Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You wrote:

I would respond to what you say here, but first we will need to wait until an authoritative tradition has formed by which the text of your post may be understood. In the meantime, your post can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and might mean anything.

You are right, it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and might mean anything. Luckily, there is an authoritative tradition. The writer of the post.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

You are right, it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and might mean anything. Luckily, there is an authoritative tradition. The writer of the post.

The problem is, anything additional that the writer of the post might say to explain his earlier statement will be subject to the same multitude of potential understandings and misunderstandings. The interpretation given in the "authoritative tradition" is just as susceptible to polysemy as the text it authoritatively interprets. You are now caught in an infinite regress of your own making.

[Darren10]

Misere;

The doctrinal disputes between the West and the East are ultimately very minor (for example, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only -- the Orthodox view -- or if He proceeds from the Father AND the Son -- the Catholic view).

That's the filioque contraversy, right? In terms of serving as the member of the Godhead who testifies to all truth, I'm gonna have to go with the Catholic view interms of the Holy Ghost's eternal nature even before the wrold was, I'm gonna have to go more with the Orthodox view.

Pope John Paul II said that the East and the West were the two lungs of the Church. We pray often for unification.

That would be very cool if the two were reunited (as one big lung ).

Thank you for your time, sir.

[MiserereNobis]

That's the filioque contraversy, right?

Yup. Filioque is the word in the creed that the Orthodox leave out (or, from their point-of-view, we have inserted) that means "from the Son."

That would be very cool if the two were reunited (as one big lung ).

Ha. Indeed. It would be cool if ALL of Christianity were united so we all could be, as Jesus prayed we would be, one.

Thank you for your time, sir.

You're welcome. Thank you for your questions

[Darren10]

Ha. Indeed. It would be cool if ALL of Christianity were united so we all could be, as Jesus prayed we would be, one.

At some point it will be.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Darren10

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You wrote:

The problem is, anything additional that the writer of the post might say to explain his earlier statement will be subject to the same multitude of potential understandings and misunderstandings. The interpretation given in the "authoritative tradition" is just as susceptible to polysemy as the text it authoritatively interprets. You are now caught in an infinite regress of your own making.

You are right that an authoritative tradition doesn't completely prevent misunderstands or polysemy, but it does vastly reduce such. For example, looking at D&C 89, what are hot drinks? Hot water of any sort, even soup? Or coffee and tea? Without a tradition, any interpretation goes.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yup. Filioque is the word in the creed that the Orthodox leave out (or, from their point-of-view, we have inserted) that means "from the Son."

Ha. Indeed. It would be cool if ALL of Christianity were united so we all could be, as Jesus prayed we would be, one.

You're welcome. Thank you for your questions

Historically speaking it is very clear the Latins added filioque.

Historically speaking, the Pope's claims of supremacy are clearly an innovation.

Modern ecumenicalism does not reflect the seriousness and the historical differences.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

See Kevin DeYoung's reviews "Christian Smith Makes the Bible Impossible" and "Those Tricksy Biblicists," the review "Smithereens!" by Robert Gundry, and also the review on the Every Good Path blog.

Do you deny that there is "pervasive interpretive pluralism"as described by Smith? (It is objectively undeniable, right?)

[Vance]

The problem is, anything additional that the writer of the post might say to explain his earlier statement will be subject to the same multitude of potential understandings and misunderstandings. The interpretation given in the "authoritative tradition" is just as susceptible to polysemy as the text it authoritatively interprets. You are now caught in an infinite regress of your own making.

:rofl:

I had barely recovered when you wrote this.

But, of course, YOU correctly interpreted his previous post as well as this one. And anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, regardless of what the author intended.

Got it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I would be happy to respond, if you would be good enough to promise in advance not to dismiss what I say as quibbling, as is your usual modus operandi.

Do you deny that there is "pervasive interpretive pluralism"as described by Smith? (It is objectively undeniable, right?)

[Vance]

Bill,

I would be happy to respond, if you would be good enough to promise in advance not to dismiss what I say as quibbling, as is your usual modus operandi.

And quibbling is your usual modus operandi.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

You are right that an authoritative tradition doesn't completely prevent misunderstands or polysemy, but it does vastly reduce such. For example, looking at D&C 89, what are hot drinks? Hot water of any sort, even soup? Or coffee and tea? Without a tradition, any interpretation goes.

An interesting example. Without the authoritative tradition, one would assume that hot drinks meant hot drinks. With the authoritative tradition, hot drinks somehow turns out to mean different things at different times, and currently to include some cold drinks and to exclude some hot drinks. Yes, I can definitely see why you would need an authoritative tradition to arrive at such an understanding. However, from a perspective outside the authoritative tradition, it certainly appears that the function of the authoritative tradition is not to reduce misunderstanding but to make the text mean something other than what it says.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You wrote:

An interesting example. Without the authoritative tradition, one would assume that hot drinks meant hot drinks. With the authoritative tradition, hot drinks somehow turns out to mean different things at different times, and currently to include some cold drinks and to exclude some hot drinks. Yes, I can definitely see why you would need an authoritative tradition to arrive at such an understanding. However, from a perspective outside the authoritative tradition, it certainly appears that the function of the authoritative tradition is not to reduce misunderstanding but to make the text mean something other than what it says.

Actually, I was thinking of this.

This Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks and tobacco. I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee—the beverages in common use (DBY, 182).

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-29?lang=eng

[Vance]

Actually, I was thinking of this.

This Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks and tobacco. I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee—the beverages in common use (DBY, 182).

https://www.lds.org/...ter-29?lang=eng

Yeah, but what about iced tea? Surely they had access to refrigerated Lipton Iced Tea from the local grocery or convenience store. Times surely haven't changed that much.

I mean, thank goodness time has not changed the meaning of "gay" either.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You wrote:

Changing "sons of Israel" to "sons of God" and having YHWH among the sons of God receiving from the Most High God a portion of the nations divided are mere "few words here and there"?

The usual claim is that the change was in the other direction, but be that as it may, the difference between "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" is a difference of one word. There are just a couple of other verbal changes to the text.

You asked:

This isn't a significant doctrinal alteration in your view?

It reflects a significant difference in meaning, yes. It does not warrant overturning the whole of traditional Jewish and Christian theology.

You wrote:

So you're saying that revelations from God were NOT used as part of scripture? I think that goes to one of MormonMason's points in scriptural fallibility.

Perhaps you don't understand what fallible means. Something is fallible if it can be wrong. The fact that not every revelation ever spoken is included in the Bible does not mean that what is in the Bible is fallible. This is easily understood. Not everything in the Bible is in the Gospel of John. Does this mean the Gospel of John is fallible? No, its not being the totality of all revelations ever spoken or written is irrelevant to the question of whether what it says is reliably true.

You wrote:

Seems to me that these Isaiah additions help authenticate the Book of Mormon. If these additions were added and belong there than that would go to show that Joseph Smith worked from an original text.

You may have misunderstood. We were talking about the theory that Isaiah 40-66 had been added to Isaiah 1-39 by one or more later writers sometime between the time of the historical prophet Isaiah and the time of the New Testament. On any view of the matter, the inclusion of Isaiah 40-66 in the book of Isaiah was a fait accompli two thousand years before Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph included chapters from that part of Isaiah is consistent with the fact that they were in his King James Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Tea and coffee are off limits not because of temperature or caffeine. They are off limits because God though our Prophets has said they are off limits.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tea and coffee are off limits not because of temperature or caffeine. They are off limits because God though our Prophets has said they are off limits.

Well, we can agree on something. Well put.

[Vance]

the difference between "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" is a difference of one word.

:rofl:

So, changing one word doesn't change the meaning of the text?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

Well, we can agree on something. Well put.

Must be The Millennium.

[Darren10]

It reflects a significant difference in meaning, yes. It does not warrant overturning the whole of traditional Jewish and Christian theology.

But a very convincing argument can be made, as Maragret Barker has made, based upon that Deuteronomy change between the Massoretic text andthe Dead Sea Scrolls that points towards a strict monotheistic movement where two Gods were reduced to only one. Since trinitarianism is founded on explaining why the Bible teaches more than one divine person yet Christianity is "supposed to be" "monotheistic", than that change throws a monkey wrench into the trinitarian creeds.

Perhaps you don't understand what fallible means. Something is fallible if it can be wrong. The fact that not every revelation ever spoken is included in the Bible does not mean that what is in the Bible is fallible. This is easily understood. Not everything in the Bible is in the Gospel of John. Does this mean the Gospel of John is fallible? No, its not being the totality of all revelations ever spoken or written is irrelevant to the question of whether what it says is reliably true.

I meant what I wrote, sir. If a revelation came from God shouldn't God's people embrace it and live by it? The fact that it's not in the Bible today indicates (though admittedly does not "prove") that once doctrinal teachings were removed from scripture. This would make the Bible "wrong" in the sense of being incomplete. If I were to remove the Book of John, wouldn't that make the bible wrong? Of course, it could be that we simply never got to include said revelation. In Old Testament times there were several prophets at a given time and we only have the accounts of a few of them.

You may have misunderstood. We were talking about the theory that Isaiah 40-66 had been added to Isaiah 1-39 by one or more later writers sometime between the time of the historical prophet Isaiah and the time of the New Testament. On any view of the matter, the inclusion of Isaiah 40-66 in the book of Isaiah was a fait accompli two thousand years before Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph included chapters from that part of Isaiah is consistent with the fact that they were in his King James Bible.

True enough *or* that he had an original source to include them.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

:rofl:

So, changing one word doesn't change the meaning of the text?

Good grief. I never said it didn't change the meaning of the text. I said, to the contrary, that in the passage in question it does change the meaning of the text. Here is what I wrote:

"Your example of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which is one that some Mormons seem to find earth-shaking in its theological significance, demonstrates that even the most theologically interesting changes typically involved no more than a few words here or there."

See? I acknowledged that the change in wording resulted in a theologically interesting change.

When you can stop yourself from giggling long enough to think about what you're reading before criticizing it, perhaps you will be able to make a useful contribution to the discussion.

[Calm]

:rofl:

So, changing one word doesn't change the meaning of the text?

I figure what's the difference in leaving out a "not" here and there. It is after all just one word.

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You wrote:

But a very convincing argument can be made, as Maragret Barker has made, based upon that Deuteronomy change between the Massoretic text andthe Dead Sea Scrolls that points towards a strict monotheistic movement where two Gods were reduced to only one. Since trinitarianism is founded on explaining why the Bible teaches more than one divine person yet Christianity is "supposed to be" "monotheistic", than that change throws a monkey wrench into the trinitarian creeds.

I don't find Barker's theories convincing at all. I can, however, see how someone whose religion teaches a plurality of Gods ruling the world would find Barker's speculations supportive of that belief. There are numerous problems with Barker's theories but I can't spell them all out in a short or even medium-length post.

You wrote:

I meant what I wrote, sir. If a revelation came from God shouldn't God's people embrace it and live by it? The fact that it's not in the Bible today indicates (though admittedly does not "prove") that once doctrinal teachings were removed from scripture. This would make the Bible "wrong" in the sense of being incomplete. If I were to remove the Book of John, wouldn't that make the bible wrong? Of course, it could be that we simply never got to include said revelation. In Old Testament times there were several prophets at a given time and we only have the accounts of a few of them.

You seem to be equivocating now on what it means to be "wrong." Incomplete is not wrong. The fact that your post does not discuss the issue of the salvation of Chinese people in the second millennium BC does not make your post "wrong."

Again, not only is there no proof that the books mentioned in the Old Testament but that are not extant were removed from the collection of scripture, there is no evidence at all that they were ever part of such a collection. If someone was trying to suppress the teachings of the prophecies of Iddo by excising them from the Bible, why would he leave references to Iddo in the Bible? The argument makes no sense at all.

The irony here is that we know for an absolute fact that all of the three distinctly LDS canons or standard works are missing huge chunks of material. The Book of Mormon is missing the 116 lost pages. D&C included Lectures on Faith for 86 years and then they were removed (dare I say, suppressed). In that instance the evidence rather clearly shows that the lectures were removed because they disagreed theologically with the church's later positions. In the Pearl of Great Price, all five of the texts included there are admitted by Mormons to be excerpts or incomplete works: the Book of Moses is only part of the JST version of Genesis; the Book of Abraham is acknowledged to be only part of the work that Joseph said he was translating; Joseph Smith--Matthew is only part of the JST version of Matthew; Joseph Smith--History is only a short excerpt from History of the Church; and the Articles of Faith are excerpted from the Wentworth Letter. If we drill down deeper, we find that various sections of the Book of Commandments were later removed from D&C, and other sections were drastically rewritten. Yet Mormons run on and on about the supposed removal of "plain and precious" materials from the Bible, never providing any evidence whatsoever that anything that was ever actually in the Bible was later removed and lost.

[livy111us]

Besides, weren't there plenty of ECFs that stated rather point blankly that the scriptures had been changed,

Here are a few that I have found which state that they have either been tampered with, or they quote scripture which does not exist.

“When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies, I found “the sons of God”...(Julias Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers 6:131)

“In like manner, too, he dismembered the epistles of Paul, removing all that the Apostle said concerning the God who made the world.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:352, Irenaeus, 180 AD)

“As our heretic [Marcion] is so fond of his pruning-knife, I do not wonder when syllables are expunged by his hand, seeing that entire pages are usually the matter on which he practices his effacing process.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:467, Tertullian, 207 AD, W)

Yet he, though thus greatly honoured, did not adopt lofty language, but said, when the divine oracle came to him out of the bush, “Who am I, that Thou sendest me? I am a man of a feeble voice and a slow tongue.”And again he said, “I am but as the smoke of a pot.” (ANF 1:10) 1^st epistle of clement

Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow;since it is written, “Cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them shall [themselves] be made holy.” (ANF 1:17)

“What about Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, who was slain between the temple and the altar?” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:389, Origen, 240 AD, E)

“For the Lord again says to us, ‘If anyone kisses a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins]’. He also adds, ‘Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest of care, since, if there are mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:146, Athenagoras, 175 AD, E)

In like manner He points to the cross of Christ in another prophet, who saith, (Cod. Sin. refers this to God, and not to the prophet)‘And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord saith, When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and when blood shall flow out of wood.’ (ANF 1:144, chap. 12, Epistle of Barnabas, this is not found in any known book of scripture)

And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations (ANF 1:234, chap. 71, Dialogue with Trypho)

Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." And I said, "I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: `And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: `I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered. And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: `The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation. "And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: `From the wood....Here Trypho remarked, "Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible. "Assuredly," said I, "it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But," said I, "you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward." (ANF 1:234-235, chap 72 Dialogue with Trypho)

“I could point out possession not only of one [demon]–as in the case of Socrates’ own demon–but of seven spirits. Such was the case of the Magdalene [Mary]. I can point to a legion in number, as in the Gadarene.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:206, Tertullian, 210 AD, W)

“Should we coax the Jews and persuade them to give us copies that will be free from tampering and forgery?” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:386-387, Origen, 240 AD, E)

Quoting the Didache, Clement says “It is such a person that the scripture calls a thief. For that reason it is said, ‘Son, do not be a liar; for lying leads to theft.’” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:324, Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD, E)

“For the scripture [from the book of Enoch] says,’And it will come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of his pasture, their sheepfold and their tower of destruction.’”(Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:147, Barnabas 70-130 AD, E)

“Divinely, therefore, the power that spoke to Hermas by revelation said ‘The visions and revelations are for those who are of double mind.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:341, Clement of Alexandria 195 AD, E)

Edited October 2, 2012 by livy111us

[Rob Bowman]

livy,

You quoted the following:

"And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: `From the wood....Here Trypho remarked, "Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible....

I have addressed this text earlier in this thread, here.