Is Ed Decker Worse than Hitler?

[Sparko]

Jeff we have talked about this before, textual criticism. We know what the originals say to about 95 to 97%, and we know what 3% is in question, and we also know that the part that is in question is not significant doctrine. So while no bible is 100% accurate, we can trust it completely because we know WHERE it is not accurate.

[Cow Poke]

You don't need to have ever disputed it in the past, in order for you to make the concession now.

AH! So, I think maybe you kinda screwed up, ASSUMING my position on Biblical Inerrancy, but OC 'splained it, and now you're backing down? (FairMormon gets Biblical Inerrancy wrong, too, so don't feel bad)

And, in effect , you're wanting me to make a "concession" "admitting" that some Bibles are less correct than others, and none of them is 100% correct, when I never suggested, stated or implied anything even resembling the notion that ANY of the Bibles we have today is "100% correct". In FACT, I'm the one who taught you that the CEV was, in effect, a "child's version".

<Sarcasm>

But I WILL concede that I have stopped beating my wife!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

I think you just tripped up, Jeff, and are trying to recover.

All I know is that some of you

who?

claim that when you're following your interpretation of what you believe to be God's word (lower-case, to differentiate it from Jesus) you never state which version of that word is the one that is most correct--the one that is closest to the magic 100%.

So, tell me, Jeff, which one is the magic 100%? And who of us has ever claimed or implied any such thing? To point out weaknesses or shortcomings in a particular translation or paraphrase does NOT imply that some other translation or version must necessarily be "the magic 100%".

So how do you know you are following God's word--and not a botched version of it?

Because I'm not following the BoM.

[nrajeff]

Jeff we have talked about this before, textual criticism. We know what the originals say to about 95 to 97%, and we know what 3% is in question, and we also know that the part that is in question is not significant doctrine.

We don't even know who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, correct? So even IF we had the originals, how do you know they are God's word and not quasi-pseudipigrapha written by a Paul wannabe? And what about Bibles that contain verses that some say should never have been canonized--how do you know whether you should trust them or, like Luther wanted to do, thrown them into a woodburning stove?

So while no bible is 100% accurate, we can trust it completely because we know WHERE it is not accurate.

I THINK I understand what you mean, but it just seems a little Alice-in-Wonderland-ish the way it's written.
Because the Bible is known to be flawed and we know where the flaws are, we can trust it completely? Why doesn't someone fix those known flaws, and create a Bible that is flawless--one that isn't only 95% to 97% correct, but is instead 100% correct? Heck, I'd buy one or two of those. :)

[Cow Poke]

We don't even know who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, correct?

Origen answered this. “in truth God [alone] knows.”

[nrajeff]

AH! So, I think maybe you kinda screwed up, ASSUMING my position on Biblical Inerrancy, but OC 'splained it, and now you're backing down?

I don't think so. My assumption was that you don't feel competent to say which Bible is the most correct. (I don't feel competent to do it either, so don't feel bad)

And, in effect , you're wanting me to make a "concession" "admitting" that some Bibles are less correct than others, and none of them is 100% correct, when I never suggested, stated or implied anything even resembling the notion that ANY of the Bibles we have today is "100% correct".

That would indeed have been a straw man if that was what I was trying to do. But no. I had zero expectations that you were naive enough to believe that a 100%-flawless Bible exists. I was trying to address your criticism of some Bibles (like CEV) and see if you would state which one is the closest to being flawless. Surely you believe that there is a gradation in Bibles, like there is with sins and their punishments, where one Bible is the least correct, another is the most correct, and the rest fall between those two.

In FACT, I'm the one who taught you that the CEV was, in effect, a "child's version".

Yes. I wasn't aware of that description you quoted until you quoted it.

I think you just tripped up, Jeff, and are trying to recover.

Well, it's not the first time you have guessed and been wrong. Same as me.

So, tell me, Jeff, which one is the magic 100%?

None of them. I don't even believe that OA's were 100% error-free. What's interesting to me, though is the question:

Between the time the OAs were written, and our time, have Bibles gone from less flawed to more flawed? Or vice versa? Or both?

Because I'm not following the BoM.

I think you follow a lot of the most important parts of it.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think so. My assumption was that you don't feel competent to say which Bible is the most correct. (I don't feel competent to do it either, so don't feel bad)

Naw, I think you're doing damage control.

That would indeed have been a straw man if that was what I was trying to do. But no. I had zero expectations that you were naive enough to believe that there a 100%-flawless Bible exists. I was trying to address your criticism of some Bibles (like CEV) and see if you would state which one is the closest to being flawless.

Well, golly gee, Jeff --- why didn't you just ASK that?

Surely you believe that there is a gradation in Bibles, like there is with sins and their punishments, where one Bible is the least correct, another is the most correct, and the rest fall between those two.

I've asked you not to call me Shirley.

Yes. I wasn't aware of that description you quoted until you quoted it.

Honestly, I wasn't familiar with the CEV --- I knew it existed, but I have never heard it "preached from" or used as a study Bible, and now we know why.

Well, it's not the first time you have guessed and been wrong. Same as me.

But I still think you just tripped up and are trying to recover.

None of them. I don't even believe that OA's were 100% error-free. What's interesting to me, though is the question:

Between the time the OAs were written, and our time, have Bibles gone from less flawed to more flawed? Or vice versa? Or both?

Yes.

I think you follow a lot of the most important parts of it.

Shucks, Jeff.. I think you're being sweet! (are you? )

[Sparko]

We don't even know who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, correct? So even IF we had the originals, how do you know they are God's word and not quasi-pseudipigrapha written by a Paul wannabe? And what about Bibles that contain verses that some say should never have been canonized--how do you know whether you should trust them or, like Luther wanted to do, thrown them into a woodburning stove?

because we have extra biblical records that show what was canonized and when and we even have commentaries from Jews and Christians that discuss the various texts all throughout history.

I THINK I understand what you mean, but it just seems a little Alice-in-Wonderland-ish the way it's written.
Because the Bible is known to be flawed and we know where the flaws are, we can trust it completely? Why doesn't someone fix those known flaws, and create a Bible that is flawless--one that isn't only 95% to 97% correct, but is instead 100% correct? Heck, I'd buy one or two of those. :)

because Jeff, the parts that we can't reconstruct are due to such things as having two conflicting sources that we can't decide which is the more accurate. Or we have such things as added texts but we don't know if they are summaries that replace a lost section or just made up by a later scribe. But we know which areas these are (like the ending of Mark)

Maybe you should actually do some study in this field instead of just mouthing off and making yourself sound dumber than you are.

[nrajeff]

Naw, I think you're doing damage control.

You can call me a liar if it makes you feel better, but it won't change the fact that you are wrong.

Well, golly gee, Jeff --- why didn't you just ASK that?

You jumped to your conclusions and accusations before I got that far.

I've asked you not to call me Shirley.

How about "Betty," then?

Honestly, I wasn't familiar with the CEV --- I knew it existed, but I have never heard it "preached from" or used as a study Bible, and now we know why.

Hey, it's wasn't the LDS church that published it. If it's so horrible, maybe you should rein in your fellow Christians.

But I still think you just tripped up and are trying to recover.

You can call me a liar all day but it won't change the fact that you are wrong about what I was thinking. But then, if mind-reading was something anti-LDS were good at, they wouldn't be so anti-LDS I guess.

.

Shucks, Jeff.. I think you're being sweet! (are you? )

No, just honest as usual.

[Sparko]

For future reference, Jeff, "Honest" means being open with the truth, not trying to obscure it.

[nrajeff]

because we have extra biblical records that show what was canonized and when and we even have commentaries from Jews and Christians that discuss the various texts all throughout history.

How does that result in SURETY that what got canonized, SHOULD HAVE been canonized? Let me answer for you: It doesn't, because there is evidence that some parts that were canonized, shouldn't have been. Luther was right in a way. As for history, there wasn't a New Testament until various writings were gathered because it was believed they were written by men who were inspired to write scripture. It's hoped by Christians that what was gathered was bona fide scripture.

But it's obvious that the canonization committees were not 100% infallible regarding what should have been included in the canon, and what should have been excluded. That shouldn't be a shocker, though--those committees were composed of fallible humans who didn't even claim that their decisions were the result of inspiration, AFAIK. So where does that leave you? In the same place as us LDS: Having to rely on faith and hope and study, trusting that someday you'll find out how much was added that shouldn't have been added, and how much was left out that should have been added.

because Jeff, the parts that we can't reconstruct are due to such things as having two conflicting sources that we can't decide which is the more accurate.

Why did God put us in that situation? Isn't He able to make the most-correct codex obvious? Does He want Christendom to be in a state of uncertainty regarding whether the Bible they read was taken from the right source?

Or we have such things as added texts but we don't know if they are summaries that replace a lost section or just made up by a later scribe. But we know which areas these are (like the ending of Mark)

Correct. Why do you think God would allow a later scribe to add made-up stuff to the Bible, and allow it to be published as The Word of God (pat. pending), and believed to be God's Holy Word by billions of people?

Maybe you should actually do some study in this field instead of just mouthing off and making yourself sound dumber than you are.

LOL. Maybe you should actually be less of a jerk/derp/dramaqueen than you really are. :)

[nrajeff]

For future reference, Jeff, "Honest" means being open with the truth, not trying to obscure it.

Thanks, I will add that to my thesaurus, with the explanation: "For antonym of this word, see posts by certain anti-LDS TWEBbers."

[Sparko]

How does that result in SURETY that what got canonized, SHOULD HAVE been canonized? Let me answer for you: It doesn't, because there is evidence that some parts that were canonized, shouldn't have been. Luther was right in a way. As for history, there wasn't a New Testament until various writings were gathered because it was believed they were written by men who were inspired to write scripture. It's hoped by Christians that what was gathered was bona fide scripture

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

But it's obvious that the canonization committees were not 100% infallible regarding what should have been included in the canon, and what should have been excluded. That shouldn't be a shocker, though--those committees were composed of fallible humans who didn't even claim that their decisions were the result of inspiration, AFAIK. So where does that leave you? In the same place as us LDS: Having to rely on faith and hope and study, trusting that someday you'll find out how much was added that shouldn't have been added, and how much was left out that should have been added.

You merely claiming that parts should not have been canonized doesn't make it so, Jeff. especially since you have already shown your complete lack of understanding of textual criticism or of church history.

Why did God put us in that situation? Isn't He able to make the most-correct codex obvious? Does He want Christendom to be in a state of uncertainty regarding whether the Bible they read was taken from the right source?

In what situation? The parts that we are not sure of do not affect any important teachings or doctrines, or they are duplicated in other books (such as Mark's added ending)

and various translations are done for various purposes. The CEV strives to make the concepts of the bible easily understood for people with lower reading skills. To do so, it sacrifices a literal translation for a conceptually based translation. The same with "the Message" - The KJV is more of a literal translation, but it is done in 400 year old english and is hard to understand for many people and it was written from fewer sources than we have now so it is not as accurate.

Maybe God doesn't want us to sit on our collective butts and be spoonfed everything, but wants us to actually STUDY and delve into his word.

Correct. Why do you think God would allow a later scribe to add made-up stuff to the Bible, and allow it to be published as The Word of God (pat. pending), and believed to be God's Holy Word by billions of people?

The same reason he allows cults to exist, and con men like Joseph Smith to fool millions of people. Because he allows freedom of choice. And in the case of most additions or missing parts it is not due to deliberate deception, but of people adding in what they thought was supposed to be there, or parts being lost due to age of documents.

LOL. Maybe you should actually be less of a jerk/derp/dramaqueen than you really are. :)

you first.

[Sparko]

Thanks, I will add that to my thesaurus, with the explanation: "For antonym of this word, see posts by certain anti-LDS TWEBbers."

Just look in the mirror for that antonym, Jeffy.

[Cow Poke]

Hey, it's wasn't the LDS church that published it. If it's so horrible, maybe you should rein in your fellow Christians.

How can you be so dense, Jeff? 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!

[nrajeff]

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

We will be revisiting that statement in a minute.

You merely claiming that parts should not have been canonized doesn't make it so, Jeff. especially since you have already shown your complete lack of understanding of textual criticism or of church history.

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.

The parts that we are not sure of do not affect any important teachings or doctrines, or they are duplicated in other books (such as Mark's added ending)

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

Maybe God doesn't want us to sit on our collective butts and be spoonfed everything, but wants us to actually STUDY and delve into his word.

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

Because he allows freedom of choice. And in the case of most additions or missing parts it is not due to deliberate deception, but of people adding in what they thought was supposed to be there, or parts being lost due to age of documents.

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" ?