bcuzbcuz Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 I think that the major events in the Bible all took place, but especially the older events, we may be missing some context. For example, there really was a man named Adam and his wife was Eve, and they were kicked out of the Garden. But the fossil record would seem to indicate that there were other men, or at least hominids on the earth at the same time. Were these beings the future mates of Adam and Eve's offspring? Evolutionary precursors who then died out? Who knows? So while I am a definite backer of biblical historicity, with innerancy, not so much. Job really happened, but his friends signing songs to him? Might be a bit embellished, and that's OK. BOM is less embellished, more historical, but even there, we don't know the whole backstory. But due to it's origin, the bar is lower. By identifying Lehi's route from Jerusalem to where they launched in modern day Oman, and finding all the Hebraic poetic and style examples, with a few Egyptian names thrown in for good measure in the BOM, we don't need a sign saying "Zarahemla 10 miles->".More historical? Really? Then others, non-believers, would be able to use data from the BoM to find places, people, names, animals, etc. Apparently, the Smithsonian has issued a specific statement that they don't use the BoM for any of their research or searches.When Biblical scholars look for Jericho,, they follow clues from the Bible, and use those same clues to verify their find. Let me know when someone does the same with the BoM.
JLHPROF Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 The Spirit teaches they are true. If you don't agree, that's fine but it doesn't make them any else true. Oh,. I agree they are true. It was your reason for their being true that I didn't care for. Something cannot be considered true just because that something says it's true. I can say I'm the President of the United States - doesn't make it true. They ARE true because the spirit says they are true.
Avatar4321 Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Oh,. I agree they are true. It was your reason for their being true that I didn't care for. Something cannot be considered true just because that something says it's true. I can say I'm the President of the United States - doesn't make it true. They ARE true because the spirit says they are true. I was asked what is meant by it being true. I explained that for something to be true it teaches facts of what happened, what is happening and/or what will happen. I didn't at all address how one knows they are true.
Ahab Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 They ARE true because the spirit says they are true.Since you're pickin on people, and since I don't like your explanation for why things that are true are true, I'm going to explain things a little better for you.The reason why things that are true are true is not because the spirit says so. The reason why things that are true are true is because the things that are true are what they are and are understood to be, rather than a distortion or deception or counterfeit version of what there really is. The spirit, aka the Spirit of Truth, simply bears witness of things that are true, rather than making them true.And it should also be understood that things that are true are not necessarily good. Some things that are true are bad or even downright evil, which is why we usually seek after things that are good and lovely and virtuous that are also true, because the truth about bad things is not good and they don't make us feel good to think about them.
thesometimesaint Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Since you're pickin on people, and since I don't like your explanation for why things that are true are true, I'm going to explain things a little better for you.The reason why things that are true are true is not because the spirit says so. The reason why things that are true are true is because the things that are true are what they are and are understood to be, rather than a distortion or deception or counterfeit version of what there really is. The spirit, aka the Spirit of Truth, simply bears witness of things that are true, rather than making them true.And it should also be understood that things that are true are not necessarily good. Some things that are true are bad or even downright evil, which is why we usually seek after things that are good and lovely and virtuous that are also true, because the truth about bad things is not good and they don't make us feel good to think about them. I'm not picking on anyone. What makes LDS Scripture true and say the Bhagavad Gita false?
JLHPROF Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Since you're pickin on people, and since I don't like your explanation for why things that are true are true, I'm going to explain things a little better for you.The reason why things that are true are true is not because the spirit says so. The reason why things that are true are true is because the things that are true are what they are and are understood to be, rather than a distortion or deception or counterfeit version of what there really is. The spirit, aka the Spirit of Truth, simply bears witness of things that are true, rather than making them true.And it should also be understood that things that are true are not necessarily good. Some things that are true are bad or even downright evil, which is why we usually seek after things that are good and lovely and virtuous that are also true, because the truth about bad things is not good and they don't make us feel good to think about them. If I was picking on someone I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to.And I never said the "reason" something was true was because the spirit said so. I said the evidence of something being true has to be more than self-proclaimed truthfulness, and a spiritual witness would qualify.
Ahab Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I'm not picking on anyone. What makes LDS Scripture true and say the Bhagavad Gita false?Can't say on that one as I don't know what the heck the Bhagavad Gita is, but what makes anything true is that it is true and whatever is false is false because it's not true.
Storm Rider Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Handbook 2 section 21.1.7 reads: "The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical translation is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations." To me, this is a significant statement and one that has implications for the answer to your question. The Book of Mormon is the standard. It is to be given the greatest weight when considering any teaching or book. Of course, the limitation is for topics that are not in the Book of Mormon. The Bible has a broader range of topics not found in the Book of Mormon and there is no direct comparison to be made. This is where prophets and apostles become valuable. However, even there the teaching and clarification of scriptural interpretation can be limited. For example, for me doctrine is limited to what is found in scripture or what has been added as new revelation. If a teaching has not been added to the Standard Works then it remains opinion regardless of where it is found i.e. teaching manuals, church publications, etc. This degree of separation is the only way I have found to ensure that I will not fall victim to a man's opinion versus actual doctrine of the Church.
Storm Rider Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I'm not picking on anyone. What makes LDS Scripture true and say the Bhagavad Gita false? Who said other holy writings were false?
thesometimesaint Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Who said other holy writings were false? Every sect of religion has different ideas as to what are holy writings, and the interpretation there of. So we have to have some means to decide as to which they are for ourselves.
Ahab Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Every sect of religion has different ideas as to what are holy writings, and the interpretation there of. So we have to have some means to decide as to which they are for ourselves.Deciding that some writings are holy or divinely inspired by our Father through the power of the Holy Ghost doesn't necessarily mean they are, though. It's not our decision or belief that they are that makes them holy, if they are. They just either are or are not based upon what they really are, meaning whether or not they were divinely inspired by God.
mfbukowski Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 This is another tangent, this time from the "Why are we still trying to make God in our image?" thread. Personally, I think that the way to know God is to rely on what he has revealed about himself in the Bible, but obviously not everyone here shares that view. So I'm curious: how do you regard the Bible, the BOM and other LDS scriptures? What parts, if any, do you think are reliable sources of information about God? If you think only parts of the scriptures are reliable, how do you determine what's reliable and what isn't? If you think they were all or mostly man-made and not inspired, how do you determine who God is?Whoa whoa there!! There's another question there you are totally ignoring, and that is why believe the bible OR the Book of Mormon at all?? Why do you assume that either one is "correct" at all, when all world religions have their own "scriptures"-- why would you think we should believe in the Bible?? To cut to the chase, the usual answer to that question is "because the bible is historical", but that doesn't cut it. All the historical evidence in the world cannot prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth died for your (and my) personal sins. So why accept any of it? Because you were born in a country where the bible is considered the word of God? Bad reason! 2
thesometimesaint Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Deciding that some writings are holy or divinely inspired by our Father through the power of the Holy Ghost doesn't necessarily mean they are, though. It's not our decision or belief that they are that makes them holy, if they are. They just either are or are not based upon what they really are, meaning whether or not they were divinely inspired by God. True. However we have no independent way to determine what if anything is inspired by any particular God/Gods. I like to be liberal in assigning inspiration to anyone who wants it.
Kind Debater Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 There's another question there you are totally ignoring, and that is why believe the bible OR the Book of Mormon at all?? Why do you assume that either one is "correct" at all, when all world religions have their own "scriptures"-- why would you think we should believe in the Bible?? I assume we can agree that God exists. Since God exists, he is a real being who has attributes, who does things, who would like us to behave in certain ways, etc. A writing that claims to be scripture, by which I mean a writing that claims to be an accurate record of God's word to people and/or his interactions with people, is true if it is in fact an accurate record of those things -- if what it says about God lines up with who God actually is. Given that the world's religions end up saying different, contradictory things about God, not all of them or their writings/teachings can be 100% true. I believe the Bible to be true because in the areas in which I am able to verify whether or not it's true, it has proven to be true. Yes, part of that is that events/people/places it describes are historically verifiable, but I don't place a huge amount of weight on that; to me it's more of a sanity check. E.g. one would expect that if it records true history, at least some of it would match up with extra-biblical historical records. There are other parts as well, such as that I've found that what it says about human nature is spot on and that its advice is sound. And what it says about God matches up with my personal experience of God, as well as my fellow believers' experiences. To cut to the chase, the usual answer to that question is "because the bible is historical", but that doesn't cut it. All the historical evidence in the world cannot prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth died for your (and my) personal sins. That's a good point. Even if we can prove somehow that Jesus both died and came back to life, we can't prove in terms of scientific evidence that his death does anything for forgiveness of sin. At some point, we have to choose to believe. So why accept any of it? Because you were born in a country where the bible is considered the word of God? Bad reason! I'm trying to not make assumptions about what individual people here believe or why they believe it. I would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to me. That said, let me address your question. To be honest, I was raised in a semi-Christian home and taught that God is love and that I should believe in the Bible, so I grew up believing in basic Christianity. Since then, as a thinking adult and as an apologist, I've encountered questions like this as well as reasons why others don't believe, so I've had to think about whether or not my faith is true and makes sense. Along with the reasons I listed above, it makes sense to me that God exists and that Christianity is true -- while there are parts I don't understand or even agree with, on the whole I find it's something that is generally credible, vs. believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Greek/Roman pantheon of gods, for instance. And I haven't found any reason for believing it to be false. I've read through numerous proposed Bible contradictions and on looking into it, I don't think they are unresolvable. I've read numerous arguments against Christianity and the Bible, and I haven't encountered anything that has given me good reason to believe Christianity is untrue or that the Bible is untrustworthy.
mfbukowski Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I assume we can agree that God exists. Since God exists, he is a real being who has attributes, who does things, who would like us to behave in certain ways, etc. A writing that claims to be scripture, by which I mean a writing that claims to be an accurate record of God's word to people and/or his interactions with people, is true if it is in fact an accurate record of those things -- if what it says about God lines up with who God actually is.Given that the world's religions end up saying different, contradictory things about God, not all of them or their writings/teachings can be 100% true.I believe the Bible to be true because in the areas in which I am able to verify whether or not it's true, it has proven to be true. Yes, part of that is that events/people/places it describes are historically verifiable, but I don't place a huge amount of weight on that; to me it's more of a sanity check. E.g. one would expect that if it records true history, at least some of it would match up with extra-biblical historical records. There are other parts as well, such as that I've found that what it says about human nature is spot on and that its advice is sound. And what it says about God matches up with my personal experience of God, as well as my fellow believers' experiences. That's a good point. Even if we can prove somehow that Jesus both died and came back to life, we can't prove in terms of scientific evidence that his death does anything for forgiveness of sin. At some point, we have to choose to believe. I'm trying to not make assumptions about what individual people here believe or why they believe it. I would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to me.That said, let me address your question. To be honest, I was raised in a semi-Christian home and taught that God is love and that I should believe in the Bible, so I grew up believing in basic Christianity. Since then, as a thinking adult and as an apologist, I've encountered questions like this as well as reasons why others don't believe, so I've had to think about whether or not my faith is true and makes sense. Along with the reasons I listed above, it makes sense to me that God exists and that Christianity is true -- while there are parts I don't understand or even agree with, on the whole I find it's something that is generally credible, vs. believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Greek/Roman pantheon of gods, for instance. And I haven't found any reason for believing it to be false. I've read through numerous proposed Bible contradictions and on looking into it, I don't think they are unresolvable. I've read numerous arguments against Christianity and the Bible, and I haven't encountered anything that has given me good reason to believe Christianity is untrue or that the Bible is untrustworthy.In other words you think it's true because you want to believe it's true and it cannot be proven false. Then stop arguing about it as if there is something having to do with reason here. Tell the truth. You believe it because you want to. That's all you've got.
mfbukowski Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) kind debaterWhat is "credible" to you the way you grew up, would not be "credible" in a culture that believed in a Pink Unicorn God, or a God with an elephant head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha I personally know accomplished, rational, nice and reasonable people who are believers in Ganesha, and count them among my friends, and find they are no different from my Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical friends in any way but their religious beliefs. Maybe you need to get out more. Edited September 15, 2014 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 In other words you think it's true because you want to believe it's true and it cannot be proven false. Then stop arguing about it as if there is something having to do with reason here. Tell the truth. You believe it because you want to. That's all you've got. That's all any of us have in this life.
mfbukowski Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 That's all any of us have in this life. Oh yeah- I totally agree. But it drives me nuts when people attack others for their beliefs when theirs are, on the bottom line, based on nothing as well. This is the great insight. Once you truly see this, you realize that our position is exactly as strong AND as weak as anyone's position on anything religious, and there is no basis for all this contention. And of course it is not just religion. It is any statement based on values. It could be "save the whales" or "workers of the world unite to overthrow the evils of capitalism" or "there is no God", or "the death penalty should be abolished", or "vote for Mitt Romney". That's why bible bashing is a dead end and AND why the search for Zarahemla to prove the Book of Mormon is a dead end. Ultimately all any of us have is the story that helps us make our lives have meaning and works for us, and there's nothing wrong with that. Those beliefs are the things we "hope for" that we "have not seen". Sound familiar?
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Very familiar. I've long maintained that even if archaeologists today found a road sign that said "Zarahemla next 5 exits" that would still do nothing for the Truth Claims of the Church.
mnn727 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 I judge everything based on whether it agrees with the Book of Tobit.I personally like The Book of Lemuel.
Kind Debater Posted September 15, 2014 Author Posted September 15, 2014 In other words you think it's true because you want to believe it's true and it cannot be proven false. Then stop arguing about it as if there is something having to do with reason here. Tell the truth. You believe it because you want to. That's all you've got. Yes, I do want to believe in Christianity and I have a pretty strong emotional bias towards believing it. I think it's a good thing to be aware of our biases. But I disagree that my bias is all I've got. I also want to believe that my husband exists and loves me. But I have some objective evidence, like the fact that I see and hear him right now. I personally know accomplished, rational, nice and reasonable people who are believers in Ganesha, and count them among my friends, and find they are no different from my Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical friends in any way but their religious beliefs. I personally know accomplished, rational, nice and reasonable people who are atheists or who otherwise disagree with my beliefs. I don't know why you seem to be assuming that I don't, or why the existence of nice people who believe differently somehow proves that all beliefs are equal. But it drives me nuts when people attack others for their beliefs when theirs are, on the bottom line, based on nothing as well. Now the ire you have displayed in your posts makes more sense, given that this is what you believe. Obviously I disagree with your statement that religious beliefs are based on nothing, but now I understand why you are irritated. And of course it is not just religion. It is any statement based on values. It could be "save the whales" or "workers of the world unite to overthrow the evils of capitalism" or "there is no God", or "the death penalty should be abolished", or "vote for Mitt Romney". Is "it's wrong to attack other people's beliefs" a statement based on values? Is it just something that works for you, or is it objectively true?
Recommended Posts