| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 23.1 | Keen eh ? | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Thu Feb 04 1988 10:18 | 6 |
| Gosh, we do have a keen and alert moderator here don't we ? :-)
Ok, I'll put my stuff on accuracy (copying and translating) in here
when I finish compiling it.
Paul V
|
| 23.2 | Copy / Translate | CASV02::PRESTON | | Thu Feb 04 1988 13:17 | 26 |
|
Hi, Allen. It seems we now have a more suitable forum for the
discussion of Mormonism than previously, and I'm all for it.
The well-read notes 241 and 242 from the CHRISTIAN notes file
were growing awfully large... and I think they were, after all
going off in a direction beyond the originally intent of the
conference.
This particular topic, translation and accuracy of the Bible,
promises to be very interesting if there is enough participation.
I would like to state early on, however, that I disagree with
including copying of text under the heading of translation.
Translation means to turn a text from one language into its
equivalent in another language. Copying, whether by scribes or
by Xerox machines, means reproducing of the original text, hence
it cannot be considered part of the translation process or even
a type of translation.
Since we will be considering the accuracy of biblical translations,
the accuracy of copies of texts will of course be relevant, but
I believe it is best to make a clear distinction between the
process of translation and the process of transcription (copying).
Regards,
Ed
|
| 23.3 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Feb 04 1988 15:18 | 36 |
| Re .2
Hi Ed,
> This particular topic, translation and accuracy of the Bible,
> promises to be very interesting if there is enough participation.
> I would like to state early on, however, that I disagree with
> including copying of text under the heading of translation.
> Translation means to turn a text from one language into its
> equivalent in another language. Copying, whether by scribes or
> by Xerox machines, means reproducing of the original text, hence
> it cannot be considered part of the translation process or even
> a type of translation.
>
> Since we will be considering the accuracy of biblical translations,
> the accuracy of copies of texts will of course be relevant, but
> I believe it is best to make a clear distinction between the
> process of translation and the process of transcription (copying).
I agree with you that translation and copying are separate functions.
When I set up .0, I mentioned them both as part of a generic "translation"
function because of the LDS 8th Article of Faith which speaks of
"translation". I was assuming that that Article of Faith would be
brought into the discussion, and that assumption might be wrong.
If people want to use this note to discuss accuracy of the Bible with
no reference or mention of the 8th Article of Faith, then it might be
good to have this note for translation and a different note for copying.
However, if people want to refer to the 8th Article of Faith as part of
this note, then I think that both translation and copying need to be
involved, because I think that Joseph Smith had both in mind when he
wrote the Article of Faith. You might want to talk it over offline
with Paul and the two of you decide. If you decide to limit this note
to translations, I'll change the title to reflect that.
Allen
|
| 23.4 | | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Fri Feb 05 1988 05:39 | 8 |
|
I'm happy to discuss the reliability of the manuscripts, ie, how
well they reflect the original manuscripts. I think this is possibly
more important than how they have actually been translated into
other languages as a translation is only as good as the original
text it was translated from.
Paul V
|
| 23.5 | | CASV02::PRESTON | | Fri Feb 05 1988 11:32 | 26 |
| Hi Allen,
I'm a bit confused already by this translation/copying concern we
have here - I take it that this note *is* primarily regarding the
8th article of faith statement rather than simply Bible translation.
Since this conference is on the subject of Mormonism, I would feel
that it is more appropriate to keep the topics as relevant and
connected with the main topic as possible. For a generic exercise
on Bible translation, I would probably stick to the Christian notes
file.
As far as my original objection to loosly equating copying to
translation, I was not trying to keep copying out of the picture,
in fact I believe a good study of the subject at hand cannot be
done without considering it. If that is what you meant by your earlier
statement, then I agree after all. Let's just make it clear which
we are talking about as we enter replies, that way we'll be able
to arrive at some sort of consensus that much easier.
Please, to help us get off on a good start, could you expand on
the 8th article of faith for us, as it relates to this topic?
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 23.6 | And another thing... | USMRM7::KOSSLER | | Fri Feb 05 1988 11:48 | 36 |
| Another thing which should be discussed is the process of 'updating'
the Bible into new versions. Revising the King James version, for
example, into more contemporary language is - in my view - a kind of
translation (in this case from old English to new English).
I understand that this is done in order to make the Bible more
accessible to more people, a worthy goal. But isn't it possible to
lose/insert/change something in the process? Since the meanings of
certain passages are so subtle that many Christian denominations cannot
agree what they mean, how can we tamper with the language without
making things worse?
I do not mean to imply that users of various versions are any less
Christian for doing so. But I can easily see how trying to express
biblical concepts in currently acceptable phraseology can lead to
interpretive error.
An extreme example is the recent and well publicised attempt to remove
all gender references from the Bible and publish the result as a new
edition. This raises all kinds of questions in my mind. If God said
'sons' did He not mean 'sons' and not 'children'? If He meant to say
'children', why did He not say so? By what authority can such changes
be made? And is it not possible to be misled by such interpretations
while at the same time have a firm belief in Biblical authority? And
therefore is it not possible to have a 'Bible' that contains errors?
Obviously, we all need the Holy Spirit to be with us when we contemplate
Spiritual matters. And it is only through the Spirit that we can
understand what the Bible teaches. So our goal should be to get
as atuned to the Spirit as we can in order to understand all that
we are able.
With Christ's love,
/kevin
|
| 23.7 | Let's begin | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 08 1988 08:30 | 122 |
| In reading over the replies to this note, it seems to me that we pretty much
agree that the topic of this note is the accuracy of the Bible from the
viewpoint of the LDS Church, rather than from a general Christian viewpoint;
actually, the general viewpoint is a subset of the topic which I stated above.
Sub-topics that might be discussed include the following.
1. The copying of the original manuscripts and of resulting copies.
2. The translation of manuscripts from other languages into English or
other common languages.
3. The revision of various versions.
4. The Eighth Article of Faith of the LDS Church as it pertains to the
Bible.
5. Statements from the Book of Mormon about the Bible (this has not been
mentioned in the replies, but it pertains to the topic of this note
as I have defined that topic above).
I feel that this topic is very important in an understanding of the doctrine
and position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because it is
directly related to our belief in additional books of scripture and to our
belief in modern Revelation from God to living prophets.
In 1842, Joseph Smith was asked by a Mr. John Wentworth to explain the
beliefs of the Mormon church. Joseph's reply, known as the Wentworth letter,
discussed the history of the Church to that time and concluded with a list of
13 of our basic beliefs. That list is known as the Thirteen Articles of
Faith. It is published as part of the Pearl of Great Price, and since the P
of GP has been canonized as LDS scripture, the Articles of Faith are thus
scripture to us.
We need to keep in mind that the Articles of Faith were not intended by Joseph
Smith to be a complete list of our beliefs.
Article of Faith 8 states the following.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
I think that when Joseph used the word "translated" he was referring to more
than just translation from one language to another. I think he was referring
to everything that has happened since the original manuscripts were written by
persons inspired of God.
In 1832, he said that "it was apparent that many important points touching the
salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was
compiled." (History of the Church 1:245).
Earlier, he had learned while translating the Book of Mormon that wicked men
had distorted the teachings of the Bible. The context for the verses which
follow are a vision which Nephi had (600 BC) of the Bible which would come
forth in the future.
And it came to pass that I, Nephi beheld that they [the Gentiles] did
prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among
them.
And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book?
And I said unto him: I know not.
And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I,
Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The Book that thou beholdest is a
record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he
hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the
prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the
engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many;
nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made
unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the
Gentiles.
And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book
proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from
the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of
whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to
the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the
Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,
from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great
and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches;
for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts
which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord
have they taken away.
And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the
Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children
of men.
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the
hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and
precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of
God.
And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth
unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all
the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou
hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou
seest--because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken
out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children
of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God--because
of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an
exceedingly great many do stumble, yea insomuch that Satan hath great
power over them. (1 Nephi 13:20-29)
Note should be made that the "great and abominable church" mentioned is not
any one particular denomination; it is anyone or any organization that opposes
the work of the Lord.
Thus, we Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God in as far
as it contains the truths originally written by the persons inspired of God,
but we believe it was changed and distorted during the apostasy (see notes
4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 for a general discussion of the apostasy).
So, if everyone agrees, let us begin our discussion from this point.
Allen
|
| 23.8 | OT&NT or NT ? | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Mon Feb 08 1988 12:37 | 8 |
|
re .7
Allen, are you referring to the Bible as both OT and NT or is it
just the NT which is thought to have been abridged ?
Thanks,
Paul V
|
| 23.9 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 08 1988 12:47 | 7 |
| Re .8
Hi Paul,
Both.
Allen
|
| 23.10 | Are your declarations based on fact or faith? | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Mon Feb 08 1988 13:50 | 34 |
|
re: 23.7 <CACHE::LEIGH>
>Article of Faith 8 states the following.
> We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
> correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Why does Joseph Smith attach the words "as far as it is translated
correctly" in association to the Bible and not to the Book of Mormon? Is
it not true that Mormons consider the Book of Mormons to be superior source
of authority and more accurate that the Bible?
>In 1832, he said that "it was apparent that many important points touching
>the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was
>compiled." (History of the Church 1:245).
What specifically are these "points touching the salvation of man" that
have been lost or taken from the Bible? And what is the proof of their
prior existence in the Bible?
>Earlier, he had learned while translating the Book of Mormon that wicked
>men had distorted the teachings of the Bible. The context for the verses
>which follow are a vision which Nephi had (600 BC) of the Bible which
>would come forth in the future.
Who, specifically, are these "wicked men" and what is the proof of
their distortion of the teachings of the Bible?
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 23.11 | Missing Scriptures | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 08 1988 22:53 | 92 |
| Re: Note 23.10 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
Hi Tony,
> Why does Joseph Smith attach the words "as far as it is translated
> correctly" in association to the Bible and not to the Book of Mormon?
I think that Joseph Smith is saying here that he had been made aware
that there *had* been errors, even intentional errors, in the
translation/transcription of the Bible because of Nephi's vision (see
23.7). He knew of no such errors in the Book of Mormon.
> Is
> it not true that Mormons consider the Book of Mormons to be superior source
> of authority and more accurate that the Bible?
We do consider the Book of Mormon to be more correctly translated, and
thus more accurately representing it's original source documents (the
gold plates) than the current Bible represents the original manuscripts
written by the various authors of the books in the Bible. This is a
very difficult thing to prove, since we have in our possession the
original documents for neither.
Let me be clear. We accept the Bible, as we have it today, perhaps more
literally and completely than any other church. We regard it to be the
Word of God, just as much as the Book of Mormon. We quote from it, we
use it in our services, we read it in our families and privately. We
treasure it. The church commonly uses the King James Version of the
Bible. We simply believe what Nephi said the angel told him, that many
plain and precious things that were in the original documents of the
Bible are missing, and do cause many to stumble. Consider as evidence
of this the debates among many well-intentioned Christians about the
meaning of many Bible passages.
> >In 1832, he said that "it was apparent that many important points touching
> >the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was
> >compiled." (History of the Church 1:245).
>
> What specifically are these "points touching the salvation of man" that
> have been lost or taken from the Bible? And what is the proof of their
> prior existence in the Bible?
Allen Leigh is doing a pretty good job of outlining many of these in
topic 4. The best way to find them all out is to read the Book of
Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The key to
knowing the prior existence of these "points" lies in the proof that
the Book of Mormon is authentic. This can only be proved to a person by
the power of the Holy Ghost, in answer to sincere prayer.
The Bible itself speaks of other scriptures that are missing. For
example:
Book of the Covenant Exodus 24:7
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13
Book written by Samuel we don't have 1 Samuel 10:25
Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the Prophet 2 Chronicles 9:29
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chronicles 13:22
Acts of Abijah in the story of
the Prophet Iddo 2 Chronicles 13:22
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
Jesus shall be called a Nazarene -
prophecy not in the Bible Matthew 2:23
Missing Epistle of Paul to Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
Missing Epistle of Paul to Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Missing Epistle of Paul to Laodicea Colossians 4:16
Missing Epistle of Jude Jude 1:3
Enoch's prophecies Jude 1:14
In addition, we learn that Nephi and His people had the writings
of some Old Testament prophets that the Bible does not speak of:
Zenock, Neum, Zenos, and Ezias.
> >Earlier, he had learned while translating the Book of Mormon that wicked
> >men had distorted the teachings of the Bible. The context for the verses
> >which follow are a vision which Nephi had (600 BC) of the Bible which
> >would come forth in the future.
>
> Who, specifically, are these "wicked men" and what is the proof of
> their distortion of the teachings of the Bible?
We do not know who, specifically, did this. We only know that the
angel told Nephi it was to be so. He also told Nephi that this was
one of the reasons the Book of Mormon was to come forth, to teach
many plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.12 | Possible Added Scriptures | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 09 1988 11:48 | 51 |
| In addition to my last reply regarding missing scriptures, we have the
question of "possible" added scriptures. I became aware of the
following examples in a discussion in the CHRISTIAN conference. We were
having a discussion about baptism in Topic 321, from which I have
extracted some things by Chas Johnson, as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Word of our Lord:
> "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
> and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
> believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
> believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15-16
Hi Rich,
Not to be picky, but there are two problems here. First, Mark 16:15,16
were not in the originally inspired manuscripts. So we need to
weigh that fact.
When asked about his source on this, Chas says:
My source is from a footnote referencing these scriptures in my NIV.
These verses were not in the earliest extant manuscripts that are
available. There are later manuscripts which have added these verses.
The same being true of John chapter 8:1-11. It is felt that these
were added later to give greater detail or for clarification. I
don't take these additions as destroying the reliability of scripture,
but neither can we accurately state that they were originally penned.
We just need to know this fact and accept it for what it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I don't know whether these verses were in the original Gospels of
Mark and John or not, but apparently they are found in some manuscripts
and not in others. If the manuscripts do not agree, then, at some
point, somebody either added it or took it away. Either case indicates
that there are at least two instances of plain and precious teachings
of the Bible about the salvation of man being tampered with.
Again, please do not mistake me. We hold the Bible to be the divine
Word of God, and we believe it with all our hearts. But we believe God
has revealed that some plain and precious things are no longer the same
as they were when He inspired the original authors to write them. We
believe the Book of Mormon is given to help teach again in plainness
some of these things. The Book of Mormon testifies of the divinity of
the Bible, and agrees and supports the teachings found in the Bible.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.13 | Let's see some facts! | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Tue Feb 09 1988 16:26 | 66 |
|
re: 23.11 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
>> Why does Joseph Smith attach the words "as far as it is translated
>> correctly" in association to the Bible and not to the Book of Mormon?
>I think that Joseph Smith is saying here that he had been made aware that
>there *had* been errors, even intentional errors, in the
>translation/transcription of the Bible because of Nephi's vision (see
>23.7). He knew of no such errors in the Book of Mormon.
This supposed awareness of error is based on faith in the book of Nephi
and not on facts.
>We do consider the Book of Mormon to be more correctly translated, and
>thus more accurately representing it's original source documents (the gold
>plates) than the current Bible represents the original manuscripts written
>by the various authors of the books in the Bible. This is a very difficult
>thing to prove, since we have in our possession the original documents for
>neither.
So are you saying that it is a matter of faith and not fact that you
base this claim? (NOTE: In Note 10, I proved, using Scripture, that the
Bible was without error, that all Scripture is inspired by God and that men
wrote exactly what they wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them; and that
Paul, referring to the manuscripts of Scripture that they had in that day,
accepted the writings as God inspired and useful and therefore without
error. In reply 10.15, I was told that this claim was based on faith and
not on fact. And so now, I am looking for the facts from which the Mormons
make their claim.)
>The church commonly uses the King James Version of the Bible. We simply
>believe what Nephi said the angel told him, that many plain and precious
>things that were in the original documents of the Bible are missing, and
>do cause many to stumble.
This is accepted on faith and not on fact.
>The key to knowing the prior existence of these "points" lies in the proof
>that the Book of Mormon is authentic. This can only be proved to a person
>by the power of the Holy Ghost, in answer to sincere prayer.
Again you are saying that one knows the truth based on faith and not on
fact.
>>>Earlier, he had learned while translating the Book of Mormon that wicked
>>>men had distorted the teachings of the Bible. The context for the
>>>verses which follow are a vision which Nephi had (600 BC) of the Bible
>>>which would come forth in the future.
>>Who, specifically, are these "wicked men" and what is the proof of their
>>distortion of the teachings of the Bible?
>We do not know who, specifically, did this. We only know that the angel
>told Nephi it was to be so. He also told Nephi that this was one of the
>reasons the Book of Mormon was to come forth, to teach many plain and
>precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, again, this is accepted on the basis of faith and not fact.
LET'S SEE SOME FACTS.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 23.14 | All you have is faith | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Feb 09 1988 19:10 | 86 |
| Re .13
Hi Tony,
> (NOTE: In Note 10, I proved, using Scripture, that the
> Bible was without error
In 10.9 you said the following:
The Scriptures are 100% accurate today. In the same way the the
originals are accurate because of the moving of the Holy Spirit, so God's
Spirit is also able to preserve His Word as reliable and without error
today.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[2 Tim 3:16-17]
Tony, you are certainly free to believe that the scriptures are 100% accurate
today because of the moving of the Holy Spirit, but the verses from 2 Timothy
do not say that; they say that the original manuscripts written by the
prophets were inspired. Please keep in mind that the copies of copies used
in our translations did not exist when Paul wrote those verses. His remarks
only apply to what the authors wrote not what scribes did later on. As I said,
you are free to believe that the Holy Spirit protected the manuscripts during
the copying process, but your belief *is* based on faith not on fact. Tony,
if you can obtain the *original* manuscripts written by the inspired men then
we can compare them with our present Bibles and get the type of *facts* you
are asking Rich to have for the Book of Mormon.
> (NOTE: In Note 10, I proved, using Scripture, ...
> that all Scripture is inspired by God and that men
> wrote exactly what they wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them;
We agree that the *original* manuscripts were inspired, but let's not make
any *assumptions* about the copies of copies which were used in translating
our present-day Bibles.
> and that
> Paul, referring to the manuscripts of Scripture that they had in that day,
> accepted the writings as God inspired and useful and therefore without
> error.
Yes, Paul accepted the scriptures of his day as inspired and useful, but
your conclusion "and therefore without error" is not based on Biblical
or other *facts* of any kind; your conclusion is only based on your *faith*
that the Bible is accurate. Scriptures being inspired and useful do not
imply without error during the copying process, because the copying process
came later and involved humans who made mistakes and perhaps intentional
changes.
> . And so now, I am looking for the facts from which the Mormons
> make their claim.)
And Tony, we are looking for *facts* from you that the Bible is 100%
accurate today. When you locate the *original* manuscripts and have them
translated, let us know so we can join with you in comparing them to
our present day Bibles.
In notes 23.11 and 23.12 evidence was provided from the Bible itself showing
that there are missing scriptures and that the manuscripts available do not
agree. Yet you have chosen to ignore these "facts", and continue to assert
that the manuscripts have been preserved with all of their original content
intact. You are, of course, free to believe that, but the *facts* show
differently.
> >The key to knowing the prior existence of these "points" lies in the proof
> >that the Book of Mormon is authentic. This can only be proved to a person
> >by the power of the Holy Ghost, in answer to sincere prayer.
>
> Again you are saying that one knows the truth based on faith and not on
> fact.
No, we are saying that one knows the truth based on actual revelation from
the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.
Allen
|
| 23.15 | Background info | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Feb 10 1988 07:50 | 11 |
| There is a lot of important information about the manuscripts used in
translations of the Bible, versions of the Bible, etc. in the CHRISTIAN
conference. If some of our friends from that conference feel so inclined
and have the time, it would be a great service if they could bring the
information down and post it in this conference; it would probably be
best that the items be put in new notes rather than as replies to this
note because the information is of general use and interest.
I'll start by posting one item that I picked up from CHRISTIAN.
Allen
|
| 23.16 | Clarification please | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Wed Feb 10 1988 09:06 | 4 |
| Allen, in .14, are you suggesting that Paul had the *original*
manuscripts available to him when he wrote to Timothy ?
Paul V
|
| 23.17 | This is not true. | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 10 1988 11:12 | 27 |
|
re: 23.12 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
>Again, please do not mistake me. We hold the Bible to be the divine Word
>of God, and we believe it with all our hearts.
This is a lie. Mormons do not consider the Bible to be DIVINE but
rather full of errors. (They can not be both!) In fact, the Mormons
believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in light of the Book of Mormons
and Doctrine and Covenants:
"Guided by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants,
and the Spirit of the Lord, it is not difficult for
one to discern the errors in the Bible"
[Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,III,191]
>But we believe God has revealed that some plain and precious things are no
>longer the same as they were when He inspired the original authors to
>write them.
Did God make a mistake when He inspired the original authors?
In Christ
Tony
|
| 23.18 | Ah yes, evidence... | CASV02::PRESTON | | Wed Feb 10 1988 12:52 | 42 |
| Since the Book of Mormon post-dates the Bible, and since Joseph Smith
and the supposed vision of Nephi both assert that somehow many "plain
and precious" things have been removed from it, then the burden of proof
is on the Mormon Church to come up with evidence - hard, historical
evidence - that this belief is not only possible, but likely. So far I
have heard nothing but dogmatic assertions based on feelings and the
unsupported teachings of Mormon prophets.
If there had been key elements of the scriptures removed in the early
years of the church, where is the evidence that it occured? There are a
great many writings of early Christians, and since they would have been
aware of the effort to remove these things, they would have strenuosly
objected to this. Some died horribly rather than renounce the truth of
their faith; would they not also have contended with any who would try
to alter their scriptures? There is a great deal of documentary evidence
giving the history of the early church. How much of it supports this
assertion that things were removed from scripture?
> The key to
> knowing the prior existence of these "points" lies in the proof that
> the Book of Mormon is authentic. This can only be proved to a person by
> the power of the Holy Ghost, in answer to sincere prayer.
Does that mean that you are to ignore historical evidence that relates
to the authenticity of the book of Mormon? Actually, it seems to me that
you exult when you find some bit of inconclusve evidence that *may* support
the Book of Mormon, yet when presented with a very thorny archeological or
historical problem wiht it, you retreat to your feeling of "testimony".
That seems very inconsistent to me...
Allen appears to have raised up a "straw man" with this assertion that
since we don't have the very original, hand autographed text of each
and every book of the Bible, then we must allow a cloud of doubt to
evermore hang over our confidence in it. At the same time, he fully admits
that the Book of Mormon has been changed many times, albeit only, according
to him, to correct "grammatical" and "publishing" errors, and he has no
problem with accepting it as fully the word of God. Allen, do you have the
originals? Have you seen and read them? Yes, I like your idea of us being
able to freely read and study the original texts. Perhaps we can start with
the Book of Mormon...
Ed
|
| 23.19 | My two cents... | USMRM7::KOSSLER | | Wed Feb 10 1988 13:07 | 59 |
| >Note 23.17 NRPUR::BALSAMO
>
> re: 23.12 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
> >Again, please do not mistake me. We hold the Bible to be the divine Word
> >of God, and we believe it with all our hearts.
>
> This is a lie.
> .
> .
> .
> In Christ
> Tony
I feel rather wounded by this kind of statement. Why is it necessary
to go around calling people liars? Is this in the Spirit of Christ? If
Mormons are anything, they are sincere in their beliefs. When Rich says:
>Note 23.11 RIPPLE::KOTTERRI
> Let me be clear. We accept the Bible, as we have it today, perhaps more
> literally and completely than any other church. We regard it to be the
> Word of God, just as much as the Book of Mormon. We quote from it, we
> use it in our services, we read it in our families and privately. We
> treasure it. The church commonly uses the King James Version of the
> Bible.
you can be assured that this is absolutely true. It is no lie.
FWIW, I hold no malice at hearing accusations like the above. In fact,
my heart goes out to you. May Christ's peace truly be with you.
Back to the subject: I would be interested in hearing if anyone has any
deatils/background/additional info on the missing scriptures mentioned
in the Bible. This was the first I had heard of this. I looked up the
references, and this is fascinating to me:
>Note 23.11 RIPPLE::KOTTERRI
> The Bible itself speaks of other scriptures that are missing. For
> example:
>
> Book of the Covenant Exodus 24:7
> Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
> Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13
> Book written by Samuel we don't have 1 Samuel 10:25
> Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
> Book of Samuel the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
> Book of Nathan the Prophet 2 Chronicles 9:29
> Book of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chronicles 13:22
> Acts of Abijah in the story of
> the Prophet Iddo 2 Chronicles 13:22
> Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
> Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
> Jesus shall be called a Nazarene -
> prophecy not in the Bible Matthew 2:23
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Laodicea Colossians 4:16
> Missing Epistle of Jude Jude 1:3
> Enoch's prophecies Jude 1:14
|
| 23.20 | The Bible *is* Divine! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 10 1988 13:09 | 40 |
| Re: Note 23.17 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
Hi Tony,
> >Again, please do not mistake me. We hold the Bible to be the divine Word
> >of God, and we believe it with all our hearts.
>
> This is a lie. Mormons do not consider the Bible to be DIVINE
Tony, I have been a member of the church all my life. From my own
experience, I know that we *do* consider the Bible to be the divine
Word of God. I guess you can say I lie if you want to, but why would
you do that? I say we accept the Bible as the Word of God. Ask any
other member of the church, they will say the same. Do we deny the
Bible? No. Do we believe what it teaches? Yes. Do we believe God is the
source of the Bible? Yes. We're glad that we have the Bible, and we
thank God we have it.
I know you don't like to hear anyone say that the Bible is not perfect,
but I have pointed out in my previous replies, which you choose to
ignore, the *fact* of missing scriptures and disagreeing manuscripts.
What does this mean? Does it mean that what we have left is not divine?
No. It means that we need to be aware that what we have is not
precisely the *same* as what was originally written. We have to be
careful to not misunderstand the text that we do have.
> >But we believe God has revealed that some plain and precious things are no
> >longer the same as they were when He inspired the original authors to
> >write them.
>
> Did God make a mistake when He inspired the original authors?
No, that is *not* what we are saying. What we *are* saying is that the
Bible, in it's original state, when each book was *first* written by
it's author, had no such errors. *After* that, errors crept in.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.21 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Feb 10 1988 13:10 | 23 |
| Re .16
> Allen, in .14, are you suggesting that Paul had the *original*
> manuscripts available to him when he wrote to Timothy ?
Paul,
No; if I implied that, I'm sorry for my writing not being clear. I was
trying to say that Paul's statement concerned the origination of the
scriptures, i.e. they were inspired by God when they were written. He
felt they were inspired and therefore useful. His statement to Timothy
implies nothing about errors being or not being in them.
We believe that errors have crept into the Biblical manuscripts. Other
people believe that God has protected the manuscripts such that they are
the same as the originals. Fine. We all are entitled to our own beliefs.
My point in all of this, is that just as we accept the Book of Mormon on
faith and personal prayer rather than on hard evidence, so do other
Christians accept the accuracy of the Bible on faith. In both cases we do
not have hard evidence that guarantees that the books are 100% accurate.
In both cases we accept the books because of our faith in God.
Allen
|
| 23.22 | Evidence | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 10 1988 13:32 | 97 |
| Re: Note 23.18 by CASVO2::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
> -< Ah yes, evidence... >-
>
>So far I
>have heard nothing but dogmatic assertions based on feelings and the
>unsupported teachings of Mormon prophets.
I thought this was evidence. You don't think so?
From Note 23.11
> The Bible itself speaks of other scriptures that are missing. For
> example:
>
> Book of the Covenant Exodus 24:7
> Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
> Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13
> Book written by Samuel we don't have 1 Samuel 10:25
> Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
> Book of Samuel the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
> Book of Nathan the Prophet 2 Chronicles 9:29
> Book of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chronicles 13:22
> Acts of Abijah in the story of
> the Prophet Iddo 2 Chronicles 13:22
> Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
> Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
> Jesus shall be called a Nazarene -
> prophecy not in the Bible Matthew 2:23
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
> Missing Epistle of Paul to Laodicea Colossians 4:16
> Missing Epistle of Jude Jude 1:3
> Enoch's prophecies Jude 1:14
From Note 23.12
> In addition to my last reply regarding missing scriptures, we have the
> question of "possible" added scriptures. I became aware of the
> following examples in a discussion in the CHRISTIAN conference. We were
> having a discussion about baptism in Topic 321, from which I have
> extracted some things by Chas Johnson, as follows:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> The Word of our Lord:
>
>> "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
>> and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
>> believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
>> believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15-16
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> Not to be picky, but there are two problems here. First, Mark 16:15,16
> were not in the originally inspired manuscripts. So we need to
> weigh that fact.
>
> When asked about his source on this, Chas says:
>
> My source is from a footnote referencing these scriptures in my NIV.
> These verses were not in the earliest extant manuscripts that are
> available. There are later manuscripts which have added these verses.
> The same being true of John chapter 8:1-11. It is felt that these
> were added later to give greater detail or for clarification. I
> don't take these additions as destroying the reliability of scripture,
> but neither can we accurately state that they were originally penned.
> We just need to know this fact and accept it for what it is.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now I don't know whether these verses were in the original Gospels of
> Mark and John or not, but apparently they are found in some manuscripts
> and not in others. If the manuscripts do not agree, then, at some
> point, somebody either added it or took it away. Either case indicates
> that there are at least two instances of plain and precious teachings
> of the Bible about the salvation of man being tampered with.
Let's take the case of Matt 2:23.
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene.
Obviously, Matthew was aware of a prophecy, by *multiple* prophets,
that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, yet that prophecy is not found
in modern Bibles. This is one concrete example of something missing
from the Bible after the Book of Matthew was written.
Before we proceed with further requests for "evidence", I would like to
know whether you regard these things as valid evidence of the claim
that we are missing some plain and precious things from the scriptures.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.23 | Constraints | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 10 1988 13:57 | 100 |
|
RE: 23.14 <CACHE::LEIGH>
>Tony, you are certainly free to believe that the Scriptures are 100%
>accurate today because of the moving of the Holy Spirit, but the verses
>from 2 Timothy do not say that; they say that the original manuscripts
>written by the prophets were inspired.
No, it says that the manuscripts available to Paul at the time of the
writing of Timothy (which were copies of copies of the originals) are God
inspired.
>Tony, if you can obtain the *original* manuscripts written by the inspired
>men then we can compare them with our present Bibles and get the type of
>*facts* you are asking Rich to have for the Book of Mormon.
Allen, you are the one who was originally looking for facts to show why
the Bible, as we have it today, is inspired, yet you use the Book of Mormon
to prove that the Bible does have errors; a book for which you have no
proof to its inerrency. You are building on more sand that I am. If Paul
could refer to the manuscripts in his possession as inspired; if God could
maintain the inspiration of the book of Genesis (for example) from the time
that Moses wrote it through many copyings till the time of Jesus and Paul,
and we know that God does not change, then it logically follows that God
has maintained the inspiration of the new testament manuscripts to the
present day.
>We agree that the *original* manuscripts were inspired, but let's not make
>any *assumptions* about the copies of copies which were used in
>translating our present-day Bibles.
Why not? Paul assumed that they were inspired.
>Yes, Paul accepted the Scriptures of his day as inspired and useful, but
>your conclusion "and therefore without error" is not based on Biblical
>or other *facts* of any kind; your conclusion is only based on your
>*faith* that the Bible is accurate.
Oh, but it is biblical. Scriptures containing error can not be
inspired because God does not inspire error. Why is this so hard to
accept? It is because you are bonded by the constraints of your Book of
Mormon and by your religious faith to believe that. You have "Scriptures"
which you hold as higher that the Bible which block you from accepting and
learning form the Bible.
"I told the brethren that the Book Of Mormon was the
most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone
of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God
by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book
(obviously referring to the Bible)".
[Statement made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841...
reproduced in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith",
ed. Joseph Fielding Smith]
>Scriptures being inspired and useful do not imply without error during the
>copying process, because the copying process came later and involved
>humans who made mistakes and perhaps intentional changes.
This is an assumption on your part. I believe that Paul was referring
to the manuscripts currently available to them. Paul showed confidence
in the Scriptures that you do not; the reason is because he held the
manuscripts as inspired and you do not. Why would Paul be referring to the
original manuscripts when they did not have the originals available to
learn from and be taught from and from which to base their life on?
>In notes 23.11 and 23.12 evidence was provided from the Bible itself
>showing that there are missing Scriptures and that the manuscripts
>available do not agree. Yet you have chosen to ignore these "facts", and
>continue to assert that the manuscripts have been preserved with all of
>their original content intact.
I have ignored no facts. The fact that certain letters and books have
been left out of the cannon in no way invalidates the Scriptures which made
it into the cannon. Are all letters written by John meant to be Scripture?
Are all books written before Jesus' time which speak of God meant to be
considered Old Testament Scripture? No!
>No, we are saying that one knows the truth based on actual revelation from
>the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.
So it's not based on fact!
Disclaimer: I am in no way opposed to prayer. It is how we communicate
with God. I believe, however, that we need to pray to have an open
heart and an open mind as we read God's Word in order to have a
complete understanding of what is written and how it is to be
applied to our lives; and not in order to be able to determine if
it is true or not. The Scriptures are truth, they are God's Word,
we need only to pray to be able to understand them, believe them,
and apply them to our lives.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 23.24 | I'm sorry! | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 10 1988 14:14 | 18 |
|
re: 23.19 <USMRM7::KOSSLER>
>> This is a lie.
>I feel rather wounded by this kind of statement. Why is it necessary
>to go around calling people liars? Is this in the Spirit of Christ? If
>Mormons are anything, they are sincere in their beliefs.
I'm sorry! I didn't mean that! I sincerely ask for your forgiveness.
Most humbly,
Tony Balsamo
|
| 23.25 | Thanks | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 10 1988 15:15 | 3 |
| Thanks, Tony.
Rich
|
| 23.26 | | CASV02::PRESTON | | Thu Feb 11 1988 13:41 | 53 |
|
Re: .22
Rich,
>>So far I
>>have heard nothing but dogmatic assertions based on feelings and the
>>unsupported teachings of Mormon prophets.
> I thought this was evidence. You don't think so?
No. Perhaps I should clarify the term as I believe it should best be used
in this context: "objective evidence"
To claim that a thing is true because you and your prophets say so is flimsy,
subjective and self-serving. Yes, that is a kind of evidence, but it is the
weakest kind of evidence, and if it stands alone, or in contradiction to other
evidence, it may be no evidence at all. The Bible has a vast body of objective,
historical, archeological evidence to support its claims. The Book of Mormon,
on the other hand, does not.
> Let's take the case of Matt 2:23.
>
> And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that
> it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
> He shall be called a Nazarene.
>
> Obviously, Matthew was aware of a prophecy, by *multiple* prophets,
> that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, yet that prophecy is not found
> in modern Bibles. This is one concrete example of something missing
> from the Bible after the Book of Matthew was written.
>
> Before we proceed with further requests for "evidence", I would like to
> know whether you regard these things as valid evidence of the claim
> that we are missing some plain and precious things from the scriptures.
The fact that there are a handful of verses in the entire New Testament that
remain under some scrutiny is not remarkable. What is remarkable is that the
rest of it is not. After nearly 2000 years, this is unique in all of history.
Your mention of the passage in Matthew is an improvement, however, on your
original approach. Whether it is conclusive evidence that "plain and precious"
things have been lifted from scriptures by evil men is another thing entirely.
Since canonization is a very painstaking process of cross-verification and
historical validation, and since, as we know, there are books mentioned that
are not known to us in the present, perhaps the prophecy you refer to may have
come from one of those. Even if that is the explanation, it does not
necessarily follow that the Bible we have today is in error. I would go so far
as to say that if such a book were unearthed today, and it was genuine, it
would pass the tests of historicity and textual consistency applied to the
books comprising the Old and New Testaments.
Ed
|
| 23.27 | God's Word | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Feb 11 1988 15:34 | 71 |
| Re: Note 23.26 by CASV02::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>> I thought this was evidence. You don't think so?
>
>No. Perhaps I should clarify the term as I believe it should best be used
>in this context: "objective evidence"
>
>To claim that a thing is true because you and your prophets say so is flimsy,
>subjective and self-serving.
I think I must have miscommunicated - sorry. I said "I thought THIS was
evidence". The THIS refers to the stuff that followed that line, namely
the list of missing books, and the evidence of conflicting manuscripts,
both of which I and entered previously (23.11 and 23.12). I was *not*
referring to the stuff you call "subjective and self-serving". My point
was that the Bible itself provides evidence that some pieces of
scripture are missing that believers used to possess. Where did they
go?
Wouldn't anyone who is a Christian want to be able to read, for
example, the prophecies of Enoch that Jude refers to (Jude 1:14-16)? I
would! *Jude* knew about them, and obviously considered them to be
valid scriptures. The tone of his epistle makes it sound like all the
Christians of his day knew what he was talking about. But Christians
today don't. Why?
>The fact that there are a handful of verses in the entire New Testament that
>remain under some scrutiny is not remarkable. What is remarkable is that the
>rest of it is not. After nearly 2000 years, this is unique in all of history.
EXACTLY!!!! *THAT* is what Mormons believe!
We do not say the Bible is *full* of errors. We say it is the Word of
God, so far as it is translated (and transcribed) correctly. We do say
that the Bible is missing some plain and precious truths that used to
be in the original scriptures given by God. For example, whole *books*
that are referred to in the Bible as scripture are missing!
It *is* truly remarkable, even miraculous that the Bible has been
preserved as well as it has. But we don't go along with those that say
"The Bible (meaning our present day Bibles, and not the original
manuscripts of the authors) is 100% in the same condition that God
originally gave it". I think I have shown that the Bible itself shows
this.
>Your mention of the passage in Matthew is an improvement, however, on your
>original approach. Whether it is conclusive evidence that "plain and precious"
>things have been lifted from scriptures by evil men is another thing entirely.
>Since canonization is a very painstaking process of cross-verification and
>historical validation, and since, as we know, there are books mentioned that
>are not known to us in the present, perhaps the prophecy you refer to may have
>come from one of those. Even if that is the explanation, it does not
>necessarily follow that the Bible we have today is in error. I would go so far
>as to say that if such a book were unearthed today, and it was genuine, it
>would pass the tests of historicity and textual consistency applied to the
>books comprising the Old and New Testaments.
You raise an interesting point. Let's say, for example, that some
archaeologist comes up with a scroll called "The Prophecies of Enoch".
It is scientifically analyzed and is found to be, say four thousand
years old, and is judged to have "textual consistency" (I'm not sure
what that is or who would decide), and it contains the reference that
Jude refers to. How does such a document get included in the Bible? I
think there would be a big fight from those that say, "the Bible is
complete, and we can't add anything to it, no matter how good it
looks".
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.28 | | CASV02::PRESTON | | Fri Feb 12 1988 02:12 | 34 |
|
Ok, Rich, now I see where the misunderstanding was. It did seem a little
far-fetched for you to be putting forth assertions as evidence. Now we
are on the same "wavelength" I think.
You have raised a very interesting topic - perhaps without realizing it... We
(in the large sense of the word) have been talking about the Bible as though it
were a single book, when, of course, it is not. It is a collection of 66 books,
written over a period of 1600 years, by over 40 different authors from many
different locations. The "Bible" (byblos - Greek for book) as we know it, came
into being through the process of canonization (which is worthy of another note
all it's own). Although the Mormon church expresses doubts as to its accuracy,
they (you) still claim that it is the "word of God", which, oddly enough, is an
endorsement of the process of canonization used by the early church to
determine the "standard" by which a text may qualify as genuine "scripture". It
is also interesting that if the "many plain and precious" things that Mormons
claim are missing from the Bible were in fact taken out or distorted along the
way, then the early church fathers would have recognized it and refused to
endorse it as the word of God, but of course that didn't happen. They had the
utmost regard for the scriptures and their reliability, so no "plain and
precious" things were lost at that time.
Simply because there are books mentioned in the Bible does not mean that they
ought to be found in or included in the Bible. If there were ancient writings
that would pass the test of canon, it is an academic argument anyway, since we
simply don't have them. We can speculate all we want, but it's a moot point.
This leaves us with only the additions and alterations that Joseph Smith made
to the Bible. Which is the accurate scripture, "your" Bible or "ours"? They
can't both be.
Ed
|
| 23.29 | | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Fri Feb 12 1988 06:09 | 35 |
|
There's one point that no-one has yet mentioned. What ? Well, why
assume that just because a biblical author refers to another text
that that other text is Scripture ?
Is it not feasible that these authors were referring to, quoting
from, contemporary texts ? I mean, perhaps the book of the Wars
of The Lord was NOT a Scriptural text, but a more secular history
text in the same way that we have Hansard today which is a political
record of all that is discussed in the House of Commons.
What I am saying is this :- Why are extra Biblical sources quoted
by biblical authors automatically 'lost' scriptures ?
Consider this situation :
I am an author writing a book which will later be accepted as
Scripture. I am talking about a man who has fulfilled over three
hundred Old Testament prophecies. I decide, to show that I don't
have tunnel vision, that even people who didn't write Scripture
had prophecies about this man.
It's like my saying "This man was prophesied about in the Prophets,
look, even the 'People of the Temple of the Great Green Piece of
Putty god' had prophecies about an important man who would come
from such and such a town". Now, Matthew wasn't referring to prophecies
of another religion, but isn't it similar. Could he not just be
referring to other non-Biblical texts to re-inforce what the Bible
is saying ?
God bless,
Paul
p.s., I asked God about Mormonism and experienced no burning chest.
Paul V
|
| 23.30 | Canonization | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Feb 12 1988 11:59 | 107 |
| Re: Note 23.28 by CASV02::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>Ok, Rich, now I see where the misunderstanding was. It did seem a little
>far-fetched for you to be putting forth assertions as evidence. Now we
>are on the same "wavelength" I think.
Glad to see I was able to clear up my miscommunication.
>You have raised a very interesting topic - perhaps without realizing it... We
>(in the large sense of the word) have been talking about the Bible as though it
>were a single book, when, of course, it is not. It is a collection of 66 books,
>written over a period of 1600 years, by over 40 different authors from many
>different locations. The "Bible" (byblos - Greek for book) as we know it, came
>into being through the process of canonization (which is worthy of another note
>all it's own). Although the Mormon church expresses doubts as to its accuracy,
>they (you) still claim that it is the "word of God", which, oddly enough, is an
>endorsement of the process of canonization used by the early church to
>determine the "standard" by which a text may qualify as genuine"scripture".
We endorse the process of canonization only in so far as they acted
correctly. As I understand it, prior to the canonization process, the
writings in the Bible existed as completely separate documents. Years
after the deaths of the apostles, the canonization process was put in
place to try to determine which of all the documents that were
available were genuine, and should be considered to be the Word of God.
These men did not always agree. These men did not necessarily have at
their disposal every God-inspired writing ever written. They assembled
the writings available to them at the time. They did not have original
documents for many of the writings, but rather copies or copies of
copies.
>It
>is also interesting that if the "many plain and precious" things that Mormons
>claim are missing from the Bible were in fact taken out or distorted along the
>way, then the early church fathers would have recognized it and refused to
>endorse it as the word of God, but of course that didn't happen. They had the
>utmost regard for the scriptures and their reliability, so no "plain and
>precious" things were lost at that time.
I don't know who these "early church fathers" were, or what their
qualifications were. They may or may not have recognized errors. These
men were not infallible, perfect men, but they were mortals, subject to
the possibility of incorrect judgment.
You imply that Mormons think that the Bible is so distorted by the lack
of these plain and precious truths as to make it unreliable. This is
*not* what we believe. We believe the Bible *is* very reliable. But we
believe that some plain and precious things that were once in the
original writings are missing.
>Simply because there are books mentioned in the Bible does not mean that they
>ought to be found in or included in the Bible.
You are right, this is a possibility. But that does not mean that we
can automatically assume that they should not be regarded as scripture.
As I read the Bible verses that make reference to these missing books,
I think in many of the cases it is clear that the people referencing
them regarded them as scripture. By the way, the list I posted earlier
had a couple of inaccuracies, and there are a few references that I
missed. Here is my corrected list.
Book of the Covenant Exodus 24:7
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13
Book written by Samuel we don't have 1 Samuel 10:25
Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the Seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the Prophet 2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite 2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chronicles 9:29
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chronicles 12:15
Acts of Abijah in the story of
the Prophet Iddo 2 Chronicles 13:22
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
Jesus shall be called a Nazarene -
prophecy not in the Bible Matthew 2:23
Missing Epistle of Paul to Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
Missing Epistle of Paul to Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Missing Epistle of Paul to Laodicea Colossians 4:16
Missing Epistle of Jude Jude 1:3
Enoch's prophecies Jude 1:14
>This leaves us with only the additions and alterations that Joseph Smith made
>to the Bible. Which is the accurate scripture, "your" Bible or "ours"? They
>can't both be.
The Bible that we commonly use is the King James Version. It is
the same King James Version that other people use. We do have some
footnotes by Joseph Smith, but the text is the same.
While we're on the subject of additions and alterations, which early
manuscripts are correct, the ones that have the following passage,
which I mentioned previously, or the ones that don't?
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15-16
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.31 | Can't assume either way | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Feb 12 1988 12:20 | 22 |
|
Re: Note 23.29 by IOSG::VICKERS
Hi Paul,
> There's one point that no-one has yet mentioned. What ? Well, why
> assume that just because a biblical author refers to another text
> that that other text is Scripture ?
>
> Is it not feasible that these authors were referring to, quoting
> from, contemporary texts ? I mean, perhaps the book of the Wars
> of The Lord was NOT a Scriptural text, but a more secular history
> text in the same way that we have Hansard today which is a political
> record of all that is discussed in the House of Commons.
True, as long as we also don't *assume* that it is not scripture,
either. As I read the Bible references that mention texts we don't
have, I get the feeling that, in many of the cases, the person
mentioning missing texts regarded them as scripture.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 23.32 | No ratholes allowed | PNO::HEISER | Arizona Wildcats #1 !!! | Fri Feb 12 1988 19:25 | 15 |
| Isn't there a book that Thomas (doubting) wrote that isn't in the
Bible? Then there are the 6 books in the Catholic bible that KJV
doesn't have.
$ set sarcasm on
Are these missing books necessary? While we're at it, why don't
we add the writings of Confucious, Mohammed, Hare Krishna, Moon,
etc. to the Book of Mormon and Co. ? Let's be New Age and say all
roads lead to the same God!
$ set sarcasm off
Jesus Christ, the ONLY Son of God, who shed his blood for OUR sins,
is the ONLY atonement for our sins and our ONLY path to Heaven.
|
| 23.33 | Are they necessary? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sat Feb 13 1988 16:44 | 23 |
|
Re: Note 23.32 by PNO::HEISER
Hi Mike,
> Are these missing books necessary?
Good question. Only God can answer that for sure, but here's some
food for thought: Suppose one of the books we now had in our Bible
had not been available to be canonized, along with the rest of the
Bible. Which book would we consider to be the most expendable? Which
would we be willing to give up?
As for me, any book that is given by God, as His word, I want to be
able to read it, and to learn more from and about God by doing so.
> Jesus Christ, the ONLY Son of God, who shed his blood for OUR sins,
> is the ONLY atonement for our sins and our ONLY path to Heaven.
On this, we completely agree.
Regards,
Rich
|
| 23.34 | NT Only | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Mon Feb 15 1988 05:29 | 19 |
|
Rich,
I would like to say something about canonisation. I get the impression
that you believe that the canonisation which was done in the 4th
century was of the *whole* Bible. It is important to note that the
Old Testament canon was completed in 396 BC with Malachi. Jesus
Himself refers to the extent of the canon when he says "from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zecharia" ( forget the exact reference,
but I think it's in Luke). As we all know, the Hebrew OT is arranged
in a different order from ours, and starts with Genesis and ends
with Chronicles. Abel was the first martyr in the Bible, and Zecharia
(in the Hebrew order of the books) was the last in 2 Chronicles.
There are many other references by Jesus to the existence of the
OT canon and many extra-biblical sources also testify to the OT
canon we have today.
The canonisation process done after Jesus' time was of the NT only.
Paul V
|
| 23.35 | Thanks | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 15 1988 13:05 | 9 |
| Re: Note 23.34 by IOSG::VICKERS
Paul,
Thanks. I must admit, I am not an expert on the canonization process. I
also agree that Jesus made many references to the Old Testament.
In Him,
Rich
|
| 23.36 | Logically, the Bible in NOT Infallible - Spock | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Tue Feb 16 1988 12:51 | 76 |
| Many people fervently adhere to the idea that the Bible is the
INFALLIBLE Word of God, without error, mistake, or need for correction.
Yet, history has proven how this premise is not accepted by mankind
as we continue to write and publish new translations, renderings,
etc.; each one having a different approach or slant.
(Have you heard how Jewish Scholars are very upset over the new
translation called The Book, because the New Testament is written
in an anti-Semitic manner?)
Is the Bible infallible? I am reminded of an approach to answering
this question from an old Logic Class I took at school. To find
out if conclusions are true/false or logical or not.
Premise A God's revelations to man are infallible (without error).
Premise B The Bible is the record of God's revelations.
Therefore The Bible is infallible.
This is an untrue or illogical argument, because, as I learned in
Logic Class, of what is called the undistributed (unqualified) middle
in Premise B. The above example is the same as this one.
Premise A Cows eat grass.
Premise B Goats eat grass.
Therefore: Cows are goats.
The Bible is not infallible. There are some problems:
We read of God repenting
In Genesis, "God created" God is plural in original.
Martin Luther added "alone", to man lives not by bread
And on and on.
I believe what we are treating in this discussion of the Accuracy
of the Bible is a symptom and not the real issue.
The Real Issue: Revelation
Some people believe that there is no more revelation between God
and man. What he has said is in the Bible and we need no more!!.
End of discussion!!! Anyone who believes otherwise is a sinner
and obviously wrong.
Latter day Saints believe that the heavens are not sealed, God can
and will speak to man, and that when he does so, these revelations
are just as salient as any in the Bible.
This is the real issue. Does God still speak to humanity? Does
he still chose to reveal truth and knowledge?
Mormons say resoundingly and whole-heartedly YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Others say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is one caveat (warning).
Remember 2000 years ago a man came forward with new truth and knolwedge
and claimed them as revelations from God. The Sadducees and Pharisees
of that day said NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Latter Day Saints agree that God's revelations to humanity are
infallible. They maintain, however, that when these revelations
were written, re-written, copied, translated and re-translated,
inaccuracies may have crept in.
Remember even the Book of Mormon has undergone some corrections
over the last 150 years. So even the Book of Mormon is only a
translation! Mormons have an added resource, though, in having
a living oracle (prophet), who will ensure that accuracy is maintained.
|
| 23.37 | But he can't ensure accuracy, you said so. | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Wed Feb 17 1988 06:32 | 15 |
|
re .36
> Remember even the Book of Mormon has undergone some corrections
> over the last 150 years. So even the Book of Mormon is only a
> translation! Mormons have an added resource, though, in having
> a living oracle (prophet), who will ensure that accuracy is maintained.
That last sentence is not logical, for by using your own argument
we see that the prophet cannot ensure accuracy because he is himself
imperfect. How can a man receiving perfect revelation from God ensure
that this revelation is born out perfectly to ensure accuracy in
the Book of Mormon ? You said that this cannot happen.
Paul V
|
| 23.38 | | CASV01::PRESTON | | Wed Feb 17 1988 08:42 | 16 |
|
Try this logic:
Premise A: God's revelations to man are infallible.
Premise B: The Bible is a reliable record of God's revelations.
Therefore: The Bible can be trusted.
More logic:
Premise A: The Book of Mormon was translated by a Living Oracle (prophet).
Premise B: The Living Oracles ensure that accuracy is maintained.
Premise C: The Book of Mormon has been "corrected" many times since 1830.
Therefore: Something is not too reliable between the Book and the Oracles.
|
| 23.39 | Do you believe in revelation? | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Wed Feb 17 1988 08:49 | 47 |
| I am not sure I understood what you said in .37. What I meant is
that Latter Day Saints hold that revelation still continues to day,
both at the individual, personal level and at the General Church
level. In the case of the General Church it is only the Prophet
(I have capitalized the word because the definition of prophet is
"one who speaks for God, divinely inspired"), who can declare a
revelation as having come from God and applicable to the whole Church.
There have been cases and situations in the Church when others have
come forward claiming new revelations, doctrines and dogmas. The
Prophet can and will guide the Church members in knowing the
truthfulness or falsehood of such revelations.
The statement I was trying to make was that logically, using the
principles of Logic for checking the veracity of arguments or premises,
the statements about Bibilical infallibility are illogical. To
make the statement logical, you would have to construct the argument
in this manner:
Premise A God's revelations to man are infallible.
Premise B The Bible contains some of God's revelations.
Therefore: Some of God's revelations in the Bible are infallible.
Premise B is now qualified and the argument is both true and logical.
But this is really all smoke. The essence is the belief in on-going
communication between God and man in the form of revelation through
an appointed and authoritative oracle (prophet). If one believes
that this situation is possible, then he/she could understand the
LDS position. If one believes that the heavens are sealed and God
no longer speaks to man, then the LDS situation is clearly in error.
It really is as simple as that.
After discusssing this subject with many Christian friends
for 2 years and presenting evidence
from scholars, archeologists, anthropoligists, commentators,
researchers, etc. on the accuracies and inaccuracies of the Bible,
we agreed to disagree because the bottom line was a belief or non
belief in on-going revelation.
I welcome your thoughts.
Paul R.
|
| 23.40 | Spock would love this discussion! | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Wed Feb 17 1988 08:53 | 7 |
| To Preston:
Your arguments are still illogical from the use of principles in
Logic. You have to qualify your middle premise, which you are not
doing. Therefore, your conclusion is both illogical and untrue.
Remember, I am using the principles of Logic.
|
| 23.41 | Let me explain | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Wed Feb 17 1988 09:19 | 18 |
| Paul R,
To throw a spanner into the works, I do believe that God still talks
to us (otherwise there would be little point in being a Christian),
that he does give ministries of prophecy, healing, interpretation
of tongues etc to certain individuals, and ALL of these gifts to
everyone who is willing to receive them when they need them, or
when God wants to use them for a task.
But, that doesn't mean I accept the Mormon position on the Bible
or the Book of Mormon. What I was saying in .37 was that if the
Bible have innacuracies, so MUST the Book of Mormon for it too was
translated and edited by men. Those editors cannot ensure accuracy
by your own logic because they are susceptible to error.
Do you see this ?
Paul V
|
| 23.42 | Well, I can see *this*... | USMRM7::KOSSLER | | Wed Feb 17 1988 09:46 | 41 |
| >But, that doesn't mean I accept the Mormon position on the Bible
>or the Book of Mormon. What I was saying in .37 was that if the
>Bible have innacuracies, so MUST the Book of Mormon for it too was
>translated and edited by men. Those editors cannot ensure accuracy
>by your own logic because they are susceptible to error.
>
>Do you see this ?
>
>Paul V
Funny, but I have sometimes also made this argument to other Mormons.
Sometimes they agree, and sometimes they don't. But that is not the
point. I (personally) agree that it is entirely possible that the Book
of Mormon contains errors for the reason you name. However, Mormons
would maintain that it contains fewer errors than the Bible (due to
Joseph Smith's pronouncement that the Book of Mormon is 'the most
correct book on earth [note that this is a *relative* statement] and a
man would get nearer to God [again a *relative* statement] by abiding
by its precepts than by any other way').
They would also maintain that the Book of Mormon as well as the
Bible ALSO CONTAINS THE WORD OF GOD. And that is what is important.
That is why we use - MUST use - the Bible in understanding what
God has to say to us, even though the Bible does/may contain some
error. The same goes for the Book of Mormon.
In any case, we must still rely on personal revelation direct from God
to *really understand* what is being said in Scripture, not just to
weed out errors. One of the things that I have at last come to
understand is that there is much more to Scripture than meets the eye.
The more one delves into its depths, the more one begins to realize how
much Scripture is really a masterpiece, a priceless and Divine work,
that no man could have created.
I have found this to be true of the Book of Mormon as well as the
Bible. And despite whatever errors there may be, God will bear witness
of the Truth wherever it may be found.
In Christ's Love,
/kevin
|
| 23.43 | To Paul Vickers: | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Wed Feb 17 1988 12:23 | 24 |
| To Paul Vickers:
You bring up a good point in that the Book of Mormon is also a
translation and therefore subject to inaccuracies, like the Bible.
I would agree in that we do not have the original plates from which
it was translated, as we do not have the original manuscripts for
the Biblical books.
However, the Book of Mormon has had only 1 translator, whereas the
Bible has had many.
More important, however, is the part the living Prophet plays.
It is his calling to guide the Church, through revelation. As guided
by the Lord, he guides, corrects and communicates. Thus, when
disputations as to truth and error come up, he can be called upon
to discern the truth. Recently, within the last 7 years, he announced
that a revelation had been received, which was indeed scriptute
and is now included with other accepted scriptures.
How does the Bible settle disputes? I know that scholars use all
kinds of formulae for validity. Yet, look at the proliferation
of churches all claiming the Bible as their base. How is a person
to know which doctrine professed by which church is right?
|
| 23.44 | BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Wed Feb 17 1988 12:43 | 57 |
| To Preston in 23.38
Premise A God's revelations to man are infallible.
Premise B Bible is a reliable record of God's revelations.
Therefore: Bible can be trusted.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur (it does not follow).
Premise A, we would agree is true. Premise B is questionable because
of the qualifier "reliable". Your conclusion is the non-sequitur.
If Premise B were true, then the conclusion would read:
Therefore: The revelations in the Bible are reliable.
However, Premise B with the word reliable is what has not been proven
to be either true or false, according to an argument of Logic.
For your second argument:
Premise A: Book of Mormon was translated by a prophet.
Premise B: LIving oracles ensure accuracy is maintained.
Premise C: B of M has been corrected.
Therefore: Something is not too reliable between the book and the
oracle.
Premise A is not true. Joseph at the time of translation was not
officially called as a prophet ( I believe), rather as translator.
Premise B is true.
Premise C is true in its intent, but not true in its wording. It
depends on what you mean by corrected. Doctrines changed or grammar
corrected.
Premise D is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from your premises.
I have tried to re-write your argument. See if it hit the mark:
Premise A: The B of M was translated by Joseph Smith.
Premise B: J. S claimed the B of M was accurate.
Premise C: The B of M had had grammar corrections.
Therefore: J. Smith made mistakes of grammar in translating the
B of M.
Or
Therefore: The B of M has been shown to have grammatical errors.
Or,
Therefore: J S. was wrong in claiming accuracy of the B of M.
What do you think?
|
| 23.45 | as to inaccuracies ... | ECADSR::SHERMAN | No, Rodney. That's *old* science! ... | Wed Feb 17 1988 13:14 | 19 |
| The Book of Mormon does not pretend to be without faults. The title
page indicates the reason for this which is that men make mistakes.
Other sections contain lamentations by the authors for the difficulties
they experienced writing in the languages of the time (3 Nephi 5:18,
Mormon 9:32-33, Ether 12:23-25). Other scriptures show that the Book
of Mormon is not comprehensive but often contains abridgements of
other records (1 Nephi 1:16-17, Words of Mormon 3-10, 3 Nephi 23:7-13,
3 Nephi 26:6-7). This is not unlike the Biblical writings. Moses,
Jeremiah and Paul were not perfect in their communication skills
(Exodus 4:10-12, Jeremiah 1:6, 1 Cor. 2:1,4). It has been discussed
in other notes here about books that the Bible mentions but which are
not included. The difference asserted by the Mormons is that the Book
of Mormon was divinely translated, whereas the Bible was and is not
with each new translation (1 Nephi 13:26, 28, 40). This was not
an unexpected result (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6,
Revelations 22:18-19). Which explains some of why it was necessary
for the Book of Mormon to come forth.
Steve
|
| 23.46 | See the Forest | CASV01::PRESTON | | Thu Feb 18 1988 13:27 | 80 |
| Reply to Spock Jr.
My reply in .38 was not meant to inspire a lesson in formal logic, it was a
more of a spoof of your approach. Not a good spoof after all, I guess.
You have committed the sophomoric error of those who have a little knowledge of
formal logic but misapply it. Your knowledge of the rules of logic are fine,
better than mine actually, but your application of them is inadequate. Your
all-around reasoning is poor. If you wish to apply formal logic to an argument,
you must commit to applying it to *all* of the argument, and not just parts of
it. Do you really think that all there is to the concept of infallibility of
the Bible is your little example?
> Premise A God's revelations to man are infallible (without error).
> Premise B The Bible is the record of God's revelations.
> Therefore The Bible is infallible.
Although the statement that the Bible is infallible may not be logically
unassailable, it may nonetheless be essentially correct. You presuppose that
because you can prove a simplified statement logically inaccurate, then the
conclusion is false and can never be true. You haven't allowed for better
reasoning such as further premises and qualifications. You have reduced it to
its simplistic extreme, then proved the simplistic extreme to be illogical.
Good job!
Instead of shooting from the hip, perhaps you could start by asking what is
meant by the word "infallible".
> Many people fervently adhere to the idea that the Bible is the
> INFALLIBLE Word of God, without error, mistake, or need for correction.
Infallible, in that context, ought to mean "incapable of failing, trustworthy"
as in an infallible guide. I also take the word error to mean "a deviation from
right or truth, a mistake". You seem to assume that if a few things are found
that can be classified as "errors", such as different spellings or the
imprecise rendering of a passage, then we then are forced conclude that
scripture is fallible.
> The Bible is not infallible. There are some problems:
> We read of God repenting
> In Genesis, "God created" God is plural in original.
> Martin Luther added "alone", to man lives not by bread
> And on and on.
This is your proof that the Bible is fallible?
Your "premise" seems to be that if there is a "problem" (for you) then we
cannot have utmost confidence in the message. Do you labor under the
notion that all questions must be answered to your satisfaction before
the Bible can be "infallible"?
Let's not confuse negligible errors in transmission, or difficulties of
translation with fallibility of the message. Since human activity has in it
an element of imperfection then it seems to follow that all things involving
humans has within it the taint of error and fallibility. To expand that to
include the scriptures though, is a fallacy, because it is certainly possible
for the message to come through correctly anyway. Don't discount the fact that
God Himself is involved in this process, and don't quickly assume that you must
have the precise original text, translated perfectly, before it can qualify as
God's message.
That's an old bogeyman that's been set up time and again to create just enough
of an air of uncertainly to allow some person or group to grant themselves the
right to change the scriptures to suit themselves. Someone comes along and says
"We can't really be SURE that the scriptures are the SAME as the ORIGINAL, but
WE have a SPECIAL REVELATION that WE are the ones to straighten things out and
tell YOU what it REALLY says." I'm sure it would not be possible to count the
number of times this has happened already.
Please, if you are going to pursue this line of reasoning, give it a little
thought in advance and formulate better arguments.
Actually, you are on the proper track. I don't often see religious people
with the confidence to apply their critical faculties to their beliefs.
Perhaps they're afraid they might find out they believe something that might
not be true, so they let thir minister, or the Pope or whoever, do all their
thinking for them. Although the ride may be bumpy at times, a bold commitment
to truth as well as confidence in God will never lead astray.
Ed
|
| 23.47 | Truth | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Feb 18 1988 14:09 | 19 |
| Re: < Note 23.46 by CASV01::PRESTON >
Hi Ed,
>Actually, you are on the proper track. I don't often see religious people
>with the confidence to apply their critical faculties to their beliefs.
>Perhaps they're afraid they might find out they believe something that might
>not be true, so they let their minister, or the Pope or whoever, do all their
>thinking for them. Although the ride may be bumpy at times, a bold commitment
>to truth as well as confidence in God will never lead astray.
Well said!
We all need to be open to the truth, from whatever source, and willing
to abide by it, once it is made known to us. To separate truth from
error, and to abide by the truth, should be the foremost quest of man
in this life.
Rich
|
| 23.48 | End of transmission | CSTVAX::RONDINA | | Thu Feb 18 1988 16:05 | 6 |
| To: Ed Preston
You are right! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
No need to discuss it further .
Q.E.D.
|
| 23.49 | The Bible is the word of God!!!! | VAX4::ALLEN | | Fri Feb 19 1988 19:24 | 10 |
| "I have heard ministers of the Gospel declare that they believed
every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them,
"You believe more than I do." I believe the words of God are there;
I believe the words of the Devil are there; I believe the words
of men and the words of angels are there; and that is not all, -
I believe the words of a dumb brute are there. I recollect one
of the prophets riding, and prophesying against Israel, and the
animal he rode rebuked his madness."
B. Young
|
| 23.50 | What are you saying? | CASV02::PRESTON | | Mon Feb 22 1988 13:19 | 10 |
|
Re .49
I'm not sure I get your point. And is the title supposed to be sort
of tongue in cheek? Please elaborate...
An interesting quote, though. Is it from the accepted Mormon
scriptures?
Ed
|
| 23.51 | | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Mon Feb 22 1988 18:50 | 18 |
| yes, the title was tongue in cheek. I tend to be a little sarcastic
at times, although some people have accused me of being a little
serious at times.
I guess the point is that I had seen "the Bible is the Word of God"
several times in this note, found the quote and thought it interesting,
so I plugged it in. I get tired or extractions of extractions after
awhile and think a little humor helps.
The quote is from "Discourses of Brigham Young". Not accepted as
scipture but worth reading for insite into a good person with wit
and thought.
I have more..............
richard
|
| 23.52 | Other Records Have Come Forth | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Mar 10 1988 01:29 | 55 |
| Hugh Nibley presents some interesting insight into the subject of "plain and
precious things" missing from the Bible:
The surprising thing that the [Dead Sea] Scrolls show us is that the
text of the Bible has not been so much altered - for actually they show
that it has been on the whole preserved with astonishing integrity - as
mutilated by the removal of material from the original. As Professor
Albright puts it, "Our Hebrew text has suffered much more from losses
than from glosses." And he proceeds to illustrate the point from a
number of books, showing that "future translations will have to expand
the text substantially - including... some [passages] of great
importance for their content".
Which brings us back to our original proposition that "they have *taken
away*... many parts... that were most precious..." and that these are
to be restored by the bringing forth of "other books" and records.
There is no better illustration of both these points to date than the
Dead Sea Scrolls. By furnishing us with older texts of the Bible than
any heretofore known, they show very clearly that present
misunderstanding of the scriptures is not due to corruptions of the
text but rather to serious omissions and deletions.
Through the centuries that followed their loss, according to Nephi,
"...because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of
the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble,..." (1 Nephi 13:29.)
...It is remarkable that Nephi does not mention corruptions or
insertions in the text but keeps hammering away at that one fatal
defect, the precious things which "they have taken away." Finally Nephi
has good news - in his own due time the Lord is going to bring forth
writings which were "sealed up to come forth in their purity..."
"...I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I
will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which
shall be plain and precious..." (1 Nephi 13:34.)
This knowledge is to be imparted by written documents, including some
of the writings of Nephi's own descendants, "hid up to come forth unto
the Gentiles." (1 Nephi 13:35.) But aside from them we are told of
"other books... these last records (39-40, both in the *plural*) which
are to come forth to and circulate among the Gentiles before their
conversion to the gospel. Since it is made very clear throughout the
chapter that the Gentiles referred to are *not* the Church, it would
appear that the books and records which are "seen among the Gentiles"
(40) may be other writings besides the Book of Mormon.
From "Since Cumorah", Chapter 2, by Hugh Nibley
This has been at least partly fulfilled in the many discoveries of ancient
documents, including the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as hundreds of others,
that have shed new light on the Bible. Unfortunately, many of these writings
have been neglected by the Jewish and Christian communities, because to take
them seriously means that many established traditions and beliefs must be
reconsidered in light of these ancient writings.
Rich
|
| 23.53 | Accuracy of the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu May 05 1988 09:30 | 33 |
| ...part of the Dead Sea Scrolls are of questionable authenticity. Some
scholars have thought the scrolls would be more reliable than the King James
Version because the scrolls' text is older--recorded more closely in time to the
events depicted.
But this is not unfailingly the case. For example, the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll
of the Dead Sea collection dates from about 200 B.C., but differs considerably
from parallel accounts in the Greek Septuagint, also of second century
B.C. vintage....
The St. Mark's Isaiah scroll, particularly, is regarded by some scholars as a
text written by amateur scribes, and containing many errors. The quality of the
penmanship and the number of on-page corrections also tend to put this scroll in
a less than reliable position.
-- Robert J. Matthews, [in 1980] chairman Department of Ancient Scripture, BYU
Ensign, March 1980, p. 40
Professor Matthews states in his article that the errors referred to in the
Isaiah scroll concern "details and matters of tense, punctuation, and the like."
The point is that if the scrolls contain errors and differences in those
matters then we can not say that God preserved the scrolls with perfect
accuracy, and the possibility exists that more serious differences and errors
may exist.
Some people might say, "Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not used in translation
of the Bible, and it makes no difference if errors exist in them." As far as I
am concerned, those scrolls are contemporary with scrolls that were used in
the translation of the Bible, and the question of accuracy in the Dead Sea
Scrolls also applies to the other scrolls.
Allen
|
| 23.54 | Mistaken Identies in the Book of Daniel | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Jun 07 1988 09:39 | 214 |
| Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus?
Mistaken Identities in the Book of Daniel
by John A. Tvedtnes, Ensign, September 1986, pp. 54-57. Brother Tvedtnes is
a specialist in Near Eastern Studies and is an instructor at the BYU-Salt
Lake Center.
***************************************************************************
The Old Testament is a valuable book of scripture, taught the Prophet Joseph
Smith, but it is not perfect. "I believe the Bible as it read when it came
forth from the pens of the original authors," he affirmed. Then he warned,
"Careless transcribers, ignorant translators, and evil and designing priests
have caused many corruptions in the text."
A classic example of textual errors caused by "careless transcribers" or
"ignorant translators" is contained in the book of Daniel. The events
chronicled in the present-day book would have originally been recorded in
Hebrew, the early language of the Jews. However, the book of Daniel found
in the Hebrew Bible is a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, the language of
the Jews after they returned from Babylon. From Daniel 2:4 through 7:8, the
text is in Aramaic. It is in this middle section that we find discrepancies
between the biblical text and other ancient records. These discrepancies
involve the identity of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king who first subdued
and then destroyed Jerusalem.
During his forty-year reign, Nebuchadnezzar ruled much of the Near East and
rebuilt the great city of Babylon, replete with its hundreds of temples and
its world-renowned hanging gardens. Some thirty years before his death in
561 B.C., he subdued Jerusalem (598 B.C.), taking its king, Jehoiakim, captive
to Babylon and replacing him with Jehoiachin. When Jehoiachin proved disloyal,
he was also disposed and replaced by his uncle, Zedekiah. When Zedekiah, too,
revolted against his overlord, Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city.
In 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, taking the remainder of
its people--along with many others from throughout the kingdom of Judah--into
captivity. (See 12 Kgs. 24-25.) One of the early Jewish captives, Daniel,
won favor with the king and became known as a wise and trusted counselor.
Chapters two, three, and four of Daniel purport to contain accounts about
Nebuchadnezzar. But only the first and best-known of these--the account of
his dream about the great statue destroyed by a stone cut out of a
mountainside--is actually about him. The stories in chapters three and four, as
well as a reference in chapter five, are actually about another king named
Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar.
Chapter three recounts that the king "made an image of gold...; he set it up in
the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon." (V. 1.) When this new idol
was set up, a decree went forth that when music sounded, people were to
prostrate themselves before the statue.
Chapter four tells of another dream of the king, this time about a great tree
that was hewn down by order of God. Again Daniel was called upon for an
interpretation. The tree, said the prophet, represented the sinful king, who
would become mad, living for seven years "with the beasts of the field" and
eating grass" as oxen." (vs. 23-26.) This prophecy was fulfilled when the
king "was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet
with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and
his nails like birds' claws." (v. 33.) Ultimately, the king was healed,
returned to his throne, and praised God.
In chapter five, the scene changes abruptly. Here we find that "Belshazzar
the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before
the thousand." (v. 1.) In verse two, he is identified as the son of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king who had destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. At the
feast, a finger appears, writing an ominous message on the plaster of the
wall. Daniel, summoned to interpret the writing, informs the assembly that the
Medes and Persians will take the kingdom.
It is this reference in chapter five that highlights the misidentification
problem in the book of Daniel. Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus,
not of Nebuchadnezzar. And Belshazzar was never king, but only crown prince.
A contemporary king-list found at Uruk, south of Babylon, clearly states the
succession of kings:
Nebuchadnezzar
Amel-Marduk
Neriglissar
Labashi-Marduk
Apparently, Nabonidus contested the succession of Labashi-Marduk and wrested
power from him. a besalt stela--a stone slab or column--bears Nabonidus's
own account of his rise to power:
"I am the real executor of the wills of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar, my
royal predecessors! Their armies are entrusted to me, I shall not treat
carelessly their orders and I am /anxious/ to please them." (James B.
Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament",
Princeton University Press, 1969, p. 309.)
Nabonidus's mother also recorded the succession of rulers during her lifetime.
her list of kings and their regal years--found inscribed on two nearly
identical stones at Harran, on the Turkish-Syrian border--follows:
Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria 42 years
Ashur-etil-ili, king of Assyria 3 years
Nabopolassar, king of Babylon 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon 43 years
Awel-Marduk, king of Babylon 2 years
Neriglissar, king of Assyria 4 years
Nabonid, king of Assyria
According to a postscript, Nabonidus' mother died during the ninth year of her
son's reign, at the age of 104.
Other ancient records establish that Belshazzar was actually Nabonidus' son and
that Belshazzar was never king--only crown prince. From the "Verse Account
of Nabonidus," preserved on a clay tablet and found at Babylon, we read a
contemporary account of Nabonidus that sounds very much like the
"Nebuchadnezzar" of Daniel 3-5:
"His/ protective deity became hostile to him, /and he, the former favorite of
the gods /is now/ seized by misfortunes:....against the will of the gods he
performed an unholy action,....he thought out something worthless: /He had
made the image of a deity/ which nobody had /ever/ seen in /this/ country./
He introduced it into the temple /he placed /it/ upon a pedestal;....he
called it by the name of Nanna,....it is adorned with a...of lapis/ lazuli,
crowned with a tiara...." (Pritchard, p. 313)
The one difference between this story and the one from Daniel 3 is that the
Babylonian text says the idol was made of brick, covered with gypsum and
bitumin to make the facing brilliant, while the Daniel account says it was
made of gold. But the ninety-foot high statue could hardly have been made of
pure gold.
Continuing from the Babylonian text:
"After he had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built /this/
abomination, a work of unholiness--when the third year was about to begin--he
entrusted the 'Camp' to his oldest /son/, the firstborn, the troops everywhere
in the country he ordered under his /command/. He let /everything/ go,
entrusted the kingship to him and, himself, he started out for a long journey,
the /military/ forces of Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema /deep/
in the west....When he arrived there, he killed in battle the prince of
Tema...and he, himself took his residence in /Te/ma, the forces of Akkad
/were also stationed/ there." (Pritchard, p. 313.)
The rest of the text becomes fragmentary, but we can discern that Nabonidus
ordered the slaughter of many people in the northern Arabian town of Tema and
that he enslaved large numbers of them. Column four on the tablet is in
especially bad shape, but we can discern the words "the king is mad."
This brings us to the account of "Nebuchadnezzar's" madness in Daniel 4. The
Babylonian accounts do not mention that Nebuchadnezzar became mad. But it is
well known that Nabonidus did. Records kept by the Babylonian priests confirm
Nabonidus's temporary madness in the wilderness of Tema. The records show that
Nabonidus "stayed in Tema" at least from the seventh through eleventh years
of his reign, leaving "the crown prince, the officials and the army" in
Babylonia. During this time, the New Year festival, over which only the king
could preside, was omitted.
These accounts also show that Belshazzar was his father's viceroy, but not
king--a fact hinted at in the book of Daniel itself. In Daniel 5:7, we read
that Belshazzar offered to the interpreter of the writing scarlet clothing,
a gold chain, and the place as "third ruler in the kingdom." Being himself
the second in the kingdom, after his father Nabonidus, the highest place he
could offer was third.
Nabonidus's neglect of the Babylonian religious festivals cost him his throne.
Disappointed with their king's disrespect for their deities, the Babylonians
appealed to the Persian king Cyrus to take Babylon. By the time the uprising
began, Nabonidus had returned from Tema to his own realm.
By the seventeenth year of his reign, Nabonidus and his army were giving
battle in rebellious towns. By a prearranged plan, the priests of Marduk
opened the gates of Babylon by night while the crown prince and his friends
were drunk with wine. The city fell without bloodshed.
The Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran in 1948 confirm that Nabonidus, not
Nebuchadnezzar, was the mad king. A fragmentary document titled "The Prayer
of Nabonidus" tells of a king NBNY (Hebrew uses no vowels) who, while at Tema,
was diseased by the God of Israel. A Jewish advisor (no doubt Daniel)
counsels him to honor God, reminding him, "Thou has been smitten with this
noisesome fever...for 'seven years' because thou hast been praying to gods
of silver and stone, which gods are but stock and stone, mere clay." (Theodore
H. Gater, 'The Dead Sea Scriptures', 3rd ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1976, p. 537.)
The fact that the gods of silver and stone were actually made of stock and stone
might indicate gold or silver plating, which could identify the brick idol of
Nabonidus with the gold idol mentioned in the book of Daniel.
Josephus provides even more evidence of Nabonidus's place in Babylonian
history. He points out that the historian Ptolemy lists "Nabonadius" as
the last Babylonian king. Josephus also cites the following list of kings
from the Babylonian historian Berosus:
Nabuchadonosor 43 years
Evilmerodach 2 years
Neriglissoor 4 years
Laborosoarchod 9 months
Nabonedus, in whose days Cyrus came.
How could such apparent errors have crept into the sacred record? As mentioned
earlier, the book of Daniel, from 2:4 to the end of chapter seven, was
translated from Aramaic (called "Syriack" in the King James Version translation
of 2:4). Obviously, the original Hebrew text was lost. Perhaps the ancient
scrolls containing this portion of the book of Daniel disintegrated, as many
other ancient scrolls have, and had to be replaced by the Aramaic text.
Although Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew, it would have been an easy
translation error to mistake 'Nebuchadnezzar' for 'Nabonidus'. Since
neither Hebrew nor Aramaic represents the vowels, 'Nebuchadnezzar' and
'Nabonidus' would have been written (here in English transliteration)
NBKDNZRE and NBND. Note that all four letters in Nabonidus's name are
found in Nebuchadnezzar's name, with the last two transposed. A scribe or
Aramaic translator could have easily assumed that NBND in the original
Hebrew was an abbreviation for the name of the better-known king Nebuchadnezzar.
And once the error was initially made, it would easily have been perpetuated
throughout the translation. Such errors need not damage our faith in the
book of Daniel, or in the Old Testament as a whole. But they do show why the
Prophet Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe the Bible to be the word of god as
far as it is translated correctly." (A of F 1:8.)
|
| 23.55 | Thanks for the ideas on Daniel | TEMPE1::LARSEN | | Tue Jun 07 1988 23:11 | 32 |
| Re: < Note 23.54 by CACHE::LEIGH >
-< Mistaken Identities in the Book of Daniel >-
Thank you for posting that note Allen. My wife and I had recently
read the Book of Daniel and had struggled with the confusion we
encountered there. This does offer some directions for further
study.
We were researching the time period of the Prophet Lehi who
as you know, left Jeruselum during the start of the reign of King
Zedekiah, having been forewarned by the Lord of the impending
destruction.
I would just like to add my two shekels worth and say that as
most Mormons, I value the writing of the Bible very highly. Some
may think that we do not value these holy writings as important.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Last year the whole church studied the New Testament and the
year before that it was the Old Testament as our major focus of
learning and sharing as a church. We are admonished to add nothing
to our faith unless it has been ratified by the Holy Spirit. We
are even advised to study the Apocrypha giving us the most inclusive
selection to study from of any religion I know of. We are not,
as many try to portray, the most "exclusive". I am so glad for
all the words of God available to us.
Witnessing For Christ,
-gary
|
| 23.56 | What Joseph mean by "translated correctly" | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Jul 05 1988 18:03 | 39 |
| The following is from a talk by Royal Skousen and was published in BYU
Studies. Dr. Skousen was professor of English at BYU when the article
was published.
***************************************
Another example that leads to a misunderstanding in our scriptures is the
word 'translate', as in the eighth Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible
to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The ordinary
reader tends to interpret this as meaning that the only errors in the text
of the Bible are the result of trying to translate the original languages into
another language. Of course, there are many other errors besides translation
errors in the biblical text. We can, however, make better sense of the word
'translate' in this Article of Faith when we consider Joseph Smith's use of
this word. We should first note that the word 'translate' is ultimately
derived from the Latin 'transferre' and literally means 'to carry across'.
Language translation was originally viewed as a "carrying across" since
in older manuscript practice the original language was often put in one
column and the translation was put beside it in a parallel column. In addition,
there are other meanings of the word 'translate' that show its older meaning of
'to carry across'; for instance, we talk about the city of Enoch or various
prophets being translated.
In fact, Joseph Smith's use of the word 'translate' seems to agree with the
original, more general meaning of this word. In referring to the translation
of a text, Joseph Smith very often seemed to be referring to how it had been
carried down through time. For instance, the Joseph Smith Translation (more
commonly known as the Inspired Version) was not really a translation in our
present-day sense of the word, but instead was an attempt to restore through
inspiration the original meaning of the biblical text. In fact, Robert J.
Matthews has argued that "by using the word 'translated' [Joseph Smith]
apparently meant to convey the meaning that is generally assigned to the
term 'transmitted', for, as the Prophet's own statements on the matter show,
there was more involved in the history of the Bible than mere 'translation'
of languages." So the intended sense of the eighth Article of Faith, given
Joseph Smith's usage, is probably, "We believe the Bible to be the word of
God as far as it has come down to us correctly." (Royal Skousen, "Through
a Glass Darkly: Trying to Understand the Scriptures, BYU Studies, volume 26,
Fall, 1986, Number 4)
|
| 23.57 | Editing Bible Texts | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Jul 05 1988 19:08 | 31 |
| The following is from Robert J. Matthews of BYU.
***********************************
Students familiar with biblical research know that the reason there
are several versions of the Bible in print today is that there are literally
thousands of biblical manuscripts available, none of them originals, and all
differ in various ways. They are grouped in "families" because they appear
to come from several major textual ancestors. Hence, the Catholic Vulgate
Bible represents a different textual lineage than the New English Bible. The
King James Version represents still another.
Typographical errors have occurred in many editions of the Bible, especially
in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, when typesetting was
done by hand. Since the first printing of the King James Version in A.D. 1611,
there have been many revisions and modifications made by British scholars.
This has resulted in a continuing increase in the number of words being set
in italics, which indicates an editorial attempt to enlarge or round out a
thought that was poorly expressed in the manuscripts or was difficult to
translate exactly. Readers of today's King James Version may think that it
is an exact duplicate of what was printed 375 years ago, but it is not. The
number of italicized words in Matthew alone increased from 43 in 1611 to 583 in
1870 because of revisions to the text. (6)
It is no secret that many changes and omissions occurred during the development
of modern Bible texts. This creates a particularly serious situation since
neither the originals nor even a complete second- or third-generation document
is available for comparison.
(Robert J. Matthews, dean of Religious Education, BYU. Ensign, March 1987,
p. 49)
|
| 23.58 | Replies .58 thru .62 moved by Moderator from note 151 | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Tue Aug 21 1990 14:26 | 50 |
| Hi Ed,
Welcome back.
I don't see any problem with that. I suspect that we agree that the
words that the prophets spoke (in the Bible) were inspired by God and
that these words/events were put onto paper (papyrus, etc). Some of
these documents have been lost and all of the documents/papers that
exist now have been re-translated (very) often. I think that there
are @7-10 versions of the bible out (probably more). As you and I
know, (but probably disagree), the bible is not complete. Many books
that should be a part of the bible have been lost (or for some other
strange reason have been left out).
Anyway, the documents which make up the bible have been copied onto
other documents, translated, recopied, re-translated etc, ad infinitum.
The re-translations may not accurately reflect the original meaning of
the words. Compare the RSV versus the KJV (especially revelations) and
you will see what I mean. The situation got so bad that the Catholics
got together with the Protestants (in Germany) and jointly put out a
"Einheitsuebersetzung" (single/standard translation) of the Bible.
(The "lost" books still aren't part of the Bible).
The Book of Mormon on the other hand was translated once only (into
english). The really neat thing about the translation is that it was
a translation inspired by God. Think about that for a second - a farm
boy with almost no education performed the translation of the Book of
Mormon via inspiration by God. I for one am impressed.
Since the Book of Mormon was translated only once (into english), AND
the translation was inspired of God, AND there has been little
contextual changes in the words used in the Book of Mormon in the last
160 years, then it stands to reason that the Book of Mormon is more
accurate (since it has been translated fewer times).
The Book of Mormon that is in print coincides exactly with the original
manuscripts.
** The corrections to the Book of Mormon text were misspellings (sp), **
** typos and other printers errors. **
I really think this point should be emphasized, because some people hear
about the changes to the Book of Mormon and think that something new is
coming out. Again, the Book of Mormon that is in print coincides
exactly with the original manuscripts (less printers errors).
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 23.59 | You're a little off on this... | KAHALA::PRESTON | Between Iraq and a hard place... | Wed Aug 22 1990 17:52 | 73 |
| Re .151
> ...all of the documents/papers that exist now have been re-translated
> (very) often.
> Anyway, the documents which make up the bible have been copied onto
> other documents, translated, recopied, re-translated etc, ad infinitum.
> The re-translations may not accurately reflect the original meaning of
> the words.
You seem to be suggesting that the manuscripts that we have available to
us today are corrupted due to repeated, successive translations over the
years; that what we have are translations of translations of translations.
This is simply wrong. The manuscripts we have are in the original language,
and not translations. It is these manuscripts that are the basis of the
translations we have today, so your assertion is wrong and misleading.
The best that you can say is that we have copies of copies, but not
translations of translations.
> The re-translations may not accurately reflect the original meaning of
> the words. Compare the RSV versus the KJV (especially revelations) and
> you will see what I mean.
Your reference to differences between translations (you mention The KJV
and RSV) is fallacious, because not only is neither a translation of a
translation, but each was translated into the colloquial English of their
time, so to compare for the purpose of seeing which better reflects the
"original meaning" is not a very productive exercise, in my opinion.
Besides, how can you or I intelligently comment on the "original meaning"
without fluency in Greek?
> The situation got so bad that the Catholics got together with the
> Protestants (in Germany) and jointly put out a "Einheitsuebersetzung"
> (single/standard translation) of the Bible.
What do you mean "got so bad?" I think you are trying to put a spin on
the topic that is not warranted. Why should the Germans react to
differences between to English translations by coming out with another
German translation? With the discovery of older texts and increases in
understanding of ancient languages and translation, there have regularly
been moves to re-translate, with the objective of refining and improving
upon what they had. The existence of numerous translations does not
demonstrate confusion and conflict (as has often been implied in this
conference) as much as it indicates that different groups with different
aims arrive at different, but not conflicting, results. One group strives
to produce a translation that is most understandable to the average man,
while another (the Amplified Bible, for instance) seeks to preserve as
many of the fine shades of meaning as possible, at the expense of being
somewhat wordy and academic.
A perfect example the advantages of several translations is the Parallel
New Testament, which is contains four versions of the New Testament
arranged in parallel columns, allowing the reader to refer to each
simultaneously. The result is broader understanding, not confusion.
> As you and I know, (but probably disagree), the bible is not complete.
No Frank, I do not *know* that.
> Many books that should be a part of the bible have been lost (or for
> some other strange reason have been left out).
This is merely an assertion intended to cast doubt and confusion upon the
Bible. There is little basis for believing that there are "lost" books,
and even less for believing that there are books that are left out "for
some strange reason." My question to you is, when it was decided which
books to include in the Bible, which of the books that were left out "for
some strange reason" are now accepted by the Mormon church?
The answer is none.
Ed
|
| 23.60 | Lost Books of the Bible | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Thu Aug 23 1990 12:08 | 146 |
| Re .152 (from Ed),
>You seem to be suggesting that the manuscripts that we have available to
>us today are corrupted due to repeated, successive translations over the
>years; that what we have are translations of translations of translations.
>This is simply wrong. The manuscripts we have are in the original language,
>and not translations. It is these manuscripts that are the basis of the
>translations we have today, so your assertion is wrong and misleading.
>The best that you can say is that we have copies of copies, but not
>translations of translations.
If what you are saying is true, then I have been under the wrong impression
for a while. Thank you for correcting me.
Out of curiosity, who owns/holds the (original) manuscripts?
Where are they located? Are they available to the public (to look at)?
>> The re-translations may not accurately reflect the original meaning of
>> the words. Compare the RSV versus the KJV (especially revelations) and
>> you will see what I mean.
>Your reference to differences between translations (you mention The KJV
>and RSV) is fallacious, because not only is neither a translation of a
>translation, but each was translated into the colloquial English of their
>time, so to compare for the purpose of seeing which better reflects the
>"original meaning" is not a very productive exercise, in my opinion.
My original thoughts were correct. Both are translations from the original
text (or at least copies of the text 8^) ). However, what comes out of them
are two different things. I could waste your time here, but the Christian
Notes Conference launches into numberous arguments of KJV vs RSV vs xxx.
Normally, a statement to the effect of "please hit kp7 to ...." would go here,
but I haven't gotten that far in Noting.
>Besides, how can you or I intelligently comment on the "original meaning"
>without fluency in Greek?
Knowing Greek wouldn't help very much. They went from Old Greek to New
Greek @30? years ago. (Sadly, I know a few words in spoken Greek).
>> The situation got so bad that the Catholics got together with the
>> Protestants (in Germany) and jointly put out a "Einheitsuebersetzung"
>> (single/standard translation) of the Bible.
>What do you mean "got so bad?" I think you are trying to put a spin on
>the topic that is not warranted. Why should the Germans react to
>differences between to English translations by coming out with another
>German translation?
One has nothing to do with the other. There were 2 German bibles - one for
the Catholics and one for the Protestants. They were not same. After a
couple of rounds of "Gee, in my bible, it says... and your bible doesn't
say ....". From what I understand, both churches got together and published
the Einheitsuebersetzung. This had nothing to do with the English translations.
>With the discovery of older texts and increases in
>understanding of ancient languages and translation, there have regularly
>been moves to re-translate, with the objective of refining and improving
>upon what they had.
It is a pity that the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't appended to the bible
(although, I have heard there was a movement to do such). That would
reallyl be something.
>The existence of numerous translations does not
>demonstrate confusion and conflict (as has often been implied in this
>conference) as much as it indicates that different groups with different
>aims arrive at different, but not conflicting, results.
Thank you for bringing this up. At least we agree on something.
Especially, when the translations aren't inspired. 8^)
(To save you the bother of replying, if they were inspired, there would
only be one translation).
>A perfect example the advantages of several translations is the Parallel
>New Testament, which is contains four versions of the New Testament
>arranged in parallel columns, allowing the reader to refer to each
>simultaneously. The result is broader understanding, not confusion.
Having not seen the Amplified NT or Parallel NT, it is tough to comment
(but I will try 8^) ). It would seem to me that there would be (probably)
at least one inspired version and three different ones. On some crucial
passages, three of them could lead you astray and you would never know
which one is right (unless you prayed about it).
>> As you and I know, (but probably disagree), the bible is not complete.
>No Frank, I do not *know* that.
I'll address this after the following 2 paragraphs.
>> Many books that should be a part of the bible have been lost (or for
>> some other strange reason have been left out).
>This is merely an assertion intended to cast doubt and confusion upon the
>Bible. There is little basis for believing that there are "lost" books,
>and even less for believing that there are books that are left out "for
>some strange reason."
Here are a couple I found: (I don't think that this is a complete list).
Book of the Covenant Exodus 24:7
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13
Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Books of Nathan and Gad 1 Chronicles 29:29
Prophecy fo Ahijah and Visions of Iddo 2 Chronicles 9:29
Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Acts of Uzziah 2 Chronicles 26:22
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
An earlier epistle ofPaul to the Cor. 1 Chronicles 5:9
Another epistle of Paul to the Eph. Ephesians 3:3
An epistle of Paul from Loadicea Colossians 4:16
Former epistle of Jude Jude 3
Prophecies of Enoch Jude 14
Only part of what Jesus said is in Bible - John 21:25
FWIW, I personally would consider the Song of Solomon as an unauthorized
addition to the Bible.
>My question to you is, when it was decided which
>books to include in the Bible, which of the books that were left out "for
>some strange reason" are now accepted by the Mormon church?
>The answer is none.
Yet. I'm not a prophet. But the Lord will reveal all things according to
His timetable - not mine. Perhaps they might be restored before the
Millenium. Perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls might give us a clue. Time will
tell.
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 23.61 | What are the "left out" books? | KAHALA::PRESTON | Between Iraq and a hard place... | Thu Aug 23 1990 14:52 | 114 |
| > Out of curiosity, who owns/holds the (original) manuscripts?
> Where are they located? Are they available to the public (to look at)?
There are no *original* manuscripts, only (very old) copies. I assume that
they are in museums, libraries, vaults, etc, just like other old
documents. Are they available to the public? I don't know if you could
check them out of a library or anything like that..!
> My original thoughts were correct. Both are translations from the original
> text (or at least copies of the text 8^) ). However, what comes out of them
> are two different things. I could waste your time here, but the Christian
> Notes Conference launches into numberous arguments of KJV vs RSV vs xxx.
Your point was that the differences were a result of "...the documents
which make up the bible (being) copied onto other documents, translated,
recopied, re-translated etc, ad infinitum." It's nothing new that people
disagree over which is the better translation, but you are wrong in your
assessment of where these differences come from.
> Knowing Greek wouldn't help very much. They went from Old Greek to New
> Greek @30? years ago.
More people study the ancient Greek language than you realize. I have
several friends who learned to read ancient Greek as part of their
standard seminary training. You can buy a Greek New Testament in most
Christian book stores. I also have a friend who also studies Hebrew as
part of his PhD program. By the time he is granted his degree he should
be able to read Greek and Hebrew as well as he reads English.
> One has nothing to do with the other. There were 2 German bibles - one for
> the Catholics and one for the Protestants. They were not same. After a
> couple of rounds of "Gee, in my bible, it says... and your bible doesn't
> say ....". From what I understand, both churches got together and published
> the Einheitsuebersetzung. This had nothing to do with the English
> translations.
You're right, they had nothing to do with each other, but you made it
sound like it did. You jumped from your comments on the KJV and RSV
straight to the German "Einheitsuebersetzung" by saying "the situation
got so bad that the Catholics got together with the Protestants (in
Germany)...", as though it was the logical result of the copy-translate-
copy-translate problem of you were alluding to. Your tying them together
to add substance to your argument is a non-sequitur.
> It is a pity that the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't appended to the bible
> (although, I have heard there was a movement to do such). That would
> reallyl be something.
The Dead Sea scrolls are not entirely new documents. Most of them are
just older versions of manuscripts already in existence and only serve to
verify their accuracy. It sounds as though you believe that there is
*new* stuff in them that would have a great impact on our understanding
of the Old Testament. I do not know that this would be the case.
� The existence of numerous translations does not
� demonstrate confusion and conflict (as has often been implied in this
� conference) as much as it indicates that different groups with different
� aims arrive at different, but not conflicting, results.
> Thank you for bringing this up. At least we agree on something.
> Especially, when the translations aren't inspired. 8^)
> (To save you the bother of replying, if they were inspired, there would
> only be one translation).
Oh, but I do have a reply!
If a translation is accurate, what is the point of it being "inspired?"
And if a translation is "inspired" (and presumably perfect) then why
monkey with it?
> Having not seen the Amplified NT or Parallel NT, it is tough to comment
> (but I will try 8^) ). It would seem to me that there would be (probably)
> at least one inspired version and three different ones. On some crucial
> passages, three of them could lead you astray and you would never know
> which one is right (unless you prayed about it).
You actually think that one of the translations maybe inspired? Now that
surprises me!
Regarding "lost" books: I meant that if a book is "lost", ie, not
available, then it does not necessarily follow that they *belong* in the
Bible. Perhaps, if they were available, they would be there, perhaps not.
Just because a prophet wrote a book does not mean that it qualifies as
scripture, since as you well know, there were plenty of false prophets
back then, and they could write too. It is therefore a moot point to
claim that they are somehow being "left out" or that the Bible is
"incomplete" because we don't have them today.
Your use of the phrase "for some strange reason" suggests that certain
books, that should have been included in the Bible, were left out
deliberately and by design. There is no evidence for this.
> FWIW, I personally would consider the Song of Solomon as an unauthorized
> addition to the Bible.
Just out of curiousity, is the Song of Solomon in the authorized LDS Bible?
� My question to you is, when it was decided which
� books to include in the Bible, which of the books that were left out "for
� some strange reason" are now accepted by the Mormon church?
� The answer is none.
>Yet. I'm not a prophet. But the Lord will reveal all things according to
>His timetable - not mine. Perhaps they might be restored before the
>Millenium. Perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls might give us a clue. Time will
>tell.
I think you missed my point. You claim, by implication, that there are
books - in existence - that were delibrately excluded from the Bible. If
this is true, then tell us which books you refer to, and why they are not
accepted by the Mormon church.
Ed
|
| 23.62 | The Lost Books should be in the Bible, but aren't | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Tue Aug 28 1990 04:44 | 180 |
| ** This is an edited version of my original posting of 51.155. **
NOTE: I didn't like the wording of my original version of 51.155.
I wasn't happy with the first paragraph and didn't want to offend
anyone. What I wrote is my opinion (and should be taken as such
- not as that of my Church). However, if you have an opinion about
something and you realize that it will offend others, then it is
appropriate to retract it. I felt bad about it afterwards and
retracted it since I felt it could have offended others.
I would like to extend my sincere apologies to those who may have seen
the note and were offended by it.
RE: .154 (from Ed),
>There are no *original* manuscripts, only (very old) copies.
If the original manuscripts are no longer available, then there is no
way to prove that what we find in the bible to day is a word-by-word
copy of the original text. Thus, there are no guarantees that no editing
(intentional or not) has taken place. In short, we have no "direct
evidence" - only copies.
>Your point was that the differences were a result of "...the documents
>which make up the bible (being) copied onto other documents, translated,
>recopied, re-translated etc, ad infinitum." It's nothing new that people
>disagree over which is the better translation, but you are wrong in your
>assessment of where these differences come from.
My point is that when 2 people translate the same document (or whatever),
you can get 2 different translations. The RSV differs substantially from
the KJV on some passages. See the Christian Notes Conference for more info.
If the translations are different, then at best, one of them will reflect
the true meaning.
>You're right, they had nothing to do with each other, but you made it
>sound like it did.
Didn't mean to confuse you. Again, I was just reiterating my point about
the problem with the translations of the bible. Personally, I think that
the point is a valid one. Even given the fact that there is (for argument's
sake) ONE master copy and everyone translates their bible from this master
copy, you will STILL get different translations (particularly when the people
are not inspired). One reason for this is that people tend to translate
things based on their own experiences/biases. Some issues could be downplayed
and others emphasized. Also, although the text could be correctly translated,
the context/original thoughts behind the text could be different. An example,
I have often been asked to translate documents from German to English on our
project. I have had to (with approval) change some words to make the meaning
come across the right way. A request in German sounds like an order to an
american when a 1 to 1 translation occurs. Anyone can grab a German/English
dictionary and translate, but the skill of the translator comes in to play
when the receiver of the messages gets the text AND meaning that the sender
wanted. (Didn't I cover this in a previous note somewhere or is this deja vu?)
>> It is a pity that the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't appended to the bible
>> (although, I have heard there was a movement to do such). That would
>> really be something.
>The Dead Sea scrolls are not entirely new documents. Most of them are
>just older versions of manuscripts already in existence and only serve to
>verify their accuracy. It sounds as though you believe that there is
>*new* stuff in them that would have a great impact on our understanding
>of the Old Testament. I do not know that this would be the case.
I would say that this would be the case. From what I have heard (on
cassette) of the description of some passages, the Dead Sea Scrolls
are the single most significant archaelogical find of a Christian
religious artifact since Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in
the 1820's.
I would expound on this some more, but I've got a box of information
about this (and english translations of some of the DSS) sitting in
Seattle. I will have to wait for about a month or so to address the
Dead Sea Scrolls topic.
>> (To save you the bother of replying, if they were inspired, there would
>> only be one translation).
>Oh, but I do have a reply!
> If a translation is accurate, what is the point of it being "inspired?"
> And if a translation is "inspired" (and presumably perfect) then why
> monkey with it?
An inspired translation is more accurate in that directly conveys the author's
meaning - in its original context. A better translation can't be had.
More information in in the following 5th & 6th paragraphs.
>You actually think that one of the translations maybe inspired? Now that
>surprises me!
Why? The 8th Article of Faith (what mormons believe in a nutshell) states:
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
I don't believe the entire bible is translated correctly. I do believe
that the original bible to be the word of God. I addressed my thoughts
as what I (my opinion only) think happened to the bible in the first
couple of paragraphs.
At home I have a pretty neat bible commentary. I think the author is from
the Church of England. I don't have his (or probably your) background in
languages. When I come to a passage I don't understand, I pray about it.
If I have a question about your religion, I will ask you - not someone
from my church. If I want to know about the true meaning of a passage
(what God wants us to know - as opposed to what man wants us to know),
I will ask God about it. If I take a passage from the bible and give
it to priests/pastors from 5 different churches, I will get 5 different
meanings. Dummellow (sp?) tries to take into account what some of these
could mean. Although he goes to great lengths to take into account the
local customs/lifestyle when the bible was written, his commentary still
reflects his own (CoE) views/biases.
Personal revelation is a gift that we all have. We can, through the
Holy Ghost, know the truthfulness of all things - if we pray about it
to our Heavenly Father, in the name of His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.
You can do it, I can do it, each person who lives on this earth who
accepts Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Redeemer can do it. Faith
is also a necessary ingredient.
Please re-read the above paragraph to fully understand it. I consider
it to be the most important paragraph of this note. Thank you.
>Regarding "lost" books: I meant that if a book is "lost", ie, not
>available, then it does not necessarily follow that they *belong* in the
>Bible. Perhaps, if they were available, they would be there, perhaps not.
>Just because a prophet wrote a book does not mean that it qualifies as
>scripture, since as you well know, there were plenty of false prophets
>back then, and they could write too. It is therefore a moot point to
>claim that they are somehow being "left out" or that the Bible is
>"incomplete" because we don't have them today.
The converse is also true - it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't
belong in the bible. BTW, I wouldn't call Paul a "false prophet". He
authored a couple of the lost books. Assuming that you read each of the
passages before replying, you would probably agree that the context of the
verses which reference the lost books AND the context of the verses before
& after the verse indicate that they are considered authentic and valuable.
These books are not a part of the Bible that we have today.
>Just out of curiousity, is the Song of Solomon in the authorized LDS Bible?
The "authorized LDS Bible" is the KJV. So, the answer is yes. There is a
JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Joseph Smith translated (through divine
inspiration) a very small portion of the Bible - some passages which were
taken out of context or outright wrong (for whatever reason). He was
murdered (by those intolerant of other's religions) before he could have
completed the (inspired) translation.
>I think you missed my point. You claim, by implication, that there are
>books - in existence - that were delibrately excluded from the Bible. If
>this is true, then tell us which books you refer to, and why they are not
>accepted by the Mormon church.
I don't know about the "deliberately" part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The books I was referred to was in my previous reply (Lost Books of the Bible).
If we had them or were available, I suspect that we (along with everybody else),
would also accept them. The problem is that they should be there and aren't.
My bottom line (you probably thought you would never get here) is that I
DO believe the Bible to be the word of God (as far as it is translated
correctly - and not all passages are or else there would be no JST).
I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. In evaluating
both books, consider the source (God) and pray about what you read.
It could be a real "Revelation".
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 23.63 | QUotes on the Bible | ELMAGO::RMOORE | | Thu Oct 11 1990 19:26 | 14 |
|
The Bible has nothing to fear - except neglect.
Read your Bible. A chapter a day keeps Satan away.
The Bible is the constitution of Christian civilization.
A Bible known is worth s dozen merely owned.
The Bible is not only the world's best seller, it is man's best
purchase.
RM
|
| 23.64 | Ancient Manuscript tests applied to the Bible | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 14:13 | 140 |
| To address the phrase "as far as it is translated correctly" is a
curious one. I'd like for someone to point out to me exact locations
(book, chapter, verse) of translation errors.
Also, the following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on the subject
of Jesus being the Messiah. Naturally this had to include some proof
that the Bible was reliable and accurate since Jesus' claims are in it.
I think it might shed some new light on how you view "as far as it is
translated correctly"...
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many literature tests that can be applied to historical
documents, including the Bible, to verify their reliability. The first
test is bibliographical in nature. As Josh McDowell explains, "...an
examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In
other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are
the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time
interval between the original and extant copy" (vol. 1, 39). He further
explains, "There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other
early versions and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions
of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity
even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the
"Iliad" by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.
The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century"
(vol. 1, 39). Based on these facts, the Bible far exceeds all ancient
writings in having the most manuscripts available today and passes the
first literature test.
The second test is one of textual comparison among the manuscripts for
variations. McDowell tells the reader that the New Testament contains
20,000 lines of which 40 are in question. This equates to 400 words. The
"Iliad" has about 15,600 lines and 764 of those lines have questionable
authenticity. McDowell writes, "The national epic of India, the
'Mahabharata', has suffered even more corruption. It is about eight
times the size of the Iliad and the Odyssey together, roughly 250,000
lines. Of these, some 26,000 lines are textual corruptions (10%)" (vol. 1,
43). Geisler and Nix further explain that, in determining textual purity,
one single word misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts is counted as
3,000 variations (McDowell, vol. 1, 44). They go on to explain that only
400 discrepancies were discovered in all of the New Testament manuscripts
and only 50 of those were significant. Not one of the discrepancies
changed a tenet of the Christian faith. The majority of the discrepancies
were attributed to spelling or style. When the New Testament analysis was
done, the manuscripts were determined to be 98.33% pure (McDowell, vol. 1,
44). This proves that the Bible is also the most error free ancient
writing. These facts also disprove critics who claim that the Bible's
multiple translations do not agree with each other and are subject to
personal interpretation. Given the integrity of the Bible thus far, the
evidence for Jesus being who he claimed to be is growing stronger.
The next literature test is a dating procedure method to determine the age
of the manuscripts based on materials, letter size and form, punctuation,
text divisions, ornamentation, color of ink, and texture or color of
parchment (McDowell, vol. 1, 46). The oldest existing fragment of the New
Testament is in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England. Rylands
comments, "Because of its early date and location (Egypt), some distance
from the traditional place of composition (Asia Minor), this portion of
the Gospel of John tends to confirm the traditional date of the
composition of the Gospel about the end of the 1st century" (McDowell,
vol. 1, 46). This defeated theories by many skeptics who claimed the
Gospel of John was not written until the year 160. Of the thousands of
manuscripts in existence, some of the most notable are: Bodmer Papyrus
II (150-200 A.D.) located in the Bodmer Library of World Literature and
containing most of John; Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), located in the
Vatican Library, and containing nearly all the Bible; and Codex
Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) located in the British Museum and containing
almost all of the New Testament and over half of the Old Testament.
Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Dr. Constantin Von Tischendorf in the
Mount Sinai Monastery in 1859. Codex Alexandrinus (400 A.D.) is located in
the British Museum and is written in Greek, contains almost the entire
Bible; Codex Bezae (450 A.D.) is located in the Cambridge Library and
contains the Gospels and Acts not only in Greek but also in Latin
(McDowell, vol. 1, 47-8). The earliest known version of the Gospel of
John mentioned above proves that it was written shortly after the events
of Jesus' life occurred. John's gospel also happens to be one of the
most detailed versions of Christ's life recorded in the New Testament.
This proves that the events of Christ's life actually happened when
historians claim they did.
The reliability of various versions of the original manuscripts is the
next literature test. Since Christianity has always been a missionary
faith, many ancient manuscripts of the Bible, in various languages, have
been discovered. Christian missionaries were responsible for the Bible
being translated, despite the fact that ancient literature was rarely
translated into foreign languages. The earliest versions of the Syriac and
Latin versions of the New Testament were dated around 150 A.D., which is
close to the time of the originals. Given the date of the translated
copies, they are just as authentic as the original manuscripts.
The next test used is in external sources that substantiate the
authenticity of that work. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that
the four Gospels were written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to
the Roman Empire. They were all confirmed to be written between 50-70 A.D.
Another example of an external source confirming the Bible is found in
the work Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History III. 39. McDowell
explains that it "... preserves the writings of Papias, the bishop of
Heirapolis (130 A.D.) which Papias got from John the disciple" (vol. 1,
63).
Finally, the last test is due to confirmation by archaeology discoveries.
William F. Albright comments, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has
confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. The
excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical
schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases of which still
appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after
discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has
brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of
history" (McDowell, vol. 1, 65).
Based on the previous literature tests applied to the Bible, it has been
proven to be historically accurate and reliable. Jesus actually did
exist, despite the claims of some critics. If the Bible is true, and
recalls the events of Jesus life, then the Nazarene had to have existed.
There are also several non-biblical sources that verify the historicity of
Jesus. One of the more notable people who refer to Jesus is: Cornelius
Tacitus (born 52-54 A.D.), a Roman historian, Governor of Asia in 112 A.D.,
son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of Britain 80-84 A.D.
While writing of the reign of Nero, he alludes to the death of Christ and
to the existence of Christians in Rome. Flavius Josephus (born 37 A.D.),
was a Jewish historian, and he also refers to Jesus in his books.
Josephus became a Pharisee at age 19, in 66 A.D. he was the commander of
Jewish forces in Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to Roman
headquarters, and wrote of Christ's trial with Pilate and his death by
crucifixion. Finally, the recent Archko Volume release by the Vatican
Library contains the official documents written by the courts in the days
of Jesus. It also contains official documents from the Sanhedrin and
Talmud, which was the Hebrew legal authorities. This volume contains a
letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, to
explain away the commotion surrounding Jesus' trial. In the letter,
Pilate even gives a brief description of Jesus' appearance. There are
several more references, but they will be skipped for the sake of brevity.
The conclusion one should reach here is that any serious historian cannot
dispute the fact that Jesus existed and that the Bible is the most
accurate, reliable, ancient text.
Sources:
"McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Volume 1. San
Bernadino: Here's Life Publishers, 1979."
|
| 23.65 | How Ancient manuscripts stack up | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 14:17 | 51 |
| Author/ Date Earliest Time Number of
Book Written Copies Gap Copies %Accuracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hindu 13th, 90
Mahabharata cent. BC
Homer, 800 BC 643 95
Iliad
Herodotus 480-425 BC 900 AD 1350 yrs 8 ?
History
Thucydides 460-400 BC 900 AD 1300 yrs 8 ?
History
Plato 400 BC 900 AD 1300 yrs 7 ?
Demosthenes 300 BC 1100 AD 1400 yrs 200 ?
Caesar, 100-44 BC 900 AD 1000 yrs 10 ?
Gallic Wars
Livy, 59 BC-17 AD 4th cent. 400 yrs 1 partial ?
History of parital;
Rome mostly 10th 1000 yrs 19
Tacitus, 100 AD 1100 AD 1000 yrs 20 ?
Annals
Pliny, 61-113 AD 850 AD 750 yrs 7 ?
Secundus,
Natural
History
New 50-100 AD 114 AD �50 yrs
Testament 200 AD 100 yrs
250 AD 150 yrs
325 AD 225 yrs 5366 ~99%
On top of this, we have:
5,309 Greek manuscripts (Uncials - 267, Minuscules - 2,764, Lectionaries
- 2,143, Papyri - 88, recent finds - 47).
10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts
2,000 Ethiopic mss
4,101 Slavic
2,587 Armenian
350 Syriac Pashetta
246 misc.
For a grand total of 24,633 New Testament manuscripts that all confirm
it's contents with 99% accuracy. All recovered fragment are in
agreement. The fraction of a % taken off is due for spelling errors.
The Torah (thousands of years old), Septuagint (300 BC), Dead Sea
Scrolls, and Targum, in addition to those manuscripts above (most mss. had
NT & OT fragments), prove the integrity and accuracy of the OT.
taken from:
"A General Introduction to the Bible" by Norman L. Geisler & William E.
Nix, �1986. Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Moody Press.
|
| 23.66 | Unity of God's Word | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 14:18 | 30 |
| FACTS on the Bible's Unity
--------------------------
- The Bible was written over a period of ~1500 years
- The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors without a
single contradiction. That is a miracle in itself!
- Those authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds:
Joshua - military general
Daniel - prime minister
Peter - a fisherman
Nehemiah - cup bearer
- Those authors wrote from different settings
Moses - from the wilderness
Paul - from prison
John - exiled on the island of Patmos
- The Bible was written on 3 different continents
Africa, Asia, Europe
- The Bible was written in 3 different languages
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
- Archaeological evidence: So far, the findings of arcaeology have
verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the Bible
record. No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible,
while many have supported it.
- Historical Evidence: there are historical records, other than the
Bible which support the Bible record.
- Fulfilled Bible prophecy:
there have been over 400 fulfilled Bible prophecies so far
Isaiah 46:9-10, Isaiah 48:3,5
- Changed lives: this is perhaps the strongest evidence for the
reliability of the Scripture. No one can deny all of the changed lives
throughout history, including yours!
|
| 23.67 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Mar 24 1994 15:25 | 23 |
| The statement that the Bible doesn't have a single contradiction is not
true, in my opinion. I have found that a Bible bash on this issue
usually leads to the statement being changed to something like,
"well, it doesn't have any *important* contradictions." Then, as the
conversation degrades, it leads to "well, according to *my*
interpretation there aren't any *important* contradictions."
Finally, if folks are still friends, they agree to disagree.
Haven't seen anybody converted as a result, either way.
Lest it be forgotten, the Old Testabment is held as Scripture by more
religions than the Jews and Christians. The Scriptures of Bible are
subject to a very large number of conflicting interpretations. Yet,
most if not all of these seem to me to include the concept that the
Scriptures are not to be interpreted whatever way you want, added to,
taken from and all that.
My impression is that the only solid logical basis for the Bible is
that it is true so far as it is translated correctly. I do not
believe that there is a Bible in existance that is translated entirely
correctly. But, I believe the Bible to contain the Word of God, so I
do study it and believe it to be sacred.
Steve
|
| 23.68 | book, chapter, verse | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Thu Mar 24 1994 16:08 | 10 |
| > religions than the Jews and Christians. The Scriptures of Bible are
> subject to a very large number of conflicting interpretations. Yet,
> My impression is that the only solid logical basis for the Bible is
> that it is true so far as it is translated correctly. I do not
I'd appreciate some references showing which verses are in error.
thanks,
Mike
|
| 23.69 | | NACAD2::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Mar 24 1994 22:21 | 3 |
| Let's start with a simple one. How did Judas die?
Steve
|
| 23.70 | now you get to tell me what's wrong with it | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Fri Mar 25 1994 13:52 | 14 |
| > Let's start with a simple one. How did Judas die?
According to Matthew 27, he hung himself. There were 4 Messianic
prophecies fulfilled around the betrayer's actions, but the method of
death was not one of them.
Betrayed by a Friend - Psalms 41:9,55:12-14 Matthew 10:4,26:49-50,
John 13:21
Sold for 30 Pieces of - Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15,27:3
Silver
Money to Be Thrown in - Zechariah 11:13 Matthew 27:5
God's House
Price Give for Potter's - Zechariah 11:13 Matthew 27:7
Field
|
| 23.71 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue Mar 29 1994 14:41 | 7 |
| Doesn't Matthew 27:5 conflict with Acts 1:18? Seems to me there is a
conflict. Judging by .70, you are now falling back into the
position of this not being an important contradiction. But, if it is
not a Biblical contradiction, how is this reasonably resolved? Why
don't the two accounts coincide?
Steve
|
| 23.72 | background check | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Tue Mar 29 1994 14:54 | 12 |
| I vaguely recall hearing something (from historical accounts) about his
dead body falling on something and being disemboweled. I would have to
verify this and get back to you though since I don't have any sources
in the office.
In a situation like this (if verified), they wouldn't contradict, just 2
different perspectives of the same event. Like the synoptic gospels,
Mark presents Christ as a servant, John presents Christ as God
incarnate, and Dr. Luke is very detailed. All the same events with a
slightly different focus on each.
Mike
|
| 23.73 | more on Judas, Acts 1:18 | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Wed Mar 30 1994 10:51 | 32 |
| According to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Potter's Field
was a field purchased by the Sanhedrin with the money that Judas
threw into the sanctuary.
Evidently the priests could not use money unlawfully gained for
sacred things. Since the money should have been returned to Judas
according to the law, but he continued to insist on donating it,
they decided it should be spent for charitable purposes. By a quirk
of the law, the money still belonged to Judas (Acts 1:18) and with
the priests as his legal executors, they used the money to purchase
a potter's field for burying foreigners, i.e. pilgrims who died
in the Holy City.
J. Jeremias believes that when the priests refused Judas' repayment,
he brought it to the temple treasury as a means of revoking the
"sale" of Jesus. The field came to be known as "the field of blood"
probably for two reasons: because the money used to purchase the
field was blood money, and because Judas hanged himself there.
Tradition has located the field at the Eastern end of the Valley
of Hinnom and on the Southern slope. Apparently it was near the
potters' dump outside the Potsherd Gate (Jer.19:2 RSV)
Matthew related this purchase (Mt 27:9-10) as a fulfillment of
OT prophesy, but ascribed it to Jeremiah.
Unger's Dictionary gives basically the same account, but also
comments on Judas' death, saying it is plausible to conclude
that Judas hanged himself, probably with his girdle, which broke
under his weight and he fell to the jagged rocks below.
hope this helps,
Mike
|
| 23.74 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed Mar 30 1994 11:01 | 34 |
| re: .72
That's the generally accepted way to interpret this conflict. As a
reference, this is similar to what is in Smith's Bible Dictionary.
However, note that in order to resolve this conflict (and it *is* a
conflict in the Bible, IMO) one must either refer to documents
OUTSIDE the Bible or make personal interpretations about events
that are NOT clearly documented in the Bible.
This begs the question, if the Bible is infallible (incapable of
erring, certain, incapable of failing) then why must it rely on
outside documentation or personal assumptions in order for apparent
conflicts to be resolved? Could this not lead to errors if the
correct documents are unavailable or if ones personal interpretations
are dubious?
I am not as knowledgeable about this, but didn't the Catholics also
start with an "infallible" Bible and run into similar concerns? As I
recall, their solution was to restrict the Bible to those who could be
entrusted to interpret it correctly. And, as the Bible went through
many different hands, I have concern that some altered the translation
in order to "correct" apparent conflicts. Thus, the issue of correct
translation becomes significant.
More, when I was in Denmark, I used the Bible of the Danish Folk
Church. It isn't derived from the King James or any English
Bible. There are conflicts that exist between it and (at a minimum)
the King James Bible which may be unresolved for some simply
because there is no common language interpretation that can be agreed
upon beyond Greek and Hebrew. And, there is a problem with those
languages as they have gone through significant changes over many
years, making it difficult to correctly interrpret meanings.
Steve
|
| 23.75 | History and prophecy have proven it | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Wed Mar 30 1994 12:54 | 40 |
| > That's the generally accepted way to interpret this conflict. As a
> reference, this is similar to what is in Smith's Bible Dictionary.
> However, note that in order to resolve this conflict (and it *is* a
> conflict in the Bible, IMO) one must either refer to documents
> OUTSIDE the Bible or make personal interpretations about events
> that are NOT clearly documented in the Bible.
Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be verified via
historical and/or archaeological records?
> This begs the question, if the Bible is infallible (incapable of
> erring, certain, incapable of failing) then why must it rely on
> outside documentation or personal assumptions in order for apparent
> conflicts to be resolved? Could this not lead to errors if the
> correct documents are unavailable or if ones personal interpretations
> are dubious?
How about Daniel 12:4? For years, critics thought the book of Daniel
was a fake because there was no evidence to support its contents. When an
archaeological discovery verified much of it's contents, it proved how
valuable a book it is. As Daniel 12:4 alludes to, knowledge will
increase in the last days. I just don't see how fulfilled prophecies
and supporting historical data proves the Bible is fallible.
> I am not as knowledgeable about this, but didn't the Catholics also
> start with an "infallible" Bible and run into similar concerns? As I
> recall, their solution was to restrict the Bible to those who could be
> entrusted to interpret it correctly. And, as the Bible went through
> many different hands, I have concern that some altered the translation
> in order to "correct" apparent conflicts. Thus, the issue of correct
> translation becomes significant.
I don't know either. For centuries everything was done in Latin and
only monks versed in Latin could do anything. This was man's doing
though and not right because they created a caste society and kept the
gospel from the people. God is for every man. However, the monks has
very strict rules on duplication. If proofreaders found *1* error, the
manuscript was torn up and they had to start over.
Mike
|
| 23.76 | | COMET::RINESMITH | Tradition = Water in God's clay! | Mon Apr 04 1994 15:20 | 22 |
| RE: <<< Note 23.75 by FRETZ::HEISER "another day in DECrestaurant" >>>
>> That's the generally accepted way to interpret this conflict. As a
>> reference, this is similar to what is in Smith's Bible Dictionary.
>> However, note that in order to resolve this conflict (and it *is* a
>> conflict in the Bible, IMO) one must either refer to documents
>> OUTSIDE the Bible or make personal interpretations about events
>> that are NOT clearly documented in the Bible.
> Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be verified via
> historical and/or archaeological records?
You've made a good point. Yes, I would content that the Bible
would be hard to believe if it could not be substantiated by historical
and/or archaeological records. After all, how can you trust in
something for spiritual guidance if it cannot be trusted historically
or archaeologically?
Would anyone have a problem if the Bible had stated that Judas had died
via the 'electric Chair'? If so why and if not why not?
|
| 23.77 | | MIMS::ROLLINS_R | | Tue Apr 05 1994 07:56 | 5 |
| >> Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be verified via
>> historical and/or archaeological records?
Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be "proved" false
by scientific discoveries ?
|
| 23.78 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue Apr 05 1994 13:54 | 19 |
| There's a big difference between outside records confirming the truth
of the Bible versus the Bible having to RELY on those records. There's
a further inconsistence if, in the same breath, one maintains the
"miracle" of the Bible being infallible. What of the underpinnings
required to interpret and substantiate the Bible?
I agree that how Judas died is not an important issue of itself. But,
if accounts are inconsistent, why are these fallible accounts in an
infallible work? If they "don't count," then where is the miracle?
Do you have to be selective about which scriptures count for the
miracle of an infallible Bible?
The LDS explanation makes more sense to me. It allows the Bible to
contain the word of God in spite of its many and inconsistent
translations. Further, it helps to justify the study of different
renditions of the Bible and allows the use of other scriptures to
potentially extract more accurate interpretations.
Steve
|
| 23.79 | any other examples? | FRETZ::HEISER | green grass and high tides forever | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:14 | 44 |
| �Note 23.77 Accuracy of the Bible 77 of 78
�MIMS::ROLLINS_R 5 lines 5-APR-1994 06:56
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�>> Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be verified via
�>> historical and/or archaeological records?
�
� Is the Bible more or less fallible if its contents can be "proved" false
� by scientific discoveries ?
I'd be interested in some examples of these as well.
�Note 23.78 Accuracy of the Bible 78 of 78
�NACAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992," 19 lines 5-APR-1994 12:54
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�
� There's a big difference between outside records confirming the truth
� of the Bible versus the Bible having to RELY on those records. There's
I don't believe the Bible relies on anything else. The Word of God
stands alone. The Judas scenario just details different aspects of his
death. Technically he was already dead when he was disemboweled.
� I agree that how Judas died is not an important issue of itself. But,
� if accounts are inconsistent, why are these fallible accounts in an
� infallible work? If they "don't count," then where is the miracle?
� Do you have to be selective about which scriptures count for the
� miracle of an infallible Bible?
I think you're assuming the Judas passages are fallible. I don't see
it the same way.
� The LDS explanation makes more sense to me. It allows the Bible to
� contain the word of God in spite of its many and inconsistent
� translations. Further, it helps to justify the study of different
� renditions of the Bible and allows the use of other scriptures to
� potentially extract more accurate interpretations.
Steve, are there any other passages that you have problems with or seem
contradictory to you?
On another tangent for another topic, how does the Book of Mormon hold
up under the same scrutiny?
Mike
|
| 23.80 | | COMET::RINESMITH | Tradition = Water in God's clay! | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:49 | 29 |
| RE : Note 23.78 by NACAD::SHERMAN
> There's a big difference between outside records confirming the truth
> of the Bible versus the Bible having to RELY on those records.
I'm not sure I can agree with your emphasis on the word RELY.
Sure, in some instances it does help to have some outside help
in understanding the Scriptures, but I'm not seeing a lot
of this in the Scriptures. Do you?
> I agree that how Judas died is not an important issue of itself. But,
> if accounts are inconsistent, why are these fallible accounts in an
> infallible work?
I take it that you don't buy the explaination given in an earlier
note. If the explaination is plausable, then I will give it some
credance. Is there some reason why you don't believe that it could
have happened that way?
> The LDS explanation makes more sense to me. It allows the Bible to
> contain the word of God in spite of its many and inconsistent
> translations. Further, it helps to justify the study of different
> renditions of the Bible and allows the use of other scriptures to
> potentially extract more accurate interpretations.
Is the LDS explaination the same for the Bible as it is for the Book
of Mormon? If it isn't, then why not?
|
| 23.81 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Apr 07 1994 07:05 | 100 |
| re: .79
We are going to continue to disagree in discussion of Judas' death. My
position is that the scenario you describe is based on fallible, personal
interpretation. I contend that a miraculous and infallible work must not
rely upon the often changing interpretations of fallible intellectuals as its
foundation. Ironically, my own interpretation is the same as has been
discussed as to the resolution of the conflict. Where there is difference is
that I regard this resolution as fallible.
As to other examples, I understand there are many conflicts in the Bible.
My impression is that most faiths preach the Bible while professing an
understanding of the Bible that is without conflict. However, the dogma
preached by different faiths conflicts in spite of asssertions that the Bible
is without conflict. On this basis, I'll assert that simply claiming to have
an understanding of the Bible that is consistent is not sufficient to argue
that the Bible has no conflict and is infallible.
Most apologists seem to be ready to handle any issue and to compare it with
their system of beliefs of the Bible. It's a fairly common thing for them to
argue in heated fashion regarding the conflicts of the Bible. What are these
conflicts?
From what I've observed, some claim the Bible to be complete and that this
completeness is self-evident (often quoting "thou shalt not add to or take
from" types of verses in both the OT and NT). Others accept that it was
necessary for the Bible to reference other writings and authors (which
references seem to have been preserved in the Biblical record). Of course, if
these are not of significance, then why is it important that they be
referenced? Also, the Apocrypha becomes a bit of an enigma as it is held as
sacred by some and not by others, whether in whole or in part. Who decides
whether the Apocrypha should be added to or taken from the Bible? Then, there
are basic contradictions with respect to what some Bible-based religions teach
concerning such things as the taking of human life, divorce, sacrifice and so
forth.
Even the OT, all by itself, seems to have contradiction. This poses
difficulty for Christians, Jews and others (for there are others who accept
the OT besides those who follow Christ or those who are Jewish) who hold this
book to be sacred yet have greatly different beliefs. Some dismiss much of
the OT, claiming that it was all fulfilled in events of the NT. I have spoken
with clergy that have dismissed all books of the Bible save the four Gospels.
Yet, what of the "forever" promises and covenants made in the OT? Is one to
assume that "forever" ended with the Advent? Most, if not all, of these
problems seem to stem from issues of translation and interpretation. Again,
this is by those who contend to have the "correct" and consistent understanding
of the scriptures.
I have heard it said a lot, and I'm sure others would concur, that one can use
the scriptures of the Bible to justify almost anything. Granted, much of the
problem is that scriptures are often taken "out of context." But, determining
correct context is part of the task of translation and interpretation. I
believe it is part of the reason why conflicts occur. The very act of
establishing correct context may be fallible and may introduce new conflicts.
My understanding is that the Book of Mormon does not suffer from the same
problems of interpretation and translation, especially as it is another witness
to both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. As a body of Scripture, the
tasks of translation and interpretation, including establishing context, become
much simpler and less error-prone for those who accept both the BoM and the
Bible. The LDS, like other faiths, also claim an understanding of the
Scriptures that is consistent, without conflict. That understanding has, as
part of its foundation, the BoM.
However, even though the task of forming a dogma without conflict using both
books is less error-prone, it is still a fallible process. This is where
revelation and modern-day prophets becomes important. Where there is potential
for misunderstanding, these sources provided by the Lord can also be reference.
Finally, the ultimate resource is also available to confirm all that is before.
That is, even after reading all the Lord has revealed and hearing from his
servants, it is still between each of us and the Lord to reach a perfect
understanding of the Gospel.
I don't claim to have a perfect understanding of the Gospel. I'm still working
on it. But, the understanding I currently have seems to me to be without
conflict and consistent with the Scriptures.
re: .80
I don't see the Scriptures as having to rely on outside records to confirm
the truth. Note the string of the argument. I assert that OTHERS seem to
be establishing that the Bible is infallible, yet having to rely on personal
interpretation and outside sources to prove infallibility. The argument about
an infallible Bible conflicts with the LDS dogma that the Bible is the word of
God so far as it is translated correctly, the implication being that a correct
translation of the Bible is a rare thing.
As for the acceptance of the explanation, as I have indicated I currently
accept the explanation discussed and have even provided my own reference for
the same. What I am pointing out is that the method for generating this
explanation is a fabrication, based on a fallible process. The explanation
was generated in hopes of resolving the conflict in the scriptures, but it has
been done using a process that is fallible. As far as anyone knows, this
interpretation could well change in the coming years.
The LDS explanation for the BoM is different from the Bible. This is the
subject of missionary discussions, and anyone is invited to take those
discussions, if only to understand the LDS position on both documents.
Steve
|
| 23.82 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Clinton Impeachment: 14.2M+ signatures | Thu Apr 07 1994 13:52 | 48 |
| >We are going to continue to disagree in discussion of Judas' death. My
That's fine.
>As to other examples, I understand there are many conflicts in the Bible.
Could you be more specific? You've provided only 1 example thus far.
While the other faiths and clergy, you have talked to over the years,
have interesting viewpoints, I don't agree with most of their viewpoints.
I accept all of God's Word as it is and consider it infallible.
>believe it is part of the reason why conflicts occur. The very act of
>establishing correct context may be fallible and may introduce new conflicts.
>
>My understanding is that the Book of Mormon does not suffer from the same
>problems of interpretation and translation, especially as it is another witness
>to both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. As a body of Scripture, the
>tasks of translation and interpretation, including establishing context, become
>much simpler and less error-prone for those who accept both the BoM and the
>Bible. The LDS, like other faiths, also claim an understanding of the
>Scriptures that is consistent, without conflict. That understanding has, as
>part of its foundation, the BoM.
So when you get right down to it, every church is biased in the sense
that only their translation and interpretation is the correct one.
This isn't as objective as one would like it to be. It's a real
dilemma too where the BoM and the Bible don't agree.
>However, even though the task of forming a dogma without conflict using both
>books is less error-prone, it is still a fallible process. This is where
I don't understand how this would be possible from God-inspired
scripture.
>revelation and modern-day prophets becomes important. Where there is potential
>for misunderstanding, these sources provided by the Lord can also be reference.
>Finally, the ultimate resource is also available to confirm all that is before.
>That is, even after reading all the Lord has revealed and hearing from his
>servants, it is still between each of us and the Lord to reach a perfect
>understanding of the Gospel.
While it's good to have God-inspired prophets, the Holy Spirit is in
each believer and can also lead them to the truths of Scripture. We
seem to keep falling back to the prophet issue as well, which we should
address some day.
Mike
|
| 23.83 | | COMET::RINESMITH | Tradition = Water in God's clay! | Thu Apr 07 1994 17:45 | 23 |
| RE: Note 23.81 by NACAD::SHERMAN
> I don't see the Scriptures as having to rely on outside records to confirm
> the truth. Note the string of the argument. I assert that OTHERS seem to
> be establishing that the Bible is infallible, yet having to rely on personal
> interpretation and outside sources to prove infallibility. The argument about
> an infallible Bible conflicts with the LDS dogma that the Bible is the word of
> God so far as it is translated correctly, the implication being that a correct
> translation of the Bible is a rare thing.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Would you agree that relying on
outside sources to prove infallibility does not in itself make the
Scriptures fallible? Also, are there places that you know of
where, say the KJV, it is not translated correctly?
> The LDS explanation for the BoM is different from the Bible. This is the
> subject of missionary discussions, and anyone is invited to take those
> discussions, if only to understand the LDS position on both documents.
For us non-LDS could you give the Readers Digest version. Or at least
the basics. Thanks
|
| 23.84 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Apr 21 1994 00:47 | 116 |
| re: .82
>>As to other examples, I understand there are many conflicts in the Bible.
> Could you be more specific? You've provided only 1 example thus far.
I could. But, I *have* cited more than one example already. I just haven't
cited chapter and verse. Numerous examples (with chapter and verse)
have already been cited in this one note string and a continuance of this
will form a recursion. It's what lead to my observations about where these
kinds of discussions tend to go.
We will not come to agreement on this, nor do I anticipate any form of
"conversion" or "learning." Both sides (or at least two sides) of arguments
concerning what the Scriptures do and don't say have already made up
their minds as to what the "truth" is.
> While the other faiths and clergy, you have talked to over the years,
> have interesting viewpoints, I don't agree with most of their viewpoints.
> I accept all of God's Word as it is and consider it infallible.
I also claim to accept all of God's word. But, you and I disagree as to what
God's word is. And, it will take little effort for you or I to find others
who also maintain to accept God's word and disagree with both of us. Having an
"understanding" of the Scriptures that is "true" and "consistent" is not a
claim that is unique among drastically differing faiths.
> So when you get right down to it, every church is biased in the sense
> that only their translation and interpretation is the correct one.
> This isn't as objective as one would like it to be. It's a real
> dilemma too where the BoM and the Bible don't agree.
My understanding of the BoM and the Bible involves no dilemma for me since the
two are in harmony per my dogma. But, I do agree that nearly every church is
"biased." I have not yet found a church that claims to teach a false Gospel,
though I wouldn't be surprised if one existed, if only to be able to claim
that it was more "honest" than other churches.
> I don't understand how this would be possible from God-inspired
> scripture.
When a prophet speaks by the power of God, that has a better chance of being
infallible. Why is it not clearly infallible? The problem is that even a
prophet tends not to be a perfect person. (Paul often lamented his own
weaknesses, for example.) But, when the information comes second-hand, or
third or more as was the Bible, the opportunities for errors,
misinterpretation and even intentional changing become significant and
cumulative.
I know that some folks believe the Bible to be perfect and trust that the Lord
wouldn't allow anyone to put anything false in it. I don't believe it. I'd
like to. It would feel good. It would be relatively easy and require less
faith and study on my part, from my point of view. But, history has already
proven that atrocities can be committed while folks quote Biblical scriptures.
We are quick to admit that whole societies have grossly misinterpreted the
Scriptures. But, we forget that this still involves honest, intelligent people
who embrace a dogma that condones such activity. We would like to think it
would be easy for us to avoid delusion. Because we have such good hindsight,
we mistakenly assume we have great foresight. And, ironically, we become
blind, just as so many became blind during the Spanish inquisition, the
Crusades, world wars 1 and 2 and so forth. Ironically, it is just this sort of
thing that the Bible warns about, but we in our own arrogance overlook it and
are ready to cast the first stones, sure of our places in heaven, our command
of truth and our divine right as Christian soldiers to persecute and cast the
remains at Saul's feet.
> While it's good to have God-inspired prophets, the Holy Spirit is in
> each believer and can also lead them to the truths of Scripture. We
> seem to keep falling back to the prophet issue as well, which we should
> address some day.
Yup, I figure it all goes together.
re: .83
> Okay, I see what you are saying. Would you agree that relying on
> outside sources to prove infallibility does not in itself make the
> Scriptures fallible?
I would say that such a proof would be moot. If the Scriptures are infallible,
they should not have to rely on outside fallible sources for proof. Technical
papers, mathematical proofs, logical arguments and so forth can only be
as good as their underpinning references. If the references are flawed, it is
unreasonable to assume that the argument that builds on the references is
still good. If the foundation is sand, I don't expect a house to stand well
under a big storm. So, even if the Scriptures are infallible, any proof that
relies on fallible sources will be flawed and unacceptable from the start.
> Also, are there places that you know of
> where, say the KJV, it is not translated correctly?
As LDS, I have an easier time establishing where I believe the KJV is translated
correctly than I do establishing where it is translated incorrectly. It's
because I have little or no verification with some sections of the Bible.
I dunno. I just can't see myself standing at the pulpit and reciting certain
sections of Songs of Solomon to the congregation on a Sunday morning.
The true position of the LDS dogma is not that the Bible is flawed, but that
it has much of the word of God and that there is more than just the Bible
to bear witness of that.
Now that you bring it up, though. Not the BoM, but the Bible used by the
Danish folk church has helped me to understand where there could be some errors
in the translation (or rather, interpretation) of the KJV. In the Danish
language, there is no one word for the English word "love." Instead, they have
more specific words. Thus, while the KJV uses the more general term "love" the
Danish version is more specific and less prone to misinterpretation.
> For us non-LDS could you give the Readers Digest version. Or at least
> the basics. Thanks
Yes! When would you like the missionaries to come over? Seriously, though,
there's been a LOT already posted in these note files. Feel free to rummage!
Steve
|
| 23.85 | | COMET::RINESMITH | Tradition = Water in God's clay! | Thu Apr 21 1994 16:22 | 23 |
| > I would say that such a proof would be moot. If the Scriptures are
> infallible, they should not have to rely on outside fallible sources
> for proof.
So, then the Book of Mormon and other LDS documents are not
perfect and are fallible?
> Now that you bring it up, though. Not the BoM, but the Bible used by
> the Danish folk church has helped me to understand where there could
> be some errors in the translation (or rather, interpretation) of the
> KJV. In the Danish language, there is no one word for the English
> word "love." Instead, they have more specific words. Thus, while the
> KJV uses the more general term "love" the Danish version is more
> specific and less prone to misinterpretation.
Am I right in saying that the same could be said for the BoM, in that
it was originally translated into English and the same problems would
hold true in that the English language only has one word for Love. I
assume, that the word 'love' appears somewhere in the BoM.
Thanks,
Roger
|
| 23.86 | | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Mon Apr 25 1994 18:27 | 31 |
| In addition to what Roger mentioned, the Greek and Hebrew languages
tend to be more specific than English as well. However, when placed in
proper context, I don't see where our general terms are in error. For
example, we're all familiar with Agape, Philos, and Eros being types of
love. In context, our specific understanding of the love being applied
is quite clear.
>infallible. Why is it not clearly infallible? The problem is that even a
>prophet tends not to be a perfect person. (Paul often lamented his own
>weaknesses, for example.)
Paul lamented on his struggles in the flesh, but never for the divine
inspiration of the Lord. How does LDS determine the differences
between a false and true prophet of God? Since I follow God's Word, my
sole test comes from Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22,
Isaiah 8:20, Isaiah 9:15, and I John 4. I believe if it comes to pass,
it's of God. If it doesn't, it's not of God. I don't believe God or
His Word is fallible.
>But, when the information comes second-hand, or
>third or more as was the Bible, the opportunities for errors,
>misinterpretation and even intentional changing become significant and
>cumulative.
This can certainly happen, but I don't believe this to be true in the
Bible's case, and historical as well as archaelogical evidences bear
that out. The Bible comes from second-generation copies, *worst case*.
For all we know, the Dead Sea Scrolls could be originals, and even if
they're not, they support the contents of other manuscripts.
Mike
|
| 23.87 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue May 03 1994 08:14 | 11 |
| re: .85,.86
I haven't claimed that the BoM or other LDS documents are either perfect
or infallible. The BoM might be the "most correct book on earth," but
that doesn't say to me that it's infallible or perfect.
Also, the word "love" in English in the BoM will have the same problems of
translation to Danish. So, how to solve the problem? Bingo ... we're
right back to the issue of modern revelation and prophecy.
Steve
|