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

[jlf9999]

I joined this forum to find out what the LDS believe and how they started. So I don't know what they teach, But I know catholics don't teach Biblical truths.

They DO twist the scriptures to try to form their beliefs, Such as purgaory,Praying to Mary, priests giving absolution to name some of their wrong doctrines.

If you say with what the Bible teaches, You can't go wrong

You are on the right path my friend. May I suggest the next step is to pray to God asking for His help in discovering His true gospel. Have faith that He will provide if you are sincere, humble and teachable. By true I mean his authorized and complete gospel. Traditional Christianity only takes you so far. It doesn't mean we think it is wrong - just limited. We believe they are good honest people doing the best they know how. They just don't know everything God has available. It is our job, our responsibility to help those folks take the next steps. But you don't need to believe any person. We are mistake prone too. God will talk to you directly through the Holy Ghost if you are serious and willing to listen. Our People | Mormon.org is interesting.

Edited April 21, 2011 by jlf9999

[livingstone]

With respect Livingstone, the bible is chock full of errors. I understand the current popularization that God is sovereign therefore the bible must be absolutley correct in every way. However, even the most rudimentary inspection of the book will prove what I am saying. May I suggest that it is interpretation of scripture that has gotten so many people into trouble doctrinally but it is also because the bible is less than clear on so many important issues. The nature of God is the first thing that comes to mind. It bears directly on whether Christ and God the Father are one being or two separate beings.

A little outside reading might be helpful. I suggest Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Also, one British writer from Oxford is J G Davies. I think I got his affiliation right. His book The Early Christian Church will help too. Neither writer is LDS. Both are university religion professors and researchers. They are true academics. Both writers will provide an easy to read history of how the bible came to be. Both will explain what the first , second and third century Christian fathers had to day about religious doctrine and how that was changed in the fourth and fifth centuries and in some cases, why.

Thats because you don't know how to understand the Bible, And a lot of people get it wrong because they don't know how to understand the Bible.

You need to know who is doing the talking,

Is it

[A] God,

A Bible character,

[C] The Bible translaters, [there are lots of translations of the Bible that are wrong in places]

[D] The the Bible teacher.

When you understand that, You'll see the Bible isn't full or errors.

As for it not being clear on important issues, IT IS, When you know what the original Hebrew and Greek texts says.

For instance, The Hebrew word for, "God" in Gen 1: 1., Is "Elohim" it is a plural meaning.

And Gen 1: 26, God backs it up by saying,

God, "Elohim" .[plural] said, Let US,[plural] make man in OUR,[PLURAL] image after OUR [plural] likeness.

Gen 3: 22.

God "Elohim" [plural] said man has become as one of, US, [plural].

God made the trinity very clear in the very first book of the Bible.

There is sno way it can be twisted, Because the original Hebrew text backs up those verses.

Some people say, Elohim means Angels, "Rulers and mighty beings", [WHICH IT CAN] But not in the contexts of Gen 1: 26 and Gen 3: 22. because they never created anythibg. God and God alone is the creator.

[Guest]

Thats because you don't know how to understand the Bible, And a lot of people get it wrong because they don't know how to understand the Bible.

You need to know who is doing the talking,

Is it

[A] God,

A Bible character,

[C] The Bible translaters, [there are lots of translations of the Bible that are wrong in places]

[D] The the Bible teacher.

When you understand that, You'll see the Bible isn't full or errors.

As for it not being clear on important issues, IT IS, When you know what the original Hebrew and Greek texts says.

For instance, The Hebrew word for, "God" in Gen 1: 1., Is "Elohim" it is a plural meaning.

And Gen 1: 26, God backs it up by saying,

God, "Elohim" .[plural] said, Let US,[plural] make man in OUR,[PLURAL] image after OUR [plural] likeness.

Gen 3: 22.

God "Elohim" [plural] said man has become as one of, US, [plural].

God made the trinity very clear in the very first book of the Bible.

There is sno way it can be twisted, Because the original Hebrew text backs up those verses.

Some people say, Elohim means Angels, "Rulers and mighty beings", [WHICH IT CAN] But not in the contexts of Gen 1: 26 and Gen 3: 22. because they never created anythibg. God and God alone is the creator.

You can see in this entire thread alone how we, the LDS, are very careful in reading the Bible in its historical context. What you say here is pretty standard teaching in LDS. YET, you are a Trinitarian and we are not.

Wonders of wonders never cease, eh?

So, you're going to tell me that your INTERPRETATION of the exact same Bible verses you hold up to us to prove the Trinity is correct and our INTERPRETATION of it is wrong? How so? So then we are in the same boat we are on the very beginning of this thread... how do you know what is right and what is wrong? When they are based on the exact same words from the exact same Bible?

Edited April 21, 2011 by anatess

[Guest]

I joined this forum to find out what the LDS believe and how they started. So I don't know what they teach, But I know catholics don't teach Biblical truths.

They DO twist the scriptures to try to form their beliefs, Such as purgaory,Praying to Mary, priests giving absolution to name some of their wrong doctrines.

If you say with what the Bible teaches, You can't go wrong

Yes, if you stay with what the Bible teaches, you can't go wrong. But, THAT is taking into consideration that the BIBLE is complete. That it contains ALL truths. That the people who chose which books go in the Bible had the complete word of God and that God is done with His work - just waiting for the end times.

The Catholics do not subscribe to sola scriptura, neither do the LDS.

[jlf9999]

Thats because you don't know how to understand the Bible, And a lot of people get it wrong because they don't know how to understand the Bible.

You need to know who is doing the talking,

Is it

[A] God,

A Bible character,

[C] The Bible translaters, [there are lots of translations of the Bible that are wrong in places]

[D] The the Bible teacher.

When you understand that, You'll see the Bible isn't full or errors.

As for it not being clear on important issues, IT IS, When you know what the original Hebrew and Greek texts says.

For instance, The Hebrew word for, "God" in Gen 1: 1., Is "Elohim" it is a plural meaning.

And Gen 1: 26, God backs it up by saying,

God, "Elohim" .[plural] said, Let US,[plural] make man in OUR,[PLURAL] image after OUR [plural] likeness.

Gen 3: 22.

God "Elohim" [plural] said man has become as one of, US, [plural].

God made the trinity very clear in the very first book of the Bible.

There is sno way it can be twisted, Because the original Hebrew text backs up those verses.

Some people say, Elohim means Angels, "Rulers and mighty beings", [WHICH IT CAN] But not in the contexts of Gen 1: 26 and Gen 3: 22. because they never created anythibg. God and God alone is the creator.

We have a saying in Mormondom: milk before meat. I would very much like to get into why we have a different take on this. But there are some fundamentals that may need explaining first.

From a Mormon point of view, which is what we are discussing, Christ died to save every person born on the earth. That means every person will be resurrected. If He had not sacrificed himself we would all have been condemned to outer darkness with Satan and his angels and followers. But that doesn't mean every person resurrected will be living with God in his presence. It just means we all will take up a perfect physical body just as Christ did. What happens after that is another story.

The bible is correct in as much as it is translated correctly. It has gone through several iterations. From the first Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin to English. Some of the Old Testament was left out too. The Book of Mormon is a history of another group of God's children starting about 600 BC. Christ visited them at the time of His crucification. With the Book of Mormon, it is easier to understand what the Bible says. It doesn't replace it. It is an adjunct to it.

Maybe I have gone a bit off course but I don't know from you are starting. In any event, there is a good deal of difference between what you are saying and what we believe those same words mean. For example, Elohim can mean chief God or highest God as a title rather than a personal name or description of His nature. Given there is but one God and He has said there were other gods in Genesis, it could also mean that there are divine beings of a perfected nature along with God the Father. Ergo, gods, small g, preserves God the Father as Elohim and still allows for other perfected beings of a lesser nature, e.g., Christ and others. Christ's prayers and many comments about being different from His father point to the two being separate and distinct rather than supporting the Trinitarian view. We agree they are not angels in the sense most people understand angels to be. We also believe everything is created under God the Father's direction. We think Christ was the administrator so to speak acting under assignment.

Edited April 21, 2011 by jlf9999

[livingstone]

You are on the right path my friend. May I suggest the next step is to pray to God asking for His help in discovering His true gospel. Have faith that He will provide if you are sincere, humble and teachable. By true I mean his authorized and complete gospel. Traditional Christianity only takes you so far. It doesn't mean we think it is wrong - just limited. We believe they are good honest people doing the best they know how. They just don't know everything God has available. It is our job, our responsibility to help those folks take the next steps. But you don't need to believe any person. We are mistake prone too. God will talk to you directly through the Holy Ghost if you are serious and willing to listen. Our People | Mormon.org is interesting.

The Bible's gospel is all you need for salvation. It isn't limited, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT SILLY IDEAR FROM??

God warns of the dangers about adding to His word, You can't add anything else to what God has said in the Bible.

God also warns of the dangers of taking away from His word.

[livingstone]

Yes, if you stay with what the Bible teaches, you can't go wrong. But, THAT is taking into consideration that the BIBLE is complete. That it contains ALL truths. That the people who chose which books go in the Bible had the complete word of God and that God is done with His work - just waiting for the end times.

The Catholics do not subscribe to sola scriptura, neither do the LDS.

The Bible is compleat, God warns of the dangers of Adding to and taking away from His word.

God inspired the translators to put into the Bible,[AS we have it today], Everything we need for salvation, To Grow in God, faith, knowledge and love.

God confirms His word [The Bible] with signs following.

[livingstone]

We have a saying in Mormondom: milk before meat. I would very much like to get into why we have a different take on this. But there are some fundamentals that may need explaining first.

From a Mormon point of view, which is what we are discussing, Christ died to save every person born on the earth. That means every person will be resurrected. If He had not sacrificed himself we would all have been condemned to outer darkness with Satan and his angels and followers. But that doesn't mean every person resurrected will be living with God in his presence. It just means we all will take up a perfect physical body just as Christ did. What happens after that is another story.

The bible is correct in as much as it is translated correctly. It has gone through several iterations. From the first Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin to English. Some of the Old Testament was left out too. The Book of Mormon is a history of another group of God's children starting about 600 BC. Christ visited them at the time of His crucification. With the Book of Mormon, it is easier to understand what the Bible says. It doesn't replace it. It is an adjunct to it.

Maybe I have gone a bit off course but I don't know from you are starting. In any event, there is a good deal of difference between what you are saying and what we believe those same words mean. For example, Elohim can mean chief God or highest God as a title rather than a personal name or description of His nature. Given there is but one God and He has said there were other gods in Genesis, it could also mean that there are divine beings of a perfected nature along with God the Father. Ergo, gods, small g, preserves God the Father as Elohim and still allows for other perfected beings of a lesser nature, e.g., Christ and others. Christ's prayers and many comments about being different from His father point to the two being separate and distinct rather than supporting the Trinitarian view. We agree they are not angels in the sense most people understand angels to be. We also believe everything is created under God the Father's direction. We think Christ was the administrator so to speak acting under assignment.

If you think there is a difference between what the Bible says and what the Mormon book says, You'll have to change your believeing, Because God won't change His word to suit you.

God says you can't add to, or take away from His words that are recorded in the Bible.

God warns of the danger of adding to and taking away.

[jlf9999]

The Bible is compleat, God warns of the dangers of Adding to and taking away from His word.

God inspired the translators to put into the Bible,[AS we have it today], Everything we need for salvation, To Grow in God, faith, knowledge and love.

God confirms His word [The Bible] with signs following.

I think you are referring to the book of Revelation. So far as I know, no one has added to or taken anything away from it. The injunction doesn't refer to the bible because it didn't exist until well after (300 years or so) John wrote Revelation. Even so, Mormons have neither added to or detracted to the bible as far as I know. Any other works are separate from it. It is important to understand just what the bible is and is not. It is a collection of religious letters written over time by early (first century) church leaders. It was not intended to be a cohesive or complete work. In fact it did not exist until the fourth century long after Christ and the last apostles died. You might give serious attention to the books I mentioned and another one called Lost Christianities by Ehrman as well. They will help you understand just how all this came to be.

Edited April 21, 2011 by jlf9999

[jlf9999]

If you think there is a difference between what the Bible says and what the Mormon book says, You'll have to change your believeing, Because God won't change His word to suit you.

God says you can't add to, or take away from His words that are recorded in the Bible.

God warns of the danger of adding to and taking away.

Maybe we are talking past each other. It happens often in my case. We believe the bible to be the Word of God in so far as it is translated correctly. Where we differ is whether it was translated as God intended. As I understand, you are saying your traditions tell you is more accurate than what God would tell you if you asked him personally. All of LDS theology is based on receiving direct communication from God upon humble and sincere supplication. You suggest two thousand years of traditional man-interpreted tradition is a better way of understanding God and what He wants for us. As proof you cite a fairly recent notion that God is sovereign and therefore the bible must have been interpreted correctly and that nothing important has been mistranslated or deliberately left out. Yet I can provide and have, several volumes of reasons to support what we suggest from non-LDS writers, that supports what we teach. But the only one that really matters, sincere and humble prayer, you deny. You completely deny Christ when He said ask it will be given.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I can provide more scriptural sources that tell us to do just the opposite of what you are saying to do. We suggest everyone do just what Proverbs says and make it a part of worship. You say to trust your traditions.

Edited April 21, 2011 by jlf9999

[Soninme]

the bible is chock full of errors. I understand the current popularization that God is sovereign therefore the bible must be absolutley correct in every way. However, even the most rudimentary inspection of the book will prove what I am saying.

There it is again....

And then..

The bible is correct in as much as it is translated correctly.

jlf9999

What did Jesus think of the scriptures?

What proof do you have that shows the OT, the 4 gospels, and the writings of the apostles in the Bible are "chock full" of error?

[jlf9999]

There it is again....

And then..

jlf9999

What did Jesus think of the scriptures?

What proof do you have that shows the OT, the 4 gospels, and the writings of the apostles in the Bible are "chock full" of error?

Paul is saying that there must be a falling away before Christ can return.Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

Justin Martyr, in "Dialogue with Trypho," in Chapter 71 complains about how the Jews had altered scripture. "And I wish you to observe, that they [the Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations.".

Origen, a recognized early Church father, complained about scriptural problems when he said "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.."

Read Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman. These are just a few.

[volgadon]

Thats because you don't know how to understand the Bible, And a lot of people get it wrong because they don't know how to understand the Bible.

That ultimately is the problem with sola scriptura. It really isn't about letting the Bible speak for itself. sola scriptura requires that the Bible be read through the lens of protestant ideology. If you can show me sola scriptura in the Bible, then by all means do.

[volgadon]

BTW, Livingstone, what does the word "Bible" mean?

[Soninme]

Read Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman. These are just a few.

From Bart Ehrman;

Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the gospels…the exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend…its hard to know whether Moses actually existed and what, exactly the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information…” Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, 5-6.

jlf9999

Do we really want to read a book by this "true academic"?

Please, what did Jesus think of the scriptures?

Shouldn't we think as He did?

[livingstone]

Maybe we are talking past each other. It happens often in my case. We believe the bible to be the Word of God in so far as it is translated correctly. Where we differ is whether it was translated as God intended. As I understand, you are saying your traditions tell you is more accurate than what God would tell you if you asked him personally. All of LDS theology is based on receiving direct communication from God upon humble and sincere supplication. You suggest two thousand years of traditional man-interpreted tradition is a better way of understanding God and what He wants for us. As proof you cite a fairly recent notion that God is sovereign and therefore the bible must have been interpreted correctly and that nothing important has been mistranslated or deliberately left out. Yet I can provide and have, several volumes of reasons to support what we suggest from non-LDS writers, that supports what we teach. But the only one that really matters, sincere and humble prayer, you deny. You completely deny Christ when He said ask it will be given.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I can provide more scriptural sources that tell us to do just the opposite of what you are saying to do. We suggest everyone do just what Proverbs says and make it a part of worship. You say to trust your traditions.

[1]God said, [in the Bible] "You can't add to His word, or take away from His word".

So if you believe the Bible, You know you can't add anything more to what God has already said in the Bible.

[2]The Bible says it is adequate to complete us, And as that is true, We don't need anything else.

[3]So read the Bible, Do what Poverbs 3: 5-6 says, Ask God to teaveal truth to you, Have an open mind and a teachable spirit and be willing to repent and turn to God'd teal truth,[The Bible]

[Guest]

[1]God said, [in the Bible] "You can't add to His word, or take away from His word".

So if you believe the Bible, You know you can't add anything more to what God has already said in the Bible.

[2]The Bible says it is adequate to complete us, And as that is true, We don't need anything else.

[3]So read the Bible, Do what Poverbs 3: 5-6 says, Ask God to teaveal truth to you, Have an open mind and a teachable spirit and be willing to repent and turn to God'd teal truth,[The Bible]

Are you talking about Revelations 22:18 again???

Do you realize that the Book of Revelations was written WAAAAYYY before the Bible was compiled? Do you know that the book referred to in Revelations 22:18 is the Book of Revelations and not "the Bible" as you know it?

Do you know that the same verse exists in Deuteronomy? But that there are lots of books found AFTER Deuteronomy? So that... it makes every one of them an ADDITION to the Bible if you interpret those verses that way?

Okay, like I asked you on a different thread. Show me the exact verse/(s) that shows THE HOLY BIBLE as you know it is the complete word of God.

[jlf9999]

From Bart Ehrman;

Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the gospels…the exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend…its hard to know whether Moses actually existed and what, exactly the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information…” Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, 5-6.

jlf9999

Do we really want to read a book by this "true academic"?

Please, what did Jesus think of the scriptures?

Shouldn't we think as He did?

Son

Why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said?

About academics - I suppose you can reject what others who study these things say but I think you miss a lot. You never have a fuller understanding of the history and politics of early Christianity. You are left with a decidedly single-eyed perspective. To my way of thinking, that is how traditional Christianity got so far off track. They bowed to the politics of the day just as much of traditional Christianity today bows to the traditions they developed over 2000 years. That is how the Creeds developed.

As Ehrman suggests, the existing record is less than totally reliable. He is commenting on things other than matters of faith. What he is saying is much of it is contrived (Trinitarianism), missing (the Book Of Enoch) or misinterpreted.

Let's face it Son, you believe in the innerrancy of the bible and Mormons believe it in so far as it is translated correctly. That isn't going to change on our part. You put more faith in the good will and works of man than in what God would tell you if you asked. Or so it seems to me.

Edited April 22, 2011 by jlf9999

[Jason_J]

Son

Why don't you tell me what you think Jesus said?

About academics - I suppose you can reject what others who study these things say but I think you miss a lot. You never have a fuller understanding of the history and politics of early Christianity. You are left with a decidedly single-eyed perspective. To my way of thinking, that is how traditional Christianity got so far off track. They bowed to the politics of the day just as much of traditional Christianity today bows to the traditions they developed over 2000 years. That is how the Creeds developed.

As Ehrman suggests, the existing record is less than totally reliable. He is commenting on things other than matters of faith. What he is saying is much of it is contrived (Trinitarianism), missing (the Book Of Enoch) or misinterpreted.

Let's face it Son, you believe in the innerrancy of the bible and Mormons believe it in so far as it is translated correctly. That isn't going to change on our part. You put more faith in the good will and works of man than in what God would tell you if you asked. Or so it seems to me.

What is interesting to me is that certain Evangelical churches have as a statement of faith that they believe that the Bible is inerrant "in the original autographs", which reminds me of the LDS view that we believe in the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

[jlf9999]

What is interesting to me is that certain Evangelical churches have as a statement of faith that they believe that the Bible is inerrant "in the original autographs", which reminds me of the LDS view that we believe in the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

Precisely. Good post Jason. They say further in the short statement at the beginning:

5. "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church." I added the emphasis.

This goes directly to the heart of what Bart Ehrman and others have said about the existing record - the existing record means the bible and remaining bits and pieces of the oldest text from which it was translated. It wasn't until the late fourth century that the first editions of what would become the bible were consolidated and canonized. And even then there was no total agreement on what it should contain. Some participants didn't think the Old Testament should be included. Others wanted apocryphal writings. This was entirely a man made thing. No one claimed to be an apostle or prophet or to have been divinely called as I recall but if someone can show me where I am wrong, I am teachable.

It makes sense that to understand what the bible is and is not you have to look at it in the context of its provenance.

Edited April 22, 2011 by jlf9999

[Jennarator]

I didn't take the time to read this whole thread. So I am guessing I am going to say some of what has been said.

I did read a few pages of this tthread and figured some of the reason the OP was frusterated was becasue people assuming he knows more than he might know.

The bible was written long ago, we all know that. After the 12 apostles died, (the ones during Chirist's time) there was no one left on the Earth with the preisthood and the the authority to act int he name of God. It was during this time that the bible was being translated over and over as the leaders of the churches (the churches that were on the earth at the time.) saw fit.

It was these translations that slowly changed some of the passages of the bible, thus changing some of the meanings. Each time it was translated, preists and so one might have changed a word or phrase here and there, and some times even took out whole sections. The order of the books in the bible are not in chronological order as they were written or as they took place in history. We this still happening today as there has just been another translation or interpritaion was just released.

So as LDS we do beilieve in the bible. However we simple belive it is no longer as perfect as it was. We use the King James version as it is the version that has been translated the least amount of times.

Now, we also belive in the Book of Mormon. It was found by Joseph Smith in it's full and original form on plate of gold writting thousands of years ago. He transalted it once, into English, not taking anything out, or changeing words to make it seem simpler. That's why we belive it to be more perfect.

Hope this helps!

[jlf9999]

I didn't take the time to read this whole thread. So I am guessing I am going to say some of what has been said.

I did read a few pages of this tthread and figured some of the reason the OP was frusterated was becasue people assuming he knows more than he might know.

The bible was written long ago, we all know that. After the 12 apostles died, (the ones during Chirist's time) there was no one left on the Earth with the preisthood and the the authority to act int he name of God. It was during this time that the bible was being translated over and over as the leaders of the churches (the churches that were on the earth at the time.) saw fit.

It was these translations that slowly changed some of the passages of the bible, thus changing some of the meanings. Each time it was translated, preists and so one might have changed a word or phrase here and there, and some times even took out whole sections. The order of the books in the bible are not in chronological order as they were written or as they took place in history. We this still happening today as there has just been another translation or interpritaion was just released.

So as LDS we do beilieve in the bible. However we simple belive it is no longer as perfect as it was. We use the King James version as it is the version that has been translated the least amount of times.

Now, we also belive in the Book of Mormon. It was found by Joseph Smith in it's full and original form on plate of gold writting thousands of years ago. He transalted it once, into English, not taking anything out, or changeing words to make it seem simpler. That's why we belive it to be more perfect.

Hope this helps!

Jen

The OP was how we handle beliefs when they are not in keeping with what the bible says. Of course the problem arises when we disagree on what the bible actually says. Traditional Christians who believe in the bible's absolute innerrancy are yet to be convinced that there is any error. Some traditionals wear blinders so tight they are not willing to even look at how the bible came into being or who compiled it. Others understand that there is likely some error in the translations but it still is substantially error free in matters of significance. As I view what has been said so far, this thread, on at least one side, has bogged down. Maybe some new blood will come into the discussion but it pretty well has all been said.

[Jennarator]

Jen

The OP was how we handle beliefs when they are not in keeping with what the bible says. Of course the problem arises when we disagree on what the bible actually says. Traditional Christians who believe in the bible's absolute innerrancy are yet to be convinced that there is any error. Some traditionals wear blinders so tight they are not willing to even look at how the bible came into being or who compiled it. Others understand that there is likely some error in the translations but it still is substantially error free in matters of significance. As I view what has been said so far, this thread, on at least one side, has bogged down. Maybe some new blood will come into the discussion but it pretty well has all been said.

I understand that, I was just hoping to point out where the errors came from in order to shed some light on how some of them came to be. This would hopefully make sense to someone (if not the OP then someone that might be reading this.) and they can see why we say that we belive the bible as far as it has been translated correctly.

If I attemt to paraphrase your statement, I will not get it perfect. Same with the translations of the bible.

Just to make it clear, to the OP or others that might be reading, we do still have a strong belief in the bible. We read it, study it, and using it in our doctrine. In out Sunday school, we spend a year studying the Old Testiment, a year studying the New, a year on the Book of Mormon and year on HIstory of the church. During those years we reference each othe the other sciptures as needed. So really we do spend more time studying the Bible than the Book of Mormon.

I know much of this has been said, but just to write it in one simple post, might make it make sense to someone.

[Maureen]

...We use the King James version as it is the version that has been translated the least amount of times...

Hi Jennarator, what do you mean by this?

The KJV was originally envisioned as a new translation of its time.

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all Churches of England in time of divine service.1

But...

3. The Textual Basis

The translators did not consult any Greek or Hebrew manuscripts as they did their revision. Instead, they based their work on existing published texts. The Old Testament textual basis has not changed too dramatically since the sixteenth century, but the New Testament text has gone through enormous changes. The text that the King James translators used was principally the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition), which, in turn, relied essentially on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522—the same Greek text that Tyndale had used. We’ll talk more about the Greek text behind the Authorized Version in a little while, when we discuss problems with the KJV.

4. Influences

The KJV was not a brand new translation, but a revision of earlier works. Although it was supposed to be based on the Bishops’ Bible—departing from it only where necessary—it really was influenced by many translations. At Oxford University is a manuscript that gives us a fascinating glimpse into the translation work—almost ‘behind the scenes,’ as it were. The manuscript is a copy of the Gospels from the Bishops’ Bible that was used by the translators through various stages of revision. You can detect the various groups that worked the document over. Handwritten notes mark up almost every verse of the text. The first team made their revision marks by hand, completing the work within a relatively short period of time. (Had the KJV appeared in 1608, when the first revision of the whole Bible was virtually completed, it would have looked substantially like a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. But more work needed to be done.) Then, the manuscript was sent to a final revision committee. And they marked up the text still further. One of the most fascinating aspects of the work is that as the manuscript went through its stages of revision, the new version kept looking less and less like the Bishops’ Bible and more and more like Tyndale!4...

And...

C. Editions

One of the ironic facts about the KJV is that it is impossible to honestly speak about the first printing, because there never really was a first printing! “The revision and correction process began immediately in 1611, … even before the first printed edition was completed and put together. The pages of these two editions [the actual first edition and the corrected second edition]… seem to have been accidentally mixed before either was assembled and bound.”14

Thus, the first edition of the KJV is actually more of a first-and-second-edition hybrid. But there are ways to tell whether one possesses a ‘first-second’ edition or a completely second edition. I won’t go into those details here. I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today. It is part of a private collection in Texas.

Besides these two editions, the Authorized Version went through at least two more in the first year alone. In the first three years, it actually went through fourteen minor editions due to the frequent mistakes in the process of translating, revising, and printing. But these are not really revisions by today’s standard. Two larger overhauls were completed in 1629 and 1638. Within fifty (50) years “the need was presented and an effort was made to officially revise [it once] again”—this time more thoroughly than the previous two revisions. But Parliament decided not to act on this impulse when Charles II ascended the throne in 1660. The shifts of the political winds thus stymied the third revision of the KJV. It would not undergo a major revision again for 100 years. In 1762 and 1769, the KJV was revised for a third and fourth time.

Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

So, since the KJV's first inception, it has gone through several editions. And a NKJV now exists:

The NKJV translation project, which was conceived by Arthur Farstad, was inaugurated in 1975 with two meetings (Nashville and Chicago) of 130 biblical scholars, pastors, and theologians. The men who were invited to these meetings prepared the guidelines for the NKJV. The New Testament was published in 1979, the Psalms in 1980, and the full NKJV Bible in 1982 taken a total of 7 years to complete.[4]

The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1611 KJV version. The 130 translators believed in unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also agreed upon for most New King James Bibles was, easier event descriptions, history of each book, and added dictionary and updated concordance.

New King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

[Jennarator]

I don't bible bash. I simple state what the chuch believes and what I have prayed and got a confirmation about.

We can go around and around about that. Bottom line the OP wanted to know how we handle discrencies, I explained why they are there. This should make it clear why there apear to be discrencies. You don't want to believe it, fine. You want to, you can pray, with an open mind, and get your answer. That is what I have done. I know that the bible is the word of God. I know that it is there for our use. I also know that it has been changed quite a bit, so it is not perfect. I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as well.