Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[Vookman]

This past Sunday I attended a presentation by Norman Geisler centered on Biblical interpretation. During the course of the presentation, he mentioned, without elaboration, that the Bible is inerrant and trustworthy.

While I believe in most things it is trustworthy, I would like to point out that even Geisler's public statements and affirmation of the inerrancy of the Bible are similar to those found in the LDS Articles of Faith, #8:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; ...

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978

Article X.

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

The statement goes on to clarify::

E. Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph.

Geisler and about 300 other prominent Evangelicals signed this document.

The reality is that finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, various codices of the NT and related textual criticism make the claims to inerrancy of the Bible in people's hands today untenable. And yet we still have unreflective statements by critics claiming the LDS view denigrates the Bible. I am perfectly willing to concede that some early statements about the reliability of the Bible by LDS members were (and sometimes even today) exaggerate the unreliability of the Bible to emphasize the superior method of transmission and receipt of the Book of Mormon. But when you have the New Testament, which has more errors and variants than it has actual words, I can understand where those statments come from.

But most informed Mormons think no less of the Bible's inerrancy than the vast majority of EV scholars do themselves.

[Tacenda]

This past Sunday I attended a presentation by Norman Geisler centered on Biblical interpretation. During the course of the presentation, he mentioned, without elaboration, that the Bible is inerrant and trustworthy.

While I believe in most things it is trustworthy, I would like to point out that even Geisler's public statements and affirmation of the inerrancy of the Bible are similar to those found in the LDS Articles of Faith, #8:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978

The statement goes on to clarify::

Geisler and about 300 other prominent Evangelicals signed this document.

The reality is that finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, various codices of the NT and related textual criticism make the claims to inerrancy of the Bible in people's hands today untenable. And yet we still have unreflective statements by critics claiming the LDS view denigrates the Bible. I am perfectly willing to concede that some early statements about the reliability of the Bible by LDS members were (and sometimes even today) exaggerate the unreliability of the Bible to emphasize the superior method of transmission and receipt of the Book of Mormon. But when you have the New Testament, which has more errors and variants than it has actual words, I can understand where those statments come from.

But most informed Mormons think no less of the Bible's inerrancy than the vast majority of EV scholars do themselves.

Good, to your last sentence!

When I use to attend ward council meetings our bishop would pass out the agenda and at the top of the page he always had a statement about reading your BofM. Even though we were studying the New Testament that year! I hope this doesn't occur in other wards. He should have atleast put the bible also.

[ERayR]

Good, to your last sentence!

When I use to attend ward council meetings our bishop would pass out the agenda and at the top of the page he always had a statement about reading your BofM. Even though we were studying the New Testament that year! I hope this doesn't occur in other wards. He should have atleast put the bible also.

It sounds to me like the Bishop was just encouraging them to not neglect the Book of Mormon. Why do you always try to spin these things in the worst possible light?

[Freedom]

We accept the bible to be the word of God, but we reject inerrant. Inspired does not equal without error. I don't even think many books in the Old Testament were even written by inspiration but were simply historical records compiled by scribes. Nothing in the New Testament was ever intended to be scripture either. They were little more than letters without proper scrutiny to make sure they were error free. To me, the most important record is the most recent instructions of the prophet.

[Gervin]

Nothing in the New Testament was ever intended to be scripture either.

CFR

[zerinus]

This past Sunday I attended a presentation by Norman Geisler centered on Biblical interpretation. During the course of the presentation, he mentioned, without elaboration, that the Bible is inerrant and trustworthy.

While I believe in most things it is trustworthy, I would like to point out that even Geisler's public statements and affirmation of the inerrancy of the Bible are similar to those found in the LDS Articles of Faith, #8:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978

The statement goes on to clarify::

Geisler and about 300 other prominent Evangelicals signed this document.

The reality is that finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, various codices of the NT and related textual criticism make the claims to inerrancy of the Bible in people's hands today untenable. And yet we still have unreflective statements by critics claiming the LDS view denigrates the Bible. I am perfectly willing to concede that some early statements about the reliability of the Bible by LDS members were (and sometimes even today) exaggerate the unreliability of the Bible to emphasize the superior method of transmission and receipt of the Book of Mormon. But when you have the New Testament, which has more errors and variants than it has actual words, I can understand where those statments come from.

But most informed Mormons think no less of the Bible's inerrancy than the vast majority of EV scholars do themselves.

Thank you for starting this interesting thread. I am a Mormon, and I believe the Bible (and modern LDS scripture) to be both inerrant and infallible, more or less as defined in the Chiago Statement.

Edited September 29, 2012 by zerinus

[Freedom]

CFR

You show me where any new testament writer claims their material was scripture.They make no such claim. It became scripture hundreds of years later by a group of people who never claimed authority do make it so. Jesus never commanded anybody to make a record. They were letters of instruction at best.

[Freedom]

Thank you for starting this interesting thread. I am a Mormon, and I believe the Bible (and modern LDS scripture) to be both inerrant and infallible, more or less as defined in the Chiago Statement.

Why? Even the authors of the Book of Mormon acknowledge there are errors. The church even refers to the bible to be only the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. The position of the church seems to contradict your position.

[Tacenda]

You show me where any new testament writer claims their material was scripture.They make no such claim. It became scripture hundreds of years later by a group of people who never claimed authority do make it so. Jesus never commanded anybody to make a record. They were letters of instruction at best.

Do you mind showing where the BoM is scripture? Since it once was in chapter form and the 1st Edition had Joseph Smith listed as the author vs. all the writers, for instance, Nephi, Mormon, etc.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Tacenda

[TAO]

Do you mind showing where the BoM is scripture? Since it once was in chapter form and the 1st Edition had Joseph Smith listed as the author vs. all the writers, for instance, Nephi, Mormon, etc.

I think that is Freedom's point. Scripture isn't always intended to be scripture, and it does not need to be intended to be for it to be scripture.

[Freedom]

Do you mind showing where the BoM is scripture? Since it once was in chapter form and the 1st Edition had Joseph Smith listed as the author vs. all the writers, for instance, Nephi, Mormon, etc.

The church that produced it declared it to be so. The authors who compiled it did so under the specific direction of God for our day. The bible has no such mandate. Every book in the Book of Mormon was written by a prophet of God under the direct mandate from God. I think that the only book in the New Testament that qualifies is the Book of Revelation.

[Freedom]

the Book of Mormon went through a careful editing process which was lacking with the bible. the old testament would look much different if a prophet such as Mormon was called to edit the material. Many of the problems such as apparent genocides attributed to God would likely be removed since they were not necessarily mandated by god, but where framed in such a way according to the style of writing of the day. The records that Mormon and Moroni abridged likely contained material that were either doctrinaly correct, or poorly framed They took the content that supported their mandate. The book of Mormon was given through divine providence, the bible as we have it was simply handed down over the years by people who claimed no divine authority. What we have in the bible is what the people in power decided to put in it, and the material was selected to support their view of what Christianity should look like.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Article of Faith No. 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.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

Article of Faith No. 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.

With over 3000 corrections to the BoM the Bible still does not make the cut and is only the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Yet it's authors wrote down the history on scrolls and JS translated by looking in a hat at a seerstone, not translating from the plates, yet it makes the cut?

Edited September 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

You do realize that there has been 100's of 1000's changes to the Bible?

That 3,000 changes charge for the BoM has been debunked years ago.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

[Gervin]

You show me where any new testament writer claims their material was scripture.They make no such claim. It became scripture hundreds of years later by a group of people who never claimed authority do make it so. Jesus never commanded anybody to make a record. They were letters of instruction at best.

Perhaps you don't know what CFR means; you claim that "Nothing in the New Testament was ever intended to be scripture either." It is incumbent on you to prove this claim, not to ask me to disprove it. Support your claim, show that it is the teaching of the LDS church, or admit that this is your personal claim and not supported by any external evidence. Thanks!

[Gervin]

the Book of Mormon went through a careful editing process which was lacking with the bible.

CFR

[Gervin]

What we have in the bible is what the people in power decided to put in it, and the material was selected to support their view of what Christianity should look like.

I suppose a CFR is, alas, also warranted for this grand summation. Methinks you simply are clueless. If not ... CFR.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Gervin

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22

[volgadon]

With over 3000 corrections to the BoM the Bible still does not make the cut and is only the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Yet it's authors wrote down the history on scrolls and JS translated by looking in a hat at a seerstone, not translating from the plates, yet it makes the cut?

You mean over 3000 changes to the original text. A little care with word choice saves a lot of grief later. Versification, punctuation, and spelling are the lion's share of that. I'm sure you've heard the Joseph Smith quote "I teach them - - - - - - - principles and they govern themselves." That should provide a clue as to Joseph's word usage.

[volgadon]

CFR

Very easily answered from the book itself, whether or not you believe it. The small plates clearly indicate the chain of transmission. The rest of the book as been editing primarily by two named editors- Mormon and Moroni. The book was then handed over by Moroni to Joseph Smith and translated by the gift and power of God. Can even one scribe or redactor of the collection of biblical books in Qumran be named for sure?

[volgadon]

I suppose a CFR is, alas, also warranted for this grand summation. Methinks you simply are clueless. If not ... CFR.

One of the more commons polemical thrusts by Greek Orthodox against protestants is that the latter accept the Bible, but reject the appointed successors of the church that assembled the writings of the Bible.

[MormonMason]

Do you mind showing where the BoM is scripture? Since it once was in chapter form and the 1st Edition had Joseph Smith listed as the author vs. all the writers, for instance, Nephi, Mormon, etc.

Umm...Tacenda, the authorship statement on the first English edition title page was that way because of the wording of the copyright form that Joseph Smith had to fill out. See the statement of copyright in the first edition, and see also the original copyright form that Joseph Smith filled out. We have them. For the Second Edition, Joseph Smith then noticed the change in copyright law and changed it to detail him as the translator of the text on the Title Page.

The original preface was then removed for that edition and an new one put in its place. Why? Because there was no need for the original Preface. "What was that need?" you might ask. The original preface to the first English edition of the Book of Mormon told people that he was the translator from the very beginning. Once the law was altered there was no longer a need for the preface informing people that he was the translator.

You can read the original Preface, starting here: http://josephsmithpa...f-mormon-1830#9

Here is the copyright form: http://josephsmithpa...on-11-june-1829

You can read the title page for the 1837 second edition here: http://josephsmithpa...f-mormon-1837#7

Now, as to the Book of Mormon being scripture, not only was it canonized as such by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon repeatedly had a number of its authors state that God was instructing them via revelation as to what to write and what not to write. The Book of Mormon is filled with a number of such passages.

By the way, while we are on the subject, have you ever read the other editions of the Book of Jeremiah? The Greek version of the Book of Jeremiah was about 12.5 % shorter than the one we have in our Hebrew and King James Bibles. One of the editions used in the Qumran community also differed from the current version and was more in line with the Greek version. They are quite different from one another. The same goes for the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Joshua and Deuteronomy.

Here is a sampling of one of the differences of the Deuteronomy 32:43 ((hopefully this will post right) with major differences marked in red):

(Dead Sea Scrolls Bible) הרנינו שמים עמו והשתחוו לו כל אלהים כי דם עבדיו יקום ונקם ישיב לצריו ולמשנאיו ישלם ויכפר אדמת עמו

(Current Hebrew Bible) הַרְנִינוּ גוֹיִם עַמּוֹ, כִּי דַם-עֲבָדָיו יִקּוֹם; וְנָקָם יָשִׁיב לְצָרָיו, וְכִפֶּר אַדְמָתוֹ עַמּוֹ

Notice the rather long lines of missing text? The first of them at the right reads "and let all gods worship him." These gods were removed from the Hebrew text by later scribes for theological reasons. There are a number of other passages in the Hebrew Bible that have been altered like this.

One thing I get a kick out of is passages from the Hebrew Bible that are not translated correctly, such as Genesis 20:13. No English translation translates the text as it actually reads. Allow me to present the Hebrew text of Genesis 20:13, and maybe you can figure out why that might be the case.

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעוּ אֹתִי, אֱלֹהִים מִבֵּית אָבִי, וָאֹמַר לָהּ, זֶה חַסְדֵּךְ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִׂי עִמָּדִי: אֶל כָּל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר נָבוֹא שָׁמָּה, אִמְרִי-לִי אָחִי הוּא

I have marked the important words in red so it is easier for you to see. Notice the word forms there? Both words marked in red are in the plural. You see, the word elohim is the plural form of the word for God. It is most of the time written that way so the only way one can know whether or not it is plural you must look at the verbs or other words that are attached to it. If the verb, for example, is singular, generally the plural elohim should be translated as a singular, God. But, notice the first word to the right that is marked red? That verb is a plural verb.

Thus, the first part of Genesis 20:13 should be translated, if you want to be somewhat literal in the translation, to read: "And it came to pass, when the Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..." Another way to render the passage is: "And it came to pass, when they, (the) Gods, caused me to wander from my father's house..." Sound familiar? It should if you recall to memory the verbiage of the creation passages of the Book of Abraham. There are a number of passages just like that in even the current Hebrew Bible. Why must no one translate it as it reads? Think about it.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[Freedom]

Perhaps you don't know what CFR means; you claim that "Nothing in the New Testament was ever intended to be scripture either." It is incumbent on you to prove this claim, not to ask me to disprove it. Support your claim, show that it is the teaching of the LDS church, or admit that this is your personal claim and not supported by any external evidence. Thanks!

The fact that they wrote the books but never created canon is evidence enough. If it was intended to be scripture, they would have created it. None of the books in the new testament became scripture or canon for hundreds of years after. It was not a practice and never taught. For something to be intended for a specific purpose, it needs to say so. Read your history.

[Freedom]

I suppose a CFR is, alas, also warranted for this grand summation. Methinks you simply are clueless. If not ... CFR.

I am clueless? Do you know nothing of how the bible came to be? This is like to asking me to prove that elephants have skin. The bible was compiled hundreds of years after the books were written and a committee selected which books would be included. The four gospels were eventually accepted after significant argument. Irenaeus argued that that there had to be four because there are four points of the compass, four zones of the world, four beasts supporting the Chariot of God in Ezekiel’s vision. There were many other gospels to choose from which are now virtually all lost. Read the following as a tiny sample of hundreds of volumes of research:

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984)

McConica, J Erasmus (OUP, 1991)

McGrath, A In the Beginning (Doubleday, 2001)

Minns, Denis Irenaeus (London, Chapman, 1994)

Moule, CFD The Making of the New Testament (London, A&C Black, 1962)

Mozley, JF Coverdale and his Bibles (Lutterworth Press, 1953)