Corporeality of God & Margaret Barker [Archive]

View Full Version : Corporeality of God & Margaret Barker

Makarios

August 5th 2004, 01:58 AM

Trout

August 18th 2004, 12:43 AM

Some time ago on another board I was in dialogue with a Mormon regarding the corporeality of God.

When I pointed out texts that showed God does not have a physical body, he pointed to others which seemed to show that God does have a body. In essence, he said there are contradictions on this subject in the OT because the (alledged) vestigial underlying sources had not been completely smoothed over by the redactors.

He referenced an article by Margaret Barker found here: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/reform.htm

I am interested in anyone's opinion on this article, and in particular what to make of the following quote from it:

"...Deuteronomy, for example, denies that any vision of God was seen when the Law was given: ‘You saw no form; only a voice was heard (Deuteronomy 4.12), and yet the account in Exodus says that Moses went up the mountain with the leaders and elders of Israel ‘and they saw the God of Israel’ (Exodus 24.10). Isaiah had seen the Lord ‘high and lifted up and his train filled the temple’ (Isaiah 6.1). The vision of God must have been a part of the older faith; there are several accounts of the Lord emerging from his holy place to bring judgement Ass Mos 10, Deut 32.43, Hab 2.20, Zeph 1.7), and prayers for the Lord to ‘shine’ upon his people (Num 6.24ff)."

A couple of things.

The Bible is a thoroughly anthropomorphic book, it's the story of God revealing himself in human terms to fallen mankind. In doing so, He must choose words, and use phrases that can convey meaning to creatures in language that can be understood.

Take a look at Psalm 91:

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:

Should I then believe in a God who has the physical attributes of a chicken? Nah, I would be breaking one of the fundamental rules governing the interpretation of scripture, that is, not using the didactic portions of scripture to interpret the poetic sections of scripture.

In the New Testament we have the only physical description of God, and it just so happens to come from Christ Himself:

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Here we have the definitive statement concerning the Nature of God, from a pretty reliable source I might add.

And just in case there is any question about what a spirit is, lets look to:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So, God is Spirit, and a Spirit has not flesh and bones, I think it wise to filter the other physical descriptions of God through the clear teaching given us by Christ. And perhaps look at the OT passages such as the Deut. passage as anthromorphisms.

Darth_Bill

August 21st 2004, 08:12 PM

>Should I then believe in a God who has the physical attributes of a chicken? Nah, I would be breaking one of the fundamental rules governing the interpretation of scripture, that is, not using the didactic portions of scripture to interpret the poetic sections of scripture.

I think you should then reconsider the "spirit" verse then as it is clearly rhetorical or poetic in nature. John also says God is Love, but we really don't think of him as mere emotion. Jesus is God, and he clearly proved to have a corporeal nature. The hope of the resurrection, one of the definitive marks of christianity, is one of the raising of the body from the grave, to not be mere spirits for eternity. If God is spirit exclusively, then the verse claims that we can only worship him if we are spirit exclusively. That puts us in a bind while on earth, no?

I've read Margaret Barkers works. She should not be so easily dismissed.

The bible is not definitive in the corporeal nature of God. God is mostly represented in scripture in anthropomorphic terms. Perhaps it means something.

Your mileage may vary.

Trout

August 21st 2004, 11:48 PM

I think you should then reconsider the "spirit" verse then as it is clearly rhetorical or poetic in nature.

Greetings Darth Bill, welcome to Tweb.

I can't agree with your assessment of the John passage in question. I don't find it rhetorical, and especially not poetic.

God is Spirit, and therefore demands spiritual worship.

Darth Bill:
John also says God is Love, but we really don't think of him as mere emotion.

God is love and Spirit.

Darth Bill:
Jesus is God, and he clearly proved to have a corporeal nature.

non-sequitur Why then would you assume that God the Father had a body?

Darth Bill:
The hope of the resurrection, one of the definitive marks of christianity, is one of the raising of the body from the grave, to not be mere spirits for eternity.

non-sequitur Why would a human physical resurrection mean that God the Father had a flesh body?

Darth Bill:
If God is spirit exclusively, then the verse claims that we can only worship him if we are spirit exclusively. That puts us in a bind while on earth, no?

The verse makes the distinction quite clearly, God is Spirit, we worship in spirit.

Darth Bill:
I've read Margaret Barkers works. She should not be so easily dismissed.

I haven't dismissed her work, I haven't read any of it. I am dismissing the idea that God the Father has a flesh body.

Darth Bill:
The bible is not definitive in the corporeal nature of God.

I think the Bible makes it quite clear that God is Spirit

Darth Bill:
God is mostly represented in scripture in anthropomorphic terms. Perhaps it means something.

It does, God has chosen to communicate with us in terms we can understand.

freelight

August 23rd 2004, 05:54 PM

Greetings all,

I would have to concur with trouts commentary. God is Spirit, Light, Love, Truth. God is Spirit in his most primeval essence. God is also Mind. God may be embodied in forms via creation and manifest his Spirit/Mind in formations as in the body/image of Man....however God by definition of his absolute, ultimate, infinite and eternal Being/Nature is Incorporeal Spirit. He is divine Personality/Soul. Being Spirit does not make him less of an Entity or personality...but reveals that He is ancestor of all things....being immanent within as well as transcendant of all form. He manifests His being/glory/image/light in Man and thru Man...and this is the Christ - the visible image of the invisible God. God is the Reality/substance/mind behind all form....even so,.....true worship is spiritual in nature and perception...for spirit is the truth behind all manifest existence/being.

paul

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 12:53 AM

== I can't agree with your assessment of the John passage in question. I don't find it rhetorical, and especially not poetic. God is Spirit, and therefore demands spiritual worship.

Latter-day Saints agree. Which is why this passage says nothing that would preclude God from having a body.

== God is love and Spirit.

And light, a consuming fire etc...

== Why then would you assume that God the Father had a body?

He was the express image of his Father.

== The verse makes the distinction quite clearly, God is Spirit, we worship in spirit.

Right. Which says nothing to preclude God from having a body. Even some Evangelical authorities admit that this verse does not mean what so many LDS critics try to read from it.

== I haven't dismissed her work, I haven't read any of it. I am dismissing the idea that God the Father has a flesh body.

I think most Mormons would agree that the Bible does not teach God the Father has a body "of flesh and bones." This was something revealed to Joseph Smith. The Bible does teach, however, that God has a human form. Being "spirit" in the early Christian Church meant nothing less than having a "body."

== I think the Bible makes it quite clear that God is Spirit

He is. And so are we. If we were not spirit also, there'd be no way for us to worship "in spirit."

== It does, God has chosen to communicate with us in terms we can understand.

Biblical anthropomorphisms cannot be so easily dismissed.

== God by definition of his absolute, ultimate, infinite and eternal Being/Nature is Incorporeal Spirit.

And when exactly did this definition begin? Certainly not within early Judaism.

== Being Spirit does not make him less of an Entity or personality...but reveals that He is ancestor of all things....being immanent within as well as transcendant of all form. He manifests His being/glory/image/light in Man and thru Man...and this is the Christ - the visible image of the invisible God. God is the Reality/substance/mind behind all form....even so,.....true worship is spiritual in nature and perception...for spirit is the truth behind all manifest existence/being.

Problem is, this sounds like a rant from Greek philosphy, not the Bible. The God of the Bible is one of anthropomorphic form, period. We are created in his image and in this image is how he always appeared throughout history. The argument that these were just temporary manifestations that had nothing to do with his reality, is just a begged question. That certainly isn't what the ancient prophets believed anyway.

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 10:13 AM

== Should I then believe in a God who has the physical attributes of a chicken? Nah, I would be breaking one of the fundamental rules governing the interpretation of scripture, that is, not using the didactic portions of scripture to interpret the poetic sections of scripture.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to realize that the psalms are poems. Metaphorical language is expected. But that is no reason to arbitrarily apply this logic to the rest of the Bible in many nonpoetic areas. This is a guilt by association. So we've identified one metaphor.... does that give us license to assume metaphor in every other book of the Bible?

== In the New Testament we have the only physical description of God, and it just so happens to come from Christ Himself:

That is not a physical description of God. Jn 4:24 is probably the most misinterpreted scripture in Evangelicalism. Even their own scholars are beginning to realize this.

== Here we have the definitive statement concerning the Nature of God, from a pretty reliable source I might add.

Nobody is questioning the credibility of the source; just your interpretation of it.

== So, God is Spirit, and a Spirit has not flesh and bones, I think it wise to filter the other physical descriptions of God through the clear teaching given us by Christ.

This is not his teaching. Christ was merely proving that he wasn't a ghost. A ghost would be a spirit "alone," but Christ was not spirit "alone." He was a body of flesh and bones, but does his statement mean He didn't have a spirit as well? Of course not.

Trout

September 24th 2004, 10:27 AM

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 10:47 AM

== Why does your interpretation of scripture trump mine?

Because it is not theologically driven. It is supported by Greek experts who know this is just a theological reading of the text, and not something that the text actually says. I can name Evangelical authorities who agree with mine. Can you name any Mormons who agree with yours?

== Christ said that God is Spirit, and a Spirit doesn't have flesh and bones.

But as I demonstrated, the context and a full application of this logic works against you. Are you saying Christ didn't have a spirit, even though he stood before them with a "body of flesh and bones"? If so, then you just called Christ a liar. The purpose of Christ's comment was to prove he wasn't just a vision and that he really did resurrect himself as he promised.
The woman at the well was told that the "hour cometh" when she wouldn't need to go to any particular place to worship God. Why? Because God would send His Spirit, His mode of communication and that pervades all throughout the world.

If he were making some statement as to God's ontological nature, then it would have to be assumed that God only became "spirit alone" whenever the "hour cometh." But Evangelicals don't believe this. They believe He is spirit and always has been. In any event, they argue themselves into a hole no matter which direction they go with this.

== I do realize that in order for Mormonism to be true, or at least consistent, the words of Christ in these instances must be twisted or contoured to have a meaning more in line with LDS doctrine.

But as I demonstrated, we take the verse for what it says and apply the context along with a dose of logic and common sense. We do not isolate one part of the verse and draw a theological conclusion just for the sake of it. This is what you have done. If you really believe that a spirit being and a physical corporeal being cannot be the same, then you must insist that Christ had no spirit. Further, that none of us have spirits either.

== How about giving us some reasons to think that God the Father has a physical body?

I have already given several. That is always how He appears to mankind. We are created in His image. This is how the earliest Christians and Jews understood him to be. The Bible says so. Only later would Greek philosophy corrupt the Christian doctrine of God and transform him into some unknowable transcendant being.

Trout

September 24th 2004, 03:42 PM

Trout:
Why does your interpretation of scripture trump mine?

K. Graham:
Because it is not theologically driven. It is supported by Greek experts who know this is just a theological reading of the text, and not something that the text actually says. I can name Evangelical authorities who agree with mine. Can you name any Mormons who agree with yours?

Go ahead and cite your Greek experts.

No, Mormons cannot agree with what the bible says in those instances, Mormon Doctrine dictates otherwise.

trout:
== Christ said that God is Spirit, and a Spirit doesn't have flesh and bones.

K. Graham:
But as I demonstrated, the context and a full application of this logic works against you. Are you saying Christ didn't have a spirit, even though he stood before them with a "body of flesh and bones"? If so, then you just called Christ a liar. The purpose of Christ's comment was to prove he wasn't just a vision and that he really did resurrect himself as he promised.
The woman at the well was told that the "hour cometh" when she wouldn't need to go to any particular place to worship God. Why? Because God would send His Spirit, His mode of communication and that pervades all throughout the world.

If he were making some statement as to God's ontological nature, then it would have to be assumed that God only became "spirit alone" whenever the "hour cometh." But Evangelicals don't believe this. They believe He is spirit and always has been. In any event, they argue themselves into a hole no matter which direction they go with this.

Wrong, Christ said, "God is Spirit" not God has a spirit.

And you haven't demonstrated anything, you have only made a couple of assertions.

You've basically said:

I can cite people who disagree with your interpretation of that passage, therefore you are wrong.

Trout:
== I do realize that in order for Mormonism to be true, or at least consistent, the words of Christ in these instances must be twisted or contoured to have a meaning more in line with LDS doctrine.

K. Graham:
But as I demonstrated, we take the verse for what it says and apply the context along with a dose of logic and common sense. We do not isolate one part of the verse and draw a theological conclusion just for the sake of it. This is what you have done. If you really believe that a spirit being and a physical corporeal being cannot be the same, then you must insist that Christ had no spirit. Further, that none of us have spirits either.

Your point would be a valid one had Christ said, "God has a spirit", but that's not what the text says.

You are assuming that God the Father has a material body and then reading into the text of the Bible that concept.

Trout:
== How about giving us some reasons to think that God the Father has a physical body?

K. Graham:
I have already given several.

K. Graham:
That is always how He appears to mankind.

What makes you think anyone has seen God the Father's physical body?

K. Graham:
We are created in His image.

Then why don't we all look alike?

K. Graham:
This is how the earliest Christians and Jews understood him to be.

Jesus was a Christian and a Jew and said that God the Father was a Spirit.

K. Graham:
The Bible says so.

You said that "I think most Mormons would agree that the Bible does not teach God the Father has a body "of flesh and bones."

I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought.

K. Graham:
Only later would Greek philosophy corrupt the Christian doctrine of God and transform him into some unknowable transcendant being.

Please cite where this has occurred and perhaps we can talk about specifics and not assertions.

And BTW, welcome to Tweb. . .it's great to have you here.

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 04:37 PM

== Go ahead and cite your Greek experts.

How is Carlton Winbery for starters? Raymond Brown? G. Ernest Wright? J.N. Sanders? Christopher Stead of Cambridge Divinity School? Cherbonnier of Trinity College?

== No, Mormons cannot agree with what the bible says in those instances, Mormon Doctrine dictates otherwise.

Actually, the problem you have is that Mormons do agree with what the Bible says and you cannot because Evangelical theology dictates otherwise. I can play that "you're just biased" game too. ;)

== Wrong, Christ said, "God is Spirit" not God has a spirit.

This doesn't change anything because to be "spirit" meant to be a "body" according to the early Christians. The Greek concept of spirit was one of body. Origen testified to this as well. He disagreed with it and used philosophy as a tool to get rid of it, but he at least admitted that this was the case. To be a spirit meant to be a body, and he did not use scripture to refute this. He used Plato!

== Your point would be a valid one had Christ said, "God has a spirit", but that's not what the text says.

You're reading the text with a modern-day western interpretation. In Greek it is perfectly acceptable to say this without the inplication you read into it.

== You are assuming that God the Father has a material body and then reading into the text of the Bible that concept.

Not at all. Material body isn't the issue. The issue is human form, whether corporeal or not.

== Then why don't we all look alike?

We do. We all have the same general form. Only Christ is in the express image of the Father. He looks identical to him.

== Jesus was a Christian and a Jew and said that God the Father was a Spirit.

He said much more than that, but you keep ignoring the context. The purpose of the verse was to demonstrate God's mode of action (communication), not mode of being.

== I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought.

I suggest you reconsider before dictating to a Mormon what most Mormons believe. I'm in a far better position to speak on this subject than you. The fact is, I have never heard ANY Mormon say the Bible teaches God the Father has a body of "flesh and bones."

== Please cite where this has occurred and perhaps we can talk about specifics and not assertions.

Jews understood God to be in human form. This was gradually squeezed out of both Christian and Jewish orthodoxy in the later centuries. Maybe we should start a new thread before I get too detailed.

Trout

September 24th 2004, 05:23 PM

== Go ahead and cite your Greek experts.

How is Carlton Winbery for starters? Raymond Brown? G. Ernest Wright? J.N. Sanders? Christopher Stead of Cambridge Divinity School? Cherbonnier of Trinity College?

What did they say?

Trout:
== No, Mormons cannot agree with what the bible says in those instances, Mormon Doctrine dictates otherwise.

K. Graham:
Actually, the problem you have is that Mormons do agree with what the Bible says and you cannot because Evangelical theology dictates otherwise. I can play that "you're just biased" game too. ;)

Evangelical theology? What are you speaking of precisely?

Trout:
== Wrong, Christ said, "God is Spirit" not God has a spirit.

K. Graham:
This doesn't change anything because to be "spirit" meant to be a "body" according to the early Christians. The Greek concept of spirit was one of body. Origen testified to this as well. He disagreed with it and used philosophy as a tool to get rid of it, but he at least admitted that this was the case. To be a spirit meant to be a body, and he did not use scripture to refute this. He used Plato!

Spirit means body. . .:huh: Origen may have used Plato. . .but obviously you are using Merlin the Magician.

K. Graham:
== Your point would be a valid one had Christ said, "God has a spirit", but that's not what the text says.

You're reading the text with a modern-day western interpretation. In Greek it is perfectly acceptable to say this without the inplication you read into it.

No, I'm reading the text correctly.

Trout:
== You are assuming that God the Father has a material body and then reading into the text of the Bible that concept.

K. Graham:
Not at all. Material body isn't the issue. The issue is human form, whether corporeal or not.

Actually, the issue is flesh and bone.

Trout:
== Then why don't we all look alike?

K. Graham:
We do. We all have the same general form.

Really. . .people born without limbs are have our same form?

K. Graham:
Only Christ is in the express image of the Father. He looks identical to him.

Was He in the express image of the Father when he was born? When He was 2? When He was 10? I don't think He looked exactly the same two days in a row. So are you saying that the day Christ was born God the Father was also a little baby?

Trout:
== Jesus was a Christian and a Jew and said that God the Father was a Spirit.

K. Graham:
He said much more than that, but you keep ignoring the context. The purpose of the verse was to demonstrate God's mode of action (communication), not mode of being.

That would be a valid point had Jesus expressed that. . .but He instead described God the Father as Spirit.

Trout:
== I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought.

I suggest you reconsider before dictating to a Mormon what most Mormons believe. I'm in a far better position to speak on this subject than you. The fact is, I have never heard ANY Mormon say the Bible teaches God the Father has a body of "flesh and bones."

You were the one who claimed to know what most Mormons believed, I simply quoted you.

Trout:
== Please cite where this has occurred and perhaps we can talk about specifics and not assertions.

K. Graham:
Jews understood God to be in human form. This was gradually squeezed out of both Christian and Jewish orthodoxy in the later centuries. Maybe we should start a new thread before I get too detailed.

Please cite some references.

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 08:21 PM

Hi Trout.

== What did they say?

Well, Carlton Winbery told me in an email that the rules of Greek grammar do not demand such an interpretation, and that this was it based on theology. He also went on about how he is willing to accept the idea that God has a body; that it could very well be part of his "mystery." Not sure if you're familiar with Winbery, but he is a well respected heavy hitter among Evangelical Greek experts.

G. Ernest Wright said, "Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a ‘doctrine' of God's ‘spirituality’ unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself," since God, "is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms."(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362)

Sanders says that Evangelicals have fallen prey to the "biblical-classical synthesis", which has "become so commonplace that even today most conservative theologians simply assume that it is the correct scriptural concept of God and thus that any other alleged biblical understanding of God ... must be rejected. The classical view is so taken for granted that it functions as a preunderstanding that rules out certain interpretations of Scripture that do not 'fit' with the conception of what is 'appropriate' for God to be like, as derived from Greek metaphysics."(John Sanders, in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.)

According to Terence Fretheim, "To speak of God as spirit does not necessarily entail formlessness." He also states that, "Israel did not conceive of God in terms of formlessness, but rather that the human form of the divine appearances constituted an enfleshment which bore essential continuities with the form which God was believed to have."( Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God , 102)

Christopher Stead of Cambridge Divinity School says,says that when Christians speak of God as spirit, "we do not mean that he has no body…In a Palestinian milieu it was still possible to picture the heavenly Father in human form."(Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 98, 188)

And Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College says that, "to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. "in the form of man") – not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly."(In Defense of Anthropomorphism)

B.J.Campbell says that "For centuries an anthropomorphic idea of God was to prevail. This means that he was thought of as a sort of super-human being, with eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc. and emotions like a human being. The person who wrote that God made ‘man in his own image’ was thinking like this."(Campbell, The Old Testament for Modern Readers (1974) 19-21)

Of course, there are others like David Trobisch and Jacob Neusner...

== Evangelical theology? What are you speaking of precisely?

The Evangelical doctrine of a formless God, of course.

== Spirit means body. . Origen may have used Plato. . .but obviously you are using Merlin the Magician.

Nope. That was the understanding of "spirit" in Greek. If you don't like it, then you can take it up with Tertullian.

"How can he be nothing without whom no thing was made, so that one void should have wrought solid things, and one empty full things, and one incorporeal, corporal things? ... For who will deny that God is body (Deum corpus esse), although God is a spirit? For spirit is body, of its own kind, in its own form" (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, 7. 7-8.)

Origen further admitted that there was no doctrine of an incorporeal God set in stone in the Church, and this was late into the third century! Origen’s implication that contemporary Christians who believed God to be embodied were confined to simple and naïve folk is contradicted by one of the most cultured of all his Christian contemporaries—Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (about a.d. 150-220). Tertullian stoutly maintained his belief that God is embodied and passionately resisted attempts by immaterialists to platonize Christian doctrine. Tertullian not only believed in an embodied God, but he wrote profusely on this and related doctrines. Moreover, he claimed to express the views of the churches of his day, which were derived from the original apostolic churches. He articulated in rich detail a unified corporealist understanding of Christianity.

== No, I'm reading the text correctly.

Not according the above experts in Greek.

== Actually, the issue is flesh and bone.

No it isn't.

== Really. . .people born without limbs are have our same form?

Was anyone in Adam's immediate family born deformed? Then I guess it wasn't an issue of concern for the author of Gen1:26.

== Was He in the express image of the Father when he was born? When He was 2? When He was 10? I don't think He looked exactly the same two days in a row. So are you saying that the day Christ was born God the Father was also a little baby?

Express image extends to his glory. They shine equally. The Glory of God is just as much part of his "being" as is His body.

== That would be a valid point had Jesus expressed that. . .

Which he did.

== but He instead described God the Father as Spirit.

No, it is absurd t think Jesus was all of the sudden making a point about God's ontological nature. That has nothing to do with the context. He said the "hour cometh" when the woman can worship God anywhere she pleases. This is incontext with his teaching that God would send the Holy Spirit to the earth. The comforter. Before that time worship of God was confined to the temple, where the Holy of Holies had a gigantic chair where Yahweh was presumed to be enthroned. But the issue was not the location of God, but where the woman could go to worship Him.

If Christ was saying God was ontologically a spirit and a "spirit alone", then this was something that took place only when that "hour cometh." So your explanation makes no sense because it means God only became a "spirit being" at that moment in time. No, it means worship of God only became available to all, through teh spirit, at that time.

== You were the one who claimed to know what most Mormons believed, I simply quoted you.

No you didn't. You implied that I was not expressing the true Mormon view. You said it quite clearly: "I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought." How is this just quoting me?

You're making the same mistake JP Holding made in his first chapter of "Mormon Defenders." He assumed scriptures like Gen 1:26 were used by the LDS faithful as a proof text for God's fleshly body. This is not so. It is used to substantiate the basis for his visual form. The composition of His body we readily admit is not in the Bible. Mormons typically turn the argument around on Evangelicals since they believe Christ has a body of flesh and bone, yet He is "one being" with the Father. By that logic the Father, if He be the "same being" as one with flesh and bones, must also have flesh and bones. But at this point teh argument usually gets swept under the rug as a paradox and a mystery of God we're not supposed to understand. :ahem:

Dee Dee Warren

September 24th 2004, 08:26 PM

Kevin what passages are you saying were tampered with by redactors? And what redactors?

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 08:49 PM

Well for the most part, anthropomorphisms were suppressed in subsequent translations. Particularly the LXX.

Charles T. Fritsch wrote a book entitled Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch.

He notes that "according to well-authenticated Masorah lists," Gen 18:22 read "but Jehovah stood before Abraham", as opposed to the traditional "Abraham stood before Jehovah." He also comments that "to appear before Jehovah" verses (i.e. Ex 23:15,17; 34:20, 23-24; Dt 16:16, 31:11) were originally "to see the face of Jehovah," and that this was done by changing qal to niphal. Examples were plethorous enough to fill an entire book, but these should suffice just to give you the gist of it.

Dt 32:10 "His eye"

LXX: "of an eye."

Dt 1:45, Num 11:1 "in the ears of Jehovah"

LXX: "before the lord."

Ex 15:8 "blast of nostrils"

LXX:”through the wind of my wrath."

Dt 33:10 "they put incense before thy nose."

LXX "shall lay incense in thine anger."

He also notes that "It is true that the human activity is not always avoided, but the Greek has definitely toned down the rather unnecessary action."

This thesis is well accepted in scholarship. Bruce Metzger accepts this as well: “Anthropomorphisms (in the LXX) are toned down,” and that such modifications were “too frequent and remarkable to be ascribed merely to chance.”

In the LXX version of Exodus 24:9-10 we are told that Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders had only seen “the place” where God was, as opposed to the Hebrew rendering which states unambiguously that what they saw was God Himself. In Joshua 4:24 “the power” is substituted for “the hand” of the Lord. Metzger also points out that in Isaiah 6:1, though the visual perception of God is allowed to stand, “the train of His robe” is converted into “his glory.” And he concludes that “changes like these indicate a disinclination to ascribe human form or human passions to the Divine Being.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Baker Academic; Grand Rapids, MI, 2002) p.16.)

Dee Dee Warren

September 24th 2004, 09:04 PM

Does the Joseph Smith translation correct these errors and redactions?

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 09:49 PM

== Does the Joseph Smith translation correct these errors and redactions?

I think we're failing to understand that the LXX is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was produced at Ptolemy during the 3rd century B.C. That isn't something Joseph would be inclined to correct anyway.

LDS thought is commonly misunderstood by Evangelicals. Latter-day Saints are not tied down to a sola scriptura paradigm. We hardly feel the need to substantiate every single point of doctrine in the Bible. When Latter-day Saints are told certain LDS doctrines are not found in the Bible, it is not uncommon for them to shrug it off. I know some of us freak out and insist that the Bible must teach it somewhere, but these typically do not represent LDS apologists or scholars. In any case, to an Evangelical the mere prospect of one of their doctrines not being biblical causes their theological world to collapse. That is the point of sola scriptura; true doctrine derives from the Bible and only the Bible. If said doctrine is not found explicit in the Bible, then the doctrine must be false.

Further, it is commonly wondered why the LDS Church doesn't make the JST or a modern Bible their "official version." (I personally prefer the NASB or RSV) The reason is is simple. In Mormonism there really is no concern for having that "perfect" scripture as is the case in so many other Christian churches. Look at the plethora of modern translations today, all aiming to be closer to that "perfect" original, and tell me what Churches are responsible for producing them. By far the Evangelical party of Christianity is more concerned with this. Mormons are not. Evangelicals go by the Bible and the Bible alone. Mormon paradigm follows the Old Testament model whereby they went by scripture while accepting modern revelation. There was no fixed canon of scripture during the time of Christ.

The JST was not really a "translation" as we understand the term to mean. Joseph Smith had no original text to work from. He was pretty much inserting commentary here and there not unlike many commentaries do today. It wasn't a systematic start to finish project either; rather he skipped all over the place and it is debatable whether he actually finished. In any event, the JST was never considered a "replacement" of the traditional Bible, but instead more of a supplement to it.

Penfire

September 24th 2004, 10:08 PM

I think the "dialog" with a Mormon is where the problem lies. It is mindful of the dialog Eve had with Satan a while back. We know where he led her, and he is still wrapping himself around the tree of knowledge of good and evil and we all go closer and closer thinking we are so much wiser than Eve. Satan still tells us God is a liar, and mocks His Word every chance we give him. He still ask us, "Yea, hath God said"? Of course he can find "discrepancies" in God's Word, he is the author of confusion. But the natural man canot understand the Word of God, for it is spiritually discerned. Yes, God is Spirit, yet He can choose any form He desires. He inhabited a box, athough a gold box; He inhabited a burning bush, that was not consumed by His fire; He inhabits the praises of His people; Jesus was begotten of Him and was born as any other man and had a corporeal body, yet He was fully God; His resurrected body still bore the scars of His crucifixtion and He was visible, yet He walked through closed doors; John says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". Now, if the Word was God and the Word was made flesh, it stands to reason that the Word (God) was not already flesh, but "made" flesh in Christ Jesus.

The Psalmist said, "How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
5 They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage.
6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
7 Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

Shalom all.

Some time ago on another board I was in dialogue with a Mormon regarding the corporeality of God.

When I pointed out texts that showed God does not have a physical body, he pointed to others which seemed to show that God does have a body. In essence, he said there are contradictions on this subject in the OT because the (alledged) vestigial underlying sources had not been completely smoothed over by the redactors.

He referenced an article by Margaret Barker found here: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/reform.htm

I am interested in anyone's opinion on this article, and in particular what to make of the following quote from it:

"...Deuteronomy, for example, denies that any vision of God was seen when the Law was given: ‘You saw no form; only a voice was heard (Deuteronomy 4.12), and yet the account in Exodus says that Moses went up the mountain with the leaders and elders of Israel ‘and they saw the God of Israel’ (Exodus 24.10). Isaiah had seen the Lord ‘high and lifted up and his train filled the temple’ (Isaiah 6.1). The vision of God must have been a part of the older faith; there are several accounts of the Lord emerging from his holy place to bring judgement Ass Mos 10, Deut 32.43, Hab 2.20, Zeph 1.7), and prayers for the Lord to ‘shine’ upon his people (Num 6.24ff)."

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 10:12 PM

== I think the "dialog" with a Mormon is where the problem lies.

Then I will gracefully bow out.

Bye.

Trout

September 24th 2004, 11:03 PM

Hi Trout.

Trout:
== What did they say?

KG:
Well, Carlton Winbery told me in an email that the rules of Greek grammar do not demand such an interpretation, and that this was it based on theology. He also went on about how he is willing to accept the idea that God has a body; that it could very well be part of his "mystery." Not sure if you're familiar with Winbery, but he is a well respected heavy hitter among Evangelical Greek experts.

G. Ernest Wright said, "Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a ‘doctrine' of God's ‘spirituality’ unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself," since God, "is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms."(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362)

Sanders says that Evangelicals have fallen prey to the "biblical-classical synthesis", which has "become so commonplace that even today most conservative theologians simply assume that it is the correct scriptural concept of God and thus that any other alleged biblical understanding of God ... must be rejected. The classical view is so taken for granted that it functions as a preunderstanding that rules out certain interpretations of Scripture that do not 'fit' with the conception of what is 'appropriate' for God to be like, as derived from Greek metaphysics."(John Sanders, in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.)

According to Terence Fretheim, "To speak of God as spirit does not necessarily entail formlessness." He also states that, "Israel did not conceive of God in terms of formlessness, but rather that the human form of the divine appearances constituted an enfleshment which bore essential continuities with the form which God was believed to have."( Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God , 102)

Christopher Stead of Cambridge Divinity School says,says that when Christians speak of God as spirit, "we do not mean that he has no body…In a Palestinian milieu it was still possible to picture the heavenly Father in human form."(Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 98, 188)

And Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College says that, "to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. "in the form of man") – not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly."(In Defense of Anthropomorphism)

B.J.Campbell says that "For centuries an anthropomorphic idea of God was to prevail. This means that he was thought of as a sort of super-human being, with eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc. and emotions like a human being. The person who wrote that God made ‘man in his own image’ was thinking like this."(Campbell, The Old Testament for Modern Readers (1974) 19-21)

Of course, there are others like David Trobisch and Jacob Neusner...

Thanks, I'm going to do a little research on those quotes.

Trout
== Evangelical theology? What are you speaking of precisely?

KG:
The Evangelical doctrine of a formless God, of course.

While I do believe that the Bible makes it clear that God is Spirit, I don't think the doctrine of a non-corporeal God is an Evangelical essential.

Trout:
== Spirit means body. . Origen may have used Plato. . .but obviously you are using Merlin the Magician.

Nope. That was the understanding of "spirit" in Greek. If you don't like it, then you can take it up with Tertullian.

"How can he be nothing without whom no thing was made, so that one void should have wrought solid things, and one empty full things, and one incorporeal, corporal things? ... For who will deny that God is body (Deum corpus esse), although God is a spirit? For spirit is body, of its own kind, in its own form" (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, 7. 7-8.)

I think Tertullian is on my side on this issue, "Spirit is body of it's own kind" I fail to see in your quote where Tertullian agrees with LDS thought on this subject.

KG:
Origen further admitted that there was no doctrine of an incorporeal God set in stone in the Church, and this was late into the third century! Origen’s implication that contemporary Christians who believed God to be embodied were confined to simple and naïve folk is contradicted by one of the most cultured of all his Christian contemporaries—Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (about a.d. 150-220). Tertullian stoutly maintained his belief that God is embodied and passionately resisted attempts by immaterialists to platonize Christian doctrine. Tertullian not only believed in an embodied God, but he wrote profusely on this and related doctrines. Moreover, he claimed to express the views of the churches of his day, which were derived from the original apostolic churches. He articulated in rich detail a unified corporealist understanding of Christianity.

I must confess, I'm skeptical of small quotes from the ECF, Van Hale in his deification argument proved to me that they (The ECF) can be used out of context. As highlited by Van Gorden and others.

It's also easy to be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, in assuming that the words of the ECF's portray the same concept as the LDS church.

Trout:
== No, I'm reading the text correctly.

KG:
Not according the above experts in Greek.

So if I can quote some Greek scholars who agree with me, will they trump your scholars?

Trout:
== Actually, the issue is flesh and bone.
KG:
No it isn't.

Yes, it is:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also, but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us"

Emphasis mine

Trout:
== Really. . .people born without limbs are have our same form?

Was anyone in Adam's immediate family born deformed? Then I guess it wasn't an issue of concern for the author of Gen1:26.

I don't know? I don't think so. . .:nsm: But I know that being in the image of God doesn't have to mean that we have His physical characteristics.

Trout:
== Was He in the express image of the Father when he was born? When He was 2? When He was 10? I don't think He looked exactly the same two days in a row. So are you saying that the day Christ was born God the Father was also a little baby?

KG:
Express image extends to his glory. They shine equally. The Glory of God is just as much part of his "being" as is His body.

You made this statement, "Only Christ is in the express image of the Father. He looks identical to him.".

After your last statement, you seem to be saying that Christ isn't an exact replica of the Father? :huh: So are you saying that image doesn't mean physical likeness?

Trout:
== That would be a valid point had Jesus expressed that. . .
KG:
Which he did.
Trout:
== but He instead described God the Father as Spirit.
KG:
No, it is absurd t think Jesus was all of the sudden making a point about God's ontological nature. That has nothing to do with the context. He said the "hour cometh" when the woman can worship God anywhere she pleases. This is incontext with his teaching that God would send the Holy Spirit to the earth. The comforter. Before that time worship of God was confined to the temple, where the Holy of Holies had a gigantic chair where Yahweh was presumed to be enthroned. But the issue was not the location of God, but where the woman could go to worship Him.

If Christ was saying God was ontologically a spirit and a "spirit alone", then this was something that took place only when that "hour cometh." So your explanation makes no sense because it means God only became a "spirit being" at that moment in time. No, it means worship of God only became available to all, through teh spirit, at that time.

I think Christ was explaining who God is and how He will be worshipped, I don't think it's out of place at all that Christ in His explanation, gave us a physical description of God the Father.

Trout:
== You were the one who claimed to know what most Mormons believed, I simply quoted you.
KG:
No you didn't. You implied that I was not expressing the true Mormon view. You said it quite clearly: "I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought." How is this just quoting me?

You, K.Graham said that, "I think most Mormons would agree that the Bible does not teach God the Father has a body "of flesh and bones."

To which I replied:

I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought.

KG:
You're making the same mistake JP Holding made in his first chapter of "Mormon Defenders." He assumed scriptures like Gen 1:26 were used by the LDS faithful as a proof text for God's fleshly body. This is not so. It is used to substantiate the basis for his visual form. The composition of His body we readily admit is not in the Bible. Mormons typically turn the argument around on Evangelicals since they believe Christ has a body of flesh and bone, yet He is "one being" with the Father. By that logic the Father, if He be the "same being" as one with flesh and bones, must also have flesh and bones. But at this point teh argument usually gets swept under the rug as a paradox and a mystery of God we're not supposed to understand. :ahem:

I haven't read JP's book, but I have asked him to take a look at your critique.

Trout

K.Graham

September 24th 2004, 11:36 PM

== Thanks, I'm going to do a little research on those quotes.

Sure thing.

== While I do believe that the Bible makes it clear that God is Spirit, I don't think the doctrine of a non-corporeal God is an Evangelical essential.

I suppose that depends on which Evangelical you ask.

== I think Tertullian is on my side on this issue, "Spirit is body of it's own kind" I fail to see in your quote where Tertullian agrees with LDS thought on this subject.

If you concede the point, then why did accuse me of using "Merlin" for this notion?

== I must confess, I'm skeptical of small quotes from the ECF, Van Hale in his deification argument proved to me that they (The ECF) can be used out of context. As highlited by Van Gorden and others.

While Van Hale isn't the best LDS apologist, Van Gorden is one of the most incompetent counter-cultists known to man. http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/KVG.htm (http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/KVG.htm)

== It's also easy to be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, in assuming that the words of the ECF's portray the same concept as the LDS church.

No idea why you'd think I'd ever make that equation. Obviously they were different, but the point is, they were also different from what would become a developed Christian orthodoxy in later years.

== So if I can quote some Greek scholars who agree with me, will they trump your scholars?

Sanders already concedes that most conservative scholars take this interpretation for granted. But only when it is tackled critically can a conservative admit the obvious. It certainly isn't in their favor to rid themselves of a popular proof text that supports their theology. They do so because they feel intellectually obligated.

== Yes, it is:

No it isn't.

== D. & C. 130:22

We are dealing with the Gospel of John, not D&C.

== But I know that being in the image of God doesn't have to mean that we have His physical characteristics.

How do you know? All evidence points to the fact that this is precisely how the Ancient Jews understood it.

== So are you saying that image doesn't mean physical likeness?

Image includes likeness but also involves the glory of God which we are growing in daily. When we are resurrected we receive glorified bodies and are thus, closer to God's true image. Jewish Mysticism says that Adam was created a man of light, but after the fall he lost his glory. Man's goal since then has been to get back the glory we lost.
== I suggest you syncronize your beliefs with the majority of LDS thought.

Right. Which implies I am not in sync with the majority of LDS thought. Who are you to make such a judgment on the majority of LDS thought to say I am not in sync?

== I haven't read JP's book, but I have asked him to take a look at your critique.

Don't bother. I started a project responding to his book over a year ago: http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.html (http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.html)He disrupted the flow of its progress by offering irritating rebuttals along the way. http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/mordefhub.html (http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/mordefhub.html)

He responded to a "draft" I inadvertently posted online, and then hijacked it without my knowing, taking advantage of the fact that it was poorly organized. I found out three months later from one of his fans that he posted a detailed "response" to it on his website. After reading this, I decided to put off any more effort (I had some serious family/personal issues to deal with the past year anyway). But I have decided to pick up where I left off, and I should be done with chapter one within a month - time premitting - which will involve a critique of Holding's unflattering method, as well as his arguments, of course.

Anyway, I see it took all of one day before this forum showed its true form. I just found out from Penfire that it is anathema to even dialogue with a Mormon. Good grief. Kinda makes you wonder why people complain that there aren't any LDS here to dialogue with. But I got the message loud and clear. I just wanted to offer one final post to you before departing. I appreciated your tone, and it was fun while it lasted.

Caio

Trout

September 25th 2004, 12:19 PM

Trout:

== While I do believe that the Bible makes it clear that God is Spirit, I don't think the doctrine of a non-corporeal God is an Evangelical essential.

KG:
I suppose that depends on which Evangelical you ask.

True.

We have had quite a long discussion here at Tweb about the minimum requirements of the new Christian. I don't think the new believer is disqualified by not having a fairly complete understanding of God's nature. But I have come across a few in Evangelical circles who do believe it to be mandatory. i.e. the OTC guys. But they are a very small minority.

Trout:

== I think Tertullian is on my side on this issue, "Spirit is body of it's own kind" I fail to see in your quote where Tertullian agrees with LDS thought on this subject.

KG:
If you concede the point, then why did accuse me of using "Merlin" for this notion?

Concede?? I think the quote you offered up agrees with my understanding of the nature of God. Tertullian wasn't arguing that God has a physical body, but that a Spirit could be defined as some kind of a "body".

Trout:

== I must confess, I'm skeptical of small quotes from the ECF, Van Hale in his deification argument proved to me that they (The ECF) can be used out of context. As highlited by Van Gorden and others.

KG:
While Van Hale isn't the best LDS apologist, Van Gorden is one of the most incompetent counter-cultists known to man. http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/KVG.htm (http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/KVG.htm)

Hey. . .are you making fun of my buddy Kurt. . .?

I think Van Hale was quite an innovator in LDS apologetics. . .I mean, who would have thought to use the ECF's to bolster the case for LDS thought? (Was that his idea originally, or was it Nibley's?) I do think he presented his findings somewhat prematurely. But in any case, he opened up an entirely new dialogue in defense of LDS thought. I loved his debate with Martin.

Trout:

== It's also easy to be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, in assuming that the words of the ECF's portray the same concept as the LDS church.

KG:
No idea why you'd think I'd ever make that equation. Obviously they were different, but the point is, they were also different from what would become a developed Christian orthodoxy in later years.

The reason I thought that was I assumed that you were quoting the ECF's to better establish your case? Maybe I'm wrong? I haven't waded through all the writings of the ECF's but what little I have read seems to be in harmony with modern Evangelical thought. . .for the most part.

Trout:

== So if I can quote some Greek scholars who agree with me, will they trump your scholars?

KG:
Sanders already concedes that most conservative scholars take this interpretation for granted. But only when it is tackled critically can a conservative admit the obvious. It certainly isn't in their favor to rid themselves of a popular proof text that supports their theology. They do so because they feel intellectually obligated.

I have my own ideas about Sanders. . .I think he engages in some questionable hermeneutics while trying to establish his case for open theism. He has the tendency to read anthropomorphisms as literalisms. And I'm not at all surprised that he translates John 4:24 the way he does. As far as taking for granted the historical interpretation of the John passage, I don't think any of the scholars you quoted said that it was wrong to interpret it the way it has been done, rather they have offered another idea.

And. . .don't you think sometimes we hold to doctrines, and then search for people who will affirm them, instead of objectively weighing both sides of the issue? Maybe you don't fight that battle?

Trout:

== Yes, it is:

KG:
No it isn't.

Trout:

== D. & C. 130:22

KG:
We are dealing with the Gospel of John, not D&C.

I thought we were talking about the corporeality of God?

Here I think is the issue:

Jesus said in John and Luke, "God is Spirit" and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones"

The D&C says, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans".

As an Evangelical, I can read and agree with the Biblical passages as is. I don't believe the D&C to be scripture, therefore I don't feel it necessary to try to harmonize the Bible and the D&C.

You have a different paradigm, (As you should have) if you want your theology to be consistent, you must harmonize the two seemingly opposite passages.

In doing so, haven't you searched out those who agree with your particular interpretation of the John passage, and marginalized those who disagree with you?

What if the literal reading of John and Luke is the correct one? Have you ever considered that?

Trout:
== But I know that being in the image of God doesn't have to mean that we have His physical characteristics.

KG:
How do you know? All evidence points to the fact that this is precisely how the Ancient Jews understood it.

Like what?

Trout:
== So are you saying that image doesn't mean physical likeness?

KG:
Image includes likeness but also involves the glory of God which we are growing in daily. When we are resurrected we receive glorified bodies and are thus, closer to God's true image. Jewish Mysticism says that Adam was created a man of light, but after the fall he lost his glory. Man's goal since then has been to get back the glory we lost.

You said that Jesus looked exactly like God the Father.

I asked at what age did Jesus look exactly like God the Father.

Do you now agree that Jesus didn't look exactly like God the Father?

KG:
Right. Which implies I am not in sync with the majority of LDS thought. Who are you to make such a judgment on the majority of LDS thought to say I am not in sync?

Who are you to make such a judgment on what I know and don't know?

The point I was making which appeared to have gotten lost is. . .Oh never mind. . .why do we get lost in semantics and word games? I would hope that you and I are having this conversation because each of us truly believes that we have the truth and want to share it with one another. Most of the time the initial topics get forgotten in the posturing and angst. Please forgive me if I tried to make a point that was personal in nature rather than continue to hash out our different ideas.

Trout:
== I haven't read JP's book, but I have asked him to take a look at your critique.

KG:
Don't bother. I started a project responding to his book over a year ago: http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.html (http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.html)He disrupted the flow of its progress by offering irritating rebuttals along the way. http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/mordefhub.html (http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/mordefhub.html)

He responded to a "draft" I inadvertently posted online, and then hijacked it without my knowing, taking advantage of the fact that it was poorly organized. I found out three months later from one of his fans that he posted a detailed "response" to it on his website. After reading this, I decided to put off any more effort (I had some serious family/personal issues to deal with the past year anyway). But I have decided to pick up where I left off, and I should be done with chapter one within a month - time premitting - which will involve a critique of Holding's unflattering method, as well as his arguments, of course.

I can't wait to read it. Where will it be posted?

KG:
Anyway, I see it took all of one day before this forum showed its true form. I just found out from Penfire that it is anathema to even dialogue with a Mormon. Good grief. Kinda makes you wonder why people complain that there aren't any LDS here to dialogue with. But I got the message loud and clear. I just wanted to offer one final post to you before departing. I appreciated your tone, and it was fun while it lasted.

Caio[/color][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]

I don't think comments like those Penfire made were enough to run off a thick skinned apologist. Come on back when you get the time and we'll pick this back up.

Thanks

Trout

K.Graham

September 25th 2004, 02:03 PM

Hi Trout,

I'm no longer interested in trying to foster a meaningful discussion in this forum. It is pointless if I am the only one trying. I guess it took penfire's statement to remind me of my past experiences here. Thick skin isn't the issue - it has more to do with "is it even worth it?"

His statement is a precursor of what is to come. But if you want to continue with this, Makarios and I have a thread going here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=4325&st=30

Feel free to drop by.

Kevin

Tophet

September 26th 2004, 08:38 PM

Yo, Kevin:

First you say,

K. Graham:
Only later would Greek philosophy corrupt the Christian doctrine of God and transform him into some unknowable transcendant being.

and

Actually, the problem you have is that Mormons do agree with what the Bible says and you cannot because Evangelical theology dictates otherwise. (bold emphasis mine)

Then you say,

In any case, to an Evangelical the mere prospect of one of their doctrines not being biblical causes their theological world to collapse. That is the point of sola scriptura; true doctrine derives from the Bible and only the Bible. If said doctrine is not found explicit in the Bible, then the doctrine must be false.

... Evangelicals go by the Bible and the Bible alone.

If Evangelicals go by the Bible and the Bible alone, then how would there be corruption by "Greek philosophy"? Why would you say "Evangelical theology dictates otherwise" from the Bible?

Trout:
== Actually, the issue is flesh and bone.
KG:
No it isn't.
Trout:
== Yes, it is: D. & C. 130:22
KG:
No it isn't.

Why would you believe that "no it isn't" when the title of the thread is "Corporeality of God & Margaret Barker"?

You're making the same mistake JP Holding made in his first chapter of "Mormon Defenders." He assumed scriptures like Gen 1:26 were used by the LDS faithful as a proof text for God's fleshly body. This is not so.

Holding cited Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1995), 50-51; Michael T. Griffith, One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1996), 24; Edward K. Watson, Mormonism: Faith of the Twenty-First Century (Burnaby, B.C.: Liahona Publications, 1998), 31.

KG:
I started a project responding to his book over a year ago: http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.htmlHe disrupted the flow of its progress by offering irritating rebuttals along the way. http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/mordefhub.html

You challenged his book, and did so openly. Did you not expect him to reply?

The first link is dysfunctional, by the way.

He responded to a "draft" I inadvertently posted online

How does one "inadvertantly" post a draft online?

and then hijacked it without my knowing

How could you not know? His site is open 24/7. Do you believe he "hijacked" your work any more than you "hijacked" his Mormon Defenders book?

taking advantage of the fact that it was poorly organized.

Then why would you post "poorly organized" material on the internet, where it was open for scrutiny?

For the record, Mr. Holding did say, I'll begin with a serious caveat. Graham I think will be the first to admit that he takes a while to be satisfied that any work he does is in a final stage. I had planned to wait until he had all his T's dotted and his I's crossed before responding, but due to requests by my readers, and due to certain busy issues in Kevin's own life that have hindered a final form, I have decided to respond now, and offer the note that readers should be aware that what is below may not reflect the final form of Kevin's essay.

I found out three months later from one of his fans that he posted a detailed "response" to it on his website.

If Holding gave a "response," then you would be giving a "rebuttal"?

But I have decided to pick up where I left off, and I should be done with chapter one within a month - time premitting - which will involve a critique of Holding's unflattering method, as well as his arguments, of course.

If "unflattering methods" is a concern, then -- if you want to avoid a double standard -- perhaps you should edit Barry Bickmore's "Cavalade of Civility" remarks as documented at the essay here. (http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/bickmore03.html)

I would frankly rather read a debate about the topic rather than a debate about one's behavior.

I look forward to reading the case from both sides.

jpholding

September 27th 2004, 10:53 AM

Dude,

Come on. You know better than this.

He disrupted the flow of its progress by offering irritating rebuttals along the way.

Irritating to whom? Bickmore and Danderson for example? They set the tone themselves, dude.

responded to a "draft" I inadvertently posted online, and then

Oh come on. :ahem: How the heck do you post something "inadvertantly" on website, dude?? I sure as heck can't "inadvertantly" fire up my FTP program, create a link on a hub page, upload two pages, and then let it sit there for weeks. Besides, I ASKED you if I could respond, and you said YES!! (Plus what Tophet said.)

I know you've had some issues personal of late, so I don't hold the memory loss against you (it's part of your unwitting charm anyways! :smile:) but try to be more careful, 'k?

By the way, are you still around here where all the storms hit, or did you at least avoid all of that?

I miss Kuhkee!

John Powell

September 27th 2004, 06:51 PM

POWELL:
Let me add my perspective to this concept of "Jesus is a spirit with a body of flesh and blood / bone."

Mormonism seems to hold that we ARE spirits WITH bodies of flesh and BLOOD (and bones) while on earth. When we die then our spirits leave the physical body to decay. When we resurrect then we obtain a body of flesh and BONE. In other words, our essence is spirit.

However, based on the Mormon doctrines of intelligence, spiritual birth into God's family, and that spirit is a refined kind of matter, it would seem that it's even more appropriate to say that we ARE intelligences that HAVE spirit bodies (obtained when we were spiritually born) and HAVE mortal bodies of flesh and blood (obtained when we were physically born) while on Earth and then later we HAVE immortal bodies of flesh and bone (obtained when we resurrect).

The Mormon process of progression seems to suggest that major steps in the evolution of an entity is the acquisition of certain bodies. I concluded that this was because a spirit body was superior to having none and a physical body was generally superior to having only a spiritual body.

I wondered, however, what the basis was for the improvement.

I theorized that an important part of it was that intelligences were limited in their modes of thinking and experiencing. Perhaps they thought almost exclusively in terms of black and white / yes and no. Perhaps while having a spirit body they could experience new things and better understand the "grey" between black and white, to better understand how sometimes there is no "right or wrong" but "better or worse". However, maybe this understanding was still primarily in an intellectual way. Perhaps with a physical body they could experience the "feelings" of knowledge, where you "feel" that something is true rather than merely knowing it's true intellectually.

John Powell

K.Graham

September 28th 2004, 09:47 AM

== If Evangelicals go by the Bible and the Bible alone, then how would there be corruption by "Greek philosophy"? Why would you say "Evangelical theology dictates otherwise" from the Bible?

Because that these things are "biblical" is taken for granted. After 1500 years of theological conditioning, they really do believe all this stuff is "in the Bible." Doctrine of ex nihilo for example. Even JP Holding admits that it cannot be deduced from the Bible, but instead has to reason it through philosophy. This flies in the face of the majority of Evangelicalism however. They insist it is found, not only in the Bible, but CLEARLY in the Bible.

== Why would you believe that "no it isn't" when the title of the thread is "Corporeality of God & Margaret Barker"?

I'm interested in defending the LDS position, not some strawman reflected in a thread title. And no, Makarios said nothing of the corporeality of God being proven in LDS apologetics via the Bible, let alone Jn 4:24. The subject he raised dealt with MArgaret Barker.

== Holding cited Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1995), 50-51; Michael T. Griffith, One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1996), 24; Edward K. Watson, Mormonism: Faith of the Twenty-First Century (Burnaby, B.C.: Liahona Publications, 1998), 31.

Yes he did. And none of these references say what Holding implies.

== You challenged his book, and did so openly. Did you not expect him to reply?

Of course I did. I thought I was doing the guy a favor since he complained about the treatment by FARMS. He wanted someone to deal with his arguments head on, and that couldn't be done unless a project like this was launched. I had no idea it would end up like this.

Really.

== The first link is dysfunctional, by the way.

Should be your first clue.

== How does one "inadvertantly" post a draft online?

Let me clarify. I didn't realize it was "hyperlinked." As I explained to Holding a year ago, I do not do this full time. It would be nice if I could do apologetics for a living like he does, but I don't. I work and go to school full time. In fact I am at school right now. Therefore, my time for working on this thing is limited. So I uploaded my draft online so I could access it from work and school, and then worked on it during spare time. There were 7 responses to JP and they all had the file name jp.1, jp.2, jp.3....jp.7. Most of them were dead links because I had not uploaded the files, but the draft I was working on was jp.1. I wasn't thinking at the time that this would make it available to the public when I uploaded it for my own access. That was my mistake, but I hadn't even advertised the response webpage yet, so I didn't think anyone would be visiting there anyway.

But anyway, I explained all of this to him. At that beginning the Mormon Defenders webpage wasn't even advertised on my website. Nobody knew where it was unless I gave them a link to it. Which I did give to Holding. Not so he could respond, but so he would know where to look when it was finished. And I was also looking for feedback. I didn't get much, probably because he didn't want to "tip his hand." WHich makes me wonder, what is teh purpose of this? To learn from one another or try score points to win some silly rhetoric food fight online? I'm not Farrell Till.

== Do you believe he "hijacked" your work any more than you "hijacked" his Mormon Defenders book?

The difference being, my draft was just a draft, and I told him it wasn't even supposed to be online and I immediately took it off. This was in October of last year. Now I gave him the go ahead on chapter 7, but I made it clear that chapter needed reworking. No so much for grammar, but content and organization. It was not online during the posting of his response, and he didn't hyperlink to my draft, but instead copied the entire thing from my website and edited out some things that HE felt were irrelevant.

== Then why would you post "poorly organized" material on the internet, where it was open for scrutiny?

I see not much has changed here. You guys never take blame for anything and you'll be damned if a fellow Evangelical actually does something wrong.You guys will bend over backwards to justify anything.

== For the record, Mr. Holding did say,

Yes I am aware of that, but this doesn't change the fact that he continuously bellaches all throughout his response about things that are due to the fact that it is a draft. For instance, the chronological order of my evidences was backwards. He gripes all throughout with tetchy objections like, "What about this?" "Whoa we sure switched back and forth on that really quickly," Where is the first century evidence".... complaining as though I NEVER presented any, until he comnes across Aristobulus which he blows under the carpet because he doesn't know that the anthropomorphisms spoken of are not referring to "feelings" alone. This is just one of many examples here...

He also accuses LDS apologists, including myself, of abusing Cherbonnier which is flat out false. Had Holding spent a little time on this response instead of some blase tit for tat rebuttal,....sigh.

== If Holding gave a "response," then you would be giving a "rebuttal"?

The difference between us is that while I'm working on a response to Holding, I consult him via email to make sure I represent him correctly. Holding knew, from a glance at my review, back in October that I misunderstood his argument - and I did, spending a good portion beating up a strawman because of the "subtleties" in his chapter. But said nothing about it. Instead he used this as something to pummel me with in his response a few months later. I received no email notification.

== If "unflattering methods" is a concern, then -- if you want to avoid a double standard -- perhaps you should edit Barry Bickmore's "Cavalade of Civility" remarks as documented at the essay

Apparently you're not reading the context of the entire exchange. Do you even know where Barry's full article is found? Have you even read it, or are you just reading what JP would like to highlight? Bickmore's response to Holding's chapter was extremely cordial given the fact that Holding attacked his character in a published CRJ article, and taunted him in an email and then posted a highly edited version of it online. He attacked him on the same stuff JP is guilty of in his book!! But Barry pointed out several GOOD POINTS Holding made in his book. The tone was very well set. Then Holding responds by flat out accusing Holding of lying. His response to Danderson opens with calling him an incompetent writer. Why? Just because Danderson said, "It is hard to see what Holding is complaining about"??

When Marc Schindler died during this project, Holding wrote that "it behooves one not to speak ill of the dead, but one has no choice if he intends compose a response." This one hit us all hard. So in Holding's view, it is IMPOSSIBLE to compose a response to ANYONE without speaking ill of them.

So, I don't know who you think you're kiddding here. JP has a reputation as an pompous jerk online, not Bickmore. I'm probably the only Mormon on the planet who has seen another side, and I was under the impression the pleasant JP persona - the same one in his book - was what we'd all be confronting.

If anything Barry decided to respond in his second response in JP's own language, but still didn't stoop to the same level of calling the person a liar.

== I look forward to reading the case from both sides.

Doesn't sound like it if all you've read is JP's disingenous list of comments Barry made, that even when divorced from their context, sound extremely low-key when compared to JP's rhetoric. Get real, this is JP's forte and he is used to this kind of "dialogue". Barry had to step out of his shell to even try to be as nasty as JP, and he still failed.

JP:
== Dude,Come on. You know better than this.

If I knew you this well, I doubt I ever would have started this project. I was trying to elevate your name in LDS circles, but you shot it down yourself and screwed any future chance of being taken seriously by LDS apologetics. I had no idea this kind of chasm is what you preferred. From McKeever, Hank, or Martin, maybe. But not you. That wasn't the impression I got from you until I read your responses. This is some of the worst stuff on your website. You butchered the english language. We puts months of effort into this and you don't even run a spell check!?!?!?

What message does that send us? Oh, that the idiots on Planet Atheism are more deserving of your best effort. Well they got it. Loud and clear. And I feel like an idiot for lobbying a case for you for so long. Remember, I bought a box of your books and passed them out at the FAIR conference. I didn't do it because I was trying to pick a fight with you. I did it because I was trying to build bridges for future dialogue. You're the kind of Evangelical critic we need. I've learned so much and become so much better at this because of you.

== Irritating to whom?

To everyone who was looking forward to JP Holding, the Owen and Mosser protege that everyone heard about. The arguments are dandy, but the belligerence is too much.

== Bickmore and Danderson for example? They set the tone themselves, dude.

Yeah, right. By presenting you with the prospect that you could be wrong about something? Oh how dare they! Dude, you'll never be able to swing that one by me. These guys were on good behavior in their first response. You were overly sensitive to anything they said that implied your argument wasn't sound. Which is weird because you're not at all thin skinned!

== Besides, I ASKED you if I could respond, and you said YES!! (Plus what Tophet said.)

You asked about chapter 7 and I said yes. Chapter one was still on the backburner. And the version you responded to wasn't even the version I had updated. You took an earlier version from October when it had gone through at least 7 updates since then. And why is it that you never emailed me to tell me any of this? I emailed you every time one of the MD participants sneezed.

== now you've had some issues personal of late, so I don't hold the memory loss against you (it's part of your unwitting charm anyways!) but try to be more careful, 'k?

Dog dying, wife being deported, becoming a daddy, not being able to see your only child who lives in another country.... oh that stuff? Yeah, life has hit me with a few jabs lately, but that doesn't mean I have to sit back and take more from you.:lol:

== here where all the storms hit, or did you at least avoid all of that?

I drove up to Atlanta for the first three... hunkered down for the last one. One more hurricane and I'm gone. I'll be moving to Brazil after next semester when I graduate.

The best thing about you is that you know in the end, none of this is personal.

jpholding

September 28th 2004, 04:31 PM

Dewd,

Yes he did. And none of these references say what Holding implies.

Uh, what DO they say then??? It's hard to get past the clear English in each of these! I have Watson and Hopkins still behind me. So what's the specifics?

Let me clarify. I didn't realize it was "hyperlinked."

Aw, come on now. I can't buy that you're that incompetent with code. It takes a lot of definitive movement to create a hyperlink. You don't just press a button; you type in a mess of code. I'd rather you say you hyperlinked it and forgot you did it.

And it all doesn't change the fact that I *asked* you if I could respond, and you said YES. In fact, I remember sitting at a library in Cocoa Beach, using their word processor for hours, and writing you and asking questions about all of this. There was nothing about it being for me to give you "feedback".

Bickmore's response to Holding's chapter was extremely cordial given the fact that Holding attacked his character in a published CRJ article,

Attacked his CHARACTER??? How? Quote it. I will not accept that saying he is not qualified as a scholar is a "character" attack.

Just because Danderson said, "It is hard to see what Holding is complaining about"??

Yes, dude, among other things. Can you not just buy the idea that some of your cohorts are just not competent? Like Mosser and Owen said of Bickmore?

When Marc Schindler died during this project, Holding wrote that "it behooves one not to speak ill of the dead, but one has no choice if he intends compose a response." This one hit us all hard. So in Holding's view, it is IMPOSSIBLE to compose a response to ANYONE without speaking ill of them.

Come on, dewd! :ahem: "Speak ill of the dead" is a proverbial phrase which means to speak of anything that the deceased have done WRONG:

Do not speak ill of the dead. --
The Seven Sages, from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers

If Schindler made any error of any sort, the expression is appropos! And it says nothing about "impossible" or anything like that.

Is there any chance this is just a case of Mormon persecution complex imagining offense where it does not exist?

So, I don't know who you think you're kiddding here. JP has a reputation as an pompous jerk online, not Bickmore.

Oh true; Bick's pomposity comes of asserting himself an expert in a field he has no business traipsing into. Think Abanes, by your view, treading into Mormon history...unauthorized?

trying to elevate your name in LDS circles, but you shot it down yourself and screwed any future chance of being taken seriously by LDS apologetics.

If I did, it's only because I underestimated how much the persecution complex is enjoyed on that side.

You butchered the english language. We puts months of effort into this and you don't even run a spell check!?!?!?

ME. I didn't have one to use. My web editing spell checker is non-operable ever since I transferred to a new computer years ago. It's only been lately that I've had one available and I recently reviewed all 1500+ of my articles with it, including those. They were far from alone in needing that service.

Yeah, right. By presenting you with the prospect that you could be wrong about something?

No, by putting it in a way that showed that they weren't interested in an honest debate. You want a blow by blow analysis, line by line, of how they came off?

You were overly sensitive to anything they said that implied your argument wasn't sound. Which is weird because you're not at all thin skinned!

And I think that should clue you in as to what's really afoot. :thumb:

You asked about chapter 7 and I said yes. Chapter one was still on the backburner.

I asked about Chapter 1 as well. I know this and I know I spent hours at a library in Cocoa working on it, which I would never have done had you not given permission. My time is too limited to do that much work without specific clearance.

And why is it that you never emailed me to tell me any of this?

I'm rather sure I did. On the other hand, I was also trying to not give you too much mail given your circumstances. You didn't need it, did you?

more hurricane and I'm gone. I'll be moving to Brazil after next semester when I graduate.

Well, good tradeoff then, it's where we we'll get most of our citrus now that the FL crop is kaput.

The best thing about you is that you know in the end, none of this is personal.

Course not. Try to get with me for one more lunch before you leave.

K.Graham

September 28th 2004, 07:14 PM

== Uh, what DO they say then??? It's hard to get past the clear English in each of these! I have Watson and Hopkins still behind me. So what's the specifics?

Well, I provided at least this much in the draft. From note#5:

Griffith states, "The logical implication is that … Adam resembled God"(p. 24-26) Watson states that Gen 1:26-27 "includes our physical appearance."(p. 33) and Hopkins is vague when he refers to a "physiological nature."

The statement by Hopkins is close, but still too vague to suggest he was using Gen 1:26 proved God the Father had a body of "flesh and bones," which is what you said is "universally" the case in LDS apologetics. That one left us all scratching our heads because we don't know of any LDS apologist who uses Gen 1:26 to prove anything except that God has an anthropomorphic form. Anyway... I'll go ahead and post my response tomorrow sometime, but it will only be a response to your method, along with some of the objections you raised in your response. It covers this in detail. The rest on exegesis and such will be sometime next month.

== Aw, come on now. I can't buy that you're that incompetent with code. It takes a lot of definitive movement to create a hyperlink. You don't just press a button; you type in a mess of code. I'd rather you say you hyperlinked it and forgot you did it.

Dewd, you've fogotten about this? This was almost a year ago to be exact. Here it is:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:18:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

From: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net

To: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com>

Subject: Re: Hurtado and Ehrman

Sigh. We need to talk about your response to my Ch. 1 someday soon, before I publish my response to it. I'm a little disappointed in various aspects of what you wrote, but I'm not going to tell you why any other way but in person, because I know it works better that way.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:20:07 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com

Subject: Re: Hurtado and Ehrman

To: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

Hey man, I wasn't even aware that that particular chapter was available on my website. I thought I had it as a broken link. I must have uploaded an updated file with the proper name. I'll take it off if when I get home. But I haven't gone over it and smoothed out the kinks. And I'm sure there are tons. According to my web stats, only 8 different IPs have clicked on the entire "Mormon Defense" website in the past month. So I wouldn't worry about this stuff getting too circulated just yet.

Anyway. Cook said he'd edit it for me but I haven't been able to get ahold of him for months, and I keep changing the darn thing. Everytime I look at it I see something that doesn't look right. I've deleted huge chunks from the first draft, and I've added stuff too. I'm sorry if you already started responding to it, but said you'd wait until the whole project was complete before you would tackle it. This was many months ago when you said you had a full plate. You told me to keep you informed as to when it was finished. Well that time hasn't come yet.

Every few weeks or so, when I have time, I'll go over it to reword a sentence or add a reference I come across or what not. Just recently I started working on it again for the first time in months. Mainly because I ordered Wenham and Erickson, and found a couple of their comments relevant. I haven't gone over the whole thing yet but I can already see that I need to reword the entire second half, especially on Phil 2:6. It barely made sense to even me....I'm trying to respond to your arguments as outlined in your book, not as they appear in our emails, and many of my arguments are aimed at Evangelical positions in general, and do not always correspond directly to your own position. For example, we both disagree ( I think ) with the idea that "image" means "dignity." Anyway, tell me what you have issues with.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:07:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

From: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

To: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com>

Subject: Re: Hurtado and Ehrman

Dewd! Ya need help with HTML??? :-D Let's make it simple: Tell me what parts ARE done, final, ready for me to put salt an peppa on and eat. Links for 'em too. I'm not worried about circulation but about my time. Till may be chicken now, but he could wake up any day, same for the rest of these guys.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com>

Subject: One more thing

To: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

It just dawned on me that you may have saved a draft from last Feb, when I first started saving my work on the web. Which in that case, I can probably already tell what your problems would be with it. Much has changed since then, and here is my latest revision, which again, is not advertised on the web: <http://anti-mormonism-revealed.com/jptselem.htm>

I generally save my revisions in the file jptselem.htm while I have the hyperlink on the web set to go to jp1.htm Apparently I revised a jp1.htm and uploaded it without changing the name. That explains why it was accessible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com>

Subject: Re: One more thing

To: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

Give me another month to get around to adjusting a few things. As it is, the only reviews ready for review are those on the web. Bickmore's, Barney's, Schindler's, Danderson's and Ostler's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:47:38 -0700 (PDT)

To: "Kevin Graham" <kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com>

Subject: Dewdster

From: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>

OK, that'll do then. Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the issue has less to do with my competence with HTML and more to do with the fact that I changed the title of the file without thinking. Could happen to anyone and I didn't freak out about it because it wasn't that big of a deal. I know I've informed you of HTML goofs on your site in the past. Again, the page it was hyperlinked on wasn't even advertised on my website at that time. I only gave it out to you and a few LDS to offer feedback. Do you really think I was just acting when I was surprised you saw it?

Now I said "give me another month," but that was just two weeks before finding out my wife was pregnant. I then took the thing off the web completely, and I hadn't heard from you since. I had no idea you were going to run with what you had, or that you even copied the thing off the web to begin with.

== And it all doesn't change the fact that I *asked* you if I could respond, and you said YES. In fact, I remember sitting at a library in Cocoa Beach, using their word processor for hours, and writing you and asking questions about all of this. There was nothing about it being for me to give you "feedback".

When? I scoured my emails and I couldn't find any instance where I gave the go ahead. Do you have an email detailing this event that I perhaps deleted?

== Attacked his CHARACTER??? How? Quote it. I will not accept that saying he is not qualified as a scholar is a "character" attack.

Don't you spend a good amount of time attacking his character by suggesting he is "dishonest" for using scholars who do not necessarily agree with his conclusions? Or "dishonest" for having quotes "in hand" that go against him, but not providing them. You do this critical analysis of his character in your online reviews, which is what made it so hard for me to persuade him to even participate in this.

And I know you'd never let anyone slide by accusing you of abusing a scholar - like you did with us on Cherbonnier.

== Yes, dude, among other things. Can you not just buy the idea that some of your cohorts are just not competent? Like Mosser and Owen said of Bickmore?

Coming from those two, this isn't saying much. But, who cares.. didn't you also have a falling out with Mosser, who criticized you for writing on issues outside your expertise? He is an idiot, and Owen's ego is so big that he refuses to talk to anoyone who doesn't have a doctorate in Greek. Good grief. He is still upset that two non-scholars mopped the floors with him in two recent FARMS articles. I already told you how the two of them made complete asses of themselves at the conference in Utah. And I can buy the idea that some of them are incompetent, only if this be the case. But it isn't. Danderson and Bickmore both teaches at the University level. The only evidence of their incompetence is your say-so, which isn't enough. And I have no idea where you get off saying these things after you offer us a fumbled mass of incoherent statements that miscomprehend the argument presented you, which make you appear grammatically challenged. We all know you degreed in English and can do much better than that. But you didn't put any effort into this, which is what left me scratching my head.

== If Schindler made any error of any sort, the expression is appropos! And it says nothing about "impossible" or anything like that.

Well that is a relief. I guess that makes it OK to speak ill of the dead. Silly me. :no:

== Is there any chance this is just a case of Mormon persecution complex imagining offense where it does not exist?

Whatever dewd. I had his WIFE call me after she read that just days after his death. Why don't you go ahead and tell her she just has a persecution complex too. You're extremely vacant on this issue.

== Oh true; Bick's pomposity comes of asserting himself an expert in a field he has no business traipsing into.

Uh, you have a degree in Library Science dewd. How does that make you an expert in apologetics or in any of the fields relating to biblical exegesis? You have written more on these issues than Bickmore probably EVER will. And Bickmore has never presented himself as an authority on anything except maybe geochemistry - which is what he got his doctorate in. Can you show where he has said, "I am said authority", or could this be you projecting?

This is something else I don't get. Your pet peeve, you say, is when people psychoanalyze something about the Evangelical motive, but this is what you do when you blow off our objections to your attitude by saying, "Oh you just have a persecution complex." Does the pomposity know no bounds?

== ?Think Abanes, by your view, treading into Mormon history...unauthorized?

Well so far you have not offered an effective response other than criticizing him for doing the same thing you do; which is using scholars who do not agree with all your conclusions.

== If I did, it's only because I underestimated how much the persecution complex is enjoyed on that side.

Again, the fact that you respond like this only shows how insensitive you can be, and are. "Persecution complex" has nothing to do with this. We don't feel you're persecuting anyone. We feel you're being far too arrogant, which is something you already admitted being.

== ME. I didn't have one to use. My web editing spell checker is non-operable ever since I transferred to a new computer years ago. It's only been lately that I've had one available and I recently reviewed all 1500+ of my articles with it, including those. They were far from alone in needing that service.

Ok, I'll buy that, but one would think you'd start with the articles plastered on your front page. It has been almost a year, and my name has been used to entertain your circus audience that gets its jollies off by watching grandiloquence disguised as apologetics.

Also, this doesn't explain why you called my essay format of response the "perfect" way to respond, and then you turn around with a tit for tat rebuttal. That left me scratching my head. But anyway, not a big deal. Just an observation.

== No, by putting it in a way that showed that they weren't interested in an honest debate. You want a blow by blow analysis, line by line, of how they came off?

Sure, so long as you provide what they were respondning to. You didn't do that in your last response to Bickmore. But the entire thing is online, so people can judge for themselves.

== I asked about Chapter 1 as well. I know this and I know I spent hours at a library in Cocoa working on it, which I would never have done had you not given permission. My time is too limited to do that much work without specific clearance.

Then maybe you can explain the emails above, where I clearly stated what was ready for review. I have no record of any such email, and I remember your review online thinking to myself, "I haven't even heard from him in a month." I can't for the life of me think why I would ever give you the go ahead when it was in worse shape in November than it was months prior. I was slashing and burning because I realized I misunderstood your argument from tselem.

== I'm rather sure I did. On the other hand, I was also trying to not give you too much mail given your circumstances. You didn't need it, did you?

I guess, but this was posted before Christmas. Before Kuhkee died and before my wife was deported. All I was dealing with prior to your upload was the excitement of being a daddy.

== Well, good tradeoff then, it's where we we'll get most of our citrus now that the FL crop is kaput.

No kidding. I just hope I don't end up as an fruit picker.

== Course not. Try to get with me for one more lunch before you leave.

I will. I live closer to you now (Altamonte).

Anyway, I don't want this to drag out on this forum. I'll upload something as soon as I get my cable internet back up and running - at work now. It will cover the stuff we've been talking about here.

K.Graham

September 28th 2004, 08:20 PM

I just wanted to emphasize that I am not upset with the fact that you responded to a draft so much as I was frustrated by the fact that so many of your criticisms were because you were responding to a draft. Hell, I can get those kinds of complaints from my editor, but you seemed to be presenting a response as if these mistakes had nothing to do with it being just a draft.

For example, when you were complaining with pithy statements like, "We sure switched back to the Rabbis in a hurry... whatever happened to the reforms of Josiah? ...Can we get to this now? Thank you!" I said to myself, "Whatever happened to 'call me when you're done?'" :lol:

And for what its worth, I believe you when you say you truly believed I gave you the go ahead, even if I didn't. Maybe you misunderstood a phone conversation. I have no idea. All I know is that I have no email to document this and I cannot imagine why I would ever say such a thing.

Anyway, I'm off.

Profanity is not allowed
No user-submitted content (including Private Messages, forum-generated emails, pager messages, and post grades) shall contain any obscene, vulgar, illegal, sexually-explicit, gratuitously blasphemous, profane (or generally distasteful) language, pictures, references, abbreviations or links.

K.Graham

September 28th 2004, 10:53 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize biblical terms were considered profanity...

As it says in the bottom of this notice, and the one above, if you have any problem with the moderation, don't reply in this thread but please use Private Messaging, Email, or start a lockeroom thread. I am just doing my job, guy.

K.Graham

September 29th 2004, 11:47 AM

Now I remember why I stopped posting here...

jpholding

October 1st 2004, 04:00 PM

Well, I provided at least this much in the draft. From note#5:

That's fine, but there's more to it than that. I have Watson in my hands just now -- Hopkins is somewhere behind some stuff -- and he discusses Gen. 1:26-7 in a chapter TITLED, "Is Our Physical Apperance After Heavenly Father's?" Now don't go telling me that he had anything in mind other than saying this verse was good for showing that Our Physical Apperance After Heavenly Father's in that we both had a flesh and bone body. I'm sure he wasn't using it to say God's Body was made of whipped cream as opposed to flesh and bones.

uses Gen 1:26 to prove anything except that God has an anthropomorphic form.

Anthro = man, yes. And I know of no one who says "man" is made of anything but flesh and bones (albeit, as I also noted, glorified). If not that, what?

Dewd, you've fogotten about this?

I don't keep my mail; I'd have a computer bust if I did. I do recall good parts of this, though, and I gave you the time you asked for, and it was AFTER Oct. 2003 that I asked for clearance.

I only gave it out to you and a few LDS to offer feedback. Do you really think I was just acting when I was surprised you saw it?

No, I think you just forget what happened -- like you've done before, as I know you're the first to admit. :smile:

When? I scoured my emails and I couldn't find any instance where I gave the go ahead. Do you have an email detailing this event that I perhaps deleted?

No, like I said, I don't keep 'em.

Don't you spend a good amount of time attacking his character by suggesting he is "dishonest" for using scholars who do not necessarily agree with his conclusions?

Certainly not in the CRJ article, which is what you pointed to just now. I did call it "dishonest" twice to SPECIFICALLY use DeMaris for Mormon BFD, at http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/bickmore04.html Maybe twice seems like a "good amount of time" to you in the mood you're in now, but...

And I know you'd never let anyone slide by accusing you of abusing a scholar - like you did with us on Cherbonnier.

Only if they could show I actually did it.

didn't you also have a falling out with Mosser, who criticized you for writing on issues outside your expertise?

No, he claimed I was more interested in refuting Mormonism than in getting at real answers -- nothing about expertise.

But it isn't. Danderson and Bickmore both teaches at the University level.

So did Farrell Till. :teeth: So do some atheists I know. It doesn't make them experts in the field they don't teach in.

And I have no idea where you get off saying these things after you offer us a fumbled mass of incoherent statements that miscomprehend the argument presented you, which make you appear grammatically challenged.

I'll let that pass as a non-specific protest than comes of frustration.

Well that is a relief. I guess that makes it OK to speak ill of the dead. Silly me. :no:

It is OK to do so if they did wrong. It's just a PROVERB, dewd, and one made by a superstitious Roman at that.

I had his WIFE call me after she read that just days after his death. Why don't you go ahead and tell her she just has a persecution complex too. You're extremely vacant on this issue.

No, I just don't pretend that emotionalism has anything to do with accuracy.

Uh, you have a degree in Library Science dewd. How does that make you an expert in apologetics or in any of the fields relating to biblical exegesis?

It doesn't. That's why I use sources that do, which IS where my expertise lies: In use of sources. Bick has neither.

And Bickmore has never presented himself as an authority on anything except maybe geochemistry

I'm sorry, but someone who publishes a book in a field isn't going to get away with claiming that they aren't presenting themselves as an expert sufficient to comment, especially when he does it with claims that the mainstream of scholarship he writes against is in error.

do when you blow off our objections to your attitude by saying, "Oh you just have a persecution complex." Does the pomposity know no bounds?

My experience knows it. Our mutual friend at BYU has said the same thing; how pompous is she, do you know?

Also, this doesn't explain why you called my essay format of response the "perfect" way to respond, and then you turn around with a tit for tat rebuttal.

Consider it a compliment: it means I thought it deserved a point by point response. Keep in mind that I do that to Till once in a while to show that he does NOT deserve it, and the rest of the time I just pick out what little worthwhile content he has.

Sure, so long as you provide what they were respondning to. You didn't do that in your last response to Bickmore. But the entire thing is online, so people can judge for themselves.

OK, start with Danderson and how he earned his boxing match:

It is unclear exactly what James Patrick Holding is complaining about. He appears to claim, as do Dave Hunt and Ed Decker, that Latter-Day Saints act “not on the basis of Scripture or reason, but of a subjective feeling” in asking investigators to pray about the truth of the Restored Gospel.

Aside from that silly rhetorical game of claimed confusion, the immediate association with Hunt and Decker, anti-Mormons extraordinaire, showed where he wanted to come from and what brush he was painting with. That's as bad as the guy who wrote for FARMS did.

Yet, this is an irresponsible position. Holding himself quotes Moroni’s statement in the Book of Mormon instructing the reader to “ponder it in your hearts.”[3] Does Holding not know that the word “ponder” means “to weigh mentally; think deeply about; consider carefully”?

Here I got free rein to use words like "irresponsible" in my reply -- which I did. Not the exact word maybe, but ones like it.

Further, from Holding’s “burning of the bosom” quote, it seems strange that he would not be familiar with the preceding verse, where God chastises Oliver Cowdery for “[taking] no thought, save it was to ask [God].”

Implies immense stupidity on my part, in "strangeness" for not knowing the preceding verse. About the same as Jesus asking the Pharisees, "Have you not read..."

This reviewer finds Holding’s description of an exchange between a believer and a skeptic to be quite revealing

Good grief, just take out the stilletto and watch me stab somebody with it, "quite revealing" huh, as if I was HIDING something. Good grief!

Is Holding claiming that if the skeptic does not receive a witness, the Latter-day Saint, Christian, or New Ager is required to renounce his belief/witness?

Words in my mouth, as noted. Which he then proceeds to beat to death as though it was actually said.

It took just that long for Danderson to lose my respect and to see he wasn't interested in addressing the matter seriously. No such tone was in the original article, so where'd the heck all this come from? Eh? I say, "persecution complex" though it may also be psychoactive habanero sauce.

Want some more?

I can't for the life of me think why I would ever give you the go ahead when it was in worse shape in November than it was months prior.

I can tell you it was because people who had seen it had asked when I was planning to reply to it.

I will. I live closer to you now (Altamonte).

Oh. That's actually about the same distance from where I am.

Let me know when you upload whatever, then.

K.Graham

October 1st 2004, 11:27 PM

== That's fine, but there's more to it than that.

Well, you're the one making claims as to how LDS use the verse, so shouldn't you be the one to provide the specifics? No, of course not. Let the Mormons prove what someone hasn't said. That makes better sense.:ahem:

== I have Watson in my hands just now

So do I. And nowhere does he say what you say he said. Or should I say, he didn't say what you said he said. Know what I'm saying? :teeth: I am the one who provided the quote from Watson even though you were the one making the claim. You claimed that on page 31 of his book he argued that Gen 1:26 proves God has a body of flesh and bone. This is clearly false. In fact, what he says of Gen 1:26 is the same thing I have said, and all LDS apologists have said. He said that the image "refers to a three-dimensional image or form," and he backed it up with authority. Not one word of "flesh and bones" is found on this page, or in the entire chapter for that matter.

It is hard for us to believe you're not the one guilty of reading into the Bible when you can't resist the temptation to read into non-biblical books like Watson's, Hopkins' and Griffith's.

== -- Hopkins is somewhere behind some stuff -- and he discusses Gen. 1:26-7 in a chapter TITLED, "Is Our Physical Apperance After Heavenly Father's?" Now don't go telling me that he had anything in mind other than saying this verse was good for showing that Our Physical Apperance After Heavenly Father's in that we both had a flesh and bone body.

I don't need to tell you that because his book already refutes your assumption. You still can't provide a quote can you? :lol: Your rationale above makes no sense because one might as well say he argued that "our physical appearance" must also include blood, veins, gastric fluids, gas, etc. We do not believe glorified bodies have anything but Flesh bone and spirit, so you're reading something into this statement that isn't there.

Three statues made of three different metals can still have the same "appearance."

== I'm sure he wasn't using it to say God's Body was made of whipped cream as opposed to flesh and bones.

You're missing the point that God's physical composition wasn't the argument. The fact that you cannot find any quote that says this proves it. :ahem:

== Anthro = man, yes. And I know of no one who says "man" is made of anything but flesh and bones (albeit, as I also noted, glorified). If not that, what?

The "what" doesn't pertain to Gen 1:26. This is the point. The only person dragging physical composition to the table, as it pertains to Gen 1:26, is you. You successfully created a straw man argument, and you've been beating it to a pulp ever since. The fact is, no Bible passage proves God has a body of flesh and bone, and I've challenged you and other Evangelicals to produce any LDS apologist or scholar who argues otherwise. If you can, then I'd be happy to give him his noogies, slap on a dunce hat and stick his nose in the corner.

And what is with this "anthro=man, man has flesh and bones, therefore all references to anthro implies flesh and bones"... You have got to be kidding. Are you saying that the concept of anthropomorphism originated by those who insisted God had flesh and bones? This is absurd. You're refusing the LDS the right to define our own argument. We apply the term anthropomorphism the way it should be. The way scholars have applied it. And no, it doesn't demand a "flesh and bone" implication. This is strange coming from a guy who insisted all throughout his response that the scholars were referring to anthropomorphisms in the sense of "feelings." Does anthro always mean flesh and bones? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

== I don't keep my mail; I'd have a computer bust if I did. I do recall good parts of this, though, and I gave you the time you asked for, and it was AFTER Oct. 2003 that I asked for clearance.

Well, all I can say is that I have no email supporting such an event, and to give you clearance during that time after these emails clearly contradict that, seems a little far fetched. I remember speaking to you on the phone about Chapter 7 and giving you the go ahead then, perhaps you misunderstood me. (Nooooooo. Impossible!! :lol: )

== No, I think you just forget what happened -- like you've done before, as I know you're the first to admit.

Sure, I forget things all the time, but that doesn't explain the mystery of no email record of this "go ahead clearance." And clearly I'm not the only one who forgets. You just did above when you forgot my explanation as to the HTML goof.:wink: Again, competence wasn't the problem. I saved a draft corresponding to the hyperlink file name, inadvertently. That is why it was accessible and that is why I was surprised you read it. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

== Certainly not in the CRJ article, which is what you pointed to just now. I did call it "dishonest" twice to SPECIFICALLY use DeMaris for Mormon BFD,

Which it isn't. I've been privy to many emails between DeMaris and LDS scholars. And he and I have corresponded in the past. If we are "abusing" his work, he certainly doesn't feel that way. Isn't that rather peculiar given your fervent objection to our usage of him?

== Maybe twice seems like a "good amount of time" to you in the mood you're in now, but...

I had access to a PDF file of your CRJ article when I was a member of FAIR. CRI donated a copy to them for private use. But I don't have access to it now. And my mood is fairly reserved compared to what it was when first reading your response. You took full advantage of the fact that I offered a draft. Not cool.

== Only if they could show I actually did it.

Are you saying you didn't accuse LDS of abusing Cherbonnier? Of course you did. I think you misread my statement. But yes, I showed that you did misuse scholars in the same manner you accuse Bickmore. It is all in my response which will be up soon. I got rid of the AMR website and going with kevingraham.net. It will be up and running by end of next week.

== No, he claimed I was more interested in refuting Mormonism than in getting at real answers -- nothing about expertise.

Are you sure? He didn't question your expertise in this field at all? Because that is classic O&M. Their pet peeve has to do with Evangelicals attempting to refute Mormons without any background education in the relevant fields of biblical scholarship.

== So did Farrell Till. So do some atheists I know. It doesn't make them experts in the field they don't teach in.

Didn't say it did. Expertise isn't the issue. The issue was whether they knew how to write competently. Let's be honest here. None of us are experts. So none of us have any business accusing each other of lacking expertise. Some of us are, however, better at arguing.

== It is OK to do so if they did wrong.

It is just bad taste. Especially so soon after his death. I'm not going to argue with you about that. And if you think you have Junia on your side here, I'd probably guess you're wrong about that too.

== No, I just don't pretend that emotionalism has anything to do with accuracy.

Never said it did. I'm not going to argue with you about this.

== It doesn't. That's why I use sources that do, which IS where my expertise lies: In use of sources. Bick has neither.

If you truly believe this, then you will feel terribly embarrassed with my review; for it demonstrates that you have abused scholars in the same exact manner that you accuse Bickmore. Even worse actually, because by your logic, your mere use of these scholars implies they agree with your conclusions. Bickmore doesn't claim they agree with his conclusions anymore than you do, but you think it is OK to insist that is what Bickmore THOUGHT anyway. What evidence do we have of this... Did you also degree in paranormal psychology?

And I can't believe you actually want us to believe that your work is just as good as scholarship itself, because you're a librarian, and utterly incapable of abusing sources. Gee, if Walter Martin only realized he didn't have to really fake his degree at all. All he had to do was become a librarian and then he could get away with being an "authority" on virtually every field of expertise known to man. This is surreal. Being good at looking up sources is not synonymous with being good at grasping the content objectively. You're no expert on "use of sources," and I can't believe you just said that. This is absurd. You're an apologist with an agenda, and no degree on the planet will change this fact. In this field of apologetics you'd be better served with a degree in Philosophy, having grasped the difference between various forms of arguments, their applications, limitiations, etc. We've all come to the conclusion that you have not grasped the difference between deductive and inductive arguments, which explains why you have an extremely hard time ever admit being wrong about something. I mean even now you're still refusing to be wrong about ANYTHING. When Bickmore corrects you on Mormon thought, you accuse him of lying. Bickmore must be different from all Mormons, because it is the only way you can make sense of it. The prospect of you making an error here, just doesn't seem to compute. And who better to determine Mormon though than a... Mormon?.... No, of course not, an Evangelical apologist/librarian knows better, right?

When I correct you on your abuse of von Rad, you say the "only misunderstanding is what Graham thinks I used him for." Nevermind the fact that you used a scholar that essentially agreed with the LDS conclusion you were trying to refute, yet you failed to disclose this info to your audience. This is EXACTLY what you accused Bickmore of doing.. You did the same with a few other scholars too. The point is, you'd win more hearts and earn more respect if you'd be more willing to admit that you sometimes goof up and misread things. Heck, you do it all the time in my review. You're still human, even if you refuse to admit being wrong and refuse to show any emotional empathy towards your "opponents." (Schindler)

I mean does anyone truly buy this nonsense? That you're never wrong, and that a Library scientist is an "expert" on "use of sources"? University Professors (i.e. Bickmore) are those who do research for a living. They are those who write in scholarly journals pertaining to their field of expertise. Library scientists are perhaps good at looking up stuff, but comprehending it is another matter altogether. You haven't got the market cornered on "critical thinking" either.

Thus far you have not grasped the LDS position, and even when you've been handed a thorough correction twice over, you absoultely refuse to admit that you goofed. So why would anyone ever assume you know how to grasp the position of scholars when you can't seem to grasp the basic fact that Mormon scholars do not argue "flesh and bones" from Gen 1:26? You have not provided an example. You cannot provide an example, because no example exists. It wouldn't have been so bad if you didn't claim this was "universal" in LDS apologetics. Your claim was wrong. And a degree in Library Science isn't going to change that fact.

== My experience knows it.

Ah, so we're back to the guilt by association. You're always trying to lump Mormons in with atheists just because we disagree with you. Your "experience" doesn't alter the fact that we do not have a "presecution complex." We just know when someone has an ego bigger than he can support. Good grief dewd, just look at the signature you tote around. I think I'm going to have a new e-mail signature file with a quote from someone saying how great I am. Can you give me one?

== I'm sorry, but someone who publishes a book in a field isn't going to get away with claiming that they aren't presenting themselves as an expert sufficient to comment

Good grief. You know for someone who has a pet peeve of psychoanalyzing, you sure do it alot.

== especially when he does it with claims that the mainstream of scholarship he writes against is in error.

He writes against the mainstream of scholarship? No, he doesn't. He uses scholarship responsibly, and it drives you nuts to think Evangelical scholars support some aspects of LDS arguments. This cannot be, so the Mormon must be abusing them! :ahem:

== Aside from that silly rhetorical game of claimed confusion

Claimed confusion? Being not entirely "clear" on your position is not "claimed confusion." Though you yourself said your book had several subtle points. I see no "claimed confusion" on the part of Danderson and I don't think it is your place to determined whether he was really unclear or if this was just a "claim" he made.

== the immediate association with Hunt and Decker, anti-Mormons extraordinaire, showed where he wanted to come from and what brush he was painting with. That's as bad as the guy who wrote for FARMS did.

You've got to be joking. First, Decker and Hunt are who most LDS are familiar with, and it was perfectly acceptable to draw that parallel whether you like being associated with them or not. He was simply saying that your argument was the same drivel we've been familiar with for years. Second, your argument was in harmony with what they said, so what is the big deal? If you don't like being associated with them then perhaps you should choose a different line of work. Third, you've been in bed with CRI apparently for years now, and we all know that CRI was the brainchild of anti-Mormon extraordinaire, "Dr." Walter Martin. Martin was D&H's mentor. Fourth, you for one do not hesitate to make an association between my arguments and that of atheists. You do it all the time. So your gripe here is disingenuous to say the least.

You complained about this in your response to my review just because I made a note of how ridiculous Hannagraff's argument was. You said I was trying to imply you and Hank were on in the same, which is false. I told you in email that I would provide survey information, and that much of it wouldn't even apply to you. But apparently you "forgot" about this information and proceeded to gripe about it anyway. You're doing the same thing here with Danderson. You assume too much about our intention and purpose for saying what we say, and then have the audacity to complain about psychoanalysis!

== Here I got free rein to use words like "irresponsible" in my reply -- which I did. Not the exact word maybe, but ones like it.

Yes I know. You totally freaked out when you read Ostler's response, when he said your argument was "inadequate." How dare he. He is only responding to your position to which he disagrees. Of course he doesn't think your argument is adequate. Apparently one cannot even disagree with you without you taking offense and by extension, some weird licence to take the gloves off and go crazy. You didn't really think we were going to be agreeing with all this time now did you? You did, after all, write a book on the intrepid premise that LDS apologists abuse the Bible.

== Implies immense stupidity on my part, in "strangeness" for not knowing the preceding verse. About the same as Jesus asking the Pharisees, "Have you not read..."

Good grief. Now THAT is what we call a "persecution complex." :lol: You're making illicit assumptions into what Danderson said, and by extension, taking action on a false judgement. To suggest he compared you with the Pharisees (!:ahem: )just because he thought it was strange that you ignore the previous verse, is a bit far fetched.

== Good grief, just take out the stilletto and watch me stab somebody with it, "quite revealing" huh, as if I was HIDING something. Good grief!

You said it. Good grief is right.

== Words in my mouth, as noted. Which he then proceeds to beat to death as though it was actually said.

Uh, he asked a question. Asking a question is hardly forcing words in your mouth. It seems you were seeking high and low for something to complain about. Something to use as an excuse to operate the way you do best. In this case there is no rational reason to even try to argue with you.

== It took just that long for Danderson to lose my respect

Who are you kidding ? In order to lose it he would first have to have it. He never did. You take offense even when we agree with you. Your response to Barney was a perfect example.

== and to see he wasn't interested in addressing the matter seriously. No such tone was in the original article, so where'd the heck all this come from? Eh? I say, "persecution complex" though it may also be psychoactive habanero sauce.

The fact is your entire argument is rather silly, and you present it so authoritatively as the end of all debates. It is humorous sometimes, but you do in fact make some good points we try to deal with. But you bend over backwards to find fault with the LDS method of determining truth. Amazing that some LDS just might be offended by it, eh?

We can continue this after you've read my response. I've got a full plate for the next month, and I doubt I will be back here. I'm surprised I lasted this long on this forum, to be honest.

K.Graham

October 3rd 2004, 08:07 PM

http://kevingraham.net/1method.pdf

And for those who do not have adobe installed.

http://kevingraham.net/1method.htm

jpholding

October 4th 2004, 04:20 PM

Well, you're the one making claims as to how LDS use the verse, so shouldn't you be the one to provide the specifics? No, of course not.

I provided all that was needed, dewd. You're inventing a non-distinction in order to contrive an objection. J. Smith himself was the one who gave the Father flesh and bone. Don't try to tell me that Gen. 1:26 is used just to say, "God looks like us" but isn't made of the same stuff, as though there's some option other than, "He looks like us because He is like us." Hinckley says it clearly. Robinson says it clearly. Watson uses it in a chapter with the idea of proving it, so don't tell me it's in there by accident and isn't there to make a case for what Watson wants to prove.

said that the image "refers to a three-dimensional image or form," and he backed it up with authority. Not one word of "flesh and bones" is found on this page, or in the entire chapter for that matter.

Right, like that "form" is made of whipped cream or something, and is not made in light of J. Smith's discourse?

Do you exempt yourself from the texts at http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthfulness.htm#onea ?

Your rationale above makes no sense because one might as well say he argued that "our physical appearance" must also include blood, veins, gastric fluids, gas, etc.

Hey, your man Smith said "flesh and bones"; whatever the details of that flesh and bones were, you can't get out of it being that Gen. 1:26 is used to give that image the general degree of content. That's an attempt to sidestep the issue by moving from general to specific.

The fact is, no Bible passage proves God has a body of flesh and bone, and I've challenged you and other Evangelicals to produce any LDS apologist or scholar who argues otherwise.

It's clear as day in Watson and Hopkins. You can't get out of it with equivocations and hair-splitting, dewd.

Are you saying that the concept of anthropomorphism originated by those who insisted God had flesh and bones?

No, and I don't know where you get that from. It boils down to that it means you have to have something manlike; and because of J Smith, any use of Gen. 1:26 by LDS is also an argument for flesh and bones. It can't be gotten out of. Smith defined your argument for you years ago.

I remember speaking to you on the phone about Chapter 7 and giving you the go ahead then, perhaps you misunderstood me. (Nooooooo. Impossible!! :lol: )

Or maybe you forgot what you said. :wink: Noooooo....no?

Which it isn't. I've been privy to many emails between DeMaris and LDS scholars. And he and I have corresponded in the past. If we are "abusing" his work, he certainly doesn't feel that way

I can't comment without specifics and without knowing if he knows exactly HOW his work is being used. It remains that whether he says so or not, it IS dishonest to not deal with the reasons he gives.

Are you saying you didn't accuse LDS of abusing Cherbonnier?

No.

But yes, I showed that you did misuse scholars in the same manner you accuse Bickmore.

If you mean the JEDP thing, since I DO have a series up on JEDP and refuting it, the failing ascribed to Bickmore doesn't apply to me at all.

Are you sure? He didn't question your expertise in this field at all?

Not a breath of such. I suspect since I used all the lit in the field at the time, that wasn't an option for him to say. Plus maybe he'd seen my work against atheists, I dunno.

The issue was whether they knew how to write competently. Let's be honest here. None of us are experts.

Dewd, *I* am expert at research and writing and source use. That puts me in a different position from someone who is an expert in geochemistry. And if you think you can prove I abuse scholars, watch out -- your JEDP example isn't a very good one, given my series on the subject.

All he had to do was become a librarian and then he could get away with being an "authority" on virtually every field of expertise known to man.

It's not the way I'd quite put it, but it comes close. One with this training is CAPABLE of becoming an authority in the same way in a field of choosing. Many librarians do have dual degrees.

Being good at looking up sources is not synonymous with being good at grasping the content objectively. You're no expert on "use of sources," and I can't believe you just said that.

Yes, I am, and I'll thank you not to pretend that my education does not provide that. That you resort to the same sort of "agenda" commentary people like Acharya S and Dan Brown fanatics do, tells me you're getting too frustrated to be dealing with this properly. As for the rest, we'll just see in particulars, shall we?

When I correct you on your abuse of von Rad, you say the "only misunderstanding is what Graham thinks I used him for."

And you did. Can you explain exactly why not?

Your "experience" doesn't alter the fact that we do not have a "presecution complex." We just know when someone has an ego bigger than he can support. Good grief dewd, just look at the signature you tote around.

OK, sure you don't, which is why "anti-Mormon" comes running out every time someone says, "Uhh, you guys are in error". It's justified sometimes, but not always. As for the sig, you'd best be careful what you assume. That's directed towards a particular creep on another part of this board, and you know nothing about why its there and what history is behind it.

Good grief. You know for someone who has a pet peeve of psychoanalyzing, you sure do it alot.

Never mind the frustration; explain to me why someone publishing a book isn't implicitly claiming expertise in the field they write in. Come on, do it.

He writes against the mainstream of scholarship? No, he doesn't.

Yes, he does, because mainstream patristic scholarship does not think the Church Fathers were Mormons, period.

Claimed confusion? Being not entirely "clear" on your position is not "claimed confusion." Though you yourself said your book had several subtle points.

It was perfectly clear -- it must have been, since anderson recited the point intended himself -- and of course it was not in the book.

I see no "claimed confusion" on the part of Danderson

Please. Saying it's not clear what I'm talking about is not confusion?

You've got to be joking. First, Decker and Hunt are who most LDS are familiar with,

That's no excuse for making the association. It was clearly intended as a buzzword to bring in all the "anti-Mormon" associations that could be made with those two. It is indeed their familiarity to LDS rank and file that is precisely the point.

Third, you've been in bed with CRI apparently for years now, and we all know that CRI was the brainchild of anti-Mormon extraordinaire, "Dr." Walter Martin. Martin was D&H's mentor.

Please. Martin was gone from CRI long before I wrote for them, and the relationship is one way. I write for them; they do nothing for or to me except send me a check and ask me to do assignments.

Fourth, you for one do not hesitate to make an association between my arguments and that of atheists.

Excuse me, but there is no comparison whereby my readers will shut their ears at once and think of you as hateful bigots when I say, "This is what X would argue."

Yes I know. You totally freaked out when you read Ostler's response, when he said your argument was "inadequate." How dare he.

You bet, especially when he didn't explain why.

Good grief. Now THAT is what we call a "persecution complex." :lol: You're making illicit assumptions into what Danderson said, and by extension, taking action on a false judgement. To suggest he compared you with the Pharisees (!:ahem: )just because he thought it was strange that you ignore the previous verse, is a bit far fetched.

You aren't reading carefully. I am saying nothing about me being compared to Pharisees. I am comparing the nature of the insult to one used against the Pharisees. There is no other good reason to use the word "revealing" unless an implication wants to be made that I am HIDING something.

Uh, he asked a question. Asking a question is hardly forcing words in your mouth.

Rhetorically, it is exactly the same. Don't act like these games aren't obvious so that you guys can get away with rhetorical homicide.

Well, enough. I'm low on time and away for a few days.

Bloodnut

October 6th 2004, 05:48 PM

== I provided all that was needed, dewd.

No, you didn't. You created a straw man argument which insists LDS apologists and scholars use Gen 1:26 to say XYZ. Since then you have not coughed up one such example of any LDS apologist or scholar. The importance of this is that it is necessary to represent the other's position properly; something in which you seem to have very little interest.

== You're inventing a non-distinction in order to contrive an objection.

Uh, no. You invented a straw man argument the minute you insisted LDS use Gen 1:26 to prove God has flesh and bones. Why are you so adamant in refusing to acknowledge this? I know you see it, but you're having a hard time admitting having made an error. Why? I admit it all the time. We're human. The more you keep denying the error the worse it will get. You're doing now exactly what I said you were doing in the review. Trying to foist blame on everyone else for your mistake. Now you have to fall back on psycho-rhetoric like we're "inventing a non-distinction "?? Good grief. And we do this "in order to contrive an objection"?? Sigh, and it was you who was so against psychoanalysis.

== Don't try to tell me that Gen. 1:26 is used just to say, "God looks like us" but isn't made of the same stuff, as though there's some option other than, "He looks like us because He is like us."

That is exactly what I am telling you. That is exactly what LDS apologetics tells you. The fact that you can't grasp this simple argument better than you have, only shows just how bad your bias has taken control. It also demonstrates how your degree in Library science is irrelevant and takes the backseat to your agenda. You think every argument is intended to PROVE all details of any particular doctrine. This is absurd, and your failure to understand different forms of arguments is not going to be substituted with a Librarian's degree. Bring an expert at looking up sources while being an amateur at distinguishing and applying logical arguments, is a recipe for one arrogant apologist.

== Hinckley says it clearly.

Hincklely doesn't say Gen 1:26 proves this, which is what you claimed. Therefore, your argument is made of straw.

== Robinson says it clearly.

Robinson doesn't say Gen 1:26 proves this, which is what you claimed. Therefore, your argument is made of straw.

You're running from the issue. You made a clear argument from Gen 1:26 and now you're running to Hinckley and Robinson in order to avoid a refutation. You look silly when you do this. Do you really think we're this stupid?

== Watson uses it in a chapter with the idea of proving it,

Hogwash. Nobody sees this accept you and whomever else can't stand the thought you could have possibly made a mistake.

== so don't tell me it's in there by accident and isn't there to make a case for what Watson wants to prove.

Again with the psychoanalysis. So much of your argument is based on what you think we wanted to prove instead of what we said we wanted to prove. I think this alone speaks volumes about the way you interpret texts, and the Bible is no exception.

== Right, like that "form" is made of whipped cream or something, and is not made in light of J. Smith's discourse?

You're starting to scare me because I know you're smarter than this. What the "form" is made of is an issue for LDS theology, but LDS theology does not base this doctrine on Gen 1:26 - which is what you continually argue - nor does it insist that Gen 1:26 "proves" it. Why can't you get it? I'm taking you by the hand and walking you through this for the fourth time! I'm not going to back down from this position, so no amount of rhetoric (your true specialty) is going to make you right. I know what Mormons believe and argue far better than you ever will. So you can admit the error or you can keep up the charade. Your choice.

You keep wanting to divert everyone's attention onto the LDS doctrine that the Father has a body of flesh and bones (as did Christ at His resurrection). Fine. No argument there. We believe it and you don't. It is OK to agree to disagree. We believe this because of revelation - something you do not believe in - not because the Bible says so. Nobody has ever said the Bible "proves" this, let alone one verse (Gen 1:26).

== Hey, your man Smith said "flesh and bones";

Uh huh, and nowhere did he say this is what Gen 1:26 indicates. So stop running down bunny trails and try to deal with what the LDS hermenuetical position really is.

== whatever the details of that flesh and bones were, you can't get out of it being that Gen. 1:26 is used to give that image the general degree of content.

More tough talk when you have yet to provide just ONE SINGLE example from a corpus of literature where you insist its status is "universal."

== That's an attempt to sidestep the issue by moving from general to specific.

Nonsense. You're the only one failing to comprehend what you're reading from LDS apologists. That isn't my problem. It is yours.

== It's clear as day in Watson and Hopkins.

Then why am I the only one providing direct quotations from the pages you referenced? Why am I the only one doing your homework for you? Neither one of them said what you tried to imply they said and no amount of psychorhetoric is going to put these words in their mouths.

== You can't get out of it with equivocations and hair-splitting, dewd.

No hair-splitting needed. You are the one who made the claim, so it is your job to provide the specifics. Even now you still ignore the sources and provide no quotations. I was familiar enough with LDS apologetics to know your presentation of our argument was false at first glance. At first I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured, heck, maybe some dumb LDS apologist really DID argue this point from Gen 1:26. But after further investigation, it appears teh sources do mot support your contention. Which should be highly embarassing since you are the one professing to be an authority on "use of sources!" I'm more of an authority on LDS doctrine, apologetics and thought, than you'll ever be.

== No, and I don't know where you get that from.

Well good grief. You just said it; that the LDS argument for anthropomorphism must imply flesh and bones, by virtue of the fact that it is an anthropomorphic argument. I just showed you how absurd that is so now you're backpeddling. Why the double-standard? Scholars have suggested for centuries that the Ancient Jews understood God as having an "appearance" of man. But I don't recall any of them ever making a stink about flesh and bone. Why not, if, as you insist, the anthropomorphic argument must include flesh and bone?

== It boils down to that it means you have to have something manlike;

Right. Which He is.

== and because of J Smith, any use of Gen. 1:26 by LDS is also an argument for flesh and bones.

Do you even listen to yourself sometimes? This is the epitome of absurdity. You're dictating to us what we MUST argue. I explained in my review how ridiculous your argument is, because you fail to grant any LDS the right to argue for any position other than the one you already have set aside for us.

== It can't be gotten out of. Smith defined your argument for you years ago.

Uh, the argument for flesh and bones? There never was one. Hello!?!

The argument for God having a human form? Well, that has been around long before Smith, and there are many Bible scholars today who agree. Cherbonnier included. So it is disingenuous for you to sit there and pretend it all starts and ends with Joseph Smith. Are all of these scholars closet Mormons too?

You see, you're trying to avoid scholarly consensus because it makes it easier for you to knock down an argument you can blame on Joseph Smith. But you can't do it.

== Or maybe you forgot what you said. Noooooo....no?

No, I didn't. What we know is listed above. The emails do not support yoru suggestion that I all of teh sudden flip flopped on my position and said "go ahead." Further, you already told your audience exactly WHY you responded to my draft. There is no mystery there. You said it was due to the fact that some of your readers wanted a response and the fact that you didn't think I would be satisfied with any "final" form anyway - which makes no sense if I gave you the "go ahead." Isn't it a little odd that nowhere in your explanation did you just come out and say, "Oh yeah, plus, Kevin said it was OK to respond."

Have you been keeping up with the number of times you base an argument on what you THINK someone said or what you THINK someone means by their argument? You don't even know what an inductive argument is for crying out loud!

== I can't comment without specifics and without knowing if he knows exactly HOW his work is being used.

Yes he does. And it is interesting that he does not feel abused by LDS scholars as you suggest he should. The fact is, we're more up to speed on De Maris' position than you are. Likewise with Cherbonnier, Albright et. al. I proved this much in my section on Methodology which is now available online.

== It remains that whether he says so or not, it IS dishonest to not deal with the reasons he gives.

Uh huh, but it isn't dishonest to use von Rad who essentially agreed with the LDS argument you pretended to refute. Good one.

The logical fallacies in your method are getting me dizzy. I feel like I'm in the twighlight zone just listening to this.

== If you mean the JEDP thing, since I DO have a series up on JEDP and refuting it, the failing ascribed to Bickmore doesn't apply to me at all.

Not talking about the JEDP, so why are you?

== Dewd, *I* am expert at research and writing and source use.

Expert at looking up sources is one thing, but applying them objectively while properly comprehending what you're reading is another thing entirely. No degree is going to grant you the level of perfection you impugn to yourself. There is no such field of expertise because nothing of the sort exists. By your logic, you can be an expert in every field by becoming a librarian.

In other words, you're no better than Bickmore. And from what I can tell, far worse because you are horrible at maintaining a coherent argument. I mean just listen to all the stuff you've been saying. You have an excuse for everything, and if you think you can fall back on a degree in Library Science you're mistaken. The problem is you do more than just "look up sources".

You create arguments and propose to refute experts in fields where you have no expertise at all. You claim to have refuted von Rad and Bruce Metzger for crying out loud! Why? Oh, because of your expertise in "use of sources!" You know nothing of biblical languages. All you know is what you read from other people who are the real experts. Well, I have access to the scholars just as well as you do. You might be able to look them up faster, but I'll eventually get my hands on what you've read and make an argument accordingly. Thus far, I've been unimpressed with your ranting about "abuse of scholarship" when it seems perfectly clear that you do it more than anyone. And you keep asking people to "think critically" as if this you were the poster boy for critical thinking. I don't need anyone to tell me to think critcially, nor do I feel any apologist can hijack the cocept unto himself. You're agenda driven, to the core, and this shows in your work. No degree will change this fact.

I want to know if you truly, honestly believe that you are 100% objective? Do you have any earthly idea how absurd this sounds? Democrats have their "expert researchers/strategists." Likewise, Republicans have their own "expert research/strategists." How do you explain the fact that both sides disagree with one another's position, maintaining to the end that they have "refuted" each other? What will it take to oppose you to your satisfaction? Should I call upon Steve Danderson's wife, who is also a Librarian? Will her expertise match yours? Or is teh mere notion of a Mormon Librarian an oxymoron? After all, you insist all Mromons are biased to teh bone and have to interpret every scripture to conform to some LDS belief. ANd you also insist that Librarians are incapable of doing such a thing or else they wouldn't be experts.

== That puts me in a different position from someone who is an expert in geochemistry. And if you think you can prove I abuse scholars, watch out -- your JEDP example isn't a very good one, given my series on the subject.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the JEDP. You abuse several scholars by dragging them into your world of absolutism, suggesting the agree with your arrogance and insistence that a final answer has been found. The fact is, you couldn't present ONE single scholar that followed your conclusion on Gen 1:26 with the same amount of confidence. And regarding Gen 1:26, you had to slap a ton of scholarship in the face in order to reach the only possible loophole that would have provided a decent argument against the LDS concept of God. In teh end it won't wash, and I will demonstrate just how pathetically weak this argument is.

== Yes, I am, and I'll thank you not to pretend that my education does not provide that.

Not pretending. I said it and I stand by it. What you're arguing is patently absurd. I'd like for you to go to a Bible scholars conference and propose to give a talk on how you have "refuted" their arguments. You claim this ALL THE TIME. You'd be laughed at out town if you waved your Librarian's credentials at them.

== That you resort to the same sort of "agenda" commentary people like Acharya S and Dan Brown fanatics do, tells me you're getting too frustrated to be dealing with this properly. As for the rest, we'll just see in particulars, shall we?

So you do not have an agenda huh? Your hypocrisy is astounding. Mormons can only use, read and apply scripture as you permit us - any attempt for us to say otherwise is just an attempt on our part to weasle our way out of your psychoanalytical shell. One of these days you might consider the prospect of, well, getting over yourself.

== And you did. Can you explain exactly why not?

Why don't you go ahead and show me where I "misunderstood" why you used him? I'm perfectly aware of WHY you used him - this is no mystery. But this still doesn't change teh fact that you were dishonest with your crowd by not informing them that this fine scholar disagreed with yoru conclusion and you in fact cherry picked through his chapter dodging any and all references to God in human form. Sorry, but this is horrible especially for a librarian. You did exactly what you accuse Bickmore of doing. And the rebuttal about be misunderstanding WHY you used him is just a red herring in an attempt to avoid an obvious blunder... again. You also abused Cherbonnier and Mathews. I spoke to Mathews via email, and he does not argue against the LDS position as you insist. He said that the idea of a human form "alone" was not something he considered. When I asked what he thought about the text arguing for God having a human form, he said, "That is something to think about." And Mathews was the one scholar that did appear to follow you in all yoru conclusions. Actually, you merely followed him.

But all of this is already posted in the first part of my review. http://kevingraham.net/1method.htm

== OK, sure you don't, which is why "anti-Mormon" comes running out every time someone says, "Uhh, you guys are in error".

But you do more than just say we are in error. You accuse us of lying, and you make a complete fool of yourself by accusing us of abusing Cherbonnier when the fact is, you haven't a clue what his position is. If you would have read what he argued in his articles you would have saved yourself from this blunder, but you're more interested in appearing to be RIGHT about EVERYTHING, especially when you're wrong. So much for the perfect Librarian theory, eh?

== Never mind the frustration; explain to me why someone publishing a book isn't implicitly claiming expertise in the field they write in. Come on, do it.

For the same reason you wrote a book on Mormonism when you just jumped into the fray only a couple years beforehand. I mean look, you make so many blunders in the book it is impossible for anyone to see you as an "expert." And giving talks on Mormons at Evangelical Churches doesn't make you an expert either. You fail to recognize the LDS argument which is amazing given the fact that you're a super duper source specialist.

== Yes, he does, because mainstream patristic scholarship does not think the Church Fathers were Mormons, period.

NEITHER DOES BICKMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good grief, the more you go on and on the more you only prove my point. You really can't comprehend the LDS argument! You insist on psychoanalyzing everyone to suit your creepy need to beat up straw men.

== That's no excuse for making the association.

But you ARE associated with them. Good grief. You're the one who insists on sticking with the CRI crowd, which is somethig I advised you not to do years ago. Decker and Hunt are in the same camp. And you are constantly associating us with atheists. You do it all throughout your response. Again, double-standards.

== It was clearly intended

Yeah yeah yea... we all know that with a degree in Library Science comes a degree in Telepathy. You know all JP. You know us better than we know ourselves. Who are we to argue otherwise, when you're the librarian!

== Please. Martin was gone from CRI long before I wrote for them, and the relationship is one way.

Yeah, right. Tell Hank that. And while you're at it, tell him Jesus doesn't currently have a body either even though that has need cold hard Christian doctrine throughout the ages. THe enternal incarnation whereby the Son will be 100% human and 100% God forever. His body remains with him. But you see a problem with this so you rewrite the doctrine and hope nobody notices. Richard Abanes almost had a tantrum when he found out this is what you said in your book, accusing you of full blown heresy.

You do not even represent your own side of the fence properly, yet you all want to be claiming to represent the "Christian" position. It is a joke.

== I write for them; they do nothing for or to me except send me a check and ask me to do assignments.

Uh huh, and you are associated with them. The far right fringe of counter-cult America. The absolute worst American Christainity has to offer.

== Excuse me, but there is no

And this is supposed to be a valid excuse as to why it you can associate us with atheists, while we cannot associate you with those whom your work with?

== Rhetorically, it is exactly the same. Don't act like these games aren't obvious so that you guys can get away with rhetorical homicide.

Not everything is said rhetorically. Dewd, you have access to many sources, and you know how to look them up. That is not the same thing as using them objectively. Surely you can see this. There is no such thing as an expert of "use of sources" when it comes to a field so biased and slanted as apologetics.

Shocked and amazed....

Now that I know I'm dealing with someone who truly believes he is an expert in all fields, and cannot make a mistake EVER.... well, what's the point?

I think you've truly outdone yourself with this presentation dewd, damaging your credibility terribly. Your ego may not let you see it, but it stands neveretheless.

jpholding

October 8th 2004, 02:55 PM

No, you didn't. You created a straw man argument which insists LDS apologists and scholars use Gen 1:26 to say XYZ.

Yes, I did. There is no strawman: Gen. 1:26 is absolutely, positively a step in the LDS argument for God having a body. Your denials just ring like a hollow gong, dewd. You're creating an artificial division in the argument just to score a cheap point:

I say, "Mormons use A to prove B."
You reply, "Nuh uh! Mormons use A to prove A2!" (But you don't acknowledge that proving A2 is part of proving B!)

Why are you so adamant in refusing to acknowledge this?

Because it isn't true, and I know an attempt at a con game when I see it, as you well know. It's a non-distinction and a contrivance, period, and it doesn't take any "psychoanalysis" to see it.

Do you really think I'M this stupid, to think that you guys "stop short" with Gen. 1:26, as though it were thereafter OK to say, "But it could mean God looks like us, but is made of prunes?"

Hogwash. Nobody sees this accept you and whomever else can't stand the thought you could have possibly made a mistake.

Is or is not Watson's chapter title correct as I have written it above???

What the "form" is made of is an issue for LDS theology, but LDS theology

Please. I know what LDS theology says it is "made of": glorified flesh and bones. J. Smith gave you no other option and the only "issue" may be, "how God got that way" but not, "what it's made of". You can't get out of this: Gen. 1:26 is always a step towards proving this when the Bible is used.

I'm gonna skip all the miscellaneuous repetitive ranting from here on. I ain't got time for it.

Scholars have suggested for centuries that the Ancient Jews understood God as having an "appearance" of man.

No, dewd, scholars have suggested for centuries that the Ancient Jews understood God as being able to take an "appearance" of man, which no one disputes -- not that He is a man by nature, much less that he evolved from being originally a regular man, which you can darn well bet is not found in any scholar's work outisde LDS scholars. That's why you "don't recall any of them ever making a stink about flesh and bone". You're confusing TAKING an anthropomorphic form with HAVING one in their works.

Now put it this way: I know what "anthropomorphism" is better than you can imagine. It's the word used for the "funny animals" I draw, and it means that you draw them with human characteristics -- and that means a BODY just like a human. The word ties you down to the biology whether you like it or not, because otherwise, you don't have "human".

You're dictating to us what we MUST argue.

You can blame Jos. for that one, dewd. He gave you the line and you have to reel it in, unless you want to dump Jos. out and join the RLDS or something.

The argument for God having a human form? Well, that has been around long before Smith, and there are many Bible scholars today who agree. Cherbonnier included.

Not in any of his work I read. And make sure you distinguish between TAKING and HAVING by nature, a failure I notice a lot from your end.

So it is disingenuous for you to sit there and pretend it all starts and ends with Joseph Smith.

In your movement, it sure as heck starts there, and since he's your prophet, it ultimately has to end there, too.

Further, you already told your audience exactly WHY you responded to my draft. There is no mystery there. You said it was due to the fact that some of your readers wanted a response and the fact that you didn't think I would be satisfied with any "final" form anyway

That's why I WANTED to respond, dewd. It's not why I DID. Your permission was all I needed for that.

Yes he does. And it is interesting that he does not feel abused by LDS scholars as you suggest he should

OK, you got some documents from him in which he says, "Yes, I know LDS scholars/apologists don't mention my reason given for BFD in Corinth, but that's OK even if they use my stuff to prove it was there for a different reason?"

Not talking about the JEDP, so why are you?

Cause that's all I recalled using Von Rad for at the time. I just looked it up again and you need to stop this silly beef. Von Rad did not reach my conclusion, no, but I provided arguments that ANSWERED his views, which is NOT what your guys do with DeMaris.

All you know is what you read from other people who are the real experts. Well, I have access to the scholars just as well as you do. You might be able to look them up faster, but I'll eventually get my hands on what you've read and make an argument accordingly.

Well, better get a move on then. :teeth: Until you do, your lack of being impressed may be without foundation.

I want to know if you truly, honestly believe that you are 100% objective? Do you have any earthly idea how absurd this sounds?

Why? Are you biased against the idea? :ahem: I'd say I reach the 95-97% range.

Should I call upon Steve Danderson's wife, who is also a Librarian? Will her expertise match yours?

Depends. Some librarians are not research specialists. The guy who works in the AV department sure wouldn't be.

After all, you insist all Mromons are biased to teh bone and have to interpret every scripture to conform to some LDS belief.

Where do I say "biased"? That's not bias; that's having to work within a worldview. If it is true, fine; the truth is always "biased". But if you use the word to imply "bias" that denies truth when confronted with it, I nowhere say "all Mormons" are biased that way. Find where I do.

I'd like for you to go to a Bible scholars conference and propose to give a talk on how you have "refuted" their arguments.

Gladly. Make it someone like Burton Mack or John Crossan, and I'll take it. And they can "laugh out of town" all the scholars I use to do it.

But you do more than just say we are in error. You accuse us of lying,

"Us"? All of you? I have a complete list of Mormons in the world and I accused each of a lie, one by one? Come on. Your "paranoia" is getting the best of you.

For the same reason you wrote a book on Mormonism when you just jumped into the fray only a couple years beforehand. I mean look, you make so many blunders in the book it is impossible for anyone to see you as an "expert."

That's not what I asked you. I asked you not whether pubbing a book makes you SEEN as an expert, but whether doing so implies you CLAIM expertise. Now answer the real question without steaming up the screen.

NEITHER DOES BICKMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, sure. :ahem: And when he says "restoring the ancient church" he means restoring something else.

But you ARE associated with them. Good grief. You're the one who insists on sticking with the CRI crowd, which is somethig I advised you not to do years ago. Decker and Hunt are in the same camp.

Since when did either of them publish in CRJ????

And you are constantly associating us with atheists.

Sure, if we define "association" so loosely as to make it meaningless. You may as well say I "associate" you with Joseph Stalin cause I say wear glasses that look like his.

Richard Abanes almost had a tantrum when he found out this is what you said in your book, accusing you of full blown heresy.

Funny how that didn't come out in the very polite letter he sent me, after which he acknowledged he understood what I was saying and said zero about heresy. Maybe you guys imagined a tantrum, eh?

And this is supposed to be a valid excuse as to why it you can associate us with atheists, while we cannot associate you with those whom your work with?

Like I say define "association" that loose, and you just joined hands with Ted Bundy by living in the same state.

Oh well. When's lunch? :smile: