Jump to content

Discussing 2 Tim 3:16 With Evangelicals


Sargon

Recommended Posts

Jonzlaw:

I hope that you get my point then. You original assertion could be thrown both ways and is rather moot.

How so that it is a must? It may be inerrant but more revelation came. Because the New Testament was added does that make the Old Testament errant? Or can I assert that because you accept the New Testament that you must think the Old Testament is errant?

It is a "must" because your prophet said so.

Does God have a hand in evil because men commit evil acts? Just because something happens in the world, to the Bible or otherwise, does not mean that God has a hand in it. Agency.

I'll take that as a no, you do not think God had anything to do with the compilation of the Bible.

A bible, a bible, we have a bible. If all we need is a bible, stop going to church. Stop doing anything but reading your bible, do nothing with anyone else as it pertains to religion. You just need your bible. The Pope is equally wrong then, and all those that trust him must be equally wrong. Are you willing to admit that?

Actually, I don't think going to church on Sunday is at all necessary, and the Word is all we need. Going to church on Sunday in order to fellowship with other Christians is a bonus. And, no, I don't admit that the Pope is wrong. First of all, I'm not Catholic and pay no attention whatsoever to the Pope. Secondly, Joseph Smith was no Pope.

Link to comment
Yes, I could agree to that. Joseph didn't believe it was inerrant, and if one were to follow Joseph on every little thing they wouldn't either.

But, we are not required to follow Joseph on every little thing. A LDS is welcome to believe the bible is inerrant and still go to the Temple.

This, if true, explains alot. I think the non-Mormon thinks the Mormon is sort of bound by everything Smith said.

You could start by reading my OP where I addressed that.

I did. Still not getting it. :P

Take Mormon prophets out of the equation. You are still left with the nothing but Hebrew prophets. You are "totally forced to put [your] faith in (Hebrew) men." How is that different?

They were prophets.

Sargon

Link to comment
Take Mormon prophets out of the equation. You are still left with the nothing but Hebrew prophets. You are "totally forced to put [your] faith in (Hebrew) men." How is that different?

They were prophets.

You are aware that this isn't really an answer aren't you?

QUOTE
2) In order to believe that the Bible is errant, one must somehow reconcile that belief with the belief that it was in fact "God Breathed." I'm not sure how to do that.

You could start by reading my OP where I addressed that.

I did. Still not getting it. smile.gif

Short Answer: Are you sure you understand what exactly it means to be "god-breathed?" Is it possible your understanding of "god-breathed" is not the same as Paul's? And what if we assume that "god-breathed" actually means "inerrant." That would imply that it was inerrant only for the prophet who penned the words. It is simply impossible that anyone, much less someone removed by 2000, would understand those words precisely as the ancient prophet did.

Non-LDS authors Malina and Rohrbaugh:

When reader and writer comes from a different social system, then â??as a rule, nonunderstanding-or at best misunderstanding- will be the result.â? Generally a readerâ??s mental image- especially the imaged conjured by an uninformed reader- will be influenced by his own culture (a phenomena known as â??recontextualizationâ?).2

Long Answer:

Claim #3

This passage proves that the bible is inerrant since it says that the scriptures were given by â??inspiration of God.â? The Greek here translated â??inspirationâ? actually mean â??god-breathed.â?

Answer #1

As mentioned above, Paul could only have been referring to the Old Testament. There are various reasons for believing that the Old Testament is not inerrant, but that is beyond the scope of this paper.

Answer #2

Yes, the Greek can be accurately translated as â??god-breathed.â? That is fine. But we immediately run into certain problem with that. LDS researcher Benjamin McGuire says the following concerning this question:

If we take the English language as a basis, it seems quite possible, for example, for God to create a text that could perfectly convey the meaning which God intended for it to convey. But, it would be to a specific audience. More than that, it would be to an audience of one (and even that, it would be to an audience of one at a particular time and place). No one else would be capable of achieving the same meaning from that text. Is this a weakness on the part of God? No. It is a weakness on the part of our ability to communicate.1

In other words, scripture revealed to John the Revelator would be absolutely inerrant for John only. Our ability to perfectly understand what John writes depends on â??how closely we can resemble [John in 90 AD], how closely our language resembles his, how closely our culture environment resembles his, [and] how similar our intertextual exposure resembles his.â?2 Because of the impossibility we face of understanding the words exactly how John did, or any biblical author for that matter, we are left with a bible that is not inerrant for us.

Dr. William Hamblin expands on this concept by explaining that â??Even if one were to claim that the Bible were inerrant, it could at best be a theoretical inerrancy, since in practical terms there are numerous conflicting interpretations.â?3 Indeed, one need look no further than the TV guide on a Sunday morning to discover the variety of interpretations the bible lends itself to. Even if the bible were inerrant, that point is made obsolete when considering the multitudes of interpretations.

Answer #3

Claiming that the bible is inerrant because the bible says it is inerrant is a perfect exercise in the logical fallacy called circular reasoning. It is similar to suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church of God simply because the Pope says it is, or proclaiming the truthfulness of Islam and backing it up by quoting the Koran. Would a critic feel comfortable if a Mormon insisted that the Book of Mormon is the word of God by appealing to Moroni for authority?

Furthermore, an argument for biblical inerrancy by an appeal to this verse is made more difficult by the fact that the entire inerrancy of the Bible would rest on the assumption that this one verse was in fact written inerrantly. In other words, we would have to know that Paul was writing inerrantly when he wrote these words. Such a thing could never actually be known!

Answer #4

Why does â??god-breathedâ? have to mean â??inerrant?â? Is it just an assumption that God even desired to make it inerrant in the first place? One might say that if God intended to write an inerrant book for all of mankind to read from and understand, He didnâ??t do too great of a job. The Bible is riddled with ambiguity that has caused strife for thousands of years among Christians. Why not just accept the fact that God was gracious enough to allow his servants to do their best, even if it wasnâ??t â??inerrant,â? in helping to carry out his work?

Now, anyone is certainly free to exercise faith in the words of the Bible. I would never discourage that. In fact, I encourage it. It is unfortunate however when someone claims to â??proveâ? that the bible is inerrant by appeal to this verse. Such a thing simply canâ??t be proven from this passage.

Link to comment

I noticed you forgot to recognize my reply here:

QUOTE
And, if you happen to believe that God is purposeful, it is difficult to reconcile that belief with the idea that some men totally screwed up The Word (God) in the manner in which the Mormon must believe men did if they are to follow Smith, and absent the influence of God.

I for one don't consider the bible to be "totally screwed up." It just isn't inerrant. It never has been, it never will be, and it certainly does not claim to be. There are things in the bible which are not perfectly taught, which are not unamiguous to all mankind, and which cause confusion. The same could be said of The Book of Mormon or any other LDS book of scripture. So what?

It isn't difficult to imagine that God allows men to mess up his plans. Remember the Garden of Eden? Remember Noah's Ark? It is a simple concept called agency. God would never be so cruel as to take that away. In order to counter the effects of agency, God calls prophets.

Link to comment
I believe that when human beings are involved, mistakes are bound to happen. God may inspire, guide, and help us humans, but He doesn't control us like robots.

This means that all scriptures have the possible for error. Even the Book of Mormon has the possibilities for mistakes. As Mormon put it himself in the Title page...

However, this doesn't change the sacred nature of scriptures and revelation. As Mormon continues with that sentence...

Just because there are mistakes does not mean that it isn't sacred, nor of God. The Bible may have mistakes, but that doesn't mean it isn't sacred, nor scripture.

Palador,

You have made a statement that I have honestly never seen before. I have read the scriptures many times, and each time I learn something new. But, your statement clicked with me.

I see people go back and forth on the errant/inerrant issue on a regular basis and few people try and use the "Well, is the BoM errant?" tactic. Well, even if they do, there is an answer. And I had never seen it before.

I know it's small, and it seems dumb, but THANK YOU so much for pointing this out. Even though there are a lot of ups and downs on this board, that little statement actually increased my testimony of the validity of the scriptures and the truthfulness of God's church in the latter days.

THANK YOU!

If I could shake your hand... I would.

V/R

Link to comment
It is a "must" because your prophet said so.

I'd like that exact quote, so consider this a C.F.R. on where a prophet has said that accepting Joseph Smith means you "must" accept the Bible as errant.

And I'll take your silence on the question as to whether accepting the New Testament means that the Old Testament was not enough or errant, or both, as your answer.

I'll take that as a no, you do not think God had anything to do with the compilation of the Bible.

I do, my answer was simply that because God helped in creating the Bible does not mean He also had a hand in it's changes.

Actually, I don't think going to church on Sunday is at all necessary, and the Word is all we need. Going to church on Sunday in order to fellowship with other Christians is a bonus.

So why did Jesus get baptized, word is all you need, right? Why did He give sermons, visit the sick and do many great works? I consider it to be necessary so that our faith is not just lip service. But to each their own.

And, no, I don't admit that the Pope is wrong. First of all, I'm not Catholic and pay no attention whatsoever to the Pope. Secondly, Joseph Smith was no Pope.

I never said Joseph Smith was a pope, however, they are equivocal in their standing according to their faith, each the leader on Earth for their respective religion. However, if you reject putting your faith in a prophet, then you must also reject the same with a pope on the same principal. So, I'd like to hear if you think that both Mormons and Catholic/Christians are wrong as well? Well, Mormons are Christian so I guess you could say any Christian who's church is led by a single leader but choices are made in councils?

Link to comment
I'd like that exact quote, so consider this a C.F.R. on where a prophet has said that accepting Joseph Smith means you "must" accept the Bible as errant.

And I'll take your silence on the question as to whether accepting the New Testament means that the Old Testament was not enough or errant, or both, as your answer.

Hey, I'm no Mormon scholar, and I come here for that reason, but I have read time and again Mormons insisting that the Bible is in fact errant and sort of downing the Christian who questions this. If Smith did not expressly or otherwise contend the Bible was errant then I stand corrected.

I do, my answer was simply that because God helped in creating the Bible does not mean He also had a hand in it's changes.

Nor is it necessarily so that He had anything at all to do with the BOM and it's many changes, right?

So why did Jesus get baptized, word is all you need, right? Why did He give sermons, visit the sick and do many great works? I consider it to be necessary so that our faith is not just lip service. But to each their own.

What does any of that have to do with whether God must be wound up on Sundays? If I don't go to church on Sundays then my faith becomes lip service? Although I agree that once a person has accepted Christ's gift, works will necessarily follow, any assertion/belief that I simply must go to church on Sunday is absurd, but, to each his own. (btw, I realize that allot of folks will take issue with this, not just Mormons

I never said Joseph Smith was a pope, however, they are equivocal in their standing according to their faith, each the leader on Earth for their respective religion. However, if you reject putting your faith in a prophet, then you must also reject the same with a pope on the same principal. So, I'd like to hear if you think that both Mormons and Catholic/Christians are wrong as well? Well, Mormons are Christian so I guess you could say any Christian who's church is led by a single leader but choices are made in councils?

Operative word: "Their" faith. I am not Mormon and I am not Catholic. I don't reject putting my faith in a prophet, I reject putting my faith in your prophet. As luck would have it, I reject placing my faith in the Pope too. Or any other man walking around out there right now. It is my belief that Mormons worship Smith, and I think that is both silly and wrong. Because I believe some Catholics worship the Pope, I think that is also wrong. And while I think a great deal of my pastor, and consider him one of my closest friends, I certainly don't worship him. My church is led by it's pastor, and decisions are put to the congregation. There is a council, but it does not make decisions. The congregation does.

Link to comment

jonzlaw said:

It is my belief that Mormons worship Smith, and I think that is both silly and wrong.

I find this offensive and incredibly irresponsible. I demand that you provide some support for this statement, or that you retract it immediately.

Sargon

Link to comment
jonzlaw said:

I find this offensive and incredibly irresponsible. I demand that you provide some support for this statement, or that you retract it immediately.

Sargon

You Demand? Are you serious? Isn't it true that Smith's name comes up as much or more than Christ's name on a typical Sunday morning? Isn't it true that you sing songs praising Joseph Smith? Isn't it true that you believe that Smith was God's prophet? If I got all of this wrong, I am deeply sorry and do hereby retract my statement.

Btw - what part was offensive and irresponsible, the worshiping Smith part, or the silly and wrong part?

Link to comment
You Demand? Are you serious? Isn't it true that Smith's name comes up as much or more than Christ's name on a typical Sunday morning? Isn't it true that you sing songs praising Joseph Smith? Isn't it true that you believe that Smith was God's prophet? If I got all of this wrong, I am deeply sorry and do hereby retract my statement.

Btw - what part was offensive and irresponsible, the worshiping Smith part, or the silly and wrong part?

Unless you are using the word in a unique way, "worship" usually means (especially in the context of a discussion about religion) "reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power."

I'm sure you would find it offensive if I suggested that you "worship" Paul. As a devout Christian who "worships" only the one true God, you should find that offensive. I find it offensive too.

It is not true that Joseph's name comes up "as much or more than Christ's name on a typical Sunday." That is a false assertion.

It is also a sneaky trick to assert that because we have a song that "praises" Joseph Smith that we "worship" him. Those two verbs, praise and worship, have very different meanings. No LDS would ever dream of worshipping Joseph Smith.

Yes we believe that Joseph was God's prophet. We also believe that Thomas Monson IS God's prophet. We also believe that Peter, Jeremiah, Elijah, Adam, Noah, Enoch, Paul, John the Baptist, Moses, James, and many many others were God's prophets. So what? Since when does that equal "worship"?

You got it all wrong, and I appreciate you retracting your statement. I, and all LDS, worship God alone.

Link to comment
Unless you are using the word in a unique way, "worship" usually means (especially in the context of a discussion about religion) "reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power."

I'm sure you would find it offensive if I suggested that you "worship" Paul. As a devout Christian who "worships" only the one true God, you should find that offensive. I find it offensive too.

It is not true that Joseph's name comes up "as much or more than Christ's name on a typical Sunday." That is a false assertion.

It is also a sneaky trick to assert that because we have a song that "praises" Joseph Smith that we "worship" him. Those two verbs, praise and worship, have very different meanings. No LDS would ever dream of worshipping Joseph Smith.

Yes we believe that Joseph was God's prophet. We also believe that Thomas Monson IS God's prophet. We also believe that Peter, Jeremiah, Elijah, Adam, Noah, Enoch, Paul, John the Baptist, Moses, James, and many many others were God's prophets. So what? Since when does that equal "worship"?

You got it all wrong, and I appreciate you retracting your statement. I, and all LDS, worship God alone.

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I meant no disrespect. You should know that Mormons have told me that Smith's name does come up as much or more than Christ's at church. I have also been given to believe that some Mormons do indeed believe Smith was/is "devine," especially those Mormons who believe they will have to make it past Smith in order to get into Heaven (or a particular "level" of Heaven). Finally, please know that I have the utmost respect for your beliefs, even as they differ from my own.

Link to comment

jonzlaw, I have a suggestion. It would seem that you don't have a deep knowledge of LDS doctrine. That being the case, it would be more productive to avoid making provocative statements like the assertion that we worship Joseph Smith. Also, please stick to the topic of the thread. If you wish to explore other issues, feel free to start new threads dedicated to them.

Link to comment

I enjoyed reading the OP, and I think Sargon presented a pursuasive counter-argument.

However, it is the very argument Sargon made regarding the ambiguity of scripture which ironically allows ample room for EV's to rationally and legitimately interpret 2 Tim 3:16 in the way they do--though, it also leaves open the question whether the EV interpretation of that biblical passage is inerrant or not. :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Hey, I'm no Mormon scholar, and I come here for that reason, but I have read time and again Mormons insisting that the Bible is in fact errant and sort of downing the Christian who questions this. If Smith did not expressly or otherwise contend the Bible was errant then I stand corrected.

Read where? I read once that there was a Krakken, doesn't mean the source is credible. In spite of me seeing such a creature. :P

Nor is it necessarily so that He had anything at all to do with the BOM and it's many changes, right?

The changes in the Book of Mormon are for grammar or spelling mistakes. I would also wager that there are some changes in sentence structure or words in a verse for clarification. However, I am no Bible scholar but I do believe there were entire books that were removed from the Bible while it was being standardized by the Catholic church. I may be wrong, and I'll admit if I am, but I think the changes differ quite a lot.

What does any of that have to do with whether God must be wound up on Sundays? If I don't go to church on Sundays then my faith becomes lip service? Although I agree that once a person has accepted Christ's gift, works will necessarily follow, any assertion/belief that I simply must go to church on Sunday is absurd, but, to each his own. (btw, I realize that allot of folks will take issue with this, not just Mormons

My point is that just because we have word, there is more to be done. Christ asked His followers to be servants to each other. He also gave sermons continuously because we constantly learn when we go through the scriptures over and over. Others may provide insight that we may not have received on our own, but can we be humble enough to learn from each other? Church isn't simply a time to dress nice and listen to the same stories over and again, to me at least, it is a test if we are willing to follow Christ no matter how mundane we think some parts are. It is also, again to me, a time to learn about oneself, and when you surround yourself with others like you, a good spiritual mood is easier to keep and my mind can be opened more to the Spirit.

Operative word: "Their" faith. I am not Mormon and I am not Catholic. I don't reject putting my faith in a prophet

But you seem to say different here:

If we are to believe Smith when he tells us that the Bible is errant and cannot be trusted all by Itself, and that we need him - and other Mormon prophets - to help us out, we are totally forced to put our faith in (Mormon) men. We can't trust God, or God's Word, at all. Thats another big hurdle for me.

So prophets of old only? Hmm...

Continuing...

I reject putting my faith in your prophet. As luck would have it, I reject placing my faith in the Pope too. Or any other man walking around out there right now.

So prophets of old only? Again, hmm....

It is my belief that Mormons worship Smith, and I think that is both silly and wrong.

You are right, it is wrong. Good thing we don't do that. What do you base this belief on?

Because I believe some Catholics worship the Pope, I think that is also wrong.

Agreed.

And while I think a great deal of my pastor, and consider him one of my closest friends, I certainly don't worship him.

Now you know how I feel about Joseph Smith, he is greatly respected, but as a man.

My church is led by it's pastor, and decisions are put to the congregation. There is a council, but it does not make decisions. The congregation does.

If it is really led by the pastor, he should make the decision. I don't think the idea of God's church being led by the followers is a good idea, kind of like a cart before the horse, or a family being led by the children, doesn't always work.

Isn't it true that Smith's name comes up as much or more than Christ's name on a typical Sunday morning? Isn't it true that you sing songs praising Joseph Smith? Isn't it true that you believe that Smith was God's prophet?

Are you serious? Did you get this idea that we speak more of Joseph Smith than Christ from the same source that you got the idea that Mormons insist that the Bible is errant and you can't be a member unless you believe so? Last Sunday, not a mention of Joseph Smith or a song about it. It was, ironically, all about Christ. In fact, I can't remember the last time Joseph Smith was directly referenced or we sang a hymn about him in my ward. So I'd say a rough estimate to be once every 2 or 3 months in my experience, it tends to revolve around Christ.

You should know that Mormons have told me that Smith's name does come up as much or more than Christ's at church. I have also been given to believe that some Mormons do indeed believe Smith was/is "devine," especially those Mormons who believe they will have to make it past Smith in order to get into Heaven (or a particular "level" of Heaven).

I'm telling you now that has not been my experience, and I have been going to my parent's and in-law's wards during those months. So either no one is talking about him as much as they say, or I keep missing when they do. I can admit that their particular ward could be trigger happy when it comes to Joseph Smith, but I'd wager my piece of eight that it comes in waves and they feel like it's all the time. I try to make it to the Temple every week, never been told once while I was there anything about having to make it past Joseph Smith to get into any part of heaven, I've been told there will be 3 people; God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Each that were with me throughout my life, and know everything about me. They are the ones who judge me, and no one else. Audience wise, I have no idea if there will be anyone.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...