Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: John, The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any scripture is historically based. We believe all of the BoM is, and much (if not most) of the Bible is. Marc and I are consistent with what the GAs have taught on these books. We haven't stated definitively that Joshua never was at Jericho, but only that there are discrepancies with current science. Furthermore, I would add that it doesn't matter. Brigham Young referred to baby stories in the Bible, assuming that there is a more transcendent way of understanding them than as mere history. My father was a medical doctor and an atheist. Still, he had read enough history to know how important religion was in the development of western civilization, and he approved of religion. While he was not a believer, he considered this a failing in himself. And for years he tried to get religion. On one occasion, he decided to join a church but he didn't know what church was right. Therefore he devised a test that he could administer to all the churches in the El Paso, Texas area. And he went about the town asking each clergyman how he explained the tale of Jonah. As a medical doctor he pointed out that 1) there would be insufficient oxygen, and 2) the gastric juices would have digested Jonah. Well, each pastor he talked to tried to explain the story to him. Finally he found an Episcopal priest who told him the answer he was looking for. The story never really happened, you see. It was a story or fable included in scripture to demonstrate that it is impossible to hide from God. My dad had found the scientific pastor he was looking for, so he became an Episcopalian. He attended church two or three times, and that was that. You see, he was an atheist, and he couldn't keep his enthusiasm up. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some of this kind of thinking is coming through in these discussions. I don't mean that anyone here is an atheist, just that some find it easier to believe that stories are allegories and fables than to believe they were miracles, albeit all miracles are merely phenomenon that are not yet understood. I cannot accept the Bible as scripture if it is merely a collection of folk tales, not even if those folk tales illustrate and teach true, inspired principles. I demand that the Bible be true. This doesn't mean that it has to be without error, merely that parables and fables be labeled as such, as was the case in the parables of Jesus. You see, I grew up a chip off the old block. And my father thought that all religion was a fable or extended allegory. If he was right, which I have never believed, then there is no foundation to my faith. I am not one of the born agains that insists the Bible is complete, and perfectly accurate even to the punctuation. I believe that much of the Bible is allegorical. So then my challenge is to figure out which stories are mere figures of speech and which stories are actual events that took place anciently. And for the purpose of my own religious faith, I have chosen to believe as literal all but those stories that are obviously figurative. I choose to err on the side of belief rather than on the side of unbelief. I am a true believer. And it is a good thing too. Because the story of the First Vision certainly sounds like an allegory or story told to illustrate a principle. But if one denies the literal nature of that story, he might as well turn in his temple recommend and ask for his name to be removed from the records. Because the whole legitimacy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon that claim being literal as President Hinckley so eloquently pointed out in his opening talk to the Sunday afternoon session of the General Conference. Unless the First Vision literally happened then Joseph Smith was a false prophet and the Church is a complete fraud. And by the same token, there are stories told in the Bible that would prove all of Judeo-Christianity to be a great fraud except the stories be literal. If we throw out all that is not scientifically plausible, we thrown out the very heart of our faith. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
I appreciate your experience. Just don't think it's such a black and white issue. We've been told in a number of places in the scriptures that we don't know everything yet, and may have to exercise patience. In the meantime, we are free to compare speculations, so long as we do not harm the faith of another. And for every intellectual I see intellectualizing himself out of a testimony, I see an iron-rodder putting a young science student in an impossible position, when there's no need for that to happen. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: John, The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any scripture is historically based. We believe all of the BoM is, and much (if not most) of the Bible is. Marc and I are consistent with what the GAs have taught on these books. We haven't stated definitively that Joshua never was at Jericho, but only that there are discrepancies with current science. Furthermore, I would add that it doesn't matter. Brigham Young referred to baby stories in the Bible, assuming that there is a more transcendent way of understanding them than as mere history. My father was a medical doctor and an atheist. Still, he had read enough history to know how important religion was in the development of western civilization, and he approved of religion. While he was not a believer, he considered this a failing in himself. And for years he tried to get religion. On one occasion, he decided to join a church but he didn't know what church was right. Therefore he devised a test that he could administer to all the churches in the El Paso, Texas area. And he went about the town asking each clergyman how he explained the tale of Jonah. As a medical doctor he pointed out that 1) there would be insufficient oxygen, and 2) the gastric juices would have digested Jonah. Well, each pastor he talked to tried to explain the story to him. Finally he found an Episcopal priest who told him the answer he was looking for. The story never really happened, you see. It was a story or fable included in scripture to demonstrate that it is impossible to hide from God. My dad had found the scientific pastor he was looking for, so he became an Episcopalian. He attended church two or three times, and that was that. You see, he was an atheist, and he couldn't keep his enthusiasm up. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some of this kind of thinking is coming through in these discussions. I don't mean that anyone here is an atheist, just that some find it easier to believe that stories are allegories and fables than to believe they were miracles, albeit all miracles are merely phenomenon that are not yet understood. I cannot accept the Bible as scripture if it is merely a collection of folk tales, not even if those folk tales illustrate and teach true, inspired principles. I demand that the Bible be true. This doesn't mean that it has to be without error, merely that parables and fables be labeled as such, as was the case in the parables of Jesus. You see, I grew up a chip off the old block. And my father thought that all religion was a fable or extended allegory. If he was right, which I have never believed, then there is no foundation to my faith. I am not one of the born agains that insists the Bible is complete, and perfectly accurate even to the punctuation. I believe that much of the Bible is allegorical. So then my challenge is to figure out which stories are mere figures of speech and which stories are actual events that took place anciently. And for the purpose of my own religious faith, I have chosen to believe as literal all but those stories that are obviously figurative. I choose to err on the side of belief rather than on the side of unbelief. I am a true believer. And it is a good thing too. Because the story of the First Vision certainly sounds like an allegory or story told to illustrate a principle. But if one denies the literal nature of that story, he might as well turn in his temple recommend and ask for his name to be removed from the records. Because the whole legitimacy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon that claim being literal as President Hinckley so eloquently pointed out in his opening talk to the Sunday afternoon session of the General Conference. Unless the First Vision literally happened then Joseph Smith was a false prophet and the Church is a complete fraud. And by the same token, there are stories told in the Bible that would prove all of Judeo-Christianity to be a great fraud except the stories be literal. If we throw out all that is not scientifically plausible, we thrown
RE: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
At 09:39 AM 11/7/2002, Jim cogently stated: Seems to me that the contention in this discussion is mostly based on semantic quibbling. We're talking about written records of history. Every incident and story related in these records is entirely symbolic. The words and letters that comprise a written text or an oral narrative are symbols. Thus it is entirely accurate to say that scriptures are symbolic. In this context, the argument between literal and symbolic or figurative loses most of its edge. It is academic that every bit of information has to be processed and interpreted. Scriptures are no different. Thus they might accurately be characterized as both symbolic and literal at the same time. This argument does nothing to address the question of how we should approach the scriptural record. I certainly believe that events written about in the Bible can be both actual literal events and yet symbolic at the same time. Why are we so hasty to assume that since there is no physical evidence that the walls of Jericho tumbled that the event didn't occur. The Twin Towers in New York also collapsed but today there is little evidence that the collapse took place. Are archeologists of the future going to claim that the twin towers collapse never really happened--that it was all symbolic, perhaps of America's corruption? The Apostle Paul apparently thought that events of the Bible could be both literal and symbolic: (Galatians 4:22-26.) 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also stated in reference to the above scripture that the family makeup and life of Abraham was both literal (actually occurred) and symbolic of the two covenants (The Law of Moses and the New and Everlasting Covenant): Paul here uses the life of Abraham as an allegory to dramatize the superiority of the gospel over the law of Mosesa mode of teaching designed to drive his doctrine home anew each time his hearers think of Abraham and his life. Hagar, the bondwoman, bore Ishmael; and Sarah, the freewoman, brought forth Isaac. Ishmael was born after the flesh, while Isaac, as a child of promise, came forth after the Spirit. Hagar is thus made to represent the old covenant, the law of Moses, the covenant under which men were subject to the bondage of sin; while Sarah symbolizes the new covenant, the gospel, the covenant under which men are made free, free from bondage and sin through Christ. Mt. Sinai, from whence the law came, and Jerusalem, from whence it is now administered, symbolize the law, and their children are in bondage. But the spiritual Jerusalem, the heavenly city of which the saints shall be citizens, is symbolized by Sarah, and she is the mother of freemen. Sarah, who was so long barren, as our spiritual mother, has now made us all, like Isaac, heirs of promise. But it is now, as it was then, those born after the flesh war against those born of the Spirit. And as God rejected Ishmael and accepted Isaac, so does he now reject those who cleave to the law of Moses and accept those who turn to Christ. The two covenants: The first is the old covenant, the law of Moses, the law of carnal commandments, the preparatory gospel, the covenant God made with Israel, through Moses, to prepare them for the second. The second is the new covenant, the everlasting covenant, the fulness of the gospel, the covenant God offers to make with all men, through Christ, to prepare them for the fulness of his glory. The old covenant was the lesser law, the new is the higher law. Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, standing between God and his people, pleading their cause, seeking to prepare them for the coming of their Messiah. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant, standing between God and all men, pleading their cause, seeking to prepare them for that celestial inheritance reserved for the saints. See Heb. 12:18-24. (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1973], 2: 478.) In fact you could say that the history of Jacob and Esau, as well as Isaac and Ishmael are symbolic of the clash and conflict between Christ and Satan. Just because an event actually happened doesn't mean it can't also be highly symbolic--and vice versa. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Explore Freedom: http://www.geocities.com/graymada / /// ZION LIST CHARTER:
Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
This is a very interesting comment,a nd sheds a lot of light on the subject at hand. We often try to read in our own modern, secular ideas of what *we* want the truth to be, rather than letting the record speak for itself, and we're often inconsistent. I have on my website a transcript of a talk by Daniel Ludlow when he was MP in Perth, Australia, on this topic wrt the Book of Mormon. It makes for interesting reading (here's a direct link to the beginning of the talk, in draft form: http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/C/bomarch.htm#C147) Jim Cobabe wrote: This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equal validity to questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible... -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy them. This one sounds interesting. Stacy. At 09:45 PM 11/07/2002 +, you wrote: This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equal validity to questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible... Naturalistic explanations are often useful in evaluating empirical data, but when the question asked involves non-empirical categories, such as Is the Book of Mormon what it purports to be?, it begs the question to adopt a method whose first assumption is that the Book cannot be what it claims to be. This points out a crucial logical difficulty in using this method in either attacking or defending the Church. When those with a naturalistic bias apply their scholarship to LDS literature and history, we usually assume that it is to test the prophetic claims of the Church. In fact there is never a test at all. There cannot be, for the naturalistically based assumptions of the method have determined before we even begin that divine claims cannot be accepted, and the critical scholar will already be looking for naturalistic explanations for his data. Or in the words of W. Wink: In this case the carrying over of methods from the natural sciences has led to a situation where we no longer ask what we would like to know . . . Rather, we attempt to deal only with those complexes of facts which are amenable to historical method. We ask only those questions which the method can answer (9). It seems to me that few LDS scholars really understand this. While they think they are engaged in pure scholarship, many are really methodological half-breeds, using the naturalistic method when it suits them and drawing upon their theology when it suits them, without ever stating where and how they draw the line. Opponents and proponents alike can use the fruits of empirical research in a selective way to defend the faith, but the authority of the historical-critical method is lost in so doing, and the final product lacks any real force, being merely opinion (mingled with scripture). Pure critical scholarship on the other hand is agnostic by definition, and its rules are by design stacked against theistic conclusions. It would be incredibly naive to believe that biblical criticism brings us closer to the Christ of faith. After 200 years of refining its methods, biblical scholarship has despaired of knowing the real Jesus, except for a few crumbs, and has declared the Christ pictured in scripture to be a creation of the early Church (see the excellent summary in Perrin 207-48). The Expanded Book of Mormon, Stephen Robinson essay; in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989], 395.) --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
Stacy Smith wrote: --- I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy them. This one sounds interesting. --- Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink collection. ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS? by Stephen E. Robinson Bookcraft Salt Lake City, Utah 1991 BELIEVING CHRIST The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah FOLLOWING CHRIST The Parable of the Divers and More Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah 1995 More recently published: HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation By Stephen E. Robinson, Craig L. Blomberg IVP Press, April 1997 The GospeLink collection also includes BYU STUDIES to which Robinson has been an occasional contributor. --- Mij Ebaboc / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
Jim Cobabe wrote: Stacy Smith wrote: --- I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy them. This one sounds interesting. --- Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink collection. ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS? by Stephen E. Robinson Bookcraft Salt Lake City, Utah 1991 Incidentally, this one has received mixed reviews. I can't comment directly because I haven't read it, but some people I know thinks that his views on grace and works in particular aren't mainstream LDS. Sorry I don't know anymore -- it's a WAR (wild donkeyed rumour) ;-) BELIEVING CHRIST The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah FOLLOWING CHRIST The Parable of the Divers and More Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah 1995 More recently published: HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation By Stephen E. Robinson, Craig L. Blomberg IVP Press, April 1997 This one's really stirred the pot amongst evangelicals, who think Blomberg is a traitor for co-authoring a book with an LDS author. It's first on my list, fwiw. The GospeLink collection also includes BYU STUDIES to which Robinson has been an occasional contributor. --- Mij Ebaboc If I'm not mistaken, he's written a few things for FARMS, too. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
Do we have any of these in immediate electronic form I could look at on a web site? Stacy. At 08:35 PM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote: Jim Cobabe wrote: Stacy Smith wrote: --- I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy them. This one sounds interesting. --- Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink collection. ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS? by Stephen E. Robinson Bookcraft Salt Lake City, Utah 1991 Incidentally, this one has received mixed reviews. I can't comment directly because I haven't read it, but some people I know thinks that his views on grace and works in particular aren't mainstream LDS. Sorry I don't know anymore -- it's a WAR (wild donkeyed rumour) ;-) BELIEVING CHRIST The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah FOLLOWING CHRIST The Parable of the Divers and More Good News Stephen E. Robinson Deseret Book Company Salt Lake City, Utah 1995 More recently published: HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation By Stephen E. Robinson, Craig L. Blomberg IVP Press, April 1997 This one's really stirred the pot amongst evangelicals, who think Blomberg is a traitor for co-authoring a book with an LDS author. It's first on my list, fwiw. The GospeLink collection also includes BYU STUDIES to which Robinson has been an occasional contributor. --- Mij Ebaboc If I'm not mistaken, he's written a few things for FARMS, too. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
Thanks. Stacy. At 07:49 PM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy them. This one sounds interesting. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a
result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the
scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's
understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the
assumptions
we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan
said is
precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a Signaturi
because
you don't understand how to read scripture.
I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on
this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to
suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because
one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the
Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
No it's not. You have this wrong, John.
Forced
to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to
straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in
scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it
doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated.
It actually reminds me of the arguments of the atheists that I grew up
with. Because of this or that it isn't necessary for there to be a
God. Well... what does necessary have to do with it anyway? If it is
real, if it happened, then necessity has nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry if you've interpreted your background this way, but it's not necessary.
You're forcing a false dichotomy on people which is not only not necessary, but
presents a barrier to a deeper understanding of the scriptures.
Now I now that there are a lot of blanks that we do not know how to fill
today. Many of them are not going to be filled until the Second
Coming. But I don't think we need to fill those blanks by denying the
miracles of God. And yes, I think that suggesting that God did not part
the Red Sea because it isn't necessary as long as the true message is
communicated, is trying to force the miraculous, the divine, into a
scientific mold.To say that something is not so because it isn't
necessary, is bad logic in the first place. Lot's of things are so even
though they are not necessary. It wasn't necessary for me to eat a big
pizza yesterday, but I did.
Miracles are all done according to natural law, it's just that we don't
understand how they were done. We are not like Protestants -- we do not believe God
is a supernatural magician.
There are those who want to deny the reality of the miracles reported in
the Old and New Testaments. Some of them try to brush off the miracle by
saying that it never happened, that it is just a figure of speech or an
allegory. They point out all the symbolism that is in the
scriptures. Fine. There is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I
wouldn't have it any other way. But to deny miracles by assuming the
record to be symbolism rather than literal, is a cop out, in my
opinion. Such a person ought to just admit they don't have enough faith to
believe the miracles reported in the scriptures.
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Plenty of materials have been suggested for your consideration. I have yet to see
any indication that you are inclined to consider them. That is, of course, your
business, but your forced false dichotomies are stumbling blocks I believe you will
have to learn to overcome.
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a
world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor
those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
Dan, put another way, the difference between us and Biblicists is that they
believe the Bible to *be* the word of God in an existential, substantive, an und
für sich (in and of itself) sense, whereas we believe it is a *record* of the
word of God, to be preached from, and interpreted by prophets. The prophet could
teach from a grocery list if he were so inclined. (the latter is a nod to the
famous SF short story, A Canticle for Leibowitz)
Dan R Allen wrote:
Dan:
And I know that the Bible _does_ have errors in it, not just might. But it
is _still_ the Word of God; how can this be? Simple: the errors are in the
_specifics_, not the true principles.
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
[ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
John, The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any scripture is historically based. We believe all of the BoM is, and much (if not most) of the Bible is. Marc and I are consistent with what the GAs have taught on these books. We haven't stated definitively that Joshua never was at Jericho, but only that there are discrepancies with current science. This allows all to look at the evidence and make up their own mind with all the current facts. I don't ask anyone to stop believing in the Global Flood or Jericho's walls. I only ask them to consider other ways of interpreting a book that we have been told has symbolism in some of its stories. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR:I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Forced to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Bible vs the Scientists
Gary Smith wrote: John, The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any scripture is historically based. We believe all of the BoM is, and much (if not most) of the Bible is. Marc and I are consistent with what the GAs have taught on these books. We haven't stated definitively that Joshua never was at Jericho, but only that there are discrepancies with current science. Furthermore, I would add that it doesn't matter. Brigham Young referred to baby stories in the Bible, assuming that there is a more transcendent way of understanding them than as mere history. This allows all to look at the evidence and make up their own mind with all the current facts. I don't ask anyone to stop believing in the Global Flood or Jericho's walls. I only ask them to consider other ways of interpreting a book that we have been told has symbolism in some of its stories. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
[ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the spiritual understanding behind the events told about. - Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as the recognition that anger and envy are tools that Satan can use to direct our actions. - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed Him? Personally, my testimony does not rest on whether or not the bible can be proven historical or not. There are too many years, translations, and interpretations, between then and now, and too many things that we will never be able to physically prove - most evidence has been physically destroyed by time. Sure, it's nice when evidence does surface that supports some biblical event, but it's not critical to my understanding of His plans for me. For some reason this line of argument reminds me of those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon: --- The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be literally a record of ancient America as long as the principles that it teaches are true. There probably weren't any Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America. It is an extended allegory that the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to make because of the wonderful, eternal truths that it teaches. --- Sorry, but in my book, this kind of reasoning just won't cut it. Admittedly there is symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism in the Book of Mormon, too. But there really was a Father Lehi, and there really were Nephites and Lamanites. And it matters very much to me whether or not the God of the Old Testament parted the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ and Peter literally walked on water. If they didn't, then the scriptures are a lie, and I might just as well chuck all this religion stuff. I have to draw the line somewhere. Is it symbolism, or is it literal? If it is all symbolism, then we can all interpret the scriptures to mean whatever we want them to mean. After all, symbols mean different things to different people. Nope. My mind is made up. God literally did part the Red Sea. And the walls of Jericho literally did tumble down. If scientists and archaeologist don't come up with the same answer, then they had better go back and try again, because they have certainly made a serious error. You see. I know that the Bible might have errors in it. But there are undoubtedly errors in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of archaeologists and paleontologist, too. Nothing that man touches can be without error. But I don't know why religious people would assume the error is with the Bible rather than the scientists. That is the crux of the matter. When push comes to shove, why would anybody put scientists above the scriptures? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the assumptions we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan said is precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a Signaturi because you don't understand how to read scripture. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the spiritual understanding behind the events told about. - Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as the recognition that anger and envy are tools that Satan can use to direct our actions. - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed Him? Personally, my testimony does not rest on whether or not the bible can be proven historical or not. There are too many years, translations, and interpretations, between then and now, and too many things that we will never be able to physically prove - most evidence has been physically destroyed by time. Sure, it's nice when evidence does surface that supports some biblical event, but it's not critical to my understanding of His plans for me. For some reason this line of argument reminds me of those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon: --- The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be literally a record of ancient America as long as the principles that it teaches are true. There probably weren't any Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America. It is an extended allegory that the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to make because of the wonderful, eternal truths that it teaches. --- Sorry, but in my book, this kind of reasoning just won't cut it. Admittedly there is symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism in the Book of Mormon, too. But there really was a Father Lehi, and there really were Nephites and Lamanites. And it matters very much to me whether or not the God of the Old Testament parted the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ and Peter literally walked on water. If they didn't, then the scriptures are a lie, and I might just as well chuck all this religion stuff. I have to draw the line somewhere. Is it symbolism, or is it literal? If it is all symbolism, then we can all interpret the scriptures to mean whatever we want them to mean. After all, symbols mean different things to different people. Nope. My mind is made up. God literally did part the Red Sea. And the walls of Jericho literally did tumble down. If scientists and archaeologist don't come up with the same answer, then they had better go back and try again, because they have certainly made a serious error. You see. I know that the Bible might have errors in it. But there are undoubtedly errors in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of archaeologists and paleontologist, too. Nothing that man touches can be without error. But I don't know why religious people would assume the error is with the Bible rather than the scientists. That is the crux of the matter. When push comes to shove, why would anybody put scientists above the scriptures? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the assumptions we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan said is precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a Signaturi because you don't understand how to read scripture. I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Forced to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated. It actually reminds me of the arguments of the atheists that I grew up with. Because of this or that it isn't necessary for there to be a God. Well... what does necessary have to do with it anyway? If it is real, if it happened, then necessity has nothing to do with it. Now I now that there are a lot of blanks that we do not know how to fill today. Many of them are not going to be filled until the Second Coming. But I don't think we need to fill those blanks by denying the miracles of God. And yes, I think that suggesting that God did not part the Red Sea because it isn't necessary as long as the true message is communicated, is trying to force the miraculous, the divine, into a scientific mold.To say that something is not so because it isn't necessary, is bad logic in the first place. Lot's of things are so even though they are not necessary. It wasn't necessary for me to eat a big pizza yesterday, but I did. There are those who want to deny the reality of the miracles reported in the Old and New Testaments. Some of them try to brush off the miracle by saying that it never happened, that it is just a figure of speech or an allegory. They point out all the symbolism that is in the scriptures. Fine. There is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I wouldn't have it any other way. But to deny miracles by assuming the record to be symbolism rather than literal, is a cop out, in my opinion. Such a person ought to just admit they don't have enough faith to believe the miracles reported in the scriptures. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
