Posted on 06/22/2009 7:01:44 PM PDT by delacoert
What will be fun is when you make that leap then come back and argue that you are more reasoned and logical than those who argue against you.
1. The Bible is a Single Book
Erroneous Claim: That the bible stems from the church, not the church from the bible.
a. The Bible is not one book but a collection of books: true, strictly speaking.
b. The Christians took 24 books from Judaism and re-ordered & re-organized them into the Old Testament of 39 books: False.
i. There were significantly larger works, including the Talmud which contains exposition on the Law of Moses & the writings of the prophets.
ii. Jesus did quote from the Talmud, lending it some credibility.
iii. The Chronicles of the Kings (Kings & Chronicles) is divided because one section is from the northern kingdom’s perspective and the other from the southern kingdom’s; but, in addition to that, they cover common times. Therefore, it is as logical to regard them as one book as it is to divide them into four, five or however many divisions is convenient.
c. The origin of the new testament was derived from the church via heretics.
i. This would be like saying that the “Purpose Based…” branch of thought is the origin of church denominations; that there are heretics involved in church doctrine or theology is to be expected as their warped thoughts touch on those issues.
ii. The Council of Nicea is almost always brought up in discussions of the formation of the New Testament; what people fail to realize is that the Council simply restated, in an official capacity, what Christianity’s core beliefs were.
2. The Bible Preceded Doctrine
Logical Fallacy: A –> B; ~A so ~B.
a. This is akin to saying “If you let go of the rock then it will fall; the rock fell so you let go.” It fails to take into account any other possibilities that would produce the same results… such as getting your arm cut off with a lightsaber as you are holding the rock; you did not let go, yet the rock fell.
b. The correct way to view this is that God’s revelation to mankind of Himself must needsbe incremental; a parent does not talk of physics with a toddler or ask their opinion on politics, a maturer son or daughter is needed for that. Likewise, the bible and doctrine grew up together; like knowledge and understanding should in people.
3. True Religion is Bible Religion
“Since the Bible didn’t exist in the time of Peter and Paul. ‘No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible.’ (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not ‘Bible religion.’”
a. Good logic, bad application.
i. The book James, thought to be the earliest book in the new testament (it is the ONLY New Testament book which does not reference Jesus as the risen lord), has much to say on ‘religion.’ I tend to view it as the ‘smackdown’ book regarding churches.
(1) James 1:26-27
(2) James 2:3-4
(3) James 2:10
(4) James 2:15-18
(5) James 2:19
(6) James 3:1-12
(7) James 2:13-18
(8) James 4:1-3
(9) James 4:13-17
(10) James 5:1-6, 7-11
(11) James 5:12
(12) James 5:13-15
(13) James 5:16-18
(14) James 5:19-20
b. Such an argument is like saying that Abraham & Joseph & Noah were unbiblical because he never had a bible… think on that.
4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God
This is the truest ‘myth’ presented, and is the best presented.
a. The argument is that the bible quotes others, including:
i. Adam
ii. Eve,
iii. Satan,
iv. Foreign Commanders (“You will eat dung!”)
If the bible did not contain these, then it would be useless as a historical book; past experience has shown otherwise as many unknown historical claims the bible has made have been verified archeologically. (The existence of the Hititites, or the Pool of Bethsaida, for example.)
5. The Canon is Closed
Claim 1: “Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed.”
Claim 2: “Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn’t refer to the Bible as a whole.”
a. This is true, insomuch as many cults are of a form violating some precept set forth in Revelation, such as that the second coming of Christ will be known and recognized worldwide in an instant. (Think of all those who have claimed to be the Second Coming…)
6. The Bible can be Interpreted Independent of a Predetermined Ideology
Claim: Ideologies influence how you interpret the bible.
Conclusion: Because no interpretation is ideologically free, then all interpretation is ‘bad’.
a. It is strictly true that your worldview influences how you see the bible; trivially so, your worldview IS how you see the world.
b. There is a bit of a bias here that seems to be of the train of thought that because your worldview influences your interpretation of the bible your worldview is not influenced by the bible.
c. That the concept of trinity may not arise from someone’s intrepretation of the bible does not invalidate the concept… just like modalism, though a poor explanation theologically, may not be wholly incorrect (after all, all three persons of the Trinity claim responsibility for raising Jesus from the dead… this does not mean that they are lying).
7. To know the Bible is to Understand it
Actually, I quite agree here… the bible is, honestly, full of wonder and there is always more I don’t understand than I do; that is to be expected if it is the word of an infinite God spoken to a finite man.
8. The Bible is Common Ground in Missionary Work
This is a re-statement of Number Six, though as seen through an applicational setting.
Comments or Criticisms of my analysis?
(Sorry about the loss of tabs.)
Sounds reasonable.
(From the article)
Can someone please define “Plagiarism”?
How is it identified?
When does a work cross the line from paraphrasing or referring to or quoting,
Into the realm of stealing from, altering, and abusing?
Does anyone have a “legal” definition for it?
Cause I bet if I look it up in the dictionary, i’ll find a picture of the BOM there.
The word “apple” is an appropriate translation, because etymologically, the English word “apple” is a generic term including all fruits, berries, and nuts. For example, the Old English word for cucumbers is cucumbers eorþæppla - literally, “earth-apples” or “earth fruit”. Thus, the forbidden fruit could have been an apple, fig, etrog fruit, banana, or even a cucumber - all these species would be covered by the English word “apple” in its traditional sense. And amyway , that is what I was taught in school !
Don't go pointing out all those terrible things he did! The whole point of this thread is muddy the waters, attack, and cast doubt on Christianity itself - not to hold a mirror to the LDS! You aren't supposed to mention the flaws of Mormonism or of Joey Smith. That just defeats the whole point!
Sheesh!
First for such a erroneous and flawed book the LDS sure like the Bible when need be. They quote it, have it as part of their scripture and most of all the PR department in SLC has spared no expense in letting the world know the Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible.
Name brands sell, and for the past couple of decades or so the LDS PR gurus have been very diligent is letting us know that the term Christian, once rejected by the Mormons, is very much applicable now that it helps bolster sagging sales numbers.
Secondly, their own BOM follows the same format, appearing as separate "books" (Nephi, Alma etc.) written by separate “authors” and is seen as perfect vs. the Bible, despite being actaully pinned by one man with a magic hat and filled with fantasy and errors.
Excellent thanks for posting!:)
Up unitl a decade or so ago most of the mainstread did not ponder How we got our Bible.
Those born into the faith assumed it came that way!
Since every thing else was built upon the Bible being Infallible and Inerrant most of the Mainstream believes
metaphoric speaking...
That the Cart (Bible) goes before the Horse (Lord)
Instead of the Lord was first than the Word (Bible)
Now the words that the Lord speaks is Infallible and Inerrant but the scribe is NOT!
The Lord gives several warnings in many of the books we are aware of not to add or subtract what is said in that book.
We do not have the original copies of the manuscripts aka books and what is available is 3 or 4 copies or generation removed from the origianal.
There is nothing to compare or varify the Word too accept by the Power of the Holy Ghost.
Now that is an ironic post...
One thing the Bible does say is to avoid anyone who teaches any other Gospel but the Gospel of Chirst. That folks like Joseph mith would come and to aviod them.
Until the 'Net (Thanks Al!) the LDS maze was basically unnavigatable to outsiders.
Now; thanks MAINLY to MORMONism itself; all KINDS of MORMON quotes and writings have become WIDELY available (Thanks Mormons!)
Subsequently ANYONE can do research on their own and not have to listen to the MILK that is fed to the masses: yes, even masses of MORMONS.
Up unitl a decade or so ago most of the mainstread did not ponder How we got our Bible.
I continually PONDER as to WHY no MORMON has an answer for the question:
"What did JS 'learn' to be UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANism?"
At least that's WAY more the MORMONism has!
And the stuff we DO have SHOWS that JS was NO translator!
Book of Abraham my butt!
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2
It is very clear on that.
You assume
But your knowledge of Egyptian use of papyri is nil!
Now that is irony...
Again, I believe Marcion is the earliest individual to create a NT canon list. I don’t think that is meant to imply later lists were derived from that list, but rather that Marcion was first to create a canon list.
You are RIGHT!!
Just like your hero; Joseph Smith; whose translation skills are ZIP, as PROVEN by REAL Egyptologists!
That's just what we've been telling you resty...the mormon scribe is FALLIBLE!
No; it's stupidity, posing as FAITH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.