Eric and I had an interesting conversation on Sunday, October 7th, over Skype with a Mormon named Jason who lives in Utah. He runs a web site dedicated to Joseph Smith and is a committed Mormon. We talked among other things about the nature of God, eternal progression, and marriage. Our discussion on marriage brought out something I thought was worth sharing. We spoke to Jason about the views of Paul and Jesus on marriage, specifically on it being better, if possible, to remain single than to get married (cf. 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19:9-12). Eric asked Jason what he thought of Paul’s teaching and how he thought these passages might fit into the Mormon worldview (which not only values marriage but also centralizes it to the point of being mandatory for all who can enter into it). Jason was apparently unprepared for this question, especially over Paul’s admonition to remain single for the sake of single-minded devotion to God. It’s quite OK that Jason hadn’t considered 1 Corinthians 7. We weren’t simply trying to score “aha, gotchya!” points. We were trying to talk reasonably about the implications of scripture, hoping that the Holy Spirit would make an impact through it.
Jason’s response is worth sharing. After some thought he literally said, “Well, down with Paul, and up with Joseph!” Jason went on to say that he would take the “modern-day revelations” of the restoration “any day” over the letters of a “guy dead for two thousand years.” Jason then went on to suggest that 1 Corinthians could in fact be pseudepigrapha, which is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “spurious writings, especially writings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times.” In other words, he suggested that 1 Corinthians might be falsely attributed to Paul and really written by an impostor. What surprised me wasn’t the substance of the response but the forthright, raw, and blunt manner with which he expressed it.
Technically speaking, evangelical Christians agree that the Bible as we have it today is God’s word “as far as it is translated correctly,” but the problem is that this phrase is loaded in Mormonism with extra meaning. Lay Mormons identify the phrase as associated with the idea that crucial books originally destined for New Testament canon were taken out and are now missing, that the original content of the New Testament was significantly and even fatally corrupted almost from the beginning, that the text wasn’t reliably-preserved over the past two milleniums, and that today’s translations are overly dependent on prior translations, even resulting in the classic end-mess of a “telephone game.” Appealing to the supposed unreliability of the Bible often functions as a defense mechanism for Mormons.
It’s not uncommon for me to hear Mormons contrast “modern day revelation” with the writings of “dead men” in the Bible. As Eztra Taft Benson taught, “The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.” (>>) This frequently affirms for me something I have long claimed as prevalent in Mormonism. Mormons seem to have a very low view of the inspiration of scripture. That it was written by men who are now “dead” is used in a way that betrays a lack of belief in the dual-authorship of scripture. I believe that the Bible was and is inspired by God, communicating the voice and mind and authority of God himself, what God is saying and telling. Mormons tends to write off the Bible at convenient places, appealing to its human authorship as though that settled the matter. If a portion of scripture wasn’t ultimately authored by God himself, then it doesn’t have the binding authority and seriousness that it might otherwise have. For Jason, the best recourse for dealing with 1 Corinthians which seemed to contradict “modern-day revelation” was to question the integrity of 1 Corinthians.
Any evangelical who frequently witnesses to Mormons (both friends and strangers) will affirm that this kind of thought process is common among Mormons. It’s less than desirable that I would simply have to make this general claim from collective experiences of evangelicals who interact with Mormons. I would rather point to clear examples of the thinking in church-published curriculum. But apologists usually polish it up and Mormon leadership would never speak this kind of thinking with bluntness. But it’s deeply embedded throughout Mormonism, and I can testify to that on account of numerous interactions. Beyond the passing verbal tributes of LDS leaders to how much they “love” the Bible and find it “precious” and “the word of God,” Mormonism cultivates a very low view of it. It is essentially treated as dispensable whenever it is perceived to contradict what “modern-day revelation” has provided. Officially, Mormonism says that the Bible doesn’t contradict Mormon doctrine. Unofficially, the notion is cultivated that even if Mormonism does contradict what the Bible teaches, that’s quite OK since we can’t trust the Bible anyway like we can trust the products of the Mormon restoration.
Receiving Paul’s letters as the word of God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13),
Aaron
Hello, Aaron. That’s quite a conversation you had with Jason.
I do like Jason’s candor; he is very honest about what he believes.
I’ve been taking a bible study via Campus Crusade for Christ, Canada. For the past couple months it has been covering 1 Corinthians. It is a book I have read before, and I’ve enjoyed having an in-depth study of it.
Before I became a Christian, a dear friend of mine would often share with me a verse from the first chapter of 1 Corinthians:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
At the time, I must say I came to hate that verse. Now, I am pleased to say it has become precious to me.
Some time ago, I was visiting an LDS sacrament service with some family members. One of the speakers was talking of the work performed in the LDS temples. He declared, “Salvation is in the family.”
Perhaps one of the reasons for Jason’s reaction to 1 Corinthians 7 is that he believes salvation is in the family?
Romans 6:23 reveals where salvation is in:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
When I receive a wage, I get what I’ve earned. Earlier in Romans, it explains that “all have sinned.” That would mean that I’m a sinner. Sinners would not like what they have earned. But God, in his love, offers eternal life as a free gift to all who believe.
Ironically, the greatest news in the world is also the greatest offense to those who believe they are good enough to earn eternal life as their wage.
This is interesting. In another discussion, I had a Mormon tell me that Paul’s writings should be looked at carefully because they were addressed to specific people in specific places at specific times. In other words, his writings cannot be applied universally. I replied back that this allows for a selective picking and choosing. I have not heard a response, but what are others thoughts on the matter?
So I guess you’re saying “Down with God, Up with Paul”? We know that God commanded/instituted marriage in Genesis 1 & 2. We also find in Timothy 4:1-3 that ‘seducing spirits’ and ‘doctrines of devils’ will forbid people to marry. So the question is, why are both Jesus and Paul APPARENTLY teaching something contradictory to God?
In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus is discussing divorce, not marriage. In essence what He is saying is that if you got a divorce and remarry, you are committing adultery. So it would have been better if you had not married until you had control enough to commit to the one person for life.
As for Paul and his teachings, if you read closely in 1 Cor 7 you will see that these are just his ideas and his only, NOT God’s.
He is reiterating Jesus’ argument, and also stating that someone who is married will have a difficult time keeping his focus on God as he also has a wife and children to look after. So in that sense it is better to stay single for as long as possible.
As for the Bible and modern day revelation, Paul superseded Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, etc from the Old Testament because things had changed and times were different. The same with now. Things are different than Biblical times so more revelation is needed to know God’s will for today.
So Ralph, and any other Mormon: why do we care what Paul wrote? Can we trust any of what he says? How do we know?
Also, why even worry about the OT?
Michael P,
The Bible has in it core doctrines that have not changed over the centuries. But the main thing it culminates in is the testimony of Jesus Christ and His work, and the justice and mercy of a living God, who sent Jesus to pay for our sins.
As for the question “why even worry about the OT?”, I have met many Christians, including Evangelical Christians who say that we do not need the OT any more because Jesus has done away with/superseded it. Whereas we, LDS, still teach and learn from it. Case in point – Homosexuals and their supporters say that we cannot use any reference to homosexuality in the OT as we do not need to live by it any more. And these people are trying to claim that they are Christian and to be accepted as fully practising Christians at church.
But the main thing for LDS is, if the living prophet says something and its from God, then that supersedes the Bible and the BoM and the D&C, etc because it is what God wants us to know/do right now. Just like the NT apostles/prophets and Jesus superseded the OT prophets. We still believe in the Bible, no matter what anyone else tells you. Yes we clarify it as being “as far as it is translated correctly”, but the Book of Mormon also comes under that clarification if you read better into our teachings. We clarify the Bible because of the many people in the Christian community claiming that it is without error.
Some Mormons appear to have so heavily bought into the Joseph Smith myth that they will do whatever it takes to maintain faith in their prophet’s revelation(s). If it means degrading the Bible and its primary writers, so be it. Rational thought has no chance against emotionalism. This is especially so since the origin of a Mormons personal testimony is a “feeling” they attribute to coming from God as confirmation of the restored gospel. The more unconventional and separate from orthodox Chrisitanity a doctrine, practice or revelation is, the better for reinforcing “faith” in the Mormon belief system. Hence the willingness to subjugate the Bible and the Apostle Paul to Mornom belief (in this case).
Ralph,
The OT is needed, and I would challenge any evangelical on that point as well.
But homosexuality is NT as well, so I am not sure you can use that example.
And the superceding the Bible is the issue, isn’t it? And that is the direction I was going. If something supercedes something else, we look at the something else as a side note, a refernce point at best, but not the prime source. We don’t take it very seriously; the “meat” is in the first group.
This is indeed a major sticking point for us, and for good reason. Especially if you claim to worship the same God…
This is Jason from JosephSmith.com and I am the one that had the discussion with Aaron and Eric.
My broader point was simply that you cannot establish a church on the bible alone as it is wholly insufficient to correctly administer the various ordinances of the church of Jesus Christ. The true purpose of scripture is to testify of Christ – and the bible is the preeminent authority to do that from the Eastern hemisphere.
However, in terms of establishing a church and stating the manner and mode of baptism, the sacrament, priesthood ordination and progression, offices, callings, how the church should be conducted and on and on requires current and active revelation. If you try to establish doctrinal nuance based solely on the bible alone you will be left practically empty handed – you will get bits and pieces but there will be many gaps all over the place. Again, the purpose of the bible is to testify of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
The same with the Book of Mormon, while it restores much of the gospel of Christ it is not a handbook for how to establish and run a church as its primary purpose is to testify of Jesus Christ – which it does extraordinarily well.
So Paul states his ‘opinion’ on marriage but there is no “thus saith the Lord” regarding the topic except for a vague “no marriage in the resurrection” from Christ which we agree with. God told Adam and Eve (who were married in an immortal state and living forever) to multiply and replenish the earth. Are not Adam and Eve a perfect example of what God intended in the beginning for marriage? We have God telling Adam in an eternal state: “it is not good for man to be alone”.
It is critical that you remember that the bible’s purpose is to testify of Christ and His work. If you are going to establish a church or ministry you will need revelation, messengers sent from the presence of God, authority and yes even new scripture as proof to the world of your calling.
Good luck.
Jason, you’re trying to divert from what you specifically claimed in our discussion with Eric: that Joseph Smith should be trusted on the matter of marriage over Paul the Apostle. You didn’t simply claim that Paul was incomplete on this subject, you went further by allowing for Paul to be flat out wrong on this.
Perhaps you’re forgetting that the New Testament contains epistles that speak on how to run the church? Also, you’re forgetting that the Bible is itself revelation, and that the apostles communicated their inspired writings with authority. Your words, Jason, simply re-affirm the very low view of the Bible you have as non-authoritative and non-revelatory.
God made food, but he doesn’t think we should always eat it, even though it’s normative to eat when you’re hungry. He also gave marriage and sex, but he obviously doesn’t think everyone should seek to be married and procreate, even though he spoke of marriage and procreation as normative.
That fact is that 1 Corinthians 7 is inspired, even though it contains concessions. Paul doesn’t command people to marry or not to marry (indeed, he says that if a person does marry they haven’t committed a sin), but his reasoning behind his strong suggestion is nonetheless inspired and true. Mormons who come into contact with this passage more often than not try to find a revisionist or euphemistic way of saying they think Paul was just wrong in his reasoning.
This kind of thinking makes little sense in Mormonism, since Mormonism teaches that all should seek to please the Lord by getting married. Paul goes on to say, “So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.” Better?
The only way Mormon doctrine makes sense in light of passages like these is if one holds the view that people like Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley have more authority and reliability today than Paul and the other early apostles. But in the end, though, Mormonism ironically wants us to adopt an extremely low view of modern prophets and apostles also, denigrating much of what they say as mere expendable, speculative, headed-for-the-trash-can opinion, even when it’s authoritatively given as revelatory doctrine from the General Conference pulpit (example: Adam-God).
Feeling a warm burning in my bosom over president Hinckley’s advice on how many ear rings my wife can wear, 😉
Aaron
One more note, folks here should go read the entirety of 1 Corinthians 7 before they comment. Paul argues that if you can’t control your burning sexual passion, then you should get married, and if you can, you should stay single. This is hardly an argument that we absolutely have an ethical duty before God to get married once we can sustain a commitment to one woman. Even if you want to denigrate Paul’s reasoning to mere speculation, you still have to own up to the fact that it isn’t even compatible with the Mormon worldview.
Good grief, can you imagine Paul giving 1 Corinthians 7 as a fireside at BYU? His line of thinking is starkly foreign to Mormon culture.
Jesus said we’d be like the unmarried angels in heaven (Mark 12:25), and I believe him and trust him for a whole new exciting dynamic of human relationships and community to come. How dare we question God’s ability to provide meaningful, intense human relationships in heaven by hanging onto something he clearly said would be obsolete.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Aaron “How dare we question God’s ability to provide meaningful, intense human relationships in heaven by hanging onto something he clearly said would be obselete.”
I had a thought cross my mind a couple days ago when I hear “Families can be together forever” from the LDS church… To me, it’s like, no duh, all who are the adopted children of God are one giant united family in heaven for eternity. Of course my understanding of what it means to be a family in heaven is different from theres. The LDS church has added the concepts of having spirit children and populating your own planet, etc..
It’s just kind of funny to me when they say “families can be together forever” to investigators like its not known that all will be united as God’s family in the traditional Christian world. Do some people out there really think that when you go to heaven you are separated from those you love and those you didn’t even know?.. I guess in some of the ways in Mormonism, you are (i.e. telestial, terrestial, celestial).
It seems to me that it’s real exciting for Mormons to think they have this dynamic revelation going on with/from God. My understanding, from the above discussion, is that all scripture and church practice to Mormons, is subject to the interpretation of the Mormon prophet. This can change depending on political pressure or from exposure of certain things (like Mormon temple practices). I don’t think Mormon doctrine and practice is very reliable or for that matter stable. The Bible is the only reliable source for guidance and practice in the Christian life. All extra Biblical sources/revelations are to be rejected. We see how far off course Mormons are by depending on a revelatory myth and a false prophet.
If the bible were truly crystal clear on exactly how to organize and run the church of Christ we wouldn’t have a thousand different sects in the world. Show me the sacrament prayer in the bible, show me the proper baptismal method or consecration to the ministry. Where’s the handbook? Oh you don’t have one? So in the absence of that you try to eek out the holy order from the letters Paul wrote. But the letters are decidely not up to the task of running a demanding world-wide church that is to fill the whole earth. Since Paul isn’t around for us to clarify doctrinal nuance revelation is our only option.
The bible is glorious in terms of providing an undisputed testimony of Jesus Christ, His life, Atonement and resurrection and in a very powerful way brings souls to live a Christ-like life but it never claims to be the only volume of God’s written word.
John saw the last days with clarity:
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”
Why would an angel or a messenger have to come in the last days with the gospel to preach if we already had it among us? Why this new gospel?
We learn that:
1) This gospel would go to all nations
2) It would come before the final judgment day (for the hour of his judgment is come)
3) It would teach us to worship the true God and avoid the errors that crept into the doctrine via the creeds. (worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters)
So if you truly want to learn about marriage God has now revealed far more on the subject than Paul ever did.
I’m happy to see the words “new gospel” used here. Actually I would change it to “different gospel”. I think that would be much more accurate and help clarify the significant difference between the Mormon gospel and the Gospel preached by the orthodox Christian Church. One of the main differences regards revelation. While orthodox Christians receive revelations from God, those revelations don’t change doctrine or practice. The Mormon god reveals things to their prophet(s) that allows changes in fundamental principles based on political pressure or other factors i.e. plural marrage, blacks and the priesthood, temple rituals. Also, it’s pretty difficult to discern what is actionable when the Mormon prophets speak because others can negate their message. Brother Young and Adam-God for example. So Aaron’s discussion regarding marrage could be a pretty free flowing topic for Mormons. As could church government which I don’t see as such a big deal anyway (regarding how congregations choose to organize themselves). The Bible is more clear on the positions and gifts within the Church and how they should be exercised.
Hmm. Since you guys want to follow Paul to the letter do you allow women to speak in your church or ministry?
“…for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” – 1st Corinthians 14:33-35
The “women are to keep silent in the churches” – wow.
The King James translation is even more telling:
“for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
Aaron, Eric, falcon – do you guys follow this council? Do you feel ashamed if your wives speak in church?
Jason–
My take is that elsewhere we find evidence of women able to pray and speak on religious matters. And like we tend to do, we look at the Bible as a whole. Isolating verses, like you have done, leads to false doctrine.
Jason said
Funny you post this, Your Church is so full of confusion your prophets cannot agree on anything. They did agree on what is doctrine or which book is the most correct or is it the prophet over the standerd works? The Devil is the founder of the LDS church. Rick b
I have also heard the claim that the Bible is not translated correctly. Actually, to be more accurate, isn’t Mormons’ objection that the Bible was not preserved correctly? They always use the word “translated” but it seems they mean something different. After all, one can go to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and read them. (Provided, of course, that one knows these languages. Incidentally, pastors receive training in Greek and Hebrew in seminary and can usually read the manuscripts in their original languages. Do the GA’s have this training? Random thought).
One thing I would like to ask the Mormon posters on here is for specific examples of Biblical errors. I want exact references, and the reasons why, please. No more of this vague “the Bible isn’t translated correctly” stuff. Okay, where exactly? And another thing—doesn’t the President have revelatory ability to know where these errors are and correct them? If so, why haven’t any of them done that?
Megan “And another thing—doesn’t the President have revelatory ability to know where these errors are and correct them? If so, why haven’t any of them done that?”
Oh, now, lets not be silly.. It is FAR more important to counsel the flock on how many earrings one can wear, deliver the same speech about being obedient and happy (putting a nice coat of sweet sugar on your church for PR), dodging/acting ignorant to doctrine the founder of your church came up with (God once being a man), than it is to correct any VERY meaningful scripture written many years ago..
Who cares about the times when Jesus walked the earth, I need to know how many earrings my wife can wear!
I’m not trying to be sarcastic and offend anyone, I’m trying to show the ironic side of this.. Honestly, don’t you think that logically there should be major work being done on correcting scripture, instead of every General Conference just talks about how to be a better person (don’t get me wrong, I think that’s very important and I think Mormon’s do the best job out of anyone of keeping people in line and being a good person, but the gospel is so much deeper than that coat of sweet sugar.) This is why General Conference puts me to sleep. There has been no fiery sermons or anything else than common sense talks and testimonies of love and compassion being given. I almost wish I lived in Brigham Young’s days. He would have kept me awake no doubt.
Wow. You guys are now turning on Paul big time. Are you saying Michael that you are going to completely ignore these verses from Paul?? So is it in this case:
“Down with Paul, up with other biblical writers!”
Or do you think that this passage is simply Paul’s opinion? And if you can in such a cavalier way throw this out we should be afforded the same on his marriage opinion.
Some advice: It’s best to know when you’ve been owned and simply back away.
Megan, if you want to know something I suggest you follow Paul’s advice and “go ask your husband”.
Jason,
It is the word of God. You have to look at the whole picture. You have to look at the context; and you have to look at what the entire Bible says, not just the one verse. If there are questions, as admittedly there are, you try to reconcile them and not throw them out the door.
I never turned on Paul, and never would. Actually, a reference of women acting in church is found in the very same book! Interesting, huh?
What do we do with it? That is the question. One thing is certain, we do not dismiss any of it. We step back and look at that context again. We make allowances where necessary, based on context, wording, and what the rest of the Bible says. Another question to ask is what is the purpose of give x or y instruction. What is accomplished and why? This is critical thinking, and is not rocket science.
And frankly, I’d rather rely on one source than multiple who change their minds when the need hits.
Jason, you are deliberately changing the subject. I asked honest questions and I would like honest answers. You are wasting our time by changing the subject. It is a cop-out, and I will have to assume that you have no real answer since you have not yet given one.
I believe you have already posted 3 comments today so I suppose I will have to wait until tomorrow. That is, if you care to answer.
I have two main questions:
1)Which parts in the Bible are not “correct”? References, please.
2) Why haven’t any Presidents past or present corrected these errors?
Now, would any LDS posters like to actually answer these questions?
Megan, in answer to your first question, look up ‘bible errors’ in Google and you will find a whole list of pages that deal with this topic.
One of the best is by a Christian who besides showing many errors in the KJV, says C. S. Lewis sagely remarked, Odd the way the less the Bible is read, the more it is translated. In spite of its imperfections, the King James Version remains a masterpiece. Believers should use the KJV for their main study Bible, and other translations as secondary study aides. http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
Another site, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html says that most of the books in the Bible are only attributed to a writer, but it is well known that they did not write the book – for example the 4 Gospels were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It states And–in spite of what the Gospel authors say–biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry. It also says No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists. I know nothing about this site and its affiliations so I don’t know if the writer of this has an agendum or not.
So does that answer your first question? There is too little room (and time as I am at work) to answer your second right now and I can’t do back-to-back postings.
What religion are you, Ralph? You on many accounts sound like an atheist.
As I’m sure you know, the evangelical position on inerrancy applies to the original documents, so translation errors obviously don’t challenge that. And of course, we believe the documents were reliably transmitted. We don’t have to have the original documents to have a incredibly reliable reconstruction that we can trust. That goes for other ancient historical documents as well.
It doesn’t bother me that there are errors in the KJV translation. In fact, that we have the Hebrew and Greek to compare it to only strengthens my belief that we can trust the Bible. Overall the KJV is a great translation, and the more modern translations with large teams of language scholars only help the case. We who do evangelism to Mormons often use the KJV, because even through the quirks and archaic language you can get the simple, pure gospel.
As for the authorship of the four gospels, it sounds like you’re just parroting naked “it is well known” statements. I’d recommend An Introduction to the New Testament for an introduction to issues of authorship for each of the New Testament books. Making sweeping generalizations about textual variants is a dishonest way of making an argument against the reliability of the biblical text, as textual criticism helps actually identify them. As it turns out, most of them are insignificant to the larger meaning of the text.
I’d challenge you to find some actual significant passages that can’t reliably be reconstructed via textual criticism, particularly those upon which core Christian doctrines pivot. I can’t think of one.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Aaron,
Am I an athiest? No, I’m a biological researcher and so I look at both positive and negative of the case. In this case my religion/faith, which happens to include the Bible and why I am on this site. As for your statement about the evangelical position on Biblical inerrancy, from what I can determine from this blog site, and others I have spoken with, the majority think the Bible is inerrent, not just the original manuscripts. You are one of the few I have met who believe that this is not the case. Maybe I haven’t spoken with a significant population of evangelicals yet.
One scripture I can think of, which you know about and it has been corrected now in most new translations is the Johanine comma. This is the only verse that supports a Trinity in the Bible. That is a core doctrine of evangelical Christianity. Another website from the Sceptics society gives some other verses that are incorrect or added to the Bible, and I can send it to your email if you wish. Its just for interest sake for me.
As for the authorship of the books, the italics were quotes and the rest summarised – so not my words but the author’s.
Just a note – I am able to believe in what I believe despite the so-called evidences against it, the same way as you believe in the Bible despite the mistakes in and evidences against it. So I think that answers a question many of you have asked us LDS over the past blogs.
Can you think of one Christian on this site who has claimed that a modern translation of the Bible is perfect?
I suspect you’re reading into evangelical language. When we say that the Bible is inerrant, we normally mean the original manuscripts. And since modern translations are reliable reconstructions of the originals, we mean that the Bible as we have it today is by assumption trustworthy in all its parts unless there is some footnote calling attention to a translation or manuscript issue.
I’m glad you brought up the Johannine Comma. It’s part of what I call the “big three”: the end of Mark, the beginning of John 8, and 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma). There are the biggest texts of the New Testament that I think are at the very least questionable given what we know from the manuscript history. Liberals like to speak of them as though they characterize the rest of the NT, but they’re really just the very worst examples of NT textual manipulation they can think of. And no fundamental Christian doctrine pivots on any of the three. I asked you to provide a text upon which a core Christian doctrine pivots. The Trinity was developed as a systematic doctrine from the Bible without the Johannine comma even being used. You won’t find any early church father appealing to the Johannine Comma to support the Trinity. They didn’t have it or need it, they had plenty of other texts upon which to build their tri-personal monotheism.
So I’d still challenge you to find some actual significant passages that can’t reliably be reconstructed via textual criticism, particularly those upon which a core Christian doctrine pivots. I can’t think of one.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
PS If you’re going to grant so much credence to skeptics’ web sites, then I would at least give some significant time to reading the best of the other side. I would again recommend the book by Carson and Moo. It’ll get your feet wet with some particulars at a more academic level. You can get it used for about 10 bucks.
Aaron, I will agree that I may have misinterpreted evangelical language when others have been discussing the correctness of the Bible translations, but in this response site a couple of posts ago Megan said –
To me, this quote, and the rest of what she said, indicates that she believes that the Bible translations are perfect. In past article responses RickB seems to push the idea that the Bible translations are inerrant. Maybe I am misunderstanding him with this as well – sorry RickB nothing personal but I do find you a little difficult to understand at times.
But Megan was asking for examples of incorrect translation, so I gave her some websites that do this.
As for your question of “core doctrine scripture”, the Johannine Comma is the main one I know of apart from Mark 16:9-20 – but the resurrection of Jesus and His appearances after that are documented in other places in the Bible, which is why I didn’t include it. So I cannot give you any other examples at this point in time of core doctrine.
I only went to the sceptic sites to get answers to Megan’s question. But just remember, the LDS church as well as other Christian churches stands or falls on the Bible. If the Bible is incorrect so are our churches, so I am not just ‘attacking’ your faith. And before anyone says this, yes I know about the past comment from a church leader (can’t remember who though) about the LDS church standing or falling on the BoM – this statement is in comparison to other Bible believing churches. Whereas my statement about the Bible is encompassing all worldwide religions.
PS I might see if AnIntroduction to the New Testament is in the library first.
Ralph, I’m not going to put words in Megan’s mouth, but I often ask the same question to Mormons (“which parts aren’t translated correctly?”) without the presupposition that translations are perfect. Mormons, from my experience, generally conflate the idea of telephone-game-transmission with translation and put both into the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly.” In effect it’s like asking, “Which parts of the Bible should and shouldn’t we trust?” Mormons, in my experience, have simply used a general mistrust of the Bible as a defense mechanism when confronted with challenging passages. I’d rather them be specific about which passages they don’t think they can trust in the KJV, do some homework, and then, if possible, find a better translation of the passage in question. If we love God’s word, we won’t treat it as so easily disposable, like Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine or Brigham Young’s Adam-God sermons.
Again, the Johannine Comma doesn’t work as an example of a passage upon which a Christian doctrine pivots.
Hoping you’ll reconsider the integrity of the four gospels,
Aaron
Ralph,
What knowledge do we gain with the BOM? Seriously, what is included there that is not included in the Bible? I get the feeling that the BOM doesn’t really add as much, and that Mormonism would not fall without the BOM, but would without the Bible. You may also have more problems without the D&C and PoGP.
As to the Bible translations, any translation is not perfect, even the BOM into French. This is why Muslims don’t really like any translations of the Koran. But the ancient documents we have, as the guys above have explained, certainly have differences. Those differences though are minor and do not affect the meaning (this is exactly what you say about the BOM, too). And the sheer number of them, and the likeness they have, gives us a good idea what the originals were.
The reason I asked Mormons to give examples of errors in the Bible is because they say “the Bible can be trusted as far as it is translated correctly”. This is what the missionaries told me. I believe this is actually official church teaching as well. I don’t think it’s fair for Mormons to make such a sweeping claim without providing specifics. So I wanted some.
I believe the Bible is inerrant. The general meaning of the scriptures is the same in English as it is in Greek and Hebrew. Translations are never going to be as perfect as the originals though, simply because they’re different languages. For example, a few years ago I bought “The Brothers Karamazov” for my Dad. There were two editions by two different translators. I wasn’t sure which one to pick, so I just went with the one that was cheaper! But they were still the same book.
Can anyone answer my other question as to why no presidents have corrected the supposed errors in the Bible?
About something you talked about earlier.
“…for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” – 1st Corinthians 14:33-35.
A theory I heared from a friend, was that the Corinthians had a problem with women talking during a sermon, and asking inapropriate questions.
Something you talked about earlier about changing doctrines within the mormon church, I have to say that a “conclusion” of what I know of mormon history, is that the mormon church is a product of its time… plain and simple.
The errors in the Bible have been corrected, by the first president of the church.. Joseph Smith, the JST. But the momons dont use that.. Why?
Funny that the J.S.T. Should be brought up as I was going to mention that.
The LDS Say the Bible is not translated correctly, but what about the 4,000 plus changes to the BoM is that translated correctly?
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were Told by God to “Correct” the Bible as it were by way of the J.S.T. They claimed it was done, yet the LDS rarely use it. For more in depth answers on that read my topic here as it is to long to post here.
Part 1 here:
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/10/joseph-smiths-bible-part-1.html
Part 2 here:
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/11/joseph-smiths-bible-part-2.html
Part 3 here:
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/11/joseph-smiths-bible-part-3.html
It’s a lot of info in three parts, but I believe it will answer some questions. Rick b
Moderator Note: As a general rule, posting multiple links is frowned upon. Please refrain from that in the future. Also, just as posting links to LDS apologetic sites here requires a satisfactory summary (in your own words) of the key arguments made, providing the same information for links to Christian apologetic sites is recommended. Thanks!
Megan–
Not likely to get an answer, but would love to see one. Much like an answer to the question of when we are to take their leaders seriously…
Why don’t the leaders ‘translate’ the Bible correctly? I don’t know of any official answer but my thoughts are the if there are too many changes, especially to verses about core doctrines, then the Christian community would get very uppity and use that to try and prove us wrong by saying that we have changed the Bible which has stood for almost 2000 years. This would not be very easy to overcome when saying that we too believe in Jesus Christ, but then we’ve changed the book about him. Look at the JWs, they have a different version of the Bible which their own scholars have translated for them, and they claim its more accurate than normal Christian Bibles. But as “asjaastad” said, Joseph Smith did a translation of the Bible, and we do use it for teaching purposes.
Aaron and others, if you do mean that the Bible is inerrant when it comes to the core doctrine verses then why not say that straight up. It would save a lot of confusion. But as I said, I do know Christians who claim the Bible is 100% perfect, without translational error, or contradictions. They do a double take when shown some of the small mistakes. It’s something that is not taught in Sunday School, that there are faults in the Bible, so most are ignorant of this.
But as I have said, despite the evidences and arguments against the Bible, you, and I, still believe. Why? I know why I believe, I have had a witness from the Holy Ghost about the truth of God and Jesus Christ and the Bible (as well as the BoM and the LDS church), which is why I believe. It has nothing to do with logic, history, archaeology, etc, but a strong, personal, spiritual witness to the truth. My colleagues at work who are not religious think I am a little crazy to believe, but they let me be. My lecturers at uni were a different story.
Ralph “but my thoughts are the if there are too many changes, especially to verses about core doctrines, then the Christian community would get very uppity and use that to try and prove us wrong by saying that we have changed the Bible which has stood for almost 2000 years.”
I appreciate you giving your honest thoughts, but I have to say that those words you typed seem to coincide perfectly with how the LDS church attempts to attract converts. Its like, Heaven forbid we go back to our roots of not looking much like traditional Christianity. We must be pleaser’s of men. Forget trying to restore even more truth to the earth by correcting the Holy Bible once and for all. I don’t think the Christian community would get any more uppity than they already are with the truth-claims of the LDS church. In fact, I think some evangelicals would be relieved that the LDS church would be able to remove “as far as its translated correctly.” from Articles of Faith 8. We would then be able to compare and contrast the “real” bible with what the rest of the LDS church claims. To you, I say, boy I wish! I cant wait!
I have gone to an LDS ward practically every sunday, attending all 3 hours, for the past 3 years.. and I have only heard Joseph Smith’s translation being quoted or used perhaps 2-3 times. I don’t know if other wards tend to teach from it more often, but that has been my experience.
Good point though, evangelicals should be more specific when they speak of inerrancy in the Bible. But on the other side of the fence, the LDS church should be more specific on what errors there are in the Bible.
The Joseph Smith Translation was given to Joseph through revelation. And to use it only in some teachings or sermons, is kind of hypocritical… Your prophet got a revelation, don’t you obey? Its like a Christian only using the OT and the 4 gospels, and not care about any of Paul’s letters.
Rev 22, 18-19 – “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Mods said
I posted 3 because it is a 3 part topic all written by me. Then when you said : Also, just as posting links to LDS apologetic sites here requires a satisfactory summary (in your own words) Every thing I linked to was written by me, it was not another persons work, If I tried to sum it up, I would have simply posted it here in all 3 posts. Rick b
A telling quote from Ezra Benson:
“We do not have to prove the Book of Mormon is true. The book is its own proof. All we need to do is read it and declare it! The Book of Mormon is not on trial—the people of the world, including the members of the Church, are on trial as to what they will do with this second witness for Christ.”
What a deflection!