[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Mormons will just flat out deny this article.DAVEH: I'm not sure why you would say that, Glenn. I fully agree with the article, and believe it supports my belief.
In fact, they probably will not read it for fear of sinning.DAVEH: I assume this is your attempt at humor???
Facts don't matter to Mormons.DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that.
You have to have that firey gut warm fuzzy feeling. This firey gut warm fuzzy feeling transcends facts. You have to live by Joe Smith faith. They just flat out deny factual evidence whether it is about the Bible or about Joe Smith.DAVEH: I've repeatedly told you. Do you wish me to explain it again?Who is this Jesus the Mormons worship?
DavidM says he worships the same Jesus as Mormons worship. I am not sure a created being who is the brother of Satan is the same Jesus. And no, I don't think the word cult is a good word. Hey, what do I know. I believe the Bible and that leaves me under the influence of Satan.DAVEH: Why blame the Bible for that? Blame Satan if you wish, but not the Bible.
This makes me wonder, if I am under the influence of Satan for reading the Bible, if the Mormons don't have Satan and Jesus mixed up. I wonder if the Mormons worship Satan. I wonder if the Mormons worship a demon who goes by the name of Jesus.DAVEH: I shouldn't have to say this, as I think I've explained my beliefs before. Jesus is my/our Lord and Savior.
I have seen demons cast out of people who went by the name of Jesus. How can we know what Mormons believe when they change the definitions of words without telling you until you catch them.DAVEH: I have been the first to admit that we often times define things a bit differently. That is why I enjoy conversing with non-LDS folks......to find out what they believe and why.
After all, they have admitted we can't eat Mormon meat as we would choke on it.DAVEH: From past discussions, it is apparent that you choke on very simple concepts.
DAVEH: So Glenn.......Do you agree that there has been corruption in the manuscripts?Thought this article fits in with the recent discussion. Laura
Text Criticism and Inerrancy
How can I reconcile my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture with comments in Bible translations that state that a particular verse is not 'in better manuscripts'?
By J.I. Packer | posted 10/22/2002The answer to this question parallels that of Charles Spurgeon who, when asked to reconcile human freedom with divine predestination, said, "I never reconcile friends." He maintained that the two realities fit together. So here.
Manuscripts first. The New Testament books first circulated in hand-copied form, and hand-copying by monks went on till Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century. Anyone who has copied by hand knows how easily letters, words, and even whole lines get dropped out or repeated. The New Testament manuscript tradition was not exempt from this.
DAVEH: Why would they need correcting IF they were not corrupted in the translating/transcribing process?Also, it is clear that some copyists facing what they thought were miscopyings made what they thought were corrections. Some of these copyists added in the margin amplifying words and sentences that the next copyist put into the text itself, thinking that was where they belonged. Because the copying was done reverently and with professional care, manuscripts vary little overall, except for the occasional slippages of this kind. Manuscript comparison reveals many passages that clearly need correcting at this level of detail.
DAVEH: "better"?!?!?!?!......Hmmmmmmm......Does that imply that some are worse?The King James Version New Testament was translated from the "received text"�the dominant manuscript tradition at the time�and published in 1611. New manuscript discoveries have led to minor adjustments to that text, and where uncertainty remains about exact wording or authenticity, the margins of honest modern versions will tell us so. The New King James, for instance, while still following the received text, notes these things conscientiously as it goes along.Other things being equal, manuscripts are "better"
DAVEH: Does that mean my belief (I believe the Bible is the Word of God as far as it it translated correctly) is not so unreasonable after all?when they are nearer to the original�that is, earlier in date.In the New Testament only one word per 1,000 is in any way doubtful, and no point of doctrine is lost when verses not "in better manuscripts" are omitted. (As examples, see Matt. 6:13b, 17:21, 18:11; Mark 9:44, 46, 49, 16:9-20; Luke 23:17; John 5:4; and Acts 8:37.) Such has been God's "singular care and providence" in preserving his written Word for us (Westminster Confession I.viii).
So how does all this bear on the Christian's very proper faith in biblical inerrancy�that is, the total truth and trustworthiness of the true text and all it teaches?
Holy Scripture is, according to the view of Jesus and his apostles, God preaching, instructing, showing, and telling us things, and testifying to himself through the human witness of prophets, poets, theological narrators of history, and philosophical observers of life. The Bible's inerrancy is not the inerrancy of any one published text or version, nor of anyone's interpretation, nor of any scribal slips or pious inauthentic additions acquired during transmission.
DAVEH: Whew......I thought he'd never admit such! That is exactly what I believe. The difference is that I believe God has revealed a lot of wisdom and truth that is not included within the pages of the Bible. Apparently you (Glenn and others) believe all "revealed truth and wisdom" is found in the Bible as we know it today......is that correct???Rather, scriptural inerrancy relates to the human writer's expressed meaning in each book, and to the Bible's whole body of revealed truth and wisdom.
DAVEH: Did you read that, Glenn? "textual scholars" are correcting the work of previous translating scholars! Kind of makes you wonder what "inauthentic" material is included in the various Bible translations, eh! Now let me ask you again, Glenn.....WHICH Bible translation has eliminated all "inauthentic" material???Belief in inerrancy involves an advance commitment to receive as from God all that the Bible, interpreting itself to us through the Holy Spirit in a natural and coherent way, teaches. Thus it shapes our understanding of biblical authority.So inerrantists should welcome the work of textual scholars, who are forever trying to eliminate the inauthentic and give us exactly what the biblical writers wrote, neither more nor less.
--The way into God's mind is through his penmen's minds, precisely as expressed, under his guidance, in their own words as they wrote them.Text criticism serves inerrancy; they are friends. Inerrancy treasures the meaning of each writer's words, while text criticism checks that we have each writer's words pure and intact. Both these wisdoms are needed if we are to benefit fully from the written Word of God.
J.I. Packer is an executive editor of CT and a professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver.
Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
