CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
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.
Ah, good. Perhaps due to the fact that he has never made this explicitly known to me and many others, as he has kindly done for you and Warbler, he'll be willing to cut us some slack in the end.
I certainly believe he will. I believe he is a God who actually gives plenty of slack, even to those whom he punishes harshest.
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.
It felt like you were much more down on it and its grubbiness a few posts ago.
I'm trying to distinguish between its faults due to human hands and its ultimately true message in spite of those faults.
2 Peter 1:20
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Again, I appeal to other sources, recent and aged:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -KJV
"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[b] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." NKJV
"[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit." (Amplified)
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (NRSV)
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." (Douay-Rheims)
Now there could easily be other versions that are closer to the NIV which you've quoted, but I didn't find any in my quick perusal. Why do I appeal to these sources? Well, to me it actually has a different meaning. One speaks about men's general interpretation of existing scripture, the other referring to the prophets in the process of receiving scripture and not interpreting it in his own manner. The meaning is surprisingly different, actually. Do you have access to the original Koine Greek and might you offer your own interpretation of that passage? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it. In any case, I don't think the message is that God provided exact words that must be repeated verbatim when included in scripture. Paul's letters, for instance, are not a direct revelatory process, but rather the inspired writings of an apostle.
So here it claims the Holy Spirit guided the writers of "scripture" (which as you pointed out, could mean just about anything and not necessarily what became canonized). God, being perfect as he is, we would have to assume the Holy Spirit would prevent manly grubbiness from making its way into scripture, as explained in the verse above (which granted, could be manhandled grubby scripture itself). You would imagine if God would go this far, he'd have the Holy Spirit guide Athanasius' hand as he wrote his list of what he believed to be inspired works, and later when the men at the Second Council of Carthage adopted that list into what is now known as the New Testament. Why guide the writers with the Holy Spirit then ultimately allow some of those writings to be thrown into a compilation with uninspired books and others left out of the canon to be forgotten and widely disregarded.
But you already addressed and dismissed this line of thinking in your post.
I did indeed, but I like how you expanded upon it. But just to be clear, God did inspire the thoughts and words of the prophets, but I don't believe those prophets became literal dummy's for a ventriloquist God. I believe he used the limited mind's of inspired people, and as a result, inspired scripture was given that was still limited by the people who received it. Let me give you a quote from an apostle of the LDS church (now dead) regarding Joseph Smith, which I believe holds equally true to the prophets of the Bible:
Elder John A. Widtsoe said:
The language [of the Doctrine and Covenants], with the exception of the words actually spoken by heavenly beings, is the language of the Prophet. The ideas were given to Joseph Smith. He wrote them in the best language at his command. He was inspired at times by the loftiness of the ideals so that his language or words are far above that ordinarily used by a backwoods boy of that day.
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.
Ah, so the Mormons have proof the Bible is corrupted? This interests me.
"The Mormons" have the same proof the rest of the world has. I think I phrased my sentence poorly so let me restate: "Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church teaches and history shows to have taken place." My bad. But just for the benefit of all, let me provide a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament
On top of that, I'm sure you're well aware of the variations in the Latin Vulgate, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Jewish Torah/Tanakh based on the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nag Hammadi library, etc. These all demonstrate ancient variation in the Old Testament. Ultimately there are potentially millions of differences, some great, some small, in the Bible. To me this doesn't make the Bible untrue, but does show that humans, no matter how diligent they've tried to be, could not preserve God's word perfectly. And I think that's okay.
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?
That's kind of a ridiculous extension to make. It clearly wouldn't be referring to all that is and would ever be considered "scripture" by any religions, it would be entirely reasonable to assume Paul is referring to the Jewish scriptures we know the early church to have used.
Well, I understand that, but my point is that when Paul wrote it, how could anyone really know what writings he was referring to? Obviously not the non-existent Bible, except perhaps, as you said, the largely canonized (but not completely, nor yet standardized, nor even compiled in a single volume) Old Testament. But he was clearly referring to New Testament writings as well, including those not yet written. My point is that Paul was not yet speaking of the Bible, but of any true God-given revelation, and his emphasis was on its benefits.
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.
Have I so happily pointed this out? I don't recall, I tend to argue that the Bible doesn't really contradict itself, as so many believe it does. Many state that the behavior and nature of God from Old Testament to New is rather at odds, but I'm not sure I'd call that so much of a contradiction. After all, even in the New Testament there is plenty of talk of homosexuals burning in lakes of fire, God sent lions eating up children to punish them, and couples being struck dead at God's hand for nothing more than telling a minor lie. I don't feel there is really much of a contraction between this and the Old Testament God who struck some poor fool dead for trying to save the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over with his bare hands.
The lion story I don't recall. But I know, God was pretty harsh at times. I won't argue with you there. I guess he had strict expectations, but also was merciful. Remember, this same God who might physically kill a person won't necessarily cast him off spiritually. It could be more of a lesson. I don't really know what to say that would be satisfactory at the present, though.
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.
I assumed you'd know that "God-breathed" simply meant "inspired by God" without a lengthy look at many different translations.
My apologies. I thought that perhaps you were taking "God-breathed" to be more literal, like "verbatim from God's mouth," not, "inspired from the mind of God to the mind of man," which is how I interpret it.
Proves your point? Eh hem, and how? That is a lengthy leap you make there to say inspired of God doesn't mean without human error. Mix the Timothy verse with the 2 Peter verse, and you get the impression that it does, indeed, mean that human error would not have part in the inspired Holy Spirit lead writing process.
I believe I just answered this, but again, I don't take "inspired" to mean "from God's mouth to prophet's stylus."
However, none of this really matters. It is a lot like arguing whether or not Klingon blood is really pink, or if it just turned pink in the zero gravity environment, or perhaps when it mixed and had a reaction with some sort of gas at the beginning of Star Trek VI. Or arguing all the technical details of how Gandalf the Gray returned as Gandalf the White. I feel like it is pointless discussing the way supernatural things may or may not work.
True. We don't know a lot.
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.
I'm pretty sure Paul didn't intend it to apply to something written thousands of years later by some American.
If it were a true book inspired by God to a prophet, whether ancient American (i.e. Book of Mormon) or modern American (i.e. Joseph Smith), I think Paul would mean exactly that. We don't believe God stopped talking to man, but that man stopped listening for a while.
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.
No, this would be a bit more like finding some sort of teaching material from the 1800 explaining canals and life on Mars, and deciding to use it in the science class room to teach kids about Mars, despite knowing it is inaccurate.
Admitting the Bible is flawed, corrupt, and contains stuff God didn't intend to be in there, and accounts of events that never took place, but then deciding to place all your faith into some of its accounts (an alleged divine offspring dying for the sins of mankind and recovering from death three days later, for example), is quite a bit like trusting a document from the 1800's for its scientific details on space and Mars.
I disagree. What I teach is equivalent to this: There appear to be canals on Mars. This seems to contradict other information about Mars, such as the potential lack of substantial atmosphere and its distance from the sun. But given our limited understanding, it appears that intelligent life created these canals.
This could be the response of someone during a transition period, between better understanding the nature of Mars but still having "evidence" (albeit incorrect) of canals. I don't claim to know what is fully or partially true or false in the Bible. Perhaps God somehow did stop the earth's rotation so the sun appeared to be still, though I find this unlikely. But I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and will hold it to be true in its own context, as I have no greater knowledge on that particular day to provide clarity.
I don't hold the Bible to be as untrue or corrupt as you seem to think.
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 :)
*Warbler sigh* How many threads must this discussion take place over?
As many as necessary ;) In all seriousness, my suggestion arises from the desire to keep things categorized and preserved for future reference. It seems more appropriate to keep debates over specific LDS doctrine in the LDS thread. But I'm not picky if you want to keep it here.
Forgive me for my confusion, but earlier you stated that your church and history has shown that the Bible is indeed corrupt. However, you do not believe anything in it to be false? And you feel that it, despite the many contradictions (starting with the Bible clearly teaching that God is pure spirit, having now fleshly form), is quite supportive of the teachings of the Mormon church?
Worth further discussion, but again, I'd rather keep it in the LDS thread. But for now:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Corporeality_of_God
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.
Since you admit to "bragging a bit" later in this post, I suppose it wouldn't do any harm to say that most of the history you have thrown at me regarding canonization was unnecessary as is telling me that "Bible" comes from the Greek biblios. I can read Koine Greek fairly fluently, and I have studied, been tested on, and written plenty of papers on church history and the canonization process.
That's certainly worth bragging over :) Please give me context. I mean, were you a theology major at some point (I gather you were once far more believing)? That's pretty darn cool. My bragging was not to put you in your place, but to illuminate my point as well as show that I'm not a complete ignoramus on the topic.
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.
I've never read it cover to cover, but I have read large parts of it long in the past.
Good for you :)
I feel like your personal view fits much more tightly with the way textual criticism actually works, the stuff textual critics have learned over the years, and the means by which we get our modern day Bible translations than the more general LDS view does.
I believe it does, though I don't believe official LDS doctrine precludes my views. Rather, it seems that most novices on the subject (not saying I'm a pro, but at least I've done some reading) tend to drift towards a more simplistic interpretation.
I have come across more than one Mormon acquaintance who was fully convinced our English translations of the Bible were translated from Latin translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, rather than translated directly to English from the original languages.
Yes, my own seminary teacher taught something like this. The Catholic Bible (as I'm sure you know) follows the Latin Vulgate, but most modern translations use original source material.
Wee! I'm in the Warbler/Mrebo league now! I just need to sigh and roll my eyes more ;)
