For Dave et al Biblical Inerrancy and Completeness

Porter Rockwell · 08-04-2005, 04:09 PM

Dave,
Lets tie your first statement together.

"¦The "one little thing" statements can be applied to your attempts to discredit the Bible because [sic] you have yet to find anything substantial"¦Now that's not the most intelligent thing you can say is it? Can you say CONTRADICTORY? How can you say you believe the Bible while SIMULTANEOUSLY asserting that it isn't completely true? You can't just pick and choose which parts you want to believe. If any part of it isn't true, then the WHOLE BIBLE is called into question.
Porter: Dave, I am attempting to be an open minded and as kind as I can. However, I really feel like you are attempting to dictate to me what faith really is or isn"™t, especially when it comes to my beliefs about the Bible. So. I"™ll take a deep breath and first apologize if I have done anything or said anything offensive. Maybe my tone has been a bit more terse than it should.
So, as to my beliefs about the Bible. I do not discount or discredit the Bible. The bible is mine, I love it and I am not prepared to let anyone take it way from me without my consent. I have never said the bible isn"™t completely true. Please show me where I have! I have said the bible is true and I support it. What I HAVE SAID, is the bible is not completely inerrant. One wise man explains the LDS position as this:
"œWe are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of translators; but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it"¦.The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible because it is the best version translated by the power of man. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 191.)

Do you see anything in there that says we don"™t support the Bible or we see it as untrue? I don"™t! I hope you do not see LDS Christian in the same vein as maybe you see other Evangelical or what I would term "œliberal Christian" groups and scholars who have formed the misleading opinion that mistakes were in the original autographs and therefore formulate the opinion that the Bible is a myth and therefore not to be trusted.

We do not believe this. We believe the original autographs were divinely inspired and God breathed. However, since that time almost all scholars will purpose that changes have been made to the other copies of what is said to be comparable to the original autographs. LDS Christian love and trust the Bible. The assertion or conclusion that we believe the bible to be basically in error is an intentional and unwarranted misrepresentation of LDS Doctrine. LDS Christians and leaders constantly teach from the Bible, about the Bible and that every latter-day Saint should constantly study the bible.

The problem for us lies in the SAD FACT that Bible scalars have no original manuscripts of ANY of the 39 books of the Old Testament or any of the 27 of the New Testament.. All we have now are intermediate copies. Scholars who have studied the MSS.
at length are amazed at the care and essentially no divergence of texts when compared the recently discovered Dead sea scrolls. However, some translators of the New Testament have added textual variants that change the passages of some texts. That said, we don"™t believe that the changes really change any of the meanings in scripture.

What we do feel is that in its original form, the original autographs, there were things that have or were removed from the original text, by either 1) ignorant 2) cunning 3) or attempted to change them into what best fit their own beliefs. Why do we believe this? Because the book of Mormon and other books (including the history of man since 100 ad) show that this has been the case.

The issue between most evangelicals and latter-day Saints is an issue of open canon vs. closed canon and Inerrancy and Completeness. Many evangelicals believe (as I think you do) that the Bible is complete. Everything that God had to say is written there. I believe other wise. I believe the original manuscripts to be inerrant, but not thereafter. There were changes made and things were lost. Even the Bible itself refers to other books of Holy writ that our present Western Protestant version does not contain.

Radical evangelical theory is that this is not the case and the Bible is complete. They quote the passage of Matthew 5:18 "œ"¦one jot or one title shall in no wise pass till all be fulfilled.. This analysis is flawed and has nothing to do with a canon of scripture. The bible was not even compiled at the time of Jesus and the book of Matthew was written. Matthew 5:18 refers to the Law of Moses. And Christ"™s; fulfillment thereof.

There are a number of references in the Bible to works that have been lost or a re not available today. Rigid evangelicals will reply that: "œThe Bible does not say these are scriptures." While that may be so, how can it? Besides, Christ did not always say that those he quoted were scripture (See Matt 13:14-15)

In addition, your scripture in Proverbs 30: 5-6 is Taken out of context to try and support scripture all the same. 5."Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

The reference here is to every word that had been given in relation to the Law of Moses. If you read the signs of the times, Solomon and his Sons were seeing a change in the law itself. Those who followed after him to his words to heart. Agur was saying the same to his son Jakeh. (Some scholars believe that this was actually a pseudonymn for Solomon and his Sons, but it cannot be proven) Don"™t pollute the word of god (The LAW) as it has been given to you. The commoners and the Elders at the time were adding oral and written traditions to the Law that Moses never would have sanctioned. Thisis what it means do not add to the Law. You even showed it by quoting the same passages of Deuteronomy said by Moses himself. Agur was basically saying the same thing to his son. This scripture does not refer to all the words of God from the Time of Solomon to the present. Again, one must study the passage according to Biblical hermenetics, exegesis and isogesis.

When you stated that Revelation 22:18 are talking directly to the reader of the Bible and are warning against adding to GOD'S WORD. You are incorrect! John is making reference to one single solitary book of scripture! How can you infer that this is in reference to the whole bible when a) The Bible was not compiled at the time b) Johns other writings were written AFTER the book of Revelation. If he were to add them as scripture and hold to your theory, they would not be scripture. Any biblical scholar can see that Dave, why can"™t you?

I also believe that God has not had everything to say. The bible in and of itself is not a SINGLE Work. (derived from the Greek, Biblia, BOOKS) It is collection of books. It was not combined into a single work until long after the original autogrpha were written. Hence the word bible is of itself and anthology of INDIVIDUAL inspired books.

The protestant bible (e.g. the KJV) is a collection of all the AVAILABLE sacred writings that were considered accurate and reliable by the early church. IT was not compiled in its original form until 367 ad. Again, LONG after the original autographs were lost.

Vast schism have arisen over what is the "œcorrect" canon. In fact the Hebrew canon had not been fixed in the time of Jesus. The first attempt was by Josephus circa 100 ad. However the collection of which he spoke was merely the Pentateuch, 13 prophetic books and four writings for a total of 22. This is 17 short of what fundamentalist anti-Mormons insist upon. Even today, there are uncertainties as to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Conservative protestants and evangelical fundamental ists often argue over the acceptance of psalm 151 found in the Greek Septuagint, but not most other versions of the Bible. Why not? The Greek version according to scholars is much more dated and accurate the at English version. Do those who accept Psalm 151 commit self ex-communication?

Roman Catholics and Orthodox accept the Apocrypha as canonical. If fact the conciliar decree De canonicis scripturus [/i]decreed I April 8, 1546 by session iv of the Council of Trent that all who do not accept the Apocrypha as Christian scripture to be anathema or accursed. So where does that put you? Are you not considered Christian?

The Greek Orthodox Church adds 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees to the Apocrapha What about them? Are they adding to or taking away from? How about the Russian Orthodox? Thye add 3 Esdras but omit 4 Maccabeas.

How about the Ethiopian biblical canon? It is a lot older and considered much wiser than our 500 year old copy of the Bible. It contains 81 books as opposed to the "œtraditional" Protestant Bible which contains only 66. Where do they rank in being Non Christian? It is used throughout much of the sects of Africa and the Far East. Are they not Christians? They profess Jesus too.

Questions arise about the New Testament as well. Ancient evidence shows that many Christian communities may not have accepted 2 Peter? More importantly, the Revelation of John was rejected by early writers like Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysosttom, etc. The extremely important Syriac version of the New Testament known as the Pe****ta not only excluded 2 Peter and Revelation, but 2 and 3 John and Jude as well. In addition, there are many Christians ancient and Modern who have regarded as sacred, authoritative books that are not included in the Western Protestant version of the New Testament.. Should they be labeled and condemned as heretical, non Christian or non supportive of the truth of the Bible?

Given extremist standards of the bible, the New Testament may not even survive as a "œChristian document." The Epistle of Jude relies heavily on non-canonical books such as 1 Enoch and the assumption of Moses to support itself. In fact several Evangelical scholars have determined that the non canonical 1 Enoch heavily influenced Matthew, Luke< John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians Colossians etc. Most scholars would agree that both Matthew and Paul seem to accept a scriptural canon of the time that would not be accepted by critics of LDS Christians today.

Although most western Protestants accept the book of James as canonical, Reformer Martin Luther did not.. In fact he went so far as to call it "œheretical and lacking in apostolic scholarship "œ(Luther 2:2454-55) He further stated it "œwas an epistle of straw" and had "œno gospel quality to it." (Luther Ser 3:6:10: eyn rechte stroen Epistle). Where does this put Lutherans? Are they not Christian? Do they not support the Bible? Luther was by far an unbeliever in scriptural infallibility.

How about John Calvin? How many protestant sects would be considered Christian or non Biblical when you look at him in a greater light? He was not a believer in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Is he not a Christian. Doe he and his supporters lack credible support of the Bible.

My final thought comes from another wise writer. People want to accuse Mormons about their beliefs in the Bible claiming they are non Christian because they "œdon"™t accept it" and the "œAdd additional books of Scripture." That"™s funny, it cannot be that a belief in the Bible makes one a Christian. Why? It was very clear that there was a band of Christians before the Bible was even compiled. Were they not Christians?

God Bless and good luck with exegesis and isogesis.

Porter.

etothepii · 08-04-2005, 05:47 PM

Didn't Joseph Smith make a translation of th King James Bible, in which he corrected inaccuracies? What do you consider that version? Correct? Incorrect? A little of both?

etothepii · 08-04-2005, 05:52 PM

What about this passage? Is it forged? Is it mis-translated? Is it present in the J.S. version of the Bible?

Matthew 20: 1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. 5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. 8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Porter Rockwell · 08-08-2005, 02:36 PM

Eteothepii,

Nice to meet you. I don"™t think we have chatted prior to now. I have seen you posts in reference to a few other topics, but I will do what I can to answer your questions briefly here.

First off, it would be important to me to know why you are bringing up the JST. The reason is because the official version the Church uses is the KJB or AV. I explained in the previous post that the Church honors and reveres the AV. The first presidency made a statement in 1868 that explains why the JST was not the official bible.

1) We are satisfied with the text of Authorized Version (KJV). Although there may be errors, it is sufficient as we have it. (Refer to my aforementioned quote by JF Smith)
2) Joseph Smith never fully completed his revision of the Bible.
3) The corrections made by Joseph Smith were inspired and valuable for study and use.
4) The Original manuscripts were in the hands of the reorganized Church (Now called the Community of Christ Church) and inspired LDS leaders had not had the chance to review the original manuscripts or the H&E Phinney Bible that was Josephs used in making the original manuscript.
5) If or when God desired for the Saints to have a different bible he would so direct in due time and empower the proper authority to do so.

ET: Didn't Joseph Smith make a translation of the King James Bible, in which he corrected inaccuracies?

Porter: I think this has been pretty much covered in the other thread taken up by Mr-Pirk and Mahaonri. However, just to add a few other things:

Joseph did make a translation of the King James or Authorized version. Joseph Smith worded on every book of the Bible declaring some book complete as already printed. (Ruth, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum and Malachi. However, he worked on significant changes in most others. After his work was declared "œfinished" the prphet indicated that he was unprepared to make any MAJOR corrections to the the bible.

The incomplete nature of the new translation really lies I the fact that it was never fully prepared for publication. Numerous textaul inconsistencies existed that rendered it difficult to publish. For example, Joseph nor his scribes has not has the time to go back and correct for spelling errors. In addition, the system and number of chapter heading were not consistent. Other points of grammatical and syntax were still unclear. There were still incompletion in the verse numbering etc.

It would be consistent to say that the manuscripts were incomplete. With those manuscripts needing to be carefully compared and corrected for consistency prior to publication.

Elder Charles Penrose clarified the official position of the Church as a member of the 1st Presidency. He stated: "œ"¦this important work was not fully completed and it was his intention to give it a careful examination, correcting all the errors that might have been made by scribes or other inaccuracies that might have occurred, and that preparing it in such a shape that it would be a standard for the Church. The work not being this completed its publication has not yet been authorized from the proper source "œ(Penrose, Charles. The Revised Scripture. Deseret Evening News, April 22, 1881).

ET: What about this passage? Is it forged? Is it mis-translated? Is it present in the J.S. version of the Bible?

Porter: I am well aware of different versions of this parable in Matthew 20. Textual variants are very slight (Including the AV or JST) Would you care to be specific to your purpose in quoting it.

Thanks in advance and God Bless,

Porter.

etothepii · 08-08-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

ET: Didn't Joseph Smith make a translation of the King James Bible, in which he corrected inaccuracies?

Porter: I think this has been pretty much covered in the other thread taken up by Mr-Pirk and Mahaonri. However, just to add a few other things:

Yes, I hadn't seen that thread until after I posted...

Quote:

Porter: I am well aware of different versions of this parable in Matthew 20. Textual variants are very slight (Including the AV or JST) Would you care to be specific to your purpose in quoting it.

I'm curious to hear your spin on the lesson of that parable. To me, it is a promise that all who go to heaven receive the same reward, regardless of worldly works.

mr-pirk · 08-08-2005, 08:37 PM

Eto The Pii I have really struggled with continuing that thread, I have been wanting to address it further on that thread, but I have been weighing that desire with the intent that this forum was set up for. At this point in time I have decided not to post further on it unless it is in replying to someone.

Porter, your last post on this thread has been one of the better examples of tap-dancing I have seen since Clinton's "what IS is". I am addressing your defense of the JST, not my thread on the JST.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

Porter Rockwell · 08-09-2005, 09:19 AM

ET,

How about a suggestion. If you would like to discuss the works issue, how would you feel about starting a different thread. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you there. I would still consider this a thread on the inerrancy of the bible. Let me know how you feel about that.

Thanks and God Bless,

Porter.

Porter Rockwell · 08-09-2005, 09:50 AM

Pirk,

Hello again. I am still wondering why such the callus and demeaning manner and tone with me whenI have done nothing to offend you. I think your friend or colleague that has been sharing some things with you about LDS Christians that has poisoned you a bit. I may be wrong and appearing tobe too presumptous. That said, I cannot judge you or him, but I have noticed your tone has gone from a kind ,questioning manner with congenial overtones to a very acrid, sarcastic and *&^% near demeaning one! I will respond to individuals who treat me with respect and with kindness, not with accusations and hostility.

It appears that you would still like a discussion of the JST. I really do not know which issuesyou feel are being sidestepped or danced around.I have not had the chance to pay a whole lot of detailed attention to your discussion with Mahonri on the issue, but it seems that things were covered. Apparently you may feel differently. That said, the LDS postion does not rise or fall on the JST. It is an important piece of our beleifs, but is notas essenetial as itappears you have made it out to be. So if you would like to have a discussion, I would set some ground rules:

1) Treat me with respect, not condescension. You have appeared to have some spitting matches with Mahonri. I don't believe you and I have ever had any. I would like to keep it that way.

2) Keep you questions as short and as concise as possible. I just do not have a lot of time to dedicate to an inordinate amount of questions.

3) Something I have been guilty of...Don't make really long posts. I am attempting to cut mine down as much as I can.

4) Do not ever attempt to compare me or my religion to Bill Clinton and his sidestepping the issue in regards to oral sex with someone other than his wife and then denying it. If you feel I have missed a point, then help me by clarifying it kindly. Tocompare me, Mahonri or any other person of my faith (Or anyone elses faith) to Bill Clinton and his blatant sidestepping of a sexual issue (or if he really inhaled or not)is absolutelydisgusting! I would not feel that a person of your caliber and with the kind start you and I have had together on this site would stoop to that level. Personally, if that "is" is what you intended, I think an apology would be in order, but that is up to you.

5) Please do not tell me what I believe. You may have some opinions about what I beleive, but it really becomes dubious when you are not a baptized and confirmed member of my Church. You do not attend my meetings, you do not hear what is taught in my church each week. (and to my knowledge probably never have). Although you have been searching for some "neutral" information, what you have obtained is information from very critical non-members or former members of my faith ( I saw a genuine sincerity for you to look up something neutral, I never condemed you for where you were looking, just offered some kindredirection).

Do you really feel you are going to obtain true and correct information about someone unless you have been where they have been or done what they have done? You may be able to formulate opinions or ideas based on outside expereince or information, but you will never really know unless you have lived it. Rather tham telling me what my faith is, ask questions and seek to understand me with an open mind, not a bitter, closed and heavily opnionated one.

6) Start another thread or post some questions for me on the other one. I would like to keep separate threads for separate issues. Please bear with me on my response time. I am still attempting to asnswer some things for Reb today.

Thanks in advance and God Bless,

Porter.

DaveH · 08-09-2005, 07:40 PM

Porter--I am on vacation in Florida and using a computer that is even slower than mine . . . and I have very limited time. I read the first part of your post -- I didn't have time to read the whole thing (quite lengthy). My question however still remains unanswered--how can you say you believe the Bible (ALL of it), claim to believe it's true,and then say you do NOT believe it to be inerrant? If PART of it isn't true, then perhaps ALL of it isn't? If you think it contains errors, and you all admit to that, then how can we believe anything you tell us from the Bible? Most of us believe it all anc can therefor teach from it because we believe it all. I may or may not get online later this week since we're on vacation. My computer at home is in the shop, so it may be a while before I'm able to respond to your reply.

mr-pirk · 08-09-2005, 09:41 PM

Hello Porter Rockwell
I have tried to determine why my posts to you and Mahonri have been as they are, and yes they have been sacrastic. I am not normaly that way, I have been trying to understand why.
As a follower of Christ I shouldn't have been sacrastic, please forgive me, I was wrong.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk