Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

Since the Bible claims to be God's Word, and your CULT states that it is God's Word in so far as correctly translated, aren't you clearly at odds with the LDS on this subject?

First, the Bible nowhere claims to be God's Word. It doesn't even acknowledge itself at all. Second, "God's Word" does not mean "infallible." Third, Joseph Smith's use of "translate" was far more broad than today's stereotypical usage. It meant "transmitted" more than just "translated." He himself made several comments about manipulation of the text.

[_maklelan]

Many Israelites adopted pagan practices, that is not to say that YHWH was not their revealed God, or that YHWH ordered child or human sacrifices.

Exodus commands child sacrifice. I was under the impression that you held to the divine inspiration of Exodus, but if not, that's fine.

Many fell into Molech worship. But you'd be a fool to question things because of maklelan, who has repeatedly declared that he does not believe the Bible to be God's Word.

I have repeatedly declared that?

How foolish is one who places his trust in those who do not know the living Christ. God condemned Israel for its repeated lapses into pagansim, but there was always a faithful remnant who remained faithful to the True and Living God of Isa. 43:10.. Try basing your hope on what the faithful remnant has to say and did, rather than on some biased Mormon who is out to degrade God's Word.

That's not what I'm out to do at all.

[_maklelan]

I think nobody actually reads what you post on CARM

I'm well aware that everything scorches by well over their heads.

your "full and lengthy cases" are usually the higher critics' drivel that we've encountered previously on the net.

And you've tucked tail and run like a squirrel all those other times, too? Are you all so uninformed that you're scared to address critical scholarship directly, or is it that you're afraid you will be seduced by reason and evidence, so you just ignore it?

If you can't get applause, you lapse into your talking donkey routine and floating ax heads.

Hey, they're in your Bible.

Do you really think you impress anybody with that garbage? Nobody is really interested anymore, mak.

Then why have you posted so many times in these multiple threads?

Learn to write without all the ad homs and personal attacks and maybe you'd get a hearing.

Refer yourself to my discussion with Roger for an example of how I interact with respectful and non-bigoted folk.

There is one agnostic on CARM who is polite and gets his point across, and everybody is fond of him, and prays for his salvation.

Jonathan has a great deal more patience than I do.

On the other hand, when one posts with this huge chip on one's shoulder, demanding that people respect his opinion because, after all, he is who he is, people laugh and shrug their shoulders and say, "oh, it's only him again."

And then they follow me to another website and monopolize five different threads with dozens of posts telling me how little they care.

Just who are you trying to fool?

[_Roger]

Hi Servant (or Catherine?):

Many Israelites adopted pagan practices, that is not to say that YHWH was not their revealed God, or that YHWH ordered child or human sacrifices. Many fell into Molech worship.

Yes, we agree on that. The troubling part is Ex. 22:29. What does "You shall give me your first born sons" mean?

If it does mean that YHWH ordered child sacrifice, is that a problem?

But you'd be a fool to question things because of maklelan, who has repeatedly declared that he does not believe the Bible to be God's Word.

I don't know the history between you and mak on carm. I don't post on carm. All I know is from this forum and I had taken a long break from posting here until just recently. From what I've seen so far mak makes reasonable arguments. But I'm not questioning things because of mak per se, but because of an issue he brought to my attention. Quite frankly, at this point, it seems to be a genuine problem but I'm certainly open to any and all possible resolutions.

How foolish is one who places his trust in those who do not know the living Christ. God condemned Israel for its repeated lapses into pagansim, but there was always a faithful remnant who remained faithful to the True and Living God of Isa. 43:10.. Try basing your hope on what the faithful remnant has to say and did, rather than on some biased Mormon who is out to degrade God's Word.

That's fine. I would definitely be interested in hearing what the faithful remnant has to say about Exodus 22:29.

All the best.

[_maklelan]

As abhorrent as it sounds, the notion that some Isrealites practiced child sacrifice is not problematic (at least in terms of threatening modern orthodoxy) because the practice is clearly condemned in scripture so they would have been operating outside of YHWH's commands. The idea that in Isreal's early history, YHWH himself commanded it is highly problematic. If your analysis is correct, then even Ezekiel realized it was a problem in his day. Ezekiel's solution sounds pretty weak to me, but unless "you shall give me your first born sons" means "dedicate them in service to me" I see no other alternative. Just because I see no other alternative at this point doesn't mean there isn't one, but it bothers me, nonetheless.

I can understand that.

"Creepy" is an understatement. It's abhorrent and it does bother me on a devotional level. Yes, it was a completely different world back then and we can easily lose sight of that, but it supposedly wasn't a different God.

I have a much different view of inscripturation than you do, I imagine. Rather than thinking of the text as the pristine word of God and using accommodationism or something like that to account for cultural, linguistic, or nationalistic idiosyncrasies, I think of it as the Word of God filtered through numerous imperfect human conduits. I don't think the text has been protected from human influence or corruption, so when I see this stuff, I'm perfectly happy to say it's not a different God, but a much different author imposing their own cultural and ideological lens on whatever inspiration may or may not have compelled them to write.

The response to that is always, "How do we know what is and isn't god's word, then?" and there is where I think the LDS prioritization of the guidance of the Spirit makes up a lot of ground. If the Bible is the one and only standard, it's all or nothing. If the Bible is a complement and supplement to the Spirit, it can be much more flexible. That's my view, for whatever it's worth.

I can't reconcile it if YHWH commanded it. Such a command is too inconsistent with the characteristics of the God I've been taught to believe in. The LDS God changes his mind frequently but not the orthodox God. Ezekiel's solution is weak, but it's all I can see at this point.

I think it's important to acknowledge that Ezekiel is trying to rationalize the commandment in Exodus. Most readers assume the Bible is univocal, expressing one harmonious perspective from beginning to end, but the Bible opens up to so much more when we acknowledge that some authors are wrestling with earlier traditions, reinterpreting them, marginalizing them, preempting them, or downright rejecting them. This is what's going on with James' allusions to Romans in James 2, but so many people want to harmonize the two by reading Paul into James, effectively silencing James.

No, it's the NEB.

Gotcha.

Mak, again, I'm not a scholar and obviously you are. I see no reason to doubt what you're saying - other than you're LDS and, coincidentally what you're saying is less problematic for the LDS God than the orthodox God - but if what you're saying is true, it really makes me question things.

I have appreciated the times when I have been forced to question things. Even if I come away unconvinced, I have been enlightened by the exposure to other perspectives.

I actually agree with you that the Bible does not have to be "inerrant" in order for God to use it and speak through it. Obviously God can use flawed humans to proclaim his message. What is problematic, however, is when humans claim to speak for God by actually proclaiming "Thus says the Lord" when they are not really getting inspiration from God. If one author says God commanded it and another says its abominable in God's eyes, there would seem to be a problem. Apparently Ezekiel recognized that problem and his solution is to suggest that God commanded what was abhorrent in his eyes out of disgust and exasperation in the hopes that the shock would produce the positive result of Isreal forsaking the abhorrent (but commanded) practice. This seems phenomenally weak. This would be about like Thomas Monson now proclaiming that God commanded Joseph Smith to take plural wives even though it was abhorrent to him, because he was disgusted with Joseph's constant desire to have additional wives and he knew the shock value would eventually produce a positive result.

I agree, it's not a good reason, but we could both probably point to many instances of people accepting incredibly weak rationalizations because they protect their dogmas. Critical thinking would not have been a virtue back then.

[_LittleNipper]

I don't see this as fraud. These are but educated considerations or possibilities. It is like the theory of evolution.

No, this is absolutely nothing like the theory of evolution. This is demonstrably false, and the theory of evolution is demonstrably true.

I do not see evolutionists as frauds, what I see is a genuine misunderstanding of data and nothing more.

That's because you don't understand the data yourself.

The Book of Mormon is a fraud, as it is not ancient but dates to about the time of the Great Revival, but was promoted as ancient scripture text --- which is most obvious that it is not.

And the same can be said for the Bible. It is demonstrably not what it claims to be.

Where were the evolutionists when the world was Created? How did a highly developed single celled organism originate exactly? How did it become a become a mammal --- where and exactly when? You disregard the lack evidence.The Bible stands entirely on its own merit. The Book of Mormon leans on the Bible. Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

[_maklelan]

Where were the evolutionists when the world was Created?

Millions of years away from evolving.

How did a highly developed single celled organism originate exactly? How did it become a become a mammal --- where and exactly when? You disregard the lack evidence.

There is not a lack of evidence. I could link you to dozens of academic papers from the last couple years that provide a very high degree of support for theories of the origins of life.

The Bible stands entirely on its own merit.

Then it falls. Full stop.

The Book of Mormon leans on the Bible. Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

[_LittleNipper]

Where were the evolutionists when the world was Created?

Millions of years away from evolving.

How did a highly developed single celled organism originate exactly? How did it become a become a mammal --- where and exactly when? You disregard the lack evidence.

There is not a lack of evidence. I could link you to dozens of academic papers from the last couple years that provide a very high degree of support for theories of the origins of life.

The Bible stands entirely on its own merit.

Then it falls. Full stop.

The Book of Mormon leans on the Bible. Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

How many years is that exactly? When did a single celled organisms become a Starfish or Horseshoe Crab? The Bible is a failure according to you but not for me. And that is why I can call myself a Christian ---- because I have absolutes on my side. You have nothing but doubts and "educated" guesswork. Jesus died for me because the Bible tells me so. Without the Bible, I would not know that. And were it not for the Bible, YOU would not know that either.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

How many years is that exactly? When did a single celled organisms become a Starfish or Horseshoe Crab? The Bible is a failure according to you but not for me. And that is why I can call myself a Christian ---- because I have absolutes on my side. You have nothing but doubts and "educated" guesswork. Jesus died for me because the Bible tells me so. Without the Bible, I would not know that. And were it not for the Bible, YOU would not know that either.

You're confusing belief with knowledge, Nipper.

[_maklelan]

How many years is that exactly? When did a single celled organisms become a Starfish or Horseshoe Crab? The Bible is a failure according to you but not for me. And that is why I can call myself a Christian ---- because I have absolutes on my side. You have nothing but doubts and "educated" guesswork. Jesus died for me because the Bible tells me so. Without the Bible, I would not know that. And were it not for the Bible, YOU would not know that either.

So you're right because you say so.