Bible verse by verse

[Guest]

There are no original versions of Exodus in existence. It may be that scholars have - or think they have - a pretty decent idea of what exactly was contained in the original version and what wasn't ...

Just as a clarification: the consensus approach to Exodus -- along with the rest of the Pentateuch -- as it exists today is not that it is based on a single authoritative "original version" that was simply modified here-and-there along the way. Rather, it is a compiled work drawing from several sources/traditions that have been woven together to form something approaching a more-or-less unified narrative. This approach explains why there are several instances of repetition (which sometimes contain contradictory information), and why some events are repeated using different characters (see, for example, the remarkable similarities in the wife-sister stories involving Abraham/Abimelech and Isaac/Abimelech). These narratives were apparently popular but sometimes existed in different forms. Rather than simply choose one "authoritative" version, the compilers tended to preserve these various traditions even though it resulted in repetition and contradiction. The inconsistent creation accounts preserved in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is an easy example.

Either the ancient editors were unaware of the repetition and contradiction (unlikely -- unless they were idiots) or perfect consistency was less important to them than preserving these various traditions. You know, it's almost as if these ancient editors of the Pentateuch went about their business with a shocking lack of sensitivity towards modern inerrantist sensibilities.

[_maklelan]

You may all wish to read the following which spells out the problem. The message of the Bible and what it says is not up for personal interpretation. Please see: http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm
Please check out chapter one. It is very easy reading.
"A good rule is: "A text without a context is only a pretext." The definition of the word "pretext" means a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one. It is impossible to understand any statement without considering its context. "

Utter garbage. When a passage isn't supposed to be interpreted literally it's "clearly indicated"? Complete nonsense. The definition of context is also ludicrous. The context also includes the genre, the historical setting, the literary setting, the rhetorical setting, and so many other things. And this document presupposes the univocality of the Bible, which is demonstrably false.

[_LittleNipper]

You may all wish to read the following which spells out the problem. The message of the Bible and what it says is not up for personal interpretation. Please see: http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm
Please check out chapter one. It is very easy reading.
"A good rule is: "A text without a context is only a pretext." The definition of the word "pretext" means a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one. It is impossible to understand any statement without considering its context. "

Utter garbage. When a passage isn't supposed to be interpreted literally it's "clearly indicated"? Complete nonsense. The definition of context is also ludicrous. The context also includes the genre, the historical setting, the literary setting, the rhetorical setting, and so many other things. And this document presupposes the univocality of the Bible, which is demonstrably false.

UTTER GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I share even "some" beliefs with Mormons. You are saying EVERYTHING that is being said is invalid. So you believe in in baptism of the dead? See, you are demonstrating YOUR bias and unreasonableness. It is so plain that Betty herself should see it. WHAT IS CLEARLY BEING SAID IS THAT NO PART OF THE Bible IS TO BE INTERPRETED APART FROM THE Bible AS A WHOLE. Doctrine is not to be fashioned from an obscure verse taken out of context with the rest of the Bible. The clear understanding of the Bible is founded in its coherence with everything else the Bible says in TOTAL. There is no place for extreme interpretations where there is no support anywhere else in the Bible. Example: 'And the Word was God.' cannot be understood as 'And the Word became a god.' It is an extreme interpretation of a passage that finds NO support anywhere else in scripture --- even though such a understanding can make non-acceptance of the TRIUNITY of the Godhead seem the "correct" solution against the divinity of Jesus. So the Mormon belief in baptism of the dead is out of line and without other Biblical support. On the other hand the Bible supports the understanding of a six literal days of CREATION, and the FLOOD, and for the Patriarchs of the Bible.

[_maklelan]

UTTER GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I share even "some" beliefs with Mormons. You are saying EVERYTHING that is being said is invalid.

Not every word, but definitely the salient points.

So you believe in in baptism of the dead? See, you are demonstrating YOUR bias and unreasonableness. It is so plain that Betty herself should see it. WHAT IS CLEARLY BEING SAID IS THAT NO PART OF THE Bible IS TO BE INTERPRETED APART FROM THE Bible AS A WHOLE.

Which is utter nonsense. That would mean no part of the Bible could be interpreted prior to the final and canonical organization of the Old and New Testaments. Everyone prior to the fourth century CE was just fooling themselves. Even the authors had no idea what they were doing.

Doctrine is not to be fashioned from an obscure verse taken out of context with the rest of the Bible.

"The Bible" is an artificial context produced over the centuries after the texts were actually written. The appropriate contexts are those contemporaneous with the composition of the texts.

The clear understanding of the Bible is founded in its coherence with everything else the Bible says in TOTAL.

There is no such coherence. What you perceive to be a coherence is just a naïve illusion you convince yourself is real.

There is no place for extreme interpretations where there is no support anywhere else in the Bible. Example: 'And the Word was God.' cannot be understood as 'And the Word became a god.'

The verb isn't "became," it's "was," but it can certainly be read "a god."

is an extreme interpretation of a passage that finds NO support anywhere else in scripture --- even though such a understanding can make non-acceptance of the TRIUNITY of the Godhead seem the "correct" solution against the divinity of Jesus. So the Mormon belief in baptism of the dead is out of line and without other Biblical support. On the other hand the Bible supports the understanding of a six literal days of CREATION, and the FLOOD, and for the Patriarchs of the Bible.

More delusional nonsense.

[_Bret Ripley]

Utter garbage. When a passage isn't supposed to be interpreted literally it's "clearly indicated"? Complete nonsense. The definition of context is also ludicrous. The context also includes the genre, the historical setting, the literary setting, the rhetorical setting, and so many other things. And this document presupposes the univocality of the Bible, which is demonstrably false.

UTTER GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's right: the information in that link is garbage.

I share even "some" beliefs with Mormons.

What he is saying is not specific to Mormonism. The exegetical method described by that link lies well outside the mainstream.

WHAT IS CLEARLY BEING SAID IS THAT NO PART OF THE Bible IS TO BE INTERPRETED APART FROM THE Bible AS A WHOLE.

And this is an egregiously wrong-headed approach if you are trying to understand what a particular text actually says. For example, rather than reading James with the intent of harmonizing him with Paul, you should respect the texts enough to just let Paul be Paul and let James be James. If they don't exactly agree, so be it.

Doctrine is not to be fashioned from an obscure verse taken out of context with the rest of the Bible.

Who said anything about doctrine? This discussion is about examining texts for what they actually say without first running them through a doctrinal filter.

The clear understanding of the Bible is founded in its coherence with everything else the Bible says in TOTAL.

No. The first step towards a clear understanding is to appreciate what the texts actually meant in their original cultural settings. The original authors and readers of Isaiah (for example) wouldn't have approached that text with the same expectations as someone who was familiar with New Testament writings. But Isaiah wasn't written for 1st (or 21st) century Christians, so the first step is ask: what did it mean to its intended audience? Only after that can you engage in an honest and informed discussion regarding what should or shouldn't be doctrinal (if you are interested in that sort of thing).

[_Roger]

I'm sorry, I could have been more specific. I meant the text of vv. 25-26 don't mention idols anywhere. If the NEB says "idols" in v. 26 it's because t has added it. It's not in the Hebrew. The surrounding context mentions idols, but the idea of vv. 25-26 is that YHWH just got so sick of it that he commanded Israel to sacrifice their children to him. There is no commandment anywhere to sacrifice children to idols, so Ezekiel's reference is a mystery.

I'm out of my league when it comes to Hebrew, all I can go on are the various English renditions, but I accept what you're telling me about the Hebrew. Nevertheless, even if idols aren't specifically mentioned in vv. 25-26, why would they need to be? The context seems to demand it. Idols are mentioned throughout the rest of the chapter. For the entire chapter to be referring to idols while 25-26 allegedly implies but does not directly state YHWH seems unreasonable.

Ezekiel's reference doesn't seem mysterious in context. It fits with the context of Isreal's desire to follow other gods and YHWH's exasperation with them.

There is a commandment to sacrifice children to YHWH, though.

It seems to me the key question is whether Ex. 22:29 ever existed apart from 13:13. The whole concept of redemption is key symbolism throughout the Bible as a type or picture of Christ's ultimate sacrifice. That's why, looking at it from a Christian perspective (rather than Jewish), the notion that God would command a sacrifice (Ex. 22:29) - because that is what is needed to pay the penalty for sins - but then offer (and in this case command - Ex. 13:13) a substitution makes perfect sense. If that is indeed what is going on, then the fact that 13:13 precedes 22:29 would seem to emphasize the importance of the redemption rather than sacrifice of the firstborn. It's almost like, look, I already commanded redemption before I gave the sacrifice command so you can't conclude the redemption clause was an afterthought. Obviously that doesn't work if 13:13 is a later addition. So there's a lot riding on chronology.

The context is about YHWH's relationship with Israel, and about how he was expected to respond to their disobedience.

Yes, but their specific disobedience lies in their constant desire to worship idols.

In v. 21 he says he thought about pouring out his wrath upon them, but he withheld his hand (v. 22). In v. 23 he warns that he would scatter them among the nations. In vv.25-26 he explains that he gave them bad commandments in order to desolate them and make clear who's in charge.

And how could sacrificing to him be a bad commandment? As Exodus points out, it is necessary for the remission of sins. The thing is, in both cases he provided a substitutionary method so the Isrealites wouldn't have to sacrifice their firstborn just like Christ became our substitutionary sacrifice.

Idols were their preferred mode of rebellion, but the notion that YHWH said "Fine, sacrifice to idols" is not found within the text.

Maybe not explicitly but it seems to be strongly implied. It seems to make sense considering the context whereas the notion of sacrificing to YHWH seems to run completely counter to the context. It also doesn't explicitly say, "Fine, sacrifice your kids to me."

I would suggest you're homogenizing a rather broad swath of Christian devotional experience, but if you want to get into specifics, Latter-day Saints conceive of a testimony as something given by the Spirit, not an arbitrary decision.

Yes, the idea is that communication is somehow achieved by the Spirit, but from what I know in having spoken with many LDS and ex-LDS, the specifics of how that communication is made is highly subjective. But for the sake of discussion let's assume I'm wrong about that. How is your testimony of Christ superior to mine?

I wouldn't agree. For me it has nothing to do with Smith's reliability. It has entirely to do with whether or not the Spirit inspired me.

Again, I'm baffled. How could you receive a positive message from the Spirit about the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith (or Sidney Rigdon) made it up?

So what convinces you of the reliability of the Bible?

At this point, in all candor, I'm not convinced. But I'm also not convinced otherwise.

As a non-LDS this is baffling to me - especially considering how skeptical you seem to be otherwise. How could he be both a prophet and a fraud? Or sort-of a prophet and sort-of a fraud?

Quite easily. No one's entire life is reducible to a single black and white judgment. He could very easily have been a prophet one moment while addressing an audience and a fraud the next while trying to show off for some kind of visitor or challenger. We like to think of categories as convenient little boxes to which an entity either entirely belongs or entirely does not belong, but that's simply not how categories work. They have fuzzy boundaries, they run together, and they are constituted by complex and often illogical conceptual relationships.

Again, mak, with all due respect, this just blows me away coming, as it does, from someone who otherwise seems so cut and dry, black and white. You're convinced beyond doubt, for example, that Ezekiel's YHWH is speaking about sacrifices to him despite the remaining context, and yet you're willing to give Joseph Smith an amazing amount of latitude.

To better illustrate my amazement, consider whether you would say the same thing about Warren Jeffs. Since "[n]o one's entire life is reducible to a single black and white judgment" can we then conclude that Warren Jeffs is a true "prophet one moment while addressing an audience and a fraud the next while trying to show off for some kind of visitor or challenger"?

For me, this just simply does not compute.

But this is all contingent upon the accuracy of the biblical text. There very well may have been no empty tomb whatsoever.

Sure, but the point is, there is no tomb that contains the bones of Christ. If such a tomb did exist, then the whole thing would be proven wrong.

See? : ) I think you just agreed with my earlier point. : )

About what?

About you being skeptical.

The same could be said about any one of a number of ancient religious texts you reject. Being ancient doesn't really mean much.

Of course, but at least it's a legitimate place to begin. The point is the Book of Mormon doesn't even have that foundation. Instead the evidence suggests it is entirely a 19th century creation that purports to be ancient.

There's a difference between being a real person and being the Son of God, though.

Absolutely. That's why we should consider other available evidence such as the actions of the apostles, what hostile sources had to say and whether the Shroud of Turin might actually be the burial cloth of Christ.

That's not a very handy advantage when you still have to deal with mountains of evidence that flatly and unilaterally undermine all your claims. The exodus is precluded by all physical evidence. It's physically impossible that Moses split the Red Sea, or that Balaam spoke with a talking donkey.When you're making outrageous claims it hardly means anything that the texts are ancient. They're still several centuries later than they purport to be, after all.

Maybe all that is true, maybe it isn't. To me those are not the most important questions. The most important question is whether or not Christ rose from the dead, and you agree that he did. If you are correct about that, then the other questions have answers one way or another.

The same is the case with the Bible. The theology changes with every author, the texts demonstrably don't date to the times to which they purport, and the evidence unilaterally precludes all the faith claims made.

Well, if that's really the case, then what you're really saying is that we shouldn't believe either Joseph Smith or the Bible.

I disagree that it's debatable. I cannot think of a single faith claim from the Bible that has any evidence in its favor that comes anywhere close to a fraction of the evidence that flatly precludes it.

The resurrection of Christ?

Why do you presuppose univocality and inerrancy? What compels you to do this?

I don't presuppose inerrancy except perhaps in the original autographs, but even then I don't think it's necessary. We agreed on "inspiration" remember? As to univocality, I see that a bit differently because while the whole would have been compiled by different authors with different writing styles, their individual works were still inspired by the same God. So I would have a difficult time thinking that one author could radically disagree with another author when it comes to the attributes of God and yet they were both inspired by the same God.

All the best.

[Guest]

No, both Maklelan and Bret accept their own garbage --- calling what they disagree with garbage to merely an attempt to cover and uplift themselves. The link I provided is very well written and rather easy to understand.
Please see: http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm

[_LittleNipper]

UTTER GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I share even "some" beliefs with Mormons. You are saying EVERYTHING that is being said is invalid.

Not every word, but definitely the salient points.

So you believe in in baptism of the dead? See, you are demonstrating YOUR bias and unreasonableness. It is so plain that Betty herself should see it. WHAT IS CLEARLY BEING SAID IS THAT NO PART OF THE Bible IS TO BE INTERPRETED APART FROM THE Bible AS A WHOLE.

Which is utter nonsense. That would mean no part of the Bible could be interpreted prior to the final and canonical organization of the Old and New Testaments. Everyone prior to the fourth century CE was just fooling themselves. Even the authors had no idea what they were doing.

Doctrine is not to be fashioned from an obscure verse taken out of context with the rest of the Bible.

"The Bible" is an artificial context produced over the centuries after the texts were actually written. The appropriate contexts are those contemporaneous with the composition of the texts.

The clear understanding of the Bible is founded in its coherence with everything else the Bible says in TOTAL.

There is no such coherence. What you perceive to be a coherence is just a naïve illusion you convince yourself is real.

There is no place for extreme interpretations where there is no support anywhere else in the Bible. Example: 'And the Word was God.' cannot be understood as 'And the Word became a god.'

The verb isn't "became," it's "was," but it can certainly be read "a god."

is an extreme interpretation of a passage that finds NO support anywhere else in scripture --- even though such a understanding can make non-acceptance of the TRIUNITY of the Godhead seem the "correct" solution against the divinity of Jesus. So the Mormon belief in baptism of the dead is out of line and without other Biblical support. On the other hand the Bible supports the understanding of a six literal days of CREATION, and the FLOOD, and for the Patriarchs of the Bible.

More delusional nonsense.

There is ONLY ONE REAL GOD. Jesus cannot be a god if there is only one God. So then one must realize that only God created everything. Only God can be eternal. Only God saves. And these are attributed not only to God but Christ the "I AM," by the way of the Holy Spirit --- three in One.

[_maklelan]

There is ONLY ONE REAL GOD.

Funny. The Bible says there are many gods.

Jesus cannot be a god if there is only one God.

But he can be 100% God and 100% man? You have a funny way of deciding which logical impossibilities you assert and which you abandon.

So then one must realize that only God created everything.

This does not follow from the concept of only one God.

Only God can be eternal. Only God saves. And these are attributed not only to God but Christ the "I AM," by the way of the Holy Spirit --- three in One.

naïve dogmatism.

[_Bret Ripley]

No, both Maklelan and Bret accept their own garbage --- calling what they disagree with garbage to merely attempt to cover and uplift themselves.

While I appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence as maklelan, I'm nowhere close to being in his league. And while I guess I can admit to feeling sort of uplifted by a deeper understanding of the texts, I won't pretend that it is my own "garbage". Like it or not, nothing I've said is inconsistent with the mainstream academic understanding of the texts. And this is an understanding that is shared by both faithful and non-believing scholars. Frankly, that there exists a chasm between the lectern and your pew isn't really my problem. That's on you.

The link I provided is very well written and rather easy to understand.

It is easy to understand, I'll give you that. So is The Itsy Bitsy Spider.