How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???

[rameumptom]

One thing regarding the discussion of translation versus interpretation, as SonInMe tends to suggest they are entirely different issues. 2 Peter 1 teaches us:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Anciently, those holy men were known as prophets and apostles. Amos 3:7 tells us that God only reveals his secrets through prophets.

While anciently we can see that there were many prophets (called the "sons of the prophets"), yet there was always a specific leader of those prophets. The story of Elijah passing his mantle on to Elisha is a perfect example of this. There were many of the sons of the prophets, but the mantle of leadership only went to one.

Too many people today privately interpret the Bible to the point that it can become a meaningless book. One must be baptized, or one doesn't need baptism for salvation. There are works of the Spirit, or there are no spiritual gifts today. There is a Trinity or there is a Godhead. There is a priesthood of believers, or there is a specific priesthood that must be given by the laying on of hands by those with authority. Grace versus works for salvation. TULIP versus free will.

I could go on with this list, but you get the idea (I hope). Each of these issues is a "private interpretation" UNLESS a prophet teaches us what the scripture actually means. If we were to go with the idea of a God-Breathed perfect Bible, then it should be perfect enough to not be misinterpreted. Yet, we see that on many issues of doctrine, people cannot agree.

If the Bible is completely perfect, then we cannot have "set asides" like you do with the Comma Johanneum. It is a clear evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Either it was included or excluded from the original. Both cannot be true and still have the Bible as perfect. So, in this instance, a living prophet is needed to tell us whether that phrase is God-breathed inspiration, or an emendation by early Christian scribes that wanted to enforce the idea of the Trinity.

For me, this is one of the most compelling reasons for a living prophet and modern scripture. I still have to seek inspiration to understand the scriptures, but it is much easier with the guidance of a living prophet to enlighten us regarding the doctrines and principles of the gospel.

Edited August 16, 2010 by rameumptom

[FunkyTown]

Understood, so far as we are discusing interpretation.

Now as far as translation, what meanings are lost? Which verses are you refering to that the translators altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended? This is huge!

I think you're being disingenuous here, Son, or potentially arguing semantics. Translation is the act of interpreting words in to another language. Saying that we're not arguing interpretation, but translation seems a fine point.

I'll give an example, if you truly do think they're completely separate:

Genesis 2:17 - Many bibles state this as 'Thou shalt surely die' in the script.

The transliteration is 'Dying, thou shalt die'. That is the literal translation of the script. As you can see, people have said 'The purpose of repeating the word 'Dying' in Hebrew is to ensure people knew there was no choice. It became an assured consequence that they would die.

This is an interpretation that has come to be included in most scripture. I would agree that this is most likely the meaning behind the words, but would you agree that this is, in fact, an interpretation of the text, since it is not a literal movement of words and tenses from one language to the next?

[GDKT]

I think one of the quickest ways to settle the "what is missing/mistranslated" from the Bible discussion is to take a look at the Joseph Smith Translation. Just the fact that it exists shows LDS members that God deemed the bible at least partially incorrect. If you go back and read some of the JST verses, you will see where some errors have occurred in the current translations of the bible.

Also, see the following link to view a list of scriptures which identify other (possible) books of scripture that have not been found/identified today.

Topical Guide: Scriptures, Lost

[Maureen]

I think one of the quickest ways to settle the "what is missing/mistranslated" from the Bible discussion is to take a look at the Joseph Smith Translation. Just the fact that it exists shows LDS members that God deemed the bible at least partially incorrect. If you go back and read some of the JST verses, you will see where some errors have occurred in the current translations of the bible....

...If the Bible is completely perfect, then we cannot have "set asides" like you do with the Comma Johanneum. It is a clear evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Either it was included or excluded from the original. Both cannot be true and still have the Bible as perfect. So, in this instance, a living prophet is needed to tell us whether that phrase is God-breathed inspiration, or an emendation by early Christian scribes that wanted to enforce the idea of the Trinity.

For me, this is one of the most compelling reasons for a living prophet and modern scripture. I still have to seek inspiration to understand the scriptures, but it is much easier with the guidance of a living prophet to enlighten us regarding the doctrines and principles of the gospel.

Joseph Smith left the Comma Johanneum in his Bible translation (the JST). What does this tell us of his opinion of these verses? Does the fact that JS left them in, give the verses credibility. Or does it just cause more questions?

M.

[GDKT]

Robert J Matthews, a BYU historian discussing the matter in 1975 said:

"...the manuscript shows that Smith went all the way through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. But it also shows that he did not make all the necessary corrections in one effort. This situation makes it impossible to give a statistical answer to questions about how much of the translation was completed or how much was not completed. What is evident, however, is that any part of the translation might have been further touched upon and improved by additional revelation and emendation by Smith."

I do not question what is or isn't written in the JST. What I did question is whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Knowing that, the rest is secondary.

"The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth" - Bruce R McConkie, Ensign

If the Comma Johanneum were to indicate a false doctrine, especially one dealing with the Godhead, I personally believe it would have been corrected by Joseph Smith. However, I do not see any discrepancies between the Church's belief and the Comma Johanneum "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." We know God the father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings--united as one in purpose. We know God and Jesus both have physical bodies of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost is a Spirit with no body, were it not so he could not permanently dwell within us.

Edited August 16, 2010 by GDKT

[Faded]

As to the original question ...

How does the LDS church resolve conflicts between it's beliefs and what the Bible teaches us. If one accepts the Bible as the Word of God, when teachings of the church conflict with the Bible both can't be right

It's never a matter of The Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible contradicting one another. Depending upon how you interpret the Bible, you could say that the Bible contradicts every Christian denomination on this earth. It's not so much that the Bible contradicts them, it's more that certain well-established interpretations of the Bible contradict them. Every single Christian denomination can be thoroughly denounced and revealed as fraudulent -- all you have to do is find the appropriate way to interpret the Bible.

Therefore lets start with the first one in Genesis. How can the Mormon church believe that if Adam & Eve hadn't sinned and committed the first sin, and therefore the fall of man kind we wouldn't be here today ? When that's CLEARLY not what the Bible teaches ?

I don't recall anything in Genesis weighing in on this one way or the other. Genesis leaves ample room for this doctrinal possibility, but does not explicitly teach it either.

[rameumptom]

Maureen, et al;

The JST was not a complete translation. In fact, it really isn't a translation in modern terms. In Joseph Smith's day, the term "translation" could both mean to transliterate something into another language, and to improve upon.

The JST is what would be called a pesher or midrash. It is very similar to the commentaries on scripture we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Habakkuk Commentary. This is where one takes the scripture and amplifies it. This can include clarifying it, applying it to a specific current situation (such as the DSS authors believing the Kittim were the Romans), or even adding to the scripture because one has a greater understanding of the scripture.

With the JST we get some things that are not "translation" in the modern view, such as the Book of Moses, the writings on Joseph and Melchizedek, etc. These simply are not found in any extant manuscript, with one known exception.

The one exception is in the Book of Moses, where Enoch travels to a place named Mahujah and talks with a man Mahijah, who asks him questions. We actually find a man named Mahujah in the DSS Enoch fragments who is questioning Enoch! Given ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels, Mahijah and Mahujah are the same word. (see Moses 6-7).

How I believed Joseph "translated" was he had possession of a manuscript, and he used it as a catalyst to receive increased and enhanced information regarding it. He "translated" the BoM often with the plates closed. He added to the Bible with nothing really to translate. He once "translated" a parchment that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock, even though he did not have the parchment. And with the Book of Abraham, he had fragments from the Book of the Dead which catalyzed his revelation on Abraham.

As for the Comma Johanneum, it remained simply because Joseph was going through the Bible based upon themes and major stories. He did not complete his work, or if he did, it was not to make a perfect Bible, but an improved Bible.

[Maureen]

Thanks Ram. Do you believe that Joseph Smith had the ability to add clarification to existing scripture but not necessarily to make it read as the "autographs" would have?

M.

[Soninme]

I started posting in this thread because of statements like these about the Bible.

How do you then resolve the conflicts that the Bible seems to have with itself?

It has been changed and distorted over many thousands of years.

So to say that the Bible is 100% the word of God would make God seem contradictory or at the very least, confused.

Fact is I don't need to reconcile a bean of Bible doctrine with anything

I prefer to hear what his Prophet has to say about the Bible this month.

But I'm still curious about how you will explain all the inconsistencies the Bible has with itself. How do you know which is God's word or which is the absolute literal truth and which isn't in that long list of inconsistencies? Why would the "inspired" writers of the Bible be led to write things that contradict and confuse?

Probably my least favorite;

And then realize that if God loves us He won't leave us with only this awkward, handicapped version of His will for us.

This IS NOT what the Lord Jesus Christ thought of the scriptures.

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

Math. 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Mark 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Imagine Jesus qualifying those statements with "as far as it's been translated correctly"

Do a search in the Gospels to see how many times Jesus said "it is written". I did and lost count six times before I gave up.

Luke 16:16-17 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

Not even once did Jesus hint that the scriptures were "changed ,distorted, inconsistent, contadict, conflicted, confused, or awkward and handicapped

He never hinted of scribal errors or mentioned any books that the Jews had left out of the Law and the Prophets. He did though often correct their interpretation (or teaching) of the scriptues.

Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some peoples view of inspiration were true, Jesus was subject to an errant, "changed ,distorted,inconsistent, word of Man. Jesus then would have been subject to the will of man, not the will of God.

However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written.

Luke 16:27-31 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” ( No qualification of accuracy made)

If our walk is to be "Christ like" then shouldn't we have the same view of scripture Jesus has?

He believed they (Old Testament) were translated correctly and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the NT.

I'm sure this thread could go on and on ( and possibly/probably without me) but I felt that truth needed to told.

[jayanna]

Jesus is not subject to it. It is subject to Him. He writes the scriptures. How can you be subject to something you create?

If He says, "hey, you need to fix that" you should fix it.

If we are to be Christlike, then we should have a personal, open communication with Him, especially when trying to understand what few words of His are written.

I believe in a living God.

This is really a kind of silly debate...how do I reconcile what I think are differences? I ask HIM of course...I search I ponder and I pray...doesn't anybody else?

[Elgama]

Thing is Soninme you have whats Jesus THOUGHT of the bible - we know what he THINKS of the BIble

[rameumptom]

I would also look at this verse in the New Testament:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

It does not state that eternal life is in them, but that the Pharisees thought eternal life came from the scriptures. Christ's teaching was that eternal life is in Christ, who is testified of in the scriptures. The scriptures themselves do not save us.

We are saved through Christ. The scriptures are given to us to learn of Christ, through whom we receive salvation. If we close up the scriptures, like the Pharisees of old did in rejecting THE Prophet and his apostles' teachings, then we are no longer living by John 5:39. The scriptures lead us to Christ, but salvation is in Christ as we learn of him from living prophets and apostles, as well as the older scriptures.

[rameumptom]

Thanks Ram. Do you believe that Joseph Smith had the ability to add clarification to existing scripture but not necessarily to make it read as the "autographs" would have?

M.

Yes. In fact, many of the sections in the D&C were actually written and updated over several days, and even months. As Joseph would receive clarification on a revelation, he had no qualms of going back and emending it, or even change large chunks of it.

And his view is not without a type. Early prophets of scripture also did the same thing, as we find happening in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Bible. Jeremiah had his scribe Baruch write an inspired missive to King Jehoiakim. When the king burnt the parchment, Jeremiah had Baruch rewrite it and then added more to it.

When we say it cannot be done any longer, we are limiting God. For those who reject modern prophesy and scripture, they may as well say God is dead as he no longer speaks to mankind.

[Guest]

I started posting in this thread because of statements like these about the Bible.

Probably my least favorite;

This IS NOT what the Lord Jesus Christ thought of the scriptures.

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

Math. 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Mark 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Imagine Jesus qualifying those statements with "as far as it's been translated correctly"

Do a search in the Gospels to see how many times Jesus said "it is written". I did and lost count six times before I gave up.

Luke 16:16-17 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

Not even once did Jesus hint that the scriptures were "changed ,distorted, inconsistent, contadict, conflicted, confused, or awkward and handicapped

He never hinted of scribal errors or mentioned any books that the Jews had left out of the Law and the Prophets. He did though often correct their interpretation (or teaching) of the scriptues.

Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some peoples view of inspiration were true, Jesus was subject to an errant, "changed ,distorted,inconsistent, word of Man. Jesus then would have been subject to the will of man, not the will of God.

However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written.

Luke 16:27-31 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’” ( No qualification of accuracy made)

If our walk is to be "Christ like" then shouldn't we have the same view of scripture Jesus has?

He believed they (Old Testament) were translated correctly and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the NT.

I'm sure this thread could go on and on ( and possibly/probably without me) but I felt that truth needed to told.

Sonimne, and we are right back to my question. WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS CHRIST CONSIDERS AS SCRIPTURES?

Therein lies the difference between you and I.

[Soninme]

Jesus is not subject to it. It is subject to Him.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Yes Jesus kept the law.

He writes the scriptures. How can you be subject to something you create?

If the scripture says Jesus is to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) but instead He was born in Jerusalem ... wouldn't God be a liar? Jesus was born in Bethlehem because He was subject to the scripture.

It's called keeping your word.

If He says, "hey, you need to fix that" you should fix it.

The point of my post was to show the opinions of those that say "hey, you need to fix that" you should fix it" (of the Bible) should understand Jesus NEVER said the translation or words needed to be fixed, just their understanding of it.

This is really a kind of silly debate...how do I reconcile what I think are differences? I ask HIM of course...I search I ponder and I pray...doesn't anybody else?

Ya it is.

I do the same and most of the time He answers through His word.

Elgama Thing is Soninme you have whats Jesus THOUGHT of the bible - we know what he THINKS of the BIble

what???

rameumptom I would also look at this verse in the New Testament:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

It does not state that eternal life is in them, but that the Pharisees thought eternal life came from the scriptures. Christ's teaching was that eternal life is in Christ, who is testified of in the scriptures. The scriptures themselves do not save us.

We are saved through Christ. The scriptures are given to us to learn of Christ, through whom we receive salvation.

Agreed. The Bible nor I ever said eternal life comes from words on a page.

If we close up the scriptures, like the Pharisees of old did in rejecting THE Prophet and his apostles' teachings, then we are no longer living by John 5:39. The scriptures lead us to Christ, but salvation is in Christ as we learn of him from living prophets and apostles, as well as the older scriptures.

John 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

The error of the Pharisees was/is "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

They had the right words, they just didn't believe. They had their own interpretation.

That's a mistake we don't want to make.

Probably my least favorite;

You don't like what Jesus thought of the Scriptures?????????

Sonimne, and we are right back to my question. WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS CHRIST CONSIDERS AS SCRIPTURES?

My point is that FOR CERTAIN Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the word of God. I could ask over and over what books Jesus said were missing from the OT? What chapters He said were translated incorrectly,? What word He said was altered? How many people He thought wrote Isaiah?

We all know the answer to this (NONE) yet those comments I quoted (and more) still get repeated over and over again.

Jesus said; "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."

That's in Math. 24:35 and Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33. Respectfully, I honestly doubt they passed away until the JST came out. That and the many other verses given in previous posts, I believe, show the words of Jesus (gospels) and the apostles in the NT are for sure Holy scripture. Certainly God is God and I'm not, He can add more if He so desires but; 1 Cor. 14:32-33 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. That tells me new revelation must line up with what has been given by the Bible. He won't add teachings that don't follow from the Bible.

Now back to the question I've ask many times with no answer; According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about.

[Elgama]

WHAT??

Well you keep telling us what Jesus said about the Bible using his apostles in first century AD.

This is what he said using his apostles in 2007

The Bible and the Book of Mormon are both witnesses of Jesus Christ. They teach that He is the Son of God, that He lived an exemplary life, that He atoned for all mankind, that He died upon the cross and rose again as the resurrected Lord. They teach that He is the Savior of the world.

Scriptural witnesses authenticate each other. This concept was explained long ago when a prophet wrote that the Book of Mormon was “written for the intent that ye may believe [the Bible]; and if ye believe [the Bible] ye will believe [the Book of Mormon] also.”6 Each book refers to the other. Each book stands as evidence that God lives and speaks to His children by revelation to His prophets.7

Love for the Book of Mormon expands one’s love for the Bible and vice versa. Scriptures of the Restoration do not compete with the Bible; they complement the Bible. We are indebted to martyrs who gave their lives so that we could have the Bible. It establishes the everlasting nature of the gospel and of the plan of happiness. The Book of Mormon restores and underscores biblical doctrines such as tithing,8 the temple,9 the Sabbath day,10 and the priesthood.11

An angel proclaimed that the Book of Mormon12 shall establish the truth of the Bible.13 He also revealed that writings in the Bible available in our day are not as complete as they were when originally written by prophets and apostles.14 He declared that the Book of Mormon shall restore plain and precious things taken away from the Bible.15

A prophecy in the Book of Mormon warned that some people would object to the notion of additional scriptures. To those who think they “need no more Bible,”16 consider this God-given counsel:

“Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, … created all men, … and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

“… Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And … the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.”17

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Scriptural Witnesses

Basically you keep telling people who know what Jesus THINKS now about the Bible. what he THOUGHT about the Bible before the current edition was put into place. Can you not see why quoting scripture is useless in this situation? For anything you produce I can pull a detailed one, spoken in modern English that leaves little room for interpretation to go wrong.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Elgama

[FunkyTown]

I have made a point-by-point discussion of this. I noted you didn't respond to my initial discussion of why translations are interpretations by their very nature.

My point is that FOR CERTAIN Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the word of God.

True.

I could ask over and over what books Jesus said were missing from the OT?

References are made throughout the scriptures of various other scriptures.

Look at Jude 1:14. Enoch is quoted as prophesying. Try to find that prophesy anywhere in your scriptures.

Hebrews 11:5 mentions Enoch and that he never tasted of death. Since this is several thousand years after Enoch. Since this is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament, please tell me how they would have known that.

What chapters He said were translated incorrectly,?

Please tell me which scriptures were translated from Aramaic in to a new language at that time.

What word He said was altered?

Again, please tell me which scriptures were translated to a new tongue in His time and I will answer your question.

How many people He thought wrote Isaiah?

Irrelevant. That's not the discussion here.

We all know the answer to this (NONE) yet those comments I quoted (and more) still get repeated over and over again.

Jesus said; "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."

That's in Math. 24:35 and Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33. Respectfully, I honestly doubt they passed away until the JST came out.

His words did not pass away. You are setting up a strawman argument. No one has suggested they have.

They were merely misinterpreted. This is why the scriptures were used to justify the Crusades, killing and maiming innocents during the Inquisition, the torture of women during the Witchhunts and the murders by the Protestants in Prague against the Catholics.

In all those cases, Scripture was used to justify those things.

Do you claim the world did not have need of a restoration of truth when His word was being set at naught by those who would use it to get gain?

Or perhaps you feel God was powerless to stop those things?

Or perhaps you feel that God was not powerless and that men like Martin Luther battled to restore the interpretation of the gospel to its original meaning. That means you believe, like we do, that the truth needed to be restored. The only difference? You claim restoration by a man. We claim it by a prophet. If you believe this last thing, then you are setting at naught the counsel of God.

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

[MichaelCraig]

Please know that this question is not directed at any one or to anything that has been posted on this thread. It is questions that I overheard someone asking and therefore thought I would throw it out for discussion. Please forgive me and disregard my post if it is too far off topic. I, in NO way am a Bible scholar or even pretend that I know a lot about the OT or the NT. Also I am not posting this to upset anyone and if it does for some reason I truly hope that you will forgive me and provide guidance if possible so that I might be able to understand better why the person might have asked the questions. Ok, here it is:

If the Bible, King James (NT), is incomplete or wrong in any slight way, doesn't that lead one to ask themselves the big question that it may mean the entire gospel of Jesus Christ is not true, therefore any faith that is based on Jesus Christ is also possibly false?

It's an awful thing to even think about but when I heard it I was bothered to some degree. I am still holding firm to my faith 100% and in my belief in my Savour Jesus Christ.

[Jenamarie]

Please know that this question is not directed at any one or to anything that has been posted on this thread. It is questions that I overheard someone asking and therefore thought I would throw it out for discussion. Please forgive me and disregard my post if it is too far off topic. I, in NO way am a Bible scholar or even pretend that I know a lot about the OT or the NT. Also I am not posting this to upset anyone and if it does for some reason I truly hope that you will forgive me and provide guidance if possible so that I might be able to understand better why the person might have asked the questions. Ok, here it is:

If the Bible, King James (NT), is incomplete or wrong in any slight way, doesn't that lead one to ask themselves the big question that it may mean the entire gospel of Jesus Christ is not true, therefore any faith that is based on Jesus Christ is also possibly false?

It's an awful thing to even think about but when I heard it I was bothered to some degree. I am still holding firm to my faith 100% and in my belief in my Savour Jesus Christ.

How could a few errors make the entire thing false?? Certainly the Holy Spirit still testifies of Truth, no matter how many typos or omissions there may or may not be.

[FunkyTown]

It's an awful thing to even think about but when I heard it I was bothered to some degree. I am still holding firm to my faith 100% and in my belief in my Savour Jesus Christ.

I think you're in the right here, but I would warn you: If you're the type of person that your faith in Christ can be shaken by people pointing out inconsistencies in your faith in dogma, then I would recommend you not get involved in these sorts of conversations as dogmatic differences are essentially highlighted by them and each side believes they're in the right right.

I believe that the LDS church is the most correct church on Earth. That is why I am LDS.

If I agreed with all Catholic dogma, I would probably be Catholic. If I agreed with all Western Mennonite Brethren of Canada dogma, I would probably be a Mennonite.

[rameumptom]

Quote:

Jesus is not subject to it. It is subject to Him.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Yes Jesus kept the law

.

There is a difference between keeping the law and being subjected to the Law. As a mortal, he kept the law because it was expected of him. Yet he kept it differently than other scriptural scholars. He was condemned as a winebibber, one who stayed with sinners. He allowed his disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath day, and he healed on the Sabbath. He claimed that the Law and prophets were fulfilled.

So, he wasn't exactly subjected to the Mosaic Law, but he did live it as an example to those around him.

[jayanna]

What doctrines have been changed or lost when compared with the abundance of early manuscripts, codices and fragments that we have today?

Missing texts???

What false interpretations are you referring to?

:

Missing books that are mentioned in the Bible, but are not found in our Bible today...

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14).

If these books were not meant for us to have at this time, then why do these prophets and apostles expect us to read them and be familiar with them? Why do these men of God reference books that we cannot read? Because these book were available to them in THEIR scripures, but are no longer found in ours!

Missing books can still be found in the Catholic Bible that were removed when the Protestants left the Catholic church... These are the Apocrypha:The Second Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobit; The Book of Judith; the rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther; the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon; The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus; The Book of Baruch; The Song of the Three Children; the History of Susanna; Bel and the Dragon; the Prayer of the Manasses; and the first and second Book of the Maccabees.

The Bible was altered by men long before the Church of Jesus Christ was restored. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible. I have learned many things at the knee of my Savior through the words I have read in it, but many plain and precious things have been removed and they need to be restored according to how He sees fit.

Why would an Eternal God's words stop?

Why do you speak of Jesus in the past tense? What does He think of the scriptures now, in our day?

Jesus DID say it needs to be fixed, he just didn't say it to you, because you haven't asked yet.

Edited August 20, 2010 by jayanna

[Hemidakota]

If the bible was complete, there is enough room in my house to facilitate the massive amount of printed pages recorded since Adam until now.

[Soninme]

I have made a point-by-point discussion of this. I noted you didn't respond to my initial discussion of why translations are interpretations by their very nature.

Been a little busy trying to keep up

FunkyTown your point is well taken. However we do have available to us ancient original language manuscript copies to compare our translations to. We can "check the Hebrew" or "check the Greek" if we have doubts.

References are made throughout the scriptures of various other scriptures.

Look at Jude 1:14. Enoch is quoted as prophesying. Try to find that prophesy anywhere in your scriptures.

Paul quoted from sources who weren't in the scriptures. (Acts 17:28) (1 Cor. 15:33) (Titus 1:12)

Eldad and Medad prophesied (Numbers 11:26) along with others, their prophesies weren't recorded along with a whole bunch of what Jesus did; John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Also John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

According to John if they put it all in we would need a bigger planet;)

Hebrews 11:5 mentions Enoch and that he never tasted of death. Since this is several thousand years after Enoch. Since this is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament, please tell me how they would have known that.

From the Holy Spirit.

Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

And

Genesis 5:23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

What chapters He said were translated incorrectly,?

Please tell me which scriptures were translated from Aramaic in to a new language at that time.

Again, please tell me which scriptures were translated to a new tongue in His time and I will answer your question.

The OT was originally written in Hebrew.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. It was translated in the third and second centuries B.C. Some of the quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint.

This I only guess; Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic so it's possible the scriptures were also translated into Aramaic. (I will not die on this hill):)

His words did not pass away. You are setting up a strawman argument. No one has suggested they have.

They were merely misinterpreted. This is why the scriptures were used to justify the Crusades, killing and maiming innocents during the Inquisition, the torture of women during the Witchhunts and the murders by the Protestants in Prague against the Catholics.

In all those cases, Scripture was used to justify those things.

But clearly the Bible doesn't justify those things. Surely all generations have those that twist the Bible; 2 Peter 3:15; "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Not all who say they are of Christ are.(Math. 7:23)

Do you claim the world did not have need of a restoration of truth when His word was being set at naught by those who would use it to get gain?

Or perhaps you feel God was powerless to stop those things?

Or perhaps you feel that God was not powerless and that men like Martin Luther battled to restore the interpretation of the gospel to its original meaning. That means you believe, like we do, that the truth needed to be restored. The only difference? You claim restoration by a man. We claim it by a prophet. If you believe this last thing, then you are setting at naught the counsel of God.

There's my confusion; I'm told Jesus words didn't pass away, rather, "the truth just needed to be restored"

Webster Online Dictionary

Restore:

1 : give back, return

2 : to put or bring back into existence or use

3 : to bring back to or put back into a former or original state : renew

4 : to put again in possession of something

I believe the truth needed, and still needs to be preached.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

I really tried to answer your questions as best I could. I also hope you don't think I trying to pick a fight or troll or the like. I'm just trying to follow Jesus day by day.

You said you would answer;

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about? Also, if I could add 2 Peter 1:3 "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue"

Edited August 20, 2010 by Soninme

[FunkyTown]

Been a little busy trying to keep up

FunkyTown your point is well taken. However we do have available to us ancient original language manuscript copies to compare our translations to. We can "check the Hebrew" or "check the Greek" if we have doubts.

Yes, we can. And every time we check that, we will interpret the meaning through the lens of our own experiences. To interpret is not a crime. To interpret incorrectly has become the crime.

Paul quoted from sources who weren't in the scriptures. (Acts 17:28) (1 Cor. 15:33) (Titus 1:12)

Eldad and Medad prophesied (Numbers 11:26) along with others, their prophesies weren't recorded along with a whole bunch of what Jesus did; John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

And if the scriptures themselves have need to reference material outside themselves, would that indicate that they are absolutely complete, or that there is more we must learn?

Also John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Again, if Jesus preached far more than is recorded, would that indicate that the scriptures are complete if the saviour himself preached more than was in them?

Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

And

Genesis 5:23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

I see you are interpreting this to mean that Enoch went to heaven never having tasted death. Most people who say 'God took my husband' would not be referring to that. They would be referring to death. Thankfully, you have accepted additional scripture which clarifies that point.

The OT was originally written in Hebrew.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. It was translated in the third and second centuries B.C. Some of the quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint.

This I only guess; Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic so it's possible the scriptures were also translated into Aramaic. (I will not die on this hill):)

All of those are translations after the Saviour died. Can you point to evidence of the scriptures being translated prior to this?

But clearly the Bible doesn't justify those things. Surely all generations have those that twist the Bible; 2 Peter 3:15; "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Not all who say they are of Christ are.(Math. 7:23)

Clearly the bible doesn't justify those things, thanks to your interpretation of the scriptures. Other people have interpreted the bible to allow those and have deceived many. One might say they have been clever enough that the very elect might have been deceived, if that were possible.

There's my confusion; I'm told Jesus words didn't pass away, rather, "the truth just needed to be restored"

Webster Online Dictionary

Restore:

1 : give back, return

2 : to put or bring back into existence or use

3 : to bring back to or put back into a former or original state : renew

4 : to put again in possession of something

That's exactly it. You have hit the nail on the head.

The purpose of a prophet is, as always, a threefold task: to teach of God and His son. Always, to call to repentence the people, to bring the people closer to God with additional revelation and prophesy.

I will leave you with one last thing:

Many have said, because of the parable of the evil husbandmen that states 'He shall send the son last' (Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-9, Luke 20:9-16), that this is proof that the scriptures state there shall be no need of prophets after that as God has finished with the scriptures. This is an understandable position, but I urge you to think on this:

Revelation 11:3 -

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Two men come and prophesy and they are called of God, for they are witnesses of God. They are prophets, and they are said to come after the Saviour in the times of Revelation.

We know there were prophets in the past.

We know there will be prophets in the future.

Read Psalm 102: 25-27. The scriptures refer to God as unchanging.

So if we know there were prophets in the past and we know there will be prophets in the future and God is an unchanging God, why are there no prophets now?

I say to you we are exactly in the times of Isaiah 29, when the Lord promised:

It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.

For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

People stumble, searching for truth, but they cannot find it because their eyes are closed. The Lord is there. He has a message of love and truth for the world, calling for them to hear His son. A marvelous work is moving forth and the truth will shine on the world. We just need to trust in Him and let His will teach us what He would have us know.