James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[Vex]

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.

Can you say this for me: 1

is it any different from this: one?

Math can and does mimic human speach. It has grammer, punctuation, and even definitions. The only difference between Math and language is that it's not a Phonic (sp?) language. I would think Math would closer resemble Egyption hyroglyphs, sanscrit, or Japanese/chinese. Languages that use more symbolism for a written language than a phonic one where words are sounded out.

Simpily because we use numbers in a different sense than what we normally consider language, it does not preclude it's ability to be considered one. (as you have already conceeded; disclaimer: I can't sleep and am drugged up, so please don't take this or anything I say as unkind... Man, I'm really failling at the communication bit tonight).

To illustrate my point consider a sentence that contians dualism. Two different meanings, each both thought provoking and diverse in the thoughts they entreat. A single sentence in mathmatics (not arthmatic) has the possibility for dualism as well as pholosophical aspects (atested to early mathmaticians who happened to be philosophers as well) that are both thought provoking and diverse in the thoughts they entreat.

One may use a binary system to construct a concerto, or an opera, or a written talk. This is exactly the same ability that the composer uses to do so. The medium and language is all that is altered. Just as I cannot read or write hebrew, nor speak it, does not preclude it from a language. With higher levels of mathmatics one is able to formulate complex stories, situations, and present solutions all within mathmatics. THe depth of the story or problem is dependent upon how the author presents the problem. Authorship is important in any language, and as such mathmatics has the ability to present the same idea multiple ways as does language.

I'd contest that mathmatics as a language would yeild more accurate results than that of a written language of phonic style. I say this as there are algorthims available to restore corrupted data which is nothing more than binary, hex, or another mathmatic style to reach the previous level of detail presented in a medium. This is the same principle that is used in developing encryption, which in and of itself is another language. This however is not available in the common use of what we woudl consider language.

If a manuscript loses a portion of it, say "And he kissed her on the lips" (being the original) becomes "And he kissed her on the" Many other words could go there, some more accurate than others. "And he kissed her on the mouth", "cheek", "breast", "hand", "foot", "calf", pretty much any noun. If presented in a mathmatical sense; "integral(x^2dx, 0,x) and d/dx(x^3) = x^2" where if we remove any one portion of the sentence we'd still be able to draw the same conclusion alot more accurately than the former example.

The variable x used in the previous expression itself may carry a different meaning depending on the context of the variable as well as the use the author has dictated to it. In computing, it may be a sinusodal wave function to dictate a talk. It might be the directions for how long to bake something depending on ingredients.

To further illustrat my point:

01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001100 01001111 01010010 01000100 01010011 00100000 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011 00101100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01101001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 01110100 01110011 00101110

What's scary is that there are people who can read that just by looking at it (it's a contraction of a scripture): For the LORDS ways are not mans ways, neither are his thoughts.

[Billy]

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.

Is YOUR God incapable transmitting inerrant scripture through errant man?

If not, how can you trust anything Joseph Smith said?

[Tanyan]

The former Director of The Anchient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont C.A [A Baptist] while speaking to a group of LDS Missionaries a # of years ago stated when I asked him if the Biblical manuscripts agree 99.7%. He stated no they did not that the count is more 80-85% due to the reading of the manuscripts that they have. Hey stated there have been changes, scriptures crossed out with editorail notes on the side,additions. There are approx 300,000 diferent readings in the manusripts. Though there are additions/deletions/changes he [Along with LDS] still consider the HOLY BIBLE HOLY/SACRED.

IN HIS DEBT/GRACE,

Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[LeSellers]

Is YOUR God incapable transmitting inerrant scripture through errant man?

Since you have admitted that yours is incapable of doing it, what is the point of this question?

Lehi

[baldmarmoset]

Has anyone even considered the possibility of a man writing an inerrant perfect book? We have tons of books such as calculus books with no errors, English books with no grammatical or spelling errors,...etc. All written by men (or women). It is at least possible that a God who said He would keep his word, and that "heaven and earth shall pass away but His word would remain forever"...etc, was able to guide men to accurately write his word by the Holy Spirit and not make any mistakes. Man does have the capability to not make mistakes on occasion. And guided by the hand of God it seems likely that they got it right. To say that evil men changed the bible and took out doctrine that would have supported BOM is basically saying that God was unable to keep His promise and keep His word. Jesus accepted the Torah, Nevim, and Ktuvim (AKA Old Testament) as truth. If mormon concepts were left out of the Old Testament it seems likely that Jesus would have said something. We have many Copies of the Old Testament dating back as far as 600BC that shows our current version of the Old Testament remains unchanged. As far as the New Testament, if mormon doctrine began to be left out of church teachings it seems likely that one of the Apostles would have spoke out or written something about that. If there were things going on that caused the Apostles to be afraid to speak out then at the very least John, who stayed by Jesus at His crucifixion at risk of His own life and who rebuked the churches in Revelations etc... would definitely have spoken out. He feared no one but God. The only way I see that a great apostasy would have happened is if all the apostles and their immediate disciples had died at the same time and no one was left to correct the church. Besides the Bible says that the great apostasy is supposed to happen when the temple in Jerusalem gets rebuilt and the "Man of perdition" sits on the throne proclaiming himself to be the true god. And since that hasn't happened yet, I can only assume the great apostasy also hasn't happened yet. I think it gets wrongly assumed that when the roman catholic church came into power and instituted all the dead rituals that no one was truly serving God anymore. But who did the catholic church persecute more than Christians? There has always been a remnant of true followers of Jesus throughout history. If you can stomach it, read the Fox's book of martyrs. It shows Christians who would not be silenced and who counted it a blessing to be tortured and die for preaching and serving Jesus. It was faithful brothers and sisters like this who, by the power of God, ensured that a great apostasy would not happen even through the dark ages. When the catholic church canonized scripture, it wasn't an evil organization bent on enslaving mankind to their will (At least not at that time). And the books that were not included in cannon didn't get burned or trashed. Most of them are still available for us to look at as well as the dead sea scrolls and portions of some of the gospels that date back as far as 70 to 30 A.D. The Bible continues to be backed up by archaeology, geography, cultural discoveries, science, logic and plain common sense. As a religious book, the Bible is the most accurate and trustworthy book on the planet. If you attack the Bible then you must be willing to point that same finger at the Book of Mormon. The Bible has withstood the tests. Does the Book of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

Can you say this for me: 1

is it any different from this: one?

Math can and does mimic human speach. It has grammer, punctuation, and even definitions. The only difference between Math and language is that it's not a Phonic (sp?) language. I would think Math would closer resemble Egyption hyroglyphs, sanscrit, or Japanese/chinese. Languages that use more symbolism for a written language than a phonic one where words are sounded out.

Simpily because we use numbers in a different sense than what we normally consider language, it does not preclude it's ability to be considered one. (as you have already conceeded; disclaimer: I can't sleep and am drugged up, so please don't take this or anything I say as unkind... Man, I'm really failling at the communication bit tonight).

To illustrate my point consider a sentence that contians dualism. Two different meanings, each both thought provoking and diverse in the thoughts they entreat. A single sentence in mathmatics (not arthmatic) has the possibility for dualism as well as pholosophical aspects (atested to early mathmaticians who happened to be philosophers as well) that are both thought provoking and diverse in the thoughts they entreat.

One may use a binary system to construct a concerto, or an opera, or a written talk. This is exactly the same ability that the composer uses to do so. The medium and language is all that is altered. Just as I cannot read or write hebrew, nor speak it, does not preclude it from a language. With higher levels of mathmatics one is able to formulate complex stories, situations, and present solutions all within mathmatics. THe depth of the story or problem is dependent upon how the author presents the problem. Authorship is important in any language, and as such mathmatics has the ability to present the same idea multiple ways as does language.

I'd contest that mathmatics as a language would yeild more accurate results than that of a written language of phonic style. I say this as there are algorthims available to restore corrupted data which is nothing more than binary, hex, or another mathmatic style to reach the previous level of detail presented in a medium. This is the same principle that is used in developing encryption, which in and of itself is another language. This however is not available in the common use of what we woudl consider language.

If a manuscript loses a portion of it, say "And he kissed her on the lips" (being the original) becomes "And he kissed her on the" Many other words could go there, some more accurate than others. "And he kissed her on the mouth", "cheek", "breast", "hand", "foot", "calf", pretty much any noun. If presented in a mathmatical sense; "integral(x^2dx, 0,x) and d/dx(x^3) = x^2" where if we remove any one portion of the sentence we'd still be able to draw the same conclusion alot more accurately than the former example.

The variable x used in the previous expression itself may carry a different meaning depending on the context of the variable as well as the use the author has dictated to it. In computing, it may be a sinusodal wave function to dictate a talk. It might be the directions for how long to bake something depending on ingredients.

To further illustrat my point: What's scary is that there are people who can read that just by looking at it (it's a contraction of a scripture): For the LORDS ways are not mans ways, neither are his thoughts.

You are not listening to what I'm saying. Yes, math is language in some senses. But not in the sense that it can reproduce human speech. For example, say: "My cat chases mice" in math.

Binary code is not math because it happens to use number. Binary code could be written in letters: ABAAABBA or XYYYYYXX, or complete abstract symbols: -=--===-. You are confusing script with language. Ancient languages wrote numbers with letters.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is YOUR God incapable transmitting inerrant scripture through errant man?

If not, how can you trust anything Joseph Smith said?

Someone needs to tell Billy I'm not responding to him until he answers the previous questions. But since I'm not responding to him, I can't do it.

But since Billy has already admitted that the Bible as we have it contains errors and inconsistencies, perhaps someone should first ask him how we can trust anything in the Bible. Oh, wait; someone already did.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is YOUR God incapable transmitting inerrant scripture through errant man?If not, how can you trust anything Joseph Smith said?

You've already granted that the Bible as we have it now (not in the inerrant original you posit) is errant. How can you trust anything the Bible says?

But since Billy has already admitted that the Bible as we have it contains errors and inconsistencies, perhaps someone should first ask him how we can trust anything in the Bible. Oh, wait; someone already did.

I should have kept reading.

[cksalmon]

In your opinion, is biblical Hebrew, as preserved in the extant manuscripts, an unambiguous language?

Certainly not.

cks

[Vex]

You are not listening to what I'm saying. Yes, math is language in some senses. But not in the sense that it can reproduce human speech. For example, say: "My cat chases mice" in math.

Binary code is not math because it happens to use number. Binary code could be written in letters: ABAAABBA or XYYYYYXX, or complete abstract symbols: -=--===-. You are confusing script with language. Ancient languages wrote numbers with letters.

I see the confusion. Sorry about that, I was posting under heavy sedation and was nearing a little too long being awake.

The confusion I think comes in the missing steps for binary transmission (just for simplicity sake) however with your request I cannot fulfil as I have not taken any classes which expand upon game theory. The principle synopsis of your example would dictate that you have a predetor; your cat, and you have a mice problem, a prey. The mice venture out to get food, the further they travel the closer they get to the cat. The closer they get to the cat the better nuitrient and tasting food they may be able to travel back with. Now I'm not sure what your stances are on how you'd like you cat to behave, but lets say if the cat attacks and consumes one mice it's the worse possible out come for both the cat (as it chokes on the mouse and dies) and for the mouse (it gets consumed). If that is the case, applying the game theory of chicken will work out nicely. link

This would further illustrate the detail of the delimma of you cat chasing mice. It's mandatory for the level of detail within a structured sentence to yeild more detail to have an accurate formulation of your sentence in mathmatics. Within any language one must define the Terms used, for simplicty sake I'll use a syntax of a simple formula to derive the sentence.

SchrodingersCat=1 (Arbiturary integer depending on the amount of cats you have, since you used singular I chose one)

SchrodingersCat.AbilityToCatch=-1 (This is how many mice it is able to catch at any given interval)

Since we know the cat isn't perfect at catching mice there's a probability that it can catch one mouse, we'll say it's quite good at it so we'll say

SchrodingersCat.ProbabilityToCatch=.95

SchrodingersCat.OwnersName="BillHamblin" (Don't consider those english letters but translated binary, nothing more than numbers)

SchrodingersCat.LikesToChase=1 (Boolean mathmatics)

Now depending on the detail of the sentence and the knowledge we have about the participants things can be very different. For the mice portion of the sentence lets do this:

Mouse.Male=5

Mouse.Female=5

(For interesting effect we'll says the mice are monogomus)

Mouse.Reproduction=Mouse.Male%Mouse.Female (This is modular division)

Mouse.RateReproduction=Mouse.Male+Mouse.Female (This says the mice will only reproduce after all have gotten food, unless one dies)

Now I would need more detail for sure on the actual chase, and the desire your cat shows for it. Does your cat like to chase only one mouse at a time? Does it like to chase more than one mouse at a time? Does its mood and desire in chasing a mouse differ depending on the day, circumstance, or number of mice present? This is a problem as the mathmatics will yeild the sentence "Your cat likes to chase mice", it also yeilds further detail in that "your cat likes to chase mice and " depending on the details one provides "chases them to their local extinction" or "chases them when there's more than 1". We've only covered the basic definitions of the variables used (though we have input discrete numbers for example sake, these numbers can easily be altered for a more accurate image of the sentence, or remove the definitions entirely and plug them in to get an imperical formula or a sentence without specifics but lets the reader know that there are details to be considered, but that the jist of the sentence is: "The cat likes to chase mice." Which is the imperical of your sentence, if you replace 'the' with an identifier (which is what you have done) you'd have "My cat likes to chase mice.")

My argument, and what has not been addressed is that mathmatics can be used as a language and often is (though it's delt more with a strict sense physical, there is no metaphysical, than anything else) within engineering, science, and sociology circles. For instance, one could easily represent the sentence "The load for the beam is too great and would need to be redesigned" The same sentence can and often is written out using math and more detail is given: "The load for the wood beam is too great and would either need to be reduced by .5 tons or a steel beam would need to be used with a cross sectional area of 10.32 sq in."

Mathmatics fails as a language when dealing with things outside the realm of our understanding: Such as the message an angel would deliver for example. This is not new as with any language there's sometimes inability to provide sufficient detail formulate a cognetive sentence of any significance "I just can't find the words to say."

I'd argue that within the realm of physical language (language that describes things around us and/or our interaction with that surrounding) mathmatics is far less errent than another language. This does not mean it's easier to write or understand, but allows the user to see the perception and conclusion within a relatively short amount of space. It can also be argued that one can debate a conclusion if they have enough cause that a mistake in the compesistion of the sentence to yeild an incorrect conclusion.

But I fear that I'm detracting from the original debate at hand and so I ask Dr. (you are a doctor yes?) Hamblin to ignore this and only respond to it if he desires a bump to further answer his questions from the original arguement.

[Bill Hamblin]

Certainly not.

cks

So do you agree that there is no such thing as an unambiguous human language or not?

[urroner]

Is YOUR God incapable transmitting inerrant scripture through errant man?

If not, how can you trust anything Joseph Smith said?

Is God incapable of creating a world full of perfect beings?

Is so, then how can you trust Him since He creates lower than His abilities? Maybe He can't? Is He omnipotent?

[cksalmon]

So do you agree that there is no such thing as an unambiguous human language or not?

Dr. Hamblin--

I've already made clear, I believe, that I assume that language is ambiguous. What I categorically reject, on the other hand, is that the author of a given document is unable to mean and to intend inerrantly via language, regardless of any receptive distortion that might follow.

Do you believe that God himself is fuzzy about what he intends to communicate via language?

Are you typically fuzzy about what you actually mean when you communicate via language?

Is everything statement you make (either orally or in a written document) inevitably in error to some degree?

Best.

cks

[Vex]

Dr. Hamblin--

I've already made clear, I believe, that I assume that language is ambiguous. What I categorically reject, on the other hand, is that the author of a given document is unable to mean and to intend inerrantly via language, regardless of any receptive distortion that might follow.

Do you believe that God himself is fuzzy about what he intends to communicate via language?

Wasn't that the point of Babel?

Are you typically fuzzy about what you actually mean when you communicate via language?

Careful, we just had a discussion about this. One may intend to be clear in their language but a person is funny in that they might confuse or make a mistake in understanding exactly what a person means or says (example of the the previous conversation with mathmatics and language).

Is everything statement you make (either orally or in a written document) inevitably in error to some degree?

By either the fault of the author or the fault of the reader yes.

[urroner]

Does God communicate only by language? If He communicates in other ways, like thoughts or visions, then what He revealed could be very difficult to perfectly convey in a written language, no matter how great a writer the "prophet" is. The book of Revelation and the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, I believe are examples of this problem.

[Bill Hamblin]

Dr. Hamblin--

I've already made clear, I believe, that I assume that language is ambiguous. What I categorically reject, on the other hand, is that the author of a given document is unable to mean and to intend inerrantly via language, regardless of any receptive distortion that might follow.

Do you believe that God himself is fuzzy about what he intends to communicate via language?

Are you typically fuzzy about what you actually mean when you communicate via language?

Is everything statement you make (either orally or in a written document) inevitably in error to some degree?

Best.

cks

Of course God knows what he intends. But that doesn't make it possible for him to inerrantly state what he intends, since language is ambiguous.

At any rate, none of this matters in any practical sense. Even if God knows what he wants to say, he cannot say it inerrantly in human language any more than God could paint the Mona Lisa with a six inch brush.

So, if God's inerrant intent spoken in an ambiguous human language the result cannot be inerrant, but must be ambiguous. So in terms of practical exegesis of the text, what is the distinction between a lost inerrant original manuscript that is only preserved in ambiguous language and errant manuscripts, and an errant original preserved in ambiguous language and errant manuscripts? Hypothetical inerrancy of a lost original has no practical significance.

But all of this ignores the possibility that God does not intend to be unambiguous in his statements. Take, for example Mt 13:11, or Revelation.

[mfbukowski]

If you are acquainted with the philosophy of Wittgenstein, you will have to come down on the side of the total ambiguity of language. Meaning is dependent on context, culture, intention, and the purpose of the speaker. This is the only issue really in modern philosophy -- linguistic analysis.

For an intro to Wittgenstein, start here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

Accordingly, "the word â??philosophyâ?? must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences" (TLP 4.111). Not surprisingly, then, "most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical" (TLP 4.003). Is, then, philosophy doomed to be nonsense (unsinnig), or, at best, senseless (sinnlos) when it does logic, but, in any case, meaningless? What is left for the philosopher to do, if traditional, or even revolutionary, propositions of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics cannot be formulated in a sensical manner? The reply to these two questions is found in Wittgenstein's characterization of philosophy: philosophy is not a theory, or a doctrine, but rather an activity. It is an activity of clarification (of thoughts), and more so, of critique (of language). Described by Wittgenstein, it should be the philosopher's routine activity: to react or respond to the traditional philosophers' musings by showing them where they go wrong, using the tools provided by logical analysis. In other words, by showing them that (some of) their propositions are nonsense.

In this sense, what we are doing here is "philosophy"

[cksalmon]

Of course God knows what he intends. But that doesn't make it possible for him to inerrantly state what he intends, since language is ambiguous.

When God's message is written down, does God himself cease to be absolutely clear on his actual intent? Or, are we in agreement that God still knows exactly what he meant to communicate in language?

Let's look at an example (chosen almost at random from D&C

[cksalmon]

Careful, we just had a discussion about this. One may intend to be clear in their language but a person is funny in that they might confuse or make a mistake in understanding exactly what a person means or says (example of the the previous conversation with mathmatics and language).

Hi Vex---

Actually, the scenario you describe above is essentially what I have assumed during the course of this tangential discussion. Dr. Hamblin is arguing for something more radical than the possibility of receptive distortion.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

If you are acquainted with the philosophy of Wittgenstein, you will have to come down on the side of the total ambiguity of language.

Hi mfb--

No, I really don't. I'm familiar with Wittgenstein and I don't come down there. I grew out of my fascination with continental philosophy some time ago.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

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.

It's absurd to claim I said written revelations "inevitably contain undisclosed errors, but that doesn't mean that they contain errors." I told you not to misrepresent me like that; don't do it again.

The only thing statements like yours prove is that you really can't support "biblical inerrancy" in any meaningful, or rational way, so you have to resort to misrepresentations like the one above in order to divert attention from that failure.

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

You aren't leading anyone to water. In fact, you seem to be generating something else entirely at this point.

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.

"Filled with undisclosed errors." And would you like to point me to where I made this kind of over-hyped statement?

Hint: I didn't. And your intent is becoming clearer by the moment. And it's not very pretty, given the kind of misrepresentations you're starting to make.

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

The only tracking you're doing is to regurgitate - inaccurately, for the most part - what I've said, and then decline to address it. Instead, you misdirect our attention from the topic, which was your claim of "biblical inerrancy" and instead you say...

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?

And all of the sudden, it becomes all about Joseph Smith, with not a word about your indefensible "biblical inerrancy" claim.

This is not turning out to be a stellar set of posts for you. It's starting to reek of anti-Mormon methodology, which some of us had hoped you had put behind you, to some extent.

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?

Do you really, really mean to claim that human language is superior to the Spirit's ability to communicate? Do you really, really mean to infer that the Spirit is unable to communicate God's will to us, and that it can't overcome the deficiencies in written communication?

Your comments here seem to leave no other choice for what your intent is.

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.

Your critique was shallow - incredibly so. It was a diversion to avoid having to address - and I'll state it again - the fact that human written communication is inadequate to express divine intent, and that makes written scripture - including the original autographs - anything but inerrant, in any sense of the word.

I made the mistake, evidently, of writing about divine communication via the Spirit. I forget, sometimes, how anathema the primacy of spiritual communication and personal revelation from God are to Mainstream Christianity. I guess I had expected a broader view from you. I was mistaken.

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.

Were you to address my points intelligently and rationally, instead of making trivial, shallow, diversionary attacks, the outcome would be far different. Frankly, you've not shown much rationality in the responses.

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.

Tell you what. This is simply a diversionary tactic on your part to move attention from the fact that biblical inerrancy cannot be proved, due to the inherent inadequacy of human written communication. Perhaps once you try and focus on that point, instead of on the kind of misrepresentations you have been making, we'll be able to discuss that.

I expected Billy's responses on this thread. I didn't expect the tone or shallowness of your responses. Until you are willing to address the evident fallacy of biblical inerrancy - which I'm increasingly becoming convinced that you can't - it's going to make about as much sense to respond to you as it did to respond to Billy.

[LeSellers]

When God's message is written down, does God himself cease to be absolutely clear on his actual intent? Or, are we in agreement that God still knows exactly what he meant to communicate in language?

We can agree on this, but we cannot agree that God always wants us to know what He means:

9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Lehi

[jwhitlock]

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.

Here's yet another obvious misrepresentation. Did you even read the posts for understanding?

No one made any claim that God's communication to Joseph Smith was erroneous. In fact, I made the point that when God communicates His intent to the individual receiving it, that communication is perfect. I was very specific in making the point that human written communication is inadequate to communicate divine intent, so once the receiver commits it to writing, that writing cannot be inerrant or totally correct and adequate.

This is simply ridiculous. It's obvious you don't have a leg to stand on.

Tell you what. I'm going to CFR you on this one. Post where I said that God communicated erroneously not only to Joseph Smith, but to any of the prophets or writers of the Bible.

I'll wait.

[jwhitlock]

I've already made clear, I believe, that I assume that language is ambiguous. What I categorically reject, on the other hand, is that the author of a given document is unable to mean and to intend inerrantly via language, regardless of any receptive distortion that might follow.

All we get is a categorical rejection, without any tenable explanation - or example - of how humans can communicate inerrantly via written language.

It can't be done. Instead, we get...

Do you believe that God himself is fuzzy about what he intends to communicate via language?

Are you typically fuzzy about what you actually mean when you communicate via language?

Is everything statement you make (either orally or in a written document) inevitably in error to some degree?

As has been noted, God can communicate His intent perfectly to the individual.

Any human to human communication is imperfect and inadequate to express divine intent and hence cannot be inerrant. And frankly, human communication doesn't even express human intent well most of the time, given the number of misunderstandings - despite the best intentions - that occur.

So we still are faced with the absolute fact that human written communication is inadequate in expressing the divine intent - and hence cannot be inerrant.

[Billy]

Someone needs to tell Billy I'm not responding to him until he answers the previous questions. But since I'm not responding to him, I can't do it.

But since Billy has already admitted that the Bible as we have it contains errors and inconsistencies, perhaps someone should first ask him how we can trust anything in the Bible. Oh, wait; someone already did.

What is your question?