Would God do that?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

This is where I find this discussion fascinating. As a basic tenet of our faith, we believe there are errors in the translation we have of the Bible. For this reason, we have been given modern-day scripture and living prophets.

Yet, LDS people claim to give the Bible face-value credit, as a correct recitation of historical facts, even in areas where the modern prophets have not confirmed it to be accurate.

Given that we have a basic belief that the Bible as we have it is not completely correct, and that modern scripture and revelation has been given to clarify and correct our understanding of the principles contained in it, how can you logically justify accepting it at face value, particularly as a record of events rather than a source of gospel principles, where its veracity has not been confirmed by modern scripture?

In essence, you're saying that you know it's not entirely accurate, and you're not sure where the inaccuracies lie, but you'll accept it as accurate anyway.

To me, that viewpoint minimizes the importance of modern scripture and prophecy. That viewpoint also aligns more with the beliefs of evangelical Christians who seem to believe in the deification of the Bible - that it is the immutable word of God.

In that sense, Tex is the first evangelical I've discoursed much with. In most instances, evangelicals just yell at you as Aaron does.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

This is where I find this discussion fascinating. As a basic tenet of our faith, we believe there are errors in the translation we have of the Bible. For this reason, we have been given modern-day scripture and living prophets.

Yet, LDS people claim to give the Bible face-value credit, as a correct recitation of historical facts, even in areas where the modern prophets have not confirmed it to be accurate.

Given that we have a basic belief that the Bible as we have it is not completely correct, and that modern scripture and revelation has been given to clarify and correct our understanding of the principles contained in it, how can you logically justify accepting it at face value, particularly as a record of events rather than a source of gospel principles, where its veracity has not been confirmed by modern scripture?

In essence, you're saying that you know it's not entirely accurate, and you're not sure where the inaccuracies lie, but you'll accept it as accurate anyway.

To me, that viewpoint minimizes the importance of modern scripture and prophecy. That viewpoint also aligns more with the beliefs of evangelical Christians who seem to believe in the deification of the Bible - that it is the immutable word of God.

Originally Posted by Archaea

In that sense, Tex is the first evangelical I've discoursed much with. In most instances, evangelicals just yell at you as Aaron does.

I guess there are two general approaches to this question for Mormons: is the entire Bible true, except where indicated? Or is the entire Bible false, except where indicated?

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.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

One data point for comparing your approach to an evangelical approach:

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.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

One data point for comparing your approach to an evangelical approach:

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.

Morbid. What's up with the skulls?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess there are two general approaches to this question for Mormons: is the entire Bible true, except where indicated? Or is the entire Bible false, except where indicated?

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.

False dichotomy alert. No one in this thread said anything close to assuming everything is false except where indicated.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess there are two general approaches to this question for Mormons: is the entire Bible true, except where indicated? Or is the entire Bible false, except where indicated?

"True" in what respect? I believe I differentiated between its accuracy as a record of historical events and the truth of the principles contained in it.

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.

Originally Posted by Tex

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'm not familiar with the modern scriptural passages referencing these. Do they just say that the Israelites drove out the Canaanites, or are they confirming that God commanded them to do so, and to kill all of them? If modern scripture confirms the Biblical account, then I'd say you can take it at face value.

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Morbid. What's up with the skulls?

and he thinks we're strange.

[SoCalCoug]

I declare myself the winner of this argument!



Somebody has to declare a winner, right? Or it will never end

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

One data point for comparing your approach to an evangelical approach:

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.

One of the (many) reasons I'm not willing to cast out these scriptures is that I'm not sure God views death with the same fear and dread that we do. Saying "God is a killer" is a bizarre attempt to humanize God, when he is not (mortally-speaking) human at all.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueK

False dichotomy alert. No one in this thread said anything close to assuming everything is false except where indicated.

Yes, they kinda did. If I'm wrong, explain the 3rd or 4th or xth option. Just a few paragraphs down, SoCalCoug says: "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."

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.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

"True" in what respect? I believe I differentiated between its accuracy as a record of historical events and the truth of the principles contained in it.

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.

I'm not sure if I make those kinds of distinctions, personally. To me, historical accuracy is just a different face of the same die as spiritual truth.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm not familiar with the modern scriptural passages referencing these. Do they just say that the Israelites drove out the Canaanites, or are they confirming that God commanded them to do so, and to kill all of them? If modern scripture confirms the Biblical account, then I'd say you can take it at face value.

Nephi references the Canaanite episode in reproving his brothers. He makes it very clear that it was by the word and strength of the Lord that the Israelites did this thing, because of the Canaanite wickedness (1 Nephi 17: 31-35). The Abraham story is confirmed both by Jacob and the Lord (Jacob 4:5, D&C 101:4).

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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?

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.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, they kinda did. If I'm wrong, explain the 3rd or 4th or xth option. Just a few paragraphs down, SoCalCoug says: "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."

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.

How else are you going to approach it when you KNOW (8th article of faith) that there are inaccuracies, you don't know exactly what they are, and you have additional witnesses confirming the important truths that are contained in it?

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?

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure if I make those kinds of distinctions, personally. To me, historical accuracy is just a different face of the same die as spiritual truth.

You know what's interesting - the Savior spoke in parables. He told stories with no historical basis at all in order to teach spiritual truths. To the Savior, then, it was the spiritual truths that were important. It makes no difference whether there was an actual widow who donated two mites, or whether a Samaritan really did help an injured Jew. Historical accuracy had nothing to do with the spiritual truths that the Savior was teaching.

I don't see your correlation.

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon confirm the truths of the Bible? I think you've got things reversed. Something that is another testmant of the Savior and of the gospel is meant to confirm the truth - not to disprove what is false.

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.