Adding to the Bible?

[_LittleNipper]

Nipper, your information is wrong again. Any respectable modern scholar knows that the Book of Revelation was written before the Books of John! Thomas Slater writes: "While the traditional gate of the Book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus) MANY SCHOLARS NOW DATE IT AS EARLY AS A.D. 68 OR 69 A.D. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS GENERALLY DATED A.D. 95-100 {John 1-3 being written progressively later}. "Dating the Apocalypse of John, volume 84"

In any case, it is obvious that that prophesy (Revelation 22:18) only applied to the Book of Revelation itself and not the whole Bible! You can tell that from the wording about the plagues! Also, the Bible as we know it did not even exist then! It was not compiled until the 4th century A.D.!!!

"Respectible" scholars believe the 6 day Creation to be but a story. "Respectable" scholars believe the worldwide Flood to be but reginal. "Respectable" scholars believe Jesus to have been in a swoon in the tomb and not risen from the dead. It is obvious to me that the "respectibable" scholars at the time of Jesus were wrong also, and Christ said so. He didn't hold them in very high regard. God has given us everything we need to know in the Bible. There is no secret code or special knowledge, or hidden books. This is what satan would have people believe to confound, confuse, divide, conquer, and bury...

[_gdemetz]

No respectable theologian that I am aware of believes that Jesus was never resurrected. Also, the land mass of the earth was together prior to the flood, and to my knowledge most respectable theologians believe the Biblical account that this land mass was covered with water. "Days," however, in the Bible is a horse of a different color. It has several different meanings in the Bible. For example, a day of the Lord is equivalent to 1,000 years, and there is one LDS scholar who believes that this is the time period for the creation since "the Lord had not yet appointed unto Adam his reckoning. Another use is simply an unspecified time period which is referred to as a day. Therefore there are many scholars who believe that these simply refer to time periods. The problem with many evangelicals is the fact that in obvious cases of a literal meaning, they want to take the scripture top a figurative, or some other meaning which fits their beliefs, and the scriptures which are more vague, they want to take them literally, such as "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. "They then want to say, wait a minute that wouldn't apply to contracts marriages or adoptions, etc. Also, "the restitution of all things:" they want to say, now wait a minute, that wouldn't apply to priesthood, or baptisms, or laying on of hands, or apostles, or seventies, or animal sacrifices (be careful on this one before you reply), etc., etc., etc.!!!

[_Samantabhadra]

This discussion suddenly took a turn for the fascinating.

Since I agree with subgenius on some points--actually subgenius I have to say, you have made some really sophisticated arguments here--and with Themis on others, I thought I might chime in and offer another perspective.

First of all, much of this discussion has turned on what exactly is meant by "sign." I think there has been a lot of slippage between "sign" in the sense of "contentful/meaningful communication [from God or some other entity]" and "sign" in the sense of "[physical or psychological] evidence that a given proposition is true." Certainly a contentful communication (sense 1) can theoretically serve as a kind of evidence (sense 2), but they're not a priori identical.

Second, there has been a lot of debate as to what "counts" as an instrument of reliable knowledge, i.e. what is a valid means by which we can arrive at true conclusions. Jo and subgenius want to say that physical or material phenomena are not valid means for evaluating spiritual truth-claims. Themis claims that certain types of physical evidence can disprove certain types of spiritual truth-claims, but does not specify or qualify the terms of this relationship.

More broadly, Themis seems committed a view of what he terms the "body-machine." Subgenius (rightly, in my estimation) demonstrates the internal inconsistency of this view: if one's perceptual faculties--generally speaking, the "means of reliable knowledge"--are flawed, and the only thing that exists is a machine-like body, then necessarily

To investigate one's self with the same inconsistent and unreliable physiological mechanisms (ie. brain) that produced the delusion in the first place is absurd and illogical.the conclusion is as flawed as the original experience. Replacing one delusion with another is not a resolution. You have no means by which you can escape the flawed instruments of your perceptions.....according to your own theory.

In my view, however, both jo/subgenius and Themis make the same mistake: they commit to a rigid mind/body or spirit/body distinction. Themis commits to this exact same rigid distinction; the only difference is that he basically denies the existence of the mind/spirit. So he is left in a position where he cannot effectively rebut the position of subgenius and jo, which proceeds from the exact same rigid distinction.

Thus I would say to you, Themis, that you should 're-evaluate' your strictly mechanistic philosophy of mind. There is no evidence for mechanistic determinism in general (regarding particle physics) or specifically applied to mental functions. And if you see the mind-body system as an integral whole, rather than in terms of a dualism, then you can more effectively argue that physical evidence is capable of refuting spiritual claims. Not all physical evidence, and not all spiritual claims, but if you commit to this kind of a rigid distinction then you are basically playing right into your polemical opponents' hands.

Great discussion. I would like to address subgenius' "apples to oranges" in greater detail, but I think it deserves its own thread.

[_LittleNipper]

No respectable theologian that I am aware of believes that Jesus was never resurrected. Also, the land mass of the earth was together prior to the flood, and to my knowledge most respectable theologians believe the Biblical account that this land mass was covered with water. "Days," however, in the Bible is a horse of a different color. It has several different meanings in the Bible. For example, a day of the Lord is equivalent to 1,000 years, and there is one LDS scholar who believes that this is the time period for the creation since "the Lord had not yet appointed unto Adam his reckoning. Another use is simply an unspecified time period which is referred to as a day. Therefore there are many scholars who believe that these simply refer to time periods. The problem with many evangelicals is the fact that in obvious cases of a literal meaning, they want to take the scripture top a figurative, or some other meaning which fits their beliefs, and the scriptures which are more vague, they want to take them literally, such as "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. "They then want to say, wait a minute that wouldn't apply to contracts marriages or adoptions, etc. Also, "the restitution of all things:" they want to say, now wait a minute, that wouldn't apply to priesthood, or baptisms, or laying on of hands, or apostles, or seventies, or animal sacrifices (be careful on this one before you reply), etc., etc., etc.!!!

Among others, Philadelphia Biblical University, Liberty Baptist University and Dallas Theological Seminary hold to the Biblical views I accept. They believe the Book of Revelation was the last book written, and it is placed in that position traditionally. They also hold to 6 literal days of creation as does the Creation Research Institute. Unless one feels they must compromise with the theory of evolution, I see no spiritual reason to consider any interpretation broader than that. Adam spiritually cut his ties with God the very moment he ate of the fruit. That was his death.

[_Themis]

First of all, much of this discussion has turned on what exactly is meant by "sign." I think there has been a lot of slippage between "sign" in the sense of "contentful/meaningful communication [from God or some other entity]" and "sign" in the sense of "[physical or psychological] evidence that a given proposition is true." Certainly a contentful communication (sense 1) can theoretically serve as a kind of evidence (sense 2), but they're not a priori identical.

My original comments on signs was that I find it funny now that for many religions, particularity LDS that physical sign seeking is bad, but spiritual sign seeking is good. Seeking itself should not be seen as a bad thing.

Second, there has been a lot of debate as to what "counts" as an instrument of reliable knowledge, i.e. what is a valid means by which we can arrive at true conclusions. Jo and subgenius want to say that physical or material phenomena are not valid means for evaluating spiritual truth-claims. Themis claims that certain types of physical evidence can disprove certain types of spiritual truth-claims, but does not specify or qualify the terms of this relationship.

Reliability is an important issue. First though, I don't think most spiritual truth claims cannot be tested by the physical because they don't make any claims that involve the physical in a testable way. Some spiritual truth claims or knowledge do. If they fail then how should we treat the parts that are part of the claim but are not testable. An example is Noah's flood. Part of the claim is that the flood was global, all animal life was destroyed except for what was on the ark. Since the evidence does not support this in massive way(Common sense can tell you this as well), how much confidence should we have that other parts of the story we cannot test are accurate? The problem LDS have is Joseph made a lot of testable claims that you don't see in most other religions.

Now to reliability.

More broadly, Themis seems committed a view of what he terms the "body-machine." Subgenius (rightly, in my estimation) demonstrates the internal inconsistency of this view: if one's perceptual faculties--generally speaking, the "means of reliable knowledge"--are flawed, and the only thing that exists is a machine-like body, then necessarily

I am not suggesting our perceptions are perfect, but if we want to go the nothing is real route then we won't really get any where in this discussion. Sure we can't know anything absolutely(although sub thinks he can with the spiritual), but what we really go by is what works. If it works well we tend to view it as reliable and accurate enough to consider it reality, and if it's not we don't worry to much about it. When it comes to the spiritual we have a lot of disagreement about it in terms of what it is, what truth claims we get from it, etc. In terms of our 5 physical senses, we tend to have much more agreement, sight being the best. I would say I don't view the spiritual as separate from the physical. WE use our 5 senses for perceive things outside of us, but we also sense things inside us that the 5 sense cannot perceive like tummy aches, euphoria, etc. Most spiritual experiences I know or have been described tend to uses our internal senses much more then the 5 physical senses.

In my view, however, both jo/subgenius and Themis make the same mistake: they commit to a rigid mind/body or spirit/body distinction.

Actually I don't, but I tend to talk in those terms with people like sub who do. My mistake.

Themis commits to this exact same rigid distinction; the only difference is that he basically denies the existence of the mind/spirit. So he is left in a position where he cannot effectively rebut the position of subgenius and jo, which proceeds from the exact same rigid distinction.

Again incorrect. I do not deny the mind/spirit, although I may not define it the way some do. I describe a little above about the 5 senses we use to perceive the outside world, but also talk about the ones that the 5 senses cannot perceive. I think they all fall under the same distinction since the brain is involved with all of them. Again it will come down to what works and how well.

[_Themis]

They also hold to 6 literal days of creation as does the Creation Research Institute. Unless one feels they must compromise with the theory of evolution, I see no spiritual reason to consider any interpretation broader than that.

Many do and for good reasons. Evolution is a biggie but hardly the only one that shows the earth is very old and was not created in 6 24 hour periods.

[_LittleNipper]

They also hold to 6 literal days of creation as does the Creation Research Institute. Unless one feels they must compromise with the theory of evolution, I see no spiritual reason to consider any interpretation broader than that.

Many do and for good reasons. Evolution is a biggie but hardly the only one that shows the earth is very old and was not created in 6 24 hour periods.

The problem is if one doesn't believe that God created everything, then a way must be concocted to establish how such an event could happen "naturally." Where God was demonstrating/displaying His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience to man. Man's take is that everything is old because he excludes God.

[_gdemetz]

Nipper, I suspected that you might use those little evangelical schools to support your opinions, however, I seriously doubt that any great scholar has come from those little schools. Anyway, it is obvious to more and more learned scholars that the Book of Revelation was not the last book of the Bible written. Regardless of that, the Bible itself speaks of other books as authoritative, including lost book that will be restored as part of the "restitution of ALL things". It also prophesies of other truths as well as books coming forth. It also states that the books were opened, and that people were judged according to those things which were written in the BOOKS. Also, as I stated before, there is no reason to make the false assumption that Revelation 22:18 applied to anything more than the Book of Revelation itself since the Bible was not even compiled then. and the plagues mentioned are another clear indication that it was only referring to the Book of Revelation!

[_LittleNipper]

Nipper, I suspected that you might use those little evangelical schools to support your opinions, however, I seriously doubt that any great scholar has come from those little schools. Anyway, it is obvious to more and more learned scholars that the Book of Revelation was not the last book of the Bible written. Regardless of that, the Bible itself speaks of other books as authoritative, including lost book that will be restored as part of the "restitution of ALL things". It also prophesies of other truths as well as books coming forth. It also states that the books were opened, and that people were judged according to those things which were written in the BOOKS. Also, as I stated before, there is no reason to make the false assumption that Revelation 22:18 applied to anything more than the Book of Revelation itself since the Bible was not even compiled then. and the plagues mentioned are another clear indication that it was only referring to the Book of Revelation!

Who measures true greatness Man or God? The books are the Book of Life and the Lamb's Book of Life. And the reality is that Jesus will return to set up His Kingdom for 1000 years. During that time the lion will sleep with the lamb. and there will be a return to the Garden for that time.

[_Themis]

The problem is if one doesn't believe that God created everything, then a way must be concocted to establish how such an event could happen "naturally." Where God was demonstrating/displaying His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience to man. Man's take is that everything is old because he excludes God.

You might want to go out and learn some science first. Christians who were also scientists were among the first scientists long ago to see the evidence of an old earth. Your last statement is not only incorrect and dumb, but shows an extreme bias.