Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Subduction Zone]

Michael Faraday had zero formal scientific education. Jane Goodall had very little.
And, yes, read and write. You said at most only one could. That is clearly wrong. Jesus had some Apostles who were above average with brains.

Especially in that time uneducated did not mean stupid. Though it does help people understand who could have written various parts of the Bible. Saying that Mark, John, and Matthew could not have written the Gospels named after them is not saying that they were stupid. It is facing reality since being well instructed in classic Koine Greek is something that is no accomplished overnight.

 

[2ndpillar]

I dont need to prove anything. You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of God or you don't. I don't have the power to influence you either way.

According to you, I have to prove my point, yet you do not have to prove your point. My point is proven with respect to the message of the devil/"enemy" being mixed with the message of the "son of man" in Matthew 13:24-30. The bad fruit of any house/church proves it is on the way to being tossed into the fire/destruction (Mt 3 & 7). As far as your "canon", it has historically not been a universally accepted canon, and it comes directly from the Roman Catholic church via Athanasius, in the year 367 A.D., clearly after the falling away of the church predicted by the prophets and Yeshua by way of Zechariah 13 & Matthew 26:31 & Matthew 24:10. You on the other hand have the supposed writings the false prophet Paul, per 2 Tim 3:15, which in fact does not prove your case, and in fact undermines it.

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

 

[Unfettered]

Let's go back to the title of the thread. The OP claims that understanding of the "holy scriptures", I assume that means "Bible", is impossible unless God gives the interpretation. Romans 1 20 says that unbelievers are without excuse when it comes to the teachings about God since they are so clear. If we cannot understand them without God's help then that gives nonbelievers a perfect excuse.

That is correct. What leaves a person without excuse is rejection of comprehended light given of God by someone sent by him. The prophet Joseph Smith explained this well:

"The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of: for instance, it is common for many of our orthodox preachers to suppose that if a man is not what they call converted, if he dies in that state he must remain eternally in hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, indirectly of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.​

​

"I will suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a praying man, and he gets converted a few minutes before he dies; the other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a can, the tailor has a buttonhole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody's boot; they none of them can go in time, the man dies, and goes to hell: one of these is exalted to Abraham's bosom, he sits down in the presence of God and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as he, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.​

​

"The plans of Jehovah are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so visionary, nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense; at such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.​

​

"If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish all delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactment more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of heaven judge "according to the deed done in the body."​

​

"To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for "how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent;" consequently neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of sectarianism, nor for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God, for as the preacher cannot preach except he be sent, so the hearer cannot believe without he hear a "sent" preacher, and cannot be condemned for what he has not heard, and being without law, will have to be judged without law." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 220-221)​

So yes, one should not fear and tremble because he rejects preachers "not sent" by God.

God will ensure that everyone hears a sent preacher, whether they hear that preacher in mortality or after. No one will be left without excuse.

There is another truth (the Light of Christ) that affects the soundness of your assertion, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct. What leaves a person without excuse is rejection of comprehended light given of God by someone sent by him. The prophet Joseph Smith explained this well:

"The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of: for instance, it is common for many of our orthodox preachers to suppose that if a man is not what they call converted, if he dies in that state he must remain eternally in hell without any hope. Infinite years in torment must he spend, and never, never, never have an end; and yet this eternal misery is made frequently to rest upon the merest casualty. The breaking of a shoe-string, the tearing of a coat of those officiating, or the peculiar location in which a person lives, may be the means, indirectly of his damnation, or the cause of his not being saved.​

​

"I will suppose a case which is not extraordinary: Two men, who have been equally wicked, who have neglected religion, are both of them taken sick at the same time; one of them has the good fortune to be visited by a praying man, and he gets converted a few minutes before he dies; the other sends for three different praying men, a tailor, a shoemaker, and a tinman; the tinman has a handle to solder to a can, the tailor has a buttonhole to work on some coat that he needed in a hurry, and the shoemaker has a patch to put on somebody's boot; they none of them can go in time, the man dies, and goes to hell: one of these is exalted to Abraham's bosom, he sits down in the presence of God and enjoys eternal, uninterrupted happiness, while the other, equally as good as he, sinks to eternal damnation, irretrievable misery and hopeless despair, because a man had a boot mend, the button-hole of a coat to work, or a handle to solder on to a saucepan.​

​

"The plans of Jehovah are not so unjust, the statements of holy writ so visionary, nor the plan of salvation for the human family so incompatible with common sense; at such proceedings God would frown with indignance, angels would hide their heads in shame, and every virtuous, intelligent man would recoil.​

​

"If human laws award to each man his deserts, and punish all delinquents according to their several crimes, surely the Lord will not be more cruel than man, for He is a wise legislator, and His laws are more equitable, His enactment more just, and His decisions more perfect than those of man; and as man judges his fellow man by law, and punishes him according to the penalty of the law, so does God of heaven judge "according to the deed done in the body."​

​

"To say that the heathens would be damned because they did not believe the gospel would be preposterous, and to say that the Jews would all be damned that do not believe in Jesus would be equally absurd; for "how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent;" consequently neither Jew nor heathen can be culpable for rejecting the conflicting opinions of sectarianism, nor for rejecting any testimony but that which is sent of God, for as the preacher cannot preach except he be sent, so the hearer cannot believe without he hear a "sent" preacher, and cannot be condemned for what he has not heard, and being without law, will have to be judged without law." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 220-221)​

So yes, one should not fear and tremble because he rejects preachers "not sent" by God.

God will ensure that everyone hears a sent preacher, whether they hear that preacher in mortality or after. No one will be left without excuse.

There is another truth (the Light of Christ) that affects the soundness of your assertion, but that's a different discussion.

Sorry, you lost me when you called Joseph Smith a prophet. If you had spelled it "profit" you would have been closer to the truth. You may venerate him, but most of us know that was a convicted fraudster that tried a couple of variations of his seer stone scam before he came up with one that worked.

 

[Unfettered]

Sorry, you lost me when you called Joseph Smith a prophet. If you had spelled it "profit" you would have been closer to the truth. You may venerate him, but most of us know that was a convicted fraudster that tried a couple of variations of his seer stone scam before he came up with one that worked.

What he said is either true or it is false. Read it and judge for yourself.

 

[Ignatius A]

According to you, I have to prove my point, yet you do not have to prove your point. My point is proven with respect to the message of the devil/"enemy" being mixed with the message of the "son of man" in Matthew 13:24-30. The bad fruit of any house/church proves it is on the way to being tossed into the fire/destruction (Mt 3 & 7). As far as your "canon", it has historically not been a universally accepted canon, and it comes directly from the Roman Catholic church via Athanasius, in the year 367 A.D., clearly after the falling away of the church predicted by the prophets and Yeshua by way of Zechariah 13 & Matthew 26:31 & Matthew 24:10. You on the other hand have the supposed writings the false prophet Paul, per 2 Tim 3:15, which in fact does not prove your case, and in fact undermines it.

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Right. I accept on faith scripture is inerrant. If you want to claim it's not prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What he said is either true or it is false. Read it and judge for yourself.

It is just apologetics. In other words lying for Jesus and I am not very impressed by it.

As a Mormon how do you deal with the clearly fictitious parts of the Bible? Do you have to believe the Flood myth? Do you have to believe the Adam and Eve myth?

 

[Trailblazer]

Your memory may have been seriously affected by oxygen deprivation. You seem to forget that long before you saw the pastor they gave you various treatments. How do I know that? About 15 years ago that happened to me. Went into the ER. I talked with the intake nurse and was ready to wait for an hour or two. Instead I was taken in right away. It was almost as if it were an emergency or something. I was given a nebulizer treatment, then IV's some of them with rather strong steroids in them. And three days later I went home. I was not even at the "get pastor" state, but I know from experience that you do not see a pastor until well after the immediate treatments have been done. It appears that the pastor got the credit for the works of the works of the physicians.

If someone is having an asthma attack, no hospital sends a pastor in before administering treatments., not even a Catholic hospital!

Many years ago, my late husband used to go to the hospital when he was having asthma attacks and the first thing they did was put him on a nebulizer machine. Finally his doctor ordered nebulizer machines for him to have at home and at work.

 

[Unfettered]

It is just apologetics. In other words lying for Jesus and I am not very impressed by it.

If you're not going to read and discuss what is offered toward the OP, why are you here?

As a Mormon how do you deal with the clearly fictitious parts of the Bible? Do you have to believe the Flood myth? Do you have to believe the Adam and Eve myth?

This thread isn't about these topics, nor about my religion, except insofar as these are relevant to the OP. Probably should start a new thread if you want me to treat those questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.kIf you're not going to read and discuss what is offered toward the OP, why are you here?
This thread isn't about these topics, nor about my religion, except insofar as these are relevant to the OP. Probably should start a new thread if you want me to treat those questions.

Okay fine. He has the rather simplistic belief that everyone will at least here of God before they die. That was shown to be wrong since it was not until after Columbus that the aboriginal people of the New World had even heard of him. Call it fifteen hundred years.

 

[Ignatius A]

It is just apologetics. In other words lying for Jesus and I am not very impressed by it.

As a Mormon how do you deal with the clearly fictitious parts of the Bible? Do you have to believe the Flood myth? Do you have to believe the Adam and Eve myth?

First no one is required to believe anything. Second prove either or both were myths. Third parables are useful I help us understanding things that we might miss. For example do you thinks it's necessary to believe a race between a hare and a tortoise took place before you can grasp the message?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone is having an asthma attack, no hospital sends a pastor in before administering treatments., not even a Catholic hospital!

Many years ago, my late husband used to go to the hospital when he was having asthma attacks and the first thing they did was put him on a nebulizer machine. Finally his doctor ordered nebulizer machines for him to have at home and at work.

Yes, I went to a Catholic hospital. I have a housemate that had a history of drug abuse. Her friends were often still addicts. More than once I had to take one of them to the ER for problems. They never got in right away since they really were cases that they should have seen a doctor about. So I knew that my case was very serious since they took me back before I did even any of the paperwork. If the topic of a religious person was asked it was not until I was already treated.

It is hard to take a person's testimony about how they were "saved" seriously when it is contradicted by reality.

 

[Unfettered]

Okay fine. He has the rather simplistic belief that everyone will at least here of God before they die. That was shown to be wrong since it was not until after Columbus that the aboriginal people of the New World had even heard of him. Call it fifteen hundred years.

Actually, the preaching of the gospel (and the attendant decisions to accept or reject what is offered therein) is not confined to this mortal life. The quote I shared from Joseph can't be properly understood outside that context. IE, if a person never heard a "sent preacher" in mortality, he'll hear one after this life, before resurrection and judgment. Else God, who controls when and where and into what circumstances his children are born, is a respecter of persons and a capricious judge. That's why Joseph said, "The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of;"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, the preaching of the gospel (and the attendant decisions to accept or reject what is offered therein) is not confined to this mortal life. The quote I shared from Joseph can't be properly understood outside that context. IE, if a person never heard a "sent preacher" in mortality, he'll hear one after this life, before resurrection and judgment. Else God, who controls when and where and into what circumstances his children are born, is a respecter of persons and a capricious judge. That's why Joseph said, "The idea that some men form of the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, is too foolish for an intelligent man to think of;"

Your claim is still of no value. It has no support and in the sciences such a stance is pseudoscience.

How do you show that a claim is correct now? Saying that you will know after you die is untestable and of no value in a debate. You are more likely to never know since dying is probably the end. I cannot support that it is the absolute end, but I can show that religious beliefs have no more support than beliefs in other myths. It is why they are so often compared to beliefs in Bigfoot or fairies. Demonstrate that you have something more than that sort of belief and you will capture peoples' attention.

 

[Unfettered]

Your claim is still of no value. It has no support and in the sciences such a stance is pseudoscience.

I'm not presenting it as supported by the sciences. We're discussing your thought:

Let's go back to the title of the thread. The OP claims that understanding of the "holy scriptures", I assume that means "Bible", is impossible unless God gives the interpretation. Romans 1 20 says that unbelievers are without excuse when it comes to the teachings about God since they are so clear. If we cannot understand them without God's help then that gives nonbelievers a perfect excuse.

If you'd have wanted a scientific discussion, you should have framed it accordingly.

How do you show that a claim is correct now?

I don't show it. God promises that he will confirm his words using the means and timing he defines. Anyone can come to understand the promise and test it for himself. That's what the testimony of others, past and present, is for: to introduce, not to prove.

Saying that you will know after you die is untestable and of no value in a debate.

Again, I'm not here to tell you what you should believe; I'm answering your points and questions within the framework of my understanding. God has addressed the point you made and I offered that.

You are more likely to never know since dying is probably the end. I cannot support that it is the absolute end, but I can show that religious beliefs have no more support than beliefs in other myths.

That's fine, but that's not the discussion you invited me into. I'm just addressing your points and questions. You made a point that I understand is short-sighted or missing relevant information. I responded accordingly and here we are.

It is why they are so often compared to beliefs in Bigfoot or fairies. Demonstrate that you have something more than that sort of belief and you will capture peoples' attention.

The power to demonstrate God belongs to God. He rightfully offers such manifestations on his terms, not mine or yours. If someone shares with you what he claims are God's terms, and claims at the same time that God wants to demonstrate himself to you on those terms, and you fully comply with the terms and find that God does not honor them, you are justified in rejecting what was shared with you. But again, why are we jumping to a discussion about convincing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not presenting it as supported by the sciences. We're discussing your thought:

If you'd have wanted a scientific discussion, you should have framed it accordingly.

Oh please, I did not say that I wanted scientific thought. I merely want rational thought.

I don't show it. God promises that he will confirm his words using the means and timing he defines. Anyone can come to understand the promise and test it for himself. That's what the testimony of others, past and present, is for: to introduce, not to prove.

And another correction. you do not get to claim "God's words" until you provide reasonable evidence for that. Otherwise you only have holy books that others are going to disagree about. I would say that the errors in almost every holy book shows that they are not "God's words"

Again, I'm not here to tell you what you should believe; I'm answering your points and questions within the framework of my understanding. God has addressed the point you made and I offered that.

That's fine, but that's not the discussion you invited me into. I'm just addressing your points and questions. You made a point that I understand is short-sighted or missing relevant information. I responded accordingly and here we are.

The power to demonstrate God belongs to God. He rightfully offers such manifestations on his terms, not mine or yours. If someone shares with you what he claims are God's terms, and claims at the same time that God wants to demonstrate himself to you on those terms, and you fully comply with the terms and find that God does not honor them, you are justified in rejecting what was shared with you. But again, why are we jumping to a discussion about convincing?

But you are really not answering. You are merely making more excuses.

 

[Unfettered]

Oh please, I did not say that I wanted scientific thought. I merely want rational thought.

What I presented is rational to me.

And another correction. you do not get to claim "God's words" until you provide reasonable evidence for that. Otherwise you only have holy books that others are going to disagree about.

God is the claimant, not me. He will either fulfill or he won't. He'll reveal himself per his words or he won't. How is it my responsibility to prove him to others? As for disagreement over holy works, men are expected to disagree when other men are involved; that's inherent in our self-direction, and in our dealings with other imperfect people.

My claim here is that I understand certain things, that I have experience with certain things, and that those things address and answer certain questions, which I've offered. And yes, I do claim that God is real—on the basis of experience I cannot give to you. Asking for what I cannot give does not make my experience false when I fail to give what was asked. If someone wants what I have, he's got to seek it for himself; my role is to point to what I know works to obtain it.

I would say that the errors in almost every holy book shows that they are not "God's words"

And it is your right to make such judgments.

But you are really not answering. You are merely making more excuses.

OK. Which relevant point have I not addressed?

 

[2ndpillar]

Right. I accept on faith scripture is inerrant. If you want to claim it's not prove it.

I think your conception regarding "faith", is a little bit out there. If you are just saying you believe everything Paul says along with his comrades, well that would be your belief. Faith would entail acting on your belief. As Paul's false gospel of grace requires no action, well you are simply left with a false belief. As for asking someone to prove a negative, well that is another reach too far. Did you graduate from Harvard?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I presented is rational to me.

That is the problem.

God is the claimant, not me. He will either fulfill or he won't. He'll reveal himself per his words or he won't. How is it my responsibility to prove him to others? As for disagreement over holy works, men are expected to disagree when other men are involved; that's inherent in our self-direction, and in our dealings with other imperfect people.

No, you do not even seem to know if your God exists. You only believe that he exists. You have a burden of proof wen it comes to God. When you claim "God said . . . " you are assuming a heavy burden of proof.

My claim here is that I understand certain things, that I have experience with certain things, and that those things address and answer certain questions, which I've offered. And yes, I do claim that God is real—on the basis of experience I cannot give to you. Asking for what I cannot give you does not make my experience false. If you want what I have, you've got to seek it for yourself; my role is to point to what I know works to obtain it.

It only appears that you believe certain things. There is a difference between belief and knowledge

And it is your right to make such judgments.

And ones that I can often demonstrate. I am unfamiliar with the LDS holy books, but I am fairly sure that they have their own errors.

OK. Which relevant point have I not addressed?

I do not think that you have addressed any points. Perhaps we should go over them one at a time. That is the best way sometimes.

 

[Unfettered]

That is the problem.

How is that a problem?

No, you do not even seem to know if your God exists. You only believe that he exists.

Seem? Do I or do I not know that my God exists?

You have a burden of proof wen it comes to God. When you claim "God said . . . " you are assuming a heavy burden of proof.

How?

It only appears that you believe certain things.

Appears? Well, do I believe certain things or don't I? And what things are you talking about? You'll have to be specific.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge

I agree.

And ones that I can often demonstrate.

No doubt. It wouldn't be hard.

I am unfamiliar with the LDS holy books, but I am fairly sure that they have their own errors.

They do.

I do not think that you have addressed any points.

Come now. If we're going to have a good-faith discussion, you must acknowledge my contributions. But if you want to run with this:

Perhaps we should go over them one at a time. That is the best way sometimes.

...I'm here. Offer a point relevant to the discussion that you'd like me to address.