[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn - This is not what you said the first time. Here is explain away the inerrancy of the Bible. THE ARTICLE DID NOT SAY THAT. THE ARTICLE SAYS THE BIBLE IS INNERANT IN AND BY ITSELF.Here we go again. There is no way DaveL is lying but this is a lie to me. He is brainwashed. Mormons
knock knock knock the Bible as having great missing parts and it brings me, Glenn, under the influence of Satan for following the Bible only. DaveL does not agree with official Mormon doctrine to this to his credit. Not to his credit he claims the doctrine doesn't say what it says.
DAVEH: Glenn......You have numerous times shown your proclivity to misunderstand. This is simply another example.However, DaveL say he fully believes in the article. How can a Mormon believe in the INNERRANCY" of the Bible when it has missing parts?
DAVEH: I don't know why you find this hard to understand, Glenn.......but I'll say it again hoping the fog will clear from your mind long enough to understand my beliefs. I believe in the innerancy of what the Lord has revealed to us through his prophets.
DAVEH: Only if one defines 'Bible' as the original revealed Word of God, rather than the individual translations we have today that most folks think of as the 'Bible'. As the article pointed out, errors have crept into the modern translations. Did you happen to miss the parts of the article that I am surprised you think I'm being deceitful by gleaning such from the article.
Did you happen to miss........
"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."
........Let me ask again, Glenn----What "inauthentic" material are those textual scholars trying to correct? Is it the revealed Word of God that they think is in "inauthentic"? Or is it material that was introduced by man that they are endeavoring to correct? Doesn't the above quote suggest that YOU (Glenn) as an "inerrantist" should welcome those who think Bible translations we have today may contain errors and are endeavoring to correct them? Did you not consider the context of the article, my dear friend, or were you reading it while wearing your dogmatic blinders???
You have repeatedly criticized me for your perception that I misunderstand LDS doctrine, yet you apparently have the same problem with Protestant doctrine. Glenn, do you "deny, deny, deny" that "inauthentic" material has crept into some of the Bible translations we have today???
AGAIN, THIS IS MORMON DECEIT. I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND. YOU JUST THINK I DO NOT.
DAVEH: IF (and that is a BIG IF) you "REALLY DO UNDERSTAND", then I will expect you to answer at least my last question. Otherwise, I will have to "JUST THINK [you] DO NOT"!
I do not believe that all God has revealed is included in the Bible as we
know it today. DO YOU???DAVEH: You say that as if you have never used such a tactic yourself! ;-)
So that you don't neglect answering that last question, Glenn......Let me quote your recent post.......
"Of course, God has revealed others things not in the Bible."
.........Now assuming that you aren't "lying", your negative comment about me believing the Bible having "missing parts" sure seems like it is self serving spin.
Glenn - Ever since you said you fully agree with the article you have back down with qualfications.THIS ARTICLE CLEARLY SHOWS THE MINOR MISSING PARTS ARE THERE WHEN ALL THE AVAILABLE MANUSCRIPTS ARE COMPARED. Mormon's do not believe in the innerrancy of the Bible.
Since I believe DaveL is an honest man how can a honest man claim he believes the below article? An honest man can only lie by not knowing he is lying or not understanding he has told a lie. There is just no way Mormons believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.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'?[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 thearticle, and believe it supports my belief.
DAVEH: Do you sincerely think so, Glenn? The qualifications I make are to help YOU understand my beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me, but it is my desire that you at least understand me. However, when you say that I "knock knock knock the Bible" or am "deceitful" or "brainwashed", then I have to look back at what I said and why I said it. I've read that article several times now, Glenn.....and, I still agree with it---and it agrees with me! You seem to be the one who doesn't understand what it says, as far as I can see. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The revealed Word of God is inerrant as it was revealed. But the Bible translations we have now are not necessarily inerrant, nor do they comprise all the Lord has revealed. So I stand by my original comment that you found so distasteful: I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. And as the article suggests, it seems that many of the Bible scholars trying to correct the errant translations/transcriptions we have today feel the same way! Well Glen......do you still want to "deny, deny, deny" what the article is saying?!?!?!?!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
