LittleNipper wrote:I believe that the Bible is the Word of God...
God wrote:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
LittleNipper wrote:I believe that the Bible is the Word of God...
God wrote:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
I would say that if a woman cuts off or seriously injuries a man's privates that there should be some sort or recompense. Laws exist so people will hopefully think twice before doing things that are not right. I would say that if you lost your privates in a fight, you wouldn't be happy if all that you got was an 'I sorry, it will never happen again.' I would like to add, that nowhere in the Bible, did anyone receive such a sentence... So, my guess is that the threat of such a punishment was enough.
LittleNipper wrote:The Bible comes first and anything that disagrees with the Bible is in error. I guess that does place blinders on me. I let God deal with the dangers along the side of the road. God expects me to keep my eyes on Christ and listen to Him through reading His Word.
It has been pointed out numerous times to you that the Bible often disagrees with itself. Like it or not, that is incontrovertible proof that the Bible is not innerrant. You still have never been able to show any justification for assuming the Bible is inerrant without appealing to the Bible itself. No matter how you try to spin it, this is circular reasoning, which is a glaring, logical fallacy. Even you would dismiss as nonsense any claims to the inerrancy of any scripture other than the Bible that depended on that scripture's claims of its own inerrancy.
The most you have been able to show is that the Bible sometimes gets something right. To conclude from that that the Bible is therefore necessarily inerrant is almost as irrational as concluding that any errors found in the Bible proves that it never gets anything right.
I appreciate you being honest enough to admit that you have blinders placed on you, but they are only there because you irrationally chose to place and keep them there. There is no virtue in deliberately keeping them there, once you realize they are there.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:You still have never been able to show any justification for assuming the Bible is inerrant without appealing to the Bible itself. No matter how you try to spin it, this is circular reasoning, which is a glaring, logical fallacy.
It's actually a bit worse than that, since the Bible doesn't claim that it is inerrant. Given that none of the authors had an inkling that that the specific set of books we call the Bible would one be regarded as scripture, it is unreasonable to expect any Biblical author to refer to the Bible in this manner.
Gunnar wrote:You still have never been able to show any justification for assuming the Bible is inerrant without appealing to the Bible itself. No matter how you try to spin it, this is circular reasoning, which is a glaring, logical fallacy.
It's actually a bit worse than that, since the Bible doesn't claim that it is inerrant. Given that none of the authors had an inkling that that the specific set of books we call the Bible would one be regarded as scripture, it is unreasonable to expect any Biblical author to refer to the Bible in this manner.
You're right, of course, and this has also been pointed out to LittleNipper more than once. He is the one who claims Biblical authority for the claim of Biblical inerrancy. I am just reminding him again that even if there were some substance to the idea that Bible claims itself to be inerrant, it would still just be circular reasoning, and, therefore, invalid justification for concluding that it is indeed inerrant.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
LittleNipper wrote:I would say that if a woman cuts off or seriously injuries a man's privates that there should be some sort or recompense. Laws exist so people will hopefully think twice before doing things that are not right. I would say that if you lost your privates in a fight, you wouldn't be happy if all that you got was an 'I sorry, it will never happen again.' I would like to add, that nowhere in the Bible, did anyone receive such a sentence... So, my guess is that the threat of such a punishment was enough.
So, if some bloke was beating you up and your wife came to your rescue by punching your assailant in the balls, you think your wife should be punished....no, wait....you think God would want your wife to be punished?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Bret Ripley wrote:It's actually a bit worse than that...
You're right, of course, and this has also been pointed out to LittleNipper more than once. He is the one who claims Biblical authority for the claim of Biblical inerrancy. I am just reminding him again that even if there were some substance to the idea that Bible claims itself to be inerrant, it would still just be circular reasoning, and, therefore, invalid justification for concluding that it is indeed inerrant.
It's actually a bit worse than that (sorry, I just like leading with that line). This issue is also tangentially related to the Protestant Conundrum (TM): in general, Protestantism holds that the Bible is the sole source of authoritative spiritual truth whereas Catholicism embraces both the Bible and church tradition. A sticky point for Protestants is that the Biblical canon itself was set by (drum roll) church tradition.
Any claim that the Bible constitutes a closed canon acknowledges extra-Biblical authority. As such, Protestants are faced with two choices: attribute authority to something other than the Bible (e.g. church tradition), or acknowledge that the canon is not technically closed. Couple this with the general higgledy pigglediness of the human condition and "new scripture" movements such as Mormonism seem almost inevitable.
Gunnar wrote:It's actually a bit worse than that (sorry, I just like leading with that line). This issue is also tangentially related to the Protestant Conundrum (TM): in general, Protestantism holds that the Bible is the sole source of authoritative spiritual truth whereas Catholicism embraces both the Bible and church tradition. A sticky point for Protestants is that the Biblical canon itself was set by (drum roll) church tradition.
Any claim that the Bible constitutes a closed canon acknowledges extra-Biblical authority. As such, Protestants are faced with two choices: attribute authority to something other than the Bible (e.g. church tradition), or acknowledge that the canon is not technically closed. Couple this with the general higgledy pigglediness of the human condition and "new scripture" movements such as Mormonism seem almost inevitable.
I hadn't previously thought about it to quite that depth, but again, I see that you are obviously right. Brilliantly Stated! How could the Bible possibly claim itself to be a closed canon, when it is merely a compilation of individual and independent writings accumulated over many centuries, none of whose authors could have known at the time they wrote that their works would be eventually be chosen to be part of the single, unified canon of scripture that we now call "the Bible?" I'm sure that the very idea of closed canon of scripture to which nothing more could ever be added would have seemed ridiculous to all those ancient authors.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
LittleNipper wrote:I would say that if a woman cuts off or seriously injuries a man's privates that there should be some sort or recompense. Laws exist so people will hopefully think twice before doing things that are not right. I would say that if you lost your privates in a fight, you wouldn't be happy if all that you got was an 'I sorry, it will never happen again.' I would like to add, that nowhere in the Bible, did anyone receive such a sentence... So, my guess is that the threat of such a punishment was enough.
So, if some bloke was beating you up and your wife came to your rescue by punching your assailant in the balls, you think your wife should be punished....no, wait....you think God would want your wife to be punished?
She is free to hit him in the head with a frying pan. Why should she want to yank off his genitals. And why would someone what to harm me? Perhaps I provoked it?
I would like to add, that nowhere in the Bible, did anyone receive such a sentence... So, my guess is that the threat of such a punishment was enough. 
How could the Bible possibly claim itself to be a closed canon, when it is merely a compilation of individual and independent writings accumulated over many centuries, none of whose authors could have known at the time they wrote that their works would be eventually be chosen to be part of the single, unified canon of scripture that we now call "the Bible?" I'm sure that the very idea of closed canon of scripture to which nothing more could ever be added would have seemed ridiculous to all those ancient authors.