Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

No, both Maklelan and Bret accept their own garbage --- calling what they disagree with garbage to merely 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

And also laughably naïve and dogmatic. For instance, observe:

Surely, God is not teaching, for example, that one is saved by earning salvation by good works and also teaching man is saved by God's Grace without works.

Well, you have multiple presuppositions separating the author of this sentence from a rational and intelligent thinker. First, this sentence presupposes that the Bible teaches God's will. That's not something that has any evidence to support it. One must just choose to believe it. Next, it presupposes the Bible teaches God's will univocally. The evidence pretty clearly precludes that. Next, it prioritizes Paul over James, weighting the scriptures according to agreement with established doctrines. No one determines doctrine from the Bible, they determine doctrine from tradition and use the Bible as a backstop. This is a perfect example of that.

[_Gunnar]

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.

I strongly disagree. Even if such tomb existed and it were possible to somehow prove that bones found in it were the actual bones of Christ, that would prove absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not Christ was literally resurrected. I think I have amply demonstrated that it is entirely unnecessary for any resurrected body (including Christ's) to incorporate any of the material that was incorporated in the body of the deceased at the time of death. If that actually were necessary, then the universal resurrection of all humans who had ever lived, that many Christians (including Mormons) believe in, simply would not be possible.

by the way, out of curiosity, so you think Christ's spirit or soul is still encapsulated permanently in a physical body of flesh and bone or that he actually needs a physical body to fulfill his functions and responsibilities? Do you agree with Mormons that God, the Father (Elohim) also necessarily has a physical body of flesh and bone?

[_Roger]

Hi Gunnar:

I strongly disagree. Even if such tomb existed and it were possible to somehow prove that bones found in it were the actual bones of Christ, that would prove absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not Christ was literally resurrected.

This is an interesting take on it, but I just don't think I can agree with you. If it could be established that the actual bones of Christ are resting in a tomb, it would say to me that he was not actually able to conquer death.

I think I have amply demonstrated that it is entirely unnecessary for any resurrected body (including Christ's) to incorporate any of the material that was incorporated in the body of the deceased at the time of death. If that actually were necessary, then the universal resurrection of all humans who had ever lived, that many Christians (including Mormons) believe in, simply would not be possible.

Yes, that may be true, it may not have been necessary, but in the case of Christ the story in the Bible reports an empty tomb. He is not here, he has risen. If what you are suggesting is true, then shouldn't the angel have said: "His body is here but his spirit has risen"?

by the way, out of curiosity, so you think Christ's spirit or soul is still encapsulated permanently in a physical body of flesh and bone or that he actually needs a physical body to fulfill his functions and responsibilities?

No.

Do you agree with Mormons that God, the Father (Elohim) also necessarily has a physical body of flesh and bone?

No.

[_Roger]

Hi Bret:

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.

It may be that there were more than one original author(s) to what we now refer to as Exodus. The key question here is whether YHWH ever commanded child sacrifice to himself. Mak suggests that 22:29 implies child sacrifice to YHWH. I'm saying 13:13 negates 22:29. So the question is whether 22:29 ever existed apart from 13:13 - and I suppose if we were going to start employing something similar to the rather ingenious LDS apologetics I've seen, we'd also have to ask whether 22:29 ever existed without 13:13 as an inspired document. That last factor would obviously get Exodus off the hook no matter what. I'm more interested in the truth than coming up with a defense of Exodus, however.

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.

Utterly shocking indeed! : )

[_Roger]

Hi again Bret (I missed this earlier):

If I recall correctly, you stated earlier that you didn't necessarily believe in inerrancy but it seems your approach here may be informed to some degree by inerrantist thought. If I'm reading you correctly, you are trying to find a way to harmonize the Ezekiel and Exodus passages.

Well, let's put it this way... until Mak brought it to my attention, I never thought there was a need to harmonize Ezekiel with Exodus.

However, an approach that denies the possibility that different authors may be in disagreement (in this case over the motives and actions of YHWH) runs the risk of doing a disservice to one or both of the texts.

Agreed.

Reading Ezekiel as a sort of corrective to the Exodus passage makes a lot of sense and does not raise the problems caused by the proposed harmonized reading. As maklelan points out, these problems include positing an otherwise unattested statute in which YHWH commands sacrifices to idols.

I don't see why that is any more problematic than assuming he commanded child sacrifice to himself as a good and necessary thing in Exodus and then pronounced it a bad thing in Ezekiel. If Ezekiel had specifically said "when I commanded you to sacrifice your firstborn sons to me, that was really a bad commandment" then you and mak would have a pretty solid case. As it is, I just don't see it and the context seems to lean toward my interpretation.

All the best.

[_Roger]

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

Is it really? What exactly is "itsy-bitsy" and to who or what is the comparison being made? Did the spider climb up the inside or the outside of the water spout? When exactly did the rain begin and did the spider really have the misguided idea that she could make it all the way up during a rainstorm? Was the second attempt successful? So many unanswered questions.

[_maklelan]

Is it really? What exactly is "itsy-bitsy" and to who or what is the comparison being made? Did the spider climb up the inside or the outside of the water spout? When exactly did the rain begin and did the spider really have the misguided idea that she could make it all the way up during a rainstorm? Was the second attempt successful? So many unanswered questions.

I think you're confusing "rather easy to understand" with "phenomenally detailed."

[_Roger]

I think you're confusing "rather easy to understand" with "phenomenally detailed."

Au contraire! If I were indeed guilty of such confusion, then I would have understood Bret to have been suggesting that:

It is phenomenally detailed, I'll give you that. So is The Itsy Bitsy Spider.

and I clearly did not. I stand by my original confusion. And you can quote me on that.

[_Bret Ripley]

Reading Ezekiel as a sort of corrective to the Exodus passage makes a lot of sense and does not raise the problems caused by the proposed harmonized reading. As maklelan points out, these problems include positing an otherwise unattested statute in which YHWH commands sacrifices to idols.

I don't see why that is any more problematic than assuming he commanded child sacrifice to himself as a good and necessary thing in Exodus and then pronounced it a bad thing in Ezekiel. If Ezekiel had specifically said "when I commanded you to sacrifice your firstborn sons to me, that was really a bad commandment" then you and mak would have a pretty solid case. As it is, I just don't see it and the context seems to lean toward my interpretation.

I would add a conceptual layer, here: rather than thinking of it in terms of "YHWH commanded X", I'd suggest looking at it as "Ezekiel says YHWH commanded X" and "Exodus 22:29 says YHWH commanded X", keeping in mind that the two authors lived during different times and in different cultural settings and may have had quite different points of view.

Ideas regarding God's nature have evolved in post-biblical times, and these ideas are influenced by culture. I think it would be strange indeed if we saw no evidence of something similar occurring in the biblical texts.

It's a pleasure talking to you, Roger. Cheers.

[_huckelberry]

So you believe in in baptism of the dead?

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.

Perhaps it would be more to the point to say Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the dead is not based upon Bible interpretation. Mormons understand it to be based upon modern revelation. I must try and beg a moment of patience while I try to tease out an interesting irony from this embattled territory. I have read more than once observations that meaning in Biblical texts can be approached from different angles. What the earliest author meant is one. It might also be considered what meaning stories found in tradition or what they came to mean to later writers. Things are put together and their meaning shifts by being included with other statements. It can also be asked and considered what Bible statements mean to the church at later times. If a person believes there is inspiration in the scriptures then each of these consideration can have its own inspired significance. Nippers hope of finding the combined meaning of all these different texts is not foolishness something sought by multitudes. Perhaps sought is the operative word instead of possession.
If there is a God to which scriptures look to then an overarching harmony is possible. Any thought would also see it is not within human knowledge. Instead it is something we seek, (through a glass darkly etc)

One irony I see here is than Nipper in reference the combining meaning of different scriptures is reference an ongoing process of revelation. Something which at least has resonance with Mormon thought. Makalem is focusing upon a original author meaning and not speaking at this time much about how those meanings can develope in time. One might expect Nipper to be locking into that authority of first author instead.

But each view has its own value.

I find myself thinking about the oddity of saying original author of Exodus. Seeing it as put together after the fall of Jerusalem one has a picture of traditions of several sources being put together over time. Realistically the author would be a whole community over centuries having a variety of viewpoints and concerns. Much of the Old Testament has that quality. As the author reworks material over the centuries its meaning alters and morphs as it settles into new contexts. which context matters to us?

I am not saying I can imagine avoiding the peculiarity of specific authors thinking and style. To my mind Ezekiel is angry. He is enraged, one has to wipe the spittle off ones shirt while reading him. All I can hear with the give bad laws is rhetoric meaning something like God saying to a certain audience , "I will not listen to you ,you are dead to me now."