Bible inerancy questions from investigator

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Perhaps you should take that up with God?

We could just as easily make the same claim about the Book of Mormon for that matter.

Why should I ask God about a statement you made?

Maybe I should back up a step and see if I misunderstood your original statement.

Do you believe God has " preserve[ed] His word pure?

And if the story of how the Book of Mormon came about is true, then the only pure form of the Book of Mormon would be on the gold plates written in reformed Egyptian, if it is not true, then the pure form would be the manuscript on which it was first written.

[FormerLDS]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Why should I ask God about a statement you made?

Maybe I should back up a step and see if I misunderstood your original statement.

Do you believe God has " preserve[ed] His word pure?

And if the story of how the Book of Mormon came about is true, then the only pure form of the Book of Mormon would be on the gold plates written in reformed Egyptian, if it is not true, then the pure form would be the manuscript on which it was first written.

There is no credible reason to suspect God has not preserved His word perfectly just as he promised He would.

Unless of course we're going to choose to believe the proclamations of an angel of light who miraculously appeared "restored truth” to mankind through people like Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Mary Baker Eddie, Dr. William S. Sadler, Shepherd Bushiri, Warren Jeffs, Sun Myung Moon, Dalai Lama, Dr. Henry C. Kinley, on and on and on.

[Ahab]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:26 PM, Freedom said:

Two topics that I am addressing for an investigator with an evangelical background that I am hoping you can help me with.

1)        Is the bible complete and is there evidence of tampering – 

2)       ...I am looking for legitimate research that demonstrates how anthropology contradicts the biblical narrative more often than it supports it.

1. I would make the point about the Bible not being complete focused on it not being everything someone needs to understand it. If the Bible was complete everyone who reads it would have everything they need contained in it. Nothing would be missing.  It, the Bible,  would be what people need for salvation and exaltation.  God himself would be in the Bible,  and Jesus would too, as well as the Holy Spirit, along with everything everyone would need to understand it, including their mind and eyes and enough wisdom to understand all of it... right there in the Bible because the Bible would then be complete.  And everyone would also be in agreement about what is in the Bible too, with the Bible having everything in it to clear up any and every misunderstanding anyone could possible have before getting everything they needed right there in the Bible. The Bible would truly be an amazing thing then, I would think.

2. Anyone who correctly understands all the truth included under the term anthropology already knows that all the truth in the Bible is in harmony with all of it so I wouldn't focus too much on that one.  Once you correctly understand one the correct understanding of the other pretty much just falls into place naturally. 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

When was Herod in power, is there any evidence of a infanticide, did a census take place.

It is almost universally accepted that Herod the Great died in 4 BC (but Jesus was probably born before 4 BC). There are no contemporary reports of the "massacre of the innocents"; however, conservative NT scholars argue that "the murder of a few infants in a small village in order to eliminate a suspected dynastic rival" was "quite in character" for Herod and wasn't on a scale to gain much attention outside of Bethlehem (see R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007], 85). Quirinius didn't become legate of Syria until 6 CE, and Luke was mistaken about there being a single, general census, but he nevertheless (in the opinion of some scholars at least) "correctly captures the historical tendency of the time, and of the emperor, in narrative and popular terms" (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002], 83).

Edited February 3, 2016 by Nevo

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

There is no credible reason to suspect God has not preserved His word perfectly just as he promised He would.

 

 

 

Do you believe he has preserved his word perfectly?

If so then please answer my original question as how to choose which version of the Bible (assuming that is where you think it is found) and in what language.

[SeekerB]

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a typo in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

Edited February 3, 2016 by SeekerB

[SeekerB]

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a type in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

[SeekerB]

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a typo in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

[SeekerB]

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a typo in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

[SeekerB]

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a typo in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

[SeekerB]

I don't even know how all those posts happened. Can the extras be deleted?

[FormerLDS]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Do you believe he has preserved his word perfectly?

If so then please answer my original question as how to choose which version of the Bible (assuming that is where you think it is found) and in what language.

Yes, I do.  I believe God has preserved His word perfectly thought the King James Bible [even though every angelic being who has appeared and miraculously "restored truth" would completely disagree with me].  

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, FormerLDS said:

Yes, I do.  I believe God has preserved His word perfectly thought the King James Bible [even though every angelic being who has appeared and miraculously "restored truth" would completely disagree with me].  

When you use the term "word" are you using it in a literal sense and are saying that the KJV is literally perfect word for word or are you using it in some other sense as in "one may find God's word (message) in the KJV"?

[PeterPear]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

And that would be a specious argument, since a common meaning of "virtue" in sixteenth-century English, per the Oxford English Dictionary, was "physical strength, force, or energy." So it was an accurate translation at the time. However, usage changes and that is why modern translations are needed.

Why? Because ancient translations aren't accurate? 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

There is no credible reason to suspect God has not preserved His word perfectly just as he promised He would.

 

 

Where did God promise that God would "protect" his "word" (which I guess you call the Bible).   Which version of "God's Word" did he preserve.  The Hebrew or Septuagint version?  Can't be both as they are not exactly the same. For example which one is the preserved one and which one is not

Psalms 5:9 (Septuagint): "For their is no truth in their mouth; their heart is vain; their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit."

Psalms 5:9 (Masoretic Text): "For their is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue."

OR

Deuteronomy 32:43 (KJV): "Rejoice O ye nations with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."

Deuteronomy 32:43 (Septuagint): "Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, And let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people."

Edited February 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

There is no credible reason to suspect God has not preserved His word perfectly just as he promised He would.

To which scripture of guaranteed preservation are you referring?  (CFR).
It may be a valid scriptural claim, but nothing is coming to mind right now.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekerB said:

Don't forget the 400 year old translation with a typo in the ten commandments that read:  "Thou shalt commit adultery". A copy recently sold for £15,000.

I won't forget them now, lol.

You could report your dups to the mods if it bothers you enough to bother them.  It is no big thing though.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Yes, I do.  I believe God has preserved His word perfectly thought the King James Bible [even though every angelic being who has appeared and miraculously "restored truth" would completely disagree with me].

Like this inspired change where the Psalmist is describing God:

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.
9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

Which in some translations reads:

Kings' daughters were among thy honourable wives.

 

So does God have honorable women or honorable wives according to the Psalmist?

[Zakuska]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Yes, I do.  I believe God has preserved His word perfectly thought the King James Bible [even though every angelic being who has appeared and miraculously "restored truth" would completely disagree with me].  

How can we declare "Gods word (aka the bible)  has been perfectly preserved" as FormerLDS baldly asserts when Gods word (ie the bible) declares of it's self that it hasn't been perfectly preserved?

Jer 8:8

“‘How can you say, “We are wise,
    for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
    has handled it falsely?

CFR that God said he would preserve the bible perfectly.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Zakuska

[RevTestament]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:26 PM, Freedom said:

Two topics that I am addressing for an investigator with an evangelical background that I am hoping you can help me with.

1)        Is the bible complete and is there evidence of tampering – I am looking for non-lds sources for evidence that the bible has been altered and that there are books written by Disciples of Christ that are lost. The argument I hear is that there is no proof that the bible was corrupted, and that the books that are contained in the current bible were written by people who gave a personal witness of Christ; that is, other books were not written by people who had a personal witness and were therefore excluded. Is there any research that tells us what books existed, and why the current books were selected? All I have is LDS sources, but of course such sources are of little value to an evangelical Christian who wants an unbiased perspective.

There is evidence of different versions of the Bible... if you doubt that, just look up the codex vaticanus. There is also evidence that translators like Jerome took a few liberties in translating the Bible. Some Bibles also rely much on the Septuagint, which I personally am not fond of. 

Quote

2)        Another topic is scientific evidence for the bible. This is another old topic, but I am looking for legitimate research that demonstrates how anthropology contradicts the biblical narrative more often than it supports it. I hear so often that science is proving the bible true. I have lots of polemic material but I do not have much in the way of legitimate research that discusses the discrepancies between the biblical narrative and what science has uncovered.  Most of what I find is written by atheists who go to extremes and take things out of context or grossly misunderstand what the bible is inferring.

There is actually a lot of archaeological evidence to support the Bible, Why would you want anthropology to contradict the biblical narrative? 

There are of course many archaeologists who believe that archaeological evidence rather supports that Israel simply evolved out of Canaanite roots rather than arriving out of Israel.

[Sevenbak]

5 hours ago, SeekerB said:

I don't even know how all those posts happened. Can the extras be deleted?

For a minute there, I thought you were repeatedly advocating adultery.  

[Freedom]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

It is almost universally accepted that Herod the Great died in 4 BC (but Jesus was probably born before 4 BC). There are no contemporary reports of the "massacre of the innocents"; however, conservative NT scholars argue that "the murder of a few infants in a small village in order to eliminate a suspected dynastic rival" was "quite in character" for Herod and wasn't on a scale to gain much attention outside of Bethlehem (see R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007], 85). Quirinius didn't become legate of Syria until 6 CE, and Luke was mistaken about there being a single, general census, but he nevertheless (in the opinion of some scholars at least) "correctly captures the historical tendency of the time, and of the emperor, in narrative and popular terms" (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002], 83).

These are good points. The problem with the gospels is that they were written decades after the events and the authors did not have google at hand. Of course, this is why the bible has errors, because of the poor memories of the authors. 

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is actually a lot of archaeological evidence to support the Bible, Why would you want anthropology to contradict the biblical narrative? 

There are of course many archaeologists who believe that archaeological evidence rather supports that Israel simply evolved out of Canaanite roots rather than arriving out of Israel.

My position is that proof does not make the bible true and a lack of proof does not make it false. For example, the story of the walls of jericho, as far as he current evidence is concerned, is false. There was no great wall, and the city was destroyed generations before the bible says it was. The argument is that there is proof for the bible, therefore before I will accept the book of mormon you must provide this same proof. The biblical proof, as little as there is, has only shown up very recently perhaps only in the last 50 years. The contradictions show that the text has either been tampered with, or that the original authors exaggerated or made mistakes. 

[Freedom]

6 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

There is no credible reason to suspect God has not preserved His word perfectly just as he promised He would.

 

Every time God mentions his 'word', it is always spoken, not written. The bible is not his word, it is a collection of a number people trying to capture his word. You are using the classic logical fallacy 'god of the gaps'. 

Answer these questions:

At what point did God decide to preserve his word during the old and new testament times? why wasn't it preserved after Moses? Why did we need so many books after him? What about the new testament? Why was his ministry not enough? There were four books written about his teachings but apparently Jesus just did not get the message out in 3 years so Paul had to fill in the gaps. 

Consider Hebrews 11:3:

(CEBA) By faith we understand that the universe has been created by a word from God so that the visible came into existence from the invisible.

(BBE) By faith it is clear to us that the order of events was fixed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made from things which only seem to be.

(CJB) By trusting, we understand that the universe was created through a spoken word of God, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.

(RSV) By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

This verse is critical when supporting creation ex nihilo. If the CJB translation is correct then creation ex nihilo has been proven. The problem is, this translation is a complete bastardization of the original text and is not even closely related to the BBE translation. If God is preserving his word, there would be one translation. Which one of the above is the one he preserved? Depending on which one you choose, the evangelical belief in the creation may be put in serious jeopardy. 

[sheilauk]

11 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Yes, I do.  I believe God has preserved His word perfectly thought the King James Bible [even though every angelic being who has appeared and miraculously "restored truth" would completely disagree with me].  

How did this preservation using the English language come about?  Was the translation of the greek and hebrew books by the men who wrote the KJV inspired by God?  As I understand it, they kept much of the earlier Bishops Bible and the KJV we use now is the re-edited version from 1769, not the original from 1611.  It also probably has an Anglican church bias - since the King and the translators were all Church of England.