From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:11:34 GMT
Summary: If Barry chooses to reject Biblical Inerrancy, then he is essentially
	 opening a pandora's box that could sink his argument as well
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric



Barry has written:

|I can't imagine a document so critical to the faith of the LDS, that if
|it surfaced would once-and-for-all settle the issue of Joseph-genuine-
|prophet-of-the-Lord, but I can imagine some document surfacing that
|would cast more doubt.

Any document For or Against Joseph Smith should never be taken at face
value. The document has to undergo a process of lower and upper criticism.

Hoffman's forgeries were interesting because he used a number of techniques
that would "fool" the techniques of lower criticism (using paper that had
actually been produced in the early half of the 19th century, using 19th
century ink formulas, even adding ingredients to "age" the ink). The
documents he produced were originally examined by the FBI's lab and
"passed" with flying colors. His forgeries were finally exposed when a
new (and very expensive technique) involving spectroscopic analysis was
used.

Upper criticism is going to go further, who produced the document, under
what circumstances was it produced, what were the prejudices of the writer, 
are there supporting witnesses, does the vocabulary reflect different
meanings, and on and on. In short, I have never believed that the genuineness
of Joseph Smith's calling can be established on the basis of historical
evidence. Things are always changing, new interpretations are always being
raised, and I certainly doubt that all historians will come to an agreement
in any time soon. 

-=-=-=-

Arthur Johnson's remarks on Sola Scripture sent me back to a number of
theological studies and handbooks published by members of the Dallas
Theological Seminary to examine the ramifications of Barry's arguments
wherein he claims that portions of Ezekiel could have been destroyed
or that his writings were incomplete thus creating only an illusion that
Ezekiel's prophecy failed.

To do this, essentially Barry is rejecting Biblical Inerrancy. He is stating
that the Bible teaches (indirectly) something false. That is, Deut 18:20
teaches a hard and fast rule, but then also teaches that Ezekiel made a
false prophecy because something got left out, but then declares that
Ezekiel is a true prophet of God.

If that is the road that Barry wants to travel, fine, but it also leaves
open the possiblity that Deut 18:20 is also a corrupt text: that something
also go left out, and that the hard and fast rule is false. Acting as
Devil's advocate let me point out a few arguments in support of this view:

1- Deut 18:20 is an older text (by 1000 yrs) than Ezekiel, thus it is more
   liable for it to be corrupted.

2- As I have repeatedly pointed out, prophecies that did not come to pass
   were issued from True prophets (consider the Jeremiah trial evidence),
   therefore the ancient Israelites probably knew something about the
   Deut 18:20 rule that we do not know. It would be possible that the
   Deut 18:20 text could have been corrupted since the time of Jeremiah.

IMHO, the safest course for Barry is to admit that Deut 18:20 was not a hard
and fast rule, because Biblical evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc