Bible Under Fire

[Red]

I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why?

We can look at alleged contradictions, moral issues, historical/archiological/scientific contentions, higher textual criticism and any other bone anyone might have to pick with God's word. Of course, any other religious literature will be fair game as well...

I'll try to research and answer questions to the best of my ability (hopefully I won't be the only one...gulp!).

I'll start of with an issue Snow brought up...

[Red]

Snow asked:

1 Samuel 17:50 says David slew Goliath. 2 Samuel 21:19 tells us that it was Elhanan that did the deed.

Which one do you want me to trust and which one do you want me to believe that was uninspiredly written or preserved?

Here are the verses in question:

1 Sam 17:50 (KJV)

"David prevailed over the Philistine [Goliath from Gath] with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David."

2 Sam 21:19 (KJV)

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

First of all, these two verses are describing two entirely different battles: the first when David was a boy with a slingshot and the second when He was an aging King. In fact, in this later battle he was almost killed (2 Samuel 21:15-17). So even if it did say "Elhanan slew Goliath," we need only imagine that "Goliath" was a popular name that year. But instead it says "Elhanan...slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite."

But that's not the whole story. In the Hebrew it does say "Elhanan slew Goliath." This is a scribal error. I'll let some commentators explain:

"Verse 19. Elhanan the son of Jaare oregim slew Goliath the Gittite. Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that µygra oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that ymjlh tyb beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from ymjl ta eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc."

—Adam Clarke's Commentary

"2Sa 21:19 - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,.... Another battle with them in the same place: where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite; the word "brother" is rightly supplied from 1Ch_20:5; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan; he was one of David's worthies, 2Sa_23:24; where he is called the son of Dodo, and in 1Ch_20:5, the son of Jair; and Lahmi there may not be the name of Goliath's brother, but, as here, the country name of Elhanan; for the words (z) there may be rendered,"and Elhanan the son of Jair, the Lehemite (i.e. the Bethlehemite), slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,''and so perfectly agrees, with this: the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam; not of Goliath's brother, but of Goliath himself, 1Sa_17:7."

--John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

So does the fact of scribal error undermine the whole Bible? No. As we see here, scribal errors are caught and corrected. Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original. If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable (that is, of course, if one believes in God).

[prisonchaplain]

I'll try to research and answer questions to the best of my ability (hopefully I won't be the only one...gulp!).

I got your back, Red. Look out! Duck! Whew! That was close

I think I found the same information you did, Red...but here it is, for those who want to know.

http://www.carm.org/diff/1Sam17_50.htm

P.S. I'm guessing the main source for this answer, Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, will probably have answers to many of these types of questions.

[Amphiblitz]

Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original.

I'm not sure we can be certain that "we can reconstruct the original" perfectly. But I do believe that through study of things available and prayer, the Spirit can and does make sense of things for everyone who earnestly seeks it.

If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable[...]

...or that in conjunction with His Spirit, it is reliable.

[Snow]

So does the fact of scribal error undermine the whole Bible? No. As we see here, scribal errors are caught and corrected. Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original. If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable (that is, of course, if one believes in God).

Okay - so you have changed your story. Originally you said that the bible was properly transmitted. Since you no longer maintain that, then yes, copyist error is possibly as good an explanation for biblical error as any other explanation. Either that or that is was incorrectly written to begin with. Either way - it is in error with regard to Goliath.

Should we accept your apologist explanation of the biblical confusion on the matter of Goliath's killer?

Probably not and here's why. The account of David and Goliath pegs Goliath at 6 cubits and a span tall, that makes him about ten feet tall. News flash: They don't grow em that tall, not even down on the farm. The story already lacks credibility. Another version of the story contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls put Goliath at a still huge but believable six foot nine inches.

Next, in the David/Goliath account, after the slaying, David chops off the behemoth's head and takes it to the King Saul in Jerusalem. What's the problem with that? Saul wasn't in Jerusalem. Saul’s capital was Gibeah, in Judah and Jerusalem wasn't even part of Saul's Kingdom. It would be years before David himself would conquer Jerusalem. But that's not the end of the Saul problem. In the end of the David/Goliath story, Saul doesn't even know who David is. However, we are earlier told that Saul did in fact know David both as his armour bearer and an entertainer and indeed David was favored in Saul's sight. So does he know him or not? The answer to that depends or which parts you choose to believe.

What really happened? Who know's - it's all speculation. Could be scribal error, could be fiction, could be poor and incorrect history. Most likely the confusion is a product of different authors writing different accounts and the redactor of the the two narratives not weaving them together as carefully as he should have - hence we have in the OT, 2 creation accounts, 2 flood accounts and 2 Goliath accounts.

The Bible paints David as some superhuman uberKing. The historical or archeological evidence for that is very poor. More, it seems he was a local or regional leader whose history was embellished to make him appear almost mythical as part of creating a Jewish history and legacy. Why, Why - young David killed a not just a Phillistine, but, but a giant, yes that's it, a 10 foot giant and all with his little slingshot.

The King James translators saw the conflict and tried to hide it by adding in "the brother of" Goliath to the story of the Elhanan killing but in fact that was a manufacture of words that were not in the manuscripts. The manuscripts clearly said that Elhanan killed Goliath. Davids probably did kill someone but his biographers borrowed from the Elhanan story to pump up the King.

[Guest Syble]

I think it has the essentials for its purpose. It teaches Christ, Him crucified, the necessity of rebirth, forgiveness, loving one another, going the extra mile etc.

[prisonchaplain]

Should we accept your apologist explanation of the biblical confusion on the matter of Goliath's killer?

Probably not and here's why.

Like any faith dilemma, how stridently we attempt to uphold the truth of biblical information, and such discrepancies as the Goliath/Elhannan episode, depends on how strongly you believe the Bible is true in detail as well as spirit.

1. Fundamentalists will fall on a spear over every jot, tittle and comma to prove that the 1611 KJV Bible is true.

2. Evangelicals will accept scribal errors, but will also go to great pains to solve discrepancies such as the Goliath story.

3. Liberals/Progressives/Modernists etc. embrace the overall message of God's love, and will sometimes join forces with critics, because they are often embarrassed by their "backward bretheren."

I'll camp with Red and Archer on this one. Somebody will be saying, "I told you so," in the life to come.

[Traveler]

I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why?

What is the Bible – really? Where did it come from and how did we get it today in English? What has history contributed to determining our understanding of the Bible?

I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was. Today we have some ancient text and we have some modern attempts based on medieval standards to unveil ancient thought in modern context but in reality we do not have a real Bible. As we look at the truth of various sciences and respect for accuracy and truth of information we find the medieval or Dark Ages did shamefully little to maintain accuracy of anything filtered through that time. Concepts of individual dignity and worth are historically shameful. The light of Christianity expressed in through the ages as honorable concerning wars, politics and social morals is ignored, covered up or distorted up in light of modern discretions.

The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians. There are more Christians of declared different concepts based on the Bible with each new generation.

The Bible of today and of history has not been a means of stabilizing doctrines and practices of Christians but has fueled changes to the point that Christians today are as different from Christians of 1000 years ago as they are from current Moslems, Hindus or most any other modern religion.

Even when Jesus and his apostles walked and taught, the historian Flavius Josephus recorded of massive and multiple efforts to modify and distort scripture text. His main purpose in writing was an attempt to preserve some small remnant of the store of accurate scripture that still existed while he lived.

Before the end of the first century of the Christian era the scriptures comprising the New Testament were hidden in an obscure Christian church at Mt Sinai to prevent distortions going on at the time. These texts were discovered over 150 years ago but the Christian scholars that control these text have never even allowed a list of the books that comprise this sacred cash let alone a translation of any text – yet without question these text meet all the criteria historically established in identifying the most accurate scriptural text. Most Christians do not even know of their existence (and are deliberately kept from knowing).

Most religious scholars are ether ignoring the Dead Sea Scripture or attempting to explain away their differences and doctrinal enlightenments or to keep them from being distributed.

The Christians of the East (often referred to as Nestorian Christians) have in possession a letter claimed to be written personally by the hand of Christ. Every effort to scientifically validate this manuscript indicates that it came from Jerusalem when Jesus lived. Yet most Christians do not know of its existence or of it contents.

It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why?

We can look at alleged contradictions, moral issues, historical/archiological/scientific contentions, higher textual criticism and any other bone anyone might have to pick with God's word. Of course, any other religious literature will be fair game as well...

I'll try to research and answer questions to the best of my ability (hopefully I won't be the only one...gulp!).

If you are using the word “Bible” to refer to a collection of all the books we now have which were written as Man received inspiration from God, from some of your other posts I have seen that you are the “something in between” type yourself, so perhaps you would care to tell us why you don’t trust the “word of God” from all sources.

[Jason]

I'll camp with Red and Archer on this one. Somebody will be saying, "I told you so," in the life to come.

Yep. It'll say..."Chap, I gave you a brain to reason with...now why didn't you use it!"

[Snow]

If you are using the word “Bible” to refer to a collection of all the books we now have which were written as Man received inspiration from God, from some of your other posts I have seen that you are the “something in between” type yourself, so perhaps you would care to tell us why you don’t trust the “word of God” from all sources.

Is that just a little obvious Ray. He does trust the word of God. He just doesn't believe that everything you believe is, in fact, the word or God.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

If you are using the word “Bible” to refer to a collection of all the books we now have which were written as Man received inspiration from God, from some of your other posts I have seen that you are the “something in between” type yourself, so perhaps you would care to tell us why you don’t trust the “word of God” from all sources.

Is that just a little obvious Ray. He does trust the word of God. He just doesn't believe that everything you believe is, in fact, the word or God.

I said Red is "somewhere in between" because he is "somewhere in between" those who accept none of the word of God and all of the word of God.

I'll try to make it a little more clear for you next time.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

If you are using the word “Bible” to refer to a collection of all the books we now have which were written as Man received inspiration from God, from some of your other posts I have seen that you are the “something in between” type yourself, so perhaps you would care to tell us why you don’t trust the “word of God” from all sources.

Is that just a little obvious Ray. He does trust the word of God. He just doesn't believe that everything you believe is, in fact, the word or God.

I said Red is "somewhere in between" because he is "somewhere in between" those who accept none of the word of God and all of the word of God.

I'll try to make it a little more clear for you next time.

Okay - it's clear now. You being cute or clever. Of course Red would say that he is not in between - that he does accept all the word of God. I guess you were too subtle for me.

[prisonchaplain]

What is the Bible – really? Where did it come from and how did we get it today in English? What has history contributed to determining our understanding of the Bible?

I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was.

Evangelicals, and I believe most LDS, believe that the 66 books that comprise the Holy Bible are the Word of God. My understanding, thus far, is that Mormons allow more room for translation errors and faulty manuscripts than do evangelicals. Nevertheless, I've understood that moderate to conservative camps in both faiths agree on this issue. We have manuscripts now that date back to the 200s I believe. We compare those with the medieval texts used to translate the KJV--and the manuscripts are numerous--and find very few discrepancies. If my memory serves me correctly, those passages of Scripture that the scholars argue over make up far less than one percent of the text, and the areas of dispute never involve theologically significant issues (I'm speaking now of the text itself, not of doctrines).

So, Traveler, for you to suggest that we really don't have a true Bible, but only a shadow of what God intended, implies some pretty radical departures from both Mormon and LDS orthodoxy concerning Scripture. Am I wrong, here?

The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians. There are more Christians of declared different concepts based on the Bible with each new generation. The Bible of today and of history has not been a means of stabilizing doctrines and practices of Christians but has fueled changes to the point that Christians today are as different from Christians of 1000 years ago as they are from current Moslems, Hindus or most any other modern religion.

If I were to accept your assertions here--and they are not totally without merit--I would suggest that your dissatisfaction be aimed at religious leaders, not at the Bible. I've had this discussion with Snow before as well. My contention is that Christian churches (and no, I cannot include the LDS in this trend) have become increasingly cooperative in the past 40 years or so. Southern Baptist leaders speak at Assemblies of God conventions and vice versa. Pentecostals, who used to be parriah-status to evangelicals, now make up the largest bloc in the National Association of Evangelicals. The cross-denominational cooperation of groups like Promise Keepers, Billy Graham Crusades, pro-life politics, Christian bookstores (selling Catholic materials right next to TBN stuff), etc. Also, increasingly churches are renaming themselves, dropping the denominational affiliation from their names. Thus First Assembly, becomes Life Center, etc. Additionally, with increased technology and communication, we're looking more and more alike. Do a study on the "pentcostalization of worship services." You'll find we're singing the same songs, increasingly using the same worship styles--and we are learning from each other. We still disagree about some teachings, but we seem to be agreeing on more and more.

Even when Jesus and his apostles walked and taught, the historian Flavius Josephus recorded of massive and multiple efforts to modify and distort scripture text. His main purpose in writing was an attempt to preserve some small remnant of the store of accurate scripture that still existed while he lived.

Do you not believe that God would preserve enough of his Word to "feed" his followers?

Before the end of the first century of the Christian era the scriptures comprising the New Testament were hidden in an obscure Christian church at Mt Sinai to prevent distortions going on at the time. These texts were discovered over 150 years ago but the Christian scholars that control these text have never even allowed a list of the books that comprise this sacred cash let alone a translation of any text – yet without question these text meet all the criteria historically established in identifying the most accurate scriptural text. Most Christians do not even know of their existence (and are deliberately kept from knowing).

More often than not, so-called "lost books of the Bible" turn out to be extrabiblical texts, that might be historically useful, but which were not intended by God to be part of the sacred canon.

Most religious scholars are ether ignoring the Dead Sea Scripture or attempting to explain away their differences and doctrinal enlightenments or to keep them from being distributed.

Maybe this part should fit under BenRaines conspiracy theory thread? I'm frankly skeptical of claims that secret cabals of church leaders or theologians are keeping Scripture hidden from the unsuspecting masses.

The Christians of the East (often referred to as Nestorian Christians) have in possession a letter claimed to be written personally by the hand of Christ. Every effort to scientifically validate this manuscript indicates that it came from Jerusalem when Jesus lived. Yet most Christians do not know of its existence or of it contents.

The problem with the National Enquirer is that once in awhile a story proves true. Since they don't have to wait for verification, they get the story out first. There are many "stories" about hidden or lost biblical texts. I'm convinced we have what God wants us to have.

It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs.

I have a greater confidence in God's ability to communicate, and less confidence in corrupt religious leaders ability to supress that communication than you do.

[prisonchaplain]

Yep. It'll say..."Chap, I gave you a brain to reason with...now why didn't you use it!"

Jason, Jason, Jason...tsk tsk tsk! I know that you are well aware that there are many highly educated Christians, evangelical, LDS, and otherwise. You also know that, for all the complaints about the dark ages, in many countries of the world, Christian missionaries actually brought modern higher education. As an example, many of the great universities in Korea were established by Presbyterian missionaries.

All this to say, it just won't do for you to insinuate that Christians of any category are unreasoning. Faith is not ignorance. It is a willingness to look at some indicators, to believe that God desires to speak to me, and combine that with faith. Blind faith is indeed foolishness, but I doubt anyone could function if they relied soley on 100% verifiable information. Even scientific theories "evolve."

[Traveler]

So, Traveler, for you to suggest that we really don't have a true Bible, but only a shadow of what God intended, implies some pretty radical departures from both Mormon and LDS orthodoxy concerning Scripture. Am I wrong, here?

We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.

Do you not believe that God would preserve enough of his Word to "feed" his followers?

I do not believe G-d forces his word on anyone - He will only give what man will accept. The scriptures tell that man must seek in order to find. Those that do not seek will not fine. Do you disagree with this notion?

More often than not, so-called "lost books of the Bible" turn out to be extrabiblical texts, that might be historically useful, but which were not intended by God to be part of the sacred canon.

I think you have missed the point. These manuscripts were written when the Apostles were still leaving - before man decided what the Bible ought to be. And those in control will not even let their fellow Christians know what the books in the manuscriptures are. About 7 years ago I joined with a team of Eastern Orthodox Christians to have these manuscripts released. In general these manuscripts were not released because there was not enough interest. I Do not understand Christians that refuse to care - I do not understand it. Some of these manuscripts may have been written by the very hand of Apostles. The most correct New Testament scriptures available and Christians just do not care. It appears to you thay you do not care eather - you would make excuses rather that seek answers. That is fine but I am not like that - I seek answers and I want to know.

.

The problem with the National Enquirer is that once in awhile a story proves true. Since they don't have to wait for verification, they get the story out first. There are many "stories" about hidden or lost biblical texts. I'm convinced we have what God wants us to have.

.

Wow - I think you are uninformed. We have known about the Nestorian Christians and their manuscript since the Crusades. There have been efforts to discredit their claims that have failed so most Western Christians just ignore the Nestorian Christians. They have been believers there with all the history we have here in the west. So you think G-d only cares about Christians in the West? Just to let you know they claim to be the decendent of the Magi that came to the Birth of Christ. Their tridition ought to at least be allowed to be considered by fellow Christians. But most Christians I run across behave like you. If you do not already have it you will not listen, but believe they should listen to your opinion about what is scripture. Regardless of what they have.

[.

I have a greater confidence in God's ability to communicate, and less confidence in corrupt religious leaders ability to supress that communication than you do.

I am glad you say you have confidence in G-d's ability to communicate - Where did G-d communicate that the scriptures should be cannonized and where did he communicate what scriptures were to be included in the cannonization he wants.

If G-s did not communicate this important knowledge - would you join me in telling the world that man should not put words into G-d's mouth that G-d had not spoken or intended and that the corrupt religious leaders in history had no authority what-so-ever to create a cannon of scripture and say what that cannon ought to be?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.

I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church.

I do not believe G-d forces his word on anyone - He will only give what man will accept. The scriptures tell that man must seek in order to find. Those that do not seek will not fine. Do you disagree with this notion?

BUT we're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about the Church. Are you suggestion that your own LDS church is also not willing to see...that God is not 'forcing his word' on the LDS Church. Or, am I wrong--is it considering adding some of these texts you refer to?

I think you have missed the point. These manuscripts were written when the Apostles were still leaving - before man decided what the Bible ought to be. And those in control will not even let their fellow Christians know what the books in the manuscriptures are.

There are many manuscripts written around the time of Christ and the first generation of the Church which did not become part of the canon. The Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic heresy) is one example. Just because something was written at the same time as the New Testament does not mean it was missed. God has always had a remnant. And, we are convinced that God's anointing was on the canonization as much as it was on the writings themselves. It often is equally important what gets left out as what gets put in.

About 7 years ago I joined with a team of Eastern Orthodox Christians to have these manuscripts released. In general these manuscripts were not released because there was not enough interest. I Do not understand Christians that refuse to care - I do not understand it. Some of these manuscripts may have been written by the very hand of Apostles. The most correct New Testament scriptures available and Christians just do not care. It appears to you thay you do not care eather - you would make excuses rather that seek answers. That is fine but I am not like that - I seek answers and I want to know.

One time a team of Christian university students (American) were sent to Ireland for homestays. I'm not sure how long they stayed, but it must have been at least a few months. Some went to Northern Ireland, others to Protestant areas. After the stays were over, the students got into passionate arguments about the Catholic/Protestant divide there. They had been steeped in the histories, the complaints, the historic slights--and all came away convinced. Me thinks you became close with this particular sect, and gained great sympathy for their views. I'm equally certain you are being quite hasty to so quickly dismiss the sincerity of Non-Eastern Orthodox Christian leaders and scholars who have looked into these matters and reached different conclusions.

I am glad you say you have confidence in G-d's ability to communicate - Where did G-d communicate that the scriptures should be cannonized and where did he communicate what scriptures were to be included in the cannonization he wants.

This is the crux of the issue. You do not believe God ordained the canonization process of the Old or New Testament, whereas I and most of the Christian world (nearly 2 billion strong) do. I'll look into this a bit, and try to get you some intelligent information. However, I'm fairly certain the LDS Church also accepts the canonization process, as far as the compilation of the Bible goes.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.

I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church.

[

I am interested in this too.

Traveler,

What discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls that are not already canonized, should be canonized?

[prisonchaplain]

[i'll look into this a bit, and try to get you some intelligent information. However, I'm fairly certain the LDS Church also accepts the canonization process, as far as the compilation of the Bible goes.

Okay, okay. I did some searching around, and there is a good deal less certainty about this matter than I had thought--especially concerning whether the New Testament canon should even be closed (which may be encouraging for Mormons). To very briefly summarize my findings, the Protestant version of the canon was pretty much settled by the end of the fourth century, and undoubtedly by the sixth. The Syrian Church, which Traveler refers to, does have 81 books, rather than 66--and has for a long time. We also know the Catholic church chose to canonize the intertestamental books--ones that both Jews and Protestants consider of value, but not on the same level as the others. Bottom-line: The process of canonization, while valid and anointed of God, in my view--and in the view of most of Christianity--was a good deal muckier than we'd like to think.

Nevertheless, what I expressed before, was pretty much repeated in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's article on canonization:

The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon.

So, Traveler has put forth an interesting case for the largest biblical canon known--the Syrian set. It will be interesting to see if the LDS Church, or any other major denomination in Christianity takes this up. Apparently there are a few voices here and there calling for a reexamination of the biblical canon. My own guess is that this will not happen anytime soon, however.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

We know from discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the modern Bible is only a small part of sacred scriptures from the past. The problem is not what is there but in what is missing.

I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church.

[

I am interested in this too.

Traveler,

What discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls that are not already canonized, should be canonized?

I am not at home and do not have access to my library. If there really is interest I will post some of the changes. However, I would point out that most versions (KJV excepting) has revised their Versions based on some changes brought about from the DSS.

To PC

Thanks for doing some research. LDS do not believe in cannonizing Scripture. Although we believe in what we call the standard works these are not cannon. We believe that G-d will always add to scripture, at his will, and it is not for man to close off G-d speaking to his people.

According to my personal research the doctrine of cannon is a Pagan doctrine. I find no such doctrine in scripture. It therefore appears to me that the doctrine of cannizing scripture is a heresy and false and part of the paganization of Christianity. That the concept is popular is hardly a reason to say that it is of G-d. In fact the more popular a doctrine is - that is not in scripture - the more I am inclined to not believe it without some divine indication.

Here is my point, if the Bible is indeed cannon for doctrine - would this not mean that all validity of doctrine is to be based on if it is reflected somewhere in the Bible. If the doctrine is not in the cannon then it must be heresy. But the doctirine of cannon is not a Biblical doctrine. Therefore, whereever the doctrine of cannon came from would have to be a more reliable source than the Bible but if there is something more reliable how could the Bible be cannon? The doctrine fails within itself. Which is exactly my point. The doctrine of cannon is proof of Apostasy - which is the only reason for the LDS doctrine of a "restoration".

One of the great critizism of LDS is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture (The Word of G-d). This is because we have means to add scripture. We publically recognize that G-d speaks again. I understand that other do not believe this - which is fine. But I have posted because I do not understand the doctrine of Cannon or why it has such power over so many. The LDS method of determining scripture is different from the world. The reason I brought up other scripture is not because it meets LDS standards for scripture but becuse many of these manuscripts meet the historical standard that was claimed to be the standard when the Bible was determined. And I do not see that the determination came from G-d as scripture.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon.

What you are saying here is exactly what I do not understand. You say that the Christian church is build upon the scripture. But I do not see the doctrine of cannon in that scripture. It also seems to me that this building of the kingdom (or church) upon the scriputres is a doctirne of the Pharicees and Scribs in critizism of Christ. They had the law and the prophets which was their guide. Jesus said that the purpose of these things (scripture) were to testify of him. It it Christ (the Messiah) that we must look for as the corner stone upon which the church must be built - not scripture.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for doing some research. LDS do not believe in cannonizing Scripture. Although we believe in what we call the standard works these are not cannon. We believe that G-d will always add to scripture, at his will, and it is not for man to close off G-d speaking to his people.

I would contend that the LDS Church does have a canon of Scriptures, and that it is the Sacred Works. What Mormons do not have is a closed canon. See the attached for an excellent description of canon, including a portion on Latter Day Saint canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

According to my personal research the doctrine of cannon is a Pagan doctrine. I find no such doctrine in scripture. It therefore appears to me that the doctrine of cannizing scripture is a heresy and false and part of the paganization of Christianity. That the concept is popular is hardly a reason to say that it is of G-d. In fact the more popular a doctrine is - that is not in scripture - the more I am inclined to not believe it without some divine indication.

When you say that canonization is a "Pagan doctrine," I assume that what you really mean is that it is wrong to declare the canon closed. I'm not sure what church leaders closing the canon has to do with Paganism, however.

As to why the church developed a canon, and closed it, see the following short timeline:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html

What's most interesting is the development of the Marcion heresy. We know there were others, such as the Gnostic heresy. My hypothesis is that the canon developed, and was more or less closed, by the same process that the doctrine of the Trinity developed--in response to heresies that arrived. Note the parallels:

1. Bishop Arius teaches his local parish, which was steeped in polytheistic paganism, that God the Father is the one and only God, and that Jesus was his created Son--godlike, but not the one God. His reasoning is that the doctrine that God is one, yet that Jesus is fully God would confuse the people. As this, and other challenges to a very general understanding that God is one, yet in three persons continued to arise, the Church needed to formalize a doctrinal position on who God was.

2. Marcion offers some false teachings, as do others, and church leaders realize they need parameters. There needs to be guidelines for determining which writings are scripturally authoritative, and which are not. Eventually, the canons emerge.

3. Likewise, in my own movement, there was an intial relectance to have any "Statement of Faith," since most of the Pentecostal pioneers had been excommunicated, or simply kicked out, of their churches. There was a strong independent streak, and a desire to rely on the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the formulations of men. However, the Oneness heresy changed all that. In the early 19-teens a movement developed that said true Christians must be water baptised in Jesus name only, that the Trinity was a false doctrine, that Jesus was God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. That God was one person who simply manifested himself in three ways. Now those early pioneers realized that if they simply told people to believe what they wanted, as the Holy Ghost led them, well some would be led by false spirits into false teachings. So, to this day, if you examine the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith, the doctrines of God, Jesus, and the Trinity take up over 2/3rds of the statement, even though they are only three of the 16 doctrines.

So, why the canonization? The same reason we have detailed creeds in church history, and modern statements of faith. As challenges and false teachings arise, greater definition of what is basic and true becomes necessary. So, did God ordain these processes, or did apostate (or the more modern, "misguided") church leaders develop them without the leading of the Holy Ghost?

The doctrine of cannon is proof of Apostasy - which is the only reason for the LDS doctrine of a "restoration".

Except that the LDS Church does have a canon--one that is open. And, if your reasoning is correct--that there is no basis for a biblical canon--then the fact that the LDS version is open does not let the church off your heresy hook. On the other hand, you do make a reasonable case for an open canon--and even a canon that can be reviewed. I'm not sure I'm ready to say such a review is ready today, but I'm no longer able to dismiss the idea with consideration, either.

One of the great critizism of LDS is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture (The Word of G-d). This is because we have means to add scripture. We publically recognize that G-d speaks again. I understand that other do not believe this - which is fine. But I have posted because I do not understand the doctrine of Cannon or why it has such power over so many. The LDS method of determining scripture is different from the world. The reason I brought up other scripture is not because it meets LDS standards for scripture but becuse many of these manuscripts meet the historical standard that was claimed to be the standard when the Bible was determined. And I do not see that the determination came from G-d as scripture.

Again, I'd suggest that the "LDS method of determining scripture," while perhaps different from the rest of Christianity (Please--to say "the world" implies unregenerate ungodliness), is also a form of canonization. Clearly, the LDS process is more fluid and pliable, in that it is open. And, the fact that LDS written canon is to be interpreted in the light of any modern interpretation offered by the current church prophet does indeed make it incredibly open. Nevertheless, we are not really discussing the difference between having a canon and not having one, but whether the canon can be closed or not.

[Snow]

Yeah.

What are you talking about Traveler.

The Standard Works are our canon.

[Guest Monica]

What version are we talking about?

[Red]

<div class='quotemain'>

So does the fact of scribal error undermine the whole Bible? No. As we see here, scribal errors are caught and corrected. Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original. If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable (that is, of course, if one believes in God).

Okay - so you have changed your story. Originally you said that the bible was properly transmitted. Since you no longer maintain that...

I'm dropping in for just a second, haven't to read much--thrilled to see two pages of discussion already! WOW!

And Snow,

No, I am not changing my story, but explaining in further detail what I really do hold to. To say that we can "reconstruct the original" and that "the bible has been properly transmitted" are the same thing. The bottomline of my view is that no portion of God's word which He intended to preserve for us has been lost (that is, from the pool of textual evidence as a whole), neither was it untrue when first written.

I'm a little surprised at you Snow. I never expected you, as LDS, to be such an impirical rationalist. That kind of thing can be good, but not if it opposes God (because then it would be false). I don't think that you'll get anywhere hinting that the Bible was corrupt even when first written, and denying the historicity of certain miracles. I don't think that many other LDS would back you up on either point.

I'll post more as Homework allows...

THANK YOU PRISONCHAPLIAN!!!!