Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[Tacenda]

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.

Pretty interesting stuff, MM.

[ed2276]

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?

Tacenda,

I've put a link

to a presentation given by Royal Skousen entitled, " Restoring the Original Text of The Book of Mormon."

This was a presentation he gave at the 2010 FAIR conference. You may find it of some interest.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda,

I've put a link

to a presentation given by Royal Skousen entitled, " Restoring the Original Text of The Book of Mormon."

This was a presentation he gave at the 2010 FAIR conference. You may find it of some interest.

Is Royal the son of Cleon Skousen? About 28 yrs. ago I visit taught, I believe, Cleon's daughter in law and remember receiving a tape for Christmas from them and he saying it was his father. The tape was about the Nativity story and Cleon reading or talking about it on the tape but I probably didn't listen all the way through. Cleon probably has more than one son though.

But thankyou for this link! I know of his book about the BofM. But a presentation might be a little easier for me to understand.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[MormonMason]

Pretty interesting stuff, MM.

Oh, it gets much more interesting when you dig deeper. The interesting thing is, this change is doctrinal. Getting rid of the gods was most certainly a doctrinal change.

One can be sure that there were more changes than these in earlier times. Unfortunately, the manuscripts of many books of the Bible among the Dead Sea Scrolls are mere fragments or it is likely that we would have much more. Yet, the Chicago Statement claims that no changes that affect doctrine were made in the Bible.

You just saw a couple above. One was altered Hebrew text in later copies that was deliberately executed by scribes who wanted to get rid of the gods and to make the text more monotheistic, and the other was an example of translations that hide things from the English reader.

There are variants in the New Testament that are of varying natures. A number of these are discussed in recent volumes on the subject of textual history, particularly in 1 and 2 Corinthians, even across manuscript families. If I weren't away from my books at the moment I would share some of these with readers. But, it is a sheer miracle that we have what we do because there are more textual variants among the New Testament manuscripts than there are verses in the Greek New Testament.

Most of these are considered insignificant but something that many people are unwilling to admit is that even the change of an accent and of spelling can affect the meaning of whole words and sentences in Greek, ranging from changing the person to more serious alterations. And in the most ancient Greek copies accents were not written. In Hebrew, sometimes changing a vowel and even the right consonants can result in serious alteration of the meaning of a text. And, in the case of the Hebrew, the vowel marks and accents were not written until around the second century A.D.

[danielwoods]

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.

Your claim is that the verb is plural in this passage. Please tell me which is the verb in this sentence?

"And it came to pass, when the Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..."

[MormonMason]

Your claim is that the verb is plural in this passage. Please tell me which is the verb in this sentence?

"And it came to pass, when the Gods caused me to wander from my father's house..."

The verb is marked in red, preceding the Hebrew uni-plural noun elohim. The verb in Genesis 20:13 is the third person plural form ht^cw and the first person singular would be ht^ch. In the English text, "they caused to wander" is the verb. But, in Hebrew grammar the arrangement of the wording differs from English. If I were to translate superliterally, the first part of the passage would read: "And it came to pass when they caused to wander me Gods from the house of my father..."

I'll go a step further and break it down for readers who don't know any Hebrew.

וַיְהִי And it came to pass

כַּאֲשֶׁר when

הִתְעוּ they caused to wander (הִתְעָה would be "he caused to wander")

אֹתִי me

אֱלֹהִים Gods (or God, with singular verbs)

מִבֵּית from the house of

אָבִי my father

As you can see, what the text says is not what the translators have translated. I am unaware of any English version that tells it like it is here.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[RBoylan]

There are variants in the New Testament that are of varying natures. A number of these are discussed in recent volumes on the subject of textual history, particularly in 1 and 2 Corinthians, even across manuscript families. If I weren't away from my books at the moment I would share some of these with readers. But, it is a sheer miracle that we have what we do because there are more textual variants among the New Testament manuscripts than there are verses in the Greek New Testament.

Most of these are considered insignificant but something that many people are unwilling to admit is that even the change of an accent and of spelling can affect the meaning of whole words and sentences in Greek, ranging from changing the person to more serious alterations. And in the most ancient Greek copies accents were not written. In Hebrew, sometimes changing a vowel and even the right consonants can result in serious alteration of the meaning of a text. And, in the case of the Hebrew, the vowel marks and accents were not written until around the second century A.D.

Not sure if this is the work you are alluding to, but the late Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 1 Corinthians (William Carey Intl University Press, 2003) discusses this issue on 1 Corinthians.

[MormonMason]

Not sure if this is the work you are alluding to, but the late Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 1 Corinthians (William Carey Intl University Press, 2003) discusses this issue on 1 Corinthians.

Yes, that is one of them. He continues the same line of argumentation in his volume on 2 Corinthians. This latter volume is a little harder to obtain. I have found some bookstores of the Evangelical bent have refused to carry them after reading what was in the one on 1 Corinthians. It was bad enough at one point that several Evangelicals I know were completely unaware of its publication and even once called someone I know a liar for claiming that one was published! It was pretty comical, to say the least. It is available, however.

Other examples are to be found in the revised edition of Metcalf's book on textual criticism as well as several of the works of Bart Ehrman.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[danielwoods]

The verb is marked in red, preceding the Hebrew uni-plural noun elohim. The verb in Genesis 20:13 is the third person plural form ht^cw and the first person singular would be ht^ch. In the English text, "they caused to wander" is the verb. But, in Hebrew grammar the arrangement of the wording differs from English. If I were to translate superliterally, the first part of the passage would read: "And it came to pass when they caused to wander me Gods from the house of my father..."

I'll go a step further and break it down for readers who don't know any Hebrew.

וַיְהִי And it came to pass

כַּאֲשֶׁר when

הִתְעוּ they caused to wander (הִתְעָה would be "he caused to wander")

אֹתִי me

אֱלֹהִים Gods (or God, with singular verbs)

מִבֵּית from the house of

אָבִי my father

As you can see, what the text says is not what the translators have translated. I am unaware of any English version that tells it like it is here.

Thank you for your very clear explanation. It seems that the context of Genesis 20 gives us a clue to what is going on. Abraham is not making a theological statement about the nature of God, but rather is speaking to the polytheistic Philistine king Abimelech, and Victory Hamilton states that, "The OT Sometimes uses elohim with a plural verb when narrating a pagan understanding of deity." ( Hamilton, Victor P. (2012). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0801031830.) And he references this verse as an example.

So, while I agree with you that the literal rendering of the Hebrew is as you stated, I disagree with your conclusion that it therefore must mean that Abraham believed that God was plural. The context can't be ignored. Further, other examples of the uses of Elohim throughout the OT, where clear doctrine is being taught, do not back up the idea that God is plural.

[RBoylan]

Yes, that is one of them. He continues the same line of argumentation in his volume on 2 Corinthians. This latter volume is a little harder to obtain. I have found some bookstores of the Evangelical bent have refused to carry them after reading what was in the one on 1 Corinthians. It was bad enough at one point that several Evangelicals I know were completely unaware of its publication and even once called someone I know a liar for claiming that one was published! It was pretty comical, to say the least. It is available, however.

Other examples are to be found in the revised edition of Metcalf's book on textual criticism as well as several of the works of Bart Ehrman.

I think you mean Metzger than Metcalf (if not, I would like the name of the book).

Another good resource would be the The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manscripts (2d ed.; Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), ed Philip Comfort and David Barrett.

I agree that Ehrman's work (viz. the 1993 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) are good treatments on these issues, even if he is now hyper-skeptical in his approach to textual criticism and other fields.

Edit: Another good one, this time on the OT, would be Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, for those who would like to read up on this issue.

Edited September 30, 2012 by RBoylan

[MormonMason]

I think you mean Metzger than Metcalf (if not, I would like the name of the book).

...

Yes, I meant Metzger. Sorry. The name slipped my mind and I am away from my books at the moment so I could not verify the author name. Thanks for setting me straight. As to the other books you recommend, I am in agreement on that. All good ones to read on the subject. As to Orthodox Corruption, there is really only one passage I took issue with and that was his material dealing with 1 Corinthians 10:9. There is just way too much evidence for the Christ reading, in my opinion, for that point to be correct. But, I can see his point given the subject matter of the book.

I rather think that the reading "Lord" was the corruption among a small circle of churches but I am not sure it was deliberate. XN (Christon) and KN (Kurion) are very similar in manuscript. All it would take was one badly formed letter to alter "Christ" to "Lord" using the standard two-letter form of the Nomina Sacra. This did not work in P⁴⁶, however, because that manuscript used a three-letter form of the Nomina Sacra. It is the oldest manuscript containing the "Christ" reading.

[MormonMason]

Thank you for your very clear explanation. It seems that the context of Genesis 20 gives us a clue to what is going on. Abraham is not making a theological statement about the nature of God, but rather is speaking to the polytheistic Philistine king Abimelech, and Victory Hamilton states that, "The OT Sometimes uses elohim with a plural verb when narrating a pagan understanding of deity." ( Hamilton, Victor P. (2012). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0801031830.) And he references this verse as an example.

So, while I agree with you that the literal rendering of the Hebrew is as you stated, I disagree with your conclusion that it therefore must mean that Abraham believed that God was plural. The context can't be ignored. Further, other examples of the uses of Elohim throughout the OT, where clear doctrine is being taught, do not back up the idea that God is plural.

Except for some problems such as that the same thing is done in passages that do not address a pagan audience (I don't have my Even-Shoshan with me or my list of such passages or I would provide them) and the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls also have other examples of text that has been later altered by later scribes for theological and other reasons, such as the passage at Deuteronomy 32:8. See the NRSV rendering of the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 since NRSV is one of the only English versions of the Bible that adopts the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible reading here.

That dog also won't hunt in light of other passages where God is spoken of in the singular in passages in our current Bibles that also have pagan audiences. This discussion you mention is nothing more than an attempt to explain away what remains of the text. The further we go back the less monotheistic certain passages in the Bible become. That much is clear from the textual evidence that we have.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[Vookman]

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Also, Genesis 35:7 is another theologically "suppressed" translation. The place where the Gods appeared to Jacob. NET Bible's comments brings this point out nicely, even as they also provide a theologically driven translation.

Thanks,

[volgadon]

Hamilton also fails to take into account that ancient pagans were perfectly capable of refering to individual gods.

[Mudcat]

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

I would disagree completely here.

I think the issue has to do with if the Bible is sufficient or insufficient.

EV's like myself believe it is. LDS do not.

[Freedom]

Of course there is also the problematic expression 'God of Gods'. God of idols?

[danielwoods]

Except for some problems such as that the same thing is done in passages that do not address a pagan audience (I don't have my Even-Shoshan with me or my list of such passages or I would provide them) and the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls also have other examples of text that has been later altered by later scribes for theological and other reasons, such as the passage at Deuteronomy 32:8. See the NRSV rendering of the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 since NRSV is one of the only English versions of the Bible that adopts the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible reading here.

That dog also won't hunt in light of other passages where God is spoken of in the singular in passages in our current Bibles that also have pagan audiences. This discussion you mention is nothing more than an attempt to explain away what remains of the text. The further we go back the less monotheistic certain passages in the Bible become. That much is clear from the textual evidence that we have.

Since Elohim is used something around 2500 times in the OT, the question is what does one base their doctrine on? The vast majority of uses where Elohim is clearly singular, since it's coupled with a singular verb, adjective as the context would indicate? Or the few cases that you have brought up here?

You have laid down a charge that the scribes altered the text for theological reasons. What evidence do you have for such a charge? Do you have written documentation of an eye-witness that claims to witness these alterations?

[MormonMason]

Since Elohim is used something around 2500 times in the OT, the question is what does one base their doctrine on? The vast majority of uses where Elohim is clearly singular, since it's coupled with a singular verb, adjective as the context would indicate? Or the few cases that you have brought up here?

You have laid down a charge that the scribes altered the text for theological reasons. What evidence do you have for such a charge? Do you have written documentation of an eye-witness that claims to witness these alterations?

The vast majority of occurrences of Elohim occur in an altered text that had its final form sometime between the latter half of the first century and the second century A.D. Since we do not have the originals it is impossible for us to know how extensive these were in all cases. All that we know is that the older the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible the less monotheistic are the texts in the materials that are extant, including the Book of Deuteronomy. But, even the manuscripts of the current Hebrew text differ in a fairly large number of places in placement and usage of the various divine names. Various manuscripts have Adonai and Elohim where others have YHWH, and vice versa.

And, the archaeology of the ground is telling some interesting things as well regarding this. The findings do not confirm a monotheistic Israel during times when monotheism is stated by the Bible to have held full sway. See the writings of William F. Albright and William Dever to see some of this evidence.

"The Emendations of the Sopherim" is among the only recorded witnesses to deliberate alteration of a handful of texts. The rest of the evidence is to be seen in the manuscripts themselves, such as those among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most Evangelicals tend to avoid discussing these and continue to bandy about the myth that all the manuscripts agree with each other to the level of 98% or more. That claim itself is a myth of biblical proportions.

Even with the Greek New Testament, agreement across all manuscripts and manuscript families is about 80% at best. This can be learned just from gleaning the statistics from printed Greek New Testament critical texts, such as UBS4 and NA27 (soon to be NA28, the release of which I am looking forward to because of the new modifications and new textual evidence in the form of the papyri). There is evidence from the more complex critical editions that this range of agreement is more along the lines of around 60%. Too bad these more complex editions are not completed as of yet. They will be eye-openers when they are. Many Evangelicals, of course, will go more on the attack about "perversions" of the Bible and so forth for any version based upon these, but such is life.

[MormonMason]

Of course there is also the problematic expression 'God of Gods'. God of idols?

True that. These also are among the last vestiges of a less than strictly monotheistic Bible. Thankfully, the Massoretes missed some of them and the rules that they developed in the first and second centuries A.D. resulted in fixing them into the text for people to find and discuss. But, the fact is, if we compare the usage of like phrases, such as "King of kings" and "Lord of lords," it strengthens the actual meaning of "God of gods" as meaning literally just that.

For, God is the King of kings because there were other kings, God is the Lord of lords because there really existed other lords on Earth and in Heaven, and likewise, God is the God of gods because he rules over other gods who really existed like other kings and lords did, both in heaven and on earth. And, when the New Testament states that the Father is "the God of" Jesus Christ, it meant it just like the phrase "'the God of' Abraham, and 'the God of' Isaac, and 'the God of' Jacob" meant what it said. The direct meaning of the phrase had to be redefined after Nicaea. Before that time a number of earlier Church Fathers were not afraid to speak of the Father and Son as two Gods in one sense and one God in another. Justin the Martyr himself spoke of the Son as being a deuteros theos, or second God. But, alas, Nicaea and Chalcedon took away that bravery.

Edited October 1, 2012 by MormonMason

[Vookman]

I love this quote from Bob Becking:

How does the archaelogical and epigraphic evidence on Asherah and its interpretation influence the theology of today? Does it imply the end of faith in only one God?...I am of the opinion that the unreflective talk about 'montheism' will slowly disappear. The naivety of a belief in only one god has to make way for a theological reconsideration.. (Becking, Bob, et al, “Only One God? Monotheism in ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah”, pp 200-201, emphasis added)

It is my opinion that we have barely begun to understand just how polluted the reading of the Bible has become due largely to the imposition of the philosophical perspective that there could be only one ultimate divine being. I don't pretend to know how there can be many divine beings, but it seems clear to me that the Bible clearly teaches they exist.

I echo the sentiment of one poster on the bgreek board in commenting on Mantey's false grammar around the idea of a Causal Eis in Acts 2:38, and therefore attempting to negate the natural reading of the passage that baptism caused a forgiveness of sins:

As for basing one's translation on one's theology, such a procedure implies

that one's theology is not based on scripture. Rather, his scripture is based

on his theology. Whence came his theology?

[spartacus]

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.

Except for KJVists (my term for those who say that only the KJV is the Word of God), I don't think anyone (who has put much thought into it at all) claims that the Bible in their hands (not the original texts) is "inerrant" in the way you are speaking of it.

And yet we still have unreflective statements by critics claiming the LDS view denigrates the Bible.

Let's be honest here, the 8th Article of Faith is not the only ubiquitous statement by LDS that "denigrates" the Bible. The statement that "many plain and precious things" were lost/taken from the Bible obviously denigrates the Bible.

From interactions and statements I have witnessed, some other ways that non-LDS Christians see LDS "denigrating" the Bible: 1) that LDS view and read the Bible through the lens of the BoM, DnC, and PoGP, that is that the Bible is the bottom of the totem pole and wherever there is apparent conflict the three unique LDS scriptures win, 2) The Bible is never seen as informing the other three, let alone correcting them. 3) Even the way that LDS use the Bible and interpret it seems to denigrate it by the lack of context respect - if any part of a statement of the Bible seems to be similar to the LDS unique scriptures then that is what the Bible still has from the unadulterated original texts, any contextual statements to any other effect are ignored if not implicitly considered part of the adulteration. When I have seen non-LDS Chrisitians and LDS discuss this last one the example of Paul's writing supposedly about the 3 heavenly glories is often given.

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.

Really? In a post that seems to try to reconcile and find common ground between non-LDS Christian and LDS you pull out the "more errors than words" trick? Maybe you just wrote it poorly, but if not, then I hope you don't wonder why non-LDS Christians claim LDS "denigrate" the Bible with "exaggerated claims" of "errors". I mean REALLY? This is the sort of misleading statement that atheists and anti-Christians make.

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

Again, "plain and precious things" I believe is believed by even "informed Mormons" and it DEFINITELY differs from the opinion of "the vast majority of EV scholars" - e.g. "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." I'm pretty sure LDS mean "essential element" when they say "precious things"; so I am pretty sure EV scholars would not agree that "essential elements"/precious things were lost from the Bible.

Oh, and besides the atheist/anti-Christian-esque statement you seemed to make above, This last statement of yours, and quite possibly the point of this entire OP, would be an example of "telling [non-LDS Christians] what they believe". Unless I have read you wrong, or your writing was not great, it would seem the drawing board may need a revisit if this is your idea of "common ground" finding. Although, attempting it at all is commendable.

[spartacus]

It is my opinion that we have barely begun to understand just how polluted the reading of the Bible has become due largely to the imposition of the philosophical perspective that there could be only one ultimate divine being.

Off topic, I know, but really quick. If this is the case, then speaking of an "ultimate divine being" at all is mistaken or butchering. Ultimate beings are considered the top and all inclusive originator and definer of all else, whether impersonal or personal. Depending on your particular Mormon view, this means that Heavenly Father has to be that ultimate divine being that created the system in which all other gods come to be (but then there is still the issue of co-existing matter and the system in which Heavenly Father and that matter found themselves), or else Heavenly Father is just another god, nothing "ultimate" about him, maybe "ultimate human" but not universal "ultimate" [the Ultimate in this case would be that System or Eternal Principles that Heavenly Father worked in to become a "god"]. In the latter case you butcher "god" or "ultimate". Or you can butcher "divine being", and say that "ultimate divine being" is Heavenly father (using the 1st Mormon view above) but he's is such because he is the first and the completed version of the "divine beings" that we all are. Either way "ultimate" and "god" become inappropriate. You really just have sub-ultimate entities with varying levels of "god-like" (but not God/Ultimate) attributes.

[MormonMason]

For those interested, the NRSV rendering of the Dead Sea Scrolls 'Bible' version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 32:43 follows. As I have written above, the NRSV is one of the only Bibles that adopted the older reading in preference to the Masoretic Text. The translators not only used the older Hebrew texts but gave the fullest meaning of the Hebrew to readers.

8 When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; 9 the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

43 Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people.

Now, notice what the text says. Note the references to gods and the boundaries and divvying up the people of earth. Note that Yahweh's own portion was Jacob as his allotted share from the Most High. That reading didn't fly with the Masoretes so it had to be changed. It would be particularly useful for ancient Christians had it been left alone as it originally read.

The Septuagint translators also were aware of it as their version reflects this older Hebrew reading. Unfortunately, in time even the Septuagint was edited and the reading was altered to "angels of God" rather than "sons of God."

The reading of the Masoretic text makes little sense considering that the sons of Israel did not yet exist when the Most High divided the nations. These had to be other gods that existed upon which to base the number. In addition to that, the very first line of verse 43 speaks in a parallelism of heaven rejoicing and gods worshipping. Thus, these gods had to have existed in heaven. The Masoretic text thus eliminates the gods and changes the reference to heaven into a reference to nations, which represents earthly things rather than heavenly.

Edited October 1, 2012 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

When I read that the bible mention gods I think back to an episode of Gilligan's Island, a t.v. show made in the 70's. And in it Gilligan runs into natives on the island, well actually they were head hunters. I recall them worsipping many gods like the Sun god, etc. So gods but in the lower case "g",

Edited October 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[urroner]

When I read that the bible mention gods I think back to an episode of Gilligan's Island, a t.v. show made in the 70's. And in it Gilligan runs into natives on the island, well actually they were head hunters. I recall them worsipping many gods like the Sun god, etc. So gods but in the lower case "g",

If I'm not mistaken, the ancient written languages didn't have an upper or lower case in their writing systems.