Contradictions between The BoM and the Bible?

[Just_A_Guy]

The reason that I think it's necessary for the BoM to agree with the Bible for them to both be true is that God does not lie. He doesn't make mistakes. He is never factually wrong.

You are conflating God with the scriptures.

If the BoM is inspired, then everything in it should be factually correct.

Why on earth would you believe that of the BoM--or of the Bible, for that matter?

[blusun7]

If you search to much and doubt then those are the feelings you will receive. God doesn't always give you the answer there. But maybe he gave you an answer and your fighting it now.

God doesnt want us to sin but you forget that he gave us free agency. He cannot intervene when he feels that we are about to do wrong. Sometimes we have to learn for ourselves. Yes he give us commandments that can make us happy but at some point he knows we will think we know better and break that law. We as our children i think are horrible.That is why jesus came to help relieve us from that but still it is up to us to make good on our choices. I testify to you that by living by the church standards and learning and studying the doctrine as well as praying will get you closer to god then any other way. The easiest way i found about know how joseph smith started things is Amos 3:7 and amos 7:13-15. That did it for me.

You can pull off as much scripture as you want about things but you will find contradicions people have made there own doctrine but when you read the bible and the book of mormon as one doctrine then all your doubts go away and it makes sense. Jesus had a gospel and it was preached as well as organized. That church has been restored today and prophesy is still given cause god loves his children and knows what we need. I hope you find all the answers you are looking for but sometimes you just have to have faith and go with it.

[Cydonia]

The phrase be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth was the first commandment given to Adam and Eve.

I'm familiar with the phrase from Genesis 1:28, but I'm just curious whether it is really synonymous with "reproduce by giving birth to children."

The Hebrew I found for Genesis 1:28 is וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃. But I have no idea what those words are!

Cyndonia there is a talk given by one of our past Prophets Spencer W. Kimball on the plan for men and women that brings up this phrase.

Thanks. This talk looks very interessting.

[pam]

I'm familiar with the phrase from Genesis 1:28, but I'm just curious whether it is really synonymous with "reproduce by giving birth to children."

The Hebrew I found for Genesis 1:28 is וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃. But I have no idea what those words are!

Thanks. This talk looks very interessting.

I used google translate and this is what it came up with.

God bless you god said to them and the pro Rabbo - Sheep country survived Bdgt sea and fly sky and all - live on Harmst - Haaretz:

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm familiar with the phrase from Genesis 1:28, but I'm just curious whether it is really synonymous with "reproduce by giving birth to children."

For a painstaking breakdown of Genesis 1:28, look here.

[Justice]

Justice, have you taken out your temple endowments?

Yes. :)

[pam]

Thanks Guy. Looks very interesting to read.

[AngelLynn]

everything in it should be factually correct.

I am confused, what do you mean by factually?

We are talking about works of faith. They are concepts of belief and doctrine.

When you state factually, you sound as if you are attempting to pick apart a scientifically fomulated formula.

Doctrines change.

Acts 10: 9-15

9. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

This was mainly concerning the princpal of circumcision. But the point is doctrines are flexable and they do change.

Things that took place in the OT are not what occured during the establishment of Christianty in the NT.

LDS see the gospel and the church as a living and flexable thing.

I am really not sure what you are trying to accomplish either.

Edited February 14, 2009 by AngelLynn

[Justice]

She was deceived by the serpent. The serpent told her that if she ate the fruit, she would not suffer any consequences, but that God was guarding the knowledge of good and evil like a dragon guards its treasure. She believed the serpent, and was deceived.

That's not entirely correct. Satan did not tell her there would be no consequences.

Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Satan told a half-truth about her not dying. She did not die physically, she died spiritually; hence the fall. Adam and Eve were far too intelligent, being taught in the Garden while they walked and talked with God, to believe in an outright lie.

Partaking of the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. The fruit was a symbol. The knowledge of good and evil did not come from the fruit, but it came from disobedience.

God affirms that "becoming as gods" was not a lie.

The reason why God withheld the tree of life from them at that point is described very well in the Book of Mormon. I'll tell you where if you're curious. :)

(Might be around Alma 12)

Edited February 14, 2009 by Justice

[Elgama]

The reason that I think it's necessary for the BoM to agree with the Bible for them to both be true is that God does not lie. He doesn't make mistakes. He is never factually wrong. If the BoM is inspired, then everything in it should be factually correct.

Why take the word of a book when you can use personal revelation? My faith comes from God has directed me, I do not need the books that God has revealed to humans to be reconciled or even factually accurate, I am not an Anglican I'm a Latter Day Saint so do not require it to reconcile, if someone does not believe it to be the Word of God why do they need it to reconcile either?

What I do know is in those books are words that God want us to know to bring us closer to him and reach our potential... Whilst I have faith it is accurate, its not important if it all turns out to be parables and allegories, it is no less the Word of God or important to my salvation.

If the Bible turned out to be mostly poems, allegories, parables etc would it really make it less sacred to you???

-Charley

[Cydonia]

For a painstaking breakdown of Genesis 1:28, look here.

Thanks. That's really interesting. Be fruitful is "to bear fruit -- bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase..."

Multiply is "to increase (in whatever respect)and replenish."

None of that actually mentions sexual reproduction to produce infant humans.

[AngelLynn]

Thanks. That's really interesting. Be fruitful is "to bear fruit -- bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase..."

Multiply is "to increase (in whatever respect)and replenish."

None of that actually mentions sexual reproduction to produce infant humans.

I don't know about that, if you look at the TG in the standard works of the Scriptures. That is the ones that are authorized by our church. It states.

a.fruitfull. If you look at it it states in the footnotes TG. Children

and then b. multiply and it states in the footnotes TG Birth Control; Marriage, Fatherhood; Marriage, Motherhood.

In otherwords in a refrence if you're looking up scritptures on Children or on the other you will find these scriptures.

However, Adam and Eve were in surpreme innocence. They didn't know they were naked, so that means they had little knowledge of their sexuality or even the function of sex. They had the innocence of children. God could tell them to be fruitful and multiply but being children who couldn't understand sex or the function of it, the idea went over their heads.

However, they did not have the ability to reproduce.

Going on the same site that Just_A_Guy gave Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If you go on the lexicon of seed

and her seed

zera` (zeh'-rah)

seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity -- carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing-time.

It's the eating of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that gave her the ability to have children. At least if you look at the whole idea of fruit and seed that is constantly mentioned. The fruit of the tree, and the seed meaning the ability to have children. Plus that the mention of having seed only comes after the eating of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the admonition that is given earlier, their is no mention of seed. Even though the statement states be fruitfull and multiply.

At least this is the perspective on how I look at it.

Edited February 14, 2009 by AngelLynn

[Palerider]

is the Bible factually correct????

[Elgama]

is the Bible factually correct????

tends to depend who pays for the research:)

[Palerider]

tends to depend who pays for the research:)

I agree,,:):)......I am waiting for the original author of the thread to respond.....:)

[Elgama]

I agree,,:):)......I am waiting for the original author of the thread to respond.....:)

:) whereas the God who inspired the Book of Mormon responds much more easily and frequently lol he's never offline

[Palerider]

:) whereas the God who inspired the Book of Mormon responds much more easily and frequently lol he's never offline

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......its called hit and run....or maybe a Drive by poster....

[Dymmesdale]

Dymmesdale,

I am confused as to your motives in this thread. What are you hoping to accomplish? Do you want us all to say, "Wow. Thanks. I never realized how wrong the Book of Mormon is. Sure is a good thing you came along so we can all stop living in ignorance."

What is it you want from us?

While you are doing your Google searches, perhaps you could do one on contradictions within the Bible itself, and start a new thread with all of the flaws that exist in the Bible.

You can keep going with this current angle if you want... pointing out more of your perceived problems with the Book of Mormon, but in case you have not yet noticed, nobody here seems to be biting.

Janice

My motives are to understand how Mormons logically come to the conclusion that the BoM does not contradict the Bible. If my motives are unwelcome, I would be glad to look elsewhere, or ask some missionaries in person.

I would be glad to start a thread about contradictions within the Bible itself, as long as someone will be able to discuss and debate, while remaining civil and refraining from taking it all personally.

You are conflating God with the scriptures.

Why on earth would you believe that of the BoM--or of the Bible, for that matter?

Do I need to be more clear?

God does not lie, and is never wrong.

If God says something that is not true, he has either lied, or is wrong.

If something is divinely inspired, that means God said it.

If a supposed divinely inspired work is wrong, God cannot have said it, and it is therefore not divinely inspired.

I used google translate and this is what it came up with.

God bless you god said to them and the pro Rabbo - Sheep country survived Bdgt sea and fly sky and all - live on Harmst - Haaretz:

It's all so clear now!

I am confused, what do you mean by factually?

We are talking about works of faith. They are concepts of belief and doctrine.

When you state factually, you sound as if you are attempting to pick apart a scientifically fomulated formula.

Doctrines change.

Acts 10: 9-15

This was mainly concerning the princpal of circumcision. But the point is doctrines are flexable and they do change.

Things that took place in the OT are not what occured during the establishment of Christianty in the NT.

LDS see the gospel and the church as a living and flexable thing.

I am really not sure what you are trying to accomplish either.

I am speaking less of science, and more of history.

The doctrine of circumcision and kosher eating was changed only because of the advent of Christ to fulfill the Law.

If the Bible turned out to be mostly poems, allegories, parables etc would it really make it less sacred to you???

-Charley

It would not make it less sacred, but if there were no facts, there would be no facts to test. It would be no more disprovable than the proverbs of Confucius. (Stepping out of my arena, knowledge and study-wise on the Confucius issue. That is, if he really did state facts, I didn't know it, and anyone can feel free to enlighten me on the issue.)

is the Bible factually correct????

I believe that it is.

:) whereas the God who inspired the Book of Mormon responds much more easily and frequently lol he's never offline

Give me a break, it's St. Valentine's Day, and I generally have a job (although lately my hours have been scarce, hence my presence on this site).

[Elgama]

My motives are to understand how Mormons logically come to the conclusion that the BoM does not contradict the Bible. If my motives are unwelcome, I would be glad to look elsewhere, or ask some missionaries in person.

I think problem is as a Mormon I have never come to the conclusion that there are no contradictions in scripture, no contradictions would be more illogical imo we are mortal trying to understand divine and scripture is inspired by God written by other mortals trying to do the same, it is perfectly possible right now to hold different views on something and both be right and wrong. Thats why we have modern revelation and the gift of the Holy Ghost. One of the examples you used was the describing the place as Jerusalem and not Bethlehem, that for me is easy I live in a place called Elgin, Scotland, but very rarely say that I will say I live in Aberdeen or Inverness because they are the places nearest me (admittedly 70 miles away) that people have heard of. The Nephites were hundreds of years and thousands of miles away and would have no clue about Bethlehem but Jerusalem they had heard of in their scriptures. Whether you see a contradiction or not is often down to level of understanding,

It would not make it less sacred, but if there were no facts, there would be no facts to test. It would be no more disprovable than the proverbs of Confucius. (Stepping out of my arena, knowledge and study-wise on the Confucius issue. That is, if he really did state facts, I didn't know it, and anyone can feel free to enlighten me on the issue.)

I am not aware of any of his sayings that include facts they are teachings, and often very enlightening. For me if the Book of Mormon or Bible was not physically accurate it would not make it any less of God, for me my relationship with God will always take priority over any book. The Books are merely a means to me knowing God better and having questions to ask Him

Give me a break, it's St. Valentine's Day, and I generally have a job (although lately my hours have been scarce, hence my presence on this site).

It was a joke with a slightly serious point - we can turn to God any minute of the day and night to clear up any serious confusion we may have.

-Charley

[Palerider]

If it is factual like you say....how come the first 3 Gospels differ slightly...they each have a different way of relating their account of the life of Christ. We believe the Bible to be correct as far as it is translated correctly.

Why don't you ask some missionaries....

Edited February 14, 2009 by Palerider

[Palerider]

using your logic.....in Genesis it says...God created heaven and the earth.....and in Ephesians it says.....all things were created by Jesus Christ...

[AngelLynn]

My

I am speaking less of science, and more of history.

The doctrine of circumcision and kosher eating was changed only because of the advent of Christ to fulfill the Law.

Ahhh thanks for clarifying. Well that's intresting as well. Nephi mentioneds in Chapter 9 of 1st Nephi that he made two sets of plates. One for History and One for religious matters. The large plates held secular history and the smaller one contained relgious matters. Guess which one we have or rather we have only a part of it, as part of it was sealed and part of it was lost.

You could say the same for the Bible, it is primarly a sacred text. True that many of the historical and relgious periods in the Bible can correspond to history but primarly it will mostly correspond to religious matters. The same for the Book of Mormon.

For history, it is a bit tricky for the Book of Mormon as their are no survivors among the Nephite race to correpond and to collaborate history as there are among the Jews. Their are decendants of the Lamanite race but records from them are little to none. Plus a lot of records from many in South America were burned during the arrival of the Spanish. They seemed to think that they were pagan and heathern objects and they were burned. A few were salvaged for example we have the Mayan Calandar that some are saying is predicting the end of the world in 2012.

[Cydonia]

Interesting stuff. Etymology is fun.

Genesis 3:16 says

"To the woman he said,

'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.'"

Which seems to suggest reproduction was possible before, but in a very different way. The pains were increased, meaning they were less before...suggesting they existed before?

[rameumptom]

My motives are to understand how Mormons logically come to the conclusion that the BoM does not contradict the Bible. If my motives are unwelcome, I would be glad to look elsewhere, or ask some missionaries in person.

In the same way that the New Testament doesn't contradict the Old Testament. God told Moses that the Law he was given would be an eternal covenant forever. Yet, we then have Jesus saying it is fulfilled. How is it eternal, if Jesus fulfills it?

I would be glad to start a thread about contradictions within the Bible itself, as long as someone will be able to discuss and debate, while remaining civil and refraining from taking it all personally.

Fine with me, as long as you are willing to give the OT/NT the same rigorous standard you seem to have placed on the Bible/BoM.

Do I need to be more clear?

God does not lie, and is never wrong.

If God says something that is not true, he has either lied, or is wrong.

If something is divinely inspired, that means God said it.

If a supposed divinely inspired work is wrong, God cannot have said it, and it is therefore not divinely inspired.

Okay. I can agree with those concepts. Now, the problem lies in not just the Book of Mormon, but also the Bible. How can you prove that it is divinely inspired?

We have three options for the Bible: 1. Is it God-breathed with no imperfections? 2. Is it inspired, but not perfect due to translations and the language of men? 3. Is it all made up, and not inspired whatsoever?

If you propose #1, and I can find one single flaw in the Bible, then it proves that God does lie or is wrong, and therefore is not God. If you propose #2, then it means there can be errors in the inspired record, but God can still be God. If you propose #3, God can still be God, but this is not his record.

So, which of the three do you propose to defend? LDS believe that the Bible is inspired, but is not perfect, as it has gone through the hands of men for centuries. So, if there are imperfections, they are there because men placed them there. This is one of the reasons we believe modern prophets are necessary, to help us understand scriptures correctly.

So, if #1, then I ask you to explain a few things for me: 1. Did Judas Iscariot hang himself or jump off a cliff? Both are stories in the NT.

2. When Paul was converted, did the men with him see the light and not hear the voice, or did they hear the voice, but not see the light? Both are in the NT.

3. Why would Paul tell us that we are saved by faith without works, and then James tell us that faith without works are dead? Which is correct? Which is wrong?

4. As mentioned before, if Moses was told that his law was to be covenant with Israel forever, then why did Jesus say the law of Moses was fulfilled in him?

I can go on, but let's start with these four issues first.

Now, why don't you ask us some of the issues in the Book of Mormon that actually disagree with doctrine in the Bible? I've given strong evidence for your previous issues, and you have not chosen to respond to hardly any of it. An honest person would acknowledge when evidence is given, when it has been asked for. I showed how the "land of Jerusalem" was correct, for instance. You have not admitted we were right on this. It would show you are serious about an actual discussion, if you were to acknowledge when the other side has given a valid statement, as I acknowledged your statement above.

[Palerider]

Originally Posted by Palerider

is the Bible factually correct????

I believe that it is.

I was hoping you would say yes.....I live here in the Bible Belt and deal with alot of Baptists. I don't get into conversations like yours much because...it gets tiresome and solves nothing...I will post a few remarks anyway..

reading 1 Kings4:26 it says Solomon had 40,00 stalls.....reading 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had 4,000

Luke 9:3 Matt 10:10 .....they say the staff is forbidden...however in Mark 6:8....it says the staff is permitted

in Acts Paul tells about his vision on the road to Damascus 3 times...in chapter 9 and 22 and 26....each account is different

Look at the Gospels of Mark and Luke....talking about the empty tomb. When you read Mark it say there was only one young man at the sepulchre and Luke says there are 2.

I could go on but...there is no need to

Please don't be angry with me....I am trying to understand how this has been reconciled...

Edited February 14, 2009 by Palerider