feos, let's be straight. You dropped that link to cast shade on the scientific method. However, it seems likely to me that you did not read the entire article, which is why you can't actually speak on the subject and inform us why it is on topic (because it isn't) and why it helps your case (because it doesn't.)
Instead, it smacks of basic team thinking. This article seems to hurt the "science" team, therefore it helps the "religious" team.
But hey, if you want to "just leave" links here and feel smugly superior, that's your prerogative. Just don't be surprised when people cease engaging you or taking you seriously.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
You dropped that link to cast shade on the scientific method.
Since when errors in how scientific method is applied, and how that application is documented, are a part of it?
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
However, it seems likely to me that you did not read the entire article
I did read the entire article.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
which is why you can't actually speak on the subject
What should I say? These statistics lie? These statistics are true? They should be pondered? They shouldn't?
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
inform us why it is on topic (because it isn't)
It is, since it reveals some of the aspects of how science appears to be working, to those who aren't satisfied with reading what's written about it in this thread alone and discussing it based on that.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
why it helps your case (because it doesn't.)
It doesn't help me with the above? Why?
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
This article seems to hurt the "science" team, therefore it helps the "religious" team.
If statistics can hurt a team, that's a shame.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
But hey, if you want to "just leave" links here and feel smugly superior, that's your prerogative.
Woah, statistics indeed can hurt to the point of throwing ungrounded personal accusations.
Now I'll say what I feel about the link I posted. People tend to rely on some things to the point when they start believing in them. That's how human works, we can't always verify everything. So to simplify our lives, we do assumption ("secure beliefs"). And if they become absolutely indisputable for some people, that's wrong, because we don't have absolutely doubtless info about this world, since even facts can be taken wrong (as we have seen above), let alone their description, and how that description is conceived.
Does what I say "hurt" the scientific team or cast a shade on the scientific method? In no way.
Wikipedia wrote:
The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
The scientific method is based on being unafraid of errors, but only in order to fix them.
Wikipedia wrote:
An example of a currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. The scientific method allows for orthodox scientific investigations into phenomena that might contradict or disprove the standard model; however grant funding would be proportionately more difficult to obtain for such experiments, depending on the degree of deviation from the accepted standard model theory the experiment would test for.
The result of these contradicting investigations, if they succeed, is this:
Thomas Kuhn wrote:
the successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science.
Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking.
All in all, there's no development if mistakes are not recognized or are not going to be fixed. Having them is okay though. No knowledge can be absolutely indisputable. This is not an attempt to "prove" that scientific knowledge is disputable, and religious is not. Both should be based on experience only. The sphere of experience is different for those, and one can not be considered superior to another. Whoever claims that either one is superior, stops evolving.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
The scientific method does still work. It's just there's been a lot of academic laziness the past few decades, average people have conflated "science" with "technology" in far too many cases (and therefore won't make the push to find out for themselves the truth since science is inaccessible/incomprehensible/whatever), and those who are conducting the experiments aren't recording all the information that's necessary to ensure reproducible outcomes.
feos, if you actually cared to curate a discussion about the problem of the scientific reproduciblility you'd be actually trying.
Instead you're bringing nothing to the table. You don't even seem to understand the cause of the problem, which isn't methodological, but social. This is evidenced by the fact that your proposed solution is a paradigm shift in science, rather than a restructuring of incentives.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
This is evidenced by the fact that your proposed solution is a paradigm shift in science
How is quoting the description of scientific method and how science naturally evolves my solution to anything? I mentioned that having errors is okay, you can't stop having them, the social issue showcased in the article isn't going to discredit anyone except those who believe in science.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
rather than a restructuring of incentives.
Where did I say that it shouldn't be done? I don't even fully understand what you're referring to.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
This is evidenced by the fact that your proposed solution is a paradigm shift in science
How is quoting the description of scientific method and how science naturally evolves my solution to anything?
You quoted the wikipedia article on paradigm shift. Stop playing dumb.
You're trying to avoid taking an explicit position, while still attacking from that position. And you're trying to dodge any incoming criticism by claiming that "you didn't say that." Maybe that's true, and maybe you didn't say that, but you certainly implied that. And if you don't actually choose a position you risk having your position inferred in the worst possible light and attacked.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
I fail to see what your fighting against. I stated my thoughts about the article I linked, I replied to the accusation in casting a shade to the scientific method by linking it. I quoted wikipedia to show that the linked article doesn't cast such a shade, but instead it proves that science is fluid, and all I still keep reading is ungrounded personal accusations one after another. What are you truing to accomplish?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Are you kidding? It proves that I wasn't casting a shade by linking that damn article. How many times I have to repeat that?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
The Bible itself doesn't really talk about free will. This whole concept of "free will" as an all-encompassing explanation for every single objection seems to be mostly extra-biblical apologetics.
(I'm sure that, given the vast amount of text in the Bible, if you search enough, you will find some passage that can be remotely interpreted as talking about "free will".
Since I'm a hardcore skeptic when it comes to free will, people are always quoting portions of the bible to me that insinuate the existence of free will. The most popular is Deut 30:19: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
This verse clearly states that the people have a choice if they want to follow the laws or not, however much they're strongly encouraged to keep them, or discouraged not to violate them.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
To add on to this, there are times where it seems that God explicitly violates free will within the Bible. For instance, the best known is hardening the Pharaoh's heart, because it's so explicit.
That's actually a terrible example. Pharaoh in that section is being utterly blasted by disaster after disaster, where no sane human being wouldn't fold at this point. We can easily say this hardening of Pharaoh's heart was to counterbalance against what was being done against his country so he still had free choice despite the duress he was under.
Aqfaq wrote:
How about this:
1. Satan knows God directly, perhaps better than anyone else.
2. Despite the direct knowledge of God, Satan uses free will to be against God.
3. Therefore, Satan's free will was not violated by the direct knowledge of God.
4. Therefore, God would not violate our free will by letting himself be known to us directly (rather than through faith shenanigans).
The above is supposedly an argument against the assertion that "God will not reveal himself to us directly, because that would violate our free will."
Is the reasoning solid? ars? Bisqwit? feos? Nach? Pokota? Anyone?
Thanks for calling me out. There is no Satan, any such understanding of such an entity is missing the point of the original material where such a name is mentioned. A Satan as such as understood by most today of some real and persuasive entity controlling people's thought process is from other religions, with that understanding in relation to Biblical material first found in Greek translations of original material.
"Satan" in original Biblical material is simply a prosecutor in a courtroom, performing his courtly duties, and even then, the entire courtroom is imagined/hypothetical, not a concrete description of a real entity.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
To add on to this, there are times where it seems that God explicitly violates free will within the Bible. For instance, the best known is hardening the Pharaoh's heart, because it's so explicit.
That's actually a terrible example. Pharaoh in that section is being utterly blasted by disaster after disaster, where no sane human being wouldn't fold at this point. We can easily say this hardening of Pharaoh's heart was to counterbalance against what was being done against his country so he still had free choice despite the duress he was under.
Politically, Pharaoh wouldn't have had much of a choice but to hang on to the slaves as long as he could; a Pharaoh (or an Emperor, or a King) only remains in power so long as his taxpayers and generals leave him in power.
Regardless of the beliefs of the time as to whether or not Pharaoh was divinely appointed to rule, the nobility and generals would not have simply let him let the Hebrews go. Frankly, they likely would have staged a coup and pursued the Hebrews if he had.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
Politically, Pharaoh wouldn't have had much of a choice but to hang on to the slaves as long as he could; a Pharaoh (or an Emperor, or a King) only remains in power so long as his taxpayers and generals leave him in power.
Regardless of the beliefs of the time as to whether or not Pharaoh was divinely appointed to rule, the nobility and generals would not have simply let him let the Hebrews go. Frankly, they likely would have staged a coup and pursued the Hebrews if he had.
That was true at first. The more disasters that occurred, the more they were begging Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go.
Exodus 10:7: And Pharaoh's servants said unto him: 'How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God, knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?'
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Is this not a correct assessment of the "free will" involved:
1. God creates something.
2. God doesn't ask the creation what the creation wants to be. Just like we don't ask the sims. The sims have about as much free will as Adam. (I for one would love to have more hands, brains and eyes! Would you not? Would Adam? Nobody even asks his opinion!)
3. After creation, God commands what the creation must do.
4. Therefore, God violates the free will of the creation.
I don't think any popular definition of free will includes the ability to choose your own existence, such as which parents we are born to or even which gender we are born to, or indeed the shape of our genetic makeup.
Aqfaq wrote:
If so, then is this not correct:
1. Being deceived can't be anyone's free will.
2. The creation was deceived by the snake.
3. Therefore, the creation had no free will on the issue.
I also don't think that any popular definition of free will includes the ability to choose your external circumstances, such as who will come to talk to you and what they will talk about.
Aqfaq wrote:
The above is supposedly an argument against the assertion that "God will not reveal himself to us directly, because that would violate our free will."
According to the Bible, God did reveal himself directly to the whole nation of Israel (descendants of Jacob + a mixed multitude) at the mount Sinai. And if memory serves right, also to Adam and Eve. That alone is an argument against the unsourced assertion you quoted.
I see you mentioned me a couple of times more in your post. I don't think I even want to read deeper what that was about.
The above is supposedly an argument against the assertion that "God will not reveal himself to us directly, because that would violate our free will."
According to the Bible, God did reveal himself directly to the whole nation of Israel (descendants of Jacob + a mixed multitude) at the mount Sinai. And if memory serves right, also to Adam and Eve. That alone is an argument against the unsourced assertion you quoted.
This one can be a bit odd though, depending on whether you believe Jehovah is the Father or is the Son. Certainly Adam would have had a direct, personal relationship with God, given the direct results of the expulsion from Eden (and the fact that God directly confronts Cain directly later on).
Aqfaq wrote:
Is this not a correct assessment of the "free will" involved:
1. God creates something.
2. God doesn't ask the creation what the creation wants to be. Just like we don't ask the sims. The sims have about as much free will as Adam. (I for one would love to have more hands, brains and eyes! Would you not? Would Adam? Nobody even asks his opinion!)
3. After creation, God commands what the creation must do.
4. Therefore, God violates the free will of the creation.
Per LDS scripture, the created beings did have a say in it.
Abraham 3:22-26 wrote:
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
Bear in mind, we were created in the image of God. I don't see why people refuse to take this part literally when Christianity traditionally asserts that we're all children of God.
As for point 3, there's really nothing stopping you from ignoring the commandments given. Granted, it's still a very good idea to not commit murder given there are both laws in place to punish it as well as the fact that the murderee's family/loved ones might just opt to seek revenge in kind rather than rely on the laws in place. But do those laws violate your freedom to act any more than a commandment from God does now?
E1:
That was true at first. The more disasters that occurred, the more they were begging Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go.
Exodus 10:7: And Pharaoh's servants said unto him: 'How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God, knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?'
A valid point. I still think he was politically cornered, though.
E2: Regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: Joseph Smith has it as being "for he hath hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, therefore I will show these my signs before him", as opposed to the KJV's "for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him". Not that I expect this to change anyone's position on the matter, just something to point out.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
And if memory serves right, also to Adam and Eve. That alone is an argument against the unsourced assertion you quoted.
The Bible does say God spoke with Adam, however, those chapters are commonly taken to be parables and not actually referring to any particular person that existed. Many ancient near eastern texts have parables about a god or owner, and workers who take care of a garden, and them doing something they shouldn't have done, and getting a creative punishment. The story there at the beginning of Genesis fits in well with all of those, and no reason to think it isn't one of those kinds of parables that were commonly used millennia ago. Maimonides also famously stated that all stories prior to Genesis 12 were parables.
Pokota wrote:
E2: Regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: Joseph Smith has it as being "for he hath hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, therefore I will show these my signs before him", as opposed to the KJV's "for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him". Not that I expect this to change anyone's position on the matter, just something to point out.
For a book like Exodus, my approach would be to see the Hebrew edition, along with the early translations, Greek and Aramaic. I put no stock in the English translations from recent times. Most of them are awful, missing key nuances, and missing all the word plays that are common in the original text.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
For a book like Exodus, my approach would be to see the Hebrew edition, along with the early translations, Greek and Aramaic. I put no stock in the English translations from recent times. Most of them are awful, missing key nuances, and missing all the word plays that are common in the original text.
That's a fair enough point; particularly the early Aramaic translation would be illuminating on this matter. The only caution I would give is to remember that the Hebrew language evolved between the time of the Exodus and the time of the Maccabean uprising (I want to say the earliest known Aramaic translation is around the time of Maccabes, but I could be very wrong on that), particularly given the various wars and vassalages that the Hebrews/Jews endured, so even the current standard Hebrew edition might have lost some nuances between then and... uh, then.
In the meantime, the english translation on chabad.org (which also presents Hebrew text alongside it) follows the KJV wording that presents the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart instead of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. As I said, I didn't think the JST version would make a difference to anyone here.
E2: English isa stupidlanguage anyway. Too bad it's the modern language of commerce.
The only caution I would give is to remember that the Hebrew language evolved between the time of the Exodus and the time of the Maccabean uprising (I want to say the earliest known Aramaic translation is around the time of Maccabes, but I could be very wrong on that), particularly given the various wars and vassalages that the Hebrews/Jews endured, so even the current standard Hebrew edition might have lost some nuances between then and... uh, then.
None of the texts we have are "original" per se. The standard Hebrew edition is from 1524 CE, although it's based on complete manuscripts from ~1000 CE, and one can easily get PDFs of those manuscripts if they so desire (the differences are minor, and mostly affect pluralization). We also have partial manuscripts and quotations going back to ~250 BCE. There's some divergence in those, mostly spelling or sentence structure, although sometimes it goes beyond that. It's interesting though that not all the ancient manuscripts are uniform with each other. They mostly present the same content, but there are a lot of variation in how they do so. I'd recommend reading this book if you want to know more.
The first translation that there's written reference to is Aramaic (if the Hebrew itself isn't some translation of an earlier dead language), going back to ~600 BCE. However none of our actual manuscripts are remotely that old. We have some snippets going back to ~250 BCE, and no lengthy manuscripts till ~1100 CE. For these lengthy Aramaic manuscripts, we have multiple diverse ones, and while it seems all of them may be loosely based on something really ancient, it would appear they were all significantly updated and diverged sometime between 200 CE and 600 CE. Some of these Aramaic translations also like to add on additional descriptive information, or more details to enlarge the law or story being discussed. With even recentish manuscripts adding on "current events" from their time to elucidate some of the material.
The second known translation was into Greek, and seems to have been done at different times for different books. Earliest probably ~400 BCE based on historical literature. Although our actual manuscript evidence of this translation is from ~300 CE, and it's clear there are changes in them that are non-original, especially as they differ from quotes of the Greek edition, some of these quotes are in books which are older than these manuscripts. This translation is useful as that it preserves certain readings that predate some later editing of the Hebrew original. However it also contains translation mistakes as well as intentional changes due to the desires of the translators, and it's not always clear if a variant is due to a different Hebrew original than we know of, or introduced by the translator(s).
Biblical scholars will generally use all these sources, and also put at their disposal early quotations and commentaries.
-----------------------------------
For helpfulness, I'll offer my own literal translations of the primary readings from the Hebrew we have, as well as several Aramaic editions, as that seems to interest you.
Hebrew wrote:
And [name] spoke to Moses, come to Pharaoh: For I I-have-hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, so that I may display these signs within him.
Aramaic O wrote:
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: For I will harden his heart, and the hearts of his servants, so to display my signs among them.
Aramaic J wrote:
ואמר ייי למשה עול לות פרעה ארום אנא יקרית יצרא דליביה ויצרא דלבהון דעבדוי מן בגלל לשוואה אתוותיי איליין ביניהון
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: I will be exalted, (since) I will harden the will of his heart, and the will of the hearts of his servants, therefore my signs will be displayed among them.
Aramaic N wrote:
ואמר ייי למשה עול לוות פרעה ארום אנה תקפית ית לביה וית לביהון דשליטוי מן בגלל למשוויה ניסיא איליין ביניהון׃
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: I will be exalted, (since) I will fortify his heart and the hearts of his governors, therefore my miracle signs will be displayed among them.
It's possible "miracle" here should instead read "foundational", I'd have to see how else that word is used in this translation to know for certain.
Aramaic S wrote:
ואמר יהוה למשה על ליד פרעה הלא אנא יקרת ית לבה וית לב עבדיו לבדיל שבוי סימני אלין בה
And [name] spoke to Moses, go next to Pharaoh; haven't I hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, to captivate with my signs in him?
-----------------------------------
The general idea across all of these is the same, except the last one seems to turn the verse into a sort of rhetorical question explaining the action. "Servants" here unlikely means lowly servants, but some kind of officers or nobles, and N clarifies that point. J and N also seem to add some elaboration as to the reasoning of this construct, exaltation. Other than that, the differences are pluralization or tense. In all of these it's clear who is hardening (or hardened) the hearts.
Therefore I'd say Joseph Smith's translation is meant to be understood as: He (God) hardened his (Pharaoh’s) heart, but the wording used in ambiguous enough to mean anything (if Joseph Smith meant to imply Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then he didn't have the slightest clue how to translate a rather explicit text, or is purposely changing the reading for theological reasons).
Another reason why I hate these translations into English, these Semitic language have much less ambiguity than English in various cases, and the translations are incomprehensible, and readers don't even notice. There was an interesting example some pages back where Bisqwit interpreted an ambiguous translation of "before" to mean priority, whereas the original clearly means it positionally in terms of area, not conceptual importance. Cases like this are never ending though, and worse, trying to comprehend the legal portions via the English (and other recent) translations is usually absurd, as all the legal nuances are lost or rendered ambiguous.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I'm gonna take flak for this, but the Joseph Smith 'translation' is by no definition a translation since it was from the KJV to KJV. Regardless of whether or not you believe it to be divinely inspired, it should never have been called a translation.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
I'm gonna take flak for this, but the Joseph Smith 'translation' is by no definition a translation since it was from the KJV to KJV.
I'm not an expert on the finer points of LDS, and only have superficial knowledge of some things, but I recall reading that Joseph Smith specifically used the Hebrew Bible and focused on some specific nuances for making his own books. I wish I had a good link handy, but from what I recall, there's several cases where he modified the KJV using an extremely literal (perhaps even outrageous) translation from Hebrew.
Much phraseology in Hebrew is taken from the Canaanite (Phoenician) language, and several parts of the Bible refer to Canaanite ideas, even though the general thought throughout the Hebrew Bible rejects these ideas. So for example, the Hebrew bible when referring to the general concept of the Deity nearly always uses plural language, and the end of Deut, beginning of Job, and some parts of Psalms refers to the concept of a Pantheon. It's clear the Hebrew Bible as a whole rejects the concept of the existence of multiple effective gods, plural worship, divine pantheons and so on, but it still refers to these ideas from time to time, generally to drive home some point. The general approach on understanding these sparse areas is usually to figure out why the idea is being singled out in a case, or why archaic terminology would be employed. However Joseph Smith's approach appears to be to accept the existence of multiple effective gods, pantheons, and so on, and to try to reinterpret the rest of the majority of the bible to conform to the concepts singled out in some rare cases. While some of these ideas are present in the KJV, the KJV itself takes a stance on using less literal readings to downplay these archaic and non-conforming concepts to the point you won't even notice most of them. In order for Joseph Smith to focus on or "revive" these ideas, he would to some extent have had to work from the Hebrew. AFAIK, (nearly) all the translations he had access to would not have preserved what can still be culled from the Hebrew in this regard.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Per J Christopher Conkling's Joseph Smith Chronology, he started the process for the JST as early as June 1830 (and as late as October 1830 - Conkling has him finishing Moses 5 on 10/21/1830, and finishing with his New Testament work on 2/2/1833) as a result of praying for clarification on certain passages of the Bible. You have to remember, we take James 1:5 very seriously. In contrast, from what I've seen and read he wasn't given a copy of Hebrew scripture to keep until at least 1835, and the only ancient records that he translated and were canonized became a part of the Pearl of Great Price (specifically the books of Moses and Abraham - the other parts of the Pearl of Great Price are a portion of JST Matthew, his own history as dictated to Frederick G Williams, and the thirteen Articles of Faith)
The LDS explanation for the plurality of God in Old Testament writing is that the Godhead (the Trinity for those of you unfamiliar with the term) is three distinct beings united in purpose. I've made this comparison before, but it's comparable to you and me and Bisquit all working together on the same TAS. I interpret the commandment of "Thou shalt have no Gods before me" specifically as instructing us to worship God the Father (in any case it was given by Jehovah to Moses), though results may vary depending on who you talk to. (In an earlier revision of this post, I had stated that I interpreted it as intending for us to worship the Son Jehovah, which is personally incorrect, though the error would have stood had I not thought about what I had actually written. This is more-or-less an admonishment to myself not to post in the religious debate thread when I'm supposed to be sleeping). Certainly it would have been a necessary admonishment to the Hebrews, who had been a captive people to a polytheistic nation and would within the century begin conquering the lands of polytheistic nations (they were, unfortunately, commanded to exterminate the conquered nations - that they didn't meant that those nations' religions were allowed to continue, and if you pay attention to 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles and the book of Jeremiah, you can see that it ultimately led to the undermining of the Hebrew faith through comingling of incompatible faiths - and that, in turn, led to the rise of the hyperlawful rabbinic Judaism seen in the time of the New Testament. Hyperlawful Rabbinic Judaism was more of a knee-jerk response to the laxity of generations past towards the Mosaic Law, but it became so concerned with obeying the letter of the law that it all but lost the spirit of the law. Certainly Moses didn't expect people to start counting their steps on the Sabbath!)
As an aside, for the curious: The reason we don't use the full JST as part of our standard works despite it being a revision more in line with our doctrine is because Emma Smith refused to accept Apostolic Succession, instead insisting that Joseph was speaking as Prophet when he named his son the successor to Prophethood. Brigham Young at least had D&C 107 in his favor (Apostolic Succession such as is used in the church today does appear in the Book of Mormon, but even not a lot of Mormons realize it - certainly Joseph missed out on it since he kept naming various different people outside of the Apostolic Succession, once even naming a man who was later excommunitcated!), and that's before the miraculous "he looks and sounds like Joseph" speech. The annotated bible that is used as the source for the JST ended up staying with Emma, and through her it went to the Reorganized LDS Church, which is now the Community of Christ.
In any case, except for the parts of the JST canonized in our standard works the KJV is sufficient for our doctrinal purposes when compared to the doctrines presented in the Book of Mormon as well as doctrines presented by the prophets and apostles of the Church in this dispensation.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
Per J Christopher Conkling's Joseph Smith Chronology, he started the process for the JST as early as June 1830 (and as late as October 1830 - Conkling has him finishing Moses 5 on 10/21/1830, and finishing with his New Testament work on 2/2/1833) as a result of praying for clarification on certain passages of the Bible. You have to remember, we take James 1:5 very seriously. In contrast, from what I've seen and read he wasn't given a copy of Hebrew scripture to keep until at least 1835
I can't argue on the timeline, but based on recorded sermons that I've seen from the 184x, he keeps referring to Hebrew.
Pokota wrote:
The LDS explanation for the plurality of God in Old Testament writing is that the Godhead (the Trinity for those of you unfamiliar with the term) is three distinct beings united in purpose.
and if you pay attention to 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles and the book of Jeremiah, you can see that it ultimately led to the undermining of the Hebrew faith through comingling of incompatible faiths
The first two sure, how do you see that in the book of Jeremiah? Jeremiah seems for the most part to have other kinds of problems in his day.
Pokota wrote:
Hyperlawful Rabbinic Judaism was more of a knee-jerk response to the laxity of generations past towards the Mosaic Law, but it became so concerned with obeying the letter of the law that it all but lost the spirit of the law. Certainly Moses didn't expect people to start counting their steps on the Sabbath!)
If anything, Hyperlawful Rabbinic Judaism was a reaction to the Boethusians, not earlier generations. There is no letter of the law which states one should count their steps. Rather it says one should not leave their area on the Sabbath. The Boethusians would not even leave their homes, while the other groups at the time understood it as not going past the city limits. If you study up on all the groups who lived at the time, the Rabbis were the most lenient, and aimed more for spirit than precise and extreme literalism. If you've read any of their biblical commentaries, you'd see they are quite free with how they constantly interpret the text. The counting of the steps you're referring to was their calculations as to how far to extend the concept of city limits, a leniency their counterparts wanted to kill them over.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I think the point is that science and technology sucks. Think about it. It's no coincidence that feminism starts the same time as the industrial revolution. Same with muslims. The reason they are invading Europe is also because of science and technology. Science destroyed Christianity with knowledge, so the religious firewall of Europe is down, free to be invaded. Then of course all the fast and easy transportation devices invented by science makes invasion very easy.
I could go on and on, with science and technology polluting the environment, the atomic bomb, obesity epidemic, food additives, abortions, hormonal imbalances, technologically caused laziness, antisocial behavior, whoreish behavior, STDs, eating disorders, identity disorders, depression, socialism, communism, guns etc. All caused by scientific progress in some way.
Soon the terminator robots from your avatar are coming too, thanks to science and progress in artificial intelligence. Not only will they take over, but humans will also make themselves into robots, just like your avatar shows. Ray Kurzweil and many others have said it. Trust me. I will also turn into a cyborg, like you can see in my avatar. I won't join the luddites who are against science and technology, the bringer of light/electricity, Lucifer.
Are you kidding? It proves that I wasn't casting a shade by linking that damn article. How many times I have to repeat that?
"Casting a shade"? On what? What does that even mean?
I would like you to explain clearly and unambiguously what is it that you are trying to say, rather than have us second-guessing. It's difficult to have a conversation when you are not willing to talk.
