The Bible Through Mormon Eyes

The LDS Church embraces four volumes as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Following are ten statements from Mormon sources explaining how the LDS Church and its members view the Bible.

“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.327).

“Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations” (Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas Monson, “Letter Reaffirms use of King James Version Bible,” Church News, June 20, 1992, p.3).

“The words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by; it was never given to guide the servant of God in the course he should pursue, any more than the words and commandments of God, given to a generation under one set of circumstances, would serve for another generation under another set of circumstances. There must be something to suggest or to draw forth the command to answer the circumstance under which we are placed at the time” (Apostle Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854, Journal of Discourses 2:75).

“…who in his right mind, could for one moment, believe the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.47.)

“As all informed persons know, the various versions of the Bible do not accurately record or perfectly preserve the words, thoughts, and intents of the original inspired authors” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.383).

“The Book of Mormon has been, is now, and will forever remain secure in the hands of the servants of the Lord, for which we are immeasurably grateful. But with the Bible it was not and is not so. It is now in the hands of intellectuals and unbelievers and ministers whose delight it is to twist and pervert its doctrines and to spiritualize away the plain meanings of all its important parts. And it once was in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization, founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrinal Restoration,” p. 12; quoted in Monte S. Nyman, Robert Millet, ed., Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things).

“The Latter-day Saint use of the Bible differs from the Judeo-Christian norm because it is not the sole LDS source of authority (see Scripture: Authority of Scripture). The Bible is interpreted and understood by Latter-day Saints through four important means: (1) other LDS scriptures, which enrich and give perspective to an understanding of biblical teachings; (2) statements of modern prophets and apostles on the meaning of some biblical passages; (3) the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible; and (4) personal revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost enhancing the comprehension of the scriptures. Consequently, Latter-day Saints are not left without information about the meaning of many difficult passages that have divided the entire Christian world for two millennia” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:107).

“During the Dark Ages—during the Black Millennium, if you, will—even the Bible that now is was kept from the people. Many is the martyr who suffered death by fire for reading or possessing biblical manuscripts. The translation and publication of the scriptural word was opposed with satanic fury in that day. For the present the devil has lost that round. Today he centers his powers on denying the authenticity of the scriptures and using them to prove such false doctrines as that God is a Spirit or that we are saved by grace alone without works” (Monte S. Nyman and Robert L. Millet, ed., The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, BYU, p.13).

“The final contribution of the Prophet to our understanding of the Apocalypse is in the actual work he did on the text of Revelation as part of his inspired translation of the Bible. As was noted above, he deleted from, added to or changed a total of ninety verses. Obviously, not every one of those changes are of equal significance. The committee that worked on the LDS edition of the King James Version included changes for only forty-seven of the ninety verses, or just slightly better than half of the total changes.” (Monte S. Nyman, Robert Millet, ed., The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, BYU, p.258).

“The infallibility of the Bible is a fundamental doctrine among Bible cultists, though by their own admission they cannot find a book, chapter, or verse within the Bible to sustain this doctrine. Infallibility and mortality are incompatible. We no more have infallible books than we have infallible men. Such a belief quickly leads to the ridiculous” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism, p.232).

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Bible, Mormon Scripture. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Bible Through Mormon Eyes

  1. Michael P says:

    It is clear the Bible has a different weight to Mormons than it does us. It is viewed entirely differently and seems important, but not important at the same time. It is as if they give it lip service but behind the scenes dismiss it.

    I know the Mormon posting will disagree with the above statement, and that’s OK. I am responding the the impression your leaders give about the Bible in these statements.

    If you can provide something to counter this, I would be interested in seeing it.

  2. jackg says:

    The JS Translation, once again, is not a translation because manuscripts are required for it to be a translation. His work is an addition. If his work were truly from God, why was it never completed? If one wants to say it wasn’t completed because JS was killed, then one must ask, why didn’t God use another prophet to finish the work? You see, God’s work is not dependent on man. Who led the Israelites into the promised land? Moses? No, Joshua did. So, why didn’t God finish this “translation” with another prophet? Because JS was doing his own work, which I am not afraid to say is the work of Satan. I know the LDS will jump all over this, but they hold a double standard. Their leaders can call the Catholic Church an abomonible church under the control of Satan and evil men, but don’t anyone dare call the LDS Church the same. I will qualify my statement by saying that JS taught a different gospel, manipulating the Bible to serve his purposes and, eventually, to claim the Bible to be inadequate for salvation. That is evil. To teach a god who was created and has a beginning is evil. Only Satan would want the world to believe such lies. Only Satan wants us to believe we can become gods, which is evident from what he said in the Garden. Only Satan wants us to have such a disparaging view of God’s word. Only Satan would encourage the view that God is not powerful enough to preserve His truths and plan of salvation as He works through a broken and imperfect humanity. He is GOD. He can accomplish anything He chooses. Did He not choose to preserve His word? Did He lie when through the Person of Jesus Christ He said that the Spirit would be with us always? I think not.

    These comments by Mormon leaders clearly show their position to be contrary to God. They have created for themselves a god of their own design after their own desires. It has been perpetuated by cover-up and deception by false prophets and false apostles.

  3. Rick B says:

    In the D and C, God Supposedly told JS and Sidney Rigdon to complete the JST of the Bible. But we read in the Preface to the JST it is possibly not complete. LDS over on the Fairlds board will tell you it is not complete. Where are the LDS that feel it is not complete getting there information? We read in the 1993-94 Church Almanac pg 339 under July 2 The prophet Joseph Smith finished the translation of the Bible

    Then in the 2003 Church Almanac 536 again under July 2, it states JS finished the New Testament.
    But sadly, the Prophet and President Joseph F. Smith feels it was not finished.

    The reason that it has not been published by the Church is due to the fact that this revision was not completed…due to persecution and mobbing this opportunity never came, so that the manuscript was left with only a partial version.

    Then we read in the JST pg 11

    Changes made at some points in the inspired version were not followed consistently…. Some passages were corrected, but the parallel references were not corrected….Mormon authors Sperry and Van Wagoner have pointed out that the Psalms are evidence of the incompleteness of the translation.

    We read in Times and Seasons Vol VI pg 802 that the JST was completed.

    Why is it if the JST is not really complete, have any of the so called “prophets of god” Corrected it. If it really is fully and truly corrected, why not fully use, promote and endorse it? If as these people and sources are correct, and the JST of the Bible is not complete, then God must be a failure, because not only did he commanded JS to finish the job, but this denies the teaching of 1 Nephi 3:7

    7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
    Rick b

  4. Wayne says:

    Great article, I linked to it from the Jeremiah Films site.

  5. Arthur Sido says:

    Rick, “Why is it if the JST is not really complete, have any of the so called “prophets of god” Corrected it.”

    Bingo! These men are allegedly prophets like JS, and yet they allow the restored church to use a faulty translation of the Bible for over 100 years! What good is a prophet if he can’t even correct errors in the Bible! Could it be that lacking any sort of scholarship in the languages that any new “translations” would be shown immediately to be false? I mean really what have any of these “prophets” said prophetically in recent years? I guess the role of prophet has been reduced to appearing on Larry King Live and ribbon cuttings at new temples. They can’t even marry teenagers anymore. The office of mormon prophet has fallen on hard times indeed.

    We believe the Bible is the word of God but reserve the right to reject any passages we deem to contradict our teachings as being mistranslated. Pretty convenient.

    (using all three of my daily posts in one fell swoop!)

  6. It seems to me that most Mormons feel that Joseph was commanded to do a Bible “translation” mostly for personal growth and attainment of scriptural knowledge. The revisions were not based on translation of texts, but seem to be an attempt to reconcile passages which don’t make sense.

    I don’t see the Mormon position on Biblical translation as being substantially different than most Christians’. There seem to be myriads of translations, with none accepted as the definitive version. Scholars are getting better at transmitting more clear and correct versions all the time.

  7. austin says:

    Bored in Vernal,

    In regards to your statement that you do not see a substantial difference between the Mormon and Christian positions on the Bible translation, you should really compare the above quotes with the statements made in the Westminster Confession of Faith. For example, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” See when Mormonism views translation, not even the manuscripts are good enough to live by. This is the substantial difference. Christians trust God to provide accurate manuscripts, whereas Mormonism trusts modern revelation instead.

  8. germit says:

    Vernal: “personal growth and scriptural knowledge”: wonderful, except that JS,as always, tries to sell it (for half a year or so)as much,much more. This is the PURE STUFF straight from the mouth of God. NOTE: HE is ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE BUT GOD HIMSELF. With translation of the bible, this is a terrible idea, actually in translating ANYTHING (a la Book of Abe: known hoax). The ‘many translations’ of the orthodox bible do NOT disagree on anything major, site an example if you disagree. There are MANY options when translating to a target language, linguistic exact equivalents are rare, that’s just how language works. We have entire foundations (Lockman for the NASB) to make sure the translation is up to snuff. You have the word of proven schlock wordsmith that he “got it all from God”. I’m seeing some differences, ODD that you trust JS with the BoM , but not his bible. GERMIT

  9. falcon says:

    Not that it’s really relevent to our discussion here, but the Jehovah Witness bunch has “translated” the verse in John which reads, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” to ….and the Word was “a god.” Pretty nifty translation (that no legitimate Greek Scholar would claim) since it supports their view that Jesus is a created being. Sounds a little like Mormon doctrine here. So my advice to Mormons is, go with the JW New World Translation of the Bible because it appears to more accurately reflect Mormon belief.
    Mormonism only works if (1) the Bible is down-graded because then it doesn’t need to be seen as a standard by which to compare Mormon doctrine, (2) all Christian religions and creeds are found to be an abomination in the eyes of God and (3) if “the prophet” speaks new revelation from God which can, by the way, contridict the Bible, the BoM, the Journal of Discourses and the Doctrine and Covenants, and all previous prophetic proclamations. That’s why in Mormonism, you have a moving target. Walter Martin rightly called it a “maze”. It’s a maze because, in the end the only thing that really counts is the personal testimony, personal and “prophetic” revelation and doing the program. The Bible is pretty much a nuisance because it just spoils all of the fun Mormons are having on their way to becoming gods.

  10. jackg says:

    Here’s something that’s been on my mind for quite some time now. The LDS Church claims the Bible fell into the hands of the whore of all the earth and wicked, evil men, etc., and because of this important and precious doctrine was removed from the Bible. So, what they’re saying is that wicked men took out the parts that promoted a lifestyle of lots of wives and lots of sex, sex with young girls, and sex throughout the eternity, and the teaching that man was destined to become gods, creating and ruling worlds. And, yet, these same evil men made sure the 10 commandments were kept in, the stories of the Israelites and their proclivity to serve false gods and to be sold into the hands of their enemies, later to repent, be blessed, and then start the cylce again were also preserved, and the teachings of hell for those who don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah, were all preserved by these same evil and wicked men. Am I missing something here? What evil person would not be attracted to the idea of sex with lots of different women and becoming a god? What evil person would keep all the parts about obedience, faith, sacrifice, service, fruits of the Spirit, etc.? The claims made by the LDS Church that his happened do not stand against reason. Now, it sounds more like evil men have created a god who was once a man and was not always God. So, I say that evil men have created a book called the Book of Mormon; they have created a god who has not always been God; they have challenged the authority of God’s word; and they have set themselves up as higher authority than God’s word. Their followers sing praise to Joseph Smith, catapulting him to the status of God, as one who will judge us. These leaders might clamor and scream, but the Spirit of God will pierce the hearts of those who honestly seek after truth. The fact that so many on this site are former Mormons is a witness to me that God is saving the Mormons. He saved me from Mormonism, and He will save more.

  11. I think your diatribes don’t have much of an effect on us because we have personally experienced that our leaders teach us to love and revere the Bible as scripture and in our own lives we read it and follow it to the best of our ability. Knowing that the translation may be faulty in spots has no large effect on our love for the Bible.

    I disagree with Michael’s comment that

    It is clear the Bible has a different weight to Mormons than it does us. It is viewed entirely differently and seems important, but not important at the same time. It is as if they give it lip service but behind the scenes dismiss it.

    I’m sure that each individual Mormon may vary in their commitment to the Holy Bible, but my family and the majority of my ward members take it very seriously.

  12. Ralph says:


    Here is a quote from a website about John 1:1 written by someone who knows the language – ”In the “original” Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), “The Word” is only described as being “ton theos”(divine/a god) and not as being “ho theos” (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine” The writer goes on to say ”If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
    “the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
    According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as “The God” with a capital “G.” If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is “The God” translated as simply “the god” when referring to the devil, while “divine” is translated as the almighty “God” when referring to “The Word”? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the “translation” of the Bible took place?
    Good question.


    You said “So, what they’re saying is that wicked men took out the parts that promoted a lifestyle of …sex with young girls…”Did you forget, these men were already living a lifestyle like this? In Biblical times girls were married after their first period. Average age is 12, some are younger some are older. Mary the mother of Jesus was between 12 and 16 when she was married to Joseph, in fact the first 3 sites on an internet search gave me 13 and 14 years at the oldest.

  13. Arthur Sido says:

    Ralph, “Here is a quote from a website about John 1:1 written by someone who knows the language” That is pretty authoritative, you copied an anonymous quote from someone “who knows the language”. Who is this someone? What is their academic background in Greek? Are they a mormon, because every Christian Greek scholar I know of comes up with a different interpretation.

    Vernal, there is a huge difference between translations into English from the original languages and what Smith was doing. Smith was not translating, he was simpling rewriting the parts of the Bible he didn’t care for. He couldn’t speak the languages, anymore so than he could interpret Egyptian (which didn’t stop him from ‘translating’ the Book of Abraham). I have multiple transaltions on my shelf: KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV and I see the same Christ and the same way to saved by faith alone in every one of them. It isn’t like they say different things, they just use slightly different language to say it.

  14. Andrea says:

    jackg worte “he fact that so many on this site are former Mormons is a witness to me that God is saving the Mormons. He saved me from Mormonism, and He will save more.”


    As far as corrupt translations go, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls recovered were of the book of Isaiah. These scrolls were 99% the same as the next known manuscript which was written 1000 years later. Do Mormons know that with the exception of 11 verses the ENTIRE Bible could be reproduced using only ancient manuscripts of varying sources??? Nope, I guess not. (And yet, not a single shred of evidence exists that Hebrews lived on the American continent 600 years before Christ…)

  15. austin says:

    Bored in Vernal,

    I’m glad to hear you and your family take your commitment to the Bible very seriously. However how does your commitment to Church leadership compare? In my Christian life the Bible has an exalted position over my church leaders, and they are held to its standards and doctrines. It’s one thing to “love and revere” the Bible, but it’s another thing to live by it as your final authority. While personal experience may feel like the Bible has a proper place in your life, God has magnified His Word above His name. This is the position it has.

  16. falcon says:

    John 1:1, Man am I glad you straightened that out. Especially since it was written by “someone who knows Greek”. Can you imagine those stupid Christian Bible translators have gotten John 1:1 wrong all these years? What idiots. How did they ever get that so wrong? It happened during the apostasy after the original apostles died or where killed by the apostates. That changes everything regarding the nature of God. This turns Christianity upside down. I guess we’ll all become Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons now.
    By the way, how did Joseph Smith translate (not interpret) that verse? I’ll bet he got that right especially if he had the magic rock and his hat working for him. He probably lent it to your internet Greek scholar.

  17. gpark says:


    A Christian writer by the name of Phillip R. Johnson, clarifies the translation of John 1:1 very well in an article entitled, “Who Is Jehovah? Who Is Jesus?” Mr. Johnson writes, “…The Word was God.” That is precisely and literally what this text says in the Greek. A well-trained JW [Jehovah’s Witness] will attempt to convince you that our translation is faulty. In Greek, they will tell you, the word God lacks any definite article (quite right). Therefore, they say, an indefinite article must be supplied: “The Word was a God.” That is bad Greek and totally unwarranted. Was is what is known as a copulative verb…a “linking verb.” It simply connects the noun on one side [of the verb] with the noun on the other The Word was God. “God” in that sentence is a predicate nominative. It can only be translated the way you find it in most Bibles: “…the Word was God.” To insert the word “a” is both bad Greek and bad grammar…what these JW “scholars’ do not tell you is that there are dozens of places in their Bible where they are forced by common sense to violate the very rule they want to try to impose on John 1:1.”

  18. jackg says:


    You are missing the point. Even my 14-year-old daughter understands the concept. Perhaps, you wouldn’t be so clueless if you weren’t stuck trying to defend propaganda that is designed to devalue Holy Writ in favor of false-prophet writ. I’ll let you think about it.


    I think the quotes above disprove your claim that your leaders teach you to love and revere the Bible, and they stand in need of repentance, as does anyone who defiles God’s word for their own purposes and designs. LDS rank the Bible as #4 in their canon, with BOM leading the way. You can say that you don’t, but the rhetoric on this thread proves otherwise. You know, it actually becomes offensive to authentic Christians when Mormons trash talk and denigrate the Bible, then use it in weak attempts to support their non-biblical views about the nature of God and to transform His beautiful plan of salvation from grace to works-righteousness.

    In my view, the LDS leaders, beginning with JS, are the evil men in whose hands the Bible has fallen. I know this is a bold statement, but not nearly as bold as the rhetoric of the LDS leaders quoted in this article. As a Christian, I hold a high view of the Bible and praise God that He has preserved His word despite the fact that He has entrusted it to a fallen humanity, for there is none of us righteous. We are made righteous by and through Jesus Christ; it is not anything that we can accomplish on our own.

    Isaiah 55:10-11 dispels any faulty premise that God’s word–the Bible–is lacking in the gospel message of salvation. The Bible reveals to anyone who reads it how one can enter eternal rest and peace in the presence of the living God.

  19. Michael P says:


    I appreciate that you and your family think it is very important. But I wonder where in the ranking system it goes. In other words, do you follow the Bible before your leaders? Or do you think the Bible is a better source than the Book of Mormon? This can be answered by saying which you go to first to get God’s word. What about the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants in relation to the Bible?

    See, this is the gist of my comment: its important, but… these others are more important, and we can toss out some of the Bible because (pick your reason). I have heard several times Mormons excuse parts of Romans because they are written to a specific people and to specific things so they are not applicable now. For example, the “law” referred to in Romans is often sited by Mormons as Mosaic and is thus Paul’s commentary on it is not applicable to us now.

    And finally, like others have said, we go to the Bible first and foremost, before our pastors, leaders, and any authority. The Bible is where we learn of God’s plan, and if someone or something doesn’t line up with what is in it, we rightly dismiss it.

    The Bible is the prime source for us, not so with Mormons.

  20. Nathan16 says:

    I like the quote in the Westminster Confession. Let me add something from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, a document from the Lutheran Confessions:
    “We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all
    dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and
    apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105:
    Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from
    heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.”

    This is the very first article in that document. Before all else, we establish that the Bible is the ONLY norm and authority in faith. Every Christian denomination I know of holds to this. We judge dogma and teachers by the Bible, not the other way around.

    A note on the JST: I notice that many places where Joseph Smith modified the text, he tried to “clarify” some of the harder passages. He even tried to modify the text to remove “contradictions” in the original text, i.e. the account of Judas’s death. Joseph Smith, in his arrogance, tries to “clarify” passages, and even inserts a prophecy concerning himself! The audacity of this is striking to any Christian, and to me, few injuries Joseph Smith did to the church are more offensive than trying to modify Scripture. The Word of God doesn’t need his help.

    My final question: with all manuscripts in almost perfect agreement, with independent translators (International Bible Society, Lockman Foundation, Tyndale, etc.) coming up with very, very similar translations, how on Earth are any of the claims of mistranslation defensible?

  21. Jeffrey says:

    After reading some of Lyndon Lamborn’s research on the BoM and Bible, I was made aware of things that just screamed false translator.

    I will have to get into his research at home to give you exact verses (because I’m at work), but there are verses copied exactly from the Bible that were put into the BoM. Then, with the Joseph Smith translation, he “corrected” certain verses in the Bible, but the verse wasn’t changed in the BoM. If the method of translating was to be without error (read David Whitmers account about words not disappearing until written down correctly), then these verses in the BoM copied directly from the Bible should be completely correct, therefore showing the JST to be false.

    If that isn’t a “duh” for us, what is?

  22. germit says:

    Ralph: this may sound or seem strange, but kudos to you for at least trying to bring a specific scripture to bear as possibly being mistranslated. It bugs me to no end that your leaders are content to make large, general statements about how corrupt and mistranslated the bible is without even trying to give an example and start the dialogue. I found a book by a Mr.Monson (not the present president) called “Shared Beliefs, Honest Differences” that at least tried to name and deal with “mistranslated” areas of scripture. Those kind of books are like dragons teeth: and (surprise) it is now out of print. Look closely at these “problem areas”: have we really done that bad a job in the last 2000 yrs?? Or have you just been TOLD that the bible is in such sorry shape?? A LOT rides on your answer. GERMIT ps: Monson’s scholarship was sincere, but not that good: mostly verses quoted with almost no comparative (to other scripture) explanation.

  23. Eric the Red says:

    I’m presently looking at a Greek NT (UBS Aland Text) and scratching my head. I trust, Ralph, that you are not putting much stock in this “scholar’s” interpretation. He states, The Word is only described as being “ton theos”(divine/a god) and not as being ho theos.” To the contrary, ton Theon does refers to the God. When you read John 1:1 “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God…, the word God here is ton theon. In vs 2 ton theon again refers to the God as being the One with whom the Word dwelt with from the beginning. The “scholar’s” statement that ton theon refers to a god, whereas o theos refers to the God is totally baseless. Don’t forget “o” and “ton” are both definite articles. Anyone with a semester’s exposure to Greek knows that o theos is the nominative article/ending and ton theon is the accusative article/ending. Simply stated, Ralph, ton theon in John 1:1 is not referring to the Word in the second clause of the sentence. It is referring to the God (the Word was with God [ton theon]). The changed endings do not affect the meaning of the word “God.”

  24. Eric the Red says:

    (cont.) In other words, “the God” does not change to “a God” just because it shows up as a direct object. Also, the word God that refers to the Word in John 1:1 has no article at all. But that doesn’t prove anything either because in verse 12 there is no article with the word God and it is obviously referring to “the God” (i.e., God the Father). The accusative form of theos (theov) appears in the NT 147 times. No evidence for your scholar’s claims appear in these 147 usages. The explanation of 2 Cor. 4:4 should be self-evident. It is not a grammatical requirement that the word “god” be capitalized just because in appears as o theos in the Greek. This is as meaningless as saying whenever an English noun has an article it must be capitalized. By the way, in 1 Corinthians 8 tov theon and o theos both appear as referring to God the father. It would be a help if you could give this Greek scholar’s website.

  25. fourpointer says:


    Since when do Mormons rely on a Muslim apologist for help in translating the Bible? You can read the whole article here. Is the Mormon system that cozy with Muslims that now they go by the mantra, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?” (Although, if I remember correctly, Joseph Smith did call himself a “second Muhammed“).

    Yeah, the quote Ralph used is from a pro-Muslim website. That’s why he’s not in any hurry to tell us who wrote it. So, in order to prove his position on the Trinity, he uses the words of a man who denies that Jesus was even the Son of God.

Comments are closed.