LDS Missionaries attack the Bible
Mormon Missionaries who try to validate the need for the existence of the Mormon Church by undermining the Bible are hypocritical and irresponsible. They attack the Bible and then stick the Book of Mormon on a pedestal. Their argument goes something like this, “the Bible cannot be trusted; it has lots of errors in it, and it has been changed significantly over the past few thousand years. God restored the fullness of the truth through Joseph Smith, and gave us the Book of Mormon, which contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel, as a testament to this fact.”
Missionaries do this quite often, and they don’t even realize that the Bible is far superior to the BOM in all regards. For example, the Bible contains so much accurate information about people, places and event, that archeologists use it as a reference tool for their work; this can hardly be said about the BOM. The Bible contains information about known people groups, geography, important historical figures, world events, and there are maps in the back of every Bible. The Bible is more reliable than any other text from antiquity. A good example of the Bible’s integrity is the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated far earlier than the Old Testament texts we previously had, agrees 99.9% in all regards to the newer copies of the texts that were used in translating the Bible.
In contrasts, the BOM is such an enigma that the Mormon Church is unable to make even a simple map of BOM geography. There is not one shred of BOM archeology, not one verifiable BOM person, place or object in the New World. The ONLY external support for the BOM is a three-letter inscription NHM on a stone in the Old World that supposedly correlates to a word in the BOM. The BOM does not have any copies of its original text in Reformed Egyptian. Furthermore, there is no linguist in the world that can confirm the so-called “Reformed Egyptian” language ever existed apart from Joseph Smith’s claim that it was written on the golden plates, which (conveniently) is no longer available. The evidence that the BOM was written and invented by Joseph Smith is insurmountable. Although I haven’t dealt with every BOM problem on this website, I have dealt with several in my other posts The Hill Cumorah, What Timeline?, and Facts on the BOM. These articles will show you how irresponsible it is for Mormon Missionaries to attack the Bible when the BOM has far more fundamental problems. Even the Mormon Church admits, “Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in the past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith" (A brief explanation about The Book of Mormon, The Book of Mormon, 1981)
By the way, most claims that the Bible is full of errors, contains false doctrine, and ultimately cannot be trusted has already been dealt with very well in books like When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties by Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, and Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Attacking the Bible to defeat Christianity is an old trick, but these books demonstrate that the Bible can stand up to even the most difficult critics.
Missionaries do this quite often, and they don’t even realize that the Bible is far superior to the BOM in all regards. For example, the Bible contains so much accurate information about people, places and event, that archeologists use it as a reference tool for their work; this can hardly be said about the BOM. The Bible contains information about known people groups, geography, important historical figures, world events, and there are maps in the back of every Bible. The Bible is more reliable than any other text from antiquity. A good example of the Bible’s integrity is the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated far earlier than the Old Testament texts we previously had, agrees 99.9% in all regards to the newer copies of the texts that were used in translating the Bible.
In contrasts, the BOM is such an enigma that the Mormon Church is unable to make even a simple map of BOM geography. There is not one shred of BOM archeology, not one verifiable BOM person, place or object in the New World. The ONLY external support for the BOM is a three-letter inscription NHM on a stone in the Old World that supposedly correlates to a word in the BOM. The BOM does not have any copies of its original text in Reformed Egyptian. Furthermore, there is no linguist in the world that can confirm the so-called “Reformed Egyptian” language ever existed apart from Joseph Smith’s claim that it was written on the golden plates, which (conveniently) is no longer available. The evidence that the BOM was written and invented by Joseph Smith is insurmountable. Although I haven’t dealt with every BOM problem on this website, I have dealt with several in my other posts The Hill Cumorah, What Timeline?, and Facts on the BOM. These articles will show you how irresponsible it is for Mormon Missionaries to attack the Bible when the BOM has far more fundamental problems. Even the Mormon Church admits, “Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in the past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith" (A brief explanation about The Book of Mormon, The Book of Mormon, 1981)
By the way, most claims that the Bible is full of errors, contains false doctrine, and ultimately cannot be trusted has already been dealt with very well in books like When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties by Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, and Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Attacking the Bible to defeat Christianity is an old trick, but these books demonstrate that the Bible can stand up to even the most difficult critics.
posted by vessey at
Friday, November 09, 2007
13 Comments:
Interesting stuff. I think a mis-translated bible "might" be an attempt by some who don't understand it to somehow try and prove "their" point. But - there is a some mistranslation, and some purposeful corruption in the New Testament. Bart Ehrman has a lot of great books out on that, including "Misquoting Jesus." If anybody is interested in seeing how a regular Mormon views the world, you can check out my blog at http://mormonconversation.blogspot.com.
I think different religious groups often understood the same passages of scripture to mean different things. That makes quoting just a verse or two, or even an isolated chapter a risky thing to do if we are intellecutally honest and responsible. One or two poignant verses from the Koran get Christians all upset, but not as many who read the entire thing are as angry - if they even remain angry. I agree with Bishop Krister Stendahl of Stockholm - who I greatly admire, that when looking at other religions, we should ask them questions - not their critics, compare our bests with their bests, and leave room for "holy envy."
The Bible is most definitely the word of God as far as it is translated directly, and can bring a man as close to God as the ancients who used it as their guide to life. The Book of Mormon is also a fantastic guide to improving our relationships with God, and helping everyone we come in contact with to do the same.
~ Kurt Manwaring ~
This comment has been removed by the author.
You sound like you've attended one of those "Standing Together" dialogues with Greg Johnson and Bob Millet with that comment about holy envy. Anyhow, is degrading the Bible your best way to prop up Mormonsim? If find that the vast majority of LDS degrade the Bible once they are faced with doctrinal contradictions between modern day "revelation" and what God has already said in His Word. See my post on "The corruptible God" and "Mormonism and the Anti-Christ."
Btw, for your argument to work you must assume that I have "mistranslated" the Bible, but you have failed to point out how.
Also, the Koran is a compilation of random sayings, they don't have context. So it is incongruous to use the example of Christians getting angry when quoting sections of the Koran out of context to those trying to prove their point by taking the Bible out of context.
I am also a mormon who believes the Bible to be the word of God. What the Book of Mormon does for me is confirms this belief and also the belief that Jesus is the Christ. Two witnesses are better than one right?
Let's say you find two precious documents. One is an original handwritten account of your great great grandfather's past and the other is a story based on the translation and compilation of three or four other accounts of the same great great grandfather's exploits. Which one is more precious? Both are equally valued even though one may contain omissions in the story as well as possible errors.
The key issue here is whether or not the BOM is true and corresponds to reality. If it doesn't correspond to reality, as I claim, then it's not the word of God, nor is the author Joseph Smith a true prophet.
You cannot establish that the BOM is more reliable than the Bible, in fact you can't even estabish that the BOM is reliable at all. So why should I accept it as a true witness to anything, muchless the very words of God?
The Bible is simply a hazy mirror. When reading it, most of the time you are only seeing a reflection of your own pre-existing beliefs (and what the Spirit tells you which doesn't have as its source the Bible). How else could thousands of sects with different beliefs all profess to believe in the Bible?
Anonymous,
Whys is reading the Bible different than any other literature, difficult as it may be? The Bible has different genres, authors, etc, but just because it contains "spiritual" information is there no longer a reason to believe that you can understand what the author intended to say? Isn't that a sort of insult to people who write books, articles, etc. If you can't really know what the author is saying, then why do people bother to write at all?
Although there may be various understandings of what the Bible says, that isn't a strong enough warrant not to accept that some people might actually have the most correct understanding.
You say that the Bible is simply a hazy mirror of your (or my) own pre-existing beliefs, but is that true for all people? I find that statement contrary to the plain evidence of all the people who have read the Bible and afterwords traded their previous beliefs for much different ones (e.g.,Muslims who convert to Christianity after reading the gospel).
"The Bible is the word of God, as it is translated correctly."
The Bible has had a great deal many translations through centuries - and biblical scholars would agree that through those many translations and through translators private interpretations, original thought would/could get misconstrued and meaning lost. That just happens. But the fact that there are so many biblical passages and books even still EXISTING is a miracle that no one, a Mormon included, would find less than a miracle.
If you ever get to view the historical exhibit "Ink and Blood", DO - and more than once. It's a fabulous history of the bible and the many translating hands and manuscripts, and, more importantly, the sacrifice that so many people made so that we have those words today. TA!
And, the Book of Mormon passes the test for scripture, for me, because in it I find the world of God, just as in the Bible. It only teaches a person to do good.
Anonymous,
You said "The Bible is the word of God, as it is translated correctly."
Did you mean "interpreted correctly?" or "transcribed correctly?" I'm not sure that "translated" is the best choice of words. The Bible has been so well transcribed over the centuries that at the end of the tour of the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego they made it clear that it's nothing short of a miracle that the Dead Sea Scrolls match previous texts to the exactness they do. The truth is that thousands of copies of texts in the original lanquages exist to this day, and that it would be quite clear if the transcribers inserted their own opinion or interpretation, the other texts would make that evident. This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon because no manuscripts exist in the original lanquage nor are their copies of the original texts of the Book of Mormon to evidence a correct transcription by Joseph Smith.
You said that "the Book of Mormon passes the test for scripture, for me, because in it I find the world of God, just as in the Bible."
What is your test for scripture?
You will find the word of God in the BOM because Joseph Smith inserted massive chunks of the Old and New Testaments into it. See my post on "Facts on the Book of Mormon"
No one is degrading the Bible, I am certainly not. The fact that there are other scriptures out there (as mentioned in the Bible) is proof enough that all of scriptural writ hasn't even been found yet! There are many prophets whose words we don't have, and several Old Testament prophets seem to have had direct access to one another's words (i.e. Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel as contemporary prophets of their day). So, what constituted scripture for them? They were called by God to be prophets. Certainly there were many in their day that would not and did not accept them as such. There were many who did not accept Christ, or His teachings.
So what IS the test for scripture? The translations of the Bible we have today are mostly from the Greek, and Greek scripture has been found and translated into modern English today. The LDS Church PREFERS the King James version to reference from (look at their scriptures), and to teach from in Sunday School and other classes (look at their lesson manuals).
The feeling I get from this discussion is that someone feels upset that there should be ANY other scriptures besides the Bible - when, in fact, there are many more out there, that we, sadly, do not have access to.
Didn't Christ say that there were other sheep of His fold, and that He would go to them? Why would they not have His words, also? And why, would they be different? His Word IS eternal, so it will not deviate - and THAT is the test of scripture.
IF, in scripture, we are looking for mistakes, we will find them. We can find anything we want, in scripture. We can also find truth. And, that is after all, what is worth finding.
Anonymous,
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for meaningful extra-biblical text to exist, but I am arguing that the BOM cannot be considered scripture because it simply does not correspond to historical reality, there is no outside evidence to support it, and the "prophet" who "translated" it had particular beliefs that would evidence him as a false prophet (viz, God is a man who had to become a God, God is finite, men can become Gods of their own world like God is for this one, etc). As much as it was a sin to reject a true prophet it is a sin to believe in a false one.
You made a good observation by noting that you can rely on the King James Version of the Bible as a "most" correct translation because you can verify it by comparing it to the original language (Hebrew and Greek) and it matches particular translation standards the LDS Church holds. But how do you go about verfying that the current BOM is a good translation if you do not have the original language it was written in, or copies of the original texts?
You said, "Didn't Christ say that there were other sheep of His fold, and that He would go to them? Why would they not have His words, also?"
I disagree that this text is talking about American Indians. In context it was talking about Gentiles in general (see also Ephesians 2:11-16). Even if it was talking about the American Indians, it doesn't necessarily follow that the BOM is a true text.
So, if there were scripture found in say, China or Mongolia that told of Christs' visit to their part of the world after His resurrection (which, He said He would do - go to other sheep) would one be inclined to believe that scripture, even though there is no other records of that occurring? Remember, records were wiped out by emperors and rulers seeking to obliterate memory of the past so that their "people" could only look to the future - with their current ruler. That happened in the American continent, as well. Thank Heavens for layers upon layers of buildings - each telling of older civilizations that are just being learned about.
The test for scripture is in the truth - and the application of that truth - which changes lives. For example, what about the "dark ages", (were they really "dark" or, just merely more of the same old same old?) The bright spot in those days was the fact that missionaries (who somehow had access to the Word of Christ) taught maurading Vikings and other groups, and those groups behavior changed - they stopped maurading and pillaging (over time).
The Word of God is felt in the soul - as if something familiar. The human soul comes from God - and will recognize truth. The Word of God transcends the words on the page, or words from the mouth, to the spirit of a person. It is the Holy Ghost that teaches - and brings things to our remembrance.
No, the records for the Book of Mormon aren't readily available - but I believe that they one day will be, like the sealed part of the book of Daniel, that the angel promised Daniel would come forth in "the latter day." Do we believe that? I do. Until then, the promise of the Book of Mormon that the truth in it can be affirmed by the Holy Ghost is in fact true - just as in the Bible.
The Book of Mormon has changed many lives - including mine. One goes from a mere mortal existence to finding out who they are - a child of God, and from there recognizing who everyone else is - children of God, also. Life ceases to be a "competition" for God's love and attention (knowing we all have that), to being a life of a journey, and with faith, and love of God and of all men, finding that helping others on their journey makes life all the more meaningful and joyful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home