55 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 09 March 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

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?

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that you think Luke 11:52 means that the "lawyers" had actually removed portions of the scriptures?

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 11 March 2010 - 12:25 PM, said:

Vance,

You wrote:



I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that you think Luke 11:52 means that the "lawyers" had actually removed portions of the scriptures?

Yup!

They certainly didn't have the power to remove the Holy Spirit, so the question remains, if it isn't the removal of portions of the scripture, what is it?

[Woody]

Vance, on 11 March 2010 - 09:20 AM, said:

Quote

Woody, on 10 March 2010 - 09:17 PM, said:I didn't hint that Premise 2 is false.

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

Typo?

Jesus didn't say "scripture is inerrant" - exactly those words - but he did say:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Wood

[Rob Bowman]

Vance, on 11 March 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yup!

They certainly didn't have the power to remove the Holy Spirit, so the question remains, if it isn't the removal of portions of the scripture, what is it?

Here's an exposition of Luke 11:52 that I find especially helpful. John Gill, an old Reformed commentator, explains that the lawyers had "taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, of the law, and the prophets, and the true interpretation of them, and especially of such places as refer to the Messiah, and the Gospel dispensation, called the kingdom of heaven, (Matthew 23:13) they had not only arrogated the knowledge of these to themselves, setting up for the only interpreters of the sacred writings; but they had took away from the people the true knowledge and sense of them, by their false glosses upon them, so that they were destroyed for lack of knowledge: and hence came that famine of hearing the word, which they say should be before the coming of the King Messiah, and now was. The Syriac and Arabic versions read, "the keys of knowledge"; and the Ethiopic version, "the key of righteousness". The Jews sometimes speak of "the keys of the law", and represent the oral law as the root and key of the written law: but, alas! it was by the oral law, or traditions of the elders, that they took away the key, or obscured the true sense of the written law."

[Droopy]

Quote

Your syllogisms look rather circular to me because Jesus's teachings are contained in the very scriptures whose inerrancy you base on Jesus's teachings which are contained in the scriptures whose inerrancy you base on Jesus's teachings which are... well, you get the picture.

Quote

Looks to me like you've one of those self-eating watermelons here. The only way to know what Jesus taught is thru scripture, right? (Whatever's written down of his teachings is scripture...) If those writings are correct then you know what he taught. If they are not correct you don't. If you don't know what he taught then you don't know he taught "Scripture is inerrant".

Rob has been apprised repeatedly of the deep tautological problems inherent in the entire Protestant/historical Christian approach to scriptural inerrency, as well as any number of EV truth claims that rely upon the closed canon and sola scriptura as the ground of Christian conviction, and he has yet to do anything but play hopscotch around the issue.

I recently dedicated a fairly long argument to this very problem (on another thread Rob started several weeks back), but Rob avoided the subject.

The perennial problem always reasserts itself.  Sectarian Christianity denies modern revelation and the Spirit of Prophecy.  In so denying, they are set adrift with ancient texts that are the product of spiritual authority, but which cannot transfer that authority, or the truth of the teachings within, to others without the Spirit and principle of revelation.  The argument then becomes one of claiming that Jesus said such and such in the Bible, and that we know this is true because it is in the Bible, and we know the Bible to be true because its the text in which Jesus says such and such.

The LDS testimony or witness of the Spirit - the only means through which this circular impasse can be transcended, is then dismissed out of hand.

Protestants have been arguing and debating theology, not  as long as Catholics have, but for a long time indeed, and all we have to show for it is more and more denominations.

Edited by Droopy, 11 March 2010 - 03:38 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 11 March 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

Here's an exposition of Luke 11:52 that I find especially helpful. John Gill, an old Reformed commentator, . . .

And who is he that I should listen to him?  And why are you going outside of scripture for support?

But I do find some interesting points.

Rob Bowman, on 11 March 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

. . .  explains that the lawyers had "taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, of the law, and the prophets, and the true interpretation of them, and especially of such places as refer to the Messiah, and the Gospel dispensation, called the kingdom of heaven, (Matthew 23:13) they had not only arrogated the knowledge of these to themselves, setting up for the only interpreters of the sacred writings; but they had took away from the people the true knowledge and sense of them, by their false glosses upon them, so that they were destroyed for lack of knowledge: and hence came that famine of hearing the word, which they say should be before the coming of the King Messiah, and now was.

WOW!!! Sounds just like YOU!!!!

Who says that you can't have an apostasy while having possession of the "inerrant" scriptures? Or that you can have a "reformation" when the true understanding and interpretation were lost through apostasy.

So again you have a problem here.  If you claim that they didn't change/remove portions of the scriptures, then you have to explain how they could apostatized while in possession of "inerrant" scripture and how that same type of apostasy was avoided by the "Christian" church (as you understand it).

And if you are willing to accept that they did remove portions of the scriptures then the scriptures are no longer inerrant.

You have now painted yourself between a rock and a hard place.

Start contorting and twisting your way out of this one.

Edited by Vance, 11 March 2010 - 05:35 PM.

[Vance]

Droopy, on 11 March 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

Rob has been apprised repeatedly of the deep tautological problems inherent in the entire Protestant/historical Christian approach to scriptural inerrency, as well as any number of EV truth claims that rely upon the closed canon and sola scriptura as the ground of Christian conviction, and he has yet to do anything but play hopscotch around the issue.

I recently dedicated a fairly long argument to this very problem (on another thread Rob started several weeks back), but Rob avoided the subject.

The perennial problem always reasserts itself.  Sectarian Christianity denies modern revelation and the Spirit of Prophecy.  In so denying, they are set adrift with ancient texts that are the product of spiritual authority, but which cannot transfer that authority, or the truth of the teachings within, to others without the Spirit and principle of revelation.  The argument then becomes one of claiming that Jesus said such and such in the Bible, and that we know this is true because it is in the Bible, and we know the Bible to be true because its the text in which Jesus says such and such.

The LDS testimony or witness of the Spirit - the only means through which this circular impasse can be transcended, is then dismissed out of hand.

Protestants have been arguing and debating theology, not  as long as Catholics have, but for a long time indeed, and all we have to show for it is more and more denominations.

[Zakuska]

Rob Bowman, on 11 March 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

Here's an exposition of Luke 11:52 that I find especially helpful. John Gill, an old Reformed commentator, explains that the lawyers had "taken away the key of knowledge of the Scriptures, of the law, and the prophets, and the true interpretation of them, and especially of such places as refer to the Messiah, and the Gospel dispensation, called the kingdom of heaven, (Matthew 23:13) they had not only arrogated the knowledge of these to themselves, setting up for the only interpreters of the sacred writings; but they had took away from the people the true knowledge and sense of them, by their false glosses upon them, so that they were destroyed for lack of knowledge: and hence came that famine of hearing the word, which they say should be before the coming of the King Messiah, and now was. The Syriac and Arabic versions read, "the keys of knowledge"; and the Ethiopic version, "the key of righteousness". The Jews sometimes speak of "the keys of the law", and represent the oral law as the root and key of the written law: but, alas! it was by the oral law, or traditions of the elders, that they took away the key, or obscured the true sense of the written law."

Wait a minute... Is not this exactly what the Early Christian Apologist accused the Jewish council of Seventy Elders who translated the Bible of doing?  Removing scriptures that spoke of the Messiah?

Quote

CHAPTER LXXI -- THE JEWS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX., FROM WHICH, MOREOVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME PASSAGES.

Quote

"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof."

Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled."

CHAPTER LXXII -- PASSAGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE JEWS FROM ESDRAS AND JEREMIAH.

Quote

And I said, "I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I[was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews(for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

CHAPTER LXXIII -- [THE WORDS] "FROM THE WOOD" HAVE BEEN CUT OUT OF PS. XCVI

Quote

"And from the ninety-fifth(ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from[the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'"

Here Trypho remarked, "Whether[or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible." "Assuredly," said I, "it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But," said I, "you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward."

http://www.earlychri...oguetrypho.html

[Pahoran]

Rob,

I have read your argument with interest, and followed the thread since then.  As others have already said most of what I was thinking, especially around the circular nature of your argument, I'd just like to make a couple of points.

Firstly, you assert that Jesus taught the inerrancy of Scripture.  I submit that this is unavailable to you.  I suggest that the most you can really say is that what Jesus actually taught is compatible with a view of scriptural inerrancy that is in some way comparable to that espoused by modern Protestants.  Even that, I would dispute; but it is available on some of the evidence you have presented.

Your argument in favour of your second premise essentially takes the form:

• Jesus taught A.
  
• The literature shows that His contemporaries generally thought of A in terms of B.
  
• Therefore, when Jesus taught A, He was also teaching B.

However, I suggest that point 2 is oversimplified at best, while your conclusion at point 3 is a leap.

In support of point 2, you quoted a passage that included the following:

Rob Bowman, on 09 March 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

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

I never cease to be amazed by the ability of people to look right at evidence that contradicts their views and fail to see it.  What is glaringly obvious to me is that if God were supernaturally protecting the written record of His words so that nothing bad could ever happen to it, all the care lavished on keeping the copies accurate would be entirely unnecessary.

I further point out that there is not a single utterance of Jesus that is incompatible with an LDS view of Scripture.  We regard it as the written record of God's words, or "The words of [the prophets] to whom the word of the LORD came."  We believe that God's actual word is not at all earthbound, and that "not one jot or tittle will pass away" even if every single copy of every book were to be vapourised.

We in fact take a high view of Scripture.  It stops short of idolatry, and is therefore not high enough for some.  But I have seen no reason -- whether in your argument or otherwise -- to suppose that our view of Scripture should be replaced by a more Protestant-friendly one.  Like our first-century coreligionists, we use a canon that is still open.  It has been added to in my lifetime, and no doubt will be again.

Rob Bowman, on 09 March 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

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.

Doesn't that seem just a touch hubristic?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Vance]

oops! wrong buttion

Edited by Vance, 11 March 2010 - 05:34 PM.

[Woody]

Wow, Droopy, that was pretty well said!

A couple of other things occur to me: First,

Doctrine and Covenants 1:24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

Altho I've seen some very accurate things in the scriptures, I'm not sure the Lord always speaks in mathematically precise equations, but rather, we have to understand what's meant - even in the modern revelations. Treating the ancient scriptures in an overly pedantic fashion will not address the truth of them. The guys that wrote them talked and wrote in a style that requires comprehension of what they were intending. Therefore, it's often counterproductive to split hairs.

Second, regarding the Spirit and understanding the scriptures: this was directed at Oliver Cowdery:

Doctrine and Covenants 18:2-4
2 Behold, I have manifested unto you, by my Spirit in many instances, that the things which you have written are true; wherefore you know that they are true.
3 And if you know that they are true, behold, I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written;
4 For in them are all things written concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock.

"The things which you have written" meant the Book of Mormon. We can surmise that by "the things which are written" the Lord meant the Book of Mormon and other scriptures, which at that time was the Bible. At this time, that was the main corpus of extant written scripture.

So from this we learn that the Holy Spirit does show that various things in the writings are true, and once he shows this to someone, they should rely on those things. Note that this does not give a blanket endorsement of the entire Book of Mormon and the Bible, but only those things witnessed by the Holy Spirit.

I will illustrate with a story. Suppose you are struggling with financial woes and having to change place of residence and also there are family problems and car problems. (Can anybody relate?) You are reading in the scriptures and suddenly part of it seems to stand out at you, like this:

And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive. And running under a certain island which is called Clauda, we had much work to come by the boat: Which when they had taken up, they used helps, undergirding the ship; and, fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, strake sail, and so were driven. And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they lightened the ship; And the third day we cast out with our own hands the tackling of the ship. And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away. But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. And now I exhort you...

The words "ye should have hearkened unto me" seem to be almost standing out from the rest of the page. You realize that the Lord is speaking directly to you, thru the written word. It's the Holy Ghost that makes this happen.

This follows the pattern given in DC 18:2-4; the Holy Spirit has manifested that something in the scriptures is true, and you should rely on it. The rest of the passage from Acts, while thrilling, isn't in the same lofty category.

I believe that this is what is meant by scripture: those parts of the text that are "highlighted" by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon have many passages that are just recountings of things that happened; this cannot be what's meant by the Word of God, or scripture.

Wood

[Droopy]

There seems to be a pattern at work here among human beings, and this pattern was repeated by the post First Century Christians once they rejected the concept of revelation.  The ancient Israelites had an open canon, and thought of it in all likelihood very much as did the primitive Christians (or the Qumran community).  But then came the Deuteronomists, the Babylonian captivity, and the canon was "closed" and made into a religious artifact.

The same thing appears to have happened from the late First Century onward, due to pressures and persecutions from outside the Church, including Hellenism and the surrounding pagan culture (not to mention the Colosseum) and, most definitely, the effects of Constantin's politicization of the Church and its eventual position as the official religion of the Western empire.  Yet again, the principle of personal revelation and Priesthood authority was lost, and in reaction to this, church intellectuals eventually declared that the canon was closed, all miracles had ceased, and Christianity became a religion of religious artifacts of the past, and the scriptures a "once and for all" "deposit" of doctrine and practice, just as had happened to the OT centuries before.

This did not stop the production of new scripture per se, at least for awhile (as the existence of documents such as the Ascension of Isaiah, the Shepard of Hermes, and the Pear attest), but eventually "the lights went out".

Edited by Droopy, 12 March 2010 - 02:56 PM.

[Darth J]

Rob Bowman, on 11 March 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

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.

Your website would save a lot of bandwidth if you'd get to the essence of what you have to offer, as you have here.

[Rob Bowman]

I'm leaving in less than an hour for Uganda and will be gone for about ten days. Whether I will have Internet access and time to post messages here while I am gone is unknown to me.

I look forward to more discussion when time and opportunity permit.

[volgadon]

Rob, take care, best of luck.

[Mygoodeye]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2010 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'm leaving in less than an hour for Uganda and will be gone for about ten days. Whether I will have Internet access and time to post messages here while I am gone is unknown to me.

I look forward to more discussion when time and opportunity permit.

I'm in Pakistan and the Internet works fine.


MGE