339 replies to this topic

[TAO]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking.  This is a choice I make.  I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.

Good, I just wanted to make sure - I don't like having people think one thing is happening when I'm really doing another.  I didn't want to deceive you into why I was asking questions I already knew.

Quote

When copies of various Bible books have been collected from different corners of the old world, and verses of that Book read the same from one copy to another it is a significant find.  This is significant because it explicitly shows that those intact verses read as the original.  These diverse copies are copies of some pre-existing text that is close to the original, which when recopied those verses have NOT been altered, but were copied accurately.  

However, the oldest 'somewhat' Bible-like thing we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls.  They are dated about 2 centuries before Christ.  The next oldest thing identified is a millenium later - in the 10th Century AD, the Aleppo Codex.  However, neither of these is close to the creation date of the original texts.  Also, for the DSS, the most commonality they have is 1/4 of the text, and that's for Psalms.  Considering it's still too far from when the texts were wrote, it is very easy to see that changes WERE made, and they were quite numerous too.

Quote

We can also know that the Bible was not altered drastically the beginning because the books in the Bible (NT) were not complied into one defined collection until the third century A.D.. Because of the diversity of the Christians during these early stages of development, we know that it is not possible for some central coordinated effort to modify the Bible.  By the time of the organization of such a body that  could have done so, New Testament books were widely distributed, so everyone could see how the originals read.

Alas, the Aleppo Codex in the 10th century AD (7 centuries afterward) leaves plenty of time for changes to occur, does it not?

Quote

From a personal stand point, I study and pray about what I read.  Then in obedience I live out Biblical standards, and from my obedience I receive blessings from the Holy Spirit of God.  Some of these blessings include personal revelation, good fortune, and even challenges that help me grow day by day as a Christian.

If the history of a sacred book is not known, it can be compared to the other books as to what it teaches, and what we have been taught.  And also we can pray about it too.  Praying about something and receiving an answer from the Spirit.   I have done this with the Book of Mormon, and through trials and tests with this Book my answer from the Spirit is that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic and teaches about a God that has a pluralistic nature.

Ok, that's good, I was hoping this would be the conclusion you would reach.  The value of books like the Bible, BoM, and others isn't truly in the interpretation of texts - it's in what the spirit tells you.  The books are there simply to get you to think, to use the spirit - it's the spirit that actually matters.

Quote

God will not lie to you when He tells you something.

I see, you  and I are not too far off with this idea of the main part of God's Plan,considering the difficulties of an inner-faith discussion.

One thinks that it may be because one was part of the LDS church at a time XD.

Quote

Yes I would agree. But also when we have a collection of Books and we see a trend or teachings, and we see patterns and principles, we can use that as a standard to judge other writing that claim to be from God, and the meaning of certain impressions we get to determine if that impression is a revelation from God, or from some other source.

But my point is - why even judge by other books when we could judge by the spirit instead.  Books may mislead us.  The spirit will not.  I was having a conversation about this verse with Valentinus yesterday.

Quote

John 3:8
The ^awind   bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but  canst  not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one  that  is born of the ^bSpirit."

It's talking about trusting the spirit - we shouldn't lock the spirit in by forcing it to comply to certain books - we should let it be free - and let us be taken by the wind, wherever it comes and goes.  If we put our trust in books, we cannot follow the spirit to the degree we could if we did not.

Quote

Sounds like you are describing the Preparatory Gospel as opposed to the Fulness of the Gospel

Yes, I think that may be the case, but the point I was making perhaps was that the books are part of the Preparatory Gospel, whereas the Spirit is of the Fullness of the Gospel.

Quote

Thinking to the second party is a hidden activity.  Behaviors due to thinking can be seen and from those actions it is inferred what thinking is behind the behaviors.
Typing messages on an Internet Board and reading messages from others is a difficult means of communication.  Still the interchange can stimulate thinking.  So thanks for the message, I am thinking.  You must be thinking to in order to read and respond to what I have written.

Hehe, it has to do with my Autistic mind - I try to predict how one is going to respond to my responses before one does.  That's why I enjoy making people think so much.  It is more difficult acting in such a way as to cause other people to think on a board, because one lacks body language to read, but I'm glad I've been successful here =).

Edited by TAO, 12 November 2010 - 11:50 AM.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 09:12 AM, said:

Thanks.

They are indeed different then. A difference that is lost in the translation.

Yes, if a person is going to really get into an inquest in to the deeper meanings of certain passages, looking at the old language is useful. But accessible information in the old language exists and has been transmitted to us, so nothing has been lost.   Also the structure and context even in English, of the English text is also revealing.   You could expect even in English--and  even in a paraphrased version that one passage (Acts 2) to indicate the formal religious process would be  in a form that would include the  idea that getting the Gift would be sacred and specifically a formal Jewish style religious covenant.  But in (Acts 10) these gentiles, who did not appear to yet be in a covenant got the same gift.   A meeting among the Apostles ensued to determine if these gentiles should be viewed as being included in the covenant.

Overall, it is true, and  any informed Evangelical would agree that at person who enters a New Testament Christian Covenant has the right to companionship of the Holy Ghost.
This is a covenant principle promised by Christ—

Quote

Jhn 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18   I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Mt 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Different practices can lead to the same principle, and enterance into a covenant can happen  in principle by means of different practices.

When asked how the LDS  Church differed from the other religions of the day, Joseph Smith replied that

Quote

"…we differed in mode of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost…[and] that all other considerations [of differences from other churches] were contained in the gift of the Holy Ghost"

(HC 4:42)

So the religious mode and expression of entering into the saving covenant in Mormonism follows that pattern that Joseph Smith described.
And there is nothing wrong with that.

But different religious modes of entering this same covenant can exist, and I have attempted to show case histories from the New Testament of this happening.  There can even be a non-religious mode of entering this  same covenant.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 12 November 2010 - 09:58 AM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 12 November 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

Rank amateurs should be cautious about pretending to understand something they don't. In this instance, your ignorance is on full display.

Resorting to personal attacks are you?

Quote

The expressions THN DWREAN and hH DWREA are exactly the same words in Greek, "the gift."

So here you say they are "exactly the same".

Quote

The only difference is grammatical case spellings: THN DWREA is in the accusative case because it is the direct object, while hH DWREA is in the nominative case because it is the subject.

And here you admit that they are different.

Quote

We don't spell "gift" differently when it is the direct object instead of the subject, but Greek must do so (the technical term is inflection).

And here you admit that there is a difference and that difference is lost in the translation.

So you have confirmed what I, in my ignorance, have said.   

Thanks Rob for confirming that there is indeed a difference.  A difference that shatters your whole premise.     

Please feel free to attempt to resuscitate your dead argument.

Edited by Vance, 12 November 2010 - 10:12 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 10:07 AM, said:

Resorting to personal attacks are you?

There's no shame in being ignorant. There is shame in being ignorant and refusing to admit it or do something about it.

Go ask Dan Peterson, Maklelan, or anyone with formal training in Greek, and they'll confirm that what I said is true. There is no difference in the meaning of the word from one case spelling to the next -- only a difference in its grammatical place in the sentence structure.

Please don't waste our time until you have done this.

[David T]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 10:07 AM, said:

And here you admit that there is a difference and that difference is lost in the translation.

So you have confirmed what I, in my ignorance, have said.   

Thanks Rob for confirming that there is indeed a difference.  A difference that shatters your whole premise.     

Please feel free to attempt to resuscitate your dead argument.

Vance...seriously... you're wrong. It is not an insult to call you ignorant in this case - it's a fact. The difference is untranslatable because we don't make the distinction in English. There is no 'adding of words', or 'removing of words' that would clarify the meaning in English. The only difference is the grammatical case as to where it's being directed.

All you're doing is flaunting ignorance, and claiming a victory. That's another good solid way to make sure nobody takes you seriously. This is not 'defending the faith'.

This is not a case of 'not being translated correctly'. It's a case of you not understanding the text.

Edited by nackhadlow, 12 November 2010 - 10:31 AM.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 12 November 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

Vance...seriously... you're wrong. It is not an insult to call you ignorant in this case - it's a fact. The difference is untranslatable because we don't make the distinction in English.

Please feel free to show where I said that the difference was "translatable" or that we had to make a "distinction in English"

Don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

Quote

There is no 'adding of words', or 'removing of words' that would clarify the meaning in English.

So?  I didn't claim that there was.  So again, don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

Quote

The only difference is the grammatical case as to where it's being directed.

So, even you admit that there is a difference.  That difference, what ever it is, destroys Rob's premise.  His WHOLE premise is that they are EXACTLY the same.  They aren't.

Quote

This is not a case of 'not being translated correctly'.

I never said that it was. So again, don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

Quote

It's a case of you not understanding the text.

Hey, that there is a difference in the Greek is rather OBVIOUS!!!  Rob is using the fact that the difference is inexpressible in English to hide the fatal flaw in his attack.

Call that what you will.

[David T]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

Hey, that there is a difference in the Greek is rather OBVIOUS!!!  Rob is using the fact that the difference is inexpressible in English to hide the fatal flaw in his attack.

Call that what you will.

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

While I have already disagreed with Rob's general conclusions in the OP here in this thread, it's incredibly clear that, in this particular case, you're chasing the wind with your embarrassing case-difference argument.

[Thunderfire]

It seems to me that our human nature is starting to show through where we begin straining at "nats" in order to support a belief.  In my opinion, this very account introduces us to a lesson Peter needed to learn and one we also need to master.

The Inspired Version states: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost..."  Acts 10:45

The NRSV states basically the same thing:  "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God..."  Acts 10:45-46

It appears by their "astonishment" that they too didn't believe it was possible for "others" to have the same experience with the Holy Ghost.  Yet Peter was witnessing a Pentecost type encounter with these people!

But then what Peter says should silence all critics regarding what "type of gift" or degree of the Holy Spirit experience they had when he says:  "They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have..."  Acts 10:47 NIV  (the other versions say the same thing)

Peter did not say, "But we still have greater because of who we are or what we had done."  He simply said they received the same thing, end of discussion.   In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with God loving people outside of our respective denominations as much as us, or manifesting himself in the same power and presence.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 12 November 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

Are you talking about Rob's claim that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 is EXACTLY THE SAME as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (of Acts 2) that LDS believe is bestowed by "the laying on of hands".  You mean that one?

[calmoriah]

nackhadlow, on 12 November 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

While I have already disagreed with Rob's general conclusions in the OP here in this thread, it's incredibly clear that, in this particular case, you're chasing the wind with your embarrassing case-difference argument.

Just to clarify, the case-difference does not really indicate a formal/informal difference as was claimed?

[Vance]

calmoriah, on 12 November 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

Just to clarify, the case-difference does not really indicate a formal/informal difference as was claimed?

Good question.  

[USU78]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

Good question.  

In a prior life, I studied linguistics.  The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending:  Who/Whom.  Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom.  Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case:  Who is in the nominative (subject) case.  Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

[David T]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

Are you talking about Rob's claim that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 is EXACTLY THE SAME as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (of Acts 2) that LDS believe is bestowed by "the laying on of hands".  You mean that one?

Yeah. That one. If you read my posts in this thread, I have presented by disagreement with this conclusion.

We don't use the term gift of the holy ghost with the same meaning attached to it that Luke did. The words are the same, the modern connotation we understand by it is different. As I presented to Rob, we have done this many times in the Church - standardized usage of terminology when there are multiple similar (or even exactly the same) scriptural terms are used to doctrinal elements (or individuals or roles) we understand today to be distinct.

Hence, we use the term Ordain today, in reference to a priesthood ordinance, to specifically mean bestowing of a priesthood office. In the D&C, that term is also synonymous with 'setting apart' (which we recognize still in the term 'foreordination'). Hence, one generally does not refer to one being ordained to a calling today, we refer to them as being 'set apart'. Even though the D&C refers to Emma Smith being ordained (see D&C 25:7) to expound scriptures, etc.

Yes, Luke used the same terminology (albiet in greek) that we use today in referring to the Sacramental Gift of the Holy Ghost. However, it is clear by the context (and Joseph's expounding of the event) that this is not what Luke was referring to using the term. That does not effect in any way the Church's practice or policy, or usage of the specific phrase today. It's a non-issue.

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 12 November 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

Yes, Luke used the same terminology (albiet in greek) that we use today in referring to the Sacramental Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ok, but he didn't use the exact same form of the words in both Acts 2 and Acts 10 thus presenting a difference, even if the difference is inexpressible in English.

Quote

However, it is clear by the context (and Joseph's expounding of the event) that this is not what Luke was referring to using the term.

Exactly my point. From an inerrantist perspective, different forms should (unless they are very biased and agenda driven) indicate some form of difference, and to adamantly conflate the two and refuse to acknowledge that there could be a difference, is, dare I say, less than honest.

Quote

That does not effect in any way the Church's practice or policy, or usage of the specific phrase today. It's a non-issue.

Absolutely, and so one wonders why Rob is spending so much time and effort attempting to make it an issue.

[David T]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 11:54 AM, said:

Exactly my point. From an inerrantist perspective, different forms should (unless they are very biased and agenda driven) indicate some form of difference, and to adamantly conflate the two and refuse to acknowledge that there could be a difference, is, dare I say, less than honest.

This shows that you don't understand my point. You're still apparantly trying to argue that the word when used  in two different cases should be evidence for two different distinct theological meanings of the words.

While not an exact grammatic equivalent, here's an example of what it appears you're arguing in English.

There are two phrases:

• John gave the book to me.
• Bill gave me the book.

Using the logic you're trying to work on the difference in Greek cases, we should understand the word 'book' to clearly mean something different in both cases. You would be using the difference in those phrases to prove that something substantially different was meant by the 'book' that John gave, as opposed to the book that Bill gave.

This is the essence of what you are arguing based on the difference in Greek cases. It's an illogical argument.

Edited by nackhadlow, 12 November 2010 - 12:13 PM.

[Thunderfire]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 11:54 AM, said:

Absolutely, and so one wonders why Rob is spending so much time and effort attempting to make it an issue.

In my opinion, this was also an issue with Peter. He appears to have felt the same way many do today.  Look again at his vision of the large sheet of paper with all the different animals on it. This vision conveyed different layers of revelation for him.  Some think this was only about clean and unclean foods.  But then Peter goes on to explain the greater revelation he received from the vision when at the home of Cornelius he said:

"You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him.  But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean..." Acts 10:28  So the vision of the large sheet was not just about clean and unclean foods, it was about people "outside of our group."

We have to admit that our denominations are closed fellowships, between member and non-member (or clean and unclean per this scriptural example).  We know they felt this way because they were "astounded" that the Gentiles received the same thing Peter had being the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In our day, we equate this conveyance of the Holy Spirit as ONLY being done through laying on of hands.  But going back to Acts 2, no one laid hands on each other to receive this gift as well as what happened in Acts 10.  From Peter's perspective in the text, there was no difference in what happened.  He recognized the same thing happening in the home of Cornelius as what happened to him at Pentecost.  Surely this was very humbling for Peter to learn and a lesson we will need to learn in our day as well.

[Obiwan]

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

Edited to add,
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
. . .
  38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If they had already received the "gift" Peter was referring to, why did he tell them they had to be baptized BEFORE they could receive it?

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
  15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
  16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
  17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
  18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
  19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
  20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

If there is no difference/distinction then the laying on of hands is unimportant. Why was it needed in this case?

Acts 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Notice it does NOT say "gift". So why is Rob reading "gift" into it?

  45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
  47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Clearly describing the gift of tongues, which is a gift of the Spirit or Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
So Rob is conflating to different things here. (No surprise.)

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
  2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

A clear indication to Paul that who ever baptized them didn't have the proper authority, thus there baptism was null and void? (A conflict between Rob's dogma and Acts. A conflict that he will likely deny.)

  3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
  4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Who was going to "baptize" with the Holy Ghost.

  5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
  6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So again, if there is no difference, why did Paul HAVE to lay his hands on them for them to receive the gifts of the Spirit.

Edited to add,
Clearly, the laying on of hands is significant. What that significance is can not be determined by what is available in the Bible.  The Bible is insufficient in determining all aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   

Vance has clearly and concisely above indicated all the valid points which debunk your claims Rob Bowman, from the Bible itself, so get a clue.  You're doing as all "religions" do which don't have the authority, that is by proof texting certain scriptures to make your claim, and ignoring others which clearly give the FULLER facts on the issue in question which actually debunk your claim.  Mormonism IS the Bible.  Your man-made interpretations are not.

[Hick Preacher]

USU78, on 12 November 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

In a prior life, I studied linguistics.  The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending:  Who/Whom.  Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom.  Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case:  Who is in the nominative (subject) case.  Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

It been a while but, ancient Greek alters nouns to signify roles which are not indicated in an English translation.

[Hick Preacher]

Obiwan, on 12 November 2010 - 12:26 PM, said:

Vance has clearly and concisely above indicated all the valid points which debunk your claims Rob Bowman, from the Bible itself, so get a clue.  You're doing as all "religions" do which don't have the authority, that is by proof texting certain scriptures to make your claim, and ignoring others which clearly give the FULLER facts on the issue in question which actually debunk your claim.  Mormonism IS the Bible.  Your man-made interpretations are not.

I do not think that Rob's claim was been debunked.

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 11 November 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

And I would say LDS are "Prima revelationists".  (As supported by scripture.)

As Jesus taught.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
  13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And Paul taught.
1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
  11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
  12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
  13 Which things also we speak (not write?), not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
  14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Very interesting--a description of Mormonism to consider.