Re: Errors in the Bible? (nope!)
- From: "Jeff Shirton" <jshirton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:52:28 -0000
Gerald O'Barr wrote:
> I am sorry about the lack of references. I know
> it is better to have references. But today, if anyone
> wants a reference, it is usually easy to find one.
But that's just the point, Gerald, it's *not* easy to find one,
since in many cases it appears that there *is* no Biblical
support for many of the things people claim. That's why
Luke described the Bereans as "more noble", because
they confirmed the preachings of Paul with Scripture,
something the Thessalonians didn't do.
And even if you *have* a verse in mind, it may not be
the case that you understand it correctly (as is the
case with John 21, for instance).
Now, I'm not saying that you *have* to give citations
for whatever you teach. You can do whatever you
want, obviously. But my point is simply this: If you
want people to *believe* the claims you make, then
you would be well-advised (IMO) to include proper
citations. Because without them, I simply don't accept
anything that you say, since I don't have any reason to
accept what you say.
> I notice that you wanted to make the point that the
> Bible is perfect. (Not most perfect, just perfect!)
No, I wasn't saying anything about my own position,
I was commenting on *your* position.
> I was not talking about the perfection of the Bible in
> any physical sense. I was only saying that the Bible"
> could be used to feel the Spirit of God. For this,
> it is more than perfect!
Again, "more than perfect" doesn't make any sense
to me. You are using some non-standard meaning
of "perfect", in which case you would have to explain
what you mean by it.
But like I said previously, I simply get the impression
that the phrase is being used out of habit, rather than
out of any rigorous meaning or understanding.
> The Bible is used by two or more different churches
> (hundreds?), and they do not seem to end up having
> or being the same church. Why is that?
You seem to be *assuming* that is because of some
flaw or shortcoming in the Bible. Indeed, this seems
to be the majority *assumption* among Mormons.
However, it is simply an *assumption*, and nothing
more. You have not demonstrated that this is in fact
the cause.
> I say they end up with different churches because
> the Bible has some kind of a weakness.
And *I* say that they end up with different churches
because *man* has some kind of a weakness, and this
weakness is called "sin". Instead of accepting the Bible
for what it actually teaches, people like to insert their
own ideas, traditions, and biases, such as "free will",
or "exaltation of man", or "gods in embryo", and some
such thing.
This is not a fault or flaw of the Bible, it is a fault
of the men *reading* the Bible.
> Either it is not able to be read or understood the
> same way by all, or it is too incomplete, or it is
> in error, or it is something not adequate for God
> fearing men.
I find it ironic (albeit typical for LDS) that they would
place the blame, the weakness, the fault, the "inadequacy",
on the word of *GOD*, rather than on the sin of *men*.
> >> Christ were written down (and it says they should
> >> be written down), ...
>
> > It says no such thing, of course.
> > It says (John 21:25) that *if* they should (ie. were)
> > written down, the world could not contain all
> > the books that would be needed.
>
> The last line of the verse you mentioned says
> about these books: '. . . , I suppose that even the
> world itself could not contain the books that should
>be written. Amen.'
Yes, but that second "should" is linked to the *first*
"should", which is qualified by "if". It isn't saying that
they *should* be written, but simply explaining what
*would* happen *if* they "should" be written down.
Besides, you appear to have missed my point that
*if* your interpretation were the corrrect one, that
God is telling us that all those works "should" have
been written down, then God would be commanding
us to do something impossible, since the very verse
tells us that the world isn't *big* enough to contain
all those books.
> Now should these books be written?
1) There is no need for these books to be written.
2) There is no possible *way* for these books to be written.
3) So the answer to your question is obviously, "no".
> John said that these books should be written!
When you take the *entire* verse, in *context*, rather
than chopping it in half and ignoring the other half,
you find that John is saying no such thing.
> So why do you care about all these details,
> and yet fail to get them right?
You haven't demonstrated that I *have* "failed
to get them right".
> You said that ' . . . prophets ended with John,
> at the time of Christ.' And yet in the last days there
> will be men walking the streets of Jerusalem, crying
> warnings to the people, and fulfilling the call of a
> prophet.
Not the same kind of prophets.
And it's not even in the same time frame.
We are not in the time of John's Revelation, Gerald.
(Or perhaps you disagree, I don't know.)
> John the Revelator said that he saw, in the last days,
> an angle bringing to the earth the ever lasting gospel,
> to be preached to all the world. How do you think
> all this will be done? Will there be preachers to do this?
You just said that the "ang[el] will be preaching the
gospel.
> Will they have an office?
You mean like a cubicle?
You don't seem to understand that I'm not LDS,
and so I don't accept your beliefs about "offices".
> Will they have the right to baptized? Surely
> you have to think about these things.
Why?
God is control over everything.
At this point, I can only speculate.
And it seems to me that it is speculation that
caused the LDS church to be invented.
> But then, there was promised that in the last days,
Interesting choice of words, "last days", for it
is *exactly* that choice of words that the author
of Hebrews (Heb. 1:1-2) used for the time when
"prophets" (in the standard sense no longer existed).
Gerald, so far no LDS have been able to give me
an alternate interpretation of Heb. 1:1-2 which
still allows for prophets in *these* "last days",
and retains integrity to the text. Are you willing
to do so?
> all things would be restored.
Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but I
don't have any idea what Biblical Scripture you're
referring to. And until/unless you tell me, I have
no reason to agree with you here.
> The time would come when the true Gospel
> would be restored,
There was never any need *for* the true Gospel
to be restored, for the true Gospel was never *lost*.
(Another friendly reminder, I'm not LDS, I'm a Christian.)
> Gerald L. O'Barr
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Errors in the Bible? (nope!)
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Errors in the Bible? (nope!)
- Prev by Date: Re: How many former anti's.....
- Next by Date: Re: Errors in the Bible? (nope!)
- Previous by thread: How many former anti's.....
- Next by thread: Re: Errors in the Bible? (nope!)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
