LDS beliefs and the Bible

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

I think that you're right that peopel will say things and convice themselves certaint hings have happened even though they haven't, it's human nature, and most will deny what has happened in the face of troubled times, or to get what they want. If you have ever seen "There will be blood" you will know what i'm talking about. the guyw ho claims to be a prophet and then denys it at the end for the propsect of money.

the difference is i could never deny what i know to be true. too many thing have indeed happened that testify of the truthfulness of it. you may not believe me but you don't have to believe something for it to be true.

There is no cause to believe. To do so would be dishonest with myself and anyone who was influenced by my belief.

I beleve 3x3 is 9 because there are 3 groups of 3 and I count them out there is 9. I can illustrate this, draw it, explain it and speak to it and prove it.

You believe god talked to you because why.... Millions of people think gods talk to them or that they have seen heaven or hell. Millions more still believe in ghosts, demons and other fairy tales. I could how a seminar on speaking with dead and discussing ghosts and demons and charge $50 a head and fill a stadium with people to see the show. (I believe people already do this on various levels) Does that make it true?

This gets back to the definition of true. I don't have to believe in god for god to be true. All the words are there and logically its correct. However God has never proven to be true. Thus whether I believe in him or not will not make him true. God speaking to people... not proven... ghosts... demons.... leprechauns.... Not proven. Not true.

You can believe it and it will make it true for you, your life and possible the decisions you make. You give the idea and notion power. You create and allow the influence it has. You subject yourself to the conditioning that will allow you to interpret other events based on your belief. Its just your truth and that is enough for most people. Entire congregations make it their truth. Truth for them. There are 1000s of various versions of truths for them out there. Lots of prophets with lots of supernatural ideas. Lots of different gods talking to lots of different people. You say some god you have met face to face. Another will say he has met a different god face to face and you both know your different gods and your different religions to be the one truth.

It doesn't bother me that you believe in god no more then it bothers me that my friend believes in the luck of the four leaf clover. I had a friend who told me she could go astral and she kicked her friends butt in the astral plane. I don't really talk to her anymore but hey... thats her thing. She believes in the astral plane complete with silver cord and all.

Religion existed before all these new age prophets and even before jesus. Much of the holidays attributed to christianity and adhered to in the US originally had nothing to do with it. The story of jesus to me is a witty rewrite of earlier stories and makes for some great quotes and light reading. Supernatural belief is just silly. Some lady paid 180k for a house which she believed was haunted. She took out a seperate mortgage to pay for ghost hunters which then needed a priest to get rid of the demon haunting it. Eventually they succeeded but she still felt the evil presence and sold the house for 150k.... No demons... No ghosts... but there are people who get paid to hunt these ideas of the mind. Bad Memes... hehe.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Where is the Pope doing these things? =/

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Yes i totally agree, it was snide. and if i could delete that part i would

Just out of interest, you do realise that i'm not roman catholic don't you? I thought you're comment was a bit strange to me, an evangelical fundie.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Just out of interest, you do realise that i'm not roman catholic don't you? I thought you're comment was a bit strange to me, an evangelical fundie.

hmm, my mistake i thought u were Catholic for some reason..... unsure now where i got that idea.


okay, so now that my snide comment has nothing to do with you i will provide a snide comment that does apply to you.

so how was Jesus Camp this summer?

j/k

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

There is no cause to believe. To do so would be dishonest with myself and anyone who was influenced by my belief.

I beleve 3x3 is 9 because there are 3 groups of 3 and I count them out there is 9. I can illustrate this, draw it, explain it and speak to it and prove it.

You believe god talked to you because why.... Millions of people think gods talk to them or that they have seen heaven or hell. Millions more still believe in ghosts, demons and other fairy tales. I could how a seminar on speaking with dead and discussing ghosts and demons and charge $50 a head and fill a stadium with people to see the show. (I believe people already do this on various levels) Does that make it true?.

Just as you seek for truth in proovable formulas, so do we LDS members. that is the one thing we have in common with athiests is the need for proof.

the difference is what we consider proof. What we accept as proof you do not. we can only accept personal experienceas proof.

If someone said you to 3x3 = 10 unless you had learned the true formula before hand you would have no reason to doubt them.

only by your own personal experince do you know that 3x3 = 9 because you did the math yourself and came to the same conclusion. You had faith in your math teacher that she taught you to count properly.

Same with Faith In Jesus Christ. we have to figure it out forourselves to truely knwo what is right or wrong. you cannot take anyone else's word for it.

which is all we ever ask people to do, is to read, study, ponder, and exercise faith and prayer, asking God with a sincere heart, in the name of Christ, to know the truth.

i know for a fact that all those who have met the above criteria have come to the same conclusion.

you excersize faith every day when you flip a light switch, turn on the TV, before the TV is on you don't know what is being broadcast. even if you know what time your shows on you are excersizing faith that the show will be on at the appropriate time. and when things are consistently going the way you hoped, your faith is increased. that is the nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Orontes]

Part I

Hello,

I thought this thread died. I didn't see your replies. So, once more into the breach then?

Originally Posted by Me

So, based on the noted proviso, infallibility claims rest on an appeal to tradition?

I don't understand your comment. I think you are taking the King James Translation of Psalm 12:6-7 to indicate God's words are pure and His words will be preserved. Is that right? This doesn't fit with the context of the Psalm. The context alone seems quite clear, the focus is on the rise of wickedness and the anguish of the weak: nothing really to do with text at all. This is the NIV translation of Psalm 121-7:

Help, LORD, for the godly are no more;
the faithful have vanished from among men. 2 Everyone lies to his neighbor;
their flattering lips speak with deception.
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips
and every boastful tongue
4 that says, "We will triumph with our tongues;
we own our lips —who is our master?"
5 "Because of the oppression of the weak
and the groaning of the needy,
I will now arise," says the LORD.
"I will protect them from those who malign them."
6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.
7 O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

Note this is not the same as the King James. The thrust of verse seven is the Lord keeping the weak and the needy, not keeping His own words. This is different from your take of the King James isn't it. Which is right? The difference alone seems to undercut your larger claim about biblical infallibility as the two translation are mutually exclusive. Now, why did the NIV translators opt for the wording they did? Here is one explanatory of the Hebrew Grammar by Doug Kutilek:

"Grammar: The Pronoun “Them” of Verse 7

When we turn to the Hebrew text of Psalm 12, the ambiguity of the English disappears. Hebrew, like many non-English languages, has a feature that English lacks -- that of grammatical gender. In English, object words are classified according to natural gender: men, boys, and the male offspring of animals are classified as masculine and masculine pronouns he, him, etc., are used of them; women, girls, and the female offspring of animals, plus sometimes countries, boats, and until recently, hurricanes, are considered feminine, and feminine pronouns she, her, etc., are used of them. Just about everything else from forks, knives, and spoons to roofing nails and sheet rock is classified as neuter.
In English, we have only natural gender; many, if not most, other languages have, in addition to natural gender, grammatical gender. Some languages have two grammatical genders -- masculine and feminine (e.g., the Semitic languages); others add a third -- neuter (this is the situation in Greek, Latin, German, and others). Things naturally masculine and things naturally feminine are so treated, but very many things are grammatically treated as masculine, feminine, or neuter without any connection to natural gender at all. For example, the German word for spoon is masculine; for fork, feminine; and for knife, neuter.
In languages that have grammatical gender, it is usual and customary for pronouns to agree with their antecedents in gender and number. Hebrew here is like the rest. And also like the rest, there are occasional exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 135 o), but the Book of Psalms is exceptionally regular on the matter of gender agreement.
In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated them in verse 7 are both masculine -- the first them being plural in number, the second being singular (him, literally), particularizing every individual in the group (with slightly different vowel points in Hebrew, the second pronoun could be understood as the first person plural common, viz., us). So, the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number.

The word rendered words twice in verse 6 is a feminine plural noun in both cases; the words poor and needy in verse 5 are both masculine and plural in Hebrew. While the English translation is ambiguous and allows two different antecedents, the Hebrew is clear and plain -- the antecedent of them is the poor and needy ones of verse 5, not the words of verse 6. Gender agreement of pronoun and antecedent demonstrates this."

In simple terms: Hebrew grammar doesn't support the reading you would like, but actually moves in another direction entirely.

Originally Posted by Me

So, the truth value of the text depends on the indwelling spirit of God?

My question was on where the truth value of the text is derived from. Earlier you mentioned the "(one) sees the complete authenticity of God's word because the Spirit confirms it to his mind" Is the Spirit the text or separate from the text? If the text is the actual Spirit, we can explore that notion. If the Spirit is distinct from the text then, per your statement, the truth value is derived via the Spirit which would be a second element, it would seem

The message is the same in each language, the same verses are appealed to to support the same doctrines, I simply say along with the KJV translators:

[An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God...

Actually if the words are different and the words have their own meaning, then the message is different. You can see this in the difference between the KJV and NIV translations of Psalm 12 already noted. I'll illustrate the notion further. This is from a point I made in another thread: take the following Japanese phrase: 神様の心 how does one translate this? There are two obvious choices: "the mind of God" or the "heart of God". Now heart and mind are quite distinct in English. The "Mind of God" does not mean the same thing as the "Heart of God". Therefore translations opting for one over the other are actually expressing a different notion. Now we can add to the difficulty: 心 isn't simply "mind" or "heart" as per English, but its own concept. Any translation of either heart or mind is going to lack something of the original. 心 contains both a cognitive and an emotional component. Do you see the issue? "神様の心" has its meaning. The "Mind of God" has a different meaning and the "Heart of God" has yet another. Were one to claim each of these is the same message is absurd. This same issue plays out across the linguistic spectrum and is compounded when one adds in grammar. Therefore, to claim: Biblical infallibility for each translation of a text, is undercut by the very translation process itself. There is nothing in your King James Translators' statement against Roman Catholics that responds to this basic issue.

[Orontes]

Part II

Originally Posted by Me

This dichotomy between orthodox Judaism and Hellenized Judaism is flawed. "orthodox" begs the question and the term Hellenized Judaism is only meaningful if "Hellenized" is applied to the Septuagint which was written in Greek.

Originally Posted by Me

Your comment doesn't respond to my post. Even so, if you take Romans 3:2 to mean the Jews are able to set what is canon then you must reject the New Testament as it is not considered canonical by Jewry. If you do not accept Jewish authority in rejecting the New Testament, then you have no grounds for accepting any Jewish authority in rejecting the deuterocanon. Moreover, you face another dilemma: Jews did take the deuterocanon as scripture. The Septuagint is a Jewish product and contains the deuterocanon. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain the deuterocanon (these are in Hebrew). Therefore any appeal to Jews to settle Christian accepted holy texts is problematic, not only because of the appeal to a different religion (a rather odd idea), but also because there is no uniform position within that religion to appealed to.

They were not quoted as authoritative by Jesus or the apostles, they are never appealed to by them, what was canonical for the Jews or “to be read” in the temples was decided by the men of the great assembly”, this was never challenged by any Christian authority. Philo (20bc-40ad) quotes from every old testament book but not from the apocrypha. And Josephus wrote:..

This comment is not correct. There is explicit reference to deuterocanonical work in the New Testament i.e.Jude 14:

"Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints' -Jude 14

The above is a quote from the Book of 1 Enoch. Further, the entire New Testament milieu is seeped in an understanding and reference to deuterocanonical works. This can be seen throughout. I'll illustrate:


Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

These are just a few examples.

Note: Josephus wasn't a Christian. Philo wasn't a Christian.

Originally Posted by Me

Of course, by that standard Christianity is likewise "Hellenized Christianity"

Originally Posted by Me

This is red herring. You made a linguistic point, that Hebrew was a purer stream than Greek as to the things of God. To then claim Greek is acceptable undercuts the first assertion.

Originally Posted by Me

Moreover, the various canonical claims within Jewry are of no consequence unless you are arguing from a Jewish perspective.

This doesn't address the fundamental problem. If you claim a Jewish authority over Christian authority to determine Christian canon, then you have eviscerated there being any Christian authority at all. You have effectively killed any Christian claims contra Jewry.

[Orontes]

Part III

Originally Posted by *Paul*

That is a very mis-informed opinion. E.g the orthodox church omitted the deutro canon from the larger catechism (1839) because it was not included in the Hebrew bible (b.t.w Augustine himself knew that the Jewish community did not accept them as part of the canon Augustine, 19.36–38.) Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius had the same canon as us prtoestants.

Alas, I am not mis-informed.

Per the Orthodox Church: both the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) declared the deuterocanon as "genuine parts of Scripture". These have never been repudiated. This is why the deuterocanon is a part of all Orthodox Bibles. The Orthodox Study Bible published in 2008 is one simple example.

Per Augustine: Augustine was an attendee and a participant in both the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). Both of these councils affirmed the deuterocanon as scripture. Here are citations from each:

-"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393)."


-"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

Per Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius: I'll give some examples, I'll throw in a reference from Augustine as well. Of course the number of Patristic Fathers that took the deuterocanon as authoritative is quite large. :

Origen:

'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.' Farther on he says: 'The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ' These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremiah[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." -Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 6:25 (A.D. 244).

"[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God'[Tobit 12:7],--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19 (A.D. 248). "But he ought tp know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense'[Sirach 21:18], and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us'[1 Pt 3:15]." -Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248).