Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: I posted that list because it is some items where the LDS has changed throughout the years. Most of the issues in the cited Talk Origins page have been argued and reargued since the middle of the 19th century. In that sense, the evangelical church has not changed with some adopting a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis and others a Old Earth Creationist or a Theological Evolution interpretation. Nobody disagrees as to the location of much of the action of the New Testament and some of the action of the Old Testament (Jerusalem). This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. From the cited Talk Origins page: We do not know when the exact date that domesticated camels were introduced to the Levant. The story about the camel in Genesis 24:10 may have been a late addition to the text. The Egyptians records were not sober history. Egyptian defeats were rarely mentioned, but Egyptian victories were played up for all of their worth. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Recent evidence for David and Solomon have been discovered. If I see a reference, then I will post it. In a real sense, archaeology does not support one belief or another, but archaeologists do. Just as history does not say that the system worked with respect to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, historians do say that the system worked with the case of Richard M. Nixon. Some archaeologists say that the Bible's story of the invasion of Canaan was accurate, others do not. A particular archaeologist's personal view on the historicity of the Bible's story of the invasion is probably more a function of their personal presuppositions, then the evidence itself. More than one scholar has rejected the Bible out of hand because the Bible says certain sexual relationships are not good. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text Quote Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on which archaeologist you ask. They probably did not have fast wi-fi.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 23 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You have closed yourself off from reason. You accept the bible based on emotion and take its unreasonable "science" literally? The truths of science contradict religion! (on your view!) I hope you never need medication or an operation. So why cannot God be proven by science? Why does science state the world is more than 6,000 years old? Clearly the Bible is wrong if there is only one truth Dawkins demolishes your position if you are right. I am so glad you are not. How do you possibly deal with atheists? Seriously? Where did dinosaurs come from? How did Jesus turn water into wine or heal people? I suppose I should just leave you alone- you have obviously not thought about any of these things. Postmodernism is not a rejection of logic. absurd. you know nothing about it.You have already said you base your belief in God based on emotion- that is not logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein Wittgenstein was a postmodernist. I am a Old Earth Creationist. Only one particular interpretation of Genesis has the universe being created 6,000 years ago. There are others. I am not obligated to follow what someone else may call a literal interpretation of any scripture. Quote Westminster Confession of Faith 1:9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 22 hours ago, canard78 said: I almost repp'd this for the sheer entertainment value. The Bible's true because it says it's true and because you feel it's true in your heart? Game over guys. Jim for this win. How can anyone possibly take that argument apart. What you have to remember Jim is that most of the people you're dialoguing with think the Bible is true too. You're not in a tug of war trying to prove that only one of the two is true because @mfbukowski, @Calm and others think the Bible is, just like you. You've demonstrated that there's no irrefutable way of proving the Bible true. You take it on faith. The book says it's true and you believe that. Guess what though: so do lots of other volumes of Scripture. How do you know that the books of scripture of the Baha'i faith or Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims are true or not? They have the same historical and geographical context and setting as the Bible. They have their miracles and spiritual witnesses. Their belief is equally strong. I assume that you don't accept their scripture as being the word of God?? So the basis of your faith is just that. Faith. How do I know that the Koran is not true? For one, it contradicts what the Bible says. All of the variant manuscripts of the Koran were destroyed, so someone had something to hide. Followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself acted and continue to act in a manner that the Bible describes as sinful. Mohammed married a child bride (as in 9 years old). Islam was spread by the sword and not by missionaries convincing others that the Koran was the word of God. Violence cannot replace rhetoric. I know more about Islam than about the other religions, so I will not comment on those examples.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well as the article says, you are begging the question- circular argument. You assume your position and make it not able to be discussed. The question for me becomes how one could possibly make that assumption. I also don' know why you are here discussing what is undiscussable in your own view. It is an irrational waste of time. I am flabbergasted. But of course as a non-presuppositionalist, according to you, my confused state is explained by the fact that I do not make the presupposition of presuppositionalism. You have shown no paradoxes, nor can you, because of course we will not understand them as paradoxes because we do not start from your presuppositions. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Literally unbelievable. The author of the Wikipedia article forgot to include the role that choice has in Clark's presuppositional method. Clark said that he chose Christianity because the alternatives led to the gulag. An Islamist may chose Islam because he wants to marry 9 year old girls. Content that would have led me to being banned omitted.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 22 hours ago, RevTestament said: Nope. Melchizedek did. Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; unless you are saying he held the Aaronic priesthood before Aaron? Hebrews 8: 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Hebrews also says Aaron held this priesthood: Hebrews 5:4 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. And if you were to be shown it is consistent, would you then believe the BoM? or continue to look for other reasons not to believe it? In other words would it make difference to you in reality or are you just arguing this? Jesus was and continues to be both the ultimate high priest and the perfect sacrifice for sin. Melchizedek was not a part of the nation of Israel, so he did not have to be of the line of Aaron to sacrifice to the Most High God. The pre-Advent Book of Mormon peoples could not have had the Melchizedek priesthood because the perfect sacrifice for sin was not yet made.
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Jesus was and continues to be both the ultimate high priest and the perfect sacrifice for sin. Melchizedek was not a part of the nation of Israel, so he did not have to be of the line of Aaron to sacrifice to the Most High God. The pre-Advent Book of Mormon peoples could not have had the Melchizedek priesthood because the perfect sacrifice for sin was not yet made. You have cut yourself off from further discussion, so any more is pointless. Continue your monologue. Some others may be silly enough to join in, not understanding your position. You have declared yourself infallible in effect. But presuppositionalism is Edited March 8, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The author of the Wikipedia article forgot to include the role that choice has in Clark's presuppositional method. Clark said that he chose Christianity because the alternatives led to the gulag. An Islamist may chose Islam because he wants to marry 9 year old girls. Content that would have led me to being banned omitted. Says Clark. What a vile position! Of course it is not possible to debate that. It just baffles me that anyone would buy into a system which does not admit the possibility of questioning the position since to do so proves that one has tainted thinking. The irony is that it is based on philosophies of men as is shown here. Choosing Christianity because alternatives lead to the gulag is not based on the Bible. The logic required is not found in the bible. The bible is not a logic text. The word "presupposition" is not even IN the bible, nor is the concept. Just a small flaw The position itself is based on the philosophies of men as you show above.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You have cut yourself off from further discussion, so any more is pointless. Continue your monologue. Some others may be silly enough to join in, not understanding your position. You have declared yourself infallible in effect. Accept the ultimate high priest and partake of the perfect sacrifice for all of your sin (even the really bad ones).
canard78 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: How do I know that the Koran is not true? For one, it contradicts what the Bible says. All of the variant manuscripts of the Koran were destroyed, so someone had something to hide. Followers of Mohammed and Mohammed himself acted and continue to act in a manner that the Bible describes as sinful. Mohammed married a child bride (as in 9 years old). Islam was spread by the sword and not by missionaries convincing others that the Koran was the word of God. Violence cannot replace rhetoric. I know more about Islam than about the other religions, so I will not comment on those examples. Based on your vacuous takedown of the Koran, don't worry about the other books of scripture I mentioned. I can write them for you: "The Bhagavad Gita is not true because it is not the Bible." That's pretty much it, right? Any further conversation with you is pointless because all of your arguments are circular. Q: How do you know the Bible is true? A: Because it says so and I feel it is right Q: How does a Muslim know the Koran is true? A: See previous answer etc etc How is your special feeling any more valid and credible than that of a Muslim, Hindu or Mormon? Edited March 8, 2016 by canard78 spelling 2
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, canard78 said: Based on your vacuous takedown of the Koran, don't worry about the other books of scripture I mentioned. I can write them for you: "The Bhagavad Gita is not true because it is not the Bible." That's pretty much it, right? Amy further conversation with you is pointless because all of your arguments are circular. Q: How do you know the Bible is true? A: Because it says so and I feel it is right Q: How does a Muslim know the Koran is true? A: See previous answer etc etc How is your special feeling any more valid and credible than that of a Muslim, Hindu or Mormon? My special feeling is back up with evidence. The validity of the Book of Mormon depends upon the testimony of one person. There is a cloud of witnesses testifying to the validity of the Bible. Quote Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Edited March 8, 2016 by Jim Stiles added verse from Hebrews
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The Egyptians records were not sober history. Egyptian defeats were rarely mentioned, but Egyptian victories were played up for all of their worth. There is no mention of the Moses Israel in Egyptian records, do you think they destroy the records? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but what about the fact that there is no evidence that ancient Isralites wondered for 40 years? Archaeology reveals that Jericho's walls were flattened centuries before Joshua came along "The massacre of baby boys ordered by Herod (Matthew 2) is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, or by any outside historians, some of whom describe Herod in great detail." "In the Book of Jonah, we find that Jonah got the people of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh to repent of their sins. This remarkable event is not confirmed anywhere else in the Bible, nor in the chronicles and libraries of Nineveh or any neighboring city." What about Noah's flood? Even if was a local flood, that still contradicts the laws of physics, and where is the evidence that Noah experienced a local flood? What about Bible verses like 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. Exodus 21:20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
flameburns623 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I posted that list because it is some items where the LDS has changed throughout the years. Most of the issues in the cited Talk Origins page have been argued and reargued since the middle of the 19th century. In that sense, the evangelical church has not changed with some adopting a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis and others a Old Earth Creationist or a Theological Evolution interpretation. Nobody disagrees as to the location of much of the action of the New Testament and some of the action of the Old Testament (Jerusalem). This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. From the cited Talk Origins page: We do not know when the exact date that domesticated camels were introduced to the Levant. The story about the camel in Genesis 24:10 may have been a late addition to the text. The Egyptians records were not sober history. Egyptian defeats were rarely mentioned, but Egyptian victories were played up for all of their worth. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Recent evidence for David and Solomon have been discovered. If I see a reference, then I will post it. In a real sense, archaeology does not support one belief or another, but archaeologists do. Just as history does not say that the system worked with respect to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, historians do say that the system worked with the case of Richard M. Nixon. Some archaeologists say that the Bible's story of the invasion of Canaan was accurate, others do not. A particular archaeologist's personal view on the historicity of the Bible's story of the invasion is probably more a function of their personal presuppositions, then the evidence itself. More than one scholar has rejected the Bible out of hand because the Bible says certain sexual relationships are not good. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text The article does a fair job of contrasting the claims of the minimalists with those who may be claiming more than their newly excavates evidence supports. Edit: someone else posted an identical link. Sorry. Edited March 8, 2016 by flameburns623
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: My special feeling is back up with evidence. The validity of the Book of Mormon depends upon the testimony of one person. There is a cloud of witnesses testifying to the validity of the Bible. We have eleven witnesses of which we know their names and have their testimony, that they saw an angel, heard the voice of God testifying to its truthfulness, who handled the physical plates and hefted them. We have a cloud of witnesses to the appearance of the resurrected Christ in the New World. 2
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) SkepticChristian, I don't think we should build up our case for the Book of Mormon by casting doubt on the Bible. Let the antiMormons play that game Let me suggest instead this approach -->> Question: when Christ said, seek and ye shall find, was He talking about looking at history books and doing archaeology? He said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Christ gave us HIS way of finding the truth, that God Himself reveals it to us through study and prayer. Edited March 8, 2016 by cdowis 2
canard78 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: My special feeling is back up with evidence. The validity of the Book of Mormon depends upon the testimony of one person. There is a cloud of witnesses testifying to the validity of the Bible. But I'm not talking about the Book of Mormon. I'm different to your honourable friends @Calm and @mfbukowski. I'm not arguing that the Book of Mormon is just as true as the Bible. I don't consider either of them to be provably true. Both good books from inspiring, and perhaps inspired, people but they both have clearly unprovable content. What "cloud of witnesses" do you have that proves the Bible true? I accept that it existed and that it is ancient. But what witnesses convince you it is true? What witnesses do you have to the flood, or parting the Red Sea, or feeing the 5,000. 1
Gray Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 8 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: My special feeling is back up with evidence. The validity of the Book of Mormon depends upon the testimony of one person. There is a cloud of witnesses testifying to the validity of the Bible. There is a great deal of evidence that the Bible is authentically ancient, which is the major difference between it and the BOM. However there is not good evidence that the Bible is very historically accurate, in which case I fail to see the real advantage there.
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 11 hours ago, canard78 said: Based on your vacuous takedown of the Koran, don't worry about the other books of scripture I mentioned. I can write them for you: "The Bhagavad Gita is not true because it is not the Bible." That's pretty much it, right? Amy further conversation with you is pointless because all of your arguments are circular. Q: How do you know the Bible is true? A: Because it says so and I feel it is right Q: How does a Muslim know the Koran is true? A: See previous answer etc etc How is your special feeling any more valid and credible than that of a Muslim, Hindu or Mormon? This is exactly right. Read his articles. He has given up his mind to a theory of others and presupposed the truth of their positions. Go figure. No credibility whatsoever.
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: My special feeling is back up with evidence. The validity of the Book of Mormon depends upon the testimony of one person. There is a cloud of witnesses testifying to the validity of the Bible. Abandon your mind to majority rule. Great idea. Guess what? More people do not believe in the bible than do.
canard78 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Abandon your mind to majority rule. Great idea. Guess what? More people do not believe in the bible than do. Don't be silly. Those people are "wrong." (Game over)
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, canard78 said: Don't be silly. Those people are "wrong." (Game over) Yep. What's the point in discussing it. He is right and we are wrong. Every time I think about it - <facepalm> The logical position is pure postmodernism, and he has no clue. It is unassailable because postmodernism says that truth religious works within a culture and a context and is therefore unassailable within that culture. As long as the larger culture finds the beliefs innocuous ( Jim Jones had the same sort of belief, but he ended up having the community commit suicide- that was NOT an innocuous belief) there is nothing wrong with it. Logically he is right, but the logic itself is postmodern which he condemns. Go figure. That is the central contradiction here. So yes it is a pure circular argument. You believe it because you believe it. But of course because we are unsaved as shown by our rejection of such a belief, unsaved because the very idea of thinking that it could be wrong is a symptom of our human depravity, we will burn in hell forever. Bring some marshmallows at least. 1
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 8 hours ago, canard78 said: But I'm not talking about the Book of Mormon. I'm different to your honourable friends @Calm and @mfbukowski. I'm not arguing that the Book of Mormon is just as true as the Bible. I don't consider either of them to be provably true. Both good books from inspiring, and perhaps inspired, people but they both have clearly unprovable content. What "cloud of witnesses" do you have that proves the Bible true? I accept that it existed and that it is ancient. But what witnesses convince you it is true? What witnesses do you have to the flood, or parting the Red Sea, or feeing the 5,000. The 500 people the resurrected Christ appeared to as documented by Paul, for one.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 10 hours ago, cdowis said: We have eleven witnesses of which we know their names and have their testimony, that they saw an angel, heard the voice of God testifying to its truthfulness, who handled the physical plates and hefted them. We have a cloud of witnesses to the appearance of the resurrected Christ in the New World. REVIEWS Edited by Davis Bitton Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal MARVIN S. HILLDialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V07N04_74.pdf Quote What of the prophet's story about gold plates, and what about his witnesses? Given Brodie's assumptions, was there not deception here, if not collusion? Brodie maintains that the Prophet exercised some mysterious influence upon the witnesses which caused them to see the plates, thus making Joseph Smith once more the perpetrator of a religious fraud. The evidence is extremely contradictory in this area, but there is a possibility that the three witnesses saw the plates in vision only, for Stephen Burnett in a letter written in 1838, a few weeks after the event, described Martin Harris' testimony to this effect: Quote When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David . . . the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 10 hours ago, cdowis said: SkepticChristian, I don't think we should build up our case for the Book of Mormon by casting doubt on the Bible. Let the antiMormons play that game Let me suggest instead this approach -->> Question: when Christ said, seek and ye shall find, was He talking about looking at history books and doing archaeology? He said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Christ gave us HIS way of finding the truth, that God Himself reveals it to us through study and prayer. That did not work for me. Looks like I am going to be consigned to outer darkness.
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David . . . the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations. OK, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery saw the plates in a vision. (Harris did not use the word "or imagination' -- those are the words of the person who threw away his pedestal.) Now what? PS. I don't read articles. If you have something to say, say it. Edited March 8, 2016 by cdowis
Recommended Posts