach scriptural inerrancy because their LDS scriptures deny scriptural inerrancy, for a somewhat different reason: such an argument is arguably self-defeating. That is, the argument, ďThis scripture says that scripture is not inerrant; therefore, scripture is not inerrant,Ē is self-defeating because it presupposes that we should accept as true whatever scripture saysówhich is precisely what the argument claims to disprove!

In order to avoid both question-begging and self-defeating arguments, I propose an inductive, historical approach that seeks to determine what Jesus taught about the nature of Scripture from the most historically reliable sources of information about the teachings of Jesus. Notice that I am now considering documents as historical sources, not as scriptural texts (though they may be both). (This is the same method I use to show that Jesus rose from the dead.) In order to make the argument doubly relevant for Mormons, I will also focus on documents that both evangelicals and Mormons revere highly as essential sources of information about the teachings of Jesus. Thus, although my argument is primarily historical, it is also theologically relevant in this context.

Since this argument for my second premise is historical in nature, that means that the argument is inductive in form and its conclusion will be more or less probable. That is, an historical argument does not claim to provide deductively or mathematically certain proof for its conclusion, but rather some measure of factual support for the conclusion. Depending on the strength of the evidence, an historical argument may establish that its conclusion is plausible, likely, probable, or virtually certain. In this case, I will argue that the historical evidence demonstrates that it is somewhere between highly probable and virtually certain that Jesus held to the inerrancy of Scripture. Such a high degree of probability or likelihood is sufficient that the reasonable person should accept this premise based on that evidence.

C. Sources

I propose that the sources on which we should base our historical investigation into Jesusí teachings about the nature of Scripture are the NT Gospels. I have two reasons for this proposal.

First, historians generally regard the NT Gospels as the most reliable sources of historical information about the activities and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. A few scholars may prefer the Gospel of Thomas or some other source, but one may speak of a broad consensus among historians that the NT Gospels are our best sources of information about the historical Jesus. For example, Bart Ehrmanóan agnostic New Testament scholaróhas this to say:

ďÖsome of the traditions preserved in the noncanonical Gospels, especially in the Gospels of Thomas and Peter, may be much older than the books themselves, at least as old as some of the traditions in the canonical books. On the whole, though, the noncanonical Gospels are of greater importance for understanding the diversity of Christianity in the second and third and later centuries than for knowing about the writings of the earliest Christians.ĒóBart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th ed. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 221.

Second, Mormons generally profess confidence in and acceptance of the teachings of Jesus in the NT Gospels, as the following statement illustrates:

ďThe teachings of Jesus in the New Testament comprise the core of LDS doctrine, and their preeminence is evidenced by their frequent appearance in other LDS standard works accepted as scripture and in LDS speaking and writing.ĒóEncyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:108.

In using the NT Gospels as the primary source of information about the teachings of the historical Jesus, I am not assuming their inspiration or inerrancy. My method is to treat these texts as historical sources, which means that their information must be compared with other sources of historical information and critically assessed. This method will pay attention to such issues as the sources that scholars think stand behind the Gospel texts. It will also give conclusions about what Jesus taught more credence if those conclusions are supported from multiple strands of material in the Gospels. If an idea appears in more than one Gospel, in different ďlayersĒ or sources of tradition within the Gospels, and in different subgenres or types of speech (e.g., parables, discourses, polemical discussions with religious leaders, etc.), these multiple sources strengthen the argument for concluding that the idea was part of Jesusí teaching.

D. The Most Common Objection

Before examining the evidence from the NT Gospels, I must address up front a common objection that could easily confuse the issue. In examining what Jesus said in the NT Gospels about Scripture, obviously we will be looking at statements pertaining in that historical context specifically to the OT. We all know that none of the NT books existed when Jesus spoke in Galilee or Jerusalem. (We also know that in the NT Gospels, Jesus never refers to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures.) My claim is that whatever Jesus taught about the nature of Scripture should apply to all Scripture, not just the OT. The alternative is to suppose that OT Scripture is inerrant but other Scripture (say, the NT) is not inerrant. This is a plausible position for an Orthodox Jew, but not for a Mormon or for anyone who professes to be a Christian. I have yet to meet any professing Christian who accepted the OT as inerrant Scripture but regarded the NT as errant. Perhaps such individuals exist, but I donít think this is a viable position in the context of the dispute between evangelicals and Mormons on the nature of Scripture. Indeed, most Christians of whatever religious perspective who deny scriptural inerrancy usually have the strongest objections or criticisms with regard to the OTóand this includes Mormons. Thus, I think we can plausibly contend that if OT Scripture is inerrant, then a fortiori other Scripture must also be inerrant. But if anyone wishes to argue that as followers of Jesus we should view the OT as inerrant but not the NT, let him make his case!

(continued in next post)


  • 0

#33 volgadon

volgadon

    Crazy Israeli & Filthy Socialist

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:05 PM

R. Ishmael said to R. MeÔr while the latter was occupied with the professional work of a scribe, ďBe on thy guard concerning thy sacred task, for if thou omittest or addest one single letter to the Law thou destroyest the whole worldĒ ('Er. 12b).


Yet we also read in the BT, Yebamoth 79a, that, "R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Yohanan: It is better that one letter be removed from the Torah than that the Divine name be publically profaned... R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimeon b. Yehotzodak: It is preferable to have one letter removed from the Torah so that thereby the Divine name may be publically hallowed."
  • 0
Calba Savua's Orchard


I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo

i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon

#34 Woody

Woody

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:17 PM

Your fanciful and inaccurate analysis notwithstanding,

Fanciful yes. Inaccurate, like an arrow that splits the previous arrow, is how inaccurate it was.

Disagree? then feel free to refute away!

I take it you agree with premise 1 and also agree that if premise 2 is true, then the conclusion of my argument follows. So that's a start.

Now, feel free to try to refute premise 2.

Gottum big problem here, white man!

I didn't hint that Premise 2 is false.

It cannot in fact be refuted, because it is verily true.

Wood
  • 0

#35 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:42 PM

Darth J,

I had written: "Evangelical doctrine is errant. My doctrine is errant. Scripture is not." You commented:

1. So does evangelical doctrine come from somewhere other than scripture? Will you post that on your website?

2. "Evangelical Christians teach the Bible is inerrant" is a false statement"? Will you post that on your website, too?


I'm stunned at just how far out in left field these questions are. They have nothing to do with what I said. Asserting that evangelical doctrine is errant does not mean that every evangelical statement is errant. The answer to all four of your questions is No.

You wrote:

1. Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.

Questions begged by this premise: that anyone knows what Jesus Christ actually taught, that he ever taught anything, that he actually existed, that what is written in any version of any ancient texts accurately reflects what he taught, that the translation (which requires interpretation) of any version of the New Testament as it exists today ("extant") accurately reflects what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament was accurate about what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament accurately remembered what Jesus taught, that going from Aramaic to Greek resulted in an accurate interpretation of what Jesus taught, and that nothing was added into the New Testament that was attributed to Jesus but that he never really said.

You don't have a way of answering any of these questions. And a concession that you and Mormons believe in Jesus and believe in the New Testament does not resolve the ontological question--which you are incapable of resolving--of who does anyone know the answer to any of these questions. Both ancient Spartans and ancient Athenians believed in Zeus. The fact that this belief was shared does not prove that Zeus existed.


I already explained in my opening post why this strategy of yours is logically irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter how I know this premise to be true. All that matters is whether we agree that it is true. If you agree that it is true, then you are agreeing with the first premise of my argument. If you don't agree with the first premise, say so. Trying to derail me into defending my belief that Jesus existed is ridiculously irrelevant.

The rest of your post goes even further downhill. I really don't have the time right now.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#36 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 10:44 PM

Woody,

You wrote:

I didn't hint that Premise 2 is false.

It cannot in fact be refuted, because it is verily true.


Ummm...okay. Then, you must concede the conclusion, which is that scripture in inerrant.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#37 Darth J

Darth J

    Sith Lord

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 11:54 PM

Darth J,

I had written: "Evangelical doctrine is errant. My doctrine is errant. Scripture is not." You commented:

I'm stunned at just how far out in left field these questions are. They have nothing to do with what I said. Asserting that evangelical doctrine is errant does not mean that every evangelical statement is errant. The answer to all four of your questions is No.

I already explained in my opening post why this strategy of yours is logically irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter how I know this premise to be true. All that matters is whether we agree that it is true. If you agree that it is true, then you are agreeing with the first premise of my argument. If you don't agree with the first premise, say so. Trying to derail me into defending my belief that Jesus existed is ridiculously irrelevant.

The rest of your post goes even further downhill. I really don't have the time right now.


Right, right. This is just a forum about syllogisms and stuff like that, not religion. That's why it's called the Syllogism Apologetic and Discussion Board. That's why your organization is called the Institute for Syllogism Research.

"It doesn't matter how I know this premise to be true." Then it doesn't matter how Mormons know their premises to be true, either. I look forward to your removing your arguments against Mormonism from your website.

Maybe you would have the time to engage the questions that you just laugh off, calling me childish and too stupid to pass first semester logic, if you would stop straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. That's a saying from the Bible that the Institute for Religious Research did not write and did not compile.

Here's another story from one of the many dozens of versions of the inerrant Bible that is completely free of errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions:

Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. (One day) the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

Acts 19:13-16, New International Version (I don't know why we need a new version of the Bible's unchanging word that is not subject to interpretation because it has no errors at all as it has passed through an unknown number of editors, translators, and interpreters through the centuries).


Ron, just answer this question "yes" or "no:" will you start a new thread and answer the question, "Jesus we know, and we know about Paul, but who is the Institute for Religious Research?" In the same context that this question was being asked in this particular translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of a copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of the Bible.

Will you start this thread and address this question? And in responding, if you do respond, remember:

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

Matthew 5:37


Edited by Darth J, 11 March 2010 - 01:13 AM.

  • 0
Sometimes I make my kids wear sombreros and scuba fins around the house. Not because there is any reason. I just want to teach them obedience.

#38 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,665 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:43 AM

Darth J,

When I used to edit correspondence at another organization years ago, I would mark certain letters that we received "NAR" (No Answer Required). Perhaps I shall start using that here.

With regard to your most recent post: NAR.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#39 Vance

Vance

    Chief Pharisee and Vindictive Goat

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,668 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 09:20 AM

I didn't hint that Premise 2 is false.

It cannot in fact be refuted, because it is verily true.

Typo?
  • 0
"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." Stephen Colbert

"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.

"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".

#40 Vance

Vance

    Chief Pharisee and Vindictive Goat

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,668 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 09:24 AM

Jesus said, (Luke 11:52) "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered".

What is the "key of knowledge" that Jesus is talking about here? Why would it not be the truth found in the scriptures?

Rob,
I realize that you are busy with your up coming (anti-Mormon?) conference in Uganda, but I don't want this point to go unaddressed.

Here is hoping you can get to in some time.
  • 0
"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." Stephen Colbert

"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.

"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".


1 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users