Why argue the bible is infallible?

[Meerkat]

FormerLDS, I read with interest your thoughtful post.  Some of your thoughts were helpful and informative.  Others maligned the LDS Church unnecessarily, and the beliefs of it's members.  I hope my response is not offensive to you in any way.

9 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

I didn't change until I saw myself as someone who had everything religion could possibly offer, but I did not have eternal life.  It wasn't until I read the Word of God as if for the first time and saw that the Jesus Christ of the Bible was offering me eternal life right now if I would just place all of the faith I had in my own worthiness into Him alone and trust that He would give me His free gift of eternal life.  The moment I allowed Him to give me eternal life I started to think differently about the Bible.  About what I had been taught.  Things were completely new and different then before.      

That is an interesting statement.  The joy of Christ came into my heart before I sought out the Mormons.  Finding the Church was an answer to my prayers.  This leads me to believe you were not spiritually converted (or born again, as some call it,) while a member of the LDS Church.  That doesn't mean Christ isn't here any more than the fact I didn't gain a testimony of Jesus Christ while an active Lutheran means He wasn't there.  I knew many people-- Sunday School teachers, ministers, etc., who had tender hearts and had a deep and joyful desire to preach Christ, and Him crucified.  I believe they helped lead to my conversion.  From what I read, you also fall into that category.  Lord bless you for that.  I also see this love and desire throughout the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

9 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

When I was a member It bothered me greatly that I had to side with every other "restored truth" group out there on the point that we believed the Bible to be corrupted.  I had to side with the atheists, agnostics, skeptics and even Satan worshipers to propagate my churches point of view.   But I still didn't get it.  I still believed what I believed because I had a strong testimony of the restored gospel and I "knew" that I wasn't deceived in my faith.  

You seem to use the word corrupted as if that is central to Mormons' faith in Bible teachings.  Do you really believe that?  Did you think of "restored truth" groups back then, and the others you mentioned?   With what you know of your friends who are Mormons and the Mormons on this page, is it possible you misunderstood how converted Mormons feel about Jesus Christ?  Do you see any inconsistency grouping your Mormon friends with atheists, agnostics, skeptics and Satan worshipers?  Perhaps you felt that way before you found Christ in your own heart.  But now, with what you know, why would you imply that YOUR pre-conversion experience was actually the way converted Mormons feel about the Savior and the Holy Bible? 

9 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Friends, today, I have something I never had as a member of good standing.  My religion only demonstrated how imperfect I really was (if I was honest with myself).  To Heavenly Father, ALL of my worthiness was just filthy rags and vanity - it was debt!  

What I'm trying to say is that if you don't have eternal life, you're never, ever going to be able to see the truth until you are first born again into the Family of God through belief in Jesus Christ alone.      

That seems like a fair description of your LDS experience before the mighty change of heart came into your life and you were able to sing the song of Redeeming Love.  It is a fair point that many LDS congregations in years gone by, and probably even today, emphasized the importance of good works with less apparent emphasis on the Grace of the Savior.  Until we experience that mighty change of heart, (or recognize our need for it,) we may hear about Grace, but not hear it-- just as with Christ's parables. We all make mistakes and need the Savior. Some of us felt that OUR sins had been washed away by the Savior's Atonement.  Therefore, the slate was clean and there was no need to revisit former sins with children or anyone else.  Hence, believing they had perfect parents,  a child could get the wrong idea and find themselves dealing with guilt, sorrow and shame that only Christ can heal.  We all learn.  If I could go back, I would teach some of my children in a different way.  In fairness to my beloved Lutheran parents, they probably feel the same way about how they taught me.  So what is the answer?  I believe the LDS Church is right.  The scriptures teach a combination of faith in Jesus Christ and the importance of good works.  Both are important.  Yes, our righteousness is as filthy rags, just as you say.  Salvation does not come from our works.  But neither does it come without them.  Both are required.  Ephesians 2:10 and many other references make that clear:  "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."   

Edited November 4, 2017 by Meerkat

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 12:27 PM, FormerLDS said:

You have no proof of this whatsoever.

Again, anyone can plainly demonstrate how the BoM fits your definition of textual corruption (i.e. "conflicting theologies, issues with transmission and translation", etc...), but you still chose not to believe.

I have no proof of what, that the Bible contradicts itself? Are you trying to tell me you've never read the Bible?

[thesometimesaint]

FormerLDS:

The Book of Mormon doesn't claim otherwise. From Title Page.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

[Five Solas]

On 11/3/2017 at 8:11 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Bumping up my question for @FormerLDS

I'm not here trying to change anyone's views or "prove" anything.  That ain't going and to happen and it's not my place anyways.  I'm just trying to understand different perspectives and this is an important question for me when understanding infallible-Bible-faiths, but it seems like actually getting this question answered is beyond pulling teeth.  I'm really not trying to be difficult, I'm just a person trying to seek answers and understand.

Seems like this has been way more painful for you than it ever needed to be, Jane_Doe.  No idea why there's any hesitancy in addressing the Apocrypha (books composed during the period between the Old and New Testaments).  Catholics themselves refer to them as "Deuterocanonical" - meaning second tier, which by definition acknowledges they aren't at the same level of authority as the first tier - the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament.  In the Orthodox tradition there are some additional books beyond these--but again, not considered to be on par with the 66.  

That said, there's some remarkable ideas and stories to be found in those books.  Personally, I'm a fan of the Book of Tobit.  And I think Martin Luther's preface was spot on--

If the events [narrated in Tobit] really happened, then it is a fine and holy history. But if they are all made up, then it is indeed a very beautiful, wholesome, and useful fiction or drama by a gifted poet...

I doubt many Catholics would dispute Luther's assessment and insist it's certain history.  And if memory serves, Joseph Smith's own view of the Apocrypha may have been influenced by Luther's perspective.

:0)

--Erik

____________________________________________________

Played by the gate at the foot of the garden
My view stretches out from the fence to the wall
No words could explain, no actions determine
Just watching the trees and the leaves as they fall

--Joy Division "The Eternal"

[Jane_Doe]

56 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Seems like this has been way more painful for you than it ever needed to be, Jane_Doe.  No idea why there's any hesitancy in addressing the Apocrypha (books composed during the period between the Old and New Testaments).  Catholics themselves refer to them as "Deuterocanonical" - meaning second tier, which by definition acknowledges they aren't at the same level of authority as the first tier - the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament.  In the Orthodox tradition there are some additional books beyond these--but again, not considered to be on par with the 66.  

I appreciate your effort to try to address my question, but this answer doesn't fully address my question.   In your theology which Bible is the fully perfect word of God and which ones are corrupt?  And where in the Bible does it say which Bible is correct?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Five Solas]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I appreciate your effort to try to address my question, but this answer doesn't fully address my question.   In your theology which Bible is the fully perfect word of God and which ones are corrupt?  And where in the Bible does it say which Bible is correct?

Maybe I'm not understanding you, Jane_Doe - but I thought we were all in agreement on the books of the Hebrew Bible & the New Testament (66 in total).  Are you hoping to stoke debate between translations, say the Catholic (mostly) NAB and the Protestant ESV?  Well, having read both of those examples - I'd say the differences are pretty immaterial (again, for the 66 books - my ESV didn't include the Apocrypha/Deutocanonicals).  In my mind, both translations are sufficient to meet the definition of Biblical infallibility stemelbow offered (and I applauded) much earlier in the thread.  You can refresh your memory here. 

If your intent is to debate commonly accepted Bible translations and/or pursue a standard ("fully perfect...") beyond the one stemelbow mentioned (e.g., so you can steer the thread into a debate of young earth vs. old earth or whatever else your agenda might be)--you'll kindly forgive me for declining to be drawn into any of that here.  I've made my position abundantly clear elsewhere on the forum and it shouldn't be hard for you to find it, if you're actually curious. 

:0)

--Erik

______________________________________

I'm guided by a signal in the heavens
I'm guided by this birthmark on my skin
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

--Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Maybe I'm not understanding you, Jane_Doe - but I thought we were all in agreement on the books of the Hebrew Bible & the New Testament (66 in total).  Are you hoping to stoke debate between translations, say the Catholic (mostly) NAB and the Protestant ESV?  Well, having read both of those examples - I'd say the differences are pretty immaterial (again, for the 66 books - my ESV didn't include the Apocrypha/Deutocanonicals).  In my mind, both translations are sufficient to meet the definition of Biblical infallibility stemelbow offered (and I applauded) much earlier in the thread.  You can refresh your memory here. 

If your intent is to debate commonly accepted Bible translations and/or pursue a standard ("fully perfect...") beyond the one stemelbow mentioned (e.g., so you can steer the thread into a debate of young earth vs. old earth or whatever else your agenda might be)--you'll kindly forgive me for declining to be drawn into any of that here.  I've made my position abundantly clear elsewhere on the forum and it shouldn't be hard for you to find it, if you're actually curious. 

"Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose"

Just to clarify (because it can be hard to keep various posters separate in one's mind), you are okay with errors of historical and scientific fact as long as they have no impact on faith or Christian practice?

I find that a reasonable position.

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Just to clarify (because it can be hard to keep various posters separate in one's mind), you are okay with errors of historical and scientific fact as long as they have no impact on faith or Christian practice?

I find that a reasonable position.

I never thought of that before.  I appreciate a reason for greater sympathy with my other Christian friends on that one.  The way I have looked at it, there are confusing doctrines that are hard to reconcile between different sects.  Joseph Smith said the religions of his time understood the same passages of scriptures so differently, questions couldn't be settled by referring to the Bible.  Saturday versus Sunday Sabbath is one challenge that comes to mind.  Sprinkling versus immersion.  Authority from the Bible versus authority by laying on of hands.  Predestination versus foreordination.  Praying in tongues, etc.  The ones that seem completely ignored are baptism for the dead, and the Gospel being preached to the dead.  But for most doctrines, there is enough redundancy I can see how a reasonable person could view it as a complete entity shaped by God.  

Edited November 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose"

Just to clarify (because it can be hard to keep various posters separate in one's mind), you are okay with errors of historical and scientific fact as long as they have no impact on faith or Christian practice?

I find that a reasonable position.

I wouldn't say I'm "okay with errors"--but I would suggest it misses the point to read Matthew 13:31-32 and then argue over whether a mustard seed really is the "smallest of all seeds."  (To pick one arbitrary example.)

We are not in possession of the original autographs.  And this may come as surprise to Jane_Doe, but what we're discussing here really isn't a new problem.  At the time of Christ, you had the Hebrew Bible, but you also had the Greek Septuagint.  And they do not agree in every single detail.  Yet New Testament writers made use of both--without getting hung up about it.

Suggest we follow their example.

:0)

--Erik

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I wouldn't say I'm "okay with errors"--but I would suggest it misses the point to read Matthew 13:31-32 and then argue over whether a mustard seed really is the "smallest of all seeds."  (To pick one arbitrary example.)

We are not in possession of the original autographs.  And this may come as surprise to Jane_Doe, but what we're discussing here really isn't a new problem.  At the time of Christ, you had the Hebrew Bible, but you also had the Greek Septuagint.  And they do not agree in every single detail.  Yet New Testament writers made use of both--without getting hung up about it.

Suggest we follow their example.

:0)

--Erik

So you acknowledge that there is a problem then, one that is not new?   If there is disagreement between the two, then there is error in one or the other, or both.  The New Testament writers would have recognized this, yet they still made use of both, despite the error - kind of like us Mormons are suggesting.  No one is suggesting that we get "hung up" about it.  Mormon's still make excellent use of the Bible.

[Jane_Doe]

 

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Maybe I'm not understanding you, Jane_Doe - but I thought we were all in agreement on the books of the Hebrew Bible & the New Testament (66 in total).  Are you hoping to stoke debate between translations, say the Catholic (mostly) NAB and the Protestant ESV?  Well, having read both of those examples - I'd say the differences are pretty immaterial (again, for the 66 books - my ESV didn't include the Apocrypha/Deutocanonicals).  In my mind, both translations are sufficient to meet the definition of Biblical infallibility stemelbow offered (and I applauded) much earlier in the thread.  You can refresh your memory here. 

If your intent is to debate commonly accepted Bible translations and/or pursue a standard ("fully perfect...") beyond the one stemelbow mentioned (e.g., so you can steer the thread into a debate of young earth vs. old earth or whatever else your agenda might be)--you'll kindly forgive me for declining to be drawn into any of that here.  I've made my position abundantly clear elsewhere on the forum and it shouldn't be hard for you to find it, if you're actually curious. 

I have zero intrest in "debate" -- aka someone trying to convince another their views are right.  At best that's a waste of time or (far more commonly) it's a cesspool for breeding resentment and misunderstanding.  

What I'm trying to is foster my understanding of different viewpoints and love of the people who believe them.  Obviously these not beliefs I share, but I would still like to love the people who do believe them and try to see through their eyes.  Right now the belief I'm working on is understanding the belief "the Bible is perfect and infallible", particularly from a sola scriptura standpoint.  So, being a logical person I thought about this logically.  The first question I came to was: 

"Which Bible is believed to be perfect and infallible?"  I'm not talking about which translation, but which content of the Bible (like how many books therein).  Speaking logically, different Bibles cannot both be perfect and infallible-- like if the 81 book Bible is correct, then the 66 book must be corrupt in that it is missing content.  Or if the 66 book Bible is correct, then the 81 book one is corrupt because it has added non-God's-words to the Bible.   Likewise with any other combo of Bible variations.  Thus far you and one other poster have said you believe the 66 book Bible to be correct, but won't confirm the what seems to me to be the obvious statement that you believe other Bibles to be corrupt.  So it's a very frustrating mixed message.  

And then the second question what "why do you believe that particular Bible to be correct?"  As I said earlier, I am particularly interested in understanding this belief from a sola scriptura standpoint, which logically means this answer should come from within the Bible itself. 

Again, I'm not trying to change your views or mine-- that's a disrespectful waste of time.  I just want to understand your view.  

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I wouldn't say I'm "okay with errors"--but I would suggest it misses the point to read Matthew 13:31-32 and then argue over whether a mustard seed really is the "smallest of all seeds."  (To pick one arbitrary example.)

We are not in possession of the original autographs.  And this may come as surprise to Jane_Doe, but what we're discussing here really isn't a new problem.  At the time of Christ, you had the Hebrew Bible, but you also had the Greek Septuagint.  And they do not agree in every single detail.  Yet New Testament writers made use of both--without getting hung up about it.

Suggest we follow their example.

That seems quite logical to me.  

Though I have ran into the Bible-is-utterly-infallible people who do argue that the mustard seed is literally the smallest of all seeds, hence part of my confusion of trying to understand that viewpoint--- I'm actually a professional botanist, so that argument doesn't make ANY sense to me.  Frankly those trying to argue that common off as very ignorant to my ears (an admittedly uncharitable reaction I'm trying to overcome).  

Anyways, from the comment I shall put you in a different theological camp then that (there is HUGE variety in Christian believes after all).  I am interested in learning more about your beliefs.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[mfbukowski]

On 10/30/2017 at 11:18 PM, Five Solas said:

That was a long post - but I think I'll answer by just conceding your second sentence.  I think you're right - I've never seriously considered that possibility.  Please indulge a couple paragraphs while I'll share a bit, perhaps it will give you a bit more perspective on my experience and thinking. 

In the last few years of my time as a member of the LDS Church, things were going from bad to worse for me.  I didn't have a real testimony, I couldn't get a temple recommend, relationships I pursued ended before they'd hardly begun.  I wanted the life I saw everyone else having--marriage, children.  I was uncomfortable dating anyone outside the LDS Church, in part because I didn't drink and I felt conspicuous and uncomfortable around those who did (and most do).  But I think deep down, I really wanted to find a way to make it work--and I knew that a relationship with a nonmember would ultimately be a dead end in that regard.  As I approached my inevitable graduation to the "single adult" program--I had an increasing sense of desperation, that time was running out.  I saw that even if I eventually did gain a testimony and a temple recommend, it was going to be too late to meet someone young enough to safely have kids & achieve the life I desired.  Never underestimate the motive power of fear.  God can use that, for His purpose. 

I'd read the Book of Mormon numerous times, but it didn't resonate with me and I couldn't bring myself to pretend otherwise, in bishop's interviews or anywhere else.  As the pressure grew, it occurred to me that maybe I just wasn't meeting its prerequisites (Moroni 10:4 -5, "having faith in Christ").  Maybe I could get that requisite "faith" from reading the New Testament.  Maybe a concerted study would make the pieces fit.  And I knew the 400 year-old prose of the KJV was next to impossible for me, so I bought a copy of the Precise Parallel New Testament, which included the KJV along with a few other translations.  My employer at the time had me staffed on a project in Dallas for a couple years, commuting most weekends.  It's a ~ four hour flight, so I had ample time for Bible study on the plane.  I ended up enjoying the study far more than I ever expected--but when I reached Romans 9, therein I experienced something like an epiphany.  I still have that copy and you should see those two pages - my underlining and notes saturate the chapter.  On an American Airlines flight between Seattle and Dallas, I realized the book in my hand was completely and irreconcilably at odds with the "restored gospel" I'd been struggling (and failing) to believe.  

I didn't believe & become a Christian in that moment - that faith would happen a couple years later.  I merely saw the difference clearly for the first time.  Inertia would carry me on a while longer--without hope or excuse.         

So back to your point, God entering human history as a man--that has always been compelling to me (even if the LDS notion of the Incarnation isn't exactly that).  That our world is fallen--one need only scan the headlines.  And that it needs a redeemer--that merely follows.  

I never seriously entertained the possibility Jesus didn't exist or wasn't somehow the savior.  I was never drawn towards atheism or religion outside of Christianity.  It's interesting you picked up on that. 

Guilty as charged. 

:0)

--Erik

I am sorry I have not replies sooner

I think that in my past because I have actually doubted everything including Christ's existence, it has enabled me to get down to the basic basic level on religion- what it is, if it is good or bad to believe, why we need it or don't need it.

I have questioned the Bible and read other scriptures - or I should say volumes seen as scripture by their followers- and found them all frankly to be pretty much the same.  Long parables and stories, lists of commandments, ways of thinking about religious subjects- really all pretty much the same.  I have questioned why it is that if you are born in certain areas of the world you accept certain volumes as scripture without thinking about it and alternately if you are born elsewhere you will have other "scriptures"  taken unquestioned.

At first it was a great discovery to me- "What?  Don't these silly people KNOW there are other 'scriptures' that other people take unquestioned just as they take theirs unquestioned??"

So I gave up on all scripture and assumed they were all fables.

Philosophically I found the idea that you said you kind of liked, of God "entering human history" - the idea of an anthropomorphic God- appealing too.

Some philosophers say we make God in our image while others say that we are made in God's image.

At first I honestly did not know how to differentiate sides in that question and I wondered if it mattered- what seemed to me important is that we BELIEVED ourselves to actually BE in God's image or that God was a human of some kind at some time in history or whatever.   It just seemed natural to have reverence for or even worship a God who in some sense was like me.

Through Pragmatism I found that knowing "reality as it is" is a difficult proposition.  I believe that it is a fact that the sun has not blown up- but the "reality" is that we won't know if it has for at least 8 minutes from right now whenever you read this.  Yet for the next 8 minutes or so we all will continue, with no idea that the earth - and we- are about to vanish and be vaporized. 

When people believed the earth was flat- for all PRACTICAL purposes it was unquestioned and so in a sense it was "true".  You didn't want to sail your boat too close too the edge or who knows what might happen.  When the sun goes down it goes down under the edge of the world and pops back up on the other side!   Clearly by direct observation, it goes under the horizon and comes up on the other side of the world.  Direct, empirical observation!!  Perfectly good science, right??   So what causes this???   Clearly it is some bright firey object- perhaps a golden chariot driven by God which goes beneath the earth and resurrects in 24 hours right?

Well that was one theory.

But the point is that reality IS appearance until we found out something that contradicts what the appearance was.  But if you never question the appearance, it becomes "Absolute Truth"- but then you find that truth itself keeps changing.

So now we have two principles- it seems right and good to believe in a God who is like a human and two- what we think is true keeps changing.

So IF there is a God and he has a message for us- two big "IF's"-  how would he communicate with us?  If it was an important message like "You better believe X or you are all going to burn in hell forever"  he would want that word to get out to all humans in some sort of natural way.  All humans, not a chosen few.

Every

single

person who ever lived!   I mean we have to postulate that some God worthy of worship is good and fair or else we have a lot more problems.  If God is a demon, it's all over anyway so who cares, right?

So then how come different parts of the world believe in different scriptures?  I was kind of partial to the Zoroastrian Avesta because it was older than Christianity, it was a lot like the New Testament, it paralleled Judaism and people even thought that Judaisim and Christianity came out of the cult or Mithras which was based on Persian religions.   And weren't the three magi Persian Wise men?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

So who then were 'prophets' if everyone had their own alleged prophet?   Surely there were people closer to God than me, but if God had a message for ME why would he tell someone else??

I mean if he wants to tell me I will burn in hell forever if I do not believe X- surely he has a way to tell ME personally- I mean which of all the thousands of alleged "holy men" who have lived is THE ONE or several- I should follow??

So Mormonism.  1) "Ask God if it is true and he will manifest the truth to you"   2) "God is our Father, His Son came to earth to redeem us, and we can become like Them because they are Perfect Humans"   3)  "Yeah we have prophets who are more or less like us but closer to God and give us good advice, but you better get your own testimony"

So the Bible is religiously "true" as long as the prophets got it right- and who is to test that?  Me by testimony. 

Give me an old guy with a beard or God Himself telling me what to do and I will pick the latter every time.

Works for me.    Great operating theory until something proves to me the world is different than I see it,  but that is not likely.

That is MY Mormonism in a nutshell.   The usual response is "But Mormons don't believe that....".   Yes they do!   I am a Mormon and I believe that and no one has busted me for it in 38 years mostly in leadership positions. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 10/27/2017 at 10:13 AM, bluebell said:

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying.  Why would following the paths of historians require a giant infallible faith?  

Because when Born Again Christians claim that Bible is "infallible", that requires "infallible" faith. The Bible is far from infallible.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Because when Born Again Christians claim that Bible is "infallible", that requires "infallible" faith. The Bible is far from infallible.

So you weren't talking about history, but about the claim of infallibility.  That makes more sense.

[MosiahFree]

On 10/24/2017 at 3:50 PM, mfbukowski said:

Well I guess you are right. I used to be a student of Marcuse and Angela Davis

 

I seem to recall you also studied in David Lewis and Robert Solomon as well, do I have that right?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

 

I seem to recall you also studied in David Lewis and Robert Solomon as well, do I have that right?

I studied Marcuse through my professor Angela Davis who was finishing up her Phd with Marcuse at UC San Diego while teaching at UCLA and Lewis and Solomon were also my professors there.   Solomon was an amazing teacher with his Nietzsche mustache- he was quite short but filled the room, strutting back and forth with a lot of energy explaining the Categorical Imperative or the Synthetic Apriori.   I went back east for grad school to CUNY to study with John McDermott,  on William James.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McDermott_(philosopher)

The UCLA department was just a powerhouse during that period with Kalish and Montague and Alonzo Church shuffling like a bear to his office.   Can you imagine Alonzo Church and Angela Davis  and David Lewis in the same sweater every day- all there at the same time with offices within a hundred feet of each other?   It was a pretty incredible time!

Amazing that those names mean enough to anyone here to remember them- thanks for asking!!

[Five Solas]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

So you acknowledge that there is a problem then, one that is not new?   If there is disagreement between the two, then there is error in one or the other, or both.  The New Testament writers would have recognized this, yet they still made use of both, despite the error - kind of like us Mormons are suggesting.  No one is suggesting that we get "hung up" about it.  Mormon's still make excellent use of the Bible.

Perhaps "problem" was too strong a word.  When we see an inconsistency - we tend to equate it to a problem.  There's a good write-up on the Septuagint in Wikipedia, and includes New Testament references where it is used vs. the Hebrew or Masoretic text.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use.  Certainly the existence of multiple Old Testament texts containing variances wasn't a problem for God. 

:0)

But I do find it more than a little ironic you think LDS have this figured out and thereby make "excellent use" of the Bible.  We host a small group/bible study for our church.  I encourage folks to use the translation they are most comfortable with, whether it's "word for word" or "thought for thought," whether it's translated for a ~ 6th grade reading level (e.g., the NIV), or something much more (e.g., the NASB).  And there's a wide rage of good options.  And when a passage is read aloud, I always ask the reader to state the version or translation.  And far from bogging down the discussion over variant wording - I've found the opposite, that using multiple translations tends to illuminate the text.  And if nothing else, it gives us some appreciation for the translation process and the story of The Bible in English (which I highly recommend to anyone on this thread, btw.)

Now pogi, can you imaging bringing a modern English bible translation into an LDS Gospel Doctrine class and using it to read aloud and for study?  No you can't, can you?  In fact, you and other LDS are likely to reply by giving me all the reasons you think this would be a bad idea.  And that, my friend, is why your post is ironic. 

--Erik

_________________________________________

My death waits like an old roue
So confident I'll go his way
Whistle to him and the passing time

--David Bowie, 1995

[Five Solas]

On 11/6/2017 at 1:37 AM, Meerkat said:

...

But for most doctrines, there is enough redundancy I can see how a reasonable person could view it as a complete entity shaped by God.  

Well then, color me reasonable, Meerkat.

:0)

--Erik

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps "problem" was too strong a word.  When we see an inconsistency - we tend to equate it to a problem.  There's a good write-up on the Septuagint in Wikipedia, and includes New Testament references where it is used vs. the Hebrew or Masoretic text.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use.  Certainly the existence of multiple Old Testament texts containing variances wasn't a problem for God. 

:0)

But I do find it more than a little ironic you think LDS have this figured out and thereby make "excellent use" of the Bible.  We host a small group/bible study for our church.  I encourage folks to use the translation they are most comfortable with, whether it's "word for word" or "thought for thought," whether it's translated for a ~ 6th grade reading level (e.g., the NIV), or something much more (e.g., the NASB).  And there's a wide rage of good options.  And when a passage is read aloud, I always ask the reader to state the version or translation.  And far from bogging down the discussion over variant wording - I've found the opposite, that using multiple translations tends to illuminate the text.  And if nothing else, it gives us some appreciation for the translation process and the story of The Bible in English (which I highly recommend to anyone on this thread, btw.)

Now pogi, can you imaging bringing a modern English bible translation into an LDS Gospel Doctrine class and using it to read aloud and for study?  No you can't, can you?  In fact, you and other LDS are likely to reply by giving me all the reasons you think this would be a bad idea.  And that, my friend, is why your post is ironic. 

--Erik

It would only be ironic if studying the Bible using different interpretations is the only way to make excellent use of the Bible, or if such study was discouraged by the Church (it really isn't).  While most LDS hold the KJV to be the most correct interpretation, we don't necessarily discourage study from other versions.  I personally frequently make use of biblehub.com, which I agree, can be enlightening in many ways to compare the different translations.  I don't see anything wrong with that, and have taught in my Young Men's quorums using biblehub.com to help the YM get a better understanding of what a passage might be saying.  But it is also a good example of how conflicting some interpretations are and how they can give very different meanings to passages depending on which version we accept as most accurate. 

The difference, from my perspective, is that any inconsistency or variance from that which was really said is a problem.  The corrupt human tongue itself is a problem.  Fallible human comprehension is a problem.  If we were to rely solely on the inconsistencies of the written word (with no objective way of knowing which version is more accurate - we don't even have the original words of Christ in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic to compare against) and our inconsistent human comprehension, then we have a HUGE problem in understanding what God really said and meant.  These are human problems, but you are right, they are not problems for God.  They are not problems without a solution.  So when I say that "excellent" use of the Bible can still be made, I am not speaking of the Bible (and their various versions) as a stand alone tool.  If scholars cannot even agree, how is the lay person supposed know which understanding/interpretation of the word is most accurate?  To rely solely on the Bible is a proven recipe for conflicting understanding.  The Bible is a problem, but in God's mercy he gave us a solution.  

A previous post I made might help clarify my position:

Quote

 

The Bible is only a catalyst to the Word, it is not the pure word of God (which can only be written on the fleshy tablets of the heart).  The Word of God cannot be captured or preserved with pen or paper.  The Bible is man's version of God's word.  It is only an approximation - a symbol of something divine, which words cannot capture.  Man's language is corrupt, God's word is undefiled by man's tongue.  It is not of this world.  The Bible has value, not because it is perfect and contains God's preserved word, but because it is a seed, which if nurtured will result in the fruit of the living Word of God in our hearts.

With the word written in our hearts, we become the "epistle of Christ...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart (2 Corinthians 3:3)."

Where do we find the epistles of Christ which have been preserved from generation to generation in their purity, untouched by man's corrupt tongue and imperfect interpretations?  The Bible?  No, no, no...the pure Word of God can only be experienced in our hearts as we become the epistles of Christ.  

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by pogi

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

We host a small group/bible study for our church.  I encourage folks to use the translation they are most comfortable with, whether it's "word for word" or "thought for thought," whether it's translated for a ~ 6th grade reading level (e.g., the NIV), or something much more (e.g., the NASB).  And there's a wide rage of good options.  And when a passage is read aloud, I always ask the reader to state the version or translation. 

But which Bible do you use?  And why?  (Not which translation, which Bible)

Edited November 7, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Meerkat]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:30 AM, mfbukowski said:

So then how come different parts of the world believe in different scriptures?  I was kind of partial to the Zoroastrian Avesta because it was older than Christianity, it was a lot like the New Testament, it paralleled Judaism and people even thought that Judaisim and Christianity came out of the cult or Mithras which was based on Persian religions.   And weren't the three magi Persian Wise men?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Isn't it interesting, the progression we make in pursuit of truth.  I was also partial to Zoroaster.  Then I found Emanuel Swedenborg.  His teachings resonated with me, and some still do.  Truth can be found in so many different areas.  This is what I love about the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I have embraced in the LDS Church:                                
            "5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
            6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh..." 2 Nephi 32

I believe that.  It is the Holy Ghost that opens up a world of truth wherever we can find it.  I love the Catholics and their charity.  Their hospitals, their homeless outreach, their Catholic Community Services, their Sisters of Charity, Saint Vincent de Paul, etc.  I feel the Savior's love and influence in all of that.  Same for the Seventh Day Adventists.  I love the fellowship I feel with the church of my youth, the Lutherans.  They didn't preach Christ much.  But they taught the Commandments in a way that made me want to live in righteousness.  It was the perfect preparation for me to embrace the LDS faith. 

I think there's more we have in common with each other than keeps us apart.  That said, it's interesting here how we focus on our differences.  Take our 8th Article of Faith, for example: 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

The greater part of the first sentence, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God..."  seems to get lost as we focus on the less important second half of the sentence.  One might take from some comments on this thread that Mormons don't believe the Bible is the word of God. 

Sometimes, when I think of my friends in other faiths, I feel inklings of who they are and the good that they do.  I believe that is the Holy Ghost intimating God's divine approval of them.  I like focusing on their good.  It makes me feel good, and like we are true friends.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Isn't it interesting, the progression we make in pursuit of truth.  I was also partial to Zoroaster.  Then I found Emanuel Swedenborg.  His teachings resonated with me, and some still do.  Truth can be found in so many different areas.  This is what I love about the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I have embraced in the LDS Church:                                
            "5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
            6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh..." 2 Nephi 32

I believe that.  It is the Holy Ghost that opens up a world of truth wherever we can find it.  I love the Catholics and their charity.  Their hospitals, their homeless outreach, their Catholic Community Services, their Sisters of Charity, Saint Vincent de Paul, etc.  I feel the Savior's love and influence in all of that.  Same for the Seventh Day Adventists.  I love the fellowship I feel with the church of my youth, the Lutherans.  They didn't preach Christ much.  But they taught the Commandments in a way that made me want to live in righteousness.  It was the perfect preparation for me to embrace the LDS faith. 

I think there's more we have in common with each other than keeps us apart.  That said, it's interesting here how we focus on our differences.  Take our 8th Article of Faith, for example: 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

The greater part of the first sentence, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God..."  seems to get lost as we focus on the less important second half of the sentence.  One might take from some comments on this thread that Mormons don't believe the Bible is the word of God. 

Sometimes, when I think of my friends in other faiths, I feel inklings of who they are and the good that they do.  I believe that is the Holy Ghost intimating God's divine approval of them.  I like focusing on their good.  It makes me feel good, and like we are true friends.

Great stuff! Yes I love Swedenborg as well an could have easily joined the New Church, but I love our Social Godhead and the concept that God is a family, which I don't think fits well with their theology. Maybe I'm wrong and by their standards I am actually a member of their church and simultaneously Mormon. Who knows?

William James family was linked to the New Church but James himself believed that polytheism was the way to go. It's really odd when you study James how close he is to our beliefs.

As I understand it they're only criteria for membership is that one believes as they believe, and of course that all comes down to interpretation. But I could never give up the temple, and I would never leave the our church with it's Social Godhead.

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[MosiahFree]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Amazing that those names mean enough to anyone here to remember them- thanks for asking!!

Sounds like a heck of a time to have been there. You also mentioned in another post this thing called the "Social Godhead", what is that? I did a quick Google search but the results didn't turn anything relevant up. 

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, MosiahFree said:

Sounds like a heck of a time to have been there. You also mentioned in another post this thing called the "Social Godhead", what is that? I did a quick Google search but the results didn't turn anything relevant up. 

I'm not sure of the post you're referring to, but I have heard LDS beliefs of the Godhead referred to as "social Trinitarianism", in that we believe that the Father/Son/Spirit are 3 person in 1 God via social unity, rather than substance unity (as in traditional creedal Trinitarianism).