New International Version - 2011 Version

[Zakuska]

It seems there is an assumption that there were multiple first generation copies, thus allowing for crosschecking, but what if there was only one first generation copy which contained a significant error that was then passed on to other copies. Without the original text available to compare, how would we even guess there might be a mistake? Why this faith built on the numbers of copies when there is no evidence available to check that the source of their text is inerrant (even if one assumes the autographs were without error, we have no way of telling the text source was that autograph and not an uncorrected copy that was used instead to create the other copies).

For some reason this brought the image to my mind of the great and spacious building floating in the air with no foundation.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Problem of addition, not subtraction?!?! How entertaining! The New Testament is missing whole books! Not just verses, which it is missing, but entire books. Take for example the lost book of Corinthians. We know where it is mentioned – 1 Corinthians 5:9. We know it was written by Paul. We know to whom Paul wrote it. We know that its subject matter was sexual immorality. Perhaps the NCV states it best: “I wrote you in my earlier letter not to associate with those who sin sexually.” This truly is a lost letter from the apostle Paul.

And quite an important one dealing with sexual immorality I might add. Only a fool would claim it shouldn't be in the Canon.

Then there is Colossians 4:16 which describes the Book of the Laodiceans. The Colossians were supposed to read the Book of Laodiceans and vice versa. Colossians made it into the Bible and the Laodiceans did not.

But see he refers them to a book that God didn't think important enough to put it in the Canon.

What ever happend to "Man shall not live by bread alone but by ever word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of God."?

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Is there a sense in which you would not agree? Is there some qualification here, e.g., recorded versus unrecorded members? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

The information given is limited to recorded members so that is all that I can agree to.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Yes, I think this works, but of course I didn't suggest that the existence of ancient copies of the NT proves or is evidence that it is the word of God. Also, the way your statement is framed seems to treat the difference as insignificant. It isn't. While being ancient is (obviously) not sufficient to establish either the Bible or the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture, it is a necessary precondition of either volume being inspired scripture, since both claim to be ancient literature. The lack of any ancient textual support for the Book of Mormon is a huge deficiency calling into question the authenticity of its most basic claim to be ancient literature. It puts the Book of Mormon immediately into the same category of alleged ancient scriptures known only in modern times (and in modern languages) as the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ and The Life of Issa. Is this the only consideration pertinent to the claims of the Book of Mormon? No, but it is a very significant hurdle at the very outset of any serious investigation or inquiry into the Book of Mormon.

And the ancientness of the Bible puts it immediately into the same category as the Theogony and other religiously based ancient texts. Don't see much difference myself when the point is whether or not it is the Word of God (and I do know you are not arguing for this in the thread, I am simply stating that if this is what is important to us, demonstrated ancientness may be necessary but it is a little step in my opinion and can be skipped by demonstrating that text is an actual work of the Lord).

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But it is more likely that this did not happen than that it did.

Why?

[Zakuska]

And the ancientness of the Bible puts it immediately into the same category as the Theogony and other religiously based ancient texts. Don't see much difference myself when the point is whether or not it is the Word of God (and I do know you are not arguing for this in the thread, I am simply stating that if this is what is important to us, demonstrated ancientness may be necessary but it is a little step in my opinion and can be skipped by demonstrating that text is an actual work of the Lord).

It could just as easily be an ancient fraud or work of fiction (ala... the Iliad).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

• When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man mankind that you are mindful of him, the son of man human beings that you care for him them? (Psalms 8:3-4)

This one seems BIG! The Son of Man is Christ.

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

I had summed up the central point I have been making in our discussion as follows:

Ebed: The lack of the gold plates is no more of a problem for the Book of Mormon than is the lack of autographs for the New Testament.

• (Not quite though superficially similar. I said that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ancient documents that are lacking their autographs. See definition of Strawman Fallacy below. ~Ebed~)

Rob: Not so: we have thousands of copies of the NT establishing that its books originated within a hundred years of Jesus' death, but no textual evidence for the Book of Mormon's existence before the 1820s.
You replied:

• This is a strawman fallacy which I generally choose to ignore.

It is not a strawman fallacy (Note the unsupported, bald assertion. ~Ebed~) However, if you wish to ignore my argument, which of course you are free to do, then we cannot make any progress in this discussion.

Actually, it is a casebook study of a strawman fallacy. As an aside, I’ve noticed that there is a definite difference between our apologetic styles. You make unsupported, bald assertions while I provide evidence in support of mine. Allow me to demonstrate.

“A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

In effect my argument is that both Bible and the Book of Mormon are ancient documents and both are lacking its respective original autographs.

Your argument is “a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition” which in effect says, the Bible has copies of copies of copies of its autographs while the Book of Mormon has only one partial but suspect copy.”

Though I generally ignore strawman fallacies, in this instance I did not. My counter to your strawman fallacy is that each of those copies of copies of copies of the biblical autographs come with its own set of issues which cumulatively amount to several hundred thousand discrepancies, making those copies of copies of copies of the biblical autographs equally suspect.

Your strawman fallacy is exposed. Fortunately, neither the Book of Mormon or the Bible relies on such ephemeral evidence.

The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, also has internal evidences which attest to its ancient Near Eastern origin. To name but a few:

• Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon has parallelistic patterns as Donald Parry established in his edition of the Book of Mormon. This was also demonstrated by the non-LDS ZRF published Book of Mormon-Restored Covenant Edition.
  The Book of Mormon introduced a bunch of non-English names, not found in the Bible, which have been shown to have Semitic origins.
  The Book of Mormon has abundant examples of Hebrew idioms and syntax that are not typical of English. (For examples of the above see John A. Tvedtnes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Oct. 1986, 64)

These and many others like them, provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is, in the most general terms, what it purports to be: an ancient text divinely preserved for our edification today.

However, the best evidence comes from a higher source. As I’ve stated before such superior evidence comes from personal revelation direct from the Holy Ghost to each individual who asks with a sincere heart and real intent. (Moroni 10:4-5)

It is nice talking with you.

Edited September 13, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Joseph Antley]

This one seems BIG! The Son of Man is Christ.

Not always. It's a popular Hebrew term that means, as the new NIV translated it, "mankind" (cf. Isa. 56:2; Jer. 49:18; Ezek. 2:1). I think that's probably the most appropriate meaning here.

[Maidservant]

For Mormons, the absence of the autographs means that the Bible's dominant theological outlook is suspect.

I think DaddyG already answered on this too, but this is simply not how Mormons approach the Bible. This is simply not how any seminary, institute, Sunday School or Sacrament Meeting talk treats the Bible. We read it, we believe it, we follow it. Not that more detailed criticisms can't be made about either Mormon or Evangelical ways with the Bible, as is happening in this thread. But Mormons simply do NOT hyperventilate on each passage of the Bible. We just read it and do it, same as any other Bible reader of any other bent.

It is what allows many Mormons to argue that the "Deuteronomic" theology that dominates the Old Testament suppressed an earlier polytheistic religion more like that of the LDS religion.

It's true that Mormons do like to dig and dig deep. Mormons like any kind of truth and they like an ever-expanding library of truth (or at least insight). It's also true that human beings tend to mold anything they find to what they are already believing . . . that isn't only a Mormon psychology.

the Bible are woefully incomplete, theologically untrustworthy, or requiring new revelations to be corrected or completed.

Again, this is not how I read my Bible. I don't sit down and say, "Ok, *my name*, now this is the Bible, so what you are going to read today MAY not be true!!" I sit down and read and find the Holy Ghost and God and Christ in my Bible. The BIBLE is true! It's MESSAGE is absolutely true! Digging deeper and cleaning up any problems IF there are any is an act of faith NOT of unfaithfulness.

Latter-Day Saints safely rely on the Bible

This is what happens with Mormons and their Bible.

By the way, in apologetics discussions, arguments and criticisms, this whole "as far as translated correctly" becomes far more emphasized because that is what is being attacked, so we provide explanation after explanation as to why we might believe something like that out of our LOVE for the Bible (not our DISS of the Bible). But in actual teachings and living . . . we just read, teach and live the Bible and the "as far as translated correctly" almost never comes to the foreground. Same as anyone who loves the Bible.

Also for what it's worth, I don't have a problem whatsoever with NIV translations. I think they are wonderful, personally. Everyone has to understand truth by the spirit anyway, not by translation.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Maidservant

[Calm]

I think DaddyG already answered on this too, but this is simply not how Mormons approach the Bible. This is simply not how any seminary, institute, Sunday School or Sacrament Meeting talk treats the Bible. We read it, we believe it, we follow it. Not that more detailed criticisms can't be made about either Mormon or Evangelical ways with the Bible, as is happening in this thread. But Mormons simply do NOT hyperventilate on each passage of the Bible. We just read it and do it, same as any other Bible reader of any other bent.

It's true that Mormons do like to dig and dig deep. Mormons like any kind of truth and they like an ever-expanding library of truth (or at least insight). It's also true that human beings tend to mold anything they find to what they are already believing . . . that isn't only a Mormon psychology.

Again, this is not how I read my Bible. I don't sit down and say, "Ok, *my name*, now this is the Bible, so what you are going to read today MAY not be true!!" I sit down and read and find the Holy Ghost and God and Christ in my Bible. The BIBLE is true! It's MESSAGE is absolutely true! Digging deeper and cleaning up any problems IF there are any is an act of faith NOT of unfaithfulness.

This is what happens with Mormons and their Bible.

By the way, in apologetics discussions, arguments and criticisms, this whole "as far as translated correctly" becomes far more emphasized because that is what is being attacked, so we provide explanation after explanation as to why we might believe something like that out of our LOVE for the Bible (not our DISS of the Bible). But in actual teachings and living . . . we just read, teach and live the Bible and the "as far as translated correctly" almost never comes to the foreground. Same as anyone who loves the Bible.

Also for what it's worth, I don't have a problem whatsoever with NIV translations. I think they are wonderful, personally. Everyone has to understand truth by the spirit anyway, not by translation.

A great description of the reality of LDS experience, something that is missed by those who focus on differences and don't bother to get to know what actually goes on, etc.

[ebeddoulos]

I think DaddyG already answered on this too, but this is simply not how Mormons approach the Bible. This is simply not how any seminary, institute, Sunday School or Sacrament Meeting talk treats the Bible. We read it, we believe it, we follow it. Not that more detailed criticisms can't be made about either Mormon or Evangelical ways with the Bible, as is happening in this thread. But Mormons simply do NOT hyperventilate on each passage of the Bible. We just read it and do it, same as any other Bible reader of any other bent.

It's true that Mormons do like to dig and dig deep. Mormons like any kind of truth and they like an ever-expanding library of truth (or at least insight). It's also true that human beings tend to mold anything they find to what they are already believing . . . that isn't only a Mormon psychology.

Again, this is not how I read my Bible. I don't sit down and say, "Ok, *my name*, now this is the Bible, so what you are going to read today MAY not be true!!" I sit down and read and find the Holy Ghost and God and Christ in my Bible. The BIBLE is true! It's MESSAGE is absolutely true! Digging deeper and cleaning up any problems IF there are any is an act of faith NOT of unfaithfulness.

This is what happens with Mormons and their Bible.

By the way, in apologetics discussions, arguments and criticisms, this whole "as far as translated correctly" becomes far more emphasized because that is what is being attacked, so we provide explanation after explanation as to why we might believe something like that out of our LOVE for the Bible (not our DISS of the Bible). But in actual teachings and living . . . we just read, teach and live the Bible and the "as far as translated correctly" almost never comes to the foreground. Same as anyone who loves the Bible.

Also for what it's worth, I don't have a problem whatsoever with NIV translations. I think they are wonderful, personally. Everyone has to understand truth by the spirit anyway, not by translation.

OH, WOW! Just wow! Perfect! I wish I had said this!

[Calm]

OH, WOW! Just wow! Perfect! I wish I had said this!

I often feel that way about Maidservant's posts.

[Maidservant]