Bible inerancy questions from investigator

[Freedom]

Two topics that I am addressing for an investigator with an evangelical background that I am hoping you can help me with.

1)        Is the bible complete and is there evidence of tampering – I am looking for non-lds sources for evidence that the bible has been altered and that there are books written by Disciples of Christ that are lost. The argument I hear is that there is no proof that the bible was corrupted, and that the books that are contained in the current bible were written by people who gave a personal witness of Christ; that is, other books were not written by people who had a personal witness and were therefore excluded. Is there any research that tells us what books existed, and why the current books were selected? All I have is LDS sources, but of course such sources are of little value to an evangelical Christian who wants an unbiased perspective.

2)        Another topic is scientific evidence for the bible. This is another old topic, but I am looking for legitimate research that demonstrates how anthropology contradicts the biblical narrative more often than it supports it. I hear so often that science is proving the bible true. I have lots of polemic material but I do not have much in the way of legitimate research that discusses the discrepancies between the biblical narrative and what science has uncovered.  Most of what I find is written by atheists who go to extremes and take things out of context or grossly misunderstand what the bible is inferring.

 

Thanks for the help

[Sevenbak]

While this list is from LDS.org, the references are biblical.

 

Lost scriptures

There are many sacred writings mentioned in the scriptures that we do not have today, among which are these books and writers: the covenant (Ex. 24:7), the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13:22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19), Enoch (Jude 1:14), and a book of remembrance (Moses 6:5); and epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), and from Laodicea (Col. 4:16).

 

[Doctrine 612]

When I hear we believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly I really take that to heart.

if you open any other bible version then the kjv you will see a lot of miss translations like mark 1:41 in the new niv bible and know that not all bibles are equal.

but besides the translations I also think it means understood correctly which is why I really like the Book of Mormon because it helps put doctrine in a greater light.

[Doctrine 612]

Mark 1:41New International Version (NIV)

41 Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

 

Mark 1:41King James Version (KJV)

41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

[Kevin Christensen]

8 hours ago, Freedom said:

Two topics that I am addressing for an investigator with an evangelical background that I am hoping you can help me with.

1)        Is the bible complete and is there evidence of tampering – I am looking for non-lds sources for evidence that the bible has been altered and that there are books written by Disciples of Christ that are lost. The argument I hear is that there is no proof that the bible was corrupted, and that the books that are contained in the current bible were written by people who gave a personal witness of Christ; that is, other books were not written by people who had a personal witness and were therefore excluded. Is there any research that tells us what books existed, and why the current books were selected? All I have is LDS sources, but of course such sources are of little value to an evangelical Christian who wants an unbiased perspective.

2)        Another topic is scientific evidence for the bible. This is another old topic, but I am looking for legitimate research that demonstrates how anthropology contradicts the biblical narrative more often than it supports it. I hear so often that science is proving the bible true. I have lots of polemic material but I do not have much in the way of legitimate research that discusses the discrepancies between the biblical narrative and what science has uncovered.  Most of what I find is written by atheists who go to extremes and take things out of context or grossly misunderstand what the bible is inferring.

 

Thanks for the help

On Bible inerrancy, this essay is my favorite, by Margaret Barker:

"Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use,

and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that

the texts which became the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins.

Jerome, (around 400 CE) made a new translation of the Bible to replace the many older Latin versions.

Where there was a Hebrew original to use, he made this the basis of his translation, but the books found only

in the Greek Old Testament, which had been the Church’s Scripture from the beginning, he considered to be

of less importance. Thus there arose a division within the Christian Old Testament, not on the basis of

Church custom but on the basis of the Jewish canon of Scripture. Augustine warned that this procedure

would divide the Church by implying that the Greek tradition was defective, and would create difficulties for

Christians in the West who would not have access to a Hebrew text in cases of dispute.

1

Jerome argued that a translation from the Hebrew text (and the Hebrew canon) was imperative,

if the Jews were to accept it as the basis for discussion and cease their declara

tion that the Church had false Scriptures2.

Jerome used the Hebrew text of his day, even though there had been accusations in the second century that the Jews had

altered the text of Scripture after the advent of Christianity. 3

Jerome’s was a mismatch of both text and canon, even though he believed that he was promoting

Hebraica veritas, Hebrew truth.

 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

And on how Biblical studies have been conducted in the schools:

 "Any form of faith commitment in biblical scholarship, any attempt to work within a theological framework
can be suspect.  One ploy is to keep one’s biblical study in a separate compartment of one’s
life, to pursue the most radically destructive investigations of biblical texts and then go to
evensong.  People of commitment often take refuge in safe areas like Hebrew, or
archaeology, although that is not longer ‘safe’ as I shall show in a moment.  Let me quote
now from the introduction to Francis Watson’s recent book Text and Truth
 1997, ‘It is believed that theological concerns have an inevitable tendency to distort the autonomous
processes of biblical exegesis, a prejudice so strong that to identify a theological motivation
underlying an exegetical position is often held to be sufficient refutation...’(p.4)  ‘The lines of
demarcation between systematic theology and Old and New Testament scholarship represent
more than mere division of labour; they are ideologically motivated.  They represent a
collective decision of biblical scholarship that biblical texts are to be construed as something
other than Christian scripture.’ (p.6)"

From Barker, "Reflections on Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century"

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Zakuska]

3 things that stick out to me.

 1) Jerome's mistranslation of rays of light for horns causing Michael Angelo to set a Biblical mistranslation in stone.

2) Joseph Smith bringing up the fact that the Book of James should actually be called "the book of Jacob". James the Saviors brother was named Jacob not James.   I have an old Greek bible which confirms JS knew what he was talking about.

3) Codex Vaticanus - with its red ink margin scribals from the editor calling the scribe a knave for correcting spelling/grammar errors in the original he was copying from.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

4thly,

All the accusations of the early church fathers accusing the Jews who they were debating of altering scripture.  (Eg. See Justin's dialog with Trypho)

Edited February 2, 2016 by Zakuska

[Jim Stiles]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

Two topics that I am addressing for an investigator with an evangelical background that I am hoping you can help me with.

1)        Is the bible complete and is there evidence of tampering – I am looking for non-lds sources for evidence that the bible has been altered and that there are books written by Disciples of Christ that are lost. The argument I hear is that there is no proof that the bible was corrupted, and that the books that are contained in the current bible were written by people who gave a personal witness of Christ; that is, other books were not written by people who had a personal witness and were therefore excluded. Is there any research that tells us what books existed, and why the current books were selected? All I have is LDS sources, but of course such sources are of little value to an evangelical Christian who wants an unbiased perspective.

2)        Another topic is scientific evidence for the bible. This is another old topic, but I am looking for legitimate research that demonstrates how anthropology contradicts the biblical narrative more often than it supports it. I hear so often that science is proving the bible true. I have lots of polemic material but I do not have much in the way of legitimate research that discusses the discrepancies between the biblical narrative and what science has uncovered.  Most of what I find is written by atheists who go to extremes and take things out of context or grossly misunderstand what the bible is inferring.

 

Thanks for the help

Joel Kramer was a Ph.D. student in Biblical Archaeology who has produced a series of videos on Biblical Archaeology.  Kramer shows how archaeology and the Bible go hand in hand.  Some of his shorts are on this page:

http://sourceflix.com/videos-shorts/

This is a full length video on DVD that may be purchased from Joel Kramer on archaeology in the area around the ancient town of Jericho:

http://sourceflix.com/jericho-unearthed/

[Freedom]

Thanks for these comments. I had already forwarded the Barker articles but of course I only knew about them because Kevin had linked the website in the past. Translation errors are rationalized as being correctable so calling Jacob James could not by any standard be considered a doctrinal truth that was lost but your points 3 & 4 are good ones. I believe it would not be possible to show proof that a doctrine was taken away, because that proof would have to contain the truth that was lost and, therefore, it was not lost. We would have to provide proof that tampering was a practice. I have often been told that tampering was a common practice and the apologist would be quick to claim that such a practice is well document, but I have yet to see a reference to a non-lds scholar who provides such evidence specifically about the bible. The argument against Justin's comments to Trypho are that this was occurring after Christ in an attempt to remove references to the Savior.In other words, Justin had, and therefore we have, the 'original' before the jews started to tamper with them. Nevertheless your reference is an excellent one and perhaps others reading this post will have discovered this resource for the first time. This is an endless argument of course of he said she said, because it is a matter of finding evidence rather than proof. 

 But of course, even if the evidence was overwhelming that this was the case, the respondent would say that this does not prove that this happened to the bible, only that it was a practice with other books. 

 

On another note, I recall reading an article that shows how the timeline of the Saviors live is in contradiction to what is known but I have lost the reference. Whenever I google this specific topic all I find are atheist rather than genuine scholars. 

[Freedom]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm

here is an example of polemics which sounds very convincing on the surface. I am hoping to find genuine scholarship that examines these inconsistencies.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm

here is an example of polemics which sounds very convincing on the surface. I am hoping to find genuine scholarship that examines these inconsistencies.

That is a pretty laughable piece. No one is more self-assured then an idiot.

[PeterPear]

KJV of the Bible versus the Spanish Translation or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reina-Valera

In the KJV: when the woman touched the hem of the Savior's garment and was healed, The Lord said he felt "virtue" come out of him.

Reina-Valera: The Lord said he felt "power" come out of him.

I contend the latter is the accurate translation (though being virtuous is having power).

I highly doubt your Evangelical friend knows Spanish, thus you can ask if he believes the Savior lost his virtue.

 

[Nevo]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:44 PM, Doctrine 612 said:

if you open any other bible version then the kjv you will see a lot of miss translations like mark 1:41 in the new niv bible

There are actually good reasons why the NIV reads as it does. In fact, it's the KJV's reading that may have resulted from scribal tampering. Bart Ehrman makes the case here (under "Mark 1:41 and the Angry Jesus"): http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v05/Ehrman2000a.html

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I highly doubt your Evangelical friend knows Spanish, thus you can ask if he believes the Savior lost his virtue.

And that would be a specious argument, since a common meaning of "virtue" in sixteenth-century English, per the Oxford English Dictionary, was "physical strength, force, or energy." So it was an accurate translation at the time. However, usage changes and that is why modern translations are needed.

[Nevo]

13 hours ago, Freedom said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm

here is an example of polemics which sounds very convincing on the surface. I am hoping to find genuine scholarship that examines these inconsistencies.

Many of the points made in the link are supported by mainstream critical biblical scholarship. Others are not (I don't know of a single NT scholar that considers Jesus' crucifixion to be unhistorical or that the NT gospels were "copied from the Midrash"!).

If you're looking for a book that defends the historical reliability of the Gospels, there are inerrantist Evangelical scholars that write such things. Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is one.

[consiglieri]

The most obvious evidence to me that the Bible is not without error are the multiple times where the same story is told twice.

This occurs famously with the two tellings of the Creation story in Genesis 1 and 2.

It also occurs when comparing the stories of the Israelite kings told in Samuel and Kings; and then comparing them with the recitation of the same events in Chronicles.

Any time, and I believe I am justified in saying "any time," the same story is told twice in the Old Testament, there are multiple variants between the stories.  And in many cases these variants are contradictory to each other such that both cannot be true.

This continues into the New Testament with the four gospels, all recounting the ministry of Jesus, and all contradictory on many points, up to and including the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke, the day of Jesus's crucifixion and what happened on the morning of the resurrection.

Comparing Paul's ministry as recounted in Acts with what Paul himself says in Galatians provides further contradictions.

This seems to me the most obvious evidence that the Bible is not error free.

Of course, you should be warned that fundamentalist Bible believers have long come up with a variety of ways to "harmonize" these contradictions, even when it means stretching things a tad.

For instance, one of the few incidents of Jesus's ministry that is contained in all four gospels is his turning over the tables of the money changers at the temple.

The synoptic gospels have this occurring at the end of Jesus's ministry, and is the immediate cause for his arrest and crucifixion.

John's gospel, on the other hand, positions this incident at the beginning of Jesus's ministry.

The only way to harmonize these two is to postulate that there were actually two times Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers at the temple.

Once at the beginning of his ministry (per John) and once again at the end of his ministry (per the Synoptics).

James Talmage even adopted this view in "Jesus the Christ."

Trying to convince an entrenched fundamentalist Bible believer that the Bible has errors is usually a fool's errand. 

Good luck!

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by consiglieri

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

Trying to convince an entrenched fundamentalist Bible believer that the Bible has errors is usually a fool's errand. 

Good luck!

 

Well you may be right, but he seems genuinely interested in seeing the evidence of my position. I have explained to him how the creation story contradicts both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, and he seems intrigued. If I can show him evidence that the events in Jesus's life do not match up with the secular record I think he will be open to consider that the mormon position is plausible. 

[danielwoods]

11 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Well you may be right, but he seems genuinely interested in seeing the evidence of my position. I have explained to him how the creation story contradicts both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, and he seems intrigued. If I can show him evidence that the events in Jesus's life do not match up with the secular record I think he will be open to consider that the mormon position is plausible. 

One of the difficulties I've had (as an evangelical) is trying to understand what exactly what the LDS are claiming was lost and when it was lost and who's the culprit? Seems I get different answers depending on who I talk to. 

 

Juxtapose that search for actual evidence with what appears from the outside to be an opportunistic guy that is simply making things up to manipulate anyone who would believe him, and to those who would challenge his claims, they are told they simply need to pray and ask God and then they would know it's true. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by danielwoods

[FormerLDS]

There are really good LDS and Non-LDS observations about this topic, but when you get right down to it, all you really have is some very eloquent polemics which may or may not help you make a personal decision about Biblical inerancy (or lack thereof).

For me personally, is there any reason why God couldn't preserve His word pure?  I mean, most of us would agree He created the universe with His words, formed man and all living things from dust, raised the dead, parted the sea, etc. 

Why would it be so difficult to think He couldn't keep His word pure from the generation which it was written until today, just like He said he would?

Takes just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe Margaret Barker, Joel Kramer, Bert & Ernie... 

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

There are really good LDS and Non-LDS observations about this topic, but when you get right down to it, all you really have is some very eloquent polemics which may or may not help you make a personal decision about Biblical inerancy (or lack thereof).

For me personally, is there any reason why God couldn't preserve His word pure?  I mean, most of us would agree He created the universe with His words, formed man and all living things from dust, raised the dead, parted the sea, etc. 

Why would it be so difficult to think He couldn't keep His word pure from the generation which it was written until today, just like He said he would?

Takes just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe Margaret Barker, Joel Kramer, Bert & Ernie... 

I am curious how one decides which version of the Bible and in which language God's pure words are found?

 

[Nevo]

14 minutes ago, Freedom said:

If I can show him evidence that the events in Jesus's life do not match up with the secular record I think he will be open to consider that the mormon position is plausible. 

Casting doubt on the historical reliability of the Gospels isn't going to make the Mormon position more plausible. Quite the opposite, I think. The historical Jesus(es) of modern scholarship bear(s) very little resemblance to the Jesus of Mormon scripture. According to the Book of Mormon:

• Jesus was born to a virgin
• Jesus was baptized by John in Bethabara, who recognized him immediately as "the Lamb of God who should take away the sins of the world" and emphasized his own subordinate status
• many fell down at Jesus' feet and worshiped him during his earthly ministry
• the Jews despised the Holy One of Israel and crucified their God and therefore would be scourged by all people and wander the earth and be hated among all nations
• there was a massive earthquake at Jesus' death, felt all over the world

I doubt any historical Jesus scholar would assent to any of these "facts."

[Doctrine 612]

One thing I see when I read other bibles then the kjv I see that they make a lot of changes around the divinity of Jesus.

like acts 8:37 it gone just gone.

and don't say the verse was not in the original writings

i feel that Satan is attacking Jesus right at the source ( the bible )

one good reasons we needed the Book of Mormon to testify of his divinity.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Doctrine 612
Miss spell

[Doctrine 612]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am curious how one decides which version of the Bible and in which language God's pure words are found?

 

The lds church in 1994 I believe was the year is when the church mad the kjv the official English bible.

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am curious how one decides which version of the Bible and in which language God's pure words are found?

 

Perhaps you should take that up with God?

We could just as easily make the same claim about the Book of Mormon for that matter.

[Nevo]

23 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

and don't say the verse was not in the original writings

Umm, okay. I'll let BYU professor Lincoln Blumell say it then:

Quote

Most modern NT translations (CEV, ESV, NAB, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, NWT, REB, RSV, TEV) omit this verse because it is missing from Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (A), and 𝔓45. Its earliest attestation in a codex is in the sixth century, in Codex Laudianus (E), after which date it becomes more common until, by the ninth century, it appears with some frequency in various Greek miniscules. Given the strong manuscript evidence and lack of grounds for accidental omission, it seems probable that verse 37 was a later accretion to Acts. Supporting this view is the fact that the Ethiopian eunuch’s declaration of belief in verse 37b is a confessional phrase that gained currency in the liturgy and catechetical confessions of the fifth and sixth centuries. As Metzger has argued, “Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative.” 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1471&index=5

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Nevo

[Freedom]

Would God preserve his word? The bible says he does not. The Israelites completely lost it while in egypt and Moses had to re-establish it. If the word was established again under moses, why were all the other books added? If Jesus set up his gospel when he was alive, why did all those other books need to be written? What were the doctrines of Paul before Paul wrote his books? 

I do not see problems with miracles as an example of historical conflicts, I am more looking for genuine scholarship that looks at what we know of the history compared to how the gospels lay it out. When was Herod in power, is there any evidence of a infanticide, did a census take place. 

We could not prove that doctrines were removed, but we could prove a pattern of removing doctrines and a pattern of adding doctrines. This poof shows that there is no credence to the believe that the bible is complete. The notion of a complete bible is just conjecture.