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

[Maya]

I bolded a verse.

Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed". The only question we have now is what constitutes ALL SCRIPTURE?

Because, surely, when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, the Bible was not compiled into one big book yet. So he can't possibly be speaking of the Holy Bible as we know it.

They had the OT that they called scripture too. They even attended the Temple when ever it was possible.

[todd520]

Just curious but I'm not seeing any conflict here.

Doesn't the LDS believe in Genesis 3, which for Adam and Eve, was a really bad day?

Then our additional revelation put's the whole incident in perspectvie, that it was a really good thing for us - If they had not done it, we would not be here.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

Elgama,

Nowhere.

However the scriptures are very clear that we are to test those who claim authority. (Rev. 2:2) (Acts 17:11) (Duet 13 and 18)

If God's word is inspired yet "insufficient", as some have said, respectfully, why does it say it's enough for every good work?

2 Timothy 3:16 -17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Also (John 20:31) (John 6:67-69) (1 Cor. 2:12)

What did the God-breathed, perfect word of the Lord(Psalm 19:7) leave out?

I bolded a verse.

Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed". The only question we have now is what constitutes ALL SCRIPTURE?

Because, surely, when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, the Bible was not compiled into one big book yet. So he can't possibly be speaking of the Holy Bible as we know it.

2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

It seems logical that at the extreme least Paul is refering to the "sacred writings." What we call the Old Testament.

That would be what Timothy would have "learned and been assured of, from childhood."

What I find curious is that if one believes Paul, John, Peter, James, Mathew etc. are truly who they claim to be (apostles) then why oh why would we question wether what they testified to and taught under God's inspiration would not be scripture? Paul claimed he speaks what the Holy Spirit teaches; 1 Corinthians 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Also 1 Thess 2:4 But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts."

Either this is true and it's therefore scripture or it's not and should be rejected as a lie.

Peter put Paul's writings on a par with scripture; 2 Peter 3:15 "And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—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."

As Christians how in the world could we say the entire Holy Bible is not scripture?

[GDKT]

Soninme, I think you are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that new testament writings aren't scripture. LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture. What I believe was meant by the statement "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed". The only question we have now is what constitutes ALL SCRIPTURE?" is that there is MORE scripture than what is found in just the bible.

[Elgama]

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If you believe the verses are true why do you reject so much of God's Words, you can't be complete and throughly equipped for every good work without proper authority baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon and other word's He has to share with us.

You have yet to show me a single scripture that even suggests God has said all He has to say to us, or that He won't add to His scriptures?

[Maureen]

If you believe the verses are true why do you reject so much of God's Words, you can't be complete and throughly equipped for every good work without proper authority baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon and other word's He has to share with us.

You have yet to show me a single scripture that even suggests God has said all He has to say to us, or that He won't add to His scriptures?

What is the criteria about how often God will add to existing scripture? When was the last time God added to the D&C? Or when was the last time new scripture was discovered, since the BofM or PofGP? What information have you been given to know how often to expect this new scripture, new revelation? Is the Proclamation to the World considered scripture?

M.

[Soninme]

GDKT There are many "mistakes" in the bible. That doesn't mean God made a mistake. It means the men who wrote/translated it are capable of erring. Even Moroni in the Book of Mormon admits this when he says "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. "

To argue that the bible is complete or perfect is pretty silly seeing as how we know of many books which are missing from it, and the bible itself contains many discrepancies in certain accounts ranging from the age or name of persons all the way to what was written on the cross.

GDKT Soninme, I think you are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that new testament writings aren't scripture. LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture. What I believe was meant by the statement "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed". The only question we have now is what constitutes ALL SCRIPTURE?" is that there is MORE scripture than what is found in just the bible.

GDKT,

Forgive me (not sarcasm) as I'm not following your line of reasoning.

How can you say; "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed" and "LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture" and also say; "There are many "mistakes" in the bible" and "the bible itself contains many discrepancies" and "To argue that the bible is complete or perfect is pretty silly". This is a very slippery slope if true.

Elgama Quote:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If you believe the verses are true why do you reject so much of God's Words, you can't be complete and throughly equipped for every good work without proper authority baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon and other word's He has to share with us.

You have yet to show me a single scripture that even suggests God has said all He has to say to us, or that He won't add to His scriptures?

Elgama and others,

It is not my intent to violate the rules and terms of this site so I hope I don't.

If 2 Tim 3:16-17, and Bible verses similar to it, is true then, even though you say I can't, I can be complete, throughly equipped for every good work, that is what the verse says very clearly. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father in Jesus name to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13) All means all.

You ask for a verse to suggest God has said all He has to say I submit the one above and Jude 3 also 2 Peter 1:15-21. Now certainly God is God and I am not, He can do anything He wants but what new revelation came in August 2010 or 1010 or 510 etc. that was not to be found in the pages of the Bible?

According to Paul in 2 Timothy what teaching necessary for salvation, sanctification or any doctrine or any good work got left out of the Bible?

[Connie]

Hi Maureen. I hope you are having a great day. :)

What is the criteria about how often God will add to existing scripture? When was the last time God added to the D&C? Or when was the last time new scripture was discovered, since the BofM or PofGP? What information have you been given to know how often to expect this new scripture, new revelation? Is the Proclamation to the World considered scripture?

M.

"Consider the magnitude of our blessing to have the Holy Bible and some 900 additional pages of scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Then consider that, in addition, the words of prophets spoken as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in settings such as this, which the Lord calls scripture (see D&C 68:2–4), flow to us almost constantly by television, radio, Internet, satellite, CD, DVD, and in print. I suppose that never in history has a people been blessed with such a quantity of holy writ."

This was said by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in our last General Conference. You can read the entire thing here.

Does that help?

Respectfully

[Connie]

Hi again Soninme. Have you had a chance to look at the links i provided? I think they would really help you in understanding the LDS position. Based on your continued questions i think particularly the last link would help. Here it is again: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Inerrant.pdf

God bless

[GDKT]

GDKT,

Forgive me (not sarcasm) as I'm not following your line of reasoning.

How can you say; "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed" and "LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture" and also say; "There are many "mistakes" in the bible" and "the bible itself contains many discrepancies" and "To argue that the bible is complete or perfect is pretty silly". This is a very slippery slope if true.

It's extremely simple. We believe that the bible is inspired scripture, written by prophets and apostles of God. We do not question the original pen of these holy servants. What we do question are the countless translations that have been made over 2 thousand years, the missing texts, and the false interpretations. This is one inspect in which a living prophet can help abundantly.

Also, in regards to the churchs/devil worshippers--I must stay my ground and insist the false churches are more dangerous. Why? Because the people who are devil worshippers are already lost. They have hardened their hearts perhaps beyond repair, and belong to a different flock. Those satanic practices are of no appeal or interest to the good people today. The false churches, however, have an appearance of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. They blindly lead the good and decent sons and daughters of God into a religion devoid of the priesthood, among other problems.

Edited August 14, 2010 by GDKT

[Elgama]

If 2 Tim 3:16-17, and Bible verses similar to it, is true then, even though you say I can't, I can be complete, throughly equipped for every good work, that is what the verse says very clearly. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father in Jesus name to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13) All means all.

You ask for a verse to suggest God has said all He has to say I submit the one above and Jude 3 also 2 Peter 1:15-21. Now certainly God is God and I am not, He can do anything He wants but what new revelation came in August 2010 or 1010 or 510 etc. that was not to be found in the pages of the Bible?

According to Paul in 2 Timothy what teaching necessary for salvation, sanctification or any doctrine or any good work got left out of the Bible?

If God has said all he has had to say in Timothy why bother with Peter and Jude?

As far as I am aware you have no been baptised by proper priesthood authority, you probably don't read the Book of Mormon for half an hour a day, you haven't been sealed to your family for eternity. You haven't received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Do you obey the Word of Wisdom?

Fact is to a Latter Day Saint, you are no more prepared for doing God's work than anyone else not of our religion

Within the Bible itself you see scripture building upon itself - in 2010 we have had that happen with each communication from the prophet our understanding as a church grows.

[Soninme]

Hi again Soninme. Have you had a chance to look at the links i provided? I think they would really help you in understanding the LDS position. Based on your continued questions i think particularly the last link would help. Here it is again: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Inerrant.pdf

Hi Connie,

Yes I looked and I believe I have some grasp of the LDS position. Thank you again for the link. I may come back to this later.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

GDKT,

Forgive me (not sarcasm) as I'm not following your line of reasoning.

How can you say; "Yes, all scripture is "God-breathed" and "LDS members recognize the entire new testament as inspired scripture" and also say; "There are many "mistakes" in the bible" and "the bible itself contains many discrepancies" and "To argue that the bible is complete or perfect is pretty silly". This is a very slippery slope if true.

It's extremely simple. We believe that the bible is inspired scripture, written by prophets and apostles of God. We do not question the original pen of these holy servants.

On this we agree.

What we do question are the countless translations that have been made over 2 thousand years, the missing texts, and the false interpretations.

If the Bible has the many mistakes and discrepancies in it as is claimed then it has no credibility. Why would it commend the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for searching it to see if what Paul said was true? Or was that verse a mistake or added? What basis would we have for testing the spirits to see if they are of God (1 John 4:1)? Or was that verse a mistake or added too?

We say we don't question the originals but we don't have the originals, so I guess we must believe the spirit that best stirs our heart because the Bible may be wrong because of it's many mistakes and discrepancies so therefore Jim Jones could right or maybe it's the Hindus. Are we really saved by grace through faith or was that added?

I have a Kirby vaccum I am putting together after being left in my closet for years. The original assembly instructions are gone but were, I'm told, hand copied by various people.

Upon receiving a copy of the instructions I find mistakes and discrepancies, missing pages and false instructions. Now what? Guess I'll just have to figure it out myself. This is the slippery slope.

I know this is major drama and I know you don't believe this but I'm trying to make the point.

I am no way a scholar or any kind of an expert in textual criticism. That being said, I do understand in the countless translations, spelling and errors in grammer occur, but I would ask; 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?

Also, in regards to the churchs/devil worshippers--I must stay my ground and insist the false churches are more dangerous. Why? Because the people who are devil worshippers are already lost. They have hardened their hearts perhaps beyond repair, and belong to a different flock. Those satanic practices are of no appeal or interest to the good people today. The false churches, however, have an appearance of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. They blindly lead the good and decent sons and daughters of God into a religion devoid of the priesthood, among other problems.

I have no idea where this came from or what it is referring to:confused:

[Soninme]

If God has said all he has had to say in Timothy why bother with Peter and Jude?

This is what you asked;

You have yet to show me a single scripture that even suggests God has said all He has to say to us, or that He won't add to His scriptures?

Those verses do suggest that the scriptures that were available at that time are just what they claim to be.

Jude 3 "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints". Seems already delivered.

I also said God is God, He can do whatever He wants.

Elgama Quote:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If you believe the verses are true why do you reject so much of God's Words, you can't be complete and throughly equipped for every good work without proper authority baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon and other word's He has to share with us.

Then 2 Tim 3:16-17 would mean nothing to anyone before the publishing of the BOM.

As far as I am aware you have no been baptised by proper priesthood authority,

Yes I have, by my pastor.

you probably don't read the Book of Mormon for half an hour a day,

Is this a requirement (work) for my salvation?

you haven't been sealed to your family for eternity.

No. Repectfully this is not a Biblical teaching.

You haven't received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Do you obey the Word of Wisdom?

Fact is to a Latter Day Saint, you are no more prepared for doing God's work than anyone else not of our religion

Maybe it's best I leave those comments alone:rolleyes:

[Flyonthewall]

. . .

If the Bible has the many mistakes and discrepancies in it as is claimed then it has no credibility. Why would it commend the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for searching it to see if what Paul said was true? Or was that verse a mistake or added? What basis would we have for testing the spirits to see if they are of God (1 John 4:1)? Or was that verse a mistake or added too?

We say we don't question the originals but we don't have the originals, so I guess we must believe the spirit that best stirs our heart because the Bible may be wrong because of it's many mistakes and discrepancies so therefore Jim Jones could right or maybe it's the Hindus. Are we really saved by grace through faith or was that added?

I have a Kirby vaccum I am putting together after being left in my closet for years. The original assembly instructions are gone but were, I'm told, hand copied by various people.

Upon receiving a copy of the instructions I find mistakes and discrepancies, missing pages and false instructions. Now what? Guess I'll just have to figure it out myself. This is the slippery slope.

I know this is major drama and I know you don't believe this but I'm trying to make the point.

I am no way a scholar or any kind of an expert in textual criticism. That being said, I do understand in the countless translations, spelling and errors in grammer occur, but I would ask; 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?

Hi Soninme, I know I am late to this thread and have not read it from start to finish, so if what I have to say has already been brought up, please forgive me.

An example of something that crept into the bible is the Comma Johanneum.

Also, I would like to state that "mistranslations" do not only involve incorrect word usage, but incorrect meanings assigned to the words.

For example, all the correct words may be present in a translation, but the meanings assigned to them are mis-translated. For instance, in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3:5, and Jesus states: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", we take the phrase of "born of water" to mean "Baptized", where as other Christians take it to mean physical birth.

There is a case to be made for both usages, but one makes baptism required to enter the kingdom of God, while the other does not.

As you may already know or have seen, there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach, and it is because of the plain and precious things that have been removed. These plain and precious things aren't always words, but meanings too.

We LDS see no contradictions between our teachings and the Bible, just as I am sure that other Christian denominations that disagree with us, see no contradictions in their teachings and the bible.

[Elgama]

Yes I have, by my pastor.

He doesn't have the Aaronic Priesthood therefore your baptism is a great act of faith but it was not done by proper authority.

Is this a requirement (work) for my salvation?

Its a requirement for you to be throughly prepared to teach God's Word. If you have never read huge chunks of God's Word how can you expect to teach it properly?

No. Repectfully this is not a Biblical teaching.

Well you did ask what was part of God's Word that was missing from the Bible.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Elgama

[Soninme]

Quote:

Is this a requirement (work) for my salvation?

Its a requirement for you to be throughly prepared to teach God's Word. If you have never read huge chunks of God's Word how can you expect to teach it properly?

Elgama,

Wasn't the Holy Spirit, through Paul, teaching Timothy that the scriptures available to Timothy at that time were profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work? In other words; was it true then? (in the first century)

What I am clearly getting from you is, it's not. Please explain why not.

Well you did ask what was part of God's Word that was missing from the Bible.

Ummm , no, based on what He has said in the Bible (verses quoted many times) why would I think He left anything out?

If this helps you, I do continually pray and ask Him that His will and purpose for me and my family be accomplished every day.

I have although asked a number of times on this forum for anyone (including you) to show me;

According to Paul in 2 Timothy what teaching necessary for salvation, sanctification or any doctrine or any good work got left out (missing) of the Bible?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Soninme

[Elgama]

Ummm , no, based on what He has said in the Bible (verses quoted many times) why would I think He left anything out?

If this helps you, I do continually pray and ask Him that His will and purpose for me and my family be accomplished every day.

I have although asked a number of times on this forum for anyone (including you) to show me;

If it was in the Bible it wouldn't be something left out now would it?

I'll be honest I don't care what you do with your faith is upto you, its none of my business whether you pray. If you can hold your head up everyday and pray to your Heavenly Father knowing you are doing your best that is fantastic, me too. But your faith is between him and yourself.

However that does not change the fact that I believe you are lacking in what Heavenly Father wants you to do.

I will not quote scripture in a debate I consider my scriptures sacred and it saddens me when I see scripture used in that manner.

[Soninme]

Hi Soninme, I know I am late to this thread and have not read it from start to finish, so if what I have to say has already been brought up, please forgive me.

An example of something that crept into the bible is the Comma Johanneum.

Hi Fly,

Yes I have read more than a few commentaries from opposing sides on the Comma Johanneum. Not being any kind of an expert my thought is, set it to the side.

My belief in the Trinity wasn't and isn't based on any single verse of scripture and I personally don't use it when defending the Trinity so as not to head down rabbit trails.

I am blessed to have five Bibles in my house and each one of them has a note in them saying "only five late manuscripts contain these words."

I don't believe it changes or adds to any teaching not already firmly taught in scripture, therefore my thought, if in dispute, set it to the side.

Also, I would like to state that "mistranslations" do not only involve incorrect word usage, but incorrect meanings assigned to the words.

For example, all the correct words may be present in a translation, but the meanings assigned to them are mis-translated. For instance, in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3:5, and Jesus states: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", we take the phrase of "born of water" to mean "Baptized", where as other Christians take it to mean physical birth.

There is a case to be made for both usages, but one makes baptism required to enter the kingdom of God, while the other does not.

As you may already know or have seen, there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach, and it is because of the plain and precious things that have been removed. These plain and precious things aren't always words, but meanings too.

We LDS see no contradictions between our teachings and the Bible, just as I am sure that other Christian denominations that disagree with us, see no contradictions in their teachings and the bible.

Yes I totally understand "there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach". This is not the scriptures fault. John 3:5 was correctly quoted by you and is God's word; that there are different interpretations of that verse doesn't mean the verse was altered or in error, it just means there are different interpretations. Some may be what God intended some may not. That is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. (John 16:13)

To better understand your point; could you tell me what plain and precious thing or meaning was lost or removed from the John 3:5 that you quoted.

[Soninme]

If it was in the Bible it wouldn't be something left out now would it?

Makes perfect sense but again you didn't answer my question.

I will not quote scripture in a debate I consider my scriptures sacred and it saddens me when I see scripture used in that manner.

If one is defending the truth of God what should one quote?

[Flyonthewall]

Hi Fly,

Yes I have read more than a few commentaries from opposing sides on the Comma Johanneum. Not being any kind of an expert my thought is, set it to the side.

My belief in the Trinity wasn't and isn't based on any single verse of scripture and I personally don't use it when defending the Trinity so as not to head down rabbit trails.

I am blessed to have five Bibles in my house and each one of them has a note in them saying "only five late manuscripts contain these words."

I don't believe it changes or adds to any teaching not already firmly taught in scripture, therefore my thought, if in dispute, set it to the side.

Yes I totally understand "there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach". This is not the scriptures fault. John 3:5 was correctly quoted by you and is God's word; that there are different interpretations of that verse doesn't mean the verse was altered or in error, it just means there are different interpretations. Some may be what God intended some may not. That is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. (John 16:13)

To better understand your point; could you tell me what plain and precious thing or meaning was lost or removed from the John 3:5 that you quoted.

John 3:5 was a simple example. The point I was making is that if indeed baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God, and there are denominations that teach that it is not, then that is a big missing piece, would you agree? If there is an error in interpretation that takes away the intended meaning, then that is a truth that is lost...a plain and precious truth.

Baptism is just one example. Other things that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Trinity/Godhead (Nature of God)

2) Pre-mortal existance

3) Preisthood authority

4) Grace/Works

5) Plan of Salvation

6) Prophets & Apostles

7) Apostacy/restoration

...just to name a few.

Each one of these things have references in the scriptures that support our understanding of them, but have been interpreted in a different direction by mainstream christianity.

Any time there is a translation from one language to another, there are meanings that are lost - sometimes it is only slight nuances, other times it is altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended. There may be cultural references that are lost on the translators. Sure they may get the words correct, but the meaning is only superficial.

[Soninme]

John 3:5 was a simple example. The point I was making is that if indeed baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God, and there are denominations that teach that it is not, then that is a big missing piece, would you agree?

Yes I agree, if something is required but taught that it's not that is a false teaching.

If there is an error in interpretation that takes away the intended meaning, then that is a truth that is lost...a plain and precious truth.

A truth that is lost (until corrected) to the one doing the interpreting but that doesn't at all make the translation flawed.

Baptism is just one example. Other things that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Trinity/Godhead (Nature of God)

2) Pre-mortal existance

3) Preisthood authority

4) Grace/Works

5) Plan of Salvation

6) Prophets & Apostles

7) Apostacy/restoration

...just to name a few.

Each one of these things have references in the scriptures that support our understanding of them, but have been interpreted in a different direction by mainstream christianity

Understood, so far as we are discusing interpretation.

Any time there is a translation from one language to another, there are meanings that are lost - sometimes it is only slight nuances, other times it is altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended.

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!

There may be cultural references that are lost on the translators. Sure they may get the words correct, but the meaning is only superficial.

Fly I would submit that if I'm a translator my job is to get the words correct and I believe the words in the Bible are correct. Jesus told us "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away". (Math. 24:35)

If the words are correct then we have the word of God. That is all I'm trying to show here.

Understanding the culture the word was penned in gives us better interpretation as we study the translation.

[Flyonthewall]

Yes I agree, if something is required but taught that it's not that is a false teaching.

A truth that is lost (until corrected) to the one doing the interpreting but that doesn't at all make the translation flawed.

I agree. But without knowing a truth is lost, it cannot be corrected.

Understood, so far as we are discusing interpretation.

Right, so far we are only discussing 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 made that statement as a general statement on translating. I had no specific verses in mind. However, if you wanted an exemple of verses where meaning was lost, I would direct you to the JST. The JST is to put meaning back in where it was lost, it is not an attempt to re-translate text.

Fly I would submit that if I'm a translator my job is to get the words correct and I believe the words in the Bible are correct. Jesus told us "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away". (Math. 24:35)

If the words are correct then we have the word of God. That is all I'm trying to show here.

Understanding the culture the word was penned in gives us better interpretation as we study the translation.

Getting the words correct is only half the battle for a translator. The meaning has to be there too.

The english language is rife with words and expressions that can mean something other than the obvious: hot, cold, bad, good, yeah right, etc. There are also words that can be interchangable with other words, but the meaning is somewhat different - a thesauraus is full of them. I am no student of greek or hebrew, but I have read where the word translated as "perfect" as used in Matthew 5:48, can also mean "complete". Now I can see how both those words can be used, but "complete" brings different connatations than "perfect" does.

[Elgama]

Makes perfect sense but again you didn't answer my question.

I did, there is a whole host of fruits not present in your life right now which show there is a lot missing from the Bible or not so obvious that interpretation is perfect.

But to answer the question about Timothy the scriptures they had then were perfect for that time. Just like what we have as LDS is perfect for us now. AS people we change evolve and move forward by rights each group of people should grow in understanding and be wiser than their previous generations

If one is defending the truth of God what should one quote?

Why quote anything? why not share something by the power of the Holy Ghost? Let God Himself do the talking, placing scriptures in a place where there is a chance they may be used for contention takes the Holy Ghost out of the situation and no matter how accurate your interpretation its not going to be believed because God is not behind those words. I have to have an incredibly strong prompting before I will use my scriptures in such a manner, that has happened about 3 times in 18 years.

The people I know with the very best knowledge and grasp of scripture do not need to quote it to show it it is present when they speak and act. If you truly knew your Bible well if it was coursing through your veins, you would be able to use it without quoting. Unless you know it that well you run the risk of doing precisely what Revelations 20:18-19 warns against you take away or add to God's word by your own mortal interpretation, and on top of that you put other people in the position causing them to commit the same sin.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Elgama

[rameumptom]

On this we agree.

If the Bible has the many mistakes and discrepancies in it as is claimed then it has no credibility.

This response is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the argument. Just because something is not perfect does not mean it has no credibility. We deal with imperfect concepts and imperfect science every day. Yet there is a reliability and dependability in certain things that allow us to give credence to them.

For example, science is not perfect, but most people believe the basic tenets of science, because they work. There is credibility in things that have been tested, even if imperfect. I trust certain people, not that they are perfect, but that they've proven themselves to be highly reliable.

There does not have to be an "all or nothing" belief in the scripture, just as we don't have to do that with people or science.

The other point of this is - just because the Bible does not contain all that God would reveal to us, does not mean it is not valuable for us to learn from. The Bible is highly valued for its teachings, especially the teachings of Jesus. That does not mean all the information, revelation, or teachings we need to have are all found in the Bible. It just means that the Bible is an excellent resource for learning these things.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, just because the Israelites had the law of Moses, does not mean that their spiritual knowledge was complete. Other prophets came after Moses to fill in many of the plain and precious things that were yet to be revealed, or that had been lost to them. Even Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, by giving an even higher law than the law of Moses. Many Jews rejected Christ because he had the audacity to state that the Law of Moses had an end in him, and that there was a better path to salvation. Today, many Christians reject the concept of continuing revelation, simply because they somehow got into their heads that the Bible is absolutely complete and there cannot be anymore Bible.

Paul did not say that the Bible is "God breathed", but that all scripture is God-breathed. This includes the many books that came after his writing (like the apostle John's writings), and it can include spiritual guidance given today by living prophets.

When we insist on narrowing the concept of scripture to just the Bible, we are limiting God. And we are limiting what God can do in our lives. When we force ourselves into believing that the Bible is absolutely perfect in its many modern translations and that we need no more scripture, then we are limiting how God works with people. If we accept that God allows inspiration to come to all people according to their readiness for it, then we can understand how some scripture can be imperfect, or the history imperfect, yet still have a God-breathed volume of doctrine.

Just as Moses did not deliver the entire gospel of Christ to the Jews and more had to be taught by the prophets and Christ; so can we understand that the Lord can have more to give us in our own day as we prepare for the 2nd Coming of Christ. None of it has to be absolutely perfect, but it does have to lead us to perfection.