[email@example.com] Inerrancy to Cormier
Jul 22, 2007 20:27 PDT
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Inerrancy to Cormier
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:20:08 +0100
From: "Matt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Could you clarify your belief that the Bible is inerrant?
I believe that every alleged error can be reconciled and harmonized.
What's funny about your methods, Jason, is that we could apply them
to reconcile and harmonize every error in every book known to man. This
would mean that all written documents are inerrant (according
to the methods you employ), which would make the special case you
make for the Bible irrelevant and meaningless.
Arguments by assertion by a naysayer. That's not a new one.
Gastrich, stop this kind of nonsense. When you say that "every
alleged error can be reconciled and harmonized," you are making an
assertion, so don't accuse the ones who reply to this of arguing by
assertion. If you can't see that you argued by assertion, you have
no business trying to be an apologist.
Untrue. Cormier asked me a seemingly genuine question and I gave him a
sincere answer. On the other hand, Walt jumped in and made some arguments
by assertion. So, you're incorrect on this one.
| ||I will gladly show you that what Walt said above is true. All you|
have to do is send me an example of what you think is a mistake in
the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon or the Avesta or any other holy book,
and I will
use the apologetic methods of McDonald, Gleason Archer, William
Arndt, John Haley, you, and other "apologists" to show that it is not
Ok. Here is a quote from the Book of Mormon. Tell me how it doesn't
contradict the Bible.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and
in truth. (John 4:24)
Doctrine and Covenants:
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.
It took me about seven minutes to find a harmonisation of John 4:24 and D&C
130:22 that uses a similar principle often used by Christian apologists that
because the Bible only refers to X doesn't mean it excludes Y from also
If that isn't good enough for you you can deal with the explaination that
according to Mormon doctrine the Bible is the word of God only in so far as
it is translated correctly and John 4:24 is a passage which has been
corrupted and should read as the inspired Joseph Smith translation says,
'For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth'. [JST John 4:26].
No contradiction says the Mormon apologist, only your failure to properly
understand the passage because you cannot discern spiritual truths and
because of your failure to recognise the authority of the Restored Church by
God himself through the Prophet Joseph Smith who restores to us the original
form of the passage.
I have LDS commentaries to both the Book of Mormon and the D&C but they are
not accessible to me at present, being in storage. However, I have no doubt
that they would provide the same kind of apologetic for your D&C against BoM
contradiction that I have snipped.
Are there apologetics persuasive or correct? No, upon close examination they
can only work if one stretches the bounds of credibility to breaking point
and beyond and that we should surely reject But that has to apply to
Christian apologetics also, or else one is guilty of special pleading.
You've Got Questions. We've Got A Web Family (tm)
http://theskepticalreview.com http://iierrancy.com http://errantyears.com
To manage your list subscription: http://iierrancy.com/support.html