NOM

Couple years ago- maybe more- the LDS church (I refuse to call them "The Church" any more) tried a PR move to show that they were swell folks and were not a bunch of snobs that favored a particular type of underwear and refused to drink coffee or admit that it's not bad for you.

Anyway, I ramble at times....they decided to buy up a bunch of air time on TV and who knows what else, and the campaign was to give away King James Versions of the Bible. Don't know if it worked or not, but my guess is it did not- but what do I know?

So there we have the Bible- sitting out there in the wide open- big as the pizza Rush Limbaugh is having for dinner- and the Bible, well, it's got more inconsistencies than Trump has mindless Tweets. The Bible contradicts itself a ga-zillions ways. Scholars have been picking it apart for years- most famously lately perhaps is Bart Erhman. But there are grundles of others. Oodles of others.

So, here we have this book, the Bible, which has a lot of good stuff in it, compassion, love your enemies, all that good stuff, and half of it is ignored by almost every church on the planet. But hey, there are some brilliant scholars in the LDS church. Many. Grundles. Globs. And about half of the scholars have read Bart Erhman, and others, and know full well that the problem with the Bible is not what was not "translated correctly". There are thousands of things wrong with the Bible.

My question to the group: Why doesn't one of these scholars in the LDS church help expose the Bible for the fraud it is? It's not, at least in my mind, anywhere near the "word of God" and they darn well know it. (Notice how I didn't swear? Getting better.)

Anyways- your thoughts.

Mormon apologists sometimes do point out problems with the Bible, but only for the purpose of showing that everybody else's scripture is just as messed up as ours. I can't remember what the logical fallacy is called, but it's basically a way of diminishing your own weaknesses by pointing out the weaknesses of others. I have read comments from people of other religions who say, "why are you guys always dumping on the Bible?" Of course, a defender of Mormonism will never deny the divine nature of the Bible because it is part of the LDS canon. Plus, at least 20% of the Book of Mormon is lifted directly from the Bible.

To point out flaws in the Bible would be to point out the flaws in the Book of Mormon. As a generalization, The Book of Mormon reinforces every outlandish claim of the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches a literal creation, a literal Adam and Eve, no death before the fall, a literal Global flood, a literal Noah, a literal tower of Babel, a literal confusing of the languagaes , a literal Moses a literal Exodus, and inherits all the issues the documentary hypothesis of the Bible e,xposes.

To acknowledge a flawed Bible even though the we only believe it as far as it is translated correctly is to say the Book of Mormon is equally or more flawed. This breaks the Book of Mormon as the foundational claim of Mormonism and points out that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

If you believe everything Joseph Smith says we have an authentic, divinely inspired Bible. It's the "Inspired Translation." The problem is, Joseph's revisions look about as shaky as the Book of Abraham, and the church doesn't want anyone comparing the two. So they try downplay the Bible, emphasize the BOM and modern day prophets. It isn't working, at least not for me.

Gatorbait wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:49 pm

Anyways- your thoughts.

The Prehistoric Sheepherder's Guide To The Universe?

I'f I'm going to study historical fiction, there are much better, more interesting books.

Not all, but the majority of the inconsistencies are between the Bible and science. Of the internal inconsistencies many can be resolved with a little homework. As you can see I tend to mitigate for the Biblical scriptures.

I think the reason LDS scholars don't aggressively critique the Bible is because regardless of their posturing about the BoM being the foundational scripture of their church, they know it can't stand on it's own merits.

The Bible at least has some empirical adequacy. World scholars can debate it's efficacy but how it came into being is a limited argument. It is verifiably ancient.

Among scholars of the world the BoM is just a religious oddity that has no measure of validity as a volume that has had world impact on billions of people. The fact is, the Bible to one extent or another stands on it's own. The BoM on the other hand needs the Bible to lean on.

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:15 am

The Bible at least has some empirical adequacy. World scholars can debate it's efficacy but how it came into being is a limited argument. It is verifiably ancient.

How it came into being is has three main theories but the hard evidence is actually very limited. The oldest fragment is from Numbers and dates to about 600 BCE. For a complete copy of anything, you're into the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls which can be as late as 200 BCE.

That's old but that doesn't satisfy origin to any degree. The Torah was still under going revision between those two dates as well. For what the Bible is claimed to attest to the actual documentary evidence is not well in its favor. The works of Homer are older and more frequently in documentary evidence.

dogbite wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:39 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:15 am

The Bible at least has some empirical adequacy. World scholars can debate it's efficacy but how it came into being is a limited argument. It is verifiably ancient.

How it came into being is has three main theories but the hard evidence is actually very limited. The oldest fragment is from Numbers and dates to about 600 BCE. For a complete copy of anything, you're into the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls which can be as late as 200 BCE.

That's old but that doesn't satisfy origin to any degree. The Torah was still under going revision between those two dates as well. For what the Bible is claimed to attest to the actual documentary evidence is not well in its favor. The works of Homer are older and more frequently in documentary evidence.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with this because in my view, the claims for the Bible have been inflated by unknowing individuals who most likely meant well in spite of being wrong headed about it's purpose.

As far as origin is concerned the Biblical writings can serve TO A DEGREE (not entirely, I admit) as their own testimony as to authorship. At least until there is overwhelming evidence proving otherwise.

In this sense the BoM doesn't even make it to the men's room.

What fascinates me most about the bible is seeing it as a product of "theological evolution" and listening to scholars talk about "ancestor texts" to various entries e.g. the Ugaritic texts. I just find it a very interesting thing to listen to scholars debate.

A loathsome concatenation of Iron Age myths which, by an unfortunate series of geopolitical accidents, became the dominant religious paradigm in the world. Any good in it is as diamonds in a dunghill. What is good in the Bible is not unique, and what is unique is not good.

Edited to add that back when society was based on the Bible, the words above would have got me burnt at the stake.