CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions, how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

Like Warbler, this is a matter of faith, a matter of testimony, a matter of personal revelation. I believe that Jesus in fact was resurrected because I believe God has made such known to me.

It is such a basic question, if somebody's faith cannot withstand it, I daresay they had no faith to begin with.

I daresay that this is likely untrue, but that many have faith unprepared to deal with a logical approach. Either they will simply shut down your point or it will hurt their faith. Better IMO, to encourage rational thought rather than bluntly say someone is wrong. They can ultimately come to their own conclusions. I myself enjoy the dual approach, but not everyone does.

Seriously, how do you believe something so unbelievable, when the only source of this unbelievable tale is a book that you admit to being untrustworthy?

How untrustworthy have I made it seem? I feel the book is indeed inspired and true in most regards. Did the sun/earth stop when Joshua fought his battles? Was the entire earth flooded? Did Methuselah really live for 973 years (I can't remember exactly how many, but somewhere close I think)? I doubt these things are entirely literal. But I don't think the book is untrustworthy.

This isn't even an atheist/theist discussion. I just find it really interesting how the Bible repeatedly claims it is the perfect word of God, which you disagree with, but still find merit in it anyway and chose to believe bits and pieces of it.

Sorry for infringing on Warbler trademarks with the broken quote walls, but I was hoping to address a number of things I missed. But I am unaware of anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be the perfect word of God. Please find a better source than that below.

Also unaddressed was the verse in Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It's a very nice, true verse ;)

Does it lie?

Nope.

Is this a corruption?

I certainly don't think so.

Or does this predate all Biblical corruptions, a remnant of a time before the Bible couldn't be trusted?

Hmmm...I think someone is conflating my personal beliefs with some misunderstanding of the official teachings of my church. Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church and history shows to have taken place. But the verse and Bible remain true. So now I shall go into a nice, lengthy explanation. This was what was largely deleted in my old post.

Is this just Paul talking about the scripture prior to its corruption, back when it really was God-breathed? (If so, the majority of the texts we've translated the Old Testament from predate Paul and even the time of Christ, they are from all different time periods, and besides a few misplaced grammatical marks and an added or subtracted word here or there, they all say the exact same thing, which indicates changes HAVE NOT been made through the centuries. It is actually very remarkable, there is no other ancient text with such an abundance of sources).

It's not that the verse has been corrupted. It's that I don't agree with your interpretation (or that of the majority of Christians) of that verse. In fact, I think it's very clear that Paul was never saying that the Bible was infallible with this verse. You see, the Bible was compiled around 300 years after Paul wrote that epistle. The canonization process was not easy or uniform. Catholic Bibles for instance contain several books in their Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles--you'd know them as the Apocrypha, but Catholics call them deuterocanonical, meaning secondary canon. Oriental Orthodox Christians have slightly different canons from the others. So does that mean that some people are missing out on God-breathed books? What about books that were considered canonical to some, such as the gnostic books like the Gospel of Thomas? Or the more widely accepted but ultimately discarded Shepherd of Hermas or Epistle of Barnabas? These books were very popular, but were rejected because their authors were not considered authoritative enough. What about books that are clearly not so inspired, like the Song of Solomon which teaches little about God, but is very sexual in nature? Or what about even more recent controversy, such as Martin Luther's recommendation that we toss out a couple of books, such as James and Revalation? Now I've provided the Bible critic with lots of fodder, such as "Then how do you even know the Bible you've got is so genuine?" A fair question, and many things are disputed such as Paul's authorship of several epistles or verses supposedly added later to books like the story of the adulteress and casting the first stone. But my point is that Paul was not saying, "The Bible" is God-breathed. He said "All scripture."

So let's dissect that meaning a little further. Assuming that Church leaders were inspired as they finalized the biblical canon, one might say, "Well, God made sure what he wanted ended up in the Bible and what he didn't want did not." Assuming this is true, one might then argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 is indeed referring to those books which have actually been canonized. But again, the verse says, "All scripture." So what about the Quran? What about the Bhagavad Gita? Are these God-breathed as well?

I think we need to reconsider the meaning of the verse. There are works that were given to men by God, and there are those that were not. Let's further analyze the verse for more clues as to meaning.

"All scripture is God-breathed..." What does that mean? Does that mean the literal word proceeding from the mouth of God? Couldn't be, as you so happily pointed out, there are contradictions. You used the NIV translation. Let's look at another one or two. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (KJV); "Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration)..." (Amplified); "All scripture, inspired of God, is..." (Douay-Rheims); "Every scripture inspired of God is..." (ASB). To me, the phrase "God-breathed" is equivalent to "inspired of God". If we are assuming that the entire Bible deserves to be canonical, then I think we can safely believe that the entire Bible is "inspired of God" without believing that it is without human error. This already proves my point, but let's just examine the rest of the verse, going back to the NIV.

and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If the entirety of the Bible is indeed inspired of God, then I think the rest of this verse is equally true. I hold no internal contradiction. In fact, I'd apply that verse the remainder of LDS scripture.

You and Warbler paint a very fickle picture of Christiandom from its source material on up. If the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, then by extension, this must put everything Christianity teaches at question. You can't very well say that it is full of error, then say, well, we know for sure this part isn't erroneous. A leaky boat isn't water-worthy, no matter how small the percentage of leaks are in ratio to the portions that are impermeable, if it leaks, then its going to sink.

No, not a fickle picture. Too many humans want to believe in a religion that is without flaw, and the non-believers will criticize from that angle. But just because human knowledge is limited does not make everything they say untrue. Just like Mars was once thought to have canals created by intelligent life in the 1800s does not mean that it is not still red, the fourth planet from the sun, with two moons.

Of course, Mormonism is a very different animal that believes in a very different take on the nature of God and Christ, to be a Mormon, you'd have to accept that most of the things the Bible teaches us about God and Christ are utterly false. So naturally, it would be much easier (actually, necessary) for you to accept the fact that the Bible is some percentage bunk, than it would be for members of more traditional denominations to do so.

And this is where I would urge you not to jump to conclusions once again. We can discuss this further in the very exciting and well-articulated Mormon thread. ;) But I will briefly say here that I find the Bible quite supportive of our teachings of Deity, of God, of Christ, and that I do not believe what it says to be false. It is neither easier or necessary to accept anything you suggest as bunk. But I genuinely mean it, if you'd like to point out any error on my part in this regard, we can chat about it there :)

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

Here, let me pause, just to ensure neither of us misinterprets the other by letting you know that if I say anything that sounds overly defensive, hyped up, or anything, that is not my intention. I also am aware that you are not trying to sound over the top either in your criticisms. Just getting that out of the way :)

Very good. I mean no harm in my posts either.

I think we've learned not to misunderstand each other much better than before :)

But I will add that your argument has several holes of its own. That is not to say that there are at times points where one must forgo logic in favor of faith to believe in the Bible. But what you are doing is incorrectly ascribing beliefs and statements to myself and the Bible that are not actually held by it or me. I truly hope to clarify later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

No doubt my arguments are absolutely riddled with holes. I can't speak for you and your beliefs, but as for all things I attribute to the Bible, I can reassure you they are there. If you choose to airbrush them out, remove their meanings from context, or attribute a hidden context to them, well, then I guess that shows you've got it all worked out. But yeah, perhaps I should start quoting scripture more liberally.

Please enlighten me. I do not with to "airbrush" anything or take anything out of context. I am not even claiming that I have it all worked out. I'm just saying that the Bible (from Greek biblios meaning "books," as in a compiled library) says nothing about its entirety being correct. It would never self reference in that manner because there was no Bible to self-reference when its individual elements were being written. Even the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, or our Old Testament) was not canonized till after Jesus.

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions,

believing the Bible may not be 100% perfect is not the same as believing it is full of falsehoods and corruption.

That stuff was addressed at Ender, he mentioned something about the grubby hands of man. Mormons believe that the Bible has lost many "plain and precious truths" via the translation process, and many believe that it has been corrupted in other ways, explaining the discrepancies between the Bible and the Books of Mormon.

Let me clarify between two different things. Mormons do believe the Bible has been tampered with, and evidence supports it. I actually probably believe in less tampering than most Mormons. It's amazing how much was done to preserve the Bible, as you mentioned before. There are variations and numerous sources, but most things agree, and most differences are not substantial or do not tremendously alter the meaning.

On the other hand, I actually believe in more grubby hands at a different phase, and more than most other Mormons. I don't believe that it is full of loads of "falsehoods" or "corruptions" per se. I believe that the prophets of old, biblical or Book of Mormon-al, were spoken to in a manner that tehy could understand. I believe that at times this may have resulted in things that were scientifically untrue (such as a global deluge), but were true in all that pertained to their salvation. Do you have to believe that a 900 year-man built a large enough boat to hold the world's animal population and preserve life in order to be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven? I don't think so. But the story does serve many purposes that are spiritually enlightening, and perhaps there was a local flood and someone did preserve the local fauna. Who knows?

I also know that the Torah was not written till some time after Moses lived, and prior to that it was handed down orally, which more easily allows for alteration, but would be unavailable in any record, even if the earliest copies had survived by some miracle.

But I don't know what I should take literally and what I should take figuratively. I don't know how a first man named Adam can coexist with the plethora of evidence supporting evolution. Some LDS apostles and leaders attempted to reconcile the two notions, arguing that man existed before, but a new stage began with Adam (B.H. Roberts, for instance). I won't attempt to reconcile the two for myself. Instead, I accept both as true as applicable, and I figure I'll understand the fuller picture later. I'm truly content with that.

So with regard to where those grubby hands interfered, I was giving you my personal view, not the more general LDS view. The more general view is that the transmission of the Bible over the years filled with more errors than I do.

BTW, the discrepancies between the Bible and Book of Mormon are not so large as you believe, either. If you've not read it, I recommend it, if for nothing more than educational purposes.

CP3S said:

how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

I take upon faith that it is not.

I believe Christ is the son of God, that he died to save us from our sins, and that 3 days after he died, he rose from the grave. I do not think that believing this means I have to believe that children that curse their parents, must be put to death. Not sure was else to say. If you want to think I am silly/crazy or whatever. fine.

That is good enough for me.

No, I don't think you are silly/crazy/whatever.

Well... maybe a little whatever. ;) But not silly or crazy.

Hey, don't I get such an easy pass? ;) I agree with Warbler.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

I think the Bible is actually very clear that not everything from God is perfect. In specific, what the Bible implies in various places God's greatest creation, that being mankind, is also clearly pointed out to be quite flawed. And if his greatest creations are flawed, why is it so hard to believe that the message given to and received by and interpreted by those flawed creatures is imperfect?

I didn't mean to say everything from God is perfect, I meant that the Bible claims that God's message is perfect.

And it is. But the Bible is not.

But the Bible itself claims to be all those things. Since it makes those claims, which we are both in agreement are not true, it clearly contains some very blatant falsehoods. This book, which we both agree contains falsehoods, is the only source for the idea of a perfect man dying as a sacrifice for our sins and coming back to life three days later. This idea of a divine sacrifice followed by a resurrection to prove its divinity is the entire premise of Christianity. Once the integrity of this source material is admitted to being flawed, which again, I am grateful we are in agreement on, how can anything it says be taken with more than a grain of salt? What if the narrative of the resurrection is a lie, as the Bible's own claim to being the perfect word of God is a lie?

I included when first articulating my response, but now I'm unsure if it's necessary. I think I answered these questions. If I need to further expand upon it, let me know. Well, I guess I'll reiterate one more time that the Bible does not claim to be those things.

Again, with the acceptance that the Bible is flawed and full of falsehoods, the entire house of cards starts to collapse. Who can ever say what of it is true and what of it is flawed? This has to put the very basis of Christianity into serious question. Without the divine sacrifice and the resurrection, Christianity as a religion is meaningless.

If God spoke to men in the days when the books of the Bible were written in a manner that they could understand, I believe he can speak to me today and tell me in a manner that I, with my puny mortal mind, can comprehend. And I believe he has told me that the very basic of Christianity, the divine sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is true. That is how I phrase it academically. But spiritually, I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, my Savior and Redeemer.

This is much longer than my original writing; hopefully I didn't bore you too much or earn a skyscraper with a bunny from Frink ;) I'm happy to discuss it further, though you again may have to wait for responses, as I have a big test on Monday and I just took a big break of studying to complete this. One final thought: the only things I had to look up were the actual different versions of the scripture (and I own all those Bibles) and when the Bible was actually compiled. The rest was up here in my noggin. I admit that I'm bragging a bit, but my reason for telling you is so you know that I'm not a blind idiot stumbling through my concepts of God and the world; I've really put a lot of thought into this over the years. Some people feel that only the most faithful never consider another point of view. I believe it takes stronger faith to actually believe when you realize just how much you don't understand and how much may seem contradictory.