What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

So, the bible we have today (regardless of which version we use) is NOT God breathed?

AND!!!

By extension he can't claim that the autographs are "God breathed" because that verse that he claims says they are is NOT.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

bluebell, you made a few points in your last post I could respond to, but I feel we would probably end up talking in more circles. It has been frustrating at times, but I have enjoyed talking with you. I think it gave me some better insight into some issues.

Plus, I've had another issue on my mind that I would like to start a thread about. It's something I think both of our groups should agree on and work together, at least in theory. I'll start it tomorrow.

I agree it has been a pleasure. I look forward to your new thread.

[djholmess]

Why not, it doesn't agree with what you claim either.

And just to add clarity,

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4154&t=KJV

As your above link shows the second root word is 'to breath' or 'to blow' and what was the first word? God, so we get 'God breathed'

[bluebell]

AND!!!

By extension he can't claim that the autographs are "God breathed" because that verse that he claims says they are is NOT.

Well, it does cause a bit of a conundrum.

Since the verse in question in timothy IS a translation, then that verse, per djholmess, isn't God breathed.

I'm guessing djholmess is aware of the issue his words have created though and that he has an explanation he will provide shortly.

[Zakuska]

So, the bible we have today (regardless of which version we use) is NOT God breathed?

I think djholmess just talked himself into a corner there.

[Duncan]

Since we've both explained why we think the other has driven the interpretation of this scripture off into the metaphorical ditch, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree scripture study is necessary, it sounds like our differences are in the sufficiency of scripture. I believe that scripture is totally sufficient in and of itself to (or alone if you want to put it that way) to discern the truth about Joseph Smith.

When Paul taught that to Timothy, the NT didn't even exist yet. He was speaking almost exclusively about OT scriptures since they were the only scriptures. Do you really want to argue that the man of God is complete without the NT?

I completely agree with what Paul was teaching, but i disagree that it means what you believe it means.

I think the Protestant scholar Floyd V. Filson explains my feelings very well on the subject-

"If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of "the Word of God" we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture."

And Jeff Lindsay, who doesn't speak for the church in any authoritive sense but who captures the essence of our doctrine, also explains well my feelings-

"God the Father is the final authority. We trust and worship Him above all. While we love and cherish His word in the Bible, I believe that no single volume can contain all His revelations and instructions for all time and all situations, especially when that volume has been strongly influenced by human hands in selecting, editing, copying, translating, and typesetting those words. If the Bible were the final authority, we must ask, "Which Bible?" Thus, we rely on revelation from God as the rock upon which His Church is built (as Christ taught in Matt. 16:16-19)."

I love the bible, i have read it more than once and continue to study it daily, but it is not the rock that the Church of Christ is built upon. That, as Christ taught, is revelation from God.

This is the worst problem with your interpretation of Timothy. It does force God to be the author of the many mistakes present in the bible (and there are MANY).

If all scripture is God breathed as you believe it, then that means that it didn't matter what Moses did or didn't know about science. The words were being breathed directly out of God into Moses, right?

God knew that a bat wasn't a bird and that no fowl existed which crept on all fours.

And if all scripture is God breathed as you interpret that verse, then translational issues also cannot have any power to produce mistakes. After all, the scriptures have been translated thousands of times. To suggest that transitional mistakes are possible means that you believe exactly the same thing that LDS do about the bible, that the bible is the word of God 'as far as it is translated correctly". Do you believe that?

Again, you don't understand enough about how our church operates to make the assumptions that you are.

In the church, things like the King Follett sermon are viewed kind of like the apocrypha-that there are many things which are true, but that it is not doctrinally binding on the church because errors may exist. There is profit in studying such things though, as through the Spirit much can be learned.

As for Pres. Hinckley's words, again you don't understand what he was actually saying. He clarifies his words in another address in Nov. 1994-

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!

Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom."

The words of Hinckley that you addressed were given in conjunction with the topic of the Nauvoo temple. It is in the temple that LDS believe the doctrine of becoming like our Father in Heaven is most expressed and that is why Hinckley would bring up the Sermon-because of what it says about man's potential under the guidance of God. He was not speaking at all about other parts of the sermon, the parts speaking about God's past.

This is clear when one consideres his words in 1997 about that specific part of the sermon when he was asked-

"about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

His answer-

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But i don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Hopefully this context (which you have already stated is important to know when trying to interpret someone's words) will help you understand a bit better.

going along those lines and this is from my profiley thing in mormon.org

"For Christians, God's central revelation is in the person of Christ, with the Bible as record of that revelation"

Prof. W. C. Smith (non-Mormon)

"What is Scripture?" p46,

[Vance]

As your above link shows the second root word is 'to breath' or 'to blow' and what was the first word? God, so we get 'God breathed'

And of the 7 NT uses, 6 are translated "blow", and 1 is translated "wind". None of them are translated "breathed".

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[volgadon]

But you see when you say that it seems to me that you are either calling hundreds of thousands of other people who believe they have had a witness of the Holy Ghost liars - when they say their witness is different to yours or you are calling the Holy Ghost a liar for actually telling different people different things are true.

Before you play the righteous indignation card, have you considered that you are calling around 13 million people living today liars?

[thews]

Accepting or rejecting any doctrine or set of doctrines does not mean one cannot worship with another. Can't a Christian and, for example, a Muslim worship and pray together, even if they choose to do so in different ways? If not, why not? If you decline our invitation to worship with us, then are we Mormons not invited to worship with you, since we choose to do so differently?

You're oversimplifying this. I am not Jewish, so I won't worship in a synagogue. If I did, I would feel I wasn't being honest with my beliefs.

I cannot think of any Latter-day Saint who "rejects" D&C 132, not even the part that teaches the practice of plural marriage.

You're speaking for a lot of people here. I understand your beliefs, but that doesn't make them universal enough for you to speak for others IMO.

We simply don't practice it at this time. And no, "rejecting" D&C 132 does not mean you're "damned" in the sense that you won't be saved; however, rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, which refers to the doctrine of eternal marriage, will mean that you will not be "permitted to enter into [God's] glory" as described in verse 4, which in my opinion means that you won't be able to enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom and receive exaltation, so you will be "damned" in that sense. But not in the sense that you'll go to hell.

This is your interpretation, which I don't share. I reject polygamy/polyandry, and what D&C 132:4 states is I will be damned. How do you derive the conclusion that I won't be damned? Where is "damned" defined to support your opinion?

Keeping Christ's commandments includes the acceptance of D&C 132.

This is only true if you're a Mormon and accept Mormon doctrine. To a non-Mormon Christian, the doctrine of Joseph Smith is not of Jesus Christ, because they reject it. You make it sound (IMO) as if this is a one-way street, when it's not, as the perspectives are different. I'm not claiming what you believe is wrong, but rather it's not a universal Christian theology. It is, however, a "Mormon" theology.

Edited August 9, 2012 by thews

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And I don't mean, what are the doctrines that someone must believe to be saved. I mean, how does the NT define who a Christian is?

One must know and believe what he says he is...then follow.

[thews]

thews #502;

I retained your name but also accredited myself for altering your quote. What I did, however may violate board policy so I should watch it.

Thanks.

As for "nodoby's perfect', thayt indeed includes myself. I was responding to your bold declaratives regarding you being an ex-Mormon and have no interest in coming back to Mormonism and you denounced Mormonism because of your now "true" Christian beliefs. Yes. the believe the LDS Church is God's true church. Yes, I believe that belonging to anorganized religion is better than belonging to a nondenominational group. However, as I said, if denouncing Mormonism and we'll now include belonging to a nondenominational gropu is what you honestly think and feel is the correct path to God, than I truly desire that you find peace and happiness in your path towards Christ. I truly want you to come closer to Him. If you do decide to come and worship wit hte mormons than let me know if you're in the houston area. I'll do wha I can to sit next to you at least on Sunday. I'll even shake your hand and give you a hug if you so desire. I don't think my family will be able to come but I'll be sure to.

Well thanks, but I'll pass. My "bold declaratives" are simply what I believe in. If we're to discuss our differences rationally, then being succinct in what we do believe is required for open communication in discussion.

The New international Version is most definitely incorrect in saying that Jesus is God's one and only son.

That is your opinion and one I don't share. I am not "incorrect" because I don't share your opinion or beliefs.

More on that in another post. God has many sons, including you and me. That's by the nature of our existence and is a self evident truth. No matter what you or I believe, think,or do, nothing will change that fact.

What is true regarding religion is not a fact, unless you have tangible evidence to prove otherwise. We have a difference of opinion, but neither is categorically "correct" regarding the facts, because it's based on beliefs.

What I did say is that those who keep God's commandments have eternal life.

What I asked you was what constitutes being "damned".

This was in response to your citing the bible saying that those who belief will be saved.

Correct, as in "not" damned.

I think there's more than just "believing".

I didn't ask you what you think, I asked you for a foundation for what "damned" entails.

What I did say (sarcastically but still true) was that D&C 132 is quite compatible with Paul's teaching that the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman in Christ the Lord. D&C 132 is about the "new and everlasting covenant"; not polygamy which is an ancillary, not a core, doctrine. No one has to practice polygamy for exaltation; only enter tot he new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This is perfectly compatible to Paul's teaching of marriage.

To which I replied with the data from LDS.Org which specifies D&C 132:4 with polygamy as being part of it. What you said is simply not true according to LDS.ORG:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.4?lang=eng

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

As for your "damnation" according to LDS theology:

Hell

So, unless you're one of the Devil's fallen angels (which you are absolutely not) or a son of perdition (which you are absolutely not), you're not going to Hell according to LDS theology. The worse that'll happen to you is that you'll go to the least of the three heavens, namely, the Telestrial Kingdom:

(D&C 76)

So at the very least you'll abide in the glory of the Holy Spirit according to LDS theology. As for your and my ultimate salvation, where exactly we'll end up, is entirely between ourselves individually and God.

I didn't ask you what "hell" entails, but rather what "damned" entails... please clarify.

[Carborendum]

I am surprised no one has brought this up in 36 pages of posts.

"Christian" was originally an epithet used by the Romans to mock the disciples of Christ. As an "accusation" that was sometimes followed by death, one has to bring up the now trite question:

If you were ever accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

By this rubrick, Muslims would never be convicted of being Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses may or may not depending on the judge. Mormons would definitely be convicted.

But it was interesting when I had a debate with an evangelical Anti-Mormon (that's probably redundant). I was speaking of the peace of God and how Christ said "love one another" and "peace be unto you". He came back with "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." I wonder if such a person would be convicted.

[djholmess]

So, the bible we have today (regardless of which version we use) is NOT God breathed?

The translations we have today in and of themselves are not God breathed (breathed out by God may be more literal). The original autographs were. However God has wonderfully preserved the words of the prophets and apostles in the Greek manuscripts that we have today. For example the NT is by far the best and most widely attested document of ancient antiquity.

So we have the God breathed words of the NT preserved for us and this is what is translated. Sure there may be the odd word or phrase where it is not immediately clear what the original would have said but for 99% of the words of the NT it is, for the other 1% some study would be required.

Specifically regarding translation the people of God have never had a problem translating the Bible into any and all languages. Jesus most likely spoke Aramic or Hebrew yet the gospels recording his words were written in Greek. Following this example evangelicals have no problem translating the Bible because we believe that as long as it is translated accurately and faithfull to the Greek meaning then it can convey with clarity the revelation the Holy Spirit has made in the scriptures.

So while the original autographs were inspired, infalable and inerrant, translations are not, though a good translation can be very close, and whilst the words of a translation where not 'breathed out by God' as the original autographs were, where a translation is accurate and faithful it still carries the 'God breathed' authority that Jesus words or Paul's words carried in the original.

Incidentally this is why many pastors and Chruch leaders are trained in reading ancient Greek and Hebrew so that they are not relying on just translations but are also reading Gods revelation in the words it was given.

Also, if you are ever looking at other translations you may notice different types-paraphrase vs literal translations. A literal translation keeps as close to the original word order and meanings as is possible within the language of the translation. A paraphrase is more lose and may drop small words (like an 'and') or rearrange the word order of a sentence etc to make the translation read easier. Obviously a literal translation is much more useful for actual bible study.

[djholmess]

Well, since you didn't look for evidence, it is no surprise the you didn't find any. With a quick look at NT scripture it is very easy to come to the conclusion that the JS translation provides the CORRECT understanding, in spite of what Paul was attempting to communicate.

From the 1828 dictionary,

So, are the ungodly/wicked/unrighteous/sinners justified?

Matt 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

. . .

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

. . .

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Do you still think that the ungodly are justified?

I believe the Bible so as Paul says in Romans 4:5

⁵ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

God does justify the ungodly through faith.

Obviously you don't believe that so could you explain what you understand justify to mean and on what basis does someone get justified, if they are not ungodly then what righteousness does someone have to have in order to be declared righteous?

[altersteve]

You're oversimplifying this. I am not Jewish, so I won't worship in a synagogue. If I did, I would feel I wasn't being honest with my beliefs.

That's fine. But Latter-day Saints try to see the truth in other people's religions. I've never worshiped in a synagogue, but I would have no problem doing so. They are praising God and I would be more than happy to join them if I were invited. You didn't answer my question, though: since you think we worship God differently than you do, are we not invited to join you in your worship services?

You're speaking for a lot of people here. I understand your beliefs, but that doesn't make them universal enough for you to speak for others IMO.

All I said was that I can't think of any Latter-day Saint who rejects D&C 132. So no, I'm not speaking for others.

This is your interpretation, which I don't share. I reject polygamy/polyandry, and what D&C 132:4 states is I will be damned. How do you derive the conclusion that I won't be damned? Where is "damned" defined to support your opinion?

What D&C 132:4 says is that you will be damned by rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, which is eternal marriage, not polygamy. I feel my opinion is consistent with LDS doctrine, or at least my understanding of it.

This is only true if you're a Mormon and accept Mormon doctrine. To a non-Mormon Christian, the doctrine of Joseph Smith is not of Jesus Christ, because they reject it. You make it sound (IMO) as if this is a one-way street, when it's not, as the perspectives are different. I'm not claiming what you believe is wrong, but rather it's not a universal Christian theology. It is, however, a "Mormon" theology.

I wasn't trying to make it sound like a one-way street. I meant to talk about what my personal beliefs are and I didn't mean to imply that it's a "universal Christian theology."

Edited August 9, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Following this example evangelicals have no problem translating the Bible because we believe that as long as it is translated accurately and faithfull to the Greek meaning then it can convey with clarity the revelation the Holy Spirit has made in the scriptures.

Then why do so many evangelicals make such a big deal over our 8th Article of Faith? It says the exact same thing.

[djholmess]

Then why do so many evangelicals make such a big deal over our 8th Article of Faith? It says the exact same thing.

Yes it does, but in my experience this is not what LDS actually believe. Re-read some of the posts by vance in the last couple of pages of this thread. His attacks against scripture have mainly not been against any translation but against the Bible actually being the word of God. Similarly you (i think it was you) have said you think the Bible is flawed and has mistakes. If you were just talking about a certain translation I would agree there could be mistranslations. However you seem to be talking about the Bible as it was written.

I have yet to meet a Mormon who actually believes Article 8 as it would read in every day language.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly'

To me this is clearly saying 'when its been translated correctly from the Greek language it was written in it is the word of God' 'when it is not translated correctly then obviously it isn't the word of God' I would happily ascribe to such a statement however when it comes to actually living out such a belief I find Mormons want to argue that the bible has been corrupted or is missing things or something else - all of which are not translational issues.

In reality it becomes 'I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly - and I will define what should be translated and what should just be ignored.'

Edited August 9, 2012 by djholmess

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You asked:

Then why do so many evangelicals make such a big deal over our 8th Article of Faith? It says the exact same thing.

Not quite. First of all, the 8th Article of Faith makes an implicit contrast between the Bible and the Book of Mormon in which the former's status as the word of God is qualified by the matter of translation while the latter is not. Nor is this some anti-Mormon misreading of the Article, since we have explicit statements from its author Joseph Smith making clear that he regarded the Bible as corrupt and the Book of Mormon as not. The following statement is representative of his view of the Bible: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 206). The Book of Mormon itself calls into question the completeness and integrity of the Bible: “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [i.e., the Bible] 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” (1 Nephi 13:28). No such statements are made about the Book of Mormon itself, which acknowledges some imperfections in the record but not deliberate removal of many things by apostates. On the basis of these kinds of statements, Ezra Taft Benson concluded, “Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation” ("The Book of Mormon--The Keystone to Our Religion," Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5).

Evangelicals have a very different view of the Bible. We don't agree that "many plain and precious things" were "taken away" from the Bible. We also don't agree that "translators" corrupted the text. Translators do make mistakes, and some of them deliberately change the text (Joseph Smith himself being a notable example from our perspective, as is the Watchtower Society's New World Translation), but that doesn't permanently corrupt the text because the original-language text remains available and can be compared with any translation. For example, whatever one thinks of the JST, Joseph did not permanently corrupt the Bible because we still have the KJV on which the JST is based, not to mention the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts on which the KJV was based. Of course, copyists made mistakes as well, but they did not all make the same mistakes. This means that by comparing the different manuscripts we can find the correct, original wording of virtually any passage of the Bible. Again, evangelicals agree that our knowledge of the original text is not absolutely perfect, but we reject the claim that large-scale apostate corruption of the text permanently removed many important things from the Bible.

[altersteve]

Rob,

Thanks for responding. Haven't heard from you in awhile.

I have a different view on this issue, but I feel we'd get even further off topic if I go into it here. I may start a new thread for discussion on biblical infallibility and the Bible's translation issues.

[Vance]

I believe the Bible so as Paul says in Romans 4:5

Which contradicts the rest of the NT.

⁵ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

God does justify the ungodly through faith.

In other words, those that WERE ungodly, but are now righteous because through faith, they repented of their sins, received forgiveness because they repented, so that NOW they are godly.

So, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

God does NOT justify the ungodly, but he does justify those that WERE ungodly but no longer are.

Obviously you don't believe that so could you explain what you understand justify to mean and on what basis does someone get justified, . . .

See above.

. . . if they are not ungodly then what righteousness does someone have to have in order to be declared righteous?

They are NO LONGER ungodly, because they accepted the Gospel (faith). In other words, they exercised faith in Christ by repenting of their sins, were baptized, by one who is authorized, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. AND then, they continued in His word. See John 8:31-32.

[Vance]

Steve,

You asked:

Not quite. First of all, the 8th Article of Faith makes an implicit contrast between the Bible and the Book of Mormon in which the former's status as the word of God is qualified by the matter of translation while the latter is not. Nor is this some anti-Mormon misreading of the Article, since we have explicit statements from its author Joseph Smith making clear that he regarded the Bible as corrupt and the Book of Mormon as not. The following statement is representative of his view of the Bible: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 206). The Book of Mormon itself calls into question the completeness and integrity of the Bible: “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [i.e., the Bible] 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” (1 Nephi 13:28). No such statements are made about the Book of Mormon itself, which acknowledges some imperfections in the record but not deliberate removal of many things by apostates. On the basis of these kinds of statements, Ezra Taft Benson concluded, “Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation” ("The Book of Mormon--The Keystone to Our Religion," Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5).

Evangelicals have a very different view of the Bible. We don't agree that "many plain and precious things" were "taken away" from the Bible. We also don't agree that "translators" corrupted the text. Translators do make mistakes, and some of them deliberately change the text (Joseph Smith himself being a notable example from our perspective, as is the Watchtower Society's New World Translation), but that doesn't permanently corrupt the text because the original-language text remains available and can be compared with any translation. For example, whatever one thinks of the JST, Joseph did not permanently corrupt the Bible because we still have the KJV on which the JST is based, not to mention the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts on which the KJV was based. Of course, copyists made mistakes as well, but they did not all make the same mistakes. This means that by comparing the different manuscripts we can find the correct, original wording of virtually any passage of the Bible. Again, evangelicals agree that our knowledge of the original text is not absolutely perfect, but we reject the claim that large-scale apostate corruption of the text permanently removed many important things from the Bible.

Without the autographs you can't possible "know" that what we have has not been corrupted.

Of course, you neglect the possibility that included in the plain and precious things that were taken away, is the proper understanding of the text. For example, the corruption of the correct understanding of the nature of God by the introduction of Hellenized philosophical concepts, such as the "immateriality" of God.

[KevinG]

Yes it does, but in my experience this is not what LDS actually believe.

I've told this to Rob Bowman several times but you need to spend more time with active LDS -perhaps attend a meeting or two.

[KevinG]

First of all, the 8th Article of Faith makes an implicit contrast between the Bible and the Book of Mormon in which the former's status as the word of God is qualified by the matter of translation while the latter is not. Nor is this some anti-Mormon misreading of the Article, since we have explicit statements from its author Joseph Smith making clear that he regarded the Bible as corrupt and the Book of Mormon as not.

From the Book of Mormon text itself:

1 Nephi 19:6 Nevertheless, I do not ^awrite anything upon plates save it be that I think it be ^bsacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the ^cweakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

Mormon 9:31 Condemn me not because of mine ^aimperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

The Mormons do not believe in inerrancy in the written word, even in their own revealed doctrines. We do not believe in inerrancy in our leaders, even Prophets called of God.

I am a faithful Mormon who believes fully that the 8th Article of Faith qualifiers apply to all of our standard works. If someone were to wrest the scriptures and interpret them in a way that went against the teachings of the Holy Ghost then that would be a misinterpretation even if the text itself were not altered.

It would be the very height of folly to believe that the Bible has never been misinterpreted through history, with some of the things done in the name of Christianity that were very unChristian.

[djholmess]

So just to be clear Romans 4:5 says:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness.

And your intrepretation is:

God does NOT justify the ungodly, but he does justify those that WERE ungodly but no longer are.

Edited August 9, 2012 by djholmess

[bluebell]

The translations we have today in and of themselves are not God breathed (breathed out by God may be more literal). The original autographs were. However God has wonderfully preserved the words of the prophets and apostles in the Greek manuscripts that we have today. For example the NT is by far the best and most widely attested document of ancient antiquity.

As I understand it, the NT is not a 'document of ancient antiquity' but rather a compilation of documents, different in age (though all 'antique' by our standards), the vast majority of which stem from translations created centuries after Christ lived.

I have to ask, what, in your view, is the difference between something being 'breathed out by God' and something being 'preserved' by God?

So we have the God breathed words of the NT preserved for us and this is what is translated. Sure there may be the odd word or phrase where it is not immediately clear what the original would have said but for 99% of the words of the NT it is, for the other 1% some study would be required.

Where are you getting these percentages?

Specifically regarding translation the people of God have never had a problem translating the Bible into any and all languages. Jesus most likely spoke Aramic or Hebrew yet the gospels recording his words were written in Greek. Following this example evangelicals have no problem translating the Bible because we believe that as long as it is translated accurately and faithfull to the Greek meaning then it can convey with clarity the revelation the Holy Spirit has made in the scriptures.

If the people doing the translation were always 'people of God' then I can see where you are coming from. I don't personally believe that that can be guaranteed down through the centuries however. It seems obvious, given the journey the bible has taken down through the centuries, that such wouldn't always be the case (though I certainly believe that God never abandoned the bible but protected it's over all message, and also that His people through the centuries sacrificed much to preserve it as well as they did).

The LDS belief concerning the bible is, as JS stated-"the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

So while the original autographs were inspired, infalable and inerrant, translations are not, though a good translation can be very close, and whilst the words of a translation where not 'breathed out by God' as the original autographs were, where a translation is accurate and faithful it still carries the 'God breathed' authority that Jesus words or Paul's words carried in the original.

Interesting.

Incidentally this is why many pastors and Chruch leaders are trained in reading ancient Greek and Hebrew so that they are not relying on just translations but are also reading Gods revelation in the words it was given.

Are you under the impression that the greek and hebrew manuscripts available to us today are the originals? Being able to read Greek and Hebrew is of course extremely helpful, but even then, it's not the original greek and hebrew, but a copy of a copy of a copy (etc. in some cases) of the originals.

Biblical scholar Ehrman claims "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament."

Even though we have a ton of NT manuscripts, they aren't the originals. As I understand it (and i'm not bible scholar), the earliest pieces of manuscript that we have are from 125 AD and those are copies of pieces of the book of John.

Also, if you are ever looking at other translations you may notice different types-paraphrase vs literal translations. A literal translation keeps as close to the original word order and meanings as is possible within the language of the translation.

Since we have no originals, how is this determined?