|The Bible & Christianity||The Book of Mormon & Mormonism|
|On The Bible|
My words shall not pass away. Mat 24:35
Not the smallest letter shall disappear Mat 5:18
Forever, thy word is settled Psa 119:89
Word of God shall stand forever 1Pe 1:25
Grass Wither, Word stands forever. Isa 40:8
All scripture inspired. 2Ti 3:16, 17
Holy Spirit author of Bible 2Pe 1:21
The word of God, living and active Hbr 4:12
Absolutely trustworthy 1Ki 8:56
The Lord speaks it will be fulfilled Eze 12:25
Power of God for salvation Rom 1:16
Gives hope Rom 15:4
Gives, knowledge of eternal life. 1Jo 5:13
Gives light in dark places 2Pe 1:19
Purifies the life Psa 119:9
Believers share a common teacher, the Holy Spirit Eph 4:4, 5
If he does not depend mans wisdom 2Cr 2:9-14
If he lets the Bible instruct him 2Ti 3:16
If he searches the scriptures regularly, daily Act 17:11
If he seeks to get his approval from the Bible 2Ti 2:15
If Christ is his only Master. Mat 23:8-12
Do not add or take away. Deu 12:32
Do not add to His words Psa 30:6
If any man add, God will add plagues Rev 22:18
If any one takes away, God will take away Rev 22:19
(Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Pg 764).
The Mormon Church makes this statement about the Bible:
Evidence for the Bible
While on the one hand I support the fact that the Bible is a true record, to claim archaeological evidence is a false claim. The only real EVIDENCE, is evidence to support the fact that Jerusalem existed and that names used in the NT were genuine names used by people in that area. Also we have evidence that a church following Christ existed a century later. Yet even that evidence came from the Catholic church itself.
The suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls could date at around 300-200 BC are extremely optomistic. The Wikipedia gives dates of 150 BC to 70 AD. Additionally there is difference in words given in these scrolls and those in the Old Testament. Some showing great diversity from what we have written in the Old Testament today.
While these texts provide a much older text of the Old Testament, that the Old Testament existed at that time should never really have been in doubt. After all the New Testament texts had quoted from it at that time, so why would we believe that it didn't exist at that time? The question is whether there is evidence of it being dated beyond that time?
One big problem we face in proving the Bible is that God's law forbad Israel from making any art _ "You shall not make any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in the sky above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." Deut 5:8. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles from other nations to do any carving that was required. Therefore archaeologists can only find crude artifacts and not many at that. There is no evidence of any great civilization having existing in that area.
Additionally the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and probably destroyed many other Jewish settlements in the surrounding area at the same time. So nothing remains there either.
Unfortunately no record has been found showing any Babylonian conquest of any people called Israelites or Jews. Neither has any Persian or Assyrian records been found of such. Yet records are found of other conquests they had. No record of Moses nor of any Egyptian King being drowned in the sea. No record of Joseph or Israel in Egypt either. No record of Philistines, King David or even Solomon's kingdom. Neither is there record of the Egyptians defeat of Josiah.
While claims are made of discovering Jericho no real evidence has been forthcoming to prove the town was really Jericho.
On the other hand evidence for the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming that it has been proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the Ancient American people. Thus in the front of the book the church has been permitted to mention that the book was "translated" by Joseph Smith rather than, as it used to have to say, "written by Joseph Smith." Protestants opposed it and lost the case. So if it is so obviously a fraud then why was it PROVEN authentic by an unbiased court system?
Ironically the greatest archaeological evidence for the Bible is the Book of Mormon; whether Protestants like it or not.
In regard the suggestion that the Bible is flawless, even protestant and Catholic leaders and writers say otherwise.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm states the following _
*No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
*The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
*Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
*The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning. Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
*Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
*All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
*Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Even the ultra Protestant site "Carm" admits the problem with the following absurdly optomistic claim _
"The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure." (http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)
The Wikipedia states in regard the ancient Sinaiticus Codex used in many Bible translations _
"The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus)
http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ states the following _
"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."
Also note _
In regard the arguments themselves.
1.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that whatever God says stands and will not fail. It mentions that the Bible text has been played with. The Bible quotes given don't prove to the contrary.
2.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that the Bible was an inspired document. What it is stating is that man has fiddled with it AFTERWARD.
3.The Church clearly declares that the fulness of the everlasting gospel is contained in the Bible. In fact it is contained in the New Testament. This, however, doesn't invalidate the advantages of additional understanding that can be obtained from reading the Old Testament nor any other Scripture that can be obtained, as all Scripture is profitable for all (2 Tim 3:16-17).
It should further be noted that according to the Bible the Old Testament and a testimony of Christ is sufficient for salvation without the New Testament at all. Paul tells Timothy, "and that from a child you have had the holy Scripture [obviously not the 2 books of Timothy for starters] which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures he was brought up with as a child can't have included the then unwritten books of the New Testament. So even the New Testament isn't necessary for salvation. Yet why would we go without these 27 extra books in the New Testament?
4.If this were true we wouldn't have the millions of "Christian" churches all claiming to follow the Bible, but seeing it differently.
5.No one has claimed that God's word should be changed. They have stated that it already has been changed and needs to be put back where it was.
If any of the antis who read this wish for me to answer their site I am quite happy to do so provided it has something worth answering in it. Many sites just contain inuendo and quote from dubious sources. Also posing arguments about dead people is meaningless as they aren't here to explain their words. You need to have something either from the Bible, additional scripture or life to demonstrate your opinion that the church is incorrect. Any links to anti sites made in comments will be removed, unless I deem them relevant.