Is Ed Decker Worse than Hitler?

[Sparko]

We will be revisiting that statement in a minute.


It's always fun when one's opponent makes absolutist accusations like "complete lack of understanding" because they are so patently fallacious. Another good example is when they say "You have obviously never read a word of the Bible" or, even better, "You obviously cannot read plain English."

But then, if they made reasonable accusations such as "IMO, your comments indicate that you don't completely understand textual criticism or church history," it wouldn't be as easy to prove them wrong.

yes of course, Jeff because "absolutist" statements give you an opportunity to pick nits again and to be your pedantic self.

About a minute has elapsed, so let's go back to your earlier assertion:

"what was canonized was what the early church knew to be written by apostles or those close to the apostles"

If the various canonization committees over the centuries disagreed over what should and shouldn't be canonized, how could there be any room for disagreement if the early church KNEW what was and wasn't written by apostles or their authorized proxies?

At the turn of the 5th century, St Jerome translated the Bible into vernacular Latin. As he went along he decided that the Septuagint and other Greek and Latin translations of Judaic scripture weren’t sufficient, that he had to translate from the Hebrew. This changed things, since the Septuagint had included books and passages of existing books which were not in Hebrew. Jerome did not accept the authority of all the books before him, especially some Christian works as Revelation, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistles of Peter. The Pope, however, pressed him to translate these, anyway. He appears simply to have added then-available translations of these books to his own translations of those he did consider sacred.

If there was any single point in time where the Biblical canon was “decided,” this was it; for Jerome’s translation, the Vulgate, eventually became the current Roman Catholic canon. In reality, however, the matter was still under discussion after Jerome’s time. The Synod of Trullo (692), for example, discussed the canon, and other writers such as Nicephorus of Jerusalem offered their own canon lists. The fact is that the Biblical canon was still controversial, even centuries after Jerome.
http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/canon.html

the Septuagint was the OLD testament Jeff, and the OT was canonized by the Jews a long time before Jerome. and just because one person disagreed with canon doesn't mean the church did, as evidenced by your own quote.

There will always be people who disagree with the canon, even today.

So He doesn't want it to be obvious which book is His official, authorized, most-correct collection of His words?

apparently not Jeff. I guess you think it should be the Joseph Smith version? And if so, why did God let Smith be killed before he fixed the bible? and why does the LDS use as it's official bible a translation that is KNOWN to contain inaccuracies? Hmmm?

So much for "restoring" the church.

So you agree with the LDS that it's a fallacy to claim "God is able to keep His words preserved and intact, and that is what He did" ?

God can do whatever he wants Jeff. and as I said, the bible we have is within 5% of what the original was, so that sounds like God was indeed able to keep his words preserved and intact. To anyone who isn't a pedantic weenie like you are.

[nrajeff]

How can you be so dense, Jeff?

I only seem dense to you if you allow yourself to feel that way.....

It isn't "horrible" any more than a PICTURE BIBLE is "horrible". It's INTENT was for children and/or uneducated men. It seems to fit that market just fine, but it is NOT intended as a study Bible. Sheeeeeeesh!

Was the original Bible intended as a study Bible? Why was it written?

[Sparko]

I only seem dense to you if you allow yourself to feel that way.....



Was the original Bible intended as a study Bible? Why was it written?

there was no original bible jeff. It was a collection of scrolls and letters. each book was written for its own purpose, like the letters of Paul to the various churches.

But then you already knew that, right? either that or you are really as dumb as you act.

[Cow Poke]

Was the original Bible intended as a study Bible? Why was it written?

Wow.

[nrajeff]

yes of course, Jeff because "absolutist" statements give you an opportunity to pick nits again and to be your pedantic self.

I can't help it if you are "completely ignorant" regarding how to construct a reasonable assertion that doesn't rely on risible, sweeping generalizations. : )

Don't blame the messenger.

the Septuagint was the OLD testament Jeff, and the OT was canonized by the Jews a long time before Jerome.

And how good a job did they do with that? In other words, how infallible were "the Jews" in deciding which ancient documents were the inspired word of God and which weren't? Basically, I want to know whether you are still in "all or nothing" mode, or whether you are reasonable enough to recognize that a continuum probably exists.

and just because one person disagreed with canon doesn't mean the church did, as evidenced by your own quote.

"The church" is just a body of Christians, right? Have the men in charge of the Councils and the Committees and the Papacy always made the right decisions on "the church's" behalf? You might as well say "Just because one person named M. Luther disagreed with what the majority had decided was correct church policy, doesn't mean the church disagreed with said policy, so therefore we should conclude that the church is always right and therefore Luther was wrong."

There will always be people who disagree with the canon, even today.

But the question to ask and answer is: "Who is right? The people who believe the canon's inclusions and exclusions are error-free? Or the "people who disagree" ?

I guess you think it should be the Joseph Smith version?

Why should I? He never claimed it to be the most correct Bible, although I see some of his "corrections" as being very insightful. Anyway, I am keeping an open mind on the subject of which Bible comes closest to the magic 100%.

God can do whatever he wants Jeff.

Glad you realize that He can allow mainstream Christendom to fall into error for centuries if He wants to.

and as I said, the bible we have is within 5% of what the original was

I still think it's interesting how you can lose the original of something, and still say that the extant copies of it, which aren't identical to each other, are nonetheless somehow 95% identical to the original, even though you can't compare the copies with the original because it's gone...it probably makes sense but is counter-intuitive. Like saying "A bunch of artists painted knock-offs of a lost Rembrandt painting, and even though Rembrandt's original was burned up in a fire hundreds of years ago, we can KNOW for CERTAIN that the knock-offs are 95% identical to that lost original."

[Sparko]

I can't help it if you are "completely ignorant" regarding how to construct a reasonable assertion that doesn't rely on risible, sweeping generalizations. : )

Don't blame the messenger.


And how good a job did they do with that? In other words, how infallible were "the Jews" in deciding which ancient documents were the inspired word of God and which weren't? Basically, I want to know whether you are still in "all or nothing" mode, or whether you are reasonable enough to recognize that a continuum probably exists.


"The church" is just a body of Christians, right? Have the men in charge of the Councils and the Committees and the Papacy always made the right decisions on "the church's" behalf? You might as well say "Just because one person named M. Luther disagreed with what the majority had decided was correct church policy, doesn't mean the church disagreed with said policy, so therefore we should conclude that the church is always right and therefore Luther was wrong."


But the question to ask and answer is: "Who is right? The people who believe the canon's inclusions and exclusions are error-free? Or the "people who disagree" ?


Why should I? He never claimed it to be the most correct Bible, although I see some of his "corrections" as being very insightful. Anyway, I am keeping an open mind on the subject of which Bible comes closest to the magic 100%.


Glad you realize that He can allow mainstream Christendom to fall into error for centuries if He wants to.


I still think it's interesting how you can lose the original of something, and still say that the extant copies of it, which aren't identical to each other, are nonetheless somehow 95% identical to the original, even though you can't compare the copies with the original because it's gone...it probably makes sense but is counter-intuitive. Like saying "A bunch of artists painted knock-offs of a lost Rembrandt painting, and even though Rembrandt's original was burned up in a fire hundreds of years ago, we can KNOW for CERTAIN that the knock-offs are 95% identical to that lost original."

Let me answer the questions you should have asked:

"One day in 18 hundred something, a young con man walked into the woods..."

[nrajeff]

Let me answer the questions you should have asked:

"One day in 18 hundred something, a young con man walked into the woods..."

You're that old? What did you find in the woods?

[Sparko]

You're that old? What did you find in the woods?

Your momma.

[nrajeff]

Your momma.

SHE's that old, too?

[Sparko]

SHE's that old, too?

Let me answer the question you should have asked: "One day in 1800 something, there was a con man by the name of Joseph Smith who wandered into the woods where he came up with a scheme to get a bunch of hicks to believe he was a prophet of God."

[nrajeff]

Let me answer the question you should have asked: "One day in 1800 something, there was a con man by the name of Joseph Smith who wandered into the woods where he came up with a scheme to get a bunch of hicks to believe he was a prophet of God."

.....and that's how a thread that starts out asking "Is Ed Decker worse than Hitler"? ends up, here in the twilight zone called TWEB.

[moreta]

God can do whatever he wants jeff.

glad you realize that he can allow mainstream christendom to fall into error for centuries if he wants to.

Why would God wantHis church to fall into error for 1800 years? That would make Him a liar, a covenent breaker and incompetent, just for starters. You go right ahead and follow that God. I'm going to follow the One who is faithful and just. The One who can protect His church from the gates of hell. Everyone "ant" on here has his/her own reason for being an "ant". I guess this is mine. I just can't accept that God would allow His church to fall into such disarray that the "restoration" bears no resemblance to what it is purported to restore. If human free will (agency) led the faith so far off the beaten path, the why didn't God just sweep the Earth clean and start over, a la Noah?

[Cow Poke]

.....and that's how a thread that starts out asking "Is Ed Decker worse than Hitler"? ends up, here in the twilight zone called TWEB.

Well, YOUR first entry in the thread sure wasn't inspiring and uplifting....

(Disclaimer that CP inadvertently forgot to include, but doubtless intended to include: "Mormonic" was not intentionally coined to resemble "moronic" because CP has no disposition to malign LDS people)

For all your whining about people "mind reading", this was a horrendous attempt on your part. As you say, "don't quit your day job".

[nrajeff]

Why would God wantHis church to fall into error for 1800 years?

Your mistake was in taking "God can ALLOW something bad to happen, if He wants to" and twisting into "God WANTS bad things to happen." They are not the same thing.

That would make Him a liar, a covenent breaker and incompetent, just for starters.

Your flawed premise led to that false conclusion.
You might as well say "If Satan, while in heaven, rebelled against God, and if Hitler caused a near-genocide, then God is a liar, covenant breaker, and incompetent because it proves that God is UNABLE to prevent bad things from happening."

That is reasoning that one might expect from an atheist.

You go right ahead and follow that God.

Thanks, I do indeed intend to keep following God--a God who is able to allow bad things to happen even though He doesn't WANT them to happen, and even though He has the power and ability to prevent all bad things from happening. But it is not in His nature to force perfection on the universe.

[Cow Poke]

Your mistake was in taking "God can ALLOW something bad to happen, if He wants to" and twisting into "God WANTS bad things to happen." They are not the same thing.

And YOUR mistake is in thinking that Moreta doesn't understand the difference between "allow" and "wants to". Very childish, OC. Her point, I think, was that just because God CAN "allow" something does not mean he would WANT to. In fact, it would be logical to assume He did NOT want to.

Your flawed premise led to that false conclusion.

No, it didn't.