07-11-2007, 06:29 PM | #31 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-11-2007, 06:51 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
I tend to take the more liberal (gasp!) approach. I don't expect prophetic leadership to specifically delineate the truth of each passage, although one could make a decent case that the Joseph Smith Translation is exactly that. He didn't alter those passages, although I don't think he changed everything that could've been. In the specific case of Abraham, and the Israelites driving out the Canaanites, there is other modern scripture that refers to those events and treats them as though they actually happened as described. I don't have a problem with people being unsure or uncomfortable with these things. I mean, some of them bother me too. I do have a problem with someone (in my opinion) usurping the authority to declare it one way or the other. I don't know how any of this can be considered an evangelical approach. Honestly, for intellectuals you guys come up with some of the most inaccurate labels for me and my beliefs.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
07-11-2007, 07:18 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
Go to biggergod.com. This is an evangelical website created by one of our favorite evangelicals: Aaron Shafovaloff. Click on the God is a Killer link. Aaron has kindly documented all instances of the Bible where God is reported to have either killed or authorized killing. Aaron takes all of the events in the bible as literal and comes to the conclusion that God is a killer. Your taking events as literal (unless given prophetic counsel otherwise) is similar to Aaron's approach and that is why Arch stated your approach is more like an evangelical approach than a Mormon approach. |
|
07-11-2007, 07:22 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
Morbid. What's up with the skulls? |
|
07-11-2007, 07:52 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
Quote:
|
|
07-11-2007, 08:12 PM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
Quote:
If you're looking at the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) for "truth" regarding a record of historical events, then I don't believe it's an accurate record. Yes, there may be some events accurately reflected, but there are undoubtedly some that are not. If you are looking for "truth" in historical events, you cannot rely on the Bible. Because I don't believe the accuracy of the historical events purportedly set forth in the Bible is really important to the faith of Latter-day Saints, I would say the whole question is moot, anyway. But to believe the events recorded in the Bible to be accurate unless proven otherwise is not a very logical or reasonable position, given our fundamental belief in error (at a minimum) in its translation. If you're talking about spiritual "truth" and the principles of the gospel, I believe I touched on that previously. Because of the errors in the Bible, we have been given other sources of spiritual truth - the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and living prophets. They clarify for us the spiritual truths which were taught by the prophets and the Savior in the Bible. Therefore, where the spiritual truths contained in the Bible are consistent with the teachings of modern prophets and the Book of Mormon, we can feel comfortable that they are "true." Where they differ from (or are not addressed by) the modern sources of gospel truth, then I would say they are suspect, given the errors known to have occurred in the translation of the Bible. Quote:
When did God declare that the Bible is entirely "true" or accurate as it is currently translated in our King James Version? I recall a prophet indicating that it is not entirely correctly translated. Who is usurping God's authority here?
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug |
||
07-11-2007, 08:14 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
|
07-11-2007, 09:48 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
I declare myself the winner of this argument!
Somebody has to declare a winner, right? Or it will never end
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug |
07-11-2007, 10:09 PM | #39 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
In the end, as far as God is concerned, the difference between life and death is simply a matter of state. He has strict rules about the transition between one to the other, but if he chooses to initiate that transition himself, I don't view it as God "killing" ... at least not in the sense that we think of it. Quote:
That indicates that from (at the very least) an historical event perspective, you have to approach the Bible as though the events are NOT true, and then look for reasons to believe otherwise. Quote:
Quote:
As I said before, my personal interpretation of the 8th Article of Faith is that the Bible is generally true--events and doctrine both--except where indicated. (Note: This is different than literal vs. figurative.) I suppose I should find some prophetic counsel to back up that approach, but I guess I kind of take it for granted that everyone has the approach. Obviously, they don't.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||||
07-11-2007, 11:02 PM | #40 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
Quote:
I think the bottom line is, we don't have to look to the Bible for historical accuracy. It is a religious document, the importance of which is as a record of religious principles. Does not the very existence of the Book of Mormon speak to that? The Book of Mormon is a testament of the gospel principles originally contained in the books of the Bible, not of the historical events occurring in it, except to the extent that there is overlap between the historical events of the Book of Mormon and Bible. It is a sacred document, but not as a historical record of events. If you start looking at it as more than that, you run the risk of reading something into it that was not intended. Isn't that sort of how the Crusades were justified? Quote:
I don't see your correlation. Quote:
Let's say I have a witness in a legal case. He had 5 salient points to his testimony. I bring in a second witness who we know we can trust, who testifies to the veracity of 2 of them. What of the other three points? They are neither proved nor disproved by the second witness. If we know that there are some portions of the first witness' testimony that are incorrect, and all we have to go on are the two witnesses, all we have done is narrow down the portions of the first witness' testimony which are inaccurate. The reliability of the first witness has been strengthened as to the points addressed by the second witness, but not as to the remainder of his testimony (knowing that an unknown portion is unreliable). You're not going to be able to determine which unaddressed portions of the Bible are accurate by referring to the Book of Mormon - you can only confirm the truths that are common to them.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug Last edited by SoCalCoug; 07-12-2007 at 02:53 AM. |
|||
Bookmarks |
|
|