Jump to content

Archived

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

Rob Bowman

Adding "not" in Hebrews 6:1

Recommended Posts

The issue here is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.

In order to understand the discussion, does this question hinge on whether JS agrees with scholars on the transmission and translation of a greek document? Perhaps one can show me where the NT prophets did an analysis of OT passages, parsing the meaning in Hebrew.

I see where Saul and the scribes and Pharasees may have done such analysis, but I see Paul and the prophets citing the OT prophets with their own prophetic interpretation. No dotting of the I and crossing the T in their analysis, just inspiration.

And that is what I find in the JST. Not a tedious analysis and scholastic translation of the Hebrew and Greek, but an inspired "translation" of the meaning of those prophetic words.

So JS was not a Saul, the Pharasee, but a Paul, the prophet.

PS. Here "translation" is used in the sense that Enoch was translated -- to change from a lower state to a higher state or level.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

There are Mormons here who are civil even while strongly disagreeing with me. I can carry on a respectful discussion with them. I am sorry that you are not one of them.

My discussions are always civil. The problem is you will not discuss anything. I will continue to point out that fact; if you insist on arguing about extraneous issues which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I am willing to respond in kind.

I have no patience with professional anti-Mormons, and I will never participate in acknowledging you as anything but what you are, by pretending you are here with good intentions, when you clearly are not.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't talk to me about defending polyandry. You are being sanctimonious. I am making a defense of it because you brought it up to try to malign Joseph Smith. You call Joseph Smith, a married man, an adulterer, despite the fact that he was married and commanded just like Abraham. Go ahead. Explain away Abraham's polygamy and explain how that is not adultery. If you are going to call Joseph Smith an adulterer for polyandry, please defend your own beloved prophet Abraham and how your god sanctified his polygamy. Please respond about how your god did not commit adultery with Mary if there was no marriage relation. Go ahead and call it supernatural if you like but it doesn't change it. I fail to see how characterizing something as supernatural makes it any less lawful or unlawful.

ST,

Your comments about the JST of Hebrews 6:1 merely repeats your earlier objections while continuing to ignore the arguments I gave in previous posts for my conclusion. Your criticism that I am requiring Joseph Smith to be "omniscient about this particular verse" is a rather silly objection. All I am saying is that a prophet divinely inspired to revise Hebrews 6:1 should have had a decently well informed understanding of the verse.

You wrote:

You had asserted that my criticisms of Joseph Smith were limited to minutiae and that he got the most important things right. Sorry, but you opened the door by that claim to having pointed out some of the most important things he got wrong.

While you say you don't want the thread derailed by the subject of polygamy and polyandry, you go on to try to defend Joseph Smith against this criticism:

Wow. You claim that God supernaturally causing Mary to become pregnant with Jesus, without any sexual or other physical contact with her, would have been "adultery" unless God married her first. You're actually advocating and defending Brigham Young's position on this subject--and I didn't even bring it up! And somehow this is theological justification for Joseph Smith to sleep with women married to other men. If this sort of rationalization works for you, I doubt there is anything I can say to persuade you otherwise. No wonder the comparatively subtle point concerning Hebrews 6:1 has been lost on you.

Share this post


Link to post

All I can say is if I were an inerrantist this would probably be my complaint too. I simply don't think we need to think like the conservative evangelicals when it comes to revelation, scripture, and inspiration. In light of that thinking, this just comes off as a silly, even pharisaic, complaint. It means very little, if anything, to me.

No offense intended towards Mr. Bowman, of course.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no patience with professional anti-Mormons, and I will never participate in acknowledging you as anything but what you are, by pretending you are here with good intentions, when you clearly are not.

Would you feel comfortable if someone treated Dr. Peterson with disdain because the church pays his salary, and he is a "professional apologist".

Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I can tell, Dr. Bowman is the one treating the prophet Joseph Smith and his practices with disdain.

I'm sorry, I have to take a break from this board again, as I'm getting a bit abrasive. Dr. Bowman, I apologize, but I am not retracting the substance of my charges. I would like an answer to my charges. I would like to know how you think calling something supernatural makes it not adultery. Take that to another thread if you wish. I'm done for today.

Would you feel comfortable if someone treated Dr. Peterson with disdain because the church pays his salary, and he is a "professional apologist".

Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post

Would you feel comfortable if someone treated Dr. Peterson with disdain because the church pays his salary, and he is a "professional apologist".

Just curious.

Dr. Peterson isn't paid to tear down other peoples faith, (with or without the SLOPPY "scholarship") like Bowman.

Share this post


Link to post

Charles,

Hi again. You wrote:

The issue here is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.

We agree on something! At least, this is indeed the core issue to which the specific topic I have raised is relevant.

You wrote:

In order to understand the discussion, does this question hinge on whether JS agrees with scholars on the transmission and translation of a greek document? Perhaps one can show me where the NT prophets did an analysis of OT passages, parsing the meaning in Hebrew.

I see where Saul and the scribes and Pharasees may have done such analysis, but I see Paul and the prophets citing the OT prophets with their own prophetic interpretation. No dotting of the I and crossing the T in their analysis, just inspiration.

Can you provide me with any examples of Paul or any NT apostle, prophet, or other Christian leader claiming to produce an inspired "translation" of OT texts? If not, your analysis has no foothold in any relevant facts about the ministries of the NT leaders.

You wrote:

And that is what I find in the JST. Not a tedious analysis and scholastic translation of the Hebrew and Greek, but an inspired "translation" of the meaning of those prophetic words.

But that is just what Joseph Smith did not in fact produce. I will comment on your definition of "translation" below.

You wrote:

So JS was not a Saul, the Pharasee, but a Paul, the prophet.

The difference between Saul the Pharisee and Paul the apostle was not that Paul had a different view of the nature of Scripture, but that he had a different view of the person of Christ.

You wrote:

PS. Here "translation" is used in the sense that Enoch was translated -- to change from a lower state to a higher state or level.

Charles, that usage of the word "translation" is irrelevant in this context. Joseph Smith explained what his "translation" of the Bible was all about. It was about addressing the problem of scribes, translators, and priests supposedly altering the text of the Bible and thereby introducing contradictions and other errors into the Bible, such as those that he claimed to have found in Genesis 6:6 and Hebrews 6:1. I quoted Joseph's own statement on the matter in my opening post.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I have no patience with professional anti-Mormons, and I will never participate in acknowledging you as anything but what you are, by pretending you are here with good intentions, when you clearly are not.

Pardon me, but your prejudice is showing. You have here exposed the real reason why you keep claiming I never answer you: You are unwilling to acknowledge anything I say simply because you view me as a "professional anti-Mormon" and you have a deep-seated prejudice against anyone you judge to fit that description.

Share this post


Link to post

ST,

As time permits, I would be willing to discuss this issue in a separate thread.

Don't talk to me about defending polyandry. You are being sanctimonious. I am making a defense of it because you brought it up to try to malign Joseph Smith. You call Joseph Smith, a married man, an adulterer, despite the fact that he was married and commanded just like Abraham. Go ahead. Explain away Abraham's polygamy and explain how that is not adultery. If you are going to call Joseph Smith an adulterer for polyandry, please defend your own beloved prophet Abraham and how your god sanctified his polygamy. Please respond about how your god did not commit adultery with Mary if there was no marriage relation. Go ahead and call it supernatural if you like but it doesn't change it. I fail to see how characterizing something as supernatural makes it any less lawful or unlawful.

Share this post


Link to post

Would you feel comfortable if someone treated Dr. Peterson with disdain because the church pays his salary, and he is a "professional apologist".

Just curious.

I most certainly would.

But there is a small difference.

Dr. P does not go on Christian or Catholic sites for weeks at a time talking only about the Great Apostasy, or the inconsistency of Protestantism does he?

I have no problem with Bowman being a professional or with Bowman being an Evangelical Apologist- what I object to is his coming on a Mormon site with the intent to do nothing but present his Anti-Mormon views.

Can you see the difference?

Dr. P DEFENDS his own beliefs, he does not devote his time to being AGAINST a particular church or position.

Bowman cannot even defend why he believes the Bible is true- all he preaches is that Mormonism is wrong. Have you seen all his videos and other material against the church?

Big difference.

Show me one video DCP has made AGAINST any church.

(Not that DCP, as much as I respect him, is a standard for perfection any more than anyone else- I am sure he has his moments)

But if others think that I am giving Bowman an unjustified hard time, I will take that to heart and repent. I have no problem being justifiably corrected for doing something wrong if indeed I am.

Go ahead- give his site another hit- and see what is on it, and then show me DCP's comparable site.

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. Peterson isn't paid to tear down other peoples faith, (with or without the SLOPPY "scholarship") like Bowman.

Vance stop following Bowman around and derailing threads. You are hampering discussion. Whether you agree with what he is saying or not is not the issue, the bickering is. Bickering is not discussion. Put him on ignore and if you feel compelled to respond to him it could be your last response on this board.

Nemesis

Share this post


Link to post

Pardon me, but your prejudice is showing. You have here exposed the real reason why you keep claiming I never answer you: You are unwilling to acknowledge anything I say simply because you view me as a "professional anti-Mormon" and you have a deep-seated prejudice against anyone you judge to fit that description.

This is news? And no, you never answer me.

You have yet to answer why you think the Bible is "true" about religious issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone else. Having a disagreements about something i fine. Produce your sources and back up your statements that is the way you can counteract an argument that you feel is weak or misrepresenting your beliefs. Bickering and being nasty gets us no where and it does nothing to promote dialogue.

Nemesis

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone else. Having a disagreements about something i fine. Produce your sources and back up your statements that is the way you can counteract an argument that you feel is weak or misrepresenting your beliefs. Bickering and being nasty gets us no where and it does nothing to promote dialogue.

Nemesis

Despite my disagreements with Rob's arguments, I appreciate this reminder. Rob produces thoughtful criticisms.Both he and his arguments deserve our respect.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to note that Rob's scholarship is far from sloppy. While I disagree with his interpretations regarding particular points of evidence, he is one of the best critics I have seen on this board. Discussions with him have been fruitful.

Share this post


Link to post

He is also willing to admit to mistakes and to make corrections as needed.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob might not realize this but years ago I used to post on the Apologetics.com board and I interacted with him there. Overall I never had a complaint about him. I think here complaints about him are way over-played and come off as complaints from sore losers, or from people who want hard to not like him for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post

I would invite anyone who thinks you have addressed these issues to call me on it and show me what I have missed. Your arguments stand or fall on their own merit, or lack thereof.

He is also willing to admit to mistakes and to make corrections as needed.

As am I.

OK- I asked for it! Thanks all!

It appears to be the consensus that I have been out of line. For that I apologize to Rob.

Share this post


Link to post

Despite my disagreements with Rob's arguments, I appreciate this reminder. Rob produces thoughtful criticisms.Both he and his arguments deserve our respect.

David, I hope you do not mind me asking this, but as a Biblical scholar I would like to ask you a question about generally accepted arguments about the "truth" of the Bible, historically or otherwise.

I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question, and I will not even reply to your post- I will not argue or even discuss it further, I simply want your opinion as a scholar.

Last week or so, I had this discussion with Rob on another thread, which has somewhat carried over to this discussion- hence my comments about him avoiding my questions:

....Okay, but if you don't admit afterward that I have addressed it, you will fully discredit any claim to be serious in this discussion. My claim is not that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so. I can show on historical grounds that Jesus rose from the dead without treating the Bible as inspired. Evangelical scholars have been doing this for generations. The Gospels and other NT writings, especially Paul's, are treated as historical documents, and their testimonies weighed using historical methods of analysis to determine what we can know historically about what happened to Jesus. Simply approaching the documents critically, we can show that (1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate in early April, AD 33, (2) his body was buried in a nearby tomb, (3) the tomb was discovered by friends and enemies to be empty a few days later, (4) the body was never found, (5) Jesus' disciples had experiences they were convinced were appearances of the risen Jesus, (6) Saul of Tarsus, while an avowed enemy of the Christian movement, had an experience that he was convinced was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him, and (7) these experiences motivated the disciples to risk censure, persecution, and even death in order to spread the message, despite the fact that (8 ) none of the disciples ever became wealthy, powerful, or otherwise materially benefited from their story. The combination of these facts, ascertained from the sources without assuming their inspiration or complete truth, leads to the conclusion that the evidence clearly shows that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. This argument is not circular; it does not beg the question.

....Gosh, Rob- honestly I want to be nice about this, but that whole paragraph is totally circular! Just read what you wrote and I underlined.

First, you say that "my claim is not that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so"

Second, you say you will use the books of the Bible itself as "historic documents"

You then say that the historic documents you are using (The Bible) prove the resurrection!

All you are doing is saying that "Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so"- precisely what you said in the first place you would NOT do!

And then you have the nerve to say that "this argument is not circular"???

As you said above, you don't always agree with him, but we should respect his arguments.

So respectfully, I ask, is this an established, known argument for Biblical historicity often made by Biblical scholars or not?

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

You asked David:

So respectfully, I ask, is this an established, known argument for Biblical historicity often made by Biblical scholars or not?

No disrespect to David, but since your question is really challenging something I said, I will also answer it.

First, I myself am a biblical scholar. I am a doctoral candidate in biblical studies, have authored articles in peer-reviewed academic biblical studies periodicals, and teach biblical studies courses at an accredited university.

Second, had you asked me, I could have produced for you a long list of biblical scholars who make much the same argument (or in some cases key parts of that argument) that I did. And although you didn't ask me, I will go ahead and provide what will actually be a short, select list, just as examples.

Barnett, Paul (e.g., Is the New Testament Reliable?; Jesus and the Rise of Christianity; Finding the Historical Christ)

Bauckham, Richard A. (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses)

Blomberg, Craig L. (e.g., The Historical Reliability of the Gospels; Jesus and the Gospels)

Bock, Darrell L. (e.g., Jesus according to Scripture)

Bruce, F. F. (e.g., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?; New Testament History)

Craig, William Lane (e.g., Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus)

Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory A Boyd (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Gospel Tradition)

France, Richard T. (e.g., The Evidence for Jesus)

Fuller, Daniel P. (Easter Faith and History)

Habermas, Gary R. (e.g., The Historical Jesus)

Keener, Craig S. (e.g., The Historical Jesus of the Gospels)

Licona, Michael R. (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach)

Osborne, Grant R. (The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study)

Witherington, Ben III (e.g., The Jesus Quest)

Wright, N. T. (e.g., The Resurrection of the Son of God; Jesus and the Victory of God)

This list would keep you very busy for a long time. All of these books are solid works of high-caliber, academic biblical scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

If you don't see the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual, I probably can't help you understand it. Maybe you could ask a Mormon historian.

Your claim that I have answered nothing is ridiculous. Go bother someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

Your question to David asked him if "Biblical scholars" made the sort of argument I did. You did not specify "Mormon" scholars in your question to David.

I am confident, however, that any Mormon historian would understand "the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual," as I put it.

Share this post


Link to post

Smith explicitly tells us that Hebrews 6:1 as it read in his day was in error and that he was correcting it.

How did it read in his day? Let's look at the 1828 Webster' Dictionary entries for leave. Joseph's understanding

of this word should fall within the range of definitions given by Webster. To understand why Joseph felt a correction needed

to be made, we should first try to determine what he understood the verse to mean.

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,leave

LEAVE

1. To send out leaves] to leaf.

2. To raise; to levy. [Obs.]

3. Liberty granted by which restraint or illegality is removed; permission; allowance; license.

4. The act of leaving or departing; a formal parting; a leaving; farewell; adieu; -- used chiefly in the phrase, to take leave, i. e., literally, to take permission to go.

5. To withdraw one's self from; to go away from; to depart from.

6. To let remain unremoved or undone; to let stay or continue, in distinction from what is removed or changed.

7. To cease from; to desist from; to abstain from.

8. To desert; to abandon; to forsake; hence, to give up; to relinquish.

9. To let be or do without interference._

10. To put; to place; to deposit; to deliver; to commit; to submit -- with a sense of withdrawing one's self from.

11. To have remaining at death; hence, to bequeath.

We will eliminate those definitions that clearly do not apply to Hebrews 6:1.

LEAVE

4. The act of leaving or departing; a formal parting; a leaving; farewell; adieu; -- used chiefly in the phrase, to take leave, i. e., literally, to take permission to go.

5. To withdraw one's self from; to go away from; to depart from.

6. To let remain unremoved or undone; to let stay or continue, in distinction from what is removed or changed.

7. To cease from; to desist from; to abstain from.

8. To desert; to abandon; to forsake; hence, to give up; to relinquish.

9. To let be or do without interference.

Let us replace the word leave with one of these Webster definitions.

Would a reader like Joseph in early 19th-century America misunderstand the verse? Would Joseph

be justified saying he could not believe it?

Definition 4.

Therefore [departing from] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

Therefore [saying adieu to] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

We can agree that no one would want to depart from the principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Why is Webster using a French word in his dictionary? :pardon:

Joseph is justified.

Definition 5.

Therefore [withdrawing ourselves from] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

Heaven forbid we withdraw ourselves from the principles of the doctrine of Christ!

Joseph is justified.

Definition 6.

Therefore [leaving to remain unremoved] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

This definition appears to satisfy Rob's criticism. It conforms with his quote from Luther:

for in building a house we must never leave the foundation; and yet to be always engaged in laying it, would be ridiculous

Using this definition Joseph may have misunderstood the verse. We shall see.

Definition 7.

Therefore [abstaining from] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

No one would want to abstain from the principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Joseph is justified.

Definition 8.

Therefore [deserting from] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

Likewise, no one would desert from the principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Joseph is justified.

Verses 4-6 describe the status of those who do any of the above except [6]:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...if they shall fall away,

to renew them again unto repentance...

Definition 9.

Therefore [not interfering with] the principles of the doctrine of Christ...

Who would want to interfere with the principles of the doctrine of Christ?

Joseph is justified.

We can safely eliminate all but definition 6.

6. To let remain unremoved or undone; to let stay or continue, in distinction from what is removed or changed.

If this is the correct meaning of verse 6, did Joseph misunderstand it? On the surface, perhaps; however, a closer examination

of his correction reveals that this is exactly what he intended:

If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved

in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don't believe it. I will

render it as it should be--"Therefore not leaving the principles of the

doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the

foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the

doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of

the dead, and of eternal judgment."

"If a man leaves [departs from...withdraws from...abstains from...deserts from]

the principles of the doctrine of Christ" he cannot be saved. Using those definitions

of leave Joseph would be justified to correct it to say a man should "not depart from," etc.

"If a man [lets remained unmoved] the principles of the doctrine of Christ, can he be saved?

According to Rob's criticism, yes, and Rob's commentaries support his position.

However, if we look at another JST correction in verse 3, it is clear that Joseph understood this in exactly the same way as Luther and Henry (Rob’s references).

3. And we will go on unto perfection if God permit.

Joseph clearly says that leave does not mean to depart from the principles, etc., but to let them remain unmoved and continue on to perfection.

If there is any remaining question of Joseph's understanding, we need only look at Webster's definition of leaving:

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,leaving

LE'AVING, ppr. Quitting; withdrawing from; relinquishing; suffering to remain; ceasing; desisting from.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post

I have no doubt that our friend Rob won't like this answer, but it is essential to note in this type of discussion that there are two groups of biblical scholars. Those trained and associated with conservative minded/apologetic divinity school programs, and those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship. The word "critical" does not mean to criticize or to belittle, but rather to approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs. Divinity school Bible scholars are quite deeply troubled by critical studies. Due to financial struggles, the flagship program for serious biblical scholarship, i.e. the Society of Biblical Literature, has recently changed its mission statement in order to placate these groups, removing the word "critical" from their mission statement.

Here is a site set up to protest this move:

Put "critical" back into SBL

Here is the original article by Jewish scholar Ronald S. Hendel criticizing the fact that SBL has made moves to attract evangelical groups into the academic fold:

Hendel

So before I answer your question, it's important to note that not all biblical scholars, nor their institutions are created equal. There are critical biblical scholars trained and connected with universities and biblical scholars trained and affiliated with divinity schools trying to prove the Bible accords with their own religious and historical perspectives.

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...