Nothing Short Of Perfection

[Clear]

Speaksforthetrees said : “Interesting topic wonderful insight .”
Thank you for the kind words



Billiardsball :

Billiardsball said : You are again (again, again!) showing us all how difficult it is to bring Hebrew and Greek into other languages... and how does that refute inerrancy in the source texts?
You are confused. The fact that there are errors in all known biblical texts itself refutes inerrancy. Whether it is difficult or easy to translate is a separate issue.

Billiardsball said : And of course, educated guesses were made when vowel points were made to the Masoretic texts.
We agree on this issue. Guesses were made when vowel points were added.

Billiardsball said : However, you make their work sound spurious in general.
This is another irrelevant point that sounds like a silly emotional overreaction to facts disproving your theory. Simply pointing out that error exists in ancient texts does not make the entire text spurious.


Billiardsball said : My Jewish people took/take this work so seriously that entire scrolls were consigned to the fire if a single error was discovered.
This are irrelevant and silly points you are offering readers.

Firstly, YOU are not of the same religion as the most ancient Jews who created the text. Your religion is different.
Their religion engaged in temple worship. Your religion does not engage in this heiro-centric religion. Their religion had a priesthood as a central constant. Your religion does not. Their religion had prophets who led them. Your religion has rabbis who have no priesthood nor are they prophets. Their religion created scriptures. Your religion does not create scripture, but instead works with scriptures another religion created.

Secondly, IF the silly claim that all manuscripts with any error were true, and this silly rule was followed, then no manuscripts would exist, at all since all existing manuscripts of any size that are known, show errors. If you myth were true and the rule were followed, none of the current thousands of manuscripts with errors would exist. It is a silly myth to try to pass on to forum readers.


Billiardsball said : But, is it hard for you to understand that false Messianic/Messianic pretender/apocalyptic groups like those who created the Dead Sea Scrolls would play with the text some?

This is yet another irrelevant point you are trying to make.
First : ALL known texts have errors and these errors existed long before the dead sea scrolls were discovered and their errors are independent of dead sea scrolls.

Secondly : If your claim is correct, that their biblical text was "played with" then it simply supports errancy, since you also claim their texts are relatively unchanged from the masoretic text. You are shooting your own theory in it's foot.

Billiardsball said : I think we can safely agree that you have definitely put some doubt in our mind regarding whether the word "not" was omitted in Isaiah and that there may be some extra words or missing words in Samuel's work, etc.

Your comments sound like you did not understand the point at all.

Regarding your desire to leave off discussing your theory of inerrancy:
If you remember, YOU were the one who made the silly claim of inerrancy for the biblical text. If you want to stop talking about this theory, this is perfectly fine with me. Stop talking about this silly theory.


Billiardsball said : Don't take my facetious tone as an admittance of errancy or declare your victory by fiat.

Readers are certainly welcome to make any decision they want to make based on historic data, their own reasoning, and good logic as to whether biblical texts are inerrant or not. For me, this discussion on your theory was was never a “battle” between you and I with a “victor” and a “loser”. It was, for me, simply a historical discussion where I attempted to inject some historical accuracy into a silly theory that was well meant (i.e. to honor God and the biblical text).


Billiardsball said : You've cited a number of translators who added a "not" for you. Is the not there in the Hebrew or isn't it, do you think? How did all those other translators miss it if so? Because if it isn't in the Hebrew, you've shown an "errancy" in English, right?

You are, again, confused. Re-read my post explaining the masoretic text or ask someone you trust, to help you understand this simple point. I think AtPollard is correct. Readers are tired of this discussion on your dead theory. Inerrancy is a dead horse and beating it will not put new life into it.

I hope your spiritual journey and your entry into historical issues is a good experience.

Clear
δρφιτζσιω

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Is it more like Revelation began with the NT or ended with the NT ?_______ The reason I mention end of the NT, or end of the first century, is because Revelation was written close to the end of the first century, so the setting for Revelation could Not be for the people living in the first century. The setting for Revelation is for our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10

Jesus explained the old Hebrew Scriptures for us - Luke 4:15-17; Luke 4:18-20
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written " meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures - Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 B
The NT has corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages to the OT.
However, the old Hebrew Scriptures, as far as the Constitution of the Mosaic Law goes, that Law was only for the ancient nation of ancient Israel.- Romans 10:4
In a sense we fulfill the kingly law - James 2:8 - or royal law, by keeping the Golden Rule, and Jesus' New commandment - John 13:34-35 - to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus did.

Thanks for taking time to reply .
Over 3.2 billion creatures including humans perished last week , is good we know the rules .

 

[rusra02]

Jesus didn't do anything wrong to deserve death, and by torture. Jesus came to do what we cannot do for ourselves. I'm a Christian for years and many others on this forum aren't Christians, yet all of us strive to be decent people and to better ourselves--all without achieving perfection. This is the doctrine of Christianity, Jesus died as my substitute, His perfection helping me go to Heaven.

Honestly, I'd muss Heaven up now if I went. The first time you or I hurt one another's feelings or insulted one another or had an unpleasant argument it would cease to be a perfect utopia. I'm still not ready for Heaven, but having trusted Jesus for salvation, when the time comes, He will impart His perfection to me--I'll be ready!

I agree with you that Jesus died for us. But I hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven. Jesus said: "Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is it more like Revelation began with the NT or ended with the NT ?_______ The reason I mention end of the NT, or end of the first century, is because Revelation was written close to the end of the first century, so the setting for Revelation could Not be for the people living in the first century. The setting for Revelation is for our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10

Jesus explained the old Hebrew Scriptures for us - Luke 4:15-17; Luke 4:18-20
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written " meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures - Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 B
The NT has corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages to the OT.
However, the old Hebrew Scriptures, as far as the Constitution of the Mosaic Law goes, that Law was only for the ancient nation of ancient Israel.- Romans 10:4
In a sense we fulfill the kingly law - James 2:8 - or royal law, by keeping the Golden Rule, and Jesus' New commandment - John 13:34-35 - to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus did.

I'm sorry, but this is a typical JW doctrinal error. One reason we know Revelation was written before the first century ended, even before 70 AD, is the mention of specific martydoms that we can trace to the period, like the specific ten-day persecution as mentioned in the church passages in 2 and 3. Indeed, not one NT writer with the exception of John's look into the future mention anything about the events of 70 and the Roman war against the Jews, and even John has the millennial temple installed without explaining the disappearance of Herod's Temple. Preterism, and also saying Revelation is a allegory about modern times, are unfortunately both heretical views. (Heretical here means "not in the Bible".)

It is in evidence, therefore, that the entire NT canon was composed before 70 AD.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree with you that Jesus died for us. But I hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven. Jesus said: "Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)

They will inherit the Earth and ALL. The new Heavens and Earth mentioned specifically in Revelation. I know you believe that only a very few, even 144,000, will have the whole blessing. However, Jesus said in 1 John, "...whoever overcomes will sit down with me on my throne, just as I sat down with my Father on His throne..." so if you think the throne is in Heaven...

...And you know the gospels is where Jesus tells his apostles that they will sit on twelve thrones judging Israel at His side. Is that on Earth or in Heaven?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have no desire to wade into this topic, but after reading the last 6 pages or so, I feel compelled to ask if you are really enjoying any of this conversation? (If so, I can't imagine why.)

Have fun?
Arthur

It is fun and wholesome to share the gospel as in the OP:

1. No one is perfect, save Jesus Christ.
2. Trust Jesus Christ and be saved.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Speaksforthetrees said : “Interesting topic wonderful insight .”
Thank you for the kind words



Billiardsball :

Billiardsball said : You are again (again, again!) showing us all how difficult it is to bring Hebrew and Greek into other languages... and how does that refute inerrancy in the source texts?
You are confused. The fact that there are errors in all known biblical texts itself refutes inerrancy. Whether it is difficult or easy to translate is a separate issue.

Billiardsball said : And of course, educated guesses were made when vowel points were made to the Masoretic texts.
We agree on this issue. Guesses were made when vowel points were added.

Billiardsball said : However, you make their work sound spurious in general.
This is another irrelevant point that sounds like a silly emotional overreaction to facts disproving your theory. Simply pointing out that error exists in ancient texts does not make the entire text spurious.


Billiardsball said : My Jewish people took/take this work so seriously that entire scrolls were consigned to the fire if a single error was discovered.
This are irrelevant and silly points you are offering readers.

Firstly, YOU are not of the same religion as the most ancient Jews who created the text. Your religion is different.
Their religion engaged in temple worship. Your religion does not engage in this heiro-centric religion. Their religion had a priesthood as a central constant. Your religion does not. Their religion had prophets who led them. Your religion has rabbis who have no priesthood nor are they prophets. Their religion created scriptures. Your religion does not create scripture, but instead works with scriptures another religion created.

Secondly, IF the silly claim that all manuscripts with any error were true, and this silly rule was followed, then no manuscripts would exist, at all since all existing manuscripts of any size that are known, show errors. If you myth were true and the rule were followed, none of the current thousands of manuscripts with errors would exist. It is a silly myth to try to pass on to forum readers.


Billiardsball said : But, is it hard for you to understand that false Messianic/Messianic pretender/apocalyptic groups like those who created the Dead Sea Scrolls would play with the text some?

This is yet another irrelevant point you are trying to make.
First : ALL known texts have errors and these errors existed long before the dead sea scrolls were discovered and their errors are independent of dead sea scrolls.

Secondly : If your claim is correct, that their biblical text was "played with" then it simply supports errancy, since you also claim their texts are relatively unchanged from the masoretic text. You are shooting your own theory in it's foot.

Billiardsball said : I think we can safely agree that you have definitely put some doubt in our mind regarding whether the word "not" was omitted in Isaiah and that there may be some extra words or missing words in Samuel's work, etc.

Your comments sound like you did not understand the point at all.

Regarding your desire to leave off discussing your theory of inerrancy:
If you remember, YOU were the one who made the silly claim of inerrancy for the biblical text. If you want to stop talking about this theory, this is perfectly fine with me. Stop talking about this silly theory.


Billiardsball said : Don't take my facetious tone as an admittance of errancy or declare your victory by fiat.

Readers are certainly welcome to make any decision they want to make based on historic data, their own reasoning, and good logic as to whether biblical texts are inerrant or not. For me, this discussion on your theory was was never a “battle” between you and I with a “victor” and a “loser”. It was, for me, simply a historical discussion where I attempted to inject some historical accuracy into a silly theory that was well meant (i.e. to honor God and the biblical text).


Billiardsball said : You've cited a number of translators who added a "not" for you. Is the not there in the Hebrew or isn't it, do you think? How did all those other translators miss it if so? Because if it isn't in the Hebrew, you've shown an "errancy" in English, right?

You are, again, confused. Re-read my post explaining the masoretic text or ask someone you trust, to help you understand this simple point. I think AtPollard is correct. Readers are tired of this discussion on your dead theory. Inerrancy is a dead horse and beating it will not put new life into it.

I hope your spiritual journey and your entry into historical issues is a good experience.

Clear
δρφιτζσιω

Clear,

1. You were/are using a straw man argument re: the Masoretic Bible. As you undoubtedly know, neither I nor other fundamentalists hold to the inerrancy of the Masoretic Bible.

2. Part of my Christian journey began with the challenge that the OT, then the NT, was the flawless Word of God. I'm not going to suddenly stop forever talking about the inerrancy of the Bible. However, you keep talking about the errors of the Bible if you feel it will help you specifically regarding the OP. You objected that we are not saved by Jesus's death and resurrection, but rather, by our own repentance and personal merits. Jesus is a sort of example of salvation--so I guess we have to be crucified to be saved, literally. Not too good. Your gospel is anathema to me as a fundamentalist, but if errancy in particular GOSPEL scriptures helps you form your case, I'm open-minded. I guess I can repent of trusting Jesus for salvation and go back to trusting myself for salvation if your line of argumentation is successful. I'm unafraid.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thanks for taking time to reply .
Over 3.2 billion creatures including humans perished last week , is good we know the rules .

Thank you also for your reply.
In Scripture only it is only the wicked who are considered as perished ( destroyed forever ) - Psalms 92:7
So, the humans which died last week are Not considered as perished, but just as temporarily dead. Dead as being in a sleep-like state of No activity - John 11:11-13; John 11:14
The Bible talks of a future resurrection of being restored back to life again. Acts of the Apostles 24:15 uses the ' future tense ' that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection......
That future starts on earth when Jesus will begin his governmental rulership over earth for a thousand years.
The majority of mankind can have a perfectly happy-and-healthy physical resurrection with having a sound heart, mind and body capable of living forever on earth.
Just as Adam before his downfall, could have lived forever on earth if he kept God's Law. So, physically resurrected mankind will have the same opportunity that Adam originally had before his downfall to be able to live forever on a beautiful paradisical earth as Eden was a sample garden. Please notice the use for the trees at Revelation 22:2

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I agree with you that Jesus died for us. But I hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven. Jesus said: "Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)

I like the point that Jesus was Not coming up with a new thought or teaching because the Psalms too speak of being here on Earth forever -> Psalms 37:11; Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21-22

Those of Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39 did Not see the fulfillment of God's promise. God's promise to father Abraham that ALL families of Earth will be blessed - Genesis 12:3- and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed - Genesis 22:18 - Blessed with the benefits of the healing for ALL Earth's nations - Revelation 22:2 - which takes place in the near future under Christ's millennium-long day of governing over Earth, when Jesus will have subjects on Earth from one end of the Earth to the other end of the Earth - Psalms 72:8; Psalms 72:12-14

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said : “…neither I nor other fundamentalists hold to the inerrancy of the Masoretic Bible….Part of my Christian journey began with the challenge that the OT, then the NT, was the flawless Word of God. I'm not going to suddenly stop forever talking about the inerrancy of the Bible.”

OK, If I understand this correctly, we both agree that the Masoretic Bible has errors but you are still going to talk about inerrancy”, yet you don't know of any existing bible nor any existing manuscript that is inerrant........ ok…


2) Billiardsball said : You objected that we are not saved by Jesus's death and resurrection, but rather, by our own repentance and personal merits.

You are making another blunder at simple interpretation. If readers remember, I disagreed with your theory that individuals who may have momentarily believed in Jesus as their savior but then came to defy and denounce God; and to commit immoral acts such as the torture and rape of children are still guaranteed a heavenly reward. (Billiardsball, in post #204 G in M thread).

I had said that if you or another person was a rapist and child molester and oppressor, you could not go to heaven without repentance and change. Heaven doesn't HAVE rapists and child molesters there who continue raping and molesting. If you remember, you said : “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later.“ (post # 196 in G in M thread),

I simply pointed out that repentance and change was a necessary preparation for heaven in early Christian worldviews and, thus, your modern Christian theory differed from early Christian tradition.

I said : “ [regarding ] Your theory that God rewards despicably evil individuals with heaven without repentance. The theory that defiant, evil, and completely unrepentant Christian versions of unrepentant Jeffrey Dahmers, Hitlers, Stalins and others who may continue to hate, despise and defy God, yet still be guaranteed heaven if they had a moment in their youth when they sincerely believed in Jesus as a personal savior, but then quickly dropped this temporary belief to live a life of evil and destruction and oppression and terror will get to then enter heaven WITH all of their faults is a silly modern theory that is not without it's terrible moral effects. (post #198 G in M thread)

The concept that a rapist and child molester cannot remain a rapist and child molester and an oppressor and be prepared to enter heaven without repentance is not the same thing as relying on the “personal merit” of a person who is simply trying to obey God’s commandments.


3) Billiardsball said : “Jesus is a sort of example of salvation--so I guess we have to be crucified to be saved, literally. “

This is yet another strange theory.


4) Billiardsball said : : “Your gospel is anathema to me as a fundamentalist, but if errancy in particular GOSPEL scriptures helps you form your case, I'm open-minded. I guess I can repent of trusting Jesus for salvation and go back to trusting myself for salvation if your line of argumentation is successful. I'm unafraid.”

This reads like a childs’ tantrum; a silly, over-reaction to the concept that the ancient texts are not perfect. Sort of sounds like : “If I can’t believe what I want, then I will believe something bad.”

My gospel is that all mankind must come to trust in Jesus and that Jesus expects that we will attempt to be obedient to his will as an expression of love and honor and gratitude for his personal sacrifice. Errancy in the bible does not affect my faith in the existence of God nor does errancy affect my faith in Jesus. Christians have NOTHING to fear from education and from knowledge of biblical realities.

Rather than give up your faith, It would be much better for you to continue to believe in God and trust in Jesus for salvation regardless of whether ancient texts are perfect or have error. If your faith is so flimsy that it must adhere to your dogma that “The Bible claims 100% accuracy…” (billiardsball, post # 166 G in M thread) or it cannot survive intact, then this is a weak basis for belief.

You would be much better off simply asking God to confirm to your heart that he exists and that Jesus is your savior than to make your faith dependent upon a theory that any existing bible is 100% accurate” and “inerrant”.

In any case, and whatever it is you choose to base your faith upon, I hope your spiritual journey is good and that your faith will survive historical reality. Good luck Billiardsball.


Clear
δρφινεφω

 

[rusra02]

They will inherit the Earth and ALL. The new Heavens and Earth mentioned specifically in Revelation. I know you believe that only a very few, even 144,000, will have the whole blessing. However, Jesus said in 1 John, "...whoever overcomes will sit down with me on my throne, just as I sat down with my Father on His throne..." so if you think the throne is in Heaven...

...And you know the gospels is where Jesus tells his apostles that they will sit on twelve thrones judging Israel at His side. Is that on Earth or in Heaven?

And whom will live on earth? The apostles were the first ones taken into the new covenant and given the heavenly hope. You are correct in stating our scriptural belief that 144,000 will be kings and priests in heaven with Christ. These are those "who have been bought from the earth." (Revelation 14:1,3)

 

[BilliardsBall]

URAVIP,

You are simply churning out JW beliefs, literally chapter and verse, without much aforethought. I'm more than interested in what the Bible says, I've staked my soul on it. I've attended any number of JW Bible studies. They were not studies per se but led, dictated messages where my family and I were told to not ask Bible questions but to receive humbly JW literature, commentary on the Bible, with 100% of questions--and answers--being directed. Ask God to "brain wash" you instead, with the true light of His Word.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clear,

Here are the main problems with your current lines of reasoning, as I see them:

1. You are a keen student of history but are unaware that fundamentalists for decades now have said the original biblical manuscripts were inerrant? You are unaware of the tensions between Jews and Gentiles on errors that have crept into the Masoretic text?

2. I don't disagree with your logic/emotion re: rapists and murderers, just your denunciation of God's ability to change such persons. Why couldn't a person believe, and then, in a moment of time, God changes them so they no longer murder, are no longer vile people? Isn't that what happened to Paul?!

3. My theory in your point 3 is YOUR theory. You have Jesus as an example, so I guess if you want to be saved by following His example... you should go all the way, right?

4. Your quote below absolutely emphasizes my point:

You would be much better off simply asking God to confirm to your heart that he exists and that Jesus is your savior than to make your faith dependent upon a theory that any existing bible is 100% accurate” and “inerrant”.

This is also exactly why atheists denounce us both. "Just ask God to tell my HEART that Jesus is savior!" How about instead we demonstrate/discover/uncover whether the Bible is an accurate document and go from there? The Bible says a person's "heart" deceives and lies to them! Peter said, as I wrote on this thread recently, if memory serves, that even though He walked with Christ for years we all would do much better to pay careful attention to the Bible and Bible prophecy!

Do you think that as a Jew, a Jew who knew many of his friends and family would utterly denounce him for converting, that I asked God to "bring Jesus to my heart"? Of course I did so eventually, but first I searched God's Word to find eternal life, prophecy and the Messiah.

The problem with my Mormon friends (most of them, not all of them) is that they are so excited about Jesus in our hearts that they forget to find Him in the Bible, and then to do what He says. How often may I use Bible errancy to disobey verses I don't care for, do you think? That last is not a rhetorical question, so please answer.

Thanks!

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said : "You are a keen student of history but are unaware that fundamentalists for decades now have said the original biblical manuscripts were inerrant? "
How does a modern theory that original but non-existent manuscripts apply to individuals who only have and interact with manuscripts and bibles that have errors? What application is there for such a theory other that to create a bragging point?


2) Billiardsball said "I don't disagree with your logic/emotion re: rapists and murderers, just your denunciation of God's ability to change such persons. Why couldn't a person believe, and then, in a moment of time, God changes them so they no longer murder, are no longer vile people? Isn't that what happened to Paul?!"

We are speaking of the nature of will and human choice and the nature of co-operation with deity. We agree that Paul repented, still, Paul was not made into a moral robot without free will. It was Pauls’ choice to repent and do good and he could have chose otherwise. God does not force Christians into moral robots who MUST do good when they simply believe that a God exists and Jesus is the messiah. Instead, Christians retain their ability to choose to lie and cheat and steal and do other bad things. As I pointed out, I worked at a prison for 5 years and met prisoners who were christians, some of whom did very bad things, and planned to continue to do bad things but felt they were "saved" by the very theory you are describing.

This is the moral problem with your theory that once a person believes in God and Jesus, even IF they stop believing and then choose to knowingly follow Satan and rape and molest and murder little children. In your theory, they still receive a heavenly reward despite continuing to freely choose evil. But in early Judeo-Christian worldviews, individuals were expected to repent and attempt to change. Your religion is not the same as the early Christians, your interpretation of scriptures is not the same as the early Christians describe in their many textual witnesses.

Heaven cannot BE inhabited by individuals still intent on rape, molesting and murder. We have already been over this issue in the “God in Mormonism” thread. You still remember the results of that discussion I presume?


3) Billiardsball said : “Your gospel is anathema to me as a fundamentalist, but if errancy in particular GOSPEL scriptures helps you form your case, I'm open-minded. I guess I can repent of trusting Jesus for salvation and go back to trusting myself for salvation if your line of argumentation is successful. I'm unafraid.”
Clear replied : “ My gospel is that all mankind must come to trust in Jesus and that Jesus expects that we will attempt to be obedient to his will as an expression of love and honor and gratitude for his personal sacrifice. Errancy in the bible does not affect my faith in the existence of God nor does errancy affect my faith in Jesus. Christians have NOTHING to fear from education and from knowledge of biblical realities.

Rather than give up your faith, It would be much better for you to continue to believe in God and trust in Jesus for salvation regardless of whether ancient texts are perfect or have error. If your faith is so flimsy that it must adhere to your dogma that “The Bible claims 100% accuracy…” (billiardsball, post # 166 G in M thread) or it cannot survive intact, then this is a weak basis for belief.

“You would be much better off simply asking God to confirm to your heart that he exists and that Jesus is your savior than to make your faith dependent upon a theory that any existing bible is 100% accurate” and “inerrant”.
Billiardsball replied : This is also exactly why atheists denounce us both. "Just ask God to tell my HEART that Jesus is savior!" How about instead we demonstrate/discover/uncover whether the Bible is an accurate document and go from there? The Bible says a person's "heart" deceives and lies to them! Peter said, as I wrote on this thread recently, if memory serves, that even though He walked with Christ for years we all would do much better to pay careful attention to the Bible and Bible prophecy!

Firstly, My point was that rather than base your basic belief in God on an erroneous text, it is better to base it on revelation from God to you. Revelation from God to man that he exists is not the only basis of belief in God and in other principles, but it is better than basing your belief in God on a theory that has already been shown to be incorrect. (Since all known, existing texts have error). Revelation from God to man is the basis of scripture and scripture would not exist without this base principle of communication from God to man.

Secondly, If you feel your own personal “heart” deceives and lies to you than why trust it regarding the theory of “inerrancy”, especially since the data, the logic and rational, objective thought demonstrated error exist in all existing texts?

Thirdly, You do not need to worry so much about what the athiests or other theists say.


4) Billiardsball said : “Do you think that as a Jew, a Jew who knew many of his friends and family would utterly denounce him for converting, that I asked God to "bring Jesus to my heart"? Of course I did so eventually, but first I searched God's Word to find eternal life, prophecy and the Messiah.”
I am fine with this very common process and I do not find any fault in it. However, it is also irrelevant to your theory of “inerrancy”.


5) Billiardsball said : "The problem with my Mormon friends (most of them, not all of them) is that they are so excited about Jesus in our hearts that they forget to find Him in the Bible, and then to do what He says.
Firstly, pointing out that your mormon friends have faults is irrelevant to and will not save your theory of “inerrancy”.

Secondly, your experience was quite different than mine from the time that I was introduced to restorational theology to the present time, AND, I suspect that I have much more experience with, and have many, more “mormon friends” than you to judge from.

REGARDING THE NATURE OF TEXT AND SPIRIT AS THEY BOTH WITNESS TO AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDING GOD AND THE SAVIOR JESUS
I am mormon and, I find wonderful and powerful and incredibly profound and meaningful textual witnesses of Jesus in the bible. Yet I find that the spirit of God in my life is also an incredibly powerful mechanism not only of personal change, but of clarifying and making sense out of what I read and confirming to me that Jesus IS the Christ, the messiah and the only force that I can look to for ultimate salvation. As a force of personal change, intelligence and insight, for me personally, the spirit of God is powerful and not an insignificant portion of my witness that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ.

If the spirit of God is not as active in your life or if God does not choose to communicate to you through the spirit, then that is perhaps one difference between us and why you do not feel the same regarding the spirit and it's effect in your life.

If you think it will benefit your theory of inerrancy, We could certainly compare your personal relationship with God and my personal relationship with God if you think simply reading the bible is better than a personal relationship plus reading the bible?


6) Billiardsball said : “ How often may I use Bible errancy to disobey verses I don't care for, do you think? That last is not a rhetorical question, so please answer.”
Since this question seems important to you I will think about it a bit, will return to work and get back to you later tonight.

Clear
δρφυφιειω

 

[Clear]

Billiardsball asked : “ How often may I use Bible errancy to disobey verses I don't care for, do you think? That last is not a rhetorical question, so please answer.”

You say that the question as to how you may disobey verses is not a rhetorical question. I do not understand why you want to consider how many times you can make one type of mistake when there are so many other ways you can make the same mistakes. If we simply look at the examples from the "God in Mormonism" thread, you can see many, many other ways you can and have discarded, disallow, and disobey Scriptures or simply misunderstand and argue and avoid coming into greater levels of truth with greater efficiency.


For examples (taken from the God in Mormonism Thread)

You could proudly think to yourself that you have a special understanding of the text (e.g. as you did in post #26

You could assume and then claim that you know more history than you really do as you did in post #26

You could tell yourself that you have “lived ancient ways” of the Jews when you haven’t as you did in post #102

You could paraphrase the text to the point that the original meaning is obscured or changed as you did in post #208

You can prefer your own interpretation over that of the earliest Christians e.g. same thread, multiple examples

You could mis-context the scriptures, multiple times

You could mis-quote the scriptures as you did in post #83

You could be ignorant of what the text actual is (multiple times)

You could remain ignorant of meanings as you did in post #116, and #199, and of 1 Ephesians, and of Romans 3 post #239

You can add to or subtract from the meaning of text as you did in multiple times

You can simply mis-understand scriptures as you did in post #186, post # 196,

You can take as much time as possible before you finally admit the truth to yourself and finally admit to others “I think those verses meant what you said they meant. I think you are correct. “ (post # 223)

You can tell yourself that you are offended by a thing said and thus justify not giving it consideration as in the G of M thread

You can bring up and try to attach considerations to petty and irrelevant issues rather than deal with the actual issues of texts and conversations

You can claim to have training in greek and then be unable to use it accurately, then use the inaccuracies to make premises. (e.g. post 324 and pisteuo)

You can reassure yourself over and over regarding a chosen dogma without allowing yourself to challenge it, For example you can tell yourself : “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later.“ (Billiardsball, post # 196).



My point is, If you are really and truly NOT being rhetorical in your question as to how many times you can be disobedient, then I think you are able to disobey and misunderstand and misuse and miscontext and disobey in many ways and as many times as your chose to do so.

However, YOU say you've studied multiple potential errors in the text in the past and we agree that we must accept Jesus as our savior for salvation. Can YOU think of a single textual error, in the context of accurate biblical history, that allows you to disobey acceptance of Jesus?


Clear
δρφυσετζω

 

[Orontes]

The problem with my Mormon friends (most of them, not all of them) is that they are so excited about Jesus in our hearts that they forget to find Him in the Bible, and then to do what He says. How often may I use Bible errancy to disobey verses I don't care for, do you think? That last is not a rhetorical question, so please answer.

Thanks!

Hello Master Billiards,

I think Clear has been doing capital work, so I've not bothered crowding the thread, but if you don't mind my replying to the above: I think the simple answer to your question is if there is a Biblical error, then there is no disobedience issue as things relate to that error. What is an error cannot be the Divine will. This standard applies to as many errors as exist.

I think the crux of your question is: if the Bible contains errors, then how can it be authoritative? How can it be foundational to faith?

I think the basic Mormon reply would be that the text isn't foundational to faith, revelation is. Scripture, as inspired, is a product of revelation. There is a logical priority: revelation precedes and produces scripture. Mormonism, which actually has more scripture than what is found with standard Christian sects, has as a core thrust revelation, not simple devotion to scripture.

I'd like to point out another issue. If you assume inerrancy, it doesn't have any theoretical cash value. I'll explain, if the text is without error, then it is perfect. If the reader is imperfect then, to the degree the reader is imperfect, to that same degree, he is cut off from understanding the text. Only the perfect can comprehend what is perfect, which is the realm of God. In trying to glorify the Bible by asserting an inerrant, perfect text, you place it out of reach of the devotee.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does a modern theory that original but non-existent manuscripts apply to individuals who only have and interact with manuscripts and bibles that have errors? What application is there for such a theory other that to create a bragging point?

Because over 99.5% of the text is demonstrably accurate and surely contained what the originals contained! You gave quite a number of illustrations, however, the Bible still has 31,102 verses and many thousands of words. Are you willing to state the over 99.5% of Mormon canonical books are true?

This is the moral problem with your theory that once a person believes in God and Jesus, even IF they stop believing and then choose to knowingly follow Satan and rape and molest and murder little children.

You are talking but not listening, because I never promulgated this “theory”. My response remains that Jesus Christ changes people, even if the initial encounter is brief. Are you denying that the conversion experience has to be very lengthy in nature?

Heaven cannot BE inhabited by individuals still intent on rape, molesting and murder. We have already been over this issue in the “God in Mormonism” thread. You still remember the results of that discussion I presume?

The Bible says that Heaven cannot be inhabited by sinners, and that all have sinned. Your issue here is you are categorical that certain sins are worse than others (as far as barring the ability of Christ to redeem, Christ to save).

If you feel your own personal “heart” deceives and lies to you than why trust it regarding the theory of “inerrancy”, especially since the data, the logic and rational, objective thought demonstrated error exist in all existing texts?

Because the Bible is also clear that we are not to be led by emotions or even faith, but the facts of the gospel and of fulfilled prophecy. Of course, I could just say “ditto!” and then allow you to say based on your proposal how it is that YOU are correct in following Christ!

Firstly, pointing out that your mormon friends have faults is irrelevant to and will not save your theory of “inerrancy”.

I’m rather referring to the insane clinging to the tents of Joseph Smith, after Mr. Smith has been proven time and again to disobey Bible doctrine and to be a false teacher. IF you believed the Bible is inerrant, you would logically have to repudiate Mormonism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello Master Billiards,

I think Clear has been doing capital work, so I've not bothered crowding the thread, but if you don't mind my replying to the above: I think the simple answer to your question is if there is a Biblical error, then there is no disobedience issue as things relate to that error. What is an error cannot be the Divine will. This standard applies to as many errors as exist.

I think the crux of your question is: if the Bible contains errors, then how can it be authoritative? How can it be foundational to faith?

I think the basic Mormon reply would be that the text isn't foundational to faith, revelation is. Scripture, as inspired, is a product of revelation. There is a logical priority: revelation precedes and produces scripture. Mormonism, which actually has more scripture than what is found with standard Christian sects, has as a core thrust revelation, not simple devotion to scripture.

I'd like to point out another issue. If you assume inerrancy, it doesn't have any theoretical cash value. I'll explain, if the text is without error, then it is perfect. If the reader is imperfect then, to the degree the reader is imperfect, to that same degree, he is cut off from understanding the text. Only the perfect can comprehend what is perfect, which is the realm of God. In trying to glorify the Bible by asserting an inerrant, perfect text, you place it out of reach of the devotee.

Thank you, Orontes, however, this is a HUGE problem. Why is Mormon revelation accurate and charismatic Christian revelation inaccurate, or vice versa?

Text is foundational to nondenominational faith, stemming as you know from the Protestant roots against the RCC, which STILL teaches that Catholic tradition and revelation are superior to the Bible text. I'm sorry to be blunt, but Mormonism has too much in common with the Roman "church"--so much so that conspiracists feel the Mormon movement was started by the RCC (I don't think so). The Bible is true, and we are in the end days, with men blown about by every wind of doctrine.

I've been told by Mormon friends I will know the truth of Mormonism via a gut feeling. Of course, the Book of Mormon says as much. We are much better served looking at the extreme accuracy of the Bible and following it, wholeheartedly, pun not intended.

 

[Clear]

1) Clear asked : "How does a modern theory that original but non-existent manuscripts apply to individuals who only have and interact with manuscripts and bibles that have errors? What application is there for such a theory other than to create a bragging point?"
Billiardsball responded : "Because over 99.5% of the text is demonstrably accurate and surely contained what the originals contained!"

I asked what the application is for an erroneous theory, other than a bragging point, and, you respond with a bragging point. This has to be the epitome of irony. Confirming my point will not restore life to your theory of inerrancy.

While you, as a non-historian may assume that the current text "surely contained what the originals contain", this naive assumption is another counter-historical theory. Since no scholar in the world knows what the original autographic texts contained, and since these texts do not exist, we cannot know what they said. We can know what extant texts tell us. Those are the limitations of authentic and real of history and the difference between history and bragging.

Your theory of inerrancy is dead. No amount of pseudofact or bragging can bring it back to life.


2) Billiardsball asked : "Are you willing to state the over 99.5% of Mormon canonical books are true?
I've explained that my belief is that ALL ancient records have errors, including all books the Mormons refer to as “canonical”. However, my belief that other records also contain error is irrelevant since, whether they are errant or inerrant, it will not restore life to your biblical inerrancy theory.


3) Clear said : “This is the moral problem with your theory that once a person believes in God and Jesus, even IF they stop believing and then choose to knowingly follow Satan and rape and molest and murder little children. In your theory, they still receive a heavenly reward despite continuing to freely choose evil.”

Billiardsballs replied : “... I never promulgated this “theory”.

In the God in Mormonism thread you DID promulgate this theory.

If you remember, your theory was that once one “got on the bus” to heaven by accepting salvation, one could not then, get back off the bus regardless of these sins. You offered multiple examples of this theory that no one could leave the heaven bound bus once they accepted Christ regardless of these sins. You said : “ Would it be better to simply say that the bus driver stops for us and says, "Next stop, Heaven!" I was on a bus the other day where someone asked to be let out in a dangerous place mid-block, and the bus driver said, "We have to go to the next stop. That is the rule." (Billiardsball, post # 179)

Your theory removed moral choice from the equation. This defect in your theory is partly why Orontes spent considerable time, exposing the flaws in this theory you promulgated.

In post # 190, speaking against your theory, Orontes said : “An automatic salvation system reference is based on your earlier comments. You have stated you "have no choice in the matter" "you nature has been changed" and have had issues with simply agreeing in your bus/salvation analogy that one could get off the bus. If one cannot leave, they are bound/ captured. Since your stance is the bus is to salvation and heaven, riders are bound for heaven regardless of will or action. This is where all the problems reside. It repudiates free will and morality. If you hold one maintains their free will (which means one can choose differently) then the problems go away. Can one get off the bus?”

Over and over you tried to maintain that one could not get off the "heaven-bound" bus despite committing these sorts of despicable sins. It was in response to your theory that I said : “Heaven cannot BE inhabited by individuals still intent on rape, molesting and murder. We have already been over this issue in the “God in Mormonism” thread. You still remember the results of that discussion I presume?”

Do you remember now? Do you want me to quote more of what you said to help you remember this point and make it more clear to you and to readers? This theory that one may torture and rape children and oppress will still NOT resurrect the dead inerrancy theory.

If you now, however, repudiate this idea and feel that such individuals must repent and change before they can be saved in heaven, then I will accept your word that you no longer believe in this theory of "salvation without repentance".


4) When Clear suggested the Holy Ghost also served as confirmation of God’s existence and confirmation that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, billiardsball responded : The Bible says a person's "heart" deceives and lies to them!

Firstly, the spirit of God is NOT the same thing as "a person's heart" which "deceives and lies". The spirit of God does not deceive, nor does he lie to mankind.

Secondly, the changes wrought upon mankind by the spirit of God is an external force that is not the same thing as mans’ own intuition and mans’ own desires. Though the spirit of God effects mans intuition and mans' desires, it is a force external to the heart and mind of mankind.

Clear then asked Billiardsball: If you feel your own personal “heart” deceives and lies to you than why trust it regarding the theory of “inerrancy”, especially since the data, the logic and rational, objective thought demonstrated error exist in all existing texts?

Billiardsball responded : “Because the Bible is also clear that we are not to be led by emotions or even faith, but the facts of the gospel and of fulfilled prophecy.” (underline is mine - clear)

Firstly : You already ARE being led by your faith in your theory of inerrancy. You are allowing your own heart and emotions and your own interpretations guide you into this faith in your theory of inerrancy since data, and rational, logical thought are against your theory of inerrancy.

Secondly : You are led by your faith in this new theory that the existing text "surely contained what the originals contained!" since data and rational, logical and historical thought can neither confirm this claim, nor does historical data support this claim.

Thirdly : Your suggestion that we are not to be led by faith is unusual.

For example, religious faith is central to religion. Faith in God is a powerful force which motivates mankind to seek and learn further principles concerning salvation. Though an atheist may study the bible, without faith in God, the bible and its witness that God lives may feel less spiritually relevant to the reader.

Your new theory where faith is abandoned will not resurrect your dead inerrancy theory.



5) Billiardsball points out that his Mormon friends have faults.

Clear responded : “…pointing out that your mormon friends have faults is irrelevant to and will not save your theory of “inerrancy”.
Billiardsball responds : " I’m rather referring to the insane clinging to the tents of Joseph Smith, after Mr. Smith has been proven time and again to disobey Bible doctrine and to be a false teacher.

Whether Joseph Smith was inspired or whether he was uninspired is irrelevant to your theory of inerrancy since, neither case restores life to your inerrancy theory.



In any case Billiardsball, I hope you are NOT discouraged by historical reality, but instead, that you may come to have good experiences and a good journey as you consider history and how authentic and real history relates to Christian religion.


Clear
δρσιτζδρω

 

[Orontes]

Thank you, Orontes, however, this is a HUGE problem. Why is Mormon revelation accurate and charismatic Christian revelation inaccurate, or vice versa?

Text is foundational to nondenominational faith, stemming as you know from the Protestant roots against the RCC, which STILL teaches that Catholic tradition and revelation are superior to the Bible text. I'm sorry to be blunt, but Mormonism has too much in common with the Roman "church"--so much so that conspiracists feel the Mormon movement was started by the RCC (I don't think so). The Bible is true, and we are in the end days, with men blown about by every wind of doctrine.

I've been told by Mormon friends I will know the truth of Mormonism via a gut feeling. Of course, the Book of Mormon says as much. We are much better served looking at the extreme accuracy of the Bible and following it, wholeheartedly, pun not intended.

Master Billiards,

There is nothing sectarian in my statement: revelation is revelation. There is no qualifier on the recipient. Any person of good intent can receive revelation if they are open to it. This is the point of Mormonism: people can know for themselves whether X or Y is correct by appealing to the source of all, God. Loyalty to a text over direct communication with the Lord is simply dogmatism. It is pharisaic.

I am very aware the Bible is considered foundational to Protestantism, the point is that is a flawed position. It is flawed because, as I pointed out, revelation is logically prior to the text, and the vehicle through which the very books of the Bible were created.

You didn't respond to this:

" If you assume inerrancy, it doesn't have any theoretical cash value. I'll explain, if the text is without error, then it is perfect. If the reader is imperfect then, to the degree the reader is imperfect, to that same degree, he is cut off from understanding the text. Only the perfect can comprehend what is perfect, which is the realm of God. In trying to glorify the Bible by asserting an inerrant, perfect text, you place it out of reach of the devotee."
​

Inerrancy fails on a structural level, independent of the multiple errors that can be found within the text itself.