bluebell Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 44 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Thank you. I wonder if we have similar for the book fo Mormon? Any teachings found in it that you find problematic? I'm not sure of many teachings in the bible that are considered to be in error; most of the errors that i've seen pointed out in the bible are due to copyist error or caused by incomplete manuscripts that translators were working with. The BOM is unique in that it doesn't have to deal with those kinds of errors to the same degree. While there are no doubt errors present, they would be more difficult for us to notice. It's an interesting question though and maybe someone will have a compilation that they can share. 1
bluebell Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I doubt you'll find many LDS disagreeing with that for one. But again, I don't know that squares well with how infallible is used to describe the Bible. But I'm tired of arguing it (well really I'm about to lose my ability to respond). I just don't see a difference with infallibility, as many Christians describe the Bible, and the way LDS typically venerate the BoM. It's less about getting each detail in the writings perfect and more about getting the teachings correct, as I understand infallibility. Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility This does not require the any pronouncement describing another people has to be completely and wholly true. It depends on who you are talking to. Some protestants equate infallibility and inerrancy and others don't. For those that don't, you're probably correct, but i think this thread's discussion has been more dealing with those who believe that biblical infallibility includes inerrancy, which means that the bible is error free. That's why you are getting some of the responses that you are.
JLHPROF Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: There are plenty of errors in the Bible. SEE http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php I can't speak for most LDS, but I've never felt the BoM was infallible. SEE Title Page of Book of Mormon 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. I agree with this. I am a little more confident in the Doctrine and Covenants than any other book of scripture.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, pogi said: I am speaking of Mosiah 10:12 specifically. Are those words inspired by God or man? Same answer. Both. I'm fine with God inspiring a great many things including Mosiah's ideas about his mortal enemies the Lamanites. I'm also fine with Mosiah's getting it wrong from the Lamanites point of view.
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? I can't buy infallibility. I find the reasoning strained. But I dont' know that LDS typically view scripture much differently than their brothers and sisters who accept the notion of infallibility. I'm guessing some LDS here have parts of the BoM that they find problematic in terms of teaching and doctrine. But I doubt most active LDS have such a view. I think the problem is more "wrong interpretation" - I would just say that I disagree with someone's interpretation of what the bible says I have no problem actually with the bible or even reading it as inerrant - AS I SEE "INERRANT" So for me Christ is the Word- meaning the message of the gospel coming to us through the words of men- because he himself is a human. Clearly in Genesis God does not "create" he "names" or "calls" things into existence. There is no death before the fall because there can be no word for "death" before we fall from an innocent pre-linguistic state- how can plants understand "death"? Extend that to animals. Do they contemplate if they survive "death"? Does each one know and fear his own death? Death as we know it could not exist before human language. So that is MY "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Bible which makes the bible therefore inerrant in my view. I even see what others call "symbolism" as a direct statement. "This is my body" could not possibly mean that bread is His body- it clearly means (to me) that his bodily human-ness is food for our spirits- to know Christ as the ideal human gives nutrition to my spirit to see myself in the same way. Pretty obvious to me. That's the only way it makes sense! So I just disagree with all the people who are obviously "wrong" in their interpretation. So no, I cannot tell you what is wrong with the Bible - but I can say a lot about the interpretations of people who misread it totally. Edited October 25, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
LittleNipper Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 20 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Well, that was a conversation on a fast track to nowhere. There is a vast difference between conversing about a given topic and showing up to tell everyone else how wrong they are based on a script and without any effort to engage. Debates are seldom without a victor.
LittleNipper Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have been trained in what are valid arguments and what are not valid arguments You may be totally correct that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God but this happens to be a bad argument for that position. Essentially your argument is "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is" Such an argument does not work at all for someone who does not already believe the Bible is infallible. It is what is called a "circular argument" or "begging the question" Any group of people could allege that any writing is the Word of God because the volume itself says it is, if the work is fictional or not. There are many historical novels which use "real" place names and even real events in telling a fictional story- perhaps about the civil war, etc. So though you may be right, the argument is not effective. All one needs to do is read the Bible and honestly ponder the arguments both pro & con, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is far superior to any other religious text ever written. 1
LittleNipper Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 8 hours ago, bluebell said: Why? Truth and pretence do not go hand in hand. They are diametrically opposed.
LittleNipper Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Which referred only to the book of Revelation and not the Bible as there was no Bible when those words were written. Revelation was written 50 years after Christ died and wasn't part of any Bible until 400 years after Christ died. And was apparently hotly debated as scripture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history And when did it become such? At what point did God declare "here is my Bible, it's done". Curious all those Christians that managed to be Christians for centuries without a Bible. Irenaeus (WHO DIED AD 202) identified the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" in the fourth gospel as being John, and drew the conclusion that John was the author of this gospel. At some point, either Irenaeus or another associated the Revelation to John of Patmos with John's Gospel because of the common name, thus preserving a book that might otherwise have been forgotten. Irenaeus, who did much to establish what should be included in the New Testament canon, considered Revelation to be authentic Edited October 25, 2017 by LittleNipper
bluebell Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: Truth and pretence do not go hand in hand. They are diametrically opposed. That only affects the bible if the person first believes that the bible must be inerrant to be true. If a person knows that the bible is not free from error and that God expects the person to use the Holy Ghost and other of His sources to understand the bible correctly, then there is no pretense in a flawed bible. 2
JLHPROF Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 26 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: Irenaeus (WHO DIED AD 202) identified the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" in the fourth gospel as being John, and drew the conclusion that John was the author of this gospel. At some point, either Irenaeus or another associated the Revelation to John of Patmos with John's Gospel because of the common name, thus preserving a book that might otherwise have been forgotten. Irenaeus, who did much to establish what should be included in the New Testament canon, considered Revelation to be authentic Doesn't change the fact that the words of John in Revelation apply only to Revelation as there was no Bible for centuries after it was written. And that still doesn't answer the question as to how the early Christians knew when the Bible was complete. They took a huge collection of documents, debated, picked, and ordered and assembled what we call the Bible today. How did they know when the Bible was complete? How did they know that nothing new would ever be able to be added? And how did they know nothing sacred was left out? Seriously, to hear some Christians you would think that the Bible as a assembled document containing ALL of God's word there could ever be and ONLY God's word had existed since Christ and the Apostles. And they can't all decide on which documents qualify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_biblical_canons Luther tried to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation Catholics add several books to their Old Testament that Protestants don't. I agree with you that Revelation belongs in scripture. But that has nothing to do with Biblical completeness or fallibility. 2
Storm Rider Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, LittleNipper said: All one needs to do is read the Bible and honestly ponder the arguments both pro & con, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is far superior to any other religious text ever written. I guess that all depends if one has read all the religious texts in the world. This is hardly the forum for debate and, frankly, I have never met a Evangelical or Protestant that could "win" in a discussion about the Bible.
Avatar4321 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have been trained in what are valid arguments and what are not valid arguments You may be totally correct that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God but this happens to be a bad argument for that position. Essentially your argument is "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is" Such an argument does not work at all for someone who does not already believe the Bible is infallible. It is what is called a "circular argument" or "begging the question" Any group of people could allege that any writing is the Word of God because the volume itself says it is, if the work is fictional or not. There are many historical novels which use "real" place names and even real events in telling a fictional story- perhaps about the civil war, etc. So though you may be right, the argument is not effective. This is precisely why Moroni's challenge is an amazing gift. It gives us a way to learn the Book of Mormon is true without using circular reasoning 2
Avatar4321 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Same answer. Both. I'm fine with God inspiring a great many things including Mosiah's ideas about his mortal enemies the Lamanites. I'm also fine with Mosiah's getting it wrong from the Lamanites point of view. But Mosiah wasn't the one writing there
Avatar4321 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, LittleNipper said: All one needs to do is read the Bible and honestly ponder the arguments both pro & con, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is far superior to any other religious text ever written. May be a topic for another thread, but what argument pro and con are you talking about?
The Nehor Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Doesn't change the fact that the words of John in Revelation apply only to Revelation as there was no Bible for centuries after it was written. And that still doesn't answer the question as to how the early Christians knew when the Bible was complete. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." -Deuteronomy 4:2 If anyone is going with the idea that statements like the one at the end of Revelation apply to the whole compiled book then they need to honor the first such command and become Torah-only fundamentalist Jews. I will wait while they burn their heretical crosses and put on their phylacteries. 4
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: This is precisely why Moroni's challenge is an amazing gift. It gives us a way to learn the Book of Mormon is true without using circular reasoning Yes and most who are uninformed on philosophical issues would not find that to be a "valid" argument- because there is no external evidence to objectively show the alleged "truth" of the statement is intellectually justifiable because it is a subjective experience. Yet in the context of religious statements, it has been show repeatedly even by atheists that such a notion of "truth" IS in fact intellectually justified on pragmatic grounds. The justification of religious experience was first explored by William James and then others like Rorty So even major atheist philosophers recognize that within a moral ethical and religious context, choosing action based on "feelings" is perfectly valid and "logical". Of course those philosophers are Pragmatists. What is anyone's scientific proof that killing millions of people is "wrong"? Yet what reasonable person would argue it is right? And what is that judgement based upon- "feelings"! It is just as valid in a religious context to believe it is wrong to kill millions of people as it is to take action on one's subjective feelings. That idea goes back to Hume in the 16 hundreds and has not been overthrown. Judgments about what we "ought" to do cannot be justified by statements about what "is" a state of the world- ie: empirical evidence. And so, yes, you are perfectly right. Alma 32 gets us straight out of the dilemma of the circular argument which catches Bible believers who state that the Bible is true because it says it is. We have independent validation for the Book of Mormon through our own testimony, as recognized even by major atheist philosophers in the case of morality. Why? Because what Alma teaches is pure Pragmatic philosophy. If it makes a positive difference in our lives, religious experience can be "true" Of course the irony is that we also believe the Bible is true ALSO by the same means- testimony. It is really odd to me that Evangelicals who themselves find that personal revelation is valid- they pray about important questions all the time to see what the Lord wants them to do- refuse to apply the same logic to justifying belief in the bible!! It is ok to know by the spirit that you are "saved" but not that the bible is true. It makes no sense to me! If they admitted that, they would have to admit the Book of Moron could be true scripture and so they will never admit that personal revelation can confirm scripture to be scripture. Edited October 26, 2017 by mfbukowski 3
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 6 hours ago, LittleNipper said: All one needs to do is read the Bible and honestly ponder the arguments both pro & con, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is far superior to any other religious text ever written. No it is not. There is just as much evidence for Zeus and the pantheon of ancient Greek Gods, and there is for El, and his proposed son Yeshua bar Yosef.
Gray Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 13 hours ago, LittleNipper said: All one needs to do is read the Bible and honestly ponder the arguments both pro & con, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is far superior to any other religious text ever written. How could this be anything other than personal opinion? 1
Five Solas Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 9 hours ago, stemelbow said: Consider: Quote 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility I like this definition, thank you, stemelbow. There's something intensely humbling in the New Testament, wherein men devote their lives to the Torah and the rest of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, the Scribes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees--and they get it wrong (e.g., John 5:39). All their learning, their sincerity, their high view of Scripture--for not. It certainly reveals the limit of our logic and argumentation. It points us to the necessity of the Holy Spirit. To paraphrase Calvin, it is the Spirit who produces saving faith and that faith finds as its object Christ promised in the Scriptures. Without the Spirit, one will find a thousand reasons to dismiss the Bible and/or twist its words to serve his or her own purposes. --Erik 3
LittleNipper Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 12 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I guess that all depends if one has read all the religious texts in the world. This is hardly the forum for debate and, frankly, I have never met a Evangelical or Protestant that could "win" in a discussion about the Bible. My educated guess "frankly" is that you don't discuss the Bible with many Evangelicals or Bible believing Christians... Some people would rather bury their head in their own doctrine.
LittleNipper Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: How could this be anything other than personal opinion? Easy! There are plenty of religious text out there and yet only the Bible has been at the center of disagreements, wars, historical studies, etc., etc., etc., for over 2000 years. No other text can claim that! Name one if you can! This would logically only be true if GOD was set on making HIS VERY WORD the witness to the world. It doesn't take rocket science to discern the obvious only an open heart seeking after GOD.
Storm Rider Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: My educated guess "frankly" is that you don't discuss the Bible with many Evangelicals or Bible believing Christians... Some people would rather bury their head in their own doctrine. Yup, that got me. A truly enlightened response. Living in the south growing up, having all my family in the south - good thing I never talked to any of my neighbors and certainly none of their preachers. I am also glad we never baptized that Assemblies of God preacher - that would have been trouble if anyone knew I taught him the gospel of Jesus Christ and he gained a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost. Yup, you are definitely in the know. I rest much easier knowing you are there. Cheers and Adieu
stemelbow Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: I like this definition, thank you, stemelbow. There's something intensely humbling in the New Testament, wherein men devote their lives to the Torah and the rest of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, the Scribes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees--and they get it wrong (e.g., John 5:39). All their learning, their sincerity, their high view of Scripture--for not. It certainly reveals the limit of our logic and argumentation. It points us to the necessity of the Holy Spirit. To paraphrase Calvin, it is the Spirit who produces saving faith and that faith finds as its object Christ promised in the Scriptures. Without the Spirit, one will find a thousand reasons to dismiss the Bible and/or twist its words to serve his or her own purposes. --Erik Thank you. I think that perfectly fits with how LDS view the BOM, particularly your last line. LDS often look down on the claim of infallibility regarding the Bible, but seem to turn around and hold the BoM as *infallible. *of course LDS don't use that word to describe it, though.
LittleNipper Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: No it is not. There is just as much evidence for Zeus and the pantheon of ancient Greek Gods, and there is for El, and his proposed son Yeshua bar Yosef. When/where was the last service devoted to Zeus you attended? Now remember, that the Pantheon in Rome was converted to a church and not the other way around.
Recommended Posts