Is the Bible inerrant and Complete

[Hemidakota]

Sad part of most ministers that I dealt with concerning the biblical is complete issue is that, I would often find a lack of research and understanding how GOD instructs HIS prophets and why it is necessary to record those words. A good case to discuss, is the carrying the sacred written records by Jared’s people to the new promise land. These records were before the time of Moses and Abraham. Which records did they bring to the Americas?

There will never be a 'completeness' of the bible if GOD and man exist. .

Edited September 9, 2008 by Hemidakota

[a-train]

The LDS disapproval of certain 'Christian' creeds is not a universal rejection of codified belief. Joseph Smith's rejections were specific. Mormons have 'creeds' also. The Articles of Faith are the Mormon Creed.

To quote Joseph Smith:

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to. (TPJS p 327)

-a-train

[lindsayjane]

Without devling into deep and scholarly historical writings, there certainly were discussions in the days of the early church about what it meant that Jesus was "one with the Father," that he was the only begotten Son of God, that Jesus "being a mere man, make yourself God." There is little doubt that the doctrine is nowhere explicitly laid out to the detail offered by the Nicene Creed. On the other hand, Jesus' messianic claims, and his efforts to divert Jewish expectations from an earthly resurrection of a Davidic kingdom, to a spiritual kingdom that would include Gentiles led to much consternation...not the least of it surrounding just who Jesus thought he was...

I believe that here we find the impasse with respect to the doctrine of the trinity (and many others, as well, actually). The lds argue that the NT does not support the doctrine of the trinity, that it came later, and point to scripture that supports the idea of separate beings (like Matthew 3:16-17). Protestants/Evangelical Christians point to scripture that supports the idea of the trinity (like the "one with the Father" lines). [...Actually, many of the "as we are one" quotes, in my mind, only create further doubt about the concept of trinity, because if Jesus is saying that the saints should be "one as we are one" why would he compare the symbolic oneness of separate individuals to a literal oneness of Him and the Father? Doesn't make sense...but I digress.] My point is, we can all grab a few lines of scripture that support our own belief. It all depends on how we choose to interpret it. So I don't think it's spiritually useful to argue the doctrine from that angle. It can definitely be interesting and valuable to research and debate the historical and hypothetical context of the scriptures, but when we try to use verses here and verses there to prove the doctrine we will just keep running into that impasse of interpretation. That's where the text leaves off and the Spirit is supposed to take over, right? :)

[bytor2112]

As Latter Day Saints we take some heat from other Christian faiths because of the "as far as it is translated correctly" statement. I think that this statement can be applied to our personal interpretation of Biblical passages as well. It is obvious that there is diversity of opinion on doctrinal issues such as the nature of the Godhead as evidenced by all of the various posts that we read. How we translate or interpret a verse is important to the meaning....I think this is why Joseph sought to clarify the Biblical translation. I often use this as an example when challenged by friends of other faiths who regard the Bible to be inerrent...my response is perhaps your interpretation is in error. Just a thought.....

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you, but that's not what I am asking. If one does not accept Catholic authority, or if one adheres to sola scriptura, how to you reconcile or validate that the Bible is complete or correctly compiled since the canon list is a product of forces outside the scriptures or, if not Catholic or LDS, then outside of other revelation.

Perhaps the absoluteness of "Bible only," is misleading in this case. Luther's intention was to say the Bible outweighs church tradition and instruction. It would be foolhardy, imho, to discard two millenia of church instruction and history--part of which, of course, is the compilation of the canon. God did appoint church leaders and teachers, and He gave/gives callings to these positions. It is the overinterpretation of "Bible Only," that gives rise to some tiny one-congregation sects that claim "We just follow the Bible," but in fact follow the "Little Popes" that lead them.

If it helps, I'd replace "Bible only" with "Bible supreme."

[lindsayjane]

As Latter Day Saints we take some heat from other Christian faiths because of the "as far as it is translated correctly" statement. I think that this statement can be applied to our personal interpretation of Biblical passages as well. It is obvious that there is diversity of opinion on doctrinal issues such as the nature of the Godhead as evidenced by all of the various posts that we read. How we translate or interpret a verse is important to the meaning....I think this is why Joseph sought to clarify the Biblical translation. I often use this as an example when challenged by friends of other faiths who regard the Bible to be inerrent...my response is perhaps your interpretation is in error. Just a thought.....

I agree. We definitely can't all be interpreting it correctly, someone has to be mistaken. And I have suggested that possibility to many a non-member in my life. The problem we run into, however, is trying to convince someone that they're the one mistaken. As far as they're concerned, we are the ones misinterpreting the scriptures and adding a bunch of stuff that isn't from God to try to add more supporting evidence for our way of thinking. That's why the issue will never be resolved with a discussion about how accurate or final the Bible is. Christians I have talked to bear passionate testimony of their own interpretations and beliefs. They sound just like me. So who's right? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

[justamere10]

.....

I begin with Jesus. I know it sounds a like a little churchy-sunday-schooly response, but that's where I begin.

.....

I have about 9 (plus or minus a couple) ancient sources that attest to Him and His teachings. All of them attest to His being the Jewish Messiah. But something doesn't add up when they do that. Why is Yeshua the Messiah?

.....

Why not Bar-Kochba (135 AD)? Bar-Kochba seems like a much more likely candidate at first glance. He actually did more that was expected of the messiah that Yeshua did. Bar-Kochba led a rebellion against Rome, and actually had some early victories. He minted his own coins, captured Jerusalem, and possibly even laid a foundation for the Temple.

Why don't people follow Bar-Kochba and his teachings? He fits the bill except for one major problem, he's dead. He ultimately failed. Look to either side of Jesus in history you find messianic claimants all over the place, but like Bar-Kochba, they too quit having followers after they died at the hands of the Romans. Their messianic movements failed.

Yeshua, however, not only managed to have followers after his death, but He has billions (millions?) of followers to this day. Why was he different from these other messianic movements? He died at the hands of the Romans just like the whole lot of them. He never, seemingly, did anything to the temple in Jerusalem. He never beat the Romans in battle. What made His movement different? His followers claimed that He had been raised from the dead.

.....

Thank-you for that post.

Unlike you I'm not a scholar, not even well-read. I'm a 'bottom-line' feeder, skimming through the inevitable endless arbitrary looking for some final soul-satisfying substance.

In your post I find a profound truth, a line I'd place near or at the bottom of many a word mound (though I often learn from Snow and others.)

Jesus is Messiah to so many not only because of what he did in his public life, but because he alone proved he was God by RISING FROM THE DEAD!

[Hemidakota]

English Versions of the Bible may be divided into two classes: Manuscript Bibles and Printed Bibles.

Dr. Kenyon (of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum) has traced the English translations as set out below. (F. G. Kenyon, "English Versions," HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 219-230.)

Item 1. English Manuscript Bibles.

Summary. Of the earliest English manuscript Bibles there may be named, each more or less fragmentary and partial translations, Caedmon, Bede, Alfred the Great, with his English translations of the Decalogue, the summary of the Mosaic law, and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem, which he prefixed to his own code of laws; the Lindisfarne Gospels, AElfric's translation of the Heptateuch, with epitomes of the Book of Kings and brief versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees. During the period of the Conquest, a French version of the Apocalypse was translated into English. Later English versions of the Psalter appeared, the most noteworthy being by Richard Rolle, translated from the Latin (14th century) about which time also appeared a narrative of the Life of Christ made by a rearrangement of the Gospels. Finally the Wyclif Bible appeared (about 1380), an English translation of the Latin Vulgate—the first complete translation of the Old and New Testaments.

We may pass with mere mention the early more or less fragmentary and partial translations of parts of the Bible by Caedmon (7th century), a manuscript; Bede (d. 735), a manuscript; Alfred the Great (849-901), who, to his code of laws, prefixed English translations of the Decalogue, a summary of the Mosaic law, and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23-29).

Then came the Lindisfarne Gospels (in Northumbrian and Mercian dialects),—"the earliest extant translation of the Gospels into English," which were followed in the tenth century by a translation by AElfric (about 990) of the Heptateuch, and "homilies containing epitomes of the Books of Kings and Job, and brief versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees," which are the "earliest extant English version of the narrative books of the OT." During the period of the Norman Conquest, the biblical literature was mainly in French. A French version of the Apocalypse was translated into English, one version of which appeared later in the Wyclif Bible. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 220b.)

The French versions largely disappeared in England in the 14th century, during which period two English versions of the Psalter appeared, the more noteworthy being by Richard Rolle (d. 1349), hermit of Hampole, in Yorkshire, translated from the Latin, the English following the Latin verse by verse. During this same century, an English narrative of the Life of Christ appeared, made up of a rearrangement of the Gospels. Another incomplete translation appeared about the same time. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 220b, 221a.)

This, in summary, brings us to the Wyclif Bible, the first English translation of the complete Old Testament and New Testament,—the New Testament was translated first (about 1380), presumably by Wyclif himself, the Old Testament between 1382 and 1384, supposedly by Nicholas Hereford. It appeared in various editions so as to appeal to all classes of people. A second version of Wyclif's Bible was published after his death, in which the English text (clearly based on the first Wyclif version), was revised and cured of many defects. Its authorship is unknown, though some have ascribed it to John Purvey. This version had a wide circulation among the high and the low. "Copies are still in existence which formerly had for owners Henry VI., Henry VII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth." (A Catholic writer has sought to disprove that Wyclif translated a version of the Bible, but Dr. Kenyon seems effectively to dispose of that writer's claim.) Wyclif's translation was of the Latin Vulgate; he does not seem to have had either Hebrew or Greek texts. Wyclif's Bible was the last English Manuscript Bible. All the foregoing translations were made from the Latin Vulgate, and seemingly all were manuscripts. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 219-223b; see also, Kenyon, Our Bible, pp. 194-209; The Story, pp. 47 ff.)

Item 2. The Printed Bible.

Sub-item a. Tindale's Bible, the First English Bible Translated from Greek, 1526.

Summary. Tindale's Bible, the first English Bible translated from Greek; first English Bible printed (1526). He also translated the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Tindale was finally seized, brought to trial, condemned, strangled, and burnt at the stake.

In 1526 the first regular English version of the Bible was printed. This marked the beginning of a new era of English versions. This was Tindale's translation. The first printed edition appeared in 1526. With the vicissitudes, hardships, and persecutions that were attendant upon Tindale and his translations and printing labors, inflicted by those opposing the Reformation, we are not here concerned. He was finally seized, brought to trial, condemned, strangled, and burnt at the stake, October 6, 1536. (See John Fox, Book of Martyrs, Charles A. Goodrich, ed. (Edwin Hunt, Middletown, 1833), pp. 258 ff.)

Several editions of his Bible were printed, the finally completed work, in 1535. The translation seems to have been a good one as shown by the considerable use made of it in the Authorized Version (A.V.). It is said that Tindale's Bible . . .

". . . was the first English printed NT; it laid the foundations, and much more than the foundations, of the AV of 1611; it set on foot the movement which went forward without a break until it culminated in the production of that AV; and it was the first English Bible that was translated directly from the original language. All the English manuscript Bibles were translations from the Vulgate; but Tindale's NT was taken from the Greek, which he knew from the editions by Erasmus, published in 1516, 1519, and 1522. As subsidiary aids he employed the Latin version attached by Erasmus to his Greek text, Luther's German translation of 1522, and the Vulgate; but it has been made abundantly clear that he exercised independent judgment in his use of these materials, and was by no means a slavish copier of Luther." (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 223b.)

Tindale also printed in 1530, an English translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. In 1531 he printed an English translation of the Book of Jonah.

Sub-item b. Coverdale's Bible, 1535.

Summary. Printed 1535. Dedicated to Henry VIII. Rearranged books of the Bible.

Coverdale's Bible was printed in 1535. It was the first complete English Bible produced, Tindale's Bible being composed of the New Testament and some portions of the Old Testament as noted above. Coverdale and Tindale are supposed to have been associated in Tindale's translation of the Pentateuch. Coverdale worked under the patronage of Cromwell. The Bible was dedicated to Henry VIII, who had condemned Tindale's Bible. In his version of Tindale's work, Coverdale used the Zurich German Bible of Zwingli, a Latin version of Pagninus, the Vulgate, and Luther's translation. He seems to have made little use of Greek or Hebrew texts.

Coverdale's Bible is said to be "epoch-making" because of his rearranging of the Books of the Bible. In the Vulgate, circulating in the West, and (contrary to the opinion of Jerome, its translator), the books of the Apocrypha were interspersed among the other books of the Old Testament. This was true also of the LXX (Septuagint). Wyclif's Bible (a translation of the Vulgate) followed the same arrangement. Luther placed the Apocrypha apart in his translation and likewise separated Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse in the New Testament. In his table of contents, Tindale followed Luther's arrangement. Coverdale arranged his Old Testament books into five parts, and added the New Testament. "So far as concerns the English Bible, Coverdale's example was decisive," in relation to the matter of framing the canon. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 224-225a.)

Sub-item c. Matthew's Bible, 1537.

Summary. Matthew's Bible appeared in 1537. Largely made up of portions of Tindale's and Coverdale's Bibles, except that the historical books were new translations, translator unknown. No such person known as Thomas Matthew, the supposed translator; translation accredited by tradition to John Rogers.

Matthew's Bible appeared in 1537, the year of Coverdale's second edition. Like Coverdale's translation, the title page recited that it was printed with the King's "lycence." It was largely made of portions of Tindale's translation and of Coverdale's, though the historical books were in great part a new translation, the origin thereof being unknown. While the title page says the translation was by one Thomas Matthew, yet no such person is known and the work is accredited, by tradition, to John Rogers. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 225.)

Sub-item d. Taverner's Bible, 1539.

Summary. Taverner's Bible, based on Matthew's Bible.

Taverner's Bible (1539) was based upon Matthew's Bible. Some verbal corrections, to make better English, were made in the Old Testament, and Taverner, being a good Greek scholar, revised some of the New Testament text in accordance with the reading of the Greek text. This Bible is said to have had "no influence" on the development of an acceptable English Bible. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 225.)

Sub-item e. The Great Bible, 1539-1541.

Summary. A complete revision of Matthew's Bible by Coverdale (1539-1541). Thomas Cromwell (Earl of Essex) declared that a copy should be set up in every parish church; it thus became "the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use."

At the invitation of Thomas Cromwell (Earl of Essex) and Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury), Coverdale undertook a complete revision of Matthew's Bible that, apparently, had not been so successful as they wished. This revision was ready in 1538, printed in 1539. Cromwell issued "an injunction" that a copy should be set up in every parish church. It thus became "the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use." The translation is said to have had considerable merit. Coverdale, while not equal to Tindale in scholarship, still had scholarship enough "to choose and follow the best authorities." Taking Tindale's translation and his own previous version, he revised these texts with reference to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, with special assistance in the Old Testament from the superior Latin translation by Sebastian Munster. In the New Testament he used Erasmus. He retained familiar Latin phrases, and introduced a considerable number of words and sentences from the Vulgate, not found in the Hebrew or Greek.

The first edition being rapidly exhausted, a second edition was issued which is sometimes known as Cranmer's Bible, because he wrote the prologue appearing therein.

Henry VIII in his later years reacted against Protestantism. In 1543 a proclamation was issued against Tindale's and in 1546 against Coverdale's Bible. And some were destroyed. At Henry's death (1547) new editions were issued of Tindale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and the Great Bible. Following Mary's accession to the throne (1553), all circulation of English translations was stopped. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 225-226a.)

Sub-item f. The Geneva Bible, 1557-1560.

Summary. The Geneva Bible by W. Whittingham (1557). First version printed in Roman type and in which the text was divided into verses. Besides Whittingham, Thomas Sampson and A. Gilby participated in the work. It became the Bible of the Puritans.

Geneva had become the "rallying place of the more advanced members of the Protestant party in exile." They fell under the strong rule of Calvin. There his relative, W. Whittingham, "a Fellow of All Soul's College, Oxford, and subsequently dean of Durham," published in 1557 a small octavo volume of the New Testament. It was the first version printed in Roman type and in which the text was divided into verses (following R. Stephanus in his Graeco-Latin text).

The translator stated he had used in his work the "original Greek" and translations into other tongues. Calvin wrote a preface.

It was at once made the basis of a revised version of both Testaments by a group of Puritan scholars. The details of the work are not recorded. Among those participating besides Whittingham, were Thomas Sampson (at one time dean of Chichester, later dean of Christ Church), and A. Gilby (of Christ's College). The complete Bible was put upon the market in 1560. The New Testament had been considerably revised. The Psalter was added in 1559. The type and verse-division followed Whittingham's 1557 version.

The revisers of Whittingham's text made the Great Bible their basis for the Old Testament and Matthew's Bible for the New Testament. They also used the Latin Bible of Leo Juda (1544) and Pagninus (1527). They also consulted the scholars, including Calvin and Beza, the latter's "reputation stood highest among all the Biblical scholars of the age." There were copious marginal notes.

This version was very popular and was, for a century, the Bible of the people. During the Civil War in Britain this was the Bible of the Puritans. It is said over 160 editions were issued. Laurence Tomson made a revision of the New Testament in 1576, which became popular and was sometimes bound in with the Genevan Old Testament. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 226b-227a.)

Sub-item g. The Bishops' Bible, 1568.

Summary. The Geneva Bible being a Puritan Bible, the Church of England prelates desired their own Bible. This was made by the Episcopal Bishops under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Great Bible was to be taken as a basis. It supplanted the Great Bible as the official version, and was so used till the King James Version.

The Geneva Bible, as indicated, was essentially a Puritan Bible. It naturally was not much favored by the clergy of the Church of England. Accordingly, the idea of a Bible translated by the Bishops of the Church was revived. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a new translation of the Bible was undertaken. The Great Bible (1539-1541) was to be taken as the basis for the new version. The Old Testament was indifferently done; the New Testament was much better. The Geneva Bible and other versions were used in the work of translating. It contained notes. The Bishops' Bible supplanted the Great Bible as the official version. Alterations were made in a second edition printed in 1569. A third edition was printed in 1572. This version was used as the official text till the version of 1611 (King James), "of which it formed the immediate basis." (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 227a.)

Sub-item h. The Rheims or Douai Bible, 1582-1609.

Summary. A Catholic version of the Bible in English issued by English Catholic refugees on the continent. It takes its name from the place of translation and issuance.

This was a Catholic version of the Bible in English, issued by English Catholic refugees on the continent who established an English College at Douai. The version was prepared in Douai though the first edition of the New Testament was issued in 1582 from Rheims, a temporary home of the College. It was the work of Gregory Martin, formerly a Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. The Old Testament text was published in 1609. The Latin Vulgate was the basis of this version, little attention being given either to the Hebrew or Greek originals. The style was largely influenced by the Latin. It was used by the Authorized Version translators who took from it many of the Latin words they used. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 227.)

[bytor2112]

I agree. We definitely can't all be interpreting it correctly, someone has to be mistaken. And I have suggested that possibility to many a non-member in my life. The problem we run into, however, is trying to convince someone that they're the one mistaken. As far as they're concerned, we are the ones misinterpreting the scriptures and adding a bunch of stuff that isn't from God to try to add more supporting evidence for our way of thinking. That's why the issue will never be resolved with a discussion about how accurate or final the Bible is. Christians I have talked to bear passionate testimony of their own interpretations and beliefs. They sound just like me. So who's right? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Hi LJ......most non LDS Christians I talk with have a solid belief in the fact that they are "saved". They trust the Bible.....and I do as well...but tell me I can't trust my "feelings". The difficult issue really is there non understanding of the Holy Spirit. They often equate spiritual experience to flamboyant excitement passed off as spiritual experience....like some of the televangelists on TV with these entertaining productions filled with people dancing and organs playing, etc. They don't understand, because they haven't experienced the presence of a member of the Godhead communing with their Spirit and until that occurs...our faith will always be viewed as wrong.

[Traveler]

The question to start this thread is improper and misleading in my mind. We all know that there are errors and differences in all the ancient manuscripts from which we attempt to make our modern versions of the Bible. Those that believe the Bible to be exact modern counterpart of the original scriptures as G-d spoke through his prophets are simply wrong and misleading themselves and others.

Those that think because there are errors that the Bible cannot be trusted as a means to learn about G-d have another problem that is historically proven – that is the question of what is reliable and something to be trusted not only for a single generation but for generations to come that is of more worth than the Bible. (Just a quick note here because the Book of Mormon could be argued as more reliable for this discussion but the B of M is relatively new in our generation.)

Those that argue that the Bible is all that is needed of G-d’s word are also not very mindful of the economy of G-d’s word - even in the Bible. If the Bible is all that is needed, it is greatly flawed because the Bible itself does not tell us that. So the Bible cannot be all that is needed because if a, “all that is needed doctrine” was in truth needed it would be clearly given somewhere in the Bible.

In general I believe we need to understand that scriptures are a beginning of understanding – not the end. Some think that scripture is the litmus test by which all other sources of truth are to be judged. I would remind those that believe this doctrine consider carefully that this was the argument that Satan attempted to use to dissuade Jesus from being obedient of others methods G-d has of making his word known among man (including Jesus at that moment). Scriptures are only beneficial as one of many means to bring a person to G-d.

The scriptures are not G-d nor should they be thought of or reverenced as G-d any more than any servant of G-d sent by him in his name.

The scriptures are not the means of salvation – Jesus is

The G-d given destiny of man is not to know the scriptures – or the flaws from the non flaws in scripture. The G-d given destiny of man is to someday be so enlightened within one’s heart that a Bible or any other written or published scripture is completely unnecessary.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Sad part of most ministers that I dealt with concerning the biblical is complete issue is that, I would often find a lack of research and understanding how GOD instructs HIS prophets and why it is necessary to record those words. A good case to discuss, is the carrying the sacred written records by Jared’s people to the new promise land. These records were before the time of Moses and Abraham. Which records did they bring to the Americas?

There will never be a 'completeness' of the bible if GOD and man exist. .

I ran into this difference of understanding about prophecy, in another post. If I understand correctly--and your post seems to affirm this--the LDS view of the office of Prophet is very Old Testament. The prophets spoke a universally applicable message of God--one that was/is timeless, and was meant to be canonized. Contrast this with the New Testament model, in which each congregation may have several who, gifted by the Holy Spirit, offer "words of prophecy," or "interpretations of tongues." Yet, as spelled out in 1 Corinthians, and as practiced today in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, these "words from the Lord," tend to be local and immediate. They are not so much additions to the canon, as specific applications of timeless truths to a current setting.

As an example. "He who hesitates is lost." "Haste makes waste." Both parables are generally true. BUT, in my current decision, should I grab the opportunity with gusto and boldness, so as not to lose the chance, or should I be cautious, so as not to waste? God may give me an answer that is specific to my issue.

So, it's not so much a lack of research, or proper understanding, but rather, our failure to see God continuing to raise up Old Testament model prophets to lead an entire religion. Likewise, it's not that the canon must needs be absolutely closed, but rather that the church universal has failed to find any Prophet who messages add to the canon since the late first century.

[Hemidakota]

Good point....

[prisonchaplain]

I believe that here we find the impasse with respect to the doctrine of the trinity (and many others, as well, actually). The lds argue that the NT does not support the doctrine of the trinity, that it came later, and point to scripture that supports the idea of separate beings (like Matthew 3:16-17). Protestants/Evangelical Christians point to scripture that supports the idea of the trinity (like the "one with the Father" lines). [...Actually, many of the "as we are one" quotes, in my mind, only create further doubt about the concept of trinity, because if Jesus is saying that the saints should be "one as we are one" why would he compare the symbolic oneness of separate individuals to a literal oneness of Him and the Father? Doesn't make sense...but I digress.] My point is, we can all grab a few lines of scripture that support our own belief. It all depends on how we choose to interpret it. So I don't think it's spiritually useful to argue the doctrine from that angle. It can definitely be interesting and valuable to research and debate the historical and hypothetical context of the scriptures, but when we try to use verses here and verses there to prove the doctrine we will just keep running into that impasse of interpretation. That's where the text leaves off and the Spirit is supposed to take over, right? :)

Perhaps it's a matter of whether we believe in the Great Apostasy or not. If not, then of course, despite its faults, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches maintained mostly correct core doctrines, despite a few corrupt practices. Martin Luther ended up breaking with the Catholics mostly over those corrupt practices, not over core doctrines. And indeed, nearly all Protestant churches continue to hold to the Trinity, and embrace the 66 books of the Bible. (Yes, Catholics add some, but no one denies the 66).

If there was a Great Apostasy, and God raised of Joseph Smith as a Latter Day prophet restoring his church, then you'd easily accept his explanation of the nature of God.

Certainly the Spirit will guide us. However, one side is going to have to allow the Holy Spirit to correct, while the other side gets to feel affirmation.

[Hemidakota]

LOL...that is always the case [Holy Ghost to correct...].

[prisonchaplain]

As Latter Day Saints we take some heat from other Christian faiths because of the "as far as it is translated correctly" statement. I think that this statement can be applied to our personal interpretation of Biblical passages as well. It is obvious that there is diversity of opinion on doctrinal issues such as the nature of the Godhead as evidenced by all of the various posts that we read. How we translate or interpret a verse is important to the meaning....I think this is why Joseph sought to clarify the Biblical translation. I often use this as an example when challenged by friends of other faiths who regard the Bible to be inerrent...my response is perhaps your interpretation is in error. Just a thought.....

There is no questioning our difficulty with this phrase. To LDS who've grown up with it, the condition probably just seems like common sense. Most have played the game where someone says a sentence, and it's whispered in ears around a circle, and by the end the statement is totally different.

And yet, we're talking about the holy word of God. Would he allow it to be corrupted by translation? Well, in a sense, yes. Most Protestants and Catholics deny the seemingly agenda-driven New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses). Some Fundamentalists consider all translations except the King James Version to be corrupt. So, yes a translation can be wrong or corrupt.

Nevertheless, from our view, the Bible is God's Word, and the translations we have, do not corrupt any key doctrines or stories. His word shall not pass away, even in the kingdom to come.

"As far as it is translated correctly" seems to give rise to a "double-mindedness" about the Bible. "Yes we believe it. Yes it is Scripture...but..." And, indeed, I've seen some rather critical analyses of how it was canonized, here. Always, though, with "But, yes, we accept the Bible as canon."

Our concern is heightened by the fact that this phrase is not found in some position paper, or commentary--but in your very Articles of Faith. In other words, it is part of your foundational and core teachings that the Bible's status is "conditional."

So, we Protestants and Catholics are left pretty sure that, unofficially, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are the favored parts of the canon, whereas the Bible is accepted as something of a relic the family keeps for old times sake.

[bytor2112]

I don't think Joseph meant it as "conditional".....perhaps conditional based upon interpretation. In light of the flood of new revelation and the Book of Mormon...it is easy to see why he felt as though the Bible needed some clarification....and indeed he did offer some clarification.

[Traveler]

.....

So, we Protestants and Catholics are left pretty sure that, unofficially, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are the favored parts of the canon, whereas the Bible is accepted as something of a relic the family keeps for old times sake.

I am not sure that you have a valid view with this statement. The Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are all records of another people, place and time and their covenants with G-d. The Doctrine and Covenants is a record of our restored covenants in our time.

What is a surprise to an LDS like myself, is that that many other Christians have no record of their covenants. They say that the Bible is G-d’s word that they follow but it appears to be a selective or smorgasbord approach of taking some and not other covenants. For example the Christians of the first era held all material positions in common – those that held out for themselves, some favored possessions, were in clear violation of the covenant. LDS can say we do not rely on the Bible for all our covenants – therefore we can make a rhetorical argument as to why this is not part of our covenant. But for those that claim the Bible is G-d’s word and direction must admit that they do not in fact use the Bible (and nothing else) to complete all their covenants. I have yet to learn of a non-LDS Christian organization that uses G-d’s word in the Bible as the means to know how to collect and utilize monetary and non monetary funds.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, throughout the Bible there are accounts, retellings of how things went. Not all choices made were meant to be normative, and some were wrong. For example, few would argue that drawing lots to choose church leaders is the biblical method that God ordained. And, indeed, the fact that a persecuted church, under tremendous harrassment from government and society, would choose to pool their resources was not meant as normative. In fact, Acts 5:3-4 demonstrates that members were not required to give what they had, but rather whatever they gave should be offered freely and truthfully.

So, it seems to me that the covenant of the Bible is totally true, but what must be discerned is what is descriptive, and what is preoscriptive.

[Traveler]

Traveler, throughout the Bible there are accounts, retellings of how things went. Not all choices made were meant to be normative, and some were wrong. For example, few would argue that drawing lots to choose church leaders is the biblical method that God ordained. And, indeed, the fact that a persecuted church, under tremendous harrassment from government and society, would choose to pool their resources was not meant as normative. In fact, Acts 5:3-4 demonstrates that members were not required to give what they had, but rather whatever they gave should be offered freely and truthfully.

So, it seems to me that the covenant of the Bible is totally true, but what must be discerned is what is descriptive, and what is preoscriptive.

Interesting argument, in light of your previous statements concerning revelation and what should be and should not be recorded - If it was not meant for our day (not to be followed) why was it recorded in the canon? The other question is where then is the current covenant recorded?

Thanks for clearing, as well as you have, some of my questions.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Traveler, throughout the Bible there are accounts, retellings of how things went. Not all choices made were meant to be normative, and some were wrong. For example, few would argue that drawing lots to choose church leaders is the biblical method that God ordained. And, indeed, the fact that a persecuted church, under tremendous harrassment from government and society, would choose to pool their resources was not meant as normative. In fact, Acts 5:3-4 demonstrates that members were not required to give what they had, but rather whatever they gave should be offered freely and truthfully.

So, it seems to me that the covenant of the Bible is totally true, but what must be discerned is what is descriptive, and what is preoscriptive.

Concerning the selection of church leaders by drawing lots - (Which I understand to be that all involved must agree on the outcome being correct and that there is no preceding debates over who it should be). I would argue that in this case the Bible Scriptures are acccurate and correct - and in every way exactly according to G-d's will and not men or political presure generated by men.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

I don't know if you accept the Athanasian Creed as doctrine, but it is one of the teachings we do not believe to be true.

As one of our prophets stated: "Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision." -- Gordon B. Hinckley

Here are some of the teachings of the Athanasian Creed:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

There are 26 more points in the Athanasian Creed:

Athanasian Creed

Edited September 12, 2008 by Still_Small_Voice

[abqfriend]

I am Catholic. I would not expect the LDS Church to profess the Athanasian Creed or any formal creed. The Athanasian Creed is an ancient creed of the early Church with a focus on the Trinity in objection to the polytheism taught in many parts of the world of that day.

Here is a neutral link on the subject:

Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Catholic tradition, it is one of the creeds of our Church, but does not have the equality with the Nicene or Apostles Creed. In Lutheran tradition-it is one of the 3 principle creeds of their faith tradition.

In the Catholic Church-the Church is based on the Bible as well as the traditions of the Church and the teaching authority/magesterium of the Church.

You are correct-there was much discussion of how to best express the Christian faith in the early Church and creeds were one way to do that. As a Catholic, I believe the Creeds are imporant in the sharing of doctrine as the Catholic and many other churches understand it.

There are obvious differences on how the Catholic and LDS view the history and development of the Christian church.

-Carol

I don't know if you accept the Athanasian Creed as doctrine, but it is one of the teachings we do not believe to be true.

As one of our prophets stated: "Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision." -- Gordon B. Hinckley

Here are some of the teachings of the Athanasian Creed:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

There are 26 more points in the Athanasian Creed:

Athanasian Creed

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting argument, in light of your previous statements concerning revelation and what should be and should not be recorded - If it was not meant for our day (not to be followed) why was it recorded in the canon? The other question is where then is the current covenant recorded?

Your post poses a curious question. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and we got the Plan of Salvation. So, should we all disobey God, so He can bring us better plans? King David danced in his undergarments, in praise to God for his victory. His wife was cursed for questioning this. Should we all dance half-naked, when we want to celebrate God's victories in our lives? Paul received a word of prophecy about an upcoming journey, warning of danger. The prophet and other saints warned Paul not to go. Paul accepted the content of the prophecy, but rejected the conclusion. Should we all receive words of prophecy as mere statements of fact, and then draw our own conclusions--even when the prophecy includes specific conclusions???

What I'm getting out is that so much of the Bible is story. It tells us about God's interaction with his people, and their responses. We see great faith, good instruction, and a good amount of human fumbling. To snatch out my response to the communal living of the Jerusalem church, and conclude that I have dismissed that portion of the Bible is wrong. The story is a crucial part of the Bible, showing us how we must love one another, and pull together, especially in times of trouble. I simply conclude that communal living is not mandated for all churches in all situations, based on the story.

[Traveler]

Your post poses a curious question. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and we got the Plan of Salvation. So, should we all disobey God, so He can bring us better plans? King David danced in his undergarments, in praise to God for his victory. His wife was cursed for questioning this. Should we all dance half-naked, when we want to celebrate God's victories in our lives? Paul received a word of prophecy about an upcoming journey, warning of danger. The prophet and other saints warned Paul not to go. Paul accepted the content of the prophecy, but rejected the conclusion. Should we all receive words of prophecy as mere statements of fact, and then draw our own conclusions--even when the prophecy includes specific conclusions???

What I'm getting out is that so much of the Bible is story. It tells us about God's interaction with his people, and their responses. We see great faith, good instruction, and a good amount of human fumbling. To snatch out my response to the communal living of the Jerusalem church, and conclude that I have dismissed that portion of the Bible is wrong. The story is a crucial part of the Bible, showing us how we must love one another, and pull together, especially in times of trouble. I simply conclude that communal living is not mandated for all churches in all situations, based on the story.

This is most interesting to me because there is a point here I do not understand about your belief concerning revelation. And you do not seem to understand my question. You need not answer - especially if you think I am mocking anything. You indicated that where you worship it is believed that revelation is a common thing that occurs today just as it did anciently. I agree - but when I asked if your revelation was recorded and published, you responded that it was not because it is not necessary (G-d's will as you understand) to record and publish things concerning those in Seattle that may not apply directly to those in Florida.

Now as we discuss some things in the Bible you are telling me that they do not apply directly to our day. So far so good. What I do not understand is your explanation for not recording and publishing what is known to be revelation from G-d and considering that revelation - just as valuable as the Bible. All such true “stories” of dealing by covenant with G-d are critical -- much more for all in the current generation that struggle with the same things that we all now face that were not known in ancient times.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, the short answer is that I do not believe that all revelations have been recorded, nor needed to be. Again, if all the Jesus miracle stories were published, John says the world could not contain them.