bibles truth

[thinkabtit]

i just wanted to ask some questions. Does the mormon church believe the bible is Scripture?

[pam]

Yes

[pam]

Since this is not an intro I have moved it.

[NeuroTypical]

i just wanted to ask some questions. Does the mormon church believe the bible is Scripture?

Well, "the mormon church" isn't a living thing, and can't really believe anything one way or the other. If you're asking what the church teaches or what the church's members believe, the Articles of Faith gives a pretty good overview.

Article #8: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Welcome to the site!

LM

[rameumptom]

We believe the Bible is the word of God. We also believe God continues revealing more truths and inspiration to us in modern scripture: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Currently, we are studying the Old Testament in our Sunday School classes across the world. In January, we will begin studying the New Testament for an entire year. Right now, most of our congregations are studying the amazing teachings of the prophet Isaiah.

[Doctrine_Guy]

Excellent answers so far. I just wanted to expound a bit concerning continued revelation.

Throughout the Bible, especially the Old Testament, God had a pattern of communicating with his people. He spoke through prophets.

Amos chapter 3 puts in nicely. The scripture is explaining that there are warnings and hints for most major events. (i.e. the trumpet sounding before a battle, when the lion roars it's because he has prey, etc.) Verse 7 says "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but* he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets." Now these people had "scripture", mostly the writings of Moses. But the Lord still revealed new events through his living prophets.

Furthermore, we read in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." So if the Lord is the same, he will continue to follow his same method of communicating with people. Even though we have scriptures to learn from, it is essential for us to have more guidance. We see how many different ways people in the world understand the scriptures. Who is to say which interpretations are correct except for a living prophet?

The whole idea that all revelation ended with the Bible is simply ludicrous. Most people who believe that way use Revelations 22:18 as their source. " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

But is the scripture really talking about the book itself, or simply about the prophecies and doctrine outlined therein? Because if it's talking about the book itself, think about the history of the Bible for a second. When revelations was written, it was not the ending of the Bible. Bible is taken from a Greek word meaning "collection of books". All of the books and scrolls used in the bible were not even combined into one book until centuries after it was written.

So if you take this passage to mean the book itself, then everything except Revelations is "adding to" it and the whole Bible, except Rev., is negated. And that is a ludicrous assumption.

Furthermore, there is a similar passage in Deuteronomy that brings clarity to the passage in Revelations. Deut. 4:2 " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Basically, we shall not take away from nor diminish the commandments of the Lord. But there is no qualifier limiting where the word of the Lord is found.

So, yes, while we believe that Bible to be the word of God, we also believe the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Hymns, The Ensign magazine, and all proclamations and addresses given by General Authorities of the church during General Conference or other specified occasions is scripture.

* the word shown as "but" is often translated "until"

Edited November 10, 2010 by Doctrine_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Pam's answer was the best. Qualifications and such aren't really necessary.

The answer to the OP:

Yes.

[Whynot]

Basically, we shall not take away from nor diminish the commandments of the Lord. But there is no qualifier limiting where the word of the Lord is found.

If we want to know what the commandments are we can truly be disciples of Jesus Christ. His 'test' for knowing the truth of what He taught was to be found in doing what He said, that when one does that one knows - the implication being a personal testimony from the Father to the individual disciple. Although Jesus taught many things in parables, which He interpreted to the disciples at that time, the commandments of the Lord are found sprinkled throughout the gospel texts, as well as through the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Indeed, we are not to add to or take away from the commandments of God, and this is also true of the teachings of Jesus because Jesus said His teachings were not His own, but they are the words/teachings that His Father gave Him to give to us.

Jesus also said for no man to be called 'rabbi', because He is our Teacher and we are all brethren.

I do agree that the NT record clearly lists prophets in the Church, that the office was not done away with - so long as the Church needs to be warned about a near event or some such matter.

Edited December 6, 2010 by pam
Links to personal websites must be in signature

[prisonchaplain]

Pam's answer was the best. Qualifications and such aren't really necessary.

The answer to the OP:

Yes.

Well...I believe there is one qualification that is necessary...technically, I understand that the Song of Solomon is not considered inspired.

[Dr T]

Or that there are SO many errors in it hense the need to say "as far as it is translated correctly" sort of thing.

[Dravin]

Or that there are SO many errors in it hense the need to say "as far as it is translated correctly" sort of thing.

As opposed to believing in it no matter how it is translated? Shall I run a copy of it through Google Translate a half dozen times?

[prisonchaplain]

As opposed to believing in it no matter how it is translated? Shall I run a copy of it through Google Translate a half dozen times?

Surely you know that the qualification sticks like a bone in the throat of non-LDS Christians? I've never seen any other Christian faith statement that found it necessary to put as part of foundational doctrine the implication that translations only go so far. So, for Dr. T. to draw the inference that "as far as it is translated correctly," indicates that the church believes translations tend to have more than a few errors is not unreasonable.

In contrast, that most Christian groups do not mention translation errors would not imply that we would willy nilly follow any translator, no matter where he or she took us. Just google "New World Translation" to see the response to a translation that many view as lacking.

[Dr T]

PC is correct in his last post. :)

[Dravin]

In contrast, that most Christian groups do not mention translation errors would not imply that we would willy nilly follow any translator, no matter where he or she took us. Just google "New World Translation" to see the response to a translation that many view as lacking.

Which communicates the "implication that translations only go so far." Only a Bible inerrantist technically doesn't need to make that qualification, and probably even them as I doubt they'd accept the Google Translate Bible. Which was my point.

So, for Dr. T. to draw the inference that "as far as it is translated correctly," indicates that the church believes translations tend to have more than a few errors is not unreasonable.

So is inferring that Dr. T is unwilling to give up his creedal abominations. Touch offensive all the same no? Presentation matters and Dr. T's presentation comes across as mocking my (and other's) affirmation of a belief in the Bible. Oh it's not a real belief, they think it needs to be translated correctly because it's just so full of errors (followed by a rolling of the eyes).

I'd have had no problems with: "LDS also put more insistence into it having to be a correct translation."

Edited December 7, 2010 by Dravin

[Dr T]

There's a method to get the most accurate translation it's not just "drawing a letter out of a hat."

[Dravin]

There's a method to get the most accurate translation it's not just "drawing a letter out of a hat."

You still put a qualifier of an accurate (by some metric of accurate) translation for a belief of the resultant work being qualified as the word of God. You too believe the Bible is the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. Don't get me wrong, the qualifier may technically apply to both of us but I'm not under the illusion that our metric of accurate is the same.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

PC is correct in his last post. :)

Do you think your ringing endorsement actually helps PC's viewpoint?

It seems there is an audience for virtually every translation, good or bad, that is out there. There are those who strictly hold onto their own version of the Bible, calling all others "bad." And there are those who think any old Bible will do. There are those who understand the problems with translation and copy errors that may have occurred over the millennia, and then there are those who insist that the Bible is "God-breathed" and is perfect in every little way.

I remember on my mission back in 1980, bumping into a group of Baptist missionaries in a small train station in southern Bolivia. Most were very cordial, except for the one who had spent time as a missionary in Bountiful, Utah. He wanted to discuss scripture, and immediately went on the attack. He questioned the concept of God having a father. Fortunately, I had my English KJV scriptures with me. I asked him if he believed the Bible was "God breathed" with no flaws. He insisted they were. I showed him Revelation 1:5-6, which states in the KJV that Christ makes us "kings and priests unto God and his father." He tried to say it was a poor translation, but I then asked again if he believed the Bible was "God breathed." Either it is, or it isn't, I insisted. He couldn't have it both ways. I knew that the KJV for those verses was translated very differently than other versions. But I caught him in his own trap. He then lost ground as I showed other scriptures that showed the importance of modern prophets. After just a few minutes, he excused himself and went his own way.

This isn't to prove that I was right, per se. This is to show the problem with believing in a Bible that is absolutely flawless. I do believe it is a miraculous and inspired book, but one can still easily find flaws in it. That is why we must consider passages in context, from the ancient Jewish/Christian viewpoint, and via the Holy Spirit's guidance. For LDS, it is also a great benefit to have the additional guidance of modern scripture and prophetic pronouncements to help us understand the modern application of scripture.

But I think PC would accept much of that, having a pentecostal POV.

[rameumptom]

There's a method to get the most accurate translation it's not just "drawing a letter out of a hat."

This is true. However, compare Joseph Smith's uncanny ability to find authentic ancient Hebrew themes versus some of the garbage translations being offered by the "scholars" of today. I'll stick with the prophet.

[Dr T]

Hi Darvin, I posted my reply and then I saw that you added an edit to your post (#14). I was not, in any way, trying to mock. I was just saying it because I often here it. There was a question and then a lot of answers that I'm sure, after more discussion would flesh out what I said. I just wanted Thinkabtit to get the answer to his question.