The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But again internal to the body not necessarily the mind. That's more or less what I'm getting at. Internal/external are somewhat problematic terms when put in physicalist terms.

To the first part all I'm saying is that the perspective on the objects we encounter shouldn't be separated from the object. To draw an analogy suppose you fall asleep driving and hit a tree. Now we can't talk about your perspective on the tree at all. But we don't want to say you haven't hit the tree. Now you may object and say it's the perspective of the person making that claim, which is fine. But that's not an objection to talking about reference and relation. Ultimately all I'm saying is that we can talk about relations between objects that seem logically prior to talking about perspectives. The counterpoint (that I assume Mark would make although I don't want to guess his position since I've got it wrong before) would be that to talk about the object we have a perspective with first requires a perspective. So there's a chicken/egg problem. My rejoinder would be we can abstract from our encounters with objects the general idea of objects and relations. Once you have that inductively arrived at the rest follows logically.

Quote

 

 To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."

 

  Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

I do not understand what this means: 

Quote

Ultimately all I'm saying is that we can talk about relations between objects that seem logically prior to talking about perspectives.

It's all talk, so how is anything prior to anything else?

You only think it is "prior" because- sorry- you are still locked into the idea that what we perceive is "objects" which we then "abstract" into experience.  Pure Cartesianism!

Talk about x is "logically prior" to talk about y?  Why would that be?  What gives one sentence priority over another sentence?  Talking about objects is talk which still comes from a point of view.  One cannot talk about objects WITHOUT a point of view.  If there is any priority it would seem to me to be point of view.

So chicken/egg? Not even close! 

This is a quote from my Kant professor's book explaining Kant's synthetic a priori.  I endorse this view of Kant and agree with it.

Robert Solomon, From Rationalism to Existentialism: the Existentialists and their Nineteenth Century Backgrounds (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 18.

And of course the Phenomenologists and Pragmatists as well.  And with Wittgenstein thrown into that classification, we also include ordinary language analysts.  That's about everybody- every important school of late 20th century philosophy!

There can be no "unsynthesized" experiences of any "thing".

Clark said this:

Quote

My rejoinder would be we can abstract from our encounters with objects the general idea of objects and relations. Once you have that inductively arrived at the rest follows logically.

The problem of course is that we NEVER "ENCOUNTER" OBJECTS!  Only perceptions of objects!

There is nothing to "abstract" from objects because we never encounter them!!   We "experience" what we CONCLUDE are "objects" which our experiences have synthesized!

Rorty's way of saying it is "the world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not... The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot (be said to be out there)

- the words in the parenthesis are mine.

Bob Solomon was a pretty amazing guy incidentally and I am proud to include him as one of my friends and mentors.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon

Edited April 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FormerLDS]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the question, yes.

I do not understand the third sentence, what that has to do with FAIR or "creating a new post".

You are making excuses- just answer the question.

And the answer better include how you know you are "saved" by archaeology if it includes mixing archaeology with spiritual matters.  Facts don't save people- the Lord does that and the only way to know it is not based on logic.

You can't even show God exists much less writes books using scientific evidence.   If you could, every scientist would be "saved" if that can be proved by reason and science.

So what's the answer?

From the moment I became an investigator, I started believing the the LDS view that the Bible, while not inferior to other scriptures, required additional revelation to get clarification regarding plain and precious truths that were (supposedly) taken away.

My realization of the authenticity, reliability and credibility in the Bible came more from a slow and steady realization of doctrinal concerns and issues stemming from what I believed as a Latter-day Saint, than from just studying the Bible.

It was the words of Jesus Christ in the Book of John that opened my eyes to the truth.  There were no confirmational feelings or other supernatural experiences involved.  I was an obedient (best of my ability), moral, every time the doors were opened, Latter-day Saint member of good standing, but the the question of my eternal life troubled me very greatly - more than anyone else.  The words of Jesus Christ seemed to invade my soul.  I remember feelings of panic and even despair because I knew that I was not perfect.  Even at my best, I'm still sinful, not doing all that I could do - not obey the commandments, and I knew this.

"Why would Heavenly Father even consider me for His gift of eternal life?"  WHY?  I knew that I am but dust and ashes in His sight and completely unworthy.  To make my condition worse, I felt a sense of apathy toward the concept of perfection in my church because "Heavenly Father will forgive us".  The reality gripping my heart and soul was one of eternal judgement awaiting me.  

I remember reading John 6:47 "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life".  It was as if Jesus Christ Himself were offering me something that I needed, but I didn't take because I didn't worthy of having.  It wasn't until I allowed Jesus Christ to give me eternal life as a free gift - just take it right now - that I could see for the first time.  His gift didn't have anything whatsoever to do with my own personal worthiness!  I had it completely backwards.  Emotional distress gone forever, praise His name.  The road was so simple and narrow that I walked right by it!

You want to know how I know the Bible is the true, perfect, living word of God?  I can only tell you that the words of Jesus Christ have given me something that I never had before as a Latter-day Saint.  I have eternal life.  

Since then, Jesus Christ lives within me.  I now see clearly that all of those claims about the Bible - they are completely baseless claims made by those who really do not believe the words of Jesus Christ (even though outwardly they may claim to). 

The Word of God in the Bible has never once been disproven as false or corrupted.  Everything the atheists, agnostics, skeptics and unbelievers throw at the Bible is circumstantial because the Word of God doesn't make sense to them.      

[FormerLDS]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So precisely what changed that FEELING so you FELT something else?

Clearly you no longer feel that, right, or are you going against your present feelings, keeping that original feeling and now going on pure logic without feeling?

That latter explanation would have to be it for the rest of your position to be consistent.  It is not about feeling, therefore the feeling changed or it did not.  If it did not, you no longer accept the BOM but feel the same about it because of logic?

OR perhaps you are no longer LDS but some other sect that accepts the BOM?

Very confusing.

The only thing that changed is how I define the source of those confirmational feelings.

[FormerLDS]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

18 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Perhaps you should examine your own heart and consider the very rhetorical question asked in Jeremiah 17:9 "Who can know it?"

This is likely a mistranslation, as the Septuagint reads something entirely different.

Bible:

Quote

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Septuagint:

Quote

The heart is deep beyond all things, and it is the man, and who can know him?

The Septuagint seems to make much more sense in the context of the greater Bible. The heart is the man for all intents and purposes, as "everything we do flows from it".   "Who can know the man?"  It is clear that we may not know ourselves as well as we think we do.  Most people are unawares of the inner workings of the heart.  They give it no attention.  But within the heart, there is much to be aware of.  There is that which is precious, and that which is worthless.  It is up to the observer (you) to go in and "extract the precious from the worthless" (Jer 15:19).   Who can know the man/heart?  This speaks to the judgments of man, where man judges the outward appearances, but God judges the heart - the man.    Again, consider the following verse, "above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Proverbs 4:23).  Why should we guard our heart above "all else", if it is of no spiritual consequence?  "Everything you do flows from it"  If the contents of your heart are unknowable to yourself, then who is in control if everything you do flows from your heart?  You say that you believe because the Bible tells you to, but that is not what the Bible says.  It says that you believe because your heart tells you to - not only belief comes from the heart - but every other spiritual manifestation in your life comes from the heart.  It is the spiritual center.

Just because someone creates their own version of the Bible (i.e. Jefferson Bible) does NOT mean truth has been corrupted from the face of the earth.

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Please, just think about this for a moment:

How would it impact your beliefs IF Jeremiah 17:9 was not mistranslated and accurately reflects what God wants you to know about your own heart?

[FormerLDS]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

18 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.  And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

Did a feeling in their heart open their eyes to the truth, or not?

Again, the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

 No, you have it backwards.  It was opening their spiritual eyes that caused them to be aware of Christ in their hearts.  This is spelled out in the parable of the sower.  The word of God is compared to a seed.  Where is it sown?  You guessed it...our hearts!  But we cannot see it/understand it/know it until we allow our spiritual eyes to gaze inward on our hearts.  "He who has eyes to see, let him see...that he might understand with his heart and be healed."  Only then can our hearts be healed to understanding and knowledge of God.  The word of God is in our hearts!  It says this over and over and over directly and in parable throughout scripture.  You need to open your spiritual eyes and look inward to your heart - that is where the seed is sown my friend.

Were their eyes opened to the truth when they felt the burning within their hearts?

What does the word of God plainly say?

[pogi]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But again internal to the body not necessarily the mind. That's more or less what I'm getting at. Internal/external are somewhat problematic terms when put in physicalist terms.

I am still confused about your claim.  If all experience happens internally in the mind, what trace of an external object can reach internally to my mind, while still being an external object? If an external object is now internal to my mind, does that object then become me?  Or is it still an external object?  I always presumed that everything internal is me, and everything external is not me.  If this is not the case, then where do I end and the outside world begin?

Let's presume you are correct.  Even if we can directly experience "small traces" of external objects, as you say, aren't we still left to fill in the gaps with our own interpretation to figure out what the whole object is?  Therefore our experience of the object (as a whole) is still not really what the object is.  An object is a whole thing, and not traces.  If we are only experiencing tiny traces, then we are not really experiencing the object as it is, but as we perceive it. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Just because someone creates their own version of the Bible (i.e. Jefferson Bible) does NOT mean truth has been corrupted from the face of the earth.

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Please, just think about this for a moment:

How would it impact your beliefs IF Jeremiah 17:9 was not mistranslated and accurately reflects what God wants you to know about your own heart?

Do you even know what the Septuagint is?  Are you seriously comparing the Septuagint to the Jefferson Bible?

Quote

 Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32). 

Corrupt eh?

Quote

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Where does the Bible tell me which version to use?

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

From the moment I became an investigator, I started believing the the LDS view that the Bible, while not inferior to other scriptures, required additional revelation to get clarification regarding plain and precious truths that were (supposedly) taken away.

My realization of the authenticity, reliability and credibility in the Bible came more from a slow and steady realization of doctrinal concerns and issues stemming from what I believed as a Latter-day Saint, than from just studying the Bible.

It was the words of Jesus Christ in the Book of John that opened my eyes to the truth.  There were no confirmational feelings or other supernatural experiences involved.  I was an obedient (best of my ability), moral, every time the doors were opened, Latter-day Saint member of good standing, but the the question of my eternal life troubled me very greatly - more than anyone else.  The words of Jesus Christ seemed to invade my soul.  I remember feelings of panic and even despair because I knew that I was not perfect.  Even at my best, I'm still sinful, not doing all that I could do - not obey the commandments, and I knew this.

"Why would Heavenly Father even consider me for His gift of eternal life?"  WHY?  I knew that I am but dust and ashes in His sight and completely unworthy.  To make my condition worse, I felt a sense of apathy toward the concept of perfection in my church because "Heavenly Father will forgive us".  The reality gripping my heart and soul was one of eternal judgement awaiting me.  

I remember reading John 6:47 "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life".  It was as if Jesus Christ Himself were offering me something that I needed, but I didn't take because I didn't worthy of having.  It wasn't until I allowed Jesus Christ to give me eternal life as a free gift - just take it right now - that I could see for the first time.  His gift didn't have anything whatsoever to do with my own personal worthiness!  I had it completely backwards.  Emotional distress gone forever, praise His name.  The road was so simple and narrow that I walked right by it!

You want to know how I know the Bible is the true, perfect, living word of God?  I can only tell you that the words of Jesus Christ have given me something that I never had before as a Latter-day Saint.  I have eternal life.  

Since then, Jesus Christ lives within me.  I now see clearly that all of those claims about the Bible - they are completely baseless claims made by those who really do not believe the words of Jesus Christ (even though outwardly they may claim to). 

The Word of God in the Bible has never once been disproven as false or corrupted.  Everything the atheists, agnostics, skeptics and unbelievers throw at the Bible is circumstantial because the Word of God doesn't make sense to them.      

Full of feelings.

Thanks, that's my point.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

The only thing that changed is how I define the source of those confirmational feelings.

Feelings again and intellectual justification of a "source".

Just pointing it out, same as LDS.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Were their eyes opened to the truth when they felt the burning within their hearts?

What does the word of God plainly say?

Read the parable of the sower.  Spiritual eyes are simply the gateway to the heart where the word of God is planted. 

Quote

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.  And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

In this passage, they did not fully understand the burning in their heart until they pursued it further.  Had they not followed their heart promptings/impressions, their spiritual eyes would have never been opened to a more full comprehension of just what it was they were feeling.  When their spiritual eyes were opened, they had a more clear view of their heart.  It was no longer just a "feeling", t became an understanding.  They perceived of the seed (word of God) in the soil of the heart begin to grow. 

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Just because someone creates their own version of the Bible (i.e. Jefferson Bible) does NOT mean truth has been corrupted from the face of the earth.

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Please, just think about this for a moment:

How would it impact your beliefs IF Jeremiah 17:9 was not mistranslated and accurately reflects what God wants you to know about your own heart?

Do you even know what the Septuagint is?  Are you seriously comparing the Septuagint to the Jefferson Bible?

Quote

 Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32). 

Corrupt eh?

Quote

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Where does the Bible tell me which version to use?

While I don't claim to be an expert on the Septuagint, I'm sure it's safe to say that "scholars" such as Archer and Chirichigno are perfectly entitled to their opinions.

One could just as easily claim that neither Jesus Christ nor any of the New Testament Apostles used the Septuagint and I'm sure there are "scholars" out there that would agree.

Eventually, you're going to realize that you've got nothing.

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Full of feelings.

Thanks, that's my point.

You have some really, really great observations friend.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

While I don't claim to be an expert on the Septuagint, I'm sure it's safe to say that "scholars" such as Archer and Chirichigno are perfectly entitled to their opinions.

One could just as easily claim that neither Jesus Christ nor any of the New Testament Apostles used the Septuagint and I'm sure there are "scholars" out there that would agree.

Eventually, you're going to realize that you've got nothing.

You never answered my question.  Which version of the Bible does the Bible tell me I should use?  Do you see how ridiculous this all is?

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

While I don't claim to be an expert on the Septuagint, I'm sure it's safe to say that "scholars" such as Archer and Chirichigno are perfectly entitled to their opinions.

One could just as easily claim that neither Jesus Christ nor any of the New Testament Apostles used the Septuagint and I'm sure there are "scholars" out there that would agree.

Eventually, you're going to realize that you've got nothing.

Interesting that when scientists, archaeologist, and Biblical scholars agree with you it is absolute truth and fact, but when they disagree with you it is just "opinion".  How do you know who to believe?  If you are "sure" the Septuagint is not referenced in the New Testament, then I am going to need references from Biblical scholars from you with an explanation as to why their opinion is better than the popular consensus.  CFR.  

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

6 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

The words of Jesus Christ seemed to invade my soul.  I remember feelings of panic and even despair because I knew that I was not perfect.  Even at my best, I'm still sinful, not doing all that I could do - not obey the commandments, and I knew this.

"Why would Heavenly Father even consider me for His gift of eternal life?"  WHY?  I knew that I am but dust and ashes in His sight and completely unworthy.  To make my condition worse, I felt a sense of apathy toward the concept of perfection in my church because "Heavenly Father will forgive us".  The reality gripping my heart and soul was one of eternal judgement awaiting me.  

I remember reading John 6:47 "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life".  It was as if Jesus Christ Himself were offering me something that I needed, but I didn't take because I didn't worthy of having.  It wasn't until I allowed Jesus Christ to give me eternal life as a free gift - just take it right now - that I could see for the first time.  His gift didn't have anything whatsoever to do with my own personal worthiness!  I had it completely backwards.  Emotional distress gone forever, praise His name.  The road was so simple and narrow that I walked right by it!

Dang!  Have you ever considered that it wan't Mormonism itself that messed you up so much, but your faulty version/perspective of Mormonism?  I don't relate to this despair and panic laced perfectionism that you speak of in Mormonism - no fear of eternal judgment mixed with apathy.  Clearly, you did not believe in the same Mormonism that I espouse. 

There is some telling information that you divulge here though.  First, I totally understand why you embrace the truth that you espouse.  One cannot live in such a state of despair/panic without making serious changes.  By simply changing your belief, your heart was released from the grip of despair an panic of and eternal judgment and found spiritual peace and satiation.  That is spiritual progress!  I don't blame you for leaving your messed up beliefs behind.  They were messed up indeed.    

You followed your heart and found peace.  Good for you. 

Question.  Had you not been freed from this "emotional distress" - had it not "disappeared forever" - had you not found emotional relief and satiation, would you have believed that you were saved?  Or would you have continued looking for something to relieve your feelings?

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[FormerLDS]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You never answered my question.  Which version of the Bible does the Bible tell me I should use?  Do you see how ridiculous this all is?

You're smart enough to figure it out.  I can tell you this with certainty - the atheists, agnostics, skeptics and unbelievers despise the King James Bible more than any other.

If Satan hates something, that should give you some idea.

[FormerLDS]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Interesting that when scientists, archaeologist, and Biblical scholars agree with you it is absolute truth and fact, but when they disagree with you it is just "opinion".  How do you know who to believe?  If you are "sure" the Septuagint is not referenced in the New Testament, then I am going to need references from Biblical scholars from you with an explanation as to why their opinion is better than the popular consensus.  CFR.  

Right.  And I'm going to need for you to give me a way to test if Moroni's promise is actually God's test for truth.

So you see, we both rest upon the same fundamental ingredient.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

So you see, we both rest upon the same fundamental ingredient.

Yep, our feelings. 

[FormerLDS]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Dang!  Have you ever considered that it wan't Mormonism itself that messed you up so much, but your faulty version/perspective of Mormonism?  I don't relate to this despair and panic laced perfectionism that you speak of in Mormonism - no fear of eternal judgment mixed with apathy.  Clearly, you did not believe in the same Mormonism that I espouse. 

There is some telling information that you divulge here though.  First, I totally understand why you embrace the truth that you espouse.  One cannot live in such a state of despair/panic without making serious changes.  By simply changing your belief, your heart was released from the grip of despair and panic of and eternal judgment and found spiritual peace and satiation.  That is spiritual progress!  I don't blame you for leaving your messed up beliefs behind.  They were messed up indeed.    

You followed your heart and found peace.  Good for you. 

Question.  Had you not been freed from this "emotional distress" - had it not "disappeared forever" - had you not found emotional relief and satiation, would you have believed that you were saved?  Or would you have continued looking for something to relieve your feelings?

I've spoken with thousands of Latter-day Saints on a personal level, and I've never met a single one yet who didn't struggle with the concept of personal perfection on some level.

Most just don't admit to it - especially to other members.  

The truth of the matter is, whether you'll admit to it or not, you're not doing what you say you should be doing.  You're not perfect.  

You were born into a congregation that handed you a list of do's and don'ts, but you've never yet been faced with reality.  You are nowhere even near perfect.

You have "Jesus Christ" written in stone on every single one of your churches, but you do not have His most fundamental of gift - the door prize he gives to those who believe and become His sheep.

Edited April 26, 2018 by FormerLDS

[FormerLDS]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, our feelings. 

No, reading or hearing and choosing to believe that which you read or heard.

[pogi]

Quote

I've spoken with thousands of Latter-day Saints on a personal level, and I've never met a single one yet who didn't struggle with the concept of personal perfection on some level.

You have personally psychoanalyzed "thousands" of Mormons and diagnosed them all with perfectionism?  Do you have any credentials?  Or, are you projecting your deluded Mormon views/experiences onto others?

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

The truth of the matter is, whether you'll admit to it or not, you're not doing what you say you should be doing.  You're not perfect.  

I never said I should be perfect in mortality.  I don't aspire to perfection in this life.  Nor is it taught in Mormonism that perfection is close to possible in this life.  Perfection is a process which includes falling down and getting back up.  Would you expect an infant to never fall?  We are all spiritual infants. We progress by falling and getting back up. 

You seem to avoid more then half of my questions.  I asked:

Quote

Question.  Had you not been freed from this "emotional distress" - had it not "disappeared forever" - had you not found emotional relief and satiation, would you have believed that you were saved?  Or would you have continued looking for something to relieve your feelings?

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

No, reading or hearing and choosing to believe that which you read or heard.

Choosing to believe based on what?  If spiritual teachings cause you feelings of "panic", "despair" and "emotional distress", are you going to believe that they are true spiritual teachings?  Nope.  That is why you are no longer Mormon.  Because of your feelings.   Had you felt spiritual satiation, peace, and fulfillment, you would never have left Mormonism. 

[MormonMason]

14 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Just because someone creates their own version of the Bible (i.e. Jefferson Bible) does NOT mean truth has been corrupted from the face of the earth.

Super easy fix: toss the Septuagint and other corrupt variations of God's Word in the garbage can.

Please, just think about this for a moment:

How would it impact your beliefs IF Jeremiah 17:9 was not mistranslated and accurately reflects what God wants you to know about your own heart?

The majority of quotes from the Old Testament the Bible in the New Testament are from some version of the Septuagint!  How easy do you think this will be easy to fix? Even the Hebrew was corrupted by scribes.  Sometimes the scribes talked about the changes that were made.  Sometimes scribes added their own notations in the margins.  Anyone who has seen the manuscripts for themselves, as I have, knows this to be true.  I found some interesting examples in a book recently published.  Minor changes for some of them but others are more substantive.  These are found on pages 183-186 of D. Charles Pyle's I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text.  There's some Old Testament stuff mentioned in the book to set the stage for some of the New Testament stuff.  I've seen some of the same things in other books, too, that substantiates what Pyle wrote.

Some words of Jeremiah 17:9 in the original Hebrew are subject to more than one meaning.  The translators of the Septuagint saw the meaning of the Hebrew differently back then than people do today.  They also did not have the vowel pointing, the accenting, or the cantillation, we now have to help us figure out the meaning.  We have no way of knowing which translation is right but I'm usually inclined to lean toward the older translators and texts more than more modern translators and texts unless I have a really, really good reason not to.

But that's where the scribes introduced some slight of hand.  Some words they just stripped out because it conflicted with their later developed theology.  Elsewhere they just altered the accents and vowels to change the meanings.  There is a discussion of how punctuation can make a difference in the same book I cited.  He is discussing Deut. 6:4, how anti-Mormons misuse it, and why.  I'll quote the punctuation part.

Quote

Within the various Hebrew texts are what are referred to in Hebrew Grammars as Conjunctive accents and Disjunctive accents. The former mark tone-syllables on Hebrew words, and also show that words in particular clauses are to be joined together in reading. The latter work differently. They not only mark tone-syllables—but not always; some do not mark the tone-syllables at all—they also function roughly like our English punctuation to divide the clauses of a sentence into sense units, by inserting pauses and stops between them.

But sometimes even slight modifications of punctuation can alter the meaning of an entire sentence dramatically, if not used carefully. For example, consider the following English sentences derived from an example often used in discussions of usage of punctuation in books, in classrooms, as well as on the Internet. We present the English words “woman without her man is nothing” below in two alternative arrangements of punctuation, to better set up the senses of these words in the following sentences for the purpose of comparison.

Woman, without her man, is nothing.
Woman; without her, man is nothing.

See how the intended sense of the meaning can be altered by simple changing and repositioning of the punctuation? Much like punctuation in English sentences can alter the meanings of certain English phrases, the same also can occur when one ignores the various Conjunctive and Disjunctive accents in a number of Hebrew passages in the Bible, including this one.

(Pyle 2018, 144-145)

Some texts we read today differ drastically from what was read yesterday.  That's a fact.  Contrary to popular opinion the texts that underlay the King James Version were among the corrupted texts.

Plus, a lot of the King James Version ain't translated from Greek or Hebrew.  A lot of it's just lines of English translation lifted from another English translation of the Latin or some other languages.  Most of the King James Version matches up with Tyndale, lifted from Tyndale.  About 83-84% of the words of the text in the New Testament and 76% in the Old Testament are from Tyndale, according to two recent publications (Nielson and Skousen 1998; Tadmor 2010).  Tyndale tried to go back to the Hebrew and Greek but he relied on corrupt texts that were available.  The rest of the King James Version matches up with English translations of Latin translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts.  Some of Tyndale was based on the Latin and not either Greek or Hebrew.  Where do you think "Calvary" came from? Right out of the Latin.  You'll see much of the text's the same as Tyndale, though differing at one point.

King James Version (1769):

Quote

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

King James Version (1611):

Quote

And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

Tyndale's Version:

Quote

And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary there they crucified him and the evyll doers one on ryght honde and the other on the lefte.

Tyndale didn't always stick with the Hebrew and Greek texts he saw (like a lot of people claim, falsely).  "Calvary" derives from the Latin Vulgate.

Edited April 27, 2018 by MormonMason

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

I am still confused about your claim.  If all experience happens internally in the mind, what trace of an external object can reach internally to my mind, while still being an external object? If an external object is now internal to my mind, does that object then become me?  Or is it still an external object?  I always presumed that everything internal is me, and everything external is not me.  If this is not the case, then where do I end and the outside world begin?

I reject the model that makes a break between mind and world. In that Mark and I are in agreement. This position is usually called externalism. I'm also quite distrustful of theories that equate mind to consciousness, brain or nervous system. I just don't think that works. It seems an arbitrary boundary.

So your confusion is because you're trying to fit my criticisms into a more traditional view of mind. But it's precisely that Cartesian inspired view that I'm opposing.

10 hours ago, pogi said:

 Even if we can directly experience "small traces" of external objects, as you say, aren't we still left to fill in the gaps with our own interpretation to figure out what the whole object is?  Therefore our experience of the object (as a whole) is still not really what the object is

Yes. I've never claimed we know things in their totality. Merely that the objects are given to us in experience. In the phenomena they are given to us in what we might say is errancy. So I'm most definitely not saying there's infallibility. I've been arguing quite the opposite. Just that there's not a divide between the mind and objects. 

 

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's all talk, so how is anything prior to anything else?

You only think it is "prior" because- sorry- you are still locked into the idea that what we perceive is "objects" which we then "abstract" into experience.  Pure Cartesianism!

Talk about x is "logically prior" to talk about y?  Why would that be?  What gives one sentence priority over another sentence?  Talking about objects is talk which still comes from a point of view.  One cannot talk about objects WITHOUT a point of view.  If there is any priority it would seem to me to be point of view.

First I'd say I reject Rorty's tendency to reduce things to talk. (I'm sure how universal this is to his thought) I'd be more than happy to reduce things to signs but not talk. Linguistics is just too limited here. 

So my rejoinder would be to say that objects are themselves signs. So it's signs all the way down which I think avoids Rorty's objection which hinges on a gap between "things" and language. If it's all signs then that objection disappears and avoids the human-centric analysis which I think causes Rorty problems.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Right.  And I'm going to need for you to give me a way to test if Moroni's promise is actually God's test for truth.

So you see, we both rest upon the same fundamental ingredient.

Ah, no that does not work since you have received your answer in the same way- in your heart.

THAT was the whole point of this exercise.

It's feelings against feelings, it has nothing to do with logic or evidence. 

What that shows is that God speaks to all of us individually to find the path to come back to Him.   LDS did not work for you- ok fine, no problem.  Your conception of what the LDS church is is nothing like mine- and others have pointed that out.  I would suggest you listen to that and understand that your authoritarian and perfectionistic view of the church is NOT the church we haave experienced- but after all  I have only been a member 40 years now and been in leadership virtually all that time.

So you go your way based on feelings and we will go our way based on feelings.  God is smart enough to tutor us in the method that works for us.  It's kind of like tutoring math- one way might work for some, something else for others.

I suppose your authoritarian self will  not see  that, but that is  the way I see it.