| 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). NOTE: 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 _
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Bible---Original-Text-Versus-Translations&id=762720
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.
17 comments:
"4.If this were true we wouldn't have the millions of "Christian" churches all claiming to follow the Bible, but seeing it differently."
I find that there are enough stipulations following the statement made in number 4 that it could be true. those being led by the Holy Spirit as they read scripture, and not subject to pride as a master, but only to Christ, can gain an accurate understanding of the Bible. There are things which the Bible does not mention, should electric guitars be used at Church? Paul does not write about this. If one church chooses to use them, and another does not, it does not make one church right and the other wrong. Frequently I and convinced that denominational barriers exist because of Man's pride. I think it is okay to do some things differently at different times and places, those are not the things which deeply matter. I would ask if the book of Mormon can be understood by those who read it? For there are also many Churches who claim to follow the Book of Mormon, yet live out their lives quite differently.
The numerous groups claiming to follow the Bible, yet emerging differenly from eachother, prove not that the Bible is insufficient, but that man has a way of corrupting anything for one's own gain. As you have said "the fulness of the everlasting gospel is contained in the Bible."
I am curious as to which "Anti-" sight you got this information from, and I hope that you send them an email which corrects any false statements which they make about the Church.
yeti
I have to agree that pride does make for bad Bible interpretation. Along with that come many other things. Some fear the idea that Mom is wrong. And then what about all their friends being wrong too?
Along with that comes complacency. Many like to believe that all they need do is talk of Jesus and they are saved.
You have raised the point that some of the differences in the churches aren't really that important. That is true. But what of the rest?
Is baptism by immersion necessary or and additive?
Is speaking in tongues from God or of the devil, when someone is rolling on the floor?
Just how much do works affect my eternal future?
Should I support homosexual rites and female ministers?
Is monogamy really in the Bible?
Should we be baptising people in behalf of the dead?
Does it really matter what day I have a sabbath on?
Should I obstain from eating pigs, crabs and other things God commanded against eating?
Should I be receiving prophesy?
The Bible needs the Holy Ghost to interpret it for you (as you seem to have implied yourself).
The question isn't how much of the Bible or any other collection of books is necessary. The question is why not get as much Scripture as we can lay our hands on?
IN regard explaining things to anti sites, that has always proven fruitless to me. They seem to have reading problems in that regard.
Yeti,
Most people opposed to our teachings have closed their minds and hearts to the truth. They are satisfied with what they have accepted about us as latter-day saints. I am reminded of a photo I have seen of a christian church in Kentucky that had as a sign in front of their church building,"Don't pray about the Book of Mormon, that is how they get you." Here was a minsiter fearful of loosing members of his congregation to our church if they would read, ponder and pray about a claimed book of scripture. I am also reminded of the scripture in Revelations 14:6 "I saw another angel flying in the mists of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tougue, and people," If mondern christiandom had the everlasting gospel already, then why send the angel to restore it to the earth in the last days at all? But I tell you Yeti, that angel and many others have come. Each with important truths and authority to the earth in the last days. Who else in the latter days has claimed that that scripture has been fulfilled? No one can rightfully claim it has except Joseph Smith. Yes many of the christian sects have some truth in them, but a partial grouping of truth can not save anyone in the greastest kingdom after death and the resurrection. Only a fulness of the everlasting gospel can. There are those searching for the complete truth, who do not allow themselves to be "blindied by the craftiness of men." Those who honestly want the fulness of God's gospel in their lives with all of its glorious blessings find us and we find them. They read, ponder, and pray unto God Almighty for an answer, with open minds and sincere hearts and God does answer their prayers. I know this to be true.
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 15
yeti
Yes, you have picked a good example of what kh and I are talking about. Revelation was needed then to sort out the problems of interpretation of Scripture, and it is today.
Also it is interesting to note the last verse, which answers the arguments of some against the church in regard why we present the Book of Mormon more than the Bible.
I am missing the connection between the last verse and the book of Mormon.
And perhaps you are missing my connection between Acts 15 and the simplicity of the Gospel
Yeti
The last verse is saying that they don't need to preach the law to those who already have it. Some say in regard to missionaries, that we were promoting the Book of Mormon more than the Bible. When we went out we had Book of Mormon's to place with people but no Bibles. The reason is that they already had a Bible in most homes at the time.
He is making the point that they are preaching the gospel rather than the law of Moses, as the latter was already being done.
When you speak of the "simplicity of the gospel" are you saying it is flexable (as all I see here is a strong inference that it is important to get it correct)? Or are you meaning simplicity in that it shouldn't be loaded down with laws?
In that the message of good news is not a message of being burdened with laws. I think about 1 Corinthians 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
yeti
1 Cor 1:28 is presenting the concept of the importance of not getting into worldly things.
Thus the Scripture you are quoting is going on in that vein. That is that he came not to preach as the world would, but the message of Christ. It shouldn't be taken out of that context to make it that all that is important is knowing a man's name and his method of death.
While I do agree with you that a person directed by the Holy Ghost doesn't need a set of rules, anybody else certainly does.
Jesus Christ told one man he healed to go and show himself to the priest "as a testimony to him." This is a commandment straight out of the Law of Moses (virtually word for word).
When the rich merchant asked what should he do to receive eternal life Christ told him to live the Law of Moses.
Jesus Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill for those who fully come to accept him.
Yet in regard your quote it should also be pointed out that it requires a coming to KNOW Christ. What does that mean?
He that says that I know him ought to walk even as he walked.
He that says, I know him, but doesn't keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Whosoever is born of God doesn't sin.
Whosoever is born of God overcomes the world.
No one will get eternal life without the perfection Christ demanded in the Sermon on the Mount.
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
but
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
and
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
There is the command to be perfect, but I feel like that ought not come from human regulations but from prompting by the Holy Spirit
yeti
Well gosh, golly and gee, yeti, I won't disagree with that one?
The only thing that bothers me in that is just how much are people listening to the Spirit?
What if plural marriage became legal and the Spirit told you to marry a man already married? Would you hear that or ignore it as false because of preconceived ideas?
There is the point of what you have come to accept as being the mind and will of God for mankind.
So it isn't exactly a simple thing of saying that as long as we believe in Christ and do the "right thing" that we will be in heaven.
The LDS version of the right thing required to obtain eternal life and the Protestant version widely differ in some areas.
It is true that love is the fulfilling of the law for those in Christ. Yet how is love demonstrated in its completeness?
A Catholic priest believes love is sacrificing his desires for marriage to remain without a wife. Is that really love or a false doctrine being practiced to his detrement?
The Scriptures plainly tell us that the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord. (1 Cor 11:11)
They tell us that the perfect people are in the process of seeking to have children (Gen 1:28)
So to know the truth (that is all the truth) is necessary to live it.
If we won't listen to the spirit will we listen to a prophet?
yeti
That is the reason God gives them to mankind. Most just won't listen sufficiently to the Spirit. Mankind tends to make their own Gods with their rules.
When I was yound Jesus Christ appeared to me in spirit twice. He told me who he was. Yet I rejected him because I said that God fills the universe, so he couldn't be God. I needed a prophet to tell me the truth first. Then I could accept that Jesus Christ could appear to me and is human in form.
i guess my first reaction is to rebel against authority. Of late I have realised that while I do not want to trust myself to judge what is true, but I am unwilling to take the word of a man. Jesus is the truth, so I trust him, though I am not always sure what thet looks like.
I was on a website the other day whose motto is "no religion higher than truth" while I did not get much else out of that website, I liked that statement. "No religion higher than Jesus".
If the Spirit told me to enter into a polygamous relationship, I would. But if any human told me that I should enter into a polygamous relationship, I would not.
yeti
Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ should be the instructors in regard our religion.
While I support the idea of prophets, I see myself as one also. In the church there is a man we term "the prophet." But we must all be prophets to ourselves, families and others we love.
If Brother Monson came and said that I should marry some particular woman I would first seek the counsel of the Holy Ghost.
Yet I would respect Brother Monson's statement, and take it very seriously in that act.
The only men who are my leaders in my personal life are Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
If Brother Monson asked me to do something relative to the church organisation I would just do it, as that is his calling.
However I would reaffirm that which both of us have said, and that is that those who are not hearing the Holy Ghost must listen to a prophet, else how can they know the desires of God for them?
[i]Doug Towers[/i] 1/26/2011 "Whosoever is born of God doesn't sin"
Though a man be born of God it does not mean he will no longer sin only that he has lost his desire to do so and upon realizing that he has will speedily repent.
I hope you agree with my point of clarification Doug but if you don't can you explain to me why? Are there some key scriptures that I missed which would lead me otherwise to believe as you instead?
[i]Doug Towers[/i] 1/28/2011 "What if plural marriage became legal and the Spirit told you to marry a man already married? Would you hear that or ignore it as false because of preconceived ideas?"
As a Latter-day Saint, by legal you also mean a new revelation from God given to the world through the medium of the First Presidency and 12 Apostles as well correct?
[i]Doug Towers[/i] 2/14/2011 "...those who are not hearing the Holy Ghost must listen to a prophet..."
It is those who are not as well as those who [i]are[/i] hearing the holy ghost who must listen to the Prophet to know the desires of God.
Those with the Holy Ghost who feel that the Prophet is no longer needed in their lives or that such council is applicable only to others are being deceived. If God is revealing his will to the Prophet but we refuse to listen, his revelation to us would then be to go repent and listen to the Prophets to whom he has already revealed his will.
The men who are leaders in my personal life are Heaveny Father, Jesus Christ regardless as to whether or not they impart such knowledge unto me through the Holy Ghost, Angels, or earthly Priesthood leaders.
If as the President, Brother Monson says jump, you can bet that I intend to jump.
Martain
Christ came and taught us all how to beccome not only sinless, but to become free from transgression also. The last time I sinned was about two and a half years ago. Fortunately that was a one off due to some new pressure I was suddenly under. I remember transgressing about 13 years ago. It took me 2 months to straighten that out.
Be you therefor perfect. God giveth no commandment unto the chidren of men save he shall prepare a way whereby they can do the thing that he commandeth them.
"Whosoever abides in him doesn't sin; whoever sins has not seen him, neither known him." 1 Jn 3:6
I'd suggest an undoctrinated reading of first John.
28th
God isn't going to tell me to marry a man. However I have had the experience of the first angel I came to love marrying someone else. I can assure you that if plural marriage was the opposite way around I would have been racing to even become her 100th husband.
Contrary to popular belief plural marriages were not a case of waiting for the prophet to receive a revelation for members to marry.
This idea was only at the beginning.
You have said _
"It is those who are not as well as those who are hearing the holy ghost who must listen to the Prophet to know the desires of God."
So what is the point of listening to the Holy Ghost if you then have to listen to another person listening to the Holy Ghost to tell you what God wants?
That sounds like you have a Joshua problem. He complained to Moses about some priests receiving revelation. Moses responded to this that he wished ALL were prophets and he wouldn't have to do anything. He rebuked Joshua.
You have said _
"Those with the Holy Ghost who feel that the Prophet is no longer needed in their lives or that such council is applicable only to others are being deceived. If God is revealing his will to the Prophet but we refuse to listen, his revelation to us would then be to go repent and listen to the Prophets to whom he has already revealed his will."
Scripture chapter and verse please. And not just an isolated text but one that is plainly being stated as absolute policy without exception.
Let me warn you that before proceeding I can blow this propaganda away with ease using the Scriptures.
Let me ask you this. Supposing you were living on the other side of the world in Australia. Suppose that the Holy Ghost told you that you needed to move as the whole east coast was about to be washed away by a tidal wave. So you move.
From this time forth you will never hear from the prophet, stake president or bishop again. You are now living in the outback, surviving by the Spirit teaching you what to do.
Do you believe you will be alright not having a prophet to listen to for the next 25 years before Christ comes?
Post a Comment