Adding "not" in Hebrews 6:1

[mfbukowski]

I think that that statement is a partial reflection of the truth. Your portrayal of what you call “those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship” as those who “approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs”—thus attributing impartiality and “objectivity” to the latter—is a false observation. In reality, the latter kind of “scholars” are no more “objective” than the former. They just look at it through a different kind of biased and distorting “lens”. Whereas the former group may look at it though the “lens of contemporary religious beliefs” (your words), the latter group (with whom you obviously feel comfortable) basically look at the biblical texts through the “lens” of unbelief. They don’t believe in the reality of miracles, they don’t believe in the reality of prophecy, and so their “scholarly” investigation is geared towards eliminating those phenomena as possible causes of their observation, and look for other possible explanations for them, which they “wrap up in scholarly paper,” and pass off as genuine, impartial research. They don’t believe that the miracles of Moses or of Jesus really happened, so they try to figure out plausible explanations to eliminate them. They don’t believe that Isaiah could have really foretold the fall of Babylon as precisely as he did, so they try to find plausible sounding explanations to circumvent them. They don’t believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, so they try to figure plausible sounding “scholarly” explanations to discredit them. In reality they are just as biased, and try to look at their subject through a distorted “lens” as the other group does—if not more so.

And where does that leave people like me, who do believe in miracles, prophecies, and the rest? I take the scriptures literally—except where they are obviously not meant to be taken literally. I believe that the miracles of Moses really did happen; the miracles of Jesus (and His disciples and Apostles) did really happen; the Flood really did happen; Isaiah really did predict the fall of Babylon, exactly as it did happen. And I am not the only one that does. I think that the prophet does. I think his counsellors do. I think all the Apostles do. I think all the General Authorities of the Church do. I think pretty much all LDS do—and I think they are right! And so where does that leave us? Are we also looking at it through the biased “lens” of “contemporary religious thought”? Do we all really have to agree with you, and with your small clique of “scholars” to be right?

Honestly Zerinus, I think it leaves you just absolutely fine.

The entire question here as I see it is about skepticism. Every single one of those items you cite, in my belief system COULD HAVE happened exactly as you and I BOTH believe they did! I personally have a low degree of certainty that they did in fact happen that way. Could they have happened that way? Absolutely! Is God a God of miracles? Absolutely! Could he have done it exactly as written? Absolutely! DID HE? I don't think so. I think he relies on nature to perform his miracles.

The question becomes, for those of us who are skeptical by nature, how much skepticism can the gospel itself "take" and still be "true"?

By taking the most skeptical possible position, I have found that there is NOTHING which can disprove the gospel of Jesus Christ- not a "critical" stance, not science, not philosophy, NOTHING can disprove the gospel.

There is no need to fear ANYTHING that any critic can throw at us because our beliefs are based on a personal revelation of the truth of the gospel- God has spoken to us each individually, and no matter how skeptical in a worldly sense one wants to be, no one can threaten the gospel in my life with any argument whatsoever- because I KNOW it is true regardless of anything which can be thrown at us.

THAT is the strength in understanding the "skeptic's gospel", as I call it.

Again and again I see fundamentalists who are threatened and wonder, as you have above, about what happens to them in a world of skepticism.

I see fundamentalists on the trailer park who are critics and say stupid things like "Evolution is a scientific fact- so the gospel is false".

Never was there a stupider position taken by anyone! You look at Foxtrot who is as much a fundamentalist as anyone- who believes facts are facts and that facts can disprove the gospel in some way. That is simply incorrect, and in my opinion, shows him to be only very narrowly educated.

So where does that leave you? It leaves you high and dry and comfortable with your nice fire burning brightly.

My only advice might be to look differently at the arguments of the skeptics of your faith who see things differently but believe just as much as you do.

[mfbukowski]

David B.

Thanks so much for answering my questions, and taking the time to take on this somewhat thorny issue.

If you have more to say, I certainly do not want to cut it short, but I thought a hearty thanks for what you have already said was more than appropriate!

[USU78]

That you are unable to perceive that Joseph & Sidney's addition to Heb 6;1 clarifies the meaning indicates that you do indeed have an overwhelmingly deep precommitment to fault their insertion. Moreover, you have been noticeably unwilling to admit that they were right when they were right -- as for example in the case I cited in Ex 6:3, which you have carefully ignored.

In other words . . . a quote miner is a quote miner no matter how prettied up.

I had hopes for this particular criticism in the OP when I first read it, but as I've thought about it and read the discussion, it's become clear that the OP is doing the same thing the OP always does: quote mining with a narrow and malicious purpose. The OP ultimately doesn't engage the texts of our holy books at all. He hasn't really read them. Just scanned for "gotchas." That ain't study. But it ain't dishonest. The OP is highly consistent and obviously desperately wants his aim to succeed.

[mfbukowski]

In other words . . . a quote miner is a quote miner no matter how prettied up.

I had hopes for this particular criticism in the OP when I first read it, but as I've thought about it and read the discussion, it's become clear that the OP is doing the same thing the OP always does: quote mining with a narrow and malicious purpose. The OP ultimately doesn't engage the texts of our holy books at all. He hasn't really read them. Just scanned for "gotchas." That ain't study. But it ain't dishonest. The OP is highly consistent and obviously desperately wants his aim to succeed.

Exactly.

Here is a real gem:

I love his sidekick's little smiles at every "gotcha".

[zerinus]

Exactly.

Here is a real gem:

I love his sidekick's little smiles at every "gotcha".

LOL! That is a good laugh. I call it Rob and Joe's Laurel & Hardy show!

[USU78]

I love his sidekick's little smiles at every "gotcha".

[mfbukowski]

LOL! That is a good laugh. I call it Rob and Joe's Laurel & Hardy show!

Since I have turned over a new leaf, I will just say that it's standard of scholarship speaks for itself.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

In other words . . . a quote miner is a quote miner no matter how prettied up.

I had hopes for this particular criticism in the OP when I first read it, but as I've thought about it and read the discussion, it's become clear that the OP is doing the same thing the OP always does: quote mining with a narrow and malicious purpose. The OP ultimately doesn't engage the texts of our holy books at all. He hasn't really read them. Just scanned for "gotchas." That ain't study. But it ain't dishonest. The OP is highly consistent and obviously desperately wants his aim to succeed.

This is ridiculous! Happily, some of the Mormons on this forum recognize that your characterization of me is inappropriate:

"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 (post #89)

"Rob produces thoughtful criticisms.Both he and his arguments deserve our respect. "--David Bokovoy (post #90)

"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."--WalkerW (post #91)

"He is also willing to admit to mistakes and to make corrections as needed."--Volgadon (post #92)

"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."--stemelbow (post #93)

I realize you think it is a successful rhetorical strategy to claim -- with no evidence -- that I haven't read the LDS standard works. But it will backfire, and probably already is backfiring, as sincere people read my posts and realize that your criticism does indeed sound like it is coming from a "sore loser."

Here's a question for you -- and it is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. What would I need to do to convince you that I have read the Book of Mormon? Would a verse-by-verse commentary be necessary to show that I have read the whole thing? (Okay, that question was rhetorical.)

There is absolutely nothing "desperate" about me or about my arguments. I am simply trying to engage the texts in a serious, scholastically sound manner. I don't need to be here at all, and I wouldn't be if my interest was only in scoring "gotchas" to impress fellow evangelicals. Nor would I be here if my purpose was simply to proselytize Mormons, since an online apologetics discussion forum (of any religious persuasion) is generally going to be dominated by especially hard-headed individuals who would be especially difficult to persuade. But some people here do seem to be trying "desperately" to discredit me personally (not my arguments, which would be fine).

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I reviewed the video, and I don't see what you see. Yes, Joel smiled during parts of the video. You seem to be suggesting, though, that he was smirking repeatedly at things I said about the LDS doctrine, and I didn't see that.

If someone here would like to start a new thread to discuss the substantive doctrinal issues introduced in the video, I'd be happy to participate. Here are the relevant articles:

Chapter 13: Priesthood, Power, and Presumption

Chapter 14: Jesus and the Priesthood

I love his sidekick's little smiles at every "gotcha".

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Hi again. You wrote:

Bump my post.

Point: your interpretation of the Greek, if original, doesn't make sense. You don't mature beyond the two great commandments or set them aside to go on to perfection. The basic Christian principles bring perfection. Unless, of course, you need something more. Like works... Then it'd make sense. Take your pick.

PacMan

I think you missed something. Hebrews 6:1 is not referring to the two love commands as the "principles," but is referring to certain elementary or introductory aspects of the Christian faith. And the point that Hebrews 5:11-6:3 is making is not that we need to mature beyond love or beyond perfection (!), but that spiritually dull believers who have not yet mastered (in terms of their education or instruction) the elementary principles need to do so and move on (in their education, not move on in the sense of moving away from) to more advanced matters.

[Ron Beron]

Exactly.

Here is a real gem:

I love his sidekick's little smiles at every "gotcha".

Despite my ostensible objection I found it kinda interesting. They presented their material in a very succinct and polite manner. They were wrong, but politely wrong.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

That you are unable to perceive that Joseph & Sidney's addition to Heb 6;1 clarifies the meaning indicates that you do indeed have an overwhelmingly deep precommitment to fault their insertion. Moreover, you have been noticeably unwilling to admit that they were right when they were right -- as for example in the case I cited in Ex 6:3, which you have carefully ignored.

Before I respond to this example, perhaps you could clarify your claim regarding Exodus 6:3 by answering a couple of questions.

1. Is it your claim that we now know that the verse should be translated as a question, or that this is a possibility?

2. Is it your claim that Joseph and Sidney could only have come up with this change by divine inspiration? If yes, on what do you base that claim? If not, what is the significance of them coming up with this change?

And before I discuss this issue with you, please answer my CFR.

[Rob Bowman]

Ron,

You wrote:

Despite my ostensible objection I found it kinda interesting. They presented their material in a very succinct and polite manner. They were wrong, but politely wrong.

Thanks, Ron. I would be more than happy to receive constructive criticism from you in a separate thread explaining where we were wrong.

[Rob Bowman]

Richard,

You wrote:

But I am willing to trust the Prophet Joseph on this one since I do not know what all points the original writer was trying to make.

Fair enough, but you can understand that I don't share your trust in Joseph Smith.

You wrote:

By the way, I find it a bit strange that this thread is dealing with a scripture with such a Mormon doctrine: the need to "go onto perfection" and not stay at the milk stage of living the gospel.

That Christians need to grow and mature in their faith is not a distinctively LDS doctrine. Evangelicals, for example, teach the same thing, though we understand it differently than you do.

You wrote:

Mormons believe that Christ, through the Holy Ghost, will eventually reveal many MORE things to his people. This is taught in John 16:12-13.

We understand John 16:12-13 differently. Jesus is promising that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles the truth and through the apostles teach us the truth. That promise has been and is being fulfilled. The Holy Spirit's teaching of the apostles is preserved for us in the New Testament.

You wrote:

Maybe that is why they are called MOREmons.

Okay, made me smile.

You wrote:

How exactly does one "go onto perfection", in other words become like Christ?

Is it not important in heeding the advice in Hebrews 6:1 to be open to MORE revelation from Christ beyond what is found in the New Testament?

I don't see anything in Hebrews 6:1 implying such revelation beyond the NT, but if such were forthcoming, it would agree with the revelation already given in the NT. I don't think the LDS revelations qualify in that regard.

[SkepticTheist]

Rob,

Again, you yourself have made a statement here that is absolutely correct. Still, Joseph Smith's addition of "not" is not inconsistent with what you are talking about, and actually is actually conveying precisely what you are saying. Thus once again I contend that Joseph Smith's addition is not inconsistent with the spirit of the meaning.

PacMan,

Hi again. You wrote:

I think you missed something. Hebrews 6:1 is not referring to the two love commands as the "principles," but is referring to certain elementary or introductory aspects of the Christian faith. And the point that Hebrews 5:11-6:3 is making is not that we need to mature beyond love or beyond perfection (!), but that spiritually dull believers who have not yet mastered (in terms of their education or instruction) the elementary principles need to do so and move on (in their education, not move on in the sense of moving away from) to more advanced matters.

[USU78]

I realize you think it is a successful rhetorical strategy to claim -- with no evidence -- that I haven't read the LDS standard works. But it will backfire, and probably already is backfiring, as sincere people read my posts and realize that your criticism does indeed sound like it is coming from a "sore loser."

I have been consistent in my views on your methodology since you started coming around here. You find a "gotcha." You build an argument about the "gotcha." You present it here in the form of, "You folks believe 'X,' and here's why," whereupon you give the evidence in the form of your "gotcha" with your argument. People say, "You don't understand the context, that's not what we believe at all." You reply, "Yes you do," and you reiterate the "gotcha" and your argument.

Here you have been presented with real evidence of what we LDS types think of the JSV (it's footnotes for the most part to aid in understanding certain difficult passages), yet you discount or ignore what we really think and what the context is.

I'm not inclined to concede the ground on how we understand our own books to somebody who works in this fashion. Granted, it's prettier than most folks who come around here after taking "Cultbusting 101" at TCU, but it is still of a kind with them.

The folks you listed on your resume are far more polite and are willing to concede that the argument is interesting. I think their approach to your "gotchas" is all wrong, because your approach to our texts is so grossly "out there."

The specifics in this thread are no more interesting than just about every other thread you've started. Do you want to ask us what we think about something you've found and what we as people who actually take the texts seriously think? Great! Do so. But don't enter our living room, tell us what we think, and expect everybody to be happy about it.

[mfbukowski]

I have been consistent in my views on your methodology since you started coming around here. You find a "gotcha." You build an argument about the "gotcha." You present it here in the form of, "You folks believe 'X,' and here's why," whereupon you give the evidence in the form of your "gotcha" with your argument. People say, "You don't understand the context, that's not what we believe at all." You reply, "Yes you do," and you reiterate the "gotcha" and your argument.

Here you have been presented with real evidence of what we LDS types think of the JSV (it's footnotes for the most part to aid in understanding certain difficult passages), yet you discount or ignore what we really think and what the context is.

I'm not inclined to concede the ground on how we understand our own books to somebody who works in this fashion. Granted, it's prettier than most folks who come around here after taking "Cultbusting 101" at TCU, but it is still of a kind with them.

The folks you listed on your resume are far more polite and are willing to concede that the argument is interesting. I think their approach to your "gotchas" is all wrong, because your approach to our texts is so grossly "out there."

The specifics in this thread are no more interesting than just about every other thread you've started. Do you want to ask us what we think about something you've found and what we as people who actually take the texts seriously think? Great! Do so. But don't enter our living room, tell us what we think, and expect everybody to be happy about it.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

I have been consistent in my views on your methodology since you started coming around here. You find a "gotcha." You build an argument about the "gotcha." You present it here in the form of, "You folks believe 'X,' and here's why," whereupon you give the evidence in the form of your "gotcha" with your argument. People say, "You don't understand the context, that's not what we believe at all." You reply, "Yes you do," and you reiterate the "gotcha" and your argument.

...But don't enter our living room, tell us what we think, and expect everybody to be happy about it.

CFR that I have ever "told you what you think" and denied that you think what you say you do.

[Vance]

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.

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

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?

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?

Joseph is justified.

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

Joseph is justified.

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

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

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

Joseph is justified.

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]:

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

Joseph is justified.

We can safely eliminate all but definition 6.

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 [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).

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:

Bernard

[USU78]

I have ever "told you what you think" and denied that you think what you say you do.

Let's take a single example from this here thread:

Hamblin: So what you're telling us is that JS correctly clarified a potential misunderstanding (the text does not mean abandon) of the theological meaning of the text, rather than providing an intricate analysis of philology of the text. So how is this a problem? (Unless, of course, you assume scriptural inerrancy, and that the JST is a philological translation rather than a theological clarification.)

RB: As I have explained in another post, adding "not" did nothing to clarify that "leaving" does not mean "abandoning." Nor does it clarify the meaning of the text as a whole. Characterizing me as suggesting that Joseph was supposed to offer "an intricate analysis of philology of the text" is a clever straw-man diversion, not a serious engagement of my argument.

First you discount BH's very clear understanding of what problem JSJr encountered in the scripture and how he dealt with it. He correctly diagnosed that the issue was not a "translation" error as understood by RB, but rather a shift in meaning in the word used by the KJV translators, which is very much within the meaning of "translation" as understood by JSJr and, by coincidence, us Mormon types. You see, we have lived with JSJr's writings our whole lives long. Gives us a certain advantage in understanding what JSJr was saying when he inserted the "not." Of course, you pooh-pooh BH's clear and accurate understanding and call it a "straw-man diversion."

You thus tell us what we believe whilst ignoring what we tell you we believe.

Arrogant, dismissive and monstrously rude in somebody else's parlor.

Hamblin: You have also demonstrated that JS was not reading standard biblical commentaries of his day, despite the fact that many critics insist he was reading precisely such books. Thanks!

RB: No, my point was not that Joseph never cracked open such books; nor would I claim that he studies such books thoroughly or consistently. Your comment oversimplifies that issue.

Here again you trip over the obvious in your hell-bent insistence that only you are the correct reader of texts you never penetrate, but only scan for your miserable "gotchas." JSJr was a naif from the perspective of early Victorian Biblical scholarship. He encounters the texts fresh and absolutely free from the preconceptions of divinity colleges. Now, you may be unaware of the body of critical works with which BH is quite familiar and in which modern (or at least more modern than JSJr himself) critics make just the accusation BH was referring to. You insist he doesn't know what he's talking about. Only you do.

Just how are we to take such things? I don't understand. If you're trying to sell us on the concept that only you understand our texts and we are too ignorant to keep up, well, nobody's buying it.

I suspect what's really going on here is you're practicing and polishing your antiMormon rants for publication elsewhere.

We've seen that before.

We'll see it again.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Your "example" does not show me misrepresenting what you or anyone else on this forum believes. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as telling you what you think! Thus, you have not answered the CFR. But my point is made, and I won't insist that you provide a real example of me doing so, since I don't think you will find one.

[mfbukowski]

USU78,

Your "example" does not show me misrepresenting what you or anyone else on this forum believes. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as telling you what you think! Thus, you have not answered the CFR. But my point is made, and I won't insist that you provide a real example of me doing so, since I don't think you will find one.

Just looking at the last couple of pages, posts number 114, 123, 129, 130, 136, 140, 141, 142 and 145 showed instances where the poster felt that you were in some way not understanding or misrepresenting our position. Most of the other posts not numbered above were yours. That more than double satisfies the CFR which USU has already satisfied.

I would wager that the majority of this thread, except for your posts, fall into the same category.

If your objective is to use us to help craft your arguments for other uses, you would do well to listen rather than argue and repeat points you have been trying to make since you came here, without success.

You aren't going convince anyone with straw-man arguments.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

You wrote:

Robert F. Smith, on 08 April 2011 - 08:04 PM, said:

You had wrongly stated (in response to someone else) that Joseph could not do midrash unless he knew the meaning of the word. Not only was that a silly and false statement for the reasons I stated, but it shows that you have no idea what such terms mean.

Rob Bowman said:

CFR that I ever said what you claim here.

You and Walker had the following exchange early on:

WalkerW, on 06 April 2011 - 07:41 AM, said:

This is a great post. It provides an excellent reason to adopt the midrashic interpretation of the JST and a broader understanding of scripture and revelation.

Rob Bowman, on 06 April 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

Thanks. However, I don't see how the "midrashic interpretation" can handle the fact that Joseph explicitly claimed to be correcting an error in the text. This is one of the main reasons why I am using Hebrews 6:1 as a case study here: Joseph's own explanation for the revision is incompatible with a so-called midrashic explanation. Such an explanation might seem viable elsewhere, in places where we don't have an explanation from Joseph Smith himself, but I don't see how it can be made to work in this instance.

Rob Bowman said:

WalkerW,

The issue, as I see it, isn't whether Joseph knew what midrash was, but whether his claim that Hebrews 6:1 was in error was correct. If a "midrashic interpretation" allows Joseph Smith to be mistaken in thinking he is correcting an error in the text, then it allows any and all sorts of mistaken notions, including that Joseph was mistaken in thinking his revisions to the Bible were in any sense inspired by God. I'm afraid I view such a "midrashic" explanation of what Joseph was doing as an attempt to have one's inspired cake and eat it too.

WalkerW, on 06 April 2011 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm not sure that the midrashic interpretation requires Joseph Smith to even be aware of a midrashic interpretation. This particular example seems to be, as you stated, a "rational" decision based on a possible reading of the KJV English.

It is reasons like this that I say the JST should not replace the biblical manuscripts. They should be read together.

Sorry Rob,

It appears to me that I have grossly misstated your position on midrash. I must be getting forgetful in my old age.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

You wrote:

That you are unable to perceive that Joseph & Sidney's addition to Heb 6:1 clarifies the meaning indicates that you do indeed have an overwhelmingly deep precommitment to fault their insertion. Moreover, you have been noticeably unwilling to admit that they were right when they were right -- as for example in the case I cited in Ex 6:3, which you have carefully ignored.

Before I respond to this example, perhaps you could clarify your claim regarding Exodus 6:3 by answering a couple of questions.

1. Is it your claim that we now know that the verse should be translated as a question, or that this is a possibility?

2. Is it your claim that Joseph and Sidney could only have come up with this change by divine inspiration? If yes, on what do you base that claim? If not, what is the significance of them coming up with this change?

I thought my original statement to be more than adequate:

On the other hand, we could examine Joseph & Sidney's alteration of Exodus 6:3 (addition of a question mark). As it turns out, many scholars today agree that this is a reasonable alternative -- if not the best translation (the NIV offers it as an alternate translation in the notes). See LINK for an example of this new approach to Ex 6:3.

They either did or did not provide a legitimate change at this point, and I'd like to know your opinion.

[LeSellers]

One wonders, with this topic, whether Rob has here made Joseph "an offender for a word".

Lehi