Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Pahoran,How silly. You're wrong. I do not give priority to the Bible over God. I give priority to the Bible over Joseph Smith.So let's see if I understand this correctly.You earlier said it was a complete straw man to suggest that any EV anywhere had ever given the Bible priority over God.And now, when it comes down to an actual case, you clearly give the Bible priority over God.A Bible, a Bible, you have got a Bible, and you need no more Bible.We get it. We always got it.Regards,Pahoran
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Pahoran,How silly. You're wrong. I do not give priority to the Bible over God. I give priority to the Bible over Joseph Smith.So If God came to you and said the Bible was wrong. Who would you beleive?
shalamabobbi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 So If God came to you and said the Bible was wrong. Who would you believe?RB would play his trump card, placing a piece of duct tape over God's mouth.. 1
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Zakuska,You wrote:So If God came to you and said the Bible was wrong. Who would you beleive?Duh. I would believe God -- once I was sure it was God. But this hypothetical gets us nowhere.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Dan,You wrote:Evangelicals must be quite selective in applying this test, then, because numerous, numerous portions of the Bible are in conflict with earlier portions of the Bible. For instance, the book of Chronicles completely changes several portions of the much earlier book of Kings just to align it with contemporary concerns vis-à-vis priesthood and the Davidic line. Additionally, we have the problem of Acts 15 completely changing what Amos 9 said because it was using a Greek mistranslation and filling in the blanks the translation left. James stated that what he was quoting was "the words of the prophets." It clearly wasn't. You seemed to suggest that it was a kind of authorized manipulation of the text. Does this mean there are exceptions to the test you describe above, or just that your test is not applicable to the Bible, and we must unilaterally accept the Bible as is?The Kings-Chronicles issue is a rather broad one, so a quick answer of substance would be difficult. In general, I agree that Chronicles reflects a more priestly-oriented perspective on the same history as Kings, but I don't see them as contradictory.On the quotation from Amos by James in Acts 15, see Michael A. Braun's article "James' Use of Amos at the Jerusalem Council" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. He seems to offer a reasonable solution to the problem.
shalamabobbi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Duh. I would believe God -- once I was sure it was God. But this hypothetical gets us nowhere.Um no, it gets you nowhere..lol.. What would you do to make the determination? See if anything He said exceeded the Bible?Would His pronouncements have to be a proper subset of the Bible or the other way around?I can't help but believe that the Bible is more important to you that it's source..Pahoran,How silly. You're wrong. I do not give priority to the Bible over God. I give priority to the Bible over Joseph Smith.And the Pharisees gave priority to the "Bible" of their day rather than give heed to current messengers sent from God.How odd that All Biblical examples support this paradigm and you, who makes his claim to the Bible supreme, can't make that distinction.. Edited October 31, 2011 by shalamabobbi 1
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 And the Pharisees gave priority to the "Bible" of their day rather than give heed to current messengers sent from God.How odd that All Biblical examples support this paradigm and you, who makes his claim to the Bible supreme, can't make that distinction..It was even more Bowman-esque than that.They gave priority to THEIR INTERPRETATION of the "Bible" of their day rather than give heed to the current messengers sent from God.
Pahoran Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Pahoran,How silly. You're wrong. I do not give priority to the Bible over God. I give priority to the Bible over Joseph Smith.Nice dodge. You don't give the Bible priority over God; you just give the Bible priority over whatever God reveals to a prophet you wish to find a pretext to reject.Like I said: we get it.Regards,Pahoran
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 shalamabobbi,You wrote:I can't help but believe that the Bible is more important to you that it's source.I'm really getting tired of your false accusations against me. Find someone else to attack, okay?
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Pahoran,You wrote:Nice dodge.It's usually a good idea to dodge false accusations and attempts to smear one's character and sincerity.You wrote:You don't give the Bible priority over God; you just give the Bible priority over whatever God reveals to a prophet you wish to find a pretext to reject.Like I said: we get it.You are assuming that I am not sincere in concluding that the LDS prophets are false prophets. I take umbrage at this character assassination. I am offended! How dare you! Has God revealed to you personally that I am not sincere? If so, would you mind asking him to tell me?
Deborah Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 You are assuming that I am not sincere in concluding that the LDS prophets are false prophets. I take umbrage at this character assassination. I am offended! How dare you! Has God revealed to you personally that I am not sincere? If so, would you mind asking him to tell me?And yet you feel free to come on a LDS sponsored board and tell us by inference that we have not had revealed to us that our prophets are true prophets. Are we not sincere? I suppose your argument would be that we are misguided, but then the question can be asked how do you know you are not the misguided one since most of us have some pretty powerful experiences which confirm our testimonies. 1
shalamabobbi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I'm really getting tired of your false accusations against me. Find someone else to attack, okay?Or what? You'll huff and you'll puff and you'll blow my house in? Might be easier without the sheep's clothing.. 2
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 And yet you feel free to come on a LDS sponsored board and tell us by inference that we have not had revealed to us that our prophets are true prophets. Are we not sincere? I suppose your argument would be that we are misguided, but then the question can be asked how do you know you are not the misguided one since most of us have some pretty powerful experiences which confirm our testimonies.I just don't get it. By Bowman's own criteria, we have at least as much authority as he does to interpret scripture and teach correct doctrine. And contrary to what he thinks, I have found that the teachings of the Church and our additional scripture to be consistent with the Bible when, the Bible is properly understood.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Deborah,Apparently, the fact that my complaint was deliberately over the top and tongue in cheek ("I am offended! How dare you!") was lost on you. Many Mormons on this forum are constantly offended at the slightest criticism of their religion. I am offensive to them, just by being who I am. Whether they have a response to my argument doesn't matter; they'll just malign me for being an "anti-Mormon." So I engaged in a bit of hyperbolic complaining of my own.To answer your question, I assume that many of you are sincere, within a certain frame of reference. Some of the participants here do seem insincere, but I generally refrain from making such judgments. I am really only interested in civil discussion of substantive issues. If you'll notice, it's always the anti-anti-Mormon who questions my sincerity, my motives, even my intelligence! As to your experiences, they may seem sufficient proof to you but they don't to me. I know of too many religions whose members claim to have had equally powerful, or even more powerful, experiences that convince them that their religion is right. Since it isn't feasible for me to duplicate the religious experiences of every group that claims that their experiences prove them right, I must examine their claims in the light of the Bible and whatever facts I can find.It's not personal as far as I am concerned. I don't have anything against Mormons as individuals. I don't have anything against the LDS religion personally (e.g., I don't have any family members in it). I don't criticize the LDS religion because I'm paid to do it. (Only in the last three years have I had a professional position in which this subject area has been a major area of work for me, but I've been publishing and researching on this subject for about 26 years.) I take the position I do because I sincerely believe it to be correct. I participate on this forum because I want to be as fair and accurate in what I say about your religion as I can. For this I am the object of derision, scorn, and vitriol on a daily basis. I would dearly love to leave all such personal criticisms aside and simply discuss the substantive issues. There are a number of persons here, however, who feel otherwise.And yet you feel free to come on a LDS sponsored board and tell us by inference that we have not had revealed to us that our prophets are true prophets. Are we not sincere? I suppose your argument would be that we are misguided, but then the question can be asked how do you know you are not the misguided one since most of us have some pretty powerful experiences which confirm our testimonies.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) On the other hand, you should be sheepish about making such comments.Or what? You'll huff and you'll puff and you'll blow my house in? Might be easier without the sheep's clothing.. Edited October 31, 2011 by Rob Bowman
zerinus Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I would say D&C 91 is applicable here. Just because it was once considered scripture doesn't mean we need it in the canon.It seems to me that you have misunderstood D&C 91. It doesn't say that some things may legitimately be called scripture at one time, and not scripture at another time. If something is not scripture at one time, it is not scripture at any time. Or if something is scripture at one time, it is scripture at all time. D&C 91 makes a categorical statement about that portion of the Bible (in certain canons) commonly known as the Apocrypha. It doesn't say anything about something being scripture at one time, and not being scripture at another time.
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) I think this would do good here to.According to Ignatius and Papius..."For the archives [Old Testamnet] ought not to be preferred to the Spirit." -- Ignatius"For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." -- Papius Edited October 31, 2011 by Zakuska 2
maklelan Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Dan,You wrote:The Kings-Chronicles issue is a rather broad one, so a quick answer of substance would be difficult. In general, I agree that Chronicles reflects a more priestly-oriented perspective on the same history as Kings, but I don't see them as contradictory.You would simply be mistaken there. They undeniably contradict each other at numerous point. For instance:- In 1 Kgs 16:6-8 we read that Baasha died and his son reigned in his stead, going up against Asa in the twenty-sixth year of the latter's reign over Judah. In 2 Chr 16:1, however, Baasha came up against Asa in the thirty-sixth year of the latter's reign. - 1 Kgs 22:43 says Jehoshaphat didn't take the high places away, but 2 Chr 17:6 says he did. Then again, 2 Chr 20:33 says he didn't. - According to 1 Sam 16:10 David was the eighth and youngest of Jesse's children (1 Sam 17:12 states Jesse had eight children). According to 1 Chr 2:13, however, he is explicitly listed as the seventh and youngest of Jesse's children. - While 1 Sam 17:50 insists David killed Goliath, 2 Sam 21:19 states that a guy named Elhanan did it. 1 Chr 20:5 changes the text of 2 Sam a bit and insists Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath. This requires a rather subtle manipulation of the word Bethlehemite (בית לחמי) to [direct object marker] Lahmi (את לחמי). We've thus changed an appositive to the subject into the direct object, and the direct object into an appositive. We know this is an incorrect change for two reasons. First, there’s no attestation of a name like Lahmi (“My Bread”) in any ancient language. It simply does not fit with ancient naming conventions. The word is also Semitic, and the Philistines were not Semites. “Goliath” is not a Semitic name. To accept the name Lahmi we would also have to assume that Goliath’s parents gave one of their sons a name based on the language of their enemies. Such a series of assumptions is absolutely unwarranted. The author of Chronicles was obviously unaware of the problems with his attempt to harmonize these originally disparate passages. Next, “the Bethlehemite” is without doubt the correct reading, since 2 Sam 23:24 and 1 Chr 11:26 make clear that Elhanan was indeed the son of a Bethlehemite (although there he is Dodo instead of Jaar/Jair). The father’s name was messed up in 2 Sam 21:19 because of dittography, but the rest of the verse is clearly original. These are two clearly separate traditions that Chronicles tried to harmonize by manipulating the text. - 1 Chr 15:16-25 discusses in great detail the role of the Levites in bringing the ark to Jerusalem, listing Obededom, in whose house the ark stayed, as among the Levites. In the original account (2 Sam 6:10-12), however, Obed-Edom is described as a Gittite, which means he was a Philistine from Gath. He was not only not a Levite and not an Israelite, he was a Philistine, and the ark stayed in his house for three months! Additionally, the chapter doesn't mention Levites at all. This is far more than a different perspective. This is an entirely different story where that facts that Levites simply had no role in the priesthood, and Philistines could house the ark, were completely changed to align with the priestly standards established by later redactors.On the quotation from Amos by James in Acts 15, see Michael A. Braun's article "James' Use of Amos at the Jerusalem Council" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. He seems to offer a reasonable solution to the problem.I dont find it reasonable at all. He argues that James is not quoting the LXX, but a Hebrew text that is superior to MT. His first reason is because he simply assumes that James would not have cited a Greek text at variance with the Hebrew. This presupposes, however, that he knows and prioritizes the Hebrew. Textually speaking, your author would like to insist upon the LXX's reading of ידרש and then provide an object by changing the direct object marker את to אל, or "God." He cites Dahood, who says the Masoretes would confuse El for את, but isn't it odd that the one or two places where that might be possible happen to be places where a serious theological impropriety is assuaged by the change?For instance, the only other place I can think of is the change from the direct object marker את to the preposition אל in places where the pronunciation of the active "see the face of God" has been altered to the passive "appear before (literally "at the face of") God." The direct object marker here needs to be changed to the preposition אל in order for the change to make sense. As examples, the change was not made in Deut 16:16, but it was made in Exod 23:17. The Samaritan Pentateuch changes Deut 16:16, too. Compare Isa 1:12, which is לראות פני, or "appear my face," according to the Masoretic vocalization. This is nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense with just the consonants, since the direct object marker wasn't used in poetry like Isaiah. It would just be "see my face."The Masoretes didn't confuse the two, they just manipulated them where they could. In Amos 9, however, there was no manipulation. To suggest otherwise is to screw up the word order. A "verb - object" sentence is perfectly fine with a null subject, but "verb - object - subject," with no direct object marker, pronoun, or definite article? Incredibly unlikely. Your article then suggests we just have to read Edom as Adam, and that without vocalization they're indistinguishable anyway. This is simply not true. Edom has a waw acting as a mater lectionis, which is never found in the word "Adam." Without vocalization אדום and אדם are still two vastly different words. Losing a waw makes far more sense than picking one up. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript MurXII dates to before the New Testament and our Septuagint manuscripts, and it has Edom, not adam. It only has the end of the sentence's main verb, but insofar as it is extant it is in agreement with MT. Lastly, your article overlooks the religio-political context of Amos. Amos isn't speaking about universal salvation, he's speaking about Israel getting back the land it lost. The whole chapter is about Israel going into captivity and then being brought back. Universalism has nothing to do with it. References to building the kingdom of David again never had anything to do with anything other than a geopolitical entity until the post-exilic period. It turned into a question of salvation when Israel came back from the exile and things still weren't any better. Even in Deutero-Isaiah when God speaks about the nations knowing him, he's referring to conquering them. He makes frequent reference to punishing and slaughtering the nations. That's an odd soteriology, isn't it? The notion that the Hebrew text was altered from being about universal salvation to being about much earlier Davidic geopolitics is ludicrous. This is exactly the opposite of the development of Israelite ideology.For this text, you should check out Wolfgang Kraus' much more recent article, "The Role of the Septuagint in the New Testament: Amos 9:11-12 as a Test Case," in Translation is Required: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect, 171-89. The best anyone has ever done trying to suggest this manipulation is somehow acceptable to an Evangelical worldview (and not a very conservative one) is W. Edward Glenny's ETS article (here), but check out the response by Rodney Decker (here). 1
maklelan Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) It seems to me that you have misunderstood D&C 91. It doesn't say that some things may legitimately be called scripture at one time, and not scripture at another time. If something is not scripture at one time, it is not scripture at any time. Or if something is scripture at one time, it is scripture at all time. D&C 91 makes a categorical statement about that portion of the Bible (in certain canons) commonly known as the Apocrypha. It doesn't say anything about something being scripture at one time, and not being scripture at another time.It seems you have misunderstood me. I was not commenting on text that "is scripture at one time," I was commenting on text that was considered scripture at one time. I make no judgment about the text's actual existence as scripture. Edited November 1, 2011 by maklelan
mfbukowski Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 RobSigh.This whole line of questioning developed to see how we knew the Bible was "true revelation" in the first place.Around and around we go."There's a hole in the bucket dear Lisa, dear Lisa,......"http://en.wikipedia....le_in_My_BucketI guess you have chosen not to reply to this. Just wanted to remind everyone.
shalamabobbi Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 On the other hand, you should be sheepish about making such comments.Since it isn't feasible for me to duplicate the religious experiences of every group that claims that their experiences prove them right, I must examine their claims in the light of the Bible and whatever facts I can find.Well that's the problem. You should be appealing to God directly through prayer for the correct discernment.If you avoid that, and go directly to scripture based upon your own understanding of the same how can you ever be open to anything other than what you already believe?See Zakuska's post #617 and mfbukowski's post #620.Or are you afraid to trust God directly with the matter?Talk about sheepish..What you are doing with your life and "ministry", does it more closely resemble the activity of Paul or of Saul? 1
IloveaMormon Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 "The LDS Church is the only true church."The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price). Those of creedal or traditional Christianity have adopted "pagan beliefs" and are part of "false Christianity" (Gospel Principles, 100 [1979 edition]). One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but faithful Mormons will be damned. It might serve Mr. Bowman to remember the state of mind of his adversaries on this board.
Storm Rider Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 "The LDS Church is the only true church."The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price). Those of creedal or traditional Christianity have adopted "pagan beliefs" and are part of "false Christianity" (Gospel Principles, 100 [1979 edition]). One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but faithful Mormons will be damned.It might serve Mr. Bowman to remember the state of mind of his adversaries on this board.Yes, and with people like you, LDS do not need to be reminded of "them", the others that twist, turn, deceive, inflate, and create new cloth in the name of God. Get thee behind me, said Jesus. 2
IloveaMormon Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Yes, and with people like you, LDS do not need to be reminded of "them", the others that twist, turn, deceive, inflate, and create new cloth in the name of God. Get thee behind me, said Jesus.Excuse me, I was only trying to help the Christian out a bit by quoting directly LDS doctrine. Since when is quoting official LDS doctrine 'deceiving or 'creating new cloth?"
Vance Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Excuse me, I was only trying to help the Christian out a bit by quoting directly LDS doctrine.If only that were true. Since when is quoting official LDS doctrine 'deceiving or 'creating new cloth?"When done it isn't. When it is claimed, but not done, then it is deceiving.
Recommended Posts