James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[cksalmon]

1- That's because you're more cogent than Billy

2- A- God reveals things in ambiguous human language

B- Texts are recorded and transmitted by fallible humans

C- Texts are read and interpreted by fallible humans

Basically I don't think human language is capable of saying anything in an inerrant way because of the ambiguous nature of human language.

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

It sounds like what you're fundamentally denying here is inerrancy of interpretation, which I would also deny. Such a denial, to my mind, in no way logically vitiates the claim to autographical inerrancy.

I would generally agree with Article IV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy--

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

--but, unlike the framers of that document, I would have explicitly denied that inerrancy entails a complete disambiguation of the biblical texts. The framers simply didn't mention this issue, even in their exposition of the articles.

In that sense, I would affirm the official (and, to my mind) commonsensical caveats found in the Catholic Encyclopedia's treatment of hermeneutics.

The inerrancy of Scripture means that its hermeneutic truth is also objectively true, and that its genuine sense is adequately presented by its literal expression, at least by its complete literal expression, found in the original text interpreted in the light of the special purpose of the Holy Ghost and of its intended circle of readers. But this perfection of literary presentation does not remove obscurity and ambiguity of expression, defects which flow naturally from the human authors of the various books of Sacred Scripture, and were foreseen, and for good reasons permitted or even intended, by the Holy Ghost.

Beyond those restrictions, one would have to believe, I suppose, that human language is inadequate even to express the author's own intended message, regardless of any receptive distortion. I'm not sure if that is what you believe, but it strikes me as a very defeatist position.

If I were to blog that I once saw Prince play Purple Rain during a Superbowl half-time show and some reclusive critic were to respond that my claim was simply absurd, as "rain" is generally colorless and, moreover, not a musical instrument, he would not have demonstrated that my claim (nor my blog entry) was errant, but merely that he misunderstood my authorial intent.

(But, the issue might be more fundamental still--and of a theological, rather than linguistic, character: I affirm compatibilist human agency and, undoubtedly, you would not.)

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

(1) I don't personally hold to belief in autographical inerrancy because it yields practical benefits. (My belief in that regard is a faith-based presuppositional claim, not an evidential one.) In a similar vein, I am Christian because I believe that the truth claims of Christianity are, in fact, true, not because they are useful.

Not a whole lot to disagree with here.

(2) Why do you find the claim illogical?

I'll put my two cents in on this one. I don't agree with the Chicago Statement concerning the adequacy of human language or writing (which, by the way, I consider as two differing forms of communication that need to be addressed separately). Though the transmission of divine revelation to the individual receiving the revelation may be perfect, it cannot be perfectly expressed in writing through that step of the transmission. The writing ability we humans have renders far too much ambiguity - especially when trying to communicate subjective / abstract concepts - for it to be a perfect method of transmission of the divine.

This applies to any writing, including the Book of Mormon. That's why we absolutely must read scripture with the Spirit in order to understand it, because the Spirit is able to render the original divine transmission - revelation - to the individual, who can then fully understand it.

Hence, the concept of scriptural inerrancy is simply an oxymoron from the start, even with the original autographs.

It all hinges on the point of whether one considers written language to have the ability to be a perfect form of communication, in and of itself. I see no evidence for that.

[cksalmon]

So, here is a valid Bible saying that Jesus, the Word, was with the god (God the Father), but he wasn't the god (God), rather he was a god

Hi urroner--

I would be leery of putting too many eggs in the basket held by a polemicist (of any stripe) without significant consensus. I don't know if this is one of Solomon Landers's or "Memra's" sites, but I'm fairly sure it's one or the other. Both are JW's who are primarily concerned with denying Jesus' essential divinity in line with JW orthodoxy.

That fact certainly doesn't change Horner's English translation, but the issue is far from cut-and-dried in terms what we can and ought to glean from the Coptic.

While I can verbally "pronounce" Coptic (anyone could), I certainly can't "read" it to any meaningful degree, so this is a new issue to me. But, I'm certainly not convinced at this point that the JW usage of Horner (or Layton's grammar for that matter) is definitive of the position for which they argue. And, of course, the position for which JW's wish to argue from the textual data is certainly not your position.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

Not a whole lot to disagree with here.

I'll put my two cents in on this one. I don't agree with the Chicago Statement concerning the adequacy of human language or writing (which, by the way, I consider as two differing forms of communication that need to be addressed separately). Though the transmission of divine revelation to the individual receiving the revelation may be perfect, it cannot be perfectly expressed in writing through that step of the transmission. The writing ability we humans have renders far too much ambiguity - especially when trying to communicate subjective / abstract concepts - for it to be a perfect method of transmission of the divine.

Receptive distortion stemming from linguistic ambiguity (and certainly from, say, willful misreading) does not entail that language is incapable of transmitting an inerrant message, from the perspective of an intentional author.

This applies to any writing, including the Book of Mormon. That's why we absolutely must read scripture with the Spirit in order to understand it, because the Spirit is able to render the original divine transmission - revelation - to the individual, who can then fully understand it.

Assuming that all were reading "with the Spirit," this raises the question of why it is that Kimball and Faust read 2 Nephi 25:23 very differently than does Robert Millet.

Hence, the concept of scriptural inerrancy is simply an oxymoron from the start, even with the original autographs.

I don't see it.

It all hinges on the point of whether one considers written language to have the ability to be a perfect form of communication, in and of itself. I see no evidence for that.

I believe it hinges on whether or not an author can actually express in language what he actually intends his audience to understand. If you believe that such is impossible, then you should save yourself much wasted time and effort and stop writing replies on MB's, for heaven's sake.

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

It sounds like what you're fundamentally denying here is inerrancy of interpretation, which I would also deny. Such a denial, to my mind, in no way logically vitiates the claim to autographical inerrancy.

...

Beyond those restrictions, one would have to believe, I suppose, that human language is inadequate even to express the author's own intended message, regardless of any receptive distortion. I'm not sure if that is what you believe, but it strikes me as a very defeatist position.

Well, I deny inerrancy of interpretation, yes. On the other hand, the fundamental problem is that human language cannot express an inerrant message. To believe that human language is not capable of inerrant expression does not mean no communication can occur at all. It means that as long as human language is used as a the medium of communication perfect and inerrant communication cannot occur. Those are two entirely different things.

At any rate, the reality of the neo-inerrantist position is that they claim that only the lost hypothetical originals are inerrant, but in practical terms they treat not only the surviving texts as inerrant, but their own interpretations as inerrant. In point of fact, if we don't have the hypothetical inerrant originals, the practical result is that we cannot speak of real practical inerrancy in any meaning way, since we cannot know the content of a lost inerrant original. The result is that claims to meaningful real inerrancy are mere posturing.

[jwhitlock]

Receptive distortion stemming from linguistic ambiguity (and certainly from, say, willful misreading) does not entail that language is incapable of transmitting an inerrant message, from the perspective of an intentional author.

Then I would assume that you would be able to provide us with a good example of written communication of some length and complexity that is inerrant. And unambiguous. And with clear and unmistakable meaning, which are also parts of inerrancy.

Assuming that all were reading "with the Spirit," this raises the question of why it is that Kimball and Faust read 2 Nephi 25:23 very differently than does Robert Millet.

Reading with the Spirit does not preclude reading with different perspectives - especially when we start to understand the dualism that underlies significant parts of scripture.

I don't see it.

Perhaps that's because your perspective doesn't allow you to see it. Again, however, the simple exercise of providing an inerrant example of written communication would help make your point.

I believe it hinges on whether or not an author can actually express in language what he actually intends his audience to understand. If you believe that such is impossible, then you should save yourself much wasted time and effort and stop writing replies on MB's, for heaven's sake.

Believe me, I'm misunderstood - sometimes purposely, even! - on this board all the time. However, as the good Dr. Hamblin noted, the impossibility of inerrancy in human communication does not preclude the ability to effectively communicate at some level. I simply posit that divine communication loses quite a bit in the transmission to paper from the get-go. Hence the lack of inerrancy.

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Well, I deny inerrancy of interpretation, yes. On the other hand, the fundamental problem is that human language cannot express an inerrant message.

Yes, as you've stated. But, I still don't see that as a logical conclusion, but merely an assertion.

To believe that human language is not capable of inerrant expression does not mean no communication can occur at all. It means that as long as human language is used as a the medium of communication perfect and inerrant communication cannot occur. Those are two entirely different things.

You seem to be here conflating inerrant expression (involving authorial intent) with inerrant communication (involving a hypothetically unambiguous reception). I would argue that those are two entirely different things.

And the difference is not subtle, to my mind.

Let's take, for example, the revelations from God contained in D&C. It seems that you are arguing that either (a) God revealed revelations to, say, Joseph Smith that were errant (in other words, God's revelations to Joseph in D&C contained intrinsic errors) or (b) even God is unable to reveal his messages in human language, secondary to linguistic ambiguity, that do not inevitably contain errors at some point along the receptive chain.

I don't think you'd be comfortable with the former, but you might be with the latter. Of course, I would affirm the latter, but not the former.

But, then that's what I've argued supra, so that we're on the same page. Again, I don't see how anything you've written here vitiates inerrancy of authorial intent to any degree, unless you would affirm that God's revelations contain errors. Again, since I believe this is the source of the disagreement, I personally do not equate or conflate authorial intention via language with audience reception. It seems as if you're suggesting that the fact of receptive distortion is somehow tantamount to affirming that, as an intrinsic property of language, actually error-free messages from God are just an impossibility.

Again, note what I'm not affirming: viz., that God's messages are inerrant because they are not subject to misinterpretation. And, note what I am affirming: that God does not reveal anything in an erroneous manner.

At any rate, the reality of the neo-inerrantist position is that they claim that only the lost hypothetical originals are inerrant, but in practical terms they treat not only the surviving texts as inerrant, but their own interpretations as inerrant.

To whom, specifically, are you referring here? It's obviously not to me. Who are "they?"

In point of fact, if we don't have the hypothetical inerrant originals, the practical result is that we cannot speak of real practical inerrancy in any meaning[ful] way, since we cannot know the content of a lost inerrant original. The result is that claims to meaningful real inerrancy are mere posturing.

"Posturing?"

I, in fact, do claim what I take to be "meaningful, real inerrancy," and, in point of fact, no, I'm not "posturing." You lost me there, assuming, that is, that I have more reliable access to my actual intentions, motivations, and beliefs than do you.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

PS. What was the point of this thread again?

[Bill Hamblin]

PS. What was the point of this thread again?

If you don't know it's just another example of the errancy of human language.

The point was to try to get Billy to see beyond his dogmatism, a hopeless endeavor, alas.

[jwhitlock]

The point was to try to get Billy to see beyond his dogmatism, a hopeless endeavor, alas.

Big time hopeless.

It would appear - and this is not intended as an attack, CK - that subscribing to the concept of inerrancy in written scripture effectively closes the door to a wider understanding of divine intent that can only really be learned through the Spirit.

If the scripture is sufficient and inerrant in and of itself, then one's understanding and interpretation of the inerrant scripture - as aptly demonstrated by Billy - must be defended at all cost, no matter how problematic such interpretations become.

When one's interpretation of supposedly inerrant scripture fails, then it opens the door to the possibility that the scripture was not easily understood at all. And while CK is partially correct in that inerrant written scripture and understanding of that scripture by others are approached somewhat differently, the whole purpose of inerrant scripture is to provide accurate and unambiguous transmission of divine concepts to man. Inerrancy and accurate understanding do go hand in hand at a very fundamental level.

If that transmission fails for most people who read scripture - and the many differing interpretations of scripture would seem to prove that that very thing happens - the whole concept of inerrancy is brought into question.

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

Then I would assume that you would be able to provide us with a good example of written communication of some length and complexity that is inerrant. And unambiguous. And with clear and unmistakable meaning, which are also parts of inerrancy.

I think if you'll reread my posts above, to urroner, to you, and to Dr. Hamblin, you'll be able to see that your request misses the mark of the target I'm actually defending. You appear to be implicitly conflating inerrancy of reception/interpretation with inerrancy of authorial intent. I just don't affirm the former.

Reading with the Spirit does not preclude reading with different perspectives - especially when we start to understand the dualism that underlies significant parts of scripture.

I really don't know what you mean by "dualism," here, but I'm pretty sure I would reject your intent.

Perhaps that's because your perspective doesn't allow you to see it. Again, however, the simple exercise of providing an inerrant example of written communication would help make your point.

Yes, perhaps. My perspective is that God does not inspire errant revelation.

Believe me, I'm misunderstood - sometimes purposely, even! - on this board all the time. However, as the good Dr. Hamblin noted, the impossibility of inerrancy in human communication does not preclude the ability to effectively communicate at some level. I simply posit that divine communication loses quite a bit in the transmission to paper from the get-go. Hence the lack of inerrancy.

Then, per your logic, we can have no real certainty about any of the revelations from God to Joseph Smith as recorded via written language in D&C. Indeed, we might posit that some , and even a great deal (even, I suppose, a vast majority) of effective commmunication is recorded therein, but because language is intrinsically unable to record error-free messages from God, we can be equally sure that some (all?) of God's revelations to Joseph Smith, recorded in written language in D&C, do actually contain errors.

I suppose that neither of us can say exactly where they occur or how meaningful those errors are. Perhaps they are inconsequential; perhaps they are momentous. But, if we assume your presupposition, we can at least be quite confident that there are, indeed, errors contained within the revelations.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

I think if you'll reread my posts above, to urroner, to you, and to Dr. Hamblin, you'll be able to see that your request misses the mark of the target I'm actually defending. You appear to be implicitly conflating inerrancy of reception/interpretation with inerrancy of authorial intent. I just don't affirm the former.

As I've noted in a subsequent post, I don't think that you can successfully and totally disconnect inerrancy from reception / understanding.

If understanding is totally disconnected from inerrancy, then inerrancy has no value for transmission of divine intent.

I really don't know what you mean by "dualism," here, but I'm pretty sure I would reject your intent.

Dualism is where a passage of scripture can mean more than one thing.

Yes, perhaps. My perspective is that God does not inspire errant revelation.

His revelation is not errant as it is transmitted to the person receiving it. Beyond that - including the subsequent transmission to writing - it becomes errant because it is not transmitted (written) effectively. That's why a sample of inerrant writing would be so valuable here, if it could be supplied. However, the whole process does not leave us with recourse to full understanding because...

Then, per your logic, we can have no real certainty about any of the revelations from God to Joseph Smith as recorded via written language in D&C. Indeed, we might posit that some effective commmunication is recorded therein, but because language is intrinsically unable to record error-free messages from God, we can be equally sure that some (all?) of God's revelations to Joseph Smith, recorded in written language in D&C, do actually contain errors.

Scripture, as I have noted, must always be read with the influence of the Spirit in order to understand the divine intent. Jesus wasn't talking about trivialities when He said He would send the Spirit to guide us to all truth. The Spirit, with scripture as catalyst, which leads to personal revelation, puts us directly in touch with divine intent and understanding.

And yes - every written communication I know of, including scripture, has errors and / or is inadequate for transmitting, in and of itself, the divine intent.

I suppose that neither of us can say exactly where they occur or how meaningful those errors are. Perhaps they are incosequential; perhaps they are momentous. But, if we assume your presupposition, we can at least be quite confident that there are, indeed, errors in the revelations.

Given the remarkable lack of unity within Christianity, I would say that the ambiguity and errors are anything but inconsequential.

[cksalmon]

Scripture, as I have noted, must always be read with the influence of the Spirit in order to understand the divine intent. Jesus wasn't talking about trivialities when He said He would send the Spirit to guide us to all truth. The Spirit, with scripture as catalyst, which leads to personal revelation, puts us directly in touch with divine intent and understanding.

No, this just doesn't fly at all, j. You're essentially affirming that written scripture contains errors but that, by the Spirit, you can know what the errant written scriptures really actually intend to communicate inerrantly. Now, if that's really true, then you owe it to the rest of the world to reveal the Spirit-revealed error-free interpretation of the written scriptures that actually contain errors.

Your scriptures contain errors, but your (or some hypothetical person's) Spirit-guided interpretation of error-filled scripture is actually error-free. What was is it that Dr. Hamblin was rejecting? Yes, it was that some inerrantists treat their own interpretations as inerrant. You might say, "Hey! I'm not claiming that my personal interpretations are error-free, even when Spirit-guided!" But, then you're affirming that your scriptures contain errors and that your Spirit-guided interpretation of your scriptures also contains errors. In that case, you're not exactly a reliable source. You're then errantly interpreting errant scripture. Or, you're inerrantly interpreting errant scripture, which means you ought to let others in on your inerrant understanding.

It won't do to say, "They should find it out for themselves, by the Spirit," because there's a good chance that they will be Spirit-led to an equally "inerrant" interpretation that happens to disagree with yours.

And yes - every written communication I know of, including scripture, has errors and / or is inadequate for transmitting, in and of itself, the divine intent.

You heard it here first, folks. jwitlock believes that the revelations to Joseph Smith recorded in D&C inevitably contain errors. They are absolutely not to be trusted as written. Some of them (or some parts of them) are, unfortunately, erroneous. And/or it's just impossible that God actually revealed his actual divine intent via those revelations. Either way, you've given me a very good reason not to take the written revelations to Joseph Smith recorded via written language in D&C all that seriously. They are inevitably erroneous to some degree.

As is BoM. And BoA.

Error-filled books awaiting an inerrant Spirit-guided hermenuetic.

Given the remarkable lack of unity within Christianity, I would say that the ambiguity and errors are anything but inconsequential.

Completely diversionary.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

No, this just doesn't fly at all, j. You're essentially affirming that written scripture contains errors but that, by the Spirit, you can know what the errant written scriptures really actually intend to communicate inerrantly. Now, if that's really true, then you owe it to the rest of the world to reveal the Spirit-revealed error-free interpretation of the written scriptures that actually contain errors.

That's the point. It has been revealed. And communicated. By prophets. And we are given the gift of the Spirit to aid in our understanding. That you reject that revelation is irrelevant.

Your scriptures contain errors, but your (or some hypothetical person's) Spirit-guided interpretation of error-filled scripture is actually error-free. What was is it that Dr. Hamblin was rejecting? Yes, it was that some inerrantists treat their own interpretations as inerrant. You might say, "Hey! I'm not claiming that my personal interpretations are error-free, even when Spirit-guided!" But, then you're affirming that your scriptures contain errors and that your Spirit-guided interpretation of your scriptures also contains errors. In that case, you're not exactly a reliable source. You're then errantly interpreting errant scripture. Or, you're inerrantly interpreting errant scripture, which means you ought to let others in on your inerrant understanding.

Nice straw man - and you got pretty lathered up on this.

However, your response is interesting in the way it puts a spin on rejecting the importance of the Spirit in understanding scripture. And this, in itself, is a diversion to the non-response you're making to the point that once any communication hits the paper, it cannot be inerrant.

It won't do to say, "They should find it out for themselves, by the Spirit," because there's a good chance that they will be Spirit-led to an equally "inerrant" interpretation that happens to disagree with yours.

Phrasing the argument as "if someone has the Spirit, then they'll always be correct" is invalid. If I understand something by the Spirit, there's a good chance that it's not going to come across properly when I express it to someone. In addition, those who don't understand spiritual communication often make the rather inadequate excuse that "if two people claim to have spiritual insight, and disagree, then not only are both of the wrong, but spiritually oriented insight its doesn't really work."

Of course, we can always say "They should find out what the scriptures say for themselves, because they're inerrant, and because they're inerrant, there will never be any conflict in how they're understood." Which, of course, doesn't happen in real life. Because the scriptures aren't inerrant. And it's because they've been written down, which automatically translates to an inadequacy in the transmission.

You heard it here first, folks. jwitlock believes that the revelations to Joseph Smith recorded in D&C inevitably contain errors. They are absolutely not to be trusted as written. Some of them (or some parts of them) are, unfortunately, erroneous. And/or it's just impossible that God actually revealed his actual divine intent via those revelations. Either way, you've given me a very good reason not to take the written revelations to Joseph Smith recorded via written language in D&C all that seriously. They are inevitably erroneous to some degree.

As is BoM. And BoA.

Error-filled books awaiting an inerrant Spirit-guided hermenuetic.

As is, also, the Bible. But of course, that's inerrant, isn't it. Despite the fact that it can't be proven to be so.

I will ask you a favor. That favor is not to misrepresent me in your flippant remarks concerning the Spirit. If you've made any effort to try to understand what I'm saying, you will remember that the only point I make is that the divine intent behind the scriptures can only be understood by the Spirit. Emphasizing "errors" in your remarks without noting that is disappointing.

Completely diversionary.

Not at all. Christianity itself stands as a stark testimony to the fact that the Bible is not inerrant.

If you want to have an honest discussion, CK, on this, why don't you go back to the main point I made, which was the fact written communications are imperfect and inadequate in expressing divine intent, and so inerrancy in a written communication cannot exist. You haven't addressed this point at all, instead preferring to ridicule the concept of Spiritual understanding through some rather shallow trivialities.

[coolrok7]

The Hebrew does not say "angels" or "divine beings." The Hebrew says bene ha-elohim, which means "sons of the gods." The other options are a theological interpretations masquerading in the guise of a translation.

So, again, I ask you the question: according to the Bible, is Satan one of the bene ha-elohim? No equivocation, please.

I was aked by Anijen on another thread to answer this. My answer:

Angels and men are referred to as â??sons of Godâ? but it has no meaning beyond God is their creator (as bring into existence). There is no paternity involved in spiritual beings as in the way humans are procreated (sexual union of a man and woman). We did not evolve from animals.

Paul taught the following concerning Satan and those who are his human servants:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Found at the pinnacle of LDS temples are the figure of Moroni, â??an angel of light.â? (Satan is a deceptive spiritual being identified as a â??liarâ? and the father of lies):

In September, 1823, and at later times, Joseph Smith received visitations from Moroni, an angel of light, . . .(from the EXPLANATORY INTRODUCTION p.iii of the D&C copyright 1973 edition by HAROLD B. LEE)

The following is from The Ensign, official Mormon Church magazine:

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible

The First Presidency has released the following letter regarding the King James Version of the Bible.

â??First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible,â? Ensign, Aug. 1992, 80

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. â??We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.â?? (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson

In light of the above, Bill Hamblin does not speak as a General Authority for the Mormon Church and the King James Version is the â??preferableâ? translation. It says, â??sons of Godâ?.

It is in Mormonism where a â??plurality of godsâ? is taught, just like the pagan nations that Israel as a nation was told not to go after, which they did and ended up being punished for.

When the Bible is talking about Jehovah (the name of God as transliterated from YHVH/JHVH) God (Elohim), it is singular, not plural unless it is talking about the false â??godsâ? of the surrounding nations; those that are not really â??Godâ? by nature:

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you. â??Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. (2 Chronicles 13:8-9)

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? (Galatians 4:8-9)

Even Mormon leaders make an appeal to the pagan belief of:

The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity, taught emphatically the doctrine that â??men may become Gods.â? Hermeticism, which had its rise in Egypt in the second or third centuries B.C., was a prominent religion in the Mediterranean world during the period of the rise of Christianity. Its literature, The Corpus Hermeticum, professes to be revelations to Hermes from his divine father and teacher. Hermes declared: â??We must not shrink from saying that a man on earth is a mortal god, and that God in heaven is an immortal man.â? This thought very closely resembles the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and of President Lorenzo Snow. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.110)

[one of the moderators has chosen the name â??hermesâ? as a screen name]

Biblically speaking it is Josephâ??s and Lorenzoâ??s teachings that â??very closely resembles the teachings ofâ? â??The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity,â? (which is not a Biblical endorsement of the teaching but a refutation of it):

And at Lystra there was sitting a certain man, without strength in his feet, lame from his

motherâ??s womb, who had never walked. This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze upon him, and had seen that he had faith to be made well, said with a loud voice, â??Stand upright on your feet.â? And he leaped up and began to walk. And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, â??The gods have become like men and have come down to us.â? And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, â??Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.â? And even saying these things, they with difficulty restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. (Acts 14:8-18; NASB)

The Mormon Church holds to this view of others:

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its placeâ??a religion that professed to be Jesus Christâ??s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, â??having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â?. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiahâ??s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

Also note the others (along with Mormons) who view the â??Trinityâ? as pagan as well (youâ??re in association with those who do not recognize Mormon authority, only their own, whom they believe their leader was exclusively chosen by God. Not the kind of religious company I would associate with as â??brothersâ? â??sistersâ? in the Lord. As fellow human beings, I have no problem with):

According to the true teachings of Islam, God is not to be conceived in an anthropomorphic way...Since He is one and the only One, a Muslim cannot invoke Him in the name of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. . . .The Qur'an explicitly states: â??No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him.â?? This is the point where Muslims and Christians painfully part company. The issue is deeply theological and anthropological. The Christian view of incarnation seems to compromise Godâ??s transcendence and sovereignty while at the same time exalting a mere man to God-like status. By denying the incarnation, Islam is really affirming both the absolute transcendence of God and the rightful status of man as the servant and khalifa of God on earth. . . .(Islam and Christianity, pp.88, 132)

In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead that consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,â? said Elder Oaks. . . .He said that the original Bible teachings on this subject confirm this teaching, but follow teachings attributable to Greek philosophy that were adopted into their theology in A. D. 325 at the Council of Nicea, which was convened by the Emperor Constantine. â??Other councils followed from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which orthodox Christians of that day lost the fullness of the truth about the nature of God and the Godhead.â? Subsequently, apostate belief in an abstract incomprehensible deity replaced belief in a tangible, personal God, said Elder Oaks. (Church News, APRIL 8, 1995â??19, Elder Dallin H. Oaks)

Despite the growing numbers of encounters in recent years of the world religions in forums of exchange Christianity continues to set itself apart through a firm belief in the uniqueness of its founder, Jesus Christ. While individual Christians may acknowledge the inspirational nature of the non-Christian founders of religions, adherents of the major branches of Christianity are united in the belief that Christ has no equal. This conviction in the uniqueness of Jesus has become the unassailable fortress of Christian belief. . . .

The writings of the apostle Paul were a great factor in this deification of Jesus. Paulâ??s interpretation of the Christ figure bears the unmistakable stamp of a savior figure of the Greek mystery religions into whose form Jesus was cast. The statements of Jesus Himself, however, do not support His exaltation to the Godhead. . . .The Jesus that Paul preached was a deified savior, One Who could rescue a hapless humanity from the power of sin. . . .(Bahai- World Order, Spring/Summer 1980, pp.23, 25)

The theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or tri-unity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM. . .(Science and Health, p.256)

The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist. Thus he virtually unites with the Jew's belief in one God, and recognizes that Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God. . . .(Science and Health, p.361)

Early in the second century, after the last of the apostles had died, the falling away from the Christian faith foretold by Jesus and his followers began in earnest. Pagan philosophies and doctrines infiltrated the congregation; sects and divisions arose, and the original purity of the faith was corrupted. . . . (The DIVINE NAME That Will Endure Forever booklet, p.17)

The true doctrines have been restored concerning Godâ??s name, the position of his Son Jesus Christ, the kingdom of God, the ransom, resurrection, and others. The false doctrines of Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the human soul and others have been exposed as unscriptural. (The Watchtower, Aug.15, 1971, p.503)

Q. Is the truth that man is not God the only proof that Christ is not God? A. No. God's declaration that He is â??God and not manâ?. . .Q. What all the more proves that Christ is not the true God? A. God is Spirit. . . .Q. Why is this a proof that Christ is not God? A. Christ stated that He is not a spirit. . . .Q. Who is Jesus Christ? A. He is the Son of God (John 17:1,3), made Lord by God (Acts 2:36) and exalted to be the Savior (Acts 5:31). He is the one Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), the head of the Church given a name above every name (Philip. 2:9). The Iglesia ni Christo recognizes him thus. But he is man and not the true God. (JESUS CHRIST: THE GOD MAN?, Iglesia Ni Christo pamphlet, pp.7,

I suppose most people think of God as one single individual Person. Or, as a â??trinity.â? This is not true. . . .But the theologians and â??Higher Criticsâ? have blindly accepted the heretical and false doctrine introduced by pagan false prophets who crept in, that the Holy Spirit is a third personâ??the heresy of the â??trinity.â? This limits God to â??three persons. (Just What Do You Meanâ??Born Again?, pp.17, 19; Worldwide Church of God)

Before we proceed further, we must define our terms. Many people may be misled because while using the same language or words, we don't mean the same thing. First of all, let me give the orthodox definition of Christian Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and together, not exclusively, they form one God. The Trinity is co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal (Doctrine of the Christian Religion, 1967, pp. 113-122). That defines the doctrine of the trinity, and this I do not believe the Bible teaches. . . .In other words, I am saying that Jesus Christ is not God, but the Son of God. They are not â??co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal.â? Jesus Christ was not literally with God in the Beginning; neither does he have all the assets of God. The research in this book will show why I believe as I do. . . . (Jesus Christ is not God, Victor Paul Weirweille, pp.4-5; The Way International)

Lord Dowding, a strong advocate of Spiritualism, says in his book, Many Mansions (p.107) : â??The first thing which the orthodox Christian has to face is that the doctrine of the Trinity seems to have no adherents in advanced circles of the spirit world. The Divinity of Christ as a co-equal partner with the Father is universally denied. . . .We (i.e. orthodox Christians) are taught to believe in the remission of sins to the penitent, through the virtue of Christ's sacrifice and atonement. This doctrine Imperator (the pseudonym of one of these advanced spirits) vigorously combats in a score of passages.â? (Quoted in J. Stafford Wright's Spiritualism, 1959, p.11)

They all choose to ignore or are â??deceivedâ? as Eve was:

But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. . . . (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

If you want to have an honest discussion, CK, on this, why don't you go back to the main point I made, which was the fact written communications are imperfect and inadequate in expressing divine intent, and so inerrancy in a written communication cannot exist. You haven't addressed this point at all, instead preferring to ridicule the concept of Spiritual understanding through some rather shallow trivialities.

I've already dealt with this topic, to be sure. Most rational readers, I would think, will be able track with me here. Actually, you haven't addressed my point, instead preferring to retort that of course written revelation (such as God's revelations to Joseph Smith) as recorded in D&C inevitably contain undisclosed errors, but that doesn't mean that they contain errors.

I can only lead a horse to water, j. I can't make it drink.

I am convinced that many rational readers will be able to see that you believe the revelations in D&C to be filled with undisclosed errors. To say that I haven't addressed this point suggests that you haven't actually understood my intent. A point in favor of Dr. Hamblin's view, perhaps? I don't believe so.

I'm totally tracking with your point, man. Goodness! "Written communications are imperfect and inadequate in expressing divine intent.

Ergo, divine revelations to Joseph Smith, as recorded in D&C, "are imperfect and inadequate in expressing divine intent." Thus, they contain errors.That is the point, right?

God's revelations in human language are imperfect, right? Human language is inadequate to express divine intent without errors, right?

Your supposed out is that these inevitable human-language errors are sufficiently mitigated by your Spirit-led understanding, right?

That you would label my critique a shallow triviality tells me all I need to know about your willingness to engage the topic at hand, frankly.

I don't think you're a bad person, j. But, you are talking yourself in circles here. You have just not expressed a rational viewpoint that another rational person can admit as a possibility.

Do the revelations, in written form, from God to Joseph Smith found in D&C, prior to any possible post-written receptive distortion, contain errors? That is my question to you. If you can answer that, I think we might move on to some productive ground; though this is completely off-topic to the OP.

Best.

cks

[Notquitewetyet]

...edit...

[cksalmon]

I know the question wasn't to me but the answer is --- yes.

D&C 1:24 "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

Hi NQWY--

Okay.

I'll mark you down as one who believes that God communicated erroneously to Joseph Smith (if you mean this verse to confirm j's point), but I just can't allow you to speak definitively for j's potentially error-free interpretation of this potentially-erroneous verse.

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Do the revelations, in written form, from God to Joseph Smith found in D&C, prior to any possible post-written receptive distortion, contain errors? That is my question to you. If you can answer that, I think we might move on to some productive ground; though this is completely off-topic to the OP.

Yes. So? The revelations themselves say they contain errors. There is no such thing as inerrant scripture it is not possible because language is inherently ambiguous.

What about the Bible? Does it contain errors and inconsistencies or not?

But, let's grant for the sake of argument that in fact God can somehow reveal an inerrant message, and that the original manuscripts of the Bible are inherent. In practical terms, when actually reading and trying to understand the Bible, how does this make any difference whatsoever, since we do not have those original manuscripts, and the text we possess is therefore errant.

To coolrok

By the way, the fact that the KJV is the preferred scripture for Gospel teaching is irrelevant, since I always read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. (And, in fact, none of the non-English speaking Saints, which now number more than the English speaking Saints, use the KJV.)

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Yes. So? The revelations themselves say they contain errors.

Really? From D&C 1:24? I, frankly, don't see it and don't admit that that was the point of D&C 1:24. But, I'm more than willing to grant it for the sake of argument.

There is no such thing as inerrant scripture[;] it is not possible because language is inherently ambiguous.

Yes, as you've asserted, now as before, without any logical argumentation that I've seen. It's become the Great Unargued Assumption in this thread.

What about the Bible? Does it contain errors and inconsistencies or not?

You mean the text as we have thus far reconstructed it via textual criticism? Well, yeah: it does. I never suggested otherwise, Dr. Hamblin. In fact, I rather assumed that.

But, let's grant for the sake of argument that in fact God can somehow reveal an inerrant message, and that the original manuscripts of the Bible are inherent. In practical terms, when actually reading and trying to understand the Bible, how does this make any difference whatsoever, since we do not have those original manuscripts, and the text we possess is therefore errant.

We actually already discussed this above, if you'll recall.

My most recent point to jwhitlock was that, per his presupposition (borrowed from you), we can be quite sure that the revelations recorded via written language in D&C contain errors.

He agreed.

He apparently posited that the inevitable errors can be mitigated via an error-free interpretation delivered by the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree with him at this point?

That D&C, in the relevant sections to which I'm referring, inevitably contain errors?

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Really? From D&C 1:24? I, frankly, don't see it and don't admit that that was the point of D&C 1:24. But, I'm more than willing to grant it for the sake of argument.

Yes, as you've asserted, now as before, without any logical argumentation that I've seen. It's become the Great Unargued Assumption in this thread.

You mean the text as we have thus far reconstructed it via textual criticism? Well, yeah: it does. I never suggested otherwise, Dr. Hamblin. In fact, I rather assumed that.

We actually already discussed this above, if you'll recall.

My most recent point to jwhitlock was that, per his presupposition (borrowed from you), we can be quite sure that the revelations recorded via written language in D&C contain errors.

He agreed.

He apparently posited that the inevitable errors can be mitigated via an error-free interpretation delivered by the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree with him at this point?

That D&C, in the relevant sections to which I'm referring, inevitably contain errors?

cks

In my opinion, there is no inerrancy whatsoever when humans are involved. So no, the Spirit can guide you, but can't guide you inerrantly.

So you still haven't answered my question that I can tell. If we all agree now that there is no such thing as inerrant scripture in the real world, practically speaking, what difference does it make if the unknowable originals are inerrant?

I read half a dozen languages and have dabbled in half a dozen more. As far as I can tell, all of them are ambiguous. I know of no language which is unambiguous. As far as I can tell this is the standard position of all linguists. But lets make it simple. In your opinion, is biblical Hebrew, as preserved in the extant manuscripts, an unambiguous language?

[Vex]

I read half a dozen languages and have dabbled in half a dozen more. As far as I can tell, all of them are ambiguous. I know of no language which is unambiguous. As far as I can tell this is the standard position of all linguists. But lets make it simple. In your opinion, is biblical Hebrew, as preserved in the extant manuscripts, an unambiguous language?

Mathmatics included?

[Bill Hamblin]

Mathmatics included?

No. I'm innumerate. At any rate mathematics is not a language in the sense that it can't reproduce human speech.

[Vex]

No. I'm innumerate. At any rate mathematics is not a language in the sense that it can't reproduce human speech.

I'm not sure I agree with that... an example would be a CD, DVD, digital recording, as well as an anolog recording. Though the mediums are corruptable and as such do become errent if under the right circumstances.

The CD, DVD, and digital recordings being based on binary mathmatics and as such repoduce human speech quite well. The anolog on the other hand can produce lesser quality, but still repoduce human speech.

I'm assuming this arguement/stance stems from the ability of a written language to be the context. If that's the case, mathmatics would yeild a slightly more versitile as well as harty language, but that is neither here nor there in this debate. Just think it interesting to think outside the box.

(But to deny mathmatics as a language would be to deny the only universal we have in common with the rest of exsistence--or intellegent life for that matter)

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not sure I agree with that... an example would be a CD, DVD, digital recording, as well as an anolog recording. Though the mediums are corruptable and as such do become errent if under the right circumstances.

The CD, DVD, and digital recordings being based on binary mathmatics and as such repoduce human speech quite well. The anolog on the other hand can produce lesser quality, but still repoduce human speech.

I'm assuming this arguement/stance stems from the ability of a written language to be the context. If that's the case, mathmatics would yeild a slightly more versitile as well as harty language, but that is neither here nor there in this debate. Just think it interesting to think outside the box.

(But to deny mathmatics as a language would be to deny the only universal we have in common with the rest of exsistence--or intellegent life for that matter)

Medium is not language.

At any rate, yes, I'm talking about written languages.

And in some senses mathematics is a language, but, as I said, not in the sense that it can reproduce human speech.