Jump to content

Archived

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

Zakuska

Paul misquoting the OT again...

Recommended Posts

Here Paul misquotes a Psalm and changes its meaning...

Eph 4

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Psalm 68:18

18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.

Last time I checked... giving and receiving gifts was not synonymous.

Inerrancey is on the rocks once again!

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Here Paul misquotes a Psalm and changes its meaning...

Eph 4

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Psalm 68:18

18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.

Last time I checked... giving and receiving gifts was not synonymous.

Inerrancey is on the rocks once again!

:P

But the psalm doesn't say "received gifts from men", but for men. That makes the change less conspicuous. If you receive gifts for someone, it's probably in order to give them later on.

Share this post


Link to post

But the psalm doesn't say "received gifts from men", but for men. That makes the change less conspicuous. If you receive gifts for someone, it's probably in order to give them later on.

Either way... Paul changed the wording of the verse therefore showing that he was a lot more lenient with scriptural inerrancy than the common run of the mill evangelical.

Share this post


Link to post

Either way... Paul changed the wording of the verse therefore showing that he was a lot more lenient with scriptural inerrancy than the common run of the mill evangelical.

Somehow, I don't think Rob Bowman is your "run-of-the-mill evangelical" :P

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Are you interested in discussing the standard doctrine of scriptural inerrancy that I and other evangelical scholars teach and that can be documented from evangelical confessions and other publications, or a straw man of your own invention based on your subjective description of what the nameless "common run of the mill evangelical" supposedly thinks?

I won't defend the latter position.

Either way... Paul changed the wording of the verse therefore showing that he was a lot more lenient with scriptural inerrancy than the common run of the mill evangelical.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Cap'n Zinger.

Would it really be that great for your faith if you could prove that Paul was misleading/misinterpreting/mistaken with the Scriptures? How does that make somebody want to be a Mormon instead of an atheist? Do you never grow weary of attacking "evangelicalism"? I guess you are a Mormon. I know you are anti-Evangelical.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Cap'n Zinger.

Would it really be that great for your faith if you could prove that Paul was misleading/misinterpreting/mistaken with the Scriptures? How does that make somebody want to be a Mormon instead of an atheist? Do you never grow weary of attacking "evangelicalism"? I guess you are a Mormon. I know you are anti-Evangelical.

I am under the distinct impression that Zakuska Loves Evangelicals [As do I ! ]. :P

Praising His Holy Name [Jesus Christ]

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Share this post


Link to post

I am under the distinct impression that Zakuska Loves Evangelicals [As do I ! ]. :P

Praising His Holy Name [Jesus Christ]

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Jedi Knight. Hi,

I should hope so too. It isn't animosity that I detect.

What I don't understand is what seems to me a misguided and overzealous delight taken in trying to discover problems with the Bible. If the allegations were accurate, and I do not grant that they very often are, it seems like the misguided torpedo that eventually comes back in a circle and sinks your own ship.

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Are you interested in discussing the standard doctrine of scriptural inerrancy that I and other evangelical scholars teach and that can be documented from evangelical confessions and other publications, or a straw man of your own invention based on your subjective description of what the nameless "common run of the mill evangelical" supposedly thinks?

I won't defend the latter position.

Maybe we could just continue where the previous discussions left off.

Or we could peruse a thread on a related topic like this one,

Share this post


Link to post

Jedi Knight. Hi,

I should hope so too. It isn't animosity that I detect.

What I don't understand is what seems to me a misguided and overzealous delight taken in trying to discover problems with the Bible.

They aren't problems with the Mormon understanding of the Bible. But this is a problem for the inerrantists.

If the allegations were accurate, and I do not grant that they very often are, it seems like the misguided torpedo that eventually comes back in a circle and sinks your own ship.

Not at all. I don't see this issue being a problem for Catholics either (they have an understanding of authority).

Share this post


Link to post

nicolasconnault, on 02 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

But the psalm doesn't say "received gifts from men", but for men. That makes the change less conspicuous. If you receive gifts for someone, it's probably in order to give them later on.

Zakuska: Either way... Paul changed the wording of the verse therefore showing that he was a lot more lenient with scriptural inerrancy than the common run of the mill evangelical.

I agree with nicolasconnault, as those were my exact thoughts.

So Zakuska, given nicolasconnault explaination, where is the error? Surely you can explain further.

Share this post


Link to post

nicolasconnault, on 02 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

But the psalm doesn't say "received gifts from men", but for men. That makes the change less conspicuous. If you receive gifts for someone, it's probably in order to give them later on.

Zakuska: Either way... Paul changed the wording of the verse therefore showing that he was a lot more lenient with scriptural inerrancy than the common run of the mill evangelical.

I agree with nicolasconnault, as those were my exact thoughts.

So Zakuska, given nicolasconnault explaination, where is the error? Surely you can explain further.

Let's spice things up further: was Paul quoting in his own language, or did he need to translate? Is the English translation of the Psalm rendered from the same source as the English translation of the quoted passage written by Paul?

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

Are you interested in discussing the standard doctrine of scriptural inerrancy that I and other evangelical scholars teach and that can be documented from evangelical confessions and other publications, or a straw man of your own invention based on your subjective description of what the nameless "common run of the mill evangelical" supposedly thinks?

I won't defend the latter position.

I'd like to hear the standard doctrine. If you don't want to post it here, feel free to send me a private message. I'd love to better understand this view.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's spice things up further: was Paul quoting in his own language, or did he need to translate? Is the English translation of the Psalm rendered from the same source as the English translation of the quoted passage written by Paul?

true.

if one is going to wag the dog at bible folk, quote something like Jesus contradiction himself, i.e. I came to destroy v. I came to save

Share this post


Link to post

WalkerW,

You wrote:

I'd like to hear the standard doctrine [of inerrancy]. If you don't want to post it here, feel free to send me a private message. I'd love to better understand this view.

Try here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

Share this post


Link to post

Walker after reading these douments provided by Rob... please notice that with all their little "Disclamers" about, spelling mistakes, punctuation, math and rounding issues. That the idea of "Innerrancy" is so vacated of any real meaning that it is in essence rendered for all intents and purposes, useless as a discriptor of anything. They claim that it only applies to "the originals" but with no originals we can't be 100% sure.

You know after filling the calling of Ward Secretary as well as Executive Secretary and going back over my notes and just some of the Ward Calendar stuff and announcments and just seeing how many mistakes are in them alone, and here we are in Modern times with all this technology and they are still in the state of disarray, I just can't see how anyone can trust anything that a human touchs to be 100% error free.

Now unless they come up with a doctrine of divine puppetry (Which is how the Bible thumpers I talked to on my mission took it, as well as the KJV only's who show up at General Conference) I see no way at all to hold to a doctrine of Innerrancy,

Share this post


Link to post

Now unless they come up with a doctrine of divine puppetry (Which is how the Bible thumpers I talked to on my mission took it, as well as the KJV only's who show up at General Conference) I see no way at all to hold to a doctrine of Innerrancy,

The problem with those that ascribe to inerrancy is that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM have actually experienced receiving a revelation, so in reality NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM really knows ANYTHING about the process.

It is clearly a case of the cluelessly blind leading the cluelessly blind.

Share this post


Link to post

Zak,

Nice rigged game you've got going there. You get to decide what definitions of inerrancy, a doctrine you don't accept, are and are not acceptable.

If the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy is so vacuous, why are you so opposed to it?

Walker after reading these douments provided by Rob... please notice that with all their little "Disclamers" about, spelling mistakes, punctuation, math and rounding issues. That the idea of "Innerrancy" is so vacated of any real meaning that it is in essence rendered for all intents and purposes, useless as a discriptor of anything. They claim that it only applies to "the originals" but with no originals we can't be 100% sure.

You know after filling the calling of Ward Secretary as well as Executive Secretary and going back over my notes and just some of the Ward Calendar stuff and announcments and just seeing how many mistakes are in them alone, and here we are in Modern times with all this technology and they are still in the state of disarray, I just can't see how anyone can trust anything that a human touchs to be 100% error free.

Now unless they come up with a doctrine of divine puppetry (Which is how the Bible thumpers I talked to on my mission took it, as well as the KJV only's who show up at General Conference) I see no way at all to hold to a doctrine of Innerrancy,

Share this post


Link to post

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.fairlds.o...bs/Inerrant.pdf

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

What is even sadder is how Modern Evangelicals treat the Bible and especially the Old testament. They claim it is the innerrant final word of God on Christian conduct, way of life, and church governance but yet they relegate so much of it to the trash heep of out moded hocus pocus that can be safely ignored.

Take this for example... just this past Monday I quoted Ezekiel 18 as an example of how God judges sinners. How that the sinner who turns and repents and forsakes ALL their sin are right before God. Even though they may have a life time of sin God forgets it all and only looks at the righteoussness they have done. The chapter also goes into how God judges every man believer and non-believer alike according to their deeds good or evil. Guess what the response from the Evangelical side of the fence was?

"And nice he's turning to the Old Testament, gets[sic] Zak rejects the New Covenant."

Apparently... according to the Evangelical... God changes his methods between the old and new testament.

Share this post


Link to post

Inspired Version:

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Eph. 8:4

According to Joseph's Inspired Version, Paul got it right.

Share this post


Link to post

Inspired Version:

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Eph. 8:4

According to Joseph's Inspired Version, Paul got it right.

Are you saying that the Psalmist got it wrong then?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently... according to the Evangelical... God changes his methods between the old and new testament.

I've always struggled with the LDS perspective on this issue. Didn't God do precisely that when He sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for our sins?

Respectfully,

Balzer

Share this post


Link to post

I've always struggled with the LDS perspective on this issue. Didn't God do precisely that when He sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for our sins?

Respectfully,

Balzer

Fulfill a promise? I'm not seeing the issue...

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...