8th Article of Faith

[Misshalfway]

So, do you feel that you are getting an accurate picture of this translation issue? Whether or not you agree with it?

And Carl, have you considered just reading the BofM itself?? You know, it is interesting to me how much time people spend reading "about" the book instead of just reading the actual text.

[PapilioMemnon]

Some references from the scriptures:

Articles of Faith 1: 8

Topical Guide: Scriptures, Writing of

Topical Guide: Book of Mormon

Bible Dictionary: Ephraim, Stick of

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Bible

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Book of Mormon

[PapilioMemnon]

what truths were taken out?

Hi there,

There are several books/epistles/letters mentioned on the Bible that we don't have; they are not included on the Bible as we have it now.

I have a list of references of those if you wish (I don't have it with me now), but here is what I could find online (emphasis added)

----------------------------------------------------------

LINK: Take Heed That Ye Be Not Deceived, Disputatious Doctrines

The Completeness and Infallibility of the Holy Bible

There are strong feelings among anti-Mormons about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the church's eighth article of faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Those who hold the Bible to be the only source of divine authority and doctrine cannot accept the Book of Mormon or any other sacred writing--for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, anti-Mormons often deceitfully describe the church's use of the Bible in unkind and untrue ways, characterizing our study of the Bible as a mere pretense of biblical Christianity--a convenient tool to mislead others. Such statements are shamefully inaccurate. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have great respect and reverence for the Bible. It is studied in the church as the word of God and a source of truth and understanding. I love the Bible. I rejoice in its teachings and in the spirit of truth it provides. The Bible is masterful in teaching the life of Jesus Christ and is a strong testament of his role as Savior and Redeemer. But the question before us is not the power or value of the Bible but rather its completeness and infallibility.

The facts in this case are fairly evident. The Bible is not complete. It does not say it is complete (the Bible never refers to itself); in fact, it strongly suggests the existence of other sacred writings. Anti-Mormons argue that the Bible does say it is complete and that it does refer to itself. However, to them the phrase "the Word of God," or "the Word," refers to the Bible exclusively since it is the only scripture they will accept. When we understand that those references actually mean any word spoken by God or his prophets to the children of earth, everything changes.

A little history about the Bible may be helpful here. Many people today think of the Bible as one book, although it is in fact a collection of books, letters (epistles), and histories that have been written, rewritten, translated, and retranslated. The Bible didn't just appear; it was assembled, disassembled, and reassembled as new ideas and new material emerged. The Muratorian Fragment of A.D. 180 did not include the books of Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, but it did include the Apocalypse of Peter. At the same time, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered by Origen to be divinely inspired. Clement of Alexandria considered a "secret" book of Mark to be genuine. Celsus claimed that Christians altered the text of scripture and changed its character to "enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism." In about A.D. 300 the church considered the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be spurious. However, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter were admitted to the canon of scripture but later removed.30 More than a thousand years later, Martin Luther declared the biblical books of Esther, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter, among others, unworthy to be among the "true and noblest books of the new testament." Luther considered the book of James to be "an epistle of straw," having "no gospel quality to it."31 Perhaps he did not approve of these books because the teachings they contained were at odds with his personal preference for the Augustinian doctrine of grace alone as the key to salvation.

The first English language Bible was published less than 500 years ago. The popular King James Version was published in 1611, the Revised King James Version in 1885, the American Translation in 1931, the Revised Standard Version in 1947, the Good News Bible and the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, the New American Bible and the New England Bible in 1970, and the Common Bible in 1973.32 How many English translations of the Bible do we need? Clearly, for many the Bible has been and continues to be an evolving scripture.

As for the question of completeness, we might consider a few referenced biblical statements for which we have no reference. Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew is citing a text unknown to us. To which prophets does he refer? Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that Jesus will be called a Nazarene. One of the most popular of Christian scriptures is the Savior's statement "It is more blessed to give than to receive." We find this quotation in Acts 20:35 as part of a statement from Paul to the elders at Ephesus. This statement from the Savior does not appear in any other book of the Bible. Paul may have read or heard this statement elsewhere and then quoted the Master's divine words. It doesn't bother me that neither Matthew's nor Paul's statement includes a footnote to another scripture. But those who argue for a complete canon of scripture in the Bible--nothing excluded--beg a serious question.

The Bible is scripture--it is the word of God and should be reverenced, studied, and appreciated for its immense contribution to the salvation of the children of God. However, the Bible has been used for both good and evil. Unprincipled peopled have used Bible verses as justification for all sorts of mischief. Others have been led into unproductive and even damning paths because they have failed to understand and apply wise interpretation to Bible statements. The Bible has been used as a weapon against righteousness by evil-disposed pastors, priests, and pagans alike. The Bible, as with any scripture or statement by any religious leader, must be carefully considered against what is known and understood about truth and salvation. It is important that all scripture be translated correctly.

I will yield to respected Protestant writer Lloyd Averill for the last word on this biblical inerrancy issue. He writes,

It is clear that Calvin cannot be identified with the scriptural literalism affirmed by present-day fundamentalists. Nor, indeed, can any other major figure in the history of Christian thought prior to 1800. Contrary to fundamentalist claims, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as they have formulated it is not a return to primitive Christianity or to Christian orthodoxy. Rather, it was an innovation fashioned scarcely more than a hundred years ago as a weapon to be used against the modernist movement.33

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope it's helpful!

[PapilioMemnon]

Hi Ceeboo,

Misshalfway has done a great job of explaining some things; I just wanted to provide a little more. I hope it's helpful.

-------------------------------------

LINK:Take Heed That Ye Be Not Deceived, Disputatious Doctrines

...

In addition to questions of historical evidence, critics also argue that if the book were truly an inspired volume of scripture, changes would not have been made to Joseph's original manuscript. The title page of the Book of Mormon attests that the ancient documents, or plates, would be translated by "the gift of God." But detractors protest that thousands of changes have been made to the original translation--changes to correct mistakes! They loudly submit these changes as evidence that the Book of Mormon was not born of inspiration and is therefore not worthy of serious study. Such a proposition is interesting since revised interpretations and improved editions of the Bible are constantly coming off the presses. Printing and editing errors are common in any publication. So why should a corrected (or uncorrected!) Book of Mormon text be rejected without serious inquiry? I don't expect a serious response to that question, but I will, nevertheless, reply to the accusation of damning changes to the Book of Mormon.

An overwhelming number of the changes to the Book of Mormon were punctuation, spelling, and grammatical corrections. Since the Book of Mormon was translated directly from the ancient plates, the interpreted text was written in one continuous stream of words--no punctuation whatsoever. Imagine deciphering a six-hundred-page paragraph! Spelling wasn't standardized as it is today, and the common, nonacademic practice was to phonetically record sounds. For example, one of the original scribes spelled the word "Messiah" as "masiah." In other places, "engreveings" was corrected to "engravings," "plaits" became "plates," and so forth.44 The text of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was copied to what is called the printer's manuscript. Many of the pages of the printer's manuscript contained corrections by the typesetter, John Gilbert. He not only marked punctuation and spelling corrections; he also made "a few emendations in the printer's manuscript."45 Other changes to the Book of Mormon were made to correct actual errors or to reduce possible confusion for the reader.46

In what is now Mosiah 21:28, the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon stated that King Benjamin had the gift of interpretation, but the context clearly indicates that the king mentioned was actually Mosiah. This obvious mistake was corrected in later editions. How did King Benjamin's name get confused with that of King Mosiah? Who knows? Any number of influences could have caused such an error. Another obvious change was made to the first edition passage of 1ÊNephi 11:18, where Mary, the mother of Jesus, is referred to as the "mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." To clarify the meaning, the text was changed to read "mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." Now, should some ambitious person choose to examine the list of changes made to the first edition text of the Book of Mormon, he or she will find no alterations of the message of the original text. In contrast, the list of errors in the Bible could be very long indeed, and nonbelievers scoff at us who accept and revere it as the word of God in spite of a few inconsequential contradictions--errors introduced by circumstances beyond our understanding. Do such errors change the value and sacred nature of the Bible's message? Not for me.

It is sad that some people ignore the central focus and pure examples of Christian teaching contained in the Book of Mormon. They concentrate their energies on minor textual changes in various printings--changes made to clarify and simplify difficult passages. Well, who ever said it was perfect in the first place? Certainly the Mormons never attributed infallibility to the Book of Mormon or any other thing that men have taken part in. Is the Book of Mormon perfect? Yes, in a way it is perfect. Its mission and purpose, as stated in the cover page, has been fulfilled for millions of people and will yet be fulfilled for other countless millions. It brings the light of the Lord Jesus Christ to a world sadly lacking a true awareness of its Savior. It brings hope and comfort and builds the faith of the faithful. It also separates those of honest heart--those who are willing to test the validity of the book in the Lord's way--from those who, for whatever reason, choose to oppose, find fault, and deny the power of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Book of Mormon accomplishes its mission perfectly.