Jump to content

For Hoops: "Evidence" of Scriptural Hearsay


David T

Recommended Posts

The Story Thus Far:

1) Individuals profess belief that the Spirit has communicated with and worked through them.

2) Hoops cries foul, and persistently calls for evidence. Personal witness and experiences do not count. Without witnesses, these events should not be believed. Documented cases of modern Prophets having divine communications were cited. Hoops said, "Quite a few problems with this story. And there is no real evidence to support Woodruff's contention, is there?"

3) I said, "Hoops, what is your evidence that that the accounts of angelic visitations recorded in Old and New Testament times to individuals in private situations (Mary, Joseph, Zachariah, Elijah, Daniel) happened? Do you believe these accounts? What is the evidence you accept that these things really happened?"

4) Hoops' response: "I began with the premise that the Bible can be trusted. That God will preserve His word. "

5) My reply: "What's the evidence you accept that God really said he'd do that?"

6) Hoops: "There is ample evidence for me that the Bible can be trusted. Now, shall we get back on topic?"

And now, my response to this that necessitates the beginning of a new thread:

This is the topic. And I didn't ask about the trustworthiness of 'the Bible' in its entirety. I'm asking for one particular and specific example, Hoops.

First, present the statement that has God saying that he'll preserve His word, Then, show the evidence that this statement came directly from God. Not hearsay, evidence.

First, who is purported to have been the messenger that delivered this message?

How do we know he recieved this message?

Were witnesses to the reception of this mesage stated as being present?

If so, what is the evidence that they were really there?

Is the messenger purported to have written the account himself?

If so, how do you know he really wrote it?

If not, how do you know this is an accurate recording of that messenger and message?

So as not to derail this any more than you already have, I'll create a thread where you can answer. Once you present convincing evidence of your fervent belief, then I'll consider your calls for evidence on a plane worth addressing.

Link to comment

Ah, the old "the Bible can not be true, so mormonism must be" argument. I'm game.

12:6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

12The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

34 Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the lawâ??the blessings and the cursesâ??just as it is written in the Book of the Law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens who lived among them.

5 Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up.

8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear [a] and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.

17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to release the oppressed,

19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Now, what evidence are you looking for?

Link to comment
Ah, the old "the Bible can not be true, so mormonism must be" argument. I'm game.

" " are you talking about. The "bible can not be true so mormonism must be". What a straw man you have constructed this time.

I have never ever once heard an LDS person ever remotly say this not even the apostates.

Get real Hoops this is a real low point of your posts and does not do you any justice. In fact this is probably the first time I have heard this spin.

The question remains Hoops, how do you know that what happened happened? You were not there.

Link to comment

Hoops, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I'm not discussing our interpretations thereof right now. I am, however, asking you to defend your beliefs by your standards that you have used to doubt and to attack the beliefs and experiences of Latter-day Saints.

You've done the first part of my request and challenge: you've posted statements making a claim. Now please answer the rest of the questions I posited with evidence comparable to that which you have been asking us for.

First, who is purported to have been the messenger that delivered this message?

How do we know he recieved this message?

Were witnesses to the reception of this mesage stated as being present?

If so, what is the evidence that they were really there?

Is the messenger purported to have written the account himself?

If so, how do you know he really wrote it?

If not, how do you know this is an accurate recording of that messenger and message?

A line by line response specifically addressing these questions would be helpful.

Link to comment
WTF are you talking about. The "bible can not be true so mormonism must be". What a straw man you have constructed this time.

I have never ever once heard an LDS person ever remotly say this not even the apostates.

Get real Hoops this is a real low point of your posts and does not do you any justice. In fact this is probably the first time I have heard this spin.

The question remains Hoops, how do you know that what happened happened? You were not there.

You can not be serious. The efficacy of the Bible is constantly questioned - shoot, it's in your doctrine, for goodness sake. Which, in turn, makes any Bible we pick up today virtually meaningless.

Link to comment
Hoops, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I am asking you to defend your beliefs by your standards that you have used to doubt and to attack the beliefs and experiences of Latter-day Saints.

1) which belief am I being asked to defend?

2) If you can not see a vest expanse between the stories offered on the other subject and God preserving His word - the preservation of Israel, its historical accuracy, it's compliment of itself despite the years between writing - and here's another one for you -

89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Come on! But I'll play if you want to. Though one has to wonder why you would want to?

Link to comment
You can not be serious. The efficacy of the Bible is constantly questioned - shoot, it's in your doctrine, for goodness sake. Which, in turn, makes any Bible we pick up today virtually meaningless.

Hoops - you missed the most important verses in the OT where God confirms His word will be written in a book by the Jews...

Ezekiel 37:15-17

The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

Now if only we could figure out what this stick of Joseph is????

Link to comment
First, present the statement that has God saying that he'll preserve His word, Then, show the evidence that this statement came directly from God. Not hearsay, evidence.

Hi nackhadlow,

What is you definition of hearsay in regards to ancient documents and how is your definition of hearsay relevant to an ancient document like the Bible?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Link to comment
You can not be serious. The efficacy of the Bible is constantly questioned - shoot, it's in your doctrine, for goodness sake. Which, in turn, makes any Bible we pick up today virtually meaningless.

Your reasoning for trusting the Bible is because you believe the Bible says it's true? Isn't that reasoning a little bit circular?

I also take offense at the bolded statement. As a Latter-day Saint, I think my view that the Bible is extremely meaningful is fairly representative of LDS everywhere. I'm not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion -- since it's obviously not true, I can only assume that you get some sort of twisted satisfaction from caricaturing LDS beliefs into something distasteful.

Link to comment
Hi nackhadlow,

What is you definition of hearsay in regards to ancient documents and how is your definition of hearsay relevant to an ancient document like the Bible?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

This is a response to a specfic mode of criticism against our Church, and LDS belief in modern personal spiritual experiences.

Modern miracles and revelations were cited as not having 'evidence' apart from individuals saying something happened. And also when accounts of witnesses were cited, these documents were cited as not being trustworthy either, because the current reader couldn't prove those events really happened to the people described. Based on the criticisms by Hoops, personal confirmation from God does not count as evidence.

What I was asking is if the same criticism could hold up to one's beliefs in the personal events, visions, and quotes attributed to ancient prophets in ancient documents that defined Hoops' core beliefs.

It seems to me there's a double standard afoot, and I wanted to be 'shown evidence' otherwise.

Link to comment
You can not be serious. The efficacy of the Bible is constantly questioned - shoot, it's in your doctrine, for goodness sake. Which, in turn, makes any Bible we pick up today virtually meaningless.
Saying that it may contain errors due to translation is not the same as saying it is a false book of scripture. Get with the program.
I can't believe you asked a question without the proper punctuation. :P Really. Don't you think abbreviated swear words go against the spirit of theboard rules?

If that is what " " is I am a mormon for heavens sake it simply means what the freak. " " is short for that. Lol.

Link to comment
I agree. I think OMGs and WTFs are unacceptable for any LDS person who posts here.

To avoid confusion I will not use that any more. I understand what it does mean to some other poeple out there, you know avoid the appearnce of evil and all that. I guess I didn't do a very good job.

Link to comment
LDS deleted. Let's be fair.

You're right Thinking. The board rules apply to everyone - not just LDS.

My point is that a good LDS person shouldn't be using those abbreviations anywhere and to say that the "F" stands for "freak" is nonsensical.

We always have to consider how someone reads or hears what we say. It means what they're likely to understand, not what is spoken in Utah County or in our imagination.

Link to comment
Come on. Ask the average non-Mormon person what WTF stands for and 99.99% of them (who know what you're even talking about) and not going to say "What the freak?"

Please.

Perhaps you are not as familiar with happy valley as you think. Lol. you can we just drop the discussion I change what I said. You are right, it came from my internet gaming days and when I typed it then I meant it. It was wrong of me to type it in I wasn't thinking as clearly as I should have been.

I will point out htat you now have typed more times in this thread than I have lol.

Link to comment
The efficacy of the Bible is constantly questioned - shoot, it's in your doctrine, for goodness sake. Which, in turn, makes any Bible we pick up today virtually meaningless.
Your bald assertions are false on their face.

We can use the Bible as a beginning point for discussion. However, just because you disagree with our understanding of a passage does not make us wrong. There is nothing that guarantees that your interpretation of those passages is the correct one.

We do not question the efficacy of the Bible. We question (and this word is not precise) only the transmission of the text and the translation into modern languages, not the original texts (the "autographs"). This is no different from what most intelligent Christians accept.

Such questioning of the efficacy of the Bible is nowhere in our "doctrine", for goodness' or any other's sake.

The only way you could possibly claim that we "constantly [question the efficacy of the Bible]" is when you claim (with no bibliclal support, btw) is that the Bible itself is the source of your relationship with God, and the power (when you even claim any) of God to call others to repentance, etc. There is no passage in the Bible that can reasonably serve as justification for this usurpation of authority. The Bible has no power to bestow such honor, as Apollos so forcefully reminds us in Hebrews 5. Unless one is called of God, as was Aaron, he has no business ministering to the people.

Whenever I hear someone claim he gets his authority as a minister from the Bible, I always recall the story of an illiterate woman who, on finding out the only book she owned was a "good book", immediately started using it a the basis for her ministry. She married people (with them swearing on the book), she preached holding the book in the air, and all kinds of similar things. Then, one day, someone who could read came by and revealed that the "Good book" she had in her hands was a copy of Little Women, a "good book", but not the Good Book, as she had assumed.

Lehi

Link to comment
We can use the Bible as a beginning point for discussion. However, just because you disagree with our understanding of a passage does not make us wrong. There is nothing that guarantees that your interpretation of those passages is the correct one.

True that may be. But there is a correct interpretation. Words have meaning.

We do not question the efficacy of the Bible. We question (and this word is not precise) only the transmission of the text and the translation into modern languages, not the original texts (the "autographs"). This is no different from what most intelligent Christians accept.

And the question I was asked, upon claiming the same thing, was...

Where are the autographs?

The only way you could possibly claim that we "constantly [question the efficacy of the Bible]" is when you claim (with no bibliclal support, btw) is that the Bible itself is the source of your relationship with God,

Which, of course, I do not claim. But you smote that argument well anyway.

and the power (when you even claim any) of God to call others to repentance, etc. There is no passage in the Bible that can reasonably serve as justification for this usurpation of authority. The Bible has no power to bestow such honor, as Apollos so forcefully reminds us in Hebrews 5. Unless one is called of God, as was Aaron, he has no business ministering to the people.

I don't eve know where to begin with this tripe.

Whenever I hear someone claim he gets his authority as a minister from the Bible,

Then you probably misunderstood. I have NEVER heard a minister claim such a thing. But, again, you're adept at setting up an argument that sounds like a protestant would make, then refuting it. Problem is, very few, if any, make the arguments you assert.

Link to comment
First, present the statement that has God saying that he'll preserve His word,

Done.

Then, show the evidence that this statement came directly from God. Not hearsay, evidence.

What does hearsay mean in the context of historical evidence?

First, who is purported to have been the messenger that delivered this message?

God.

How do we know he recieved this message?

It was written down

Were witnesses to the reception of this mesage stated as being present?

Sometimes

If so, what is the evidence that they were really there?

The written record.

Is the messenger purported to have written the account himself?

Sometimes.

If so, how do you know he really wrote it?

I don't.

If not, how do you know this is an accurate recording of that messenger and message?

If I can trust the Bible in other things it's reasonable to trust it in others.

Link to comment

Archived

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

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

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