• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Archived

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

jskains

Bible Authorship

40 posts in this topic

The headlines talking about the latest strike on Biblical authorship are certainly typical liberal media spin:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Erhman/Forged/prweb8219892.htm

"In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament"

This certainly is typical of the media, but it certainly seems to bring up the very forceful nature of how "Biblical Scholars" from the liberal side view themselves. They are taking translated text, often written through various scribes, either passing the information along through oral tradition or acting as "Secretaries" for various authors like Paul.

Even from conversations i have had with a few professors who studied the Bible themselves have said most of these conclusions come from internal interpretation of the text rather than external evidences of any sort.

I'm a purist on some of these things and believe the source of these texts are from the authors claimed. Notice I said source and not penned by the authors. I have to trust people closer to the timeframe who canonized these texts that they made good decisions on authenticating the text. I am not sure we have any better view than they did. But seems some scholars disagree or believe those in charge of the canonization had agendas.

What is interesting is the fact that there are Christians who wage war against LDS folks using the Bible as the source for their attacks when these similar attacks are being waged against them. How are these questions any different than the questions being brought up about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham?

Any thoughts on all this? I find the subject interesting not only because of the authorship claims, but because of what I perceive as extreme arrogance on the parts of these Scholars who claim they have all the answers....

JMS

0

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. Bill Hamblin has produced some video reviews of Ehrman's work.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are many "talking heads". The ones I pay any attention to have something original to say. I am not really interested in disputations between talking heads. There is too much ego at stake....

0

Share this post


Link to post

So that would mean Joseph Smith Jr was false Prophet since these book are in his Joseph Smith Translation

0

Share this post


Link to post

So that would mean Joseph Smith Jr was false Prophet since these books are in his Joseph Smith Translation

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Apostle Peter was illiterate, and therefore could not have written two letters (1 & 2 Peter) credited to him in the Bible. Six of the Pauline letters in the New Testament are forgeries.<li> The First Book of Timothy, known to be a forgery, is still used today to oppress women, and provides the Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain female priests.

So how many of these did Joseph Smith detect as forgeries when he translated JST ?

0

Share this post


Link to post

1) Bill Hamblin's responses to Ehrman's book are not ego-centric talking head nonsense. He makes cogent and specific comments with historical background. He gives Ehrman credit where credit is due, and points out where he makes flaws.

2) FOR EXAMPLE - Ivan parrots Ehrman's claim that Peter was illiterate. We do not know that Peter was illiterate. We do know that he was prosperous enough to own his own boat, possibly several. As Hamblin points out, Jesus seems to have a boat available whenever he wants one. Peter was middle-class or better - not an impoverished peasant.

3) None of the books in the New Testament were forgeries by modern definition. This is not to say that they were all written by whoever they are traditionally attributed to.

4) The fact that six of the Pauline letters are disputed is far from proof that they were all "forged" and false, even including Timothy.

5) Before uncritically swallowing all of Ehrman's hocum, at least cast a cynical eye on Hamblin's naysaying. You may not agree with all Hamblin has to say but at least you'll learn that there is more on the subject than Ehrman's heavily-censored propagandized view, and occasional outright lies (such as the claim that Capernaum had no public buildings, which is false - they had a synagogue). Or Ehrman's technically-true but misleading claim that we know only two authors from first-century Palestine. While we know only two names, we have tons of anonymous manuscripts - probably more than from any similar area in the world.

1

Share this post


Link to post
The Apostle Peter was illiterate ...

CFR.

Lehi

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Apostle Peter was illiterate, and therefore could not have written two letters (1 & 2 Peter) credited to him in the Bible. Six of the Pauline letters in the New Testament are forgeries.<li> The First Book of Timothy, known to be a forgery, is still used today to oppress women, and provides the Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain female priests.

So how many of these did Joseph Smith detect as forgeries when he translated JST ?

You are jumping the gun. Let's say they are indeed "forgeries". Does that mean that the truth contained in them is false?

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of the things I read was about Peter being a fisherman and fishermen have contracts...well, I can use modern examples to dispute the claim. When BP sent out its "take the money or leave it" person to the people affected a Fisherman spoke up and said "We don't use contracts in these parts" I highly doubt fishermen in the time of peter were regularly writing contracts and such.

As for owning a boat, I do not see how owning a boat places one in a particular class, at best we know Peter wasn't that good of a fishermen as he needed Jesus to tell him where to fish. (yes, I am just having some fun on this last part)

But I don't see that owning a boat or access to a boat provides much insight to economic status.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. Bill Hamblin has produced some video reviews of Ehrman's work.

Thanks for the video link Nathair.

I've never seen BH do a presentation before. IMO, he made good points, articulated himself quite well and he has a really laid back and communicative tone to his monologue. I enjoyed it.

One of the things I read was about Peter being a fisherman and fishermen have contracts...well, I can use modern examples to dispute the claim. When BP sent out its "take the money or leave it" person to the people affected a Fisherman spoke up and said "We don't use contracts in these parts" I highly doubt fishermen in the time of peter were regularly writing contracts and such.

As for owning a boat, I do not see how owning a boat places one in a particular class, at best we know Peter wasn't that good of a fishermen as he needed Jesus to tell him where to fish. (yes, I am just having some fun on this last part)

But I don't see that owning a boat or access to a boat provides much insight to economic status.

I think the ownership of personal property, like a boat, would certainly imply he wasn't impoverished. He was a fisher by trade and must have had been successful enough to maintain his vessel and also his home.

Self employed, home owner, boat owner... I think the notion Peter was at least middle class isn't a stretch.

1

Share this post


Link to post

The headlines talking about the latest strike on Biblical authorship are certainly typical liberal media spin:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Erhman/Forged/prweb8219892.htm

"In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament"

This certainly is typical of the media, but it certainly seems to bring up the very forceful nature of how "Biblical Scholars" from the liberal side view themselves. They are taking translated text, often written through various scribes, either passing the information along through oral tradition or acting as "Secretaries" for various authors like Paul.

Even from conversations i have had with a few professors who studied the Bible themselves have said most of these conclusions come from internal interpretation of the text rather than external evidences of any sort.

I'm a purist on some of these things and believe the source of these texts are from the authors claimed. Notice I said source and not penned by the authors. I have to trust people closer to the timeframe who canonized these texts that they made good decisions on authenticating the text. I am not sure we have any better view than they did. But seems some scholars disagree or believe those in charge of the canonization had agendas.

What is interesting is the fact that there are Christians who wage war against LDS folks using the Bible as the source for their attacks when these similar attacks are being waged against them. How are these questions any different than the questions being brought up about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham?

Any thoughts on all this? I find the subject interesting not only because of the authorship claims, but because of what I perceive as extreme arrogance on the parts of these Scholars who claim they have all the answers....

JMS

The Lord has spoken the final word on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows:

D&C 42
:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are
in the Bible
and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the
fulness of the gospel
.

That wouldn't be true if the Bible contained such massive amounts of "forgery" as the author of that book claims.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So that would mean Joseph Smith Jr was false Prophet since these books are in his Joseph Smith Translation

No, it wouldn't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5) Before uncritically swallowing all of Ehrman's hocum, at least cast a cynical eye on Hamblin's naysaying. You may not agree with all Hamblin has to say...

Oddly, I found myself in agreement with nearly everything Hamblin said. One quibble: "...Up through the first century after Jesus, when they talk about scripture they don't mean the New Testament as we understand it, they mean the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. And that's another important point..."

But, it seems likely that Paul had access to some logia collection that he quoted from and explicitly labeled as scripture. See, for example, 1 Tim 5.18, where Paul quotes the exact Greek phrase found in Matthew 10.10 (a book which is generally considered to have been written later) and which appears in a slightly altered form (synonymic noun substitution) in Luke 10.7. This corresponds to Robinson's Matthean sequence labeled as Q10.7.

Paul also quoted a presumably oral tradition of Jesus' teaching as binding and authoritative on Christians in 1 Cor 7.10-11. That oral teaching obviously survived--i.e., it was authoritatively referenced by Paul (I can't see how that is not tantamount to being "scripture") and later found written expression in all three synoptic gospels.

Good video.

cks

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of the things I read was about Peter being a fisherman and fishermen have contracts...well, I can use modern examples to dispute the claim. When BP sent out its "take the money or leave it" person to the people affected a Fisherman spoke up and said "We don't use contracts in these parts" I highly doubt fishermen in the time of peter were regularly writing contracts and such.

As for owning a boat, I do not see how owning a boat places one in a particular class, at best we know Peter wasn't that good of a fishermen as he needed Jesus to tell him where to fish. (yes, I am just having some fun on this last part)

But I don't see that owning a boat or access to a boat provides much insight to economic status.

You really need to read some Mendel Nun. Your points don't hold up. For example, Peter had a partnership, he moved to one of the major fishing centers of the Levant, he had his own boat, that is, he didn't work for others. As for Jesus telling him where to fish, you miss the whole story, which is why I said read some Mendel Nun. Besides, even the peasents Watt Tyler lead were semi-literate and knew exactly what records they were destroying.

0

Share this post


Link to post
and occasional outright lies (such as the claim that Capernaum had no public buildings, which is false - they had a synagogue).

They also had public baths!

0

Share this post


Link to post
The Apostle Peter was illiterate, and therefore could not have written two letters (1 & 2 Peter) credited to him in the Bible.

Ekh, takoy byezpodobniy bryed. Have you never heard of scribes and dictation?

Cossacks-Write-a-Letter-to-Turkish-Sultan-2C--281880-1891-29-7014.jpg

In a subject near and dear to my heart there is a fairly good comparison. The Cossacks composed a response to the Turkish Sultan. As the famous Repin portrait indicates, they employed a scribe. The Zaphorozhian Hetman though was extremely well educated and obviously literate. He would have known several languages, including Latin.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Oddly, I found myself in agreement with nearly everything Hamblin said. One quibble: "...Up through the first century after Jesus, when they talk about scripture they don't mean the New Testament as we understand it, they mean the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. And that's another important point..."

But, it seems likely that Paul had access to some logia collection that he quoted from and explicitly labeled as scripture. See, for example, 1 Tim 5.18, where Paul quotes the exact Greek phrase found in Matthew 10.10 (a book which is generally considered to have been written later) and which appears in a slightly altered form (synonymic noun substitution) in Luke 10.7. This corresponds to Robinson's Matthean sequence labeled as Q10.7.

Paul also quoted a presumably oral tradition of Jesus' teaching as binding and authoritative on Christians in 1 Cor 7.10-11. That oral teaching obviously survived--i.e., it was authoritatively referenced by Paul (I can't see how that is not tantamount to being "scripture") and later found written expression in all three synoptic gospels.

Good video.

cks

Thank you, good point. Also agree about the video. He has 4 videos (so far) as follows:

Introduction:

Chapter 1a:

0

Share this post


Link to post

. . . Continued

Chapter 1b:

Chapter 2a:

That YouTube channel contains other interesting content relative to this book, including lengthy audio interviews with its author, which helps to put him in the right perspective. He is just a typical unbelieving "Bible scholar". He might possibly contest that; but that is how I would categorize him.

I also have a "quibble" for Dr. Hamblin. I disagree with his concept of "inerrancy". I believe scripture is inerrant from a theological point of view; but that does not mean that there cannot be any verbal mistakes in it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Lord has spoken the final word on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows:

D&C 42
:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are
in the Bible
and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the
fulness of the gospel
.

That wouldn't be true if the Bible contained such massive amounts of "forgery" as the author of that book claims.

I thought the fullness of the gospel was the Trinity

TOUCHING THE FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite adiscussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that theBook of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to getup a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to thework of salvation for the dead, and there are many other things pertaining tothe gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that bookcontains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is thefulness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the threeglories, section 76, in the D&C, and you find there defined what the gospelis. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, His Son, and the HolyGhost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity—the one God the Father,the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being united and being one God. Whenpeople believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of inthe same list of principles, you get the fulnessof the gospel for this reason:If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son,Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear Him, you will learn all about what isneeded to be done for the salvation of the living and the redemption of thedead.

Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99

footnote General Conference Report, April 1922, pp27-28

<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

0

Share this post


Link to post

Mormon Doctrine explains it different

The fullness consists in those laws, doctrines,ordnances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fullness ofsalvation. Mormon Doctrine page 333

Our revelations say that the Book of Mormon containsthe fullness of the gospel, {D&C 20:9;27:5;42:12;135:3}. This is true inthe sense that the Book of Mormmon is a record of God's dealings with a peoplewho had the fulness of the gospel, and therefore the laws and principles leadingto the highest salvation are found recorded in that book.page 333

<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

0

Share this post


Link to post

Or could the fullness be this?

Theseteachings and doctrines are in accord with the statement of the Prophet JosephSmith that the principles of the gospel are “according to the Holy Scriptures,and the Book of Mormon; and the only way that man can enter into the celestialkingdom.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 16.) The fulness of thegospel as contained in the Book of Mormon means that it contains thoseinstructions a person needs to observe in order to be worthy to enter thepresence of God in the celestial kingdom.

Daniel H. Ludlow The Ensign 09/1985

0

Share this post


Link to post

None of the above. First of all that is a digression. Whatever the "fulness of the gospel" is, it is contained in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, according to the previous quote; therefore the Bible cannot be a forgery, according to the word of the Lord. Secondly, as regards what is the "fulness of the gospel," that is explained clearly in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants:

3 Nephi 27
:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and
this is the gospel which I have given unto you
—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
this is my gospel;
and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 33
:

10 Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;

11 Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you,
this is my gospel;
and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved;

13 And upon this rock I will build my church; yea, upon this rock ye are built, and if ye continue, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

D&C 39
:

6 And
this is my gospel
—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Got it wrong, you refering to the preparatory gospel not the fullness

{the gospel of repentance and of baptism and the remission of sins, and the law of

carnal commandments" D&C 84:27} Bruce says this actually is

the preparatory gospel page 333

0

Share this post


Link to post

In Mormon Doctrine page 333 Bruce mentions two gospels the preparatory Gospel and the Fullness of the gospel , want you cited was the preparatory gospel

0

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.