What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[rameumptom]

Deuteronomy 18:22

If you don't trust everything in the Bible, I would highly advise that you find something that you do. In my case, the Bible has done something no other book on Earth has. Revealed the future with stunning 100% accuracy hundreds of times. It stands the test of time in prophecy, archeology, science, history. No other book has proven this to me, I trust that it is God's Word. Jesus quoted Moses in the old testament and said that they were God's words.

It only stands up to your test, because you are rigging the test. It looks 100% perfect, because you choose to ignore much of the evidence that is out there. According to archaeology, only 1/4 of the locations have been found (most have never been lost). Joshua could not have brought the walls of Jericho tumbling down, because the walls came crashing down a century before Joshua was around.

Archaeology and science dispute a 6 day creation, or that the earth is only 6000 years old. Science disputes the global Flood. Archaeology disputes points in Jesus' birth story, such as the tax placed upon Judaea.

As for archaeology and history, there is no proof of anyone or anything prior to the reign of David. For as many evidences for the patriarchs, there are an equal number of evidences against.

Historical and scientific evidence shows that the Documentary Hypothesis is correct, in that the 5 books of Moses, as we now have them, were not written by Moses. The DH proves that most of the book of Deuteronomy was written by the priests in Josiah's day. And many Bible scholars today have shown that the Deuteronomists and the Priestly group that followed them wrote polytheism out of the OT.

So, if you really want to say the Bible meets every test, I guess that is your right to believe it. However, in the real world, we know better. And so does God.

[rameumptom]

Jesus = God

Jesus did not know the exact date of His coming = True

Jesus guessed His second coming = False

Your statement = incorrect

BTW, what do you think guessing wrong is, in this case, it would have resulted in Jesus making a false prophecy. Christians don't believe this, I advise you don't either. Maybe you should talk to your Bishop about this one.

You really do not understand LDS theology. We have no problem with Jesus making a mistake. He was sinless, not all knowing, as a mortal. In D&C 93, we learn that he went from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until he achieved a fullness of the Father. It didn't happen during his mortal years, because he told Mary Magdalene after his resurrection to "touch me not" because he had not yet ascended to the Father.

Just because you know how to use equal signs, does not mean you know proper logic. Your equation above is circular. Even when I've shown evidence, you continue giving none.

You are proving that you really don't know the Bible, only your twisted reading of it. The scholar Harold Bloom warned about what he called the "know nothing Baptists" who take one verse from the Bible and create an entire religious belief from it, even if it contradicts other statements in the Bible. Guess what? You are throwing the baby out with the bath water, everytime you pretend you are an expert in the Bible, yet insist that it does not say what it is actually saying. I am more of a literalist in interpreting the Bible than you are, in this instance. I don't have to twist Bible verses around to fit my understanding. Instead, I fit my understanding around what the Bible verses are actually saying!

[CrimsonKairos]

This has been an interesting debate.

He was sinless, not all knowing, as a mortal.

I don't know that this has anything to do with the current discussion, but I personally feel that at some point in Christ's life (perhaps when he was 12 who knows) the Lord pierced the veil and regained not only his premortal omniscience but a fulness of his premortal memory as well.

In D&C 93, we learn that he went from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until he achieved a fullness of the Father. It didn't happen during his mortal years, because he told Mary Magdalene after his resurrection to "touch me not" because he had not yet ascended to the Father.

6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed.

7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; (D&C 93:6-7, 15-16)

This is John the Baptist recording that he saw a fulness of Christ's glory, in mortality. Unless John wrote this record after his death and resurrection, he saw the Son's fulness of glory in mortality which means Christ did have a fulness of the Father's glory before his resurrection.

Also, there is a sense that the "grace for grace" progression of Christ that John is documenting was a premortal progression since verses 7-14 talk about Christ in premortality and it is these verses that mention the "grace for grace" progression to the fulness of glory.

One last thing that jumped out at me. These verses seem to say that Christ received this fulness in mortality:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest. (D&C 93:3-5)

What did Christ receive from the Father while in the world as mentioned in verse 5? The previous verse just mentioned the Son receiving a fulness of the Father, so it would be reasonable to assume that fulness is what Jesus is speaking of in verse 5.

I don't believe that Jesus was ever "mistaken" or "guessed wrongly" about anything.

I do believe that Old Testament prophets could be and sometimes were "mistaken" and spoke inaccurately at times as well.

Edited February 25, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[mnn727]

No offence meant, but saying "you believe this" or "you don't believe that" is based on your interpretation of what you believe scripture means. I'm with Rameumputon and believe what scriputure actually says.

I do notice that my challange for some people to actually read Jonah has not been taken up yet -- too bad -- its only about a 10 - 15 minute read and very clear about the false prophesey and Jonahs reaction to it.

[CrimsonKairos]

No offence meant, but saying "you believe this" or "you don't believe that" is based on your interpretation of what you believe scripture means. I'm with Rameumputon and believe what scriputure actually says.

No offence taken. Because I read what the scriptures say differently, I'm fine with people disagreeing and I'm fine with being wrong as well.

I do notice that my challange for some people to actually read Jonah has not been taken up yet

I know the story. I've read it many times in the past. I have no problem with your take on it.

Edited February 25, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[JohnOF123]

You really do not understand LDS theology. We have no problem with Jesus making a mistake. He was sinless, not all knowing, as a mortal. In D&C 93, we learn that he went from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until he achieved a fullness of the Father. It didn't happen during his mortal years, because he told Mary Magdalene after his resurrection to "touch me not" because he had not yet ascended to the Father.

Just because you know how to use equal signs, does not mean you know proper logic. Your equation above is circular. Even when I've shown evidence, you continue giving none.

You are proving that you really don't know the Bible, only your twisted reading of it. The scholar Harold Bloom warned about what he called the "know nothing Baptists" who take one verse from the Bible and create an entire religious belief from it, even if it contradicts other statements in the Bible. Guess what? You are throwing the baby out with the bath water, everytime you pretend you are an expert in the Bible, yet insist that it does not say what it is actually saying. I am more of a literalist in interpreting the Bible than you are, in this instance. I don't have to twist Bible verses around to fit my understanding. Instead, I fit my understanding around what the Bible verses are actually saying!

I think we all can agree where you get your knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.

Influential Scholars (<--reference)

No offense, but as referenced above, you seem to choose and listen to scholars whom only a foolish Christian would (in my opinion), and you claim to see the Bible clearly.

Edited February 25, 2010 by JohnOF123

[JohnOF123]

I do notice that my challange for some people to actually read Jonah has not been taken up yet...

This was my response from yesterday.

First, Jonah didn't make a mistake, for he told the Ninevites precisely what God had told him to say (Jonah 3:1). Since God cannot err (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2), this is not a false statement.

Secondly, there was an implied condition in Jonah's exhortation to Nineveh -- "Unless you repent, God will destroy you." So the fulfillment of the threat of judgment was contingent on the repentance of Nineveh -- a fact proven by their repentance (see Jonah 3:5) as well as by Jonah's selfish admission that he was afraid from the beginning that they would repent and God would save them (4:2).

And Third, God's allowance of repentance in the face of judgment is stated as a principle in Jeremiah 18:7-8: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." This principle is illustrated in the case of Nineveh.

Biblical prophets were 100-percent accurate (Deuteronomy 18:22).

[mnn727]

Ok, John answer this one question then: Why did Jonah get angry at God?

Edited February 26, 2010 by pam
more appropriate language

[HEthePrimate]

I am a memeber for 15 plus years. I have served a mission. But recently I was asked a question about Kolob that has completely changed my understanding of the Pearl of Great Price. For the first time I have doubts about the book of Abraham. Has anyone else gone throught this?

I don't see any need to take everything we read in the scriptures literally. What's important is the message the prophets are trying to convey to us. Jesus used parables that were not necessarily literal historical fact, but that taught good lessons. I think this principle applies to all the scriptures. For example, it's possible the Lord didn't create the world in six literal days. And perhaps he didn't literally create Eve from Adam's rib. But the creation story can teach us important truths all the same, if we're willing to see the forest as well as the trees.

Shalom.

HEP

[JohnOF123]

Ok, John answer this one question then: Why did Jonah angry at God?

Which time? Jonah rebelled in anger, then watched in anger at the whirlwind, and got angry when the worm killed the gourd.

(I think what you're asking is why was Jonah angry that Nineveh repented and were saved from judgment.)

Note: Jonah's anger at the loss of his gourd is a "parable" of Jonah's anger with God who didn't destroy the Ninevites.

So let's see.

He got ate by a whale, finally agreed to go prophesy, then camped out and ate popcorn for 40 days waiting for the show. Sound's like he was ticked off; he listened to God, but with wrong motives. He was also ticked off because God made him look like a false prophet, but Jonah spoke what God told him to.

Jonah's prophecy was not false, because it was conditional. God called that announcement a warning. God threatened judgement, not promised it. In Matthew 12:41, Jesus tells us they repented, which means "this is why God did not destroy them". Warning/Threat/Conditional.

"My ways are not your ways" -God

Here is my last post for further review, but I think this horse is deadski.

First, Jonah didn't make a mistake, for he told the Ninevites precisely what God had told him to say (Jonah 3:1). Since God cannot err (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2), this is not a false statement.

Secondly, there was an implied condition in Jonah's exhortation to Nineveh -- "Unless you repent, God will destroy you." So the fulfillment of the threat of judgment was contingent on the repentance of Nineveh -- a fact proven by their repentance (see Jonah 3:5) as well as by Jonah's selfish admission that he was afraid from the beginning that they would repent and God would save them (4:2).

And Third, God's allowance of repentance in the face of judgment is stated as a principle in Jeremiah 18:7-8: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." This principle is illustrated in the case of Nineveh.

Biblical prophets were 100-percent accurate (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Edited February 26, 2010 by pam
edited quote

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have always viewed "Unless you repent, God will destroy you." as a call to repentance not as a prophecy of imminent destruction. If I as a parent say to a child of mine "If you don't behave you get no pocket money this week." I am not hoping for a saving of cash I am hoping for a change of behaviour.

[mnn727]

You start with the premise that there are no false prophesies in the Bible and then you make up reasons to support your premise -- sciptoral gymnastics, perhaps that should be a new olympic event. BTW you do realize that the Bible is a collection of seperate books all written by different people (yes, a few did write multiple books) and then compiled together in about the 4th Century AD, don't you?

Perhaps you should try only reading the words that are actually printed in the Bible.

Edited February 26, 2010 by mnn727

[JohnOF123]

You start with the premise that there are no false prophesies

Zero false prophecies is my conclusion; not a premise.

you do realize that the Bible is a collection of seperate books all written by different people (yes, a few did write multiple books) and then compiled together in about the 4th Century AD, don't you?

Yes.

[mnn727]

nevermind - just not worth it.

[rameumptom]

I'm done with this topic. I don't think John123 is really interested in discussion, as he shuts down anything he doesn't believe in by calling it heresy or foolish.

That Bart Ehrman is one of the most respected New Testament scholars and a professor at UNC, that Margaret Barker is considered one of the foremost Old Testament scholars in Great Britain, that William G. Dever is considered one of the most renowned archaeologists.

A claim of heresy means nothing to me. Why? Because that is completely an opinion. These scholars have written several books and scholarly papers establishing their claims. Many people, not just LDS, read and believe in these things. These include orthodox and traditional Christians.

You won't actually discuss their issues and claims. With one swift swipe of your hand, you dismiss them all. I've shown evidence. You have not. You have your own belief, which is fine. But that does not make for a discussion. Share your opinion, but don't pretend that it is better than that of scholars or my opinion. It isn't.

[sd22]

This is the Church of Jesus Christ, this is not the Church of Joseph Smith or the Church of Brigham Young or even the Church of Thomas Monson.

I can deal with this. I just have never thought a solid member could come to this conclusion. It's frustrating because I imagine (based on relationships in the past) that most members believe that anything Thomas Monson says or anything any other prophet says is set in stone. How would it be to be married to somebody who is LDS and tell them that you don't agree with something the prophet is saying?

I do know one thing I did or at least misinterpreted based on what the general authorities were saying when I was younger that at the time really was not helpful. I was commanded not to single date until 18. But then, according to my bishop, I was supposed to prepare for a mission and avoid relationships. So if I was doing things as I was told (which I did), I didn't really have a chance to start dating until 21. I'm sorry, maybe other people figured it out starting at 21 (but I know most actually broke the "rules," but I didn't - I was faithful), and this had a HUGE impact on my life. I had a financial situation to manage in my early 20s that cost me a few years and didn't have much time for dating. I really wish I would have started when I was 15 or even younger.

I know that sounds odd, but I wouldn't want the same to happen to my kids if another prophet were to say something that I didn't quite believe in. The prophets of the past have said many other such things. I could make quite an extensive list. How can people listen and follow with such a blind eye to everything that they're saying when they've been wrong so many times in the past?

I don't think I can disagree with anything Christ says. And actually, I would love to teach my future children those principles. But what if I have a child who struggles socially or something and is told that he basically can't singly date until 21? I'm sorry, but this is terrible advice given by men who meant well but weren't helpful. And just one reason that I (at least for the moment) can't see myself dating (a "faithful" at least) church member.

[sd22]

I do not believe it when past leaders said that blacks had the curse of Cain. I do not believe the Adam-God theory. I am not certain whether to believe in a global Flood or not.

Well I'm glad to see that you can be LDS and not believe in these things. Because I'm not so sure that would have worked so much in the past. Maybe things are changing?

[sd22]

From: I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of Church history and--shock and dismay!--they came across this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the Church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.

It's really sad to see a church historian, Davis Bitton, saying something like that. I'd ask him to rewrite his article. There are real, legitimate people out there leaving the church, yes, because of church history. It might not effect him but it does others. This is supposed to be the church of Christ, and here we have such a hostile non-loving statement being issued by a church leader: The church was never wrong. It's your own damn fault.

[sd22]

I spent the last 4 years or so with our church history stuff. I was called as Elders quorum pres. when one of my elders asked me for advice on the Adam-God-Theory by B.Young. I never heard about it before, even though I served a full time mission. Well, trying to answer just 1 concern, plenty of new ones came up for myself.

I wrote a list of questions a few years ago. There are at least 50 q's I have. Some smaller ones, but also some major problems with the church and the doctrine. After a few months of study I asked to be released as e.q. president. My wife doesn't want to know about all the odds I found because she saw how quick they changed my feelings towards the church.

I understand where you are coming from. Actually, I was the only one I know who brought up some of these concerns up to the other missionaries on my mission. It seemed as if I was the only one who knew about these issues at the time... even my mission president couldn't help me. How is that for killing your testimony of the church? Nobody knows what you are talking about. And so for a lot of my mission, I felt as if I was putting on an act. I tried my hardest to believe, but there were still these lingering issues in my mind... never to be resolved.

After my mission, I did read a lot of FAIR and other apologetic material. Some of it was OK, but some of it just seemed to make things worse. ("If this is the church's best explanation, ouch, how can I believe now?")

I would choose to push these issues to the back of my mind (as it seems some others have done - as a choice), but some of these issues I just can't. Some of these issues have a real impact on not only my life but my (hopefully) future kids as well. Maybe there is hope, and I literally mean this. Maybe people are a little more understanding now that the Internet is open and out there. Or maybe... now they just think that you are weak since you can't "get over it" as they have already "done" (although I don't think I've run across any who have had tried to get over as much material as I have). Unfortunately, it's not so easy to "get over" the fact that the person you're supposed to be following is just human as the rest of us. :-/

[marts1]

I came across something in the BoM awhile ago which was contrary to church teachings which shook me a fair bit. I called around talking to many very knowledgable members and got all different answers of which none could satisfy me. It took me a couple days of very serious prayer and contemplation to realize the reason I know the church is true as well as the BoM is not so much becuase of content, but becuase of the Holy Ghost which witness's to me the truth of all things. In hindsight it seems like a simple thing to comprehend but those were 2 very trying days for me.

[rameumptom]

From: I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

It's really sad to see a church historian, Davis Bitton, saying something like that. I'd ask him to rewrite his article. There are real, legitimate people out there leaving the church, yes, because of church history. It might not effect him but it does others. This is supposed to be the church of Christ, and here we have such a hostile non-loving statement being issued by a church leader: The church was never wrong. It's your own damn fault.

The Church was never wrong? Never? President Spencer W. Kimball never stated that the Adam-God theory was "wrong"? The First Presidency never recently apologized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

You are mistaken if you think our Church and its history are perfect. The core doctrines are true. The authority is true. But even the modern GAs will tell you they are not perfect. Pres Packer has recently given several General Conference talks on their imperfections on issues. But he's also stressed that the importance is in the truths we do have and the authority.

Brother Bitton was not being hostile. He was being a realist. One's testimony should have nothing to do with Church history. It doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith used only the Urim and Thummim, or also used a seer stone to translate the gold plates. It doesn't matter if Joseph had some things wrong along the way. It doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith was a polygamist or not. It doesn't matter if Brigham Young espoused some things which we just do not believe today.

What does matter is whether God called these men to be prophets, and gave them the authority. And that is Brother Bitton's point.

Too many lazy members believe that the prophets must be infallible, or the Church is false. They don't think for themselves. All of the prophets have told us to pray for our own testimonies on a variety of things, yet most members take things at face value. They don't dig to learn the gospel, but only seek the veneer on top. And when an occasional problem pops up, it destroys their shallow testimony.

So what if Joseph Smith married young girls? So what if Moses wiped out entire cities, including women and children? Those things are not the key issue. The key issue is priesthood authority from God.

[rameumptom]

BTW, I was in the audience at FAIR when Brother Bitton gave that talk. It was brilliant, and we all were in agreement with it: and this from some of the smartest apologists in the Church.

[sd22]

I don't really care who claims to be the smartest. It does matter when the infallible and only true and living church upon the face of the earth that is directed by Christ himself is wrong. This is a big issue for me, and for it not to be for you, well, that raises some questions I have as to what's keeping you in and how strong you really are. I'm not looking to come here to argue. Some of your points were good. But Brother Bitton makes some comments that I don't believe, shock and dismay, are realistic about what is really going inside people's hearts and minds when they discover the fallibilities of the church. These people are not weak. They simply know what they expect of a church directed by Christ himself, and some things just do not cut it.

[HiJolly]

I don't really care who claims to be the smartest. It does matter when the infallible and only true and living church upon the face of the earth that is directed by Christ himself is wrong.

The only infallible church is The Church of the Firstborn, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "True" can mean useful, like a 'true' arrow is useful. This view of yours WILL fail. You need to be more flexible and practical, or you will go down with your previous false faith.

Yes, the church IS true -- it's just not true the way some people naively want it to be. Just like my parents aren't as infallible and perfect as I wanted them to be.

But Brother Bitton makes some comments that I don't believe, shock and dismay, are realistic about what is really going inside people's hearts and minds when they discover the fallibilities of the church. These people are not weak. They simply know what they expect of a church directed by Christ himself, and some things just do not cut it.

Brother Bitton is exactly right. Black and white thinking is dangerous. Flexibility is life. I wish the best for you, but if you do not revise your approach, you're headed for a big fall.

HiJolly

[Dravin]

This is a big issue for me, and for it not to be for you, well, that raises some questions I have as to what's keeping you in and how strong you really are.

Ah... the assertion of righteousness, if you don't think the same way I do it must be because you are less righteous than I. Classic.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Dravin