Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: LDS (Mormon) Religion Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 08:26:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 307 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [Stephen Simmons posted a long article in an exchange with John Pimentel on the subject of errors in the Bible and other things having to do with LDS belief. I will try to respond to this but will delete much of it to keep this to a reasonable length. Stephen's main claim is that the Bible is quite accurate and that we have a lot of ancient manuscripts to back this up. hl] Stephen writes: >As the moderator pointed out, and as I tried to point out in the >previous posting, the original meaning has not been lost because we >still have manuscripts (even ones quite ancient) in the original >languages. This still leaves the question of how close those manuscripts are to the original which of course we do not have for any biblical text. Without that original we are reduced to trying to use the various versions we have to determine how accurate what we have is. The typical technique is to compare the various manuscripts, see how well they agree, and try to determine which makes most sense where they disagree. There's a bit of controversy here, some saying that the disagreements are minor while others claim they are significant. I can't help wondering how much one's viewpoint here is affected by previous acceptance of such things as "inerrancy." In fact, I've noticed that those who believe in "Bible only" tend to claim there are no significant errors while those who have rejected that viewpoint usually claim that the differences really mean something. This effect seems to affect scholars as well as lay people. Let me give an example of one case where we have evidence the copists changed the document accidently. I use this particular example only because I happened to read it last night in a new translation of Isaiah with commentary by Avraham Gileadi. Isa 28:1 in the KJV reads, "Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim...which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine." According to Gileadi this is a pretty good translation from the Masoretic text. However, the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) Isaiah (1QIs) has "the opulent" instead of "fat valleys" leading to the more sensible translation of the last part, "...on the head of the opulent overcome with wine." The difference in Hebrew is one repeated letter which gets left out of the Masoretic (haplography?) totally changing the meaning of some words. It is as though our word "been" were similarly robbed of one "e" and became ben. If we have no capitals readers might wonder where this guy Ben came from. Interestingly, in verse 4 we find the identical phrase with the identical problem. Again KJV has the term "fat valleys" while 1QIs gives "the opulent." I once posted a few quotes of the Bible contradicting itself. I could do so again but don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about inerrancy - I think most people realize there are some minor errors in it. The question seems to revolve more around what some refer to as "theological inerrancy." The claim seems to be that in spite of some errors the Bible has no errors of theology. One problem I have with this is that there is not even agreement in the Christian world as to what books are in the Bible, the Catholic and Protestants have different versions. Read any discussion on prayer for the dead, either here or on t.r.m. and you will find Catholics quoting Macabees to support their position while Protestants counter that it is not scripture. Since this subject came up in the context of LDS belief, you should know that part of the reason the LDS think the Bible alone is inadequate is a belief that "many plain and precious things" have been lost from it (see BoM, 1 Nephi 13:26-29). While it is true we believe there are some errors in the Bible, I think the main problem is what is *not* in the Bible. In fact, there have on occasion been postings here and on t.r.m listing books once considered scripture but not in our current Bibles, above and beyond the Catholic/Protestant differences. >If I may clarify, scholars preserved copies of these in the original >language. This is a pretty simple operation, and provided no mistakes >are made in the process, a perfect replica of the original (other than >the handwriting style) is produced. However, mistakes did creep in, >and the scribes and copyists were not ignorant of this possibility. >In fact, some of the extremes that the Jewish scribes went to to >preserve the quality of the O.T. text are almost unbelievable. They >kept counts of the total number of letters in each book and chapter of >the Old Testament. The kept track of the middle letter of each verse, >chapter and book. In this means the Talmudic and Masoretic texts of >the Old Testament were preserved. This kind of error checking >precludes many mistakes. Certainly we owe the Jews a debt of gratitude for their efforts in preserving the Old Testament. I'm sure these efforts did catch many mistakes but not all of them. Any manual error checking is itself prone to error. Our QA folks claim that inspection will catch at best 85% of the problems, 15% or more go undetected. >As you mentioned, the English Bible was translated in about 1540. It >was not translated from 16th century Greek manuscripts, however. It >was translated from 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th century Greek manuscripts >and 10th century Hebrew manuscripts. However, as time passed, some >remarkable discoveries were made, and our moderator has noted some of >these and modern translations have been largely translated from these. How many corrections were made as a result of the discovery of these older manuscripts? I don't know the answer but I suspect there were a few. If there were differences between the 7th-10th century manuscripts and the recent discoveries, why should we believe there are no differences between the recent discoveries and the originals? >Not all of these manuscripts are complete, but many are: ...[list of manuscripts deleted] >possible different mistakes. According to one (liberal, not >conservative) scholar, there are only about 40 uncertainties in the >New Testament that affect the meaning of the text. None of these >cover any major doctrine (such as some that the BoM disagree with). (A reference would be nice here. Who was this scholar and where did he make this statement?) The problem with anything other than the original is that both the copist and anybody checking his work tend to see what they think they should see. Make no mistake, this is tedious work. Your mind tends to go on autopilot and anything which can accidently be read to agree with prevailing belief probably will be read that way. I'm not sure it's worth arguing over how many NT uncertainties affect the meaning of the text. The fact that there are a few will suffice to justify the idea that we believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly." Please don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is remarkably accurate. I just don't think it is free of errors, theological or any other kind. >And the evidence I presented above concerning the New Testament does >not even consider the times that the Bible was quoted. A guy by the >name of Sir Richard Darymaple (I think that's his name) was posed this >question by his students: if all the copies of the New Testament were >destroyed before 300 AD, and all that was available to Christians of >that day were the writings of the early Church Fathers, how much of >the New Testament could be reconstructed? >After a bit of analysis (several years), the answer came: all but >eleven verses. The early church writers (before Eusebius, but not >including him) quoted the New Testament over 32,000 times that we >still have record of today, and of these quotations, all but 11 verses >of the New Testament are covered. Altogether, there are over 84,000 >quotations of the Bible from the time of Jerome or earlier (I'll have >to check this, though). Interesting. However, to evaluate the significance of this we need to know what other sources these Church Fathers quoted and how someone would know which were which. If we had only their writings we would probably pull out a lot of stuff not in our current NT and have no reason to consider it any less authoritative than what is now in the cannon. ... >[*** >End Bible Evidence -- Long >***] >Because of this "controversy," I have recently started reading the Book >of Mormon to see what it is about. Today, I read a verse that said >something to this effect: >"and an angel said it, wherefor can one doubt?" (I don't have the BoM >handy. I'll look it up for anyone who is interested). Probably 1 Nephi 4:2. The situation is that Nephi and his brothers had been sent to get a copy of the scriptures but had had some difficulty (like being robbed and nearly killed). His older brothers wanted to give up and beat Nephi and Sam, another brother, with a stick. An angel appeared, reprimanded them, and told them to try again, promising success. The older brothers continued to murmur. It is in this context Nephi says, "...an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt?" >Indeed, this verse disturbed me deeply. The writer of the text >trusted an angel because he was an angel. But that's in stark >contrast to the statement of the Bible: >"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to >you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:9. I think Paul was using hyperbole. Do you really think an angel from heaven is going to preach falsehood? Paul was emphasizing the importance of holding fast to the truth. After all, didn't John trust the angel speaking to him in Revelation? >Why? because, "And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself >into an angel of light." 2 Cor. 11:14 >"Now he who keeps His commandments abides iin Him, and He in him. And >by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given >us. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, >whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out >into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that >confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every >spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in he flesh is >not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have >heard was coming, and is now already in the world." 1 John 3:24-4:3. Do you really believe this? If so you will accept the Book of Mormon because it testifies strongly that Jesus has come in the flesh. >So now we come to the other part of the verse from Galatians: does the >Book of Mormon contradict the teachings of Paul: preliminary >investigations indicate that it does. Except you didn't bother to list any of these supposed contradictions. Evidence please. >Another very curious thing about the Book of Mormon. The name "Jesus" >is very rare. I have encountered it two or three times. Instead of >Jesus, I find Christ. Now, if you have read the New Testament, you >know that Paul almost uses the terms interchangably. In fact, he uses >Christ a bit more than Jesus. But the ratio that I have discovered in >the BoM is more like 40:1. And when there are direction quotations of >Jesus, so far, it has always been "and Christ said." This phrase >never occurs in the Bible. Not even in "Jesus Christ," but only >"Jesus said" or variants thereof. >What is the significance to this? In my experience, the name of Jesus >is a difficult name to say sometimes. Sometimes, even in front of >Christians it is difficult to say Jesus. Christ is very much an >easier word to say. And when I say difficulty here, I refer to the >fact that it takes spiritual effort to choose the word Jesus over >Christ. There is power in the name of Jesus that's not present in the >word "Christ." Even if you had not exagerated the ratio (which I believe you have done) I don't think this is significant. "Christ" means "the annointed one" or "messiah." Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, "God is help" or "saviour." "Christ" probably does distinguish him from a lot of other Jews named Joshua. >One more thing that I discovered: the prophet Nephi (about 600 BC), >and the brother of Jared (about 2200 BC) had great revelations of >Jesus Christ. They had many details about Jesus that no other >prophet, including Isaiah was given. Why is this surprising? Well, >look at the details: > Jesus death on the cross was clearly foretold; > The atoning purpose of the death was clearly foretold; > The fact that salvation would come to all men was clearly foretold >But if you read the Bible you find that "had they [Satan and his >forces] known [about the results of the resurrection] they would not >have crucified the Lord of glory." (I'll get the exact quote for any >interested party). And thus, that is why neither the purpose nor the >plan of Jesus' coming was given in detail in the Bible. This makes me >severely doubt that the book of Mormon (specifically Nephi & Ether) >was written before 33 AD, as the book supposes. Please get your reference. If it's what I believe it is, Paul was refering to certain of the Jews, not to Satan. Are you claiming that the OT prophets didn't know and prophecy of the Messiah? And quite clearly at that? To do so would undermine much of Christian belief. Some of this sounds like higher critisism of Isaiah. It must have been written later because Isaiah couldn't have known the name of Cyrus. >>From a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon, I find many things (I'll >provide a list of current "discoveries" to any one interested) that >are unacceptable to me because they contradict what the Bible says and >because some of them seem quite unhistorical. If I am misusing these >quotations and the BoM does not contradict the Bible, then, pardon me >& correct me; the BoM is only misleading, not incorrect. Since you haven't listed any real disagreements, it's kind of hard to show that they don't contradict. All you've done is said that the Book of Mormon is more specific than the Bible in giving the name of Jesus and describing his death before it happened. >Because of this, though, Mormons, like Muslims are forced to the >questionable conclusion that the Bible has many mistakes, whether >intentional or unintentional. But as I have shown, this is very >unlikely. And neither groups have given me a shred of manuscript >evidence to support their claim that the Bible is unreliable (although >to be fair, I have not dealt much with Mormons, and they may posses >such evidence somewhere). We just had a round of this on t.r.m. If you really want such evidence try something like Hugh Nibley's books: _An Approach to the Book of Mormon_ _The Prophetic Book of Mormon_ _Lehi in the Desert_, _The World of the Jaredites_, and _There were Jaredites_ (bound as a single book) >P.S. Does any one have a computerized version of the BoM? Yes (not me but it exists). You can get it along with the KJV Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price and a search "engine" for $70 or so from the church. You are also allowed to copy it from a friend if he has one provided you buy a license and instruction manual for about $35 (the "engine" is a commercial product from I don't know who and they are concerned with making money). If interested the best way to find this is probably to find some local LDS member who is into computers. Call the church listed in the phone book to start.