Bible vs. Book of Mormon?

[Tacenda]

I spoke with someone on the phone today who is a former LDS turned born-again Christian, my insurance guy. He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. He told of how the scribes were meticulous at getting everything perfect and writing down things on animal skins. Quote below from this link: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-was-the-bible-written-and-transmitted.aspx  

"The earliest biblical texts were written on scrolls made from papyrus (a plant-based paper) or parchment (animal skins that had been scraped, burnished, and stitched together). It is very likely that all biblical books were initially written on scrolls. Only in the second or third century C.E. did scribes begin to write on papyrus or parchment that was folded and stitched into a codex, which more closely resembles our modern print book. After the invention of the codex, Christians tended to copy their scriptures into codex form, whereas Jews traditionally continued to copy their scriptures in scroll form."

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. Who's to know which scripture that is? The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar. But these scribes would make sure each word is correct or do it all over again. 

or this:

"The biblical books had to be copied over again and again so that they could be preserved for other people to read them. The process of rewriting the books of the Bible was not always perfect—sometimes mistakes were introduced or words were added or dropped. We call this whole process, including the accurate copies and the mistakes, the transmission of the text. That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again."

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

Edited August 23, 2016 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

It has been prophesied for nearly 2 millennia that Jesus would return soon  We're still waiting.

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly.

Would you trust a bad translation of the Bible, such as the JW NWT?  Of course not!  Requiring a good translation of any book is not "throwing it under the bus" but rather honoring that book enough to bother getting a good copy of it.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

The Bible is studied twice as much as the BoM in LDS Sunday School, so it is taken pretty seriously, not with doubt.  

[sam]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I spoke with someone on the phone today who is a former LDS turned born-again Christian, my insurance guy. He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. He told of how the scribes were meticulous at getting everything perfect and writing down things on animal skins. Quote below from this link: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-was-the-bible-written-and-transmitted.aspx  

"The earliest biblical texts were written on scrolls made from papyrus (a plant-based paper) or parchment (animal skins that had been scraped, burnished, and stitched together). It is very likely that all biblical books were initially written on scrolls. Only in the second or third century C.E. did scribes begin to write on papyrus or parchment that was folded and stitched into a codex, which more closely resembles our modern print book. After the invention of the codex, Christians tended to copy their scriptures into codex form, whereas Jews traditionally continued to copy their scriptures in scroll form."

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. Who's to know which scripture that is? The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar. But these scribes would make sure each word is correct or do it all over again. 

or this:

"The biblical books had to be copied over again and again so that they could be preserved for other people to read them. The process of rewriting the books of the Bible was not always perfect—sometimes mistakes were introduced or words were added or dropped. We call this whole process, including the accurate copies and the mistakes, the transmission of the text. That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again."

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

The fact there are thousands of Christian churches that interpret the bible differently is good evidence in my opinion that the bible is not enough that a second witness was necessary to testify of the truths found in the bible.

[halconero]

I can understand how the "as far as it is translated correctly" clause can be seen as throwing the Bible under the bus, but I believe it to be quite the opposite. What it is really saying is "we believe the original Bible," which I don't think any Evangelical would disagree with. In fact, the doctrine of innerrancy among Evangelicals is not all that dissimilar from ours. If I crossed out some lines in the Bible, added a few verses to some passages, and held that up for a Baptist friend, I doubt they would argue that my modifications were innerrant. They would say that I have changed scripture, and they believe that the Bible as it came from its writers is inerrant. Well guess what? That's the Mormon doctrine too.

As far as a correct translation goes, there are far bigger issues than whether or not this particular Greek word of Hebrew passage was translated correctly. Cultural and doctrinal translation are just as big of deals. Can a 21st century American truly understand the message of Maccabees if they don't understand how a Hellenistic Jew with anti-Seleucid tendencies would write or think? If we found out that what faith, love, piety, and belief to the 16th century English writer had little in common with our same notions of those words 400 years later how would that effect the translation of those words from page to brain?

I don't doubt the Bible as it was originally penned. I doubt our ability to correctly interpret it at times.

[Storm Rider]

I know you trust non-LDS sources best, so you may want to check out Dr. Bart D Ehrman.  He has written some 30 books, but one that may be of interest is, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.  Your good friend has some of the facts correct, but he is missing out on a whole lot of reality.  You may also want to look up textual criticism and the Bible to find a number of other books on this topic.

Not take the Bible more seriously?  How much more serious can we take it?  I read the Bible all the time - it is one of our books of scripture.  The only caveat Joseph had is that we recognize that it may not have been translated correctly.  You have even provided a quote that explains that errors were made.  What do we do when we know errors were made?  Do we throw it out?  No, we have not done that.  What was done is that there is a warning that we believe it as far as it is translated correctly.  What is the problem with this?

Which prophesies in the New Testament are you talking about?  

I have said it before and I will say it again - Evangelicals are my least favorite Christians because I find their arguments so simplistic and shallow.  They just don't have a lot of room on which to stand.  Who created their churches?  Was it God?  How and by what authority?  Who created each one of them?  You might want to start studying about those men and how they came to create their own churches.  

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I spoke with someone on the phone today who is a former LDS turned born-again Christian, my insurance guy. He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. He told of how the scribes were meticulous at getting everything perfect and writing down things on animal skins. Quote below from this link: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-was-the-bible-written-and-transmitted.aspx  

"The earliest biblical texts were written on scrolls made from papyrus (a plant-based paper) or parchment (animal skins that had been scraped, burnished, and stitched together). It is very likely that all biblical books were initially written on scrolls. Only in the second or third century C.E. did scribes begin to write on papyrus or parchment that was folded and stitched into a codex, which more closely resembles our modern print book. After the invention of the codex, Christians tended to copy their scriptures into codex form, whereas Jews traditionally continued to copy their scriptures in scroll form."

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. Who's to know which scripture that is? The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar. But these scribes would make sure each word is correct or do it all over again. 

or this:

"The biblical books had to be copied over again and again so that they could be preserved for other people to read them. The process of rewriting the books of the Bible was not always perfect—sometimes mistakes were introduced or words were added or dropped. We call this whole process, including the accurate copies and the mistakes, the transmission of the text. That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again."

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

I think you'd better do some research on your own about biblical textual variations.  The wikipedia article on the New Testament offers a good starting point, but by no means an end point.  Thousands of books and articles have been written about textual variations, errors, changes, and interpolations in the Bible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Textual_variation

I trust that your friend has better knowledge about insurance than he does biblical scholarship.

 

 

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I spoke with someone on the phone today who is a former LDS turned born-again Christian, my insurance guy. He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. He told of how the scribes were meticulous at getting everything perfect and writing down things on animal skins. Quote below from this link: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-was-the-bible-written-and-transmitted.aspx  

"The earliest biblical texts were written on scrolls made from papyrus (a plant-based paper) or parchment (animal skins that had been scraped, burnished, and stitched together). It is very likely that all biblical books were initially written on scrolls. Only in the second or third century C.E. did scribes begin to write on papyrus or parchment that was folded and stitched into a codex, which more closely resembles our modern print book. After the invention of the codex, Christians tended to copy their scriptures into codex form, whereas Jews traditionally continued to copy their scriptures in scroll form."

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. Who's to know which scripture that is? The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar. But these scribes would make sure each word is correct or do it all over again. 

or this:

"The biblical books had to be copied over again and again so that they could be preserved for other people to read them. The process of rewriting the books of the Bible was not always perfect—sometimes mistakes were introduced or words were added or dropped. We call this whole process, including the accurate copies and the mistakes, the transmission of the text. That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again."

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

Good thread Tacenda. Halconero kind of stole my thunder here:

15 minutes ago, halconero said:

I can understand how the "as far as it is translated correctly" clause can be seen as throwing the Bible under the bus, but I believe it to be quite the opposite. What it is really saying is "we believe the original Bible," which I don't think any Evangelical would disagree with. In fact, the doctrine of innerrancy among Evangelicals is not all that dissimilar from ours. If I crossed out some lines in the Bible, added a few verses to some passages, and held that up for a Baptist friend, I doubt they would argue that my modifications were innerrant. They would say that I have changed scripture, and they believe that the Bible as it came from its writers is inerrant. Well guess what? That's the Mormon doctrine too.

As far as a correct translation goes, there are far bigger issues than whether or not this particular Greek word of Hebrew passage was translated correctly. Cultural and doctrinal translation are just as big of deals. Can a 21st century American truly understand the message of Maccabees if they don't understand how a Hellenistic Jew with anti-Seleucid tendencies would write or think? If we found out that what faith, love, piety, and belief to the 16th century English writer had little in common with our same notions of those words 400 years later how would that effect the translation of those words from page to brain?

I don't doubt the Bible as it was originally penned. I doubt our ability to correctly interpret it at times.

But I want to add a few things. Joseph Smith wasn't saying to not believe God's word in the Bible, but that it is incomplete and that some translators have messed up. So the question then becomes can we tell what is errant? For instance did your friend point out to you that Catholics have other books in their Bibles, additional chapters of Daniel, etc? Should we accept those? A close study indicates they have problems and inconsistencies.

If you pick up an old Catholic Bible is it translated the same as the Protestant Bible of your friend? I will be to the point here. No it is not. It is littered with things translated differently than in the Protestant Bibles. In fact perhaps you should ask yourself, how come the Protestants translated their own Bibles? Is it because they no longer believed the Catholic Bible was translated correctly? If your friend answers yes to that, then he has answered his own concern.

[Jeanne]

This is really interesting Tacenda.  I' have to admit that other than the New Testament..parts of Isaiah. and the first book of the Bible, I am not familiar as I should be..mainly because I did not ever take the Old Testament seriously enough ..because of "far as it is translated correctly" idea of the church.  I haven't read everything here yet..but keep me posted.  Thanks, Jeanne

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, sam said:

The fact there are thousands of Christian churches that interpret the bible differently is good evidence in my opinion that the bible is not enough that a second witness was necessary to testify of the truths found in the bible.

You were saying...?

[CV75]

We do emphasize the two books are one in our hand (Ezekiel 37).

[UtahTexan]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is really interesting Tacenda.  I' have to admit that other than the New Testament..parts of Isaiah. and the first book of the Bible, I am not familiar as I should be..mainly because I did not ever take the Old Testament seriously enough ..because of "far as it is translated correctly" idea of the church.  I haven't read everything here yet..but keep me posted.  Thanks, Jeanne

You are not alone.  Many concentrate on the Book of Genesis and then the New Testament.

btw....you and your really good friends can stop bashing me and others on the other board...you are mostly wrong, anyway

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

We do emphasize the two books are one in our hand (Ezekiel 37).

good point  

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Would you trust a bad translation of the Bible, such as the JW NWT?  Of course not!  Requiring a good translation of any book is not "throwing it under the bus" but rather honoring that book enough to bother getting a good copy of it.

The Bible is studied twice as much as the BoM in LDS Sunday School, so it is taken pretty seriously, not with doubt.  

We just finished the New Testament last year.  Excellent point

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

There would be nothing wrong with that imo.  I would in fact prefer it.

I wonder if the reason it was added was due to the Bible being understood as inerrant in the greater community, while even the BoM it accepts that there will be errors of men.  Now after all these years, it appears like the BoM is being placed on a higher pedestal (in some ways it is, most correct book after all...but still not perfect) when it was more about putting it on an equal playing ground.  

Just speculating, it would be nice if someone could confirm or reject that speculation.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Would you trust a bad translation of the Bible, such as the JW NWT?  Of course not!  Requiring a good translation of any book is not "throwing it under the bus" but rather honoring that book enough to bother getting a good copy of it.

Nicely said.  Hopefully this means we will start using something along side the KJV soon.  (I love the KJV for its poetry and don't want to stop using it, but there are better out there for conveying concepts and teachings)

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar.

point out one word that got corrected i personally havent seen one grammar on the other hand yes there have been a lot of corrections made because they wrote like i am writing in the gold plates they didn't write with punctuation it was all just one long sentence really lets see you many corrections you make while you try to decipher how this paragraph is supposed to be punctuated now figure out how many grammar changes would have to be made through a whole book of mormons worth of one long sentence as far as the bible well i think others have already addressed the issue of believing in a correct translation well enough to see that it isn't throwing the bible under the bus by saying we believe it as far as it has been translated correctly

[mnn727]

Quote

He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. 

And you believed him without actually researching it for yourself?

Let me ask you 2 questions: Who says the very first Bible got it right? Are you actually aware of how translating from one language to another works?

 

[boblloyd91]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I know you trust non-LDS sources best, so you may want to check out Dr. Bart D Ehrman.  He has written some 30 books, but one that may be of interest is, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.  Your good friend has some of the facts correct, but he is missing out on a whole lot of reality.  You may also want to look up textual criticism and the Bible to find a number of other books on this topic.

Not take the Bible more seriously?  How much more serious can we take it?  I read the Bible all the time - it is one of our books of scripture.  The only caveat Joseph had is that we recognize that it may not have been translated correctly.  You have even provided a quote that explains that errors were made.  What do we do when we know errors were made?  Do we throw it out?  No, we have not done that.  What was done is that there is a warning that we believe it as far as it is translated correctly.  What is the problem with this?

Which prophesies in the New Testament are you talking about?  

I have said it before and I will say it again - Evangelicals are my least favorite Christians because I find their arguments so simplistic and shallow.  They just don't have a lot of room on which to stand.  Who created their churches?  Was it God?  How and by what authority?  Who created each one of them?  You might want to start studying about those men and how they came to create their own churches.  

I agree with your comment about evangelicals I find they're  often very arrogant as well

Edited August 24, 2016 by boblloyd91

[Honorentheos]

One of the most revealing, and frankly refreshing, discoveries I made while struggling with the loss of my faith as a Mormon came about from picking up a copy of the Jewish Study Bible at a library.

(This one, if interested - https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication-Translation/dp/0195297512 )

Reading through the introductory material was my first exposure to the Documentary Hypothesis. It was an eye opening experience, to put it mildly. 

Anyway, text criticism, higher criticism, there are many paths to better understanding scripture that help one see the notion that it is unreasonable to believe it has been preserved with any degree of accuracy over centuries is misplaced faith. Not that one need abandon one's faith in it, per se.

Did you know that there is pretty clear evidence in the NT that Peter was subordinate to James? That this is likely a product of a particular perspective being imposed on the text by the "victor" among the many competing forms of Christianity around in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE? Check out Galatians 2 for one such remnant in the text, for fun.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

point out one word that got corrected i personally havent seen one grammar on the other hand yes there have been a lot of corrections made because they wrote like i am writing in the gold plates they didn't write with punctuation it was all just one long sentence really lets see you many corrections you make while you try to decipher how this paragraph is supposed to be punctuated now figure out how many grammar changes would have to be made through a whole book of mormons worth of one long sentence as far as the bible well i think others have already addressed the issue of believing in a correct translation well enough to see that it isn't throwing the bible under the bus by saying we believe it as far as it has been translated correctly

The 1837 edition made many corrections. Perhaps the most meaningful are from 1 Nephi where the phrase "the son of" was inserted in places previously referencing Jesus as "God".

You can check out Fair for a source if you'd like: 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/"the_Son_of"

Edited August 24, 2016 by Honorentheos

[thatjimguy]

I do agree with the idea we should say "as long as the scriptures are interpreted correctly"

The arguments of the WoW can be an example of that. Talk about meat and people have five different answers and talk about positions of commas and what they mean.

That alone qualifies our scriptures in the same bed.

[Tacenda]

I have been busy with school and haven't been able to post. My insurance man does know his Bible and was so very convincing. I was jotting down as fast as I could at what he was saying, but looking at my notes, they aren't readable. But again, so convincing, that the scribes were meticulous. And that there were so many prophesies come true. But to others, the Bible isn't as perfect, but nice for him to have such a faith in Jesus and the Word of God. 

I guess I'll have to start a Bible study course given me through his church that is provided online. But I'm usually all talk. I appreciate all of your comments thoroughly!

[halconero]

It's difficult, and I wish I could have this conversation with him, but I wish I could know what he meant by "scribes." He makes it seem as though there was some monolithic group of writers who were of one heart and one mind on the subject with the singular purpose of creating one book.

The Bible is an anthology, and especially in the New Testament era there was no singular guiding force developing either canon or books. Heck, it wasn't until Marcion (a guy later declared a heretic) that the idea of a canon even became popular. I would like to see the Matthean Jesus followers try to sit down and hash out their differences with a Lukan group.

Also, I wish I could ask if he's referring to a group of Hellenistic scribes in Alexandria content in meticulously transcribing the Greek Old Testament, or instead the Hebrew coming out of Babylon.

I'm not doing this to disparage the Bible, nor do I doubt the fulfillment of its prophecies given under revelation from God. What this man is doing though is sacrificing history for the sake the Evangelical doctrine of innerrancy. Just because he sounds smart doing so doesn't make it right.

I'm not tearing into you Tacenda. I know your biggest desire is to follow God, Christ and their words. Nor do I doubt this man's genuine faith. Half jokingly I do wonder if his ability to sell insurance is reflected in his ability to sell bad history.

[Jude2]

I answer questions on a Evangelical website, just trying to make sure they tell the truth. Because of this I have studied the Bible a lot, there is a lot of it miss translated and sometimes it's not about being mistranslated but just taken out of context with their doctrines forced upon a passage. Paul must shake his head in wonderment.