Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[urroner]

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

Something like the "Wicked Bible?" It's such a minor change. Only one word.

[urroner]

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.

Rob, please take the time, if you can find it, to show us why Margaret Barker is so unconvincing to you. I'd be interesting in reading it and I'm sure I'll not be the only one here who would. Besides, I can see how someone whose religion teaches strict monotheism would find Barker's speculations unsupportive of that belief.

[Arbiter]

It sounds to me like the Bishop was just encouraging them to not neglect the Book of Mormon. Why do you always try to spin these things in the worst possible light?

Or maybe you mean "why do you ask questions that make me uncomfortable?" Since new as I am, Tacenda's posts out of all that I've thus far read, seem to be among the most mild-mannered.

[Arbiter]

We accept the bible to be the word of God, but we reject inerrant. Inspired does not equal without error.

Which may explain a great deal about the Book of Mormon, D & C, and Pearl of Great Price.

I don't even think many books in the Old Testament were even written by inspiration but were simply historical records compiled by scribes.

You have a lot of company in academic circles. As do Book of Mormon critics.

Nothing in the New Testament was ever intended to be scripture either. They were little more than letters without proper scrutiny to make sure they were error free.

Now that's one I haven't heard before.

To me, the most important record is the most recent instructions of the prophet.

To you. That part's important.

[livy111us]

livy,

You quoted the following:

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

Interesting, thank you. What are your thoughts on this?

St. Bernard says, "the kingdom of Jesus is in the wood." (Du Hamel) --- St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) accuses the Jews of retrenching apo tou xulou, "from the wood," which all the Latin Fathers, except St. Jerome, acknowledge in their copies. That ancient author, being born among the Samaritans, could hardly be so ignorant of the Hebrew text, and his antagonist does not attempt to refute the charge; so that it seems probable, that they were in the original, (Berthier) and since erased by the Jews, from the Septuagint, who added them, (Worthington) by the spirit of prophecy. (Tournemine) --- But how came Christians to permit this to be done in their Hebrew, Greek, and Latin copies? The words in question may have been, therefore, a marginal gloss, which had crept into the text. (Faber, Justiniani, &c.) --- They do not occur in the parallel passage, (1 Paralipomenon) nor in the Vulgate, though they be retained in the Roman breviary. (Calmet) --- Lindan objects this perfidy of the Jews to the Reformers, not reflecting, that he thus condemns the Vulgate. Genebrard is of opinion, that "the Septuagint were inspired to add these words, which some half-learned critics have thought proper to expunge with an impiety which is now but too common." The Popes have not, however, thought that the cross stood in need of this support. (Amama) --- The Chaldean and Syriac, as well as all the copies of the Septuagint extant, and the Arabic and Ethiopic versions taken from it, and all the Greek interpreters and Fathers, (except St. Justin) with St. Jerome, both in his versions from the Hebrew and Septuagint, omit these words, which are found in the Roman, Gothic, and other psalters. Origen's Hexapla seem to have most enabled the Greeks to discern the interpolation, which the Latins retained longer, not having such easy access to that work. Whatever may be the decision on this important matter, it is certain that the reign of Christ was propagated from the wood, in a wonderful manner, as he there began to draw all to himself, and the prophet seems evidently to allude to the times when Christ proclaimed, the kingdom of God is at hand, and when the conversion of the Gentiles, and the institution of the blessed Eucharist (ver. 8.) would fill all the world with rapture. (Haydock) --- The positive testimony of St. Justin, and the Italic version used by the Latin Fathers, (Berthier) Tertullian, St. Augustine, &c., (Worthington) seems of more weight to prove the authenticity of the words, than the simple omission in the copies of Origen, and St. Jerome, &c., to evince the contrary. (Berthier) --- Corrected.Evil morals and idolatry, (Menochius) rather than the physical order of the globe, Psalm xcii. 1. (Berthier) --- Hebrew, "he hath balanced," (Houbigant) or established. (Haydock) --- The Christian faith shall not be abolished, (Menochius) or corrected.(Haydock) --- "Faith is not to be reformed." (Tertullian) ---Justice. Ancient psalters add, "and the Gentiles in his wrath," ver. 13., and Psalm xcviii. 8.

Augustine quotes this same passage, but adds commentary which points this scripture as a prophecy of Christ.

Behold the testimonies of the whole world: Let the whole earth be moved before His face: and do you say, that you are not moved? Tell it out among the heathen, that the Lord has reigned from the wood. Shall men perchance prevail here, and say they reign by wood, because they reign by means of the clubs of their bandits? Reign by the Cross of Christ, if you are to reign by wood. For this wood of yours makes you wooden: the wood of Christ passes you across the sea.

[Rob Bowman]

livy,

Haydock, in my view and in the view of virtually all biblical scholars, is correct in viewing the words "from the wood" as a Christian interpolation, not as part of the Hebrew text.

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

Rob, please take the time, if you can find it, to show us why Margaret Barker is so unconvincing to you. I'd be interesting in reading it and I'm sure I'll not be the only one here who would.

That would have to be the topic of a separate thread. I'll think about it.

You wrote:

Besides, I can see how someone whose religion teaches strict monotheism would find Barker's speculations unsupportive of that belief.

Fair enough. The difference, though, is that Barker's theories are speculations, and for the most part are rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, including those predisposed against orthodox Christianity. The onus probandi is on Barker's side.

[Vance]

Fair enough. The difference, though, is that Barker's theories are speculations, and for the most part are rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, including those predisposed against orthodox Christianity. The onus probandi is on Barker's side.

Ok, so is this the fallacy of "appeal to authority"? Or "appeal to popularity"? Or "appeal to ignorance".

By the way, isn't onus probandi a logical fallacy as well.

[urroner]

That would have to be the topic of a separate thread. I'll think about it.

Rob, I wish you would consider doing it. Her writing has always fascinated me and borrowing from The Hobbit, there is a ring of truth to it. (Sorry about that, but I can't wait for the movie to come out in December.)

Fair enough. The difference, though, is that Barker's theories are speculations, and for the most part are rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, including those predisposed against orthodox Christianity. The onus probandi is on Barker's side.

There was a time when the onus was on Einstein to show that his theories were right. There was a time on Hubble to show his theories about galaxies were right.

The problem between what these two did and what Margaret Barker is doing is they had math and physical evidence on their sides, while she is dealing with words and their interpretations which is a lot more difficult, especially when it comes to overcoming the hard core beliefs of others. Nothing wrong with hard core beliefs, I have plenty myself, both in religion and politics, and also in how good looking I am.

I might not be a scholar, but what she has said makes sense.

Again, I'd really hope that you do start that thread. I think it would be an interesting thread.

[shalamabobbi]

Ok, so is this the fallacy of "appeal to authority"? Or "appeal to popularity"? Or "appeal to ignorance".

By the way, isn't onus probandi a logical fallacy as well.

Sounds like the argument brought against Jesus by the unbelieving of the Jews..

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Ok, so is this the fallacy of "appeal to authority"? Or "appeal to popularity"? Or "appeal to ignorance".

By the way, isn't onus probandi a logical fallacy as well.

No, no, no, and no.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

Sounds like the argument brought against Jesus by the unbelieving of the Jews.

I know Jesus, and Margaret Barker, with all due respect, is no Jesus.

[shalamabobbi]

I know Jesus, and Margaret Barker, with all due respect, is no Jesus.

How do you consistently miss the point? It was about the argument you used to defend your position.

I am trying to make you think outside your box you know so that one day maybe you can become a member of my monkey sphere and I can remove Robert F Smith from off my back..

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

How do you consistently miss the point? It was about the argument you used to defend your position.

What argument do you mean? I'm really busy and have had awful distractions today...it would really be helpful if you would spell it out.

You wrote:

I am trying to make you think outside your box you know so that one day maybe you can become a member of my monkey sphere and I can remove Robert F Smith from off my back..

I hope you enjoy a challenge.

[urroner]

I know Jesus, and Margaret Barker, with all due respect, is no Jesus.

Who, other than Jesus, is not a "no Jesus?"

Rob, are you a "no Jesus?"

Are there any Christian scholar who isn't a "no Jesus?"

Again, who, other than Jesus is Jesus?

BTW, I've decided not to insert a cheap Mexican name joke here.

[shalamabobbi]

What argument do you mean? I'm really busy and have had awful distractions today...it would really be helpful if you would spell it out.

"The difference, though, is that Barker's theories are speculations, and for the most part are rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars..."

I hope you enjoy a challenge

I think I'll let Robert F. Smith enjoy this challenge..

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

I never did find out what your point was in that previous post, and I'm afraid I don't know what your point is in this one, either. I was responding to the criticism (as I understood it) that my placing the onus probandi on Margaret Barker is somehow similar to unbelieving Jews placing the onus probandi on Jesus.

Who, other than Jesus, is not a "no Jesus?"

Rob, are you a "no Jesus?"

Are there any Christian scholar who isn't a "no Jesus?"

Again, who, other than Jesus is Jesus?

BTW, I've decided not to insert a cheap Mexican name joke here.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

If you promise not to quibble, I promise not to dismiss what you say as quibbling.

[urroner]

urroner,

I never did find out what your point was in that previous post, and I'm afraid I don't know what your point is in this one, either. I was responding to the criticism (as I understood it) that my placing the onus probandi on Margaret Barker is somehow similar to unbelieving Jews placing the onus probandi on Jesus.

You stated that Margaret Barker is no Jesus. I'm wondering what you meant by that. Everybody agrees that she isn't Jesus. From what I read, it seemed to me that you were saying that we shouldn't be so willing to accept her teachings as if they were the teachings of Christ. Maybe I misread what you wrote.

I agree that the onus is upon her to state and make her case. I have no problem with that and I also believe, in my layman way, that she is stating and making her case very well.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Given that in the recent past you have dismissed what I said as quibbling, even when it went to the heart of the issue (specifically I am thinking of my response to your criticism of Witherington's blog about Mormonism), that promise is worthless. Sorry, but as much as I would like to respond, I'm going to have to decline.

If you promise not to quibble, I promise not to dismiss what you say as quibbling.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

You stated that Margaret Barker is no Jesus. I'm wondering what you meant by that. Everybody agrees that she isn't Jesus. From what I read, it seemed to me that you were saying that we shouldn't be so willing to accept her teachings as if they were the teachings of Christ. Maybe I misread what you wrote.

I agree that the onus is upon her to state and make her case. I have no problem with that and I also believe, in my layman way, that she is stating and making her case very well.

You seem to agree with my point, which is that it is not unbelieving to put the burden of proof on Barker. So I'm glad we can put this particular question behind us.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Given that in the recent past you have dismissed what I said as quibbling, even when it went to the heart of the issue (specifically I am thinking of my response to your criticism of Witherington's blog about Mormonism), that promise is worthless. Sorry, but as much as I would like to respond, I'm going to have to decline.

Given that your responses frequently do degenerate into quibbling, I understand your unwillingness to respond.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Given that your responses frequently do degenerate into quibbling, I understand your unwillingness to respond.

You're in your home court here and will get lots of support for this criticism, but facts are facts. You misrepresented Witherington, I called you on it with specifics, and you dismissed my point as mere quibbling. By this standard anything I might say is likely to be subjected to the same cheap dismissal. I have proved numerous times on this forum that I am quite willing to put forth answers and have them critiqued. I welcome it. So the idea that I am unwilling to respond lest you skillfully expose my response as quibbling is laughable. You never actually show that what I say is quibbling; you merely assert it, as a way of avoiding addressing the points I make. I've seen you do this several times, Bill. I'm on to you. You are extremely bright and knowledgeable, but for some reason you frequently resort to this rhetorical gamesmanship when you don't have a good answer or when you can't be bothered. For my part, I'm just not interested in trying to kick that football for you any more.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

You're in your home court here and will get lots of support for this criticism, but facts are facts. You misrepresented Witherington, I called you on it with specifics, and you dismissed my point as mere quibbling. By this standard anything I might say is likely to be subjected to the same cheap dismissal. I have proved numerous times on this forum that I am quite willing to put forth answers and have them critiqued. I welcome it. So the idea that I am unwilling to respond lest you skillfully expose my response as quibbling is laughable. You never actually show that what I say is quibbling; you merely assert it, as a way of avoiding addressing the points I make. I've seen you do this several times, Bill. I'm on to you. You are extremely bright and knowledgeable, but for some reason you frequently resort to this rhetorical gamesmanship when you don't have a good answer or when you can't be bothered. For my part, I'm just not interested in trying to kick that football for you any more.

Good grief! Now you're quibbling over what is or is not quibbling!

[Darren10]

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.

If Christianity is incomplete, than is it correct?

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.

I'm not making an argument that anything which should not be in the scriptues and thus is not makes the scriputres wrong or fallible. I'm saying that if certain passages should be there and are not does make them fallible. The LDS do not claim infallibility to scriputre, prophets, prophecy, or anything save Jesus Christ and all His words and works. The lost 116 pages was due to sin. Joseph Smith was warned not to lose them and he did. The removal of parts ofthe Doctrine and Covenants was due to inspiration, not sinful transgression. Thus those parts should not be there. Furthermore, I am not aware of any reference from the Doctrine and Covenants to what was removed. That would make all references to those parts external. Now, if those parts *should* be in the D&C and yet are not, than, yes, that would very much indeed make the D&C fallible.

Also, doesn't fallible simply mean "not perfect"? Something that is simply not accurate is fallible.