Scripture Twisting

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I apologize, you took this completely differently than what I was thinking  

You were the one saying there has been scripture twisting.  All of us are saying, "Is it I?"  Since you are the one asking the question then that would put you in the position of Christ in the meme I posted (not Judas!)   But you are free to take your pick  

It is "offending" if there has been scripture twisting, and I didn't mean that in the sense that you personally are offended.

I think we do use every methodology available to us today, and there are so many resources these days, it's awesome.  What I like is that we can use tags and notes on our Gospel Library apps on our phones, and also on the church website.  It helps me keep track of impressions I get, and articles that I like to link to specific verses, and to cross reference them when relevant to do so.

I also have linked all the references from Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament, and vice versa, to help understand how New Testament writers understood and used Old Testament texts, and to alert me when I'm reading an Old Testament verse that is quoted elsewhere.  It's also helpful to see how the Old Testament (and New Testament) quotes itself.  

Well, I can't take my pick - I am neither Christ nor Judas! As I think about it, I must have used a very offensive term to you all without knowing it. In my culture, that of the Evangelical, we bust on each other all the time about being scripture twisters. It is like saying "You can do better than that" in forming a belief, opinion, or interpretation of the scriptures. It seems the use of the term here as been interpreted itself as accusing, criticizing, etc. You are the first LDS person to ever say to me "I think we do use every methodology available to us today." I agree, there are so many resources.

I think we would do so much better in understanding each other if we understood how we each form our beliefs and interpretations. However, when there is so little room for differing interpretations because there are salvific or loyalty-to-faith implications, that is hard. Anyway, thanks for your reply on the topic at hand. I appreciate it.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I find your repeated use of the word "accusation" to be objectionable.

That’s fine. I find it objectionable that you would make the blanket accusation of scripture twisting recently on this board, but then refuse to provide even a single example of what you are referring to. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not your critic. I am not your accuser.

If you are including me as one of the scripture twisters (and I have a strong suspicion that are), then yes you are accusing or criticizing my use of scriptures to defend my views. And you are welcome to do that. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect you to provide some examples and explain why you believe they constitute twisting scripture. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I will come and spend hours with you wherever you live if you want to get to know me better as a person, not as a caricature of your view of those who are not LDS.

I would be happy to spend time with you and get to know you better, but I must say that I find it troubling that you believe that I only view you as a “caricature my view of those who are not LDS.” I think this shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of my view of you. I view you as a unique individual who happens to not be LDS. I do not for a second view you as a caricature of all non-LDS people. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Send me a private message.

Perhaps a private conversation about our differences and misconceptions about each other would be helpful. As it seems clear to me that there’s some enmity between us that need not be there. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

51 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I think Grug thinks you might be talking about him.

Yes, I highly suspect that he considers me to be one of the scripture twisters. 

52 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Grug even seems uncomfortable with the possibly he isn't the scripture twister you are talking about.

I would just like him to come out and say who/what he is referring to. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If so, then how about discussing with me the way in which you study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning? No sarcasm there. I really want to know.

Oh my gosh.

In the cases of crucial texts, I study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning.  I read the interpretations of others, articles, including other Christian views etc.

AND then PRAY for revelation.

Plain English!

How could you NOT understand those words?  You are a total mystery to me, wrapped in an enigma.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

In the cases of crucial texts, I study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning.  I read the interpretations of others, articles, including other Christian views etc.

AND then PRAY for revelation.

Plain English!

How could you NOT understand those words?  You are a total mystery to me, wrapped in an enigma.

I have the Hebrew and Greek texts at hand, and I keep a room full of medieval monks in the basement of my house to help with the really difficult passages (and they're not that expensive to keep around since they're fasting most of the time, it's awesome).   

Edited April 8, 2023 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I have the Hebrew and Greek texts at hand, and I keep a room full of medieval monks in the basement of my house to help with the really difficult passages (and they're not that expensive to keep around since they're fasting most of the time, it's awesome).   

That is the best answer yet! As you said, Awesome!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

I would just like him to come out and say who/what he is referring to. 

I think you and I as opposite members of the spectrum are equally guilty on his list, as perhaps it should be. !  🧐  🤕

[Navidad]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

In the cases of crucial texts, I study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning.  I read the interpretations of others, articles, including other Christian views etc.

AND then PRAY for revelation.

Plain English!

How could you NOT understand those words?  You are a total mystery to me, wrapped in an enigma.

I understand those words! It is just that I have never read these words from your keyboard before - especially the "In the cases of crucial texts, I study a verse for hours prior to arriving at an interpretation of its meaning. I read the interpretations of others, articles, including other Christian views etc." Thanks for the plain English as well. That helps old country boys like me! I stipulate to the fact that I am at times a mystery wrapped in an enigma - In fact, now that you mention it, you and I are so much alike! 

It is my belief that knowledge cannot be given. It comes only from searching. So many folks of all traditions, churches, and institutions just want to take the short cut. Again, that is not an accusation. It is an observation. It is my experience! I tend to take the long way and enjoy the journey. Of course a wise person once said, "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey." Oh wait a minute, that wasn't a wise person, it was me - a mystery wrapped up in an enigma!

Edited April 8, 2023 by Navidad

[Grug the Neanderthal]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you and I as opposite members of the spectrum are equally guilty on his list, as perhaps it should be. !  🧐  🤕

I think that’s unlikely, but since Navidad refuses to come out and say who/what he is referring to, we can only speculate.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So many folks of all traditions, churches, and institutions just want to take the short cut. Again, that is not an accusation. It is an observation. It is my experience! I tend to take the long way and enjoy the journey. Of course a wise person once said, "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey." Oh wait a minute, that wasn't a wise person, it was me - a mystery wrapped up in an enigma!

You should be in the pretzel business.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think that’s unlikely, but since Navidad refuses to come out and say who/what he is referring to, we can only speculate.

Or not. 

 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You should be in the pretzel business.

I am not sure what that means (and am afraid to ask),  but I am from a small town outside of Philly so I love pretzels. One of my really good memories of my childhood was being sent with an empty tin container to the local pretzel factory. They would fill up your tin with as many hot soft pretzels as possible and send you home with it. We ate them with some kind of mustard on them. I think that was a Philly tradition. Yum! I would love to be in the pretzel business. I would eat up all the profits!

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what that means (and am afraid to ask),  but I am from a small town outside of Philly so I love pretzels. One of my really good memories of my childhood was being sent with an empty tin container to the local pretzel factory. They would fill up your tin with as many hot soft pretzels as possible and send you home with it. We ate them with some kind of mustard on them. I think that was a Philly tradition. Yum! I would love to be in the pretzel business. I would eat up all the profits!

Do you know how to make one out of the dough?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you know how to make one out of the dough?

 

I understand they are twisted in the shape of someone praying.  Or so I remember a recipe telling me.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you know how to make one out of the dough?

 

I understand they are twisted in the shape of someone praying.

Aha!  So apparently there IS relevance to this thread! 😇

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Aha!  So apparently there IS relevance to this thread! 😇

I thought the pretzel twisting was related to scripture twisting.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I thought the pretzel twisting was related to scripture twisting.

 

 

 FAR OUT!

OH LIKE WOW MAN!

THE HIPPIE BIBLE!

Can you dig it, dude?

I mean, like I totally grok that, like NOW!

Edited April 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 FAR OUT!

OH LIKE WOW MAN!

THE HIPPIE BIBLE!

Can you dig it, dude?

I mean, like I totally grok that, like NOW!

It really is!  If you hold your breath for 60 seconds and squint really hard while looking at that image, you can see an image of Bill Gates using vaccinations to implant microchips into people as the mark of the beast.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It really is!  If you hold your breath for 60 seconds and squint really hard while looking at that image, you can see an image of Bill Gates using vaccinations to implant microchips into people as the mark of the beast.

That could actually happen if the FED goes through making the dollar digitized cryptocurrency 

Ok,  not the implants. 🧐 But the government will know if you buy a stick of gum.

No more dollars, just star wars crypto credits.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

Withdrawn

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In these kinds of discussions, I think about the Kuna Indians we met in Panama and wonder what possible relevance the debate has to do with their salvation and exaltation, or mine even.

Or mine!

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Or mine!

Really? You should be an expert by now on our beliefs!

[Pyreaux]

I think I have chosen in the past and currently to unilaterally reinterpret (or twist) scriptures that conflict with my understanding, I've seen many fledgling or lazy LDS who were feed the answers before investigating scriptures, they can give a botched analysis of a scripture. I've often felt I've come to a conclusion based on an abundance of evidence, in and out of scripture, without completely accounting for all scripture on the matter. I didn't always have a coherent answer for Isaiah's pantheon denials, or Deuteronomy's or John's anthropomorphic theophany denials.

Knowing answers without showing your work can be baffling. I'm reminded of Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible as not proper translations, but retrospective corrections based on answers he's gotten. Like, on the basis of knowing God does not send evil spirits, he "retranslates" the Deuteronomic history of God having sent an evil spirit to King Saul, as a spirit "not" sent from God. Not because that is what was once originally said there, but because it was clearly doctrinally incorrect, so just on that he corrected it.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

Understanding that there are different genres of writing within our scriptures is also key to understanding what it is teaching.  Wisdom literature is different than narrative.  Poetry is different than prophecy.  Apocalyptic writings are definitely different than epistles.  And many books of scripture contain multiple genres (like allegories or parables within the gospels or prophetic writings and poetry within narrative texts).  If you read wisdom literature like a historical narrative, you're going to go wrong somewhere.

And it doesn't help that modern western readers don't have the same mindset and context of the ancient writers that would help them to recognize the clues that indicate a particular genre in the text.  Recognizing those clues takes study and practice.

I say this as one of the scribes and not as one having authority, since I'm a student of the scriptures and have a lot to learn myself.  I just know enough to know that there's a lot that I don't know.

[InCognitus]

I like to listen to Christian talk radio stations when I'm out in my car.  Since moving from Arizona to Utah, I've been listening to AM 820, "Truth Network", and I've found it interesting.  I've heard some really good sermons preached and good biblical discussions on that station.  But I also hear other things that sound like they are going off the rails a bit.  I also find it interesting that there is a big awareness of "Mormonism" for some of the locally based sermons and studies broadcast on that station.  Some of it is overt (like Bill McKeever's "Viewpoint on Mormonism"), and some of it is much more subtle.  

Yesterday as I was running errands I was listening to that station at sometime between noon and 12:30 PM, and there were two men having a Bible discussion on the topic of baptism.  It was a fascinating topic.  I have tried to look up who the two men are that were having the discussion, but the station's program information for that time yesterday doesn't seem to coincide with what I heard.  And I wish I had recorded it because I would like to have their exact words.  So I'm going on memory here. 

Toward the end of their discussion they said they needed to talk about baptism for the dead as it is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29 since it's a topic that comes up a lot in Utah (of course).  I was really disappointed with their discussion of that topic because they used an argument that I've heard many times before (including in books published by critics), but it really fits the "scripture twisting" topic of this thread.  We should never approach scripture with the intent of interpreting it in such a way that it would push back against something we see as heretical.  And that's certainly what these two men seemed to be doing.  We need to let the context speak for itself and think things through logically.

First, they pointed out "This verse (1 Corinthians 15:29) is the only place in the New Testament where baptism for the dead is mentioned" (as if that alone should make us question it).  Then they used what I call the "they" argument:  Paul said, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"  The man explaining the verse on the radio show said that Paul was obviously referring to a non-Christian group because he used the word "they" in the verse.  He continued to explain, Paul didn't say "we baptize for the dead", so baptism for the dead is not a Christian practice.  Paul was referring to a non-Christian group that used ritual washings for the dead and they believed in the resurrection.  So Paul is saying that if those people believe in the resurrection, why don't you?

On the surface this argument may seem satisfactory to some people, but not if you really think about it.  Why would Paul use a false practice by a non-Christian group as a reason to believe in the resurrection?  Where is the logic in that?  First of all, why would a non-Christian belief in a resurrection from the dead be comparable to Christian belief in the resurrection?  Second of all, if that non-Christian group could be wrong about their false practice (i.e. baptism for the dead in this case) then why should we trust their belief in the resurrection?   

Another problem with their interpretation is with their assumption that the word "they" must be referring to a non-Christian group, especially given the fact that Paul uses the word "they" in application to a specific group of Christians just six verses earlier in the same chapter:  "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming". (1 Corinthians 15:23)  

Furthermore, making this a non-Christian practice just doesn't fit the flow of Paul's argument for belief in the resurrection.  Paul asks two questions as compelling reasons to believe in the resurrection, i.e "why do they baptize for the dead if the dead don't rise at all?" (verse 29) and "why stand we in jeopardy every hour"? (verse 30).  This is personal to Paul, and it makes no sense that he would bring a non-Christian group into the argument.

Obviously I approach this verse from a Latter-day Saint point of view, but even if I try to view this verse as objectively as possible, I can't find any way to justify this particular argument used by these two men against the Latter-day Saint interpretation of the verse.  I can only view their approach as scripture twisting, and solely for the purpose of putting down the Latter-day Saint view.