Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Calm]

See what I mean by "Ad hominem".

I find it bizarre that a non Mormon is telling a Mormon that if he lacks faith in certain nonsalvific facts, that he's just not a real Mormon.

There is a wide range of people, events, doctrine for which we may experience a spiritual witness; it is not necessary or even important that we experience such a witness for each and every possibility. What matters is whether or not our particular set of spiritual knowledge given to us by the Lord is sufficient for the Lord to work with us, for us to accept his grace and the gift of the Atonement. If we obsess about having confirmation on each and every issue, we will never get to the point where we take our faith---as weak or as strong as it may be---and go out and do the work of the Lord.

There is a huge difference between not currently having faith in a specific belief because of not receiving a witness yet and rejecting even the possibility of faith. That someone who does the latter is criticizing someone who is open about experiencing the former seems very twisted.

[zerinus]

It might be legitimate if it was an accurate portrayal of someone's faith though I have my doubts about someone being capable of doing it who has not demonstrated a firm grip on not only the LDS beliefs, but the expressions of those beliefs among LDS.

I don't see much evidence of the required capability here.

The legitimacy of passing judgement, and the correctness of that judgement, are two different things. You seem to be confusing the two. I am not sure which one you are disapproving of.

And one should never judge another's position in their spiritual faith until they have actually observed the exercise of that faith....and I don't mean a familiarity with someone's academic output.

If that is addressed to me, I don't see any grounds for it, because I don't see that I committed the offense. If someone told me that they don't believe in God, and I said that they didn't believe in God, how am I judging their "position in their spiritual faith?"

[David T]

If that is addressed to me, I don't see any grounds for it, because I don't see that I committed the offense. If someone told me that they don't believe in God, and I said that they didn't believe in God, how am I judging their "position in their spiritual faith?"

That's not what happened. Mak stated his views and understanding of (what many Mormons view as) non-essential elements and assertions. You agreed with Bowman's note saying his LDS faith must therefore be non-substantial.

If you were doing what you say you were doing, you would be saying, "He said he doesn't necessarily believe Abraham was an actual historical person. Therefore, he doesn't necessarily believe Abraham was an actual historical person" - that would be just restating things, and not judging his position in the spiritual faith.

However, you substantially agreeing with "He said he doesn't necessarily believe Abraham was an actual historical person, therefore, there must be no way he can be a real substantial Mormon". - is making a value judgement.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

I am well aware that there are those arrogant enough to think they have been given some sort of unofficial calling to judge their brethren's place within the fold. I prefer to leave that up to those authorized by the Lord myself

Again, I don't recall that I did. If someone told me that they didn't believe in God, or in the Bible, or in the resurrection etc., and I restated that position, how am I "judging" them?

Edited October 27, 2011 by zerinus

[WalkerW]

I disagree. I don't believe any scriptural text is required to be understood by my faith to be a verbatim and inerrant historical record. I believe that that the scriptures convey true principles based on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and I do not preclude the existence of most scriptural figures

I agree with this completely. My belief in the Book of Mormon as an ancient document has actually increased as I've studied ancient mythos more and more. For example, while I believe the Jaredites migrated at some point under the direction of God, I don't necessarily believe in a literal, positivist history of the Tower of Babel. I'm also aware of ancient traditions regarding the tzohar (see Howard Schwartz's entry on this in his Tree of Souls: Mythology of Judaism) and how nicely they fit in the Brother of Jared's encounter with Christ. Not to mention the creation imagery found in the Jaredite narrative, as discussed here and here.

[Hestia]

I find it bizarre that a non Mormon is telling a Mormon that if he lacks faith in certain nonsalvific facts, that he's just not a real Mormon.

And if it doesn't stop this thread is done. No one, Mormon or non-Mormon, should be judging another's faith. Stick to the evidence not the personal remarks.

[maklelan]

Dan,

It looks like we've cleared up a few things, and I'm glad. You wrote:

Yes, I think it makes no sense whatsoever to accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God in the context of LDS religion and not accept (even if as a matter of sheer faith) the existence of Nephi, or of Mormon or Moroni (arguably Alma's existence is more on the periphery). Nor is this an anti-Mormon assumption, but simply my observation of the view of the Book of Mormon that has been the norm in LDS teaching from the very beginning right up to today. But you think otherwise, and that's your business. Likewise, when you say,

such a statement simply does not fit the standard, normative stance of the LDS Church in its teaching about the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean those like you with "liberal" views of LDS scripture aren't sincere or cannot find a place in LDS religious life. But the fact remains that in this regard your views of the LDS scriptures are not in accord with the official and authoritative teaching of your religion. How that works for you is your business and that of those to whom you are accountable.

While my views certainly don't align with the traditional LDS scriptural perspective, I don't believe I am required by any official or authoritative statements to make a positive declaration of the historicity of the individuals you named.

You wrote:

Evidence is never "compelling" in that sense, because people can be highly irrational and refuse to believe something even if the evidence for it is overwhelming.

My statement was not meant to refer to evidence so compelling it convinces the irrational and dogmatic, it was just meant to refer to evidence that is overwhelming.

Your qualification is pertinent to your own insistence that I am unable to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant. In my view, there is sufficient evidence to show that belief in biblical inerrancy is reasonable, and specific lines of evidence confirm (provide adequate evidential support for) that belief, but the evidence cannot compel anyone to accept biblical inerrancy. Nor can anyone "prove" biblical inerrancy in the sense of proving on empirical grounds that every statement in the Bible must be true. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, and we may very roughly estimate that there are at least thousands of statements concerning matters or issues of fact. Clearly, no one can empirically verify or prove beyond any possibility of doubt that all of those thousands of statements are factually correct.

But this is what is required, unless you mean to insist that if we can adequately confirm around 50% of the details then we can infer that the other 50% of the details are also not only accurate, but universally, unilaterally, and unequivocally accurate. Of course, humanity could never confirm 50% of the details of the Bible. We could never confirm 1% of the details of the Bible. The real issue is how you cover the gap between 1% and 100%. Even if I allow that we can show that 1% of the Bible is historically accurate (and by this I mean adequately accurate for historical purposes), how does such a conclusion render it reasonable to simply assume that the other 99% percent is not only as accurate as the 1% can be shown to be, but is absolutely and completely without error, which can never even be shown of the 1%? Even if I allow that 1% of the Bible can be shown to be completely without error of any kind (which you cannot show), what considerations make it reasonable to then infer that the other 99% is also completely without error of any kind? You seem to be arguing that if this and that character or event can reasonably be inferred to be true from the evidence, that suddenly all of the Bible can not only reasonably be inferred to be true, but can be conclusively declared to not only be true, but to be without error of any kind. There's a different between showing a text is very, very, very accurate, and showing a text is utterly without error, and that difference is not one of degrees, but of kind. It requires a different kind of evidence. Stacking up evidences for this or that event or figure only bears on the former, not the latter. For these reasons, I completely reject the notion that your evidences render the assumption of inerrancy at all reasonable. Inerrancy can only ever be an exclusively faith-based affirmation.

So you have misunderstood me if you thought I meant that biblical inerrancy could be proved in that way.

I don't believe I misunderstood, I believe you overstated the case. Don't use "prove" unless you mean "prove." If you mean "reasonably support" then say "reasonably support."

But there are other options between the extremes of unqualified fideism (believing without any evidence or reason at all) and unqualified empiricism (believing only what can be absolutely proven in a purely empirical way).

And here's where I believe you confuse the kind of evidence required. Stacking up evidence for the historicity of people, places, or events in the Bible does not contribute any evidence to the notion of inerrancy. Showing inerrancy is not a matter of how much you can show is reasonably true about the Bible. If it were, we would have stronger evidence for the inerrancy of personal diaries, or history textbooks. You don't want to endow those texts with inerrancy before the Bible, do you? Of course not. You recognize that inerrancy is something more than that, and that it requires a different kind of evidence. Namely, it requires stacking up evidence that shows there are no errors. That's the difference between "really, really accurate" and "inerrant," and the evidence needs to make the distinction. As you've already pointed out, you cannot do this by going one by one through the Bible's factual claims. So what other kinds of evidence can be marshaled in support of inerrancy? None. That's the problem. You can stack up all the evidence you want on the "historicity of the Bible" scale, but none of it bears in the least on inerrancy. The "inerrancy" scale is totally empty until you can start piling on evidence that there are no errors. You're stuck with unqualified fideism if you want to assert inerrancy.

You wrote:

Again, I would insist on there being mediating positions between absolute fideism and absolute empiricism. Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is a faith position in that, as I have said, we do not have the information needed to provide absolute empirical proof for each and every individual statement of fact in the Bible. The standard view among evangelical Christians is that we believe in the absolute trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Which is circular, since the claims about the text to which you attribute authority are contingent upon the accuracy of the text.

This is the view articulated, for example, by the (much maligned of late) Gleason Archer in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (e.g., pp. 15, 20-21)

If you'd like to defend Dr. Archer I would be happy to listen. You stated your case and I rebutted. That doesn't mean we're suddenly at an impasse.

and by Kenneth Kantzer in his Foreword to the same book (p. 9). I presented the standard evangelical argument for the inerrancy of Scripture in an older thread on this forum (which unfortunately is now almost unreadable because of formatting issues).

And it was pointed out that your argument relied upon the assumption of shared faith-based premises. Not only do I not find such a premise a legitimate academic approach, but it basically presumes inerrancy (at least as the text bears on Jesus' actions and words), since I would be required to believe that the New Testament was completely without error in anything it attributed to Jesus. To be blunt, your argument for inerrancy requires I first accept the premise that the Bible is inerrant in its representation of Jesus. It should have also been pointed out that belief in the authority of the text and the inerrancy of the text are two different things, and what Jesus and the Jews of the time period espoused was the former.

Evangelicals also accept standard arguments of historic Christianity -- arguments used by the early church fathers and by Christian scholars ever since -- that corroborate the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, especially arguments from fulfilled prophecy. You reject both of these arguments, I know. I see no value in re-hashing them over and over. My point is that you have had an evangelical present an explanation for their belief in biblical inerrancy, even though you don't view it as reasonable. And again, I certainly agree that the belief is for us a matter of faith, but this doesn't mean we can't have any evidence supporting it. That is a false dichotomy. Our primary reason for believing in biblical inerrancy is that Jesus Christ viewed Scripture (which at the time consisted of the Old Testament) as inerrant. (Yes, I know you don't accept this historical assessment of Jesus' view.)

You cannot insist I accept the inerrancy of the Bible's portrayal of Jesus as a premise to our debate regarding whether or not the Bible is inerrant. To insist otherwise is to say I must presuppose inerrancy before you can even argue for inerrancy.

We view fulfilled prophecy as direct evidence supporting the inspiration of the Bible. We also argue that many (not necessarily all) of the alleged factual difficulties in the Bible can be cleared up, minimally by showing that there is no necessary error, and often by showing that there is in fact no error at all.

So this means you have some cases that you cannot reconcile with inerrancy, and some cases that you can only suggest can plausibly be reconciled with inerrancy. Ergo, your belief in inerrancy is not based on evidence, but on a leap of faith over the gap between errors and no errors. It is based on a leap of faith in the face of the evidence for errors.

Our belief in biblical inerrancy is not contingent on our being able to resolve all of the difficulties. In that sense of course it is a position of faith, but that doesn't mean there is "no evidence" that supports or confirms that belief.

I completely disagree. I have never seen a single piece of evidence that supports the notion that the Bible is without error. Arguments that this or that section of the Bible is historical do not constitute such evidence, which is necessarily of an entirely different kind. All those arguments do is support the conclusion that this or that section of the Bible is historical, which render it on par with any number of historical texts.

Edited October 27, 2011 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah wrote:

I find it bizarre that a non Mormon is telling a Mormon that if he lacks faith in certain nonsalvific facts, that he's just not a real Mormon.

Hestia commented:

And if it doesn't stop this thread is done. No one, Mormon or non-Mormon, should be judging another's faith. Stick to the evidence not the personal remarks.

Hestia, calmoriah's complaint came about nine hours after I had acknowledged that I should have expressed myself differently and apologized to Dan for any offense, which apology he accepted. We seem to have moved on; I hope others can do so as well.

[juliann]

such a statement simply does not fit the standard, normative stance of the LDS Church in its teaching about the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean those like you with "liberal" views of LDS scripture aren't sincere or cannot find a place in LDS religious life. But the fact remains that in this regard your views of the LDS scriptures are not in accord with the official and authoritative teaching of your religion. How that works for you is your business and that of those to whom you are accountable.

It works fine. If you don't understand that you do not understand Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

You'll enjoy this. walkstar. blogspot.com/2009/12/capitalization-anonymousness-authority .html

Thanks. I did enjoy it after I put it into a more usable form -- and found out why the admin doesn't want us to see it.

[Robert F. Smith]

diglot,

You wrote:

Putting Archer and McDowell in the same league scholastically is bordering on the weird, as I'm sure even Josh would agree. Archer's educational credentials were irreproachable (PhD, Harvard University, and other degrees) and his academic work and knowledge quite impressive. He taught seven ancient languages and is reported to have spoken about thirty languages. A good bio of him is the notice of his passing in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (see here).

It is one thing to disagree with Archer's stance on biblical inerrancy or to differ with him on some matter of interpretation. But when someone like you dismisses a scholar like Archer in such a smarty-pants, condescending manner, the obvious question that comes to my mind is, Just who in blazes are you?

Thank you so much for the obit on the late Gleason Archer II. I did not know him, but I knew his son Gleason III when we were young students in Jerusalem back in the 1960s. To judge by the delightful and genuine Christian nature of his son, the father must have been a fine man. I have often wondered what had become of the son (who renamed himself Asher Keshet there in Jerusalem, and married a wonderful Jewish girl named Sarah), and I now see that he lives in Mass and has a son named Ya'ir.

[Robert F. Smith]

Apparently, it's easier, and a lot more fun, to skewer an evangelical layperson from another forum whose statements are often intemperate than to deal with the position taken by an evangelical scholar participating in this very forum. Actually, the situation is worse than that. Intemperate statements by such persons on other forums are being used to argue that the position I present here is not a genuine or honest position. It is just too rhetorically convenient to claim that no matter what I or other evangelicals say as to what we believe and what we mean by our words, what we really mean is to be learned from others, not from us. As I have often observed, and as some forum members here have actually stated explicitly, some Mormons prefer the more outlandish, uncharitable, and inaccurate expressions of "anti-Mormonism" because they are easier to criticize. Not only that, but then anyone else who dares to criticize LDS doctrines and claims is accused of being of the same ilk.

When I read those posts, I did not even consider that they were directed at you. I thought that they were further commentary on the OP.

I think nearly everyone on this Board knows that you conduct yourself like a fine Christian gentleman whose job it is to carry on a dialogue with Mormons and perhaps to convert one here or there to a non-Mormon POV. I don't think that anyone here takes umbrage at that, even though they may vigorously defend their particular version of the faith or their personal ideology.

Anyhow, I find your tone friendly and civil, your information informative, and your questions to the point. Would that everyone on this Board had such deportment. Keep up the good work, amigo.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Dan,

I've answered your CFR and gone to great lengths to provide you with a detailed answer to your question. Now I have some questions for you, pertaining to your recent posts.

• Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?
  
• Do you personally affirm or deny that the universe that we observe around us testifies to us that there is a God?
  
• Do you believe that human beings are qualitatively different from all other animal species on earth?
  
• In your opinion, are there absolute moral values that transcend changing cultures? If so, what would be an example of such a value? If not, what do you believe about moral values?
  
• Do you affirm or deny that Israelites enslaved in Egypt escaped from there and settled in Palestine in the second millennium BC?
  
• Do you believe that the following persons mentioned in the Bible were real historical persons: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon?
  
• Do you believe that the Book of Mormon figures of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman were real historical persons?
  
• Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal, historical event?
  

I hope you don't mind my taking a shot at those questions: Affirmative to each.

In addition, your first question wants to know what that might mean to me: I believe the Bible to be the Word of God insofar as it is translated correctly, and insofar as it has been transmitted faithful to the original text (losses, glosses, scribal errors and emendations, etc., being of constant concern), i.e., it contains the authentic Word of God as best represented by the fallible humans who wrote it in response to inspiration and to magnalia Dei. By its very nature it cannot be inerrant.

Your fourth question asks for an example: "You shall not murder."

Edited October 28, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

As I have time I will offer some comments on some of the points you raised in your earlier posts. You wrote:

Your link has failed to provide any support for the notion that "God commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing." At most it shows that the authors of Revelation and Exodus claim God commanded them to record their respective texts (although with Exodus it was just the law, not the narrative, and with Revelation it was just the vision, not the narrative leading up to it). Can you support the assertion scripturally?

If you are asking me to provide references showing that every part of each of the 66 books of the Bible was written in obedience to a specific command from God to its author, no, we don't have such a body of biblical references. We do have other references besides the ones you discussed that indicate specifically that God commanded someone to write what we now have as Scripture. For Moses, see, for example, Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; and Deuteronomy 31:19. The Lord's command through Moses that the Israelites were to copy the words of the Mosaic texts at specific occasions and even as a regular practice presuppose that the initial writing of those texts were God's will (see Num. 5:23; Deut. 6:9; 11:20; 17:18; 27:3, 8 ). Jeremiah was explicitly told to write down all of the words that the LORD had spoken to him (Jer. 30:2; 36:2, 28). God also told Habakkuk to write down the vision he gave him (Hab. 2:2).

The general principle at work here is found here: "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, people spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). God moved those prophets and apostles to speak on his behalf. They were not merely acting on their own initiative, but were speaking and writing under the direction of their Lord, delivering his commandment (2 Peter 3:2). All Scripture originates in this way; all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Prophets and apostles in the Bible were communicating under divine command (see Exod. 7:2; Jer. 1:7, 17). The Scriptures as a whole, according to Paul, were produced as part of God's purpose and command that the gospel be proclaimed to all the nations (Rom. 16:25-26). Thus, the writing of the inspired books of Scripture by the prophets and apostles was indeed done in obedience to God's command.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[mfbukowski]

The general principle at work here is found here: "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, people spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). God moved those prophets and apostles to speak on his behalf. They were not merely acting on their own initiative, but were speaking and writing under the direction of their Lord, delivering his commandment (2 Peter 3:2). All Scripture originates in this way; all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Prophets and apostles in the Bible were communicating under divine command (see Exod. 7:2; Jer. 1:7, 17). The Scriptures as a whole, according to Paul, were produced as part of God's purpose and command that the gospel be proclaimed to all the nations (Rom. 16:25-26). Thus, the writing of the inspired books of Scripture by the prophets and apostles was indeed done in obedience to God's command.

Ah yes, the same old circular argument we have seen before.

The Bible is true because it says it is.

Many other scriptures which you would call "pagan" do the same. How do YOU know which is right?

Edited October 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Dan,

As I have time I will offer some comments on some of the points you raised in your earlier posts. You wrote:

If you are asking me to provide references showing that every part of each of the 66 books of the Bible was written in obedience to a specific command from God to its author, no, we don't have such a body of biblical references. We do have other references besides the ones you discussed that indicate specifically that God commanded someone to write what we now have as Scripture. For Moses, see, for example, Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; and Deuteronomy 31:19. The Lord's command through Moses that the Israelites were to copy the words of the Mosaic texts at specific occasions and even as a regular practice presuppose that the initial writing of those texts were God's will (see Num. 5:23; Deut. 6:9; 11:20; 17:18; 27:3, 8 ). Jeremiah was explicitly told to write down all of the words that the LORD had spoken to him (Jer. 30:2; 36:2, 28). God also told Habakkuk to write down the vision he gave him (Hab. 2:2).

The general principle at work here is found here: "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, people spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). God moved those prophets and apostles to speak on his behalf. They were not merely acting on their own initiative, but were speaking and writing under the direction of their Lord, delivering his commandment (2 Peter 3:2). All Scripture originates in this way; all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Prophets and apostles in the Bible were communicating under divine command (see Exod. 7:2; Jer. 1:7, 17). The Scriptures as a whole, according to Paul, were produced as part of God's purpose and command that the gospel be proclaimed to all the nations (Rom. 16:25-26). Thus, the writing of the inspired books of Scripture by the prophets and apostles was indeed done in obedience to God's command.

The Book of Mormon, as usual, does better!

2 Nephi 29:

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

The implied assumption of verse 10 is that the Bible was written at the commandment of God, as other scriptures. That is a very general reference of course. There are many more specific ones.

Edited October 28, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

The Book of Mormon, as usual, does better!

<SNIP>

The implied assumption of verse 10 is that the Bible was written at the commandment of God, as other scriptures. That is a very general reference of course. There are many more specific ones.

The Book of Mormon is a second witness for the Bible, BUT ONLY IF you accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. Bowman doesn't, so he is left with a circular argument.

[mfbukowski]

Rob:

Edit: I must apologize for doing this rather backwards, but now, after the fact, I want to specify which post I was responding to with this post of mine

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

We must distinguish the question of why Scripture is true and authoritative from the question of how we come to recognize it as true and authoritative. These are two different questions. We must also distinguish these two questions from the question of how one who believes in the Scriptures might go about showing someone who doesn't that the belief in the Scriptures is reasonable. So those are three distinct questions.

Question one and two are really one. We can only know something is "true and authoritiative" if we believe in God in the first place- the only question is is it from Him or not.

-End of edit.-

For example, let me show you this version of the Old Testament:

"The world, such as it is now, is twofold, being the work of two hostile beings, (God), the good principle, and (Satan), the evil principle; all that is good in the world comes from the former, all that is bad in it comes from the latter. The history of the world is the history of their conflict, how (Satan) invaded the world, (and Garden created by God) and marred it, and how he shall be expelled from it at last. Man is active in the conflict, his duty in it being laid before him in the law revealed by (God) to (Moses, his prophet). When the appointed time is come, a son of (God) the lawgiver, still unborn, named (Jesus), will appear, (Satan) and hell will be destroyed, men will rise from the dead, and everlasting happiness will reign over the world."

So is this true scripture or not? How would one distinguish that?

This is it's original form, I have changed only a few names in the above.

The world, such as it is now, is twofold, being the work of two hostile beings, Ahura Mazda, the good principle, and Angra Mainyu, the evil principle; all that is good in the world comes from the former, all that is bad in it comes from the latter. The history of the world is the history of their conflict, how Angra Mainyu invaded the world of Ahura Mazda and marred it, and how he shall be expelled from it at last. Man is active in the conflict, his duty in it being laid before him in the law revealed by Ahura Mazda to Zarathustra. When the appointed time is come, a son of the lawgiver, still unborn, named Saoshyant, will appear, Angra Mainyu and hell will be destroyed, men will rise from the dead, and everlasting happiness will reign over the world.

The text is of Zoroastrian/ Parsi origin. I think it is safe to say these folks are not "Christian".

http://www.sacred-te...e04/sbe0405.htm

Edited October 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

An interesting discussion about how Islam and Zoroastrianism, which sounds awfully familiar for some reason:

And First as to Mohammed's Miraj or Ascent to heaven. We begin with a Pehlavi book called Arta Viraf namak, written in the days of Ardashir, some four hundred years before the Hegira. We are there told that, the Zoroastrian faith fading away, the Magi of Persia sought to revive it in the people's hearts, by sending a Zoroastrian or the above name up to heaven, with the view of bringing down tidings of what was going on there. This messenger ascended from one heaven to another, and having seen it all, was commanded by Ormazd to return to the earth, and tell it to his people. The result is contained in the above named book, of which we shall briefly quote a few passages, freely translated, to shew how far the Moslem account corresponds with the imaginary details below:-

http://www.truthnet....am/src-chp5.htm

I think that it is safe to say that because someone says that God told them it was "revealed", that is not necessarily a good argument for accepting it as a "true path".

There are probably hundreds of such examples from world religions, of which the Bible is only one.

So how does one choose? I think it is clear that one needs to have one's own revelation directly from God about His will for each of us. And his will for each of us need not be the same- but it is my personal belief, that as long as we are doing what he has told us to do, we are following his plan for us.

Incidentally, that belief fits perfectly with the Mormon principle that each of us can receive revelation about what we should do with our lives, and leaves it for others to decide what they are to do with their lives.

We also believe that all that will get "sorted out" in the eternities- that we will each progress according to our own relationship with God, at our own pace.

The notion that all this was "revealed once" for all, just doesn't make it. We each need our own revelation. There are billions who never even heard of the Bible, and God still loves them

Edited October 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[maklelan]

Dan,

As I have time I will offer some comments on some of the points you raised in your earlier posts.

I appreciate your continued participation.

You wrote:

If you are asking me to provide references showing that every part of each of the 66 books of the Bible was written in obedience to a specific command from God to its author, no, we don't have such a body of biblical references.

Here is the claim:

God commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing

This certainly sounds unilateral, so it would require concomitant evidence. If it only means to insist that specific writers were commanded by God to write the texts found in the Bible, I'd like to know exactly which texts were and which texts were not commanded to be written. As I've pointed out, none of the scriptures provided actually accounts for the entirety of any single book of the Bible.

We do have other references besides the ones you discussed that indicate specifically that God commanded someone to write what we now have as Scripture. For Moses, see, for example, Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; and Deuteronomy 31:19.

In each instance we have a narrative describing the event of a commandment to record a portion of text that was later incorporated into that larger narrative. From a strictly scriptural point of view, what we can assert is that certain books within the Bible incorporated portions of text that were commanded to be written. I see no indication that any biblical text asserts an actual book of the Bible itself was commanded to be written. This may seem like nitpicking, but when we're dealing with assertions about a complete and total lack of nits as an inviolable rule, the nits must be picked.

The Lord's command through Moses that the Israelites were to copy the words of the Mosaic texts at specific occasions and even as a regular practice presuppose that the initial writing of those texts were God's will (see Num. 5:23; Deut. 6:9; 11:20; 17:18; 27:3, 8 ).

But what about the larger texts that simply report on what the texts that were commanded said? Those are the texts I'm concerned with. I'm fine with you asserting the Covenant Code was commanded to be written, but that has no bearing in and of itself on who wrote the book of Exodus itself or why.

Jeremiah was explicitly told to write down all of the words that the LORD had spoken to him (Jer. 30:2; 36:2, 28).

So who was commanded to write, "The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh, saying, 'Thus speaks Yahweh, God of Israel, saying, Write all the words that I have spoken to you in a book'"? Was Yahweh's commandment understood by Jeremiah to include a third-person meta-narrative, or did someone else write v. 1? If it was someone else, was it commanded by God?

God also told Habakkuk to write down the vision he gave him (Hab. 2:2).

Same concern. Let's say Joseph Smith was commanded to write down a sermon given to him through divine inspiration that he was to deliver at an outdoor meeting. In the present day I take the text of that sermon, without knowing if it was recorded by Smith himself or by someone who was there, and fit it into a short narrative framework intended to contextualize the sermon. I call it "The Book of Joseph Smith." Was it commanded to be written? Is the fact that it contains a commandment to write down God's word (which constitute the vast majority of the text) enough to render my account inspired and inerrant scripture? You answer those questions and you'll have an answer regarding what your scriptures leads an objective and unbiased observer to conclude.

The general principle at work here is found here: "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, people spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). God moved those prophets and apostles to speak on his behalf.

Where does it state that 2 Peter was moved/commanded by God to record the above statement? Do we understand "prophecy" to extend to all corners of scriptural texts, including narrative, meta-narrative, etc., or just the actual "thus sayeth the Lord" prophecies?

They were not merely acting on their own initiative, but were speaking and writing under the direction of their Lord, delivering his commandment (2 Peter 3:2). All Scripture originates in this way; all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16)

But we must accept 2 Tim 3:16 as scripture before we can believe it is wholly true, don't we? How do we identify it as scripture? Nothing internal to the Bible does this, although that itself would also be circular. It is identified as scripture in virtue of being included in the Bible, which is the case because it was identified as scripture. This is the inescapable hermeneutic circle, and you cannot get out of it and bring your view of inerrancy with you.

Prophets and apostles in the Bible were communicating under divine command (see Exod. 7:2;

Here only Moses and Aaron receive a divine command.

Jer. 1:7, 17).

Here only Jeremiah receives a divine command.

The Scriptures as a whole, according to Paul, were produced as part of God's purpose and command that the gospel be proclaimed to all the nations (Rom. 16:25-26).

First, for Paul, the "Scriptures as a whole" meant the Old Testament, at least as far as it was constituted in his day (and we have no idea how far that was). Second, are you appealing to Paul's authority, or are you appealing to Paul as a conduit for God's purpose and command? In other words, don't you have to presuppose Paul's text is scripture to insist his statement is authoritative? You can't appeal to any other texts that putatively identify his text as scripture in order to cement its authority, since you have to presuppose that text is scripture in order for it to be authoritative. Third, the referent of "according to the commandment of the everlasting God" in Rom 16:26 is the manifestation of the gospel to all nations, not "the scriptures of the prophets." Additionally, only a portion of the Old Testament constitutes the writings of prophets.

Thus, the writing of the inspired books of Scripture by the prophets and apostles was indeed done in obedience to God's command.

You've shown me that three people received commandments from God to write accounts that appear in part or in full in broader texts they likely didn't write. You then appeal to texts you must presuppose are scripture which identify an unspecified "all scripture" as part of God's purpose.

EDIT: While it's true I only asked you to support your claim scripturally (and apart from my criticism about the command applying to only portions of the biblical books), your claim here does rest on some strained inferences drawn from presuppositions about scripture that I don't think my request necessarily allows. A text stating "texts X, Y, and Z were commanded to be written by God" would be fine, but stating that text X suggests principle A about scripture in general, which must then overlay our reading of text Y (which speaks specifically about a single prophetic author) so that it can be made to extend to all prophetic authors, etc., is pushing it in my opinion (and my example is a conceptual paraphrase, not an exact reproduction of what I think you're arguing).

Edited October 28, 2011 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Good grief. Dan (maklelan) asked me for biblical citations. Should I not have complied?

Ah yes, the same old circular argument we have seen before.

The Bible is true because it says it is.

Many other scriptures which you would call "pagan" do the same. How do YOU know which is right?

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Good grief. Dan (maklelan) asked me for biblical citations. Should I not have complied?

Fair enough, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because of my late edit of post 518.

But in fact, I was simply responding to the same question Dan was, with a question along another line of reasoning.

The question we are both responding to is this this one:

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

We must distinguish the question of why Scripture is true and authoritative from the question of how we come to recognize it as true and authoritative. These are two different questions. We must also distinguish these two questions from the question of how one who believes in the Scriptures might go about showing someone who doesn't that the belief in the Scriptures is reasonable. So those are three distinct questions.

To me, there is only one question, and that is "how do you know the Bible is from God". If it IS from God, obviously it is true and authoritative- not many people think God is a liar without authority.

So the question stands- with all these "scriptures" alleging internally that they are all from God, how do YOU know the Bible is from God?

They can't all be "true and authoritative" (according to your line of thinking) and yet they all allege that they are from God. So far, the cited list includes the Avesta, the Koran and the Bible.

I suppose one might think they were ALL "true and authoritative" but I don't think you are in the set of those who believe that.

I could go on listing quotes from other alleged "scriptures" if you like- but the question is, how do YOU know?

Edited October 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

To me, there is only one question, and that is "how do you know the Bible is from God". If it IS from God, obviously it is true and authoritative- not many people think God is a liar without authority.

Heh, I thought you liked the answer I gave recently. Now you don't?

[volgadon]

and found out why the admin doesn't want us to see it.

Why is that?

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Heh, I thought you liked the answer I gave recently. Now you don't?

I guess it kind of depends on which Rob Bowman I am talking to.

This is the one I like:

A short answer to your question is that I know that God exists because he has revealed himself. God reveals himself in his creation, in my conscience, in Christ, and in Scripture. I am daily confronted anew with the evidence of nature that an infinite or transcendent, yet personal, Being is responsible for the world in which I live. I am also daily confronted anew with the fact that I am a creature accountable to a moral standard not of human invention, a standard against which I fall short. These two realities, one external to me and one internal to me, appear to me utterly convincing proof that God exists. Apart from God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture, though, I would not know much about this God or anything about how to relate to him. God's revelation in Christ is known to me in and through his revelation in Scripture (the Bible), so that for me these two are inseparable (even though distinguishable). This dual revelation of God, both personal (in Christ) and propositional (in Scripture), reveals God in a way that is concrete and life-changing in a way that the general revelation in creation and conscience does not.

Viewed in this way, my answer to all three of your questions is that the "how" of my knowing these things is divine revelation. God reveals himself to me in all four of the ways just mentioned; that is how I know that God exists. God reveals himself in Christ as Savior and by the Holy Spirit convicts me (through my conscience) of my sin and therefore of my need of salvation, and that same Holy Spirit has made known to me (through Scripture) that Christ is the answer to that need and has instilled trust or confidence in Christ as meeting that need for me personally; that is how I know that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior. Since it is through Scripture that I come to know God in this way and to know that Jesus Christ is my Savior, the one who reconciles me to God, in practical terms this is how I know that Scripture is the word of God. That is, the Bible is God revealing himself in words; ultimately, then, I know that the Bible is God's word because it is, because in it I recognize God speaking, and specifically God speaking about Christ as my Savior.

This knowledge of God, Christ, and Scripture is not separate from or pitted against the factual evidence. God makes himself known in the physical world as Creator; the scientific facts testify to this reality. God revealed Christ to be his divine Son through his teaching, miracles, and especially his resurrection from the dead; the historical facts testify to and corroborate these things to be true. God reveals himself in the words of Scripture; the teaching of Jesus Christ about the nature of Scripture, the evidences of fulfilled prophecies, and various factual evidences provide different sorts of attestations to and corroborative evidence for the inspiration of the Bible as the word of God. I never pit facts or evidences against revelation because for me all facts are revelatory. God reveals himself in every scientific measurement, in every historical event, in every text, in every experience. God is the light by which all facts are properly known, and in turn all facts properly understood testify to God, to his Son, and to his written Word. As fallible and fallen creatures, people often misinterpret God's revelations, but that's our fault, not his.

And this is the one that is just plain off base:

No. The Scriptures are authoritative and true because God speaks in them. God is the authority; the Scriptures, as his word, carry and express his authority. To put it another way, whatever God says is authoritative because God is the authority.

We must distinguish the question of why Scripture is true and authoritative from the question of how we come to recognize it as true and authoritative. These are two different questions. We must also distinguish these two questions from the question of how one who believes in the Scriptures might go about showing someone who doesn't that the belief in the Scriptures is reasonable. So those are three distinct questions....

Here are some examples of the types of evidence that confirm the truth of the Bible:

The evidence from astronomy showing that the universe had a beginning, confirming Gen. 1:1, etc.

The evidence from astronomy, physics, etc., showing that the universe is fine-tuned to provide a stable environment in which life can exist, confirming the Bible's teaching that an intelligent Being created the world (Gen. 1-2, etc.)

The evidence from anthropology, psychology, etc., showing that human beings are qualitatively different from all other biological creatures on earth, confirming the Bible's teaching that human beings are unique in their relationship to God (Gen. 1:26-27, etc.)

The evidence from human behavior, good and bad, showing that human beings are not just animals doing what comes naturally but are creatures with an awareness of moral absolute values and yet in whom something has gone terribly wrong, confirming the biblical teaching of the Fall

The evidence from the Ipuwer papyrus, for example, confirming portions of the Exodus account

The evidence from archaeology that Jericho was destroyed in a manner closely matching the account in Joshua (though most archaeologists dispute the chronological match)

The evidence from archaeology and extrabiblical texts confirming the existence of many of the biblical kings and other historical figures, and even specific events, such as the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, the rule and character of Herod the Great and of his sons, etc., etc.

The evidence from extrabiblical texts confirming the existence and some of the events involving such NT figures as John the Baptist, Jesus, and James, the famine in Judea mentioned in Acts, etc., etc.

The evidence of fulfilled prophecy that at least those portions of the Bible were supernaturally inspired, e.g., the prophecy in Genesis 12:1-3 that peoples all over the earth would view Abraham as their spiritual father (not fulfilled until centuries after the Bible was completed), the prophecy in Isaiah 11:11 that a second restoration of Jews to their Promised Land would take place (not fulfilled until 1948), the prophecy in Daniel 9:26 that a second temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed along with the city (fulfilled in AD 70, long after even a second-century BC date for the book of Daniel), etc.

The evidence from the past two millennia of Jewish and Christian history of the salutary wisdom and values of the Bible in stimulating the development of education, science, music, technology, the abolition of slavery, the elevation of women and children, etc., etc., etc.

The evidence from NT criticism that confirms, despite the often anti-supernaturalistic bias of many practitioners, the basic biographical facts of the life of Jesus (his childhood in Nazareth, his baptism by John in the Jordan, his gathering disciples around him, his reputation as a healer and teacher, the opposition of Sanhedrin leadership to Jesus' claims, his arrest in Gethsemane, his condemnation to crucifixion by Pilate).

The evidence from historical study of the NT that confirms the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection

So what's the bottom line? Is it true because of revelation or true because of the circular argument from it's own alleged "evidence"?

You might answer "both" and I can understand that. But in this thread you seem to be a different Rob- insisting that the Bible is true because God says it is. Period.