Why argue the bible is infallible?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour 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. 

Yes Jane Doe hit it on the money- you didn't find anything because I just made it up in that post as a proxy for "Social Trinity"

We have no "trinity" tied together with some undefinable and imo nonsensical "substance",  but we have a Godhead which I think of as the Family Named "God".  Father, Son and Holy Ghost and/or Heavenly Mother and actually all of us as "embryos" or little caterpillars waiting to turn into butterflies. 

"The host of Heaven"- and who are those beings?  All part of the family, all as one, praising God and saying "Glory to God" - we are easily reminded of those words in this season particularly.

Is there "One God"?  Of course but the term refers to a FAMILY.  We can think of it as one family named "God" in perfect spiritual contact acting and thinking as one, if we need an explanation for the mechanics which is of course still a metaphor since knowing what is "really happening" in this interaction is impossible for we embryos to figure out in our silly little languages.

In fact there is a new Interpreter article that I have not yet had time to read fully about exactly this point.   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-divine-council-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

David Bokovoy has written extensively on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYmVB0AdeZs

And for the Social Trinity there is loads of information but - it cannot be a "trinity" in the conventional sense because the idea of "consubstantiability" cannot be made coherent.  So I just forget about even using the word- it just confuses the matter.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trinitarianism

"Substance" cannot be made coherent because it is simply a word made up to explain what unifies the three persons of the trinity.   It is a "virtus dormitiva" - a logical fallacy that refers to a play in which  a Doctor is asked to explain why it is that opium induces sleep.   His answer?   "By it's sleep inducing properties"

Obviously that explains nothing just as "consubstantial" explains nothing.   It is the same basic concept used in the idea of "transubstantiation".   How does bread become the Body of Christ?  By "transubstantiation" of course.  The substance changes while the appearances remain the same.

That explanation does not hold up well in contemporary philosophy

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

"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."

Actually this has happened in classes that I have been in and if I have my phone, I love to use BibleHub or Gateway to study variations.  If I ever get back to teaching and reference the Bible, I will definitely be using other translations besides the KJV.

Iirc, different versions have been used in Conference.

[Five Solas]

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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

It's an odd question, Jane_Doe.  There are multiple translations (which you are taking off the table) and there are multiple Bible canons (e.g., the Jewish Tanakh only includes the 39 books Christians consider the Old Testament).  And we've discussed the books beyond these 39 + the 27 that make up the New Testament, those being of lesser authority, Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha (recall our exchanges on page 17).

So it feels like we've beat this up pretty good.  You could ask me what Bible translation I use.  You could ask me what books I consider canonical.  Those questions would make sense and I could quickly & happily provide you my answers.  But which Bible, apart from translation and canon?  I honestly don't understand your meaning.  How would you answer your own question? 

--Erik 

_________________________________________________

I'd like to drop my trousers to the queen
Every sensible child will know what this means
The poor and the needy
Are selfish and greedy on her terms

--The Smiths "Nowhere Fast"

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"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."

Actually this has happened in classes that I have been in and if I have my phone, I love to use BibleHub or Gateway to study variations.  If I ever get back to teaching and reference the Bible, I will definitely be using other translations besides the KJV.

Iirc, different versions have been used in Conference.

Kudos to you, Calm.  I noticed in his reply, pogi carefully steered around the question of using a modern translation aloud in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.  Have you actually done this yourself--read aloud from a contemporary Bible translation in class?  And if so--what was the translation you used?  And what was the reaction? 

Once upon a time, I brought my copy of the "Precise Parallel New Testament" to my GD class (see my post mfbukowski replied to for more of my history with that book).  We were on the story of the "Widow's Mite" at the end of Mark 12.  The KJV reads, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."  The bishop's wife was in the class and she spoke up that this was an example of agency - that "want" meant the widow wanted to, that she chose to do it.  It was an affirmation of an important LDS doctrine. 

And with the benefit of contemporary translations in my hand--I replied that this was not accurate, that "want" simply meant poverty. 

As I not infrequently found in Mormonism (which seemingly values conformity above all else)--being right isn't necessarily a blessing, it can be a curse.  And as a side note, I think it actually serves the LDS Church's purpose to have a 400 year-old English prose Bible translation that members sometimes fail to understand.  As my GD example illustrated, confusion can be your friend, and clarity--your enemy. 

I was told not to do it again. 

But this was early in the last decade.  Am I to believe things have really changed that much?  Do you think I should pay a visit and check it out for myself, PPNT in hand?

:0)

--Erik

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Kudos to you, Calm.  I noticed in his reply, pogi carefully steered around the question of using a modern translation aloud in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.  Have you actually done this yourself--read aloud from a contemporary Bible translation in class?  And if so--what was the translation you used?  And what was the reaction? 

Once upon a time, I brought my copy of the "Precise Parallel New Testament" to my GD class (see my post mfbukowski replied to for more of my history with that book).  We were on the story of the "Widow's Mite" at the end of Mark 12.  The KJV reads, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."  The bishop's wife was in the class and she spoke up that this was an example of agency - that "want" meant the widow wanted to, that she chose to do it.  It was an affirmation of an important LDS doctrine. 

And with the benefit of contemporary translations in my hand--I replied that this was not accurate, that "want" simply meant poverty. 

As I not infrequently found in Mormonism (which seemingly values conformity above all else)--being right isn't necessarily a blessing, it can be a curse.  And as a side note, I think it actually serves the LDS Church's purpose to have a 400 year-old English prose Bible translation that members sometimes fail to understand.  As my GD example illustrated, confusion can be your friend, and clarity--your enemy. 

I was told not to do it again. 

But this was early in the last decade.  Am I to believe things have really changed that much?  Do you think I should pay a visit and check it out for myself, PPNT in hand?

:0)

--Erik

No, there has been no possibility as I just started to take my phone to church because of my mother needing to call.  I don't get to class frequently these days and I don't remember any time it would have been useful outside of my own personal interest. Prior to the last year or two, I was in the library and only got regularly to RS which was using the Teachings of the President series, My experiences have been spread out here and there over the past 35 years or so.  I started using alternate translations when my Institute teachers introduced them to me (first was Isaiah, I still have that required text on my shelf, that Institute teacher read as much or more from the alternate text than the KJV...not at home right now or I would give the author's name).

So my experience was the teachers who did it or who handed out scripts of paper with quotes/scriptures to be read by class members.

 I suspect it depends on the teacher.  Even in the same ward, we have one teacher that sticks to the manual and another who does a power point presentation with lots of additional info, including alternate readings.

"The bishop's wife was in the class and she spoke up that this was an example of agency - that "want" meant the widow wanted to, that she chose to do it.  It was an affirmation of an important LDS doctrine."

I have never heard of this interpretation.  It has always been taught to me that it meant poverty.  It would never even occur to me that it had to do with agency.  Nor can I find anything on LDS.org that suggests this   The footnote in Mark links to a verse that speaks of poverty.  And of course Luke in the KJV substitutes " penury" for "want".

I have found that corrections offered as alternatives rather than as challenges are seen as acceptable by other class members and teachers (even if they may at times move the class on to the next point quickly).  While I have not done it very often (haven't needed to), I have never been scolded, instructed, or even frowned at when offering my varying commentary.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Calm

[Jane_Doe]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

there are multiple Bible canons (e.g., the Jewish Tanakh only includes the 39 books Christians consider the Old Testament).  And we've discussed the books beyond these 39 + the 27 that make up the New Testament, those being of lesser authority, Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha (recall our exchanges on page 17).

Different Christian groups use different Bibles.  Catholics regard all 73 of books as being the word of God.  Some Protestants disagree and say the word of God is only 66 books.  And there are a bunch of other opinions and Bibles too.  They are not merely different translations, but are different Bibles containing different content.

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

So it feels like we've beat this up pretty good.  You could ask me what Bible translation I use.  You could ask me what books I consider canonical.  Those questions would make sense and I could quickly & happily provide you my answers.  But which Bible, apart from translation and canon?  I honestly don't understand your meaning.  How would you answer your own question? 

Breaking this down super simple yes-or-no questions*:

1.  Do you believe the Catholic 73 Bible to be the word of God?

1.a If yes, why have you abandoned it by going to a 66 book Bible?

1.b If no, then to me the logical result would be you believe the Catholic Bible has works of men added to it, and is hence corrupt.  Is that accurate to your beliefs?

2.  Why do you believe thus for answer to #1?

*My purpose here in breaking them down to yes-or-no questions is to give you a simply framework to work in.  If you feel a answer is not yes-or-no, this isn't meant to box you in at all.  Also, there's nothing special about the Catholic Bible particularly here, I'm just using it as an example.

[Jane_Doe]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Kudos to you, Calm.  I noticed in his reply, pogi carefully steered around the question of using a modern translation aloud in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.  Have you actually done this yourself--read aloud from a contemporary Bible translation in class?  And if so--what was the translation you used?  And what was the reaction? 

I have seen this done, no one particularly cared.   I don't recall the particular translation used, it wasn't a big deal.  I own like 6 different translations myself.  I use KJV because I'm a huge fan of it on so many levels.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Kudos to you, Calm.  I noticed in his reply, pogi carefully steered around the question of using a modern translation aloud in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.  Have you actually done this yourself--read aloud from a contemporary Bible translation in class?  And if so--what was the translation you used?  And what was the reaction? 

Once upon a time, I brought my copy of the "Precise Parallel New Testament" to my GD class (see my post mfbukowski replied to for more of my history with that book).  We were on the story of the "Widow's Mite" at the end of Mark 12.  The KJV reads, "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."  The bishop's wife was in the class and she spoke up that this was an example of agency - that "want" meant the widow wanted to, that she chose to do it.  It was an affirmation of an important LDS doctrine. 

And with the benefit of contemporary translations in my hand--I replied that this was not accurate, that "want" simply meant poverty. 

As I not infrequently found in Mormonism (which seemingly values conformity above all else)--being right isn't necessarily a blessing, it can be a curse.  And as a side note, I think it actually serves the LDS Church's purpose to have a 400 year-old English prose Bible translation that members sometimes fail to understand.  As my GD example illustrated, confusion can be your friend, and clarity--your enemy. 

I was told not to do it again. 

But this was early in the last decade.  Am I to believe things have really changed that much?  Do you think I should pay a visit and check it out for myself, PPNT in hand?

:0)

--Erik

To me that was a totally bizarre interpretation by the bishop's wife- it had never crossed my mind that that could be a possible interpretation, for what that's worth.  Obviously the whole point of the parable was that the widow was virtually "penniless" and yet gave all she had.   It sounds like the bishop's wife had never even heard the parable at all and rested her whole interpretation on ONE meaning of the word "want".

I have used parallel translations in classes and shown how they could be used to amplify our understanding of the KJV but have always made emphasis on the fact that we believe the bible to be "true insofar as it is translated correctly" and the best translation may not even exist, but all can be used to help us understand the original intent, but we will probably never get there due to presentism, scientism and just the vast cultural changes.

I have never ever had a problem with that approach in that context.   If you are argumentative in any way or treat people as if they are "ignorant" for not using a "better" translation, or if that is your underlying attitude of course you will have problems- but that is just human communication of subtle nuances of your tone, etc

There should be NO problem with using other translations in so far as they are done in this manner.

We already accept that the bible is NOT "translated correctly" so I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would get flak for suggesting what is already doctrinal.  There must have been something else going on here, perhaps not even something you said, but some unknown other factors with the bishop's wife.   It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am not a fan of the Articles of Faith because they leave out so much of our faith- but this statement is even in the A of F so it is VERY basic and well-known doctrine that the bible is NOT translated correctly in many cases.   The whole Joseph Smith "translation" referenced again and again in the LDS edition of the scriptures make that totally obvious.

Yeah if you want to come to my ward let me know and I will be glad to make my point while you make yours- whatever that is. 

Really I cannot imagine why this would cause a problem.

Edited November 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's an odd question, Jane_Doe.  There are multiple translations (which you are taking off the table) and there are multiple Bible canons (e.g., the Jewish Tanakh only includes the 39 books Christians consider the Old Testament).  And we've discussed the books beyond these 39 + the 27 that make up the New Testament, those being of lesser authority, Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha (recall our exchanges on page 17).

So it feels like we've beat this up pretty good.  You could ask me what Bible translation I use.  You could ask me what books I consider canonical.  Those questions would make sense and I could quickly & happily provide you my answers.  But which Bible, apart from translation and canon?  I honestly don't understand your meaning.  How would you answer your own question? 

--Erik 

_________________________________________________

I'd like to drop my trousers to the queen
Every sensible child will know what this means
The poor and the needy
Are selfish and greedy on her terms

--The Smiths "Nowhere Fast"

https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml#which

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I have found that corrections offered as alternatives rather than as challenges are seen as acceptable by other class members and teachers (even if they may at times move the class on to the next point quickly).  While I have not done it very often (haven't needed to), I have never been scolded, instructed, or even frowned at when offering my varying commentary.

I would have no problem bringing up the Articles of Faith at this point and spending some time on it.  No need to move on quickly in my opinion, but my stake already knows I am "the philosopher".

But they still let me give talks to all the wards in the stake as a member of the HC. 

CA vs Utah?  I dunno

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I noticed in his reply, pogi carefully steered around the question of using a modern translation aloud in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class. 

I didn't feel that I avoided the question at all.  You asked me if I could imagine a modern translation being used in GD class.  I answered that the church doesn't really discourage use of other translations for study (in other words, it wouldn't really be a big deal), and that I myself have used other versions in teaching at church.  I thought that answer was abundantly clear that, yes, I could imagine someone using a modern translation in GD class (as other people have witnessed).  The Church simply prefers the KJV as the most accurate version, that is why it is mostly used.  But it would not be a scandal to use another version in GD, as you seem to insist.  There may be one or two old-schoolers who might object, but it would be no big deal.  

My main point (that you have been noticeably silent on) is that the most effective use and study of the Bible requires more than the Bible itself.  To rely solely on the Bible, and its many translations, doesn't really remove all barriers (problems) to understand what a passage might be saying, or if it is accurate to the original manuscript (which we don't have).  There is no objective way to compare it against the original, or to use the Bible as an independent tool and determine which interpretation (not just translation, but interpretation) of a particular passage might be the most accurate understanding.  It is IMPOSSIBLE...and that is a problem.

If we only had another testaments to compare against!  More words of Christ to reconcile with!  Modern revelations! That might help our intellectual understanding of what a Bible passage might be trying to say.  On top of that, if we seek divine guidance and understanding via the Holy Spirit to have the word written on our hearts, wouldn't that be more effective than simply comparing different translations of the Bible?

Now, if a person had access to and utilized all of those extra-Biblical tools, wouldn't that be more effective?

Here is what the Church has said about it:

Quote

 

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-on-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible?lang=eng

 

 

[MosiahFree]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes Jane Doe hit it on the money- you didn't find anything because I just made it up in that post as a proxy for "Social Trinity"

 

Ah, thank you! This is fascinating stuff.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, MosiahFree said:

 

Ah, thank you! This is fascinating stuff.

Happy to help   Let us know if you have any other questions.

[MosiahFree]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's an odd question, Jane_Doe.  There are multiple translations (which you are taking off the table) and there are multiple Bible canons (e.g., the Jewish Tanakh only includes the 39 books Christians consider the Old Testament).  And we've discussed the books beyond these 39 + the 27 that make up the New Testament, those being of lesser authority, Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha (recall our exchanges on page 17).

So it feels like we've beat this up pretty good.  You could ask me what Bible translation I use.  You could ask me what books I consider canonical.  Those questions would make sense and I could quickly & happily provide you my answers.  But which Bible, apart from translation and canon?  I honestly don't understand your meaning.  How would you answer your own question? 

--Erik 

In my ward, the question often asked (when it comes to the New Testament) is, "Which Greek text is your vorlage?" In the picture attached are the different Greek texts that have made appearances in my Gospel Doctrines Class. From bottom to top: Nestle-Aland text, Wescott and Hort, Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the USB Greek New Testament (same as the Nestle-Aland text, but different textual variations in the apparatus). I just assumed most Protestant Sunday school classes cover this as well, but perhaps I'm mistaken?   

[MosiahFree]

I've yet to find a church as cerebral as the Latter Day Saints, but I am biased

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, MosiahFree said:

I've yet to find a church as cerebral as the Latter Day Saints, but I am biased

Agreed, but everybody else thinks we are dummies!  They hear "golden plates" and the brain turns off instantly.

Hey- it's a religion and you take it on faith- true but when you think about it what don't you take on faith?  Every moral principle you believe you take on faith!  Ready to give up morality?

And I know someone will read that and say "But atheists are moral!!"  

Yes that is exactly the point.   They have beliefs they take on faith.  And the more liberal they are the more they take on faith.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!     I want evidence and the evidence I have for religion is exactly the same as their evidence for morality.   Killing people is disgusting?  Yep.  How do you know??  "I feel it deep inside me- all this killing going on is just plain WRONG!"

Would peace in your heart make you happy?

"Yep".

Welcome to religion.     We call it the Plan of Happiness! 

And THAT is straight William James, his philosophical "ancestors" and "descendants".  AND it is also straight Alma 32.

http://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/

Edited November 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Different Christian groups use different Bibles.  Catholics regard all 73 of books as being the word of God.  Some Protestants disagree and say the word of God is only 66 books.  And there are a bunch of other opinions and Bibles too.  They are not merely different translations, but are different Bibles containing different content.

Breaking this down super simple yes-or-no questions*:

1.  Do you believe the Catholic 73 Bible to be the word of God?

1.a If yes, why have you abandoned it by going to a 66 book Bible?

1.b If no, then to me the logical result would be you believe the Catholic Bible has works of men added to it, and is hence corrupt.  Is that accurate to your beliefs?

2.  Why do you believe thus for answer to #1?

*My purpose here in breaking them down to yes-or-no questions is to give you a simply framework to work in.  If you feel a answer is not yes-or-no, this isn't meant to box you in at all.  Also, there's nothing special about the Catholic Bible particularly here, I'm just using it as an example.

You're conflating two different things here, Jane_Doe.  And I suspect this has contributed to a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful back & forth on previous pages. 

The Bible just means "the books."  A collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be the product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans (I'm taking this straight from wikipedia, btw).

What you are actually referring to is not "which Bible"--but which Bible canon.  And there are a number of those.  In the Jewish tradition, the Bible canon includes the 39 books of the Old Testament.  The 27 books of the New Testament are excluded.  In the Protestant tradition (to which I subscribe), it's the 39 books plus the 27 for a total of 66 books.  The Roman Catholic tradition includes those plus additional books and the Orthodox tradition typically includes the Roman Catholic ones plus several more besides (albeit all beyond the 66 are qualified as lesser authority, "Deuterocanonical").  Worth noting most Protestant translations, including the KJV and the Geneva, included the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals and a some of the Othodox ones as well as part of the "Apocrypha."  Their inclusion began to be dropped in the 19th century largely to reduce printing costs and thereby make the Bible more accessible.  

So how am I to answer your question1?  Shall I divide 66 by 73 and give you the quotient?  That would be nonsense, right?  If some Orthodox traditions include 4 Maccabees in the Bible, does that negate everything else therein?  Again, that would be nonsense, right?  And yet this is what your question implies. 

I asked you before and you appear to have missed it--so I'll ask you again:  How would you have answered your own question? 

--Erik 

______________________________________________________

You have the right to free speech
As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it

--The Clash "Know Your Rights"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You're conflating two different things here, Jane_Doe.  And I suspect this has contributed to a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful back & forth on previous pages. 

The Bible just means "the books."  A collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be the product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans (I'm taking this straight from wikipedia, btw).

What you are actually referring to is not "which Bible"--but which Bible canon.  And there are a number of those.  In the Jewish tradition, the Bible canon includes the 39 books of the Old Testament.  The 27 books of the New Testament are excluded.  In the Protestant tradition (to which I subscribe), it's the 39 books plus the 27 for a total of 66 books.  The Roman Catholic tradition includes those plus additional books and the Orthodox tradition typically includes the Roman Catholic ones plus several more besides (albeit all beyond the 66 are qualified as lesser authority, "Deuterocanonical").  Worth noting most Protestant translations, including the KJV and the Geneva, included the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals and a some of the Othodox ones as well as part of the "Apocrypha."  Their inclusion began to be dropped in the 19th century largely to reduce printing costs and thereby make the Bible more accessible.  

So how am I to answer your question1?  Shall I divide 66 by 73 and give you the quotient?  That would be nonsense, right?  If some Orthodox traditions include 4 Maccabees in the Bible, does that negate everything else therein?  Again, that would be nonsense, right?  And yet this is what your question implies. 

I asked you before and you appear to have missed it--so I'll ask you again:  How would you have answered your own question? 

--Erik 

______________________________________________________

You have the right to free speech
As long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it

--The Clash "Know Your Rights"

Cheesh you make this tough.

The Protestant Canon.

Did we really have to go through that to get those three words?

[Five Solas]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Cheesh you make this tough.

The Protestant Canon.

Did we really have to go through that to get those three words?

To be sure, but that's not what she asked, mfbukowski.  Your answer doesn't fit her "framework" any better than mine.  Neither one of us has answered her Question 1 along the lines she had in mind.  But it's not the answer that's the problem--as I've now labored to demonstrate, and seemingly to no avail. 

I think I've gone about as far as I can with this one. 

;0)

--Erik

[Jane_Doe]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You're conflating two different things here, Jane_Doe.  And I suspect this has contributed to a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful back & forth on previous pages. 

The Bible just means "the books."  A collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be the product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans (I'm taking this straight from wikipedia, btw).

What you are actually referring to is not "which Bible"--but which Bible canon.  And there are a number of those.  In the Jewish tradition, the Bible canon includes the 39 books of the Old Testament.  The 27 books of the New Testament are excluded.  In the Protestant tradition (to which I subscribe), it's the 39 books plus the 27 for a total of 66 books.  The Roman Catholic tradition includes those plus additional books and the Orthodox tradition typically includes the Roman Catholic ones plus several more besides (albeit all beyond the 66 are qualified as lesser authority, "Deuterocanonical").  Worth noting most Protestant translations, including the KJV and the Geneva, included the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonicals and a some of the Othodox ones as well as part of the "Apocrypha."  Their inclusion began to be dropped in the 19th century largely to reduce printing costs and thereby make the Bible more accessible.  

So how am I to answer your question1?  Shall I divide 66 by 73 and give you the quotient?  That would be nonsense, right?  If some Orthodox traditions include 4 Maccabees in the Bible, does that negate everything else therein?  Again, that would be nonsense, right?  And yet this is what your question implies.  

*Bangs head on table in pure frustration* 

This is a total non-answer!  You're literally calling the question "what's in the Bible" nonsense--  as a sola scriptura person!!

I don't know why such a fundamental question as "dear sola scriptura person, what scripture do you use and why" is so difficult to get an answer for. 

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I asked you before and you appear to have missed it--so I'll ask you again:  How would you have answered your own question? 

1) I'm not sola scriptura or a Biblical infallible person, so this question doesn't apply to me.  2) Yes, I have investigated that thorough, 3) Right now I want to hear about your beliefs here.

[Jane_Doe]

55 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure, but that's not what she asked, mfbukowski.  Your answer doesn't fit her "framework" any better than mine.  Neither one of us has answered her Question 1 along the lines she had in mind.  But it's not the answer that's the problem--as I've now labored to demonstrate, and seemingly to no avail. 

Five Solas, mfbukowski is echoing the question I asked.  It's a super basic one, and your lack of an answer is being VERY frustrating.  I'm not interested in word game debates.  

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[stemelbow]

After reskimming through this thread, to answer the question posed in the title of this thread:  Because it's an easy thing to assume and is just as worthy of half the other things we humans argue about.  Might as well.  No one actually believes it's infallible, so what harm does it cause?

[Jane_Doe]

23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Five Solas, mfbukowski is echoing the question I asked.  It's a super basic one, and your lack of an answer is being VERY frustrating.  I'm not interested in word game debates.  

An example answer phrasing:

"I, Five Solas, believe _______  to be the word of God.  ______ is not the word of God, but the work of men.  Bible which include _____ are corrupt in that they have added to the word of God.  As a sola scriptura person I believe that the Bible is the only source of authority and the Bible tells me which books should be included here: ____________".

(Again, the point of example phrasing is to convey what I'm looking for here, not to box you into it).  

 

I'm REALLY not trying to be difficult here and REALLY do want to understand you.  I am growing frustrated though.      Whenever you give a "it doesn't matter which book are in the Bible" answer it gives me the impression that you don't care/know which books are the word of God--  a definition which seems like it would be foundational to a sola scriptura person.  Whenever you go down a history lesson, it gives me the impression that you're taking authority from tradition/history instead of scripture--- which is a fine answer from someone (like a Catholic) that believes Tradition is authoritative, but seems completely contradictory to the sola scriptura view point.  I know you're not dumb (obviously) and you faith is well thought out, which is why I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Calm]

On 2017-11-08 at 12:21 PM, mfbukowski said:

To me that was a totally bizarre interpretation by the bishop's wife- it had never crossed my mind that that could be a possible interpretation, for what that's worth.  Obviously the whole point of the parable was that the widow was virtually "penniless" and yet gave all she had.   It sounds like the bishop's wife had never even heard the parable at all and rested her whole interpretation on ONE meaning of the word "want"

My mom might make a pun of "want" to "liken" it if she was teaching about it, given her fondness for word play, but she would never insist that the pun leading us to think of tithes and offerings as conscious desires was the original meaning, rather it would be something to help her focus on what she needed for personal growth.

I wonder if the bishop's wife was trying to do something like that, but wasn't clear about what she meant.  If so, it is possible the offense was taken because they saw Solas as being too rigid, not because he used alternate translation to demonstrate meaning.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Calm

[MosiahFree]

I was just consulting J.N.D. Kelly's authoritative "Early Christian Doctrines" and I'm starting to come around to Dr.Bukowski's idea that Neoplatonism has a hand in the apostasy taking place after the Apostles ended their earthly duties.