James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[David Waltz]

>>I don't think that anyone is saying that human communication is impossible because every possible sentence contains errors-- that is blatantly false. I think what IS being said is that one must view language as inherently ambiguous and look to context, intent, and all the other factors involved in communication. When my wife asks me to work on the "honey do" list she knows instantly by which kind of grunt I give her if I am going to actually do it or not. I would not say that this is evidence for the inerrency of language however. Language is only one facet of communication, and written language is even farther removed from verbal.>>

Me: A crazy thought just came into my headâ??is there language in heaven?

As for written vs. verbal language, I have always preferred the written. IMHO, when one compares the debates (and/or lectures) of scholars vs. their written works, the written works are almost always more definitive.

Conerning the issue of inerrancy in the autographa, I am of the opinion that God can (and did) communicate without error exactly what He wanted to be written. The issue of ambiguity rests with each individual who read the autographaâ??in other words the capacity to understand what they were reading varied according to the personal abilities of each individual.

And lastly, transmission; I have always maintained that one could choose any of the extant textual variants for their version of the Bible, hand that version to informed members of ANY Christian sect/denomination, and the outcome of their theology would remain the same.

Thus ends my morning musingsâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

Hi mfb--

If this is true, why is there so much disagreement on so many issues like say, predestination, justification, etc. etc.? What is the source of error then in your mind?

Undoubtedly, there can be legitimate disagreement about what some biblical texts are intended to communicate.

My suspicion, however, is that most theological disagreements have much more to do with "traditions of men" (and I include myself in the critique) than they do with ambiguity in the biblical data.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

If I may make a suggestion, if it hasn't already been made, all you egghead types, CK, Cal, Dr. H, etc., you are making a very good discussion, but riffraff like me keep making obnoxious statements and causing noise in the stream. Soooooooooooooo, would it be possible to start up a thread like this, only cleaner, sans ambiguation and error, in the pundit forum. I realize that JW isn't one of the lofty, chosen ones, but maybe he can get a temporary reprieve from being one of the unwashed masses.

I think we need to see more action in the pundit forum anyway.

Hey urroner--

(I'm the one who soiled my pants earlier in this thread; I haven't seen any noise from you. )

If someone started one in Pundits, I'd participate, assuming jwhitlock could as well. But I wonder if we might not be running out of things to say.

Best.

cks

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfb--

But, I've already affirmed that language is ambiguous. Your exegetical suggestions are non-controversial to me as well.

Best.

cks

Busted! It's a long thread and I thought I read it all, but I guess I missed that! Sorry.

[marysson]

i watched the video and feel it is a fair presentation. i understand that lds see themselves as non-nicene christians and not as protestants and that is just a theological difference that does not bother me at all. i understand that president mckay dropped the cross years ago in a dispute with the catholic church and the non-use of the cross is only an emotional issue with me but not a problem of theology too much. if lds wish to start the sacrafice of christ in the garden and complete it on the cross and wish to look to the easter resurrection is a finer symbol rather than good friday i can live with that difference but the foolishness of god being a man, living on his own planet, having sex with mary as a man, etc.....i will be polite here ( after all i am a guest on your forum )...i find these ideas as unbelievable and on these points i would definitely say that lds is not within the christian tradtiotion but rather more in the tradition of scientology or very odd occult non-christian ideas.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfb--

Undoubtedly, there can be legitimate disagreement about what some biblical texts are intended to communicate.

My suspicion, however, is that most theological disagreements have much more to do with "traditions of men" (and I include myself in the critique) than they do with ambiguity in the biblical data.

Best.

cks

So are you saying that if one could read the bible totally stripped of our prejudiced traditions, we would all agree?

I might actually agree with some formulation of that statement, but the problem with it would be then that you are agreeing that our cultural context is what makes the language ambiguous, which was my point from the beginning.

But it would also have to be the original unaltered hand written text by whoever wrote the original, in the original languages which still presuppose a cultural context. And I would suggest there might be some practical problems with that.

[jwhitlock]

I realize that JW isn't one of the lofty, chosen ones,

You are sooooo right about this on more levels than you realize...

but maybe he can get a temporary reprieve from being one of the unwashed masses.

Sniff.

I like being unwashed.

[cksalmon]

Hi mfb--

(1) So are you saying that if one could read the bible totally stripped of our prejudiced traditions, we would all agree?

(2) I might actually agree with some formulation of that statement, but the problem with it would be then that you are agreeing that our cultural context is what makes the language ambiguous, which was my point from the beginning.

(1) Not exactly. Divisions would decrease, to be sure. (I'm highly skeptical, of course, that one might ever--in the exegetical equivalent of Buddha 'neath the Bodhi--come reliably to know himself as free of all readerly prejudices.)

(2) Well, not exactly. I don't think cultural context necessarily makes language ambiguous; rather, it makes the interpretation of language hazardous and subject to ambiguity. I'd go much further than you have here, though, and suggest that language itself, as a matter of course, comprises ambiguating features: in broad scope (lexical polysemy, for example) and narrow (say, amphiboly).

None of which, to my mind, necessitates that written communication inevitably contains "errors." To quote DW, "The issue of ambiguity rests with each individual who read the autographa." And, I would add that, at the very least insofar as, for example, Nestle-Aland faithfully reflects the original readings, the issue of ambiguity similarly rests with the reader.

To sum up: I'm not defending the position that inerrant interpretation is inevitable or even always possible. I'm defending the belief that errant communication is not inetivable (or, to put it another way, that error-free communication is intrisically impossible).

Best.

cks

PS. I'd like to develop an example relevant to this discussion that, oddly enough (considering how far afield we are), relates to this thread's OP. And, since we have at least one recent poster (marysson) who has chosen, against all known logic, to address the actual topic of this thread, perhaps my example should be left for a new one.

[cksalmon]

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

This made me chuckle despite myself.

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

I don't think I'll get to all of your points in this single post, but I'll take a crack at it.

You wrote:

I don't think it happens that way, generally. While I don't rule out the possibility of word for word revelations given in English (or Hebrew, or whatever), I suspect that those communications are relatively rare, and are limited in scope.

I don't disagree with anything here (except, as a technicality, I'd wouldn't agree that any word-for-word revelations have been given in English, but that's another issue).

Instead, it would appear that the communication of divine intent comes more in the way of completely understood ideas and concepts, and that it is then left to the recipient to communicate those ideas in his own words. While there may be spiritual help in choosing those words, the written or spoken communication is simply inadequate, by itself, to express fully the completely understood ideas and concepts as they were spiritually received.

I understand your point. This is not my view. I would hold that God's revelation, the "God-breathedness" of scripture, was normatively coterminous with the humanly written (or, spoken, I suppose) linguistic event.

Spiritual communication is a different kind of communication than mere words, written or spoken. It is a complete form of communication that does not lend itself well to transmission using the limitations of human language.

I don't fully understand your position at this point (but that's not because your message intrinsically contains errors! ). My initial reaction would be that, while I don't deny the reality of spiritual communication, I don't see how that reality impinges upon the present discussion, a discussion which necessarily involves language-encoded communiqu

[jwhitlock]

I actually believe and affirm that God has specific, intentional meanings that he is able to express and we are able to understand without inevitable error. Belief in autographic inerrancy makes me optimistic about being able actually to know, without error, what God has communicated in scripture.

Perhaps here is the fundamental difference.

God is able to make us understand when He communicates in His way with us. However, He doesn't communicate with us in writing. The scriptures weren't written by Him. They were written by people trying to communicate what God had communicated to them in His way. I still see the evidence of inadequacy of human written communication as overwhelming.

I am curious about your assertion that you are able to know, without error, what God has communicated in scripture. Two questions:

If that is so, how do you know that you have understood - without error - what God has communicated in scripture?

How is it, then, that there is not a large body of people who are totally unified in their error-less understanding of what God has communicated in scripture?

After all the philosophical posturing about inerrancy, there must be some real world evidence of the fruits of such inerrancy.

[jwhitlock]

I understand your point. This is not my view. I would hold that God's revelation, the "God-breathedness" of scripture, was normatively coterminous with the humanly written (or, spoken, I suppose) linguistic event.

As I noted before, if this were the case, I would expect to see some real world evidence of such inerrancy, probably in the form of an extremely unified, and error free understanding of the divine intent in a comparatively large group of people. It's just not there.

IIRC, it was noted earlier in this thread that perhaps it is not God's intent that scripture be clearly understood. Certainly the use of parables in the scriptures by Jesus would underscore this possibility. I suspect that God never has been concerned that scripture be transmitted to writing in an inerrant manner, though I do think that He wants them to be generally accurate. That's because He probably understands the limitations of human communication, and has something better in mind for those who really want to know what the divine intent is.

I don't fully understand your position at this point (but that's not because your message intrinsically contains errors! ). My initial reaction would be that, while I don't deny the reality of spiritual communication, I don't see how that reality impinges upon the present discussion, a discussion which necessarily involves language-encoded communiqu

[jwhitlock]

Conerning the issue of inerrancy in the autographa, I am of the opinion that God can (and did) communicate without error exactly what He wanted to be written. The issue of ambiguity rests with each individual who read the autographaâ??in other words the capacity to understand what they were reading varied according to the personal abilities of each individual.

So if I understand correctly, David, it appears that you're saying that even though scripture is inerrant, it is not sufficient to clearly instruct more than a small minority. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would expect inerrant scripture to be clearly understood, and I would expect the evidence of that clarity to be manifest in a doctrinally error-free and unified body of believers somewhere. I don't see that body of believers anywhere, so what am I missing? Certainly there are quite a few people out there whose goal is to understand God's will, and yet they still all disagree.

And lastly, transmission; I have always maintained that one could choose any of the extant textual variants for their version of the Bible, hand that version to informed members of ANY Christian sect/denomination, and the outcome of their theology would remain the same.

Yup. Preconceived, non-scriptural bias plays a larger part in faith / belief than I think most people want to admit.

[jwhitlock]

The italicised portion here is crucial obviously. Communication of this sort is not unlike what we do here; we type in ambiguous language which is coded somehow and sent by means I do not understand and then decoded (hopefully) on the other side and again decoded by a human brain which probably again gets it wrong. The mere length of this thread is a testament to ambiguity.

And how do you explain your sunset to a blind man? This raises questions of who is and who is not "elect" and who can and who cannot receive and decode revelation. Is it like the reverse of color blindedness? What if only 20% of the population could see a color the others do not? And would those who could not see it maintain it was a figment of the other's imagination?

Surprise! Back to Matthew 13 again!

I still think it would be an interesting exercise to dissect a piece of scriptural writing that someone here presents as inerrant.

What we do with each other is tell each other things. What God does with us - by the Spirit - is to show things to us.

[cksalmon]

Hi j--

You wrote:

Perhaps here is the fundamental difference.

Perhaps.

God is able to make us understand when He communicates in His way with us. However, He doesn't communicate with us in writing. The scriptures weren't written by Him. They were written by people trying to communicate what God had communicated to them in His way. I still see the evidence of inadequacy of human written communication as overwhelming.

I would obviously disagree with the underlined portion. In fact, I don't even think you really believe what you wrote, to be honest. If you really believe what you've stated here, then you would have to affirm that God himself has not communicated with us in the Bible, God has not communicated with us in BoM, God has not communicated with us in D&C, God has not communicated with us in PoGP, God has not communicated with us in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," God has not communicated with us in any words written by Joseph Smith, God has not communicated with us in any written document at all, ever. We're left with mere humans doing their best to communicate divine revelation after the fact with God's communication apparently absent in their written words.

Can you imagine the utter absurdity of the following hypothetical discussion with an LDS missionary who holds the view you've apparently espoused here?

Investigator: "So, you believe that God has communicated important truths to us through the Book of Mormon?"

Missionary: "Um..., well, actually, no. He hasn't. God doesn't communicate with us in writing."

Investigator: "..."

Investigator: "Um.... Okay. So God hasn't communicated with us through the Book of Mormon?"

Missionary: "No; he doesn't do that sort of thing."

Investigator: "But, you told me I should pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."

Missionary: "Well, yeah, I did say that. But, I didn't mean to imply that God himself communicates with us in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a written document, and God just doesn't communicate with us in written documents. Humans wrote the Book of Mormon, not God. They did their best to communicate what God communicated to them, but God himself is not communicating with you through the Book of Mormon."

With all due respect, j, the proposition that God does not communicate in writing strikes me as absurd, bro. Frankly, it strikes me as thoroughly non-Mormon. What qualifications are you leaving out? Or, what qualifications have I missed?

I readily confess: I don't get what you're driving at here. I await your clarification.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

hi j--

Let me ask you the question I posed to Dr. Hamblin.

Do you think these (written) verses from D&C 1 contain errors?

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;...

Best.

cks

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

Call me Bill; but not "Billy"!

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

You wrote:

If you'll recall, my very first response to you in this thread addressed my take on your question.

You responded, "That's because you're more cogent than Billy."

In point of fact, you have not answered my real question. Just typing a message that is chronologically after the question I ask does not constitute a response. My question is:

Granting for the sake of argument that God has inerrantly expressed his message in lost manuscripts--but that none of the actual surviving manuscripts are in fact inerrant--how does that change, for practical exegetical purpose, the way we need to interpret the text of the Bible. What I find among most Evangelicals, like Billy, is a mouthing of the inerrant autograph manuscript assertion, but in practice, they treat the surviving manuscripts as inerrant. Many is the time I've heard Evangelicals claim that the DSS biblical texts support the Masoretic text; of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, prophecies, like the "virgin shall conceive" actually come from the LXX rather than the Masoretic. I have never seen this problem cogently addressed by Evangelicals (though, admittedly, I haven't actually searched very hard.)

The very practical difference, in my mind, has been clearly brought out in what followed that initial exchange. I actually believe and affirm that God has specific, intentional meanings that he is able to express and we are able to understand without inevitable error. Belief in autographic inerrancy makes me optimistic about being able actually to know, without error, what God has communicated in scripture.

I actually believe and affirm that God has specific, intentional meanings that he is unable to express when using human langauge and we are unable to understand without inevitable error because humans are inherently fallible.

[Bill Hamblin]

CK

I asked:

QUOTE

Are some sentences, then, inerrant? Are you suggesting that language encoding actually does not inevitably, and as an intrinsic property of linguistic ambiguity, necessarily result in error?

I also asked:

QUOTE

Are the sentences recorded in D&C 1:31-32* among those sentences that are error-free, in your opinion?

ME:

An inerrant text is one which inerrantly and perfectly conveys the original intent of the author to the reader. I think it is pointless to hypothesize about an "inerrant manuscript" because texts have no intrinsic meaning without readers. I also think even God cannot write an inerrant message with human language because language is inherently ambiguous. At any rate, in practical terms, for inerrancy to have any actual real-world meaning, it requires that a human inerrantly understand God's original intent in the text. That means that, in practical terms, there are no inerrant texts, only inerrant readers who inerrantly understand a text. Given that humans are not omniscient, and are fallible, I suggest that it is impossible that any human can ever read a text inerrantly. To ask if the DC is error-free or not is not a meaningful question to me. Beyond the assertion that you believe that there is a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, you have not engaged these issues.

[Bill Hamblin]

hi j--

Let me ask you the question I posed to Dr. Hamblin.

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;...

Do you think these (written) verses from D&C 1 contain errors?

Best.

cks

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)

At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

[Beowulf]

Bill (or shall I call you Dr. Bill?), your statements about inerrancy of scripture becoming more and more errant as time goes by is just simply too depressing for words.

Surely you can give us all an out from all this.

Or perhaps your own words are becoming more errant as time goes by?

heh

Beowulf

[cksalmon]

CK

I asked:

QUOTE

Are some sentences, then, inerrant? Are you suggesting that language encoding actually does not inevitably, and as an intrinsic property of linguistic ambiguity, necessarily result in error?

I also asked:

QUOTE

Are the sentences recorded in D&C 1:31-32* among those sentences that are error-free, in your opinion?

ME:

An inerrant text is one which inerrantly and perfectly conveys the original intent of the author to the reader. I think it is pointless to hypothesize about an "inerrant manuscript" because texts [instances of language] have no intrinsic meaning without readers.

At last, the important distinction has been made! You would apparently affirm that propositional veridicality inheres in audience reception. I certainly wouldn't.

I also think even God cannot write an inerrant message with human language because language is inherently ambiguous. At any rate, in practical terms, for inerrancy to have any actual real-world meaning, it requires that a human inerrantly understand God's original intent in the text.

Yes. Obviously.

(1) That means that, in practical terms, there are no inerrant texts, (2) only inerrant readers who inerrantly understand a text. Given that humans are not omniscient, and are fallible, I suggest that it is impossible that any human can ever read a text inerrantly [i.e., without inevitably making interpretive mistakes--cks].

(1) But, you haven't yet argued for this at all, Dr. Hamblin (you've just assumed it throughout)--unless one counts as argumentation your repeatedly claiming that: Language is ambiguous; therefore, linguistic communications inevitably contain errors. That's far from a self-evident claim.

(2) No one here, least of all me, has argued for any such thing.

(3) To ask if the DC is error-free sor not is not a meaningful question to me. Beyond the assertion that you believe that there is a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, you have not engaged these issues.

(3) But, I didn't ask if D&C is error-free. I asked you if these specific verses--

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;...

--contain errors. You have not answered this question.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

...

[jwhitlock]

I would obviously disagree with the underlined portion. In fact, I don't even think you really believe what you wrote, to be honest. If you really believe what you've stated here, then you would have to affirm that God himself has not communicated with us in the Bible, God has not communicated with us in BoM, God has not communicated with us in D&C, God has not communicated with us in PoGP, God has not communicated with us in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," God has not communicated with us in any words written by Joseph Smith, God has not communicated with us in any written document at all, ever. We're left with mere humans doing their best to communicate divine revelation after the fact with God's communication apparently absent in their written words.

You missed the point. I hope it wasn't on purpose.

You noted earlier that God doesn't typically give word for word revelations. We were agreed there.

I noted that God did not write the scriptures. It's a simple concept; He didn't write them. They were written - physically written - by people who He had communicated with. They weren't written physically by Him. I thought that would be clear. It's a simple point.

We're not making the point here that God is not communicating with us. The point is that the scriptures are not an inerrant form of communication. They are a partial, and ofttimes poorly understood form of God communicating with us. Written scriptures do not adequately, in and of themselves, express the divine intent. If I am wrong, then please - again - provide an example of inerrant scripture that we can analyze.

The only way God communicates inerrantly with the individual is through the Spirit. That's why Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptures, as a partial form of God's communication, can only really be understood when read with the Spirit. It's a simple concept. You need to get past the "either God communicates or He doesn't" absolutist approach, and understand that there's quite a bit of gray area involved, as evidenced by the hugely differing understandings people have of what scripture is actually saying.

Are you really saying you don't understand that written communication can actually contain just a partial communication from God? Are you really claiming that either God communicates fully or He doesn't communicate at all? Reality doesn't support such a proposition.

Can you imagine the utter absurdity of the following hypothetical discussion with an LDS missionary who holds the view you've apparently espoused here?

The absurdity is that you've set up a straw man that doesn't capture the essence of the point I am making.

With all due respect, j, the proposition that God does not communicate in writing strikes me as absurd, bro. Frankly, it strikes me as thoroughly non-Mormon. What qualifications are you leaving out? Or, what qualifications have I missed?

Then you will please provide a sample of writing directly by God's hand, with no human go-between.

I readily confess: I don't get what you're driving at here. I await your clarification.

I've been as clear as I possibly can. I'm having trouble getting my head around the possibility that someone may not be able to understand that "God hasn't written scripture Himself; it's always written by a human hand."

And so we come back to the fact that it's human writing that we are ultimately dealing with here. Human writing that is inadequate to convey divine intent in and of itself. Is that conceptually so difficult for the EV mindset to understand?

Educate me here, CK. Finding out that the presuppositions of the EV mindset preclude this kind of understanding is somewhat astounding.

[cksalmon]

Hi Dr. Hamblin--

You wrote:

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all? Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)

At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

So, is it your position that these verses--

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;...

--contain errors? I take it that that is your belief.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

You missed the point. I hope it wasn't on purpose.

...

The absurdity is that you've set up a straw man that doesn't capture the essence of the point I am making.

Hi j--

You wrote, "He [God] doesn't communicate with us in writing."

Thus, as I concluded (justifiably), you don't believe that God communicates with us, well, in writing. Thus, God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM.

I don't know how much closer I can get to essence of this statement.

Is it, or is it not, your position that God does not communicate with us in the written text of BoM?

Best.

cks

PS. No, man, I'm not intentionally misreading you. I do appreciate the apparent performative instantiation taking place here, though. That's sort of funny.