A Problem With The "catalyst" Theory For The Book Of Abraham

[MormonFreeThinker]

No.  You said that I only read books by orthodox Christians.  I want to know the source for your statement.

 

by orthodox Christians and Jews, I think that because of the things you say. You think archaeology proves the history of the Bible. 

Now you tell me, what books have you read? 

Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Gervin]

by orthodox Christian and Jews, I think that because of the things you say.

I've been on this board for about 10 years and I've had one exchange with you and cited one book, and you're able to discern that the only books I read are by orthodox Christians and Jews by "the things I say"? 

Weak.

 

You think archaeology proves the history of the Bible

Weaker.

 

Now you tell me, what books have you read? 

No.

[Gervin]

Some parts are probably fiction,

I agree.  This implies that some parts are probably non-fiction.  Are there parts of the Bible that strike you as historically accurate?

[MormonFreeThinker]

you're able to discern that the only books I read are by orthodox Christians and Jews by "the things I say"? 

 

by orthodox, I mean Trinitarian Christians, not the orthodox church.

I am not sure what you read, and my opinions are irrelevant. You tell me, what books have you read? 

 

 

I agree.  This implies that some parts are probably non-fiction.  Are there parts of the Bible that strike you as historically accurate?

 

Archaeology has proven that the Biblical city of Jerusalem existed, but the Book of Genesis, Book of Exodus, the Book of Joshua have significant problems. I am not saying they are competently fiction, but they have significant unsolved problems. There is no direct evidence for the history described in Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua. The evidence for David's empire is still debated, but it certainly does not prove a huge empire.  

Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

I said this:

NONE of these books were "translated" in the conventional sense.

 

Looking at a papyrus and writing what he was inspired to write.  Is that a translation in the conventional sense?

 

When are we going to get over all this nonsense and just say that Joseph was a prophet and received revelations and that is that???   Maybe he did not know the process himself.

 

Prophets seldom do.  Who cares?

 

We need to evaluate the MESSAGE, not how the words got on the page.  Who cares?

 

This is the point of this thread.

 

I understand that the only defense of The Book of Abraham is that it wasn't an actual translation.  Fine.  It's inspiring, you like the story, it has good doctrine.  That's all good.

 

What I'm looking at is that in spite of that, the text itself indicates that it was meant to be a literal translation of the papyri that Joseph Smith had sitting in front of him in 1835.   The text itself makes a reference to the very scrolls upon which it was written. 

 

I understand this creates a huge problem, especially for the "catalyst" theory.

 

Now, it's possible that I am seeing this all wrong, or that I haven't explained the problem clearly enough.  So let me try and explain it again.

 

Here's the problem.  The catalyst theory argues the while Joseph Smith may have been looking at the papyri when he dictated the Book of Abraham, the words that he dictated weren't meant to be an actual translation of the Egyptian writing on the papyri.

 

But how can this be when the text that he dictated very specifically (and repeatedly) indicates that the words are originating from the actual papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at?

 

Specifically, here is what Chapter 1 says (emphasis added):

 

 

 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

...

 14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

 

How could Joseph Smith (and Abraham) have made it any more clear that it was the actual papyri that was being translated?  I can't think of anything.  The text is serving as a description, or even a caption, for a specific picture.  And it's pretty clear that it's the same picture we have as Facsimile #1 because Joseph then went through the picture and identified the elements that are mentioned in the text.

 

 

It would be like this.

 

Suppose a friend sent you this with the caption below it in Japanese.  You send it to me, and ask if I can translate it for you.  I look at it, and say "Yes, that is Japanese, I can translate it no problem."

 

 

新年快乐。愿你有和平与繁荣的生活一段时间。

 

 

Here's the translation I give you:

 

"A picture of a tiger.  The peaceful tiger seems at rest on the rock, but it may hide sudden aggression.  Be careful of those who may seem peaceful, for they may hide danger.  The grass is green, which is always good, but do not take your eye off the tiger."

 

Then a few weeks later, your friend who sent you the picture apologizes and says "Hey, I accidentally sent you the wrong caption.  The one on the picture I sent actually says 'Happy new year.  May you have peace and prosperity in your life for time to come.'  The actual caption was supposed to be  'Lazy tiger likes to sit on a rock. Also, it's Chinese, not Japanese!"

 

So what is your confidence in my translation abilities?  And what alternate explanations would you accept?  What if I told you that I was actually channeling a caption from a different tiger picture from 200 years ago in Japan that was similar, and that was the meaning for that tiger picture in Japan?  Would you say "wow, that's way better than just giving me the 'Lazy tiger likes to sit on a rock' translation!  Cinepro has a supernatural ability to channel ancient Japanese picture captions!"

 

Or would you think I just looked at the picture and made up a caption?

Edited February 25, 2015 by cinepro

[MormonFreeThinker]

And it's pretty clear that it's the same picture we have as Facsimile #1 because Joseph then went through the picture and identified the elements that are mentioned in the text.

 

If the Catalyst theory is correct, it is not the same picture. Joseph Smith borrowed Facsmile 1. 

 

 

 because Joseph then went through the picture and identified the elements that are mentioned in the text.

 

Perhaps it was a similar picture, there are many similar lion couch scenes. The Book of Abraham was revealed (by revelation) when Joseph Smith saw Facsimile 1. We wouldn't have the Book of Abraham today if the scrolls didn't have Facsimile 1. 

 

Here are some similar lion couch scenes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[cinepro]

If the Catalyst theory is correct, it is not the same picture. Joseph Smith replaced the original picture with Facsimile 1, he borrowed Facsmile 1. 

 

 

 

Perhaps it was a similar picture, there are many similar lion couch scenes. The Book of Abraham was revealed (by revelation) when Joseph Smith saw Facsimile 1. We wouldn't have the Book of Abraham today if the scrolls didn't have Facsimile 1.

 

 

Just for reference, have any other apologists suggested that?  Or is this original with you?

[Anteojito]

Surely a bible believer should not ask that question implying that observable evidence has anything to do with the value of scripture.

Donkeys do not speak. Floods do not cover the earth. The world was not created in 6 days. People do not live in whales beneath the sea for 3 days and pop out to deliver a sermon. Do I need to go on?

 

So to extend that line of thought out a little farther:

 

Moises did not part the sea,

Trumpets did not bring the wall of Jericho down

Samson wasn't strong because of his hair

David did not kill Goliath with a sling

Jesus was not born of a virgin

Jesus did not change water to wine

Jesus din not heal people

Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead

Jesus did not raise from the dead after three days

Jesus did not visit the Nephites

 

ETA: The tower of babel did not exist

The Jaredites did not cross the ocean in wooden submarines

Edited February 25, 2015 by Anteojito

[mfbukowski]

So to extend that line of thought out a little farther:

 

Moises did not part the sea,

Trumpets did not bring the wall of Jericho down

Samson wasn't strong because of his hair

David did not kill Goliath with a sling

Jesus was not born of a virgin

Jesus did not change water to wine

Jesus din not heal people

Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead

Jesus did not raise from the dead after three days

Jesus did not visit the Nephites

 

ETA: The tower of babel did not exist

The Jaredites did not cross the ocean in wooden submarines

You completely misunderstood the post.

[Anteojito]

You completely misunderstood the post.

No I didn't

[mfbukowski]

First of all, thank you for your response/question- it is clear you put some effort and thought into it

This is the point of this thread.
 
I understand that the only defense of The Book of Abraham is that it wasn't an actual translation.  Fine.  It's inspiring, you like the story, it has good doctrine.  That's all good.
 
What I'm looking at is that in spite of that, the text itself indicates that it was meant to be a literal translation of the papyri that Joseph Smith had sitting in front of him in 1835.   The text itself makes a reference to the very scrolls upon which it was written. 
 
I understand this creates a huge problem, especially for the "catalyst" theory.
 
Now, it's possible that I am seeing this all wrong, or that I haven't explained the problem clearly enough.  So let me try and explain it again.

 
Here's the problem.  The catalyst theory argues the while Joseph Smith may have been looking at the papyri when he dictated the Book of Abraham, the words that he dictated weren't meant to be an actual translation of the Egyptian writing on the papyri.
 
But how can this be when the text that he dictated very specifically (and repeatedly) indicates that the words are originating from the actual papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at?
 
Specifically, here is what Chapter 1 says (emphasis added):
 
 
 
How could Joseph Smith (and Abraham) have made it any more clear that it was the actual papyri that was being translated?  I can't think of anything.  The text is serving as a description, or even a caption, for a specific picture.  And it's pretty clear that it's the same picture we have as Facsimile #1 because Joseph then went through the picture and identified the elements that are mentioned in the text.
 
 
It would be like this.
 
Suppose a friend sent you this with the caption below it in Japanese.  You send it to me, and ask if I can translate it for you.  I look at it, and say "Yes, that is Japanese, I can translate it no problem."
 

 
新年快乐。愿你有和平与繁荣的生活一段时间。
 
 
Here's the translation I give you:
 
"A picture of a tiger.  The peaceful tiger seems at rest on the rock, but it may hide sudden aggression.  Be careful of those who may seem peaceful, for they may hide danger.  The grass is green, which is always good, but do not take your eye off the tiger."
 
Then a few weeks later, your friend who sent you the picture apologizes and says "Hey, I accidentally sent you the wrong caption.  The one on the picture I sent actually says 'Happy new year.  May you have peace and prosperity in your life for time to come.'  The actual caption was supposed to be  'Lazy tiger likes to sit on a rock. Also, it's Chinese, not Japanese!"
 
So what is your confidence in my translation abilities?  And what alternate explanations would you accept?  What if I told you that I was actually channeling a caption from a different tiger picture from 200 years ago in Japan that was similar, and that was the meaning for that tiger picture in Japan?  Would you say "wow, that's way better than just giving me the 'Lazy tiger likes to sit on a rock' translation!  Cinepro has a supernatural ability to channel ancient Japanese picture captions!"
 
Or would you think I just looked at the picture and made up a caption?

I would think you just "made up" the caption.

And that was the entire point of my post, which you apparently did not understand.

I spent a fair amount of time repeatedly showing instances of how Joseph's use of the word "translate" was CLEARLY NOT the same sense in which you are using it.

 

He used the same word to "make up" sections of the Bible in his "Inspired Translation".  Looking into a hat, he "made up" the Book of Mormon with no other aids or looking at the plates.  He "made up" the Book of Moses.

 

I don't know how many times I have to say that to make it clear.  INSPIRATION IS "MAKING UP" NEW SCRIPTURAL MATERIAL. Every prophet who ever lived did that.  All the OT prophets did, Mohammad did, etc etc etc.

 

Joseph I am certain thought he was "translating" the material in a more conventional sense, though in the case of the BOM he did it looking into a hat with a stone in it.

 

Surely he did not think it was a "translation" in the same sense we do today.  He believed it to be a "translation" and he believed he was doing the same thing with the Book of Abraham, and indeed he WAS doing essentially the same thing.  He thought (I think) that Abraham was explaining commonly used illustrations which Abraham copied onto the papyrus.  That's what Joseph thought it was.

 

But that process enabled him to write the Book of Abraham which might very well have been an actual lost manuscript.   I cannot say it was or was not- it is possible it was, and I have a testimony it was, and that is all that can be said about it. 

 

And yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said this in the earlier post:
 

When are we going to get over all this nonsense and just say that Joseph was a prophet and received revelations and that is that??? Maybe he did not know the process himself.

Prophets seldom do. Who cares?

So though I appreciate your effort in making the post, all this is, is essentially a repeat of the same point I was trying to make earlier.

 

This view does not conflict with MY view of the "catalyst theory"- indeed for me, it is part of the theory itself.

 

I will not put words into Bro Gobel's mouth but I think he has several good points related to this, if I understand him correctly.  It is my understanding that Joseph felt that he was interpreting the hieroglyphics as Joseph understood them and did so in a consistent manner.  The way Joseph understood them however, was not what the Egyptians were actually saying- so indeed what we have is pure inspiration from Joseph's interpretation of the hieroglyphics as opposed to a "translation" in the conventional sense.

 

I hope that makes my position clear.  I had thought it was clear before.

 

[mfbukowski]

No I didn't

The point was that there is no hard evidence for any of these events and yet we take them as scriptural.

 

He was criticizing Mormons for not being able to prove scriptural events, and my point was that he could not prove the bible either.  If he has grounds for disbelieving the BOM for lack of evidence, it is just as easy to disbelieve the bible for the same reason.

 

I affirm both the Bible and Book of Mormon as being scriptural, and believe that scientific or historical evidence is irrelevant to their spiritual truth.  You cannot prove that Jesus died for your sins because of some historical fact or other.

 

That's it.  No mas.

[Gervin]

You cannot prove that Jesus died for your sins because of some historical fact or other.

 

Does anyone espouse the idea that archaeology or a rigorous study of history can verify elements in the Bible that require faith – a resurrection or the occurrence of a miracle? Is there any expectation that the Biblical recordation of an event – a conversation with a woman at a well or a young boy fleeing from the garden the night Christ is arrested – should have archaeological attestation?  I’ve never seen anyone on this board advance that belief.  It’s a ridiculous assumption.  Yet, time and time again it’s waved around here like some kind of EV totem.  If anyone subscribes to this position, I’d really like to see a quote with a name attached.  I don’t think such a position exists.

 

If he has grounds for disbelieving the BOM for lack of evidence, it is just as easy to disbelieve the bible for the same reason.

 

I affirm both the Bible and Book of Mormon as being scriptural, and believe that scientific or historical evidence is irrelevant to their spiritual truth.

 

Historicity may be irrelevant to one’s ultimate faith decision, but it isn’t necessarily irrelevant for putting a faith decision in an understandable context.  It helps to understand.

 

Think about your own history.  It includes experience as a Catholic, an atheist, and a student of philosophy.  Embedded in these experiences are, most likely, nuances related to culture and location, the influence of institutions and people, and a whole bevy of symbolism and character traits that resulted in … you.  Since you didn’t arrive to February 2015 fully formed, someone interested in understanding the “present you” would likely benefit in understanding the “historic you” (Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox, stable family or fractious relationships, liberal university or conservative college, etc., etc.).  Indeed, such an understanding would likely result in better communication, common ground, and perspective (something that a discussion board eschews to a degree).  I assume that your personal history is not irrelevant for understanding you.  Neither would history be irrelevant for a Christian seeking a historic contextual understanding  of Israel or the early Church or the writings in the Bible.

 

The archaeologist, anthropologist, or social scientist interested in the historicity of the Bible seeks not to verify the religious claims of the Bible but can be enlightened through an understanding of location, culture, and, hopefully, a context for the written word.  Just like something simple, like "Jesus going up to Jerusalem" makes sense when you go there and walk the topography.  It's a statement in the Bible that isn't just made up.  There's a context.  There is much to be learned from a study of the social environments of the early Christian believers and church – how did urban Judaism function, the role of women in the Greco-Roman city, social stratification, governance, ritual, etc.  Historicity helps provide this.  Sure, it’s all up subject to interpretation but the fact is that there are real historic contexts for understanding the Bible, the cultures described therein and the locations – both natural and manmade.  It may not be of interest to you, personally, but there is plenty of interest and much being said, done, and written on the topic.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page to get a small taste: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/about-the-biblical-archaeology-society/

 

At the end of the day, we who believe and trust in Christ are called to act in faith.  It does not depend on archaeological findings.  But, historicity can certainly influence belief.  If someone getting to know you discovered that you fabricated your Catholic experience, then the totality of your history would rightfully be called into question.  Likewise, if the Book of Mormon – touted as a historic record by the LDS Church – is fabricated, then (as at least one LDS leader has stated) the church doesn’t have a leg to stand on (my paraphrase).  So history does mean something to the church.  The inability to place a 1,000 year-long Hebrew culture in the New World has implications for the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the Church.  As long as Book of Mormon historicity is the sole possession of the Book of Mormon believer, then the book will have no historic standing (except for members), and the larger claims of the prophet and church can honestly be called into question.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 it’s all up subject to interpretation but the fact is that there are real historic contexts for understanding the Bible, the cultures described therein and the locations – both natural and manmade.  It may not be of interest to you, personally, but there is plenty of interest and much being said, done, and written on the topic.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page to get a small taste: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/about-the-biblical-archaeology-society/

 

The President of that society is Hershel Shanks, he is "probably the world's most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist,"

 

That Society cannot prove the history described in the book of Genesis, book Exodus, book of Joshua. That society does not conclusive evidence for David's empire. 

 

The Book of Mormon has a society too.

http://www.bmaf.org/

Edited February 27, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone espouse the idea that archaeology or a rigorous study of history can verify elements in the Bible that require faith – a resurrection or the occurrence of a miracle? Is there any expectation that the Biblical recordation of an event – a conversation with a woman at a well or a young boy fleeing from the garden the night Christ is arrested – should have archaeological attestation?  I’ve never seen anyone on this board advance that belief.  It’s a ridiculous assumption.  Yet, time and time again it’s waved around here like some kind of EV totem.  If anyone subscribes to this position, I’d really like to see a quote with a name attached.  I don’t think such a position exists.

 

 

Historicity may be irrelevant to one’s ultimate faith decision, but it isn’t necessarily irrelevant for putting a faith decision in an understandable context.  It helps to understand.

 

Think about your own history.  It includes experience as a Catholic, an atheist, and a student of philosophy.  Embedded in these experiences are, most likely, nuances related to culture and location, the influence of institutions and people, and a whole bevy of symbolism and character traits that resulted in … you.  Since you didn’t arrive to February 2015 fully formed, someone interested in understanding the “present you” would likely benefit in understanding the “historic you” (Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox, stable family or fractious relationships, liberal university or conservative college, etc., etc.).  Indeed, such an understanding would likely result in better communication, common ground, and perspective (something that a discussion board eschews to a degree).  I assume that your personal history is not irrelevant for understanding you.  Neither would history be irrelevant for a Christian seeking a historic contextual understanding  of Israel or the early Church or the writings in the Bible.

 

The archaeologist, anthropologist, or social scientist interested in the historicity of the Bible seeks not to verify the religious claims of the Bible but can be enlightened through an understanding of location, culture, and, hopefully, a context for the written word.  Just like something simple, like "Jesus going up to Jerusalem" makes sense when you go there and walk the topography.  It's a statement in the Bible that isn't just made up.  There's a context.  There is much to be learned from a study of the social environments of the early Christian believers and church – how did urban Judaism function, the role of women in the Greco-Roman city, social stratification, governance, ritual, etc.  Historicity helps provide this.  Sure, it’s all up subject to interpretation but the fact is that there are real historic contexts for understanding the Bible, the cultures described therein and the locations – both natural and manmade.  It may not be of interest to you, personally, but there is plenty of interest and much being said, done, and written on the topic.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page to get a small taste: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/about-the-biblical-archaeology-society/

 

At the end of the day, we who believe and trust in Christ are called to act in faith.  It does not depend on archaeological findings.  But, historicity can certainly influence belief.  If someone getting to know you discovered that you fabricated your Catholic experience, then the totality of your history would rightfully be called into question.  Likewise, if the Book of Mormon – touted as a historic record by the LDS Church – is fabricated, then (as at least one LDS leader has stated) the church doesn’t have a leg to stand on (my paraphrase).  So history does mean something to the church.  The inability to place a 1,000 year-long Hebrew culture in the New World has implications for the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the Church.  As long as Book of Mormon historicity is the sole possession of the Book of Mormon believer, then the book will have no historic standing (except for members), and the larger claims of the prophet and church can honestly be called into question.

You are talking about literary criticism here if you realize it or not.

 

Absolutely context is important but it is not relevant to the principles being taught.  My being a former Catholic is a nice story and helps understand my psychology, of course.  I would not dispute that for a second.

 

More relevant is my history as a student in two completely secular universities (transcripts available) and being converted to Mormonism BECAUSE of that experience- at least intellectually making it possible for me to be inspired by a Moroni 10:4 experience, and being able to justify that experience philosophically.   I specifically studied a LOT of William James- which totally makes sense if you understand James' views on religion.   I went to the second university specifically TO study William James, and everyone knows that the Philosophy of James is closely related to Mormonism. 

http://philpapers.org/rec/PAUTGO

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

 

So really none of that is surprising- that a study of William James would lead in this direction.  Also that a study of Wittgenstein would result in my fideism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

 

2.2 The Usual Suspects

Today the term “fideism” is perhaps most commonly associated with four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, James, and Wittgenstein. In order to assess how well the label fits, it will be helpful to discuss their respective views in slightly more detail. Note, however, that each is also treated at greater length elsewhere in this encyclopedia.

 

So though I never go with arguments from authority, it isn't just crazy old Bukowski you are dealing with here.

 

But all of that is totally irrelevant to whether or not I - and these other guys who actually knew what they were talking about- were right or not.

 

Neither does their history.   It may be interesting that James was raised in a Swedenborgian household, or that Wittgenstein was born Jewish but attended Catholic services, and neither of them identified with organized religion.   Interesting facts, but irrelevant to their beliefs.

 

Those beliefs stand on their own, and really have nothing to do with the "truth or falsity" (to pull out some archaic terms ) of their positions.   Either they got it right or they didn't.  Either their philosophies are self-contradictory and have internal problems and are not useful for interpreting the world, or they are consistent and useful.

 

I vote for the latter, and I have not seen a single argument so far to dissuade me of that belief, indeed I have just seen more reasons to see that they are right.   If these are the best arguments against those positions that can be offered, I am totally convinced I am on safe ground. 

 

You yourself seem to concede that holding that historicity proves spiritual truth is " a ridiculous assumption."

 

Yet I am sure that in the next post you will advocate- again- just that point, or say something about the BOM not having historicity and therefore not being believable as a spiritual source.

 

Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe it's just the nature of philosophy.

 

Philosophy is ALWAYS "just made up" but it changes the world and the way we see it.  So does science, really.   The where and when of scientific discoveries have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are "true".

 

Water boiled at 212 degrees F in 8749 BCE and does today.  It boils at that temperature in Jerusalem, Cairo, and Peoria and always has.

[mfbukowski]

I still don't know why theists would argue about this objective evidence thing.

 

What I am defending is theism as opposed to atheism.  The constantly ridiculous argument is that God is not "real" because he cannot be observed objectively.  You can't take his picture.  You can't weigh him, so he doesn't "exist"  He is imaginary.  He is wishful thinking.  The afterlife is fantasy.

 

Here I am defending that indeed God DOES exist, and that objective evidence is not relevant to discussing the existence of God.

 

You'd think theists would like that.

 

But no. 

 

For God to exist, there has to be historical evidence for the Bible.  There has to be historical objective evidence for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. 

 

Now that line of thought is just plain WEIRD.   Why would any theist want to say such nonsense?

Edited February 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

For God to exist, there has to be historical evidence for the Bible. 

Who, exactly, is demanding this condition?

[mfbukowski]

One more

Historicity may be irrelevant to one’s ultimate faith decision, but it isn’t necessarily irrelevant for putting a faith decision in an understandable context.  It helps to understand.

 

Understand what?

 

Understand that the literature of the Bible happened at a place and time?  That somebody wrote the stories a long time ago in a real place?

 

Sure, no problem.  I will concede that in a minute, but so what?   Now you have some old stories and you can go see where they were written.  You can go to Paris and see where famous writers lived.  http://www.understandfrance.org/Paris/Americans.html

 

THEY REALLY LIVED THERE !!!  Wow.

 

But what did they write?   Did it improve mankind?   Did it help anyone?   Did it change someone's life?

 

And if those authors lived in Peoria would their wonderful works NOT have helped people?

[mfbukowski]

Who, exactly, is demanding this condition?

 

Truth and the Bible

Asking if the Bible is true, means that we need to have some understanding of truth. What is truth? While this question is often presented as a deep philosophical puzzle suitable only for the "brainy" to tackle, the answer is not so complex. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Consequently, what is real is true, what is unreal is false.

The Bible makes some very distinctive truth claims. It claims, for instance, that God exists. It also claims that He has chosen to communicate with us through His creation, our moral conscience, and via the Bible. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh and that the only way for human beings to be saved is through Him (John 14:6). Moreover, the death and resurrection of Jesus are also key to Christian theology.

These claims the Bible makes either correspond to reality or they do not. Christians believe that they do correspond to reality, meaning that the Bible is true. God really exists, Jesus is not a myth, and the resurrection really happened. But how do we know this?

Knowledge and the Bible

Sometimes Christians quote the Bible to prove the Bible. Most skeptics are rightly cautious of this approach. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is viewed as being circular reasoning or illogical. After all, quoting the Bible to prove the Bible assumes the Bible is true, which is really the point of contention or discussion.

But if the Bible can be shown to be a reliable document, accurately recorded and transmitted through history, from God to us, then we can build a strong case that the Bible is indeed true.

Evidence for the Bible

Evidence for the Bible can take many forms. There is, for instance, physical evidence. We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate. There are minor differences in manuscripts, called variants, but none of these variants impact or change key Christian beliefs or claims.

Other physical evidence includes archeological finds. The Archaeological Study Bible presents many notes and articles documenting how archeology has again and again proven that the Bible does correspond to historical reality.

There are other kinds of evidence that the Bible is true. These have to do with internal consistency and coherence. Although the Bible was written over many centuries by different writers, the messages it contains are coherent and consistent. The Bible presents a coherent theology and worldview and presents this material consistently. Moreover, the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history.

 

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true

[Gervin]

You are talking about literary criticism here if you realize it or not.

 

 

No, it isn't only literary criticism.  It starts larger, speaking of the early Christian church for example, in seeking to understand a particular set of phenomena in the second half of the first century.  Geertz describes it as "webs of significance" - the complex relation between social structure and symbolic structure, with religion an integral part of the cultural web.  Concerning the texts (and not only Biblical texts) it is not just what each one says but what it does by saying something.  The social historian, philologian, working exegetes and historians all contribute to the discourse. 

 

Absolutely context is important but it is not relevant to the principles being taught. 

 

 

I disagree.  It contextualizes practices and beliefs. It illuminates motivations.  It does so much more.

 

Neither does their history.   It may be interesting that James was raised in a Swedenborgian household, or that Wittgenstein was born Jewish but attended Catholic services, and neither of them identified with organized religion.   Interesting facts, but irrelevant to their beliefs.

 

 

So, their history has no connection to their beliefs?  Interesting, but I doubt if it's true. Do their biographers agree with your conclusion?

 

My being a former Catholic is a nice story and helps understand my psychology, of course.  I would not dispute that for a second.

 

More relevant is my history as a student in two completely secular universities (transcripts available) and being converted to Mormonism BECAUSE of that experience- at least intellectually making it possible for me to be inspired by a Moroni 10:4 experience, and being able to justify that experience philosophically.   I specifically studied a LOT of William James- which totally makes sense if you understand James' views on religion.   I went to the second university specifically TO study William James, and everyone knows that the Philosophy of James is closely related to Mormonism. 

http://philpapers.org/rec/PAUTGO

http://www.juvenilei...-and-mormonism/

 

So really none of that is surprising- that a study of William James would lead in this direction.  Also that a study of Wittgenstein would result in my fideism.

http://plato.stanfor...ntries/fideism/

 

 

 

Why all the detail about your history?  Oh, I guess it's important to understanding your present. That's my point.

 

If these are the best arguments against those positions that can be offered, I am totally convinced I am on safe ground.  

 

 

You're off on a tangent about your own personal beliefs.  Interesting, no doubt, but it has no connection to the points I was making.

 

 

Yet I am sure that in the next post you will advocate- again- just that point, or say something about the BOM not having historicity and therefore not being believable as a spiritual source.

 

 

The BOM has no history, correct, and that in large part negates it self-claimed spiritual history.  

[Gervin]

One more

Understand what?

 

That the setting, cultures, places and motivations of the early Christians, for example, are not the fictitious creation of imaginative writers, but steeped in the diverse, complex, and dynamic webs of human relationships.

[MormonFreeThinker]

That the setting, cultures, places and motivations of the early Christians, for example, are not the fictitious creation of imaginative writers, but steeped in the diverse, complex, and dynamic webs of human relationships.

 

There is no evidence that early Christians believed in Mathematical errors likes the Trinity. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1. 

 

What about the early Jews? There is no direct evidence for the history described in book of exodus, genesis, joshua. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

No, it isn't only literary criticism. It starts larger, speaking of the early Christian church for example, in seeking to understand a particular set of phenomena in the second half of the first century. Geertz describes it as "webs of significance" - the complex relation between social structure and symbolic structure, with religion an integral part of the cultural web. Concerning the texts (and not only Biblical texts) it is not just what each one says but what it does by saying something. The social historian, philologian, working exegetes and historians all contribute to the discourse.

I disagree. It contextualizes practices and beliefs. It illuminates motivations. It does so much more.

So, their history has no connection to their beliefs? Interesting, but I doubt if it's true. Do their biographers agree with your conclusion?

Why all the detail about your history? Oh, I guess it's important to understanding your present. That's my point.

You're off on a tangent about your own personal beliefs. Interesting, no doubt, but it has no connection to the points I was making.

The BOM has no history, correct, and that in large part negates it self-claimed spiritual history.

Hume proved in the 17th century that you could not deduce moral and religious statements from objectively observable data. Philosophy 101. Never been disproved.

There's nothing more to talk about here.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Edited February 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate

Edited February 27, 2015 by mfbukowski